So, big news this week: The latest update to the RSS lower troposphere temperatures (Zeke at Carbon Brief, J. Climate paper) and, of course, more chatter about the red team/blue team concept. Comments?
Unforced variations: July 2017
Climate science from climate scientists...
Zebra @286
“So, I object to this false equivalence between Elon Musk and the Koch brothers that some here claim when I say we have a choice between the two paradigms.”
Yeah agreed. People are too quick to point at the Koch Brothers (horrible characters quite frankly, at least as far as their beliefs go) and use that to discredit capitalism. People like Musk embody the spirit better.
Capitalism is fine but there must be adequate rules and better standards of ethics. I will be called nanny state, but I don’t care, I’m right about this one.
“When people talk about “growth” in a finite resource environment, it is usually something of a circular claim. What exactly is the metric by which you measure growth? Why does it have to depend on finite resources? Who says it has to be “more of the same”?
You are being a little sceptical for the sake of it. The usual metric is increased output and that does become hard with finite resources.
I don’t think faster recycling of existing resources is really growth, just speeding up production. However we may be forced to do this.
And there’s growth of services, like financial services, but this isn’t infinitely possible in a finite world either.
Growth is already slowing and it looks inevitable. I suspect quality will start to replace quantity.
Having said all that I have no problem at all maximising what growth we can provided it doesn’t wreck the environment. So we need sustainable growth.
285 alan2102, good points. I mentioned the “hard nut to crack” above. I think you’ve noted the core problem in saying ” often unconsciously “
I do suggest though that it is probably 99.999999999% unconsciously which is at the root of the “problem”. Including semantics people use in their dialogue especially online text sites such as this one. :-)
286 zebra says: “I don’t think you and I are really in disagreement here; I’m just trying as always to challenge the co-opting of language and framing by the usual and unusual suspects.”
Everybody, everywhere, chooses their “semantics” aka meaning, and frames their points of view. I do it. You are not immune nor above it all. It comes with the territory.
a useful quote: “When you point the finger at others, there are always three other fingers pointing straight back at your self.”
I do try to be mindful of this truism, but am far from perfect myself. :-)
Props for that in my book, FWIW. OTOH:
Only in a trivial, accidental sense – IMHO. Human history resembles that of life on Earth, a lot of random variation and selective retention.
My last was in response to Genesis, BTW.
I’m over talking economics etc, but …
301 nigelj says: “So we need sustainable growth”
‘Tis a contradiction in terms Grasshopper. (smile) A non-sequitur iow.
The existing system is based upon (uneconomical) waste, immoral profit gouging, intentional deceit aka marketing/advertising and board room discussions/secrecy, aka entrenched and embedded Information asymmetry, corruption and self-interest, faulty and fraudulent products/services, entrenched and embedded inflation = loss of real value in money values over time, unjust unequal taxation regimes, manipulative Laws & Govt Policy supporting “special interests” profit/wealth and power/control motives, and of course what became the 20th century high point for “capitalism” and “profit gouging” of Planned obsolescence or built-in obsolescence in industrial design and economics is a policy of planning or designing a product with an artificially limited useful life, so it will become obsolete (that is, unfashionable or no longer functional) after a certain period of time. The rationale behind the strategy is to generate long-term sales volume by reducing the time between repeat purchases.
With the manufacturing “growth” of China and the willingness of western companies & entrepreneurs to “Capitalize” immensely on that a New Age of Planned obsolescence and Profit Gouging has arrived.
iow anyone who buys something “Made in China” from anyone but directly from the manufacturer/agent in China and have it shipped to them directly is throwing their money/income/wealth down the proverbial toilet.
Under $50 for a brand new cutting edge android smart phone plus shipping or $900+ for a “brand name” phone via a US/UK/Oz Ebay website or your Telco?
You decide.
2 billion smart phones sold with Lithium Ion batteries in 2016 … how many in 2017 ???
The above “general” examples equally apply to services, insurance, banking, stock markets, equity funds, money traders, Govt bonds, Bond Holders and more. iow think pea and shell games and really influential marketing techniques and advertising. We all live and breathe within these established “world views” and “culturally accepted norms” from the day we are born.
It’s aka “the status quo”. imho, an analogy for “sustainable growth” is equivalent to all the cancers that don’t kill you quickly but unnoticed very very slowly.
