Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/wp-commentsrss2.php?p=420
Preview: Comments for RealClimate

Comments for RealClimate



Climate science from climate scientists...



Last Build Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:10:06 +0000

 



Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by zebra

Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:10:06 +0000

Kevin McKinney 197, Two problems: 1. What you are doing is like trying to infer/construct a theory of climate using short-term time-series data on global temps. You can't. 2. There's prosperity and then there's prosperity. It's all relative, as someone once said. The underlying principles are there to observe across contemporaneous cultural variations; if you want to question them, you should be working in that space. -higher birthrates make economic sense for subsistence (or marginal) farmers or laborers where manual labor and low-pay labor is the only option for offspring. -higher birthrates make sense if you are invested in some identity group that is trying to dominate others, control resources, or maintain identity. -lower birthrates make sense if offspring can achieve wealth through status in an elite sub-group. -high birth rates don't make sense from a (woman's) individual perspective if she has a choice not influenced by the above. Nothing in the Depression, WWII, baby-boom time period contradicts that, as far as I can tell, at least without some finer resolution data.



Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by nigelj

Fri, 20 Oct 2017 08:27:25 +0000

Zebra @233 "The smaller the population, the more valuable labor becomes, which reduces inequality and the concentration of power." Sounds plausible, but have you checked this against reality? Because it doesnt appear so. The four highest countries by income inequality America, Turkey, Mexico, Chile. NZ my county also has above oecd average now. Chile and NZ smaller populations and low population density. America average population density. Mexico and Turkey higher population density. So just not an obvious correlation. And from a study within America: "On average, lower (population) density areas are both poorer and more unequal." http://www.mcleveland.org/Class_notes/Population_Distribution_and_Poverty.pdf I could be wrong, just a two minute look at the issue.



Comment on O Say Can You CO2… by Barry

Fri, 20 Oct 2017 07:23:28 +0000

Scott Denning @22 D helfrich @25 Thank you



Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by sidd

Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:33:54 +0000

To: Scott Strough Do you have an email address or a website so I may contact you ?



Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by nigelj

Fri, 20 Oct 2017 05:48:29 +0000

Killian @215 With respect what you have written is totally empty sophistry. Its too childish, aggressive and rudely vindictive and wrong for words. I just dont have to take this rubbish. I could walk away, but no there are reasons to respond.Most people reading your rhetoric will run a mile and do the complete opposite of everything you say. You are a danger to climate science and environmentalism, and too childish for this discussion. Principles and concepts are fine, but if you cant get specific and presecriptive when required, your ideas are hopeless and not even remotely science based or of any use. By analogy because its the only way I can get this across, your comments are on the same level as "the world needs more fairness, love and respect". Yes of course it does we all know that, but if you cant specifically say how in specific detail and in a practically and workable way, just shut up.



Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by nigelj

Fri, 20 Oct 2017 05:22:32 +0000

zebra @222 "The essence of “what I am talking about” is that we don’t need no stinkin’ manifestos." What is your ranting about population and family size if its not a manifesto?



Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by nigelj

Fri, 20 Oct 2017 05:12:16 +0000

Thomas @212 “To paraphrase Hank Roberts in another context, you may be correct in everything you say, but how would we know. Steve” "That’s your job and responsibility to do Steve (and everyone else from Gavin down.) Isn’t it? Not Scotts.:" No, if Scott makes big claims he has to prove them, with citations, or from first principles and in specific detail. Period.



Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by nigelj

Fri, 20 Oct 2017 04:54:38 +0000

Thomas @210 "RE Steve Fish and “A couple of scientific reviews of the literature would be great.”"Scott has done this since the first day he ever posted here Steve." Not on the specific question of how much total extra emissions could potentially be absorbed by soil carbon sinks. I have yet to see anything rigorous.



Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by nigelj

Fri, 20 Oct 2017 03:27:11 +0000

zebra @223 "What would the politics be like in my bi-coastal US? There would be no Senators or reps from Wyoming, or any of the other resource-dependent locales. Do you think West Virginia is going to dominate the country and force everyone to burn coal?" Oh come on Zebra, those are wild imaginings and assumptions and straw people. Not your usual rigorous style. Smaller population will still have politics, and people who don't give a toss for the environment. Even hunter gatherers weren't perfect and that was small population. The Maori in my country, fine people but killed off half the native birds and animals. Even coastal settlements have resources. And thus competition and squabbles just smaller populations might reduce the squabbles. "The smaller the population, the less valuable non-renewable resources become, and so less powerful are those who control them." Yes and a good thing too, but that doesn't make them any less tempting to use because they would be cheap and abundant. "The smaller the population, the more valuable labor becomes, which reduces inequality and the concentration of power." Yes, and a good thing, but beside the point.



Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by Thomas

Fri, 20 Oct 2017 00:01:29 +0000

C21G-1179: A Novel Approach To Retrieve Arctic Sea Ice Thickness For Prediction And Analysis L Brucker et al "In spite of October-November Arctic-sea-ice-volume loss exceeding 7000 km3 in the decade following ICESat launch (2003), most global ocean reanalysis systems are not able to reproduce such a drastic decline. "Knowledge of the sea ice properties and its thickness distribution is critical to our understanding of polar ocean processes and the role of the polar regions in the Earth's climate system. [...] "For the first time, we were able to reproduce the Arctic sea ice thickness field at 10 km resolution with success for fall, winter, and spring (April/May depending on melt conditions) from passive microwave data. Our results reveal the same patterns of thickness distribution in the Arctic basin and peripheral seas as CryoSat-2, and the majority of the retrievals are within 0.5 m of CryoSat-2. https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2141.msg131840.html#msg131840 and Published: 6 July 2017 A weekly Arctic sea-ice thickness data record from merged CryoSat-2 and SMOS satellite data Robert Ricker https://www.the-cryosphere.net/11/1607/2017/tc-11-1607-2017.pdf C035: Sea ice-ocean-atmosphere interactions in the “New” Arctic and Southern Oceans Conveners solicit papers on observational, theoretical and numerical investigations that advance a system level understanding of processes that affect sea ice extent and thickness in the Arctic and Southern Oceans https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm17/preliminaryview.cgi/Session22340 or Published: 24 August 2016 Arctic Sea Ice Thickness Estimation from CryoSat-2 Satellite Data Using Machine Learning-Based Lead Detection by Sanggyun Lee et al Academic Editors: Walt Meier, Mark Tschudi, Xiaofeng Li and Prasad S. Thenkabail http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/8/9/698 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICESat-2 https://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/ http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/The_Living_Planet_Programme/Earth_Explorers/CryoSat-2/ESA_s_ice_mission There is much happening atm in this subject area.