Naked Science Forum

Life Sciences => The Environment => Topic started by: MarkPawelek on 29/07/2019 16:18:22

Title: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: MarkPawelek on 29/07/2019 16:18:22
BBC Twitter account says we have "12 years to save the planet from climate change? A growing number of scientists say we actually have just 18 months." https://twitter.com/BBC/status/1155795385354510337

From this BBC "fake news" story: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48964736

Please name those scientists.

For example, does Hans Joachim Schellnhuber actually say anywhere "we've just 18 months to save the planet from climate change".  OK, maybe over a glass of wine in a bar; but surely not in any publication he wrote?

Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/07/2019 18:39:51
You can't save the planet from climate change, and no scientist worthy of the title would say you could. Climate change is inevitable and has been going on since the planet formed.

There is a limited time available to save humanity from some disastrous consequences of climate change, but there's no money or political kudos to be gained by doing so, so it won't happen. 
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: abrooks051 on 01/08/2019 01:11:08
alancalverd:
Thank you for speaking the truth. I would be more worried about a large rock or snowball from space or the volcano under Yellowstone before worrying about 1/2 a degree of global warming in 2100.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: mrsmith2211 on 02/08/2019 03:31:41
Things are changing, I would love to stop it, but we are at an impasse. I think we will survive, some areas better than others,
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: Halc on 02/08/2019 05:01:35
I would be more worried about a large rock or snowball from space or the volcano under Yellowstone before worrying about 1/2 a degree of global warming in 2100.
Yellowstone erupting or a big rock are far less likely in the next 200 years than the certainty of global warming (far far more than 0.5° by 2100).  On the other hand, you'll be dead by 2100, so what can you possibly care.

Alan did hit it on the nail when he said that no leaders stand to benefit from action to preserve the environment in a time frame outside of their term of service, so nothing will be done, and that is actually the correct solution to that particular problem.
Mother nature takes care of these problems quite well, and will dispose of this one effortlessly.  The planet does not need saving at all.

If you want to worry about something, why not the Ponzi scheme on which the world economy is based?  That will kill us even if global warming is the hoax that all the politicians paint it to be, and it probably will do so before the heat does.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: evan_au on 02/08/2019 05:31:58
Quote from: OP
Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
The more panicky statements tend to come from environmental groups, who see that numerous species will go extinct in the next 18 months (or even 12 months).

The relevant UN Committee put out a report a few months ago which said that:
- On current trends, we are almost certainly committed to exceed a 1.5C temperature rise (compared to before the industrial revolution). 1.5C was the aspirational goal defined by the Paris accord
- It will take immediate and vigorous action to limit it to just 2C. 2C was the agreed goal at the Paris accord.

Climate scientists say that the CO2 that we emit now will have an average lifetime in the atmosphere of around a century. This means that actions now will not take full effect for another century - well after the term of current politicians.

Ironically, I think that Donald Trump is doing more than he expected for greenhouse emissions - by creating a trade war, and potentially tipping USA and China (and innocent bystanders) into a global recession, he could well reduce greenhouse emissions by a significant fraction over the next 5 years!
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: alancalverd on 02/08/2019 08:48:09
Global warming is not a hoax. It is far more dangerous than that.

Climate change is inevitable and cannot be controlled by human activity.  "Climate activism", whether practised by truant schoolkids or posturing politicians, is a hoax, like all religions.

The effects of climate change on an unsustainable population of any species is disastrous for that species. Civilisation is all about specialisation and integration (to the point that the life of a single astronaut depends on the precise and continuous cooperation of thousands of engineers, and the health of the population of London depends on a handful of chemists running the water supply) and the failure of a couple of critical harvests in China, repeated floods in Bangladesh or Louisiana, or even the gradual erosion of soil in overpopulated parts of Africa, will lead to revolution and migration rather than local famine because modern humans are mobile, well informed, and well armed with both guns and "rights".

Mother Nature does not grant you the right to life, only the ability to fight for it.  And we will. And as shown by every war and revolution  in the last 100 years, the damage done to the physical and political infrastructure on which we depend, goes far beyond the generation that caused it.

The only way to prevent a humanitarian disaster is to voluntarily reduce the population to a resilient level before we start slaughtering each other for food and water. How? By making fewer babies. No cost, massive benefits. But it requires a major rethink of economics and politics - two areas of endeavour where rational longterm thought and altruism are generally absent.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: abrooks051 on 02/08/2019 12:11:01
alancalverd:
I hear your argument and I agree to a point. Over population will be a problem but "governments" are the bigger problem. America presently grows enough food to feed the entire planet, IF all the governments would give the food to their people. There is an old adage, "Control the food and you control the people" and it plays out world-wide. Another is, Climate doesn't create famines, Governments do.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: Halc on 02/08/2019 14:57:10
Over population will be a problem but "governments" are the bigger problem. America presently grows enough food to feed the entire planet, IF all the governments would give the food to their people.
You speak of overpopulation being a problem, and then argue that the governments are not doing enough to make it worse.  You're a ball of contradiction.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/08/2019 15:08:04
Thank you for speaking the truth. I would be more worried about a large rock or snowball from space or the volcano under Yellowstone before worrying about 1/2 a degree of global warming in 2100.
Did you not recognise that global warming is in a different category to the other events?
We can do something about global warming.

