Well I'm glad your High School Science classes are not going to waste. When you are submitting your name for Nobel Prize consideration?
You can be right about the science and still have NO POSSIBILITY of putting it into action in places like Pakistan. I have said this before. Your science is probably good. But, being right doesn't solve anything. This is the same sort of problem you have with China. We can know what WE want China to do, but guess what? We don't own China!!! Since there is no world government, what we CAN do is have institutions such as the UN IPCC platform for encouraging movement in positive directions. With the IPCC we and others push for each country to specify their own goals and methods. This makes sense, as what is the best plan for one country is not necessarily the best plan for other countries. Plus, the possibilities of various mitigations can be presented. We can earn leadership on this issue by showing that we are committed to change that would remove us from being the worst emitter of greenhouse gas, and otherwise demonstrate our commitment. And, we could show a willingness to help other countries mitigate climate change. But, our history with leadership has been to oppose methods that are international. We worked to destroy Kyoto. We don't back up commitments made in the IPCC process. And, if one subtracts arms and considers our wealth, we are down the list of most generous countries.
Nothing can be solved unless the science is right. Being right on the science MUST come first. Implementation of any plan that has foundations in false premises or narrow curated evidence will fail to solve actual problems and likely create worse ones. Being right solves nothing. But being wrong not only doesn’t solve anything, it creates more problems and is a waste of resources. As I said, nobody as uninformed on climate science as has been demonstrated in these threads has any business crafting or implementing policy. I don’t want to see my tax dollars, and certainly not the tax dollars of those less fortunate, spent on bad policy crafted by people ignorant of climate science. We simply MUST educate people on science first because the average climate activist, climate aware politician, climate reporter, and celebrity are pig ignorant of what science actually has to say on the issue. I don’t have a problem with China. They have the right to their sovereign nation. Their ability and willingness to capitalize on the bountiful gift of carbon, the building block of life, is admirable. The rest of their choices on human rights etc. are not admirable, but their business. As is their pollution policy. I’m simply pointing out they aren’t the paragons of virtue on climate you’ve apparently been told they are. The IPCC is a curator similar to the one you criticized in your post. While they do publish some valid work, taking their word for anything is akin to taking the word of energy companies on climate. The IPCC is just the other side of the coin. As I’ve said many times, you are free to eschew fossil fuels. Nobody is forcing you to use them. If sovereign nations have the right to do as they please I don’t think we can justify forcing our own countrymen into sacrificing for us. If we wish to be examples we must actually practice what we preach as individuals first before we can as a nation. I agree plans must be tailored to different countries. Over the last 20 years the US has supplied 40% of IPCC’s funding. And massively funded numerous other climate initiatives Here is what we were doing even at the lowest funding point under Trump. https://www.wri.org/insights/2020-b...limate-finance-us-continues-fall-behind-peers
You post a lot on PF about climate science. Unless you are being disingenuous in your posts we all know what you believe. And most of it is not supported by evidence.
Why do you keep harping over and over again on the science when we agreed on that??? And, it's not about tailoring a plan to each country. We don't have any plan such as you propose. So, tailoring isn't the issue. Plus, why are you bringing fossil fuel into this???
Do we? You agree warning the planet saves lives by decreasing mortality related to suboptimal temperatures? You agree warming and increased atmospheric CO2 helps with global food security? You agree Pakistan’s problems with flooding are due to deforestation, not atmospheric CO2 driven AGW? You agree that human destruction of non fossil carbon sinks has more effect on AGW than fossil fuel usage? Great. If you agree with all that we will move on.., I have not proposed any plan. I have only shown what the science based solutions are to specific problems introduced by another member. Because you are fixated on it. As I said, your views are out on a public forum. You provided the context.
I didn’t expect you would. Here are a few examples of things you seem to believe that are definitely not supportable with the full range of evidence we have.
I did not say that. I agreed that forestation in Pakistan could be a local help - which you pitched it as being. The rest of your claims here are questionable at best, with some being ridiculous. Fine. And, I've pointed out problems with EVER creating such a plan. If you want to propose a plan, try to design such a plan for America. That avoids several of the specific problems you want to ignore. And, there certainly are places in America where a forest would be an asset. And, you can skip trying to pretend you know me better than I know me.
I do not believe ANY single direction can get the world to carbon neutral. "Research from Crowther Lab showed that one trillion new trees could absorb one-third of CO2 emissions made by humans." https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/11/afforestation-can-help-tackle-climate-change-heres-how/ There are groups trying to figure out a plan for doing that. That would be really great if they can figure it out. In the USA: "In July 2022, the Biden administration announced that the US government aims to plant over a billion trees to replace millions of acres of burned and dead woodlands. More than $100 million has been set aside by the US Government for reforestation this year, which is more than three times the investment of previous years, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) said in a statement." https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/08/climate-change-tree-planting-restoration/ Note that this is 3X what has been spent in the past, and targets REPLACEMENT not expansion of forests. I hope Biden notices that $100M isn't going to buy a billion bareroot seedlings. Plus, where is the labor cost? Plus, none of this can be counted against climate issues.
