PLEASE NOTE: In order to post on the Board you need to have registered. To register please email paul@sexyloops.com including your real name and username. Registration takes less than 24hrs, unless Paul is fishing deep in the jungle!
Global Warming
- Paul Arden
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19583
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:20 am
- Location: Belum Rainforest
- Contact:
Global Warming
https://reut.rs/2FNoJG7
I believe that there is absolutely no way whatsoever that politicians in their current state will solve this problem. In democracies they exist on 4-5 year life cycle. Most people dont care anyway because they’ll be long dead when it matters and there are more immediate problems in their lives.
Apart from the possible extinction of man, it will probably create refugees on an unprecedented scale, famine and no doubt war.
I’ve been trying to think of a solution to this and what is really needed is one government, one state, and not 200+ in competition. The past two years with US and UK has really taken a step backwards for the benefits of democracy. Some sort of big brother communist society is probably exactly what is required for long term survival.
I thought the European Union was creating a great mindset. But with Brexit and the Far Right growing in popularity I fear that will hit a dead end.
Anyway it’s all hypothetical and most or all of us will be unaffected. Although others will be very much affected by what we do now. It’s a campfire discussion...
Cheers, Paul
I believe that there is absolutely no way whatsoever that politicians in their current state will solve this problem. In democracies they exist on 4-5 year life cycle. Most people dont care anyway because they’ll be long dead when it matters and there are more immediate problems in their lives.
Apart from the possible extinction of man, it will probably create refugees on an unprecedented scale, famine and no doubt war.
I’ve been trying to think of a solution to this and what is really needed is one government, one state, and not 200+ in competition. The past two years with US and UK has really taken a step backwards for the benefits of democracy. Some sort of big brother communist society is probably exactly what is required for long term survival.
I thought the European Union was creating a great mindset. But with Brexit and the Far Right growing in popularity I fear that will hit a dead end.
Anyway it’s all hypothetical and most or all of us will be unaffected. Although others will be very much affected by what we do now. It’s a campfire discussion...
Cheers, Paul
- Paul Arden
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19583
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:20 am
- Location: Belum Rainforest
- Contact:
Global Warming
I think you may be right on many counts, but I disagree with the statement that most of use will be unaffected. I think when things tip, it'll be a quick change for civilisation. And that may happen within the next decade.
Consider this scenario:
- All significant sea ice disappears for a brief time in the arctic circle, enabling the water to rapidly rise above 0˚C, maybe only to a few degrees above, but still warmer than it would reach had sea ice existed.
- Methane clathrates in the Arctic sea rapidly convert to gas (this is already being observed, but would jump if the sea temp rises only a few degrees above zero.
- Methane oxidises in an exothermic reaction (directly heating the atmosphere) and becoming CO2 (trapping heat from the sun and from that exothermic reaction.)
- The temperature in the northern hemisphere rises about 0.7˚C in that year.
- Drought in the northern hemisphere means grain production drops in North America and Russia, causing basic food costs to rocket.
- If the drought lasts two growing seasons, things get serious. If it's three, we are really facing a crunch.
- Hungry people tend to cause political unrest.
- Hungry people in a war zone (think "Arab Spring") don't often go to work, so those people looking after the 456 nuclear reactors in the world become pretty important. If they don't show up for work, those reactors become bombs that release ionising radiation directly into the atmosphere. It takes 10 to 20 years to safely decommission a reactor. Will that be a priority career path in a place like Syria is today? (455 of those reactors are in the northern hemisphere, by the way.)
- Current civilisation puts a lot of aerosols into the air, acting as a negative feedback on temperature. (I.E. It serves to keep the temperature below what it would otherwise be if the air were perfectly clean.) In a nasty paradox, if we stop polluting with coal and oil today, the temperature will rise about 0.5˚C from that alone.
- Without civilisation, most people in the world can't access their food supplies. How does the food (which is hard to get anyway) make its way into cities of 5 million people or more? I know I'd struggle to find a good coffee scroll if the local baker couldn't get flour. I think the only food I don't buy is fish and some lettuce, neither of which I eat enough of to survive the next year on.
