Attenborough - we've past the point of no return on trying to avoid climate change

[Amity Island]

He said that countries will only be able to manage the problem rather than avoid it.

"There is no going back - no matter what we do now, it's too late to avoid climate change and the poorest, the most vulnerable, those with the least security, are now certain to suffer."

Attenborough's stark warning on climate change: 'It's already too late'

The veteran broadcaster tells the UN Security Council the climate crisis is the "biggest threat to security" humans have faced.

news.sky.com

 

[Inka]

Not to worry, nature always finds a way

You don’t worry about climate change?

 

[Drummer]

The world will be just fine - but the people - that's going to be a problem.
When the ice melts the permafrost with slide or erode into the sea - sea levels will rise, methane will be released. Burping cattle will fade into insignificance.
A lot of people have ideas about reclaiming land and water which could work - when things get so bad that those with power start to pay attention, it might be possible to use natural heat sources to run things such as greenhouses where the warm humid air is cooled and the water condensed out using wind power, so we get food and water and then either feed the plant residues to microbes or larger animals to make more food, or ferment it to make fuel - but chemical pollutants will have to be kept out of the system, or they will just accumulate until levels become toxic.
There is more than enough land to grow crops for far more than the projected population - it is just that it is in private hands. Food production was greatly increased by the 'Dig for Victory' campaign and educational programs about growing and cooking economically. There are far more ways of growing and preserving food these days.

 

[Inka]

No, the world is between 2 peaks of an ice age; who can stop the sun from doing its thing?
I don't worry about things that I can't change.

So you don’t believe the scientists? Isn’t it more us ‘doing our thing’ that’s caused the problem rather than the sun?

We can change the way we live on this planet though.

 

[Amity Island]

We do seem to have tackled things in an odd way. It's always a way that suits the rich and the money makers. Take for example the phrase "sustainable development". Those two words sound convincing to some big developer, planning authority, govenment or the man on the street buying a new property, but those two words are at complete odds with each other, completely contradictory.

How can we have "sustainable" "development"? We are already over developed. Any more development makes the situation worse. Thus how can more devlopement be sustainable?

What could be sustainable is a "sustainable" "retreat". Stop taking more land, stop building and start using existing buildings more, retreat into smaller areas.

 

[Amity Island]

Isn’t it more us ‘doing our thing’ that’s caused the problem rather than the sun?

Inka, now there's a question!

The question about man made vs sun cycles has been at the crux of debate for decades.

To me, thinking rationally and freely, it does seem a perfectly reasonable assumption to make, that given the sun is our planets source of heat, then any change in temperature could be attributable to the suns short and long term cycles.

On the other side of the debate is that human bourne CO2 only accounts for a very, very, very small amount of the atmpsophere and, of all the greenhouse gases, water vapour accounts for 95% of it.

C02 accounts for less than 0.04% of the atmosphere. Nitrogen 78%. Oxygen 28%. etc

Of that 0.04% 97% of that is made by nature and just 3% (of that 0.04%) is made by human activity.

3% of 0.04% = 0.0012%

0.0012% is a negligible amount of anything.

How much of a difference would a change in our behaviour make to 0.0012%?

And if it's not our 0.0012% affecting the climate, then why try making huge, drastic changes to business, trade, energy sources. It would be like locking down all year for a virus, it wouldn't put a stop to it.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

I remember hearing about the inevitability of a next ice age when studying at school... Of course the timescale was rather geological in nature, and I think the climate crisis has a rather more immediate and pressing timetable.

Heartbreaking that the peoples and communities that have caused the least of the changes to the climate, and who are worst placed to deal with the consequences, will be bearing the brunt of the climate chaos that now seems unavoidable

 

[Inka]

Inka, now there's a question!

The question about man made vs sun cycles has been at the crux of debate for decades.

To me, thinking rationally and freely, it does seem a perfectly reasonable assumption to make, that given the sun is our planets source of heat, then any change in temperature could be attributable to the suns short and long term cycles.

On the other side of the debate is that human bourne CO2 only accounts for a very, very, very small amount of the atmpsophere and, of all the greenhouse gases, water vapour accounts for 95% of it.

C02 accounts for less than 0.04% of the atmosphere. Nitrogen 78%. Oxygen 28%. etc

Of that 0.04% 97% of that is made by nature and just 3% (of that 0.04%) is made by human activity.

3% of 0.04% = 0.0012%

0.0012% is a negligible amount of anything.

How much of a difference would a change in our behaviour make to 0.0012%?

And if it's not our 0.0012% affecting the climate, then why try making huge, drastic changes to business, trade, energy sources. It would be like locking down all year for a virus, it wouldn't put a stop to it.

