The science of climate change is not settled

[BacktoCricaddict]

https://unherd.com/2021/07/the-corrosive-tribalism-of-climate-science/?=frlh

 

My summary:

 

(1) IPCC data show that floods, hurricanes and other weather-catastrophes are not occurring at a higher rate than in the past.  Every time there is some weather event, the media goes "climate change!!" even though there is not necessarily a good causal relationship.

(2) Related to (1), unlike what the media and most people who read media reports tell you - average temperature rises will happen, but they will not result in every possible "PraLaya" you can imagine.  And with more development of the developing world and more technology, we can tackle many of the ill-effects.

(3) The developing world will use more Carbon-fuels and spew more CO2.  Most of the new CO2 coming in will be from here.  That is a good thing; without it, there will be increased poverty.  Like Hans Rosling said, until the Western world decreases its per capita carbon emission down to what the developing world is doing today, they must shut up and allow today's poor nations to develop.  One surprising factoid from the article:  Per capita, the Japanese (who have a reputation of being environmentally friendly and all) emit more CO2 than India.  Let them bring their emissions down, then the conversations about global emissions control can begin.

 

Human ingenuity has stepped up every time something has threatened human existence.  Chances are it will step up again.  

 

 

 

 

Edited July 27, 2021 by BacktoCricaddict

[EnterTheVoid]

I highly recommend reading journals in reputable scientific publications.

 

Get the science, without the opinions. 

[Alam_dar]

5 hours ago, EnterTheVoid said:

I highly recommend reading journals in reputable scientific publications.

 

Get the science, without the opinions. 

 

I see from my own eyes the pollution in the big cities of Pakistan. I am able to compare it to the pollution which existed 20-30 years ago. Why do then I need any external witness for this to know that world has indeed been polluted? 

 

And majority of the scientists are too of opinion that pollution is killing out planet. 

 

Japan may be emitting more CO2 per Capita, but still their overall production of CO2 is less than many Asian countries. Even if they have more production, still it is not going to solve the problems of pollution in our Asian Mega cities. 

[EnterTheVoid]

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

 

I see from my own eyes the pollution in the big cities of Pakistan. I am able to compare it to the pollution which existed 20-30 years ago. Why do then I need any external witness for this to know that world has indeed been polluted? 

 

And majority of the scientists are too of opinion that pollution is killing out planet. 

 

Japan may be emitting more CO2 per Capita, but still their overall production of CO2 is less than many Asian countries. Even if they have more production, still it is not going to solve the problems of pollution in our Asian Mega cities. 

 

Agree.

 

Reading about climate change in news, the science is "diluted" to make it accessible to the common man. For science and nothing but the science, can't go wrong with scientific journals.

 

And of course, what you see on the ground corroborates very well with what the science says. 

[I6MTW]

Climate change and global warming is real. There is nothing to debate or discuss about it. We can see tangibly and quantify the changes observed. 

 

[Khota]

Climate is changing. Those denying it are on the wrong side of the history. Not one climate scientist disputes that. Folks denying climate change are the ones most likely against vaccinations too.

[I6MTW]

7 minutes ago, Khota said:

Climate is changing. Those denying it are on the wrong side of the history. Not one climate scientist disputes that. Folks denying climate change are the ones most likely against vaccinations too.

Universally, right wing politicians across the world dispute climate change. 

[Jimmy Cliff]

Liked one of the comments under the article:

 

Quote

I regret to say my experience with some scientists (not all: but too many) has shown me that prostitution is not confined to the more traditional area but alive and well within much of scientific work thanks to fear of losing funding etc if groupthink is questioned. It’s a sad fact that some scientists are close-minded and even fraudulent these days but then, sadly isn’t almost every profession. We live in a post truth world where words like honour, decency, truth and honesty will soon be termed archaic in the OED.

 

[zen]

People trying to create doubts over the negative impact of pollution and climate change should be fined (or even jailed depending on the degree of crime), imo 

 

Interpol sees pollution as a crime: Link

 

Countries like Denmark are said to be working on laws that makes ignoring climate change illegal

 

At the ground level, need  to educate communities better using examples that lead to easier understanding of the severity of the situation:

 

 

Edited July 28, 2021 by zen

[BacktoCricaddict]

1 hour ago, Khota said:

Climate is changing. Those denying it are on the wrong side of the history. Not one climate scientist disputes that. Folks denying climate change are the ones most likely against vaccinations too.

The OP is not denying climate change.  Climate change, including anthropogenic climate change, is real.  But is it apocalypse upon us?  Is every weather disaster because of man-made CC?  Probably not. 

 

It's the doomsday predictions and the constant preaching by Western environmentalists to the developing world to keep CO2 emissions low, practice romantic low-yield agriculture etc. that is being criticized.  These apocalyptic predictions are not supported by IPCC data.    

 

Prior to CoViD-19, left-wingers who were pushing climate-change apocalypse were also leading the anti-vaccination push.  Liberal, "earthy," "nature-loving," "organic food loving" hippie types have been at this for many decades.  With CoViD-19, that has shifted - mainly because the vaccine-deniers on the right are distrustful of government-control, not necessarily of the vaccines themselves.  

