Climate Change Contrarians - claims examined

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

Re: Climate change

Postby TheVat on January 31st, 2020, 2:18 pm 

Idso still discounts feedback loops in his calculations. I've pointed this "forcing, plus feedback" out enough times. Interested parties can do their own research.

Also worth asking - does Idso really factor in NOx properly? The two main oxides of nitrogen are a far more potent GHG than CO2. And they also comes from tailpipes and stacks. Achieving ANY carbon targets will also mitigate NOx release, and mitigate water vapor feedback looping, and (in the many fossil fuel extraction and transport operations where methane leaks into the air) mitigate methane, another very potent GHG. Mitigating carbon is a trifecta of GHG mitigations.


There are plenty of reasons that most climatologists find bias in Idso's work. If you open a gallon of milk and the first swallow is sour, you don't have to drink the whole jug to know it's bad.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7406
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on February 3rd, 2020, 6:18 am 

Serpent, davidm and TheVat, I can see now where you have possibly all misinterpreted my statement that "So far, I cannot see one single positive indication that meeting carbon targets is achieving anything." I made an assumption that you would all be aware that we have had a Kyoto Protocol, a Marrakesh Accord, and a Paris Agreement under which, participating nations of the world virtually pledge to meet specifically allotted carbon reduction targets within given time periods. I can't see where these attempts to meet carbon reduction targets are achieving anything. There are zilch figures on the board indicating improvement for carbon emission reduction or for global mean temperatures. Obviously you have all somehow interpreted this to mean "We have met our targets and it hasn't achieved anything."

Serpent, my main answer to you was "So how would it change our current situation? To my mind, it would mean that carbon dioxide is a minor player in the increasing average near surface global temperatures. The current contribution of carbon dioxide to radiative forcing is generally agreed to be 1.6 Wm-2. If we multiply that by a high land SATS factor of Idso's, say 0.17, we find that carbon dioxide contributes no more than 0.2 degrees C to land surface temperatures."

And then explained why I would delay a comprehensive answer. I said -- " To my mind, we have to start with a clean slate and list ALL of the possible causes for the current increases in Average Near Surface Global Temperature increases, consider the evidence, and come up with practical considerations. All options would be open. ... I would like to discuss some of the options, but I would prefer to find out first where I could be wrong about Idso's figures before changing the current context of this thread. I believe his paper is too important to just flip over." Instead of being constructive about this, you admit " Ya, it's been a blast."

I'm reminded of a statement made by Serpent on Friday Aug 19 at 12.25 AM in a thread titled How to solve our problems? -- "We can't. Anyone who tries to bring large issues, urgent issues, to the forefront is immediately silenced." In this case it's not so much being silenced as avoidance of dicussion of the issue, which results in the same thing. You were correct then Serpent. By the way davidm, you may be interested in that particular thread because it has quite an amount of discussion on population issues, which I note that you brought up recently in another thread.

Anyhow I wish to move on with the science aspect, so will ignore any responses that require an "I said;you said; yes I did; no you didn't" discussion.

Even if the carbon science is 100% correct, the application of it seems to be achieving nothing, so common sense suggests we need to have plans A, B and C as back-ups.

I'm still keen to discuss the options about other possible causes and other solutions to the increasing average near surface global temperature increases, but as I said, I would have liked to have seen some more discussion on the data in Idso's paper. TheVat has made several broad statements about Idso's science in general, and I appreciate that.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on February 3rd, 2020, 6:30 am 

TheVat -- "Idso still discounts feedback loops in his calculations. I've pointed this "forcing, plus feedback" out enough times. Interested parties can do their own research. Also worth asking - does Idso really factor in NOx properly? The two main oxides of nitrogen are a far more potent GHG than CO2. And they also comes from tailpipes and stacks. Achieving ANY carbon targets will also mitigate NOx release, and mitigate water vapor feedback looping, and (in the many fossil fuel extraction and transport operations where methane leaks into the air) mitigate methane, another very potent GHG. Mitigating carbon is a trifecta of GHG mitigations. There are plenty of reasons that most climatologists find bias in Idso's work. If you open a gallon of milk and the first swallow is sour, you don't have to drink the whole jug to know it's bad."

