Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

Interesting.

Whilst any action, any is positive, the scale and scope is well beyond even his wildest nightmares. As someone who looks at models, economic and predictive ones, AI and trying to predict the future with any accuracy is possible via learning from history. Some and most of climate change is already well documented or very simple chemical reactions that occur the same way time and time and time again.

Here in 2018, or 2019, with some very large and comprehensive reports oiut late 2018, WHAT IS NOT contained in most projections, covered and not to be alarmist is quite stunning. Largest is that even via Kyoto and other measures, its NOT going to reduce CO2 but due to political pressure and economic one merely the RATE of increase. If one delves into the predictive models and some have been shocker from the past, the MODELS out of late 2018 without exception have MISSING or totally bullshoot .... inputs due to lack of actual data, so political powers forced them either to be removed TOTALLY or IGNORED due to true irrefutable empirical data.

Sure for a scientists, maybe doing so, leads NOT to stupid assumptions, but even this said the assumptions are chilling USING what are bogus inputs to start with, such as assuming ocean temperature HAS NOT risen due to CO2 when quite clearly this is NOT the case. Even this to one side, the NOISE .... the end date the 50,000 scientists arrived at was 400 years or so in the future. Stephen had 200 years .... ME about the same .... not that I matter. The question is WHEN is the tipping point, the point at which we can alter some of the impacts ? Or save humanity ? I suspect its already passed.

Sure, I suspect some will survive, but certainty not 10 billion needing every inch of 50 million sq km arable land to feed themselves. Not even 1 billion. One of the biggest missing things other than ocean acidification and temperature rise, when the bloody ocean provides over 50% of the Oxygen we breathe and soaks up around 70% of the heat and post 1999 ARGUS buoys sinking and rising to 2000 meter depths have quite clearly shown a stark rise in the ocean temp is the frozen Methane and plant matter MISSING .... BOTH MISSING totally from all current climate change models.

With 1.7-3 trillion estimated tons of CO2, frozen there, and it being in ARCTIC regions .... and a lot of it initially released as METHANE ... which frankly is a time bomb temperature wise, to have ANY and all impact REMOVED from climate models in light of ARTIC ice almost disappeared is absurd. Insane and as recent events post these reports show, its whether it takes 20 years or 200 years to release the stuff, in the end, irrelevant because its 100 times faster than ever before and age of this bio mass was deposited over 2,000 to 12,000 years and having it released in either 20 or 200 years makes the future security and food security of a planet now with 10 billion apes on it v NONE and how it was ok 65 million years ago an aside. Who is going to feed us the banana's ?

Sad, depressing and maybe ... maybe we get to zero or 25% CO2 by humans by 2050 and capturing it all by 2075 and soaking up some of this unavoidable mess we have created by 2100. Unlikely ... sadly but by then, sure only 4 degrees a lot of it in Arctic regions up by 8-10 degrees .... but the proverbial Humpty Dumpty egg has fallen and cant be put back together. We cannot reverse what has been done. Cannot change what is likely to occur, we can maybe mitigate it and slow it and eventually reverse some of it in 200 or so years, but its doubtful Humanity as a species can pull together in one way.

Happy happy happy ...

I appreciate what you are saying and indeed it may all come to pass.
I know that George Monbiot (and others....) came to similar conclusions reviewing the evidence. But in the end we can only live one day at a time and do the very best we can to help create a different future.
Allowing our head space to be totally xucked doesn't help.
Yeah ?

 

[kahuna1]

Haha ...

I deal with realities, planting a hectare of trees removes 4 tons per year of CO2. Planting 1 sq km or 100 hectares 400 tons, with all available land pretty much under crop or pasture, if, and IF ... we planted 5 MILLION sq km of land ... deserts ... it would remove for about 50 years, a mere 200 million tons of CO2.

Yes a good thing, but I suspect something the guy you quoted is aware of the math. When we put 35 billion tons into the air each year, removing 200 million tons is, well .... good but ... NOT a solution. I am not hysterical as this thread suggests, just a realist. I do know there are better ways of removing CO2 and whilst trees, planting 5 million SQ km year one then YEAR 2 .... by year 20 all land ... ALL even the top of mount Everest would be covered at the end of the carbon cycle for trees they burn ... or rot and new ones grow up, its not captured forever. Even then 200 mill v 35 billion rising to 40 billion is ... well under 2% by 2075, is NOT a solution some seem to think r believe it is.

There is hope, a small window, depends more on Arctic Methane and its rate of release again NOT covered in any predictive model used by governments yet, sadly a reality.

