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

Comments for RealClimate



Climate science from climate scientists...



Last Build Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 13:40:01 +0000

 



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.



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by Kevin McKinney

Sat, 20 May 2017 18:29:16 +0000

"CCL is clueless." I disagree. CCL is not trying to achieve permanent sustainability, it is trying to achieve near-immediate term political reform. 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' (presuming it actually does). As such, I think that CCL has a reasonable program. One may critique 'flawed economics', but it's pretty hard to deny the fact that people buy less of anything (including fossil-fueled energy) when it is more expensive. 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. Two, its structure, centered around the weekly call, provides an ongoing program of informal education on the topic. I might even try to start up a chapter here in South Carolina, once I get settled a bit better. 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 CO2 emissions. Oh yeah--the authors' best guess for deployment (disruption) to commence: 2021. That would mean drastic CO2 emissions declines over the course of the 20s. Clearly, those who dislike technological optimism will not like this report (yes, Killian, I'm thinking that will include you--no offense intended.) And there are quite a few moving parts to the analysis, which ramps up my skepticism about its supposed 'inevitability.' But the basic logic is not, to my mind, obviously wrong. Thoughts?



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by Scott Strough

Sat, 20 May 2017 18:22:38 +0000

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. I can not stress enough the importance of this. That's why I don't mind repeating the post. I would shout it from the rooftops if I could. 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. Yeah I know Savory took a lot of heat for claiming the same thing. Scientists and Skeptics both hate when anyone says "only". I should know better than to say that. At least now we have a new study that suggests that very thing when we simply plug in the case study data from regenerative agriculture, rather than the far lower potential from antiquated industrialized ag. 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"? 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?



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by Kevin McKinney

Sat, 20 May 2017 18:06:09 +0000

Victor said:
Whether or not amping up CO2 levels could make a difference under such extreme circumstances was not really my point. In other words, this was a trick question. What really interested me was whether ANYONE posting here would be willing to even consider the possibility that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere might have a positive effect and could be encouraged if the circumstances warranted it. And, as I expected, no one has (at least so far — I can still hope.) As so often in this (non) debate, what I see on the alarmist side are excuses, NOT rational arguments.
Or maybe our ability to jump far outpaces your ability to dream up effective hoops. C'mon, if your preconditions fail to make increasing CO2 logical, then responses pointing that out are *entirely* rational. Or I could address your 'concern'. Suppose solar output permanently dropped to levels expected to create a nearly immediate and serious interglacial (and we somehow knew that it was permanent--currently a counterfactual, as far as I can tell.) Would it make sense to consider ramping up atmospheric CO2 by a program of increased fossil fuel burning? Maybe. But it would be a temporary solution--though by 'temporary', I mean that it would probably only buy us a few millennia of comfortable temps. And we'd still have the ocean acidification side effects to deal with somehow. Of course, as it isn't, it ain't. But do you feel better now? If so, you are welcome.



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by Killian

Sat, 20 May 2017 09:18:54 +0000

As far back as 2003, Robert Gagosian, who was then the President and Director of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) in Woods Hole, Massachusetts (he’s now President Emeritus), warned that we ignore the threat of abrupt climate change induced by a slowing or shutdown of the AMOC at our own peril. “[T]he debate on global change has largely failed to factor in the inherently chaotic, sensitively balanced, and threshold-laden nature of Earth’s climate system and the increased likelihood of abrupt climate change,” he wrote in a post on the WHOI website Great minds. Been saying risk is appropriate metric for... 7 years? 8? 10?



Comment on Nenana Ice Classic 2017 by MA Rodger

Sat, 20 May 2017 06:31:19 +0000

tegiri nenashi @38. You are incorrect in saying it is a matter of simply maintaining a set of graphs. The parent directory tells us "This website will no longer be maintained." It is a re-write of their website that has stopped the graphs in 2011. And it is still unclear what you allege is being hidden. Your reference to Mercer (1978) does not add any greater clarity to what it is you are alleging. The paper is old and in terms of Antarctic temperatures was simply reviewing the understanding of the time. This was couched in speculative language rather than predictive language. And rightly so as the subject of Antarctic temperature amplification is still today scientifically live (as the very recent Saltzmann (2017) illustrates). Concerning the content of Mercer (1978), the paper does not in any way 'predict' what you allege. The 50 years refers to "perhaps" the time to double CO2 (not the timing of the resulting warming) and that "rather drastic deglaciation should then be in progress in West Antarctica."



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by Hank Roberts

Fri, 19 May 2017 19:31:56 +0000

> my Regenerative Community Incubator idea This one? https://www.google.com/search?q=my+Regenerative+Community+Incubator+idea&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=my+Regenerative+Community+Incubator+idea&tbs=li:1



Comment on Nenana Ice Classic 2017 by tegiri nenashi

Fri, 19 May 2017 17:09:47 +0000

MARoger @36 "The graphs have not been maintained". And what does it take to maintain those graphs? The software has already been written. How complex is to run computer program? It can even be made a daemon process that requires no manual intervention at all. Let me clarify why antarctic temp dataset/graph is remarkable. An eminent glaciologist, John H. Mercer, studied west antarctic ice shield for decades. His research culminated in the paper https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v271/n5643/abs/271321a0.html The paper currently stands at 766 citations. Ignoring the WAIS fate claim, the other most notable scientific prediction of the paper is 5-10 degrees temperature increase above antarctic circle in the next 50 years (1978-2028).



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by mike

Fri, 19 May 2017 14:07:36 +0000

May 18: 410.21 ppm May 17: 410.03 ppm May 16: Unavailable May 15: 411.27 ppm May 14: Unavailable https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html looks like a 410 week number to me Cheers Mike