Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/a-much-more-eloquent-rebuttal-of-tggws/feed/
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
august  back  climate  comment unforced  comment  data  growth  ice  unforced variations  unforced  variations august  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, 18 Aug 2017 00:53:57 +0000

 



Comment on Data rescue projects by Russell

Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:53:57 +0000

I hope these worthwhile preservation efforts extend to data on man's impact on the hydrosphere as well- anthropogenic sea lane fallout may be a useful, and retrievable. source of proxy data for palaeoclimatology.



Comment on Data rescue projects by Linden Ashcroft

Thu, 17 Aug 2017 23:27:42 +0000

A nice overview! The South Eastern Australian Recent Climate History project is not active at the moment, but we hope to get the data rescue portal open again soon: https://ozdocs.climatehistory.com.au/ Another great source of data for the Australian region in the late 19th Century is the Todd Folios, painstakingly rescued by the Australian Meteorological Association: http://www.charlestodd.net/Todd_Folios/



Comment on Data rescue projects by Florence Fetterer

Thu, 17 Aug 2017 22:02:38 +0000

Sea ice back to 1850: https://nsidc.org/data/g10010 Data set citation: Walsh, J. E., W. L. Chapman, and F. Fetterer. 2015. Gridded Monthly Sea Ice Extent and Concentration, 1850 Onward, Version 1. Boulder, Colorado USA. NSIDC: National Snow and Ice Data Center. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7265/N5833PZ5. Also see: Walsh, John E., Florence Fetterer, J. Scott Stewart, and William L. Chapman. 2016. A database for depicting Arctic sea ice variations back to 1850. Geographical Review. doi: 10.1111/j.1931-0846.2016.12195.x. Here's an article about it: https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-piecing-together-arctic-sea-ice-history-1850 Glacier photographs, also as far back as the 1850s:https://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/ Data collection citation: National Snow and Ice Data Center, compiler. 2002, updated 2015. Glacier Photograph Collection. Boulder, Colorado USA: National Snow and Ice Data Center. http://dx.doi.org/10.7265/N5/NSIDC-GPC-2009-12. Many of these were rescued through the NOAA Climate Database Modernization Program. Now, a Council on Library and Information Resources grant is helping us finish the scanning project.



Comment on Unforced Variations: August 2017 by Thomas

Thu, 17 Aug 2017 21:11:24 +0000

@Nemesis "The history of the entire known universe and a long legacy of philosophical and scientific exploration has resulted in this effort to get you to do some critical thinking. "And if you turn it down, you're gonna get left behind. You’ve gotta catch up on your own. Because no one else is turning back to save you." That's a classic Nemesis. So true in and of itself. (imho) Something a climate scientist might say to a denier on a blog forum? :-)



Comment on Unforced Variations: August 2017 by Thomas

Thu, 17 Aug 2017 21:01:10 +0000

315 Nemesis, thx, you too! :-) Can you imagine what the world (America, Neoliberals, WUWT or even this group) would look like if they too understood and practiced the rational economic psychological philosophical ideal of "The less I need, the more I am free."? Or - What would happen on Earth if, overnight, everyone stopped lying ? :-)



Comment on Unforced Variations: August 2017 by nigelj

Thu, 17 Aug 2017 20:57:19 +0000

Deliberately aiming for zero economic growth globally doesn't make sense to me. As Ray Ladbury points out, this would consign vast numbers in the developing world to poverty. Even if global wealth was distributed more equally, flowing from rich to poor countries as some form of give away, it would not be sufficient to resolve the poverty problem and would be politically resisted anyway. That's not to say we shouldnt help poor countries as much as we can, and some wealth redistribution can make economic sense in various cases if we make sure it gets to the right people. Even with zero growth this would not eliminate environmental impacts, as economies would continue to consume for centuries. More output of goods and services doesn't have to wreck the environment, if the negative effects of these things are mitigated. Obviously theres some upper limit to this, but I dont see a strong case for stopping all growth everywhere right now. I think we should aim for sensible environmental policies, and growth will find its natural level. It is likely more a choice between high and low growth. It MAY ultimately lead to zero growth, but as a result rather than as a goal. Its a complex calculus of growth, economics, environmental impacts etc etc, but it seems we know enough right now that certain environmental impacts are becoming serious, climate change, nitrate pollution etc, and limits have to be put on this. Some of this may reduce growth in economic output, but some wont if alternatives with less environmental impacts can be found. Growth will find its natural level. GDP growth has already fallen in western countries.This is probably largely due to market saturation.I think the most likely outcome is a low growth economy in the west (not zero growth) and we will have to make the most of that. Developing countries may have higher growth for some time, but will slow as western countries have slowed.