I'm more likely to die from cancer than from a road accident.
But I still look both ways before I cross the road.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/08/2019 15:09:19
Another is, Climate doesn't create famines, Governments do.
It's pretty clear that famines existed before governments.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 02/08/2019 15:20:07
Quote from: OP
Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
The more panicky statements tend to come from environmental groups, who see that numerous species will go extinct in the next 18 months (or even 12 months).

The relevant UN Committee put out a report a few months ago which said that:
- On current trends, we are almost certainly committed to exceed a 1.5C temperature rise (compared to before the industrial revolution). 1.5C was the aspirational goal defined by the Paris accord
- It will take immediate and vigorous action to limit it to just 2C. 2C was the agreed goal at the Paris accord.

Climate scientists say that the CO2 that we emit now will have an average lifetime in the atmosphere of around a century. This means that actions now will not take full effect for another century - well after the term of current politicians.

Ironically, I think that Donald Trump is doing more than he expected for greenhouse emissions - by creating a trade war, and potentially tipping USA and China (and innocent bystanders) into a global recession, he could well reduce greenhouse emissions by a significant fraction over the next 5 years!
Unfortunatley energy consumption is going up at an extrodinary rate as places like africa asia become more consumer minded. The global crisis of 2008 took only a 10 percent bite from energy usage, if energy use goes up at a rate of 2 percent year on year in ten years it will increace 21 percent !

Esit

If we couple population incre ace ie 20 billion by 2100 and all of these using recources at the rate of the people of europe (which i concede has fallen, but is still significantly more than 75 percent of the worlds populus, Europe not the enegy use of the americans, lets not get silly) recource usage will increace by ten times !
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: abrooks051 on 02/08/2019 16:02:30
 Bored chemist:
Starvation existed before Governments but many famines were directly caused by Governments.
https://www.reference.com/world-view/main-causes-famine-848746add260292
Also, regardless of how involved people get with "saving the Planet", it is more a tool of governmental control than a real attempt to prevent the inevitable.
BTW, stay safe and don't cross the road. :-)

Halc:
Re read the statement. I was not supporting increased population, I was stating that food shortages occur when governments withhold food from their people as a means of control.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/08/2019 17:08:08
Starvation existed before Governments but many famines were directly caused by Governments.
How do you distinguish that from a "no true scotsman" fallacy?
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: alancalverd on 02/08/2019 17:12:20
Climate doesn't create famines, Governments do.
This has been the case in modern times thanks to Lysenko et al, but the absence of rain in Ethiopia or the Sahel cannot be blamed on politicians. Amartya Sen pointed out that there has never been a famine in a functioning democracy, but this may be a chicken and egg situation, and the American Dust Bowl would have been classed as a famine had the states and provinces been separate countries rather than part of a national federation.

However climate change and population growth are moving us towards more traditional famines caused by simple crop failure  or disease rather than governmental incompetence or Nazi occupation.

It is indeed true that you can grow enough food in North America to feed everyone on the planet, but does it really make sense to have billions of mouths on the other side of the world being fed entirely by a few million in the north west, so that they can live another day in poverty?
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/08/2019 18:05:06
does it really make sense to have billions of mouths on the other side of the world being fed entirely by a few million in the north west, so that they can live another day in poverty?
It rather depends on whether or not the alternative is that they die in poverty.

The US is the world's biggest food importer BTW.
It's also the largest exporter but in terms of dollars it's a net importer.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: flummoxed on 02/08/2019 18:26:54
The planet doesnt need saving it will survive global warming, meteor impact and the yellow stone volcano blowing up. The issue is climate change which is happening and is going to accelerate.

Feeding the human population, and encouraging it to carry on breeding and making more mouths and more consumers, is the wrong way to go.

Controlling the number of humans by practising birth control in under resourced areas of the world, is obviously against human nature, even though it might be logical(the chinese did it). Maybe radiating the genitals would stop em breeding(the germans thought about it), did the swedes sterilize criminals and cripals.

A world war using nuclear bombs would put some ash/dust into the air and cause cooling via stopping the sunlight getting through and might radiate a few genitals in the process. Weapons companies could make a fortune and it would open up whole new markets for global development, politicians would be happy becuase there genitals would survive in nuclear shelters, and everyone would think the winners were great leaders and solved global warming, making loads of money in the meantime.

