Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/wp-commentsrss2.php?p=420
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
blockquote  change  climate  comment unforced  comment  dec  growth  killian  stop  unforced variations  unforced  variations dec  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: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 04:34:41 +0000

 



Comment on Unforced Variations: Dec 2017 by Killian

Tue, 12 Dec 2017 04:34:41 +0000

Feed 12 billion, reduce atmospheric carbon. "Because they tend to use more labour, grow a wider range of crops and work the land more carefully, small farmers, as a rule, grow more food per hectare than large ones. In the poorer regions of the world, people with fewer than five hectares own 30% of the farmland but produce 70% of the food. Since 2000, an area of fertile ground roughly twice the size of the UK has been seized by land grabbers and consolidated into large farms, generally growing crops for export rather than the food needed by the poor." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/11/mass-starvation-humanity-flogging-land-death-earth-food



Comment on Unforced Variations: Dec 2017 by Thomas

Tue, 12 Dec 2017 04:01:40 +0000

Hey, Macron comes good .... in less than 6 months :-) More than 5,000 people from about 100 countries expressed interest in the grants. Most of the applicants – and 13 of the 18 winners – were US-based researchers. Macron’s appeal “gave me such a psychological boost, to have that kind of support, to have the head of state saying I value what you do”, said winner Camille Parmesan, of the University of Texas at Austin. She will be working at an experimental ecology station in the Pyrenees on how human-made climate change is affecting wildlife. In an interview with The Associated Press, Parmesan described funding challenges for climate science in the US and a feeling that “you are having to hide what you do”. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/11/macron-awards-grants-to-us-scientists-to-move-to-france-in-defiance-of-trump



Comment on Unforced Variations: Dec 2017 by CCHolley

Mon, 11 Dec 2017 20:30:23 +0000

Alastair B. McDonald @59
Here is a book I bought last Christmas and has lasted me all year: Hay, W. W. (2016) Experimenting on a Small Planet: A History of Scientific Discoveries, a Future of Climate Change and Global Warming, 2nd ed. 2016 edition. New York, NY, Springer. An enjoyable read!
Thank you very much for the recommendation. Just received my copy. It is a very large volume that appears at first blush to be well written with wonderful illustrations and covers many aspects pf climate change science. Seems like quite a bargain for the price as compared to many of the textbooks that I have in my collection. Looking forward to digging into this one further!



Comment on Fall AGU 2017 by Pete Best

Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:54:31 +0000

30,000 tonnes of co2 emitted to host this conference. Global warming can’t be an issue really can it?



Comment on Fall AGU 2017 by Mitch

Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:42:38 +0000

Here is a place to look at the AGU fall meeting abstracts, but do not know if it is the best place: https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm17/meetingapp.cgi/Home/0



Comment on Unforced Variations: Dec 2017 by zebra

Mon, 11 Dec 2017 11:19:17 +0000

Kevin M #86, Let me be a little less concise as well to mitigate the apparent confusion/conflation. When I say that population reduction is the most hopeful approach to all three goals, I mean jointly, not severally. It's obvious that if we separate out reducing CO2 very rapidly as a goal, RE and EV and "efficiency" and so on, are more likely to achieve it...if implemented rapidly. And there's the rub. As I said, that may happen, or not. More likely, in my projection, conversion will happen, but the timeline will be nothing like what we here would prefer, and humanity will find itself in one of the less palatable scenarios from IPCC. So, let's look at humanity 300 years from now, and ask how we can make the journey there less painful, and the journey forward from there more likely to contain the "good stuff" that we all apparently agree on. I've provided my clearly defined, quantitative, answer, and justified it without, so far, any substantive refutation. What are the alternatives that deal with M, A, and S, putting aside wishful thinking? Anyone?



Comment on Unforced Variations: Dec 2017 by sidd

Mon, 11 Dec 2017 07:18:54 +0000

Re: killfile Here is a quick hack for those on unix systems. http://membrane.com/sidd/prkill.txt to kill posters named AAAAA,BBBBB, .... on the second page of comments to Dec 2017 unforced variations on this forum. Adjust to your taste. sidd



Comment on Unforced Variations: Dec 2017 by Killian

Mon, 11 Dec 2017 05:33:10 +0000

1. We need sensible growth. Said those who either do not understand or do not properly consider the exponential function. 2. Growth is to raise up the poor. See above. 3. Growth is needed to build out unsustainable stuff so we can build less unsustainable stuff and reduce emissions. Except more decades of growth add to the burden; it's a case of receding horizons.
Those who justify this system insist that economic growth is essential for the relief of poverty. But a paper in the World Economic Review finds that the poorest 60% of the world’s people receive only 5% of the additional income generated by rising GDP. As a result, $111 of growth is required for every $1 reduction in poverty. This is why, on current trends, it would take 200 years to ensure that everyone receives $5 a day. By this point, average per capita income will have reached $1m a year, and the economy will be 175 times bigger than it is today. This is not a formula for poverty relief. It is a formula for the destruction of everything and everyone.
http://www.monbiot.com/2017/11/24/everything-must-go/ There are other interesting tidbits in there.