Civilisation is reliant on grain production, and food production at the scale that supports 7 billion people requires civilisation. Collapse of civilisation will see a dramatic collapse of human population via starvation and the lack of medications. Three years of drought in areas where most of the world's grain is produced could see many of the world's nuclear reactors spewing radiation into the atmosphere within 5 years.
Extinction of a species is rarely due to a single factor. For us, perhaps it will be lack of food, leading to extensive wars, leading to rapid and global release of ionising radiation combined with a loss of all modern medical support.
Then again, maybe we'll get through it.
Cheers,
Graeme
Consider this scenario:
- All significant sea ice disappears for a brief time in the arctic circle, enabling the water to rapidly rise above 0˚C, maybe only to a few degrees above, but still warmer than it would reach had sea ice existed.
- Methane clathrates in the Arctic sea rapidly convert to gas (this is already being observed, but would jump if the sea temp rises only a few degrees above zero.
- Methane oxidises in an exothermic reaction (directly heating the atmosphere) and becoming CO2 (trapping heat from the sun and from that exothermic reaction.)
- The temperature in the northern hemisphere rises about 0.7˚C in that year.
- Drought in the northern hemisphere means grain production drops in North America and Russia, causing basic food costs to rocket.
- If the drought lasts two growing seasons, things get serious. If it's three, we are really facing a crunch.
- Hungry people tend to cause political unrest.
- Hungry people in a war zone (think "Arab Spring") don't often go to work, so those people looking after the 456 nuclear reactors in the world become pretty important. If they don't show up for work, those reactors become bombs that release ionising radiation directly into the atmosphere. It takes 10 to 20 years to safely decommission a reactor. Will that be a priority career path in a place like Syria is today? (455 of those reactors are in the northern hemisphere, by the way.)
- Current civilisation puts a lot of aerosols into the air, acting as a negative feedback on temperature. (I.E. It serves to keep the temperature below what it would otherwise be if the air were perfectly clean.) In a nasty paradox, if we stop polluting with coal and oil today, the temperature will rise about 0.5˚C from that alone.
- Without civilisation, most people in the world can't access their food supplies. How does the food (which is hard to get anyway) make its way into cities of 5 million people or more? I know I'd struggle to find a good coffee scroll if the local baker couldn't get flour. I think the only food I don't buy is fish and some lettuce, neither of which I eat enough of to survive the next year on.
Civilisation is reliant on grain production, and food production at the scale that supports 7 billion people requires civilisation. Collapse of civilisation will see a dramatic collapse of human population via starvation and the lack of medications. Three years of drought in areas where most of the world's grain is produced could see many of the world's nuclear reactors spewing radiation into the atmosphere within 5 years.
Extinction of a species is rarely due to a single factor. For us, perhaps it will be lack of food, leading to extensive wars, leading to rapid and global release of ionising radiation combined with a loss of all modern medical support.
Then again, maybe we'll get through it.
Cheers,
Graeme
FFi CCI
- Paul Arden
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19583
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:20 am
- Location: Belum Rainforest
- Contact:
Global Warming
Hi mate,
Well I suppose we are already seeing the effects and certainly the next generation are going to be thoroughly affected by it.
Out of curiosity do we know how long it takes for change to happen. For example is the climate being affected immediately or is there a delay - for example the climate today is because of our activity 2, 5 or 10 years ago?
Making difficult long term decisions is not something that politicians can easily make when they depend on popularity for their position. Particularly when some even deny it. And I don’t think we can put our faith in the majority either!
Cheers, Paul
Well I suppose we are already seeing the effects and certainly the next generation are going to be thoroughly affected by it.
Out of curiosity do we know how long it takes for change to happen. For example is the climate being affected immediately or is there a delay - for example the climate today is because of our activity 2, 5 or 10 years ago?
Making difficult long term decisions is not something that politicians can easily make when they depend on popularity for their position. Particularly when some even deny it. And I don’t think we can put our faith in the majority either!
