Jump to content

Climate change (split from Climate Change Tipping Points)


Doogles31731
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

image.png.c3d5bd73a33a5c553044b3560cdce854.png

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]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

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.

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.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

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.

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). 

 

7 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

There is evidence that there has been a reduction of cloud over some parts of the world.

And corresponding increase over others, which explains floods in Sudan and China.

Climate change is a global phenomenon. It has already disrupted the pattern of winds, evaporation rates, cloud formation and movement. The thawing of the Arctic will continue to contribute methane and water vapour to the disruption of weather systems. Making more clouds would be okay, if they obediently stayed where rain is needed, and didn't go flying off to where there is already too much rain.   

Quote

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Doogles31731 said:

But surely there must be other subtle ways of intervention that we have not yet thought about.

There is and it starts with you and I, we can stop buying stuff we don't need (like plastic nik-nak's and unethical banking products) and minimise travel that we don't need or maximise human power (cycling, walking etc.), and maybe go veggie/vegan (a step to far for me); people who can afford to choose are responsible for change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

There is and it starts with you and I, we can stop buying stuff we don't need (like plastic nik-nak's and unethical banking products) and minimise travel that we don't need or maximise human power (cycling, walking etc.), and maybe go veggie/vegan (a step to far for me); people who can afford to choose are responsible for change. 

Yes we should all do our bit. +1

But try getting my family to switch of the light or television etc when they leave a room.

1 hour ago, Doogles31731 said:

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.

"Methinks the Lady doth protest too much."

 

Perhaps your subject (Climate Change) is just too large to fit into one thread.

Perhaps you should treat it like eating an elephant.

 

So taking one of your points only, popultion control as quoted.

This alone need at least one thread to itself and is a socio-economic / political issue not a scientific one.

I would just like to note that nature has always (and still is) exercising its own form of population control.

Swansont has noted that the birthrate has fallen in most of the more developed countries.

But other subtler factors are also in play.

It is not too long since negative population control was exercised by a state (The award of Heroine of the Societ Union to women had had 5 or more children).

At that time Canada and some other countries had open door policies to immigration, Austrialia even paid peopel to come.

On the opposite side of artificial control, genocide was practised somewhere or another on the plant almost continually throughout  history and sadly is still going on today.

Perhaps that is why it is such a sensitive subject.

 

But all this requires a proper airing in a dedicated thread.

 

 

Finally yes many other (scientific)approaches to sustainability have been published in the past from

Schumacher's "small is beautiful"

https://www.worldofbooks.com/en-gb/books/michael-braungart/cradle-to-cradle/9780099535478?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI0fbD5I2f8wIVBYBQBh0p9wAxEAQYAiABEgKpUPD_BwE

to Allaby and his "Limits to Growth"

To Cradle to Cradel by Braungart and McDonough

https://www.worldofbooks.com/en-gb/books/michael-braungart/cradle-to-cradle/9780099535478?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI0fbD5I2f8wIVBYBQBh0p9wAxEAQYAiABEgKpUPD_BwE

 

These thoughts are not new.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

But try getting my family to switch of the light or television etc when they leave a room.

Try introducing an electric cattle fence that's disabled when the room is carbon neutral. 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Try introducing an electric cattle fence that's disabled when the room is carbon neutral. 😉

Didn't you mean chattle fence ?

:)

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

Didn't you mean chattle fence ?

:)

How much do you love them? 🤒

2 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

 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?

Because it's irrelevant, it doesn't matter how many fleas argued that the dog is their's; all that matters is, the dog's alive...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are super-aware of turning things off and saving electricity, because we rely mainly on the solar array. The up-side is, we still have light when there is a Hydro outage; the down-side is that in rainy periods and winter, we have very little power in reserve. Still have to use Hydro for backup.

It's not actually that hard to stop eating meat. After a few years, it becomes repulsive, even to look at.

2 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

 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?

What makes you think they are? Especially after you've read the history? People in advanced/privileged nations have been wrestling with the procreation problem at least since Malthus. The insurmountable obstacles to birth control have been nationalism and religion - both of which tend to misogyny. Liberate the women of the world and population control solves itself. But it can't be done in the time constraint - and perhaps can't be done at all, as we see the conservative pendulum swing back toward the middle ages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

We are super-aware of turning things off and saving electricity, because we rely mainly on the solar array. The up-side is, we still have light when there is a Hydro outage; the down-side is that in rainy periods and winter, we have very little power in reserve. Still have to use Hydro for backup.

