Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/wp-commentsrss2.php?p=415
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
april  change  climate  comment unforced  comment  emissions  population  time emergence  time  unforced variations  ºc ºc  ºc 
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, 23 May 2017 19:07:25 +0000

 



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by Kevin McKinney

Tue, 23 May 2017 19:07:25 +0000

Killian, thanks for your thoughts in #205. You said:
No degree of reform is going to turn a power-based, hierarchical, patriarchal system into a regenerative system... 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.
Guess we'll have to disagree on that. I don't believe that all "power-based, hierarchical, patriarchal" systems are functionally the same, nor do I believe that such characteristics are immutable. In fact, I think the patriarchy is visibly tottering in much of the developed world. Trumpism is a remarkable symptom thereof, I think. I also think that hierarchy is in some sense unavoidable. It didn't start with humans, and while different human societies do embody it in varying degrees, I doubt there is any that is completely hierarchy-free--hunter-gather bands still have leaders. Unless, perhaps, you are using a definition which uses some sort of institutional (as opposed to provisional, personally-based) hierarchy? In any case, I think it does matter what the current system does or does not do between, say, tomorrow and 2030. If CCL were to get a carbon tax measure passed--say, in 2019, it would not by itself create a sustainable society--of course. But it would make it a lot easier for small farmers to compete with industrial ag; it would make it a lot easier for EVs to displace ICEs, with consequent emissions reductions amounting to a large fraction of the US national total (at last EIA analysis, IIRC 31% of the national total was transportation); and it would accelerate the greening of the whole power generation infrastructure. Not perfect, but a hell of a lot better than the status quo--and this at a time when bending the Keeling Curve downward is a matter of considerable urgency. You view it as something that will "**extend** the time line to reaching truly regenerative systems"; I think rather that it is more likely to prove something that will "**extend** the time available [for] reaching truly regenerative systems." It isn't an either/or between reform and radical change. Reform may well lead to radical change--if one is lucky, it may even do so by an incremental route. There are several nations around today which vividly illustrate this--I was born in one of them (and it's across the Detroit River from you!) I appreciate your comments on the ReThink paper as well, but I wonder if you actually read the whole thing? It isn't just that substitution of EVs for ICEs occurs; it's that if their analysis is correct, private car ownership drops by 95%. Total production of cars drops by 70%. One of the things the report envisions is a merging of the TaaS paradigm into public transit, and even the possibility of advertising-funded transportation. The bottom line is that the TaaS model would be a *much* more efficient use of resources. Could you keep building autonomous EVs forever? I don't see why not, especially as total population drops. There's enough material with solar energy and sophisticated recycling to keep building them for a very, very long time. If you want to keep the Internet going (as you've advocated in the past, and as for another example McKibben does in "Eaarth") then I think that you are going to need transportation for the computers, infrastructure, and so forth, and you are going to need sophisticated manufacturing capabilities, all of which also have *their* transportation needs. (NB.--ReThink also expect TaaS to become the operative paradigm for trucking.) Lastly, let me throw in another appreciation--that is for the concept of authority inhering in the local community and being delegated upward as necessary. My first thought was "Sure, like that's going to happen!" But I quickly recalled that an upward delegation of authority is in fact the essential model of both Canadian and[...]



Comment on Nenana Ice Classic 2017 by Russell Seitz

Tue, 23 May 2017 18:11:47 +0000

Next door to Nenans, Watts' blog has just inverted the sense- and ignored the title- of Nature Geosciences latest article on Siberian palaeoclimate: https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/05/watts-weather-underground.html



Comment on Nenana Ice Classic 2017 by tegiri nenashi

Tue, 23 May 2017 17:23:26 +0000

@39 MA Rogers Admittedly, Antarctica temperature increase in Mercer paper was from Manabe et.al. research (fig.1). Saltsman 2017 has indeed something new to contribute to the apparent polar amplification asymmetry, but let me ask more general question: Which climate research papers stood the test-of-time? Awarding distinguished past contributions is what other science disciplines routinely; perhaps this is a worthy topic for a post here? @40+ Hank I infer that you imply my poor credentials (scientific, or otherwise). However, I would like to turn the discussion into positive direction and discuss a related idea: "citizens science". There are many success stories there: "Folding@home", "Galaxy Zoo", etc. Climate science has a different flavor of "citizens science" (surfacestations, etc). Why is that?



Comment on Nenana Ice Classic 2017 by Ric Merritt

Tue, 23 May 2017 16:46:41 +0000

@t marvell (why bother with Nenana data): As Gavin briefly mentioned, and as seen in the links, the peanut gallery made a big deal of a single year with a late breakup, but somehow fails to mention the trend, leaving that chore to the adults in the room.



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by S.B. Ripman

Tue, 23 May 2017 14:42:50 +0000

#208 Mike: Thanks for keeping us aware of the CO2 readings which are, of course, in the first order of importance. As they go up the chances of a livable world for future generations goes down. I hope to live to see the day when they reverse and start heading downward, but am not optimistic. Incidentally, here are some recently observed corollaries of the Dunning-Kruger effect (the phenomenon wherein persons of low cognitive ability — those who lost in the genetic lottery that passed out brains — suffer from illusory superiority when they mistakenly assess their ability as greater than it is): — persons of low cognitive ability will bestow illusory superiority on opinion-makers (writers, commentators, politicians, scientists) whom they find worthy of admiration. They will use the term “brilliant” to describe someone who is disseminating absolute nonsense. — persons of low cognitive ability will find illusory inferiority in opinion-makers who do not support their pet theories. They will use the term “idiocy” to describe a presentation by someone who is simply reporting real-world facts or peer-reviewed scientific findings. — persons of low cognitive ability will be impervious to superior arguments with which are at odds with their preconceptions. No amount of patience and rationality will work with them because, unfortunately, they do not have the mental firepower to grasp where the truth lies. Warm regards, S.B. Ripman



