Earth warming to climate tipping point, warns study > Likes and Comments
Carbon, global warming, rise of sea levels, overpopulation, ISIS and many more "niceties" are forecast for a pretty near future..Maybe we are the last generation living in the world as we know it?
i think about this somewhat often now. it's like a solipsist's fantasy- 'when i die, the universe will die with me.' climate change may not lead to the end of civilization, but a disaster on the level of global pandemics and world wars? could be. then again, i think we're always limited by imagination. i noticed this in my own reaction to trump- found myself wondering whether he is most like andrew jackson, nixon, or the second bush. or hitler or mussolini. but trump is trump, and climate change is climate change. we can draw analogies, but that's only so helpful when dealing with something unprecedented.
Carbon is a problem of convenience for many people, and I honestly understand. I dry my clothes on a clothes line during the sunny summer months to save on energy. Drying my clothes with the sun is simply something I feel I can do to use less. That being said, drying clothes in the sun is cumbersome. EVERY load of laundry I do in the summer I think about just throwing into the dryer. I don't really want to haul my laundry outside, pin it up on the line, and then later unpin it. But I do all that because, despite my strong and continuous urge to do what's easiest, I don't really want to be wasteful. Humans have the mantra of "convenience and ease above all else". We struggled for millennia to make that mantra a reality, and it's become a hard habit to break.
I have hope that we'll figure it out, but I cannot deny that the deadline is daunting (to put it kindly).
Last summer, German TV brought a dooms-day docu-drama about the next flood. They predicted, because of global-warming, the sea level will rise and change all coastlines by 2030. This was determined by the rate of melt on the polar caps. Everything on the East & West Cost of the US will be submerged to the mountains. The Gulf of Mexico will extent to Death Valley. The Central Midwest plane will extend to St. Louis. Most of England, Rome, Venice, Paris, Hamburg, New York, DC, LA, etc. will be under water. When I took Geology in college, this was predicted back in the 50s. I won't be around, but it would be interesting to see it. Happy swimming everybody!
Alex G wrote: "An increase of 1C (1.8F) will release an additional 55 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere by 2050.This could trigger a "positive feedback" and push the planet's climate system past the ..."
Forget "this could trigger positive feedback" - the feedback has to be positive. This is a classic system where Le Chatelier's principle simply does not hold. Interestingly, Arrhenius predicted this back in the 1890s and nobody took any notice. The basic problem is that currently there isn a net power input to the oceans of about 0.7 W/m^2. That may not seem like much, but integrate it over the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans and you will start to see difficulties. On the other hand, I think GR is being a little pessimistic. If the Greenland ice sheet goes, sea levels rise about 7 meters. The Arctic is irrelevant (because it is floating) and it is generally accepted that the Antarctic will probably provide something like a 30 meter rise, and maybe more. If so, much of the land remains, BUT most of the port cities do not. Bangla Desh is in real trouble, and, well, check your elevation with Google Earth.
The biggest single problem is that net power input will remain at that value for several hundred years, even of we stopped burning carbon right now. That is because the weathering of CO2 by basalt is a slow process. On the other hand, there are geoengineering possibilities that we could try now. Nobody is quite sure what the outcomes will be (because if you change the power input overdone area, you start to create a new heat engine, and the resultant climate effects are unclear) but if we do not try something, we certainly will never find out. I think we can defend our current coast (more or less) but I can't see us uniting enough to do it.
I'm interested in where this thread will end up. Too often people take the extreme views on this subject. 1-Greenland will be ice free and covered with palm trees next year! We are all going to die! Run for the hills!
2-Nothing humans do or have done will ever impact the earth!
In my opinion both views are naïve and counter-productive. That being said the earth runs on geologic processes that take far longer than anyone has been recording them. Human history is replete with mini ice ages and periods of warming. Most known ones happened before the industrial revolution which is the most commonly pointed to cause for climate change. But to show how little we understand how these processes work one only needs to look back the few decades anyone has been keeping a watchful eye on things. In the 70's it was global cooling. In the 80's and 90's global warming would be out of control by the end of the century. Then global cooling returned as the culprit and now most people call it climate change because they truly don't have any idea what the reality is. To say that humans haven't had any effect on the climate would be ridiculous, but geologically speaking we have only just begun to study the climate from such a view point. In the end we might not have much of an overall effect. Maybe we will. The research hasn't been going on long enough to truly make that call.
Should we take steps to take care of the planet? You bet. Will we all die in a massive inferno if we don't buy Bob's Brand Solar Panels for our houses? Marketing rubbish.