Cheers, Paul
Global Warming
My understanding of it is that it takes about 30 years for the full effect of adding CO2 to today's atmosphere to be felt. In other wards, the warming we see today is due to the CO2 levels of 30 years ago. That's when the CO2 level was 350ppm (parts per million). Today, it is 410ppm and rising at about 2 or 3 ppm per year with no sign of slowing.
I don't know what temperature today's level of CO2 will deliver us in 30 years.
Politics (and the majority rule) won't work. Or should I say, it didn't work.
In Australia, the hip pocket rules the roost. The note from both sides of politics is about how it's going to cost each of us more as we reduce our CO2 footprint and is usually seen as a reason to vote against reducing our reliance on fossil carbon. From one side of politics, they try to sell it as a way of forcing us to switch to renewable sources of energy, while the other side uses the same point as a way to keep political power by promising to keep our energy cheap. I.E. one side sees high prices as a good thing for the planet tomorrow, while the other side says high prices will hurt us all today. A case of "Expensive energy to save the planet vs cheap energy to save some money."
I think we (as a society) will all keep denying it right up until we take that last slide off the cliff. By the time we finally realise we are no longer on solid ground, gravity will have taken control. It's that 30 year lag that will doom us: by the time things get hot enough to scare us, we'll be 30 years beyond being able to make a difference.*
Cheers,
Graeme
* BTW, most experts agree that 350ppm CO2 was the point where we needed to rapidly apply the brake. Some experts think we've already slid over the cliff and the rest is inevitable from this point on. Certainly, there is no global sense of urgency to get CO2 back below the safe level 350ppm.
I don't know what temperature today's level of CO2 will deliver us in 30 years.
Politics (and the majority rule) won't work. Or should I say, it didn't work.
In Australia, the hip pocket rules the roost. The note from both sides of politics is about how it's going to cost each of us more as we reduce our CO2 footprint and is usually seen as a reason to vote against reducing our reliance on fossil carbon. From one side of politics, they try to sell it as a way of forcing us to switch to renewable sources of energy, while the other side uses the same point as a way to keep political power by promising to keep our energy cheap. I.E. one side sees high prices as a good thing for the planet tomorrow, while the other side says high prices will hurt us all today. A case of "Expensive energy to save the planet vs cheap energy to save some money."
I think we (as a society) will all keep denying it right up until we take that last slide off the cliff. By the time we finally realise we are no longer on solid ground, gravity will have taken control. It's that 30 year lag that will doom us: by the time things get hot enough to scare us, we'll be 30 years beyond being able to make a difference.*
Cheers,
Graeme
* BTW, most experts agree that 350ppm CO2 was the point where we needed to rapidly apply the brake. Some experts think we've already slid over the cliff and the rest is inevitable from this point on. Certainly, there is no global sense of urgency to get CO2 back below the safe level 350ppm.
FFi CCI
- Paul Arden
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19583
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:20 am
- Location: Belum Rainforest
- Contact:
Global Warming
It reminds me very much of fishing quotas in the North Sea. Around the time when I was 20 the cod populations virtually collapsed on the East Coast through overfishing. 10 or 20 years prior to this a Cod wasn’t deemed to be called a cod until it was 8 or 10lbs. Prior to this size they are “codling”. For two years not one shore angler caught a “cod” the biggest being around a kilo. An absolute catastrophe.
For year after year the scientists said what was required to manage the respective population level (not restore the population as to what it was say in the ‘50s, but just stop the decline).
Year and year the politicians set higher quotas than was required otherwise the trawlers would be up in arms about the government taking away their livelihoods. The result was not a recovery or even a stalemate, but instead a managed decline. It seems that the only way that the environment can protect itself is when it becomes economically unfeasible to rape it any longer.
No doubt this will be the same with fossil fuels.
You would think something that will cause extreme weather, drought, famine, rising sea levels, refugees, war and possibly the extinction of man would take precedence over short term politics. Unfortunately we appear to be driven by greed and absolute disregard for the welfare of future generations.
Cheers, Paul
For year after year the scientists said what was required to manage the respective population level (not restore the population as to what it was say in the ‘50s, but just stop the decline).
