Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[Sdajii]

I hear what you are saying Sdajii, to say, anything I can do to keep my part of the world clean and leave as little footprint as possible would only be saving 5% (which is a pretty random figure) but hypothetically, let's say it is only a 5% improvement, why should that be a reason to throw my hands in the air and say to hell with it, how is 5% going to help? If everyone improved the world by 5% with small incremental actions in their own lives, the change would be enormous. It would have a compounding effect. And it actually isn't a heap of effort once you have trained yourself. It is quite easy, it saves a fortune and those of us who grow our own food, it gives a feeling of peace.

Of course 5% is a vague figure plucked out of the air. In reality, for most people, it would be lucky to be 1%. Look at the plastic straw example for one. People are literally making a big deal about something which is literally not even going to register as something worth noting on a percentage scale. Look at the plastic bags in supermarkets for another example. It scarcely makes a difference but people kicked up a fuss about it. Look at the recycling farce. Then look at where the vast majority of resources are being used, and no one is doing anything about it, or even recognising it as part of the problem.

And far, far offset by any 1% or 5% or whatever percentage you want to estimate it at, is the fact that we are consuming more resources over time, not less. So by cutting last 5% off what you did last year, you're probably only increasing next year to 115% instead of 120% (obviously this is not to say these are exact figures, but almost literally everyone is using more each year, not less, and that's the important concept).

And this is a really important point you have made. The political agenda of anamorphic global warming can create a feeling of helplessness when there could be real and tangible things which could be done now. If we put everything down to the fault of increased carbon into the atmosphere then we run the risk of ignoring other risk factors as in the damage to the Barrier Reefs, with dredging and mining and farm runoff and crown of thorns starfish and overfishing, a raise in fire danger with more homes being built in fire-prone areas with poor planning, if we feel there may be danger to homes close to a shore line, plan to move people to higher ground over time, if there is likely to be increased storm activity build community bunkers. So much can be done, if we stop using increased carbon as a cop-out and scream for more taxes so we can build more solar and wind power. It is just ridiculous behaviour not to look further at what may or may not be a problem. If a problem needs spin doctors to promote it, there may be a problem with the problem.

Definitely, 200%, screamingly agree with you on this point (except the dredging, I don't really think that's a very big deal, but the concept of the big issues being missed is an elephant in the room). The CO2 issue is massively overblown. Not to say it doesn't exist, but it's not the only issue and almost certainly not the main one, yet it is often presented pretty much as the only thing we should be worried about.

The planet will kill us off in time. We are doing a pretty good job ourselves with all the massive increase in diseases and the massive increase in same-sex relationships which will profoundly reduce the population in a very short period of time. Nature is already in the phase of culling us. Once the next serious ice-age occurs we are likely to have many of us wiped out with all the new diseases, famine and wars.

I'm... quite puzzled at you saying this. People are less diseased than ever before. Same sex relationships are not going to stop population growth. There aren't that many homosexual people, and while the number of open ones is higher than before, the proportion of the population isn't changing all that dramatically (difficult to measure because previously they were so secretive). Now as before though, they often still want to have children. Homosexual people still have urges to reproduce. The fastest growing demographic in the world seeks to literally exterminate them and in a growing percentage of the world actively carries that task out. That growing demographic has a policy of high reproductive rate and actively carries it out (which is the main reason it is the world's fastest growing demographic). Most people will always be heterosexual and reproductive until cataclysm or totalitarianism intervenes.

If nature is in the process of killing us off it's odd that the population is still growing so rapidly. I agree that a population already living unsustainably and also rapidly growing is destined for inevitable disaster (that's literally what unsustainable means, so it's odd that almost everyone agrees the situation is unsustainable yet disagrees with inevitable disaster), but it hasn't started to happen yet. The disaster will almost certainly come in the form of war. There have always been wars being fought, but there will be a really big one which makes WWII look like a primary school scuffle.

 

[rederob]

Of course 5% is a vague figure plucked out of the air. In reality, for most people, it would be lucky to be 1%.

Baseless assumption.

And far, far offset by any 1% or 5% or whatever percentage you want to estimate it at, is the fact that we are consuming more resources over time, not less.