AGW/CC impacts are far more noticeable than the negatives and harmful aspects entrenched in what is essentially a dishonest dysfunctional “global capitalist system” of today. (that does not mean I am anti-money or anti-business, or anti-private wealth or anti-capitalism per se either.)
But AGW/CC/Energy cannot be separated from today’s Capitalist System, as they are joined at the hip like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjoined_twins
That is why the denier campaigns are so vociferous and effective enough to get Trump elected – AGW/CC is a direct challenge to almost every educated persons primary Belief System / Worldview of what Life is all about and how it works on planet Earth in the 20th and 21st centuries….. and therefore impacts HOW most people have been acculturated to Value their own lives and meaning.
And no, I have no idea how to solve any of this nor AGW/CC specifically.
https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/07/20/new-lobby-group-tied-brexit-climate-science-deniers-and-koch-industries-pushes-deregulation-europe
And downunder, nothing much has changed or will in the near future 5+ years
Asked for the think tank’s current position on climate change, Mr Cater replied in an email: “Should we have one?”
Read more: http://www.afr.com/news/policy/climate/more-than-half-of-federal-liberal-mps-dont-trust-climate-science-think-tank-20170714-gxb7r2
Many more countries than Oz are totally disconnected from the ideas and notions here
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/06/why-global-emissions-must-peak-by-2020/
Which is why I honestly believe that nothing of significance will / can happen until several years of climatic effects post the first completely sea ice free Arctic in ~2025. I doubt I’ll be around to see that anyway. Cheers
I’m pressed for time again this morning but I did want to make an observation about the responses to “humans are monkeys”.
Nigel got what I meant in the context, and I expect others, but it is not unusual in my experience that this topic causes a lot of chattering and baring of teeth when it is brought up. Unh, Unh, to quote Nemesis.
We can’t deal with things very well if we keep denying that Capitalists and Anarchists and “Neoliberals” and “Progressives” and Creationists and Biologists are the same species.
The distribution of traits among the population is really unpleasant and frightening to think about. It is unpleasant to acknowledge the “negatives” in ourselves, and it is frightening to realize that half of our neighbors are easily manipulated to be full of rage and racism, and have guns that they could easily turn on us. (USA, anyway)
So, many come up with some external abstraction to rail against. “If only we could get rid of…money, capitalism, government…”.
For us pragmatists, it isn’t so easy. “Capitalism” can’t be a curse-word; we have to characterize it just like we would “lapse-rate”, in order to make sense of what we are trying to fix.
Thanks for the enlightening and funny conversations, gentleman, I learned a lot, but I have to leave now, it’s a pitty. Anyway, please don’t forget:
Capitalism, makin profit is good for the environment and will keep the climate sober.
zebra thinks he’s a pragmatist.
Now, that’s special. A pragmatist lets problems reveal themselves, as well the solutions. You are not a pragmatists just because you think you know what answers others come up with won’t work, or if you spend your time randomly claiming others’ ideas simply are not acceptable (to you.) You are a pragmatist if you accept the answers as they come.
The Bored Hole: Coming soon to a Variations near you.
zebra #287:
I am disappointed that you assume me to be saying something that I did not say.
Yes, of course it is “in our nature” to be concerned about status, and so forth.
It is in my nature to rape, murder and pillage, in order to secure more resources and reproductive possibilities for ME. ME, ME, ME. And yet, in 60-odd years, I’ve never once raped, murdered or pillaged. Why is that? You said it yourself: because we can — UNLIKE MONKEYS, I might add — transcend those innate characteristics to some degree. Actually to a very large degree; I’m living proof. For some of us, it takes work, but we can do it. For billions of us, each day goes by and we do NOT rape, murder or pillage. This goes on year in, year out, for decades. Amazing, huh? And that in spite of the inescapable genetically-hard-wired “human nature” which renders us, as some might have it, the behavioral and moral equivalent of apes, cockroaches and pond scum.
The reality, which is obvious to anyone of average intelligence, is of course that we are not the behavioral and moral equivalent of cockroaches. We’re very different, with potentials much greater. Yes, we can backslide, and at our worst can behave as bad — even worse — than beasts at their worst. But that describes a minority of us, a very small percentage of the time. The rest of us, the rest of time, well… just look around you. No argument by me required; just look around you.