Leer's last para says it all. However, I disagree that what people thought earlier, e.g. an ice age was coming, is irrelevant. Support for a scientific theory tends to come from observations that have the fewest dependencies on other theories, and that have the fewest complicating factors. To me, the measurement of the net power input into oceans is critical. The oceans have a constant albedo integrated over time, and the fact that there is a net power input means that the planet will continue to warm until the temperatures rise sufficiently to match that power with an increased power output. (Note that power is dE/dt, E the energy form being measured. )
That's the real catastrophe: https://www.ft.com/content/606b4b8a-d... We can cope with heat and breath polluted air, but what to suffer for if there is no beer?
Nik, as a committed environmentalist, this story dismays me. It dismays me because it's BS:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/2...
Barley can grow all over the place and, as you can see, hop production is not under threat.
We need to take action to protect the Earth but unfortunately environmentalism is being hijacked by scaremongering fanatics, whose one aim is to demoralise and scare the public, so they can curtail our freedoms and grab more power and money for themselves.
They are exactly the same people behind the response to covid, but to use Mother Nature for their purposes this time is a new low. Even for them.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/2...
Barley can grow all over the place and, as you can see, hop production is not under threat.
We need to take action to protect the Earth but unfortunately environmentalism is being hijacked by scaremongering fanatics, whose one aim is to demoralise and scare the public, so they can curtail our freedoms and grab more power and money for themselves.
They are exactly the same people behind the response to covid, but to use Mother Nature for their purposes this time is a new low. Even for them.
If climate changes then many crops will be affected. France is seeing that with wine production (same for Spain). UK Vineyards are benefitting. Not seen any data on California, Aus or NZ wine.We also have migration of insects and other species. Barley is pretty tolerant to differences but extreme weather (unseasonable storms or just wet/dry variations) will impact growing cycles.
Rice production in many countries may be at risk particularly in low-lying Asian countries.
It means that the world will need to re-adjust where stuff grows. Oranges and olives in Scotland?
All good, valid points, Philip, but perspective always required. French wine exports are not exactly falling off a cliff:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1...
IMO, an unwarranted level of hysteria is being generated by some media headlines.
The industralisation of China, India and others has vastly increased man-made CO2. We can't ask them to deindustrialise so we need to cooly develop green technologies that are attractive to them, not start panicking about our own beer supply, home heating systems and the like.
Also, there's a big danger that excessive focus on CO2 will take attention/ importance away from other forms of pollution, as seen by our water companies' wretched recent behaviour.
Yes to climate change.
Yes to man contributing to it.
Yes to action being required.
No to manufactured panic in an attempt to demoralise, disorientate and control people.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1...
IMO, an unwarranted level of hysteria is being generated by some media headlines.
The industralisation of China, India and others has vastly increased man-made CO2. We can't ask them to deindustrialise so we need to cooly develop green technologies that are attractive to them, not start panicking about our own beer supply, home heating systems and the like.
Also, there's a big danger that excessive focus on CO2 will take attention/ importance away from other forms of pollution, as seen by our water companies' wretched recent behaviour.
Yes to climate change.
Yes to man contributing to it.
Yes to action being required.
No to manufactured panic in an attempt to demoralise, disorientate and control people.
Beau wrote: "All good, valid points, Philip, but perspective always required. French wine exports are not exactly falling off a cliff:https://www.statista.com/statistics/1...
I..."
No disagreement from me, unfortunately without significant public pressure at the ballot box the politicians will continue to do and authorise only what lines their pockets.
To me, the biggest danger is sea level rise. Look at the money required to move all our coastal cities, then consider that the ice sheets are not in equilibrium. If there is net melting, then to stop it we have to take out the levels of CO2, and other gases, back to where they were before such net melting started. Trying to hold it to where we are now merely locks in the current rate of net melting.Unfortunately, politicians these days are not very good at getting something done, and the slowness of the developing problem means they think they can defer it to future politicians. They can't, and such deferral simply means more of the consequences get locked in.
As for wine in NZ, when I was young it was felt that grapes could only be grown and give reasonable wine in the North East of the North Island. Now there is significant wine production from around the Clutha in the South of the South Island. So our wine production areas are growing.
If beer is not endangered, the future might not be that bad after all :)
I saw the title of this thread and thought about how many times we've been told this for so many years. And if green policies that are killing our economy are working, then why aren't things getting better as promised?
Because the rest of then world is busy building new coal-fired power stations. Even if we stopped producing CO2 tomorrow, all that would do is to freeze in the rate at which things are getting worse. The real problem right now is the second differential is positive - the problem is accelerating in the worse direction.