I thought that the very simple maths in Experiment 4 incorporated the whole 'atmosphere' and everything in it, including all of the elements and dynamic factors -- forcings and feedbacks. That's why I believed it came down to the mathematics of a simple division. As usual, I could be wrong, but I think the treatment of the 'atmosphere' as a working entity has taken everything into account.

It would be hard to believe that Idso was naive about forcings and feebacks. In 1984, 35 years, ago he published a paper titled An Empirical Evaluation of Earth's Surface Air Temperature Response to Radiative Forcing, Including Feedback, as Applied to the CO2-Climate Problem in ARCHIVES FOR METEOROLOGY, GEOPHYSICS, AND BIOCLIMATOLOGY. This was in the early days of the development of climate science, so in one way, he was a part of the pioneerng research on forcings and feedbacks.

You said "His "bio-climatology" credentials are self-appointed. He shows bias"

Where was the bias? How is it possible to have so many papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and be accused of bias. These are just a few of the papers from the reference list at the end of the paper I have been discussing by Idso

1982 Boundary-Layer Meteorology https://www.springer.com/journal/10546/ ... guidelines (Peer-reviewed)
1980 Science (Peer-reviewed)
1982 Water Resources Research Journal - https://www.agu.org/Publish-with-AGU/Publish/ (Peer-reviewed)
1981 Atmospheric Environment - https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/how-to-review (Peer-reviewed)

If you type 'SB Idso' into Google Scholar, it comes up with hundreds of publications in peer-reviewed Journals.

Surely the peer-review system would have detected bias over the last 40 years, and I believe that the sheer number of peer-reviewed publications over the years makes a statement that he is a 'self-appointed' bioclimatologist, somewhat questionable.

I'm starting to wonder if my hypothetical may be correct.

In any case it wouldn't do any harm to research how the mainstream of climate science has established its surface temperature sensitivity factor, and to compare their methodology with Idso's.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on February 3rd, 2020, 7:39 am 

Idso has used real world situations not for one or two, but for 8 Experiments which all came up with surface temperature sensitivity factors ranging from 0.72 to 0.097 degrees C depending on whether it was for land or sea surfaces.

If you look at this site -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity --
you will see that the Wikipedia researcher has discussed the various ways that mainstream climate science has determined the factor. As you can see, instead of real world situations, they have used
Observations taken in the industrial age
Data from the Earth's past, and
Modelling

So, on that point alone, I tend to favour Idso's figures; he has used data pertaining to the planet NOW.

The Wikipedia researcher summarised the IPCC position -- "The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report reverted to the earlier range of 1.5 to 4.5 °C (2.7 to 8.1 °F) (high confidence) because some estimates using industrial-age data came out low.[6] They also stated that ECS is extremely unlikely to be less than 1 °C (1.8 °F) (high confidence), and is very unlikely to be greater than 6 °C (11 °F) (medium confidence). These values are estimated by combining the available data with expert judgement." So their values for climate sensitivity (Temperature from a doubling of carbon dioxide from 300 to 600 ppm), figures are based on Industrial era data, modelling and palaeontological data and vary anywhere from 1 to 6 degrees C.

I would like to insert a graph here, but for some reason now, my computer has lost the capacity to upload images.

There is a graph plotting the various climate sensitivities obtained by 19 different studies against a time scale from 2002 to 2014. A linear regression shows a declining slope from approximately 4.5 degrees C for papers in 2002 to 1.7 degrees C by Lewis and Curry in 2014. Idso came up with 0.4 degrees C.

Naturally I was prompted to check the references at the lower end of the scale by Lewis and Curry (2014) on Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity and Transient Climate Response. On this site -- https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 014-2342-y -- Lewis and Curry claim that they used data from 1750 to 2011 and compared the changes from the data of 1859–1882 for the base period and 1995–2011 for the final period. There was a paywall, so I could not check their working of the data. I'd like to know if they had allowed for the recovery from the Little Ice Age which is generally regarded as having commenced to decline from the 1850s. I'm guessing that allowance should have been made for 'warming' due to that recovery more so than from carbon dioxide changes. Somewhere in the middle of these two extremes, we had the 1940s to 1970s drop in temperature of about 0.5 degrees C.

