Doogles31731

Jesus and Mary were not angels, and Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all have conflicting spins on those last days. All wrote their versions some decades after the event. They were no reports from eye-witnesses at the time. And some of the AD painters who depicted the angels were never trained to paint wings. They opted out of wing-painting classes at Art School. So I'm sticking to my hypothesis that angels had to have wings to commute between the flat Earth and Heaven -- lol. But I love your proof and reasoning that there is professional soccer in heaven. I'd tick your heart if I was fair and decent, but I don't have a heart for you to reciprocate upon. So I'm a bit narked -- lol

I liked Joigus' contributions, and particularly his questioning about why the 'oldtimers' were moved to invent such things as angels. The records of the God actually speaking in a booming voice to mere mortals are rare. Moses' experience comes to mind. But theoretically, there had to be a messenger of some kind to deliver all the 'god-given' words of wisdom that humans listed on their scrolls as the 'word of God'. An intermediary between God and man was needed. And since there was clearly a flat Earth and a heaven where God resided, the messengers had to have a means of travel. Now the only means of travel into the sky in the days of those old-timers was the flight of birds. Hence angels had to have wings. That's my hypothesis, and I'm sticking to it -- lol. Don't bother ticking a like of this hypothesis, because I don't have a heart.

I can make a case to show that ‘freedom’ in a democracy is “the right to have an equal say with everyone else about the rules, at Local, State (County?) or National levels, that govern your behaviour in your culture.” Obviously we can’t have a referendum on every minor issue, but we all get one vote to elect a representative who will have a say on our behalf on the framing of the laws and Acts that govern what we can or cannot do at every level of our lives. These bylaws and Acts of Parliament come into force if the majority of our reps vote for them, and by definition in a democracy, we accept the will of the majority whether we like it at individual level or not. Now every State (in the generic sense) has Health Acts which empower Health Departments to establish Regulations on all health matters. And there are penalties mentioned in these Acts if people flaunt the Regulations. We all know that a percentage of our kind tend to flaunt many Laws and Regulations, so we naturally have to have Law Enforcement Bodies. Prosecutions in such cases are justified to my mind. A corollary of ‘one person, one vote’ in democracies is that we also have ‘free speech’, so we can always resort to eloquence of argument if we believe some Laws can be changed or improved and we can always vote for different reps at the next election. On the matter of quarantine preventing the poor from working, Australia and a couple of other Nations provided a ‘Job Keeper’ allowance for people so affected. That seemed sensible to me and it worked very well here.

I just started to read the first page of this thread and can't help myself from going off topic to comment upon an old adage posted by Dimreaper -- "That old chestnut, god gave us freewill; so any decision we make is our own... " Please accept my apologies in advance, but I would like to say that whoever started that rumour, was never married.

I think Externet is onto something here. And I also think that Sensei's idea is not bad. The only problem with Sensei's design is that it may not be the simplest way to achieve the principle involved because of the extra modification of moulding during manufacture. I joined a local group this year that recycles kitchen waste into compost for a community garden. We have 'wicking beds' which are lined on the bottom with industrial grade plastic sheeting to hold a water reservoir. The drain is an outlet on any side about 6 inches up from the bottom. Some plastic framework is laid on this to hold a blanket type material on which the soil is dumped. The growth of plants is prolific and the advantage is that you need only top up the water reservoir at the bottom every week or two. Some members use rectangular polystyrene foam containers about 18 inches long by 10 inches high and wide. They poke holes in all sides about 2 inches from the bottom , maybe put some blanket-type material in the bottom, fill with soil and plant. They work. Now I can see the merit in Externet's idea of having holes in the side of plant pots because the pot retains more water for longer. Maybe the holes in the side need to be only an inch or two from the bottom. Great idea! Only snag may be that some plants do not like wet feet. That would have to be discovered by trial and error (if not already discovered by others). The water ascends to seedlings by capillary action in combination with surface tension. It would be a great water saver, and watering saver, in my opinion.

There is a claim that the ‘Earth is dimming’ In an article by the American Geophysical Union, cited in the OP. I found it interesting for a couple of reasons. The term ‘dimming’ is a little confusing, because other authors use the term to describe the degree to which our atmosphere allows the penetration of solar energy to the Earth’s surface. In this research cited in the OP, the atmosphere of the Earth could be said to be brightening because there is less reflected solar radiation reaching the moon. This suggests that more energy is penetrating to the surface of the Earth. The authors claimed that the decrease in the amount of solar energy being reflected is of the order of 0.5 Wm-2. The second point of interest to me is that the finding appears to complement the findings of Wild (2009; https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008JD011470) [A1] in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research titled Global dimming and brightening: A review. The paper seems to sum up most of the work to that date. If you look at Figure 9 of that article, you will see that our atmosphere is ‘brightening’ during that period when the American Geophysical Union claimed that less solar energy is being reflected to the moon from Earth. Does anyone else see that complementation? [A1]

