Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
climate  comment forced  comment  cooperation  emissions  forced responses  forced  issue  level  mar  number  population  responses mar 
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, 20 Mar 2018 11:29:27 +0000


Comment on Unforced variations: Mar 2018 by Killian

Tue, 20 Mar 2018 11:29:27 +0000

CH4 and Permafrost This new study seems to take us back to where I thought we were in 2007 with this issue, before some studies started suggesting less dangerous possibilities and certain researchers started getting some pretty serious, and I thought unfair, heat. I hope someone with some chops will explicate this in plainer English in case I am misunderstanding the gist.

Comment on Unforced variations: Mar 2018 by MA Rodger

Tue, 20 Mar 2018 10:29:11 +0000

It appears Voctor the Troll @305 feels his grasp of climate forcing is sharp as occam's razor. His argument runs something like 'If YOU are stupid enough to plead there was CO2 forcing pre-1940 causing the pre-1940 warming, how can there not have been ANY warming 1940-70 when CO2 emissions continued to increase, smarty-pants?' Golly!! That's a tricky question!!! Of course it is only 'tricky' in as much as Victor the Troll is asking it. So the answer need to be couched in a way that he will find understandable. As the man is stricken with chronic denialism, that is not easy. Victor the Troll @305. The level "pollution produced by the burning of fossil fuels" is not determined by the amount of FF you burn but by what sort of FF you burn and how you burn it. And additional to that consideration, FF is not the only contributor to anthropogenic CO2 emissions which in turn are not the only contributor to anthropogenic climate forcing. Your Grand Theory seems to rest on the idea that FF-use produces CO2, a GHG which is warming the planet but that, in some bizarre balance, a commensurate quantity of SO2 aerosols must also be produced cooling the planet. We seemingly cannot have the one without the other so what is 'source' for the pre-1940's goose is also 'source' for the 1940-70 gander. Either both show warming or both show cooling. We cannot have one warming while the other does not. 'Simples'!!! The following is overly-simplistic, but I feel explains your problem, Victor. While IPCC AR5 AII Table 1.2 shows AGW racked up 33% of its 2011 CO2-forcing-level by 1940 and a further 13% 1940-70, SO2 emissions had a bit of a hiatus 1910-40 (roughly 30% of 2010 levels throughout the period) followed by a period of sky-rocketry 1940-70 (something like a further 90% of the 2010 level achieved by 1970). There is no linkage between FF CO2 emissions & SO2 emissions, a linkage you assume and without which your Grand Theory very rapidly splash-lands and gurgles round the U-bend. So, Victor the Troll, do you have any other Grand Theories that yo wish to share with us?

Comment on Alsup asks for answers by nigelj

Tue, 20 Mar 2018 06:53:46 +0000

K McKinney, you have made good suggestions on explaining ice ages etc, except I think its unwise to start including equations on radiation etc. The judge probably won't be able to follow this sort of university level science material, and could get annoyed. If the judge does get it, he or she may start asking questions about how the equations are derived which will create more things to have to justify, and will remove discussion even futher away from the damage climate change is causing.

Comment on Forced responses: Mar 2018 by SystemicCausation

Tue, 20 Mar 2018 05:21:44 +0000

I see others have addressed this recently here. A new paper is out. Amazon deforestation is close to tipping point Scientists considered climate change and indiscriminate use of fire to calculate that deforestation rates ranging from 20% to 25% could turn Amazon's hydrological cycle unable to support its ecosystem. Date: March 19, 2018 Source: Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo

Comment on Forced responses: Mar 2018 by SystemicCausation

Tue, 20 Mar 2018 05:16:28 +0000

Time to wake up? (who am I?) has grown accustomed to the unsettling feeling of standing virtually alone while speaking about a topic that he believes is of the utmost importance. It’s a very hollow feeling. If you believe that this is a matter of such consequence and to put in this kind of an effort, then to have it be in an empty room, it’s a little disconcerting the culmination of years of research and determination on his part, focused on a combination of disturbing new scientific results In the real world, in actual reality, we are long past any question as to the reality of climate change bookish to the point of being a geek, is obsessed with environmental issues, and is not content to just scratch the surface of a problem — he delves deep, traveling the country in order to understand the science and politics of global warming. He’s also a bit quirky. might not be the person you’d want to sit next to on a long distance flight, but he is definitely someone you want fighting for you I think it has been an often lonely undertaking but it started at a particularly bleak period So, I figured, let’s start talking about this on a regular basis.” provides a good lesson in sticking to a routine, has the benefit of having a sharp legal mind, which will help amplify his voice as the wave of climate-related litigation builds during the next few years. This has turned his gaze squarely on the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which allowed for unlimited corporate money and so-called “dark money” to flow into politics. the combination of shareholder pressure and legal pressure is going to bring the fossil fuel industry to the table faster than many others think. He described oil companies as “spooked” by the reality of having to present evidence of what they knew, and when they knew it, in a courtroom, as they may have to do in several pending cases nationwide. “... Courts over and over again in our history have been places where big ideas have been thought through because the political system was incapable of dealing with them 21 young Americans are suing the federal government for depriving them of the right to a stable climate. says his work has been successful in other ways. He compares his efforts to serving as the pilot light of an oven, keeping it ready to turn on as soon as the conditions align and “it comes time to start cooking.” “very intentionally wanted to be the witness on the ground” to tell future generations exactly why they have not acted. “There’s a story that needs to be told, because when some coastal farmer in Malaysia or Madagascar or Sri Lanka has lost their farm and their village has had to go and there’s fighting for resources, all that stuff happens to somebody, to some kid, to some tribe, to some village, that stuff happens, and they’re mad and they want answers,

