Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[Smurf1976]

In effect it is simply a doubling of the volume of discernible CO2 traffic, in correspondence to the doubled populace, but not a banking up of CO2 traffic.

True but it’s the “banking up” not the flow which is the issue of concern (noting that CO2 exhaled by humans was extracted from the atmosphere before being exhaled).

It’s the net addition of CO2 which is causing concern.

 

[cynic]

True but it’s the “banking up” not the flow which is the issue of concern (noting that CO2 exhaled by humans was extracted from the atmosphere before being exhaled).

It’s the net addition of CO2 which is causing concern.

But what makes you, or any scientist for that matter, so certain that there has been a "banking up"?

The human populace has doubled!

We and much of our associated livestock continuously exhale CO2.

Why would any rational person, expect atmospheric CO2 concentrations, to remain static in the face of such a population explosion?

Has the minimum atmospheric CO2 level, requisite to the biological needs of the Earth's flora/fauna populace, ever been accurately quantified?

Has the rate by which this requisite level would be expected to change, in correspondence with fluctations in the Earth's populace, ever been quantified?

If so when, and how, was all this done?

Before deciding upon the solution we need to understand the problem, (presuming that a problem even exists).

In the absence of quality answers to these important questions, I fear that any hasty attempts at the reduction of atmospheric CO2 levels, other than culling of large portions of the Earth's populace, may prove, at best futile, and at worst downright dangerous!

 

[Smurf1976]

But what makes you, or any scientist for that matter, so certain that there has been a "banking up"?

I’m not a scientist but the answer is measurement at places not exposed to localised influences (eg Cape Grim baseline air pollution monitoring station in Tas is an Australian facility doing such measurements and there are many others internationally).

The measurements clearly show that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing.

 

[cynic]

I’m not a scientist but the answer is measurement at places not exposed to localised influences (eg Cape Grim baseline air pollution monitoring station in Tas is an Australian facility doing such measurements and there are many others internationally).

The measurements clearly show that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing.

You may not be employed as a scientist, but if not the training, you certainly have the requisite aptitude.

Of course atmospheric CO2 levels have been increasing! That is one of the few things I readily accept as true and correct. This was to be expected whilst humans continued to proliferate.

Raw measurements, carefully taken so as to minimise localised corruption (to the gleaned data), are truly wonderful!
However, those measurements alone aren't sufficient to explain causation,or quantify the volumes required to support the biological necessities for Earth's populace.
So not actually answers to the questions posed. I fear too many presumptions are being made regarding causation.

The closest thing to an answer, that I have encountered to date, was an article,(featured on an Oceanographic website, to which another ASF member had kindly alerted me) claiming that the causation of CO2 elevations in atmospheric samplings, could be identified via a process of "isotopic fingerprinting".

Suffice to say that amidst the impressive claims to the application of mass spectrometry and carbon dating principles, there were some creative assumptions, analogies, alongside seemingly convenient oversights, all in the accompaniment of multiple layers of data adjustments.
Justifications were offered for a number of these adjustments (e.g. fractionation, the claim that plants were fussy eaters and discriminated between different CO2 molecules based upon carbon isotope etc.)

One of several issues I had with the outlined approach, was the presumption that the way in which changes in isotopic ratios were interpreted, was dependent upon the presence of a one to one (as opposed to one to many) relationship between those rational changes and interpretations of same. The one to one presumption was demonstrably unjustifiable. (i.e. the changed isotopic ratios, could have, at minimum, two distinct causes, rendering the one to one presumption invalid). Upon noticing that I realised the futility of further entertaining the works of that particular novelist.

So I am again left with, more or less, the same unanswered questions!

Such as, why it is that it is somehow always assumed that the cause of these increases is solely artificial, as opposed to biological (or perhaps even geological)?

Based upon that which I have witnessed to date, I am becoming increasingly convinced that the reasoning has more to do with tacit political agendas than any findings of actual scientific research.

 

[noirua]

Some parts of Siberia and Canada just cant wait for global warming to speed up more. If the average temperatures in Australia was minus 2 degrees with lows around minus 40 degrees you may end up praying for it.

 

[cynic]

Some parts of Siberia and Canada just cant wait for global warming to speed up more. If the average temperatures in Australia was minus 2 degrees with lows around minus 40 degrees you may end up praying for it.

The problem is, it is also global cooling!

The climate brigade keep assuring us that nobody (other than that nefarious, research burying, oil industry, that so many love to hate), want what climate change promises to deliver.