We have two model leaders in Trump and Coco the clown in 10 clowning street, could they start a global war and cure global warming.

Unrelated but ironic Trump is English slang to break wind and Johnson is a Penis in American slang.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/08/2019 18:49:51
OK, maybe over a glass of wine in a bar;
in vino veritas
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: alancalverd on 02/08/2019 22:59:09
It rather depends on whether or not the alternative is that they die in poverty.
The sane alternative is not to make babies in a place where you can't feed them.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: flummoxed on 03/08/2019 09:24:04
It rather depends on whether or not the alternative is that they die in poverty.
The sane alternative is not to make babies in a place where you can't feed them.

Are you are appealing to the higher intellect of people living in areas where to have lots of children ensures you are supported in old age, africa perhaps. It wont work, and in fact they are not contributing to global warming, so should not be the focus of attention.

in aqua sanitas

Global warming is caused by developed countries, and them as think they are educated, and wait for politicians to do something. Everyone can do a little,without selfishly motivated cretins politicians to lead them.

The sea temperatures are rising, its a bit late to stop global climate change, its happening!. Weather systems are changing/moving, some countries will be worse off, poorer nations who did not contribute to global climate change are the ones who will most likely be worst affected.

Is starvation an effective method of birth control that might work better than condoms and education? Dont answer that!
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: jeffreyH on 03/08/2019 11:11:40
I worked for 10 years, about 10 years ago, in the environment sector. With scientists. They were very worried then. How do you think they feel now? All types of species, insect, mammal and reptile, are in severe decline. I really don't think people want to accept how screwed we are. Not even the scientists performing the studies!

We like to think we can solve things. Well we are wrong. Am I just a doom monger? Give it a few more years.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: jeffreyH on 03/08/2019 11:24:54
Poverty, now there is a topic. The American government is funding most of the proxy wars around the world and has troops in multiple conflict zones. Now I wonder why people live in poverty? Let's see if we can solve that puzzle!

They have just authorised over one trillion dollars in "defence" spending. And we are going to solve climate change. Don't insult everyone's intelligence.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/08/2019 12:36:42
It rather depends on whether or not the alternative is that they die in poverty.
The sane alternative is not to make babies in a place where you can't feed them.
If, as is quite common in much of the world, the only "social security" that will look after you when you are old is your surviving children, then having lots of children is the only sane thing to do.

And that decision is made by one group of people, and the decision about  aid to the developing world is made by a different group of people.
The second group could offer social security to the first group.
One way they can do that is by providing aid at a national level.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: flummoxed on 03/08/2019 13:08:42
Poverty, now there is a topic. The American government is funding most of the proxy wars around the world and has troops in multiple conflict zones. Now I wonder why people live in poverty? Let's see if we can solve that puzzle!

They have just authorised over one trillion dollars in "defence" spending. And we are going to solve climate change. Don't insult everyone's intelligence.

Poverty is not a cause of global climate change.

Wars could, especially nuclear, cause global cooling could they not. Nuclear winter. Would this solve the global warming problem.? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

Would a nuclear war cause a reversal of global warming?

Edit Yes it seems like it might have already been considered https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nuclear-war-global-warming_n_828496
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: jeffreyH on 03/08/2019 18:11:25
The poor have no incentive to do anything about mitigating climate change. It doesn't figure on their list of priorities at all. The same with warmongers. They also don't concern themselves with mitigation of climate change. Making truckloads of money from the suffering of the poor in foreign lands is their motivation.

So you think none of these things figure in the equation. I can see why you are flummoxed.

As for the nuclear winter scenario, well that opinion just shows the type of person you are. You obviously side with the sociopathic warmongers. At least you are honest about it.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: alancalverd on 03/08/2019 18:51:14
Are you are appealing to the higher intellect of people living in areas where to have lots of children ensures you are supported in old age, africa perhaps. It wont work, and in fact they are not contributing to global warming, so should not be the focus of attention.

You have missed my point entirely.

Climate change is inevitable and the current trend will drive many marginal populations to extreme distress from lack of food and water. At the same time, human communication has altered human expectation and aspiration. Everyone who has a mobile phone (and that includes practically everyone in Africa)  aspires to a lifestyle that is unsustainable for the present population, even in northern Europe.

Having more babies to sustain you in old age is fine if you can feed them for the first 10 years of their life, and condemn them to the same lousy life that you led. In many parts of the world this is already unrealistic, and will only get worse and more widespread with current climate trends.

If you just look at the UK, nobody contributes to the economy for the first 20 years of their life. OK, some leave school at 16 and work, but half go on to acquire a massive debt and a meaningless qualification. The "working fraction" whose taxes support the young and old, is between 40 and 60, after which we die at a fairly linear rate until there are very few centenarians. If you do the arithmetic, you can see that the working fraction is about 0.5.

