Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Doogles31731's Achievements


Quark (2/13)



  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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]
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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..
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. I respect TheVat from my association with him in another forum and will take his advice to narrow my discussion, for now, down to the matter of controlling population growth in order to help control a problem regarded as anthropogenic. I notice that the OP of the ‘Tipping Point’ thread said that thousands of scientists had formed a group and produced recommendations for consideration. I notice that one of the world problems they think should be addressed is world population growth. I endorse that wholeheartedly. But when I read the recent 2021 IPCC Summary of recommendations, I performed a 'search and find' for the word ‘population’ with a negative outcome. It’s hard to believe that any objectively-thinking world body could make claims that a situation is anthropogenic, without making any positive recommendations for slowing down the cause. I searched Google for a graph correlating increasing temperature anomalies with population without success, but just to confirm that population MAY have a role in some of the temperature increase, I produced a graph myself some years ago. I fully realise the difficulty of the task and that it has to involve religious and political hurdles. I also know that TheVat had some ideas in the past about why it is not being addressed by any world body, but I’d also be interested in the thoughts of others. 1220875285_CLIMATECHANGEwebsiteinspcf.docx
  11. I’m having trouble deciding where to start in this Climate Change thread. I’m not a climate scientist, so I can only make comments to some extent on the broad picture. I’m not a member of any group, and any thoughts I present are the results of my own research on aspects of the claims. As distinct from the general thrusts of arguments to date, I’m pleased to say that the IPCC appears to be becoming more conservative about the average global near surface temperatures. It’s a huge change from the ‘Mann hocker stick” and ‘Al Gore’ alarmist days. The 2021 Report Summary relating to temperatures is contained in Section A.1.1, which says, in part, -- “Each of the last four decades has been successively warmer than any decade that preceded it since 1850. Global surface temperature in the first two decades of the 21st century (2001-2020) was 0.99 [0.84- 1.10] °C higher than 1850-1900 . Global surface temperature was 1.09 [0.95 to 1.20] °C higher in 2011– 2020 than 1850–1900, with larger increases over land (1.59 [1.34 to 1.83] °C) than over the ocean (0.88 [0.68 to 1.01] °C). The estimated increase in global surface temperature since AR5 is principally due to further warming since 2003–2012 (+0.19 [0.16 to 0.22] °C).” Has anyone asked the question as to whether we would be better off globally if our temperature was a couple of degrees warmer? Apparently somebody has, because a paper published in Lancet this year -- Zao et al (2021; https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext) -- came up with this conclusion -- “Globally, 5 083 173 deaths (95% empirical CI [eCI] 4 087 967–5 965 520) were associated with non-optimal temperatures per year, accounting for 9·43% (95% eCI 7·58–11·07) of all deaths (8·52% [6·19–10·47] were cold-related and 0·91% [0·56–1·36] were heat-related). “ This means of course that we have 9 times less deaths related to hot weather than we do from cold weather. Such a positive outcome has to be balanced of course with the claimed disadvantages of the overall small average increase in global near surface temperatures. The proponents of climate catastrophe claim that the adverse effects of warming are obvious -- rising sea levels, loss of glaciers and sea ice around the poles, polar bears dying off, coral reefs dying, more severe cyclones, wildfires etc. I’ve had a look at some of these claims, and I find them questionable. For example, forest fires don’t appear to have been too unusual in Russia during the last 750 years -- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379111000655 and polar bears are increasing in numbers -- https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-polar-bear-population-is-declining/. Severe cyclones are NOT more frequent in Australia -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_region_tropical_cyclone -- Severe Tropical Cyclones frequencies recorded were -- 76, 67, 65, 41, 38 in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s respectively. The figures for Hurricanes in the USA do not show any significant difference statistically on a decadal basis -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_hurricanes. Would less ice in the Arctic facilitate shipping and trade from a 'North West' passage? Does anyone else check these claims? I’ll leave it there for now, rather than make the post too long.
