Re: Emissions abatement & Cooling Earth's Albedo 1998–2017 as Measured From Earthshine P. R. Goode, E. Pallé, A. Shoumko, S. Shoumko, P. Montañes-Rodriguez, S. E. Koonin First published: 29 August 2021

[Douglas Grandt]

Robert,

Sorry I overlooked your initial request until seeing it at the top of these responses just now.

Clive wrote:

There you have it then Ye, popular global climate policy is determined by people who are ignorant of the salient facts.

Along the lines of Clive’s response, I discovered a paper just a few days before my May 1st presentation for a coalition of a variety of environmental groups in Ulster County, New York.

Earth's Albedo 1998–2017 as Measured From Earthshine 

P. R. Goode, E. Pallé, A. Shoumko, S. Shoumko, P. Montañes-Rodriguez, S. E. Koonin 

First published: 29 August 2021 - https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL094888

I found a place for it at the beginning (slides 14-17)*

Yesterday, I spend a good amount of time pondering and preparing to draft a response to Bill McKibben, and this seems to me to be a fundamental fact that would undermine any resistance to artificially brightening the earth: Earthshine as measured on the dark side of the moon declined about 25% from 1998 to 2017. That ain’t normal, so why not do all we can to compensate for the lost albedo?

The slide show was recorded, but there were technical issues which led me to record it after the fact … which gave me the opportunity to add additional BREAKING news and papers. (Dress rehearsal after dress rehearsal with new slides added and removed to keep it to 30 minutes … it is a but rough in spots and has a few verbal typos … but It’s history, having been shared with the group ... and I won’t attempt to iron out the wrinkles.

Cheers!

Doug Grandt

* Slides 14-17 from Bit.ly/DougsMayDay summarize the key points

Slide 14

Slide 15

Slide 16

Slide 17

On Nov 24, 2022, at 9:01 AM, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Tom

Where are your remarks leading?  Suicide or insurrection?  I'm looking for the action plan.

Regards

Robert 

On 24/11/2022 13:59, Tom Goreau wrote:

Long term solutions are of no interest to those whose myopia can only see as far as the next election or coup.

 

From: Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 5:01 PM
To: Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>, Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>, Clive Elsworth<cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>, healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Emissions abatement & Cooling

Tom

Aha!  'Almost' and 'most' are the key weasel words here.  They mean we have you use our discretion to distinguish between the good, the bad and the ugly. 

The crucial point is that the key decision makers are not academics deeply entrenched in the quest for 'truth', they are politicians who acquire their positions of power for many different reasons, but adherence to scientific methods is rarely one of them.  If we want to get them to do what we think is right we have to present stuff in ways that will appeal to them.  The problem is that what appeals to most politicians is what keeps them in power now , and that's not necessarily what's going to prevent a climate catastrophe a few decades from now.  In a sentence, that's why we are where we are on climate change!  In a second sentence, that's why we should brace ourselves for challenging times ahead because politicians are generally reactive and by the time they react decisively, it'll be too late.

As I've said on many occasions before, the trick is to die before this house of cards reaches the final phase of its rapid collapse, or not be born until a new equilibrium has established itself.  The in-between period will be pretty unpleasant, but some of our kids and grandkids will see it through and start afresh on the other side - I hope!

Regards

Robert 

On 24/11/2022 11:52, Ye Tao wrote:

That is exactly why it is important to review entire fields, to both determine trends within a field and to cross-check across fields, for a more global, coherent model of the world.  Both published and non-peer reviewed preliminary data need to be taken into consideration

People promoting the narrative that net-zero leads to only slight overshoot in temperature rely on less than a handful of computational studies.

Ye

On 11/24/2022 6:13 AM, Tom Goreau wrote:

Do you actually think that all peer-reviewed papers are true, and all non-peer reviewed articles false?

 

I think almost all scientists know that most “peer-reviewed” papers are frankly toilet paper that reflect only someone’s need for promotion rather than fundamental contributions to knowledge, and to say otherwise is to create a false mystique.

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Clive Elsworth<cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>
Date: Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 2:12 PM
To: Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>, healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Emissions abatement & Cooling

There you have it then Ye, popular global climate policy is determined by people who are ignorant of the salient facts.

  

Clive

On 24/11/2022 07:44 GMT Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote: 

  

  

Most people do not read peer-reviewed papers.

Ye

On 11/24/2022 2:16 AM, Clive Elsworth wrote:

Hi Robert 

 

Did you get any peer reviewed articles on the need for cooling by albedo enhancement?

