Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[wayneL]

Mark the scale for this is any one who criticises Trump or is politically left of Genghis Khan or has a social conscience is a commie........wear it with pride you are normal.

You guys actually made the rules, you know. Vis a vis, anyone to the right of Pol Pot is a Nazi.

It is now at the stage where everyone is either a commie or a Nazi...

...or both, like I've been called at various times.

 

[rederob]

I am pained at the positions of others fallen prey to propaganda or over reading of negative guardian garbage, and enjoy reading more scientific input of others.

It's good that you learned to read.
Shame your claims are shoddy on most topics here.
At least you and WayneL plus a few others don't have to worry about evidence for anything you say, because it would turn you into a pack of liars. And we don't want that, do we?

 

[IFocus]

Or you are a muppet who may one day learn to think by yourself?
But for the time being, enjoy following the masses..can not go wrong and feel so good

Wayne you complain about this

"unreasonable ad hominem and unreasonable debating style."

Then support the above

Really

 

[IFocus]

You guys actually made the rules,

Rubbish

 

[Sdajii]

Basification and alkalinity are very different chemical features.
Given we were talking about oceans, then absorption of CO2 leads to a lowering of pH, but also actually raises the alkalinity by causing dissolution of carbonates.

Amazingly, you've actually pulled me up on something which I was actually wrong about, and corrected me. After all your stupid attempts, you did get something right.

Credit where it's due, you've actually, legitimately done it. You may have been nit picking to the extreme and it doesn't excuse all your other nonsense, but yes, you are correct, I should have said 'less basic' rather than 'less alkaline'. Base and alkaline are often used synonymously, and I was guilty of that here. Guilty as charged. Congratulations, give yourself a point.

But hey, if you want to get to that level of ridiculous nit picking, you have to accept our friend's complaint about calling something "more acidic" when it is not actually acidic at all.

 

[Smurf1976]

From a discussion which took place in the offline world - "the biggest problem preventing resolution of this problem is not technical or economic but the ideological pursuit of perfection".

Sums it up pretty well in my view. There's an awful lot of argument which amounts to the pursuit of perfection and the end result is nothing gets done since one side won't improve on what they see as already a big step forward and the other side won't accept it because it's not totally perfect.

That plays out pretty much everywhere when it comes to solutions. Always someone looking for problems and finding some reason why it's not perfect rather than embracing a leap forward.

We'd still be living in caves pending the invention of a 100% perfect house if that attitude had prevailed historically.

A pragmatic approach is sadly lacking in all this. If the issue is real then that lack of pragmatism, not a lack of knowledge or technology, is what will end up cooking the planet.

 

[Sdajii]

From a discussion which took place in the offline world - "the biggest problem preventing resolution of this problem is not technical or economic but the ideological pursuit of perfection".

Sums it up pretty well in my view. There's an awful lot of argument which amounts to the pursuit of perfection and the end result is nothing gets done since one side won't improve on what they see as already a big step forward and the other side won't accept it because it's not totally perfect.

That plays out pretty much everywhere when it comes to solutions. Always someone looking for problems and finding some reason why it's not perfect rather than embracing a leap forward.

We'd still be living in caves pending the invention of a 100% perfect house if that attitude had prevailed historically.

A pragmatic approach is sadly lacking in all this. If the issue is real then that lack of pragmatism, not a lack of knowledge or technology, is what will end up cooking the planet.

I don't think it's a search for perfection. That is never a driving force in big global trends. Relating it to your point, if it was, we'd still be living in caves.

Whether or not you want to consider humans to be the primary cause of the current change in climate, and whether or not it is portrayed accurately or it is exaggerated, it is human nature (and indeed the nature of all living things) to look after one's self first, then close kin, then the wider group, then one's own species, then the overall system. You can cherry pick aberrations in that overall system, but that's the way living things operate.

If a puddle is capable of supporting 100 tadpoles, each female lays 50 eggs, and there are 10 females wanting to spawn, they don't have 8 volunteer not to breed, they all go for it and they all fail. If there is a finite amount of sugar, the yeast doesn't find a system to use it sustainably, they all eat and reproduce as fast as possible until the sugar runs out and all the yeast starves. Other than an aberrant few, you're not going to have people giving up their lifestyles so others can have theirs. The majority of people are going to use resources as much as they can, and admit it, you and I are the same. Ever flown overseas just for a holiday to have fun? Ever driven a car just for fun? Do you buy clothes even though your old ones are still wearable? Honestly, how much food do you throw away and do you eat basic, locally-grown staples or fancy wine, beef, seafood, food imported from all corners of the globe, or whatever your fancy is? Do you but birthday presents you're not entirely sure people will keep? Do you receive presents like that? It goes on and on. We are wasteful, we consume resources greedily. It is the nature of life.

