Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[moXJO]

Bad luck kids. We dropped the ball. Sorry.
Our excuse is that we had two many dumbfcks that believe everything they are told.

Every continent 'dangerously off track' as extreme weather smashes global records

A new Climate Council report chronicles the succession of disasters that have struck since last November's global climate summit in Scotland.

www.sbs.com.au

I think believing that renewable energy was the saviour. Or that bleating about doing something would somehow bring about change. Especially when they were taking stop gap measures like nuclear off the table.

The same stupidity that made the covid response such a totalitarian fckfest is similar to the climate mess. There are too many activist groups with no give. Who also want unrealistic measures that will never be implemented, turning off too large a group of general population.

 

[sptrawler]

Yup. The ball was dropped many years ago. The International Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988 so there has been ample warning.

If we could change smugness into a reduction in power usage it would be a massive step forward in reducing climate change.
The elites profess a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, yet they are the biggest consumers of energy, weird case of negating a guilt complex IMO.
Just got off the ship in Melbourne today, the missus and I walked both ways into and out of the city centre, yet the ship is full of save the planet elite wannabees they all line up endlessly to catch a small tram because they are eating themselves into oblivion and can't walk, Australia a country being shaped by a narrative. Lol
Please someone cancel me.

 

[DB008]

.​

 

[Smurf1976]

The same stupidity that made the covid response such a totalitarian fckfest is similar to the climate mess. There are too many activist groups with no give. Who also want unrealistic measures that will never be implemented, turning off too large a group of general population.

If society wants a non-emitting energy system then, in the Australian context at least, it's not all that hard technically. There's plenty of people up to the task of designing and building.

Trouble is, well if you listen to the public debate you might've noticed something and it's that essentially all the technically skilled people have now walked away from public discussion. It's rare these days to see comment from the very people who live and breathe this stuff. They've left the debate because there's only so long someone's going to bash their head against the proverbial brick wall before they decide they're better off focusing on something else. What's left are the politicians and wannabes shouting at each other.

My own view is it'll take a crisis, a real one, to bring action.

The sad thing is it really didn't need to be this way. We've had 34 years since the issue came to mainstream attention and we've got plenty of technologies ready for deployment. What we need to do is get the ignorant buffoons out of the way.

A big problem specifically being that we know how to do not all but a lot of it. We have the tech and it's fully developed. Trouble is, more than a few who claim to want something done stand in the way of deployment, insisting that we instead try and come up with some other means of doing it.

That approach is nothing more than stalling. It's saying don't do anything now, let's wait until some future time when we might have some other way. Then they've got the nerve to claim they want action ASAP.

 

[IFocus]

Especially when they were taking stop gap measures like nuclear off the table.

Mo, nuclear is 20 years (min but unlikely) if you use others processing tech (sovereign risk) , 30 to 40 to develop your own then there is not in my backyard syndrome, only becomes cost effective if you go nuclear weapons if not costs a mosta.

 

[DB008]

 

[wayneL]

View attachment 149452

 

[wayneL]

The ever sensible Judith Curry

 

[IFocus]

Meanwhile from NASSA....


Antarctica is losing ice mass (melting) at an average rate of about 150 billion tons per year, and Greenland is losing about 280 billion tons per year, adding to sea level rise.

Ice Sheets | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

 

[wayneL]

Meanwhile from NASSA....


Antarctica is losing ice mass (melting) at an average rate of about 150 billion tons per year, and Greenland is losing about 280 billion tons per year, adding to sea level rise.

Ice Sheets | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

You didn't even watch the vid, just assumed s++t.

 

[IFocus]

You didn't even watch the vid, just assumed s++t.

Rarely ever watch vids, they tend to be total emotive dribble did how ever read Dr Judith Curry's bio which was interesting wouldn't ever call her sensible but certainly well qualified and a contrarian.

The rate of depletion of earths ice mass does blow away 99'9% of the anti climate change claims.