Now if we reduce the birthrate, the working fraction actually rises. If we reduce it  to half the replacement rate, the WF increases to about 0.63, so there is more money for pensions and elderly services, and more people available to provide those services as we have reduced the requirement for education and youth services.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: flummoxed on 03/08/2019 19:48:46
You have missed my point entirely.
Maybe
Climate change is inevitable and the current trend will drive many marginal populations to extreme distress from lack of food and water. At the same time, human communication has altered human expectation and aspiration. Everyone who has a mobile phone (and that includes practically everyone in Africa)  aspires to a lifestyle that is unsustainable for the present population, even in northern Europe.
Climate change has little to do with peoples aspirations for a mobile phone in Africa or any where else in the world.

Having more babies to sustain you in old age is fine if you can feed them for the first 10 years of their life, and condemn them to the same lousy life that you led. In many parts of the world this is already unrealistic, and will only get worse and more widespread with current climate trends.

Ive had a pretty good life to date.
Humanitarian aid to famine areas, supporting populations that are already unsustainable, who then produce even more babies in an already over stretched eco system is unrealistic.
 
If you just look at the UK, nobody contributes to the economy for the first 20 years of their life. OK, some leave school at 16 and work, but half go on to acquire a massive debt and a meaningless qualification. The "working fraction" whose taxes support the young and old, is between 40 and 60, after which we die at a fairly linear rate until there are very few centenarians. If you do the arithmetic, you can see that the working fraction is about 0.5.

I managed to get through university with no debt, because I lived within my means, and worked. Students running up debts eating in flash restaurants and pissing all there money against the wall does not affect climate change, and I dont feel sorry for them.

Now if we reduce the birthrate, the working fraction actually rises. If we reduce it  to half the replacement rate, the WF increases to about 0.63, so there is more money for pensions and elderly services, and more people available to provide those services as we have reduced the requirement for education and youth services.

China has an ageing population as I understand it, but has recently allowed extra kids for certain classes.
 
Why not just do away with pensioners voluntary euthanasia, they serve no purpose Ahhh! Joking maybe
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: alancalverd on 03/08/2019 23:47:51
The function of pensioners like me is to prevent those who prefer dogma to logic, from ruining the world for our descendants.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: evan_au on 04/08/2019 05:23:48
Quote from: flummoxed
in fact they ("third world" countries) are not contributing to global warming, so should not be the focus of attention.
In some areas, local populations have discovered that they can make just as much money by taking people on tours through their natural resources, as they previously did by burning it down/digging it up/chopping it down/catching it in nets and selling it to the rich countries.

When this resource is healthy forest or healthy marine ecosystems, preserving it does help with climate change...
 
Quote from: JeffreyH
They (the USA) have just authorised over one trillion dollars in "defence" spending.
While it may not meet with the approval of their boss, the US military has become increasingly conscious of climate change:
- The impact it is having on their harbour facilities
- The fact that wind and solar is more cost-effective to run a base than using diesel generators (at least, for land bases outside warzones)
- Heat, droughts and water shortages are likely to fuel uprisings and wars around the globe

But sending naval and air forces to attack other countries is also likely to fuel uprisings and wars around the globe!
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: alancalverd on 04/08/2019 08:16:57
- Heat, droughts and water shortages are likely to fuel uprisings and wars around the globe
That is the real threat, which nobody is prepared to address.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: jeffreyH on 04/08/2019 09:18:53
There are already uprisings and wars around the globe. Is no one paying attention? Do the victims of famine rise up? Usually they are seen by BBC reporters starving to death on parched plains. Ordinary people never rise up. Governments rise up. They are the ones with the well-fed armies.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: flummoxed on 04/08/2019 09:38:00
There are already uprisings and wars around the globe. Is no one paying attention? Do the victims of famine rise up? Usually they are seen by BBC reporters starving to death on parched plains. Ordinary people never rise up. Governments rise up. They are the ones with the well-fed armies.

Civil war is when people rise up against well funded governments/leaders that think they have a right to rule by what ever means possible.

Was the war in Syria a result of the government rising up against its own people, OR was it initiated by external governments inside Syria. 

How would the situation in Somalia be described, civil war, desperation, TIA, business?

How would the situation with Iran be described, tortured by the Shah, unprising resulting in religious doctrines, threatened by external nuclear countries, now developing nuclear capability. Do they feel they need a bomb?

Palestine, Brexit too sensitive to discuss perhaps, and not related to global warming.

Is the unrest in regions of the world due to minorities, being supported by external groups over throwing the majority.

Will limited nuclear war stop the unrest, and global warming without killing off all the people who havent contributed to global warming.

Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: jeffreyH on 04/08/2019 09:47:15
The middle class, who want to replace the upper class, usually rile up the working class. They in turn take up arms. So again we have an army led by a potential replacement government. The people never spontaneously rise up.