It's not actually that hard to stop eating meat. After a few years, it becomes repulsive, even to look at.

What makes you think they are? Especially after you've read the history? People in advanced/privileged nations have been wrestling with the procreation problem at least since Malthus. The insurmountable obstacles to birth control have been nationalism and religion - both of which tend to misogyny. Liberate the women of the world and population control solves itself. But it can't be done in the time constraint - and perhaps can't be done at all, as we see the conservative pendulum swing back toward the middle ages.

What makes you think a different direction is backward?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

 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?

Short of killing the first born male child in every household (or something similar), that rise was "baked in" to the system. As you've already conceded, it will at best take a couple of generations to bring growth to a halt. That's why growth projected to not flatten until ~2050 or later (depending on assumptions)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What makes you think a different direction is backward?

For a century or so, western law was becoming more inclusive, more permissive, more empowering to previously marginalized and disenfranchised segments of society, as well as more generous in extending the social safety net, citizens' rights and access to services. The hard right is making strides to enact discriminatory, restrictive and punitive laws and to claw back privileges from groups of which they disapprove. That, of course, includes women, journalists, teachers,  and health care providers.

Which "different direction" did you have in mind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

For a century or so, western law was becoming more inclusive, more permissive, more empowering to previously marginalized and disenfranchised segments of society, as well as more generous in extending the social safety net, citizens' rights and access to services. The hard right is making strides to enact discriminatory, restrictive and punitive laws and to claw back privileges from groups of which they disapprove. That, of course, includes women, journalists, teachers,  and health care providers.

Which "different direction" did you have in mind?

I didn't suggest the direction is wrong, just that a different direction is equally right.

Quote

as we see the conservative pendulum swing back toward the middle ages.

I mearly suggested the middle ages had a point, that we can learn from; call it what you will...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw some complaint back there about people posting one or two liner comments.  I think that's partially explained by some of us having exhaustively researched and discussed the issues around AGW, and being reluctant to keep "reinventing the wheel" in terms of discourse on a forum.  IMHO, the time for chat is over, and it's time for everyone to look hard at their own carbon footprint (and methane footprint, if that's applicable) and promote green praxis.  Population is going to grow for a while - that's "baked  in," as @swansont noted - so it really comes down to accepting the obvious: mitigating our production of GHGs is of paramount importance, to reduce whatever climatic changes are coming (and are here) and buy us some time to prepare for the changes that are inevitable.  As @Peterkin noted, and I may have mentioned earlier in this thread or a similar one, the population problem will only start to be resolved when women's rights are universally promoted and implemented.

So, no, I'm not going to be rehashing Tyndall's experiment, or revisiting Arrhenius, or doing massive citation dumps on how human-produced GHGs and PM pollutants are warming the globe at a rate unprecedented in geological history.  It's happening.  Dust off your damned bicycle and start cranking.  As some wit once said, "Cranks start revolutions." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I didn't suggest the direction is wrong, just that a different direction is equally right

I didn't suggest right or wrong; I asked what is that other direction is that you referred to? I see the middle ages as authoritarian, politically repressive, sexually oppressive, superstitious, bigoted,  and generally averse to individual freedom and dignity for the masses. I see the alt right trend in both Christian and Muslim nations reverting that same kind of thinking and social organization.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I mearly suggested the middle ages had a point, that we can learn from; call it what you wil

I call it terrifying. What will you call it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Doogles31731 said:

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.

 

I don't believe I wrote anything in my response that could be taken as describing you as a nuisance.

Since I put some thought and effort into it, I would be grateful for a proper response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Doogles31731 said:

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.

I think it is less annoyance but rather the desire to indicate existing knowledge that is prevalent here. Population size for example is something that pops up every single time in these threads and every time the solution is fairly obvious: educate, promote gender equality and improve standard of living. Those parameters have the strongest association with lower birth size. And as also mentioned every time, short of killing folks there is no way to actively reduce the population size (often a link to one of Rosling's lectures is added here, which illustrates the issue).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

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 don't think it's a matter of multiple approaches. That should go without saying by now. It's not as if we were not aware of the other factors. But we're also aware, and have been for some time, that the single most pervasive problem is CO2 emissions, closely followed by methane and nitrous oxide, and that those must be addressed most urgently and drastically, if we are to have a chance of survival. People have also been aware of the population issue, and come against the very same obstacles. More graphs don't help. More statistics don't help. More niggles over local details don't help. 

