The Earth On Fire: Solving The Climate Crisis

Well I think we can probably safely assume the Dinosaurs didn’t wipe themselves out because of their love of the internal combustion engine.

 

Have you not seen The Flintstones?

 

I meant the world as an environment to support life, all life, not just human life. Prof Cox series showed at least one other planet, Venus or Mars, had "an atmosphere" at one point, then something changed causing the atmosphere to dissapate. He suggested that changes in the delicate balance on our planet could do the same and only a change of a few degrees could set in motion irreversable changes that could ultimately result in our atmosphere being lost. I forget further details as I left the room to start building my spaceship.

It's not just a case of learning to live with an extra 5 degrees heat and a few species dying out, our planet has life and an atmosphere due to a number of factors that require some semblance of balance in order to continue.

 

Utter, defeatist tosh.

 

Sorry, do you have a more summarised version of that response ?
Well we are doing a fab job of rallying round to fix this known problem at present aren't we ?

 

Life will still be here.

It's just that our cities and farms won't.

 

In Star Trek, Next Generation. Pointy ears and a Cornish pasty on the forehead.

 

I wouldn’t be so sure.

 

Don't worry. Plenty more later.

 

...and how do you see that transitioning with individuals selfish behaviour and govts sole objective being to achieve re-election ?
Do you expect the Brazilians to stop cutting down x% of the Amazon day after day ?

 

I flew to Europe and there were no direct flights. Meaning I flew Heathrow to Amsterdam and then onwards another 90mins flight.

I was offered the opportunity to offset my carbon emissions for £3.10, which is absolutely nonsense. I don't know how they get to these numbers. May £3.10 plants enough trees that over the next 100 years can absorb X amount of carbon. I read somewhere that we could basically fill the planet with trees and that would account for a third of the excess co2 we've already emitted.


The only way out of this is going to be geo engineering. But because of the huge risks of playing with the climate nothing will be done until the world is already ****ed, and then humanity will start cloud forming etc to slowly ub**** the climate over the next 2 centuries

 

stupidity comes naturally to many

 

Again, utter undifferentiated b.llocks.

Previous changes in our climate have been far less 'dramatic' than the present trend in temperature rise. All the previous 'hot spots' have co-incided perfectly with high dioxide gas concentrations in our atmosphere previously as a result of periods of high vulcanicity (e.g. the Deccan traps eruptions in central India at the end of the Triassic some 60 m. years ago). You can still appreciate them today. Take a train up the western ghats from Goa, stop at Hampi to appreciate the magnificent architectural site there and travel on down the Eastern ghats for a bit of cricket in Chennai. For almost the whole of that journey you'll be travelling across a flatish, volcanic tableland 2,000m thick across the entirety of central India. That's what I call big. B.t.w., some of the similar volcanics in the Western Isles of Scotland were part of the same Triassic event.

Or, alternatively, some of those high dioxide concentrations concentrations of the past were caused by us getting hit by a particularly big rock.

Anyway, to get back on piste. As far as I'm aware there hasn't been a major volcanic event like that and we haven't been hit by a particularly large rock during the last 60m years. What is known however is that over the last 300 years, since our industrial revolution here, we've been chucking out CO2 and SO2 into the global atmosphere with impunity via our energy production, transportation and farming policies (that last involving methane production too (a far more 'toxic' greenhouse gas than CO2). And, at the same time, destroying the sinks that might have mopped some of that up. The rainforests, blanket bogs and messing with ocean chemistry denying the production of ocean algal blooms.

But you reckon that it's all down to some poorly understood planetary/solar system cycle and nothing to do with me/us guv. and there's nothing I/we can do about it. How sad.

In fairness, those big cycles will undoubtedly be going on in tandem too. It would be difficult to explain the ice-age cycles otherwise. What you don't know is whether we're still in a global, ice-age interstitial, whether or not we're now in a warming of cooling phase within that or whether that particular cycle has now finished for good. So, in short, what you don't know is whether our own activities are adding to, or detracting from, a bigger cycle.

But to deny we're having any effect whatsoever is frankly bizarre and strikes me as a complete cop out from one who doesn't want to change his habits himself in his dotage and therefore justifies that by claiming that homio sapiens can't possibly change there collective spots either to justify his own selfishness.

 

Nope, sure don't.

 

All true. But the elephant in the room that you don't seem to recognise is that there has never been a species extant on this planet before that can think long term, is extraordinarily clever, understands cause and effect, can manipulate its environment to its own ends to a degree and could, as a last resort, adopt a policy of 'deferred gratification' to save itself in extremis.

