Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/feed/
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
august  comment unforced  comment  coverage  gdp growth  gdp  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: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 23:55:09 +0000

 



Comment on Unforced Variations: August 2017 by Thomas

Mon, 21 Aug 2017 23:55:09 +0000

Think about GDP Growth compared to 'workers' living in the "real world". They have no time or energy to be bothered with Organic Sustainable Farming or negative GHG emissions nor I suspect would care much about the validity of climate science let alone a wall to keep illegal immigrants / refugees out of the country. Marion says: "It’s just this society is all messed up.” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/21/missouri-fast-food-workers-better-pay-popeyes-economics See the graph showing - If wages had grown as fast as productivity, the minimum wage would be more than double what it is now. Just sayin'.



Comment on Unforced Variations: August 2017 by Thomas

Mon, 21 Aug 2017 22:17:26 +0000

US Corporation, a global force in AGW/CC denial disinformation and key Trump supporter adviser, is still having ethical legal issues in the UK https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/aug/21/ofcom-murdochs-sky-takeover-avaaz-21st-century-fox



Comment on Unforced Variations: August 2017 by Thomas

Mon, 21 Aug 2017 21:58:08 +0000

399 BPL imho judgements about Nth Korea depends solely on one's perspective - it depends mainly upon where one is looking from. imho both sides border on a distorted form of national psychosis as opposed to the actual evidence and the historical facts of the matter. I have yet to see any credible "evidence" of Russia manipulating the US elections .. or anyone's elections for that matter. I hear loads of assertions and claims and opinionated conclusions & judgements being made without an itoa of hard evidence being presented ... and nothing ever being tested in a Court of Law. Until such times as the latter occurs I am willing (and ethically obligated) to remain on the fence and not take sides. Of course, America has incredibly high standards in this area - the US government, it's political parties/members, it's secret services, it's military, it media, it's Corporate Boards have never and would never ever EVER interfere in another nations elections or democratic processes or manipulate the Global Media in any form for any reason. Such are the high ideals of American Ethics and Morality and International Relations. Oh, hang about, did I get that right? I'm not so sure about that. While most here would not hold a belief in Karma maybe some do get the truism of "What goes around, comes around" .... eventually? ;-) Anyway, I do feel my nuanced opinion about who is the greatest threat to America is on the money here. Time will tell, maybe? I'm in no rush.



Comment on Unforced Variations: August 2017 by nigelj

Mon, 21 Aug 2017 21:40:08 +0000

Thomas @409 "So what if instead of Governments being “judged” according to the false zero-value yardstick of National GDP Growth over their term in office, they were judged according to the National GDP per Ton of GHG Emissions?" Quite an interesting and useful idea. Its easy enough to compile as we have the data. It's similar to what I said above that we need an additional measure of gdp which subtracts environmental costs / impacts. BUT it only includes global warming impacts, as opposed too all environmental impacts and they might be doing well with global warming but deliberately neglecting the others. It probably needs to include all the main ones, to get a really good idea of how different governments are comparing. The corn idea looks good in theory, but would be very complicated to implement. It would need an army of bureaucrats assessing each and every farm. I wonder if cap and trade, for all its faults and problems, doesn't do much the same thing with less bureaucracy, as it rewards farmers who reduce emissions.



Comment on Unforced Variations: August 2017 by nigelj

Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:58:17 +0000

Thomas @408 No I'm not confused by what you said. I largely agree with your post. This is what I said about growth further back to zebra, and its important and worth repeating, because right now gdp does not include the costs of environmental impacts. So for example China has totally fantastic gdp, but cities choking in smog. This does not mean gdp growth measure is wrong or useless, but we should not obsess over it and need to look more widely at additional ways of measuring things. Here's what I said anyway for what its worth: Now we can certainly criticise how gdp growth is measured, thats another thing, and you have alluded to some very valid difficulties. The standards definition is just output of goods and services based on a sample of the typical ones that comprise economies. Its crude, but does give a very good indication of whether a nation is producing more goods or less. Its just a tool measuring a rate of change really. Standard gdp growth doesn’t include quality of goods and services produced, happiness, quality of life, environmental externalities, invisibles, etc. There’s a proposal to change gdp to include these, or to have an additional alternative measure. A classic example: The USSR had good gdp growth, but lousy quality of goods and servcies, and an unhappy, oppressed population etc.



