Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[Smurf1976]

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

Global Warming has become unstoppable in this thread

If a relatively small number of people of reasonable intelligence voluntarily discussing the issue with presumably no major vested interest in the outcome beyond that of an ordinary citizen can't agree then there's your answer to much of it.

Business will do whatever makes them money. Politicians will do whatever gets them elected. Every industry, trade and professional body will promote whatever's good for that industry, trade or profession. CO2's on the agenda only if it benefits the other objectives.

Those on the "green" side will likely take exception to my comments but fact is that the world is hitting new highs in emissions. Nothing done over the past 30+ years of mainstream awareness has been sufficient to fix the problem. Actually fixing it thus requires a different approach.

 

[kahuna1]

Those on the "green" side will likely take exception to my comments but fact is that the world is hitting new highs in emissions. Nothing done over the past 30+ years of mainstream awareness has been sufficient to fix the problem. Actually fixing it thus requires a different approach.

Its not possible to fix something that, well is denied. There is no problem. Asking Phillip Morris the cigarette company in 1970, about smoking, is where we are in 2019 on Climate Change.

Technically, and sadly I say this, at present even now our ability to avoid or change a lot of things is NOT possible. One cannot stop a lot of the things, especially if they are not recognized.

Does it make me a greenie ? Or Nazi ? Actually studying this and a few other seemingly irrelevant topics which, well, are in many cases, the ONLY topic. Commenting about USA healthcare and its appalling state, is till you get sick, an aside. In this case, until I suppose a king tide in 2100 a meter ocean ... higher wipes out Miami, if one lived there, it becomes relevant.

If it happens to someone else, its a shame, if it happens to YOU ... its a tragedy !!

Must run, microwave just beeped and managed to get the neighbors cat inside for a 5 minute session.

 

[rederob]

If a relatively small number of people of reasonable intelligence voluntarily discussing the issue with presumably no major vested interest in the outcome beyond that of an ordinary citizen can't agree then there's your answer to much of it.

What we say or believe is not the real issue.
It's about what the science tells us.
I don't care if people do not accept it - that's for them to resolve.
But to pretend to understand what is happening, and posting rubbish to sustain their pretense, gives us all clues to the deeper problem.
Whatever their motivations, it has nothing to do with being credible.

 

[Struzball]

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

Is it?

 

[kahuna1]

After being bleached a couple of times in 5 years, yes ! It is dead.

https://theconversation.com/how-muc...eat-barrier-reefs-worst-bleaching-event-69494

66% was gone then ... in 2016 ,,, it just got cooked AGAIN.

This was 2016 .... NOT 2019 ... after 2018/19 event which was ... WORSE than any ever seen. This is what is left ... 100% now of 300 Reefs have coral bleaching, the further north one goes its worse.

 

[Struzball]

2018/19 event which was ... WORSE than any ever seen.

Was it?
I haven't heard of the 2019 bleaching event. Particularly strange since you say apparently it's worse than the 2015/16 event which was caused by the 2015/16 super El Niño.

 

[explod]

Was it?
I haven't heard of the 2019 bleaching event. Particularly strange since you say apparently it's worse than the 2015/16 event which was caused by the 2015/16 super El Niño.

Not strange at all as such news is bad for big business which has the greatest control over the press, and with an election on the right wing press are vehemently downramping.

 

[kahuna1]

Well ...

If you do 40 hours research ... use google ... OR .. look back on this thread, as was suggested, with sources, you will find all out about it.

If you look at the above pretty picture ... it comes from the GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK AUTHORITY .... which is one source then a few others like the Universities and so on used as the source. Google their website and read.



Take care

PS, someone on this thread, no matter what is said ... demands source ... but when given source, evidence and so on .... ignores it totally. I was Naughty ... on this thread and one link, the first one ... was on dealing with dementia delusions and not a peep out of them, so I do know ... its rarely ever followed up upon. Even if you do take the time to share source. I already have, in this case, on this thread.

 

[basilio]

If a relatively small number of people of reasonable intelligence voluntarily discussing the issue with presumably no major vested interest in the outcome beyond that of an ordinary citizen can't agree then there's your answer to much of it.

Business will do whatever makes them money. Politicians will do whatever gets them elected. Every industry, trade and professional body will promote whatever's good for that industry, trade or profession. CO2's on the agenda only if it benefits the other objectives.

Those on the "green" side will likely take exception to my comments but fact is that the world is hitting new highs in emissions. Nothing done over the past 30+ years of mainstream awareness has been sufficient to fix the problem. Actually fixing it thus requires a different approach.

Crazy isn't it ? Smurf teases out the political "reality". Business will only be interested in money. Politicians are only interested in being elected. All the other industry/trade/professional groups will only promote what is "good" for their interest.