Judith Curry, by the way, who has had over 100 papers published in Climate Science, seems to be more objective than most about the IPCC position. In this paper -- https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 011-0180-z -- where she states "A concerted effort by the IPCC is needed to identify better ways of framing the climate change problem, explore and characterize uncertainty, reason about uncertainty in the context of evidence-based logical hierarchies, and eliminate bias from the consensus building process itself." On the reliability of consensus, I would like to comment that the governments of the entire globe consensually agreed to celebrate the arrival of the 3rd millennium at the commencement, rather than the end of the year 2000.

So who do we believe? One group has used Industrial Age data, theoretical modelling, and age-old data, and Idso has produced figures from real life situations, not once, but 8 times.

In any case, as I said, I believe that the IPCC should be investing time and money on back-up plans A, B and maybe C.

If I can get past what I have written so far, I would like to see some discussion on alternatives, no matter how silly they sound.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby Serpent on February 3rd, 2020, 10:06 am 

doogles » February 3rd, 2020, 5:30 am wrote:Serpent, davidm and TheVat, I can see now where you have possibly all misinterpreted my statement that "So far, I cannot see one single positive indication that meeting carbon targets is achieving anything." I made an assumption that you would all be aware that we have had a Kyoto Protocol, a Marrakesh Accord, and a Paris Agreement under which, participating nations of the world virtually pledge to meet specifically allotted carbon reduction targets within given time periods. I can't see where these attempts to meet carbon reduction targets are achieving anything. There are zilch figures on the board indicating improvement for carbon emission reduction or for global mean temperatures. Obviously you have all somehow interpreted this to mean "We have met our targets and it hasn't achieved anything."

OK. Governments haven't met their commitment to one kind of accord.
Therefore, they should start discussions all over again, and in ten or twenty years, make a new agreement, and that time, they will keep their promises?
Maybe - if the new accord requires them to keep doing what they were doing.
Since the permafrost and icecaps and glaciers will have melted away by then, SFW?

And then explained why I would delay a comprehensive answer.

Yes, I heard. Talk more, burn coal, do nothing.
I believe his paper is too important to just flip over.

I have no choice: I do not understand it, or your explanation of it, or your cleaving to it to the exclusion of all others.
Instead of being constructive about this, you admit " Ya, it's been a blast."

That was in response to
I suppose the only way that people can get their 'jollies' is at someone else's expense.

not Idso, not science, not the 0.2 degrees global temperature rise (over you still didn't say what period) caused by CO2 - continuing to ignore methane and nitrous oxide, never mind all the other toxins and water pollution incidental to the fossil-fuel based economy.
Right.
So: clean slate. Square one. Ignore everyone but Idso.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby TheVat on February 3rd, 2020, 12:35 pm 

Where was the bias? How is it possible to have so many papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and be accused of bias.


This statement would seem to lend support to the findings of those thousands of IPCC members who have published so many papers in peer reviewed journals.

There seems to a logical inconsistency between your appraisal of IPCC research and Sherman Idso's. If the paper is from Idso, you don't see how there can be bias (even after evidence is provided that he and his whole clan are in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry). But if it's from the rest of the climatology community, you insist there is bias.

Doogles, I am not here to referee every climatology paper written, or provide definitive proof on the degree to which each GHG warms the planet. I'm just saying, as I said before, that my first sip from the Idso milk jugs was sour, and I see little point in drinking the rest. Other researchers also use data from real world situations, AFAICT. And get quite different results. And don't get regular checks from Exxon and Peabody.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7406
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on February 4th, 2020, 6:39 am 

Serpent, re the 0.2 degrees c, you are apparently asking me to clarify my paragraph "So how would it change our current situation? To my mind, it would mean that carbon dioxide is a minor player in the increasing average near surface global temperatures. The current contribution of carbon dioxide to radiative forcing is generally agreed to be 1.6 Wm-2. If we multiply that by a high land SATS factor of say 0.17, we find that carbon dioxide contributes no more than 0.2 degrees C to land surface temperatures."

It is generally agreed that there has been an increase in average near-surface global temperatures of between 1 and 1.4 degrees C over the last hundred years. The current orthodox climate science position seems to be that this is all due to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. If Idso is correct (and I'm still checking on this), then as above, carbon dioxide is only responsible for 0.2 degrees C of that rise over those 100 years. As TheVat keeps pointing out, there are other GHGs and altogether they add up to a radiative forcing at the surface of approximately 4.3 Wm-2.

