|
The following is a recent conversation on LinkedIn with: Rich Kolm (3rd degree connection, Project Manager and Scrum Master with a Cybersecurity focus, Maryland, USA) It's not the first time such a dialogue has proceeded with the correspondent apparently engaging in genuine discussion initially, but gradually, over the space of hours or days, descending the layers of the Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement, despite the fact I've maintained my contributions at the higher layers. It's a challenge to maintain professional composure when some of the language used by the correspondent deteriorates and the types of logic and conversation they use become diverting, evasive or personalised, to the point of turning into personal insults. It also comprises a case of "Brandolini's Law" in operation. The thread was started by this post from: Jacqueline van den Ende • Co-founder & CEO at Carbon Equity Co-founder & CEO at Carbon Equity It took me a while to realise what 🌍 earth overshoot day really means. You know how really scary statistics about global warming or biodiversity loss or migrants crossing the Mediterranean pass by, that should shake you at the core.…but don’t really hit you. Abstract numbers that don’t really sink in... ....Until they do … I recently listened to a phenomenal series called Bend not Break 📉 on the Great Simplification podcast by Nate Hagens that helped me understand a few mind-boggling concepts (http://bit.ly/3KYb9PO) 🏗 1. We are drawing down energy from the earth at 10 million times the pace as this energy was stored on the planet 😵 … Fossil fuel is energy from sunlight stored in plants 🍃 that has accumulated over billions of years. Since we started using fossil fuels we are using far far more energy and resources than the world can replenish. It is literally as if thousands of prior generations built up a huge savings account…and now we are spending it all at once on a massively lavish lifestyle…like out of control teenagers. Yup…that’s us 👯♀️ . 💹 2. Our world is wired for growth. They call this the embedded growth obligation. If I borrow 100 euros from you I need to pay you back 105 in a year because you could have put the money to productive use yourself and made 105 euros. We have an obligation to keep growing just to service our debt..However untethered growth - even if let’s say just 2% per year - will ultimately hit the wall of our physical planetary boundaries… Draw those two lines in your mind and you will see that they will clash. 🚀 3. Increased technology efficiency leads to more resource consumption … not less 🤯. This is a concept called the #Jevensparadox. Basically if we make a battery 20% more efficient (and affordable) there will be exponentially more applications for it…leading to more, not less resource consumption. If you are having a difficult time ingesting all of these concepts…so did I. Listening to this podcast stretched my brain several dimensions.. 🧠 ⁉ So what is the lowdown. My takeaway is that the undesirable truth is that we need to lower our consumption. Yes we need cleaner technology such as EVs or zero carbon aviation but we also need to consume less. We are living on a far larger foot than we/the planet can afford. Our energy consumption in the Netherlands would require 3.5 planets. We have exactly One at the moment 😅. What does it mean to exceed planetary boundaries? What does Break mean? What happens when “De koek is op 🍪” as we say in Dutch? Will society implode - like the Mayans did where resource scarcity led to social unrest which ultimately pulled the thriving empire apart? Are the increasing political polarisation, scapegoating of minorities, geopolitical warfare for resources that we see today..tell tale signs of what is to come? How do we Bend and not Break? #energytransition #earthovershootday #climatechange Below are the comments from Rich Kolm (the ones addressed to “David Calver” (me)) and my responses to him (the ones addressed to “Rich Kolm”) David Calver I understand that this idea of scarcity is disturbing, but it is just wrong. The earth was formed with vast quantities of methane which streams inexhaustibly from hot vents in the ocean floor and as a gas from the whole surface of the earth including massive bursts from volcanic activity. Transformed to petroleum it streams from cold seeps by the thousands all over the earth, especially the seabed, notably the huge number of cold seeps all over the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific off California. So the energy savings account was funded during the formation of the earth and it is enough to support current consumption for thousands to millions of years. All that humans have done is tap into an insignificant part of the natural flow. It may be that speeding up the flow for a tiny fraction of the vast store of natural energy causes some imbalance in the cycle of sequestering carbon. If that can be proven then we should moderate the extraction of energy somewhat. But we should not impoverish the working people of the earth pursuing radical energy policies based on bad science and exaggerated fears. Rich Kolm You suggest: "It may be that speeding up the flow for a tiny fraction of the vast store of natural energy causes some imbalance in the cycle of sequestering carbon. If that can be proven then we should moderate the extraction of energy somewhat." Actually, it has been proven. According to the latest IPCC report - AR6 Synthesis SPM (2023): "Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming... Global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase, with unequal historical and ongoing contributions arising from unsustainable energy use, land use and land-use change, lifestyles and patterns of consumption and production across regions, between and within countries, and among individuals (high confidence) " David Calver The IPCC quote asserts many things such as “unsustainable energy use, land use and land use change …” It does not provide support for those assertions. In fact the IPCC in general tends to work from the same assumption of scarcity that motivated the original post here. Dig deep enough and the physics, chemistry, and biology just aren’t there to back up these assertions of scarcity. I prefer to bypass the IOCC’s somewhat flawed and self-serving alarmism and study the core science for myself. Rich Kolm Two points: 1) You haven't responded specifically to my counterevidence rebutting your assertion in relation to the imbalance in the cycle of sequestering carbon, except to express a general dismissiveness of the IPCC's reports, which won't convince many people to your view Re the contribution of LULUCF to GHG emissions, as per AR6 WG1 (2021): "There are two anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide (CO2): fossil emissions and net emissions (including removals) resulting from land-use change and land management (also shown in this chapter as LULUCF: land use, land-use change, and forestry..." Attached chart from the same report illustrates the contribution of LULUCF to GHG emissions. 