Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/global-warming-debate/feed/
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
climate changed  climate  comment  drawdown  global warming  global  life  much  people  science  solutions  warming  world  years 
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, 21 Jul 2017 04:30:48 +0000

 



Comment on The climate has always changed. What do you conclude? by bjchip

Fri, 21 Jul 2017 04:30:48 +0000

Actually, there is not even a requirement to look at data in this case. The ARGUMENT that we can draw a conclusion is logically flawed. The formal logic problem precludes ANY conclusion based on the argument of the form X has always happened therefore we cannot be causing X. I believe that this is the undistributed middle. This should I think, be pointed out even before we present data. The argument is illogical.



Comment on Red team/Blue team Day 1 by Victor

Fri, 21 Jul 2017 04:25:40 +0000

43 Mal Adapted says: "Victor: 'The notion that technical expertise in one field or another (in this case physics and math) entitles one to claim infallible insight into the nature of the universe (or, in this case, the climate), is just another form of hubris.' The insinuation that any RC commenter has claimed infallible insight into the Universe, or any lesser-scale phenomenon, is just another form of the straw man fallacy." Sorry, Mal, but when I keep hearing that "the science is settled," and anyone who feels differently should be silenced, then yes, the claim of "infallible insight" sounds accurate. 44 Mal Adapted says: "The notion that your critical thinking skills are superior to the average RC regular is an indication of your affliction by the Dunning-Kruger effect. We need know nothing more about you than your comments here to support that observation." When I find myself living in a world where the director of NASA publicly states that "the future of humanity lies with Mars"; where one of the most powerful CEO's in the world is actually planning to colonize that planet (in cooperation with NASA, of course); where one major automobile company after another is investing billions in projects to build autonomous vehicles that can never be reliable or safe; where still another powerful CEO is planning on delivering products to his customers via drones, supplied by blimps hovering over all major cities; where leaders of the Democratic party have convinced the mainstream media that "the Russians" subverted our election system by revealing the corruption running rampant within that party; and where powerful leaders the world over have managed to convince themselves that the world will come to an end unless we repent our sins and immediately sacrifice the very sources of energy that have made modern civilization possible; then yes, it's not difficult to convince myself that I must be among the very few still capable of critical thinking. "Screw courtesy. Just how much transparently self-serving, stubbornly incorrigible logic and counterfactoid rebunking on infinite loop do you expect a reality-based individual to overlook? Sorry, I never got the knack of ‘unflagging courtesy’, and ‘patience of Job’ is way beyond my capacities. You are not the aggrieved party here. Indulge in as much righteous indignation and victimization rhetoric as you like. RC’s moderators have the final say as always, but I stand by my comment." The righteous indignation and victimization are all yours, Mal, as is obvious from the above. Sorry, but your venomous assaults neither impress nor intimidate me.






Comment on Unforced variations: July 2017 by alan2102

Fri, 21 Jul 2017 03:52:55 +0000

nigelj #255: "Communism didn't work." Beg to differ. And I understand that this is a big thorny topic that could go on at great length, so I hereby promise that this will be both my first and last comment on the subject (for at least a month or two). No matter what fiery replies this post may generate, I promise not to respond to any of them. I've said my piece. For now at least. Now then: The idea that "communism didn't work" is the product of many decades of persistent propaganda, most of it originating with the CIA and other fascist-sympathetic elements. The volume of lies, distortions and exaggerations that have been published is quite amazing. Again, this is not the place to discuss it in detail. I will simply mention a few facts, give a few links, and leave it at that. Before their respective revolutions, Russia and China were awful feudal backwaters with very large populations of peasants and desperately-poor people. Life expectancy was ~35, with all that that implies: dirt poverty, filth, malnourishment, no medical care, no public health infrastructure, illiteracy, etc., etc. After the revolutions, dramatic changes were made over a few decades. Public health infrastructure was installed. Free medical care was provided. Malnourishment was wiped out or dramatically curtailed. Illiteracy was nearly wiped out. And so on. The result was that life expectancies -- as a result of DRAMATICALLY IMPROVED QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE GREAT MAJORITY OF PEOPLE -- nearly doubled in under 30 years, a fantastic achievement. The reason I used upper-case for most of the previous sentence is that it is easy to look at life-expectancy as a dry, abstract statistic and miss the fact that it represents a very great deal in terms of quality of life for hundreds of millions of people, especially in the circumstances about which I write. We're talking about masses of people formerly living lives of misery, but being lifted in a most wonderful way to not just much longer lives, but much much better lives. On that basis alone, communism could rightly be said to be a great success -- perhaps the most brilliant success of all history, in terms of lives dramatically improved and lengthened, both. And the success continues to this day, in China, what with poverty having been cut drastically in recent decades, well on its way to total extinction, while at the same time a large middle class has emerged and the country generally has vaulted itself into wealth and modernity in record time -- far faster than the capitalist nations. The nature of China's current system is debatable, but I suggest before you draw a conclusion that you take a look at Jeff Brown's recently-published book "China is Communist, Dammit!". In contrast, when "market reforms" (recrudescent capitalism) were forced on Russia in the 1990s, social pathology came back with a vengeance; alcoholism, suicide and disease soared; life expectancy plunged shockingly, etc. And in places like India, that never had socialism at all, poverty is still rampant, and excess mortality relative to China (according to Amartya Sen's careful India-China comparison) has run 4 million per year for the past 50 years! That's the result of unregulated or poorly-regulated capitalism: massive death, amounting to genocide in terms of numbers. It is even starting to happen in the U.S. in spite of our exorbitant privileges; see Case/Deaton and others, showing large mortality increases among lower SES people in recent decades. Note also our now-declining (!) (as of 2016) life expectancy, after years of stagnation. This will intensify, in the coming years, until the pressures force some sort of resolve. The phrase "communism didn't work" could be accepted, I think, with qualification. Communism certainly did NOT work for the wealthy oligarchs, the plutocrats, the greedy psychopaths whose mission in life seems to be consolidation of weal[...]



