Faustino, I am always wary of the words, ‘Trust me.’
‘Show me yr workings,’ comes to mind.’ Seems I have
a problem with dealers in faith.And great leaps forward
… well :-/
Comment on Planetary boundaries, tipping points and prophets of doom by Belinda
↧
↧
Comment on Planetary boundaries, tipping points and prophets of doom by Belinda
+1.
↧
Comment on Planetary boundaries, tipping points and prophets of doom by John Pittman
Jim2, these dead zones are hypoxic. The “deadness” typical occurs from a rapid growth depleting the limiting biological factor in a system. These systems lose oxygen. It is fueled by the Mississippi. Changing conditions including changing biota can impact the size of the area. Because of the nutrients, these areas are semi-closed selector basins. In environmental engineering a selector basin is a basin of certain conditions that will select the correct biota to consume nutrients. The problem is not that these areas are actually dead, but that the species best adapted to the condition will take a limiting factor, oxygen in this case, and produce an environment that does not support other species. In essence, these dead zones become our semi-closed wastewater treatment systems. It would be better for the treatment to occur in man made selector basins so that we could enjoy the natural beauty and fecundity of a delta ecosystem.
↧
Comment on Planetary boundaries, tipping points and prophets of doom by mosomoso
“They couldn’t hit an elephant at this dist…”
Major-General Sedgwick, estimating.
↧
Comment on Planetary boundaries, tipping points and prophets of doom by John Pittman
AK, you contradict yourself, or you have an unstated challengeable assumption in your “Red herring. Two ways: first, if C3 plants do better, they can (and probably will) out-compete C4 plants, making for massive ecosystem replacements. Direct effects on agriculture may well be minimal, indirect could be large.
Second, and more importantly, pollen and other spores are aerosols, as is dust from wind-eroding dessicated soil. As the global ecosystem jumps around in response to changing pCO2, there’s the risk of massive seasonal dust-bowls in areas currently held down during the dry season by climax grassland.””
The ecosystem jumps and risk of massive seasonal dust bowls do not necessarily the match the conditions that result from an increase in CO2. A possible result is that ecosystems will be more dynamic, responsive, and adaptable.
In particular ecosystem replacements, succession, occur in many areas, and some ecosystems depend on this. Weeds have evolutionary advantages in some situations, but so do all other species. Which is why viewing an environment as static is not typical, nor typically correct. Even high plains deserts on the correct timescale show succession and evolution.
There is not agreement that rapidly (evolution timescale) changes conditions result just in catastrophes. Rather, there are blooms and die-offs. Typically what is known is that increased energy and nutrients means in general increased biomass. This is a fundamental problem with many scenario’s about harm from CO2. They do not look at the other nutrients, nor that energy, like nutrients are typically limiting factors. What generally is not a limiting factor is the reproductive capability of biota. The easiest assumption to support is that increased energy and nutrients will increase biomass and average productivity.
As far as risk goes, most species fail. The most common extant of a species is to be extinct. Man may be increasing the frequency, but the geologic record records die-offs and blooms have occurred long before man was on the scene. It would be a poor assumption to think this evolutionary/geophysical interaction to have changed.
↧
↧
Comment on Planetary boundaries, tipping points and prophets of doom by Al
No Josh.
How economies and societies function without consistent and cheap energy is observable in the modern world today. The few countries that use inconsistent and expensive energy generation methods (say Italy) hook themselves up to other countries cheap and consistent energy to mitigate the risk.
Poor Asian and African nations, the mortality rates and living standards, are directly attributed at least in part to a lack of energy. That’s observable and real, no need to model it.
That’s a hell of a sight more concrete then CAGW is at this point.
↧
Comment on Planetary boundaries, tipping points and prophets of doom by KenW
can't always conflate green and red.
our <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_Germany/" rel="nofollow">Sozis</a> haven't forgotten their <a href="http://www.eintagdeutschland.de/nordrhein-westfalen/die-letzten-kumpel/" rel="nofollow">Kumpels</a>.
↧
Comment on Planetary boundaries, tipping points and prophets of doom by KenW
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_Germany" rel="nofollow">SPD Germany</a>
darn links
↧
Comment on Nonsensus about the Senate’s non consensus on climate change by JeffN
People in Europe believe in the generous welfare state in conditions of declining population and industrial output. Being on the wrong side of the Atlantic confers no special wisdom.