As for “the vast conspiracy fantasy” that I supposedly referenced: I haven’t a clue as to what you’re talking about.
Thomas @306
I really just meant by sustainable growth that we should be able in theory to achieve increased output without seriously wrecking the environment, in at least the short to medium term for the next century or so. It just needs responsible technologies, approaches and rules. That’s my definition of sustainable growth, and I’m the first to admit it will not be possible forever for millenia time scales.
I agree with everything else you said, particularly the paragraph starting with “the existing system”. You are preaching to the converted there. Its a mess and maze of problems and absurdities.
However the only realistic solution I can see is tightening up some of the rules under which capitalism operates, and even that has no hope with people like Trump in charge, so I don’t really know the answers either. Maybe it needs some serious lateral thinking, or maybe humanity will muddle through as it often does.
Talking of smartphones I purchased my first smartphone last year, a relatively cheap one to see what these devices were like. I’m a bit late adopting this technology, as it was yet another gadget to learn. However I have a couple of modern, high performance laptop computers, so Im not a total luddite.
I was stunned at the performance of the phone, even of the camera, and cant really see what the point of the expensive ones is, unless you feel you absolutely must have a fingerprint scanner, or a desperate desire to go swimming with the cursed thing.
People get caught up in constantly having to have the latest products, but in many cases the performance improvements seem rather small (4k television). As you say its all nuts. I’m no paragon of virtue on the whole issue. I do try to resist completely silly purchases where I can.
Zebra @309, was the chattering and baring of teeth an intended or unintended pun?
I agree with your analysis of humans. We all have similar traits and negatives and often don’t even see them in ourselves, a sort of protection I suppose from the awful truth.
But careful you don’t also get into a false equivalence thing. Not all people are equally bad, or lacking in self awareness.
I would be a pragmatist as well. People can criticise all they want but thats easy especially on ananoymous blogs. Its harder to come up with answers, and the best answers may annoy almost everyone. Its like a successful negotiation, it leaves everyone settled, but slightly disappointed.
But its becoming hard to defend capitalism in its present neoliberal leaning form. Something has to change. You need to provide some suggested solutions, and not simply attack the critics too much.
309 zebra. I was taking the monkey business lightly / humourously.
310 nigelj. Mate, I’m as extreme about these matters as you are. ie not at all.
Unfortunately, we (me included) do tend to react to “trigger words” based on a varying degree of self-interpretations of the sender/s intent/meaning. It’s hard, but it is what it is.
I had an afterthought re my comments up above for perspective (?) – The major causes of the current AGW/CC dilemma is: Capitalism, Economics, Industry, Mining, Science, Technology, Democracy, Totalitarianism, Fascism, Communism, the Media, Marketing, Human Psychology, Religions, the Wealthy, the Powerful, the United Nations, and Politics.
The Solutions are to be found exactly in the same places.
I get that that statement of fact isn’t all that helpful. ‘wink’
imo, good to see papers like this coming out finally.
Public Release: 23-Jul-2017
Campaigning on climate science consensus may backfire, warn scholars
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-07/tfg-coc071917.php
Such efforts to force policy progress through communicating scientific consensus misunderstand the relationship between scientific knowledge, publics and policymakers. More important is to focus on genuinely controversial issues within climate policy debates where expertise might play a facilitating role. Mobilizing expertise in policy debates calls for judgment, context and attention to diversity, rather than deferring to formal quantifications of narrowly scientific claims.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2017.1333965
nigelj,
I’m sure that there is no such theory. Perhaps you meant “hypothetically”? Increasing output means more resources are needed. Taking more resources (and easy phrase to type but covering many, sometimes complex and resource intensive, processes) is bound to degrade the environment. What constitutes “serious wrecking” of the environment? Especially when the environment is already seriously degraded?
Nigelj,
You said capitalism was characterized by “private property”. The distinction I am trying to make is that paper money earned through labor is not the same as real property (in the sense of land and natural resources.)
We are talking about pollution through the extraction of e.g. petroleum, right?
OK, so what is the difference in CO2 emissions if the oil is “owned” by the Koch boys, or “owned” by the government?
Alan2102,
Rape, murder, and pillage occur when there is Anarchy– we have seen it over and over in wars. Extreme behavior like that is constrained within a society by the hierarchical structures of society, and this is true with social animals as well.
