Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[kahuna1]

This is reminding me of Groundhog day ... A movie I love ...

the line out of it I loved was when Bill Murray asked the woman in the Bed and Breakfast if she ever had Deja Vu ? and she responds .... she will go ask the chef if he can make it.

This circular conversation about climate change, I thought maybe it was serious, then looked back to another thread, and it went around and around, same person, seemingly asking questions and quoting a Mad Magazine as their source for good stuff.

Of course one listens to others opinions, with an exception and this one is clear. Sadly so.

How does one keep an idiot in suspense ? ( put your phone on hold and leave it )

Much like Einsteins comments about definition of insanity. That is doing the same experiment over and over and over again, getting the same result .... and expecting it will change the next time.

Opinion is one thing, whether the sun rises the next day is quite another. Of course, some will and do choose to believe it will NOT rise tomorrow. What would you do if someone was to speak to you for 15 minutes about this, how about do it time and time and time again ? Would you be polite even after 5 minutes the first time ?

Thankfully, one can ignore trolls and imbeciles on the internet. Not that another s opinion is to be ignored, one examines it, searches for their view, compares it to factual evidence, presents it back .,, and well if it goes on and on and on and on and on and on ... and its something that is frankly beyond even being able to questioned ....

Either you are insane .... or they are ... or in the case of 24,000 scientists and 200 Nobel prize winners, the issue is pretty clear what side of the coin your on if you are not either stupid, ill, or just fishing for a response.

Must run, they have Deja Vu on the menu and the sad fact is, I think I may have said similar prior to this, different thread, different topic, same people I might add. Just like the movie.

Good thing about loosing your memory, mind or not having it in the first place, is that your kids can give you the same book every birthday and Christmas and its all new, even after reading it 1,000 times.

 

[Smurf1976]

All this discussion about the planet heating up has a lot in common with the history of tobacco and asbestos.

Cigarette smoking was not common among men until the early 20th century. After about 1930 the rate of lung cancer started to increase, tripling by 1940 and then doubling again in 1950.

Meanwhile the rate of such cancers in women increased only slowly. Cigarette smoking among women did not become common until the 1930's.

Now let's see, based on knowledge at the time what were the possibilities here?

It had to be due to something which had changed given the huge rate of increase.

Whatever the change was, it was something affecting mostly men. This rules out changes in the home or living environment as a likely cause and suggests the cause to be either occupational or due to something men did that women didn't commonly do.

If the cause was occupational then whatever the specifics, it was something common to both white collar and blue collar work performed by men, but not common to any work commonly performed by women. Now there aren't too many chemicals or other things common to both blue collar and white collar work but which are not found at home or otherwise in the lives of women.

At that point, circa 1950, anyone with a shred of intelligence could see that cigarette smoking was the most plausible explanation for the rapid increase in the incidence of lung cancer.

Then the inevitable happened and from about 1960 lung cancer rates in women started to skyrocket just as they had with men 30 years earlier. Exactly the expected outcome given that smoking became common among women 30 years later than men, but still the tobacco companies denied it and many believed them. Covered up so well that the % of women who smoked continued to rise through the 1970's.

Much the same could be said with asbestos. The first deaths were recorded a very long time before most mining of the stuff occurred and in quite a few countries the stuff is still mined today.

I see a lot of parallels between the history of those two and the climate debate. A lot.

You don't need to be a climate scientist to see that there's a change underway which is taking place quite rapidly. As was the case with both tobacco and asbestos, there's a known likely explanation for the cause and as with tobacco and asbestos those profiting from that cause are doing everything possible to deny the link.

 

[bellenuit]

Not that I am aware as we do not yet use technology which measures hourly temperatures and averages these across the day.

I stand corrected. I was just trying to show how the 3 statements in Ann's post were not incompatible. It is still applicable to the extent that the average daily temperature is just an average of the maximum and minimum for that day rather than, as I had incorrectly assumed, an average of all temperatures of the day.