2) Please provide some evidence supporting your separate assertion about "assumption of scarcity" by the IPCC, which you seem to be using to try to counteract the findings of the IPCC that: "Global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase, with unequal historical and ongoing contributions arising from unsustainable energy use, land use and land-use change, lifestyles and patterns of consumption and production across regions, between and within countries, and among individuals (high confidence)"  Rich Kolm You say, re scarcity: "I prefer to bypass the IOCC’s somewhat flawed and self-serving alarmism and study the core science for myself." What science can you point to in support of your assertion: "this idea of scarcity ... is just wrong"? What evidence can you provide to support your claim of: "... the IOCC’s somewhat flawed and self-serving alarmism" David Calver I provided the evidence against the sssumption of scarcity in my initial post. For example, I assume you follow science outside of the IPCC so you are familiar with the discovery of the biochemistry of deep sea vents and seeps including alternative energy cycle not dependent on photosynthesis. The depth of these vents in the crust and the existence of archaea as a separate domain of life capable of either producing or consuming methane affects our understanding of the effects of methane on the environment. The discussions of the methane cycle in IPCC documents tends to solely address human caused increases with some lip service to some part of natural flow. What is more important is and generally ignored is what percentage of the overall production of methane humans contribute compared to the natural flow and how this affects a system with very large capacities to consume natural methane flows. If you scan recent research on net methane production from deep sea vents it is obvious that we have no reliable estimate of total natural methane flow and it is likely grossly underestimated. It is the same for estimates of net increase from replacing wild herbivores with domesticated. Rich Kolm Your core claim appears to be about: " deep sea vents and seeps ... what percentage of the overall production of methane humans contribute compared to the natural flow and how this affects a system with very large capacities to consume natural methane flows ... recent research on net methane production from deep sea vents" You claim: "[IPCC reports pay] lip service to some part of natural [methane] flow..." That does not constitute, as you suggest, "evidence against the sssumption of scarcity", unless you can back it up with citations to credible, convincing scientific studies refuting the IPCC's findings and conclusions, which you have not yet done. Please provide such citations. You say nothing about other greenhouse gases such as CO2. Do you accept that emissions of CO2, caused by human activities, are a key driver of current warming, causing most of the warming in the last few decades? But you do use a well-worn anti-AGW trope similar to the one debunked here, but using methane instead of CO2: https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm Rich Kolm From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane "Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (around 1750) the atmospheric methane concentration has increased by about 260% with the overwhelming percentage [of the increase] caused by human activity" Do you have any credible scientific sources that contradict that information? Rich Kolm Some more information from the IPCC: https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/chapter-5/ "Deep sea ecosystems also contribute to the removal of methane released from the beneath the seabed through microbial anaerobic oxidation and the sequestration of methane-derived carbon in carbonate (Marlow et al., 2014)... Whilst CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas, marine fluxes of methane and nitrous oxide can also be important, for both coastal regions and the open ocean (Arévalo-Martínez et al., 2015; Borges et al., 2016; Hamdan and Wickland, 2016)... Other examples of under-assessed biogeochemical process in the ocean that may have implications for the Earth system under climate change include the fate of methane in the deep ocean (Section 5.2.4)" So, yes, methane from deep sea vents and seeps is an area of uncertainties. These are currently reflected in uncertainty ranges in the natural and human drivers calculated in IPCC reports, eg in the attached from IPCC AR6 WG1 (2021). Natural methane flows are included in the "internal variability" column. Do you have any credible scientific sources that contradict the uncertainty ranges used by the IPCC?  Rich Kolm You suggest: "we should not impoverish the working people of the earth pursuing radical energy policies based on bad science and exaggerated fears." Firstly, that is hyperbole and fear-mongering. Secondly, it is unsubstantiated by anything you've said. You've provided essentially zero scientific evidence to support your claims on this matter and many other claims you have added in subsequent comments in this thread. Thirdly, some researchers are suggesting acting on unsustainability, including tackling AGW, can be GDP-positive. Eg see Ekins and Zenghelis "The costs and benefits of environmental sustainability" (2021), so it might well be a win-win to tackle AGW without disadvantaging working people around the world. David Calver Itv s up to the IOCC to provide the basis for all these unsupported assertions, not just to state them and make interesting graphics. Let’s take the assertions about the increase in methane. The IPCC can simply say measured where, measured how, measured how frequently over what period of time. Then an interested observer can judge whether the data collected support the assertion. Every time I have done a deep dive into one area, like cold seeps and ocean vents, comprehensive data isn’t there, just sparse, almost anecdotal observation and unjustified extrapolation. As far as I could find at the time of the last large Gulf of Mexico oil spill there had not been a comprehensive survey of cold seeps even in the Gulf and the US government made embarrassing mistakes in managing the spill because they were unaware of even cold seeps within a kilometer of the spill. As far as I know there has never been any attempt at a methodical global survey of ocean floor vents or cold seeps. So without total flow or variation in flow how does IPCC come up with an range of uncertainty? Data with this level of uncertainty does not support an assumption of scarcity, fear of scarcity, or radical authoritarian climate policy. Rich Kolm Your comment of "assumption of scarcity, fear of scarcity, or radical authoritarian climate policy" is a strawman and FUD, because you have not provided any evidence to back it up. You say: "Itv s up to the IOCC to provide the basis for all these unsupported assertions, not just to state them and make interesting graphics". Evidence for the findings and conclusions of the IPCC