Climate change

Discussions on the interactions between components of the environment and their effects on all types of organisms.

Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on February 5th, 2020, 6:49 am 

Rather than advocating doing nothing, I'll throw in another consideration that appears to have a taboo against its discussion, and which I believe the IPCC should be addressing. That's population growth.

I believe that IF the increase in Average Near Surface Global Temperature is anthropogenic to any extent, then it makes common sense to attempt to limit population growth. There have been a few scientific studies about this.

In 1987, Newel and Marcus announced on this site -- http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3 ... 2322280041, that the correlation coefficient between population growth and the steady build up of atmospheric CO2 is almost perfect (0.9985). They found that the growth rates of both variables rise exponentially simultaneously and concluded that international cooperation is needed beyond what human behaviour has ever done before, and that attrition is needed to avoid catastrophe. Such a high correlation is almost the same as a conversion of inches to feet. It means that if you use population figures in models, instead of carbon dioxide you will get almost the same results.

Pimental (1991) concluded, after a study of global population changes and changes in Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 concentrations, that the most important action we need to take is to check population growth on this site -- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12344889.

Onozaki (2008) also found a high correlation between annual population and CO2 changes and concluded that more attention should be paid to population growth to reduce atmospheric CO2 increases on this site -- http://jhs.pharm.or.jp/data/55(1)/55_125.pdf.

Four recommendations were made by Deluna (2012) on this site -- http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/36603/
after studying the effects of population, affluence and energy efficiency on CO2 emissions in Asia; the first recommendation was that we should stabilize human population sooner rather than later to help reduce future emissions.

O’Neill et al (2012) reviewed the evidence on how CO2 emissions from the use of fossil fuels are affected by demographic factors such as population growth or decline, aging, urbanisation, and changes in household size here -- http://jhs.pharm.or.jp/data/55(1)/55_125.pdf ; they concluded that policies that slow population growth would probably also have climate-related benefits.

Overpopulation seems to be difficult to define in research terms. According to Izazola and Jowett (Undated), suggestions of overpopulation have appeared as long ago as 1600 BCE in Cuneiform tablets. They point out that since then many authors have produced models for assessing population-environment relationships without any real consensus on sustainable numbers that could meet the needs of present generations without compromising those of future generations. Estimates of sustainable populations have varied between two and 13 billion.

Perhaps the one thing we can all agree upon is that if population growth does not level off, a time will come when our planetary resources will not be able to cope with the requirements of the human population. Simple mathematic principles are enough to explain this using the ad absurdum principle. Whatever figure any of us decide upon as being sustainable, we need only to keep doubling that figure in theory to produce a totally unsustainable number. In stating the obvious, there could come a time, in imagination only, when people are standing shoulder to shoulder on every available piece of dry land on the planet. So where, then, would be the untrodden land on which to grow the crops and feed the livestock we eat to survive? And if, somehow, we’d developed some method of surviving on sea life by then, what quality would there be in that life?

As populations increase, more food is needed for the sustenance of that population. Pastures for food animals, grain crops, and market gardens all require large areas of accessible land containing a range of mineral resources in their soil on which pastures and crops can grow. These soil resources become depleted unless replaced by regular ‘topdressing’ with fertilisers in agricultural areas outside of flood plains. Evidence suggests that there could be a finite resource of currently-used fertilisers. One editorial in Nature (2010) suggests that estimated periods to exhaustion of supplies vary between 25 years and 300-400 years. In spite of such a large range of predicted time of exhaustion of resources, there remains a perception that such a time will come. This view was supported to some extent by Dawson and Hilton (2011; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9210001260 who studied the global needs, resources and manufacture of phosphate and nitrogen fertilisers and concluded that we would have difficulty in providing food for projected future populations unless we invented new methods of manufacturing them.

I've constructed a mud map of the way Population Increases have many ramifying effects on our world. It is inserted at the end of this post.

Another issue for concern is the suggestion that the run-off from fertilised areas of agriculture is producing an increase in concentrations of phosphate and nitrogen compounds flowing into the ocean from rivers draining these areas. Diaz and Rosenberg (2008; https://science.sciencemag.org/content/321/5891/926) ) reviewed the literature on coastal ‘Dead Zones’ worldwide, and reported that more than 400 such zones had been identified, the largest being the Baltic Sea, and the second largest the Gulf of Mexico with an area of approximately 17,000 km2 being affected. Webster et al (2012; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 6X12001014) reviewed the literature on the effects of nitrogen fertiliser runoff on the Great Barrier Reef; although they concluded that lesser amounts of nitrogenous fertilisers could be used without affecting the growth of crops, the fact of the matter is that if we had to use more to grow more food, we would have to have more regulation of the industry.

The InterAcademy Panel: The Global Network of Science Academies (IAP) was formed in 1993 as an Association of Science Academies worldwide. Currently 106 National and Regional Academies have united as a single voice of the scientific community on global issues. A rigorous debating system involving green and white papers on policy as approved by two thirds of member Academies, has resulted in papers on a number of issues, one of which is on world population. Their principle policy on population growth was proposed in 1993 and ratified in 1994, signed by 58 members. “The academies state that the world is undergoing an unprecedented population expansion, and that it is necessary to stop it. They noted that the amount of food produced (both on land and sea) per person was decreasing, and stated that many environmental problems were aggravated by the population expansion. The academies state that we must reach zero population growth within the lifetime of our children. They enumerate means which should be taken to achieve this, and also to counteract the effects of the population growth on environment and food production, inter alia. This includes furthering equal opportunities for women, easy access to cheap and safe contraceptives, broad primary health care, governmental policies recognizing longer-term environmental responsibilities, and increased research on cultural, religious, and other factors, which affect reproductive behavior.”

Given that mating is a natural and almost irrepressible urge in all higher animal species, including mankind, it will take decades at least to establish measures to make birth control more acceptable than unprotected mating across all of our cultures. If greenhouse gases are the main cause of global near surface temperature increases, then population control is a matter of urgency. As Archer et al (2009) pointed out, after reviewing the literature, it could take a time scale of from 2 to 20 centuries for most of the CO2 in the atmosphere to be absorbed by the oceans; yet 20 to 40% would still remain in the atmosphere. Another course of global action is needed as soon as possible.

Because our first international attempt to slow down greenhouse gas emissions (The Marrakesh Accord) does not appear to be working, we need to be setting up global committees now to plan strategies for ensuring a deceleration of our world human population growth.