Comment on The climate has always changed. What do you conclude? by Night-Gaunt49

Fri, 21 Jul 2017 03:36:00 +0000

This is certainly not just the science but in fact psychology and ideology that these deniers immune from facts. As has been shown as the facts become clearer and more pronounced they will not change their minds, they will harden and become more entrenched. But we should never stop since it is for those who are not hard liners who have not made climate and our energy sources political footballs. Indeed the possible remedies are considered "Liberal" by the opposition which are Republicans an Libertarians who stay in their safe zones and dismiss the idea we have to change our lives fully. To them it is something they consider a defeat that they will believe to be like war. If the Liberals and Left say this needs to be done they will design and build coal powered cars an trucks to piss them off and other nonsense. I come here to get the science. I was at that Coldist site. I even told them that for their little area when the thermal current stops, they will get cold while most of the Earth will heat up. To them they see it only getting colder by carefully picking out only things that represent it getting colder while ignoring the greater amount of warming. They have money to make or just identify with the Fossil Fuel Industries. It has become ideological to them. Our present fossil fuel use even more so in the past are what they consider normal, natural and dare I say "American". To them eating meat is macho and if you stress greens it is feminine and weak and flabby and Gay. I am not sure just what can be done for them to think it over and change their minds. Even if it was 2050 while the Antarctic is getting low on ice and greening nicely, they would not recognize it. One cannot deal rationally with the irrational and proud of it.



Comment on The climate has always changed. What do you conclude? by Keith Woollard

Fri, 21 Jul 2017 03:33:15 +0000

OK, let me start with a full disclosure… I am a geophysicist, all my income for my 30 years of professional life has come directly or indirectly from the oil and gas industry. I am therefore a shrill of big oil and my opinion is worthless. Having said that, it also means I understand quite a bit about climate change because without it I would not have a job, there would be no (commercial) hydrocarbon deposits anywhere in the world. The premise of Stefan’s post is innocuous enough. It sounds like an argument a sceptic might put forward, but it isn’t really. Not one of the 4 options is a typical conclusion from a sceptical argument. Most often the “climates have always changed” gets used to refute ridiculous graphs that join low frequency, averaged paleoclimate reconstructions with modern high frequency instrument records. Or when people talk about a “stable” climate for the last 11,000 years. The one thing you learn in Geology 101, and the thing that made geology a science (well almost anyway, speaking as a geophysicist) is the realisation that processes that formed the lithological record are the same now as they were in the past. Before that people used to think that mountains and rivers and coasts all formed ages ago and what we see now is static and “ideal”. This is the same concept that people fight against when climate activists talk about the mythical “pre-industrial climate”. The real poster child for me was Obama’s visit to the Exit Glacier which shows the glacier retreating since 1850. The reason I would use “the climate always changes” as an argument is to say that the earth’s climate is a very complex beast that we are just scratching on the edges. Explain the past with your simplistic CO2-drives-everything model and I will trust you. I am not talking about major P-T transitions or ice ages from solar cycles, explain to me finely interbedded sand-shale sequences. .... and don’t listen to people like Alastair@18 try and explain geology !!



