Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/feed/
Preview: Comments for RealClimate

Comments for RealClimate



Climate science from climate scientists...



Last Build Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 00:16:57 +0000

 



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by mike

Tue, 23 May 2017 00:16:57 +0000

Last Week May 14 - 20, 2017 410.36 ppm May 14 - 20, 2016 407.39 ppm per CO2.earth nuff said, Mike



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by Hank Roberts

Mon, 22 May 2017 21:15:28 +0000

Oh, dear, Zhang et al. has, Richard Telford points out, published a 'correlation by eyeball' sun-affects-climate analysis:> https://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/author/richardjamest/ I'd have put it on Tamino's site but didn't find an appropriate thread open.



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by Thomas

Mon, 22 May 2017 10:12:15 +0000

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html They need to make a new 5yr/monthly graph before the end of the month. Or May will be off the "chart" Very slow in the agw/cc chatter world atm..... lazing in a deck chair alaska to the east sipping on pina coladas and watching the ice crack up and float away. Nice "poster" summary A. McD, very well written it was, clear, understandable what you are saying ... at least imho. thx. Wait n see huh? :-)



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by Killian

Mon, 22 May 2017 00:50:35 +0000

Re #199, let's take the last first. Kevin McKinney said Clearly, those who dislike technological optimism will not like this report (yes, Killian, I’m thinking that will include you–no offense intended.) Let's do be accurate: I do not dislike technical optimism. I have some, myself. I think if we are careful with our resources and stop using the great majority of them, we will have an opportunity in the future to reach out to the heavens and start bringing resources in, thus regaining some comfort level and complexity, but there is absolutely no way we get to that point without a massive die-off if we do not simplify first. “CCL is clueless.” I disagree. CCL is not trying to achieve permanent sustainability, it is trying to achieve near-immediate term political reform. How is that not clueless? No degree of reform is going to turn a power-based, hierarchical, patriarchal system into a regenerative system. Talk about spitting in the wind. It has been argued that only the former matters, but I think in the real world it matters how bad the situation actually is when the current paradigm ‘withers away’ And how does any degree of political change get us to a better world? Capitalism and republics do not, I repeat, do not, cannot, will not, lead to anything different than the last 200+ years. The 20/80 rule applies. We never get too far afield because the systems in place simply *can't* do so and continue to function. Waste of time. people buy less of anything (including fossil-fueled energy) when it is more expensive. Or they just burn/destroy something else. EV's give us only 25% improivement on GHG's, e.g., while creating new environmental problems. Moreover, CCL has at least a couple of IMO highly valuable attributes. One, it creates and organizes a community of folks active around climate policy. Who do not listen to people who know more than they do. Two, its structure, centered around the weekly call, provides an ongoing program of informal education on the topic. Or would, if they would listen, but they won;'t because they love thems lattes, they does! Look, when Hansen was talking Cap and Dividend years ago, I was excited. I remember suggesting it to CCL then and being rebuffed. They now claim they were on it all along... .whatever. Regardless, it was a viable concept at the time, or so it seemed, because I thought, foolishly, we could transform this system. I have since realized we cannot due to the inherent characterisitics and principles upon which current systems are based. We cannot get there from here, so... Here is how we *can* make use of C&D, and the only way it becomes worth doing: http://aperfectstormcometh.blogspot.kr/2008/03/build-out-grid-vs-household-towards.html On another topic, I found this paper quite interesting: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/585c3439be65942f022bbf9b/t/590a650de4fcb5f1d7b6d96b/1493853480288/Rethinking+Transportation_May_FINAL.pdf It’s the inaugural “Rethink X” paper on transportation, which has created some small buzz. The essential thesis is that once autonomous electric vehicles are approved, a drastic wave of disruption will be unleashed, with “Transportation as a service” (TaaS) becoming a new paradigm and virtually completely supplanting traditional car (and truck) ownership, as well as manufacturing. That follows from purely economic logic–for a starter example, the paper calculates that the average American household will save about $5600 annually by switching from individual ownership to TaaS. Moreover, this disruption will be highly non-linear, based on the cost curves of existing tech, and will consequently be nearly complete on a roughly decadal timescale. For our purposes, the most significant impact will be the decimation of oil demand on a global basis, and a consequent drastic decrease in[...]