Uk's government has decided to back track on a host of pledges as well as grant new exploration licenses. Not a good day for the planet.
Don't worry about the planet - it will keep orbiting the star. It is us on it that may have a rough time
Philip, he's tinkering with things to appeal to his core support. A national government has very little real power these days. The net zero target is legally binding and he will fall back into line when asked.
And the changes aren't all one way. Amongst them are plans to fine companies who don't sell enough heat pumps. I oppose this plan.
Most importantly of all, as Ian and I have said, what countries like the UK do in isolation will make no difference, other than to impoverish us. Ruining our country and wrecking the lives of our population is madness.
Seek to reduce our own dependence on fossil fuels and emissions - yes, but let's not tie ourselves in a straight jacket. The best thing to do is to invest in new technologies that will not just make us cleaner and greener, but appeal to the bigger countries and polluters too.
And the changes aren't all one way. Amongst them are plans to fine companies who don't sell enough heat pumps. I oppose this plan.
Most importantly of all, as Ian and I have said, what countries like the UK do in isolation will make no difference, other than to impoverish us. Ruining our country and wrecking the lives of our population is madness.
Seek to reduce our own dependence on fossil fuels and emissions - yes, but let's not tie ourselves in a straight jacket. The best thing to do is to invest in new technologies that will not just make us cleaner and greener, but appeal to the bigger countries and polluters too.
Beau wrote: "Philip, he's tinkering with things to appeal to his core support. A national government has very little real power these days. The net zero target is legally binding and he will fall back into line..."The issue on some of the row back is reducing incentive to invest for motor industry. that came on top of failure of Off-shore auction. Next came the oilfield permission. I fully expect fracking and new land coal in next few months.
I've got nothing against selling oil field rights or coal mining as short term measures per se, but only if it's deemed essential for our energy security and no public money is used to subsidise it. All public money should be invested into clean technologies to wean us off all fossil fuels. I trust Rishi to strike a balance on this.
I oppose fracking. Period - as Americans would say - over safety concerns.
I oppose fracking. Period - as Americans would say - over safety concerns.
Y'all do know that the petrochemical industry supplies far more than just fuels, right? They might not run on fossil fuels, but how many of the materials used to construct Teslas come from oil wells and refineries? Did y'all know that the main source of helium on Earth is oil wells?
J, we know the battery for Philip's new car was manufactured using African child labour and that the car itself was built using intensive amounts of fossil fuels, but I beg you not to become a denier.
Beau wrote: "J, we know the battery for Philip's new car was manufactured using African child labour and that the car itself was built using intensive amounts of fossil fuels, but I beg you not to become a denier."Just like every other battery, and vehicle... My Audi had 3 batteries and like most computers there was a lithium iron small one inside too. Those circuit boards in every car since the 1980.s were mostly if not all manufactured in Taiwan or China with elements from all over the world. Any modern car has almost as many computers as a Tesla or did people believe their Sat Nav and Engine management system was not an electronic black box. What about those wonderful catalytic converters used to reduce exhaust emissions? Does anyone believe they are a green technology. Oh remember that oil change, where did the old oil go?
Yes the Tesla is full of tech and has plastic faux leather seats and plastic trim just like every other car. It has refined rubber tyres that amazingly work on other cars with similar sized wheels.
If the argument against EV's is that their manufacturing is not green then you really need to study the composition of any new car. I have a large battery in the car. I don't have an ICE or gear box or fuel tank. They all get made too.
My argument is that you're rushing to destroy the petrochemical industry, because of diesel and gasoline, with little regard to the fact that most everything in your life relies on products of that industry other than fuel.And in case you want to believe that all of those chemicals can be replaced with soy derived replacements, where will you get the liquid helium to cool things like MRI machines once all of the oil wells are condemned?
There is no point arguing about manufacturing - we need the stuff. We cannot go back to early Victorian levels of fossil fuel energy usage because we would starve. Not eno0ugh horwses and not enough oats to feed them. Our population has grown to a point where we are stuck with this way of living. The point is there are ways we can keep going without wrecking the climate, but they require research and development. Had we started with full activity there in 1990 we would now finally be able to alter our economy. but since the powers that be sat on their hands, here we are.The real problem is we are not developing new technology to deal with this, or if we are it is so secretive it won't help.
J. wrote: "My argument is that you're rushing to destroy the petrochemical industry, because of diesel and gasoline, with little regard to the fact that most everything in your life relies on products of that..."The supply of helium is a problem, but should one ruin the lifestyle of everyone to get it? If we used magnets wired with the "high temperature" superconductors, nitrogen would do.
