Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Planetary boundaries, tipping points and prophets of doom by John Pittman

0
0

I understand and agree AK that possible scenarios have not been ruled out. But I also know that increased energy and nutrients do tend to increase biomass in short timelines not long ones. The reproductive phenomena that causes this is best expressed as living organisms tend to reproduce past the point of an ecosystem’s ability to support. Weeds in particular use this reproductive approach. Other species succeed and replace weeds using their evolutionary advantages.

So, yes, there is a risk of dustbowls. The uncertainty or lack knowledge indicates one should also recognize that there is a risk of a fertile cornucopia. Without evidence otherwise, increased energy and nutrients should lean to cornucopia. The uncertainty is both ways.

You state: “”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.”” I understand this, but would point out that underlying assumptions that would support this scenario of catastrophe are highly contested.

The general effects of nutrient addition are known on the small scale such that an extrapolation to larger scale stays within the limits of the assumptions and methodology. Climate being chaotic does not extrapolate well, if at all. This is where the risk part generates a lot of concern among those I have read. With large uncertainty, risk factors are generally poorly constrained. But it applies to cornucopia, catastrophe, or status quo being the outcome, not just one or the other.


Comment on Planetary boundaries, tipping points and prophets of doom by jim2

Comment on Climate change as a political process by Rob Starkey

0
0

Michael writes- “Is there any chance that you are an internationalist on wealth and a isolationist on poverty?”

Michael- if all it took to work on issues was snappy comments you might be effective.

No, I am a realist. What do you not agree makes sense?

Comment on Climate change as a political process by Willard

0
0

> The will to do the right thing is nice, but objective thinking is a critical component that is missing. I believe that is the gist of Ms. Korhola’s message.

Ms Korhola’s message ain’t a plan, KenW, and yet you asked Michael for a plan. Do you really think Michael is against helping the poor? Using the poor to argue for one’s own favorite path to prosperity is both cheap and renewable, windmills after windmills of comment threads.

Also, you forgot to address my main argument: resources may very well be impacted by AGW. Both are resource-management problems, therefore putting one against he other amounts to a false dilemma. It amounts to claim that we ought to rethink our reinsurance practices instead of tackling AGW. Relying on dichotomies like that does not showcase objectivity very well.

What you daydream about when you surf the Autobahn is duly noted.

Comment on Climate change as a political process by Willard

0
0

> [T]he Greens here were busy trying to prevent Reagan and Thatcher from cleaning up the Workers Paradise.

KenW’s sense of objectivity shines, out of sudden.

Comment on Climate change as a political process by Willard

0
0

I point at Rob’s

> [I]f all it took to work on issues was snappy comments you might be effective.

I point at Rob’s very next sentence:

> No, I am a realist.

That would be all, if we could resist pointing out that Rob’s realism is good old non-interventionism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism

Comment on Climate change as a political process by Rob Starkey

0
0

Willard

Wrong again

“Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense.”

I do not agree that is a wise policy.

Comment on Climate change as a political process by Stephen Segrest

0
0

Jim D — I’ll give a RINO’s (Moderates) perspective on what Conservatism means to many of us and trying to find Common Ground:

(1) Our 1st responsibility lies with stewardship. While we accept the “Basic Science”, we scratch our heads on the Wicked nature of CC (how much and how fast). This is why for many RINOs, Dr. Ramanathan’s Concept of Fast Mitigation (Worldwide) has appeal — to change the trajectory of Greenhouse gas emissions on something we can understand (pollutants like Methane, Black Carbon, Smog).

(2) RINO’s are highly skeptical of anything that smacks of Utopianism. We resist seduction of the latest “Big Idea” that explains everything (e.g., Democratism of the Middle East to AGW).

(3) RINOs are very wary of concentrated power in whatever form — from Washington to Wall St. We favor local over the distant. This explains why many of us RINOs just hate TOP/DOWN approaches like Federal Carbon Taxes, Federal CO2 Trading Schemes, Federally mandated Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards.

(4) For Christian RINOs, we believe in Original Sin and do not worship at the Temple of Ayn Rand. In our politics, RINOs value the opinions of John and Henry Adams, Bourne, Niebuhr, Lasch, Flannery O’Connor, and Wendell Berry.


Comment on Climate change as a political process by Joseph

0
0

I don’t see why the poorest countries shouldn’t be allowed to use fossil fuels for now when the alternatives don’t make economic sense. Because any increase from them would not contribute much to global emissions. This would not include the larger more developed countries like China. I think at some point in the not too distant future, because of the increase in demand for lower carbon technologies, the technology will have advanced to the point where the costs are comparable and this will no longer be an issue.