 

It seems to me that given the numerous peer-reviewed papers that indicate the large contribution of most aerosols to negative radiative forcing, it should be self evident. However this is clearly not the case for most people. That is a puzzle I’m at a loss to explain. 

 

Clive

On 21/11/2022 18:22 GMT Robert Chris<robert...@gmail.com> wrote: 

 

 

I am writing a piece that seeks to explain why net zero will not deliver sufficient cooling to avert some of the dangerous consequences of anthropogenic emissions.

I'd be really grateful if those on these two lists could each point me to the one or two pieces of peer reviewed research that they think most convincingly justifies the claim that cooling is now essential.

I am keen to distinguish between

a) the argument that cooling is necessary because atmospheric GHGs can't feasibly be reduced by any combination of emissions abatement and GGR soon enough to bring surface temperature under control.  We might call this the limits of human capacity argument. and 

b) the argument that cooling is necessary because even if we got to net zero by 2050 or soon thereafter, the continuing warming effect of past emissions would be sufficient to precipitate many of the feared negative climate impacts.  We might call this the constraints of nature's response argument.

No long responses, please.  Just the citations of the favoured papers or links to them.

Regards

Robert 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group. 
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com. 
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/eb938960-eb8a-5c96-9059-b8d0d4986708%40gmail.com. 
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

[H simmens]

 http://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2022/11/24/cleaning-the-augean-stables-part-i/ 


This engaging commentary on peer review in the medical literature came out today. I suspect the observations and proposed remedy described below would apply to earth science as well:

“Here  is what Richard Horton, long-time editor of the Lancet, has to say of peer-review.

‘The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.’

Or this quote from Richard Smith, discussing Drummond Rennie:

‘If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market,' says Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of the Journal Of the American Medical Association and intellectual father of the international congresses of peer review that have been held every four years since 1989. Peer review would not get onto the market because we have no convincing evidence of its benefits but a lot of evidence of its flaws.’ ³  

“Journal editors should make their own decisions about what should and should not be published, based on how interesting and valuable it seems, then publish. Do not hide behind shadowy peer-reviewers, who have their own agendas to pursue.

At which point you use the Internet for what it is good at. Get a bloody good discussion going. Make the article free to view, for anyone, for the first two or three months – or longer. Invite a broad scientific audience to get involved.

Make it easy for people to attack it or praise it. Hit the upvote button. There are very many, very smart people out there. If they can’t find a problem with a paper, fine. If they can, get the authors to argue their case. Publish the best responses. Expose the discussion to the world. Pull the paper, if needed. Slap various addendums on it, such as ‘readers should note that this paper is a steaming pile of…’”

On that not very appetizing note may everyone celebrating the holiday have a wonderful Thanksgiving  

Herb

Herb Simmens

Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

@herbsimens

On Nov 24, 2022, at 9:40 AM, 'Douglas Grandt' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Robert,

Sorry I overlooked your initial request until seeing it at the top of these responses just now.

Clive wrote:

There you have it then Ye, popular global climate policy is determined by people who are ignorant of the salient facts.

Along the lines of Clive’s response, I discovered a paper just a few days before my May 1st presentation for a coalition of a variety of environmental groups in Ulster County, New York.

Earth's Albedo 1998–2017 as Measured From Earthshine 

P. R. Goode, E. Pallé, A. Shoumko, S. Shoumko, P. Montañes-Rodriguez, S. E. Koonin 

First published: 29 August 2021 - https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL094888

I found a place for it at the beginning (slides 14-17)*

Yesterday, I spend a good amount of time pondering and preparing to draft a response to Bill McKibben, and this seems to me to be a fundamental fact that would undermine any resistance to artificially brightening the earth: Earthshine as measured on the dark side of the moon declined about 25% from 1998 to 2017. That ain’t normal, so why not do all we can to compensate for the lost albedo?

The slide show was recorded, but there were technical issues which led me to record it after the fact … which gave me the opportunity to add additional BREAKING news and papers. (Dress rehearsal after dress rehearsal with new slides added and removed to keep it to 30 minutes … it is a but rough in spots and has a few verbal typos … but It’s history, having been shared with the group ... and I won’t attempt to iron out the wrinkles.

Cheers!

Doug Grandt

* Slides 14-17 from Bit.ly/DougsMayDay summarize the key points

Slide 14

Slide 15

Slide 16

Slide 17

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/7D10C375-4DC7-455C-811C-88BC6C953184%40mac.com.

[Robert Chris]

Regards

Robert