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by mike

Tue, 23 May 2017 14:39:14 +0000

Daily CO2 May 21, 2017: 409.91 ppm May 21, 2016: 407.21 ppm How are we doing with CO2 emissions? https://www.carbonbrief.org/half-global-population-could-face-unknown-climates-by-mid-century "You can see some of their results in the maps below for a moderate emissions scenario called RCP4.5. It’s worth noting that current emissions are tracking above RCP4.5, close to the highest emissions scenario used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (RCP8.5)." Underlying study: https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3297.html Frame et. al. refine the idea of "time of emergence" by adding factor of localized variability of weather patterns. So, in a region that has high variability of weather (noise) the signal of climate change will not be recognized as quickly as it would be in a region that has had low variability of weather. This makes sense. I mull this and think, oh, this suggests that populations in the HV (high variability) regions may be slow to move forward with support for change needed to bring the carbon cycle back to a balanced state. I expect there may be some exceptions - like equatorial coastal communities or sub-Arctic regions - that may have had low variability weather historically - where impact from one presentation of global warming (sea level rise or loss, loss of sea ice, thawing of tundra, etc.) will bring an earlier "time of emergence" sensibility to the resident populations. This makes me wonder if the continental US might be a region of historically high variability where the time of emergence might happen later than it would in most other regions of the world. Of course, another consideration is population density. If you are considering socio-political response to global warming by our species another factor in the potential responses is population density and the power to respond and make changes that might alter/reduce the CO2 emissions. An example of that: the resident human population of the WAIS might experience the time of emergence early and easily through ice loss, but since there are so few actual human residents, the early time of emergence is academic because of population density and the special characteristics of the small population that spends much time in a place like Antarctica. It's not Joe the Plumber studying things down in Antarctica, if you follow my meaning... got to repeat one part: "It’s worth noting that current emissions are tracking above RCP4.5, close to the highest emissions scenario used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (RCP8.5)." That is the ball game. We have to bring the CO2 number in the atmosphere down and we are failing at this time. Warm regards Mike



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by MA Rodger

Tue, 23 May 2017 14:36:34 +0000

And Hadcrut has posted for April and as per Gistemp & NOAA, it shows continuing ”scorchyisimo!!!” The April global anomaly is again down on the heights of March (+0.88°C) & Feb (+0.84°C) to +0.74ºC, again equal to that of January. April 2017 becomes =14th hottest month on the full record (=19th in Gistemp, =12th in NOAA) and again the 2nd hottest April on record (behind 1st-place April 2016 (+0.91ºC) and well ahead of the pack (3rd-place April 2010 +0.68ºC, 4th-place April 2015 +0.67ºC and 5th-place April 2014 +0.67ºC, the first 3 places identical in order to Gistemp & NOAA). The start of 2017 also remains ”scorchyisimo!!!” with first four months of 2017 still head-&-shoulders above the first four months of all other years excepting last year which was of course boosted by an El Nino (this all as per Gisemp/NOAA). The first-4-months HadCRUT averages (with eventual annual averages) look like this:- .. .. 1st 4 months .. Annual ave 2016 .. +0.99ºC .. .. +0.77ºC 2017 .. +0.80ºC 2015 .. +0.69ºC .. .. +0.76ºC 2002 .. +0.63ºC .. .. +0.50ºC 2007 .. +0.62ºC .. .. +0.49ºC 2010 .. +0.62ºC .. .. +0.56ºC 1998 .. +0.61ºC .. .. +0.54ºC 2004 .. +0.53ºC .. .. +0.45ºC 2005 .. +0.53ºC .. .. +0.55ºC 2014 .. +0.52ºC .. .. +0.56ºC As a non-El Nino year, the eventual annual avergase for 2017 could well be warmer than the average for its first 4 months.



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by MA Rodger

Tue, 23 May 2017 14:01:13 +0000

Hank Roberts @207, Your link to Zhang et at (2017) isn't working. This link gives the full paper.



Comment on Nenana Ice Classic 2017 by Thomas

Tue, 23 May 2017 09:20:36 +0000

41 Hank Roberts shares some unexpected fascinating information. "Tegiri Nenashi is a joke name." Well blow me down with a feather. I'd be so lost without you without such facts. :-) So if the poster used the nym "Whincemcgouglesqwallawallabionski" instead, what bloody difference would it make to any one? This is a "climate science" site? Really? You could have fooled me. But hey y'all know already I'm such crazed dumb fukc (and according to BPL a Soviet Communist Spy trying to bring down US Capitalism) right? That's right isn't it? (shaking my head) C'ya



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by Thomas

Tue, 23 May 2017 09:07:09 +0000

205 Killian says: "I thought, foolishly, we could transform this system. I have since realized we cannot due to the inherent characteristics and principles upon which current systems are based. AND "CCL, too: Their activism is suicidal more because of what they are **not** advocating than because of what they are." Nailed it. But you're still wasting your breath and pixels K. Nothing is going to change anytime soon, or at all. More likely get far worse. The good super smart scientists are not going to save anyone either. We're in a leaky boat in the middle of a pacific tornado and everyone is going down with the ship... the good the bad and the ugly. Including those who are visionary and right, only half right and endlessly barking up the wrong trees, the big mouths and the silent, those who have never even heard of climate change yet as they eek out a living in garbage dump, and those who are totally wrong as well about agw/cc and WTF to do about it. Did you play red rover decades ago at school? It's all over red rover. And so it doesn't matter anymore what anyone does or says now. Go live your life be happy doing what you love .... the survivors will work it all out for themselves in the future. That's Life mate.