It's not annoyance; it's frustration.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2021 at 5:51 PM, Doogles31731 said:

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, 5083173 deaths (95% empirical CI [eCI] 40879675965520) were associated with non-optimal temperatures per year, accounting for 9·43% (95% eCI 7·5811·07) 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.

 

Hello, In my consideration the situation is terrible. The last two consecutive summer Sibera has been burning hard, due to our atmosphere wavering. That's letting Yakutia outside the Arctic atmosphere coverage for too long and it consequently dries until burns. The biggest isue there is due to its temperature the fire is melting the permafrost and all inland methane is getting release, for feedback the fire due to its combustibility until all oxidized, for getting Co2. In my consideration is quite probable the next year could get release the overseas methane from the Russian shallow waters. That as we could understand not will burn, until it atmospheric accumulation gets so high than something like a thunder could suddenly oxidized all.  Kind regardsfrom Port Orli Vanuatu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I see the middle ages as authoritarian, politically repressive, sexually oppressive, superstitious, bigoted,  and generally averse to individual freedom and dignity for the masses. I see the alt right trend in both Christian and Muslim nations reverting that same kind of thinking and social organization.

20 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I mearly suggested the middle ages had a point, that we can learn from; call it what you wil

I call it terrifying. What will you call it?

This is a better place to discuss that...

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/124360-why-would-an-athiest-not-believe-in-religion/#comments

 

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

This is a better place to discuss that...

I don't want to discuss "that". It's not about atheism. It's about the rise of a global far right movement, which includes hawks, authoritarians, extreme nationalists, science deniers, anti-vaxxers and white supremacists. Every one of those groups tries to block legislation that would mitigate climate change, reduce harmful emissions, help developing nations and expand reproductive freedom. The only point about religions, particularly Christianity and Islam, that's relevant to this subject is that they have been very strong proponents of population growth. 

My question to you above was not about religion, either. It was about political direction. I understand forward and backward -

On 9/27/2021 at 9:35 AM, dimreepr said:

What makes you think a different direction is backward?

I explained what I meant by that. You haven't explained what you mean by different. Do you think there is a survival plan that does not entail reducing emissions, switching to alternate energy sources, changing our diet and extending birth and death rights? Maybe the next pandemic will take care of the overpopulation part of the problem, just as it did in the middle ages  - but most of us don't like its methods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, CharonY said:

And as also mentioned every time, short of killing folks there is no way to actively reduce the population size

And advances in medicine conspire to increase the population as lifespans increase. Even if birth rates are at the current replacement level, the population will increase with these advances. One of the factors "baked in" to the system that I mentioned earlier.

 

27 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I don't want to discuss "that". It's not about atheism. It's about the rise of a global far right movement, which includes hawks, authoritarians, extreme nationalists, science deniers, anti-vaxxers and white supremacists. Every one of those groups tries to block legislation that would mitigate climate change, reduce harmful emissions, help developing nations and expand reproductive freedom.

This is better discussed in the politics section of the board, rather than the science section.

On 9/26/2021 at 5:05 AM, Doogles31731 said:

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.

Your graph shows about 0.2ºC. It would support an extrapolation, that it should have been 0.5º warmer at the end of that span had the prevailing trends continued, but that's not a drop.

I do recall a physics colloquium in grad school that discussed the effect of pollution on global warming. There were these neat satellite photos where you could see a line of clouds forming over the sea lanes where ships were putting soot into the air, which provided nucleation sites for water vapor. No other clouds in the area. So pollution definitely has an effect on cloud cover, but it's probably a good thing that we decided to clamp down on that pollution.

Calling this dimming suggests the sun is at fault, and that's misleading. There is variation in solar activity which you can track with sunspot activity, but thats not the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, swansont said:
28 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I don't want to discuss "that". It's not about atheism. It's about the rise of a global far right movement, which includes hawks, authoritarians, extreme nationalists, science deniers, anti-vaxxers and white supremacists. Every one of those groups tries to block legislation that would mitigate climate change, reduce harmful emissions, help developing nations and expand reproductive freedom.

This is better discussed in the politics section of the board, rather than the science section.

I do believe I already said all this.

But I also meant that the solution requires the will to implement it and that is socio-economic / political.

Many changes will be needed, there will also be false turns.

On 9/27/2021 at 1:22 PM, studiot said:

So taking one of your points only, popultion control as quoted.

This alone need at least one thread to itself and is a socio-economic / political issue not a scientific one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • 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.