Everything on CO2 is not a risk management strategy.
===============
Comment on ‘Warmest year’, ‘pause’, and all that by kim
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Rud, I agree with a lot of what you say. Monckton lays out the equations, which is useful, even if they are well known, and looks at IPCC numbers in their context, but then goes completely off track with his assertions about the limits on g, and finally ends up with the wrong conclusions about warming in the pipeline. The problem now is that this is going to be widely quoted by politicians and skeptics as a published work despite being an engineering-based assertion not a result of a study. On cloud feedback, I was not aware of the confusion, but I would phrase it that cloud forcing is negative, which means the earth would be warmer without clouds. But, yes, feedback is only defined as a response, and it can be a positive feedback even though its forcing remains net negative. That just means that cloud negative effects are reducing.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joseph
The South has not fully recovered from the Civil war is my somewhat flippant guess. The South has always seemed to lag behind the Northern states economically. Although they have made some gains and there has been some stronger economic growth in states like North Carolina and Florida and in the larger cities like Atlanta. Here is breakdown of per capita GDP by state. Could it be the climate? That seems difficult to answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
Futuramalama, J; all on spec. Dropping oil devalues those leases.
=================
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
But do they, and what clouds? We don’t have much clue yet.
==============
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
When mapped, GDP per capita is less obvious because where there is a lot of oil wealth like Texas, it brings those states up, even though it doesn’t help poverty rates. However, on a global scale GDP per capita is also lower in the warmer countries (as is life expectancy), and this is sometimes discussed, but also not resolved.
↧
Comment on Week in review by JCH
Lol.
↧
Comment on ‘Warmest year’, ‘pause’, and all that by Ragnaar
Kim: “Peak solar and peak CO2 and temp still stalling out. What’s the pilot doing, anyway?” A light airplane such as a Cessna 172 will eventually reach its service ceiling. Fire walling the throttle or raising the nose will not make it gain anymore altitude. The air is too thin and the engine lacks sufficient oxygen to develop the desired power. The negative feedbacks now completely offset the control inputs that usually gain altitude. Some of the larger Cessnas have a turbocharger that attacks the most solvable problem, but they too eventual reach their peak altitude, say 20,000 feet. The pilot in your question has found out it’s the airplane designers and nature that determine where the service ceiling is. While control inputs behave in a more or less linear fashion up to near the service ceiling, they eventually don’t do anything more in the upwards direction.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joseph
Well if I understand you correctly you are saying that a hotter climate has something to do with childhood poverty. What is the connection? The only one I can think is through affecting economic activity in some way leading to more lower paying jobs. Do you have anything specific in mind?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by nottawa rafter
Jim D
You are not going to get an easy answer since there is none. Some is historical, some due to agrarian beginning, some more recent demographic trends and I am sure many others. But given capital movement and the rust belt losses, I would expect an evening out in the next 30 to 40 years.
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
Nope, it was rate of change of rate of change. Velocity, acceleration and all that speedy stuff.
============
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
A sociological and anthropological morass. Need guides through the swamp.
=========================
↧
Comment on Week in review by Lucifer
In Annie Hall, the subject couple go to a counselor who asks each one:
‘How often do you have sexual relations?’ and they respond:
‘Constantly – three times a week!’
‘Almost never – three times a week!’
For more than a third of a century now, global average temperature trends
are around 1.5 K / century:
‘How much is earth warming?”
Hysterics: ‘Worse than expected – 1.5 K / century’
Deniers: ‘Not warming at al – 1.5 K / century’
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by chuckr
It shouldn’t have to be stated that correlation is not necessarily related to causation…especially on this blog. North Korea is cold too.
↧
Comment on Week in review by PA
“That puts the planet in the CO2 zone of uncertainty that the authors say extends from 350 to 450 ppm.”
Well, gee. Where did these “boundaries” come from. We are halfway through the CO2 boundary and it is all good.
We should deliberately push the CO2 level to 500-550 in an attempt to validate their approach.
If we can vastly exceed their boundaries without substantial negative consequences their paradigm doesn’t have a lot of value or the boundary setting process was not sufficiently informed or rigorous.
Unless the boundaries are set accurately to the actual point of harm they don’t have a lot of value. We are going to cross the 450 PPM boundary and no one is going to notice so at least for CO2 they haven’t made a serious effort.
Having said that, the things we are influencing the environment. It should be done in a planned way. Things that mitigate negative consequences such as low erosion agriculture have been implemented. More of the same is fine.
The important thing is to identify the low hanging fruit that don’t cost much and don’t impact people’s freedom. These are generally noncontroversial with high benefit to cost ratio. There are some natural problems we could mitigate but this is an area we should approach with caution.
There are the next level of adjustments that have some cost but great benefit. These need to identified and discussed, based on good unbiased research so we proceed on an intelligent basis after knocking off low hanging fruit.
High cost low benefit issues like CO2 should get the “talk to the hand” .treatment.
The activists want zero impact even at high cost immediately. That shouldn’t happen, not now, not ever, never.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Ragnaar
Something to do with the problems of transitioning from a former plantation economy. Not just in the United States.
↧
Comment on ‘Warmest year’, ‘pause’, and all that by beththeserf
Lobster sandwiches? Lobsters! But how is that muchos
ocean heat affecting ‘em? …Jest returned from a few days
at Lavender Bay, Sydney Harbour, one of, if not the greatest
of all the harbours of the world.Cool breeze off the water, gold
and green ferries chugging under THE bridge, cormorants
catching fish not five metres from where I stood, beneath a
frangipani tree naturally.) Summer time and the livin’ is oh
so easy. A fortunate serf of the western world.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
I think it is complex and interesting. Life expectancy also tends to be shorter in warmer states and countries. Here is one clue.
I think that in warmer countries people tend to spend less time outside in healthy pursuits because it is too repressive for large parts of the year. This feeds back to poorer health and shorter lives. The connection to poverty is harder, but these are less desirable places to live because of their climate so maybe the ones who have skills have more choices of places to live and move out. Just my ideas. Nothing definitive.
↧
Comment on Week in review by ordvic
↧
Comment on ‘Warmest year’, ‘pause’, and all that by mosomoso
Up here it’s so hot I can’t be bothered beating my serfs. Wretches are just lolling about like they were me.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