The breakdown is something like CO2 1.6, CH4 0.8, CFCs 0.4, N20 0.2, TROP 03, BLACK CARBON 0.8. So if I use Idso's land SATS factor of 0.17 degrees C per Wm-2, then the rise in GHGs in toto accounts for approximately 0.73 degrees C of the warming over the last 100 years. So carbon dioxide becomes a minor rather than a major player in the drama IF Idso is correct.

I've course we have to subtract the negative effects of reflective aerosols, cloud changes and volcanic aerosols. These total about 2.9 Wm-2 and account for about 0.5 degrees C. this means we have to account for 0.8 to 1.2 degrees C of the warming in the last 100 years. It's fairly rough maths, but I think there are other multiple causes of the warming.

I'm still quite open-minded about everything. I've just been perusing the latest IPCC papers, and the whole thrust of action appears to be aimed at reducing the carbon footprint and I can't see any results on the board after a generation.

So the next thing is to identify the factors responsible for the other 0.3 to 0.7 degrees of the warming.

Now I did my best to identify how the orthodox school of climate science achieved it surface air temperature sensitivity factor, and as you can see from my last post, they used old Industrial period data, paleaontology data and modelling, versus Idso's real world data available now.

I had a close look at Lewis and Curry's 2014 work because they achieved a lowish figure of about 1.7 degrees C per Wm-2 using Industrial Period data that could have been flawed by 1) the natural return to normal from the mini-Ice Age, and 2) by the decrease of 0.5 degree C drop in global temps between 1940 and 1970.

When you say "So: clean slate. Square one. Ignore everyone but Idso.", is that fair, considering I've just had a look at how the orthodox school of climate science achieved its climate sensitivity figures. I always aim to be objective. At least I'm doing something constructive. Maybe we don't have any members in the forum who can look at Idso's figures. But so far I've only received claims that his science couldn't be correct because he is now receiving funding from oil companies or climate deniers, and that the IPCC could not be wrong because there are thousands of scientists involved in the studies used by the IPCC.

I expect flack, because as you said yourself "We can't (Solve problems - my insert). Anyone who tries to bring large issues, urgent issues, to the forefront is immediately silenced."
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on February 4th, 2020, 6:51 am 

TheVat » Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:35 am wrote:
Where was the bias? How is it possible to have so many papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and be accused of bias.


This statement would seem to lend support to the findings of those thousands of IPCC members who have published so many papers in peer reviewed journals.

There seems to a logical inconsistency between your appraisal of IPCC research and Sherman Idso's. If the paper is from Idso, you don't see how there can be bias (even after evidence is provided that he and his whole clan are in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry). But if it's from the rest of the climatology community, you insist there is bias.

Doogles, I am not here to referee every climatology paper written, or provide definitive proof on the degree to which each GHG warms the planet. I'm just saying, as I said before, that my first sip from the Idso milk jugs was sour, and I see little point in drinking the rest. Other researchers also use data from real world situations, AFAICT. And get quite different results. And don't get regular checks from Exxon and Peabody.


I would have to agree with your first statement. But you must admit that the orthodox climate science has been based on shaky grounds. I still haven't seen a repeat of the quantitative work of Tyndall's on GHGs. Citations within papers all go back to Tyndall.

You claimed "But if it's from the rest of the climatology community, you insist there is bias." Are you sure I said that. It would be against my principles. I look at the science and try to judge it objectively the best way I can. I did cite a statement by a climate scientist -- "Judith Curry, by the way, who has had over 100 papers published in Climate Science, seems to be more objective than most about the IPCC position. In this paper -- https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 011-0180-z -- where she states "A concerted effort by the IPCC is needed to identify better ways of framing the climate change problem, explore and characterize uncertainty, reason about uncertainty in the context of evidence-based logical hierarchies, and eliminate bias from the consensus building process itself." She virtually said that the IPCC should try to eliminate bias from the consensus process itself.

You said "Other researchers also use data from real world situations, AFAICT. And get quite different results." Yes, but how would you stack up the use of real world data in the present world by Idso against data from the Industrial Age, Paleaontological data and Modelling?

