Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

Here are your claims using the PF quote function.

.

Man up. Supply evidence of your claims

I’m referring to your comments on land use. Here is one.

I had to point out there is no land issue involved as many other countries and regions have forest similar to Pakistan’s 1900 level with the same or higher population densities that Pakistan. As usual your post was a false premise.

The Pakistanis are attempting what you say is as impractical as moving the earth farther from the sun. Criticize the Pakistanis if you want. As usual I’m just stating facts. It’s possible to reforest and afforest Pakistan. They are starting the process whether you think it’s laughable or not.

Food is for people. Agriculture is for people. Population density is the metric that determines land use issues. I figured that was common knowledge.

 

557: Commodity grains increased the arts and public works, but they also are responsible for chattel slavery, large scale warfare, conquest, colonialism, feudalism, consumerism, industrialization, and…..anthropogenic global warming.
Hahaha.
557: It should be noted black carbon from the wood burning is also linked to interior heating that causes more severe monsoons.
Burning wood hahaha
557:We have known for a long time that forests have a cooling effect on the planet as well as more importantly regions more local to the forest. Now we are discovering we have actually underestimated the total cooling effects of forests.

Now, on to monsoons. They are caused by heating of the interior. This heating eventually creates strong wet air currents to move in from coastal areas, leading to monsoon rains. The more energy in the system (heat buildup in the interior) the more rain will fall on average.

This means the excess local heating in the interior of Pakistan and India etc. is responsible for less precipitation in the non monsoon seasons and excess precipitation during the monsoon. Deforestation is not only responsible for the increased runoff and silting during the monsoon, it is directly responsible for increased torrential rain and pre-monsoon heat waves that drive forest fires and further desertification.

Because these are complex systems, a broken cog like this ends up in eventual catastrophe. And reduction in atmospheric CO2 will do almost nothing to help..
OMG hahaha
Enough for tonight oh dear you are funny.

 

Another one bites the dust.
Massachusetts Wind Power Project ‘No Longer Viable’
E. Newburger, CNBC

 

Agreed. We shouldn’t be telling other countries what to do. The British Empire wrecked Pakistan by contributing greatly to deforestation and by implementing water management strategies and structures fitted to the geography of England but that are disastrous in Pakistan. As I’m known to say, the only thing worse than an authoritarian is an authoritarian that doesn’t know what they are doing!

I’ll reiterate, I’m not telling anyone what to do. I’m just pointing out the problems and the best evidence based solutions. I think it’s important to base any mitigation or solution on evidence. I see many cases where solutions proposed are not correct because they do not target the problem.

I have no problem with attempts to reduce fossil fuel use. The particulate aerosols alone from fossil fuels are good enough reason.

I’m afraid you’ve lost many Republicans completely. There has been too much disinformation peddled through the years to them. They are fed up with a movement that can’t make an honest argument. If we wanted those people on board we would have to market fossil fuel reduction on economic merits most likely. Or electric vehicles on performance. The polar bear crap etc. isn’t going to cut it.

Sure. Agree.

Sure. We can cut fossil fuel use. Nobody from another country or this country is forcing you to use fossil fuels. The problem is if we were net zero carbon it does little to reverse AGW. It would likely not move the needle on atmospheric CO2 a measurable amount as other countries are still increasing emissions. To actually decrease atmospheric carbon sequestration must be pursued.

I much prefer sequestration because it has the ability to decrease atmospheric CO2 in time and many methods produce biophysical cooling effects very quickly. If rising temps is the problem you are trying to address a solution that provides almost immediate cooling is better than one that may slow warming eventually. Sequestration with flora also has a multitude of other positive attributes including top soil stability, decreasing ocean dead zones, evening out precipitation patterns, increased efficiency of global and local water cycles, clearing of aerosol pollutants from the atmosphere, more/cheaper global food supplies, etc.

It’s important we have the third most potential for carbon sequestration as a country. We should not focus on reductions of carbon alone.

That’s why I would never tell them to fix the fossil fuel problem. Third world inhabitants deserve the benefits of fossil fuels same as anyone else. That’s another reason I favor sequestration over emission cutting alone. Sequestration allows less developed nations/peoples to “catch up” with the help of fossil fuels without adding to net atmospheric CO2.

However, local problems like Pakistan has with flooding that was the start of this conversation can not be solved by anyone but Pakistanis. We could cut carbon emissions to zero. China could. And Pakistan would still have the local climate problems that manifest themselves in flooding, silting, soil erosion, erratic destructive monsoons, insufficient irrigation, shortfalls in non monsoon precipitation, etc.