And given that emissions in Europe are rising and the governments are cutting subsidies to renewables and much of Europe relies on nuclear power, I’d say European actual policy is aligning nicely with the GOP of late. But you’re right in one respect, Europe may be ditching the policy, but ey haven’t given up on the messianic self-righteousness.
↧
↧
Comment on Planetary boundaries, tipping points and prophets of doom by Joshua
steven –
==> “1. It works for Don, he enjoys it.
Ok. Right.
Don’s many promises to not read my comments and not respond to my comments “work,” as evidenced by how he continues to read my comments and respond to them. And his many comments telling me to go away and stop posting and post differently and follow his advice “work,” as evidenced that I continue to ignore his “advice” and post whatever I want to post as I did before. And his many requests to Judith to ban me, and his many comments advising Judith to ban me “work” because she hasn’t done it.
==> “2. It works for those who like to hear Donkey’s Bray”
Ok. So it “works” because folks come here to hear “donkey’s bray[ing]”
==> “I don’t want Judith to censor you. ”
Which explains why so often you have called for me to be banned, and/or to have my comments moderated. Thanks for the explanation..
This all reminds me of when GaryM used to write comment after comment pleading other commenters not to respond to my comments because my comments were off-topic and distracting.
I always, and I mean always, loves me some unintentional irony.
↧
Comment on Planetary boundaries, tipping points and prophets of doom by Joshua
Al –
I’m a bit confused by your comment. First, you seem to think that the price of energy, as a single and observable entity, explains how “economies and societies function.”
==> “How economies and societies function without consistent and cheap energy is observable in the modern world today.
But then you properly recognize that the impact of energy prices cannot clearly be disaggregated from myriad other influences on how economies and societies function.
==> “Poor Asian and African nations, the mortality rates and living standards, are directly attributed at least in part to a lack of energy. ”
As for this comment:
“That’s observable and real, no need to model it.”
The problem is that if you’re going to draw conclusions about the discrete impact of the price of energy on economies and societies then you need to have a model that disaggregates the impact of the price of energy on economies and societies. (Not to mention the complications behind describing the myriad causative factors behind the price of energy in different countries, and the relationship between the “price of energy” and the “cost of energy,” and the details of the “cost” of energy in the sense of the relationship between the cost of production and the cost to consumers who do things increase the efficiency of their usage and take steps towards energy conservation).
That is, rather neatly, what I am describing when I talk about the tendency that people have towards avoiding the complications of uncertainty so as to pursue an identity-related agenda (i.e., confirm biases).
↧
Comment on Planetary boundaries, tipping points and prophets of doom by jim2
There are some, more minor species of bears that are threatened, but brown, black, and grizzlies are OK.
For me, the thing that stands out is Africa. People hunt the animals there because they are poor and will do almost anything to survive. It’s the same reason they burn dung, they are poor. And the really sad thing is, is that it’s their government in many cases that keeps them poor. It’s an almost insoluble problem unless the rest of the world, including China, India, and Russia; all got together and wiped out the governments and put in place a new one. Even then, witness the Middle East, it probably wouldn’t work.
From the article:
…
At this point populations were classified as “threatened”, the status of the grizzly in the lower 48 states, or “endangered”, such as the black bears in Texas since 1987 (Wallace 1987). There is nothing inevitable about a downward trend in bear numbers to a threatened or endangered status. For black bears, at least, populations currently are stable in much of the United States and Canada. Also, in some regions, with formerly depleted populations of all 3 species, bears have recovered to a secure status.
…
http://www.bearbiology.com/fileadmin/tpl/Downloads/URSUS/Vol_8/Miller_BearMgtNA_8.pdf
↧
Comment on Planetary boundaries, tipping points and prophets of doom by Bill
I=PAT is not always a meaningful relationship. Anyone can make up an equation. That does not make it true. Technology can reduce impacts as well as exacerbate them. If you just naively believe I=PAT, then you would have to believe that all technology is bad. Same thing with Population. There may be times and places where a larger (human) population now had the resources to be more environmentally friendly. I forget what A is supposed to represent so I will leave it to someone else to address that. I think that I=PAT can sometimes be relevant but often is not.
↧
↧
Comment on Planetary boundaries, tipping points and prophets of doom by jim2
Polar bears are OK.
From the article:
…
According to the survey results , “Polar Bear population assessment in North America has historically relied on physical mark-recapture. These studies are logistically and financially intensive, and while widely accepted in the scientific community, local Inuit have voiced opposition to wildlife handling. To better reflect Inuit values and provide a rapid tool for monitoring Polar Bear population size, we developed and implemented an aerial survey in the Foxe Basin subpopulation (FB) during late summer, 2009 and 2010.”