Well that’s progress I suppose! At one point you wanted me to show how Forests in Pakistan would benefit the planet. I’ve been working towards getting you to figure it out on your own by asking if there are barriers around geographical areas of what is referred to as “local heating” from deforestation. Global warming is measured as the summation of changes in temperatures recorded at a plethora of localities around the planet. Many of those locations experience localized increases in temperature as a result of deforestation. I’ve presented studies verifying and quantifying that warming by latitude defined regions. This means all that local heating directly caused by deforestation is included in data documenting global warming, inflating the data substantially. And then that warming is passed off to the consumer of neo-science as being the direct result of increases in atmospheric CO2! Ya’ll get snookered again and would never know it without someone like me keeping an eye on what real science actually discovers and reports on. Oh. So you are resorting to appeal to the stone fallacy now! Wow. I have presented extensive peer reviewed evidence on the agricultural “claim” in this thread to you. The other “claims” were all substantiated in the climate change mitigation thread in response to you and Tigger2. What specifically is ridiculous or questionable and what is YOUR evidence that my evidence is questionable or ridiculous? Remember none of the above is my “claim”. It’s just peer reviewed science reported in respected journals. Not my problem. You are still confused on the science of climate change. You have no business discussing plans. I’m interested in educating on science, not politics. What problems do I ignore? I presented more than a plan. I showed a smashing success documented by climate scientists using plants (photosynthesis/transpiration) to decrease temperatures, grow more food, and increase precipitation. Better than some hypothetical plan, it’s a plan already executed and documented to be highly effective. I’m not pretending. I’ve used the PF quote function to demonstrate you plastering your beliefs all over a public forum. Perhaps you were being disingenuous when you made the statements I’ve quoted. You are welcome to come clean and disavow them. But you can’t accuse me of making it up because I’m not a moderator and can’t edit your statements on PF. You own them.
I find it fascinating when people repost evidence I’ve posted to them previously on the same subject. I’m not sure what the point is but it’s entertaining I guess. Don’t ask me about Biden’s math skills. Like I said, the politics isn’t particularly interesting to me. Maybe he’s going to revive the CCC to facilitate planting like FDR did. We seem to be headed for a depression of sorts. Can you imagine asking someone to work for their government assistance to address a poor economy today! Sure, you can have your stimulus check if you come with us to a remote location, live in a barracks and plant trees all day. LOL. I’m quite certain we won’t achieve carbon neutral either. Doing so would require following real science AND willingness of individuals to sacrifice. Neither will happen on the needed scale. Plus you have a huge percentage of people who have no desire to.be carbon neutral. What can’t be counted against “climate issues”?
It’s all been provided in the past. Much of it to you personally. The agricultural information to you in this thread in the last couple days. Here you go again….links were provided to all this information in the climate mitigation thread and I’ll quote myself for the most part now because you seem unable to follow links. First the part on agriculture I posted to you in the last couple days. My state is also benefiting from local summer cooling (around 1°C) and increased precipitation resulting from increased photosynthesis/transpiration. That increased photosynthesis/transpiration is fueled by maximizing plant growth through CO2 fertilization, longer growing seasons, and fully sustainable use of groundwater irrigation in my state. As an added benefit, crop yields have grown significantly. Here is the evidence on the cooling and precipitation effect of increased photosynthesis and transpiration. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/32/17/jcli-d-19-0096.1.xml Here is the evidence for yield increases. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab422b And: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2113629119 I’m posting this to show some parts of the world are currently leveraging CO2 into better climate. China has done similar things to what I’ve documented above. Plants are the answer to more free carbon in the environment (atmospheric CO2). Carbon can be managed to benefit people and the environment if we follow the lead of nature and real science. What I documented above can be replicated in part or in whole around the globe. Using all manner of flora from trees to cannabis to native grasses. Here is the evidence for reduced mortality with warming. When threads complaining about deaths from heat come up I always like to point out a warming planet is saving lives. Of course as always, this is not my opinion, but the conclusions of large scale long term peer reviewed studies. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.do...res-kill-5-million-a-year-20-year-study-77875 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext Here is another huge study of all temperatures, not just extreme temps. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext So we see temperatures that are cooler than optimal for humans kills Seventeen times as many people as temperatures that are warmer than ideal. The CDC/NIH has studied the subject in the US and comes to this conclusion. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25073563/ And. Isn’t real science amazing? Real science shows your narrative is patently false and diametrically opposed to empirical evidence. A warming planet will save MANY lives by decreasing the massive death loss from below optimal temperatures. Between 2000 and 2019 the warming trend has decreased temp related mortality 0.3% already! That’s just a FACT. And a fact virtually unknown in the demographic posting about deaths from global warming. Let’s start small. What specifically in the above science do you find ridiculous? Be specific and supply evidence to demonstrate what is ridiculous—not just appeal to stone fallacy. Once we have worked through this evidence we can move on to the rest. I don’t have time to post important information to science deniers.
