The science is clear:

[beecee]

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-science-low-carbon-future-today.html

The science is clear: We have to start creating our low-carbon future today

October 12, 2018, The Conversation

This week's release of the special report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has put scientific evidence on the front page of the world's newspapers.

As Australia's Chief Scientist, I hope it will be recognised as a tremendous validation of the work that scientists do.

The people of the world, speaking through their governments, requested this report to quantify the impacts of warming by 1.5℃ and what steps might be taken to limit it. They asked for the clearest possible picture of the consequences and feasible solutions.

It is not my intention in this article to offer a detailed commentary on the IPCC's findings. I commend the many scientists with expertise in climate systems who have helped Australians to understand the messages of this report.

My purpose is to urge all decision-makers – in government, industry and the community – to listen to the science.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-science-low-carbon-future-today.html#jCp
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Another article.....

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-farmers-climate-denial-wane-reality.html

Farmers' climate denial begins to wane as reality bites:

Australia has been described as the "front line of the battle for climate change adaptation", and our farmers are the ones who have to lead the charge. Farmers will have to cope, among other pressures, with longer droughts, more erratic rainfall, higher temperatures, and changes to the timing of seasons.

Yet, puzzlingly enough to many commentators, climate denial has been widespread among farmers and in the ranks of the National Party, which purports to represent their interests.

Back in 2008, only one-third of farmers accepted the science of climate change. Our 2010-11 survey of 946 irrigators in the southern Murray-Darling Basin (published in 2013) found similar results: 32 percent accepted that climate change posed a risk to their region; half disagreed; and 18 percent did not know.

These numbers have consistently trailed behind the wider public, a clear majority of whom have consistently accepted the science. More Australians in 2018 accepted the reality of climate change than at almost any time, with 76 percent accepting climate change is occurring, 11 percent not believing in it and 13 percent being unsure.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-farmers-climate-denial-wane-reality.html#jCp

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

We are seeing dramatic weather patterns all around the world it seems to me.....Monster hurricanes, Incredible storms with tennis ball size hail, higher temperatures in general 

Climate change: How do we know?

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO₂ has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.) Find out more about ice cores (external site)

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Sadly, I'm not entirely familiar with all the evidence and/or the whole picture on climate change, but one that I'm trying to change. An argument put to me the other day, and one I could not deny, was that at this time, in this electronic age with social media etc, communications etc about what is happening on one side of the world, is immediately reported to the other side...at the same instant. This gives us a false picture with regards to some of the weather events that are occurring at any one time. While this maybe true, the scientific facts remain that if we don't "contain" or "limit" climate change, we may see dramatic changes within our children's lifetime. In Australia we have what I believe to be one of the most stunning and breathtaking structures on the planet.....one that I have been fortunate enough to dive and scuba on...The Great Barrier Reef. This incredible structure is already feeling the stress, both natural and man-made. 

What can we do to get the message not only to Australian farmers, but farmers all around the world? Are we simply going to have to adapt, [which we apparently are good at] and to what degree will any adaption reach its zenith? 

[DirtyChai]

On 10/12/2018 at 4:45 PM, beecee said:

My purpose is to urge all decision-makers – in government, industry and the community – to listen to the science.

I think it's important to realize that many of the questions and objections about AGW that we see today are nothing new.  Scientists were arguing about this stuff among themselves in much greater detail back in the 60s, 70s and 80s.  However, unlike today, such objections weren't  based solely on monetary or political motivations as much as they were to simply get the science right in the first place.