So this is a unique situation and, as far as we yet know, unique in the entirety of the universe. So whatever Prof. Cox might have to say about what's gone on before doesn't necessarily follow this time around. What odds would you give, as long as our atmosphere isn't threatening to do a runner tomorrow, that at some point in the future we might be able to correct a bit of 'planetary wobble' whatever to keep our atmosphere in its box?

 

Perfectly natural, nothing to see here.

 

Mars became a lifeless barren waste because of its size primarily. As it is much smaller than Earth its magnetic field was not strong enough to stop the solar winds from stripping the atmosphere away, also any internal heat generated from the initial accretion and radioactive decay of heavy elements has long disappeared due to radiating of thermal energy to space. Mars is a poor example.

Venus on the other hand shows what happens when you get a runaway greenhouse effect. It's unknown whether that planet was once inhabited by simple life early on in its history.

There are of course non-human factors that dictate whether the Earth undergoing a warming or cooling period, however the rise over the last 200 years is unprecedented and we are quickly running into trouble, what the consequences of inaction is will be in 50 years or so is down to a bit of guesswork and modelling. We have the opportunity now of doing something about arresting the temperature rises before it truly is too late.

 

The issue for me is the time it will take us to react in a co-ordinated fashion for this "last resort". At present governments are competing with their own oppositions for popular votes, and countries are competing economically with other countries. There will be a point where the climate has moved too far out of equilibrium and it snowballs. I can't remember the example he gave but it was along the lines of "if temperature rises by say 3 degrees, then this will cause x to happen (maybe methane release from permafrost?), which will cause y to happen, and at that point it really doesn't matter what you do, the horse has bolted.

 

Yes I guess it was Venus Prof C was talking about then....

 

Ah, but don't forget he also once told us that things can only get better. Contradictory messages there.

 

He was just a D:reamer back then though.

 

"..Understanding the way Mars and Venus have evolved, for example, we see that atmospheres of planets can change. This is what happened to Venus. We see a planet that was probably Earth-like, but is now the hottest place in the Solar System and is often described as a vision of hell, because of the way that its atmosphere changed. We see the greenhouse effect in action. These observations of the Solar System are important beyond the science. They’re not just interesting, they actually teach us that we as a species are very fortunate indeed, and actually in a rather precarious position. We’ve found that planetary atmospheres are rather fragile things, and they can evolve in response to small changes.
We’ve seen that not only by measuring Earth’s atmosphere, but also trying to model Venus’s atmosphere in particular, and also Mars’s atmosphere and how it lost its atmosphere."
https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/the-planets-an-interview-with-brian-cox/

 

I see all this changing already. Once it becomes clear that even the selfish, rich multinational company executives are suffering too then they'll fall into line soon enough particularly when Joe Public demands that they change their ways and the consequence of that for their profit margins. Same with govts. Fully addressing climate change issues will be at the forefront of their agendas once that's recognised as being a big vote winner (which it already is being here).

Greta and ER have brought all these issues to the forefront over the last few years whether you agree with them and their methods or not. And they ain't going anywhere. Their appeal can only increase.

Otter has pointed out the demise of coal-fired power stations in this nation. And less polluting gas-fired ones won't be far behind. Nuclear will still have a role to play. If you drive to Devon down the M4 and M5 (probably in a hybrid or electric car) you'll see fields full of solar panels. Why only covert from cattle pasture to soya if you can covert to energy production instead? As has been said by ... ..., stand on any number of coastlines around this nation and you'll see the turbines turning out at sea. And if you drive up the M1 north of Nottingham or the M6 north of Stafford (in a similar car) and on into Scotland you'll see any number of them turning on various hillsides. A number of which I worked on at the environmental development stage. The Severn estuary in particular but also the Wash, Solway and various Scottish Firths are also in the frame for a tidal barrage although there are environmental issues attached to all of those. The Swansea Bay barrage is already going ahead. The development of wave power (where we have a particularly special potential resource along the Western Isles to Shetland via Orkney stretch - big Atlantic 'fetch' there) is less well advanced but research is ongoing. And, in the longer term, the production of hydrogen from seawater and nuclear fusion rather than fission are at primary research stages.

So it's hardly all doom and gloom is it? It would be hard to claim that 'nothing is being done'. Of course China, Russia, India, Brazil (and the US to to a lesser extent - although they're already moving in the right direction under the new administration) will need to get onboard too. But they will as soon as the pressure from the rest of the world to do so becomes inexorable.

To be clear, I'm not an advocate of a 'hair-shirt' policy. Probably too much to ask for a wholesale change in diet and a requirement to quit travelling. But then of course I'm forgetting artificial meat and zero emissions aeroplanes.

All of this is why I'm much more optimistic than I was five years ago as mentioned on another, less relevant, thread. What us humans do best of all is brinkmanship and then, on this occasion I'm extremely confident, digging ourselves out of an 'existential threat hole' entirely by superiority of intellect and some minor tinkering with behaviour.