Apparently everybody is going to get the sort of weather that they could not possibly want! Those needing the heat are going to get cooler, and those wanting it cooler are assured of a roasting!

I believe that this is the reason why Global Warming had to be rebranded as Climate Change, when it was being marketed to the masses!

It leads me to wonder how it was that the climate managed to evolve such a mighty intellect, as to be able to ascertain how to differentiate the selection and geographical delivery for its repertoire of punishments.

So when the weather is warmer, the climate brigade crows "Itoldyasoooo!" and when it gets cooler the climate brigade crows "Itoldyasoooo!"

And they are of course quite right, they did "tell us so!" with their "heads I win, tails you lose" proposition.

 

[explod]

You're like a spinning top there cynic, this way that way up and down, anything to counter any argument against your take.

Climate change/global warming is a topic on a world scale for good reason and most can physically see it accelerating.

The air is getting dirty exponentially against the steadiness of the past which allowed our general evolution. The oceans are filling up with plastic killing the fish. Our forests are disappearing, cities are clogging with traffic, we are running out of places to grow food and one could go on. You can not claim that things are ok and insinuate that we are some form of idiocracy from the commoleft. Growing numbers are merely concerned for the future and that it will be too bad for our children etc to adapt. In that I'm not saying it's black and white, I'm saying that to most people it looks bad and that we should not stand idly by.

We have to stop using coal and oil and the by products such as plastic and we have to stop population growth. This means the end of industrialisation as we've known, no more cars or other mechanical movement and a return to village clusters where we survive by growing and living on vegetable matter only and regrowing our forests to try and repair the planet. In a lot of places even in Australia this is consciously starting to occur.

However, honestly, what I hope for is not possible and we are going to go down the gurgler. But to try and maintain its normal for the climate change happening now is incorrect.

 

[orr]

So I am again left with, more or less, the same unanswered questions!

Such as, why it is that it is somehow always assumed that the cause of these increases is solely artificial, as opposed to biological (or perhaps even geological)?

I am becoming increasingly convinced that the reasoning has more to do with tacit political agendas than any findings of actual scientific research.

The increase from the pre-indusrtial era circa 280ppm to now 400+ppm have been reseached intensively, not least by Exxon i.e Burn billions of tonnes of geologically sequested and then extracted hyro carbons and solid carbon whislt compromising the very systems that sequest carbon from the atmosphere. The causes of the increase are known. To ignore this research, and the obvious, is your choice.
The political agendas are well known to. Suggested reading; Naomi Oreskis ' Merchants Of Doubt'. For my benifit you could find negative critque of Oreskis book. I've found very little....

 

[cynic]

...
We have to stop using coal and oil and the by products such as plastic and we have to stop population growth. This means the end of industrialisation as we've known, no more cars or other mechanical movement and a return to village clusters where we survive by growing and living on vegetable matter only and regrowing our forests to try and repair the planet. In a lot of places even in Australia this is consciously starting to occur.

However, honestly, what I hope for is not possible and we are going to go down the gurgler. But to try and maintain its normal for the climate change happening now is incorrect.

Unlike yourself, I make no definite claim, as to whether or not current atmospheric CO2 levels, pose a threat to the welfare of the Earth and/or its populace.

Unlike yourself, I make no definite claim, as to whether or not recent climate behaviours are out of accord with nature.

Unlike yourself, I make no definite claim, as to whether or not the climate has sustained any lasting and/or irreversible impact/s from anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Like yourself, I sincerely believe everything I post.


Anyhow, it sure does sound like you have a very bleak view of humanity's future. (My understanding of what you are saying is that everybody is doomed with no possibility of redemption!)

Is there any upside to holding to your expressed convictions?

After all, if those convictions prove correct, then there is no solution! Nothing can be done to alter humanity's fate!

So the only true hope that remains for humanity, is for your convictions to turn out to be amiss in one or more respects!!

For the sake of the future welfare of humanity, and planet Earth, are you willing to be wrong?

 

[cynic]

The increase from the pre-indusrtial era circa 280ppm to now 400+ppm have been reseached intensively, not least by Exxon i.e Burn billions of tonnes of geologically sequested and then extracted hyro carbons and solid carbon whislt compromising the very systems that sequest carbon from the atmosphere. The causes of the increase are known. To ignore this research, and the obvious, is your choice.
The political agendas are well known to. Suggested reading; Naomi Oreskis ' Merchants Of Doubt'. For my benifit you could find negative critque of Oreskis book. I've found very little....