Thank you once again CharonY, this time for pointing out the error of my ways. I must have had a bad day the last time I posted. I noticed that my link was to a 2017 article in Lancet about diets and longevity, another project I was working on at the time. The correct link about zonulin inhibitors is Troisi et al (2021; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673617322523 -- in The Therapeutic use of the Zonulin Inhibitor AT-1001 (Larazotide) for a Variety of Acute and Chronic Inflammatory Diseases. This article reports that “A systematic search was conducted on PubMed and Google Scholar, resulting in 209 publications obtained with the following search query: “Larazotide,” “Larazotide acetate,” “AT-1001,” “FZI/0” and “INN-202.” After careful examination, some publications were removed from consideration because they were either not in English or were not directly related to Larazotide. “ Whoops again. I see the same faulty link came up. A third attempt -- Troisi et al (2021; https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/cmc/2021/00000028/00000028/art00006;jsessionid=3ixme2t5u2q9v.x-ic-live-02) in The Therapeutic use of the Zonulin Inhibitor AT-1001 (Larazotide) for a Variety of Acute and Chronic Inflammatory Diseases

Thank you for that info about zonulin inhibitors CharonY. It was new to me. I found this article in a journal called Ingenta Connect -- Troisi et al (2021; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673617322523 -- in The Therapeutic use of the Zonulin Inhibitor AT-1001 (Larazotide) for a Variety of Acute and Chronic Inflammatory Diseases This article reports that “A systematic search was conducted on PubMed and Google Scholar, resulting in 209 publications obtained with the following search query: “Larazotide,” “Larazotide acetate,” “AT-1001,” “FZI/0” and “INN-202.” After careful examination, some publications were removed from consideration because they were either not in English or were not directly related to Larazotide. “ This Journal apparently identifies and publishes the results of literature searches on a range of topics. The fact that they found 209 publications on Zonulin Inhibitors suggests that this topic of leaky gut is now being taken seriously. I can see that If an effective zonulin inhibitor became available, it would be a useful tool in the diagnosis and treatment of not only coeliac disease and Chrohn’s Disease, but maybe also asthma. I did some literature searches a year or two back and was surprised to find enough evidence to suggest that asthma may be associated with gluten sensitivity. The missing link in my hypothesis is how a virus that attacks an ACE receptor can result in zonulin production. I’m really just saying that the symptoms of ‘Long Covid’ are quite heterogeneous, as are the symptoms of ‘leaky gut’ syndrome. This is their only similarity so far, but I can’t see any harm in trying gluten-free on affected patients.

TheVat cited Iwasaki -- "It's still early days. But we believe that long COVID is not caused by one thing. That there are multiple diseases that are happening," says Akiko Iwasaki, a professor of immunobiology at Yale University who is also studying long COVID-19. Apart from this suggestion of an inflammatory condition, I also noticed an overlap in the description of sequelae in High-dimensional characterization of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 | Nature (provided by CharonY) with diseases linked to leaky gut syndrome -- “Our high-dimensional approach identifies incident sequelae in the respiratory system, as well as several other sequelae that include nervous system and neurocognitive disorders, mental health disorders, metabolic disorders, cardiovascular disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, malaise, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain and anaemia.” There's a good article on leaky gut syndrome and zonulin by Fasano (2020). Don’t take the first part of the title of the following article too seriously. The author was partly quoting Hippocrates -- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6996528/) in All disease begins in the (leaky) gut: role of zonulin-mediated gut permeability in the pathogenesis of some chronic inflammatory diseases. Excerpt from Abstract -- “Pre-clinical and clinical studies have shown that the zonulin family, a group of proteins modulating gut permeability, is implicated in a variety of CIDs (chronic inflammatory diseases), including autoimmune, infective, metabolic, and tumoral diseases. These data offer novel therapeutic targets for a variety of CIDs in which the zonulin pathway is implicated in their pathogenesis.” Free full text is available but the article is not peer-reviewed. It is well written IMO. Table 1 contains a list of diseases in which zonulin has been linked as a biomarker of gut permeability. In the absence of any better ideas on the aetiology of ‘Long Covid’, and in view of the wide range of medical conditions associated with both syndromes, is it possible that Covid somehow triggers zonulin production or ‘leaky gut’? I know that I would at least be trying a gluten-free diet if I had ‘Long Covid’. It’s a case where there’s nothing to lose but much to gain. Who knows? Maybe a few people with genuine, but unrecognised gluten sensitivity may benefit.

