Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

Jump to new
basilio said:
6 Ways to Remove Carbon Pollution from the Sky
Click to expand...

Having studied most of them and a lot of others not even mentioned, some suggestions are absurd whilst reducing CO2 ... not practical ... others require some invention of limitless power or magic coming along.

Most already previously covered in depth in the 158 pages this thread and some other threads I have contributed to.

I dont disagree with any of what you have said ...
Multi Pronged attack needed. However when brute force removal via use of power to remove CO2 I honestly roll my eyes.

Algae ... seaweed and some other super CO2 absorbents and if someone mentions planting trees that are 2% as good ... I know sadly its a puff piece. Same with brute force approaches.

Possibly putting the smog back up in the air ... it reflects sunlight and when Removal ... sequestration and burying is needed, and not stressed that its say not good enough to say grow algae and then use it as an alternative fuel whilst CO2 neutral ... we need to remove and hide 1 trillion tons of CO2 if not 2 trillion tons.

I am sure some know this and BAS ... whilst I accept we will adapt and likely mitigate some of it, the task the deeper we go into the abyss ,,, setting off cascading effects and some are underway we cannot stop, the more dire and extreme any effort will need to be.

Whilst not wishing to be alarmist, and yes I sound that way, realistically we have passed the point of no return and a 4C rise locked in already. Since as say Smerf says and I agree, political and business will do not a thing and unlikely to do for some time, another 10 years likely will see another 40 PPM CO2 added.

There are things such as making the surface of the planet in vast area reflective, which is more practical and possible than some pie in the sky stuff which requires the power of every power station and nuclear generator to even try and make a dent in CO2, not a serious one ... but a dent.

I have few answers and lots of questions. I suspect a mixture of 5 or more global efforts need to occur and when we cant even agree there is a problem, globally .... politically ... self interest groups rule the world for now.

I do have hope for a regime change and the USA to be come more green as the EU which in turn puts more pressure on others like China and India along with emerging Africa.

I await with anticipation a new regime in the USA.

Or we join Elon Musk going somewhere else.
 
Totally off kilter here... or perhaps not ?

Susan Griffin relates a story, previously recounted slightly differently in an article by her that appears in González Yuen,[10] that exemplifies Desnos' surrealist mindset; his capacity to envisage solutions that defy conventional logic:[11]


“ Even in the grimmest of circumstances, a shift in perspective can create startling change. I am thinking of a story I heard a few years ago from my friend Odette, a writer and a survivor of the holocaust. Along with many others who crowd the bed of a large truck, she tells me, Robert Desnos is being taken away from the barracks of the concentration camp where he has been held prisoner. Leaving the barracks, the mood is somber; everyone knows the truck is headed for the gas chambers. And when the truck arrives no one can speak at all; even the guards fall silent. But this silence is soon interrupted by an energetic man, who jumps into the line and grabs one of the condemned. Improbable as it is, Odette explains, Desnos reads the man's palm. Oh, he says, I see you have a very long lifeline. And you are going to have three children. He is exuberant. And his excitement is contagious. First one man, then another, offers up his hand, and the prediction is for longevity, more children, abundant joy.

As Desnos reads more palms, not only does the mood of the prisoners change but that of the guards too. How can one explain it? Perhaps the element of surprise has planted a shadow of doubt in their minds. If they told themselves these deaths were inevitable, this no longer seems so inarguable. They are in any case so disoriented by this sudden change of mood among those they are about to kill that they are unable to go through with the executions. So all the men, along with Desnos, are packed back onto the truck and taken back to the barracks. Desnos has saved his own life and the lives of others by using his imagination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Desnos
 
rederob said:
I have questioned his thinking on the science which is published and where he equivocates, not his personal actions.
So here's an example:
@Smurf1976 implies the science is not clear, but he will not find this anywhere in the IPCC Reports which spell out the dangerous path that planet is on and the reasons why.
Click to expand...

What I am questioning is more about the response than the warming itself.

There is warming. That's a fact and easily proven at least in terms of the trend over the past few decades.

Science says this is largely due to CO2. I've no reason to doubt the science but that said, it would be truly amazing if we properly understood literally everything about every aspect of both the warming and consequences of it. As such, we should accept the science which says CO2 causes warming whilst also continuing research into the effects and on anything else which may also be contributing.

Knowledge isn't a bad thing, research isn't hugely expensive, and there's a very good chance something useful will be learned from research. As just one example I mentioned termites in places that don't presently have them. That one alone could cost a fortune in damage by the time anyone realises they've moved in.

What I do see though is a lack of urgency to act and that's mostly what I'm lamenting. Perhaps, and I say this genuinely, I haven't really made that point clear?