As I said I try and deal with realities and eventually, whether via massive disaster which probability rises above 50% post 2050 to 85% if not 90% by 2100 of a global crop fail ... humanity, as we know it, changes, or does not. Davos forum did not deal with either tax theft, inequality or climate change and the Oligarchy meeting prior to it was, as per normal more concerned with ... their own issues. Me I am just the guy who, well .... writes stuff, checks projections and at times annoys the hell out of them via asking stupid but obvious questions.

I will not be around either way. I suspect I will see in coming years, a rising CH4 Methane count and exponentially rising one at that. First it heats at 26 times CO2 then via chemistry breaks down to CO2 and H2O but the breakdown rate already has gone 40% from a mere 20 years ago.

Sorry to be a realist, but when the things in the atmosphere that break down one of the worst greenhouse gasses become less and less, I do wonder is even my just assuming the rate of breakdown stays the same and the release is kept to say 100 years v what seems likely 20-30 ... in 100 years, humanity as we know it, around for 100,00 years or modern times say 2000 BC till now, an eye-blink geologically is in for an interesting 200 years. One which, WILL DEFINE us and likely, without early action, redefine the ability of this planet with an ocean so acidic that most life there stops by 2200 or so, heated to 36 degrees at the equator which the deniers seem to have forgotten the last time 65 million years ago occurred, its a race, for who or what survives post 2300.

Oh happy U tube on Permafrost with most of the guys I follow and have met, all ignored .... out of current models speaking on the topic. the best guy, from Oxford is NOT in there, he is more Melting Ice v Permafrost

I do what I can ... and thats, a fair bit.
For the first link ... the deniers claim ice is NOT melting and its NASA ... over 20 years of artic ice covering this Methane Bomb


the second one ...
well its all methane so to speak !!


why or HOW people deny this issue is not beyond me. Its all about self interest and money. Times are a changing. OLDEST PERMAFROST is actually over a million years old. I am not sure they mention the total number ... but its about 50 years of current emissions BUT ... at 26 times the impact due to it being CH4 first then ... CO2 ... Methane hits a lot harder in temperature change ... a well known and simple chemical reaction. So does 1,300 years or doubling of current CO2 impact anything happening in the space of 50 years ?

Yep inevitable as such, cant be stopped even if we tried right NOW ... we can Limit however the diabolical impacts, if we try. IF .... if NOT ... when DEEP permafrost is warming 1.6 degrees kelvin .... DEEP as in 200 meters deep ... stopping this, is not possible. Its changed already. What we do from here, as a species I will watch and try to change.

Enough sharing from me for a while.

 

[Darc Knight]

Geebus. Just did a Google and found this page on Artic Methane

http://climateye.org/compilation-ca...e-time-bomb-and-the-global-climate-emergency/
"Compilation: Catastrophic Arctic ‘death spiral’ meltdown / imminent mass methane ‘time bomb’ release and the global climate EMERGENCY"

 

[kahuna1]

Yep.. depressing but ...

there is darkness always before the light.
Hope still exists and its a matter of human brilliance verses indifference or greed and misinformation.

Time will tell and either way its post 2050 for the big big stuff. Time however as the realists say was 20 years ago to do something, now would be preferred, but even now the plan is lacking to limit the increase size ? Oh well. These things seem to go from crisis to crisis, this time, the crisis that maybe convinces humanity of an issue will be far too late. It is already now, to stop or reverse things like arctic ice going, or CO2 likely exploding post 2050 as the Arctic ice melts and heats the permafrost. Not include in ANY single predictive model due to political measures.

Oh well ... love my Galah ...

Cheers

 

[kahuna1]

Why only 200 million tons removed plating trees ... vs 2 billion ? One may have noted the apparent mistake in the above post.

Reason being is that trees die and rot or are burnt and capture of CO2 whilst good, is NOT forever and a cycle begins if we plant more trees, one that well ... goes round and round and actually unless frozen and captured or CO2 removed, the gain is not a lot about 2% ....

Do it grow something, capture pure CO2 and put it 2,000 meters into the ground and its gone for good, or a very long time if done well. there are better things than trees to capture CO2, best of all needs a lot of energy and unless cold fusion is invented, we will need a lot of different solutions from reducing emissions by man eventually to NET 25% then ZERO then going the other side and capturing for a long time the 2 trill tons we have sent by now then the 2 trillion of so frozen in the arctic and then add however much at 35-40 billion tons we emit from now on. Daunting, but possible. As to the ocean and warming aspects, Coral is gone, forget even trying, what can hopefully be limited is acidification beyond a level too far beyond the 7.8 level which I suspect is 2060 or so v estimates of 2120.