Comment on Unforced Variations: Dec 2017 by Killian

Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:54:42 +0000

#86 Kevin McKinney said Barton, #73– I made D) and E) pretty explicitly in the same comment you were replying to. I repeat:
D) that it doesn’t help to use renewable energy instead of fossil fuels Straw Man. Stop lying. I have never once said this here or elsewhere. To say a thing is not sustainable is not equal to saying it has no use or utility. I have stated numerous times “renewables” are not sustainable, but can and do serve as bridge technologies. However, building out a grid to meet 100% of current and projected future FF demand would be stupid. Why lie? Why are so many of you comfortable with lies, telling and/or condoning them? E) that government policies are irrelevant In the long term, they are. They cannot and will not lead us to sustainability. In the short term, activism might change a few, but not enough to matter much.
So you needn’t worry that I’ve suddenly turned into a Killian acolyte. You will. Rather, your analysis will come around to mine just as the climate science has. But I’m very interested in the question of what a sustainable society would really look like. Then you cannot dismiss what I say about principles, risk, time lines, and First Principles, which you must to think D and E above are an intelligent response. And Killian pushes that question persistently and provocatively, which makes him a good gadfly for a highly necessary inquiry–even a better one, given more devotion to the relevant topic and less to emotional reactivity. I am not the one invoking my name in post after post, it is you and others. Stop doing so, stop the false statements, solve the problem, which is yourselves. 2) If population reduction cannot address the carbon crisis, it still remains important for the eventual hoped-for establishment of a reasonably sustainable human civilization. Correct. It is, as I have said, a long-term goal with some urgency. Who knows what we can exceed in terms of ruining the planet over x number of years, but in terms of food, exceeding 12 billion gets quite dangerous... under normal conditions. We have to come up with some combination of demand reduction, efficiency, and substitution that will bring emissions down fast. Killian thinks that can only happen by abandoning the current paradigm No. Wrong. Again. Christ... EVERYTHING ties to the risk assessment and rate of change. These thoughts do not just pop up out of nothing. It is a lie of omission for all of you to claim I say these things and leave out the context and reasoning. It is dishonest. Stop. I think it can only be done *fast enough* to stay within the risk parameters via simplification. How many times do I have to repeat this before you "get it"/stop misrepresenting it? I think that abandoning it can’t happen that fast (except by a catastrophic process as hinted at above, and even that isn’t likely to end up as well as he envisions, IMO). Envisions? I have laid out no explicit vision for how "well" it would go, only that the end result could be a happy, healthy society. In between, I have consistently said the transition would be difficult for 2 - 4 generations. What is this "well" you speak of? Fundamental changes tend to be hard, and to require a hell of a lot of work. They also incur the mmost opposition And aren't the constant rudeness and false statements here a perfect illustration. Just what *might* work fast enough is the question that interests me the most. If that were true, you would not be dismissive of what I say. It is consistent with addressing and solving all problems we face. No other plan comes close. 4) [...]



Comment on Unforced Variations: Dec 2017 by Killian

Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:26:34 +0000

#73 Barton Paul Levenson said more stupid crap. Kevin-san, Killian is right that we have to stop economic growth sooner or later, preferably sooner. Yes, I am. Because it's blindingly obvious. He is wrong that A) we have to do so by all becoming small farmers Straw Man. Straw Men are for stupid people. B) that if that were desirable we could do so easily You have zero experience here. ANY piece of land can be made fertile enough for farming/gardening within 5 years except highly toxic spaces. C) that economics is not science I merely agree it is not a science. Not my original idea. Steve Keen, et al., know a heck of a lot more about it than you do. In fact, it is not. It is not based in scientific process at all. It grew out of, and continues to be, philosophy. I have linked sources on this many times. You are, in fact, wrong. D) that it doesn’t help to use renewable energy instead of fossil fuels Straw Man. Stop lying. I have never once said this here or elsewhere. To say a thing is not sustainable is not equal to saying it has no use or utility. I have stated numerous times "renewables" are not sustainable, but can and do serve as bridge technologies. However, building out a grid to meet 100% of current and projected future FF demand would be stupid. Why lie? Why are so many of you comfortable with lies, telling and/or condoning them? E) that government policies are irrelevant In the long term, they are. They cannot and will not lead us to sustainability. In the short term, activism might change a few, but not enough to matter much. F) what he says is clear, but everybody is either too stupid and lazy to get it or is deliberately lying about it. Not everybody, so, again, a lie. That population growth and new-resource-use have to stop (and, in the long run, reverse) to save the planet is trivial Trivial: of little value or importance. If you think so, you have serious deficiencies in this discussion. So I tend not to give him any points at all. Thanks, peanut. Your support would be no feather.