Pederkin, thank you for the comments. I was interested in your links to ‘urban planning’, but the link went to the proceedings of a court case. I perused the article by Damian Carrington on synthetic meat and found that I had a few questions to ask. I noted a couple of comments -- “The cells for Eat Just’s product are grown in a 1,200-litre bioreactor and then combined with plant-based ingredients.”, “The small scale of current cultured meat production requires a relatively high use of energy and therefore carbon emissions. But once scaled up its manufacturers say it will produce much lower emissions and use far less water and land than conventional meat.” Has anybody apart from the manufacturers evaluated the production of the plant-based products to see if they can be produced without farmland? Has anyone apart from the manufacturers evaluated the large-scale production costs to see how they compare with open-range farm animal meat like mutton and beef? Has anyone apart from the manufacturers evaluated the expectation that the production will NOT require a relatively high use of energy and therefore carbon emissions in the future? You’ve commented on the phrase ‘and building materials for extra farm products”. My sentence was worded badly. I asked “How do we get the increased farm products and building materials for extra farm products for the increasing population?” I was referring for timber for new homes and buildings, not buildings for industrial farming. This site gives an idea of the age at which hardwood trees can be harvested for timber in Victoria -- https://www.vicforests.com.au/static/uploads/files/fs-plantation-web-wfkpsjqlbofi.pdf, and I see other sites suggesting that many softwoods are harvested at 27-40 years. Planting trees for building materials appears to me to be a realistic proposition that could go hand in hand with the banning of destruction of natural forest.

That's a start of course, and it's a sensible move quite independent of climate change, in my opinion. But it's easier said than done. How do we get the increased farm products and building materials for extra farm products for the increasing P*********, unless we clear more land. Was it associated with pledges to do more large scale tree-planting over the next 30 years?

Reducing consumerism would obviously solve many aspects of the problem, but I'll refrain from mentioning the 4-syllable word that starts with 'P'. I can think of another approach that would provide a small amount of breathing space and which could be introduced by governments if necessary. Legislate (obviously with a decades-long grace period) that timber for building needs to be obtained from planted forest trees. As far as I know, it is not yet legislated as such here in Australia, but you can see that plantations account for 2% of Australia’s total forest area -- https://www.awe.gov.au/abares/forestsaustralia/profiles/industrial-plantations -- “ ... Australia's industrial plantations covered a total of 2.02 million hectares in 2011 (or 2% of Australia's total forest area), including 1.03 million hectares of softwood species (mostly exotic pines), 0.98 million hectares of hardwood species (mostly eucalypts) and 0.01 million hectares of unknown or mixed species ... Their primary purpose is commercial wood production, and they produce most of the volume of logs harvested annually in Australia. Industrial plantations also provide a range of environmental services, such as salinity and erosion control, and support regional employment. Plantations provide habitat for some native flora and fauna species that generally do not inhabit cleared agricultural land, although the population densities of forest-dwelling species are usually lower in plantations than in native forests. “ Another aspect that we had going in Victoria and which is not acknowledged in statistics, was to re-plant roadside vegetation and other large areas that had been denuded for almost a century. From 1975 to 1980, I was President of a group called the Warrnambool Nature Reserves Society, whose aim was to do just that in southwestern Victoria. Up till 1930, residents were permitted to harvest roadside and crown reserve timber for wood fires. In the days before electricity, such timber was the only source of heat for open fires and for cooking. Just a couple of thoughts.

Swansont, doesn't that formula apply to a closed system? The lungs are an open system. My analogy for this is in pulling back the plunger of a syringe to fill it with water. The pressure of the water does not change. Where is the evidence that the air pressure changes when we breathe in? The air pressure stays the same. On the other hand, if we do not have a partial vacuum in the pleural cavity, the lungs will not expand when the diaphragm contracts. I'll see if I can find any practical research experiments on this. Did you have any ideas on 'cracking' knuckles? Swansont, I found a couple of articles that agree with you -- eg https://www.britannica.com/science/human-respiratory-system/The-mechanics-of-breathing. The authors of these do not provide any experimental measurements, but they do use use Boyle's law as an explanation. They imply that the lungs expand first, thus creating at least a temporary lower pressure for the incoming air to equalise. That may be so, but I think that any such time lag would be minimal during resting breathing. During my early years as a practicing veterinary surgeon, I attended many animals experiencing pneumothorax, so I can assure everybody that we need a partial vacuum in the pleural cavity to ensure normal expansion of the lungs on inspiration. Otherwise we experience severe dyspnoea.

I could be wrong, but my take on respiration is that inhalation occurs when the diaphragm contracts. This results in expansion of the lungs with normal air pressure entering through the nose or mouth. A negative pressure within the lungs does not seem to be necessary. And would it be fair to say that the middle ear is dependent on eustachian tube patency to equalise its pressure with the environment during flight. I imagine that there would be periods during aeroplane ascents when the normal pressure of the middle ear is greater than that outside of the middle ear, resulting in slight pain, and lower during descent. The 'crackling' knuckles intrigues me though. How does air get into a joint to cause 'crackling'?