 

[sptrawler]

Rarely ever watch vids, they tend to be total emotive dribble did how ever read Dr Judith Curry's bio which was interesting wouldn't ever call her sensible but certainly well qualified and a contrarian.

The rate of depletion of earths ice mass does blow away 99'9% of the anti climate change claims.

I don't disagree with climate change, I do disagree that anyone has any idea how to stop it and I doubt anyone is 100% sure on what is causing it or what effect it is going to have.
There is a desalination plant in Sydney built in 2007, that is costing people a lot of money, that stands testament to that.
2009

Coral growth in decline at Great Barrier Reef

The growth of coral in the Great Barrier Reef has slowed to the most sluggish rate in at least 400 years and signs point to manmade greenhouse gas emissions as the culprit, according to a new study.

www.nbcnews.com

2022

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/04/great-barrier-reef-coral-recovery-climate-change/

IMO it is time technical people took the reigns from emotional people and the media gave fair commentary to all sides and became facilitator to forward facts, not their personal opinion of the facts, unless the reporter is qualified in the subject .

 

[wayneL]

I don't disagree with climate change, I do disagree that anyone has any idea how to stop it and I doubt anyone is 100% sure on what is causing it or what effect it is going to have.
There is a desalination plant in Sydney built in 2007, that is costing people a lot of money, that stands testament to that.
2009

Coral growth in decline at Great Barrier Reef

The growth of coral in the Great Barrier Reef has slowed to the most sluggish rate in at least 400 years and signs point to manmade greenhouse gas emissions as the culprit, according to a new study.

www.nbcnews.com

2022

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/04/great-barrier-reef-coral-recovery-climate-change/

IMO it is time technical people took the reigns from emotional people and the media gave fair commentary to all sides and became facilitator to forward facts, not their personal opinion of the facts, unless the reporter is qualified in the subject .

This is why I enjoyed the J Curry interview above

 

[IFocus]

I don't disagree with climate change, I do disagree that anyone has any idea how to stop it

If you have a good look at the current rates and they are not an anomaly and the trend continues its to late to stop anyway.

Once climate changed was politicized by the US Republicans that was game over.

Problem is the whole climate change process isn't linear.

In our life time we wont get the full impact but kids and grand children will unfortunately be impacted a lot more.

 

[basilio]

Another approach to Climate Change activism.

The Moderate Flank

Guiding Principles​

The way in which we pursue our work reflects

1. Try to respect everybody
2. Try to focus on building a coalition for a better future, not establishing moral superiority

3. Try to remember nobody owns climate action as an “issue”

4. Try to meet people where they are

5. Try to patiently engage people with empathy and insight

https://moderateflank.org/about-the-moderate-flank/

 

[basilio]

This is an clear, concise story on how, if humanity wanted to, climate change could be limited simply with the current technologies science offers.

No new magic beans. No "in the future" nuclear solutions. Just tried and tested wind, water, solar energy that are ready to go anywhere they are appropriate.

Jacobson’s new 100% renewables model aims to rebut critics​

21 Apr 2018 Dave Elliott


Mark Jacobson and his team from Stanford reckon that 100% of all global energy can come from renewable sources (with biomass excluded) by 2050. Jacobson’s new 100% renewables model contains a new set of scenarios, which the researchers say confirms their view that it can be done – and with full grid balancing

Jacobson’s new 100% renewables model aims to rebut critics – Physics World

Team from Stanford reckons 100% of all global energy can come from renewable sources (with biomass excluded) by 2050

physicsworld.com

We don’t need ‘miracle’ technologies to fix the climate. We have the tools now | Mark Z Jacobson

Wind, water and solar energy is cheap, effective and green. We don’t need experimental or risky energy sources to save our planet

www.theguardian.com

 

[rederob]

I do disagree that anyone has any idea how to stop it and I doubt anyone is 100% sure on what is causing it or what effect it is going to have.