Comment on Sensible Questions on Climate Sensitivity by Nic Lewis

Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:51:30 +0000

@-1=e^ipi "… The first two words in the title of the C&W paper are ‘Coverage Bias’… That was sort of the whole point of all their work…" I suggest you look at the evidence rather than relying on the title. Over 1990-2016 the BEST version with air temperatures where there was sea-ice warmed almost as fast as Cowtan & Way v2, while HadCRUT4v5 warmed at virtually the same rate as the BEST version with water temperatures where there was sea ice. That implies that the difference in warming between HadCRUT4 and Cowtan & Way over that period is almost entirely due to differing treatment of temperatures where there is sea ice, not to coverage bias per se. "As I wrote, Cowtan & Way examined this bias and found it to be immaterial” Where do they say this? Because I can’t see it. Which paragraph of which paper? " In section 4, page 4 of "Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends. UPDATE Temperature reconstruction by domain: version 2.0 temperature series" January 6, 2014 They say: "Sea ice coverage is determined from the HadISST data using the median of the sea ice concentration on the period 1981-2010 for each cell and each month. This underestimates ice coverage for early decades and overestimates ice coverage for recent summers, however CW14 found coverage bias to be least in the summer when the change in ice cover is most significant, so the effect on temperatures is minimal." “That is shown by the fact that, per ECMWF’s analysis …, warming is slightly greater if coverage is reduced. This paper seems to disagree with your claim: 'http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n10/full/nclimate3066.html?foxtrotcallback=true'" I consider Richardson et al (2016) to be a misleading paper. Certainly, if it disagrees with my claim, it is wrong. My source is an ECMWF report. The last figure shows annual 2 m air temperature anomalies for 1979 to 2014, both globally complete and with coverage reduced to match HadCRUT4 (v4, I believe). If you accurately digitise all the dark and light bars and compute the 1979-2014 trend, it is 0.158 C/decade for the globally complete 2 m air temperature. But for the coverage-reduced-to-match-HadCRUT4 version it is slightly greater at 0.159 C/decade. Moreover, the HadCRUT4v4 trend exactly matches the ERAinterim globally complete 2 m air temperature trend of 0.158 C/decade (and HadCRUT4v5 has a marginally higher trend, of 0.159 C/decade). So despite not using air temperatures over either open ocean or sea ice, and having less than global coverage, over 1979-2014 HadCRUT4 matched the warming trend of ERAinterim, which does both those things and has complete global coverage.



Comment on Unforced Variations: August 2017 by Mal Adapted

Mon, 21 Aug 2017 19:38:15 +0000

Russell Seitz:
Re today’s eclipse – two pieces of underpublicized advice from a two-time totaltity viewer: Be dead in the middle of the centerline– every kilometer counts . Don’t forget to look at the rest of the sky. Here’s why : https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-eclipse-of-reason.html
Cool, Russell! The video jerked a laugh out of me, too. I recall viewing one total solar eclipse in my life. I don't recall a "bizarre dark green sky eerily recalling a Giotto fresco". Hell, that's a good enough reason to be ten miles from the centerline. With one's perceptions suitably altered, so much the better ;^)!



Comment on Unforced Variations: August 2017 by Mal Adapted

Mon, 21 Aug 2017 18:46:13 +0000

Ahem. It would be more correct to say "To the extent that variation in sexual/social/political/economic ambition is heritable".



