Go Ahead, Ask Me Anything
Roger: any suggestions on what I can read about coral reefs and the factors that impact coral reef loss and recovery?
Regarding RCPs -- RCP 8.5 for instance. What is in those projections?
1. The C in RCP stands for concentration? (e.g.; ppm CO2?)
2. The RCP assume a rate of CO2 and/or green house gas (GHG) emissions resulting from a set of economic and technical factors. Is it CO2, GHG, some other measure, or GHG in CO2 equivalent
3. Do the RCP's specify a climate sensitivity as well?
...and they show that sinks are roughly 58% of emissions in the "Budget" for 2023. Is that percentage similar for all countries or are sinks in any way unique to each country? Or is it hard to tie a GHG emission to a sink?
Here is an entry for your monthly “Ask me anything” feature:
I am interested in hearing your assessment of Javier Vinos’ Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis as an adjunct to explain some features of climate change that the Enhanced CO2 Effect hypothesis does not handle so well.
Roger: how are total global GHG emissions calculated?
Why only consider CO2 as the warming driver? Can we be experiencing a "bounce back" from the Little Ice Age?
I see very little discussion of NOAA’s Climate Reference Network data for the lower 48 anywhere on the web. To my eye the temperature data shows very little if any change over the past 19 years. It seems to be quality data measured by triply redundant instruments located in spots widely apart from human structures or influence. The Network is only for the US but it is also an essentially single “thermometer” for a large amount of the Earth’s land surface which is certainly not immune to true global temperature trends. Perhaps it is little discussed because the data does not agree with alarmist view. Or perhaps it isn’t because I have weak eyes.
Thank you for the opportunity to ask a question.
* What is the human contribution to the current phase of global warming? I.e., can this be quantified; how is it measured knowing also that any rise in temperature will cause degassing of CO2 from the oceans; what assumptions are made to arrive at any inference or quantification?
In the UK the language on climate is curious - to say the least. We get comments about tacking climate change which seems to mean something different to any listener. Have you or anyone else ever challenged these kind of remarks or tried to find out what they mean? There is hardly any effort to suggest a strategic objective which would at least make some sense.
Thank you for the opportunity to ask questions, Roger! I would like to mine your prodigious knowledge of sources of expert information on carbon dioxide and climate and ask if you know of anyone (and, if so, please provide the link) who has studied what the optimal level of carbon dioxide is? Apparently we know the levels from centuries ago through tree rings, but putting our current measures of carbon dioxide together with forecasts of population and economic activity, I am wondering what experts think is the level we ought to shoot for. This seems like it might be an easier question (albeit still involving modeling) than figuring out the desired level of 'climate' (however defined!) and backing into carbon dioxide from there. It appears that some (certainly not all!) think that more natural forces affect climate besides carbon dioxide (e.g. clouds, right?) but since we can probably figure out the relationship between carbon dioxide and plants (which we need for food), I am wondering if anyone is working on this one aspect, rather than just the forecasts of 'climate'? Thanks for any insight you can provide!
What actions would you encourage individuals to take to make an impact in the climate crisis/climate change?
As I've read your posts here on Substack, it's kind of leveled out my alarmism. However, reading your posts also makes me wonder what I can do to really impact any of this, as well as whether there are any real grounds for hope right now given that the changes you are saying we need to make aren't really happening, whether we have good data or not. What kind of response are you hoping to encourage from individual consumers like me?
I am curious if you've had a chance to read the recently released report, "Nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement, Synthesis report by the secretariat" The press and other alarmists claim we are doomed unless more drastic actions are taken to get the world on track. Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Thank you for the opportunity to ask you questions...
So, one has to ask "Why, why, why all this climate alarmism? Why, why, why all these sterile COP meetings?.... why?
If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures -- they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.... don't laugh and roll your eyes heavenward, at this suggestion. If you do, explain why all these COP meetings are continuing?
Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:
"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
So what is the goal of environmental policy?
"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.
For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn't really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that "the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated."
Mad as they are, Edenhofer's comments are nevertheless consistent with other alarmists who have spilled the movement's dirty secret. Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said in anticipation of last year's Paris climate summit.
"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."
So, is this flawed, socialist ideology fueling all this continuing theory of climate alarmism in the absence of any actual scientific proof? A theory isn’t speculation about what might be true. The arch climate alarmist and his followers have stated the unscientific theory that "The science is settled." Even when a theory is accepted as fact, it remains a theory.
The likes of practical skeptics like Lomborg can't say this, so he can't answer.
So Roger, I am asking you .... why? why? why? these climate alarmists just go on and on and on spreading FEAR and disinformation on this topic. As argued above there just has to be another hidden agenda.
Thank you for listening. 😐
I'm interested in the idea that it's important to concern ourselves with controlling the climate and the prime mover (but rarely spoken or written) is that sapiens are the end game. I do not believe it as I believe in evolution and that sapiens are just another "experiment" along the way. However, since the "global warming" scare entered the public discussion it's always been about the planet which to me is not very strategic thinking. Don't you think that if the subject of climate were framed in the concern for our species, it would get more traction?
To support my previous comment. An important part of the public health community supports THR. This is expressed in a short article by 15 ex-presidents of the Society of Research on Tobacco and Nicotine (SNRT). These are known experts in this issue.
"Balancing Consideration of the Risks and Benefits of E-Cigarettesกฑ, Balfour DJK, Benowitz NL, Colby SM, et al, (Am J Public Health. 2021;111(9):1661จC1672. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306416)
Roger. Since you are open to ANY question, I would like to know your opinion on a controversial issue in facing disinformation from a powerful and well funded political agenda, with many similarities to Climate Change. I am talking about tobacco harm reduction (THR), a strategy to reduce the harm from smoking combustible cigarettes (a harm produced by the smoke, not by nicotine) by promoting among smokers their switch to alternative nicotine delivery vehicles, such as vaping, that operate without combustion. I understand that this issue may not be important for you. Unfortunately, many colleagues and scientists who could understand the issues avoid it, thinking that THR is merely a marketing of the despised Tobacco Industry, as detractors falsely claim. The reason I take the chance of communicating with you on this issue is to inform you and to know your opinion, not to "convert you to the cause".
THR has been adopted as official public policy by the UK and NZ, admitting that it significantly reduces, but does not eliminate, health risks. However, in the US most institutional medicine and biomedical science (CDC, NIH, NIDA), as well as government at all levels and the FDA and billionaire Michael Bloomberg, have been waging a well funded political campaign (spreading globally) against THR.
This campaign incentivizes and rewards research that finds harms in non-combustible devices, even if the research is technically flawed. Aerosol emissions from vapes and heated tobacco have a negligible toxic content, far below tobacco (or marihuana) smoke. Yet, the NIH funded research emphasizes harms in many methodological flawed articles. As a physicist familiar with aerosol physics, I have had a direct involvement in countering this flawed research publishing 3 peer reviewed extensive reviews of the literature.
Perhaps the most insidious anti-THR campaign is the obsessive focusing on "youth vaping", described by the FDA, CDC, anti-tobacco NGOs and Bloomberg funded groups as an "epidemic" that is addicting kids to nicotine. Demographic data (NYTS from the CDC) does not justify this apocalyptic narrative, most teenage vaping is infrequent and exploratory more teens drink and consume cannabis). This youth obsession has dire consequences for public health in the US and globally, it justifies bans and motivates FDA impassable regulatory barriers imposed by special interest groups (Bloomberg). This has kept 99.99% of vapor products in a legal limbo, hindering the access of 40 million smokers in the US (and hundreds of million globally) to safer nicotine and does not protect minors.
If you prefer, you can reply to me directly to my email email@example.com