Global Cooling. The sky is falling.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I'm sorry but Paul Ehrlich was a an exceptional ecologist who backed his work with very good research and papers as proof. To believe that he is a loser because we all are alive is not giving him credit for where he really shined. OK so do you disagree with the idea of exponential growth that explains an explosion of rabbits in Australia and how bacteria grow in a petri dish?  Do you not agree with density independent growth in a fluctuating environment?  Yes, you do not understand the idea of demographic stochasticity and the difference of a statistical study using powerful tools.  What about density dependent population growth is this also false? Proof it!

I agree that it's too easy/lazy to dismiss a work (even though it's not a peer-reviewed publication), without at least some effort and a recognition of the fact that hindsight has 20/20 vision.

Cheers,
Bart

[Ray]

Exactamente. I remember many of Ray's posts about the lack of planning for homes in the flood areas.

Solving such problems and simply plan for floods or hurricanes is much easier than to address the global pollution and climate change, and it is something that can be implemented relatively easily on local or state level. For example, in Ontario, Hurricane Hazel in 1954 changed the way we plan our cities. It highlighted the need for water management and for restricting building on flood plains. It prompted Ontario to strengthen the Conservation Authorities Act to enable watershed planning and land acquisition for flood control and recreation.

We're in general agreement here, Les, although I would like to point out that there are political and economic difficulties in addressing these very obvious issues of extreme weather events, and implementing the practical, but expensive, solutions that are possible with our advanced, modern technology.

As I see it, the problem is related to the nature of economic development which relies upon the positive advertising of products, rather than a balanced description of the facts.

No company would attempt to sell a product by mentioning its weaknesses. Likewise, most local governments are reluctant to advertise the dangers or vulnerabilities of any construction project, which might result from a recurrence of extreme weather events, because it might deter the investors and reduce the benefits of economic development in the area.

Even if a government is organizing and funding a new project, like building a road, they will likely ignore the records from other government departments, about the frequency and levels of previous flooding in the area, because raising the level of the road, in certain sections that are most prone to flooding, will increase the cost of construction.

The issue then becomes, 'Is it better to have a road which is vulnerable to flooding, or no road at all because a safe and secure road is beyond the budget?'

Generally, it seems to be accepted that unrestrained economic development for a significant period of 10 or 20 years, is worth the price of the occasional disaster from an extreme weather event, which causes a few billion dollars worth of damage to property. The reconstruction process also creates jobs.

Placing the blame on rising CO2 levels is a cop-out, but seems to be a good ploy to encourage continual economic development, especially in the renewable energy industries. 

Regrettably, sometimes it's important to repeat the information to let it sink in. I have done it too, on occasions. For instance, pointing out the outdated and misleading information on the effects of dairy in a diet. You wouldn't believe but there are people out there who won't read the latest information on this subject and cling to the old practices and myths perpetuated knowingly by dairy and pharma industries, and unknowingly even by many seasoned medical professionals.

I agree that it is necessary to repeat information, but also in a different way, perhaps using different analogies, in the hope that the message will get through.

However, I see the subject of the health effects of dairy products as an analogy for the complexity of climate. We've discussed other contributing factors such as obesity, excessive consumption of alcohol, and Alan mentioned anorexia as a contributing factor to bone weakness.

What we haven't discussed is the individual genetic relationship with the consumption of dairy products. Lactose intolerance is a major issue for a certain percentage of the population, and I imagine that is not an either/nor situation. There could be some people with a slight degree of lactose intolerance which they, and their doctors, are not aware of.

Personally, I'm not aware of having any degree of lactose intolerance. I did a search on the evolutionary history of dairy consumption. You might find the attached links interesting.
https://theconversation.com/do-humans-need-dairy-heres-the-science-70434

"Studies have found that if dairy is replaced in the diet by foods containing the same amount of calcium such as green leafy vegetables or soya milk fortified with calcium, the diet contains less protein, potassium, magnesium, phosphorus, riboflavin, vitamins A and B12. Milk and dairy foods are also a great source of all essential amino acids which are the small protein molecules that build muscles and repair tissue damage. Obviously the protein and micronutrients could be found from other sources but obviously not without careful planning."

https://www.nature.com/news/archaeology-the-milk-revolution-1.13471

"When a single genetic mutation first let ancient Europeans drink milk, it set the stage for a continental upheaval."

[Alan Klein]

Generally, it seems to be accepted that unrestrained economic development for a significant period of 10 or 20 years, is worth the price of the occasional disaster from an extreme weather event, which causes a few billion dollars worth of damage to property. The reconstruction process also creates jobs.

Creating jobs to rebuild something that was destroyed is not good for an economy.  People often quote this fallacy. Capital resources are being used up to re-create what basically you had before.  If 1000 homes were destroyed in a flood, and you spent $300 million building new homes using 200 construction workers, you still have a 1000 homes.  No more than before.

However, if there was no destruction, the $300 million would still provide 200 jobs. However, the money would be spent to build 1000 additional homes. So now you would have 2000 homes available for people to live in.  Or if there was no destruction the money could be used on cancer research or global warming research. 

Destruction of property is a loss to an economy as well as to the individuals who suffer the loss.

[LesPalenik]

Ray, thank you for the interesting milk history links. To circumnavigate back to the causes of global climate change, it should be pointed out that farming is one of the main culprits of pollution and production of CO2 and methane gases. In USA 50% of the land, in Brasil 70% of the land is used for farming, with roughly 70% used for pastures, and the rest for feed crop cultivation.

Humanity’s appetite for meat and dairy products is having serious environmental consequences. Livestock species contribute directly and indirectly to deforestation, water pollution, air pollution, greenhouse gases, global warming, desertification, erosion and human obesity, and virtually anywhere you go in the world, the damage done by ruminants, pigs and poultry, and those who grow feed crops for them, is visible on the land. Dry and scrubby Greece, once a nation of woodlands, has gone to the goats. In Brazil, forests are falling before the advance of soybean fields, cultivated largely as beef fodder. In New Zealand, the banks of wild streams are frequently found trampled and muddied by grazers. In California, overuse of river water for agricultural use, including a million acres of water-intensive alfalfa (the state’s highest-acreage crop, used for feeding animals), has contributed to the long-term decline of wild salmon runs.

in the United States, livestock production is responsible for 55 percent of erosion, 37 percent of all applied pesticides and 50 percent of antibiotics consumed, while the animals themselves directly consume 95 percent of our oat production and 80 percent of our corn, according to the Sierra Club.

Problem is, the math just doesn’t add up. We can’t eat meat at the rate we do in a sustainable world. Listen: This source claims that to feed just one omnivorous human requires more than three acres of land while all it takes to produce food for a vegan is one-sixth of an acre. And with more than seven billion people sharing the earth’s 7.68 billion acres of arable land, that would be an even split of about an acre apiece—plenty of space for growing all the food we need and enjoying what’s left for camping, backpacking, kayaking and wildlife watching (and photography - my addition) —except that habitual meat-eating omnivores are using three times their own share of space, requiring that precious wild lands be used for raising animals.

 
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/is-the-livestock-industry-destroying-the-planet-11308007/

[Ray]

Creating jobs to rebuild something that was destroyed is not good for an economy. 

Alan,
You have a point. However, if something is destroyed it would also probably not be good for the economy just to leave the ruined building where it is and move on. Hopefully, when the houses are rebuilt, they might be strengthened in some way to better resist the next extreme weather event.

Also, doesn't the economy often tend to rely upon the production of products which are not as durable as they could be, so that people will continue to buy new products. How would the car industry thrive if the cars were made significantly more durable?

People often quote this fallacy. Capital resources are being used up to re-create what basically you had before. If 1000 homes were destroyed in a flood, and you spent $300 million building new homes using 200 construction workers, you still have a 1000 homes. No more than before. However, if there was no destruction, the $300 million would still provide 200 jobs. However, the money would be spent to build 1000 additional homes. So now you would have 2000 homes available for people to live in. Or if there was no destruction the money could be used on cancer research or global warming research. 

You have another point that has some merit, but it's not quite that simple. If the authorities were to impose a strict building code to ensure that all houses in a particular area could withstand all the extreme weather events that had occurred in that area during, say, the previous 100 years, then you probably wouldn't have the 1000 homes in the first place. People would move elsewhere to live and work, where houses were more affordable.

Each local government or town council wants its own economy to prosper and is in a sense competing with neighboring councils or shires to attract development.

Destruction of property is a loss to an economy as well as to the individuals who suffer the loss.

It's certainly not a loss to the construction industry. 

[Ray]

Ray, thank you for the interesting milk history links. To circumnavigate back to the causes of global climate change, it should be pointed out that farming is one of the main culprits of pollution and production of CO2 and methane gases. In USA 50% of the land, in Brasil 70% of the land is used for farming, with roughly 70% used for pastures, and the rest for feed crop cultivation.
 
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/is-the-livestock-industry-destroying-the-planet-11308007/

Les,
I don't know how accurate those figures are, but it certainly seems like a huge problem. I think it's a reasonable deduction that deforestation for farming has had a greater effect on climate than increases in minuscule, trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, such as the claimed increase from 0.028% to 0.044% during the past 150 years or so.

However, regardless of the significance of CO2 emission on climate, it does appear to be a fact that modern farming techniques, such as tilling, tend to release from the soil the carbon that was initially stored in the soil.
https://theconversation.com/how-carbon-farming-can-help-solve-climate-change-86087

"But with the introduction of modern agricultural techniques, including the plow, soil organic matter content has dropped by half in many areas of the world, including parts of Canada. That carbon, once stored in the ground, is now found in the atmosphere and oceans as CO2 and is contributing to global warming."

Personally, I eat steaks only occasionally and pay the extra money for grass-fed beef, if and when it's available. Also, I buy only free-range eggs.

I tend to favour natural and no-till farming techniques, such as Permaculture, but once again it's the economy that rules. Monoculture is more economically efficient, although it's bad for the environment. The following article discusses the benefits of farming animals in a more natural and holistic manner.
https://treeyopermacultureedu.wordpress.com/chapter-8-soils/animal-rotation-and-tractoring/

[RSL]

I'm sorry but Paul Ehrilch was a an exceptional ecologist who backed his work with very good research and papers as proof.

Exactly the point I've been making over and over again. Research and papers don't make a proof. Every kid in college should be required to read Ehrilch's book and be reminded about how well researched it was. If there are members of the class who aren't able to get the obvious message from that exercise, they should be kicked out of school -- especially if they intended to become scientists.

[PeterAit]

Bering sea ice at lowest levels in history.

http://www.ktuu.com/content/news/Record-ice-retreat-in-Bering-Sea-481690891.html

[LesPalenik]

Just off the press:

Allianz Insurance in Germany stopped selling policies to coal companies in an effort to cut back the use of fossil fuels. Europe’s biggest insurance company said that it would immediately pull its coverage from single coal-fired power plants and coal mines, and that it would phase all coal risks out of its business by 2040. It also said it would stop investing in companies that do not cut their greenhouse gas emissions. The move, which will apply to Allianz’s €664bn of investments, is an extension of its coal divestment policy announced in 2015. Oliver Bäte, CEO of Allianz, said: “Allianz wants to cut the biggest climate killer out of the core business over time. We are getting even more serious on global warming.”

https://www.ft.com/content/a23a6c3c-4eec-11e8-9471-a083af05aea7

[Alan Klein]

Bering sea ice at lowest levels in history.

http://www.ktuu.com/content/news/Record-ice-retreat-in-Bering-Sea-481690891.html

The article references whaling logs that go back to the mid 1800's.  The data chart they reviewed of actual data was from 1978 to current.  That's not "history".  That's a "blip". 

[Alan Klein]

...It's certainly not a loss to the construction industry. 

Or to the climate change research community. 

[amolitor]

If someone is willing to talk politics with you, there are really about 3 possibilities:

1. They're simply rubes. Your racist uncle at Thanksgiving.
2. They trust you deeply, profoundly.
3. They don't really care that much about their relationship with you.

[pegelli]

The article references whaling logs that go back to the mid 1800's.  The data chart they reviewed of actual data was from 1978 to current.  That's not "history".  That's a "blip".

Still, a 30 years "blip" is much longer than the 2 year "blip" of the article linked in the OP you were so happy about (or happy for the Polar bears to be more accurate ).

[Alan Klein]

Still, a 30 years "blip" is much longer than the 2 year "blip" of the article linked in the OP you were so happy about (or happy for the Polar bears to be more accurate ).

You could be right.  But I think climate will change over a longer period than does animal behavior adapting to it.  If local climate changes effect local population of animals or plants, you'll see adaptation in a few years.  Otherwise the species will die out.  Additionally, man effects local animal and plant populations a lot faster than earth's climate and environment. 

I think the problem is that man who lives such a short life can't imagine geologic time very well.  So we assume that changes that we may witness happening over a few decades or even centuries reflect a major change when they could only be minor blips and normal happenings. 

I think the main issue is not whether change is happening.  The question for me is that only the negatives of change are being headlined.  A couple of warmer degrees might be appreciated by elderly Canadians who can't afford to vacation in Florida during the winter.  An extra longer planting season would benefit farmers and consumers.  Sure, flooded populated areas are a downside.  But more rain may fertilize many deserts.  I'd like to hear a more even balance of the pros as well as cons.  That's something that we are not hearing. 

[pegelli]

I think the main issue is not whether change is happening. 

Well change has always happened so that is indeed not the issue, but for me the main question is whether our current (over) population is changing the climate faster than normal. For me there are more signals it is than that there are signals it's just business as usual. And while slightly warmer weather can have positive side benefits like you mention history has shown that most of the time that man has changed the course of nature (knowingly or unknowingly) it has had a bunch of unforseen negative concequences which are not compensated by the advantages. But as Russ said earlier in the thread, nobody knows anything about it so it's just my hunch based on reading a whole lot of different materials about it (from both strong believers as well as strong deniers).

[HSakols]

But I think climate will change over a longer period than does animal behavior adapting to it.  If local climate changes effect local population of animals or plants, you'll see adaptation in a few years.  Otherwise the species will die out.  Additionally, man effects local animal and plant populations a lot faster than earth's climate and environment. 

Adaptive change takes more like thousands of years with mammals.  There great extinction of about 65 million years ago may have been due to a dramatic change in climate. 

And while slightly warmer weather can have positive side benefits like you mention history has shown that most of the time that man has changed the course of nature (knowingly or unknowingly) it has had a bunch of unforseen negative concequences

Larger and more intense fires are definately a bonus where I live in California!

[Ray]

The question for me is that only the negatives of change are being headlined.

That's true. I've often wondered what it would be like if all news outlets, newspapers, TV broadcasts, and so on, were required to divide their news reportage into two sections, Good News and Bad News.

Would the Bad News programs be more popular? Is there perhaps some psychological need in the general populace to hear Bad News most of the time? Does the prevalence of Bad News make it easier for governments to control the populace, by creating a state of uneasiness about what could and does happen, often elsewhere, if you don't do as you're told.

Just speculating. 

[Ray]

Just off the press:

"Allianz Insurance in Germany stopped selling policies to coal companies in an effort to cut back the use of fossil fuels. Europe’s biggest insurance company said that it would immediately pull its coverage from single coal-fired power plants and coal mines, and that it would phase all coal risks out of its business by 2040. It also said it would stop investing in companies that do not cut their greenhouse gas emissions. The move, which will apply to Allianz’s €664bn of investments, is an extension of its coal divestment policy announced in 2015. Oliver Bäte, CEO of Allianz, said: “Allianz wants to cut the biggest climate killer out of the core business over time. We are getting even more serious on global warming.”

Les,
A similar situation is occuring in Australia. A massive coal mining project in Queensland, known as the Adani Carmichael coal mine, has been delayed for years due to a refusal by the four major banks in Australia to fund the project, and also a refusal by the Australian government to fund the project. Even major Chinese banks have refused to fund the project.

I would be very surprised if the project ever goes ahead.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/carr-lobbying-china-to-deny-adani-funds/news-story/338b4836b4e2ea1701753e927bef16c8

The advantages of coal-fired plants is that they provide a continuous, low cost, and reliable supply of electricity at all times, regardless of changes in weather. However, they are not efficient when they are underutilized, frequently shut down and restarted, and used merely as a back-up when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Gas-fired power plants are more efficient for that purpose. So I guess it's 'Goodbye coal!'

I have no problem personally with this. I have no shares in coal mines, and if more efficient and cleaner methods of producing electricity can be developed, then that's all to the good.

Unfortunately, the shift to renewable forms of energy does come at a cost, and that cost in Australia is 'rising electricity prices'. The issue has become so political that the Queensland Government has recently announced an annual $50 gift to all Queensland residents with an electricity bill, and a $340 gift to eligible pensioners and seniors.

Let's hope that the electricity supply is not disrupted during the next storm. All that money gifted to Queensland residents could or might have been spent on strengthening the grid system. 

http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/qld-govt-rolls-out-50-power-bill-credit/news-story/c21a6336978cd404cc80b3401c134e26

[LesPalenik]

Let's hope that the electricity supply is not disrupted during the next storm. All that money gifted to Queensland residents could or might have been spent on strengthening the grid system. 

Well, speaking about storms, this afternoon we saw severe thunderstorms in southern Ontario, with powerful winds exceeding 100 km/h.
In my neigbourhood there was no rain nor lightnings, just extremely strong winds. I would estimate that 10-20% of the houses on my street suffered roof and fence damages, including my home. According to the latest news, the intense winds have caused widespread property damage so far, along with downed trees and power lines. At least one person was killed by a falling tree, with another being rushed to hospital. A school bus with 37 kids was narrowly missed by a falling tree.

[EDIT:] 2 dead, winds over 110 km/h, 160,000 homes with power.



So even if most people are still ignoring the subject of climate change, those local weather events are getting more frequent and are certainly causing serious problems.

[Ray]

Well, speaking about storms, this afternoon we saw severe thunderstorms in southern Ontario, with powerful winds exceeding 100 km/h.
In my neigbourhood there was no rain nor lightnings, just extremely strong winds. I would estimate that 10-20% of the houses on my street suffered roof and fence damages, including my home. According to the latest news, the intense winds have caused widespread property damage so far, along with downed trees and power lines. At least one person was killed by a falling tree, with another being rushed to hospital. A school bus with 37 kids was narrowly missed by a falling tree.

This sort of event is common in Australia too. Even in places that are not normally subject to severe hurricanes, or cyclones as they are called in the Southern Hemisphere, one can have very localized storms that only affect a small area.

Part of the problem is that people often love to surround their homes with trees, within falling distance of their house. I recall the first time I bought a chain saw, about 35 years ago when living in Darwin on the northern coast of Australia. It was for the purpose of felling trees that were within falling distance of the house.

In my current situation in Queensland, I've made sure that no trees are within falling distance of my house, just in case there is a freak storm.

So even if most people are still ignoring the subject of climate change, those local weather events are getting more frequent and are certainly causing serious problems.

They might be getting more frequent in certain parts of the planet, but probably less frequent in other parts of the planet. Nature tends to create a balance.

At the risk of being accused of repetition, the latest IPCC report could not find any strong evidence that increased frequency and intensity of storms had been occurring during the previous 50 years or so, at an average, global level, although there were increases in certain specific regions.

ps. If only everyone were as sensible as me.