@Amity Island It was the sharp spike shown in the graph here that shocked me:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

While the Earth does go through cycles, the contribution of Humankind is irrefutable. It’s that that’s concerning me (our contribution).

“This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming. Carbon dioxide from human activity is increasing more than 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age.”

 

[Inka]

It's 25 years since I studied 'sustainable development' for my dissertation at university; the science hasn't changed.

But we now have more information about our contribution to global warming.

 

[Inka]

And yet the science hasn't changed.

The science says we’re contributing global warming to the detriment of our planet. Yes, that hasn’t changed. We just know more details.

 

[Amity Island]

@Amity Island It was the sharp spike shown in the graph here that shocked me:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

While the Earth does go through cycles, the contribution of Humankind is irrefutable. It’s that that’s concerning me (our contribution).

“This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming. Carbon dioxide from human activity is increasing more than 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age.”

Hi Inka,

Like you say, there's definitely something happening. I couldn't begin to explain it all, it's just too complicated. It just seems mad that if all this data is accurate, that we've done almost nothing about it. Perhaps it's human nature to wait until crisis point to do anything. As Attenborough said, that turning points gone now, which to me means all global warming campaigns are in vain. We need to get on with it now and deal with the changes. So no more of this "we need to prevent global warmning" any more.

It will be interesting to see how we tackle these changes from now on.

 

[Inka]

Some people don’t understand or care @Amity Island Some people are selfish and only care about instant gratification.

No - the campaigns aren’t in vain! Yes, there’s a time lag in that f we took action today we wouldn’t see all the results for years but if we do nothing, then the results will be even worse in years to come. Anything we can do to limit the warming is important.

 

[nonethewiser]

All have duty of care to do our best for future generations, no matter how big or small.

 

[Eddy Edson]

Luckily the natural world always finds a balance.

But unfortunately there's no guarantee that a new equilibrium will be a good place for us.

 

[Amity Island]

Some people don’t understand or care @Amity Island Some people are selfish and only care about instant gratification.

No - the campaigns aren’t in vain! Yes, there’s a time lag in that f we took action today we wouldn’t see all the results for years but if we do nothing, then the results will be even worse in years to come. Anything we can do to limit the warming is important.

Hi Inka,

I know, there are very few selfless people about. It's like, it's easy to be generous when you have plenty, but how many people give when they've got almost nowt. Even charities are now great money making machines, with nobody finding a cure to anything. Almost everyone lives for the moment, not thinking about anyone else or anything else. Attenborough seems to be saying that we're now passed this point where we can do anything to change it. I think it will end with mass migration across continents.

Everything seems to be coming to ahead recently, brexit, covid, climate change, governments failing, leaders misleading, institutions failing. There's certainly interesting times ahead for all of us.

 

[Ditto]

We've been here long enough, hopefully the Earth will sort itself out when we've gone. It's not going to be very nice but it's our own fault. We should have been living as Red Indians then we'd have been okay. Not being racist, I just don't know the proper name for Red Indians! Not native Americans that's for sure.

 

[mikeyB]

Inka, now there's a question!

The question about man made vs sun cycles has been at the crux of debate for decades.

To me, thinking rationally and freely, it does seem a perfectly reasonable assumption to make, that given the sun is our planets source of heat, then any change in temperature could be attributable to the suns short and long term cycles.

On the other side of the debate is that human bourne CO2 only accounts for a very, very, very small amount of the atmpsophere and, of all the greenhouse gases, water vapour accounts for 95% of it.

C02 accounts for less than 0.04% of the atmosphere. Nitrogen 78%. Oxygen 28%. etc

Of that 0.04% 97% of that is made by nature and just 3% (of that 0.04%) is made by human activity.

3% of 0.04% = 0.0012%

0.0012% is a negligible amount of anything.

How much of a difference would a change in our behaviour make to 0.0012%?

And if it's not our 0.0012% affecting the climate, then why try making huge, drastic changes to business, trade, energy sources. It would be like locking down all year for a virus, it wouldn't put a stop to it.

That is the of argument of climate change deniers. Confusing Statistics. I can’t really be bothered with ridiculing your percentages, any fool could do that.

Firstly, the amount of water vapour in the air is neither here nor there. It has been unchanged for millennia. It is not a greenhouse gas. (The amount of water on on the planet is unchanged from millions of years ago.) if we didn’t have water vapour in the atmosphere it would never rain, and mankind would never have evolved. Indeed, life would never have emerged from the sea. Sharks, as apex predators, would rule the world.