are backed up by many deep lines of evidence. For example, they provide ample references in IPCC reports to credible scientific work. Just one example of this is seen in the chart showing LULUCF contributions to GHG emissions, in the footnote to the relevant IPCC chart I shared. In stark contrast, in this thread so far, you've made several comments but you've provided no citations to any scientific work to support your various claims - none whatsoever. Rich Kolm You claim: "there is overwhelming evidence for the endless abundance of hydrocarbons" The closest you come to providing any scientific referencing is: "Einstein, Planck and all the modern physicists ... Deep Hot Biosphere by Thomas Gold and ... reports on the phenomena of cold seeps and deep sea vents" Unfortunately, without more specific citations of specific sections, page numbers, paper titles etc, and explanations of the relevance of those to the scientific points being discussed, all you are doing is using an argument of "appeal to authority". You seem to have clarified your argument about 'abundance versus scarcity' as 'hydrocarbons are abundant'. The IPCC does not dispute that hydrocarbons are abundant. However, because of AGW, the IPCC tells us there is a need to rapidly reduce unabated burning of hydrocarbons. Your phrasing of that issue is clearly a strawman. Your assertion of "the existence of a robust and resilient planetary system for managing hydrocarbons" is questionable. I think the UNFCCC CoP process attempts to provide such a system, eg through global carbon budgets, but it needs more support to improve the management systems. Your: "No scarcity, no reason for irrational fear" is a strawman. David Calver The initial post in this thread was an emotional appeal based on fear of scarcity due to using up the stored energy of the planet. My response is to encourage people, especially younger people, to recognize that we actually have an unlimited abundance of all resources and we should moderate our use based on the best factual information. I suggest not reading third hand UN politicized summaries of derivative pseudo-science like “climate science” but by studying physics, chemistry, biology and human history. I came to this viewpoint after studying the writings of “environmental science” over many years, including the first generations of IPCC reports. I dug into the data collection and statistical modeling because that’s my background. (I used to think of myself as “computer scientist,” or, worse yet a “data scientist!.”) In all cases such as in temperature of the atmosphere or of the ocean, I found data collection and summarization inadequate for the scale and variability of the phenomena and no consideration of the full cycle including mitigating factors. The hot vents and cold seeps in the ocean are a good example of failure to pay more than passing lip service what may be the largest component of a key process. David Calver I understand your viewpoint on applying academic standards for publication of research but I find the peer review process corrupt and biased to the point where “garbage in garbage” is no longer adequate. I think of academic research rather as a “shit blizzard.” The latest evidence is wholesale withdrawal from peer reviewed journals of thousands of papers found to be essentially gibberish. If you want to see a real contrast, try reading a paragraph of Thomas Gold’s “The Deep Hot Biosphere” and comparing to any IPCC document. The systemic view in Gold has a breadth and depth of knowledge as well as coherence and explanatory power like nothing the UN bureaucrats even attempt. Gold is quite well footnoted too. If we are to find solutions to global problems we had better understand how the globe works by educating ourselves and thinking for ourselves. We will not get there by falling prey to the fear porn put out by globalists. Rich Kolm The only actual reference you cite is a book by Thomas Gold published n 1999. A quick search of that book shows only 10 references to climate, and none of them mention the current issue of human caused climate change (AGW). So, unless you can cite specific quotations or page references to support your arguments, eg the following one, your suggestions fall at the first hurdle: "It may be that speeding up the flow for a tiny fraction of the vast store of natural energy causes some imbalance in the cycle of sequestering carbon. If that can be proven then we should moderate the extraction of energy somewhat." I've already provided scientific references for works that prove the imbalance in carbon, with deep evidence, that rebut your suggestion and inferences about what you call "tiny" amounts of greenhouse gases caused by human activities. Rich Kolm You say you "find the peer review process corrupt and biased to the point where “garbage in garbage” is no longer adequate. I think of academic research rather as a “shit blizzard.” The latest evidence is wholesale withdrawal from peer reviewed journals of thousands of papers found to be essentially gibberish" Please provide specific evidence, eg papers analysing the phenomenon you suggest, of 1) "peer review process corrupt and biased", and 2) "wholesale withdrawal from peer reviewed journals of thousands of papers" All the time you continue to fail to present credible evidence, it sounds more and more like you are presenting a form of conspiracy theory about scientific evidence, the peer review process and the IPCC. Once people go down the conspiracy theory path, there's very little point trying to persuade them about anything scientific. David Calver My bad. I assumed if you advocate so strongly for academic research standards you would be familiar with the problems. Here’s just one example of the problems: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2014.14763 I recently took a degree that required much writing of research papers based on research papers where I touched another part of this elephant. I found that the quantity of papers was overwhelming in most subjects, but the quality was terrible, often descending to near gibberish. Another example of the terrible state of peer reviewed research is the infamous Lancet article on hydroxychloroquine. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2820%2931180-6/fulltext This Lancet retraction is a real milestone in the decline of establishment science and illustrates a problem that has cropped up in the “climate science” arena as well. That problem is the weaponizing of research funding to support the political narrative of entrenched scientific bureaucracies. Before you snap back with some procedural response I encourage you to look into the tragic story of the authors of the Lancet paper and their relationship to the corrupt NIH and NIAID bureaucrats. Rich Kolm I think your evidence against the peer review process can benefit from some context. From that 2014 article on Nature: "The publishers Springer and IEEE are removing more than 120 papers from their subscription services after a French researcher discovered that the works were computer-generated nonsense." However, from Fire et al (2019) "Over-optimization of academic publishing metrics: observing Goodhart’s Law in action": ">7 million new papers each year and >1.8 million papers with ≥5 references" Attached refers. Prob about 200 million papers or more have been published cumulatively in total to date. So, it seems the problem is one of a very small proportion being rubbish. Eg 120 (121 if you include the Lancet paper that is not about climate change - are any of the 120 about climate change?) is 0.00006 percent. Also, the fact some papers have been withdrawn by Nature shows that there is a process for finding rubbish papers and removing them. So, your evidence against peer review is very, very weak (and nearly 10 years old). I think you'd be more persuasive by commenting on specific, relevant peer-reviewed papers relating to climate change, and more recent material than the main one you cited.  Rich Kolm You claim: "... a problem that has cropped up in the “climate science” arena as well. That problem is the weaponizing of research funding to support the political narrative of entrenched scientific bureaucracies" But you haven't provided any evidence that the problem you claim has any bearing on research papers about climate change. David Calver You claim: “So, it seems the problem is one of a very small proportion being rubbish. Eg 120 (121 if you include the Lancet paper that is not about climate change - are any of the 120 about climate change?) is 0.00006 percent.” Do you have any evidence that the peer review process in climate change or anywhere else does not have the same problems that the sample of 120 in Nature reflect? That is, do you have any evidence that the peer review process, which is a cross-discipline standard, is any less prone to “reviewers” who don’t review but just sign off on gibberish? Do you have any evidence that weaponized research funding based on advancing bureaucratic narrative is somehow less prevalent in climate change studies than in Covid related studies? Doesn’t your own experience tell you that the climate change issue is rather more politicized then even Covid? Rich Kolm So, should I take it from your comment that you are assuming the "error rate" in climate change peer-reviewed published papers is 0.00006 percent? Please indicate how this impacts your view on the confidence level people should have in the thousands of peer reviewed papers that form a large part of the evidence for the IPCC's conclusions. Which papers do you think there can be credible doubts about, and how instrumental are those specific papers , given that there are many lines of evidence for AGW, not just one line of evidence? (As an aside, you have said that you've researched some of the older IPCC reports - have you seen the latest one, AR6, dated 2021 through to this year? The evidence they cite has increased and become much more statistically significant over the years) Rich Kolm You ask: "Do you have any evidence that weaponized research funding based on advancing bureaucratic narrative is somehow less prevalent in climate change studies than in Covid related studies?" I think the onus is on you to provide evidence that "weaponized research funding based on advancing bureaucratic narrative is ... prevalent in climate change studies". So far, you have provided virtually none. Just, in effect, a rumour or assumptions based on 121 faulty papers out of over 200 million papers spanning all scientific subjects. I'd call your argument extremely weak and sparsely evidenced. Not even presenting reasonable doubt. Unreasonable doubt, I suggest, unless you can come up with better evidence than you have done so far. Rich Kolm You ask: "Doesn’t your own experience tell you that the climate change issue is rather more politicized then even Covid?" My own experience tells me there are a disproportionate number of people dismissive of AGW who are vociferous on LinkedIn, compared to the proportion of dismissives in the general population (which is less than 10% in most countries). When I look at credible scientific work on climate change, there's a very small proportion of 'outlier' views, generally well researched and well expressed but often relying on calculations and/or variables that are well outside the statistically most likely ranges, eg as per IPCC reports. Those outlier views are often picked up by a small number of dismissives and delayers in the wider population and given much more prominence than they deserve, as they serve as the best "evidence" many of those dismissives can come up with to promote their anti-AGW tropes and trolling. (to be clear, I'm not suggesting this is what you are doing, or that you are one of the dismissives or trolls, although your comment "It may be.. some imbalance in the cycle of sequestering carbon. If that can be proven.." looks AGW-dismissive). David Calver The off the cuff number of .00006 percent is based on an error where you fail to account for the fact that 120 gibberish papers is from only two journals for a limited period. So no, I think that number is at least 5 or 6 orders of magnitude off based on my own experience. Of course that is no more rigorous than your .00006 percent. David Calver Oh, I think my argument was at least strong enough to get the more fanatic believer in establishment science to dig a bit deeper and see the offhand, dismissive lip service paid by the IPCC to one of the biggest omissions in their dataset. That would be the failure to present any credible estimate of total natural methane and petroleum emissions due to deep sea vents and cold seeps. I’ll bet you weren’t aware of that huge hole. So I’m quite happy that my work here has been productive. You’re welcome. Rich Kolm So, you are saying that I should not take it from your comment that you are assuming the "error rate" in climate change peer-reviewed published papers is 0.00006 percent. Fair enough, but you are not offering any data or view about what the error rate actually is, except "5 or 6 orders of magnitude off", which would suggest maybe 6%? That seems very high, and so would need some strong evidence to support it. So, you still haven't provided anything more than the flimsiest of evidence to support your views as expressed here, and even your own evidence cited is, by your own comment, 5 or 6 orders of magnitude less than your own estimate. The off the cuff number of .00006 percent is based on the only evidence you have so far provided. If you want to provide a number that is not off the cuff, then please do so. I'll watch with interest. Rich Kolm Please provide evidence supporting your repeated assertion of: "[the IPCC's] failure to present any credible estimate of total natural methane and petroleum emissions due to deep sea vents and cold seeps." I've already asked you for evidence to back up your claims on this, (ie that there are significant quantities of natural methane and petroleum emissions due to deep sea vents and cold seeps that are unrecognised and unaccounted for in the IPCC reports) and you've still failed