I'm not sure to what extent our gross energy usage could be adding directly to rising temperatures but this source -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption, states "In 2014, world primary energy supply amounted to 155,481 terawatt-hour (TWh) or 13,541 Mtoe, while the world final energy consumption was 109,613 TWh or about 29.5% less than the total supply.[10] World final energy consumption includes products as lubricants, asphalt and petrochemicals which have chemical energy content but are not used as fuel. This non-energy use amounted to 9,723 TWh (836 Mtoe) in 2015.[11]" A terawatt by the way is a million*million.

The planet needs something like the existing IPCC and UNFCC structures to stay intact, but to have their aims extended or modified to include and emphasise global population stabilisation as a vital part of control of Average Near Surface Global Temperature increases, as well as a means of keeping our planet in a favourable state for this and future generations.

If the International Academy of Sciences received a giant yawn after their submission, should us 'oldies' be getting out, blocking peak traffic, and declaring a 'population catastrophe'?
Attachments
POPULATION EFFECTS JPG.jpg
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby Serpent on February 5th, 2020, 10:14 am 

Overpopulation is hardly a taboo subject here! It's been discussed several times.
We are aware of the problem.
We also know about disparity of wealth and power by nation as well as individually in the developed countries.
A number of solutions have been proposed since 1800
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Malthusian-theory-still-valid-today
but there has been insurmountable opposition to all of them, from one entrenched source or another.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3881
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on February 7th, 2020, 6:27 am 

Good day to you Serpent.

Yes I must admit that population has had a fair hearing on this forum over the years, but not at the level of governments. Apart from China some decades ago, it appears to be taboo. And this is the first post that has presented literature associating with Climate Change. When you say "We are aware of the problem", have you made any personal proposals of how to address it or do you think the IPCC should be addressing it?

Did you read the literature I presented, regarding its association with Climate Change, and did you ask yourself why the IPCC has not recognised that role, and addressed the matter? I see that if population growth causes increases in GHGs faster than we can reduce them, then the IPCC is remiss in its obligations to do something about it. Am I the only person who can see that?

When you said "A number of solutions have been proposed since 1980", you linked it to a long dissertation on Malthus. I searched through it for that 'number of solutions' and could only find a few lines by Malthus -- " Malthus argued that two types of checks hold population within resource limits: The first, or preventive check to lower birth rates and The second, or positive check to permit higher mortality rates. This second check "represses an increase which is already begun" but by being "confined chiefly, though not perhaps solely, to the lowest orders of society". The preventive checks could involve birth control, postponement of marriage, and celibacy while the positive checks could involve hunger, disease and war; .[7 "

That doesn't sound like a helpful solution as far as population increase is concerned. Maybe you were referring to disparity of wealth and power when you were talking about solutions, but that would be off topic.

I notice that you did not answer the only question I have asked you so far -- "Now given that Environmental Protection Authorities in most major western cities had cleaned up the majority of emissions by the 1980s, what do you see that the IPCC has achieved since the 1990s except to clean up the air further, and to produce a sense of panic into the minds of many people?" Can I take it that you cannot find any evidence that the IPCC has achieved any measurable results so far?
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on February 7th, 2020, 6:43 am 

In my last post about the representative fractions of the temperature increases, I finished up with somewhere around one degree C of warming that needed an explanation.

Much has been written about the Little Ice Age (LIA). If you type LITTLE ICE AGE into Google you will find as many references as you wish to read. As usual, you will find mixed reports, with claims that it was not a global event, but rather a collection of regional climatic events happening during overlapping time frames.

Estimates of the temperature drops vary considerably from 0.6 degrees to 2 degrees C with the IPCC research suggesting a fall of One degree C in the northern hemisphere. I have no idea why they only mentioned the northern hemisphere because glacial advancement occurred in New Zealand and in Patagonia at least.

We did have thermometers from the early 1700s, but we did not have regular recordings from all over the world, and most of these suggested temperature rises are estimated by proxies. I have inserted a graph of the available estimated temperatures at the end of this post. You can see that the extreme minimum at about 1910 shows an anomaly of about -0.4 degrees C and the extreme maximum in 2016 of +1.9 degrees C. That represents an extreme range of 2.3 degrees C. The line of best fit would have been somewhat less than this. There was a slight decrease from 1940 to 1970 in spite of the fact that the carbon dioxide concentration was increasing markedly (even James Hansen, the 'father' of 'global warming' noted this).

The cause of this 'Little Ice Age' by the way is still a matter of much speculation. The more I studied the theories of the Little Ice Age, the more confused I became. One thing that all agree upon is that there was a period of extreme glaciation all over the world and that the world temperature was anywhere between 0.6 and 2.0 degrees lower than now. The graph I have copied below also appears to have no critics, and facsimiles of this graph appear everywhere associated with discussions on recovery from the LIA. So it appears to be up to any individual to judge for themselves as to how much of the current warming can be attributed to recovery from that era. If you look at the graph, and imagine a line between the maximum and minimum fluctuations, you can see that the recovery from 1880 to 1980 (100 years) was only about 0.4 degrees C. This leaves us with anywhere from 0.6 degrees C plus that we can attribute to recovery from the LIA, if we use the IPCC figure of one degree C below 'normal' for the northern hemisphere.

This article claims an even greater emphasis on recovery from the LIA -- Akasofu (http://www.wright.edu/~guy.vandegrift/c ... .LIAge.pdf) in an article titled Is the Earth still recovering from the “Little Ice Age”? A possible cause of global warming, concludes that "Thus, there is a possibility that only a fraction of the present warming trend may be attributed to the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities. This conclusion is contrary to the IPCC (2007) Report."

Another broad attitude we can take with respect to the LIA is that recovery from its extreme glaciation should result in a global temperature rise of at least one degree C, melting of the glaciers, some warming of the oceans, more fresh water entering the oceans with rising sea levels. So what is abnormal? Yes I know there are claims about the rapidity of the temperature rise, but I also know about the rapidly rising global population and its association with temperature increases.

I'd like to try to moderate some of the panic about Climate Change that we are witnessing globally. Another natural phenomenon that's mentioned often in the climate literature is the Medieval Warming period.

Estimates of the actual temperatures at the time are based on proxies, because we didn't have thermometers back then. Perhaps one of the best proxies is the history of farming in Greenland. There was a period from 950 AD for a few centuries when farming was conducted in Greenland. Because Greenland is too cold today for grain-growing, the temperature in that area must have been warmer for a few hundred years than it is today. I'm using an assumption here that if the climate was warm enough in Greenland to support cereal crops, then the rest of the world must have been much warmer. If those ancestors survived, we can survive.