But again, like the Denialists, you ignore the science. Quoting what some Anarchist blog says about some 19th Century thinking is not very convincing.
We have both the scientific and historical facts; all the billions you point to live in societies rife with oppression and inequity. Slowly, in the minority, some changes have occurred, by virtue primarily of economic improvements, brought about by technology, which would not occur without the ability to accumulate and distribute wealth over time (Capitalism).
zebra #309:
“The distribution of traits among the population is really unpleasant and frightening to think about. It is unpleasant to acknowledge the “negatives” in ourselves, and it is frightening to realize that half of our neighbors are easily manipulated to be full of rage and racism, and have guns that they could easily turn on us. (USA, anyway)”
Yes, USA ANYWAY.
How much sociobiological thought and hypothesis-generation is informed by the (correct, IN THE U.S.A.) perception that “half of our neighbors are easily manipulated to be full of rage and racism”? How much would sociobiological thought and hypothesis-generation change in a more-humane, more-civilized and more-sane environment, as exists elsewhere in this world? In other words: to what extent is the “science” of sociobiology (and evolutionary psychology) socially/environmentally constructed — an artifact of the place and time in which its exponents operate (and by way of which their consciousness is determined)?
zebra:
“So, many come up with some external abstraction to rail against. ‘If only we could get rid of money, capitalism, government’. For us pragmatists, it isn’t so easy.”
Except that those things are not mere “external abstractions” (to be ignored), when they heavily condition behavior. Those who are concerned about said “external abstractions” are the real pragmatists. The sociobiology crowd is, by comparison, nihilistic, going nowhere. Biological determinism is an internal abstraction which leads nowhere, and is actually worse than useless by virtue of energizing toxic elements and ideas (as described in my previous post).
Tony Weddle @317
I accept that true sustainability means zero growth. But true sustainability doesn’t make much sense to me, and is too harsh. It’s also important to lift people out of dire poverty and some growth will help that process.
I think we can have a practical form of near sustainability, and some growth for decades yet without significant environmental damage. Its about methods, management and rules and if anything is more of a political problem. Obviously infinite growth is impossible.
This is how I see the challenges in more specific terms:
We are looking at an increase in population from the current 7 billion about 10 billion later this century, and this will likely stabilise around there, so we are told. That’s what the planet will have to deal with.
We already have enough food in the world to feed vastly more people. The problem is waste. Sensible, earth friendly agriculture will get close enough to sustainability to resolve the rest off the problem and it appears capable of increased levels of output to at least some degree short term. I think It would not be capable of ever increasing output longer term but that odesnt matter as long as it feeds global population which will stabilise at around 10 billion, or only grow very slowly from there.
Of course reducing nitrate use is very challenging without also reducing growth. But we can at least try to develop alternatives.
Clean water and water conservation, etc, are perfectly achievable if there is a will to do this. Ditto with fisheries conservation and quota management. Its more of a political problem.
Most people are adequately housed apart from the poor and third world. Building materials can be responsibly extracted and used in increasing quantities for a long time yet without causing serious degradation, if properly managed with proper rules. Of course it cannot grow forever, but it can grow for decades yet. And remember population will stabilise at around 10 billion.
Renewable energy is by definition sustainable at least as far ahead as we can reasonably contemplate. Please not this has not decreased rates of gdp growth in America.
Consumer goods are a big challenge. We have problems with plastics in the oceans etc. But there are alternatives that are at least semi sustainable. Metals can also mostly be recycled.
We can probably increase output of consumer goods for decades yet, but granted not indefinitely. We will eventually have to recycle in a huge way. But by then population will hopefully have stabilsed.
Zebra @318, you talk in riddles, or maybe I’m just slow on the uptake on this issue.
Are you saying capitalism is about money and the freedom to hire labour etc, and operate industries, but certain resources should be owned and controlled by the state, like oil? And presumably better controlled?
The state already owns basic resources, and gives extraction rights, and none of this has solved the climate change problem.
I don’t oppose state ownership of some things because sometimes it does make sense but I’m not sure state ownership of oil would guarantee a particular environmental result. It might help I suppose as people like the Koch brothers would not have a s much power.
I think its all more about needing carbon taxes, promoting renewable energy,etc and this is ultimately a political style problem.