I don't by any stretch think climate change (whatever is driving it) is our biggest threat. Even if the doomsday climate predictions are correct, there are much bigger threats coming to hit us much sooner. Our lack of action is due to our selfish, greedy nature, not because we are perfectionists, and we are not perfectionists anyway.

 

[qldfrog]

Agree @Sdajii so my endless cry to wake up when i see the west producing less than a 3rd of CO2..supposed ti be the great threat to the world asking for ever more effort and self blaming from its citizens while china and india, but overall the rest of the world pressing ahead at madness pace.
This is where ideology rules
The greens should be in the street asking for chinese and indian product boycott and oil sanctions against them etc
Whether or not GW/CC is or not the greatest threat to the planet, it is without doubt used as a manipulation of western population as far as i see it by the globalist anti western movement.
In a year+ in China have I ever heard of global warming mentioned?
Nope :not in papers or in conversation with chinese colleagues.they have electric vehicle to fight city air pollution yes..but powered by coal stations in the countryside
GW is not on the agenda of the biggest industrial powerhouse of the world and we are fighting on terminology on sea water PH?
Seriously?
First reduce overpopulation and then we can start maybe somewhere on CO2 emissions, in the meantime get a life,cause you have to realise that you, us or our country can and will not change a thing

 

[qldfrog]

And pragmatism is also realising our limits.is climate changing.yes..so prepare for it
More floods more droughts more heatwaves
There are solutions for these and maybe real jobs for our barista economy

 

[kahuna1]

Mark the scale for this is any one who criticises Trump or is politically left of Genghis Khan or has a social conscience is a commie........wear it with pride you are normal.

Thanks for that. I must get rid of my conscience and lots of lack of tolerance for liars like Trump.

Or you are a muppet who may one day learn to think by yourself?
But for the time being, enjoy following the masses..can not go wrong and feel so good

Well isn't that a nice thing to say ? Strange, that a person who rarely follows the masses, clearly thinks outside the box and for themselves IS such a threat to your little world and beliefs.

Strange, given the last quote, I have learnt a lot even on this thread from far more knowledgeable people. I have had to examine my own understanding of a complex list of topics relating to the climate. All of it good.

Well most of it.
I entered with a view that irrespective of what humanity does, we got to 1,000 PPM CO2 plus within 100 years. I entered with a strong view that feedback loops one and two occur and three as well, the ocean not being in a good state in 50 years let alone 100. Similar views on temperature and a long list of other contributors.

Presented with, dogma, fantasy, myth and even here, on the ability of a bloody crab to form a shell when PH goes close to 7 , let alone below it ... and Calcium Carbonate I know very well dissolves in any even slightly acidic water, some person tells me, crabs live in acidic water ? The Smithsonian, and the worlds other leading authority on oceans disagree ... yet someone ... on the internet .. claims chemical reactions are SUSPENDED, in their little world.

I say with regret. We as a species, are likely stuffed beyond 2050, not that it ends there, the climate and weather related impacts exponentially are going to rise. NOT one doubt about this I have having had to just examine all of it again. Arctic ice and blue ocean sometime in the pre 2060 period, permafrost starts to melt, Arctic seabed ice and methane released as well pre 2100 and ... well ... the Great Barrier Reef even now under extreme pressure is unlikely to be 10% of the 1985 size by 2050, and ITS NOW 25% of the size it was in 1985. NOW !! TODAY !!

Debating its fate is irrelevant. Its not a debate how a chemical reaction goes, or is here in the minds of some. Debating if the Great Barrier Reef looses another 15% when its already lost 75%, is really just stupid.

NO NO NO its all fake ... no amount of evidence, empirical, clinical or otherwise is possible to be presented to those WITH closed opinions and minds. I was, actually hoping, my even mild case for the future, was wrong. IT is after close examination, more than likely absurdly optimistic.

All this to cries, your a moron, or a Nazi or an imbecile. Strange the people who I openly shared my disgust at their anti Islam hate filled rants in the wake of Christchurch, and the made me want to vomit, are BACK for some, on this thread.

Am I on a white supremacy site ? If so, please, someone tell me ?

Whist ASF is a stock site, climate change and impacts I believe will dictate investing for the next 100 years. DICTATE ... and buying say land in New Orleans as your global headquarters will be amusing post 2050. Miami spending 500 million to pump sea water out in 2018 at high tide, what does it do in 2050 with 25 cm higher oceans ?

