Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
china  comment unforced  comment  fertility  oct  sept  unforced variations  unforced  variations oct  variations  ºc ºc  ºc 
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: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 23:58:02 +0000


Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by Thomas

Tue, 17 Oct 2017 23:58:02 +0000

143 Killian .... spot on ....

Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by Thomas

Tue, 17 Oct 2017 23:50:04 +0000

#166 Hank re "Mitigating global warming therefore remains a priority to avoid dangerous impacts on global water and food security." Ha, in their dreams maybe. Not going to happen in the real world upon planet Earth. Merely more unheard unheeded voices crying in the wilderness.

Comment on O Say Can You CO2… by d helfrich

Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:06:57 +0000

Barry #17: The "reduction" is in reference to the gross primary production (GPP) of vegetation, which is a carbon absorption process, or sink. A reduction a carbon sink's intake of Carbon via photosynthesis amounts to an increase in the carbon dioxide burden in the atmosphere.

Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by alan2102

Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:37:44 +0000

#146 zebra 14 Oct 2017: "The default state for humans reaping the benefits of technology and technological exploitation of resources is a stable or declining birth rate... my bottom line is that it should be possible to “nudge” things in that direction using inputs that do not add to fossil fuel consumption." Except that in China, fertility fell off a cliff during a time (60s/70s) when there was almost NO technological exploitation of resources of the sort you probably mean. Hell, GDP per capita was still in the low hundreds, $U.S.! And oil production and consumption were at near-trivial levels, relative to today: Roughly the same happened in India, though the curves are less dramatic, fertility declining more smoothly over several decades. But still, very low per capita GDP. So, my bottom line is: YES, it is quite possible to get fertility down a great deal with very little fossil fuel consumption, and a very low general level of development, relative to the West. It might be possible with almost no fossil fuel consumption at all, as the renewables buildout continues. I am thinking of Africa and its vast renewable energy potential. The demographic transition clearly does NOT depend on modern first-world development status, great wealth and income, etc. I used to think (and I was in lots of company) that per capita GDP was a good-enough proxy for all the developmental-progress indicators that are associated with lower fertility, and that the demographic transition is something that happens as incomes rise from hundreds to thousands ($U.S.) per year. However, a closer examination of the stats for India and especially China reveal that that is not really so. China's big demographic transition happened at per capita GDP of ~$200! In other words, it seems to require almost no wealth at all as conventionally measured, and also very little resource consumption. What it DOES seem to require is a degree of social development sufficient to bring the population out of a dark-ages-like state of backwardness -- whether or not this is reflected in per capita GDPs or other conventional measures. See my post to Kevin McKinney, immediately above. Maybe it is just a matter of getting development up to the point where women have easy access to simple birth control tech, combined with a degree of general existential security and lower infant mortality. Maybe that is really all it takes. Anyone?

Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by MA Rodger

Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:24:49 +0000

GISTEMP have posted for September with an anomaly of +0.80ºC, a little cooler than recent months and the 2nd coolest month of the year-so-far (with June the coolest at +0.70ºC). (While the satellite TLT anomalies did not reflect the warm start to the year seen within the surface data, UAH is showing September the warmest of the year-so-far while RSS has yet to report for September.) It is the 4th warmest GISTEMP September on record after Sept 2016 & 2014 (+0.87ºC) and Sept 2015 (+0.82ºC) and ahead of Sept 2013 (+0.77ºC). For all months, Sept 2017 is the =34th warmest anomaly on the full record. Of the anomalies warmer than Sept 2017, only five months are not from 2014, 2015, 2016 or 2017, the five of exceptions being two months from 2010 and single months from 2007, 1998 & 2002. For 2017 to achieve hottest-year-on-record status, the remainder of the year would have to exceed +1.22ºC. And to drop to 3rd spot the remainder of the years would have to average below +0.75ºC. So a 2nd spot for the full annual 2017 is reasonably the likely outcome. The following table is ranked by the Jan-Sept averages. ........ Jan-Sept Ave ... Annual Ave ..Annual ranking 2016 .. +1.03ºC ... ... ... +0.99ºC ... ... ...1st 2017 .. +0.91ºC 2015 .. +0.80ºC ... ... ... +0.87ºC ... ... ...2nd 2014 .. +0.72ºC ... ... ... +0.73ºC ... ... ...3rd 2010 .. +0.72ºC ... ... ... +0.70ºC ... ... ...4th 2007 .. +0.68ºC ... ... ... +0.64ºC ... ... ...7th 1998 .. +0.67ºC ... ... ... +0.62ºC ... ... ...10th 2005 .. +0.66ºC ... ... ... +0.68ºC ... ... ...5th 2002 .. +0.66ºC ... ... ... +0.63ºC ... ... ...9th 2013 .. +0.63ºC ... ... ... +0.65ºC ... ... ...6th 2009 .. +0.62ºC ... ... ... +0.64ºC ... ... ...8th

Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by alan2102

Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:51:05 +0000

#135 Kevin McKinney 13 Oct 2017: "zebra’s larger point [was] that government policy can have a very, very large effect on demography." Surely. I was not arguing that point. The question is: WHICH policy? The problem with the narrative that attributes most of China's fertility drop to the one-child policy is that it ignores the really big drop that occurred before that policy. That really big drop was ALSO (probably) caused by government policies -- just different ones. Namely, the Maoist social transformations of the 50s, 60s and 70s, which abolished the feudal-like condition in the countryside, dramatically improved nutrition and public health, provided rudimentary medical care, nearly abolished illiteracy, and so on. Several of those changes enhanced family planning and use of contraceptives, no doubt (i.e. enhanced them unintentionally; that would be in addition to intentional actions). Lots of people ascribe China's fertility drop to the one-child policy (OCP) because they would rather not admit to the (very positive) transformation of society during the Mao period. They want to chalk it all up to a heavy-handed, authoritarian government policy. WRONG. Or at least mostly wrong. Yes, fertility declined still more (~3 to ~1.5) after the OCP, but surely not all of that was attributable to the OCP; i.e. did the forces which caused the drop from ~6 to ~3 magically cease after the OCP was instituted? Of course not! Bottom line: yes, the OCP had an effect, but it was MODEST relative to what had come before (and what was still in effect as the OCP was introduced). Is this clear? The passage that you quoted is misleading: "Until the 1960s, the government encouraged families to have as many children as possible[5] because of Mao’s belief that population growth empowered the country". Perhaps so, but the government's "encouragement" was apparently completely ineffective in increasing fertility: And: "The population grew from around 540 million in 1949 to 940 million in 1976.[7]" True, entirely due to demographic momentum, i.e. the result of prior high fertility, NOT from any government program to encourage fertility, as the article wrongly implies. I am still working on understanding demographic changes in China, and everywhere. I have not "arrived" yet.

Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by alan2102

Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:36:17 +0000

#149 Hank Roberts 14 Oct 2017: "It only costs $37.95 for the full article." Hank, did you forget about ? Free full-text of almost everything.

Comment on Is there really still a chance for staying below 1.5 °C global warming? by Kumudini

Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:48:59 +0000

As climate change leads to dramatic changes in the day to day weather patterns, with hurricanes and floods frequently headlining the news around the world, it makes you wonder why people are still turning a blind eye to this ginormous issue. Is it so difficult for people to take an active role in the preservation of our mother earth?

Comment on 1.5ºC: Geophysically impossible or not? by Dan Miller

Tue, 17 Oct 2017 06:53:10 +0000

#15 7 #16: Global GDP dropped during WW2 and spiked thereafter:

Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by Thomas

Tue, 17 Oct 2017 05:17:42 +0000

alan states/queries the assumption that: "Humans are not creative and intelligent beings capable of worthwhile contribution;" imho, the rare exceptions of individuals who act on their creative intelligence to manifest it in the world and who also happen to be human beings, prove the rule above is reasonably accurate.