 

 

Edited July 28, 2021 by BacktoCricaddict

[BacktoCricaddict]

47 minutes ago, zen said:

People trying to create doubts over the negative impact of pollution and climate change should be fined (or even jailed depending on the degree of crime), imo 

 

Interpol sees pollution as a crime: Link

 

Countries like Denmark are said to be working on laws that makes ignoring climate change illegal

 

At the ground level, need  to educate communities better using examples that lead to easier understanding of the severity of the situation:

 

 

 

Four big mistakes climate change doomsdayers make:

(a) equating particulate pollution (the kind you see in over-populated cities and countries) with CO2.  It is not the same thing.  Particulate pollution is horrible and results in direct human deaths.  It must be curbed and stamped out.  CO2 "pollution"?  Not the same thing. 

(b) associating, often with scant evidence, every weather-event with CC.  

(c) preaching climate science to the developing world, which is already using less CO2 per capita.  Let them use fossil fuels and develop while the West brings its emissions down.

(d) Hyping solar/wind while denying nuclear as a source of clean energy.   

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

A brilliant article on this topic

 

Blanket bans on fossil-fuel funds will entrench poverty

Africa needs reliable energy infrastructure, not rich-world hypocrisy.

 

 

Last week, seven European countries pledged to stop important support for fossil-fuel projects abroad. They join the United States and other European countries in stopping funding for energy infrastructure projects in poor countries that depend on coal, gas and oil. This blanket ban will entrench poverty in regions such as sub-Saharan Africa, but do little to reduce the world’s carbon emissions.

 

Africa accounts for around 17% of the world’s people but less than 4% of annual global carbon emissions. It is not fair for rich countries to fight climate change at the cost of low-income countries’ development and climate resilience.

 

Instead, rich countries should help African governments to pursue a broad portfolio of energy sources for rapid, sustainable development.

 

The fossil-fuel infrastructure that already exists in Africa is carbon-intensive and serves its wealthiest countries. South Africa and several North African countries together hold two-thirds of the continent’s electricity-generation capacity. The other 48 countries have a capacity of only 81 gigawatts between them, out of a total of 244 gigawatts across Africa and 9,740 gigawatts for the world. The average Ethiopian consumes only 130 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, about the amount the average person in the United States consumes in 4 days.

 

This imbalance is both a cause and a consequence of Africa’s lack of modern infrastructure. For hundreds of millions of people across Africa, energy is scarce, food is expensive and often imported, and full-time employment is hard to find. Much of what is necessary for development — roads, schools, housing, reliable power — cannot be realized quickly with green power alone.

 

Natural gas is a fossil fuel, but it could do much to lift communities out of poverty efficiently. It is roughly twice as carbon-efficient an energy source as coal, and is abundant in many African countries outside North Africa, including Nigeria, Mozambique, Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Energy for Growth Hub, an international research network, estimates that if the 48 countries tripled their electricity consumption overnight through use of natural gas, the resulting carbon emissions would be less than 1% of the global total (see go.nature.com/3app2ff).

 

Natural gas also offers the best way to modernize food production and transport. Despite impressive efforts in solar irrigation systems across Africa, natural gas is still better for large-scale agriculture; it is reliable, inexpensive and burns more cleanly than other fossil fuels. It can be stored until needed. It is one of the best feedstocks for producing synthetic fertilizer; it can power cars, buses, trucks and ships, plus cold-storage systems. That means less food will spoil, and farmers can supply more food with less land.

 

A blanket ban on fossil fuels will do little to propel growth of renewable energies across Africa: that growth is already under way. The electricity for Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique and Uganda — which together represent one-fifth of Africa’s population — comes mainly from renewable resources like hydroelectric power. Moreover, fossil-fuel development can be used as renewable sources are built up, laying the groundwork for more ambitious projects. A 2020 PhD thesis (see go.nature.com/3tbfg25) found that ‘dispatchable’ gas-fuelled generators that are movable would be essential for South Africa to transition to renewable electricity, because wind and solar sources would be too variable as they were scaled up. And there is risk in scaling up too fast — the intermittent supply from a large wind farm in Kenya has made the electrical grid costly to operate.

 

Critics will counter that those with interests in fossil fuels will attempt to squeeze out renewable sources, and that governments might be captured by fossil-fuel lobbies. I understand these concerns, but, speaking as an advocate for sustainability, I believe fossil fuels are still necessary. International finance institutions must prioritize funding for renewable-energy projects whenever possible, and rich countries must invest in research and development that will bring down the costs of renewable energy. They must also not discount the plight of poverty. (Almost 600 million Africans lack reliable access to electricity.) As natural disasters and other climate risks become more common, people’s need for roads, hospitals, resilient power grids, warning systems, robust food supplies and other infrastructure that requires reliable energy will be even greater.

 

Rather than banning fossil fuels in development projects, the European Union, United States and World Bank should adopt funding criteria that consider economic growth alongside climate impact. For example, the exploitation of a substantial resource of 4.2 trillion cubic metres of natural gas along the Tanzania–Mozambique border would expand access to electricity and generate much-needed revenue in two low-income, low-emitting countries. I can imagine a tiered system in which countries with lower per-capita incomes, low emissions or high use of green energy are deemed more eligible for development projects that depend on fossil fuels. Any infrastructure that is built should be modern and well maintained, to reduce waste caused by leaks and the need to flare methane gas.

