Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[moXJO]

Yeah no....

I'd be wondering about how Oz comes with its own climate refugees. Australia will be one of the bigger casualties of global warming. The North will become too hot too live in. As will much of the central parts of Australia.

Rising sea levels will challenge all coastal cities. Have a look and see which parts of Oz will be inhabitable when sea levels rise 1-2 metres and temperatures are 2-3 C higher. Then ask who ill be trying to get into these areas.

Australian carbon reduction is a waste of time if we are talking deep cuts. All the pain for a token effort.

The big polluting countries are pumping too much crap to make much of a difference anyway.

 

[basilio]

Not the point I was making was it moXJo ?

You suggested Oz should "strengthen its borders" "Build its resilience" to keep out the climate refugees from abroad.
I think we will have our hands full dealing with the millions of people in Australia who will be unable to live in their current location. When inland tons become uninhabitable through lack of water and heat stress where will the people go ?
When whole regions become to dangerous with repeated bushfires what happens to the population ?

And finally. When rising sea levels start to compromise essential infrastructure in coastal cities ie sewerage plants - where do 4 million people move to ?

Maybe time to reset the simulator and start a new game.

 

[sptrawler]

Not the point I was making was it moXJo ?

I think we will have our hands full dealing with the millions of people in Australia who will be unable to live in their current location.

The major Cities will have to be moved inland, which isn't a major problem as most houses get knocked over in 50 years anyway and our manufacturing has closed, so that doesn't need relocating. Actually Australia wont have anywhere near the problem most Countries will have with relocation.

When inland tons become uninhabitable through lack of water and heat stress where will the people go ?

Desalination will become the norm and daming of the Northern region to supply water to the South is already being investigated.

When whole regions become to dangerous with repeated bushfires what happens to the population ?

The bush fires will reduce because with the lack of rain nothing will grow, other than that which is irrigated. So bushfires will become a thing of the past, these current bushfires were because of the dry vegetation caused by global warming, so not as much will grow back because of lack of rain due to global warming.

And finally. When rising sea levels start to compromise essential infrastructure in coastal cities ie sewerage plants - where do 4 million people move to ?

High ground is the obvious answer.

Maybe time to reset the simulator and start a new game.

That would be nice.

 

[Smurf1976]

Releasing something built over millions of years in various locations and releasing it all ... ALL of it we can easily get to in the space of 500 years in a nutshell will be something that a person in say 2300 will look back and go ... what were they thinking ?

A point with noting is that this is a problem in itself even without considering the impact of CO2 and that concerns were raised at least as far back as the mid-1800's that with constant growth of consumption this was all going to end rather badly.

I'm aware of at least one book from the 1860's which proposes the invention of what we now know as electricity transmission and hydro-electricity as a possible solution to the problem. So the basic idea that we'd need to go electric, and get that electricity from a means other than fossil fuels, most certainly isn't a new one.

 

[basilio]

The major Cities will have to be moved inland, which isn't a major problem as most houses get knocked over in 50 years anyway and our manufacturing has closed, so that doesn't need relocating. Actually Australia wont have anywhere near the problem most Countries will have with relocation.

WOW !! You really do believe we are in SIMS 4 mate..
We are not talking of picking up and moving a single house. We are not considering making an inland city like Albury -Wodonga a regional centre.

Lets put this in a nutshell. If Australia had the physical capacity to create cities of 5 million people at elevations at least 20 metres higher than we currently have it would be a miracle.

...................................................
As for moving the cities sewage farms "to higher ground" . I wonder what is currently sitting on that "higher ground" at the moment ? Perhaps 10,000 homes ? And exactly how high will sea levels rise ? One metre ? Two ? Seven ?

For decades now there has been a steadfast refusal by deniers (not yourself) to acknowledge that rapid melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice cap would raise sea levels. That (what ever that was..) just wasn't going to happen.

 

[dutchie]

 

[dutchie]

How to pay for solving CC problems.....

 

[Knobby22]

What is it with old guys and Greta Thunberg? Quite weird.
Almost a fetish.

 

[dutchie]

What is it with old guys and Greta Thunberg? Quite weird.
Almost a fetish.

