Can we really Save the Planet

[Kuya John]

Once again we are reminded in recent news how urgently change must come, if we want to preserve this world for our future generations.

Does the forum think that we can change things or do you feel that the situation is non reversible.

Why do you think some leaders wont accept what is happening to our planet?

[stevewool]

As one we could do a lot more to help , but as always we don’t all come together.

Watching the news about what the UK could be doing over the next 10 to 30 years is fine but what happens if say France says stuff that we are not bothering or the west all agrees to save the planet by reducing everything but then the east says sod it, it’s complicated but again it could be easy.

I read where we in the UK was told we must get ride or the gas boiler in our homes reduce the heating in winter, get rid of the patrol and diesel vehicles and use electric ones ,eat less red meat and fly less, so if the people of the UK agree to this is the rest of the world.

We all do our bit to help the planet by recycling all we can But is it enough, or is the planet just going through it’s own way of recycling getting rid of us and making way for what ever is next.

The world leaders are not interested in the world only themselves and there own families and what’s in it for them , just my own thoughts.

[GeoffH]

In the medium term (say the next 30 years) changes to green house gas emissions like replacing coal fired power stations with alternatives that emit less greenhouse gases and reducing green house gases caused by our transport fleets and stopping deforestation would give us time to work on longer term solutions.

 

But there are many world leaders (including the current Australian government) who are basically doing nothing, even the alternative Australian opposition's policies are barely enough to maybe meet Australia's greenhouse gas emission targets.

 

And with many third world countries gradually becoming more industrialized and their emissions increasing, well that is offsetting what reductions are being made in some first world countries.

 

I honestly think we're looking at an outcome of at least 3C and probably 3.5C rather than the 1.5C that governments claim to be working towards by 2100.

And 3C will drown large portions of coastal areas, turn currently productive farmlands into dust bowls and cause huge increases in food costs leaving millions in poorer countries unable to afford food and water.

 

 

Yah... I can't see a good way out of this.  I suspect it's going to have to get so bad that it really starts hitting the bottom line of international business and first world countries before they'll seriously act, and by that time the damage will already have been done.    Not that most of us here (including me) will be around to see the really bad results, we'll be dead by then... so there's that.

Edited May 3, 2019 by GeoffH

[Tukaram (Tim)]

We have to try.  But it looks like most countries are going to ignore it until it bites us all in the ass - and by then it may be too late to reverse the damage.  The anti-science campaigns are paying off. People deny climate change, and the measles are coming back.  There is no help for the willfully misinformed. 

[Jake]

Excellent conversational starter Kuya John.  The future for our children and grandchildren is bleak, to say the least.  The political agenda of modern society is to line their own pockets, build their fortified castles and to hell with the rest of the world.

It may seem like distant catastrophe of modern day genocide, forced migration of millions of people due to war, famine, drought and flooding (like in eastern Africa, eastern Asia, middle East).....eventually it will come to our doorsteps, if not already.         

In my own morbid way, I wish that Mother Nature will blow a fuse and teach us, the modern Man to once again respect her.  I believe it will get worse, before it gets any better.  

Respectfully Jake                                 

[Clermont]

One leg either side of the barbed wire fence on this one and my hand holding the family jewels so as not to get them scratched. 10000 odd years ago earth was in an ice age, some of you older Englishmen might remember it, England was cover in ice, then the earth started to warm, why. Even on the odd day I attended school, nearly 60 years ago, our social teacher was spruiking the earth was warming back then. I also remember lessons about the vast rainforests in the Asian countries were the lungs of the earth, their still logging them. Then theirs's the earths tilt, it was 5 degrees true north, now 7 degrees. Population growth, I know we all try our hardest not to contribute to it, but accidents do happen, I think there is more to meet the eye on this one. But I do agree we can all do a bit more to help the planet, and I know you knock the pollies about it, but they are honestly trying to helping us. They increase, Electricity bills, excise on fuel, increase taxes so we can't go on holidays, polluting the air with exhaust fumes and the list goes on. Now, parts of Australia are in their worst drought on record, but I remember scientists drilled into corral in the early 70's and found Australia had experience a 100 year drought in it's history. I was also told a weather cycle is a 30 year cycle, 10 years good 20 years bad or vice versa. Maybe we think we know what the earth is doing and maybe we are just guessing, but at my age I'm going to be selfish and keep on holidaying. There are a few things that I've had a life change with, I don't cut down trees nowadays, there getting scarcer, it still legal to pee behind a tree here in Australia, no tree, $ 150 fine. Smoke my smoke down to the filter, less litter, don't throw empty stubby bottles out while driving, their worth 10 cents now. So you see, with just a few minor changes in our lifestyle, we can have one leg either side of the fence and help save the planet. 

[Mike J]

8 hours ago, Jake said:

It may seem like distant catastrophe of modern day genocide, forced migration of millions of people due to war, famine, drought and flooding (like in eastern Africa, eastern Asia, middle East).....eventually it will come to our doorsteps, if not already.         

In my own morbid way, I wish that Mother Nature will blow a fuse and teach us, the modern Man to once again respect her.  I believe it will get worse, before it gets any better.  

I think Jake has probably come closest to how the problem will resolve itself.   When the fuse blows it is going to be a monster 

The population continues to grow and resources becomes more scarce.  Humans, by and large, are not a "share and share alike" species.   Like most other animals on the planet we are hard wired to do whatever it takes for us, and our tribe, to survive.  Tribe being defined as people who look like me, think like me, and will work with me to prevent others from taking what it mine.  Something has to give, the earth can only sustain x number of people and some experts think that number as already been exceeded by a substantial number.

