We are at emergency levels

Originally posted by madamswer: ↑

“This may seem like a huge alarmist con but seas were that high in the past when the temperatures were around the same as today. Scientists have suggestedt here is a catch up period when ice melts and eventually the appropriate sea level change occurs.”

Yeah, a great many smart-sounding people continuously “suggest” all kinds of things; some are real and some are false.

You’ll appreciate, I trust, that a great many people (the overwhelming majority, I’m sure) require more than mere hypothetical suggestions about things for them to take those things seriously. Especially when those suggestions are about such somewhat unorthodox arguments as “catch-up periods” of ice melting in delayed reaction after increases in temperatures.

I have to say, “catch-up” melting of ice In delayed response to rising global temperatures does not pass the smell test with any conviction, if at all.

“Your startling statistics should have world leaders agitating for action as your statistics suggest –we seem unable to slow down our emissions indicating we are heading for a greater than 1m rise in sea levels..”

For starters, they aren’t my startling statistics; I am merely citing research conducted by an independent agency.

But I do agree with you that we don’t seem able to slow down our emissions (although the extent to which that will lead to meaningful rises in sea levels is a somewhat indeterminate prediction, in my observation.)

But I’m not opposing your right to believe continued rising emissions will lead to meaningful rises in sea levels.

To that end, permit me to ask you this: the agitation on the part of world leaders that you envisage; what kinds of actions might arise from such agitation that will reverse the sorts of major structural emissions trends that I pointed out in my previous post?

In other words, what can be done to stop emissions from developing countries rising unabated as the populations of those countries continue to rise and their economies industrialise and modernise, with the attendant rise in per capita emissions and hence, the exponential rise in total emissions?

What, specifically, is your proposed solution?

Expand

I agree it 's an uphill battle getting the world to work together and develop practical strategies and if humanity relied on the UN to act it is a waste of time.

Fortunately China has risen at a good time as my money is on them to come up with a technological solution.

But if China doesn't have a breakthrough within 2 decades and emissions keep rising IMO its game over as we will have triggered a positive feedback mechanism such as the release of billions of tonnes of methane from thawing arctic tundra.

Regarding the lag time for ice to melt, schools sometimes have a demonstration during science week when a large block of ice is put on display and kids try to guess how long it takes to melt. They are usually surprised to find something like a 100kg block can take several weeks to completely melt.

When you suggest scientists are rattling on about ice requiring a catch up period to create a 10m sea level rise in order to mirror the situation in the past with similar temperatures, that explanation seems to be common sense as the Antarctic ice shelf is very thick and would require a good 100 years to melt.

But from the perspective of geological time 100 years is the blink of an eye.

Many say we cant imagine our situation at the turn of the century, but IMO if we dont get our CO2 level at or under 400ppm by 2040 its game over because there is no way the Arctic tundra will stay frozen for 2 more decades.

So regarding your question about my proposed solution for unified action. This is my hypothetical answer outlining 3 options;

a. Given many UN members are corruptible it would be relatively cheap to offer every member10 million dollars to pass a 100% resolution so that for 10 years every nation will forsake their defense budget and allocate the money to a research and development program to fast tack a large scale CO2 capture scheme. Maybe a fund of 10 trillion would do the trick.
The mantra could be the world is at war against climate change so we are together this time!

b. If option a falls flat then the next possible hypothetical is for investors around the world be offered shares in an infrastructure fund to fast track projects such as nuclear fusion that is currently expected to be available by 2050 but to get it up a decade earlier and use the energy to again capture CO2. Shareholders will get a dividend etc if successful.

c. If options a and b fail then we could have the CIA approach where they operate covertly as they do in South America and start a monster firestorm that burns a vast area of the Amazon during the dry season.

The world will be in such a shocked state that Greta and 10 million volunteers will get into Sth. America and replant the whole Amazon basin to forest while a a child army from around the world stops the farmers from planting the area to soybeans!

This will be such a huge success that Greta will volunteer to be the planet's first environmental dictator and with the help of a massive under 21year old world environmental army they will take over the world and to show they are serious to try and execute former UN members for attempting to take away their future!