However, using the method you described, for this March average high and average low each to be second place would require the March that recorded the highest average daily maximum to be in a different year to the March that recorded the lowest average daily maximum. It would not be possible to construct a scenario that would allow them to be the same year.

 

[kahuna1]

Well said.

The analogy is correct, except this time, we are not talking about an abstract possible cancer in someone else. We have had 5 extinction events in the past 400 million years. All the same end results. All with 75% to 98% of everything on the planet dying before the recovery.

Some took not so long to happen, about 200,000 years. ONE, the last one the initial cause was an asteroid hitting the planet. Still it took a minimum of 35,000 years to wipe 50% of all species out. Yes, close to the impact area and for 1,000 miles if not 2,000 miles things were toast immediately or very near that. It did however take a very long time for events to take the atmosphere to where we will take it by 2200 without draconian action to REMOVE a lot of CO2.

Gold star to humans !! More stupid than any animal on the planet. We as a group, humanity, ruled by 10,000 or so, make the dumbest person. animal or species look brilliant !! I do not include the Oligarch members in the human species group, nor many of their helpers.

 

[kahuna1]

Trump knows a lot about WIND ....



And this is the leader ? Of Humanity ? I thought the EU generated over 15% of its power via wind ? Maybe connect a few pipes to Trump and free methane ?

 

[explod]

Canada warming at twice the global rate, climate report finds


Report by Environment and Climate Change Canada suggests the majority of warming is the result of burning fossil fuels

Leyland Cecco in Toronto

Wed 3 Apr 2019 01.29 AEDTLast modified on Wed 3 Apr 2019 06.25 AE

The Snowy mountain wildfire, visible from Cawston, British Columbia, on 2 August 2018. Photograph: Canadian Press/REX/Shutterstock
Canada is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world, a landmark government report has found, warning that drastic action is the only way to avoid catastrophic outcomes.

“The science is clear – Canada’s climate is warming more rapidly than the global average, and this level of warming effectively cannot be changed,” Nancy Hamzawi, assistant deputy minister for science and technology at Environment and Climate Change Canada, told reporters on Monday.

The report, released late on Monday by Environment and Climate Change Canada, paints a grim picture of Canada’s future, in which deadly heatwaves and heavy rainstorms become a common occurrence. Forty-three government scientists and academics authored the peer-reviewed report.

While global temperatures have increased 0.8C since 1948, Canada has seen an increase of 1.7C – more than double the global average.

And in the Arctic, the warming is happening at a much faster rate of 2.3C, the report says.


While the increased warming in the Arctic is not yet fully understood, snow and ice play a critical role in reflecting the sun’s radiation and heat. But scientists say the retreat of glaciers and disappearing sea ice both contribute to a feedback loop of warming, which is one of the factors contributing to Canada’s disproportionate temperature increase.

The report suggests the majority of warming felt in Canada and around the globe is the result of burning fossil fuels.

Canada has already pledged to cut emissions by 200m tonnes by 2030 – a cornerstone of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s national climate strategy – largely through a federally mandated carbon tax and shuttering coal-fired plants.

Despite the urgency of the report, Canada remains mired in a political battle over climate policy.

Trudeau has pushed for a national carbon pricing strategy, and on Monday the federal government imposed the tax on four provinces that refuse to implement one. Conservative politicians have pledged to remove the tax if they win this fall’s general election, arguing that it is too much of a burden for Canadians.

But under the current plan, households will receive rebate cheques from the federal government to offset any added expenses from the tax – meaning costs to the average consumer are negligible.

The report makes clear that Canada faces markedly different outcomes, depending on the policies it chooses to reduce emissions.

Under a scenario in which global emissions are dramatically reduced, average temperatures will rise only 3C across the country by 2100, including the Arctic region.

But if countries – including Canada – fail to act aggressively, increases of 7-9 degrees are likely, and the Arctic faces the prospect of 11 degrees of warming.

Under the report’s worst-case scenario, the risk of deadly heatwaves increases tenfold bring with it droughts and forest fires. Western Canada has already grappled with two years of record forest fire seasons. The risk of major rain events also doubles, meaning cities will be inundated with catastrophic urban flooding.