I would think that the nearest you would get to lower than air pressure in any region of an air-breathing animal, is in the chest cavity on expiration, simply because of the elasticity in healthy lungs. If pneumothorax occurs for any reason, animals have great difficulty breathing.

I see it as an interesting concept that would suit many locations in the world. For reliable use, you would need good battery storage of course. South Australia has a high percentage of solar and wind, but there were a couple of days when there was neither sun, nor wind, and the interstate supply of coal-powered broke down. Cost /effectiveness may be an issue. New installers would have to assess how long the new units last, seeing that there are so many moving parts. I would be sitting on my hands on this sort of technology for a decade or so till all of the many possible inherent problems are realized and solved. Wind and dust may be a bad combination. I'd wait and observe. New toys mostly work at the start.

mistermack, I applaud you for your concern about population growth and its high ranking as a world problem. I also applaud your optimism and your belief that it's a problem that should be addressed more widely. If it is addressed, there is a chance that some fresh and useful ideas can be generated. I regret that you were not around when I raised the matter under the theme of climate change. If it is not addressed more widely, nothing will change. I totally agree with your recent comment "Surely the chances of it happening affect the quality of the idea. Which puts your idea at a value close to zero. I put forward various ideas, all of which are better, for that very reason. There's no reason why family planning products and advice couldn't be made available in every country in the world that has a high birth rate. The cost would be tiny, compared to the pay-off. The price of aid could also be linked to measures taken against churches that preach against contraception. Churches could easily be leaned on in any case. Just the threat of changing their tax status would have an instant effect on their behaviour. If population growth was given just ten percent of the publicity that global warming gets, then attitudes could be changed very quickly. The world is obsessed by CO2, and is completely ignoring the real threat to the planet. It's like being led towards the guillotine, and worrying about rust on the blade." Please accept this as a word of support for your stance, rather than a contribution to the topic.

It’s obvious from the tone of all of the responses since my last post, that my attempts to stimulate discussion about multiple approaches to the ‘climate change’ problem, are causing more annoyance to members than they are stimulating scientific discussion. I apologise for having been a nuisance and will cease posting on this subject immediately.

Peterkin said - “Then we all die. Population growth is not a new problem and control of it is not a new idea. So far, the only two things that's worked have been a rise in the standard of living and education (which are intertwined) and drastic authoritarian government intervention (which is generally disapproved by the world). “ Yes, a rise in the standard of living and education (which are intertwined) do appear to be the only things that have worked so far. I applaud you for making a positive contribution. I also don’t believe in drastic authoritarian government intervention. But surely there must be other subtle ways of intervention that we have not yet thought about. Thank you for the link to that essay by Matthew Connolly (Population Control Is History: New Perspectives on the International Campaign to Limit Population Growth.) It was quite analytical and constructive. As you can see from the title, he provides some ideas on population control from a study of its history. He actually mentions a number of studies that would be of benefit to any group that decided to tackle the issue. Good stuff. It might be timely to point out that the world population has increased from 7.6 billion at the end of 2018 to 7.9 billion at this stage of 2021. Why is everyone just brushing that aside? When I said that many areas have recorded less cloud, you responded -- “ And corresponding increase over others, which explains floods in Sudan and China.” You may have conflated clouds and aerosols with heavy rain. As you can see from Wild’s graphic in my last post, clouds and aerosols change by the decade globally, and their reduction is associated with higher average global temperatures. Flooding was not an issue as far as clouds and aerosols were concerned in his studies. Severe flooding events are not new, but world reporting of every flood anywhere in the world is new. On floods, see the Wikipedia researcher’s results on this site -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_floods. Devastating floods are not new. But I repeat that detailed world reporting is new. Some areas have only recorded flooding since the year 2000. I’ve selected some of the dates of the worst floods listed in that report. “The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 was one of the most destructive floods in United States history. One of Canada's most devastating floods occurred in southern Alberta in June 2005. The flooding affected many major metropolitan areas including Calgary. Four deaths resulted from the three-week flood. Deadliest flood in the history of the UK, caused by the failure of the Dale Dike Reservoir. Affected Sheffield in 1864, 270 dead. The 1887 Yellow River Flood caused between 900,000 and 2,0000,000 deaths in China. One of the deadliest floods ever.” Swansont, I’m not sure what to make of your comments. This time, you stated “Yes. In fact, as I’ve pointed out, the biggest CO2 producers already have low fertility rates. So you’re proposing a solution that’s already in progress, and complaining that the IPCC hasn’t recommended a course of action that’s already in place.” I thought this was a science forum. I expected that comments would be in the nature of objective scientific critiques of evidence cited, but you tend to make one or two-liner comments that may or may not be true, and then you place a spin on the comment that tends to negate the contribution of the poster. In this case, you are probably correct in stating that “Yes. In fact, as I’ve pointed out, the biggest CO2 producers already have low fertility rates.” But is it possible that the biggest CO2 producers have the highest standards of living (and therefore he lowest fertlity rates) because they are producing the foods and consumables for those countries with higher reproductive rates and under-developed economies. And I’m sure that the IPCC is mature enough to consider any evidence pertinent to climate change. Could you please provide me with what you regard as ‘the course of action that’s already in place’ on population, and the evidence source on which you base that? I'm curious. My graph of population vs carbon emissions is open to criticism. I’ve listed my sources of data, and I’ve also pointed out above that the 2018 population in my graph of 7.6 billion, has jumped to a present day 7.9 billion. Yet, no official body appears to be addressing the problem. Even apart from the climate change aspect, I have indicated with a mud map that population increases have multiple effects on the sustainability of our planet. At the moment, there is no encouraging sign of decreasing population or of decreasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (see Cape Grim graph today). I would be really interested to see any scientific views you may have on Martin Wild’s publications regarding the association between atmospheric brightening and increasing temperatures. I might also mention again that I only joined in the post on the ‘Tipping Point’ thread because posters were claiming that not enough was being done to halt ‘climate change’. I’ve been pointing out that we need more than a single-pronged attack. So far I’ve not heard any scientific reasons for NOT exploring further possibilities that might assist population, or cloud and aerosol, controls. Peterkin's reference to Matthew Connolly's essay on population control would be a useful reference for any group undertaking the task.