I don’t know if anyone has referenced this NYT piece:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/technology/y2k-lesson-climate-change.html?_r=0
It argues that climate scientists should emphasize worse case forecasts.
It is my belief that climate scientists have long been too moderate in their forecasts and too optimistic in their hopes that current actions by world governments will address the problem.
T Marvell @323
Do you really think scaremongering about doomsday, unlikely, worst case scenarios will convince the hardened denialists? Or politicians? I cant see this. It could have the opposite effect. It could alienate reasonable people as well.
Dont get me wrong. I do think we should emphasise climate change is serious, and maybe firmer words are needed, but going overboard may not help. It needs to be measured and realistic. You cant treat adults like children (even if certain property developer presidents act like this).
I’m open to persuasion otherwise. Not entirely 100% sure on it.
Nigelj 322,
Sometimes, it is necessary to get people to see and state the obvious to get to the right conclusion.
Correct, the State already “owns” all the resources. And if a perfectly democratic and egalitarian State were to manage the extraction of its fossil fuel resources, with no waste or corruption, and distribute the value derived equally to every citizen, CO2 would still be rising out of control.
And the citizens would very likely vote to continue, denying long-term problems in favor of short-term gains. We see this in various forms in the current reality.
Now, our idealizing friends here want to blame some abstract bogey-man they call “capitalism”. But “owning” resources is not a function of capitalism, it is a function of the same territorial behavior we see in our fellow primates. If money didn’t exist, we would still restrict access to our own group by the use of force. This is true even with the wonderful hunter-gatherers that Killian is fond of.
So yes, the point is that capitalism (accumulating and distributing money over time) allows us to develop technology, because you have to feed the scientists and engineers while they are working things out. What we do with the technology is a different question.
Elon Musk or the Koch boys. Your choice.
Alan 2102 320,
First, please stop with the strawmen. I know very little about Sociobiology, and I have no interest in the “moral” implications of Social Darwinism.
The science I am talking about is Sociology/Social Psychology/Economic Psychology/Economic Anthropology or some such label, and it is, as far as I know, fairly settled about the characteristics I have described. It’s descriptive about Authoritarian personality traits, as listed, and about the way status works.
Second, I will assume that you honestly misinterpreted “USA Anyway”. I was referring to ubiquitous guns, which is a particularly USA problem.
In case you have failed to pay attention even in recent history, the Rwandan Genocide was carried out mostly with machetes and clubs. In India, a preferred method is for Hindus to light passenger trains carrying Muslims on fire– and perhaps vice versa, I can’t remember.
In many parts of the world, tradition has it that if you rape a 12-year-old girl, the choice of solutions is 1. The girl’s family kills her. 2. The rapist marries her, making her his permanent property.
I could obviously go on and on. So really, stop telling me how humanity would be full of compassion, joy, and light, if only those money grubbing USA Wall Street types would be locked up for their transgressions.
Third. Science works through evidence and reasoning about cause and effect. You haven’t offered any description of how this “conditioning” you imagine operates.
Re: # 323 t marvell
“It argues that climate scientists should emphasize worse case forecasts.”
Indeed it does exactly that, based on the argument that the “Y2K bug” was adequately dealt with before December 31, 1999, because “people” were scared enough (by computer scientists predicting the “end of the world as we know it” if we didn’t do enough and early enough? I very much doubt it).
Since I am a senior I.T. professional and was actively working on software development at the time, I can confirm that there is practically nothing in common between the Y2K bug issue and the present issue of climate change / AGW.
The Y2K bug was basically a software maintenance issue for businesses, industries, public services, governments and the military. Programmers had to go over the source code of millions of programs and check that the programs would correctly deal with the date change at midnight, December 31, 1999.
Reporting “the worst case scenarios” of not dealing with the Y2K bug to the general public would have changed strictly nothing to the task at hand or the money invested in software maintenance, and I personally don’t remember any computer scientist predicting a global catastrophe. Or perhaps one or another odd article came out in the press about that, but did it hasten programmers or increase software maintenance budgets globally? I can confidently answer in the negative.
Just like the “The Uninhabitable Earth” article by David Wallace-Wells which it tries to defend, rather than explaining the issue of climate change and pointing to solutions, this is yet another article that further muddies the issue of climate change and undermines the work by serious climate scientists and policymakers, by yet another out-of-touch journalist who hasn’t got a clue on the subject he is writing about.