Also, climate science denial today demonstrates how history is just repeating itself:

"By around 2000, some predicted, an unprecedented global warming would become apparent. Their worries first caught wide public attention in the summer of 1988, the hottest on record till then. (Most since then have been hotter.) An international meeting of scientists warned that the world should take active steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The response was vehement. Corporations and individuals who opposed all government regulation began to spend many millions of dollars on lobbying, advertising, and “reports” that mimicked scientific publications, in an effort to convince people that there was no problem at all. Environmental groups, less wealthy but more enthusiastic, helped politicize the issue with urgent cries of alarm. But the many scientific uncertainties, and the sheer complexity of climate, made room for limitless debate over what actions, if any, governments should take."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/discovery-of-global-warming/

 

Another source I like to use is a 1982 Memo to Exxon Management about CO2 Greenhouse Effect:

http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-memo-to-exxon-management-about-co2-greenhouse-effect/

"There is currently no unambiguous scientific evidence that the earth ls warming.  If the earth ls on a warming trend, we're not likely to detect it before 1995.  This is about the earliest projection of when the temperature might rise the O.5° needed to get beyond the range of normal temperature fluctuations. . .

The "greenhouse effect" is not likely to cause substantial climate changes until the average global temperature rises at least 1°C above today's (1982) levels.  This could occur in the second to third quarter of the next century.  However, there is concern among some scientific groups that once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible and little could be done to correct the situation in the short term.  Therefore, a number of environmental groups are calling for action now to prevent an undesirable future situation from developing."

Mitigation of the "greenhouse effect" would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion."

 

Just a couple figures from that 1982 Exxon memo:

 

 

IMO,  the somewhat eerie predictions in the memo illustrate how climate science can be trusted.  We no longer have to rely on their "ambiguous evidence" and "questionable models" of the past since reality today  demonstrates the accuracy of those predictions.   If we can get such accurate info with seemingly "flawed" models 40 years ago, how much more accurate - and - precise are they today?

 

Whether or not one accepts climate change, most of us can agree that there are other more practical uses for the limited supply of fossil fuels than simply just burning it all up for fuel, especially when we have more efficient ways of creating energy.  

Same thing with technology.  Unless it's for marketing purposes, discussions about new technology don't necessarily have to revolve around the idea of being green or environmentally safe/responsible.  We can just say, hey, look at this new cool stuff we have.  Most everyone can relate to the excitement of new and interesting technology.

 

On 10/12/2018 at 4:45 PM, beecee said:

Are we simply going to have to adapt, [which we apparently are good at] and to what degree will any adaption reach its zenith? 

We're apparently good at adapting to changes over a 1000+ years, but how good are we at adapting to dramatic changes within 20, 50, 100 years?

In the past, many times adaptations came by way of extinction while other species filled the void.

 

Edited October 15, 2018 by DirtyChai
edited to add link

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, DirtyChai said:

  However, there is concern among some scientific groups that once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible and little could be done to correct the situation in the short term.  Therefore, a number of environmental groups are calling for action now to prevent an undesirable future situation from developing."

As I mentioned in the OP, my knowledge and research into climate change is rather limited, although that is something I am working on. My thoughts always though has been, whatever doubts exist re climate change, we should err on the side of caution.

 

Quote

 

We're apparently good at adapting to changes over a 1000+ years, but how good are we at adapting to dramatic changes within 20, 50, 100 years?

In the past, many times adaptations came by way of extinction while other species filled the void.

 

I found the following just 30 minutes ago, and was about to post it here as a supplementary item....... https://phys.org/news/2018-10-mammals-evolve-fast-current-extinction.html

Humans are exterminating animal and plant species so quickly that nature's built-in defence mechanism, evolution, cannot keep up. An Aarhus-led research team calculated that if current conservation efforts are not improved, so many mammal species will become extinct during the next five decades that nature will need 3 to 5 million years to recover.

There have been five upheavals over the past 450 million years when the environment has changed so dramatically that the majority of Earth's plant and animal species became extinct. After each mass extinction, evolution has slowly filled in the gaps with new species.