Peterkin said - “ I agree and I think that teacher would agree with you. OTH, I'm also convinced that without the crucial reduction in emissions, all other approaches would not avail.” I look at the population/emissions graph and I see that unless we try something to slow down population growth, we just have to put up with more emissions. The list of sources of carbon emissions suggests that the current goal of reaching zero emissions is going to be a very difficult one and the evaluations of the Kyoto Protocol that I presented a couple of posts ago are not very encouraging. I’m not suggesting that we give up trying to reduce emissions. But I am suggesting that we look at other possibilities as well. Swansont has asked me -- “Can you explain how this would occur, and what the timetable would be?” I wish I had a mind that was capable of giving an answer to that question Swansont. I’m merely presenting evidence identifying a global problem that I believe is very important even from a viewpoint quite separate from ‘climate change’. As you know, several posters made suggestions in previous posts, These contributors made the point that population rates decrease with increasing prosperity, and that it is in our global interests to assist developing countries economically. I believe in ‘think tanks’, and that the chances of coming up with answers to any problem, improve with the numbers of people addressing that problem. We did at least develop an atomic bomb in my time, and we put a man on the moon. I’m sure we could collectively come up with some subtle ideas for slowing down population growth if we put our minds to it. I think you knew the answer to the second part of your question before you asked it -- “ ... what the timetable would be?”. It would take a generation or two or three. But then emissions reduction appears to be taking that much time. The IPCC has the charter to review the science and to make recommendations for policy makers in governments. The initial reason I posted was to point out that they appear to be sticking to a single-pronged, rather than a multi-pronged attack. I believe that another area for consideration is cloud and aerosol bio-engineering. There’s a researcher named Martin Wild, who has been an author or co-author of many papers on the subject. One of his papers has a very good summary of what his profession calls the ‘dimming’ and ‘brightening’ of the atmosphere and it’s effects. His lengthy review -- Wild (2009; https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008JD011470) [A1] in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research titled Global dimming and brightening: A review, seems to sum up most of the work to that date. This chart summarises much of the work. I’m not too familiar with the early work before 1940, but even James Hansen, the ‘father’ of ‘global warming’, admits that between 1940 and 1970, the average global near surface temperature dropped 0.5 degrees C, even though the atmospheric carbon dioxide was rising. People of my age may remember that this was the time when most cities of the world were experiencing smog that was brownish in colour due to the nitric oxide content. We had ‘acid rain’, as well as carbon particles, from belching chimneys, depositing on everything. During the 1970s, Environmental Protection Agencies turned up all over the western world at least and steps were legislated to clean up our air. Some parts of the above graphic are open to debate, but the average trend from the 1980s onwards, suggests significant ‘brightening’, as recorded at that time by surface solar radiation, measured by satellites and surface instrumentation. Wild attributes it to a lessening of cloud and aerosols. But significantly, it shows a warming by roughly 0.5 degrees C. That’s a fair-sized portion of the overall increase of 1.4 degrees C increase in land temps over the 1850-1900 average. I’m not sure why he did so, but Wild claims that the dimming of the 1940s to the 1980s, was masking the true temperature rise caused by greenhouse gases. This may be true, but it suggests to me that we need more cloud and maybe harmless aerosols (if there is such a thing). There is evidence that there has been a reduction of cloud over some parts of the world. One paper reports a decrease of 3% over the Mediterranean that may explain the droughts in the Iberian Peninsula, as one contributor asked about in a previous post. I can dig up the references if anyone is interested, but I’m self-conscious about making my posts too long. [A1]

