Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
climate  comment unforced  comment  emissions  feb  global  india  total  unforced variations  unforced  variations feb  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: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 03:09:21 +0000


Comment on Unforced Variations: Feb 2017 by Hank Roberts

Thu, 23 Feb 2017 03:09:21 +0000

> 215, 220 Egress! How technophilia can reinforce biophilia to improve ecological restoration Authors: Buette, Brook First published: 3 June 2016 DOI: 10.1111/rec.12387 For effective and sustained ecological restoration, community support is essential. Yet, in modern society, artificial constructs and electronic technology now dominate most peoples' interests (technophilia). This has led to a perceived growing disconnection between humans and nature. We ask how such technology might be harnessed as an agent of connection to the environment, rather than being seen as a driver of detachment. We use the example of a hugely popular mobile augmented reality smartphone game "Ingress" to show how gaming technology can excite people about nature, unlock their inherent biophilia, and highlight the value of ecological restoration in their everyday lives.

Comment on Unforced Variations: Feb 2017 by Thomas

Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:26:28 +0000

re #218 - I thought abusive, insulting, ad hominem attacks were banned from RC? Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.

Comment on Unforced Variations: Feb 2017 by Solar Jim

Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:18:31 +0000

RE: Scott at #158 "5-20 tonnes of CO2 per hectare per year x 1.5 billion hectares = 7.5 – 30.0 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. That’s roughly 60%-250% of annual fossil fuel emissions +/-." Unless I have misunderstood your numbers, fossil "fuel" emissions annually are approx. ten billion tons of CARBON, or 36.66 billion tons of carbonic acid gas, aka carbon dioxide. Your 60%-250% figure would therefore be inaccurate.

Comment on Unforced Variations: Feb 2017 by Thomas

Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:02:49 +0000

2014 United States Coal Consumption = 485.03 MToE Per Capita Consumption = 1.49 MToE per Million Americans including BPL 2013 India Coal Consumption = 341.00 MToE Per Capita Consumption = 0.25 MToE per Million Indians including the dirt poor. Therefore Maths proves beyond all doubt that the average American uses 6 times more Coal every year which produces 6 times / 600% more dangerous GHGs than the average Indian produces. And so it is that Maths also proves that if India tripled it's Coal use they would still be way behind the Per Capita damage being done to the Planet that Americans have been causing since the 18th Century. OMG! That can't be true could it? Americans are all really nice people. National contributions to observed global warming by H Damon Matthews et al Total contributions to global warming for each country are shown in figure 1. The United States is an unambiguous leader, with a contribution of more than double that of China, which falls second in the ranking. India is 5th! Accounting for population differences between countries is also critical in any discussion of national contributions to observed global warming. Table 2 also reveals that the climate warming due to fossil fuel CO2 emissions alone would result in a very different list of the top 20 countries. Brazil, for example, has a climate contribution that is dominated by land-use CO2 and non-CO2 gases, pointing to the critical importance of deforestation and agriculture in explaining their fourth-place ranking. The same is true of Indonesia, Columbia and Nigeria, whose fossil fuel CO2 emissions are not nearly large enough to explain their position on this list. Table 2. Top 20 contributors to global temperature change, ranked in order of their total climate contribution 1st United States at 0.151 is 325% Greater than the teeming masses in India at 5th 0.047 Table 3. Total versus per-capita contributions to temperature change for the world's top 20 total emitters from table 2. Warming per billion people - 2nd is the United States at 0.51 - 20th is India at 0.04; OMG you'd think a 'scientist' knowledgeable about climate science would know all this already. Maybe not when they intentionally skip over references already provided on RC. Historically American's contribution to the total Global Warming on the Planet is 13 times or 1275% greater than the average Indian's. Maths can be a right bitch when it comes to sticking with one's false beliefs and handling internalized cognitive dissonance that arises from it. (smiling, only joking, it's a valid truism) The top 10% CONSUMERS, with 27.5 metric tons of GHG emissions per capita, produce almost as much total GHG emissions (46% of global total) as the bottom 90% combined (54%), with their per capita GHG emission of only 3.6 metric tons [87,90] (see Fig. 2). Sane, rational, evidence/science based individuals with a normal Human Empathy capacity do not miss items like the above nor actively set out to undermine nor deny them in public (imo). Misc refs

Comment on Unforced Variations: Feb 2017 by Thomas

Wed, 22 Feb 2017 23:02:59 +0000

218 Barton Paul Levenson, the opinions of mad men, religious fanatics, and selfish elitist sociopaths have no currency in the real world. Karma wins out every time, eventually. (smile)

Comment on Unforced Variations: Feb 2017 by Jim Hunt

Wed, 22 Feb 2017 21:07:33 +0000

Hank @215 - However please see: "The Raspberry Pi Planet Simulator Cluster"

Comment on Serving up a NOAA-thing burger by Susan Anderson

Wed, 22 Feb 2017 16:27:16 +0000

Russell, thanks for that. I read about the "capitalocene" last year with appalled fascination. Some of the material is relevant and interesting (worldwide conquest and wasted landscapes for profit go back further than 1750), but the overall approach was sick-making and took determination to finish. People make a living doing that stuff, which undermines their argument. Still, the argument about the predation inherent in the highest apes' approach to getting on is pretty scary now it is entering what appears to be a fatal endgame. I'm not convinced it is mostly male either. For example, Peter Thiel has passed on the lawyer who took down Gawker who is now helping Melania try to do the same to the Daily Mail. But I wander. Returning closer to topic (but still off), I don't see why big fossil should make over 100:1 on their lobbying dollars while people chant Solyndragatepocalyse "Now is the time to blot out the sun" when the market in renewables is doing quite well. It's not flat progress, and if the government shouldn't be picking winners and losers coal should go away, and most other forms of extreme fossil as well. There are alternatives.

Comment on Serving up a NOAA-thing burger by patrick

Wed, 22 Feb 2017 15:35:33 +0000

116 Russell: In defense of your hackneyed idea, you are calling on a hackneyed fallacy. The fallacy conforms to the fallacy about atmospheric CO2 that it can't be significant because it's a small percentage. What counts is growth rates and costs. The idea that I said is hackneyed is the idea that wind and solar are "dauntingly expensive." I said it's a hackneyed idea. (102) Now you trot out the "capital markets." The global capital markets are not daunted at all by wind and solar. Regional records have recently been set by major contracts in Dubai (2.9cents/kWh) and India (4.9cents/kWh), among others.

Comment on Unforced Variations: Feb 2017 by Lynn

Wed, 22 Feb 2017 15:03:14 +0000

I've got it -- what to call Judith Curry's type of "denial": THE LOW MARGIN OF ERROR FALLACY. Also that she pushes or exaggerates those MEs even lower. What do you think? Actually this is a strategy of some anti-environment EPAs, like the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. They took only the low MEs on the testing for alpha radiation in some Houston city wells (going against fed EPA policy and written admonition), and since the ME were pretty large, this made it look like there was never any problem, when in fact the actual test results showed danger for over a decade. The local news called it "fraud."

Comment on Serving up a NOAA-thing burger by patrick

Wed, 22 Feb 2017 14:41:50 +0000

115 Paul Donahue: No, just check their Twitter posts.