Comment on Climate change as a political process by Rob Starkey

0
0

Joseph writes– “I don’t see why the poorest countries shouldn’t be allowed to use fossil fuels for now when the alternatives don’t make economic sense.”

Nobody is stopping a poor country from using fossil fuels today to build power plants. The issue is they do not have the funds to pay for these plants and need loans from others.

The question is whether foreigners are willing to loan these countries additional funds to pay for a means to generate electricity that emits less CO2 than would a fossil fuel power plant.

Imo, it comes down to the specifics. What nation, how much more money, how much less CO2. Specifics matter in determination of good vs wasteful plans.

Comment on Climate change as a political process by KenW

0
0

Willard “resources may very well be impacted by AGW.”

Yes, they may. And the world has lots of problems. And I am willing to soberly consider the costs, benefits and drawbacks of strategies for solving any of them.

The Plan – is to not let dogma get in the way of clear thinking. If you find this idea patently absurd, so be it.

Comment on Climate change as a political process by anng

Comment on Climate change as a political process by kim

0
0

Brilliant, JCH, @ 8:56. A second benefit besides the horselaugh is that I fortunately couldn’t concentrate on subsequent comments.
================

Comment on Climate change as a political process by Lucifer

0
0

The busted blizzard forecast is a great example of politics and ‘no regrets’.

NYC shutdown in prep but the epic storm didn’t occur ( for NYC anyway ).

May have cost $1 billion.

Now a $billion is what it used to be, and politicians know that they can be held to account for not being responsive enough.

Still, preparing for disasters that don’t occur can cost:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102372298

Comment on Climate change as a political process by Willard

0
0

> The Plan – is to not let dogma get in the way of clear thinking.

Then cue to Green bashing and right-wing idolatry from the good ol’ days.

That ought to show us how to think clearly.


Comment on Climate change as a political process by Bad Andrew

0
0

“opportunistic”

Yikes.

Andrew

Comment on Climate change as a political process by Willard

0
0

> I do not agree that is a wise policy.

What would be a good “realist” policy, Rob? I thought this followed your idea that realist countries took take care of their own citizens. Consider the sentence that follows the one you quote:

An original more formal definition is that Non-intervention is a policy characterized by the absence of interference by a state or states in the external affairs of another state without its consent, or in its internal affairs with or without its consent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism

Assuming that every country should only take care of its own leads to non-interventionism, Rob. At least in principle, which ain’t the level of policy. Which means we ought not conflate appeals to “isms” and specific policies.

Unless you’re appealing to good old imperialism, where countries take care of their own citizens at the expense of others?

Comment on Climate change as a political process by bill_c

Comment on Climate change as a political process by kim

0
0

Willie the Warp.
============

Comment on Climate change as a political process by RiHo08

0
0

Judith Curry,

I believe the Blizzard of 2015 for New York City is a political teaching moment. Amongst predictions of an unprecedented storm, hurricane wind strength, snow accumulations of 24 to 30 inches, NYC was shut down, transportation stopped, La Guardia closed and JFK only partially open, flights from the West Coast were stopped idling airplanes at LAX & SFO all in the name of the precautionary principle. Everything predicted based upon models

What transpired was an accumulation of 3 to 6 inches, winds 5 to 7 MPH. All transportation previously shut down due to the impending storm are back up running.

Now the teaching moment: What did the shut down of the East Coast, and in particular NYC cost? For one day, the airlines lost $ 1 billion dollars. Think of the lost wages, tips, and commerce, sales, deals, not made because of the precautionary principle.

See if one can find videos of the politicians who just yesterday talked about the largest storm ever! Read the pundits who were speaking of extreme and unprecedented weather.

Now, not being recorded as of yet, think of all the people whose lives were disrupted, lost money, lives which were made just a little be more difficult, think of all these people when they hear words like: weather, unprecedented, extreme, models and all due to man’s doing. Think of what will be recorded in the minds of people when Gavin Schmidt at Columbia University NYC and head of Goddard Institute of Space Studies, is on some talking head’s show stating knowingly about dire and calamitous events are yet to come.

The precautionary principle regarding weather, climate and models as evidence, etc. has real consequences when non-knowledgable and unsophisticated average Joe/Jane hears the forecast and then sees the reality….what do you expect people to do the next time politicians tell us the sky is falling and you need to pay-up and this will hurt? We will see how many politicians are apologizing today. I don’t expect President Obama will be apologizing for leading environmentalism down the rabbit hole either.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images