Good day to you Peterkin. The quote you presented seems as if it’s supporting more of the single-pronged approach of emission reduction. Maybe the students need to hear about other possible approaches. I note that the teacher, Heather Short also added “They (students) deserve a livable future, and they deserve our apology, immediate action and emotional support to navigate an uncertain future. Honesty, transparency and open dialogue about these climate and ecological crises must form the core of our education.” I agree with this last sentence, especially where it pleads for more open dialogue. I posted a link to evaluations of the success of the Kyoto Protocol a few posts back that didn’t offer any really encouraging indication that emission reduction is working. The stock answer of course is that we are not doing enough. That may be right, but at the rate our population is increasing and our energy use is increasing globally, that may never occur. The reason I joined in the discussion of Climate Change in this forum was because of the thread suggesting that we had reached a ‘Tipping Point’ and that we had to begin declaring that we had a ‘Climate Catastrophe’, or words to that effect. My claim was that a single-pronged approach in the form of reduction of GHG emissions was virtually not enough and that other approaches should also be tried. This is a science forum; ‘faith’ in an approach to a problem may not be enough. I would just like to offer a couple of more points for scientific consideration. Since my last post, I have updated a graph I did years ago on the correlation between the residual global population in any one year and the actual amounts of carbon emissions in that year. I used figures from file GCB2020v18_MtCO2_flat.csv, for the carbon emission figures and transformed their CO2 to C. I acknowledge that the data was used with permission of the Global Carbon Project under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. The population figures are fom the World Bank. The major sources of these carbon emissions consist of transportion, electricity generation, industry, commercial and residential, agricultural and land and forestry development, all promoted by human activity. Obviously, if there is a cause and effect, then it’s the increasing population causing the increasing carbon emissions. The carbon can’t be the cause of the increasing population. With a highly significant Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient of 0.97, the graph is getting to be the stage of where the figures for population could be inserted into any models instead of carbon dioxide and one would come up with a very similar answer. I have to repeat that I do not belong to any group or organisation and the research I present has been sourced by me alone. A couple of years ago, I created a mud map of the central role of population growth in many of the world’s problems. The way I see it, population control is required for reasons other than those of climate change. That’s just a little bit more about why I think we should not just brush population control aside, as one or two posters have done in this thread. I would like to get onto the subject of aerosols and clouds. But the above is enough for one post. You may be surprised at the degree to which much of the near-surface temperatures could be affected by a reduction in clouds and aerosols.

swansont - “I don’t see how that’s a valid conclusion. How can you determine that the levels wouldn’t be even higher if we were not attempting to reduce emissions by looking at the graph?” You are quite correct in saying that one can’t draw valid conclusions from looking at a graph. I didn’t claim it was a valid conclusion, swansont. I said that my observation suggests ... . This is an open invitation to all members to have a look at the Cape Grim graph for yourself and tell me where you see any positive reduction of levels following the increased targets of the various IEAs. studiot - Yes the underlined is part of the question. I see you agree that we should explore every option. But you’ve off-handedly dismissed population and cloud control without providing any alternatives. You’ve stated that “We need fundamental, root and branch, changes to our society, with proper respect for and contributions from all sectors.” I agree with that but it’s a vague generalisation. Do you have any positive nuts and bolts suggestions in mind. I’ve presented references to evaluation of the Kyoto Protocol, and there’s nothing in those studies remotely suggesting that the reduction of emissions by member nations (which is real and mostly successful) is having any visible effect on the above graph. I’d really like to see some plans B and C and D. Peterkin, don’t you need a good economy to have social welfare? Our largest breeders in Australia appear to be people who are on social welfare generationally. Thanks for the reference. As you can see from the above, I have no problems affirming that there is a reduction in emissions, but my question is whether we are achieving anything after 25 years or more. The answer you’ve given -- “Because it's largely unimplemented.” is the stock answer. But wouldn’t you expect that in the years after IEAs such as the Kyoto Protocol, and then the Marrakesh Accord, that you would see a blip on the carbon dioxide graph above. At the moment, we have a one-pronged approach in the form of emission reductions. How long do we wait before we institute a multi-pronged approach? naitche -- This reference suggests that 97% of sheep and cattle in Australia are grass fed -- https://www.hellonaturalliving.com/ethical-beef-grain-fed-grass-fed-and-organic/. Certainly a number are ‘finished off’ in feedlots, but I stand by my claim that most are grass fed. TheVat, once again I thank for the positive contribution to the discussion. Ashamedly, I have to confess that the first reference you gave me was largely beyond my comprehension. From what I could gather, the authors were trying to study the changing properties of absorption of infrared by carbon dioxide across the troposphere. It seemed to be based mainly on theory and certainly made a number of assumptions at the start. The first assumption was that “1. Carbon dioxide and water vapor are responsible for energy absorption in the troposphere in this model. Absorption bands of carbon dioxide are centered at 15, 4.3, 2.7, and 2 μm (see Fig. 1). The centers of absorption bands of water vapor can be considered at 71, 6.3, 2.7, 1.87 and 1.38 μm [23,24]. Major amounts of oxygen gas and nitrogen gas are transparent to infrared radiation.” Tyndall himself finished up measuring the heat absorption of atmospheric air from his laboratory, but he also assumed it was carbon dioxide and water vapour in that air that caused the deflection of his galvanometer. He called it carbonic acid. We have no idea whether it was water vapour or carbon dioxide that deflected the needle of his galvanometer. Were you able to get a take on what the authors were doing in that first reference? I could understand most of the second reference, in that they were measuring the downward radiative fluxes of various gases. It was a useful experiment in one way, but the quantitative nature of the experiment seemed to be in comparing the gases with one another, instead of the changes in flux with changing concentrations of each gas. In this respect, I was surprised at the forcing due to H20 compared with the other gases. I know I’m being a bit of a pain, but I would really like to see a modern repeat of Tyndall’s laboratory experiments that could be controlled in every way. You may remember that in the other forum I provided a rough sketch of the apparatus I would like to see used. I really think there are too many unknown variables in experiments conducted directly on the atmosphere. Even NASA’s staff at one stage wrote a letter to their director complaining that there was too much modelling and not enough sound basic research in the Climate Change science.