And so we come to a seemingly inevitable conclusion don't we? The fact that the planet is rapidly heating and the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists say that the extra GG gases humans have produced is the cause for this situation is .... irrelevant.

The fact that life on earth will become impossible for most current species unless we radically reduce GG to somehow slow down these temperature increases is also... irrelevant - at least according Smurfs analysis.

The fact that around the world we are watching a rapidly changing climate thaw our icecaps, melt glaciers, heat the ocean to the point that coral reefs are dying around the world ectera , ectera is just Not. That. Important. Not Really.

This morning I posted the address of Greta Thunberg to the UK parliament. She is just 16 Years old and no genius. Her capacity is recognising the reality of what is happening in the world and the fact that unless the current crop of leaders are forced to treat CC like the unfolding catastrophe it is she has no future.

Neither of course do the other 7 billion people on earth and in particular her contemporaries. Us old xarts can somehow hope we fall off the perch before the merde truly hits the fan.

I agree with Smurf that ASF is a microcosm of the world. Our inability to collectively recognize this truly desperate situation for what it is reflects the bigger picture. Perhaps something to think about ?

 

[Struzball]

If you do 40 hours research ... use google ... OR .. look back on this thread, as was suggested, with sources, you will find all out about it..

I did look back on the thread, for 10 pages or so, but all I could find was you saying 75% coral death between 1985 and now. It's not really going to add any value to the world if I just quote some guy from a stock forum called kahuna1. So I wanted to know what source, or what metric is used to determine that sort of coral mortality. I don't know what the methodology for determining reef coverage was in 1985, or if anybody even measured it.

I have no doubt that year on year bleaching events kills coral.

I'd be interested in reading more about long term GBR health studies.

Particularly interested in coral bleaching event in 2019, and what caused it, without the 2015-16 super El Niño.

 

[kahuna1]

Marine park authority as suggested.

2019 event ... and being pedantic was flooding .. in case you missed it ... a storm . and a few on the scale seen once in 250 years. Normally runoff only hits about 700 out of 3000 of the Reefs but a bit more this time. 2018 after last survey in 2016-17, got hit again over the head ... via temperature ... this was all over the media when released in 2019 or so I thought and this was the 2016/17 survey. New York times declared the reef dead as was contained in the 2016/17 paper and its results, it came out by the way early 2019 the paper on the 2016/17 survey of coral reefs.

Right now a survey half way through ... like the 2016-17 one and results unlikely till late 2020 of NOT 2021 !! Lizard Island reports the reef as being in a shocking state from the research station there.

But who cares, its all ... fake .... Pauline Hanson told me !!

It takes over 5 years and in fact 15 to recover from an Elnino event, or ultra hot water temp. When its occurring seemingly every 2-3 years, the likelihood of the Reef Being 10% of its size in 2050 v 1985 is not great. Then again, what does the Great Barrier Reef Authority know ? Or Cook University and a list of others easily found.

I find on a simple search of Great Barrier reef and bleaching the report, the findings of 3 universities and 20 odd media articles about the 2016.17 survey.

Good luck

 

[kahuna1]

I don't think it's a hoax, I think it's entirely political. Scientists can't do science without money.
Somebody has to be willing to pay them for some reason.

If you look back 10-50 million years, then yeah, the Earth's temperature is generally in a steady decline.

Why ... why did I bother replying ? Your views, are similar if not identical to Pauline Hansons. Possibly you are the carrot headed one ? Why did you put out that video ?

here is the earlier version and video of her spokesperson.



He is proud to be a Ginger !!

It is worth repeating ...

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 !!

Your clearly held view is that science does not matter ... its all a conspiracy.

 

[Struzball]

Update 10: 1 March 2019
While we are now into March, we will continue to keep a close eye on the Reef and publish these updates over the coming weeks. It is still possible to have warmer sea surface temperatures causing thermal stress and it is still the cyclone season.

As we move from the end of summer, there’s been no significant coral bleaching on the Reef.

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/the-reef/reef-health/reef-health-updates-summer-2018-19

I guess GBRMPA are all gingers then, because they say there's no significant coral bleaching this year.

 

[basilio]

Update 10: 1 March 2019
While we are now into March, we will continue to keep a close eye on the Reef and publish these updates over the coming weeks. It is still possible to have warmer sea surface temperatures causing thermal stress and it is still the cyclone season.

As we move from the end of summer, there’s been no significant coral bleaching on the Reef.

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/the-reef/reef-health/reef-health-updates-summer-2018-19

I guess GBRMPA are all gingers then, because they say there's no significant coral bleaching this year.