Comment on Alsup asks for answers by Keith Woollard

Tue, 20 Mar 2018 04:44:02 +0000

Obviously this thread has taken a bit of a detour down the tobacco road, and that is fine. This really highlights the differences between the two issues and why there is so much public disbelief in the impending catastrophe. If the lawyers and plaintiffs walked into the civil tobacco cases smoking the whole time, do you think the result would have been the same? If CO2 emissions are such an issue, don't do it!!!! Let's not start suing companies, and trying to get governments to impose laws and taxes - just stop. I don't mean cut back, I mean stop. Sell your car, get rid of central heating and aircon, walk/cycle to work or telecommute, don't get on a plane.... ever! Until you do these things, people will not trust you. If doctors said "smoking gives you cancer, and so we have cut back from 2 packets a day to one and half packets of lights" would you believe them? Any authority that says one thing and does the opposite will be scorned

Comment on Forced responses: Mar 2018 by Mr. Know It All

Tue, 20 Mar 2018 02:48:44 +0000

155 - Zebra Um, no. Adding people to a national population is a population increase for that nation. Sorry. And no, we do not need greater diversity in the USA - no other country on earth has a population anywhere near as diverse as the USA.

Comment on Forced responses: Mar 2018 by Mr. Know It All

Tue, 20 Mar 2018 02:44:35 +0000

154 - nigelj Back in 2008-9 we had an economic contraction. Any data on how much consumption decreased during that period?

Comment on Forced responses: Mar 2018 by nigelj

Tue, 20 Mar 2018 02:06:34 +0000

Cooperation, demilitarisation and 90% resource use reductions. Killian says "We are assuming sanity reigns. Any military grab of resources dooms us all. If enough come to understand this, they will disband the militaries of the world. Understand this, the call for cooperation is fractal: It must exist at every level." More cooperation seems a desirable goal at any level both individually, locally and globally.If we dont cooperate it will be forced on us suddenly and in painful ways by circumstances. Its made particularly pertinent and essential by the climate change threat. No country will move on the climate issue, if it isn't confident others are prepared to move, making global cooperation an essential goal with things like the Paris accord. The same principle applies at community levels and so on. The nuclear issue remains a huge threat to humaniity, because of the possibility of a mistake escalating towards disaster. A more cooperative world can only reduce this risk. Demilitarisation is a lofty ideal, but its well worth working towards surely? The question is really are cooperation and competition mutually exclusive? Both appear part of the human condition and to have value, so for anyone to suggest competition is toxic is unconvincing. I would suggests competition in any form is best seen as a "subset" of cooperation. If you understand this, everything else will fall into place. Killian, David Suzuki and some others promote a 90% reduction is use of energy and resources to solve climate, pollution and resource issue problems. This is the number they believe solves the finite resources issue, and that it's a number that is also practically viable. Suzukis book bases this on increasing population, so straight away falls into the trap of not considering that both resource use and population can change and will likely change, so his number is likely to be unrealistic. They do not say how long this number would prolong life on this planet at that level of resource use, however 1000 years is a number often used in research studies as a basis. I think ideas like this need scrutiny and quantities are important. I definitely think we need to simplify and reduce resource use, and the question is by how much and what really makes sense?. This then gives us an understanding of how urgently we need to reduce population numbers. We have to juggle both variables at the same time. Taking an average middle class person in a developed country, here are some thoughts: 1) Reducing electricity use by 90% would be challenging, because it would require substantial cuts to home heating, water heating and cooking, or alternatively it would require considerable investment in expensive and resoure intensive forms of highly efficient heating and cooling. I really wonder if some of these experts pull these numbers out of thin air, or are assuming a near subsistence lifestyle. A more realistic number looks like 25% - 50% given current technologies. However if anyone can prove me wrong fine, provided its with sensible facts and not stupid insinuations and empty rhetoric. 2)Reducing food intake by 90% would not be feasible given the minimum recommended intake is 1500 calories per day and the average actual intake is about 2000 calories per day. Clearly 25% is a more realistic number on average. 3)Reducing clothing by 90% would leave you with about one pair of clothes. 4)Reducing quantity of technology by 90% would mean owning just the essentials like a small oven and fridge, if even that much. So 25% - 50% looks more realistic to me just intuitively speaking. 5)Reducing the size of a house by 90% . This would mean "tiny houses" of about 10 - 15M2, which is not practical for families. 25% - 50% looks more realistic to me. Reducing use of transpor[...]