First Principles?
Where and Why Did the First Cities and States Appear?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppNmUPTbXtU
David Christian narrates a complete history of the universe, from the Big Bang to the Internet, in a riveting 18 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqc9zX04DXs
Why people believe weird things | Michael Shermer :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T_jwq9ph8k
The fallacies, errors, misrepresentations and other issues in the “The Uninhabitable Earth” New York Magazine article by David Wallace-Wells
July 25, 2017
Had you ever heard of David Wallace-Wells before a few days ago? Me neither. But now you have, and so have I, and so have most climate scientists, 17 of whom spared some time to read, analyze and rate the article as “alarmist, imprecise/unclear and misleading”.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/scientists-explain-what-new-york-magazine-article-on-the-uninhabitable-earth-gets-wrong-david-wallace-wells/
Dr. Michael Mann, for example, who was interviewed by David Wallace-Wells, but neither mentioned nor quoted in the article, tweeted about two factual errors in the article, which I’ll come back to later.
Personally, I was intrigued by the article’s almost instant Internet popularity (yes, I am avoiding saying it “went viral” – I sincerely hope it didn’t). For example, a Google search for “Stefan Rahmstorf” (Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf, who just won the AGU Climate Communication Prize), comes up with about 160,000 results. Dr. Mann’s name (“Michael E. Mann”) yields about 7,950,000 results. “David Wallace-Wells”? About 12,000,000 results. Yeah, we are entering “Justin Bieber” territory here (53,700,000 results).
And I have to admit I was triggered by an expression that David Wallace-Wells uses right at the beginning of his article: “I promise”. Really!
(continued)
The promise of certain and horrible death-by-climate-change
It’s the very first phrase in the article proper: “It is, I promise, worse than you think.” Note that DWW directly engages the reader and writes in the first person. And right off the bat, DWW is *promising* you something.
It’s actually a well-known trick used in all sorts of fraudulent schemes and by politicians in general. You are promised that Guantanamo will be closed. You are promised more and better paying jobs. You are promised that your hair will grow back. You are promised that you’ll lose weight. Etc…
Footnote: Personally, the “I promise” trick makes my bullshit detector go off the scale, but that’s just me.
In this case, the promise if of – wait for it – certain death. Yes, we are all going to die, that’s something we all know already but try not to spend too much time thinking about in our daily lives. So since shouting “we are all going to die” at the top of one’s lungs usually does not gather crowds (you can try it though), DVV spells out in great detail how we are all going to die because of climate change. Inevitably. And quite horrible deaths, too: some of us will drown, many will die of famine or plagues, some will even be “cooked to death inside and out”.
You scared yet? Me neither.
But, “he promised!”, you say. Ah now, here is the neat trick: DVV says it’s all science. It’s just that scientists are reticent, so he took it upon himself to let us in the little secret that scientists have carefully kept to themselves for years: we are all going to die because of climate change – and there is nothing we can do about it, either.
(continued)
nigelj:
L’Etat, c’est Koch.
I just read an interesting hypothesis from ClimateCentral, referencing an article in Nature Climate Change and was brought up all standing by a reference to ocean waves (not the breaking kind) going 400 mph, rounding the coast from East to West Antarctica, something to do with the Circumpolar Deep Water current.
Now I’m a real layperson but follow and understand science up to the point where it gets technical. I’ve doing my best to follow science and evidence for a good while. I have a some friends who are deeply concerned (as am I) but not off the wall, and excited by extremes (we all do it sometimes) and they just seemed to take it as a given. I can’t do that. 400 mph?
What am I missing? Isn’t that impossible? Here’s the article and an extract. I’ve looked up quite a bit about wind and waves and talked to a couple of knowledgeable people, and they agree with me that this appears to be out of whack.
How Distant Winds May Be Causing Antarctic Meltdown (Andrea Thompson 24 July 2017):
I didn’t find a reference to the journal article at CC, but here it is, paywalled; figures at link:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3335.html
This will probably convey meaning to you that I am unable to follow, though I do know about Kelvin waves.
The ClimateCentral contains a comment from Eric Rignot, who is not someone I associate with distortion or exaggeration.
What am I missing?
zebra #319: “like the Denialists, you ignore the science.”