I'll just provide one reference to farming in Greenland -- Buckland et al (2009; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... 3608096602) in Palaeoecological and historical evidence for manuring and irrigation at Garðar (Igaliku), Norse Eastern Settlement, Greenland.

Just on the lighter side (I know you'll have a laugh), these people have recently provided an article in a peer-reviewed Journal called Astrophysics and Space Science -- Singh and Bhargawa (2019; https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 019-3500-9) in Prediction of declining solar activity trends during solar cycles 25 and 26 and indication of other solar minimum, predict sunspot activity from 2021 till 2041 that will result in cooling as severe as the Maunder minimum.

Cheers. Enjoy the global warming while it's here. But if you really feel an inner drive to do something, then start advocating for Solar Radiation Management via bioengineering of clouds. Any knowledge we can obtain to control clouds quantitatively will be invaluable for the survival of our species in the future. Also campaign for the IPCC to address population-growth control, not just because population-increases correlate with increasing temperatures, but because of the myriad reasons outlined in my earlier post.
Attachments
1850 -2016 temp.png
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby Serpent on February 7th, 2020, 1:32 pm 

doogles » February 7th, 2020, 5:27 am wrote:Yes I must admit that population has had a fair hearing on this forum over the years, but not at the level of governments.

AFAIK, no governments post here, and nobody who exerts influence on any governments.

Apart from China some decades ago, it appears to be taboo.

Of course. They all have religious institutions to placate, as well as a military-industrial complex that thrives on surplus labour, poverty and internal strife in the lower classes. Some nations also fear being outnumbered by their neighbours, rivals and enemies.
There is a further question of means, methods and enforcement: some human rights groups were irate over India's efforts to curb its population growth back in the 1970's. Anyway, it's a fraught subject with people: they're not rational about sex and reproduction. Even China's draconian measures had several unforeseen side-effects; no other nation I'm aware of has had the power to carry out a comprehensive population control policy.

And this is the first post that has presented literature associating with Climate Change.

Are you sure? I haven't read every word ever posted, but the connection seems obvious - I find it hard to believe nobody mentioned it.

When you say "We are aware of the problem", have you made any personal proposals of how to address it

Often, and over several decades. There is only one sure, time-tested road to a decline in birth rate: an increase in standard of living. Less hand-to-mouth anxiety and low perinatal morbidity encourages people to have fewer babies, which then get better care and grow into healthier adults. Less anxiety is generally accompanied by gradual independence from the supernatural. A high standard of living provides people with better education, more leisure to think and expand their conceptual horizons; thus, a more liberal outlook, greater tolerance, social justice - and eventually, the empowerment of women, so that they control their own sexuality and fertility.
Given the freedom and material capability to decide, women do not have any more babies than they can feed, shelter and love.
or do you think the IPCC should be addressing it?

It's outside their purview.

That doesn't sound like a helpful solution as far as population increase is concerned. Maybe you were referring to disparity of wealth and power when you were talking about solutions, but that would be off topic.

How do you delineate the "topic"? First you say an agency tasked with making scientific information available to policy-making bodies should be addressing human reproduction; now you say the distribution of resources is irrelevant to reproductive pattern?
Actually, I had intended to link the UN's recommendations of about 30 years ago, but the page has been taken down. Even this moderate, integrated, perfectly reasonable one https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300 has suffered ferocious blowback from the power-gluttons https://www.thedailybeast.com/agenda-21-the-un-conspiracy-that-just-wont-die

I notice that you did not answer the only question I have asked you so far --[i] "Now given that Environmental Protection Authorities in most major western cities had cleaned up the majority of emissions by the 1980s,

In western Europe, and nowhere else - though Japan and India do seem to be making heroic efforts and I understand Australia, like Canada, has made the odd feeble gesture.

what do you see that the IPCC has achieved

The environmental protection authorities of various countries have various amounts of legal and material resources to affect changes in the way thing are done inside those borders. The Trump regime has been methodically stripping the US one of all powers.
I don't know why you keep using them interchangeably with the IPCC, or demanding that a UN advisory board to take control of national jurisdictions. It has no power to implement policies, regulate industry or allocate funds. Or even hand out condoms.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3881
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby TheVat on February 7th, 2020, 6:52 pm 

Problem – Akasofu didn’t identify any physical cause for this supposed ‘recovery.’ Instead he engaged in what’s known as “curve fitting,” in which you take data that is correlated to your desired graph and scale it to match, then argue you’ve proven that your data is the cause of the changes shown in that graph. In other words, it confuses correlation with causation. If I can take data regarding the number of pirates in the Caribbean and consumption of spaghetti in Ireland and make it fit the global temperature data, that doesn’t mean that pirates and Irish spaghetti are causing global warming. A physical cause must be identified.

Akasofu didn’t do that. He just roughly fit some ocean cycle data to the global temperature measurements and decided that a linear global warming trend was left over. He then declared that linear trend was the “recovery” from the Little Ice Age, and that it would continue indefinitely into the future, despite not knowing its cause.

Unfortunately the peer-review process isn’t perfect. It’s necessary but insufficient in separating the good from the flawed research. Sometimes a bad paper will slip through the cracks, whether due to a poor choice of reviewers, or the judgment of the journal editor. Akasofu’s paper was published in the very first edition of Climate, which caused great concern amongst its editorial staff (many of whom recognized the poor quality of the paper), and even caused one editor to resign from the journal....


https://skepticalscience.com/akasofu-LIA-recovery.htm
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7340
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Climate change

Postby TheVat on February 7th, 2020, 7:17 pm 

I admire the approach of people like Naomi Klein, who helped frame The Leap, a sort of proto GND that was developed in Toronto in 2015. It made a good point that a rapid civilizational transformation to renewable energy and sustainable practice, and away from unregulated predatory capitalism, is not radical when the impending changes in our biosphere are what will be radical if we continue with "business as usual." If radical and destructive changes are coming, then a massive commitment to more sustainable living is really a measured response. We will have to do all the "radical" steps discussed here, not just pick the ones that sound most soothing.