  12. As you can tell from my nom-de-plume numerals, I've just turned 90, but I'm happiest when I have productive physical work to do. In my case, conscientiousness may be irrelevant to liking to work. I was lucky 10 years ago when a local resident was unlucky enough to have his house, and property-based business submersed in the 2011 floods. It was obvious that he needed help to hose off all the mud from everything. Not only that, but he discovered that his 'storm and tempest' insurance did not cover 'flood' damage, so he had to totally renovate his own house, as well as keep his business afloat. I stayed on to help with his business. I've been helping out voluntarily for 6 hours a day some 2 or 3 days a week in doing preliminary repairs on box air conditioners and water coolers; I get a strange satisfaction out of diagnosing and fixing broken down machines. As distinct from my 40 years of working with animals as a veterinarian, I don't get bumped, kicked, scratched or bitten by these mechanical things. But most of my work is in scrapping old domestic and contractor-hut air conditioners and water coolers. It can be dirty and dusty work; decayed remains of mice, rats and geckos are par for the job, as well as accumulated filth and dust. It doesn't worry me. I separate the ferrous, bronze, copper and plastic components for dumping and scrap metal. My main task seems to be in crimping copper tubing with bolt cutters before breaking it manually into short lengths so that it can be transported in 20 litre buckets. I suppose the positive feedback is that it develops my pectoral muscles in particular. When I go to the gym once a week, I can do 20 reps at 100 kg on the pecs machine, if I part my arms the distance of bolt cutters -- about 40 cm (16 inches). With full arm extension, I can only press about 10 reps of 60 kg. Somehow I get some satisfaction out of keeping my body active, and I suppose I feel I am doing something useful as well. Maybe I'm conscientious about keeping active, but I would be extremely disappointed if my friend sold the business and I was unable to do that work any more. Perhaps the OP should be discussed on the basis of what each of us is conscientious about.
  13. Thanks for adding to the discussion, Charony. That reference, supplied by Hans deVries, to work by Ghadiri et al, was remarkable in my opinion. Like you, my guess was also at the level of ‘gut feeling’, but it was based on two premises -- that much evidence (above) suggests that vitamin K2 improves arteriosclerosis, and that the main source of vitamin K2 in mammals at least is the gut microbiota. My hypothesis could be checked of course if Ghadiri et al were able to re-run their experiment and do blood assays for vitamin K2 or matrix-gla-protein. I notice that the mice treated with the cyclic peptide also had lower cholesterol concentrations. Back in 1997, Kawashima et al (1997; https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jphs1951/75/2/75_2_135/_article/-char/ja/) produced evidence that “ ... pharmacological dose of vitamin K2 prevents both the progression of atherosclerosis and the coagulative tendency by reducing the total-cholesterol, lipid peroxidation and factor X activity in plasma, and the ester-cholesterol deposition in the aorta in hypercholesterolemic rabbits." Although inflammatory products are found in atheromas, I haven’t come across any evidence, to date, that anti-inflammatory agents reduce atherosclerosis. I could have missed some literature on it. Can you supply any? There are statins of course, but the very best reduction in atheromas that they have shown to produce experimentally is of the order of one or two percent. This is why the 40% reduction in the OP reference is so remarkable.
  14. I can offer a possible guess as to why that might work. Vitamin K2 is mainly obtained from the gut microbiome in mammals. One would have to postulate that the peptides encourage the growth of micro-organisms that manufacture vitamin K2 or else provide a substrate for such micro-organisms to manufacture vitamin K2. There is evidence of a deficiency of vitamin K2-MK4 in particular in cases of atherosclerosis. Jie et al (1995; http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0021915095055377 Luo et al (1997; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9052783 Schurgers et al (2001; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s003920170043 Wallin et al (2008; https://www.thrombosisresearch.com/article/S0049-3848(07)00456-2/abstract Knapen et al (2015; https://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1160/TH14-08-0675 Vissers et al (2016; https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(16)31216-3/abstract Lees et al (2018; https://heart.bmj.com/content/105/12/938.abstract Roumeliotis S et al (2020; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7193028/ The above references collectively suggest that Vitamin K2-MK4 has some therapeutic effect, but that Vitamin K1 (phylloquinone) deficiency is not involved in atherosclerosis. Just to keep a balance in this post, although the paper by Knapen et al (2015) above, suggests that vitamin K2-MK7 had some therapeutic effect, two more recent papers suggest that vitamin K2-MK7 had no therapeutic effect. Zwakenberg et al (2019; https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/110/4/883/5544545 De Vriese et al (2020; https://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/31/1/186.abstract The evidence suggests that vitamin K does not act directly, but by being a co-factor in the activation of raw proteins produced in turn by vitamin D. Unfortunately, extremely few researchers who have set out to assess the therapeutic value of vitamin Ks, have taken any steps to ensure that subjects in trials have had adequate vitamin D concentrations. This could explain the variable results.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.