to provide anything substantial in response. David Calver Whoa! I’d have to write a whole long list of your “You claim” statements to see if you have any credible evidence for all those claims you use to dismis (and dis) the “dismissives.” One of the most endearing traits of the neo-Marxist is the need to lump opponents into dismissively named groups. “Climate deniers, “Deplorables,” “Ant-Vaxxers”, and all the cultural ones like “Cisgender”,“Sexist” or the misogynistic “Breeder” or “Birthing person”. (Endearing, that is, until they start sending in the SWAT teams or elevate to “insurrectionists” and start the internment without trial.) But yes, I have a rather low opinion of the quality and integrity of establishment science and it’s sycophants. If that’s what you mean by AGW Dismissive, then drop my Hollerith card into that slot. (Not that I’m calling you a neo-Marxist scientism sycophant or suggesting you stray a bit much into passive aggressive ad hominem attacks.) Rich Kolm Part 1 of 2 There is also another way of looking at the matter of methane etc coming from seafloor vents and seeps - and that's to look at the 'human fingerprint' on the extra greenhouse gases building up in the atmosphere. Eg see this: https://skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-basic.htm and: https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm from which: "human CO2 emissions are the cause of this increase in atmospheric CO2. How do scientists know this? How can scientists be sure that the human CO2 emission (e.g., burning fossil fuels) is responsible for the increase of CO2 in atmosphere? It's not easy to prove an explanation is right, but it is easier to prove an explanation is wrong. Before coming to the conclusion that human CO2 is the cause, scientists have investigated other possible explanations, all of which have been ruled out by observational data. This section will list some of the theories, including the ocean one that is also mentioned in the myth..." Rich Kolm Part 2 of 2 https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm "Another human fingerprint: decreasing oxygen The decrease of atmospheric oxygen is an evidence indicating that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to combustion of fossil fuels. Burning fossil fuels takes gas and oxygen and produces CO2 and water. If human CO2 emissions are the major reason, atmospheric oxygen (O2) should decrease accordingly because of the consumption by chemical combustion. Just as we expected, O2 has been decreasing since we’ve started measuring oxygen levels in the atmosphere" Rich Kolm And if you are suggesting methane from under the sea is the main driver of recent climate change, think again. See: https://skepticalscience.com/methane-and-global-warming.htm "While methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. Hence the amount of warming methane contributes is 28% of the warming CO2 contributes." Furthermore, all major human and natural sources of methane have been analysed by the IPCC in arriving at their conclusions. You have provided no evidence that the IPCC has underestimated any of the natural sources, and the onus is on you to provide such evidence. If you did so, and your evidence was credible, you could make a name for yourself because it would be big, big news. Rich Kolm You asked about my experience of scientific papers, and I gave a view on my experiences here on LinkedIn. You then claimed I ""dismis (and dis) the “dismissives.”" I think you'll find that "AGW dismissives" is a well-recognised term, used widely in academic circles, and it is not of itself pejorative, and I for one don't use it pejoratively. However, it is also generally known that there is a small proportion of AGW dismissives who are vocal and active in spreading anti-AGW misinformation and disinformation propaganda. That is a fact, and it's difficult to engage with LinkedIn for any length of time on the topic of climate change without coming across numerous examples of misinformation / disinformation about AGW. For more about this, see: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-fight-misinformation-we-need-to-teach-that-science-is-dynamic/ and: https://medium.com/we-the-peoples/rampant-climate-disinformation-online-is-distorting-dangers-delaying-climate-action-375b5b11cf9b Rich Kolm and from Katharine Hayhoe: https://www.climateone.org/audio/katharine-hayhoe-why-we-need-talk-about-climate-change "... the negative voices are the loudest voices they come from a very small part of the population, 10% of the population is dismissive and of that 10% the vast majority of them lurk on the comment sections and on social media waiting to suck your time and energy like a black hole." Rich Kolm You say you have "a rather low opinion of the quality and integrity of establishment science ... drop my Hollerith card into that slot [of AGW Dismissive]" I think it might be that if (as appears to be the case) you dismiss essentially all of what you call "established science", then might you also fit into the category of "pseudoscience", from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial "Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions. Many who deny, dismiss, or hold unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming self-label as "climate change skeptics", which several scientists have noted is an inaccurate description. Climate change denial can also be implicit when individuals ... accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action. Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denial or denialism, pseudoscience, or propaganda." David Calver Pretty graphs with notes like this: “Average concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, measured in parts per million (ppm) from 803,719 BCE to 2018 (data source: NOAA)” are a great illustration of the problem. I can’t recall offhand who was the NOAA Administrator in 803,719 BC, do you? Though I do love the precision of that number. Seriously, do you really believe we can reliably determine the rate of oceanic C02 absorption in 800,000 BC? 8,000 BC? 1,000 AD? Stack enough sparse tree ring samples interpreted by enough climate change fanatics and you can prove we were all incinerated 50 years ago, or that cities were already pulverized by the advancing glaciers of a new ice age. This lack of credible historical data is important because whatever perturbation of energy flows human technology has created will be subject to the same mitigating factors that much larger historical changes like super volcanoes triggered in the past. I don’t deny that humans increased the rate of C02 flow or that there could be some warming effect, only that the natural flows of hydrocarbons and energy are grossly underestimated meaning the case for high negative impacts from climate change is not proven. Rich Kolm You say: "I don’t deny that humans increased the rate of C02 flow or that there could be some warming effect, only that the natural flows of hydrocarbons and energy are grossly underestimated" But you've provided no