Consumption need not imply additional CO2 generation. That's exactly why renewables become a significant part of the "solution".

The CO2 issue is massively overblown.

Where is your evidence - another baseless claim.

 

[qldfrog]

If you decrease you co2 by 5pc, just wait next year and Chinese will ensure we are back even

 

[rederob]

If you decrease you co2 by 5pc, just wait next year and Chinese will ensure we are back even

The reason we can believe you is....?

 

[qldfrog]

@sdaji do not know much about you yet i am also one who after a life of world travel and exoerience consider
the Green plague (nothing to do with the green party however dangerous they might be locally)
and overpopulation
as the key threats to mankind.
During that time we ban plastic bags in supermarket 8n full knowledge that we overall increase plastic consumption and pollution by doing that
And people whose vision of the world is shaped by the abc,the guardian and travels to bali and mother england play puppets to the globalists interests
Global warming is so indeed depressing

 

[rederob]

@sdaji do not know much about you yet i am also one who after a life of world travel and exoerience consider
the Green plague (nothing to do with the green party however dangerous they might be locally)
and overpopulation
as the key threats to mankind.
During that time we ban plastic bags in supermarket 8n full knowledge that we overall increase plastic consumption and pollution by doing that
And people whose vision of the world is shaped by the abc,the guardian and travels to bali and mother england play puppets to the globalists interests
Global warming is so indeed depressing

Full of opinions and dog whistles.
Devoid of facts.
Typical of your every post.

 

[Sdajii]

The reason we can believe you is....?

Because both national and global consumption is up. A primary school kid can understand that if consumption is increasing not decreasing, the efforts are not working. These things are not solutions, they are distractions.

You become part of the solution of you are making things better. If you slightly reduce the rate at which you increase the damage you are doing, or even if you actually reduce the damage you are doing but continue to cause damage, you are still part of the problem, you are not the solution.

If not mislead, a young child can understand this. Remarkably, western people have become so mislead that they actually believe if they make any effort to reduce their impact, they are part of the solution, and are happy to be distracted from the fact that their overall impact is increasing. Many people even think that by being an 'activist' (posting memes on Facebook is enough, or you can go all out, blindly believe the propaganda and angrily argue with someone on a forum trying to encourage people to be rational and you're, like, totally a champion single-handedly saving the world) they are part of the solution.

 

[wayneL]

Because both national and global consumption is up. A primary school kid can understand that if consumption is increasing not decreasing, the efforts are not working. These things are not solutions, they are distractions.

You become part of the solution of you are making things better. If you slightly reduce the rate at which you increase the damage you are doing, or even if you actually reduce the damage you are doing but continue to cause damage, you are still part of the problem, you are not the solution.

If not mislead, a young child can understand this. Remarkably, western people have become so mislead that they actually believe if they make any effort to reduce their impact, they are part of the solution, and are happy to be distracted from the fact that their overall impact is increasing. Many people even think that by being an 'activist' (posting memes on Facebook is enough, or you can go all out, blindly believe the propaganda and angrily argue with someone on a forum trying to encourage people to be rational and you're, like, totally a champion single-handedly saving the world) they are part of the solution.

I have this debate so often; people believing ing they are part of the solution because they are "spreading awareness" (from their v8 Landcruiser, two story airconditioned home. yearly holidays and over-packaged everything)

 

[rederob]

Because both national and global consumption is up. A primary school kid can understand that if consumption is increasing not decreasing, the efforts are not working.

Europe has proven that CO2 output can decline concurrent with increasing population and consumption.
So yet another of your claims is proven false.
The issue resolves to what action is being taken, as clearly the right policy settings make a big difference to how nations progress.
The rest of your rambling post simply reflects a state of mind which does not properly understand the problems, nor the solutions.

 

[rederob]

I have this debate so often; people believing ing they are part of the solution because they are "spreading awareness" (from their v8 Landcruiser, two story airconditioned home. yearly holidays and over-packaged everything)

That's not a debate, Wayne, that's merely anecdote.
It is your usual lack of evidence for posted claims that finds your credibility in this realm highly suspect.