Access to critical sources of fresh water will also be constrained, due in large part to reduced winter snowfall, which in turn becomes a source of clean water when the snowpack melts.

Many of the previously documented effects – melting permafrost, disappearing sea ice and glacial retreat – are only set to intensify in the coming years.

“We are already seeing the effects of widespread warming in Canada,” said Elizabeth Bush, a climate science adviser at Environment Canada, told reporters. “It’s clear, the science supports the fact that adapting to climate change is an imperative. Urgent action is needed to reduce emissions.”

 

[Smurf1976]

Gold star to humans !! More stupid than any animal on the planet.

I think we have a broader crisis of having been captured by so-called "elites" who in practice are anything but when it comes to their actual abilities.

 

[basilio]

This is what the scientists are telling us happened the last time we had 400 + PPM CO2 in the atmosphere.
Last time CO2 levels were this high, there were trees at the South Pole
Pilocene beech fossils in Antarctica when CO2 was at similar level to today point to planet’s future

Damian Carrington Environment editor

@dpcarrington
Wed 3 Apr 2019 17.22 BST Last modified on Wed 3 Apr 2019 17.41 BST

Shares
2,021




Leaves of the extinct southern beech (Nothofagus beardmorensi) found at Oliver Bluffs, in the Transantarctic mountains, Antarctica. Photograph: J Francis, A Ashworth
Trees growing near the South Pole, sea levels 20 metres higher than now, and global temperatures 3C-4C warmer. That is the world scientists are uncovering as they look back in time to when the planet last had as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as it does today.

Using sedimentary records and plant fossils, researchers have found that temperatures near the South Pole were about 20C higher than now in the Pliocene epoch, from 5.3m to 2.6m years ago.

Many scientists use sophisticated computer models to predict the impacts of human-caused climate change, but looking back in time for real-world examples can give new insights.

The Pliocene was a “proper analogy” and offered important lessons about the road ahead, said Martin Siegert, a geophysicist and climate-change scientist at Imperial College London. “The headline news is the temperatures are 3-4C higher and sea levels are 15-20 metres higher than they are today. The indication is that there is no Greenland ice sheet any more, no West Antarctic ice sheet and big chunks of East Antarctic [ice sheet] taken,” he said.

Fossil fuel burning was pumping CO2 into the atmosphere extremely rapidly, he said, though it took time for the atmosphere and oceans to respond fully. “If you put your oven on at home and set it to 200C the temperature does not get to that immediately, it takes a bit of time, and it is the same with climate,” Siegert said, at a Royal Meteorological Society meeting on the climate of the Pliocene.
https://www.theguardian.com/science...ree-fossils-indicate-impact-of-climate-change

 

[Lantern]

When you read articles that claim that fifteen (15) of the worlds largest ships produce the same amount of pollution as ALL the world's cars, I'd would have to say yes.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-th...orld-produce-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars

 

[kahuna1]

A report on BBC came out overnight about a magic CO2 removal system.

I am NOT going to provide the link. Reason being, whilst promising a removal of CO2 costing UNDER $100- a ton, its one that USES massive amounts of energy to do so. This one backed by oil companies and even BHP is one that is also similar to the feel good Gates one.

This one, an absurdity, that sounds good, cannot and never will get around laws of chemistry/ thermo-dynamics and those being the same amount of energy is REQUIRED to reverse a chemical reaction. One cannot exceed the OTHER ...In this one, the magic CO2 system, it turns CO2 via massive fans then concentration, then baking it to 900 degrees a calcium carbonate solid or pure CO2 to send down wells to flush the last oil out.

In essence, as with most things, one can create petrol from coal, but it requires around 40% of the energy produced to do so. Next worst is TAR sands, one thing the USA declared open season on in 2006 for the Canadian ones. It requires heating TAR .... very thick oozy stuff to 80 degrees C via natural gas and making it more flowing or viscous and then add thinners so it can be refined. I might add, the tar sand contain about 20 awful contaminants and pollutants and as such the whole process needs 30% if not 35% of the power produced to refine and extract it.