Comment on Unforced variations: July 2017 by Scott Strough

Fri, 21 Jul 2017 03:30:47 +0000

Yes Alan Project drawdown is a lot like I have been saying all along: If you want to lose weight, Eat less, move more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKs0oEIVOck If you want to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, reduce emissions, increase sequestration in the soil. Once you are balanced, all is good! Really is that simple, but people hem and haw. Executive summary: Yes we can reverse Global Warming. https://www.quora.com/Can-we-reverse-global-warming/answer/Scott-Strough It does not require huge tax increases or expensive untested risky technologies. It will require a three pronged approach worldwide. 1)Reduce fossil fuel use by replacing energy needs with as many feasible renewables as current technology allows. 2)Change Agricultural methods to high yielding regenerative models of production made possible by recent biological & agricultural science advancements. 3)Large scale ecosystem recovery projects similar to the Loess Plateau project, National Parks like Yellowstone etc. where appropriate and applicable.



Comment on The climate has always changed. What do you conclude? by Dan DaSilva

Fri, 21 Jul 2017 03:23:43 +0000

"The climate has always changed." This fact along with other observations allows you to conclude: (5) that humans may not be changing the climate as much as some arrogant climate scientists desperately want you to beleive.



Comment on Unforced variations: July 2017 by alan2102

Fri, 21 Jul 2017 02:20:13 +0000

killian #257: "if these gov’ts wanted these things, they would have done them already, beause they are easy to achieve. Are you so foolish as to believe this is what the wealthy and powerful actually want?" Who said anything about what the wealthy and powerful want? I quoted from the United Nations SDGs. The U.N. is not wealthy, and they certainly are not powerful. They are attempting, mostly unsuccessfully, to take a global leadership role. The only reason they came up at all is because you, initially, threw a slur in my direction pertaining to the SDGs, as though they were foolish, ill-advised, or some such. I should have ignored the slur, but I didn't. So here we are. As for the rest of your post: Killian, are you drinking heavily? I ask because your writing is incoherent and slurred, as though written by someone intoxicated. Here, read for yourself: "Moreso, that last thing on your list? That’s the cause of the subject of his blog." What?! What the hell are you talking about? WHOSE blog? The "cause of the subject"? Continuing: "How intelligent to further pursue sui-genoc-ecocidal policies. What affordable energy, or do you think it accidental utilities are driving home solar out of the market, as well as home wind? You think that’s to relieve poverty?" What?! What the hell are you talking (rambling) about? Sober up, please, or else I'll have to conclude you don't belong in this conversation.



Comment on Unforced variations: July 2017 by alan2102

Fri, 21 Jul 2017 02:05:09 +0000

Has there been any discussion here of Project Drawdown? If so, I apologize for the redundancy (and I invite the moderators to DELETE THIS POST). vis: http://www.drawdown.org Project Drawdown is the most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming. Our organization did not make or devise the plan—we found the plan because it already exists. We gathered a qualified and diverse group of researchers from around the world to identify, research, and model the 100 most substantive, existing solutions to address climate change. What was uncovered is a path forward that can roll back global warming within thirty years. It shows that humanity has the means at hand. Nothing new needs to be invented. The solutions are in place and in action. Our work is to accelerate the knowledge and growth of what is possible. We chose the name Drawdown because if we do not name the goal, we are unlikely to achieve it. ............ Drawdown maps, measures, models, and describes the 100 most substantive solutions to global warming. For each solution, we describe its history, the carbon impact it provides, the relative cost and savings, the path to adoption, and how it works. The goal of the research that informs Drawdown is to determine if we can reverse the buildup of atmospheric carbon within thirty years. All solutions modeled are already in place, well understood, analyzed based on peer-reviewed science, and are expanding around the world. Top solutions, ranked by Drawdown, a very interesting list! --- http://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank 1 Refrigerant Management 2 Wind Turbines (Onshore) 3 Reduced Food Waste 4 Plant-Rich Diet 5 Tropical Forests 6 Educating Girls 7 Family Planning 8 Solar Farms 9 Silvopasture 10 Rooftop Solar 11 Regenerative Agriculture 12 Temperate Forests 13 Peatlands 14 Tropical Staple Trees 15 Afforestation 16 Conservation Agriculture 17 Tree Intercropping 18 Geothermal 19 Managed Grazing 20 Nuclear 21 Clean Cookstoves 22 Wind Turbines (Offshore) 23 Farmland Restoration 24 Improved Rice Cultivation 25 Concentrated Solar