Climate change (split from Climate Change Tipping Points)

[Peterkin]

By far the better option is vat production of meat, as it would liberate vast areas of land for oxygen-producing plants. Some of those could be grain for human consumption - rather than for feedlots and biodiesel.  Of course, for long-term and large scale sustainability, the meat culture industry has to become more efficient and make use of clean energy sources. This is a very thorough analysis:

The scale of cattle production required for the very high levels of beef consumption modeled here would result in significant global warming, but it is not yet clear whether cultured meat production would provide a more climatically sustainable alternative.

Urban food production has to be improved and increased, to reduce transport, improve the air and supply fresh vegetables and fruit to the population. Not a bad community building strategy, either. 

But that doesn't mean we don't also need to stop growth in both numbers of people and their demand for more energy, more manufactured goods, more more mobility; most importantly, we have to reduce waste. Less economic disparity might help, too.

Edited September 11, 2021 by Peterkin
adding source

[Doogles31731]

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]

2 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

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.

 Why focus on efforts that will have minimal effect? The population explosion is happening where GHG emissions are smallest. 

2 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

They may not have the expertise now, but expertise comes with research into a problem and ways of solving it.

The IPCC does not do research.

2 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

Note the words “ ... driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever.”

Yes, population growth…in the past. We are paying price for having the resulting large population in developed countries. But attacking current population growth won’t change that, because those industrial country growth rates have already changed. 

[Peterkin]

4 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

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.

It should be ample, if the present trend continues.

Quote

The global TFR in the reference scenario was forecasted to be 1·66 (95% UI 1·33-2·08) in 2100. In the reference scenario, the global population was projected to peak in 2064 at 9·73 billion (8·84-10·9) people and decline to 8·79 billion (6·83-11·8) in 2100.

 

Those numbers do not account for the future development of developing nations, where the current birth rate is higher than the mortality rate and the population is  still growing and young enough to keep growing for some time, in contrast to the much older American population.  Those faster-growing nations will have not only increasing demand for energy, resources and consumer goods, as well as food and water, with a commensurate increase in the per capita carbon footprint. Meanwhile, Europen and North American demographics are changing rapidly through immigration, which, in turn, will alter the fertility pattern as well as the ethnicity, age and dispersion of populations. (and cause a whole lot of xenophobic hostility)  However, that only seems to last one generation; the birth rate of immigrants declines as their economic and educational attainment rise. 

Quote

Among all second-generation women ages 15-44, for example, 6% gave birth in the previous year, according to pooled Current Population Survey data for 2004-2010. That compares with 9% of similarly aged foreign-born women and 7% of all similarly aged women.

This is far down the document (all of which is interesting), under the heading Family and Living Arrangements. 

There is a very strong link between economic well-being and lower fertility. It's been cited enough times: if you want people to have fewer babies, give the babies they already have a better prospect of life. The IPCC can collect the information and tell governments what they "should" do to improve their situation, but has no power to make them follow its advice.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Those faster-growing nations will have not only increasing demand for energy, resources and consumer goods, as well as food and water, with a commensurate increase in the per capita carbon footprint

Not necessarily commensurate with footprints of already-developed countries, since power generation available today can have a much smaller carbon footprint. For infrastructure put in place 30 years ago you didn’t have the “green” options you have today, so there is the option of installing solar and wind, and having it be a larger fraction of total power than is present in many developed nations, and the things that use electricity tend to be more efficient these days (e.g. LED vs incandescent lighting)

[Peterkin]

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

Not necessarily commensurate with footprints of already-developed countries, since power generation available today can have a much smaller carbon footprint. For infrastructure put in place 30 years ago you didn’t have the “green” options you have today, so there is the option of installing solar and wind, and having it be a larger fraction of total power than is present in many developed nations, and the things that use electricity tend to be more efficient these days (e.g. LED vs incandescent lighting)

That's quite true, and I know some African nations are making efforts (Egypt, South Africa, Kenya, Namibia and Ghana) toward renewable energy sources, but it's unclear how many have the financial capability, coupled with the political stability to carry out a comprehensive long-range plan.  They are also struggling with outmoded infrastructure and transportation - and soon be faced with skyrocketing temperatures and the life-and-death importance of refrigeration and air conditioning. They may not be able to wait for the cost and feasibility of green energy installations on the scale required to be within reach.  Lots of challenges!