As well as population control, we will need to shift away from high-methane foods like red meat and rice, which inject massive quantities of that powerful GHG into the atmosphere. Millet is being touted as a low-methane alternative to rice, and uses far less water. Burgers made of quinoa and soy, or other alternative proteins, might be seen as a great way to be patriotic to planet Earth. Consumerism, and its mountains of fungible junk, might give way to an older cultural paradigm that restores more value to experiences and human interaction and artistic expression rather than Things Piled High. We could confer more status on wisdom and talent and less on mansions and giant screen TVs. We could remember that long walks are the foundation of good health and connectedness. Et cetera.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7340
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
Serpent liked this post


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on February 8th, 2020, 6:48 am 

Good day again to you Serpent. You spoke about the difficulties in population control:

"Of course. They all have religious institutions to placate, as well as a military-industrial complex that thrives on surplus labour, poverty and internal strife in the lower classes. Some nations also fear being outnumbered by their neighbours, rivals and enemies. There is a further question of means, methods and enforcement: some human rights groups were irate over India's efforts to curb its population growth back in the 1970's. Anyway, it's a fraught subject with people: they're not rational about sex and reproduction. Even China's draconian measures had several unforeseen side-effects; no other nation I'm aware of has had the power to carry out a comprehensive population control policy."

Yes, I see the problem for the taboo in the same light. In spite of that I would imagine that since the IPCC has the job of explaining and advising on the science of Climate Change, that they would still be in a position to at least state the science on population and climate change. The authors of those papers on the subject certainly ignored the taboos. Rather than do nothing, I believe that it's time to begin stating a few scientific facts, even if it is against some religious principles.

You said "Often, and over several decades. There is only one sure, time-tested road to a decline in birth rate: an increase in standard of living. Less hand-to-mouth anxiety and low perinatal morbidity encourages people to have fewer babies, which then get better care and grow into healthier adults. Less anxiety is generally accompanied by gradual independence from the supernatural. A high standard of living provides people with better education, more leisure to think and expand their conceptual horizons; thus, a more liberal outlook, greater tolerance, social justice - and eventually, the empowerment of women, so that they control their own sexuality and fertility. Given the freedom and material capability to decide, women do not have any more babies than they can feed, shelter and love."

I also agree with this. It's the sort of discussion that I imagine that an organisation such as the IPCC should be having and then making recommendations upon.

When you say "It's outside their purview", you've made me realise that I have not checked out their original terms of reference as a 'Panel'.

You asked "How do you delineate the "topic"? First you say an agency tasked with making scientific information available to policy-making bodies should be addressing human reproduction; now you say the distribution of resources is irrelevant to reproductive pattern?
Actually, I had intended to link the UN's recommendations of about 30 years ago, but the page has been taken down. Even this moderate, integrated, perfectly reasonable one https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300 has suffered ferocious blowback from the power-gluttons https://www.thedailybeast.com/agenda-21 ... t-wont-die"


I probably used the wrong words in saying that a dissertation by Malthus was off-topic. It would make for better understanding if you mentioned the salient points you wish a reader to note in the references you post. I note that one of his suggestions was to cease giving aid to people living in poverty, because doing so only perpetuates the problem. He didn't really offer any practical solutions to reducing population growth and I couldn't see where I could use that reference, except to discuss Malthus' ideas. You offered that reference as one containing solutions to the population problem and I now think his views should be taken into account by any committees discussing population control. Your references on sustainable development were interesting.

You corrected me when you said "In western Europe, and nowhere else - though Japan and India do seem to be making heroic efforts and I understand Australia, like Canada, has made the odd feeble gesture."

It must be 15 years since I looked at figures on air pollution. I've just checked again and you are right and I am wrong. The world is in a mess according to the PM25 figures. I see where all of North America, Australia, north eastern Europe all have acceptable concentrations of less than 10 micrograms per cubic metre and most of northern Asia has less than 12. That's entire regions, but the major cities are disgraceful.

I thought that the EPAs and the IPCC had been achieving better than that. Thank you for putting me straight.

But it does indicate that to date, the IPCC have NO discernible achievements on the board about anything. I realise that that could be due to a failure of governments to take their advice, but if that is the case I would think that it's time an evaluation was conducted to identify the success or failure of their mission to date.

When you say "I don't know why you keep using them interchangeably with the IPCC, or demanding that a UN advisory board to take control of national jurisdictions. It has no power to implement policies, regulate industry or allocate funds", I can't remember saying such things. I can only see where the IPCC can keep everybody up to date with the science and make recommendations to Governments. And I know that if the UN set up the IPCC, they could also set up a separate Intergovernmental Panel on Population Growth if they thought the IPCC was not appropriate.

But in their current capacity I can't see why the IPCC can't mention the science relating population to Climate Change. They recognise the situation --"Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era driven largely by economic and population growth." As I said in my last post, I can see where any attempts to mitigate GHG emissions are doomed while the population producing them is growing faster than our emission controls.

Anyhow Serpent I thank you for putting me straight on the air quality thing.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on February 8th, 2020, 7:06 am 

TheVat, I should not have included that reference by Akasofu. It was a bit of an extreme statement compared with the general discussions about recovery from the LIA. All of the literature on the LIA and the recovery from it seems a bit 'iffy' to me anyhow. I think the post will stand up on its own without that contribution from Akasofu.

I should have been a bit more critical at the time.

I'm not familiar with Naomi Klein, nor her books, so I apologise for not being able to comment on her ideas.

When you say, we could confer more status on wisdom and talent, that is true, but I believe that we need think tanks on all of the possible factors associated with climate change and wider avenues of approach. This requires initially more and wider discussion of input from people with wisdom and talent (maybe combined with less input from people who tend to be negative about trying other avenues of approach)
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on February 8th, 2020, 7:45 am 

Another aspect of Climate Change I would llike to address is this sense of panic that's around currently.

Everyone must be familiar with the Climate Emergency, Climate Catastrophe or Climate Extinction movements.

I'll discuss coral reefs as an example.

The IPCC made this statement in its 2013 Report, P13 "Coral reefs and polar ecosystems are highly vulnerable. Coastal systems and low-lying areas are at risk from sea level rise, which will continue for centuries even if the global mean temperature is stabilized (high confidence). {2.3, 2.4, Figure 2.5}"

Now to my mind, this sounds extreme. I didn't see any science to support it, but in its own right it paints a dire picture.

The 2019 literature on coral reef recoveries presents a different picture from that if you search for it. These are just a fraction of papers on the subject. The reefs appear to be more resilient than that. Here are the results of some studies. One of the elements that stands out in these studies is that the biggest threat to the reefs is macro-algae taking over the reefs, and a shortage of herbivorous marine life to keep it under control.