Every time I read about curtailing the oil industry, I think about just what you said, J., "Y'all do know that the petrochemical industry supplies far more than just fuels, right?" I researched this and came up with these products we depend on that rely on petroleum:One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used to make things like:
Solvents Diesel fuel Motor Oil Bearing Grease
Ink Floor Wax Ballpoint Pens Football Cleats
Upholstery Sweaters Boats Insecticides
Bicycle Tires Sports Car Bodies Nail Polish Fishing lures
Dresses Tires Golf Bags Perfumes
Cassettes Dishwasher parts Tool Boxes Shoe Polish
Motorcycle Helmet Caulking Petroleum Jelly Transparent Tape
CD Player Faucet Washers Antiseptics Clothesline
Curtains Food Preservatives Basketballs Soap
Vitamin Capsules Antihistamines Purses Shoes
Dashboards Cortisone Deodorant Shoelace Aglets
Putty Dyes Panty Hose Refrigerant
Percolators Life Jackets Rubbing Alcohol Linings
Skis TV Cabinets Shag Rugs Electrician’s Tape
Tool Racks Car Battery Cases Epoxy Paint
Mops Slacks Insect Repellent Oil Filters
Umbrellas Yarn Fertilizers Hair Coloring
Roofing Toilet Seats Fishing Rods Lipstick
Denture Adhesive Linoleum Ice Cube Trays Synthetic Rubber
Speakers Plastic Wood Electric Blankets Glycerin
Tennis Rackets Rubber Cement Fishing Boots Dice
Nylon Rope Candles Trash Bags House Paint
Water Pipes Hand Lotion Roller Skates Surf Boards
Shampoo Wheels Paint Rollers Shower Curtains
Guitar Strings Luggage Aspirin Safety Glasses
Antifreeze Football Helmets Awnings Eyeglasses
Clothes Toothbrushes Ice Chests Footballs
Combs CD’s & DVD’s Paint Brushes Detergents
Vaporizers Balloons Sun Glasses Tents
Heart Valves Crayons Parachutes Telephones
Enamel Pillows Dishes Cameras
Anesthetics Artificial Turf Artificial limbs Bandages
Dentures Model Cars Folding Doors Hair Curlers
Cold cream Movie film Contact lenses Drinking Cups
Fan Belts Car Enamel Shaving Cream Ammonia
Refrigerators Golf Balls Toothpaste Gasoline
https://www.ranken-energy.com/index.p...
Petroleum is good, when you look at this list. Do away with it, and what takes its place? Seriously. Any ideas for a substitute?
Thre are always alternative ways of getting to the necessary chemicals. Let me take one example - ammonia. The reason the oil industry is engaged is the water gas shift reaction, in which we get CH4 + 2H2O -> CO2 + 4H2
The only part that is then used is the hydrogen, thus
N2 + 3H2 -> 2NH3
So, rather than use oil, why not electrolyse water and get your hydrogen easier.
We can argue about the degree and severity of influence, but that industries (petrochemical, textile and many more) and internal combustion engines pollute is undeniable with likely an accumulating effect. The need to turn clean is clear, it's the way how to do it gradually, globally, reasonably-paced, economical and all is far more elusive. Not to throw the baby with the bathwater.
The need is to do things. As an example, in NZ there are quite large areas that were logged, and are now useless. Planting trees would take out significant CO2. (You woulod get more if we replanted the Amazon.)From my research days, we could make petrol from municipal waste, forestry slash, etc, and while it would not solve everything it would all help. We could farm marine algae, which would also help deacidify the sea water and be a haven for fish, yet harvest it to make biofuels.
The thing is, we could at least start doing things, BUT this will not happen from market-led economics. The reason is, it is cheaper to go with oil, and easier to do because we have done it. The argument that when the time comjs we can switch is false, because you cannot turn an economy around overnight. It took 150 yers to get where we are with oil, and it will take decades to alter the situation, so get ready for worse weather and sea-level rise.
Interesting question. I read somewhere that getting the CO2 from the effluent gas of a coal-fired electric plant required the electricity equivalent of a third of the plant by the time you have got rid of it.My view is crushed peridotite (or some equivalent) might be better. You spread it on the land as a replacement for lime, and it fixes about 2/3 its weight of CO2, effectively forever.
Otherwise, plant trees or grow marine algae.
Ian wrote: "Interesting question. I read somewhere that getting the CO2 from the effluent gas of a coal-fired electric plant required the electricity equivalent of a third of the plant by the time you have got..."We need all that and more because the increase are already happening and look to be going faster not slowing down. World's population increase will ensure that happens without drastic action to reduce CO2 production.