Quote

Growing urban populations mean rapid growth in energy demand for industrial production, cooling and mobility. With the growing appetite for modern and efficient energy sources, Africa also emerges as a major force in global oil and gas markets.

 

[Ken Fabian]

23 hours ago, TheVat said:

AGW is also a rice-growing and ruminant livestock problem,  given that they produce significant amounts of methane,  a potent GHG.  If more people equals more rice and meat consumption, then AGW will not be decoupled from population growth just by elimination of dirty energy.   We may also be looking at switches to millet,  and ways to alter the digestion of cattle (or go to vat production of beef,  etc.) if people insist on traditional foods but want to keep atmospheric methane levels down.  There are already experiments underway with adding a certain type of kelp to cattle feeds to lower their methane emissions.  

https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/feeding-cattle-seaweed-reduces-their-greenhouse-gas-emissions-82-percent

Yes it is not just a dirty energy problem but that is the biggest part - and we have solutions that work now and can be made to work better; I think the growth of clean energy should be the principle response whilst still adequately supporting efforts to reduce GHG emissions from other activities like agriculture. Aiming to eliminate or at least greatly reduce methane as well as CO2 emissions from rice, livestock and other agriculture is necessary and whilst it can help to encourage less meat or rice eating, like with population control I don't see regulation of consumer food choice as a viable option.

I do see carbon pricing rather than direct regulation as a regulatory mechanism - and more to encourage producers to use the options R&D develop rather than than to influence consumers directly; carbon pricing works when there are existing alternatives and the level of pricing imposed make the alternatives commercially viable.

Greater policy ambition becomes acceptable option if Doubt, Deny, Delay style "climate policy" loses it's popular appeal and power to demotivate; people accept some level of sacrifice for the common good if it is clear and uncontroversial that it will do some good but even those who care will struggle to do so when led to believe such actions are pointless - as opponents of climate accountability encourage people to believe. I see the population issue being used like that - encouraging the view that climate action is pointless and or is some kind of slippery slope to tyranny. I think we are on a slipperier slope to tyranny by failing to address this profoundly serious problem than by seeking to evade and delay - tyranny becomes most popular when things are going from bad to worse.

Nations of the world do make efforts to address population growth through their UN memberships and participation - they lead the UN, not the UN leading them. What policy responses nations make are entered into freely. Any regulation is their own, not the UN's, even where the UN (because nations want it) provides aid and assistance.

I suspect that delay on doing the things we can do near term - like shifting to clean energy - may be a more serious risk of rising methane concentrations than near term agriculture emissions, because of warming feedbacks leading to large releases of "natural" methane. That being one of those hard to pin down "tipping points".

Edited September 11, 2021 by Ken Fabian

[TheVat]

Plus one,  KF.   Positive feedback cycles with bog methane and coastal methane hydrates are scary stuff.   I want to take up a couple other good points you raised,  when I have time.   If others don't get to them first.   

[naitche]

17 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

 

 

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.

 

Australian Farmers have also created a coalition of Farmers for Climate action.

C.S.I.R.O has conducted their own tests on Seaweed meal and its not unusual for even grass fed cattle to get mineral and seaweed mix.

Grazing animals and even hooved animals are an essential part maintaining healthy biologically diverse  grasslands and soil biomass.

Monoculture croplands are every bit as damaging to that as poor grazing practice.

[Doogles31731]

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..

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

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

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?

[TheVat]

4 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

 

 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..

Around pages 16-21, this article has dozens of citations to studies of IR absorption and re-emission of CO2...

 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6174548/

This looks at radiative surface forcing.... 

https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

Quote

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate

W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

I hope this is helpful. 

And this video has a rather simple and fun experiment showing absorption.....

 

[studiot]

4 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

 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.

Was the underlined part a question ?

Yes I think it is wise to explore every avenue towards an improved life for all.

But I fear that neither of yours are attractive.

Population control is Nature's way, using the tools of war, pestilence and famine.

It's very effective but do we really want this way ?

Cloud control is a drop in the ocean (excuse the mixed metaphor).