I do question the modern world, and now, myself set up as a charity after a gifted life, not that I am too old even now, at times I question why I bother to try and leave the world a better place before I leave. The sample of some of the human species being displayed, is at times, one which makes me wonder if its not a good thing, what will occur more than likely.

 

[wayneL]

Wayne you complain about this

"unreasonable ad hominem and unreasonable debating style."

Then support the above

Really

Yes, really. The difference in style is stark.

 

[PZ99]

I think the last few pages confirm what we already know.

Global Warming has become unstoppable in this thread

 

[rederob]

But hey, if you want to get to that level of ridiculous nit picking, you have to accept our friend's complaint about calling something "more acidic" when it is not actually acidic at all.

I continue to show your claims to be inconsistent with science.
You pretend this most recent aberration is a first. Yet after all that you then go on to say:

...you have to accept our friend's complaint about calling something "more acidic" when it is not actually acidic at all.

Sorry, in science we commonly refer to the direction of the trend (as in, "the experiment caused it to become more x") and, in the case of oceans, that trend is towards acidification. That's why we don't have a theory of AGLC (where LC = less cooling)!
Because you are not good at explaining science it is a false claim to suggest that scientists describe the ocean as acidic. I have never read that they do, and I read a lot of science. The science of increasing ocean acidification is well confirmed. The science of an acid ocean - ie ph of <7.0 - does not yet exist.
Let's now drum down to what the average schmuck thinks.
A pH of 5.6 is scientifically accepted for rainwater (it's the lowest pH that could be produced by carbonic acid if pure water were in equilibrium with atmospheric carbon dioxide at 25 C: Barrett and Brodin, 1955). People drinking rainwater do not believe they are drinking an acid. People leaving their car out in the rain for years do not believe the paint will be affected by its acidity.
Conversely, people swimming in the ocean are going to be concerned about its saltiness rather than its pH content, which I suggest nobody other than scientists ever give another thought.
My point is that until science gives people a reason to be concerned, they won't worry about things like leaving their car out in the rain.
That story would change completely if you lived close to a chemical plant and acid rain was the norm - you would visibly notice paint degradation if you left your car in the rain, and you would stop doing it.
The other point to this long post is that if you do not understand the science, accept what they can provide as evidence - or the best available explanation - rather than misrepresent what you do not know about.

 

[rederob]

I don't by any stretch think climate change (whatever is driving it) is our biggest threat. Even if the doomsday climate predictions are correct, there are much bigger threats coming to hit us much sooner.

Each time I ask you to elaborate, you change the topic.
Please quantify these other threats which are so much "bigger" than AGW.

 

[basilio]

Full text of Greta Thunbergs speech to UK Parliament.
In my view it captures the CC issue, the current situation and what we have to do if we want any sort of chance to survive this century.

You did not act in time': Greta Thunberg's full speech to MPs

My name is Greta Thunberg. I am 16 years old. I come from Sweden. And I speak on behalf of future generations.
I know many of you don’t want to listen to us – you say we are just children. But we’re only repeating the message of the united climate science.
Many of you appear concerned that we are wasting valuable lesson time, but I assure you we will go back to school the moment you start listening to science and give us a future. Is that really too much to ask?

In the year 2030 I will be 26 years old. My little sister Beata will be 23. Just like many of your own children or grandchildren. That is a great age, we have been told. When you have all of your life ahead of you. But I am not so sure it will be that great for us.

I was fortunate to be born in a time and place where everyone told us to dream big; I could become whatever I wanted to. I could live wherever I wanted to. People like me had everything we needed and more. Things our grandparents could not even dream of. We had everything we could ever wish for and yet now we may have nothing.

Now we probably don’t even have a future any more.

Because that future was sold so that a small number of people could make unimaginable amounts of money. It was stolen from us every time you said that the sky was the limit, and that you only live once.

You lied to us. You gave us false hope. You told us that the future was something to look forward to. And the saddest thing is that most children are not even aware of the fate that awaits us. We will not understand it until it’s too late. And yet we are the lucky ones. Those who will be affected the hardest are already suffering the consequences. But their voices are not heard.

Is my microphone on? Can you hear me?

Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it. That is unless in that time, permanent and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society have taken place, including a reduction of CO2 emissions by at least 50%.

And please note that these calculations are depending on inventions that have not yet been invented at scale, inventions that are supposed to clear the atmosphere of astronomical amounts of carbon dioxide.

Furthermore, these calculations do not include unforeseen tipping points and feedback loops like the extremely powerful methane gas escaping from rapidly thawing arctic permafrost.