Just thought I would correct that, apparent error. Plant a tree is a good thing, but the cycle of life and CO2 life is what it is.

Take care
Mark K

 

[Logique]

I remember,a few years ago now,seeing Mombiot demolish Ian Plimer in debate re global warming.

No he didn't. He delivered a monologue, with the complicity of the tv host. Plimer wasn't allowed to speak.

 

[Logique]

Just more spin doctoring , the fact is he said " even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems " . Fact is he was wrong , what about those dams and rivers in QLD that flooded ? See the latest news from NSW , wrong again .
You see the problem I have with all this is that anyone that offers a different opinion to the climate change brigade is they are immediately called a denialist or sceptic. I personally think that something is happening , the reasons may be varied from mainly natural occurring change with a little bit of added pressure due to mankind.
However the Climate change extremist do themselves no favours by pushing extremist views upon the population of this planet. Tim Flannery is one of these extremist , and by the way isn't he a Geologist last time I looked and not a Meteorologist ?
Again we today we see the ABC climate change pushes airing another article from NASA about sea levels rising to at least one meter in the next 100 to 200 years.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-27/sea-levels-set-to-rise-nasa-says/6728008
I wonder how Tim will fair in his waterside home on the Hawksbury ?
This fear based marketing is for one reason and one reason only. To make some individuals and the UN very rich from Carbon based trading schemes or similar projects.

'..even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems..' Indeed, there's video of him saying it.
'..denialist or sceptic' Or 'racist'. It's code for 'shutup'.

 

[rederob]

'..even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems..' Indeed, there's video of him saying it.
'..denialist or sceptic' Or 'racist'. It's code for 'shutup'.

A principal theme of science denial is to not use science to construct an argument.
Instead, find something you can quote out of context that is insignificant in the greater scheme of things, an beat it to death.

Plimer wasn't allowed to speak.

Too funny - must have been another debate than that with Tony Jones, as the ABC gave them near equal air time.
Aside from a lot changing in the last 7 years to confirm the science is solid, Plimer offered nothing scientific in his replies back then, and nothing thereafter in any of his contributions on climate.

 

[basilio]

A principal theme of science denial is to not use science to construct an argument.
Instead, find something you can quote out of context that is insignificant in the greater scheme of things, an beat it to death.

Worth repeating, and repeating and repeating.
Because that is the only thing that deniers have in this debacle.

 

[kahuna1]

Hahah ...

Hysteria is uncontrolled excitement or emotion. I know the title of this thread is meant to be ANTI Greenhouse issues or climate or warming ....

But I sadly have to admit to Hysteria and at times uncontrolled emotion when I listen and look at the hard science. The main emotion is one of fear, then despair, then anger at the plonkers denying it, paid for by Oligarchy and Koch Brothers who are coal barons. Sorry if its off topic, taking the title literally and sharing my hysteria on what I suspect with very good cause will be a Hysteria that becomes almost universal within 100 years.

Have fun
Mark K

 

[rederob]

Hysteria is uncontrolled excitement or emotion. I know the title of this thread is meant to be ANTI Greenhouse issues or climate or warming ....

Logically the thread title cuts both ways.
One aspect is where science has the issue of a probable climate pathway which is potentially catastrophic in terms of many of its effects, viz. drought, floods, inundations and more severe weather events. So when the media pick up on these probabilities we get the inevitable hysteria being generated because the story lines could hardly be more exaggerated.
While it's generally not the science community drumming up hysteria, it is based on science, and it may well eventuate - with the caveat that it can largely be avoided. We cannot get away from the fact that there is a pretty miserable outlook for global climate without mitigation action being taken.
The other aspect is then countering often extreme claims from science deniers because they literally have no idea what they are talking about. Another way of putting it is that they turn an immediately improbable event into a definite disaster. They take great delight in whipping up hysteria, and when they cannot, they create straw men.
I burn straw men.

 

[qldfrog]

Do not loose hope.a new plague killing 25pc of mankind plus ongoing crisis wiping out many more could sort it all for us
Plenty of peoplr ready to help now in a God's name, and seeing how hysteria can take hold, soon maybe in global warming name.
But i appreciate at last the realism: yes we can not change or even pretend to lessen this from happening with our current population.so save our koalas to give them a chance if mankind take a hit

 

[Darc Knight]

Do not loose hope.a new plague killing 25pc of mankind plus ongoing crisis wiping out many more could sort it all for us
Plenty of peoplr ready to help now in a God's name, and seeing how hysteria can take hold, soon maybe in global warming name.
But i appreciate at last the realism: yes we can not change or even pretend to lessen this from happening with our current population.so save our koalas to give them a chance if mankind take a hit

How would a plague killing 25% of the population help us turn back global warming, unless the 25% are the deniers?
As the big kahuna said even cutting emissions to zero wouldn't stop the cycle for many years.