32 years of this being a mainstream issue. Think about that.....

If someone had gone into a coma back in 1988 and awoke today then they basically don't have the skills to live in the modern world such is the extent of change.

They'd have no idea about this "internet" caper. For that matter they've no idea how to book a flight or buy music - phoning Ansett or looking for your nearest Brashs store isn't going to do much good these days.

They'd be stuffed even in casual conversation and would be in rather a lot of trouble for various comments that were considered fairly normal and acceptable back then.

Turn the radio on and they'd be wondering why what sounds like some sort of faulty electronic device was being broadcast instead of music. Turn the TV on and their old one from 1988 can't receive any station at all in 2020, not one. In the event they did get a picture and saw the news, they'd be perplexed as to why anyone would be even slightly interested in anything going on in China.

And so on. The world's a dramatically different place in every way. Heck the USSR was still intact and the Berlin wall was still up in 1988.

But then there's this issue and reality is that global emissions are substantially higher today than they were in 1988. Of all things, it's the one thing that really hasn't progressed at all indeed the reverse is true. For that matter in Australia rather a lot of the electricity used today is coming from the exact same power stations it came from in 1988. They were new and state of the art back then but they're nearing end of life now (and a couple of them are rather stuffed and limping along these days ;)).

So my big lament isn't really about science. There's a problem, I accept that, although I'll add that it's always wise to keep exploring and researching and so on especially regarding the full implications and how we can best adapt.

What I'm lamenting is the lack of any real action. We're basically walking into an energy supply crunch and an interrelated environmental disaster with our eyes firmly shut and our ears plugged.:(

The approach being taken thus far is clearly not working. Blunt but reality.
 
Last edited:
Smurf1976 said:
What I'm lamenting is the lack of any real action. We're basically walking into an energy supply crunch and an interrelated environmental disaster with our eyes firmly shut and our ears plugged.:(
Click to expand...
We have been saying this here at ASF for a long time - well some of us have - and it just goes to show that there are likely powerful influencers out there who continue to profits before people.
With regard to your comment about research and mitigation there are literally thousands of people around the globe contributing daily with their scientific, economic, engineering and related findings and ideas. The IPCC has done an excellent job in their many Reports in "synthesising" this for us if you care to read them. AR6 Climate Change 2021: Mitigation of Climate Change is due in July 2021, by which time, if this year has been anything to go, some of those mitigation strategies might have passed their use by date.
 
Smurf1976 said:
What I'm lamenting is the lack of any real action. We're basically walking into an energy supply crunch and an interrelated environmental disaster with our eyes firmly shut and our ears plugged.
Click to expand...

Debate whether we went to the moon is over. One can fire a laser at the moon at the reflectors left there by lunar landings and it bounces back ..... every time.

Despite this 25% of Americans believe NASA faked the moon missions.

Debate about how fires start as say the two heads of the RFS said that 1% were started by arson should logically be over. Finished .... yes its a problem, but not the main cause. Accidental ... an issue ... but the main cause is bloody lightning. The debate is over unless one is stupid.

Debate that it took 35,000 years for 50% of the worlds species to be wiped out and the cause initially was a meteor hitting the earth with the force of 100,000 atom bombs cannot be reasonable disputed.
That it has taken humanity since 1750 to say 2050 to wipe out 50% of all species on the planet a mere 300 years or less than 1% is very clear. It is chilling. Any debate and all debate of this being factual and alarming is for the truly stupid.

There have been so far 5 extinction events where the mildest killed every mammal over 30kg and killed a mere 60% of everything to the worse ones that had 99% of all living things gone. All were CO2 rise related. All are so well evidenced scientifically that only a truly delusional trouble maker or seriously mentally disturbed person could wish to debate this. Still we debate it, deny and refute it.

CO2 when added to an atmosphere traps heat. This realistically has been tested close to a million times. One adds more Co2 it traps more heat. IT is measurable, it is predictable and has been so sine 1885 when the first climate model was prepared which accurately predicted WHAT and where we are today. Debating how much petrol one put on a fire and then denying more petrol makes more fire would be insane. CO2 is just another reaction. measurable and well tested and known.

Debate on this and 20 other issues is how we will and have failed. If someone wishes to debate, deny or diminish totally some of the above, put them in a room with fellow patients, give them crayons and let them play.

Of course, since our leaders, political ones both here and globally on the main for the Climate Denial Pack led by the USA with gold stars to Canada and Saudi Arabia and Australian, we have reason to wonder about the future.