evidence to support that view about natural flows of hydrocarbons. You suggest: "whatever perturbation of energy flows human technology has created will be subject to the same mitigating factors that much larger historical changes like super volcanoes triggered in the past." That is a version of the popular anti-AGW trope "Climate has changed before", rebutted here: https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm You use the single-cause fallacy, which doesn't recognise that while natural drivers of climate exist and will continue, human activities are the main drivers of recent warming (which you appear to be denying). We can act to reduce the human warming, even if we will still be subject to ongoing natural variations - as indicated in IPCC reports. Rich Kolm You indicate your view about "lack of credible historical data". But you seem to be in denial about all the scientific data that there is, which includes robust observational data from the last few decades as well as longer-term proxy data from sources such as tree rings, ice cores etc. It's true that proxy data is not as good as more recent observational data. However, it is misinformation to suggest that this means we cannot place credence in the scientific work that has been done on analysing the various types of data, and the conclusions drawn in places such as IPCC reports. Climate change is probably the most studied and analysed phenomenon in human history. If you don't accept the established scientific consensus on this, then there are many more aspects of modern life, surely, that you would logically doubt, eg modern medicine, powered flight, safety of nuclear power, to name a few (humour). Are there any I've missed? Rich Kolm Talking of Hollerith cards, I remember using similar cards when I was at school learning about computing. Had to mark up cards using pencil markings for programming. That takes me back ... the amount of time it took (and the number of cards, in stacks) to get a computer to do very simple tasks. How far we've come in just one generation ... David Calver The benefit if flight is easy to experimentally verify. Modern medicine not so much. You missed the food pyramid v1. You know, the one that caused all that heart disease. (slight exaggeration). “Scientific consensus” i understand to be an oxymoron. Science is a process or way of thinking, not a body of dogmatic knowledge. “Climate change” may have had a lot effort devoted to analyzing and modeling the available data but not so much to increasing the quantity and quality of data collected. As you pointed out, the IPCC barely waves at the problem of reliably measuring the output of undersea vents and cold seeps. And that is just one of the gaps in defining production of hydrocarbons without exploring the gaps in consumption. This illustrates the difficulty of “the climate” as a topic of study. Basically it requires mastery of all of physics, all of chemistry, all of biology, all of geology, etc., etc. Before modeling the climate as all the collected phenomena of the earth’s surface and the atmosphere, it would be good to agree on a model of the earth’s formation and the origins of hydrocarbons. Until we have that, we don’t know what data to collect, much less how to extrapolate from models. David Calver You quote “there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere…warming methane contributes is 28% of the warming CO2 contributes." You say “Furthermore, all major human and natural sources of methane have been analysed by the IPCC” Taking the last one first, what is your infallible source for what are “all major human and natural sources” and how to collect a representative sample of data? Even the IPCC admits they don’t know what comes out of deep sea vents. The same is true of volcanic activity under ice. We just don’t know. The statement about methane and C02 is curious since methane breaks down in the atmosphere to form C02 and water. So methane contributes all the warming from methane and much of the warming from C02 and H20 as well, to the extent radiative trapping actually causes any warming. Radiative trapping not being magical, or anything, it is also accurate to say that methane contributes much of the cooling from C02 and H20. Clearing your mind of Al Gore’s misinformation cartoon, the actual model for the interaction of all the effects of the interaction between trace atmospheric gases and radiation is fiendishly complex and probably beyond our power to model and extrapolate. Not usable for proof. David Calver Yeah, Hollerith cards. Learning the hard way that you had better print sequence numbers on each card for that terrible moment when you or the operator dropped the whole box heading for the card reader. Still made refactoring a nightmare until they let us load, edit online, and then print the whole deck. The days of Hollerith cards and climate modelers predicting another ice age (oh yes they did!). To be young again. Rich Kolm The gist of your most recent argument is as follows: "Basically it requires mastery of all of physics, all of chemistry, all of biology, all of geology, etc., etc. Before modeling the climate as all the collected phenomena of the earth’s surface and the atmosphere, it would be good to agree on a model of the earth’s formation and the origins of hydrocarbons. Until we have that, we don’t know what data to collect, much less how to extrapolate from models" That's essentially an argument of impossible expectations: For more about that fallacy, see: https://skepticalscience.com/history-FLICC-5-techniques-science-denial.html Climate models are getting better all the time, and they are good enough to provide a sound basis for policy decisions. See: https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/climate-models-reliably-project-future-conditions#:~:text=Climate%20models%20have%20gotten%20better,temperatures%20in%20the%20decades%20ahead. Rich Kolm You ask for "infallible source... ". That continues your fallacy of impossible expectations. You suggest: "the actual model for the interaction of all the effects of the interaction between trace atmospheric gases and radiation is fiendishly complex and probably beyond our power to model and extrapolate. Not usable for proof" Those interactions are what many climate scientists have been studying for decades, and they have shown that they are able to successfully model those interactions. Because of that complexity, which goes beyond my own expertise, I look to credible scientists to provide their best estimates of the impacts of GHGs on global warming. Their work is reflected in IPCC reports. The IPCC concludes: "Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming" Does your expertise enable you to speak with authority about climate modelling? If not, what scientific experts can you cite to support your views on this subject? Rich Kolm You claim: "Even the IPCC admits they don’t know what comes out of deep sea vents. The same is true of volcanic activity under ice." Please provide references (and ideally direct IPCC quotes) to support