You have used the funding of Idso by oil companies as a reason for him to be biased in his science. It would be interesting if you could establish when that commenced. As I posted recently, Idso has had hundreds of papers published in peer-reviewed Journals, which suggests that he wasn't accused of bias or treated as a pariah for quite a long time. My earlier 'hypothetical' may just be correct.

Now don't mistake what I say next as a statement that the orthodox climate science consensus body is biased.

But just to put your claims about oil company funding into perspective, many people are making much money out of the 'global warming' industry. Those in the renewables manufacturing business must be quite happy, and many of those working in the science itself could be doing quite well.

I'm not sure of the source of this or its authenticity, but it's a statement from a skeptics site " ... what about this "Jim Hansen, recently retired as head of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at NASA, won over a million dollars in lucrative green prizes, regularly joined protests against coal plants and got himself arrested while at the same time he was in charge of adjusting and homogenising one of the supposedly objective data sets on global surface temperature. How would he be likely to react if told of evidence that climate change is not such a big problem?
$540 million from charitable foundations
Michael Oppenheimer, of Princeton University, who frequently testifies before Congress in favour of urgent action on climate change, was the Environmental Defence Fund’s senior scientist for nineteen years and continues to advise it. The EDF has assets of $209 million and since 2008 has had over $540 million from charitable foundations, plus $2.8 million in federal grants. In that time it has spent $11.3 million on lobbying, and has fifty-five people on thirty two federal advisory committees. How likely is it that they or Oppenheimer would turn around and say global warming is not likely to be dangerous?"


Just a thought and an attempt to keep a balance in the non-science part of this thread.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on February 4th, 2020, 7:07 am 

I see reasons for thinking about alternatives to the carbon dioxide momentum. Firstly it is my opinion that it is not achieving anything, and we need a Plan B at least. I see cloud engineering as a field of investigation worth exploring.

In their 2013 AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, there is a Section 7 about Clouds and Aerosols -- https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads ... INAL-1.pdf.

I found a large amount of interpretation of science from all over the world. There were many conflicting interpretations, but some passages made sense eg:

"Thick high clouds efficiently reflect sunlight, and both thick and thin high clouds strongly reduce the amount of infrared light that the atmosphere and surface emit to space. The compensation between these two effects makes the surface temperature somewhat less sensitive to changes in high cloud amount than to changes in low cloud amount. ... Low clouds reflect a lot of sunlight back to space but, for a given state of the atmosphere and surface, they have only a weak effect on the infrared light that is emitted to space by the Earth. As a result, they have a net cooling effect on the present climate; to a lesser extent, the same holds for mid-level clouds ... "


"A subset of aerosol particles acts as Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCN) (see Table 7.2). The ability of an aerosol particle to take up water and subsequently activate, thereby acting as a CCN at a given supersaturation, is determined by its size and composition. Common CCN in the atmosphere are composed of sea salt, sulphates and sulphuric acid, nitrate and nitric acid and some organics. The uptake of water vapour by hygroscopic aerosols strongly affects their RFari."

"7.7.2.2 Cloud Brightening
Boundary layer clouds act to cool the planet, and relatively small changes in albedo or areal extent of low cloud can have profound effects on the Earth’s radiation budget (Section 7.2.1). Theoretical, modelling and observational studies show that the albedo of these types of cloud systems are susceptible to changes in their droplet concentrations, but the detection and quantification of RF attributable to such effects is difficult to separate from meteorological variability (Section 7.4.3.2). Nonetheless, by systematically introducing CCN into the marine boundary layer, it should be possible to locally increase boundary layer cloud albedo as discussed in Section 7.4.2. These ideas underpin the method of cloud brightening, for instance through the direct injection (seeding) of sea-spray particles into cloud-forming air masses (Latham, 1990). An indirect cloud brightening mechanism through enhanced DMS production has also been proposed (Wingenter et al., 2007) but the efficacy of the DMS mechanism is disputed (Vogt et al., 2008; Woodhouse et al., 2008).