 

Uranus is a good example of an atmosphere turning toxic.

 

Thanks very much. But probably a fair comment on the atmosphere in my bedroom just before I get up of a morning. One of the great lessons of life I've learnt down the years is the importance of taking up with a woman who thinks farting is fun.

OK, it was an easy shot.

 

But that is exactly the sort of 'tinkering' that's required. Spoiling the view on occasion is hardly up there with a wholesale change in diet. Or the end of international travel. Besides which, some people actually like them. Including kids who are reminded of the Teletubbies. A story related to me by a lady serving me breakfast when I was on a 'windfarm job' in Ayrshire.

 

It's got nothing on the WFCforums shoutbox.

 

Won’t lie, I’ve refreshed this thread several times in the last hour or so because I’m excited to see how TVOR responds.

 

No. How many more times? The difference between biology and physics (with chemistry and geology inbetween) is that physical observations/phenomena can be proven by mathematics and thus called LAWS. Biology however doesn't enjoy that luxury. But when you have an overwhelming weight of evidence all pointing in the same direction (with precisely nothing pointing in the opposite direction) then any sensible person would regard that as a fact. Despite the nomenclature requiring them to be still called theories due to them, by necessity, being unable to be proven by maths. Exactly the same with evolution.

Except a retired postman from Tring apparently. And still, again, you fundamentally refuse to understand the critical importance of timescale here.

 

You have been truly fortunate that a new way of thinking has emerged in this millennium, the no I'm not going to take any notice because, what do experts know anyway, books, what use are they now we have the internet and can choose knowledge that agrees with my disposition school of thought.

 

Cloud-forming? Interesting. I forgot that one. Why do you think that would take two centuries? Seems a bit pessimistic to me.

Geo-engineering is very interesting too. What do you mean by it? Do you just mean heat-pumps replacing gas-fired boilers in family homes (a policy already underway in this nation)? Or something bigger (e.g. Iceland)? That nation does of course enjoy the advantage of virtually unlimited geothermal energy at low depth and a vast hydroelectric reserve too. A place I've been to a number of times. And they only have to service a population of some 340,000 souls. All their heating is provided by geothermal energy and all their electricity requirement by hydroelectric including two huge aluminium smelters which are notoriously thirsty for electricity. They don't import any fossil fuels whatsoever and have none of their own.

So they've got major advantages. Doesn't mean we can't learn a lot from them though.

 

Finally some recognition of 'timescales'. I think. Cox was talking about things that have happened to our planet on a geological timescale. And to other planets too. He's also recognising that things might be going very rapidly downhill on this planet right now due to human contributions, on an accelerated timescale, and could be terminal. So he's recognising that things are currently accelerated big-time due to humanity's activities.

You have previously denied this, endlessly promoting solar system phenomena on a big timescale and denying the human contribution on a smaller one. So, do you now 'get it'?

 

Have you replied to the wrong post ? This is what I have been saying from the first post. I’m 100% concerned about the human effect and how slowly we may change our destructive behaviour?????

 

As long as humans, me included, are happy to sit on electronic devices, manufactured from raw materials dug out of vast mines in the earth, and discuss climate change as if our hands are clean... nothing is going to change. We are all the problem. The houses we build, the lives we lead, the technology we use, electricity, travel, food... are all the problem. Humans don't deserve to survive the climate crisis. Humans will be gone <200 years and the earth better for it. Lets hope there is still some animal kingdom left to repopulate a better earth.

 

To all contributors on this thread. I've seen lots of stuff on here regarding 'selfish humanity'. Well, the news for you all is that every other species on the planet, that has ever existed (and maybe still does), and every individual within it, is completely, and utterly selfish. They know nothing else. And are completely devoid of any concept of what 'selfishness' is whatsoever. Only we can step back and consider that as even a concept.

That is the fundamental of evolutionary FACT. When some species appeared to be 'altruistic' that threw a spanner into evolutionary 'theory' for a bit (don't get overly excited here TVoR) but that was quickly countered with work that showed that those species still stuck with the 'selfish gene agenda' by working within an 'extended family'. Many of our cultures do exactly the same thing. Check out the Florida Scrub Jay too.

Anyway, I reckon that we should maybe all give ourselves a bit of a break here and cut ourselves some slack. Uniquely, we have this question to answer in the entire history of this planet. To be asked to sacrifice (and of course innovate) in the short term for ourselves and our immediate family for a greater common good. In defiance of our biological inheritance down the aeons.

So can we do it then? Sacrifice a bit of short-term-gain for the bigger picture? Dunno really but I remain optimistic. None of this would detract from evolutionary 'theory' of course. It's no good watching your neighbour's family burn if yours is too.