those claims. Rich Kolm You suggest: "The days of Hollerith cards and climate modelers predicting another ice age..." I think you might be referring to the small number of researchers who projected cooling in the 1970s. That's another fact that is taken out of context and blown out of proportion by many anti-AGW dismissives. That piece of misinformation is debunked here: https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm Rich Kolm You suggest: "As you pointed out, the IPCC barely waves at the problem of reliably measuring the output of undersea vents and cold seeps." Please provide a direct quote of what I've said that you are talking about there, as you have most certainly misrepresented what I said, and what I was conveying. Rich Kolm You say: "“Scientific consensus” i understand to be an oxymoron. Science is a process or way of thinking". You are right, technically. However, scientific consensus is a pragmatic and justifiable way of dealing with complex topics such as climate change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change#:~:text=The%20current%20scientific%20consensus%20is,and%20severity%20of%20global%20effects. The scientific consensus on climate change is even stronger than the often-quoted 97%. It's now over 99%. Eg see: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966 Anti-AGW dismissives, delayers and propagandists often try to attack the idea of scientific consensus, because they know that successfully doing so would take away a strong plank of scientific work supporting AGW. Rich Kolm You suggest: "we should not impoverish the working people of the earth pursuing radical energy policies based on bad science and exaggerated fears." Firstly, that is hyperbole and fear-mongering. Secondly, it is unsubstantiated by anything you've said. You've provided essentially zero scientific evidence to support your claims on this matter and many other claims you have added in subsequent comments in this thread. Thirdly, some researchers are suggesting acting on unsustainability, including tackling AGW, can be GDP-positive. Eg see Ekins and Zenghelis "The costs and benefits of environmental sustainability" (2021), so it might well be a win-win to tackle AGW without disadvantaging working people around the world. David Calver Your last point about tackling AGW in a GDP positive way goes to the heart of the problem. You don’t need to try to convince me since I’m watching the proof of the contrary in places like the UK and Germany, (all of Europe except Finland really). You need to convince people like the African nations that are busy buying up coal fired power plants from China. They know from experience that tackling AGW means poverty and famine for them. Don’t ask me for the evidence, just get your head out of the IPCC sand and observe the reality around you. The Russians and the Saudis would be good to convince as well, since they clearly understand the true science of hydrocarbon abundance which you and the IPCC do not. Wake up. Rich Kolm Your comment "Don’t ask me for the evidence" goes to the heart of the difficulty in placing any credence on your comments. Most people want to see some evidence to back up extreme claims made by people on places like LinkedIn, for example when you use hyperbole and fear-mongering strawman arguments such as: "we should not impoverish the working people of the earth pursuing radical energy policies based on bad science and exaggerated fears." If you're not prepared to produce any evidence at all to support the views you express and the claims and statements you make, then all you're doing is spreading rumour, misinformation and fear. Your final comment is just discourteous, where you say: "The Russians and the Saudis would be good to convince as well, since they clearly understand the true science of hydrocarbon abundance which you and the IPCC do not. Wake up." It's ironic you talk about "the true science of hydrocarbon abundance" since you categorise yourself as someone dismissive of the science behind AGW. David Calver So I take you will deny that Europe is switching back to hydrocarbon and nuclear power sources, unless somebody with a PhD writes a paper to that effect? Or are you denying that China is building coal plants and both installing them in China and selling them to African countries? Do you need a peer reviewed paper to tell you that? The IPCC that you have such regard for represents the somewhat contradictory viewpoint that hydrocarbons are scarce and, because they are scarce, a small, short term increase of hydrocarbon extraction by humans is likely to cause catostrophic results. This encompasses the remnants of the thoroughly discredited “peak oil” narrative and the radical environmental shibboleth that humans are a curse and burden on the earth and human activities are not part of Nature. I don’t dismiss you or the IPCC PhD horde at all. I wouldn’t be reading all your posts and thoughtfully responding if I was dismissive. I believe most of you are sincere and well meaning, but also a threat to the human freedom and prosperity from the hydrocarbon based industrial revolution. The part of the picture that the IPCC pays attention to is not all wrong about the planetary hydrocarbon cycle but it is grossly incomplete. Rich Kolm You claim: "The IPCC that you have such regard for represents the somewhat contradictory viewpoint that hydrocarbons are scarce and, because they are scarce, a small, short term increase of hydrocarbon extraction by humans is likely to cause catostrophic results." I haven't said anything about my "regard" for the IPCC. Please don't misrepresent my views on the IPCC. re your claim that the "IPCC ... contradictory viewpoint that hydrocarbons are scarce" please provide some evidence to support that claim (ideally, a direct quote from the IPCC), as (on your track record) this might well be more rumour-spreading on your part. Re your comment, which you again attribute to being an IPCC view that "a small, short term increase of hydrocarbon extraction by humans is likely to cause catostrophic results" (as you put it), please provide some evidence to support that claim (ideally, a direct quote from the IPCC), as (on your track record) this might well be yet more rumour-spreading on your part, as well as a strawman argument. Rich Kolm You repeat what appears to be your central assertion that: "The part of the picture that the IPCC pays attention to is not all wrong about the planetary hydrocarbon cycle but it is grossly incomplete", But, yet again, you offer no evidence to support that assertion. You say that : "... you or the IPCC PhD horde ... a threat to the human freedom and prosperity from the hydrocarbon based industrial revolution." That is a personal comment that is unnecessary, stereotyping, discourteous and unsubstantiated with any evidence, as you haven't provided any. It shows you have descended to the lower levels in the Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. Please ascend the layers. Rich Kolm Re your assertion of: "the thoroughly discredited “peak