swansont asked “ Why focus on efforts that will have minimal effect? The population explosion is happening where GHG emissions are smallest. “ My simple observation of the carbon dioxide graphs at Cape Grim and Mona Loa suggest the the current strategy of reducing emissions is having zilch effect and that we need to explore alternative plans B and C and D if necessary. Population growth is high on the list of suggested causes as I pointed out in my last post. Pragmatically, It seems a good idea to explore ways of making sure the numbers are under control and of of having a world body working towards that end. You are correct in stating that the IPCC does not do research in the primary sense. But it is their job to research and review primary literature on climate change and to “formulate realistic response strategies for the management of climate issues.” My visual of the carbon dioxide graphs does not indicate that carbon emission reductions are achieving anything. If you type ‘evaluation of the Kyoto Protocol’ into Google Scholar, you will find that there have been a number of papers published. Apparently 192 nations have signed up as participants and the reports suggest that 24% have exceeded their proposed reductions. There is no doubt that participating countries have reduced their emissions, but the question is whether they have achieved anything. This site reviews many of these studies -- https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0236299. It is hard to judge from the Abstract whether the effort has achieved anything, But the Introduction suggests that different studies have produced controversial responses, eg “Scholars have conducted quantitative analyses by applying diverse methodologies and establishing data sets to estimate the impact of International Environmental Agreements (IEA). However, the results obtained in previous studies remain controversial. Proponents insist that an IEA has a significantly positive impact on improving environmental quality [4, 5], while opponents consider it an empty promise that involves large expenses for implementation [6–9]. The endemic nature of international policy—for example, many actors, different socioeconomic conditions among parties, analysis, and data sets on this topic—has become limited.” This suggests that not every scientist agrees that reduction of carbon emissions is achieving anything. Don’t you think it wise to simultaneously explore other approaches such as population control or cloud engineering. Peterkin has presented a realistic picture suggesting that population growth may not be leveling off as expected in developing countries and he has re-iterated that wealthier nations in general, have lower birth rates. This suggests that it’s in the interests of developed nations to endeavour to improve the economies of developing nations. Ken Fabian, TheVat and naitche, I see all of these things you are suggesting, as minor gains in the attempt to reduce GHG emissions. If you read the literature I’ve cited above, you will see that there are doubts about whether the Kyoto Protocol is working. Apart from the significant correlations between population growth and increases in average global near surface temperatures, population control is necessary for many other reasons involving sustainability of food supply on the planet. You may be surprised to hear that the Greenhouse theory was largely based on the work of John Tyndall about the 1860s. His work on the absorption and radiation of heat energy by gases has never been repeated. And John Tyndall did not assess carbon dioxide in isolation. His basic settings were performed on dry air produced by passing air in his laboratory through drying media and potassium hydroxide to remove water and carbon dioxide molecules. This represented zero readings on his galvanometer. He then tested the crude air in his laboratory in his machine, and found a deflection of the galvanometer needle of 15 degrees. He concluded that crude air (atmosphere) has the ability to absorb heat. This of course includes expired carbon dioxide and water vapour. He also found a slight deflection for Nitrogen and Oxygen. Nitrogen of course comprises c79% of atmosphere, against 0.04% of carbon dioxide; that’s about 2000 times the quantity. I have been unable to find where anyone anywhere since Tyndall has checked the QUANTITATIVE absorption and radiation of infrared light by various gases of various concentrations..

