Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/wp-commentsrss2.php?p=410
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
change  climate  comment nenana  comment  drops  ice classic  nenana ice  nenana  power  question  radical change  science  time  total 
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, 25 May 2017 01:02:38 +0000

 



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by killian

Thu, 25 May 2017 01:02:38 +0000

Re 214 Kevin McKinney said, Part II It isn’t an either/or between reform and radical change. Reform may well lead to radical change No, it won't, because it doesn't. Not on this scale. This is not a matter of tweaking where the power lies or which party holds power, or even as large a change as from English monarchy > U.S. This is way beyond that. We are talking about fundamentals; changing the **basis** upon which society functions, the assumptions, the principles. There are no exemplars for this kind of shift. You will not get there from here. it may even do so by an incremental route. If one wants to ignore risk. Why risk it when you have options that do not? 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!) No, there aren't and no, you weren't. I haven't been in Detroit for years. EVs for ICEs... ownership drops by 95%. Total production of cars drops by 70%... merging of the TaaS paradigm into public transit... more efficient Who cares? More efficient isn't the goal. And Jeavons'. (Which is why such incremental change leads to growth, not change.) Why in the world do this when *any* other system is far more efficient? Trains, trolleys, etc., all are better. This is a non-solution intended for people who will not let go their metaphorical latte. you keep building autonomous EVs forever? I don’t see why not Then you do not understand much of anything about resources, production, energy, recycling, etc. Not even going to bother trying to convince you because such a statement belies a dearth of knowledge to vast for this space. 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. Liebig's Law. Look it up. And this: Resources If you want to keep the Internet going... then I think that you are going to need transportation ...manufacturing Not cars. 1. We recognize it is unsustainable. 2. We minimize to absolute need, primarily for long-distance, inter-bio-region transport. authority inhering in the local community and being delegated upward... upward delegation of authority is in fact the essential model of both Canadian and American governments Not really. Also, not authority, and I need to change the use of "delegated." Responsibility is more accurate, and is based on scale of the problem, not authority or power in any sense. Empty lot > neighborhood/small town. Water supply > starts at home, but could be addressed at home, neighborhood, city, regional and bio-regional scales. Water Main > neighborhood/city. Watershed > bio-region, but all levels likely need consulting. Solutions cannot violate smaller scales rights. Food > Best at home and neighborhood, but planning may need to be at all scales in some locations. Emergencies > Special decision-making authority and structures needed at all levels as egalitarian is slow and poorly fitted to emergencies. Good prep and planning should allow for a work group to deal with this, thus allowing the overall structure to *not* be abrogated in some emergencies. Must have a pathway for reversion to normal operating process. The states/provinces are the primary loci of power, with power going to the national government only as specified for particular purposes. in theory. Underlying all of this is the risk assessment, physical reality and awareness that solutions really do exist. Without those things, people have no reason to not be selfish.



Comment on Nenana Ice Classic 2017 by Hank Roberts

Thu, 25 May 2017 00:07:00 +0000

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/60/3/172/256876/Phenology-and-Citizen-ScienceVolunteers-have



Comment on Nenana Ice Classic 2017 by Hank Roberts

Wed, 24 May 2017 23:59:09 +0000

> Why is that? Plenty of climate-related citizen science sites, e.g. https://www.usanpn.org/ You need to understand what an anomaly represents. This from that linked page may help:
Status of Spring Spring was early across much of the US in 2017, arriving 2-3 weeks earlier than a long-term average in the South, Great Basin, Great Plains, Midwest and mid-Atlantic. Many parts of west coast states and small portions of the east coast were 1-3 weeks late....
https://www.usanpn.org/files/slider-anomaly-map_0_0.png



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by Dennis Coyne

Wed, 24 May 2017 22:44:31 +0000

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170523082009.htm Has anybody read the paper referenced at the link above Joshua Krissansen-Totton, David C. Catling. Constraining climate sensitivity and continental versus seafloor weathering using an inverse geological carbon cycle model. Nature Communications, 2017; 8: 15423 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms15423 It would be interesting to see what David Archer and others think about this article.



Comment on Nenana Ice Classic 2017 by MA Rodger

Wed, 24 May 2017 06:43:48 +0000

tegiri nenashi @46. You ask " Which climate research papers stood the test-of-time?" You ask a preposterous question, perhaps because you have an unrealistic understanding of science. The question is not what has "stood the test-of-time" but 'what has been learnt over the period.' I note you fail to define the "time" in question. Further, you now appear to expand this questionable navel-gazing exercise to encompass the totality of "climate research". I am tempted but these aspects of your questioning to describe why your assertion "Awarding distinguished past contributions is what other science disciplines routinely (do)" is as preposterous as your question. Perhaps if you could set out a more realistic question, it would be possible to usefully respond to it.



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 [...]



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