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by Killian

Mon, 22 May 2017 00:20:09 +0000

#198 Scott Strough said killian, https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14856 Of course we can still quibble over the numbers Brian Walsh uses, but the pathways he got. This is a monumental and profound improvement over previous models... Gotta disagree. Absolutely nothing regenerative about any of those pathways/scenarios. Yes, you can plug in increased sequestration *from* regen ag, but the overall pathways are not right. Chief among the errors is using Paris as the goal. Suicidal. I will state the simple, yet obvious again and again until someone besides myself takes note: The ice was melting - everywhere - once we passed 300 ppm, not 350 ppm, and once we passed a fraction of +1C, let alone the +1C - +1.2C we seem to have hit. Why you ask? Never before was so well made a published model including soil carbon. That pathway which has been overlooked in agriculture far too long will in the end be the ONLY hope. The *only* moniker is, as you said, wrong. And, if you're going to use an "only," it is not soil, but simplification. We can reduce carbon production, even get to net zero or even negative, but that does not solve the pollution and resource issues. Collapse would still be on the horizon. There is no solution unless one accounts for both halves of the problem. Yes, climate is a killer, but resource depletion and pollution are a combined killer of civilization... which would likely result in a restart of the rise in GHG's as people survived any way they could. In reality, we always come back to systems. Deal with these issues as a systems problem or face failure, imo. We need simplification to get to near net-zero. Then, all the mitigation we do goes into sub-net-zero, thus returning to pre-industrial within a human lifetime. At the same time, we end the resource crisis and begin ameliorating the pollution crisis. Additionally, because of clear signs of passing multiple tipping points, we really can't take the time to let any of those scenarios play out. This is another element missing from his analysis. Simplification, however, can happen rapidly while massively reducing consumption. The study is, as you say, an improvement, but it is nowhere near solutions. Good to, once again, have more scientific back-up for things we already know will work. Re Do it. Plug 5-20 tCO2/ha/yr on 1,413,180,000 ha arable ground and 3,377,388,400 ha pasture. Now consider it improves both yields and profits at the same time. Tell us again I am exaggerating when I say “only”? Do it for me. I have nothing to run any models on and my math sucks. Interested in the results. As for a mother of all models, I came up with this back in 2008, published it in 2009. You wanna provide a true pathway forward, let's do this: World Simulation Re Lillian John: Can't find anything. I came up with the idea of incubators on my own. I read few theorists because the books are too expensive, extensive info about the books are available in various ways or, more commonly, I am not interested in being told what a thing is; I want to start from, "What is this thing, it's essence?" I.e., First Principles. For me, it involved many different bits of info that coalesced into the idea of RCI's in a flash... as these things usually do for me. To put it very, very simply, I was thinking of trying to get each Occupy group to take on permaculture as a core concept, thus, if successful, Occupy would passively ramp up the spread of permaculture. When that quickly died, the idea had already come to me of seeding cities with neighborhood General Assemblies to get whole cities linked together and get thye fractal governance of the city going. At the time, it was transformatio[...]



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by Killian

Sun, 21 May 2017 22:36:53 +0000

*** Re #200 Alastair McDonald said Re 196 where Killian quoted “… we ignore the threat of abrupt climate change induced by a slowing or shutdown of the AMOC at our own peril.” You may find this poster that I presented at PAGES 2017 10 days ago interesting. Interesting. Key seems to be the idea of CO2 saturation. But if extension past the archipelago leads to cooling, what extent of loss leads in the other direction? *** Re #198 Scott Strough said https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14856 Of course we can still quibble over the numbers Brian Walsh uses... Can't access the paper, so... Oh and Lillian John has included an embedded community concept in his latest work? Were you the one who gave him that idea? Or was it one of the hundreds of other scientists and economists he works with? Who knows? My concept has been out there for quite a while now, and I have no way of knowing who has or hasn't come across it. Good ideas tend to arise in multiple locations over the course of history, so... Careful, though, an embedded community means exactly nothing. Embedding a regenerative community into a regenerative ecosystem means everything.



Comment on Nenana Ice Classic 2017 by Hank Roberts

Sun, 21 May 2017 15:34:41 +0000

from that thread,
For those who do not know Japanese, Tegiri Nenashi is a joke name. So is Mikito Harakiri. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.



Comment on Nenana Ice Classic 2017 by Hank Roberts

Sun, 21 May 2017 15:32:31 +0000

> not maintained So sue them? www.tomsguide.com/forum/22146-4-class-action-lawsuit-movie-industry Jul 8, 2004 His name is Tegiri Nenashi. His previous sucess was a suit against PC display industry....



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by Killian

Sun, 21 May 2017 13:40:01 +0000

Re #195 Hank asked, "This one?" The reference to the RCI, yes, though that is not my project and the incubator concept isn't described there. They are wanting to apply the concept.



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by Alastair McDonald

Sun, 21 May 2017 09:05:56 +0000

Re 196 where Killian quoted "... we ignore the threat of abrupt climate change induced by a slowing or shutdown of the AMOC at our own peril." You may find this poster that I presented at PAGES 2017 10 days ago interesting.