Nor do these scientific calculations include already locked-in warming hidden by toxic air pollution. Nor the aspect of equity – or climate justice – clearly stated throughout the Paris agreement, which is absolutely necessary to make it work on a global scale.

We must also bear in mind that these are just calculations. Estimations. That means that these “points of no return” may occur a bit sooner or later than 2030. No one can know for sure. We can, however, be certain that they will occur approximately in these timeframes, because these calculations are not opinions or wild guesses.

These projections are backed up by scientific facts, concluded by all nations through the IPCC. Nearly every single major national scientific body around the world unreservedly supports the work and findings of the IPCC.

Did you hear what I just said? Is my English OK? Is the microphone on? Because I’m beginning to wonder.

During the last six months I have travelled around Europe for hundreds of hours in trains, electric cars and buses, repeating these life-changing words over and over again. But no one seems to be talking about it, and nothing has changed. In fact, the emissions are still rising.

When I have been travelling around to speak in different countries, I am always offered help to write about the specific climate policies in specific countries. But that is not really necessary. Because the basic problem is the same everywhere. And the basic problem is that basically nothing is being done to halt – or even slow – climate and ecological breakdown, despite all the beautiful words and promises.
The UK is, however, very special. Not only for its mind-blowing historical carbon debt, but also for its current, very creative, carbon accounting.

Since 1990 the UK has achieved a 37% reduction of its territorial CO2 emissions, according to the Global Carbon Project. And that does sound very impressive. But these numbers do not include emissions from aviation, shipping and those associated with imports and exports. If these numbers are included the reduction is around 10% since 1990 – or an an average of 0.4% a year, according to Tyndall Manchester.

And the main reason for this reduction is not a consequence of climate policies, but rather a 2001 EU directive on air quality that essentially forced the UK to close down its very old and extremely dirty coal power plants and replace them with less dirty gas power stations. And switching from one disastrous energy source to a slightly less disastrous one will of course result in a lowering of emissions.

But perhaps the most dangerous misconception about the climate crisis is that we have to “lower” our emissions. Because that is far from enough. Our emissions have to stop if we are to stay below 1.5-2C of warming. The “lowering of emissions” is of course necessary but it is only the beginning of a fast process that must lead to a stop within a couple of decades, or less. And by “stop” I mean net zero – and then quickly on to negative figures. That rules out most of today’s politics.

The fact that we are speaking of “lowering” instead of “stopping” emissions is perhaps the greatest force behind the continuing business as usual. The UK’s active current support of new exploitation of fossil fuels – for example, the UK shale gas fracking industry, the expansion of its North Sea oil and gas fields, the expansion of airports as well as the planning permission for a brand new coal mine – is beyond absurd.

This ongoing irresponsible behaviour will no doubt be remembered in history as one of the greatest failures of humankind.

People always tell me and the other millions of school strikers that we should be proud of ourselves for what we have accomplished. But the only thing that we need to look at is the emission curve. And I’m sorry, but it’s still rising. That curve is the only thing we should look at.

Every time we make a decision we should ask ourselves; how will this decision affect that curve? We should no longer measure our wealth and success in the graph that shows economic growth, but in the curve that shows the emissions of greenhouse gases. We should no longer only ask: “Have we got enough money to go through with this?” but also: “Have we got enough of the carbon budget to spare to go through with this?” That should and must become the centre of our new currency.

Many people say that we don’t have any solutions to the climate crisis. And they are right. Because how could we? How do you “solve” the greatest crisis that humanity has ever faced? How do you “solve” a war? How do you “solve” going to the moon for the first time? How do you “solve” inventing new inventions?

The climate crisis is both the easiest and the hardest issue we have ever faced. The easiest because we know what we must do. We must stop the emissions of greenhouse gases. The hardest because our current economics are still totally dependent on burning fossil fuels, and thereby destroying ecosystems in order to create everlasting economic growth.

“So, exactly how do we solve that?” you ask us – the schoolchildren striking for the climate.

And we say: “No one knows for sure. But we have to stop burning fossil fuels and restore nature and many other things that we may not have quite figured out yet.”

Then you say: “That’s not an answer!”

So we say: “We have to start treating the crisis like a crisis – and act even if we don’t have all the solutions.”

“That’s still not an answer,” you say.

Then we start talking about circular economy and rewilding nature and the need for a just transition. Then you don’t understand what we are talking about.

We say that all those solutions needed are not known to anyone and therefore we must unite behind the science and find them together along the way. But you do not listen to that. Because those answers are for solving a crisis that most of you don’t even fully understand. Or don’t want to understand.