oil” narrative" It is countered by evidence here from Carbon Brief, based on numbers from BP, "Analysis: World has already passed ‘peak oil’, BP figures reveal" (2020): https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-world-has-already-passed-peak-oil-bp-figures-reveal/ Your comment that: "the radical environmental shibboleth that humans are a curse and burden on the earth and human activities are not part of Nature" is a new tangent, more stereotyping and a hyperbolic rhetorical direction in your discourse that is likely to be divisive rather than lead to sensible discussion. Rich Kolm Your following comment is clearly a form of goading, and in the context of this discussion provides further evidence you have descended to the lower levels of the Graham's Hoerarchy of Disagreement: "I take you will deny that Europe is switching back to hydrocarbon and nuclear power sources, unless somebody with a PhD writes a paper to that effect? Or are you denying that China is building coal plants and both installing them in China and selling them to African countries? Do you need a peer reviewed paper to tell you that?" It will be obvious to readers that the works of people with PhDs are not the only sources of valid, credible evidence. You're using a strawman argument, worked into something resembling a personal insult. If you want further dialogue with me, please ascend the layers of the Graham's Hierarchy. Your comment: "Europe is switching back to hydrocarbon and nuclear power sources... China is building coal plants and... selling them to African countries" lacks sufficient context to make a meaningful response. Please say more to clarify what you want to say about these matters, and how they relate to AGW and global net zero. Rich Kolm Re the EU, attached from Net Zero Tracker shows that the EU is making good progress towards net zero. It doesn't have sufficient concrete plans yet, and short-term shocks such as the Russian war in Ukraine are having an impact, but the overall direction of travel is clear. You mention Russia, Saudi Arabia, China and Africa. There are many challenges achieving global net zero, and it will ultimately require all major emitters, and potentially large future emitters, to join in with decarbonisation. It will help when all realise that net zero can be done in GDP-positive ways, in all countries (as per Ekins and Zenghelis) and therefore it is not a matter of either-or (ie trade-offs between tackling AGW and tackling inequalities and poverty), but "and-also". That's why the UNFCCC CoP process is important and we should all support such efforts. Not only does the process cover decarbonisation, but it also covers "loss and damages" to help poorer countries to decarbonise as well.  Rich Kolm Counterevidence below to rebut your claims about hydrocarbons from geothermal vents and cold seeps. Note from IPCC AR6 WG1 (2021) page 701: “Methane has large emissions from natural and anthropogenic origins… The largest natural sources are from wetlands, freshwater and geological process[es], while the largest anthropogenic emissions are from enteric fermentation and manure treatment, landfills and waste treatment, rice cultivation and fossil fuel exploitation (Table 5.2). In the past two centuries, CH4 emissions have nearly doubled, predominantly human driven since 1900, and persistently exceeded the losses (virtually certain), thereby increasing the atmospheric abundance as evidenced from the ice core and firn air measurements (Ferretti et al., 2005; Ghosh et al., 2015).” “geological processes” include ocean floor geothermal vents and cold seeps. The IPCC go on to say (on page 701): “This section discusses both bottom-up and top-down estimates of emissions and sinks. Bottom-up estimates are based on empirical upscaling of point measurements, emissions inventories and dynamical model simulations, while top-down estimates refer to those constrained by atmospheric measurements and chemistry transport models in inversion systems. Since AR5, a larger suite of atmospheric inversions using both in situ and remote sensing measurement have led to better understanding of the regional CH4 [ie methane] sources (Cross-Chapter Box 5.2). New ice core measurements of 14C-CH4 are used for estimating the geological sources of CH4 (Table 5.2).” Also from IPCC AR6 WG1 (2021) - page 704: “All geological sources around the world, including the coastal oceans and fjords, are estimated to emit CH4 in the range of 35–76 Tg yr–1 (Etiope et al., 2019). There is evidence that the ventilation of geological CH4 is likely to be smaller than 15 Tg yr–1 (Petrenko et al., 2017; Hmiel et al., 2020).” Rich Kolm IPCC AR6 references Petrenko “Minimal geological methane emissions during the Younger Dryas–Preboreal abrupt warming event” (2017): “Natural geological emissions (fossil methane vented naturally from marine and terrestrial seeps and mud volcanoes) are thought to contribute around 52 teragrams of methane per year to the global methane source, about 10 per cent of the total, but both bottom-up methods (measuring emissions) and top-down approaches (measuring atmospheric mole fractions and isotopes) for constraining these geological emissions have been associated with large uncertainties. Here we use ice core measurements to quantify the absolute amount of radiocarbon-containing methane (14CH4) in the past atmosphere and show that geological methane emissions were no higher than 15.4 teragrams per year (95 per cent confidence), averaged over the abrupt warming event that occurred between the Younger Dryas and Preboreal intervals, approximately 11,600 years ago. Assuming that past geological methane emissions were no lower than today, our results indicate that current estimates of today’s natural geological methane emissions (about 52 teragrams per year) are too high... our measurements suggest that large future atmospheric releases of methane from old carbon sources are unlikely to occur. ” Rich Kolm You ask: "The graphics are beautifully executed and the science-like language covers the sweeping assertions of completeness quite effectively. I’m still curious about how anybody claims to have credible estimates of the hydrocarbon emissions from the majority of the earth’s surface under the seas.Do you see any evidence that somebody snuck in a massive attempt to actually survey the entire seabed, especially the thousands of miles of geologically active zones where tectonic plates meet? I think not." That is another argument of impossible expectations. Fortunately, the papers referenced by the IPCC use both bottom-up and top-down methods, reconciled to each other, to provide reasonable estimates of methane from geological sources. Do you have equivalent scientific evidence to counter the results of the work in Petrenko (2017)? Rich Kolm Your claim of "sweeping assertions of completeness" is another argument/ fallacy of impossible expectations, and a misrepresentation of either my words or the words of the IPCC (you don't make it clear which it is).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
