Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
aupda  comment unforced  comment  killian  mali aupda  mali  nov  radical  unforced variations  unforced  variations nov  variations 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments for RealClimate

Comments for RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

Last Build Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 14:50:59 +0000


Comment on Unforced variations: Nov 2017 by mike

Fri, 17 Nov 2017 14:50:59 +0000

per CarbonBrief weekly briefing: "Carbon Brief’s analysis of the GCP’s latest data includes a video interview with report co-author Dr Glen Peters, recorded on Monday at the COP straight after the press conference. He explained to us how much of the slowdown in the growth of global emissions in recent years has been driven by a combination of reductions in the US and China, as well as relatively little growth in emissions in other countries. However, this changed in 2017, with little-to-no reductions in US emissions and a sizable increase in Chinese emissions. The growth in emissions from 2016 to 2017 also more than doubled in the rest of the world." Maybe 2017 is a blip. Maybe most countries will make major reductions in emissions in 2018 and every year after. 2017 might be the peak, then global emissions will start falling like a rock. It's what we need to do, so we will probably get on it bigtime in 2018. MAR at 161: says " (Weak El Nino are now in place in the Pacific with..." pretty sure you meant La Nina conditions. That is the way I read it in any case. Lots of animals disappearing and trying to extinctivize themselves. More planet for us tough survivors! Future is bright! Cheers Mike

Comment on Unforced variations: Nov 2017 by Killian

Fri, 17 Nov 2017 13:28:45 +0000

#165 Mal #1. Bullcrap. It's a concept that existed long before the voodoo of economics was born. It's called sharing. Stop pretending White Europeans invented everything. There are people on this planet who never stopped living via a Commons. Get simple, people, or lose it all.

Comment on Unforced variations: Nov 2017 by zebra

Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:39:02 +0000

Mal Adapted #165, I already have endorsed the plan-- more than once. But, reading through your reference with respect to support from the Right...meh. A small percentage of those with any influence appear to offer a my-way-or-the-highway choice of the tax in exchange for eliminating regulation. I can go along with a non-zero probability of getting it passed, in an effective (all-of-the-above) context, but that non-zero isn't much to pin one's hopes on. With respect to your point 1: Yes, unpacking is what I am talking about. Reading through carefully even just the Wikipedia articles on TOC and CPR, my position is not some outlier arising from ignorance. From the CPR page:
Common property systems typically function at a local level to prevent the overexploitation of a resource system from which fringe units can be extracted. In some cases, government regulations combined with tradable environmental allowances (TEAs) are used successfully to prevent excessive pollution, whereas in other cases — especially in the absence of a unique government being able to set limits and monitor economic activities — excessive use or pollution continue.
(my bold) Along with the lack of that unique government, we need to face the fact that climate is not fish. So, the kinds of agreements that operate to prevent violent conflicts at sea are way more difficult to achieve, because the consequences of polluting the atmosphere with CO2 are not uniform. Some governments may, in some time frame that matters to them, accrue a net benefit from climate change, particularly if combined with selling/exploiting their FF. That simply doesn't fit with the commons paradigm. Sorry if you don't want to continue. I try to put in the effort of reading carefully and looking at your references before refuting your arguments. Well, maybe that's the problem.:)

Comment on Unforced variations: Nov 2017 by patrick

Fri, 17 Nov 2017 09:44:57 +0000

@137 drfog: > "someone that blatantly denies reality" The fault is in the blatancy--as seen in the willful ignorance of climate denialism which is so well-funded and so rampant. > "in private does the opposite of what he/she acknowledges publicly" This is a moral slur against Merkel, because it's made up. It's innuendo and association. It's false. The imagined hypocrisy isn't there. The spin you propagate about Merkel has more to do with negotiations on the next democratic coalition in the GDR--which, Merkel observed yesterday, is "difficult but worth continuing"--than with her energy outlook. The fact that she has to negotiate with coal interests-and-sentiment doesn't mean she's two-faced, it means she's real. As world leaders go Merkel is a model of transparency and a practiced consensus builder. Ditto, the German energy plan. What matters most is the rate of change towards renewables in the energy profile. Germany is a leader. The biggest hurdle to understanding the German energy mix is the German phase-out to ZERO nuclear by 2022, a huge move. It is not a recognized renewable because it involves mining a commodity fuel. Plus, it has serious trouble and costs of never-ending remediation with both mine tailings and waste. The German recycling effort, on all sides, is far more determined than here. Ditto, the focus on designing-out waste in the first place. Which is one result of long experience with coal. It's the total package that counts and Merkel is playing the long game. Merkel is open about the coal problem in an effort to build public sentiment for coal cuts OR for buying international credits or allowances. Hard. Moral failing by Merkel? Not. Now compare that to someone who insists against all evidence that coal is not a problem.

Comment on Unforced variations: Nov 2017 by Killian

Fri, 17 Nov 2017 07:11:24 +0000

#156 Thomas said that's an opinion by way of defending an opinion. Tell me, collective wisdom, what would happen if the world chose to cut off the U.S.? Correct: World war. However, there are two more salient points: The U.S. election being re-run has a better chance of happening. Two, you CANNOT isolate a huge swath of the remperate part of the planet and get anywhere close to sustainability. A "What if?" that is utterly pointless. Seriously, not one of your projected outcomes has any chance of occuring.