Some of these "freedom fighters" are then supplied with arms from external governments. They are then fighting proxy wars on behalf of an imperialist regime.

Learn your history!
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: syhprum on 04/08/2019 10:15:25
How do you discourage people from making babies when they are a useful source of income ? there are two stories going the rounds at the moment "the horrors of child labor in the production of cocoa" and the sorry tale of American women having babies to get government benefits and then letting die of neglect.   
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: alancalverd on 04/08/2019 11:46:55
the sorry tale of American women having babies to get government benefits and then letting die of neglect.   
My scheme has no child benefits. You get money always and only for not being pregnant.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: alancalverd on 04/08/2019 13:39:52
Is starvation an effective method of birth control that might work better than condoms and education? Dont answer that!

It seems not to be. But birth control can prevent starvation.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: Colin2B on 05/08/2019 12:55:02
But birth control can prevent starvation.
It is interesting to note that in India they found that educating girls led to them give birth later and have fewer children than the national average. Obviously, lots of other factors go alongside education to contribute to this reduction in birth rate, but still an interesting result.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: jeffreyH on 06/08/2019 13:53:37
Well I wonder why we can't deal with the climate crisis. Oh yeah, that's right, we're too busy arguing about why Brexit, or why Trump, or why Boris. That way we can just ignore it and hope it goes away. Let's see how that works out shall we.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: jeffreyH on 08/08/2019 12:23:13
Well I wonder why we can't deal with the climate crisis. Oh yeah, that's right, we're too busy arguing about why Brexit, or why Trump, or why Boris. That way we can just ignore it and hope it goes away. Let's see how that works out shall we.
OK, fair point; it's a long way from the topic.
But Trump and Boris are not going to behave as if climate change is real, so there is some interaction/ relevance.
All of which is part of my argument for leaving the EU. So no disagreement there.
So, your argument for leaving the EU is that it's better than nothing, and you prefer nothing...

I'm off topic? Wow!
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: jeffreyH on 09/08/2019 22:27:06
Well now what about agreeing on answering the original question? Lol.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/08/2019 23:49:02
Well now what about agreeing on answering the original question? Lol.
Again?
OK.
Meanwhile, back at the topic, it's difficult to say how long we have to save the planet.
The true answer is we missed the chance.
Some things will already have died out because of our behaviour.

But it's reasonable to make claims about how long we have before we lose some defined level of quality of life.
If we continue the policy of doing little or nothing then Alan's policies on reducing population will be moot.

The planet will do that for us.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/08/2019 00:02:42
I'd prefer to reduce the population smoothly, painlessly and voluntarily, but not making babies, rather than wait for drought and starvation to do it the hard way. I think it is in chapter 1 of all the driving, sailing and flying manuals: exercise control while you have it, because the laws of physics are indifferent to your comfort and preservation.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: jeffreyH on 22/08/2019 18:56:23
Wow! The Greenland melt is accelerating, species are being wiped out and THIS is what you want to argue over.  Citation not needed.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/08/2019 19:11:48
Wow! The Greenland melt is accelerating, species are being wiped out and THIS is what you want to argue over.  Citation not needed.
Yes, in both cases I want to try to convince people that facts are important.

You do realise this is a science site, don't you?
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: evan_au on 23/08/2019 09:25:08
Back to the original topic - the environment...
Quote from: OP
Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Well, the leaders of Denmark and Greenland say "Hands off Greenland!"
- I think that these leaders are more concerned about the environment (and the people) than is shown by Trump's environmental record (eg banning NOAA scientists from publishing scientific papers, declaring that NASA should only look outwards, and censoring "climate change" from scientific reports).

The leader of Brazil declares open season on the Amazon, then fires the director of space science for pointing out that deforestation has accelerated.
- Now there are numerous fires around the Amazon (I saw a figure of 70,000?), and a lot of finger-pointing about who started them, complete with conspiracy theories that it was disappointed NGOs that lit them...

In the end, the science comes back to politics and money...
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: alancalverd on 23/08/2019 10:37:13
It does at least prove that Herr Trumpf has a longterm vision for his thousand-year Reich. When the ice melts, it will be a superb golf course and grouse moor. Like Scotland, but cheaper.

The neat trick is that setting fire to the rain forest to graze cattle may accelerate the melting of Greenland ice, so whilst millions may starve, everyone who matters, benefits.

Capitalism is so much more efficient on the other side of the Atlantic.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/08/2019 11:27:04
In the end, the science comes back to politics and money.
No
Science comes back to evidence.
The politicians ignore  the truth, but that doesn't affect science per se.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: evan_au on 24/08/2019 03:52:20
Another environmental impact: The one that introduced the term "Banana Republic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic)".