The study shows that “the bear population is not in crisis as people believed,” said Drikus Gissing, Nunavut’s director of wildlife management. “There is no doom and gloom.”
Since the survey was sponsored by the Nunavut government, it only covered the coastal areas in that territory, and did not cover the coastal areas in NW Quebec. So the numbers could be even higher.
…
↧
Comment on Planetary boundaries, tipping points and prophets of doom by AK
I would like to see more info on this. What is the effect of the configuration of continents on ocean currents and climate?
Did you try Google Scholar?
My point is that things are different now, so if the pCO2 is raised to a point it hasn’t been since before then, we’ll be in unexplored territory WRT its effect on climate. Does that make a difference? Dunno. Maybe.
↧
Comment on Planetary boundaries, tipping points and prophets of doom by jim2
Thanks for this post, Rob. It’s been a good conversation.
↧
Comment on Planetary boundaries, tipping points and prophets of doom by AK
@John Pittman…
AK, you contradict yourself, or you have an unstated challengeable assumption […]
Nope. I’m talking about risk. Not certainty either way. And my best guess (in ignorance) is that the risk is small and the downside effects are, at worst, medium: could impact our civilization but not existential for our species.
The ecosystem jumps and risk of massive seasonal dust bowls do not necessarily the match the conditions that result from an increase in CO2.
Not necessarily: we don’t know. They could.
There is not agreement that rapidly (evolution timescale) changes conditions result just in catastrophes. Rather, there are blooms and die-offs.
“[D]ie-offs” could well be associated with massive “dust-bowl” effects in locations that currently don’t experience them.
Typically what is known is that increased energy and nutrients means in general increased biomass.
Perhaps, in the long run. AFAIK the short-term replacements of ecosystems tend to posses less biomass.
But more importantly, I’m not talking about long-term ecological effects of more CO2, I’m talking about the interaction with the climate. Seasonal dust bowls in areas that currently don’t experience them could well have enormous effects on the climate through changing the nature of precipitation over large areas of the ocean. As well as down-stream ecological effects through fertilizing areas that currently don’t get much.
Which in turn could produce further down-stream effects that could put the system on a different attractor. Or branch of the attractor, depending on how you define the total system.
↧
↧
Comment on Planetary boundaries, tipping points and prophets of doom by jim2
tom – the median income in the US:
It was $51,939 in 2013.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#After_2010
The price of a model S is 57,400 (2013). I don’t believe Tesla is going to make a dent in auto sales.
↧
Comment on Planetary boundaries, tipping points and prophets of doom by John Pittman
Joshua you made a logic error about what Al stated “”I’m a bit confused by your comment. First, you seem to think that the price of energy, as a single and observable entity, explains how “economies and societies function.”
==> “How economies and societies function without consistent and cheap energy is observable in the modern world today. “”
Perhaps that is why you are confused. He did not claim the price of energy, as a single…. explained function. He claimed that one could observe how economies without these conditions function. These are not the same claim. His claim was about an observation, it was not an explanation.
Your comment: “”The problem is that if you’re going to draw conclusions about the discrete impact of the price of energy on economies and societies then you need to have a model that disaggregates the impact of the price of energy on economies and societies.”” The lack does not need to be disaggregated, it is the condition that is being discussed.
↧
Comment on Planetary boundaries, tipping points and prophets of doom by Joshua
JFP –
==> “He did not claim the price of energy, as a single…. explained function.”
Yeah. You’re right. I thought of that when I re-read what I wrote after I had written it.
But still, I would question this:
==> “He claimed that one could observe how economies without these conditions function. These are not the same claim. His claim was about an observation, it was not an explanation.”
How does one observe that effect, even while not claiming that it is the only causal factor?
I don’t follow you here:
==> “The lack does not need to be disaggregated, it is the condition that is being discussed.”
Not sure what “lack” you’re referring to.
To simplify my point – I see a lot o’ folks in the “skept-o-sphere” that seem to draw some simplistic causation between supporting renewables and children starving in Africa. I think that the causality is much more complicated. I mentioned just a couple of factors in my previous comment. I agree that energy access is important, very important, and that the prospect of increasing the cost of energy to end-users (or preventing a decrease in cost of energy to end-users), particularly those in the developing world necessarily needs to be balanced against the question of energy access. But I think that the issue is important enough that it shouldn’t be used to leverage identity-oriented Jell-O flinging (in either direction).
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
