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

Comment on Challenging the 2 degree target by Rob Ellison

0
0

Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.” http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703

It is difficult to imagine that climate is at all predictable against a backdrop of vigorous natural variability – and it is not as if the rate of warming is all that striking. I am inclined to take the high point of the early century warming – 1944 – as a starting point and the late century high point – 1998 – as the finish. This accounts for both a multi-decadal cooling and warming period. Surely – there is an obvious rationale there. We may even assume that all of the warming between 1994 and 1998 was anthropogenic – unlikely as that is – to give a warming rate of 0.07 C/decade. Well short of 2 degrees C anytime soon – especially as the oceans are contributing to surface cooling for decades seemingly.

I am inclined to just move on entirely. There are plenty of things to be getting on with. Trade, development, progress and conservation.


Comment on Challenging the 2 degree target by Pooh, Dixie

0
0

Catastrophic AGW. cf: The Hunting of the Snark, — Lewis Carroll (ca 1876) “hidden amidst bandersnatch, beamish, frumious, galumphing, jubjub, mimsiest, outgrabe, and uffish”

Comment on Challenging the 2 degree target by ordvic

0
0

A carbon tax along the lines of AK may be okay if it is coupled with real world solutions. Until we have workable renewables in place we may have to use nuclear. With the waste problem and accidents it has a low PR problem but if people understood the choice between CO2 emissions and use of new generation nuclear that could be overcome and be a short shelf life way to the future. If a tax penalty is all that is offered with no real solutions it will only serve as a power grab and cause economic harm. That is usually borne out by the poor not big oil. It may help big government but not the people.

Comment on Challenging the 2 degree target by stevepostrel

0
0

But it isn’t “the skeptics” who particularly don’t like the CO2 targets. It’s Romm and Rahmsdorf and the U.N., all of whom cling to the two degree target as if they were shipwreck survivors and it were the only log in sight. And I don’t see any evidence that they are going to lose out to Victor in the continuing climate follies.

Comment on Challenging the 2 degree target by Joseph

0
0

ISo, paradoxically, the best way to reduce global emissions is to foster African development with fossil energy!

You think that developing nations should use fossil fuels at the same rate as Americans and you also think that this will reduce emissions? When in the future will this miracle occur?

Comment on Challenging the 2 degree target by Joseph

0
0

Sorry about the formatting, but the block quote should be on the first paragraph.

Comment on Challenging the 2 degree target by Jim D

0
0

They transition between 2 C and 450 ppm interchangeably. 2 C is easier for the public to comprehend than 450 ppm, but 450 ppm is easier for policymakers to relate to in terms of targets. Both have their uses.

Comment on Challenging the 2 degree target by Fernando Leanme

0
0

Joseph you are mixing up the climate (green house gas effect) problem with health problems such as caused by soot. They require different approaches.


Comment on Challenging the 2 degree target by Fernando Leanme

0
0

I thought methane was a green house gas and it’s a lot worse than CO2…and I’m not sure comparing today’s climate to the climate 35 million years ago is correct. The geography and prior history weren’t the same.

Comment on Challenging the 2 degree target by Hans Erren

0
0

I really like the graph option here :-D
Question: Am I right that the RCP8.5 scenario doesn’t have a temperature feedback? Are the adverse effects of warming on GDP incorporated in the emissions (poor countries emit less CO2)?

But:

Comment on Challenging the 2 degree target by Jonathan Abbott

0
0

Yeah, it’ll be biodiversity bolstered with Animal Rights. No more weekend fishing for the proles – those carp need trauma counselling you know.

Comment on Challenging the 2 degree target by Amino Muscle

0
0

May I simply just say what a comfort to find someone who really
understands what they are talking about on the web. You actually know how to bring an issue to
light and make it important. More people need to look
at this and understand this side of your story. I can’t believe you aren’t more popular given that you most certainly have the gift.

Comment on Week in review by Wagathon

0
0

This is how a hoax dies.

Comment on Week in review by Faustino

0
0

Tony, I’ve never heard of the Watkins diaries, so either no or not to my demographic, which seems to prefer CE.

Comment on Week in review by PA

0
0

phatboy “How do you explain the Antarctic ice then?”

When it gets really cold water hardens.

ordvic
” I originally thought that the eccentricity must kick in to take temps down.”

My understanding of Milankovitch is a little different. It takes a Milankovitch maximum to take us out of an ice age – but the peak is short and thereafter things are metastable until the climate drops back to stable icy mode. I saw somewhere a statement we are about 2 W/m2 from glaciation.


Comment on Week in review by Faustino

0
0

Very, very slowly, unfortunately, and more dangerous in its death throes.

Comment on Week in review by David L. Hagen

0
0

Fixing the World, Bang-for-the-Buck Edition:
How can we do the greatest good?
See: Bjorn Lomborg’s New Freakonomics Radio Podcast

Here’s $2.5 trillion. You have 15 years to spend it. How do you distribute this money in a way that will achieve the most good for the world?”
I just did a podcast with Freakonomics on my think tank’s “Post-2015″ project on the Sustainable Development Goals. It is the podcast for the #1 selling Freakonomics book, a #1-ranked podcast, with more than 5 million monthly downloads.
One of the comments the listeners left reads: “FASCINATING Freakonomics podcast this week. With so much bad news lately, it was heartening to hear that people are spending so much time and effort to fix things, to fix things right, and to make the most impact possible.”
I hope you enjoy it too

http://freakonomics.com/2014/10/02/fixing-the-world-bang-for-the-buck-edition-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

Comment on Week in review by PA

0
0

When somebody in the backseat chants “we going to drive off a cliff just ahead”, for 17 miles (or chants global warming for 17 years) … you stop, chuck them onto the shoulder, and continue on.

Comment on Week in review by mosomoso

0
0

Kahan spends his time studying why people disagree with Kahan and how they can best be cured of this infirmity with firmness but compassion.

I get how juveniles can be entranced by his self-satisfaction and twaddle, but this guy and his ilk get taken seriously by people of adult age. Maybe not adults, but certainly of adult age.

Comment on Week in review by beththeserf

0
0

Tony,
I remember seeing the Watkin’s Diaries at Readings’
Book Shop a while back
bts.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images