Whilst I applaud some efforts, any efforts to remove CO2 on a commercial stage, to remove even what we emit in one year, humans, ignoring its about to double if the Arctic Melts and permafrost is released and that 300% of ALL emissions since 1800 .... to remove JUST 37 billion tons, let alone what is likely 1.8 trillion MORE tons over 40 or so years post 2030, the CO2 we emit overall is going to rise, NOT fall. rise under IPCC and whilst developed nations will be reducing the overall per capita number, the emerging ones where some are emitting at 5% of USA levels, the leader in CO2 per capita release, will take the 37 billion tons in 2018 to close to 100 billion by 2100 under the current plan.

Ignoring all that, removing even 37 billion tons via this NEW magic method, due to laws of thermo dynamics will require a DOUBLING of total GLOABL power capacity ... DOUBLING ... just to remove it.

Clearly. even at even a glance, its a stupid idea. Gates and Buffet have a similar one which is also just as absurd energy wise. Then again their focus is on the border issue with Buffet and his sons ranch on the border and Gates and buffet both more interested in abortion clinics in the USA verses community health and welfare where they do not a thing or close to it. One gets 50 times more spent on it than the other and as for the climate side, that's even worse, less than 1%. Interesting their agendas and a bit sad.

I suppose, it is possible, if one watched the Movie "The Saint" I think from 2004 and free cold nuclear fusion providing limitless free cheap energy was invented .... and it is possible they DO cross that barrier at some time, but it seems about as likely as say Gates and Buffet who spent 4 billion on abortion clinics in the USA which are 80% used by Latino and African Americans, when that amount would have funded all community healthcare centers for 10 years which service 25 million Americans as primary health care givers, its .... better in their eyes to fund 5 million abortions verses healthcare for 25 million for 10 years.

Much the same with this, new magic .... solution from the oil companies. A sad, sick ... joke.

 

[Smurf1976]

In essence, as with most things, one can create petrol from coal, but it requires around 40% of the energy produced to do so. Next worst is TAR sands, one thing the USA declared open season on in 2006 for the Canadian ones. It requires heating TAR .... very thick oozy stuff to 80 degrees C via natural gas and making it more flowing or viscous and then add thinners so it can be refined. I might add, the tar sand contain about 20 awful contaminants and pollutants and as such the whole process needs 30% if not 35% of the power produced to refine and extract it.

Simple explanation = world is run by economists not engineers.

Have this discussion with anyone with a technical background and it goes down one path.

Have the same discussion with anyone from an economics background and it goes down the exact opposite path.

 

[explod]

Australian Youth Climate Coalition
BREAKING: Scott Morrison has just announced he wants to give taxpayer dollars to big coal and gas companies for their new climate-wrecking projects.


AYCC.ORG.AU

SIGN NOW: No taxpayer money for new coal and gas
Authorised by G. Borgo-Caratti, 60 Leicester St, Carlton 3053
Sign Up

 

[explod]

There is a pathway that is working-
"
Dear James,

Regional communities right around the country are adopting renewable-powered technologies to combat climate change and take ownership of economic opportunities. And in the race to become Australia’s first renewable-powered community, one shire is emerging as a clear frontrunner.

Traditionally known as the Spa Capital of Australia, Victoria’s Hepburn Shire is fast making a name for itself on climate and renewable energy, with today’s launch of its clean energy plan. The plan incorporates an ambitious target to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, and 100% renewable energy by 2021 - a mere two years from now.

And they’re well on their way.

Community-owned Hepburn Wind farm, with its two turbines affectionately named Gale and Gusto, already produces enough energy to power over 2000 homes. But the Shire’s ambitious 2030 net-zero emissions reduction plan will rely on more than renewable power to get the job done. It will also incorporate rapidly reducing greenhouse gas pollution from transport, agriculture, manufacturing and stationary energy use (that includes things like diesel and gas consumption for energy, such as domestic heating).

Many of us can only imagine living in a truly renewable community, where each and every activity we undertake - from the morning commute, right through to cooking the evening meal - is powered by renewable energy.