All potentially valid correlations should ideally be considered during investigation of causation, and not just the one's that happen to conveniently serve the political agendas of those seeking to depose capitalism!!

 

[explod]

Re-read my post cynic, I made no definite claims, merely stated what is observably taking place. Clogged cities, its a fact, peak hour everyday here in Melbourne now except Sunday mornings

With attitudes and stubbornness to accept reality it should be pretty clear as to why I despair.

 

[cynic]

Re-read my post cynic, I made no definite claims, merely stated what is observably taking place. Clogged cities, its a fact, peak hour everyday here in Melbourne now except Sunday mornings

With attitudes and stubbornness to accept reality it should be pretty clear as to why I despair.

Are we talking about the same post?!!!

There are precious few, of the sentences in that post, that aren't making definite claims about one thing or another. Perhaps they weren't explicitly stating, three of the popular assertions, that I happened to be challenging.

So perhaps you believe that I have mistakenly attributed to you, certainties that you do not actually hold! Is that the case? (If so I sincerely apologise.)

In order to aid my understanding, by clearing away any misconceptions about where our points of disagreement actually reside:

Are you claiming uncertainty about, current atmospheric CO2 levels, posing a threat to the welfare of the Earth and/or its populace?

Are you claiming uncertainty about, recent climate behaviours, being out of accord with nature?

Are you claiming uncertainty about, the climate having sustained lasting and/or irreversible impact/s from anthropogenic CO2 emissions?

Are you claiming uncertainty, in the sincerity of your belief, in the things you post?

 

[Knobby22]

"I would bet my house on it, that there's a climate change signal in this most recent heatwave," University of New South Wales climate scientist Sarah Perkins–Kirkpatrick said.

That quote is within an article commenting on the amazing record breaking temperatures the southern states of Australia have been getting this autumn. April is meant to average 20 degrees in Melbourne and we have been mostly in the 30s.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-17/april-heatwave-why-autumn-has-felt-more-like-summer/9664122

 

[basilio]

"I would bet my house on it, that there's a climate change signal in this most recent heatwave," University of New South Wales climate scientist Sarah Perkins–Kirkpatrick said.

That quote is within an article commenting on the amazing record breaking temperatures the southern states of Australia have been getting this autumn. April is meant to average 20 degrees in Melbourne and we have been mostly in the 30s.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-17/april-heatwave-why-autumn-has-felt-more-like-summer/9664122

It's not an El Nino year and we are seeing exceptional rises in average temperatures on top of records set only a few years ago. If one was concerned about a step change in climate happening rather than a steadily increasing rate this would be a worrying event.

 

[explod]

"The biggest problem is that measuring changes in global activity is very difficult to do with precision. That leads many to burrow deeper into the comfort of their personal worldview and shrug, “Wake me when you know for sure. In the meantime, there’s some ‘research’ here from the Heartland Institute or the American Petroleum Institute that says we have nothing to worry about.”

“We are dealing with a system that in some aspects is highly non-linear, so fiddling with it is very dangerous, because you may well trigger some surprises,” Rahmstorf says. “I wish I knew where this critical tipping point is, but that is unfortunately just what we don’t know. We should avoid disrupting the AMOC at all costs. It is one more reason why we should stop global warming as soon as possible.”

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/1...limate-scientists-warn-tipping-point-is-near/

 

[basilio]

Swedish response to Climate Change. Just makes sense..

To lead on climate, countries must commit to zero emissions
Isabella Lövin
The UK’s climate laws forged a path for others to follow. But as progressive nations commit to zero emissions, it must reclaim its leading role, writes Sweden’s deputy prime minister

Tue 17 Apr 2018 06.34 EDT Last modified on Tue 17 Apr 2018 06.37 EDT


Shares
What does it mean for a nation to be a “climate leader” in 2018?

At the very least, it must mean having a firm plan in place to deliver your nation’s fair share of the Paris agreement. During that stunning fortnight in December 2015, 195 governments freely and willingly committed not only to keep global warming well below 2C, but to aim for the safer level of 1.5C. And they committed to bring net greenhouse gas emissions down to zero.

I cannot help but feel huge pride that my government was the first in the western world to step up and deliver on the Paris agreement. In June last year, we adopted a target of cutting Sweden’s net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2045, and we set it in law. Within a generation, Sweden will not be contributing to the problem of climate change. Science tells us that if all nations adopt this target, there is a good chance that we will live up to the commitments that we made at the Paris summit, and keep climate change within safe boundaries.