Smallhorn-West et al (2019; https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 19-01868-8) in a study titled Coral reef annihilation, persistence and recovery at Earth’s youngest volcanic island -- " Here, we examine the destruction, persistence and initial recovery of reefs associated with the hydro-magmatic eruption that created Earth’s newest landmass, the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha’apai volcanic island. Despite extreme conditions associated with the eruption, impacts on nearby reefs were spatially variable. Importantly, even heavily affected reefs showed signs of rapid recovery driven by high recruitment, likely from local refuges."

Steneck et al (2019; https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 00265/full) in Managing Recovery Resilience in Coral Reefs Against Climate-Induced Bleaching and Hurricanes: A 15 Year Case Study From Bonaire, Dutch Caribbean Part Abstract -- " ... Herbivorous parrotfishes had been declining in abundance but stabilized around 2010, the year fish traps were phased out and fishing for parrotfish was banned. The average parrotfish biomass from 2010 to 2017 was more than twice that reported for coral reefs of the Eastern Caribbean. During this same period, macroalgae declined and both juvenile coral density and total adult coral cover returned to pre-hurricane and bleaching levels. To our knowledge, this is the first example of a resilient Caribbean coral reef ecosystem that fully recovered from severe climate-related mortality events."

Precht et al (2019; https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 1.abstract) in NON-RANDOM TIMING OF ECOLOGICAL SHIFTS ON CARIBBEAN CORAL REEFS SUGGESTS REGIONAL CAUSES OF CHANGE -- "Caribbean reefs have experienced unprecedented changes in the past four decades. Of great concern is the perceived widespread shift from coral to macroalgal dominance spanning the years 1977–2001. First, although three-quarters of reef sites have experienced coral declines concomitant with macroalgal increases, fewer than 10% of the more than 200 sites studied were dominated by macroalgae in 2001, The continuous, broadly negative relationship between coral and macroalgal cover suggests that in some cases coral-to-macroalgae phase shifts may be reversed by removing sources of perturbation or restoring critical components such as the herbivorous sea urchin Diadema antillarum to the system. The five instances in which macroalgal dominance was reversed corroborate the conclusion that macroalgal dominance is not a stable, alternative community state as has been commonly assumed. " There is much more in the Abstract if anyone is interested.

Mumby et al (2019; http://picrc.org/picrcpage/wp-content/u ... lbuu-Y.pdf) in Status Report on Ngederrak and Lighthouse Reefs
"The reefs of Ngederrak and Lighthouse were devastated by Typhoon Bopha, reducing the cover of coral from around 70% to virtually zero at the end of 2012. We reveal that corals at Lighthouse are showing prolific recovery and, after a delayed start, have already returned to 60% cover and increasing rapidly. Recovery is slower at nearby southern Ngederrak but now increasing at a rapid rate ..., Overall, the level of recovery at Lighthouse Reef is profound, particularly given the limited levels of settlement over the last few years. Our results tell us that some reefs in Palau have surprisingly high resilience and can bounce back even when showing some troubling symptoms.

Gouezo et al (2019; https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... .2018.2908) in Drivers of recovery and reassembly of coral reef communities
" ... Here we investigate community re-assembly and the bio-physical drivers that determine the capacity of coral reefs to recover following the 1998 bleaching event, using long-term monitoring data across four habitats in Palau. Our study documents that the time needed for coral reefs to recover from bleaching disturbance to coral-dominated state in disturbance-free regimes is at least 9–12 years. Importantly, we show that reefs in two habitats achieve relative stability to a climax community state within that time frame. ... "


Do we believe a pessimistic IPCC or the evidence from multiple research projects?
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby Serpent on February 8th, 2020, 10:42 am 

doogles -- Do we believe a pessimistic IPCC or the evidence from multiple research projects?

I don't know about "us". Speaking only for myself, I believe the IPCC, and add on a 15% pessimism gratuity to make up for their caution. In my world-experience, one dead canary trumps a hundred highly paid mining engineers.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3881
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby TheVat on February 8th, 2020, 11:28 am 

Now to my mind, this sounds extreme. I didn't see any science to support it, but in its own right it paints a dire picture.


IPCC findings are based on multiple research projects from all over the globe. To have a good-faith chat, it's vital to look at bibliography and footnote citations with all diligence. If the executive summary doesn't have them, then the full report will.

I don't think a robust commitment to shifting away from fossil fuels and methane agriculture would be panic. Panic is an emotional term, a bit of rhetoric that I usually hear from people connected to the extraction industries and/or right-wing groups opposed to corporate regulation. Other posts in this long thread have outlined the ongoing ecosystem damages around the world which call for a sense of urgency. That's not panic, that's common sense.

The fact that many of the most dire effects of GW are happening in developing countries far from where we are, doesn't make them any less dire to our human brothers and sisters who live there. More dire, I would say, as they are not shielded by wealth and infrastructure the way we are. People in poverty cannot always afford to just move elsewhere, or install AC, put their homes on tall pilings or stilts, buy imported food and potable water, build dikes and levees, quickly shift to adaptive crops, etc. When they desperately seek refuge in more developed countries (as happens where I am, with refugees from a drought and heatwaves in Central America), they encounter new far-right xenophobic governments that turn them away. As you may have heard, the Mediterranean is currently full of corpses of people trying to flee ecological collapses in Africa, transported in substandard sea vessels that don't make the crossing.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7340
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Climate change

Postby Serpent on February 8th, 2020, 1:23 pm 

Like the flock of songbirds poisoned by pesticide -
having seen it once, that's an image you can never wash from your mind's eye.
What happens in the "developing" (there's a wonderfully ironic hypocrisy!!) world doesn't stay there, oversees, in some shithole country, far from us - just send the molybdenum and ivory; keep your petty tyrants, nasty little wars and shantytowns - what we've done is everywhere now.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3881
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby Serpent on February 8th, 2020, 2:55 pm 

doogles » February 8th, 2020, 5:48 am wrote:Rather than do nothing, I believe that it's time to begin stating a few scientific facts, even if it is against some religious principles.

It was time to do that in the nineteenth century, and some people did. Some people did again, and again, throughout the twentieth. Some people acted on their principles, got jailed, shot, stoned, etc.
You can state away to your heart's content, but the governments that have the authority to enact relevant legislation are held by vested interests with another agenda. Have you seen the militant retrogression on reproductive rights and family planning (along with right to die, discontinue life support, termination of morbid pregnancies) in the US? Now, see what happens in less "advanced" societies.