Science and technology can help but the reality is that there is a finite limit to resources such are clean water and land capable of growing crops.  At some point in the future there will be an event(s) that will dramatically reduce the human population.  It may be war, super flu, super volcano, asteroid, or mass starvation due to global climate change.  First world countries are not willing to lower their standard of living to lift third world countries from poverty.  Growing economies are not willing to slow their growth at the expense of the environment.    

Will politicians do something?  Why would they as they are elected by a population that desire to protect their standard of living over the health of the planet.  Too many of us around the globe "want it and want it now" without thought of the future cost.   This is especially true if we consider the bill comes do in 50 to 100 years, perhaps longers.  I think we will continue to kick the can down the road until the roads ends.

[Snowy79]

I'm definitely one of the sceptics when it comes to the climate and just how much man can be held responsible.  I agree we cause some damage but just how much is up to interpretation and finding non biased scientists.  

I have a slight education as part of my degree into geology etc and 30yrs ago I was being taught that climate change is cyclic and earthquakes and volcanoes were responsible for a lot of climate change as is solar flares from the sun.

Even the UN scientists, of which there are thousands have openly admitted that the majority don't carry out studies but assess the studies of a handfull of scientists then agree or disagree.  The problem being that in many cases the studies involve a model of possible outcomes some of which have contained mathematical errors.  Tjhey even openly admit to dismissing large fluctuations in temperature to produce a more linear model.

If as Al Gore and his climate scientists have proven, most scientific data using models doesn't stand the test of time.

[GeoffH]

19 minutes ago, Snowy79 said:

They even openly admit to dismissing large fluctuations in temperature to produce a more linear model

Speaking specifically regarding Australia and it's future climate;

The CSIRO in Australia examined 40 global climate models that were driven by four greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions scenarios. Results were prepared for 21 climate variables (both on the land and in the ocean) and for four 20-year time periods (centred on 2030, 2050, 2070 and 2090).

Research has shown that most of the changes observed over recent decades will continue into the future. Projections suggest that for Australia:

• hot days will become more frequent and hotter (very high confidence)
• sea levels will rise (very high confidence)
• oceans will become more acidic (very high confidence)
• snow depths will decline (very high confidence)
• extreme rainfall events are likely to become more intense (high confidence)

Seasonal-average rainfall changes will vary across Australia.

• In southern mainland Australia, winter and spring rainfall is projected to decrease (high confidence), but increases are projected for Tasmania in winter (medium confidence).
• In eastern Australia, there is high confidence that in the near future (2030) natural variability will predominate over trends due to greenhouse gas emissions. For late in the century (2090), there is medium confidence in a winter rainfall decrease.
• In northern Australia and northern inland areas, there is high confidence that in the near future (2030), natural variability will predominate over trends due to greenhouse gas emissions. There is low confidence in the direction of future rainfall change by late in the century (2090), but substantial changes to wet-season and annual rainfall cannot be ruled out.

The time in drought is projected to increase over southern Australia (high confidence).

There is high confidence in increasing potential evapotranspiration (atmospheric moisture demand).

There is high confidence in decreasing soil moisture in the southern regions (particularly in winter and spring) driven by the projected decrease in rainfall and higher evaporative demand. There is medium confidence in decreasing soil moisture elsewhere in Australia where evaporative demand is projected to increase but the direction of rainfall change in uncertain.

Southern and eastern Australia are projected to experience harsher fire weather (high confidence).

Tropical cyclones may occur less often, but become more intense (medium confidence).

Projected changes will be superimposed on significant natural climate variability. *

 

* The central line is the median value, and the shading is the 10th and 90th percentile range of 20-year running means (inner) and single year values (outer).

To simplify the upper graph represents a high emissions scenario (the path we are on now), the middle graph represents a medium emissions scenario (say if a majority of countries adhere to Kyoto) and the bottom graph represents a low emissions scenario (which would require countries to mandate major changes now).

My gut says... 1st world countries will want to look like they're following Kyoto and increasingly 2nd world countries will as well but industry and economic pressure will push them to minimize what they do whilst complying and some countries aren't going to meet Kyoto.  Hence not as bad as the top graph but worse than the middle graph... which comes back to my original at least 3C and probably 3.5C comment earlier in the topic.

 

Edited May 4, 2019 by GeoffH

[OnMyWay]

2 hours ago, Mike J said:

I think Jake has probably come closest to how the problem will resolve itself.   When the fuse blows it is going to be a monster 

Going along with the premises of global warming, I don't agree that the climate change problem will resolve itself due to an huge "fuse blows" event related to global warming.  What would that be?  Rising seas?  More intense storms?  Changes in weather patterns impacting crops?  These happen over longer periods of time so I can't foresee a "fuse blowing" scenario.

A catastrophic world event could have huge effect on global climate.  Nuclear winter?  Hope not.  Asteroid impact.  Hope not.  Increased volcanic activity?  More likely.  And history shows that just one good sized volcano can lower global temps for several years.  What if the ring of fire had several big volcanoes simultaneously?  We could see another ice age.

I like this guys take on the economics of climate change.  Listen to the whole thing.  He is not a climate change denier but he has a different perspective.

https://youtu.be/5QyXduteiWE

When it comes to world death and destruction, there is something else that scares me to death, because it is unpredictable, unstoppable, and almost ignored.  In addition to the deaths, it would probably put the world's major economies into a recession.

https://youtu.be/Ibxaw4FimBI