Comment on Unforced variations: Nov 2017 by patrick

Fri, 17 Nov 2017 05:26:47 +0000

The earth map has a chemistry and particulates mode. If it was there since day one I missed it. For particulates, select size on the "Overlay."

Comment on Unforced variations: Nov 2017 by Killian

Thu, 16 Nov 2017 23:58:52 +0000

#66 Mitch said @158. The study has some serious flaws. It assumes that all sites have been buried to the same depth, which they are not, and then assumes an average geothermal gradient to calculate an exchange with the carbonate test. If their model were correct, deeply buried sites would show much higher apparent temperatures than shallow-buried sites. This doesn’t happen. In addition, the paper ignores corroborating temperatures achieved using different proxy methods than oxygen isotopes, including the distribution of tropical and subtropical fossils. Thanks, Mitch. If it does have merit, or at least some merit, what would the implications be? I can't see how it much matters today, but it is supposed to.

Comment on Unforced variations: Nov 2017 by Killian

Thu, 16 Nov 2017 23:50:19 +0000

As they say in Korean, mali aupda. Nonsense, It is a fool who over and over insults and misrepresents something they literally have no knowledge of. Let's take this mali aupda word salad one piece at a time. The other alternative is some sort of very radical cuts to consumption Radical can mean large, but we all know this fool thinks the cuts that resource limits, pollution, rates of climate change and population growth *require* are radical in the sense of radical change, radical politics, radical terrorism, etc. Imagine if you were on that plane in the Andes or in Donner Pass. What is radical? The necessary redefines the radical. The only way this mali auptda speaker can use such unintelligent statements is because 1. you all let him without consequence and 2. he knows nothing. Know-nothings should not dominate a science-based message board. Even the simplest analysis shows these words (mal) to be empty (aupda) nonsense: Every doubling in a sequence equals all that came before. This is why being at or past 50% of so many resources (oceans are 90% or more depleted) is so dangerous. It means time is up. Continuing such behaviors will cause a collapse of the system. But this mali aupda spouter thinks suggesting dramatic cuts in consumption is somehow "radical." and shared ownership. Best of luck with that! Despite shared ownership existing all over the planet, even with some true Commonses, it's some sort of fantasy? Mali aupda. And humans simply will not act to preserve themselves, ever. Brilliant. Mali aupda. Sounds unjustified Sounds? How very scientific. Mali aupda. doomed to failure Any number of resources, including virtually the entire contents of the oceans, are severely depleted already, but people will continue to use them as they do now, or some level above "radical" cuts in consumption.... because? Mali aupda. and like a form of self punishment, almost self flaggelation. Let me get this straight. If one is walking across a desert, is halfway there and has used 90% of their water, they should ignore this, treat suggestions to cut back as radical nonsense, and head full speed into dying of dehydration. To deny oneself the same level of consumption is not wise, is not necessary for survival, but is mere self-flagellation. Mali aupda.

Comment on Unforced variations: Nov 2017 by Kevin McKinney

Thu, 16 Nov 2017 23:35:44 +0000

Killian @ #152: Killian: Actually, we really can. And, in a very real sense, will do exactly that, some suddenly, some slowly, but all will. Well, we're all going to die sometime, if that's what you mean. But if you recall, the context was 'we can do this next week.' And no, 'we' can't, for the most part. Most of us are dependent upon our existing employment, and hence upon available means of transport to get there. Some means are greener, some less so. But while changing these methods can literally happen overnight sometimes, it usually takes a while to get to 'that' particular night. Killian: Or you can keep pretending the conditions and risk don’t drive the change and we all leisurely change as we wish, regardless the real world and sane risk assessment. I have no idea why you think I'm 'pretending' that, or anything else. My experience is that restructuring your life takes time and thought. Not infrequently, it takes financing of some sort, too. (Restructuring our social life, writ large, ain't a piece of cake, either.) If you have concrete suggestions, I'm all ears.

Comment on Unforced variations: Nov 2017 by Killian

Thu, 16 Nov 2017 21:43:33 +0000

#147 nigelj said Mal Adapted is exactly right to bring climate debate back to tragedy of commons issues Bring it back? When had it ever left? This is the core of it all: Maladaptive consumption. I'm developing a climate comedy for TV: Nigel! Dont let the perfect be the enemy of the good. First episode. The Good, The Perfect and the Necessary. I.e., These issues are about neither the good nor the perfect, but the necessary. Not being a designer of any sort, you cling to the delusion this is about choice. Nature does not care what you *think,* she does, and we mitigate and adapt. Second Episode: How to completely ignore Boundary Conditions and Risk: Nigel Swims withe Sharks and Crocs! The other alternative is some sort of very radical cuts to consumption and shared ownership. Best of luck with that! Sounds unjustified, doomed to failure, and like a form of self punishment, almost self flaggelation. This will be fun, but out of time. Later!