Some Solar Radiation Management (SRM) methods propose increasing the amount of stratospheric aerosol to produce a cooling effect like that observed after strong explosive volcanic eruptions (Budyko, 1974; Crutzen, 2006). Recent studies have used numerical simulations and/or natural analogues to explore the possibility of forming sulphuric acid aerosols by injecting sulphur-containing gases into the stratosphere (Rasch et al., 2008b). Because aerosols eventually sediment out of the stratosphere (within roughly a year or less), these methods require replenishment to maintain a given level of RF. Research has also begun to explore the efficacy of other types of aerosol particles (Crutzen, 2006; Keith, 2010; Ferraro et al., 2011; Kravitz et al., 2012) but the literature is much more limited and not assessed here.

The RF depends on the choice of chemical species (gaseous sulphur dioxide (SO2), sulphuric acid (H2SO4) or sprayed aerosols), location(s), rate and frequency of injection. The injection strategy affects particle size (Rasch et al., 2008a; Heckendorn et al., 2009; Pierce et al., 2010; English et al., 2012), with larger particles producing less RF (per unit mass) and more rapid sedimentation than smaller particles, affecting the efficacy of the method. The aerosol size distribution is controlled by an evolving balance between new particle formation, condensation of vapour on pre-existing particles, evaporation of particles, coagulation and sedimentation. Models that more fully account for aerosol processes (Heckendorn et al., 2009; Pierce et al., 2010; English et al., 2012) found smaller aerosol burdens, larger particles and weaker RF than earlier studies that prescribed the particle size over the particle lifetime. Current modeling studies indicate that injection of sulphate aerosol precursors of at least 10 Mt S (approximately the amount of sulphur injected by the Mount Pinatubo eruption) would be needed annually to maintain a RF of –4 W m–2, roughly equal but opposite to that associated with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (Heckendorn et al., 2009; Pierce et al., 2010; Niemeier et al., 2011).

Stratospheric aerosols may affect high clouds in the tropopause region, and one study (Kuebbeler et al., 2012) suggests significant negative forcing would result, but this is uncertain given limited understanding of ice nucleation in high clouds (Section 7.4.4.4).

They discuss some methods that can be researched:-
7.7.2 Assessment of Proposed Solar Radiation Management Methods
7.7.2.1 Stratospheric Aerosols
7.7.2.2 Cloud Brightening
7.7.2.3 Surface Albedo Changes
7.7.2.4 Cirrus Thinning


This all sounded very encouraging to me. It seems to me that if we can develop methods of artificially increasing clouds at will, we will then be able to control our climate much better. Clouds act to a large extent as an extensive sunshade umbrella.

What disturbs me is that this extensive consideration of the properties of clouds and aerosols appears to have not been followed up in any of the later reports. I skimmed through all of the later reports by the IPCC to see if research on Solar Radiation Management had made any progress since 2013.

I may have missed something and would appreciate it if any members of our forum could skim through those reports on this site -- https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/.

You may remember that I cited Ramanathan et al (1989) in other posts on Clouds. This research is 30 years old, remember that the IPCC recognises this paper, that a 3% reduction in cloud will result in 4 Wm-2 of radiative forcing at the surface. There have been increasing numbers of reports in the literature to decreasing clouds in various parts of the world. That 4 Wm-2 of Ramanathan et al by the way represents 0.68 degrees C.

Because we are not gaining any measurable reduction of either carbon dioxide or global temperatures with our current policies, I see cloud control as something deserving top priority.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby davidm on February 4th, 2020, 11:02 am 

I’m not going to get stuck in this tar baby any further, except to note the following:

I've just been perusing the latest IPCC papers, and the whole thrust of action appears to be aimed at reducing the carbon footprint and I can't see any results on the board after a generation


And here you go again. What, exactly, do you mean by, “I can’t see any results on the board after a generation”? If, by this, you mean, “We have failed to meet carbon reduction targets globally,” then this is TRUE — and, because we have failed, further carbon buildup, along with continually rising temperatures (last decade hottest ever recorded), is precisely to be expected.

If, OTOH, you are arguing that we HAVE met global reduction targets, but temperatures keep rising anyway, then this is FALSE — that is, it is FALSE to say that we have met ANY global reduction targets. So, either way, your statement is MEANINGLESS.