The sixth mass extinction is happening now, but this time, the extinctions are not being caused by natural disasters; they are the work of humans. A team of researchers from Aarhus University and the University of Gothenburg has calculated that the extinctions are moving too rapidly for evolution to keep up.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-mammals-evolve-fast-current-extinction.html#jCp

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/10/09/1804906115

Mammal diversity will take millions of years to recover from the current biodiversity crisis:

 

Abstract

The incipient sixth mass extinction that started in the Late Pleistocene has already erased over 300 mammal species and, with them, more than 2.5 billion y of unique evolutionary history. At the global scale, this lost phylogenetic diversity (PD) can only be restored with time as lineages evolve and create new evolutionary history. Given the increasing rate of extinctions however, can mammals evolve fast enough to recover their lost PD on a human time scale? We use a birth–death tree framework to show that even if extinction rates slow to preanthropogenic background levels, recovery of lost PD will likely take millions of years. These findings emphasize the severity of the potential sixth mass extinction and the need to avoid the loss of unique evolutionary history now.

[Sensei]

On 12.10.2018 at 10:45 PM, beecee said:

We have to start creating our low-carbon future today

Absolutely. That's why I want everybody to have solar panels on the roof, and walls, of each building, each house. Roof tiles which are absorbing photons. Now they can even be indistinguishable from regular one. Musk makes them. But they should be at fraction of his company price to become worldwide popular. Roads which are absorbing photons (and transferring electrical energy to vehicles flying slightly above them, to not waste energy on friction). etc. etc.

On 12.10.2018 at 10:45 PM, beecee said:

Farmers' climate denial begins to wane as reality bites:

Farmers should transform to engineers and build hermetic farmer's skyscrapers which will create optimal environment for plants inside of them. Use hydroponics to limit water usage. Produce ammonia from air and water and solar energy for themselves.

[mistermack]

One condom can save 800 tonnes of carbon over an 80 year period. A lot more if you count subsequent generations.

If they were serious, they'd be giving them away free. I believe Bill Gates does.

Edited October 15, 2018 by mistermack

[et pet]

On 10/15/2018 at 6:44 PM, mistermack said:

One condom can save 800 tonnes of carbon over an 80 year period. A lot more if you count subsequent generations.

If they were serious, they'd be giving them away free. I believe Bill Gates does.

   If his Condoms are anything like his Software, one will be too busy Patching the Holes in them to ever get time to actually use them!

[Ken Fabian]

My own view is that the main game for the informed and concerned is currently with support for renewable energy - that the current circumstance where adding new electricity generation using wind, solar and "firming" is cheaper in most places than new coal, is an extraordinary and unexpected opportunity that should not be wasted. The most profound near term outcome this makes possible isn't solving the climate/emissions/energy conundrum as such or measured in CO2 emissions avoided, but in changing the political landscape by undermining the depth of support for obstructionist opposition. We have an unlooked for opportunity for breaking through the deadlock of divided politics and allowing a more rational unity of purpose to emerge within governments and policy makers.

Alarmist economic fear of abandoning fossil fuels and becoming dependent on renewables is a main PR thrust of opposition and obstruction - persistent undermining trust in climate science being the other main meme. Just as denying the reality of the problem has become untenable in the face of global warming's reality, fear of economic harm from shifting to renewables no longer has the persuasive punch that it did only a few years ago because of cut price solar and wind. When businesses that have no PR skin in this began putting solar on their roofs - to save on electricity costs - the overwhelming unity of opposition by business lobby groups to strong climate policies was and is undermined. When long running electricity companies began taking on large renewables projects - willingly, even with the expectation that ongoing subsidy support would be phased out - a profound change in thinking has taken place. When Solar and Wind became cheaper - even intermittently and seasonally - nothing would be the same after; we are only just at the beginning of that, it's full implications still not well understood. To me it looks like just the right time and issue to push back against the denial and obstruction.

I tend to see the long running doubt, deny, delay response of conservative-right politics as reflective of the wishes of commerce and industry, for whom the alarmist economic fears of high cost energy and devalued fossil fuel assets were central to the stance they made. Renewable energy has driven a wedge into that collective agreement to oppose and obstruct and that, rather than the extent of near term emissions avoided, is what presents us an unexpected opportunity to shift the way policy makers approach the problem. I expect even nuclear will find itself much advantaged if this gets used effectively to bring about the end of mainstream climate obstructionism - supporters of nuclear can come out from behind the wall of denial conservative right politics made within itself, that prioritised denial and obstruction over contributing meaningfully to future energy policy development.