Year and year the politicians set higher quotas than was required otherwise the trawlers would be up in arms about the government taking away their livelihoods. The result was not a recovery or even a stalemate, but instead a managed decline. It seems that the only way that the environment can protect itself is when it becomes economically unfeasible to rape it any longer.
No doubt this will be the same with fossil fuels.
You would think something that will cause extreme weather, drought, famine, rising sea levels, refugees, war and possibly the extinction of man would take precedence over short term politics. Unfortunately we appear to be driven by greed and absolute disregard for the welfare of future generations.
Cheers, Paul
- Paul Arden
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19583
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:20 am
- Location: Belum Rainforest
- Contact:
Global Warming
France's Macron learns the hard way: green taxes carry political risks: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-clima ... KKBN1O10B0
- Paul Arden
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19583
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:20 am
- Location: Belum Rainforest
- Contact:
Global Warming
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-clima ... KKBN1O20QE
British broadcaster and environmentalist David Attenborough on Monday urged world leaders, meeting in Poland to agree ways to limit global warming, to get on and tackle “our greatest threat in thousands of years”.
British broadcaster and environmentalist David Attenborough on Monday urged world leaders, meeting in Poland to agree ways to limit global warming, to get on and tackle “our greatest threat in thousands of years”.
Global Warming
French riots demonstrate that few people are ready to pay for climate issues. Humanity will consequently run to an end, and it is not 1% of world inhabitants (France) which will change anything. I am more than pessimistic for future when I see Trump and his friends.
The french situation is more complicate than that, some street fighters take the opportunity to burn anything and destroy shops. Just horrible. Cops are not really allowed to stop them, politician have a large responsability on this situation.
Let’s hope that Xmas will bring some peace before people protect themselves and their belongings with hunting guns (we are not in USA).
I hate 21st century
Merlin
The french situation is more complicate than that, some street fighters take the opportunity to burn anything and destroy shops. Just horrible. Cops are not really allowed to stop them, politician have a large responsability on this situation.
Let’s hope that Xmas will bring some peace before people protect themselves and their belongings with hunting guns (we are not in USA).
I hate 21st century
Merlin
Fly rods are like women, they won't play if they're maltreated
Charles Ritz, A Flyfisher's Life
Charles Ritz, A Flyfisher's Life
Global Warming
Unfortunately I feel we are doomed by the greed of the people we elect to represent us. One of my biggest issues is with 'economic growth' - we are taught to revere this as if our lives depend upon it. Just think of the news paper headlines during a down-turn, two quarters of negative growth and were into a blind panic of a recession.
However, who does economic growth benefit actually? If you look up wealth distribution data and information on poverty rates you may find data that suggests the 'uplift effect' that benefits the poor, raising them into a better standard of living is way overstated, and it's the billionaire end of the scale that massively gains.
To fuel economic growth, those in charge need population growth. They will achieve this by whatever means necessary. As such they really don't give a stuff about the resource needs and impact on the planet of all those extra people. In the UK both major political parties are identical - they argue about the minutia in order to divert attention from the bigger issues, all the while hoping we don't notice that they are all the 'wealthy elite' irrespective of whether they represent Labour or the Tory party. Who was it that coined the phrase 'two wings of the same bird'?
Unless we shoot that bird, we as a species are all doomed. The wealthy elite will have their comeuppance in the final years of anarchy though, however by then it will be too late.
However, who does economic growth benefit actually? If you look up wealth distribution data and information on poverty rates you may find data that suggests the 'uplift effect' that benefits the poor, raising them into a better standard of living is way overstated, and it's the billionaire end of the scale that massively gains.
To fuel economic growth, those in charge need population growth. They will achieve this by whatever means necessary. As such they really don't give a stuff about the resource needs and impact on the planet of all those extra people. In the UK both major political parties are identical - they argue about the minutia in order to divert attention from the bigger issues, all the while hoping we don't notice that they are all the 'wealthy elite' irrespective of whether they represent Labour or the Tory party. Who was it that coined the phrase 'two wings of the same bird'?
Unless we shoot that bird, we as a species are all doomed. The wealthy elite will have their comeuppance in the final years of anarchy though, however by then it will be too late.