But so far I've only received claims that his science couldn't be correct because he is now receiving funding from oil companies or climate deniers …


This is wrong — and, arguably, at this point, a deliberate falsehood. I, myself, have given you at least TWO links to clear discussions of Idso’s fudged data, cherry picking, misunderstanding of the science, etc. So his bad “science” has been shown to be bad INDEPENDENT OF his financial connections to the fossil-fuel industry. The latter is interesting only insofar as it suggests a MOTIVE for his personal dissembling — that, and, by his own admission, a personal grudge! But all this has been shown to you, and you elect to ignore it. I conclude you have no real interest in discussing this, and that you are simply a standard-issue climate-change denialist.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 715
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby Serpent on February 4th, 2020, 3:53 pm 

doogles » February 4th, 2020, 5:39 am wrote: If Idso is correct (and I'm still checking on this), then as above, carbon dioxide is only responsible for 0.2 degrees C of that rise over those 100 years.

I see. But you know, according to the following inclusion of fossil fuel byproducts, that Co2 doesn't fly alone.
The breakdown is something like CO2 1.6, CH4 0.8, CFCs 0.4, N20 0.2, TROP 03, BLACK CARBON 0.8. So if I use Idso's land SATS factor of 0.17 degrees C per Wm-2, then the rise in GHGs in toto accounts for approximately 0.73 degrees C of the warming over the last 100 years.

By you, over half is minor?
So, it took us a hundred years of constantly accelerating emissions to contribute half of the warming. And you want to know where the other half came from before we try to stop accelerating our contribution?
I'm still failing to follow the logic.
Wouldn't it make more sense to do a little damage-control now; do whatever is within our power to reduce the risk of annihilation now and leave the study and analysis of factors beyond our control till after?

At least I'm doing something constructive.

What are you constructing? The arguments I've been able follow have been de-constructive.
Even if we make more clouds, how do we get them to drop water over the fires and stop raining on the floods?

I expect flack, because as you said yourself "We can't (Solve problems - my insert). Anyone who tries to bring large issues, urgent issues, to the forefront is immediately silenced."

Rest easy. Nobody who advocates doing nothing has ever been opposed by the Financial/Industrial establishment or the Trump regime.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on February 5th, 2020, 6:11 am 

davidm, I read all of your posts and commented on what you said. That's okay. Essentially what you presented as 'evidence' had nothing to do with Sherwood Idso's science but with the science and perceptions of the character of his son Craig. I concluded that your idea of evidence is totally different from mine.

I've just suggested that it would be wise for the IPCC to have a Plan B. Do you not think a Plan B is a constructive thing to have?

I'm also going to throw the question back on to you. Now given that Environmental Protection Authotrities 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 instil a sense of panic into the minds of many people?
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on February 5th, 2020, 6:19 am 

Serpent, thank you for the response. You asked "Wouldn't it make more sense to do a little damage-control now; do whatever is within our power to reduce the risk of annihilation now and leave the study and analysis of factors beyond our control till after?"

Yes, it would, it makes total sense to do actually more than a little damage-control now, and to do so, we have to start thinking about options and Plan Bs. I've never suggested stopping anything and I have no idea how you misread what I say, but I keep asking myself whether our approach at the moment is achieving anything. Don't you think it's wise to have a Plan B at least. The IPCC seemed to be going for it in their 2013 Report as I posted above, but now they seem to be shelving it.

Rather than advocating doing nothing, I'm advocating DOING MORE.

You also commented "Even if we make more clouds, how do we get them to drop water over the fires and stop raining on the floods?"

The aim is to be able to increase cloud production and produce an umbrella effect. If it rains, so be it. Why so negative? The evidence at the moment from a number of studies is that there has been cloud reduction in many areas, and, as I said in my last post, a 3% reduction in clouds can result in an increase of 4 Wm-2 extra radiative forcing at the surface in areas so affected. It''s all there in the IPCC report. This equates to 0.6 degrees C in affected areas.

I'll ask you the same question I asked davidm. "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 gas achieved since the 1990s except to clean up the air further, and to produce a sense of panic into the minds of many people?"
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


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: 1306
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: 3925
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: 1306
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: 1306
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: 3925
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: 7406
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: 7406
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: 1306
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: 1306
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: 1306
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: 3925
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: 7406
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: 3925
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: 3925
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: 1306
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: 1306
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: 715
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


PreviousNext

Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 10 guests