In the 1950s, the banana trade was dominated by one clone of bananas: The "Gros Michel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gros_Michel_banana)".
- But, being a clone, one strain of fungus wiped out the entire industry, worldwide
- This fungus could live in the soil for years, so once this fungus invaded a banana plantation, that plantation was useless
- The big businesses that had the Central American governments "in their pocket" demanded large swathes of land to replace the now-useless plantations - only to have these succumb in a year or so
- This led to large-scale deforestation (and a large amount of human exploitation)

Now, the banana trade is dominated by one clone of seedless bananas: The "Cavendish".
- And again, they are all susceptible to the same disease: a new fungus which is spreading around the world, and has recently appeared in central America
- Will this (again) lead to the mass clearing of large swathes of tropical rainforest?

This is an inherent problem with the current agricultural practice of monocropping, which risks disease
- and also harms pollinators, as there is not enough variety in food sources when the primary crop isn't flowering

One potential "technology fix" is to transfer disease resistance (and genetic diversity) into the monoculture by genetic engineering techniques
- Unfortunately, I think that some environmental groups would rather see mass poverty and habitat destruction than risk eating a crossbreed of two seedless bananas.
- At least their fears that these genetically-modified bananas will take over wild populations are unfounded, as being seedless, they can't spread very quickly, and they require active cultivation.
- The main risk is from destroying the habitat of wild bananas (and their ecosystems), and this is most likely to occur if we try to stay with the current (non-GMO) strain of Cavendish - and tolerate corrupt governments & businesses with no environmental conscience.
See: https://www.economist.com/feast-and-famine/2014/02/27/we-have-no-bananas-today
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: evan_au on 24/08/2019 04:13:52
Hi... Moderator intervention here, to split this topic into:
- The original topic: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?, which is all about the environment
- And the much longer (and heated) side-topic on "What impact will BREXIT have on Science & Society?"
To comply with site guidelines, this is now available in "Just Chat" at: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=77611.msg580167#msg580167

Please keep comments on BREXIT in the "Just Chat" section.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: evan_au on 24/08/2019 10:06:35
I wonder how many of the old-growth forest fires currently burning in Brazil are clearing land for doomed short-lifetime Cavendish plantations?
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: alancalverd on 24/08/2019 10:54:47
In the end, the science comes back to politics and money.
No
Science comes back to evidence.
The politicians ignore  the truth, but that doesn't affect science per se.
Historic and current evidence is that carbon dioxide levels are driven by temperature. With the exception of the USA, where (in the name of freedom and democracy) government-funded scientists are not allowed to mention climate change, the publicly-funded IPCC consensus is that temperature is driven by carbon dioxide. Just as well, as the truth is even more politically inconvenient than the lie!

The only oddity is that the Mauna Loa data keeps showing the opposite. How long before the laboratory is closed down?
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/08/2019 12:08:46
Historic and current evidence is that carbon dioxide levels are driven by temperature.
Which would be important if anyone was saying that anthropogenic CO2 was the only reason the temperature changes.

The important thing to remember about (pre) historical data s that (obviously) it isn't anthropogenic.

Something else clearly caused the ends of the ice ages.
So, in circumstances where man wasn't there the rise in temperature preceded the rise in CO2.
Again, that's not news- among other effects, CO2 is less soluble  when the water is warmer.

However, it's important to recognise that, even then, the temperature rise was amplified by the CO2.
Most of the warming happened after the CO2 rose
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: alancalverd on 24/08/2019 18:56:01
But what's interesting about current evidence is
(a) seasonal variations show CO2 maxima in summer, when anthropogenic emission is least
(b) discovery of 500-year-old bryophytes under retreating glaciers shows that temperatures were higher within recorded history but before industrialisation.
 
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/08/2019 19:16:45
seasonal variations show CO2 maxima in summer, when anthropogenic emission is least
Tim Lueker, research scientist in the Scripps CO2 Research Group, only needs one sentence to explain why atmospheric CO2 peaks in May.

“Springtime comes in May in Siberia,” he says.
from
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/06/04/why-does-atmospheric-co2-peak-in-may/
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: alancalverd on 24/08/2019 22:37:27
A statement of the bloody obvious, if ever I saw one. Does the entire human population of the northern hemisphere rush to Siberia and burn coal in May? Non ducitur.

Indeed
Quote
Thus over the course of the winter, there is a steady increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.  In the spring, leaves return to the trees and photosynthesis increases dramatically, drawing down the CO2 in the atmosphere.  This shift between the fall and winter months to the spring and summer results in the sawtooth pattern of the Keeling Curve measurement of atmospheric CO2 such that every year there is a decline in CO2 during months of terrestrial plant photosynthesis and an increase in CO2 in months without large amounts of photosynthesis and with significant decomposition.
which is exactly the opposite of what actually happens.