Yes I love her.
The more she carries on like a pork chop , the more ridiculous her followers look.

 

[moXJO]

Not the point I was making was it moXJo ?

You suggested Oz should "strengthen its borders" "Build its resilience" to keep out the climate refugees from abroad.
I think we will have our hands full dealing with the millions of people in Australia who will be unable to live in their current location. When inland tons become uninhabitable through lack of water and heat stress where will the people go ?
When whole regions become to dangerous with repeated bushfires what happens to the population ?

And finally. When rising sea levels start to compromise essential infrastructure in coastal cities ie sewerage plants - where do 4 million people move to ?

Maybe time to reset the simulator and start a new game.

No I was talking about food security and water security. If the world did go to sht then defense needs to be able to deter countries that want what we have.
Our farmers are some of the best adaptors in the world. Developing methods, technology or just building infrastructure to allow us to continue food production would be of more value to both us and the world.
If renewable energy means we are less reliant on the whims of the gas and oil industry I'm all for it. But both sides of government come up with token gestures.
None of this means we shouldn't pollute less. But we need enough money during the transition.

 

[moXJO]

As for sea levels my area which is a coastal town didn't seem that badly hit even under extremes. Rain and high tide may be a different story. Even a 10 meter rise and I still don't get beachfront views. In reality it will cost billions.

I'm sure they are shifting out of a major Indonesian city due to it sinking. Not the sea rise. But will be interesting to watch.

http://coastalrisk.com.au

 

[orr]

What is it with old guys and Greta Thunberg? Quite weird.
Almost a fetish.

As with Greta herself may i posit a spectrum related analogy;
At one end you have the Gates(old), Attenbough(V-old), Musk(getting old) , vast majority Scientific inquiring minds(not young) who have no problem with Greta.
Vs
Down the other end there's Couch salesmen Kelly, Payola infused Shock jock Blabbermouths, Ideologically blinkered Bolts, Minerals Council Gimp Morrison, Capt'n ClownShoes Himself the Mad Monk Abbott, the Hanson Party loon Roberts; there be Just a few....
That is a sad and embarrassing parade to truk with.

To parady the old Union Tune;
'Whos end are you on Boy's
Which end are you on'

 

[sptrawler]

WOW !! You really do believe we are in SIMS 4 mate..
We are not talking of picking up and moving a single house. We are not considering making an inland city like Albury -Wodonga a regional centre.

Lets put this in a nutshell. If Australia had the physical capacity to create cities of 5 million people at elevations at least 20 metres higher than we currently have it would be a miracle.
.

Well the fact is, if the water is half way up your house and it isn't going to go down, you move or learn to swim. I think it will get rid of the unemployment problem.

 

[cynic]

Well the fact is, if the water is half way up your house and it isn't going to go down, you move or learn to swim. I think it will get rid of the unemployment problem.

Or restump with much, much taller stumps and trade your automobile in exchange for a boat.

 

[sptrawler]

Or restump with much, much taller stumps and trade your automobile in exchange for a boat.

LOL, yes I was thinking everyone gets waterfront views in Sydney, we could all move into one of those sky scraper apartment blocks and moor the boat on the third floor.
Then I thought what about Opal Towers, no imagine the concrete cancer with the exposed reo, bugger Sydney views, i'll watch the sun set over the Indian ocean.

 

[kahuna1]

The comments section of Trumps Davos speech about using fossil fuels ...

where he embraces and totally denies any and all climate issues are astounding. Simply put for me, simple math ... we emit 40 billion tons of CO2 ... it is like putting on a jumper for climate change. Not able to be refuted.

To remove 40 billion tons of CO2 ... we need to plant 10 billion hectares of trees EACH YEAR ... every year. That at 2.500 trees per hectare is 25 trillion needed to be planed EACH YEAR and EVERY year not 1 trillion over the next 300 years.

That is 100 million sq km of land. The planet only has 500 million sq km of land. half of it ... is NOT possible to plant tree's upon ... or already used for AG production ...