Secondly, though CO2 is a small a percentage of the atmosphere, it has increased steadily, and lately at a faster rate as result of mankind pumping out CO2 from burning fossil fuels, the explosion in car driving, and all manner of industrial activity such as the manufacture of concrete. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It doesn’t matter how small a portion of the atmosphere it is, it is supposed to be small and not increasing. The cycles of the sun have never affected the CO2 in history. The forests and sea have always maintained a balance. Now countries are destroying forests, particularly in the Amazon region. In the sea, corals and shellfish are dying because the seas are becoming more acid as a result of excess CO2, so they cannot make shells. Again, that hasn’t happened in history. The white cliffs of Dover are made from the shells of prehistoric sea creatures.

Sun cycles (which run 11 yearly approximately) have had no previous lasting effect on climate change or global warming. We would have noticed. The current rise in temperature has been happening steadily for more than three or four complete sun cycles, so blaming it on the sun is ludicrous.

So play with your use of percentages if you want to, but you can’t deny that mankind is buggering up the world. We aren’t, as St David Attenborough states, beyond the tipping point, but it won’t be long - certainly in our children’s lifetimes - that the Atlantic circulation will turn off, because of all the ice melting in the Antarctic which is proceeding apace. That’s the Gulf Stream, which keeps our weather temperate. We would have a Nordic climate - long snowy winters and warm summers. And no fish that you would recognise.

We will all be dead before all that happens, but our children won’t thank us.

 

[Drummer]

I'd have to argue about the water vapour in the air - warmer water means that the air above it is warmed, and that moves water into the atmosphere. Once in the atmosphere it can cause changes in the climate in some areas, as it can move into regions which were dry - forming new lakes, or it can depart on the wind and no rain fall in the area and so whole seas dry up.
The permafrost is melting now - that is why there are interesting preserved animals turning up, mammoths and woolly rhinos - that ground has been so deeply frozen for so long and now it is melting and washing away. There is a bridge in - I think it is Greenland, built on the permafrost - they are expecting it to fall down and cut the island in two, one part no longer accessible by road.
Things will get interesting, that's a certainty.

 

[mikeyB]

Yes, for sure more water vapour rises from warmed seas, but that’s a consequence, not a cause of a warmer atmosphere. And permafrost melting releases tons of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

If all that permafrost melts, we’ll all be up the creek, never mind traffic problems in Greenland.

I do agree strongly that it will be interesting. Though that’s easy for us oldies to say😉

 

[Amity Island]

That is the of argument of climate change deniers. Confusing Statistics. I can’t really be bothered with ridiculing your percentages, any fool could do that.

Firstly, the amount of water vapour in the air is neither here nor there. It has been unchanged for millennia. It is not a greenhouse gas. (The amount of water on on the planet is unchanged from millions of years ago.) if we didn’t have water vapour in the atmosphere it would never rain, and mankind would never have evolved. Indeed, life would never have emerged from the sea. Sharks, as apex predators, would rule the world.

Secondly, though CO2 is a small a percentage of the atmosphere, it has increased steadily, and lately at a faster rate as result of mankind pumping out CO2 from burning fossil fuels, the explosion in car driving, and all manner of industrial activity such as the manufacture of concrete. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It doesn’t matter how small a portion of the atmosphere it is, it is supposed to be small and not increasing. The cycles of the sun have never affected the CO2 in history. The forests and sea have always maintained a balance. Now countries are destroying forests, particularly in the Amazon region. In the sea, corals and shellfish are dying because the seas are becoming more acid as a result of excess CO2, so they cannot make shells. Again, that hasn’t happened in history. The white cliffs of Dover are made from the shells of prehistoric sea creatures.

Sun cycles (which run 11 yearly approximately) have had no previous lasting effect on climate change or global warming. We would have noticed. The current rise in temperature has been happening steadily for more than three or four complete sun cycles, so blaming it on the sun is ludicrous.

So play with your use of percentages if you want to, but you can’t deny that mankind is buggering up the world. We aren’t, as St David Attenborough states, beyond the tipping point, but it won’t be long - certainly in our children’s lifetimes - that the Atlantic circulation will turn off, because of all the ice melting in the Antarctic which is proceeding apace. That’s the Gulf Stream, which keeps our weather temperate. We would have a Nordic climate - long snowy winters and warm summers. And no fish that you would recognise.

We will all be dead before all that happens, but our children won’t thank us.

Mikey B,

I've not got a view on this. All I know is something is changing, that is certain.

Regarding the percentages, I believe these are accurate? I'm not saying either way what the causes are, just showing the proportions of gases in the atmosphere. If you have different figures please share, i'm not against correcting them if they a long way out.

Water vapour is a greenhouse gas and it's the most important one. (see link)

Sun cycles also change across millenia as well as 11 yearly. These long cycles range over 9,300 years, which i'd assume is a lot longer than you or I are able to witness.

Water Vapor and Climate Change - American Chemical Society

Water Vapor and Climate Change

www.acs.org