swansant, we may have to leave it that you and I see the charter of the IPCC somewhat differently. I believe they have the power and the obligation to do something about recommendations for population control. They may not have the expertise now, but expertise comes with research into a problem and ways of solving it. They certainly rate population growth as high on the list of causes of high GHGs. This is a screen dump from their 4th or 5th report. Note the words “ ... driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever.” We need an organised representative world body to do something about. There is a Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division. These are the people to whom the International Acadamies of Sciences sent their Statement on Population Control in 1993. 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 Item 80, 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. On this site -- https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/trends/ConciseReport2019/English.pdf, 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. I’ve copied and pasted two of their recommendations -- 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. 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. Once gain, TheVat has made positive and constructive suggestions. It’s a shame he has no say in the IPCC, but a forum like this is just a medium for sharing ideas. We do need a world body to research the problem and suggest solutions. As both swansont and Peterkin have indicated, the number of progeny per family is decreasing in developed countries. The question is whether it’s enough. I have seen suggestions that the curve is expected to plateau about 2050. Ken Fabian said “It is only recently that it has been seen as both necessary and possible to shift to zero emissions.” Unfortunately, that’s the reason I’ve been thinking about alternative approaches to be used in conjunction with emission reduction." To date I’ve seen absolutely not one single sign of a decrease in the concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide in either the Cape Grim or Moana Loa graphs. The story of Don Quixote was supposed to be fiction, but we have been witnessing a modern day version in our attempts to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Having said that, I know it will elicit many responses and excuses, but with respect I would like to leave that for now. TheVat, thanks for that interesting reference about seaweed and gas emissions in cattle. It could have some effect, but in places like Australia, most of our cattle fatten on natural grass pastures under extensive range conditions. But let’s not get into emissions just yet. It looks as if population growth control is in the ‘too hard’ basket. But I’m still interested in any further comments. If there are none, I would like to hear any views or attitudes about cloud bioengineering. The IPCC dealt with it to some extent in their 5th report. This a small excerpt. “By enhancing the planetary albedo, cloudy conditions exert a global and annual shortwave cloud radiative effect (SWCRE) of approximately –50 W m–2 and, by contributing to the greenhouse effect, exert a mean longwave effect (LWCRE) of approximately +30 W m–2, with a range of 10% or less between published satellite estimates (Loeb et al., 2009). Some of the apparent LWCRE comes from the enhanced water vapour coinciding with the natural cloud fluctuations used to measure the effect, so the true cloud LWCRE is about 10% smaller (Sohn et al., 2010). The net global mean CRE of approximately –20 W m–2 implies a net cooling.” Theoretically, it would be wonderful to be able have some control over clouds, although I can see problems galore in decisions of when and where to control them.

Swansont stated -- “The IPCC does not recommend policy” Are you sure about that Swanont? Technically they don’t make policies, but they make recommendations for policy makers. This site (260 pages) is devoted to recommended response strategies to Climate Change by the IPCC -- https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_III_full_report.pdf -- Climate Change: the IPCC response strategies. The beginning of that paper affirms their role: It seems they have the 'go ahead' under b), to formulate realistic response strategies to population growth if they wish to. Ken Fabian, thank you for the comments, but why do you think it is referred to as ANTHROPOGENIC climate change? Certainly population is not the main cause, but to my mind it’s part of a multifactorial issue that should be addressed in part. You mentioned the International Academy of Sciences as an authority to heed. As far back as 1993, they produced a white paper on population control to be presented to the United Nations Conference on Population and Development in 1994. They expressed the hope that the paper would reach the attention of governments and peoples of all countries. In that paper, they state in part “As human numbers further increase, the potential for irreversible changes also increases. Indicators of severe environmental stress include the growing loss of biodiversity, increasing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing deforestation worldwide, atmospheric ozone depletion, acid rain, loss of topsoil, and shortages of water, fuel and fuel-wood in many parts of the world.” They didn’t even mention increased nitrogen and phosphate run-offs causing ocean ‘dead zones’, nor the limited global supply of the above fertilisers needed to sustain increasing numbers of humans. And of course, there’s the body of scientists mentioned in the OP on ‘Tipping Point’, calling for action on population. You may wish to check this paper -- Roerto Sumiblan Deluna Jr (2012; https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/36603/) published an article titled Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Emission in Asia: Effect of Population, Affluence and Energy Efficiency. Part of their Abstract reads " ... Results showed that 97 percent of the variation in the level of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission could be explained by changes in population, GDP per capita and energy efficiency.” I like this contribution from TheVat. It's positive and constructive. It’s refreshing to receive positive input. But the big problem is the nuts and bolts practical issue of implementing the suggestions. The whole world appears reticent to do anything about it. It needs a world body, and the IPCC is one suggestion. And as I revealed in my response to Swansont, they have the power under their charge to “formulate realistic response strategies for the management of the Climate Change issue.” So I’d still like to hear of more positive practical suggestions.