A royal Commission ? Ordered by the Prime Minister who carried a lump of Coal into the parliament in 2017 and told us not to be afraid ? The scientist will be a mixture of I am sure well meaning dedicated and real ones and the woman quoted by Murdoch media as being an expert who has spent 20 years on the dole and cant afford to keep the teeth in her head. She I might add, all be it misguided is better than some of the real well trained in the USA by Koch brothers who run some of our largest climate denial sites.

Having a radical, an imbecile willing to dispute we went to the moon when 100,000 NASA employees over 50 years and not a single one has revealed it was a hoax, well having serious deniers who dispute and refute what is science, what is fact, I am sure the Royal Commission will be swamped with well funded coal and Oil and Gas interests and their lobbyists and paid for scientists.

Of course it will rain eventually. We may even have a few cooler years due to the massive amounts of smoke. All will be forgotten as always.

Kiss your kids, grand kids and be thankful you will not be around near 2100.
 
dutchie said:
My kids and their kids and their kids etc etc will be fine as far as climate is concerned.
I am more worried about the war on freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

Playroom with crayons for you and your genetic line I suspect.

Debating or even accepting science or well evidenced missing species let alone future implications even short term ones, is impossible to see.

Instead its a freedom of speech ? Or lets debate or deny or pretend all will be fine in 100 years.

Added to the playroom with crayons better add lectern for free speech and padded walls with tin hats and only chosen media is to play. Possibly some TV religious evangelist speaking about creation seems suitable.

Here is PM Morrison's advisor along with Trump




IS she speaking in tongues yet ? Its great for blocked bowels.

She is all for liberty ... free speech and her religious liberty .... all to $3,500 or $35,000 donation.

She is my personal advisor to everything .... Donald J Trump and the J stands for Genius
 
Last edited:
dutchie said:
My kids and their kids and their kids etc etc will be fine as far as climate is concerned.
I am more worried about the war on freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
Nobody here stops you from posting your rubbish on climate-related matters, and you should know there is a separate thread at ASF covering freedom of speech.
 
dutchie said:
My kids and their kids and their kids etc etc will be fine as far as climate is concerned.
I am more worried about the war on freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

And indeed you are perfectly entitled to you opinion dutchie as is anyone else who shares your view.

On a Government and business level however we need to be guided by (at least ) two principles
1) What is the best evidenced current advice /understanding available on a situation? (There is rarely absolute certainty )
2) What are the possible consequences of disregarding that advice ?
  • In the case of human caused CC the overwhelming evidence is that it is very much a reality both in theory and in the real world. The climate is warming rapidly.
  • The current understood consequences of ignoring this overwhelming evidence will be allowing a continuing rapid warming of the planet to the point of major environmental collapse.
In a rational world that is what our governments and businesses should be following.

(But hey, when one has the most powerful world Government led by a self professed genius in Donald Trump who thinks CC is a hoax, rational science based positions seem almost archaic. )
 
basilio said:
And indeed you are perfectly entitled to you opinion dutchie as is anyone else who shares your view.

On a Government and business level however we need to be guided by (at least ) two principles
1) What is the best evidenced current advice /understanding available on a situation? (There is rarely absolute certainty )
2) What are the possible consequences of disregarding that advice ?
  • In the case of human caused CC the overwhelming evidence is that it is very much a reality both in theory and in the real world. The climate is warming rapidly.
  • The current understood consequences of ignoring this overwhelming evidence will be allowing a continuing rapid warming of the planet to the point of major environmental collapse.
In a rational world that is what our governments and businesses should be following.

(But hey, when one has the most powerful world Government led by a self professed genius in Donald Trump who thinks CC is a hoax, rational science based positions seem almost archaic. )
Click to expand...
Fair points to consider and debate.
 
The BC has a neat couple of stories for anyone who wants to refresh their understanding of why the earth is warming so rapidly and the consequences.
And if you concerned that you might have picked up some CC zombie myths that are doing your head in - these might put a stake through their black little hearts.:D

Have you got climate zombies? We debunk the myths that refuse to die
Share

ABC Science

By environment reporter Nick Kilvert

Climate denial has been funded by industry and lobby groups.
(Getty Images: lechatnoir)
Have you got climate zombies?

They might pop up in your social media feed, or manifest in comments under climate change news online. They might even appear at your Christmas lunch. And they're rife in some media outlets — they often come out after dark.

They're the cases against climate science that were buried years ago, yet somehow, refuse to die.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-07-27/climate-change-denial-zombies-killed/11291724
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-13/a-pocket-guide-to-climate-change/11846808
 
This story
dutchie said:
https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/1...e-in-climate-change-as-though-its-a-religion/

Hawaii Democrat Sen. Mazie Hirono thinks Americans ought to fundamentally change the way they think about climate change, arguing that climate change should be thought of as a “religion” rather than a “science.”