But, if Pakistan is successful in reforestation and afforestation efforts (or even in other types of “greening” along with trees) those problems can all be fixed.

We fund something like a bit north of 40% of the IPCC. We should not take the IPCC’s word for everything either. Any more than we would take the word of an oil company on climate.

Again, you are free to stop using fossil fuels at any point. That would have a small effect on fossil fueled AGW. But it would not change the plight of Pakistanis. It would not change the reasons people are burning up the Amazon. It would demonstrate you really believe fossil fuel reduction is THE answer to all climate problems.

We are already in formal partnership with Brazil to combat deforestation of the Amazon.

I’ve not done the math. I’ve seen numbers like 60 billion trees could be added by 2040 without negative impacts on agriculture.

I would guess getting a little creative that number could go up. If Americans were willing to eat more wholesome food to “save the planet” we could add many times that amount through silvopasture agriculture practices. If Americans were willing to eat a lower calorie higher protein diet we could convert millions of acres of crop land into silvopasture systems that are combinations of grassland/pasture and trees/forest.

This would not only increase carbon sequestration by orders of magnitude, it would decrease fossil fuel derived fertilizer use drastically as well. And nitrogen emissions into the atmosphere and ocean.

There is research coming out now showing permaculturists have been right about “edge” ecosystems being most efficient. Trees on edges of forests are often the best at sequestration. In urban environments where soil microbial activity is reduced from high temps and compaction, carbon release from soils around trees is very minimal. So small groves or individual trees in urban areas are actually better at net carbon capture than individual trees in vast rural forests.

 

No, I’m honest and you are not. That’s what it boils down to. You have just posted pure appeal to stone fallacy. Congratulations.

 

Just love your attempt to prove you have acknowledged AGW is causing problems consists of you saying And reduction in atmospheric CO2 will do almost nothing to help.
Beyond words.

 

Reductions in atmospheric CO2 does nothing to solve the AGW problems caused by deforestation. That’s a scientific fact.

In response to a statement of fact you again posted pure appeal to stone fallacy.

Tigger, you are a smart guy who has been misled by your poor choices of sources of information. As I said, I understand you are angry.

Almost every single bit of commentary on science contained in your posts has vast volumes of evidence showing it is false. From summer drought with too much rain being new normal in the UK to crop yields being lower the new normal in the UK. It was claimed multiple times reforestation and afforestation does not affect local temperatures that influence monsoons. The evidence is to the contrary. The statements that Pakistan can’t have it’s original forests because of need for agricultural land is false as there are other countries with more land use issues with more forests. The claim was made black carbon was not responsible for glacial melt in parts of the Himalayas even after peer reviewed studies were presented coming to that conclusion.

When I corrected unsubstantiated opinions with verifiable data and research, statements were made about my posts that are, to be blunt, bald faced lies.

The statement made about posting a graph proving claims on summer precipitation in the UK was complete fabrication as no such graph was presented even after multiple request.

The information on climate I have posted is all backed by official data and peer reviewed studies in respected journals of science. When I have shown this evidence it was called cherry picked “fact lies” whatever that is. As NOBODY can provide any counter evidence, there is no way my facts are cherry picked. Since they are official data records and peer reviewed research, calling them lies is direct science denial.

In short, definitive, demonstrated lies have been told about me and about what evidence has been presented to me. Simultaneously, my evidence backed information with no existing counter evidence has been called lies.

As science can not be based on lies, there is no value in my further communication until such time honesty and evidence become more important to those I’m communicating with.

I fully understand cognitive dissonance is at play so I’ll reiterate I have no hard feelings. In fact I wish to thank those who have told lies here about me for demonstrating the danger of basing beliefs on verifiably false information. It forces the one basing their beliefs on false information to resort to pure fallacy in discussion as we’ve seen here. When one believes false information no evidence can be presented to support their opinion. So it remains unsubstantiated, and fallacies including strawman, appeal to the stone, and ad hominem are quickly substituted for lacking empirical evidence.

I also want to thank those who have told lies for showing how important it is to do a bit of research on such important topics. Journalists, bloggers, politicians and celebrities are not valid sources of information. When one consumes only such sources you end up with what we have witnessed here—the consumer being incapable of making arguments in the science section that are based on evidence and resorting to calling actual evidence lies.

At any time in the future anyone currently resorting to lies and fallacy wants to discuss climate SCIENCE with me and base the discussion on evidence, not fallacy, I’m game. For now I’m out, and those posting lies about me and the evidence I presented are welcome to post all the fallacious and disparaging content about me and the information I’ve provided they want. I’m comfortable the third parties here can see the truth—if they are interested in truth.

 

How about the present?
Yikes!

Deadly E-Bikes: Four Explosions in New York Every Week
Eric Worrall
BREAKING NEWS – 38 people have been injured in a New York e-Bike fire. “These bikes when they fail, they fail like a blowtorch,” said Dan Flynn, the chief fire…

 

Deep Green West Australian Government Considering Diesel Generators to Keep the Lights On
Eric Worrall
“… There was a lukewarm response from the market to supply extra capacity …”

 

There are Aussies around PF that pretend to be great caretakers of the environment. I wonder when they will show up in response to this news and call for their countrymen to cut energy usage instead of burning fossil fuel to cover the shortfall? Maybe it’s not important enough to personally sacrifice for…

 

Nothing to see here, folks.
The Dirty Secrets inside the Black Box Climate Models
Guest Blogger
“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” Yogi Berra

 

It's the (lack of) aerosols, stupid.

Now It’s Claimed Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Driven By Aerosol Emissions Reductions, Not CO2
By Kenneth Richard on 10. November 2022

Share this...
An increase in effective radiative forcing from human activity is now said to be mostly driven by a decline in aerosol pollution, superseding the effects of CO2 emissions.
The majority of an alleged acceleration in anthropogenic global warming in the 21st century “is driven by changes in the the aerosol [effective radiative forcing] trend, due to aerosol emissions reductions” (Jenkins et al., 2022).



Image Source: Jenkins et al., 2022
This is supported by other studies reporting a direct radiative forcing increase of +1.59 W/m² over the US from 1996-2019 and +2.0 W/m² impact over Europe from 1980-2018 (Augustine and Hodges, 2021, Kejna et al., 2021) due to these countries reducing their sulphate aerosol emissions through policy initiatives.





Image Source: Augustine and Hodges and Kejna et al., 2021
Considering it reportedly takes 10 years and 22 ppm for CO2 to exert a total surface forcing impact of just 0.2 W/m², reducing our aerosol emissions has a much larger impact on Earth’s radiation budget than reducing our CO2 emissions.

So if we want to more efficiently (and with far less cost) reduce global warming, apparently what we need to do is increase our aerosol pollution rates.

The science is now settled. Right?

 

Green Fail: British Consumers Paying £1 billion per year for Wind Energy which Cannot be Used
Eric Worrall
The Express claims a billion pounds per year is being paid to British wind turbine operators who have been asked to disconnect from the grid during periods of low demand,…

 

What Will Earth Look Like When These 6 Tipping Points Hit?

 

Just propaganda tub-thumping.

CLIMATE MODELS
The IPCC’s 1990 Predictions Were Even Worse Than We Thought
November 11, 2022

 

You know what's really sad? The worst effects of the climate change you choose to live in denial about will come after you're dead. You're damning future generations out of foolish ideology and confirmation bias.

 

We disagree. I think I'm working to save them from feckless waste in pursuit of another Y2K mirage, and preserving their standard of living against pointless disruption.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that knowledge gained over the last 30 years should be ignored?

 

You ignore the data to hold this belief. The planet is warming - this is observed. CO2 levels are going up and up, which is also observed. The only question is in the details of how this warming plays out in terms of climatic effects and how quickly we will reach certain milestones.

Y2K is an interesting comparison to make. It was actually something that had to be addressed also. Mitigations were made to ensure that various systems would not cause problems. Had the issue been ignored, there would have been some problems that were avoided thanks to those mitigations, i.e. thanks to the alarmism.

 

I'm suggesting that predictions based on climate models should be ignored.

 

No. Y2K was a false alarm from beginning to end. A waste.
Yes, there was warming (none after 2016). And yes, CO2 has increased. But correlation is not causation. I created a thread to address this.

The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm

And another one:

The Sun-Climate Effect

 

??? You mean we should ignore 30 year old climate models?

 

We should ignore all predictions based on climate models.

The climate ‘crisis’ isn’t what it used to be
Posted on November 2, 2022 by curryja | 208 comments
by Judith Curry

Growing realization by the climate establishment that the threat of future warming has been cut in half over the past 5 years. Continue reading →

 

Everything about climate that you point to is based on models.

Everything Dr. Curry points to is based on models.

The idea that someone could say something about climate that is not based on models is just plain nonsense. Models are a fundamental tool of science.

 

Refuted by evidence already posted.