Comment on Unforced Variations: August 2017 by Mal Adapted

Mon, 21 Aug 2017 18:33:32 +0000

Dan H.:
To answer your hypothetical, I think yes, it is possible. After all, all the other wealth decouplings occurred. Will it, is yet to be seen. Based on history, I see no reason to think it cannot be accomplished. The only thing stopping it is mankind’s desire to control. Yet, I think you only be a delaying tactic, as advancement always seems to occur, no matter how many obstacles are placed in its path.
So maybe I'm right and maybe I'm not? Thanks anyway 8^|! Based on history, I won't claim it's outside the limits of uncertainty either. OTOH I don't see much reason to hope it is possible, counta my modulz aint got much predictive skillz. Historical data suggest it's far more common for human societies to separate into haves and have-nots than otherwise. AFAICT the separating is done by aspiring haves who, unhampered by excessive scruple, see their opportunities and take them. In a secular recasting of the biblical metaphor, goats separate themselves from sheep. A better metaphor would be if goats were actually parasites on sheep. Evolutionary biologists tend to cite 'human nature' ironically. For one thing, the phrase obscures the range of variation; for another, it elides 'nature', i.e. adaptation by natural selection over generations, and 'nurture', i.e. developmental (including cultural) influences interacting with genetic predisposition* over an individual's lifetime. To the extent that sexual/social/political/economic ambition is heritable, I see little evidence it's being selected out. There is some evidence that human societies today are less frankly brutal and oppressive than when Homo sapiens sapiens arose, but that may be due entirely to cultural evolution; and in any case, it merely presents different opportunities for aspiring oppressors. Unfortunately, the contingency and complexity of biological evolution makes its future course unpredictable. The future course of cultural evolution is scarcely more discernible, IMHO, even if we assume no break in cultural continuity. Once again my nom du clavier is descriptive, regardless. * For example, (trigger warning: graphic obscenity, brutality) functioning/non-functioning legs.



Comment on Unforced Variations: August 2017 by Scott Strough

Mon, 21 Aug 2017 17:18:22 +0000

@Thomas #409 There is an easier way to do that Thomas, simply convert the current Ag subsidies into a carbon payment. Currently I believe carbon markets are putting it's price at about $20-$25/tonne. A conventional farmer can at best sequester about .65 tons C/acre/yr. Certain advanced regenerative farmers can sequester ~2+/- tons C/acre/year. So that's 40-50 dollars per acre a year bonus on top of crop production for an organic regenerative farmer over the best no til conventional farmer. The average size farm in the USA is approx 300 acres. So a tidy little bonus of $12,000.00 - $15,000.00 compared to $195.00 dollars for the conventional farmer. Believe me, they will notice. Secondary benefit is that as the carbon in soils increase, so do the yields on the crops! Plus organic crops get a higher price at market. Plus the resilience of the land to withstand drought and floods increases. Plus the input costs to raise these crops is significantly less. If we did that, then instead of the environmentalists and the climate scientists, and the farmers, and the capitalists all being at cross purposes; they would all be in harmony striving toward the same goal, sustainable ag sequestering carbon and solving AGW. "When farmers view soil health not as an abstract virtue, but as a real asset, it revolutionizes the way they farm and radically reduces their dependence on inputs to produce food and fiber." -USDA The idea is to literally do what the USDA has recommended to farmers anyway, make carbon in the soil the real economic marker/proxy for soil health. "If all farmland was a net sink rather than a net source for CO2, atmospheric CO2 levels would fall at the same time as farm productivity and watershed function improved. This would solve the vast majority of our food production, environmental and human health ‘problems’." Dr. Christine Jones (CSIRO scientist) “Yes, agriculture done improperly can definitely be a problem, but agriculture done in a proper way is an important solution to environmental issues including climate change, water issues, and biodiversity.”-Rattan Lal (Nobel prize winning soil scientist) Please keep in mind the 2 tons C/acre/yr is by no means a limit. There are outliers that have done twice that. The limit has not yet been seen. Certain well watered areas in the prime corn belt areas like Illinois Iowa etc probably can do at least double the current outliers. But that would involve growing a native tallgrass oak savanna biome and raising animals directly on that instead of corn and soy. The advantage there would be that you can design it in such a way as to produce more starch that corn with chestnuts and more oil than soy with hazelnuts and more protein from the animals than current monocrop industrialized systems and the edges and marginal plots raise oaks etc.. which are great finishers for pork, chicken, turkey etc... In fact acorn finished pork from Spain commands as much as 200 dollars a pound! http://www.seriouseats.com/2014/03/inside-the-secret-world-of-super-premium-spanish-jamon-iberico.html That's a real plan, not some idealized but unrealistic plan that requires we reinvent the society of the whole world in a day. No need to ban capitalism when it can be harnessed to help accomplish the goals. I would submit that realistically capitalism is by far the best way to fix AGW. We simply need to get it working for us instead of against us by manipulating the market wisely.