We agreed I have posted “plans”. You are on record giving me credit for doing so. I linked you to the study discussed in your link here the other day. It was in my answer to your “real world question” (strawmen question actually) in the climate mitigation thread post #1428. So did you not read the research I provided or did you read it and are now plagiarizing my work?
No, I do not agree that you have posted a plan. A plan has things like costs, schedules, division of responsibility, required cooperation, etc. I gave you numbers. But, you didn't even bother to do the simple math involved in figuring the cost or proposing who would pay. You can't claim you have a plan when you have NO IDEA what our possibilities are in the main location you tout - Pakistan, when you haven't bothered to figure out costs, when you haven't figured out methods of getting buy-in, etc.
I told you, I’m into science. That’s why I’m able to educate you on science. Implementation and politics belongs in another sub forum. If you want someone to educate you on policy implementation and funding mechanisms find someone else. My professional experience, education, and interest is in the realm of science (mostly biological sciences), not politics or policy formation/implementation. This forum is for science. This thread is for science relating to climate change. Your strawman argument is equivalent to claiming the speed of light being 299,792,458 m/s is either incorrect or irrelevant unless I have a detailed plan with cost analysis to build a spaceship capable of traveling at that speed to a different galaxy and a plan to convince US citizens to pay for it! I’m here to discuss the science of climate change. If I wanted to discuss the politics of it I would be posting right now in the political science subforum or the political opinions and beliefs subforum. I presented a “plan” for the US that has been operational for decades and has been studied and reported on by science. I’ve posted many of the actual results to you. If you want to talk economics and politics more in-depth than what I’ve already posted, start a thread in an appropriate subforum. All I care about here is climate science. I’m no longer interested in the strawman arguments that the science I’ve posted is ridiculous because I don’t have cost analysis and polling numbers to predict population level but in.
What did I propose we do? I’ve proposed education of those lacking knowledge of climate science before they attempt any policy formation or implementation. I’ve pointed out science based solutions. I did not propose WE DO anything in Pakistan or anywhere else. You need to take a serious look at science relating to climate before you get anywhere near a discussion on policy or policy implementation. People who have beliefs based on a combination of lack of evidence and disinformation shouldn’t be discussing policy.
You certainly did propose this idea as a solution for Pakistan. But more than that, I don't believe you've run the numbers for your idea. I gave you figures that would allow you a rough estimate of the cost of your proposal. The figures I showed make it reasonable to expect that the labor for planting trees would be about $1/tree. From there, one could find the cost of seedlings bought in bulk. Then one could consider the possible requirement of site selection, site prep, and any post planting care or protection that might be required. I'd also note that you proposed Pakistan without considering any of the political or sociological factors. >>>There are lots of ideas from science that are sound from the point of view of science, but don't work from the standpoint of engineering, finance, politics, sociology, etc. So, when proposing an idea, all these factors have to have been given reasonable attention.
I’ve posted science based solutions. I have no interest in funding them. Pakistan is currently in the middle of a 10 billion tree planting campaign. They don’t need you or I telling them what a tree costs. My work is to point out cutting CO2 emissions will not fix Pakistan’s problems and to point out what actually could. I’m weary of people who think they understand climate disseminating misinformation and disinformation on the science. I have no interest in funding or implementation or political problems with implementation. I was clear on that in the beginning. I never proposed ANY solutions. I simply pointed out what the science based solution is. I don’t care if the science based solutions I’ve educated you on are actually implemented or not. What I am concerned about is people who lack any basic knowledge of climate science proposing any solutions. Like the common “solution” of trying to fix flooding in Pakistan by driving an electric car in the US. That “solution” is in conflict with science so will never succeed. I don’t have “ideas”. I just educate on the science of climate change. I DID NOT BRING UP PAKISTAN. Another poster did and I just corrected the scientific errors of his posts. If you want an example of a more comprehensive “plan” try this. I have done them in the past, but just don’t care to do any such thing in this case as Pakistan is doing their own tree thing. They don’t need me figuring out the cost of trees they are planting now by the billions. Plus I have to come up with economically viable plans annually for 4-6 crops and several animal species. I just don’t have interest in doing it for trees in Pakistan to suit your desires. Again, this subforum is for science and this thread is about climate science. I have no interest in anything beyond the science in this case. If you want to critique the studies and other evidence I’ve presented feel free. But I’m bored to death with this strawman argument that my posts lack validity because I have no interest in the economics and politics involved. If you read a study on climate in a peer reviewed journal do you dismiss the evidence contained in the report if there is no plan in the discussion section to implement the study findings into economically viable and politically acceptable climate change mitigation strategy?