 

[Sdajii]

I have this debate so often; people believing ing they are part of the solution because they are "spreading awareness" (from their v8 Landcruiser, two story airconditioned home. yearly holidays and over-packaged everything)

Yeah, exactly. And when you point out to people like rederob that they're being hypocritical etc etc, they hypocritically throw a bunch of empty, nonsensical ramble at you and accuse you of having no substance to your words.

Most people just believe what they want to believe, and many people are incredibly prone to projecting.

 

[wayneL]

Unfortunately this forum alerts me when there is blocked content.

But I'm guessing Rederob has claimed I have no credibility... again.

Yawn...

 

[Sdajii]

Unfortunately this forum alerts me when there is blocked content.

But I'm guessing Rederob has claimed I have no credibility... again.

Yawn...

Yeah, he's projecting again

 

[rederob]

Most people just believe what they want to believe, and many people are incredibly prone to projecting.

I linked to data showing your claim was poorly based.
Rather than suggest I am the problem, tackle the fact that you seem to not understand why your claims have proven to be erroneous.

 

[Sdajii]

Judith Curry is an interesting example of what happens to a climate scientist who dares to move away from absolute dogmatic suppression of debate and adherence to anthropogenic climate change propaganda.

She herself has always promoted the climate change agenda, she was one of the world's most prominent climate scientists, highly respected and had a lot of attention on her for many years. She made the career mistake, however, of taking the stance that opposing views should be allowed to be published if they showed equal merit, and that climate sceptics should be listened to and open discussion allowed so that there was a transparent situation and people could trust the science. She recognised that there were some issues with the conventional science and in some cases the models were exaggerated and data was being deliberately misrepresented (all the while, and to this day, she maintained her belief that humans were causing the majority of current climate change, she just wanted it to be a topic open to discussion and for there to be an acknowledgement when there had been mistakes). Despite being a high level climate scientist who had previously enjoyed a prosperous career, publications, media attention, etc, quite suddenly this stopped and she was forced out of academia.

Take a moment to think about how extreme that level of bias is. All you need to do, even if you believe the climate science, even if you are already a prominent, respected climate scientist, is encourage honesty and open discussion and it's a career killer! Now imagine if someone actually has a contrarian view! We're not even talking about a contrarian view like 'Humans aren't having an influence on the climate' - virtually no one believes that, and literally no one with even the slightest grasp of the science would try to suggest that, but just saying we should have a more balanced look at how much of an influence we are having on the climate, that's a career killer.

Curry wasn't old, she didn't retire, she still works in a fairly decent role, but was forced out of academia.

...and there are people willing to say that climate science has no bias!

Think about the incredible control climate science has over the global energy industry, arguably the #1 fundamental industry in the world. Appropriately or not, for better or worse, using the guidance (perhaps engineered, guided guidance) of the climate science, huge taxes have been taken from energy companies, and a huge change in the balance of power between countries has been created. If you don't think that's going to cause a bias it's probably not worth talking to you.

When something is pushed as dogma to be unconditionally believed rather than openly and critically assessed, and there is blatant bias, you have to wonder what's going on. This doesn't mean climate science is completely wrong, it doesn't mean humans aren't influencing the climate (and it's difficult for most people to grasp the concept that something which is mostly correct can be exaggerated and/or misused, especially when they have been manipulated into dogmatic, unconditional belief).

 

[Ann]

Of course 5% is a vague figure plucked out of the air. In reality, for most people, it would be lucky to be 1%. Look at the plastic straw example for one. People are literally making a big deal about something which is literally not even going to register as something worth noting on a percentage scale.

I am not concerned about the percentage you quote Sdajii, I am aware it is simply to illustrate what you are saying, so no problem. By saying that straws don't even register it sounds as though you are saying, let's not worry about it until it is a problem. I know that is not what you meant and am not trying to twist your words but it is a good point you are making, so my response is this, let's start cleaner living sooner rather than later even if it is simply refusing a plastic straw, or a plastic lid on a t/a coffee. Small **** but do it often enough with enough people is what I am saying, before it becomes a problem.

Look at the plastic bags in supermarkets for another example.

Yeah! Wasn't that a money making token gesture! Why is supermarket meat packed in rigid plastic containers? Meat won't break or squash.

Look at the recycling farce.

We should be doing so much better with this.