 

Most of the legacy emissions causing global warming came from rich countries, which still rely on fossil fuels. It would be the height of climate injustice to impose restrictions on the nations most in need of modern infrastructure and least responsible for the world’s climate challenges.

 

Nature 592, 489 (2021)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01020-z

 

[zen]

12 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

Four big mistakes climate change doomsdayers make:

(a) equating particulate pollution (the kind you see in over-populated cities and countries) with CO2.  It is not the same thing.  Particulate pollution is horrible and results in direct human deaths.  It must be curbed and stamped out.  CO2 "pollution"?  Not the same thing. 

(b) associating, often with scant evidence, every weather-event with CC.  

(c) preaching climate science to the developing world, which is already using less CO2 per capita.  Let them use fossil fuels and develop while the West brings its emissions down.

(d) Hyping solar/wind while denying nuclear as a source of clean energy.   

 

 

Now it is time for a holistic action not irrelevant discussion like x "pollution" versus y "pollution". 

 

 

Quote

But is it apocalypse upon us?  Is every weather disaster because of man-made CC?  Probably not. 

 

I noticed that you wrote the above which ignores, in layman terms, "a death by 1,000 cuts". 

 

 

[zen]

4 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Blanket bans on fossil-fuel funds will entrench poverty

 

Relative poverty is of least concern when looking at the welfare of the planet as a whole. The population of developed countries is estimated to be around 1.3B, which is less than India's. The subcontinent, Africa and China's population is close to 4B. If everyone is "rich" as per western standards, the planet will play the price. 

[BacktoCricaddict]

8 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Relative poverty is of least concern when looking at the welfare of the planet as a whole. The population of developed countries is estimated to be around 1.3B, which is less than India's. The subcontinent, Africa and China's population is close to 4B. If everyone is "rich" as per western standards, the planet will play the price. 

The planet will go on, good sir.  With or without us.  We owe it nothing.  It owes us nothing.  We must focus on saving resources for future human generations.  

[zen]

Too many contradictions in your post:

 

19 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

The planet will go on, good sir. 

 

The discussion is on maintaining ideal conditions on the planet. Earth existing but turning inhospitable is not the goal.

 

19 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

With or without us.

 

That is not a choice. 

 

19 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

We owe it nothing.  It owes us nothing. 

 

Everyone who lives on planet owes its life to it. In the solar system, currently, Earth is the only planet to support life in various complex forms. 

 

 

19 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

We must focus on saving resources for future human generations.  

 

The most important resource that can be saved for future generations is the planet (creating/maintaining an ideal environment), which is why people talk about sustainability. 

Edited July 28, 2021 by zen

[coffee_rules]

It is such a political mudda in the west. Funny that developed countries and companies in the west could barter off their emissions by investing in developing countries. Outsourcing pollution. This is a facade, carbon footprint reduced in the west is of no use if it increases in the developing world. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/04/climate/outsourcing-carbon-emissions.html

 

 

Edited July 28, 2021 by coffee_rules

[coffee_rules]

OP, what’s your view on carbon trading? I think it is a hogwash to keep poorer countries poorer. Read about how it works

 

https://www.cgdev.org/blog/let-countries-trade-carbon

 

Don’t let tropical countries grow more food , but give them foreign aid. That means more dependence on the rich nations and neo imperialism 

[BacktoCricaddict]

25 minutes ago, zen said:

Too many contradictions in your post:

 

 

The discussion is on maintaining ideal conditions on the planet. Earth existing but turning inhospitable is not the goal.

 

 

That is not a choice. 

 

 

Everyone who lives on planet owes its life to it. In the solar system, currently, Earth is the only planet to support life in various complex forms. 

 

 

 

The most important resource that can be saved for future generations is the planet (creating/maintaining an ideal environment), which is why people talk about sustainability. 

I am as much for sustainability as anyone.  But it must be juxtaposed to uplifting today's developing world.  It must include truly sustainable, high-yield ag practices so we can grow more on less land and save forests (the focus on reviving historical ag practices will not meet this goal).  It must include a holistic, not tunnel-vision, approach to energy, and not ban high density energy systems like nuclear.  It phase out fossil fuels, not ban them immediately in the developing world.  

[zen]

14 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

It is such a political mudda in the west. Funny that developed countries and companies in the west could barter off their emissions by investing in developing countries. Outsourcing pollution. This is a facade, carbon footprint reduced in the west is of no use if it increases in the developing world. 

 

 

West understand the need for sustainability. Instead of manufacturing a product say in North America, the companies would try to produce it in Asia, where the carbon footprint could be higher (due to relaxed norms) than if the product were manufactured sustainably in North America. The lollipop for Asian countries would be to get rich per western standards so they would continue to ignore their environment, which the west is protecting, to make some short term dollars. 

 

Countries like Bhutan have created their own standards such as Happiness Index, which measures how happy its citizens are versus how rich they are.