We need fundamental, root and branch, changes to our society, with proper respect for and contributions from all sectors.

That is certainly not happening at the moment.

Which is a great pity because nearly all would benefit from such change.

Edited September 12, 2021 by studiot

[Peterkin]

5 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

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.

Not the economies; the social welfare. Those are not at all synonymous, or even invariably compatible, concepts. In the US, poor people, have substantially higher birth-rate than other classes. (part of the reason, BTW, is religion - a factor in reproductive practice everywhere) Though the poor are not quite as fertile as they were before the Affordable Care Act) conservative governments and judges are doing everything in their power to reverse that trend. The middle and higher income groups (who can afford medical intervention) are relatively unchanged over the past 15 years. It's not a question of national wealth, but of family health. If those developing nations are given humanitarian aid (not weapons and bribes for dictators) or subsidies for fossil fuel industries - which, do indeed bolster national economies, while adding to CO2 emissions.  

 

6 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

the current strategy of reducing emissions is having zilch effect

Because it's largely unimplemented.

6 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

This suggests that not every scientist agrees that reduction of carbon emissions is achieving anything.

Because it hasn't been achieved. Or even tried, in some of the biggest polluters. President trump hearted coal, and he's not alone! The best reducer of CO2 emissions has been Covidhttps://phys.org/news/2021-07-scientists-pandemic-affected-air-quality.html, but we can't count on it going on long enough to make a difference.

[Ken Fabian]

The Vat - I'm happy to discuss these issues - and any issues with my arguments, but Doogles circling back to the same arguments won't keep me engaged here a lot longer.

11 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

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

After having not really tried - a large part of mainstream politics trying really hard to not try - we get declarations of defeat. Makes me think of The Simpsons - "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas".

Except that despite beginning as a combination of empty gestures and give em enough rope - getting government support because they were not expected to work and rocked no boats - wind and solar have exceeded all expectations and I think that success is the reason nations are now willing to at least say they are committed to zero emissions. Actual policies that have real ambition are only just emerging, so declarations of defeat look premature as well as being self-serving arguments by opponents of emissions accountability.

 

8 hours ago, swansont said:

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?

Yes, there has been population growth and economic growth and growth of energy demand. Of course emissions are continuing to rise; most of the highest emissions nations have sought to do the least they can. They have almost always put near term economic growth and growth of energy availability and reliability and least cost (whilst excluding climate costs) ahead of emissions reductions. Less than 1 year ago the USA had a President and Congress that were fiercely opposed to climate action. My own nation still has fierce supporters of fossil fuels in charge of climate policy and demand others have a plan, with costings ("you care so much, you fix it" - and "NOT like THAT") whilst not doing their best to not have a plan.

Less than 1 decade ago wind and solar were still more expensive than equivalent fossil fuels almost everywhere, but now they are not. Now more new solar and wind is being built each year than all new fossil fuel energy combined, much greater than new demand is growing but not yet enough to prevent new growth of fossil fuels in the presence of strong support for fossil fuels by people who don't care about global warming; the consequences of crossing that tipping point on costs take time to flow through but nothing is going to be the same. Even recent past performance of low emissions alternatives cannot give a clear idea of how they will perform in the future.

[CharonY]

On 9/11/2021 at 8:53 AM, Peterkin said:

Those faster-growing nations will have not only increasing demand for energy, resources and consumer goods, as well as food and water, with a commensurate increase in the per capita carbon footprint. Meanwhile, Europen and North American demographics are changing rapidly through immigration, which, in turn, will alter the fertility pattern as well as the ethnicity, age and dispersion of populations. (and cause a whole lot of xenophobic hostility)  However, that only seems to last one generation; the birth rate of immigrants declines as their economic and educational attainment rise. 

In addition to Swansont said, not only is there a marked difference in the consumption between fast growing and slow growing nations, there is a significant difference between developed countries, too. Australia, Canada and the United states emit almost double the amount per capita compared to many European countries. For a time in Chine the per capita emission (which is close to European levels) was plateauing and even declining, but seems to have picked up in the recent years (similar to other industrialized countries, so at least it does not seem the still ongoing development in China is also resulting in an equivalent rise in CO2 emission). So even if countries with high fertility catch up to some developed countries,  there is a huge range where they possibly could end up to (as long as they do not emulate the Gulf States or Northern America, for example). 