Then look at where the vast majority of resources are being used, and no one is doing anything about it, or even recognising it as part of the problem.

Agree, so much wasted effort on emissions when there is so much more that should be done elsewhere. However this is not to say we don't have to worry about dirty, polluted air, we do and we should, just not because of an imaginary co2 level in the atmosphere.

So by cutting last 5% off what you did last year, you're probably only increasing next year to 115% instead of 120% (obviously this is not to say these are exact figures, but almost literally everyone is using more each year, not less, and that's the important concept).

I try not to let this happen, I try to revue what is being used. Look to where I can cut things down or out, but I do it in a sustainable way, in a way I can maintain the changes without martyring myself, as that is never a sustainable thing to do. If a 'normal' person all of a sudden began living as I do, they would give up in six months, as it would not be sustainable for them.

(except the dredging, I don't really think that's a very big deal,

Dredging may be the main cause for the damage to the Coral Reef....
"Fine sediments are thrown up into the water and can drift for over 100 kilometres, smothering coral, seagrass beds, and ruining water quality. Dredging can more than double the level of coral disease, in particular white syndrome which causes coral tissue to fall off." Ref.

"Sediment choke

Sediment, which can travel long distances, will kill seagrass, exacerbating the decline in dugong populations that feed on it.

Corals will also be affected. Many species get almost all their energy and nutrients from the algae that live symbiotically on them. When increased sediment stops light from getting through the water, the algae stop growing, weakening the coral." Ref.

The CO2 issue is massively overblown.

Spot on! It is a green propagandized Furphy and it will leave the real cause of problems to be ignored or minimized.

The CO2 issue is massively overblown. Not to say it doesn't exist, but it's not the only issue and almost certainly not the main one, yet it is often presented pretty much as the only thing we should be worried about.

Because it is the only thing which the Green Agenda can use as a weapon against fossil fuels. Take co2 out of the equation and what have they got? Nothing.
......but the earth is warming....well yes it is. It is more likely to be a normal cycle caused by orbital rotations of the planets. Does the tide come in? Yes it does because of the gravitational pull of the moon. Do we move from ice-ages to tropical warm? Yes we do, likely because of the gravitational pull of the planets.

It would have been an easy physics calculation to work out for the GreenTeam Alarmists when the earth will be at its historically hottest level then add the fifty year old co2 measurements taken from inside a co2 effusing volcano in Hawaii (Mauna Loa). Voila, Global Warming caused by co2. Let's panic the population into making Green Earth choices for energy and eating habits and get control of the financial industry and governments. Then we can bring in our own laws.
.....but what if it starts to get colder......still climate change folks.....see we still have high levels of co2! It is all about co2. Those volcanoes will keep exuding, the co2 levels will still rise.


.....but we measure the atmosphere by satellites and ancient ice cores for co2 as well as inside a co2 spewing volcano, then average out the results....... Great, so if the atmospheric measurements are barely altering but the volcano is spewing out higher levels of co2 then we will see the average of co2 rising. This is not rocket science folks this is spin 'science'.

I'm... quite puzzled at you saying this. People are less diseased than ever before. Same sex relationships are not going to stop population growth.

In the past we had more viral diseases which killed us, these days we are having huge increases of metabolic diseases as in cancer, Alzheimers, heart disease, diabetes, MS, Parkinsons, obesity and so forth. We are killing ourselves, not an external virus which sweeps through, kills all those who are not immune and then subsides. As a kid in the 50's you never heard about anyone getting cancer except rich, skinny women. Nowadays it seems like it is as common as a flu.

Most people will always be heterosexual and reproductive until cataclysm or totalitarianism intervenes.

Maybe so, but as societies becomes wealthier they breed less.

If nature is in the process of killing us off it's odd that the population is still growing so rapidly.

Nature is slow it needs to evolve. It is like an oscillation, most growth of life will happen at the warm highest point and a reduction of life as it falls back to a colder time. Least life during the coldest point. You need to step back and look at the very big picture. The earth can support the current population growth, because it is natural and we are at the pinnacle of the warm oscillation.

Planetary Orbits graph....