I think it's too late. The UK and USA election cycles will now force more short -term economy fixes and delay longer-term investment.
Technology carbon capture, rather than plant or algae, might help if we can generate the power cleanly.
I guess I know whom to thank for a wonderfully warm summer: https://www.theguardian.com/environme...
Actually, we had a rather cool summer where I live. The reason is global warming, which stirred up the Antarctic more, and that cold air went further north than usual. The southern part of each Island got exposed to that cold air.
Philip, I've been asking about carbon capture here to no avail.
It depends on what you mean by carbon capture. Trees work quite well, and once you put them in, they're low maintenance. Same with algae.If you mean mechanical, there are problems. The simplest way is to pass the gas through a solution of something like triethylamine, which takes the CO2 out of the gas and makes the carbonate or better still, the bicarbonate. Take the liquid away, heat the liquid, drive off the CO2 and pump it to storage, e.g. underground in old oil wells, and recycle the amine solution. The problem here is you use quite a bit of energy doing this, and you have to build a power plant for somewhere between two and three others. That costs money.
If you have some suitable basaltic rock, and crush it, spread it on ground like lime and it acts like lime, except it takes away a lot of CO2 as magnesium bicarbonate. Problem - getting the rock crushed and farmers to use it.
There are a number of ways, but they all cost money and energy.
I think this is a nowhere argument. There are credible climate scientists who are warning about a coming "grand solar minimum" - a gradual cooling that will peak (or plummet) in the 2030s. There are climate scientists who warn about warming trends that will result in incremental heating. There are those who reject fossil fuel vehicles in favor of e-vehicles. There are others who highlight the dangers of e-vehicles, the impact of increased weight on infrastructure and combustibility of batteries. There are people who say we should eat bugs instead of beef.Seems like every day there is some environmental, health, dietary, energy, lifestyle warning from some TikTok expert.
And to everyone who has an idea of what I should do about it (don't use appliances, get an e-vehicle, give up this or that food, power your home with windmills,) I just got a couple words - you first. 3-5 years should do it, then get back to me.
At least in MIlwaukee no one has mentioned a reduction in beer. [Strangely, I can't buy any alcohol past 9 pm unless I go to an establishment and pay per drink (too expensive to do regularly).] My worry is the supply to chocolate. Between El Nino and disease hitting West Africa and climate change, crops are down and the price of chocolate is expensive. If it continues, I may be writing Willy Wonka inviting him to visit and telling him only the rich can enjoy the taste of chocolate. https://apnews.com/article/africa-bus...
Just to clarify, what someone says on TikTok is hardly gospel. The more important point is, what has been measured, on a large enough scale? Between 1993 to 2008, the oceans received a net power input of 0.64 W/m^2. (Lyman, J. M. and 7 others, 2010. Nature 465: 334-337.) You can argue all you like about the causes but you cannot accept those measurements and ignore the fact there must be net heating. That has continued, as I noted in recent blog https://ianmillerblog.wordpress.com/2...
This needs some proofreading, Ian, if your intent is to clarify.I'm with you, Barbara.
Yoicks! The world collapses, but hey, fix those typos :-)There you go Scout. Muchly sorry.
So, there are 48 degrees Celsius (118.4 Fahrenheit) in my place today - a record breaking mark for this season. However, since the broken record dates back to 1939, maybe we are not that far off?
That is uncomfortably hot. Hopefully you have air conditioning. Howeever, it is not the extremes that are worrying; it is the average temperatures, especially of the seas. Here it seems the sea temperatures are up to two degrees warmer than the time that Nik quoted, and that is BAD because the seas have a far greater heat capacity than cities.
The global warming theory has been around for decades. Lately, I read about climate scientists who say we are really headed for a cooling phase, the "solar minimum". I don't know about where anyone else is, but I am in central NJ, and this has been the coldest spring I remember. Today, it feels like October. The past two years have been much colder - not snowier, though very wet, and fall got cold a lot earlier and spring is staying cold a lot longer.
Global warming can cause local cooling. Thus our summer has had some really cooler days, but that is because the extra heat from the tropics is amplifying the heat engine effect with the Antarctic, and southerlies bring temperatures from way down south much further north than they usually go.
Desertification was supposed to be the ‘greatest environmental challenge of our time.’ Why are experts now worried about greening?https://thebulletin.org/2024/08/deser...
This could trigger a "positive feedback" and push the planet's climate system past the point of no-return.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-env...