Our law does not only set an emissions target and a date. Every year the government must present a progress report to parliament, and every four years it must make a new set of policies that deliver ever-greater emission cuts. This way we will ensure that we will make steady progress towards our net-zero target.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...imate-countries-must-commit-to-zero-emissions

 

[basilio]

When did the multi-national oil company Shell become aware of the reality and dangers of Climate Change ? How about in 1991 when they produced a video explaining the cause and likely consequences of man made climate change.

It's particularly interesting at this time becasue there is a court case in the US which is attempting to decide on who is/has been responsible for global warming.

Watch Shell's 1991 Video Warning of Catastrophic Climate Change

The oil giant Shell issued a stark warning of the catastrophic risks of climate change more than a quarter of century ago in a prescient 1991 film that has been rediscovered.

However, since then the company has invested heavily in highly polluting oil reserves and helped lobby against climate action, leading to accusations that Shell knew the grave risks of global warming but did not act accordingly.

Shell’s 28-minute film, called Climate of Concern, was made for public viewing, particularly in schools and universities. It warned of extreme weather, floods, famines and climate refugees as fossil fuel burning warmed the world. The serious warning was “endorsed by a uniquely broad consensus of scientists in their report to the United Nations at the end of 1990,” the film noted.
“If the weather machine were to be wound up to such new levels of energy, no country would remain unaffected,” it says. “Global warming is not yet certain, but many think that to wait for final proof would be irresponsible. Action now is seen as the only safe insurance.”

A separate 1986 report, marked “confidential” and also seen by the Guardian, notes the large uncertainties in climate science at the time but nonetheless states: “The changes may be the greatest in recorded history.”
The predictions in the 1991 film for temperature and sea level rises and their impacts were remarkably accurate, according to scientists, and Shell was one of the first major oil companies to accept the reality and dangers of climate change.
https://www.wired.com/2017/02/watch-shells-1991-video-warning-catastrophic-climate-change/

 

[basilio]

Perhaps some reality testing should be done on CC? Dr Mayer Hillman has some clear ideas about our future. The fact he is saying nothing different to the "do nothing" models on action re CC.

Every, single analysis of what will happen to the earth if we don't drastically reduce CO2 emissions comes to one apocalyptic conclusion - we and the earth as we know it are gone. But Mayers comments just pull it all together.

'We're doomed': Mayer Hillman on the climate reality no one else will dare mention
By Patrick Barkham
The 86-year-old social scientist says accepting the impending end of most life on Earth might be the very thing needed to help us prolong it

@patrick_barkham
Thu 26 Apr 2018 14.00 AEST

• 
  

Shares
2045



Dr Mayer Hillman with his bike outside his home in London. Photograph: John Alex Maguire / Rex Features
“We’re doomed,” says Mayer Hillman with such a beaming smile that it takes a moment for the words to sink in. “The outcome is death, and it’s the end of most life on the planet because we’re so dependent on the burning of fossil fuels. There are no means of reversing the process which is melting the polar ice caps. And very few appear to be prepared to say so.”

Hillman, an 86-year-old social scientist and senior fellow emeritus of the Policy Studies Institute, does say so. His bleak forecast of the consequence of runaway climate change, he says without fanfare, is his “last will and testament”. His last intervention in public life. “I’m not going to write anymore because there’s nothing more that can be said,” he says when I first hear him speak to a stunned audience at the University of East Anglia late last year.

From Malthus to the Millennium Bug, apocalyptic thinking has a poor track record. But when it issues from Hillman, it may be worth paying attention. Over nearly 60 years, his research has used factual data to challenge policymakers’ conventional wisdom. In 1972, he criticised out-of-town shopping centres more than 20 years before the government changed planning rules to stop their spread. In 1980, he recommended halting the closure of branch line railways – only now are some closed lines reopening. In 1984, he proposed energy ratings for houses – finally adopted as government policy in 2007. And, more than 40 years ago, he presciently challenged society’s pursuit of economic growth.

....But he insists that I must not present his thinking on climate change as “an opinion”. The data is clear; the climate is warming exponentially. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that the world on its current course will warm by 3C by 2100. Recent revised climate modelling suggested a best estimate of 2.8C but scientists struggle to predict the full impact of the feedbacks from future events such as methane being released by the melting of the permafrost.