I also agree with this. It's the sort of discussion that I imagine that an organisation such as the IPCC should be having and then making recommendations upon.

Other agencies of the UN have and do.
https://www.unfpa.org/https://en.unesco.org/about-us/introducing-unescohttps://www.who.int/https://www.who.int/ not to mention the blanketest statement of all https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html
Why do you want to pile all international problems on that one little panel?

It would make for better understanding if you mentioned the salient points you wish a reader to note in the references you post.

That reference was to illustrate how long the problem has been under serious discussion. I believe the lead-in was that recommendation have been made since 1800. Malthus as an arbitrary starting point, from which we should presumably have progressed in 220 years of social enlightenment.

I note that one of his suggestions was to cease giving aid to people living in poverty, because doing so only perpetuates the problem. He didn't really offer any practical solutions to reducing population growth

In fact, he did: don't marry until you can afford to; then curb your enthusiasm. The aid in question there was alms, not social welfare, and certainly nothing like the drastic redistribution of both wealth, opportunity and personal freedom we actually need.

But it does indicate that to date, the IPCC have NO discernible achievements on the board about anything.

The guy in the coastguard boat keeps throwing those doughnut things at all and sundry. All and sundry keep ducking under water, trying to upset the boat, then swimming out of range. Some of 'em drown. The bloody lifeguard is useless!

But in their current capacity I can't see why the IPCC can't mention the science relating population to Climate Change.

They've mentioned it. They didn't tell governments how to deal with it. I suspect because
1. reproduction is outside the range of sciences they review.
2. The possible methods whereby population control can be achieved in different countries vary greatly by culture and political structure and
3. They don't need any more implacable enemies.
You're not alone in your disappointment https://populationmatters.org/news/2018/10/08/ipcc-report-we-need-net-zero-2050 and it's not exactly an obscure topic.

There is really only one insurmountable obstacle to survival : entrenched greed.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3881
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on February 9th, 2020, 5:57 am 

Obviously TheVat, you have faith in the IPCC position, while I have more faith in practical basic science based on experimentation. I may be a bit hard-nosed when it comes to being critical about scientific literature.

I earned my living for 25 years as a clinical cattle veterinarian. There is no such thing as a placebo effect in the responses of cattle to medication. It was an economic thing. Diagnosis, institution of therapy, and prognosis had to be correct and all made at a single assessment (or two at the most) and at a reasonable charge, or the farmer would not pay for return services. We had to know our science; we had to get results in a feet-on-the ground level, else we were of no use to the farmer. Also, one of my jobs after I received my PhD was to critically assess much scientific experimentation by PhD and Masters candidates when I became a co-supervisor and advisor to 40 or more local and international candidates.

Obviously you and I have different faiths about the IPCC's ability to achieve results, so we just have to live with that.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on February 9th, 2020, 6:04 am 

Serpent, I generally agree with most of what you said in your two most recent posts. Please note that.

The following negative comments are minor.

But you posted two links without briefly mentioning the points I should focus on in those links. The first went to a United Nations Population Fund home page which contained a few pictures and the other to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights without any indication as to what you wished me to note in that Declaration.

Once again you've put words into my mouth with "Why do you want to pile all international problems on that one little panel?" I suggested that since the UN set up the IPCC, there was no reason why they should not set up another Intergovernmental Panel on Population Control.

I see you claim that Malthus also said "don't marry until you can afford to; then curb your enthusiasm." Do you really believe that to be a practical solution, considering the power of the sex drive in humans as well as other animals?

Actually your last link was quite interesting. It seems to identify the origin of the current 'climate catastrophe, climate emergency or climate extinction' (not panic?) movements. The IPCC is quoted as saying "The report warns that we are currently heading for a 1.5°C warmer world as early as 2040, with lasting and profound environmental and economic implications. IPCC members said the next few years are probably the most important in humanity’s history as government action (or inaction) based on these findings will determine whether we can avert large-scale catastrophe."

It's a pity they can't be more objective and less emotive about the science.

When farming can start again in Greenland, we'll know that we are back to a world that the people of that time seemed to handle all right. (Yes, I know I've used a proxy, but it's not one that forms a part of a scientific factor such as the Surface Air Temperature Sensitivity factor that indicates projections of future surface temperatures.)

I've said as much as I would like to about Climate Change and the IPCC for the time being, but I'm still willing to respond to any sensible comments.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby davidm on February 9th, 2020, 11:42 am 

For now, I will leave aside the absurdity of distrusting IPCC results, given that they are all based on science from experts from around the world, and many years of data collection, published studies and updated results. If anything, IPCC predictions have proven to be too conservative, and the world is warming even more rapidly than believed likely. For now at least, I want only to address this:

When farming can start again in Greenland, we'll know that we are back to a world that the people of that time seemed to handle all right.


Quite a surprising statement, given that Greenland acquired its ice cover some three million years ago, long before modern humans evolved, and humans in fact did not arrive there until about six thousand years ago. Why did it grow ice? Falling carbon dioxide levels! Why is it now losing ice? Rising levels of carbon dioxide — put there by humans, of course!

(Why they called it Greenland, I dunno. Maybe some real-estate sharpie was trying to make it more attractive to buyers, they way that here in New York City, they changed the name “Hell’s Kitchen” to “Clinton.”)

Here, you seem to be saying climate change is OK after all, because we can farm in Greenland!

I invite you to consider: if (for the first time), Greenland becomes open to farming, what the rest of the world will look like. It won’t be pretty. In fact, I doubt whether anyone will be around to farm Greenland.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 700
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby TheVat on February 9th, 2020, 11:45 am 

Doogles, my assessment of data summarized by IPCC is not based on faith. You used that word, but it doesn't characterize my position. Regarding...


When farming can start again in Greenland, we'll know that we are back to a world that the people of that time seemed to handle all right. ...


Warming, at that time, in a world with a few hundred million people, was a different event, and lacking in comparables to our present world. To mention but one difference, the tropics are now home to two billion (?) people, and already experiencing stark effects of drought, deluge, and loss of arable land. Also, the global warming was far less at that time - the Medieval Warming Period was localized in a few northern locations.

A 2009 study by Michael E. Mann et al., examining spatial patterns of surface temperatures shown in multi-proxy reconstructions finds that the Medieval Warm Period, shows "warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally." Mann et Al also found other areas actually a bit cooler than normal, again pointing to a regional effect and not GW.

"Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly" by Mann, Zhang, and Rutherford, in Science 326 (5957), p. 1256-60, is a helpful paper.

Again, I am disappointed at the way you do not contextualize facts, and make unwarranted implications that the current rapid warming is something we'll "handle all right. "
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7340
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Climate change

Postby TheVat on February 9th, 2020, 11:49 am 

Ah, parallel postings. Thanks, David. Farming in Greenland or far northern Canada has become a popular talking point with some of the fossil fuel industry boosters, I've noticed. Hopefully we can probe its weaknesses in an informative way.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7340
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Climate change

Postby davidm on February 9th, 2020, 12:08 pm 

Below is one model of what the world might look like at 4c warming. Note that most of it is now uninhabitable by humans, and that Greenland is still mostly covered in ice!

Now I don’t know whether this model is accurate. The point I wish to make is about the utter hubris of techno-optimism implicit in the model. Sure, most of the world will be uninhabitable, but in the few remaining green areas, we’ll have densely packed, high-rise cities! We’ll have windmills, geothermal, solar panels in all the vast deserts, including the uninhabitable desert of what was once the U.S! So cheer up, everyone — it won’t be so bad! (Even though we STILL won’t be able to farm in most of Greenland, except along the coast.)

In reality, of course, if things get this bad, then high-tech civilization will completely collapse after a mass human die-off, and the few remaining survivors in the negligible green belts will be back to subsistence farming, or a hunter-gatherer life style.
Attachments
6a00d8345449fb69e201156e39f636970c-800wi.jpg
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 700
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby Serpent on February 9th, 2020, 12:53 pm 

doogles » February 9th, 2020, 5:04 am wrote:But you posted two links without briefly mentioning the points I should focus on in those links. The first went to a United Nations Population Fund home page which contained a few pictures and the other to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights without any indication as to what you wished me to note in that Declaration.

What drives population increase? Poverty, inequality, insecurity, ignorance, high infant mortality and political oppression. Just fix those - most particularly the subjugation of women - and religion loses its power to intimidate; people demand the right to self-determination and reproductive freedom.
I mentioned all of these factors earlier. The UN has several international agencies to deal with the health and welfare of women, mothers, babies and children. I linked to show that this is so, not to give you an in-depth explanation of what each one has done over the decades.

Once again you've put words into my mouth with "Why do you want to pile all international problems on that one little panel?"

It's the sort of discussion that I imagine that an organisation such as the IPCC should be having and then making recommendations upon.

Once again, that's not their job.

I suggested that since the UN set up the IPCC, there was no reason why they should not set up another Intergovernmental Panel on Population Control.

They have. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/theme/policy/index.asp

I see you claim that Malthus also said "don't marry until you can afford to; then curb your enthusiasm." Do you really believe that to be a practical solution, considering the power of the sex drive in humans as well as other animals?

I was paraphrasing. Obviously, now, I wish I hadn't mentioned the poor guy. Once again, that was in 1800 when options were considerably more limited than they are now. I brought him simply to illustrate that the topic is not exactly brand new, and I did say that recommendations have been made since that time. However, one of the things that does reliably and observably happen when the standard of living in a society improves is that people marry later and have fewer children. Yes, even the almighty sex drive becomes more manageable when you're not cold, angry and scared all the time. So, he'd got hold of the right end of the stick, only at an inopportune moment in history.

It's a pity they can't be more objective and less emotive about the science.

You still don't get it, do you? That's is positively phlegmatic in the face of our real situation.

When farming can start again in Greenland, we'll know that we are back to a world that the people of that time seemed to handle all right.

It never stopped. They raise sheep. Longer summer will mean more sheep, and some local vegetables - but then again, not if it's accompanied by drought. Even if Greenland becomes a paradise, how many Mexicans can it support?
See, the areas that might benefit - barring permafrost collapse and coastal flooding - are sparsely populated by laconic, isolated northern communities. The areas that are rapidly becoming uninhabitable are densely populated by gregarious southern peoples.
How do you envision the new distribution of lands and food supplies working?

I have no sensible comments, except:
All experimental science - even CERN - is only a miniature representation of how matter and energy work in the universe. Each of these wee models indicate something about those interactions, but cannot accurately represent the whole. You can extrapolate, project, scale up the model, and guesstimate.
We don't have any spare planets to experiment on.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3881
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on February 10th, 2020, 6:07 am 

TheVat, thank you for the comments. You say "Again, I am disappointed at the way you do not contextualize facts, and make unwarranted implications that the current rapid warming is something we'll "handle all right. "

I'm not sure what you mean by "I am disappointed at the way you do not contextualise texts." Could you please elaborate on what you mean by that? Whatever it is, I will attempt to correct that apparent failing on my part.

Re making unwarranted implications that the current rapid warming is something we'll "handle all right", I made some flippant comments a couple of posts back when I said -- "Just on the lighter side (I know you'll have a laugh), these people have recently provided an article in a peer-reviewed Journal called Astrophysics and Space Science -- Singh and Bhargawa (2019; https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 019-3500-9) in Prediction of declining solar activity trends during solar cycles 25 and 26 and indication of other solar minimum, predict sunspot activity from 2021 till 2041 that will result in cooling as severe as the Maunder minimum.

Cheers. Enjoy the global warming while it's here. But if you really feel an inner drive to do something, then start advocating for Solar Radiation Management via bioengineering of clouds. Any knowledge we can obtain to control clouds quantitatively will be invaluable for the survival of our species in the future. Also campaign for the IPCC to address population-growth control, not just because population-increases correlate with increasing temperatures, but because of the myriad reasons outlined in my earlier post."


Please delete those paragraphs from your mind if you interpret them as meaning "She'll be right mate"

The mixed science I'm reading about the LIA suggests that a large percentage of the changes in climate, sea levels etc over the last 100 years, has to be credited to some extent with a return to normal from the LIA. Glaciers form in Ice Ages. Sooner or later they have to melt, temperatures have to rise to some extent, and the sea level must rise. I cannot see where that is abnormal. It's a matter of how much of the change is new and how much is due to recovery, but it's common sense to attribute some to recovery.

But I am convinced that the rate of warming since 1980 has been faster than usual. I'm also convinced that the IPCC should have organised an evaluation of the effect of their proposals to date, because I've seen no results on the board.