Once this Article Methane cycle ramps up, it's all over red rover

 

[rederob]

How would a plague killing 25% of the population help us turn back global warming, unless the 25% are the deniers?

You mean they have been responsible all this time and I never knew .
DK, yo da man when it comes to spotting a quick fix .

Once this Article Methane cycle ramps up, it's all over red rover

Wait, I think I have the solution - well, half of it...

 

[qldfrog]

How would a plague killing 25% of the population help us turn back global warming, unless the 25% are the deniers?
As the big kahuna said even cutting emissions to zero wouldn't stop the cycle for many years.

Once this Article Methane cycle ramps up, it's all over red rover

If mankind collapses, Emission will collapse and earth will recover unless we are past the collapse point, and if we are past, we are past and nothing to be done about it.
The green movement has been unable to save the planet due to a leftist PC view which prevent it from focusing on overpopulation with non white colour skin.
Add economic growth obsession, migrants fascination and here we are 50y later asking countries with declining emissions and reducing native population to sacrifice everything while for example coal indian import reached 175mil tons last year..imports only...
That's 3 times the whole export of Australia to put things in perspective
We do not have a greenhouse issue, we have an overpopulation one.
Cause or effect..what is the best way to tackle a problem?
But it is too late unless the cause is dramatically removed/suppressed

 

[Logique]

Damn you global warming! The Greenhouse Effect is spreading, it's now boiling the Midwest!

Polar Vortex to Grip Midwest With Most Extreme Cold in a Generation
Jan 28, 2019, By Mitch Smith: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/us/polar-vortex-cold-weather.html
CHICAGO — Two of the most dreaded words in a Midwestern weather forecast — “polar vortex” — returned this week, promising life-threatening low temperatures that could shatter records and plunge much of the region into its deepest freeze in decades...

 

[Darc Knight]

Damn you global warming! The Greenhouse Effect is spreading, it's now boiling the Midwest!

View attachment 91768

Surely there's other less serious topics you can amuse yourself taking the pee out of?

 

[rederob]

If mankind collapses, Emission will collapse and earth will recover unless we are past the collapse point, and if we are past, we are past and nothing to be done about it.
The green movement has been unable to save the planet due to a leftist PC view which prevent it from focusing on overpopulation with non white colour skin.
Add economic growth obsession, migrants fascination and here we are 50y later asking countries with declining emissions and reducing native population to sacrifice everything while for example coal indian import reached 175mil tons last year..imports only...
That's 3 times the whole export of Australia to put things in perspective
We do not have a greenhouse issue, we have an overpopulation one.
Cause or effect..what is the best way to tackle a problem?
But it is too late unless the cause is dramatically removed/suppressed

Really ill informed comments:
Deal with what we know, and a collapse of civilisations is fanciful right now.
Next, the green movement has zero to do with colour of anyone's skin: Total fail on that one.
The green movement continues to fight for environmental issues and has had many wins despite being a political non-event and having meagre finances.
Your idea that we are "asking countries with declining emissions and reducing native population to sacrifice everything" is false.
Your claim about India ignores the fact that Australia emits CO2 at 10 times the rate of India. Seems you would rather keep them a third world economy than let them progress as we have.
Your claim that we do "we do not have a greenhouse issue" defies science.
Your claim that we have an "overpopulation" issue is beyond farcical: Australia ranks at 235 in population density among about 240 nations.

 

[cynic]

For the benefit of those interested in viewing facts (irrespective of whether, or not, those facts conform with one's favoured opinion), some actual data comparing India to Australia.
https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/india/australia?sc=XNC1

Note that this table demonstrates that in years as recent as 2017, India's CO2 emissions were approximately 6 times that of Australia's!

 

[rederob]

For the benefit of those interested in viewing facts (irrespective of whether, or not, those facts conform with one's favoured opinion), some actual data comparing India to Australia.
https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/india/australia?sc=XNC1

Note that this table demonstrates that in years as recent as 2017, India's CO2 emissions were approximately 6 times that of Australia's!

Facts have nothing to do with opinions - your comprehension skills continue to be lacking.
Official Australian government data show CO2 emissions at over 21 tonnes per person at June 2018.
This compares with your estimate and that of others of about 1.8 tonnes per person.
The maths do not support your claims.