 

[rederob]

She [Judith Curry] made the career mistake, however, of taking the stance that opposing views should be allowed to be published if they showed equal merit, and that climate sceptics should be listened to and open discussion allowed so that there was a transparent situation and people could trust the science.

It is not the purview of Curry to determine what can or cannot be published.
That's one mistake in your claims.
Second, all climate scientists are, by definition, climate sceptics - it's a label which goes with the profession. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of science - and you keep saying you are scientist!
Finally, science can be believed until the point it is proven to be inadequate. Science is therefore progressive.

... she was forced out of academia.

She left her job because...well, too much heat...and she ain't no Cook.
Anyway, retiring from an academic posting is very different to what you have claimed - so more falsehoods from you.

All you need to do, even if you believe the climate science...

That's false. Curry in fact does not. Curry is of the view that natural variation can cause the warming we have. But Curry has not published anything credible to sustain her position. Curry does not even use the scientifically accepted definitions used in climate science.

Curry wasn't old, she didn't retire, she still works in a fairly decent role, but was forced out of academia.

Please check the evidence and stop repeating falsehoods.

...huge taxes have been taken from energy companies, and a huge change in the balance of power between countries has been created.

Please link your evidence.
Here's mine on taxes, suggesting that yet again you are clueless.

...it's difficult for most people to grasp the concept that something which is mostly correct can be exaggerated and/or misused, especially when they have been manipulated into dogmatic, unconditional belief

That's an interesting claim.
It's almost like saying people have been manipulated into believing that evolution is true.
You, as a scientist, should appreciate that a theory is very different to "dogma."

So let's get back to Curry. Please cite a paper where she has accounted for the present warming of the planet. I have looked many times in recent years and I find a stream of work showing her grasp of climate data is nowadays deficient.

 

[Sdajii]

I am not concerned about the percentage you quote Sdajii, I am aware it is simply to illustrate what you are saying, so no problem. By saying that straws don't even register it sounds as though you are saying, let's not worry about it until it is a problem. I know that is not what you meant and am not trying to twist your words but it is a good point you are making, so my response is this, let's start cleaner living sooner rather than later even if it is simply refusing a plastic straw, or a plastic lid on a t/a coffee. Small **** but do it often enough with enough people is what I am saying, before it becomes a problem.

I'm not opposed to doing little bits here and there to lessen the impact. The problem is that these little bits are used as excuses to believe people aren't a problem or are part of the solution, even though they are still very much the problem. If I catch 100 children per day and kill all of them, and tomorrow I decide to let 2% of them go, I suppose that's a good thing, it's an improvement, but I'm still killing heaps of children and I'm still a really bad person. If I'm now catching 105 children per day, the 2 which I release don't even offset the extra 3 I'm killing. The straws, recycling, buying a plastic bad instead of getting a free one, etc, are like patting yourself on the back for releasing some children so you don't have to feel guilty about killing the extra 3. That's the problem, not the fact that you're releasing 2 children.

Yeah! Wasn't that a money making token gesture! Why is supermarket meat packed in rigid plastic containers? Meat won't break or squash.

Exactly. But you didn't use a disposable straw and you reused a plastic bag a few times (never mind that it's a much thicker, heavier bag and it won't last forever anyway... just pat yourself on the back for being a good person)

We should be doing so much better with this.

Again, recycling is just lip service. It's not just that we should be doing better; we arguably aren't even doing anything overall positive! But don't let that stop you from patting yourself on the back and believing you're a good person, part of the solution.

Agree, so much wasted effort on emissions when there is so much more that should be done elsewhere. However this is not to say we don't have to worry about dirty, polluted air, we do and we should, just not because of an imaginary co2 level in the atmosphere.

That's my point. There are much bigger pollution issues than CO2.

Because it is the only thing which the Green Agenda can use as a weapon against fossil fuels. Take co2 out of the equation and what have they got? Nothing.
......but the earth is warming....well yes it is. It is more likely to be a normal cycle caused by orbital rotations of the planets. Does the tide come in? Yes it does because of the gravitational pull of the moon. Do we move from ice-ages to tropical warm? Yes we do, likely because of the gravitational pull of the planets.