Or perhaps they have a broader view of the impacts on the reef ?
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-work/threats-to-the-reef/climate-change

 

[kahuna1]

Heat related .... dummy ...

Did they have a storm ? a flood in 2019 ? I do think so !!

Then again, your view is that storms seen once every 250 years are NOT climate related even when they hit twice in 10 years. I did read your posts from the Fake News climate change blog ...
Flood plumes

Tropical cyclone Trevor caused substantial flooding in several river systems in the far northern management area of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Some rivers, like the Normanby and Pascoe rivers, reached their highest flood height on record (since 1960s).

Satellite imagery shows plumes reaching mid-shelf reefs around the Lockhart River region, and significantly lower than average salinity levels were recorded by the Marine Monitoring Program at mid-shelf reefs off Cooktown.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

If you had a brain ... and googled ...

Summary for 2018 report ....

• Coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) has continued to decline due to the cumulative impacts of multiple, severe disturbances over the past four years, including coral bleaching, cyclones and crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks.
• Reefs in all regions of the GBR (North, Central and South) were affected by different disturbances at different times.
• Trends in mean hard coral cover on reefs in all three regions now show a steep decline; this has not been observed in the historical record.

https://www.aims.gov.au/reef-monitoring/gbr-condition-summary-2017-2018

Mean coral cover declined from 22% in 2016 to 14% in 2018.

As of early 2017, coral cover on the AIMS survey reefs in the Northern GBR was less than half of what it was in 2013, due to mortality caused by two severe cyclones, an ongoing crown‐of‐thorns starfish outbreak and severe coral bleaching in 2016
The Central region
2018 found coral cover had declined to 14% due to coral bleaching in 2016 and again in 2017
The geographic scale of recent bleaching means that breeding populations of corals have been decimated over large areas, reducing the potential sources of larvae to recolonise reefs over the next years. It is unprecedented in the 30+ year time series that all three regions of the GBR have declined and that many reefs have now very low coral cover.

I personally think ... 14% ,,, IS a pretty awful number !!

How about YOU ?

Stating its at 25% or so ... is factual and backed UP. If anything ultra conservative.

Then again, not that it will matter. Any and all scientific evidence even from source is too be ignored.

As I said, Northern corals reefs are in very serious trouble, if not extreme trouble and runoff followed by what appears to be every 2 years very hot water, does WONDERS for Coral or is a cover of 14% WITH severe bleaching, as of 2018 .... not dead, but ... well after some runoff in 2019 will it be ? I don't know. It needs 15 years of NO hot water to have any hope of recovery and that seems as likely as you will accept there is any issue with climate change.

Debating whilst Rome is burning ? Not that we can stop this event, its deny deny deny their is any issue at all !! Stuff me ... 14% cover and that was bleached prior to having to deal with runoff this year. Golly are the Northern coral reefs that bad ? IT seems to be the case according to

The Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) is Australia’s tropical marine research agency.

Apparently YOU do know more than them .... prey tell ... I cant wait ... hold on a sec ... have a cat in the microwave still !!

Please inspire us all.

What does 14% mean ? Of that severely bleached mean ? And at 14% cover verses base of 100% ?

What does this mean ? not been observed in the historical record.

Do you think storm runoff in 2019 will help things ? Apparently so.

thanks for the public display of how correct my theory in the previous post is.


I leave with this .... corals have been decimated over large areas .. sounds good !!

 

[Smurf1976]

Crazy isn't it ? Smurf teases out the political "reality". Business will only be interested in money. Politicians are only interested in being elected. All the other industry/trade/professional groups will only promote what is "good" for their interest.

It's a perspective that isn't how I'd like the world to be but it's how things are.

As a case in point, AGL.

The company is Australia's largest coal user, they also mine the stuff, and has total CO2 emissions more than twice as high as anyone else.

Now AGL do have a plan and that plan is to cease using coal completely by 2048. In doing this their plan is to close 25% of the company's coal-fired power generating capacity in 2022 rising to 66% by 2035 and the rest by 2048.

Given it's a for-profit listed company, overall I'd say it's not a bad response. They're supposed to be making money for shareholders not losing it and from an environmental perspective it's a major step forward.

Practical reality though is the whole thing has brought nothing but conflict.

On one hand there has been opposition from the sillier elements of the environmental movement to the company's plan to invest $200 million improving fuel efficiency and output at the Bayswater plant which they intend to operate through to 2035. Those opposed wanted a far more costly improvement which, given the intent is to close the plant 12 years after completion of the upgrade, just doesn't stack up as a business proposal.

On the other hand government has given the company one hell of a bashing publicly for doing too much to reduce their use of coal, threatening all manner of things going as far as forced sale of assets.