Simple observed correlation: as the temperature rises, so does the CO2 concentration, whereas anthropogenic output increases with decreasing temperature. So there is something bigger andnonanthropic going on, driven by temperature, just as it has for millions of years.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/08/2019 22:53:11
Does the entire human population of the northern hemisphere rush to Siberia and burn coal in May?
No,
But nobody said they did.
Why did you ask?
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/08/2019 22:55:24
So there is something bigger andnonanthropic going on, driven by temperature, just as it has for millions of years.
Nobody said that there wasn't.
It's like saying "we can't have global warming because it still gets cold in Winter."
The warming is superimposed on the seasonal variation- like the CO2 level.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: evan_au on 25/08/2019 10:53:42
Quote
Simple observed correlation: as the temperature rises, so does the CO2 concentration
As a resident of the antipodes, I assert that my seasonal temperature trend is the inverse of yours.

The implication here is that Northern hemisphere forests which lose their leaves are the major CO2 sinks and sources.
- What about tropical and temperate trees that don't lose their leaves?
- What about arctic pine trees which retain their leaves all winter?
- What about Southern Hemisphere oceans which experience more daylight as the northern hemisphere receives less sunlight?

Quote
anthropogenic output increases with decreasing temperature.
In the hotter parts of the world, peak power consumption occurs in the hotter months, to drive air-conditioning.
- But I think that this argument is a strawman, because the steadily increasing human CO2 output is driving up CO2 year on year, and temperature is increasing year-on-year (when you look over the past 10 years, a suspiciously high percentage of the worlds hottest years occur in the past decade).
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/08/2019 14:10:26
Quote
Simple observed correlation: as the temperature rises, so does the CO2 concentration
As a resident of the antipodes, I assert that my seasonal temperature trend is the inverse of yours.

The implication here is that Northern hemisphere forests which lose their leaves are the major CO2 sinks and sources.
- What about tropical and temperate trees that don't lose their leaves?
- What about arctic pine trees which retain their leaves all winter?
i.e. the Siberian forest.


Quote
anthropogenic output increases with decreasing temperature.
In the hotter parts of the world, peak power consumption occurs in the hotter months, to drive air-conditioning.[/quote] per capita in the richer areas, yes, but over the entire population, the majority of whom live between the tropics where there is very little seasonal variation in temperature, no. And north of the tropic of cancer the maximum temperature occurs in July, not May.
Quote
- But I think that this argument is a strawman, because the steadily increasing human CO2 output is driving up CO2 year on year, and temperature is increasing year-on-year (when you look over the past 10 years, a suspiciously high percentage of the worlds hottest years occur in the past decade).
correlation, yes. causation- not proven. It was demonstrably hotter 500 years ago when anthropogenic CO2 was negligible. But AFAIK there were no airfields providing accurate daily measurements. Indeed accurate air temperature measurement is only of importance to aviators taking off over inhabited land, so we have very little historic record for about 95% of the earth's surface, and a significant decrease between 1945 and 1970 (the beginning of satellite measurements).

The reason I quoted Mauna Loa is that there is strong evidence that carbon dioxide is not much transported across the equator, and most of the anthropogenic emissions occur between 10 and 60 deg latitude.
 
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/08/2019 14:40:31
It was demonstrably hotter 500 years ago when anthropogenic CO2 was negligible
So, the "little ice age"  was demonstrably hotter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age


If that's the quality of your argument, perhaps it's time to stop.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/08/2019 14:44:30
Indeed accurate air temperature measurement is only of importance to aviators taking off over inhabited land,
Well, in that case there can be no records from before 1903
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Flyer
but, since the temperature doesn't matter to anyone else...

Fine.
Case closed.
We can stop talking about it.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: rmolnav on 26/08/2019 20:30:21
In the hotter parts of the world, peak power consumption occurs in the hotter months, to drive air-conditioning.
per capita in the richer areas, yes, but over the entire population, the majority of whom live between the tropics where there is very little seasonal variation in temperature, no. And north of the tropic of cancer the maximum temperature occurs in July, not May.[/quote]
Is utter NONSENSE to discuss about any possible short-term correlation temperatures/CO2 emissions, because emissions during short periods CANīT affect temperatures significantly ...
Global warming is an increase of global/annual average temperatures as a result of "billions" of relatively little CO2 emissions over long periods of time. Over just a few months, meteorological temperature changes are the only changes that can be perceived !!
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/08/2019 20:49:20
Is utter NONSENSE to discuss about any possible short-term correlation temperatures/CO2 emissions, because emissions during short periods CANīT affect temperatures significantly ...
Well, yes you can.
But the cause and effect are the other way round.
People burn more fuel to keep warm in cold weather.
So low temperatures drive increased CO2

However, They also use the aircon less.
And Winter isn't the same across the whole world.
And then there's all tehindustrial use which isn't especially seasonal.