The physics of climate change is certain.
The many laws of physics do not change.
The molecules that are responsible for the warming the planet are well known. So too are molecules and particles that cause atmospheric cooling.
Unless the laws of physics can be violated by something as yet unknown our planet will continue to warm unabated until GHG levels are reversed substantially. Even an unforeseeable massive volcanic event would only be a temporary stay on warming.
The IPCC has set out the probable issues that arise as the planet warms. And given most of them are already at play at some level, it's reasonable to suggest we have a decent idea of the effects of AGW.

IMO it is time technical people took the reigns from emotional people and the media gave fair commentary to all sides and became facilitator to forward facts, not their personal opinion of the facts, unless the reporter is qualified in the subject .

IPCC Reports do not use sensationalism or emotional language. International collaboration brings together experts in their many fields to produce the climate synthesis that's freely available to anyone caring to read it. That said, there are scenarios based on current emission levels which, if they play out over the next century, are reasonably described as catastrophic.
In that light, what exactly is "fair commentary" to those who deny what is occurring?
What alternative "facts" are there that we are not aware?
What exactly do you propose that technical people actually change seeing that "emotion" appears to be driven by the media and perpetuated in social media.?

 

[rederob]

Looking at scientists from the "other side" we get the following claims declaring there is no climate emergency:

1. Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
2. Warming is far slower than predicted
3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models
4. CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters
6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities

I will cover each point in turn,
First, that is not an argument. There is an observable warming trend consistent with principles of physics as a result of increased GHG emissions that has no plausible scientific counter.
Second, that's palpably false. The trend is even consistent with Hansen's original forecasts made in the 1970s.
Third, the models have proved reliable over m0re than 4 decades. There is regular variation from predictions but these are as expected and do not change the trend.
Fourthly, so what! More to the point, CO2 causes warming which, into the future, will reduce agricultural production, plus lead to water insecurity likely to cause cross-border conflict.
Fifth point fails to mention that irrespective of number, there is the more important concern of increasing duration and intensity of natural disasters.
Sixth seems to be an own goal. Governments and major companies are increasingly implementing strategies to reduce GHG emissions. The economic realities are predicated on defined risk.

It does not seem to matter how many times the "other side's" claims are debunked or shown to be irrelevant or lacking foundation, they keep popping up.

 

[basilio]

Looking at scientists from the "other side" we get the following claims declaring there is no climate emergency:

1. Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
2. Warming is far slower than predicted
3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models
4. CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters
6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities

I will cover each point in turn,
First, that is not an argument. There is an observable warming trend consistent with principles of physics as a result of increased GHG emissions that has no plausible scientific counter.
Second, that's palpably false. The trend is even consistent with Hansen's original forecasts made in the 1970s.
Third, the models have proved reliable over m0re than 4 decades. There is regular variation from predictions but these are as expected and do not change the trend.
Fourthly, so what! More to the point, CO2 causes warming which, into the future, will reduce agricultural production, plus lead to water insecurity likely to cause cross-border conflict.
Fifth point fails to mention that irrespective of number, there is the more important concern of increasing duration and intensity of natural disasters.
Sixth seems to be an own goal. Governments and major companies are increasingly implementing strategies to reduce GHG emissions. The economic realities are predicated on defined risk.

It does not seem to matter how many times the "other side's" claims are debunked or shown to be irrelevant or lacking foundation, they keep popping up.

It's almost as if it logic or evidence have no place in the "other sides" denial of any climate emergency.

The only thing certain is denial.

All the time

Every time.

 

[basilio]

The last great floods in Lismore have broken the back of insurance as a means of insuring properties from severe weather events.

CC scientists consistently pointed out that as global warming increased the effects of weather events, extreme floods, fires and storms would inevitably make many areas uninsurable. Lismore is now in that situation

'Heartbreaking': These neighbours on the same flooded street had different insurance claim outcomes

Almost a year after the country's most costly natural disaster, the hardest-hit areas in northern New South Wales are grappling with a future where many homes, businesses and even local councils are uninsurable.

www.abc.net.au