I believe that they have to do an evaluation and a re-assessment of their results to date, and develop Plans B and C. Rather than advocate sitting on our hands, I've worked my butt off obtaining scientific references suggesting that they, or a new Intergovernmental Panel on Population, could DO MORE in the way of cloud and population control. (Serpent has just drawn my attention to the existence of a UN Committee on Population. I've had a quick look and I will comment in my reply to him)

So far, you are the only member of the forum who seems to be able to see some value in cloud engineering, but the only comments I've received about Population Growth control is that it's in the too-hard basket.

You said that "Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly" by Mann, Zhang, and Rutherford, in Science 326 (5957), p. 1256-60, is a helpful paper." How many other papers did you study? Mann's paper was just one of many I looked at, re the LIA. In my post on the matter, I referred broadly to a Google Scholar site listing dozens of papers so that readers could have a look for themselves at ALL of the papers I had based my statements upon. I've included his view of the LIA in my general comments about it. His guesstimate of the degree of cooling was at the bottom end at 0.6 degrees C, whereas others went through ranges of 1 to 2 degrees C (including the IPCC). I studied his view in context with all of the others. You should have noted TheVat, that I generally cite multiple references on most issues so that I keep the thrust of my arguments in context.

My disappointment here is that I get very few comments on the science itself. I get most comments about the way I say things. That's okay; I expect flak. But nobody has commented on the good news articles I've presented in the past, nor on the recent multiple research outcomes suggesting that our corals are resilient in spite of rising sea levels, bleaching, storm damage, or volcanic upheavals. It's interesting to me that members of this forum don't appear to take in the good news.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on February 10th, 2020, 6:09 am 

davidm, that scenario for 4 degree C temperature rise is depressing. Don't you think it's all the more reason why we need Plans B and C?
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on February 10th, 2020, 6:23 am 

Serpent, thanks for the comments. Once again I agree again about the factors you itemised relating to high birth rates. But don't you think we need to do something about it, especially considering the relationship between population increase and increasing global temperatures? I keep saying that we need think tanks to clearly identify such factors and to attempt to identify practical solutions for them. We have to be constructive rather than put things into the 'too hard' basket. I've been in many 'think tanks' in my life, and I know you'll be surprised to hear that I realise I do not have all the answers. But what intrigues me at these 'think tanks' is how often a contributor can say something that's not the best solution in its own right, but which triggers off associated good ideas in others.

As a matter of fact, while I was walking up the local hill this morning, one thought crossed my mind as a starter. If international funds could be found, why not pay a bonus to couples in developing countries for each year they don't have children?

Just a thought!

You commented "You still don't get it, do you? That's is positively phlegmatic in the face of our real situation." Serpent, you sound as if you would like me to start panicking and running around in circles shouting "Climate Emergency, Climate Catastrophe, Climate Extinction: the End is Nigh!!!!" I don't see where being emotive helps in any shape or form in problem solving. We need objective and constructive inputs, which has always been my aim in this thread.

I thank you for that reference to the UN Committee. I was totally unaware of it. I followed the link headed 'Population Policies' and found this -- "The 2019 revision of the World Population Policies focuses on policies and programmes related to international migration. It provides an overview of Government policies to govern regular migration and to address irregular migration, and it reviews an array of policy measures related to migrants’ rights, including access to services, as well as policies to foster the integration of migrants into host societies. It also examines policy measures to maximise the development impacts of migration and to support diasporas. The World Population Policies 2019 data and publications present Government responses to the module on international migration (module III) of the United Nations Twelfth Inquiry among Governments on Population and Development." As you can see, none of that has anything to do with population control.

I couldn't find any Terms of Reference, so could only form an impression as to what they are about. My impression is that their main task is to keep up with the dynamic world statistics on population changes and to keep governments in touch with such data. If you look at the following, like me, you may get the impression after looking at Items 80 and 82 below, that they actually promote government-assisted breeding. The use of the term 'sustainable development' here, seems to mean the ability to keep breeding and have all of the means to do so, made available.

Under the heading of Review and appraisal of the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and its contribution to the follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, they present their (IX). Conclusions and recommendations:.
"78. Governments should plan for the opportunities and challenges associated with trends in fertility, mortality and migration, which will affect the size and age structure of future populations in ways that may boost or hinder the achievement of inclusive sustainable development. 79. Governments should consider adopting policies and implementing programmes to support universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including family planning, in accordance with the goals and objectives of the Programme of Action and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 80. Governments should support the realization of reproductive desires by all couples, including those with fewer children than desired, by ensuring access to parental leave, child benefits, tax credits and childcare, emphasizing measures to help parents balance work and family obligations over several years. 81. While improved access to education has significantly advanced the goals and objectives of the Programme of Action, further improvements in completion rates and education quality are needed. 82. Because reduced fertility is associated with increased spending per child on health and education, policies to expand access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including family planning, and policies to improve education quality and coverage reinforce each other, amplifying the potential gains from the demographic dividend and supporting a virtuous cycle of development. 83. Improvements in health status, nutrition, sanitation and access to safe water must be sustained to attain the relevant goals and objectives of the Programme of Action and the relevant Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda. ... " there is more.

But they are a 'dead loss' to my mind as far as being a promoter of slowing-down population growth is concerned. We need a body to promote the science of population and Climate Change and capable of organising subtle methods of encouraging a slow-down in population growth.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby Serpent on February 10th, 2020, 10:35 am 

doogles » February 10th, 2020, 5:23 am wrote:But don't you think we need to do something about it,

Yes, we have thought that before https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9285280.
Thinking's tanked already. We've identified and suggested till we're blue in the face; we've argued, debated, written and campaigned. Now, it's up to the arms manufacturers.
As a matter of fact, while I was walking up the local hill this morning, one thought crossed my mind as a starter. If international funds could be found, why not pay a bonus to couples in developing countries for each year they don't have children?

India, c. 1976: any man coming in for a vasectomy gets a transistor radio. Shrieks of outrage heard around the world.
, you sound as if you would like me to start panicking and running around in circles shouting

I don't want you to do anything. I merely pointed out that the IPCC report isn't "emotional" in the circumstances. I've done my panicking. I'll be dead before the worst of it hits, and I'm pretty much done weeping for the dolphins and zebras. Now I'm just sitting here, quietly resigned.
We need objective and constructive inputs,

I have none. Sorry.
But they are a 'dead loss' to my mind as far as being a promoter of slowing-down population growth is concerned. We need a body to promote the science of population and Climate Change and capable of organising subtle methods of encouraging a slow-down in population growth.

I just mentioned that other people have thought of this problem before. They didn't solve it. Maybe you will.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3881
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Previous

Return to Environmental Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests