Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Paddy

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: July 19, 2017, 07:46:08 AM »
Some bad news on this front from the USA: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/teen-pregnancy-donald-trump-funding-cut-projects-213-million-prevent-projects-pro-life-a7844886.html

Cutting funding for family planning in rich countries is particularly problematic due to higher levels of resources consumed per additional baby.  And It's worth noting that this is also bad news on the public health and inequality fronts as well.

2
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 18, 2017, 04:11:11 PM »
@liefde,

There will never be more ice on the planet, ever again, in human existence, than there was on the 9th of July 2017.


I'd bet against this prediction. It's not unlikely that we've seen peak ice extent globally for this year, but with inter-annual variability in both Arctic and Antarctic ice I'm pretty sure it'll go higher than that at some point in the next few years.

Let's see: if 9th July 2017 still stands unbeaten by 01/01/2020, I will donate €20 to a charity of your choice. If it is beaten before then, however, I would like you to give €20 to http://www.ippf.org/. Sound fair?

3
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 18, 2017, 01:44:25 PM »
Yogi Berra comes to mind about now.

Indeed, tis folly to prophecy. But it's also fun to try :-).

4
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: July 09, 2017, 08:31:52 PM »
Incidentally, this article is worth a browse, despite the overly dramatic title: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jul/09/2017-the-year-we-lost-control-of-world-population-surge-london-family-planning-contraception-summit-trump

"On the eve of a landmark summit in London called to accelerate family planning progress in 69 of the world’s poorest countries, latest figures show that an eight-year programme to get contraception to more than 100 million women is way off target."

5
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: July 09, 2017, 12:59:30 PM »
It's a very nuanced issue, but:

1) Anyone who tries to predict demographic trends in the 2070s is talking nonsense. Forecasting this kind of thing in advance is always sketchy beyond 10 years or so.

2) That said, all the countries with very low fertility rates today (Japan, South Korea, Singapore etc) don't seem to be falling any further on this index, and some are rising again slightly. So I don't anticipate any countries will go below a fertility rate of 1.2 or so, and a lot of western countries seem to be stable on rather higher rates, around or above the EU average of 1.6. Still subreplacement, but "fast enough" to keep things going.

3) The parallel question of how long life expectancy will go on rising will also play a big role in how demographic trends develop. Although I think personally that many countries are close to a peak, people have thought this before...

4) While some countries have too few children for replacement, others will go on having far too many for a good while to come. Different problems in each, and different measures required. And we shouldn't overlook either issue because of the other.

6
Policy and solutions / Re: City or countryside : which direction ?
« on: July 09, 2017, 12:41:26 PM »
It's worth noting that, paradoxically, although cities have a lot less green space, people who live in them generally have rather less of a carbon footprint, due to living in smaller, more energy efficient dwellings, needing to drive less or not at all, and so forth. So the move to more and more urban living isn't all bad.

7
Going down a bin to 4.0 - 4.5

8
Going down a bin to 3.5 - 4.0. Partly to get closer to where the line on Deeenngee's graph intersects with current volume, plus musings on the share of current ice outside of the CAB.

9
I may yet change my mind with the next piomas update, but for now I'm going 4.25 to 4.75. This embraces the 2nd through 6th lowest years, which seems fairly likely territory without a major melting event.

10
I may yet change my vote, particularly when we get the next piomas update, but for now I'm going 3.75 to 4.25. An approximate repeat of last year doesn't seem unlikely.

11
Going to wait for the Piomas update before I pick, but I expect I'll be adjusting my vote upwards.

12
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: June 24, 2017, 01:08:26 AM »
What Steve said.

There is one piece of sadder news in the mix, though - progress on access to education worldwide has stalled: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jun/21/drive-to-get-children-back-to-school-failing-worldwide-un-figures-education

This is particularly bad news for the final countries yet to go through the demographic transition.

13
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: June 23, 2017, 03:53:23 PM »
my simple solution for those who believe in overpopulation has always been the same .. suicide

There's no call to joke about suicide.  Nor is there any call to be needlessly hostile to those whose concerns don't entirely mirror your own.

If anyone's reading this who's considering suicide, I'd like to suggest calling your local crisis number:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suicide_crisis_lines

14
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: June 23, 2017, 09:21:47 AM »
But on-topic: I also think that population is public enemy number three, after the system in general (where there is no limit on personal wealth) and over-consumption.

Pretty fair.  My ranking would be:
1) Consuming too much (wrong quantity)
2) Consuming the wrong stuff (wrong quality)
3) Overpopulation
4) Denial of the problem
5) Lack of preparedness for the coming changes

We generally need to address all of the above, imho.

15
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: June 11, 2017, 08:43:35 PM »
Nothing too dramatic in the latest food price outlook (FAO's biennial publication on the state of markets in food worldwide):http://www.fao.org/giews/reports/food-outlook/en/

EDIT: In particular, the wheat production issue that Archimid flagged up doesn't look too worrying in the broader context yet. But time will tell. Also worth looking at the food price index, which is currently ok,  although I'd be cautious about it being this high at a time of cheap oil http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/foodpricesindex/en/

16
Gone with "same as the lowest we've had" [3.5 to 4.0], like on the other poll. But it really is way too early to tell.

EDIT: Moved down one bar on each poll having seen some of the analyses on here.

17
Loving the broad spread of guesses. Seeing as our starting point this year is with an unprecedented low volume, I think it's fair to say that we really don't know where we'll end up.

18
I went for 3.0 to 3.25, or "as low as lowest previous". Bit of a fudge based on the record low volume now and the melting conditions to come being an unknown.

19
Arctic sea ice / Re: Fram Export
« on: May 26, 2017, 07:53:08 PM »
Are there any numbers to be had on total export this year compared to previous?

20
I voted "No gap will increase mainly for reasons other than albedo", but albedo is important. Specially over land.


On that note, Northern hemisphere snow cover is currently higher than the 10 year average:


21
Walking the walk / Re: Top climate-friendly actions
« on: May 17, 2017, 11:29:10 PM »
I don't know much about buying offsets, but another option might be to offset a flight by eating less red meat, driving less, etc...

22
I was tempted by the "don't know" option, but went for "no change". But there are factors that could drive it either way.

Factors that could drive a shrinking of the gap:
- Good snow cover this year -> Greater albedo on land -> cooler arctic temps
- Big drops came later in the season for the record low year of 2012 that may well narrow or close the gap

Factors that could drive a widening of the gap:
- Albedo feedback
- Thin ice fragility

Overall, I'm favouring either no change or a slight widening gap, but only time will tell.


23
Policy and solutions / Re: Becoming Vegan.
« on: May 16, 2017, 07:40:27 AM »
Or come up with some non-meat fast foods that taste great and cost no more or less than the typical fast food restaurant.

Which is why it's probsbly a good thing that falafel and humus consumption have taken off in the UK.

24
Policy and solutions / Re: Becoming Vegan.
« on: May 10, 2017, 12:17:19 PM »
Good editorial on the impact of red meat consumption on both on human and planetary health in the British Medical Journal (needs a login)

http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2190

(Written in response to this research on the health impact of red meat consumption: http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1957 )

25
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: May 10, 2017, 11:53:28 AM »
... Each wave of heat over the next week in the forecast sends  a band of rain right into the heart of the basin - and at the end of tuesday 12Z run there's suggestions of a third


At this time of year is the essential threat of rain more that:

A) it ruins the insulating effect of any snow cover on the ice pack?

&/or

B) it acts like melt ponds in raising the absorption of solar radiation?


(I'm guessing still A, because it is probably going to freeze quickly?)

There's also:

C) Heat transfer by conduction from above-freezing raindrops to below freezing ice (effectively transferring the warmth from the warm air the rainclouds are carried in on more effectively)

And also:

D) Kinetic energy transferred from the raindrops to the ice, wearing it away + partly being converted to heat.

I suspect the second effect is smaller than some of the others, but what do I know?

26
Given that just about everyone (including myself) has plumped for 2017, what probability are those of you who voted this way ascribing it?

- Less than 50% but greater than any other bracket
- 50 to 70%
- 70 to 90%
- Greater than 90%
- Don't know, just guessing

Based on Oren's figures, 9 out of 10 or 90% of the past ten years would give us a total volume less than 2012 at the end of the year, but personally I'd err on the cautious side of future prediction and say 50 to 70% certainty of a new record, because we'd probably still need to have at least fairly good late season  melt conditions to hit the central arctic basin to a similar extent.

EDIT: DavidR, I'd say September. August is possible but definitely not July. Just look at the graph - the current difference between April's record low volume and prior Aprils is dwarfed by the July to August drop:


27
Arctic sea ice / Re: Poll: 2017 PIOMAS Maximum Monthly Figure
« on: May 05, 2017, 04:24:07 AM »
There goes my perfect guesswork record this year (one BIN too high on this poll).

28
I went for 2040-50 because of all the intra-trend noise that tends to produce the odd icier year with good freezing and poor melting conditions, but it was a tough call between that and 2030-40.

29
Walking the walk / Clicktivism
« on: April 27, 2017, 11:11:54 AM »
A relatively small way we can walk the walk would seem to be through our internet use.  I currently do the following three things in this way, from most to least productive:

- Using www.ecosia.org as my search engine, so that when I search for stuff, it ends up in trees being planted.
- Signing online petitions, which I doubt makes any real difference at all.
- Internet arguments / putting the right information out there (on forums, news comments etc.), which I fear is a often a complete waste of time, but can't quite give up on. (Although I hasten to add that those producing good quality material on the blogosphere are certainly not wasting their time)

Do people here take part in any other things in this line?

30
Further on this topic: at least one of the politicians on this list (Douglas Carswell), is standing down in the snap June general election. That's the good news; the bad is that the Conservatives, who tend towards climate change denial, favour fracking and have been slashing funds for renewables, look set to make gains. Going to be a bad five years ahead for climate change policy in the UK.

31
The rest / UK Snap General Election Poll
« on: April 19, 2017, 07:19:47 AM »
Fellow UK voters: Which way do you plan to vote on June 8th? Personally, for a number of factors including their widespread adoption of climate change denial, I'm an "Anyone But the Tories" voter, likely to prop up my solid Lib Den candidate in West Ealing. It would be good to hear a range of views though.

32
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: April 15, 2017, 08:29:31 AM »
@Bill,

That chart of "lowest three" ice extents - does it measure the lowest three so far up to the year in question or does it consider future years too? ie if 2012 set a record for a given day which 2016 subsequently beat, would the day be ranked as a "lowest" or a "second lowest" for 2012?

33
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: April 11, 2017, 08:22:51 PM »
Yep, that was the article that inspired these thoughts.

34
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: April 10, 2017, 09:51:09 AM »
I was thinking about coral reef bleaching, and had a couple of questions/conjectures:

- How much do sea and ocean CO2 levels and consequent acidity vary, and how closely tied is this to local airborne co2 emissions, e.g. from a local fossil fuel plant?
- Would there be any additional benefit for coral reef survival from local cuts in CO2 emissions leading to lower local co2 levels, above and beyond the contribution of such changed to global CO2 levels?
- Would reductions in any of the other emissions if such plants be beneficial for coral reef survival?

35
Policy and solutions / Re: Ships and boats
« on: April 04, 2017, 11:13:38 AM »
Nice article in the BBC today about the rise of lower carbon ferries in Norway and elsewhere: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39478856

36
Policy and solutions / Water management
« on: April 03, 2017, 12:29:15 PM »
I've just read an article suggesting better management of water, green space and wetlands as a means of ameliorating Climate change: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/03/climate-change-water-fossil-fuel

How much mileage do people here think there might be in this approach?

37
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland ice sheet retreat
« on: March 22, 2017, 08:35:39 PM »
Re 1 and 2: technically not ice sheets.

Re 3: Greenland's ice mass hits a new low practically every year, as the link I posted in the previous comment indicates. How much the ice mass drops this year we have yet to find out, but yeah, I doubt this year will be an exception.

38
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 IJIS extent maximum prediction
« on: March 17, 2017, 02:08:23 PM »
Looks that way, yeah - as Jim Pettit pointed out on the IJIS thread, no previous year has seen a rise from this date on that would push us back over 13.88.

And even if we do get such a record rise, there's no way extent will climb over 14 million now. I declare the 13.75 to 14 category the winner.

39
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 13, 2017, 05:17:44 PM »
Btw, Neven, "sis" is usually a colloquialism for "sister". Although I'm sure seaicesailor wouldn't be offended by the monikor.

40
Yeah, even with only the NSIDC figures to go on in the other thread recently, I think we can call this for the 2 to 2.25 bin. Good guesswork, everyone!

41
Arctic sea ice / Re: NSIDC Arctic sea ice news
« on: March 09, 2017, 01:11:59 AM »
February's monthly update is out: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2017/03/another-warm-month-in-the-arctic/

In brief summary, it's another record low monthly extent, as anyone on this forum would be aware. Also, the final section regarding concerns about the lifespan of current satellites tracking sea ice is well worth taking note of, imho.


42
I'm away over the weekend.  Let's compromise and call it on Monday :-)

43
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 IJIS extent maximum prediction
« on: March 08, 2017, 01:11:15 PM »
When do we feel we should call time on the max? I'd be tempted to set March 21st as the date to announce the poll winner if we aren't then at or very close to the max for the year, as a post-equinox max seems unlikely.

44
It's looking quite a lot like we have a winner (2 to 2.25), though I'd like to wait another week or so before calling it, just in case.

45
Walking the walk / Re: Top climate-friendly actions
« on: March 07, 2017, 12:11:25 AM »
I'd just like to link here to a good article on the issues with and limitations of ethical consumerism: https://qz.com/920561/conscious-consumerism-is-a-lie-heres-a-better-way-to-help-save-the-world/

46
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 IJIS extent maximum prediction
« on: March 06, 2017, 08:25:02 AM »
Too bad, Oren.

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: Poll: 2017 PIOMAS Maximum Monthly Figure
« on: March 05, 2017, 10:33:41 PM »
20.5 to 21.0, based on a 21st century average volume growth from end Feb of 2.1.

48
Policy and solutions / Lists of current elected denialist politicians
« on: February 28, 2017, 02:36:55 PM »
I was thinking we could do with lists of elected politicians that we particularly need to challenge on climate change. After a little research, here's a shortlist of denialist UK MPs, sorted by party:

Peter Lilley (Con)
John Hayes (Con)
Owen Patterson (Con)
John Redwood (Con)
David Davis (Con)
Christopher Chope (Con)
Andrew Tyrie (Con)
Nigel Evans (Con)
Sammy Wilson (DUP)
Graham Stringer (Lab)
Douglas Carswell (UKIP)

If anyone has any modifications to suggest to this list, and/or any lists from other countries to suggest, they'd be very welcome :-)

49
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: February 28, 2017, 01:18:18 PM »
I think it's fairly likely it may have topped out for the year, particularly as conditions forecast for the next few days seem more conducive to loss than gain (https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/forecasts). Only time will tell, though.

50
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: February 28, 2017, 10:18:49 AM »
I see the aim for less unsustainable global consumption as reading equally on reducing individual impacts and also reducing population growth gently, as total human consumption = (total human population) x (mean individual consumption), after all, giving the two equal weight. Although consumption by the rich obviously affects mean consumption much more than consumption by the poor, with a very skewed distribution from Trump-like extreme consumers on one end to subsistence farmers on the other.

But I have to emphasise the "gently" in population reduction. At current fertility rates of 2.5 children per woman worldwide, we're only a little way above replacement fertility, with many countries, eg Japan, well below it.  There are still many women with unmet needs for access to contraception, education, employment etc worldwide, however, and addressing these unmet needs is about the best proven thing we can do to ensure people have fewer children later, which in turn should slow down population growth.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6