You don’t listen to the science because you are only interested in solutions that will enable you to carry on like before. Like now. And those answers don’t exist any more. Because you did not act in time.

Avoiding climate breakdown will require cathedral thinking. We must lay the foundation while we may not know exactly how to build the ceiling.

Sometimes we just simply have to find a way. The moment we decide to fulfil something, we can do anything. And I’m sure that the moment we start behaving as if we were in an emergency, we can avoid climate and ecological catastrophe. Humans are very adaptable: we can still fix this. But the opportunity to do so will not last for long. We must start today. We have no more excuses.

We children are not sacrificing our education and our childhood for you to tell us what you consider is politically possible in the society that you have created. We have not taken to the streets for you to take selfies with us, and tell us that you really admire what we do.

We children are doing this to wake the adults up. We children are doing this for you to put your differences aside and start acting as you would in a crisis. We children are doing this because we want our hopes and dreams back.

I hope my microphone was on. I hope you could all hear me.

 

[rederob]

Whether or not GW/CC is or not the greatest threat to the planet, it is without doubt used as a manipulation of western population as far as i see it by the globalist anti western movement.

Conspiracy theories are not science.
Every scientific organisation in every country of the world accepts the science of climate change.
Science does not affect any of your fanciful ideas.
Maybe crackpottery could be investigated by science, but how would you ever get the crackpots to believe their worlds were merely delusion?

 

[kahuna1]

Maybe crackpottery could be investigated by science, but how would you ever get the crackpots to believe their worlds were merely delusion?

Debating its fate is irrelevant. Its not a debate how a chemical reaction goes, or is here in the minds of some. Debating if the Great Barrier Reef looses another 15% when its already lost 75%, is really just stupid. A debate for imbeciles.

Opinions as to that, are as they say, like assholes, everyone has one, an opinion and like assholes, everyone else's stinks.


Albert Einstein: The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Debating, as is often the case whether Einstein first wrote this comment or Mark Twain, is irrelevant. What is NOT, is SCIENCE and the truth of it.

Over and over the debate questions chemical processes, or measurement, or experiments conducted billions of times and DISMISSED. Dismissed, minimised and ignored processes that, well, occur 100 times out of 100, a trillion times out of a trillion times when conducted.

Nope, opinions have more validity than science.
I am not going to sit, and wait for an experiment conducted a billion times, with the same results, every time and expect another result to occur.

The stupidity, in fact insanity, of this course of action, would make a genius who know their limits, questions their own conclusions and beliefs, be compared to someone who has no limits and there is no limit to stupidity, NONE ... Sitting with drooling open mouth disputing chemical reactions that occur the same way, every time and expecting some other result ?

I think that's called Infinite Stupidity. Don't ever short it or underestimate it!! You will go broke or waste time debating when it will stop. Infinite stupidity, is what it is. Lets wait for that experiments results to change !!

Crazy is far better than stupidity. Crazy following science and well documented processes, instead of debating with stupidity is a common pastime over the ages. Being called crazy for an idea which is typical, being debated or questioned by stupidity, the normal I suppose.

Thankfully. In the past humanity has passed its own inherited stupidity of some and evolved.

This time it seems less likely.

 

[IFocus]

Yes, really. The difference in style is stark.

This is school play ground behaviour i.e. little boy stuff.

Neither here nor there in regards to myself as I never feel that I am a victim, its a privilege that I get to participate in a forum like this with a group of incredible, intelligent and passionate individuals no matter what incoming I get nasty or other wise.

Up to you on how you conduct yourself but like me you are no innocence.

Last time I'll waste my time in such a discussion


Short life.....long death.

 

[wayneL]

The barrier reef has lost 75%?

Can you cite that please @kahuna1

 

[kahuna1]

Oh ... Great barrier reef ... Coral Bleaching ... aka its DEAD ...

read back a few pages.

That is assuming possibly too much.

Links and data and source on the topic already given. Even pictures !!

No relevant when dealing with, well ... as I said before, people awaiting a different outcome of heating in this case Coral to Temperatures that kill it before it can recover.

Possibly placing a pet ... in the microwave and on high for 5 mins might get some understanding of the process .... OR NOT.

Maybe a shower, with ONLY the hot water on may bring some to their senses. To understand the process ..... going on ... Or likely not.

Sadly dealing with stupidity and displayed stupidity, and at times infinite stupidity ... in the case of heating something to beyond its tolerances, is to be debated.

Get back to me after your nice WARM shower.