For the residents of Hepburn Shire, this dream will soon become reality.

By 2030, the Shire’s clean energy plan will have prevented about 260,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas pollution from entering the atmosphere annually. That’s the equivalent of taking 60,000 fossil-fuelled cars off the road."

 

[Ann]

There is a pathway that is working-
"
Dear James,

Regional communities right around the country are adopting renewable-powered technologies to combat climate change and take ownership of economic opportunities. And in the race to become Australia’s first renewable-powered community, one shire is emerging as a clear frontrunner.

Traditionally known as the Spa Capital of Australia, Victoria’s Hepburn Shire is fast making a name for itself on climate and renewable energy, with today’s launch of its clean energy plan. The plan incorporates an ambitious target to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, and 100% renewable energy by 2021 - a mere two years from now.

And they’re well on their way.

Community-owned Hepburn Wind farm, with its two turbines affectionately named Gale and Gusto, already produces enough energy to power over 2000 homes. But the Shire’s ambitious 2030 net-zero emissions reduction plan will rely on more than renewable power to get the job done. It will also incorporate rapidly reducing greenhouse gas pollution from transport, agriculture, manufacturing and stationary energy use (that includes things like diesel and gas consumption for energy, such as domestic heating).

Many of us can only imagine living in a truly renewable community, where each and every activity we undertake - from the morning commute, right through to cooking the evening meal - is powered by renewable energy.

For the residents of Hepburn Shire, this dream will soon become reality.

By 2030, the Shire’s clean energy plan will have prevented about 260,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas pollution from entering the atmosphere annually. That’s the equivalent of taking 60,000 fossil-fuelled cars off the road."

Hepburn Springs/Daylesford is my favourite holiday destination. I regularly holiday there mostly in the cooler months as it is a very forested area and bushfires are a serious risk. They have been very ecologically aware since forever. The food is wonderful and they have some excellent bookshops and second hand/antique stores. A very important Permaculture display farm is also there and it is wonderful. It is a great destination for anyone who is ecologically minded, loves clean food, clean air or who is gay, as it has been a welcoming place for gay and lesbian folk for decades.
There is a slight touch of irony about their drive to achieve net-zero greenhouse emissions. Virtually all homes have fireplaces and in winter everyone is burning wood in their fireplaces with the delicious smell of wood fires everywhere. It is what I look forward to, the big fires in the fireplace. They always have mountains of firewood ready for burning. It was always seen as ecological and renewable! I don't see them getting rid of the fireplaces in a hurry, this place can have snow in winter. Perhaps they think the CO2 from burning timber isn't as bad as the CO2 from burning gas.

 

[qldfrog]

There is a pathway that is working-
"

By 2030, the Shire’s clean energy plan will have prevented about 260,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas pollution from entering the atmosphere annually. That’s the equivalent of taking 60,000 fossil-fuelled cars off the road."

so in ten years , these efforts will have saved 1/20 of what a cruise ship burn in a day if my computations are right
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappen...e-the-same-as-1-million-cars-report-1.4277180
So this is all good but we and I mean the media/greens need to stop fooling ourselves, there are real actions to be taken, against ships (from memory 15 biggest ship pollute as much as the whole world cars but I might be wrong),
against China and India for GW (60pc plus and growing), against overpopulation (conflict with Islam ahead) and against the same above countries as well as Malaysia Philippines etc for plastic in the ocean, no point removing plastic bags in Alice Spring: who are we thinking we are fooling?
Wake up
We have an instagram style green movement in the west: dumb,scientifically/technically illiterate, feel good, opportunist picture perfect but fake.
I do my part..sure but you would do better by ensuring that whoolies is selling corn and asparagus grown here, not in China or Peru, and your kids could also inject less chemical in their body in the process
No point jumping in the car with the kids to march against GW, better make sure your roof is not black and cycle to work

 

[explod]

Agree with you qldfrog. I mean where does one start.

Aircraft alone is one of the greatest polluters. Hard to have any optimism at all.