Planting 1 trillion trees sounds nice. ITS A WANK .... always has been. It started at a billion in 2006 and in 14 years whilst a good thing, 15 billion have been planted !! EVEN if they tripled the around each year to say 50 billion trees every 15 years, the 950 billion would take ... nearly 300 years to plant.

Why its a distraction and a wank is that at say 3,000 trees per hectare .... even if they planted 1 trillion trees that's a mere 333.33 million hectares or 3.3 million sq km. This is merely 3.3% of what is pumped out in one single year let alone the next 300 years of Trump types and Morrison types get their way.

Here are some .... distasteful comments of support On Trumps idiotic stance from Utube ...

He's going to win by a landslide this year.

He keeps on winning. He has exposed the Left as pessimistic finger wavers

The world's first president that put people first and over his own ambitions.

The green movement. Is all about removing the green from the wallets of the working class and putting it in the wallets of the wealthy.

PRESIDENT TRUMP, a Man who truly loves his country! ( one trillion trees ) now that is green energy!!!


Its clear we are dealing with a cult, a cult of low IQ types who well ... suck up every word of this person and science is to be ignored.

I note the trial is not allowing any evidence ,,,, or witness testimony ... meanwhile Trump is directly threatening tariffs on EU ... Again ... travel bans on more countries ... again and this is the new world as our PM licks this persons behind like mad whilst soaking it all up as gospel ... yum yum yum

 

[dutchie]

Its clear we are dealing with a cult,

Yes we all know which is the cult.
You know you have lost the argument when the cult wants to censor and silence those people who don't want to agree with or follow the cult.

“Green New Dealers: ‘Climate Deniers’ Must Be Censored And Silenced”

“She continued, “That’s why the editorial team in Australia is implementing a zero-tolerance approach to moderating climate change deniers, and skeptics. Not only will we be removing their comments, we’ll be locking their accounts.” “

 

[Knobby22]

Yes I love her.
The more she carries on like a pork chop , the more ridiculous her followers look.

Fair enough.
Whatever rocks your boat and makes you happy.

I think it's a bit the other way though.

The more I see the obsessive behaviour of posting Greta memes everywhere, the more I feel like it's a way of affirming bonds between sect members.

 

[kahuna1]

Another idiotic source ....

A person with a degree in political science ...

Pielke Jr. argues that he is not a climate change skeptic, and accepts that man-made climate change is a real problem, he has consistently opposed the idea that extreme weather events and climate change are connected

the websites that most prominently feature or reprint Pielke’s attacks are climate denial sites like WattsUpWithThat and ClimateDepot.”

Romm describes him as “probably the single most disputed and debunked person in the science blogosphere, especially on the subject of extreme weather and climate change.” Romm also notes that Roger Pielke Jr. was included on Foreign Policy's 2010 “Guide to Climate Skeptics” — something that Pielke informed FP that he strongly objected to

And that's your source ?

“probably the single most disputed and debunked person in the science blogosphere


summary, Pielke says that extreme weather cannot be equated with climate change:

“Have disasters become more costly because of human-caused climate change? Only one answer to this question is strongly supported by the available data, the broad scientific literature and the assessments of the IPCC:

No.

There is exceedingly little evidence to support claims that disasters have become more costly because of human caused climate change.”

And more .... from this turkey


Higgins: “Are tornadoes increasing?”

Pielke: “There is a lot of uncertainty about tornadoes, but there’s no evidence to suggest they’ve been increasing.”

Higgins: “Are floods increasing?”

Pielke: “As the IPCC concluded, there’s not really good data worldwide to know if they’re going up or down.”

Higgins: “Are droughts increasing?”

Pielke: “Globally, and in the United States, according to the EPA and according to the IPCC, the answer is no.”

Higgins: “Can you explain why someone would say, with such certainty, that extreme weather events will increase given the fact they have not?”

Pielke: “Well, they may increase yet in the future. And there’s a number of projections made by the IPCC that suggest that they might.”


Personally since there have been satellites since 1979 this view and all his views are astounding in the face of well documented facts.

Since he is not a scientist in any field his views are at best political and with no qualifications in any associated field ... a joke.

A Joke !!

 

[Joules MM1]

avoid using common sense, cos, well, that hasnt helped.....