I'm a bit more agnostic about the cause of current climate change. The natural fluctuations are extreme, they are not well understood in terms of cause and mechanism, which makes it difficult to say what's really going on. But totally, they focus on CO2 primarily because it is a powerful economic and political tool for everyone involved. Even if you want to believe CO2 is the total cause of climate change (nonsense which literally no climate scientist would believe), the CO2 thing is obviously being done primarily for political and economic reasons.

It would have been an easy physics calculation to work out for the GreenTeam Alarmists when the earth will be at its historically hottest level then add the fifty year old co2 measurements taken from inside a co2 effusing volcano in Hawaii (Mauna Loa). Voila, Global Warming caused by co2. Let's panic the population into making Green Earth choices for energy and eating habits and get control of the financial industry and governments. Then we can bring in our own laws.
.....but what if it starts to get colder......still climate change folks.....see we still have high levels of co2! It is all about co2. Those volcanoes will keep exuding, the co2 levels will still rise.

To be fair, I think in relatively normal scenarios, volcanoes' influence is a bit overplayed. There are sometimes massive volcanic events which do serious things to the climate (far, far more extreme, rapid, and destructive than what the climate scientists are predicting we are going to do). It would actually be sort of funny if there was such a volcanic event now which plunged the world into severe winter for a few years (many geologists predict we are due for exactly this) and global warming (whatever the cause) dramatically mitigated the problem. It's actually quite a plausible scenario!

In the past we had more viral diseases which killed us, these days we are having huge increases of metabolic diseases as in cancer, Alzheimers, heart disease, diabetes, MS, Parkinsons, obesity and so forth. We are killing ourselves, not an external virus which sweeps through, kills all those who are not immune and then subsides. As a kid in the 50's you never heard about anyone getting cancer except rich, skinny women. Nowadays it seems like it is as common as a flu.

There are several reasons for this. Most of them disprove your arguments.

The average human life expectancy has dramatically increased. Children don't get Alzheimer's, heart disease, Parkinson's, etc. It's is primarily old people who get cancer, etc. People previously died while young. Look at all these diseases you list - they are all things while primarily or exclusively kill people who are of an age they previously would not have reached, or in some cases went undiagnosed. By making people live longer we have just changed what they die of. Keep in mind that all people die of something. The death rate of humans is 100%.

Nature is slow it needs to evolve. It is like an oscillation, most growth of life will happen at the warm highest point and a reduction of life as it falls back to a colder time. Least life during the coldest point. You need to step back and look at the very big picture. The earth can support the current population growth, because it is natural and we are at the pinnacle of the warm oscillation.

The planet can support the current population/growth because we are guzzling resources unsustainably. I agree that this means we will have a severe population crash, but not through diseases and homosexuality. Unless we get a freak event in the next 25 years (celestial impact, severe volcanic event, alien invasion, severe viral pandemic, extreme freak weather (not climate), divine intervention, invention of presently inconceivable technology, mushrooms revealing that they are sentient beings with extreme power who were waiting to save us in our hour of need etc) we will have a massive war over remaining resources.

 

[Ann]

To be fair, I think in relatively normal scenarios, volcanoes' influence is a bit overplayed.

They are actually physically inside the bloody volcano taking the readings, not a mile or two or three away measuring the co2 emissions. It is a live exuding volcano spewing out co2!

Hawaiian Volcano Observatory scientist monitoring gas emissions on Mauna Loa in 2015
Ref

 

[Sdajii]

They are actually physically inside the bloody volcano taking the readings, not a mile or two or three away measuring the co2 emissions. It is a live exuding volcano spewing out co2!

View attachment 93906
Hawaiian Volcano Observatory scientist monitoring gas emissions on Mauna Loa in 2015
Ref

That's pretty cool and everything, but CO2 from volcanoes isn't really all that significant.

A lot of people here obviously think that because I'm open minded and don't blindly believe all the mainstream dogma I'm some sort of hardcore complete 'climate denier' (sic) who believes the opposite extremist dogma, but I'm happy to say the actual hardline anthropomorphic climate change deniers who promote the myth that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans burning fossil fuels are wrong.

Volcanoes produce about 1-2% of the amount of total CO2 humans do, depending on which source you use (it's definitely less than 3% unless they're lying to us really, really badly).