Comment on Unforced Variations: August 2017 by Thomas

Thu, 17 Aug 2017 20:52:20 +0000

326 nigelj, yes. Neoliberalism is quite nebulous. Similar to a Klingon space ship it's also a shape shifter. I have no better refs to understanding definitions or why and how that is than I have already provided here over time. Maybe the bible might help: 'By it's fruits though shalt know it.' :-) imho 'insidious' is an appropriate adjective to define it. Clearly (?) introducing ETS/carbon taxes and especially the CCL is just some of many 'neoliberal' projects to stop action on CC for both ideological/political and wealth/power motives. (despite many of those who support such ideas and are activists for them don't know it - sure people will strongly disagree with this comment - so be it.)



Comment on Unforced Variations: August 2017 by Al Bundy

Thu, 17 Aug 2017 20:42:03 +0000

BPL: And only a fool would try to explain something to someone by starting out accusing them of having no interest in truth. AB: That depends on the goal and who I'm talking to, eh? Who was I trying to explain things to, BPL? But I'll warp back to climate science with the lens of comparing capitalism with laborism. Climate science, like most science, is laborist. My guess is that most of the folks who run this site would work, not just for free, but would actually pay in order to have the privilege and joy of working at their calling (assuming they had no serious financial shortfalls) On the other side, capitalism totally fails with regard to science via the elevation of fools by capitalists. (I used your word!) This is the same scenario that Ayn described, but with regard to architecture. Her conclusion, that totalitarianism that pretends to be communist is evil and stupid so capitalism is perfect, even though The Fountainhead is chock full of capitalistic woes. (Two of the three main villains are capitalists: Peter is a leech who rises by getting ideas from the Hero. He's totally destroyed. Gail (a guy) is a pure capitalistic publisher who prints whatever makes the most money. His wife (who loves the hero) remarks that he could have been a great journalist [but the fact that he chose to be a capitalistic journalist instead of a laborist one ended up sending his work down a sewer.] In the end, Gail more-or-less renounces capitalism and joins the Hero in becoming a laborist. His final great project is one which is designed to reject profit. Who knew? Ayn Rand was a closet laborist and a serious pervert (all of the characters with a gram of likeability join together in a ring of mutual masochism. ~'I'll destroy you publically and cuckold you in the most vicious way by letting you force me to marry each villain in turn, because I love you and want to give each of us the opportunity to show how much misery and pain we can take.'). Anyway, in a world with AI and robots, if you're not a comfort-giver or on the cutting edge of whatever field brings you joy (or training to get there), you'd likely be worth more to society if you didn't show up at work. In any case, few will be worth their own healthcare costs when the competition is a hunk of etched silicon and some motors. Capitalism fails completely in that scenario, as shown by climate science and deniers. Capitalism rewards deniers handsomely for getting in the way. Brilliance and joyful creation is needed, not capital and forced labor. Note that Mom and Pops and kids in basements, the real job creators borrow their money.



Comment on Unforced Variations: August 2017 by nigelj

Thu, 17 Aug 2017 20:22:37 +0000

Nemesis @334 ” I give to charity. What contribution do you make to charity? Do you live up to your own ideals?” "I am sure, Trump and all the funny, super”rich” “high” society do-goods give to charity too. So you are in good company.' Your bitterness and envy comes through. You will have to work on that.



Comment on Unforced Variations: August 2017 by nigelj

Thu, 17 Aug 2017 20:21:38 +0000

Nemesis @333 "Have you ever thought about the fact, that most people just can’t buy all these shiny sustainable things, simply because they can not afford it? ' Of course. I was a poor university student once. I think we should do a bit more to help the poor within reason by way of government income support. But I'm a pragamatist, not someone who wants to endlessly philosophise. Interesting thing, I was perfectly happy being a poor university student. You grow up and get a job, family, the rat race and material status and arent always any happier. But as a student I had a welfare system to fall back on, it was never grinding poverty. Plenty of good quality academic studies show the following: grinding poverty is a major cause of unhappiness. Financial security improves happiness, but being "rich" doesn't create significantly more happiness. But many people dont just want happiness, they have a drive for status even if they are miserable! . Good luck and good wishes to you.