We could guess at all those factors.

Or we could just look at oil production figures
https://www.iea.org/classicstats/monthlystatistics/monthlyoilstatistics/

Oil production just isn't seasonal. (OK use might be more so but... prove it)
So the annual variation of about 10 ppm on the CO2 plot is down to essentially seasons, and the rising trend from 300 to 400 is down to us.

Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 27/08/2019 03:12:53
Electricity use greatest in the summer due to AC, probably only since the invent of the eco light bulb, energy use greatest during the winter.

Leaveson deciduous trees are a small fraction of carbon and effort on the trees part, its why they can be lost with little loss. Pines also loose leaves, these are more robust.

Over the last 15 years the temperature has fluctuated wildly., even though carbon has remained relativley constant.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: jeffreyH on 27/08/2019 20:51:37
Over the years the climate models have failed to predict how bad things will get and how fast they will get there. This goes to show that we know sod all about how the climate will "misbehave".

It usually just goes worse than anticipated. When the car is hurtling towards the cliff is not the time to be wishing you had fitted brakes.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/08/2019 21:22:07
Over the last 15 years the temperature has fluctuated wildly.
This is what we call weather.
It's tangentially related to climate.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: jeffreyH on 28/08/2019 18:42:22
The only bright spot in this tragedy is that fat boy orange's mar-a-lago golf club, aka 'the southern whitehouse', will be under water once Greenland melts completely. Can agent orange swim?
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/08/2019 10:49:23
Over the last 15 years the temperature has fluctuated wildly.
This is what we call weather.
It's tangentially related to climate.
It's all the same series of numbers, some measured, some adduced from proxies. When does weather become climate?
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: evan_au on 29/08/2019 11:31:05
Quote
When does weather become climate?
I suggest that the boundary between weather & climate can be drawn at a 10-year average of temperature, rainfall, ice cover, etc.

Rationale: Given the known or potential drivers like:
- Diurnal cycle: 24 hours
- High/Low pressure regions, Warm/Cold fronts: Days to weeks
- Seasons: 1 year cycle
- Sunspots: Roughly 11-year half-cycle, but has a relatively small impact
- El Niņo: Quite random, with a range of 2 to 7 years, but has a measurable global temperature impact
- Volcanic eruptions:  Extremely random, but a big one can have a measurable impact on global temperatures for a year or two
- Milankovitch Cycles: Thousands of years, ie unlikely to be confused with anthropogenic changes in the last century

If it wasn't for irregular events like volcanic eruptions and El Niņo, even a 1-year average global temperature temperature shows a clear trend.
- It is still possible to "subtract out" the impact of a volcanic eruption (measure atmospheric dust) and El Niņo (the intensity of the El Niņo can be measured).

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o#Occurrences
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/08/2019 19:08:11
Over the last 15 years the temperature has fluctuated wildly.
This is what we call weather.
It's tangentially related to climate.
It's all the same series of numbers, some measured, some adduced from proxies. When does weather become climate?
If you don't even understand that, why have you been posting in threads about climate?
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/08/2019 21:58:07
I understand it, but every time someone gives you a counterexample to your hypothesis you dismiss it as  weather, which makes me wonder how you define climate.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/08/2019 22:03:31
I understand it, but every time someone gives you a counterexample to your hypothesis you dismiss it as  weather, which makes me wonder how you define climate.
Do you not agree that the wild fluctuations of temperature over 15 years are weather?
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: rmolnav on 30/08/2019 12:23:22
Do you not agree that the wild fluctuations of temperature over 15 years are weather?
The curve of mean anual global temperature is the result of weather and other oscillating factors (mainly sun radiation and ocean current yearly distribution), and the underlying continuously increase of greenhouse effect, due to CO2 and methane emissions (and positive feedbacks, such as increase in atmosphere absolute humidity, albedo, etc).
Years ago oscillating factors, in years with annual annual cooling due to them, this could prevail over underlying greenhouse effect warming. But recently most years the opposite happens, due to the relatively enormous atmospheric accumulated CO2 concentration ... Even independently from the increase in CO2 emissions in a particular year !!
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: alancalverd on 30/08/2019 13:14:59
Fluctuations are weather. The frequency and intensity of fluctuations is climate: the difference between British cold sector "sunshine and showers" and an annual monsoon.
Title: Re: Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2019 15:03:54
The frequency and intensity of fluctuations is climate:
That's interesting.
I think most people would say that climate is related to "the average".
So, for example, Edinburgh has a colder climate than London, or it's to do with annual rainfall, not today's- or this year's- rain
But you don't seem to think that counts.
Well, it's an unorthodox  definition of climate.
But, ignoring what most people think the word means, does give you a way to say that  we can't measure "climate change" or blame it on mankind's activity.