I purchase only food that is not wrapped in plastic and I've become totally vegan now, stopped eggs recently, grow a lot of my own, walking more and more and trying to think of new ways all the time.

 

[qldfrog]

M

Agree with you qldfrog. I mean where does one start.

Aircraft alone is one of the greatest polluters. Hard to have any optimism at all.

I purchase only food that is not wrapped in plastic and I've become totally vegan now, stopped eggs recently, grow a lot of my own, walking more and more and trying to think of new ways all the time.

Maybe Explod, you could work within the Greens and stop the west blaming stories, look at where problems are and ensure the Greens target them, not side issues or effect not cause..
Stopping meat is an heresy: what will grow in steep hills, what do you do with your kitchen scraps, they could feed a chicken
Instead of composting these,you got eggs at no environment cost at all and manure for the garden
Basically take a step back and use independent thinking.
Fish is good for you..true but farmed fish is horrendous for both environment and your body..you are much better off eating a steak from grass fed beef than corn fed salmon
So look at all the studies critically.look at who benefit..always and dig the opposite information.
And work within the greens and your friends to pass the right messages
That might lead to real changes.
as is the west is being screwed by its own grand principles while the planet is being slaughtered by the developing/emerging nations
That is the inconvenient truth

 

[Darc Knight]

so in ten years , these efforts will have saved 1/20 of what a cruise ship burn in a day if my computations are right
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappen...e-the-same-as-1-million-cars-report-1.4277180
So this is all good but we and I mean the media/greens need to stop fooling ourselves, there are real actions to be taken, against ships (from memory 15 biggest ship pollute as much as the whole world cars but I might be wrong),
against China and India for GW (60pc plus and growing), against overpopulation (conflict with Islam ahead) and against the same above countries as well as Malaysia Philippines etc for plastic in the ocean, no point removing plastic bags in Alice Spring: who are we thinking we are fooling?
Wake up
We have an instagram style green movement in the west: dumb,scientifically/technically illiterate, feel good, opportunist picture perfect but fake.
I do my part..sure but you would do better by ensuring that whoolies is selling corn and asparagus grown here, not in China or Peru, and your kids could also inject less chemical in their body in the process
No point jumping in the car with the kids to march against GW, better make sure your roof is not black and cycle to work

Good post Frog. While we (Australia) need to do our fair share perhaps spending more time trying to apply leverage to the bigger polluters is needed. Leading by example is all well and good but we (Australia) are but a small part of the problem.

@Joe Blow can you please permanently ban this account and device if possible. The temptation to post is too great - I thought my tongue lashing of a member last post would've done this.

To that person/member, I haven't and won't read your PM or anything you write. To everyone else goodbye farewell and best of luck. To those who wish me ill, get nicked

 

[Darc Knight]

Looks likes Joes asleep so one last Post.
You guys do see that the major CC denier here is a regular poster in the Oil thread. Investment in Fossil Fuels is certainly a good motivator to be a denier. Not very honourable or ethical but certainly a motivator. Yep, complain to Joe again, or perhaps attack me when I'm gone this time.

 

[Smurf1976]

Looks likes Joes asleep so one last Post.
You guys do see that the major CC denier here is a regular poster in the Oil thread. Investment in Fossil Fuels is certainly a good motivator to be a denier. Not very honourable or ethical but certainly a motivator. Yep, complain to Joe again, or perhaps attack me when I'm gone this time.

Unless I've missed something then I see no reason to be banning anyone?

As for the issue, one thing about all this energy and environment debate is there's a few who are willing to take an objective view even when it's not in line with their current business.

BHP have made a pretty strong argument as to why coal is a problem. Yes they mine the stuff but credit where it's due for acknowledging that change must come and BHP have indeed reduced production of thermal coal (the stuff used in power stations).

Shell have certainly made the point that we're not going to be using oil and gas forever.

Origin and AGL are both publicly committed to ending their use of coal. At present AGL not only burns the stuff but mines it on a massive scale too but they see the problem certainly.

So there's definitely some acknowledgement within the energy industry about all this.