Hillman is amazed that our thinking rarely stretches beyond 2100. “This is what I find so extraordinary when scientists warn that the temperature could rise to 5C or 8C. What, and stop there? What legacies are we leaving for future generations? In the early 21st century, we did as good as nothing in response to climate change. Our children and grandchildren are going to be extraordinarily critical.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...climate-reality-no-one-else-will-dare-mention

https://mayerhillman.com/

 

[moXJO]

Perhaps some reality testing should be done on CC? Dr Mayer Hillman has some clear ideas about our future. The fact he is saying nothing different to the "do nothing" models on action re CC.

Every, single analysis of what will happen to the earth if we don't drastically reduce CO2 emissions comes to one apocalyptic conclusion - we and the earth as we know it are gone. But Mayers comments just pull it all together.

'We're doomed': Mayer Hillman on the climate reality no one else will dare mention
By Patrick Barkham
The 86-year-old social scientist says accepting the impending end of most life on Earth might be the very thing needed to help us prolong it

@patrick_barkham
Thu 26 Apr 2018 14.00 AEST

• 
  

Shares
2045



Dr Mayer Hillman with his bike outside his home in London. Photograph: John Alex Maguire / Rex Features
“We’re doomed,” says Mayer Hillman with such a beaming smile that it takes a moment for the words to sink in. “The outcome is death, and it’s the end of most life on the planet because we’re so dependent on the burning of fossil fuels. There are no means of reversing the process which is melting the polar ice caps. And very few appear to be prepared to say so.”

Hillman, an 86-year-old social scientist and senior fellow emeritus of the Policy Studies Institute, does say so. His bleak forecast of the consequence of runaway climate change, he says without fanfare, is his “last will and testament”. His last intervention in public life. “I’m not going to write anymore because there’s nothing more that can be said,” he says when I first hear him speak to a stunned audience at the University of East Anglia late last year.

From Malthus to the Millennium Bug, apocalyptic thinking has a poor track record. But when it issues from Hillman, it may be worth paying attention. Over nearly 60 years, his research has used factual data to challenge policymakers’ conventional wisdom. In 1972, he criticised out-of-town shopping centres more than 20 years before the government changed planning rules to stop their spread. In 1980, he recommended halting the closure of branch line railways – only now are some closed lines reopening. In 1984, he proposed energy ratings for houses – finally adopted as government policy in 2007. And, more than 40 years ago, he presciently challenged society’s pursuit of economic growth.

....But he insists that I must not present his thinking on climate change as “an opinion”. The data is clear; the climate is warming exponentially. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that the world on its current course will warm by 3C by 2100. Recent revised climate modelling suggested a best estimate of 2.8C but scientists struggle to predict the full impact of the feedbacks from future events such as methane being released by the melting of the permafrost.

Hillman is amazed that our thinking rarely stretches beyond 2100. “This is what I find so extraordinary when scientists warn that the temperature could rise to 5C or 8C. What, and stop there? What legacies are we leaving for future generations? In the early 21st century, we did as good as nothing in response to climate change. Our children and grandchildren are going to be extraordinarily critical.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...climate-reality-no-one-else-will-dare-mention

https://mayerhillman.com/

He is discounting technological advances.

 

[basilio]

There is an international scientific study starting in Antartica focusing on the stability of the Thwaites glacier.
Long story short this glacier is the cork that stops trillions of tons of land locked ice pouring into the oceans. Unfortunately there is concern that the effects of global warming have made it is dangerously unstable.

If it fails global sea levels will rise quickly and steeply.

'Cork' Glacier Holding Back Sea Level Rise May Pop
By Rafi Letzter, Staff Writer | April 30, 2018 11:18am ET

The calving front of Thwaites Ice Shelf photographed from the IceBridge research plane. The water acts as a blue filter for ice visible below the water's surface. Thwaites Glacier flows into Pine Island Bay, in West Antarctica.
Credit: NASA / Jim Yungel
The seas are rising. But just how dire is the situation?

That's the question that a huge team of international scientists is hoping to answer as it prepares to launch a major study of one of the main culprits of sea level rise: the Thwaites glacier.

More than 100 scientists from the U.S., United Kingdom, and other countries will begin a $27.5 million study of the glacier, which is located in West Antarctica, according to a report in The Guardian. Thwaites, as Live Science has previously reported, is one of a small cluster of glaciers that act like corks, holding back the enormous ice masses of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. And, like its cousins, Thwaites' melting has accelerated rapidly in recent years.

https://www.livescience.com/62435-thwaites-glacier-sea-level-study.html