In view of all that, well it's not hard to see why there's a lot of sitting on hands and saying nothing going on across the industry. Someone "big" sticks their head up, announces a major plan funded entirely at private expense, and gets whacked by everyone from environmentalists to government for doing so.

My own view is quite simple really. If the biggest emitter in the country is saying they're going to get out of coal completely by a set date, and are going to do a quarter of it within 5 years, then I'll take that as being a big step forward and won't quibble on whatever imperfections I happen to notice about their plans. They're a business, they need to make money, and there's a lot of different aspects to balance in all of that and if those imperfections are how they're saving or making money then I'll live with them yes.

Ideology is what stops progress on all this. Ideology from a government that wants to burn coal for the sake of burning coal and ideology from supposed environmental groups who object to any plan that isn't 100% perfect rather than accepting real progress when it's offered.

Much the same could be said for plenty of other things. Ideas rejected because they don't suit whatever ideology despite being a big step forward. End result is not much gets achieved.

 

[qldfrog]

So True Smurf, and we should all remember that the only reason we do not have a carbon pricing of some sort in Oz is that the greens thought the Labor scheme was not enough during the Rudd/Gilliard years...
Had they had any clue, we would have a framework in place [however full of flaws it was in my opinion], and it would have provided some direction for power generators and industry, and reduce our CO2 output.
Next time you have a blackout down South while we are still belching CO2 like Chinese, thanks the greens...
Looking convoluted? maybe but I think from an impartial look, this is sadly true
Greenpeace might get some likes on FB but WWF does some real environmental work

 

[rederob]

Looking convoluted? maybe but I think from an impartial look, this is sadly true

No - just looking typically ill informed, as are most of your comments.
The Coalition could have supported carbon pricing, but they did not.
Your blaming of the Greens and China for just about everything you spout shows how narrow minded some in Australia can be.
The industrial revolution kicked off a few centuries ago but China only came to the party in the 1980s. its gross emissions only exceeded the USA's for the first time in the 21st century.
Blaming a country with 4 times the population of the USA and a lesser level of per capita CO2 emissions, which has been outspending the USA for about 10 years in renewables - at a rate presently near$3 to $1 - is only something a person of deficient intellect would be doing. And despite being linked information to show that claims such as yours are not sound, you nevertheless persist.

Next time you have a blackout down South while we are still belching CO2 like Chinese, thanks the greens...

Next time there is load shedding in Oz, blame the politicians who have been steadfastly rejecting carbon pricing, and have stymied national energy policy such that there can be no certainty for potential investors.

 

[chiff]

When you consider George Pell and his faithful acolyte Tony Abbott,both believe in God but not in climate change.For one you have evidence and for the other you do not-it is a matter of faith.Go figure?

 

[kahuna1]

A quick footnote to the 40 ... hours I spent on just the Great Barrier reef ... likely 100 hrs or more.

The Marine Park Authority I knew dumbed down and downplayed the impacts. It on one hand is used for TOURISTS and on the other, does some publishing of results.

So I decided to read, the latest and then go through the reefs individually. ones NOT altered by runoff or crown of thorns, ones basically in the outlying region.

I shared some above, but ... for the vast MAJORITY .... sadly the say 1980 Coral cover is NOW around the 12-14% in 2019 for virtually every single reef, ALL OF THEM .... the Southern Ones do better but lack the diversity and when a Reef, depending on where it is, will go from say 60% to 4% Coral cover and the average cover was 60% in the whole of the 1980's average and its now 4% is NOT usual. Some very very popular tourist destinations and names, cover is ... well ... unlikely .. EVER ... EVER to recover even NOW, let alone by 2050.

Sobering when one reads the source as I gave when I knew giving the politically correct GBMA would of course have doubters, v the actual source of their politically correct watered down stuff, when a Reef has gone to 12.5% of what it was ... and the cover, due to where it is was never great, and its down to 3% COVER, verses 24% ave for the 1980's and same for 1990;s and same for 2000-2010 period then hit over the head ... three times for some ... twice for others via being warmed, its ... unlikely they exist as I said by 2050. and in some cases 2025.

The overall average as of 2019, and I used the conservative overall 2018 number .... at 75% gone, in 2018, initial reefs in 2019 and findings looks a LOT WORSE. Those that did not get hit by floods, nor for SOME not hit by heat in 2018/19 but SOME WERE ... they did not recover or regrow and regrowing something that's 12% of what it was ... and expecting NO new heat events is bloody unlikely.

Not happy. Just sad. But still deny deny deny ... its not a problem, Vote one Pauline Hanson or Liberal party or Trump !!