“Believe in climate change as though it’s a religion, it’s not a science,” Hirono encouraged.
Click to expand...

Did you view the clip Dutchie ? In fact the Senator as making a "joke" about thinking of CC as a "religion" . She immediately made the point that " it's science."
The distortion of her intent is in the story you quoted.
Perhaps you could check and suggest they correct their story ? :)
 
rederob said:
Clearly misquoted with correction below:
“Believe in climate change denial as if it is a religion, as it not a science.”
Click to expand...
Of course, what is attributed as "denial" is a matter of religious observance, vis a vis "apostasy", as opposed to a consideration of all available science which eschews confirmation bias.
 
There’s far too much religion in the whole energy and climate debate in my view.

Lots of people “believing” in this or that but unwilling to take a calm, rational look at what’s really going on.

One way to put that is to say Ive had to point out the flaws in the argument of someone who should know better that having gas doesn’t guarantee you’ve got electricity. There’s a great big thing missing there known as a power station. Yep, they’d overlooked the need for that bit......

Thing is, all this climate and power stuff can be understood well enough by anyone with a basic grasp of maths and science. There’s no need to get into fine detail to grasp the concepts sufficiently for the average person to understand what the issues are about.

Thing is, making it sound overly complicated is a convenient way to hide a lack of doing anything about it and that goes for both the emissions and directly related but separate as such energy supply issues.
 
basilio said:
This story


Did you view the clip Dutchie ? In fact the Senator as making a "joke" about thinking of CC as a "religion" . She immediately made the point that " it's science."
The distortion of her intent is in the story you quoted.
Perhaps you could check and suggest they correct their story ? :)
Click to expand...

“To do those things such as voter registration, get people out to vote, so we can have people here who truly are committed to human rights, environmental, climate change — believe in climate change as though it’s a religion,” the Hawaii Democrat said. “It’s not a science.”

The Washington Times
 
Far out, 159 pages of dribble.
Lets make is simple so kiddies can understand.
Is Global Warming unstoppable?
  • A. YES - prove it, you need time (100's of years)
  • B. NO - prove it, you need time (100's of years)

So unless someone has a couple of earths to test theories on, as that what they are, modelling is just a theory and a time machine, no one can within any % of accuracy answer the question within the next 100 years.

So lets look at again.
Is the earth warming?
  • Yes/Maybe/No. The earth temperature and sea levels have been constantly changing.

So lets just agree the the climate is changing. Tick

So next question.
Has man contributed to the changes, ie accelerated them?
  • Well I am no scientist but again will use kiddie logic to see if there is a simple answer.
  • What do trees do? They provide oxygen and capture carbon out of the air. They are essentially the earths lungs, without them, all life on the planet is f---ked.
  • What has man done over the last say 100 years, removed 50% > of the earth capacity to breath.
  • And in the same time man has dug up oil and coal and burnt is, releasing carbon in various forms back into the atmosphere. Again, I don't need to get into a discussion whether co2 is causing climate change.
  • And what do we know about forest, they also create weather, including rain fall.
So while all you kiddies and the stupid arse govnuts want to point figures there is such a simple solution that doesn't require huge debate.

PLANT MORE F---KING TREES, LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS MORE

And if our govnuts want to continue to promote coal, then fine, just make the miners and produces plant TREES.

And if that doesn't provide an adequate solution to the problem, I have one more suggestion.

KILLS THE PARASITES THAT ARE DISTROYING THE PLANET - HUMANS
 
dutchie said:
“To do those things such as voter registration, get people out to vote, so we can have people here who truly are committed to human rights, environmental, climate change — believe in climate change as though it’s a religion,” the Hawaii Democrat said. “It’s not a science.”

The Washington Times
Click to expand...

That is not what she said.

You have the video clip.

Look at it.

The Washington Times is mistaken or lying.
There is no mistaking what Ms Harono says. After making the light hearted comment about believing in climate change like a religion she says. "It's not - It's science"
That is what she says and means. Specifically of course to stop the sort of lying misrepresentation that has now been passed from source to source.

But don't take my word for it. The clip is up there. It takes less than 20 seconds to confirm the truth of the situation. The comment is at the 40 second mark

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/1...e-in-climate-change-as-though-its-a-religion/
 

Similar threads

basilio
What does Lloyds think is happening?
2
Replies
22
Views
5K
springhill
springhill
2020hindsight
  • Poll
Which IPCC Scenario is your guess?
2
Replies
32
Views
10K
2020hindsight
2020hindsight
Top