[Peterkin]

It's quite true, the European Union nations have done far more to mitigate climate change than North America. We can't be sure how committed they will be, going forward, with more conservative - and far right - elements gaining ground almost everywhere.

Even now, at panic time, targets are still being set for ridiculous dates: this by 2035, that by 2050 - when the politicians making those promises are long out of office and can't be held responsible for failure (but have already collected their campaign funding and fat consulting gigs from Big Fossil) Even if the targets were met, the remedy would be far too late. But, of course, they are not met.

Some success has been achieved, but it's spotty, sporadic, inadequate and unreliable.  People simply don't like giving up any comforts, conveniences or luxuries.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

It's quite true, the European Union nations have done far more to mitigate climate change than North America. We can't be sure how committed they will be, going forward, with more conservative - and far right - elements gaining ground almost everywhere.

I think it depends a bit. The Far right in Europe is a bit more obsessed with ethnocentrism rather than the economic identity that has ben assumed by conservatives in NA, but also Australia. Conversely, there have been left-leaning parties who have for a long time supported coal, as miner unions and similar groups were a strong voter base. Fundamentally there are few who want to do outright unpopular measures that could directly affect people's lives in the short term, which is why they try to kick it down the road for as long as possible. Someone will have to do the unpopular thing so (and likely promptly lose the next election). 

Though if there is enough public pressure some of that can change. In Germany, public opinion for nuclear power went down the drain after Chernobyl (though it was already fairly critical earlier, for a range of different reasons). And although it has taken many years, ultimately the Overton (ha, take this autocorrect) window has shifted enough that it wasn't possible for any party to expand nuclear programs. But you are correct that these changes often take long (say, a generational change) before things start rolling.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

The Far right in Europe is a bit more obsessed with ethnocentrism rather than the economic identity that has ben assumed by conservatives in NA, but also Australia. Conversely, there have been left-leaning parties who have for a long time supported coal, as miner unions and similar groups were a strong voter base.

Sure - now. But look what Trump and other populist far-righters have done. They grab the worker's by the anxiety and xenophobia, ignorance and  religiosity and drag what used to be Labour, the left, the socialists, under the banner big business bought, and the suckers have no idea they're being stripped of privileges and rights. The Leader, who scoffs at tradition and protocol, jeers at science and literacy, expresses their frustration, makes them feel empowered.  Next thing you know, they're climbing over the barricades to murder the legislators who tried to give them health insurance, while he cowers in his bunker.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Though if there is enough public pressure some of that can change.

Like... when? Does the whole world have to be on fire before the voters think it's a good idea to stop throwing gasoline on it? Do "leaders" always have to wait for their followers to push them forward?

Edited September 13, 2021 by Peterkin
insufficient vitriol

[iNow]

10 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Sure - now. But look what Trump and other populist far-righters have done.

Simple narratives are easier to grasp than raspy truths. Not all voters are lazy or anti-intellectual. Many just want to feel better and find simple answers to complex questions. 

[Doogles31731]

 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.

[Peterkin]

Relevant article that someone has just brought to my attention:

Quote

We (privileged people in wealthy countries) have a very short window of opportunity to take decisive, systemic action to avert the worst consequences of climate breakdown. Not only do our current emissions targets put us far behind where we need to be, our province's 50-year-old education system lacks the support our students need to face this reality.Teaching this to an 18 year old is like telling them that they have cancer, then ushering them out the door, saying "sorry, good luck with that."

 

[Doogles31731]

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.

 

[Peterkin]

1 minute ago, Doogles31731 said:

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.

 

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 don't think Dr. Short's intention was to lay out a proposed solution, but merely to explain her frustration with climate education as it currently stands. She may have wished to teach the various other factors involved, and the various long-term responses governments, industries and populations could implement to combat it; what's been tried, what has failed, what new technologies are available. Presumably, these were not in the curriculum.

When the actions of the responsible parties fall this far short of requirements, this late in a crisis situation, there is little point in teaching what might have been effective strategies 3 or 4 decades ago to people who have no power to affect anything in this decade.   

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

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.

Can you explain how this would occur, and what the timetable would be?