Feel free to cite science that I ignore. And please use discretion, omitting the pseudo-scientific bullshit that characterizes most of sociobiology/evolutionary-psychology.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology — “evolutionary psychology as a field is notoriously full of woo and cranks producing theories that are either proven wrong or cannot be disproven to promote bigotry. Examples include the idea that black people and women have not evolved the same ability to understand science as white men[1], that standards of beauty not evident outside the West are actually universal[2], and that black women have not evolved to be as good looking as women of other races[3]… snip … much of evolutionary psychology’s claims about selective regimes are pseudoscientific in nature, as proposals about particular selective pathways often cannot be theoretically disproven. In a broader sense…EP has failed to produce any new insights into human evolution that move beyond a purely speculative character, remaining at the level of generating hypotheses without having generated evidence to build upon these initial hypotheses.[7][8] As such, it hasn’t matured into a field of study analogous to other areas of biology, remaining merely a novel proposal.” END QUOTE
zebra: “all the billions you point to live in societies rife with oppression and inequity.”
Some do, some don’t. But it goes to show our intrinsically cooperative, non-murderous, non-rapey, non-pillaging natures, which remain cooperative and socially well-adjusted even under sometimes trying conditions. That would be as opposed to the “red in tooth and claw”, “survival of the fittest” (etc., etc.) sociobiological narrative of human nature. Billions of us live in peace and harmony almost all of the time, with rare exceptions. Amazing, huh? How is that possible, if we are mere animals, impelled by our selfish killer-ape genes to secure our existence atop the corpses of others?
zebra: “Slowly, in the minority, some changes have occurred, by virtue primarily of economic improvements, brought about by technology, which would not occur without the ability to accumulate and distribute wealth over time (Capitalism).”
See post #262.
The economic improvements in China and Russia, after their revolutions, were not “brought about by technology”; they were brought about by committed communist social renovation and reconstruction. Technology of course played a role, but technologies do not have lives of their own. Technologies are applied/instituted by humans.
China has accumulated and distributed a vast amount of wealth over time, and its novel system can hardly be described as capitalist.
Zebra @325, I don’t have much time right now, but might get back to it because its interesting.
Just briefly, I totally see your point on the state , capitalism, Musk and Koch now you have fleshed it out. I totally agree as well, I think we are roughly on the same page. Its definitely also more a question of what we do with the technology.
But while capitalism is good in essence, and produces the goods, do you accept that capitalism may have to at least evolve somehow, as it always has anyway? And do you accept a place for strong environmental laws? I mean sensible controls, not outrageous stuff requiring people hug trees three times a day.
Mal Adapted @330
Thank’s for the tip on the book. I already have a copy sitting on the pile of things to read.
Money in politics is a huge problem, particularly from certain people like Koch brothers. Where does the state and the private corporate sector end? The lines are very blurred in some countries, and no doubt kept as blurred as possible.
Another related book: Other peoples money, by John Kay (an economist) on the out of control finance sector.
alan2102:
Since you’re such a confident judge of pseudo-scientific bullshit, alan2102, what about the rest of ‘sociobiology/evolutionary-psychology’? Will you tell us which parts are not pseudo-scientific bullshit?
Enquiring minds want to know ;^).
Susan Anderson:
I’d like to know more about this too, Susan, but one observation is that waves can travel long distances at high speeds, while the force of the wind is imparted to water molecules at the surface, that then travel in vertical circles equal in diameter to the wave height. The vertically revolving water molecules in turn impart a vector of their wind energy to the water molecules down-fetch, who are also getting their own push from the wind at the surface.
The longer the fetch (unimpeded reach of the wind), the more cumulative acceleration the wind can build on the water. In the ‘screaming 60s’, winds and waves are virtually free of any obstructing land mass for their entire circuit of the globe. There’s a good map of the world’s prevailing winds on this body-surfing blog 8^D.
Beyond that I’m over my head, as it were.
Heh. After reading Susan’s comment carefully, it appears my proffered explanation was factual but irrelevant. Tegiri nanashi.
There’s a limit to how much one retains when skimming 8^}.
Susan, I’m pretty sure that the “limit” for wave speed is the speed of sound in water, 1,484 m/s or 3319.613 mph. That’s because the speed of sound represents the transmission rate for information within a medium. I’m sure there are nuances (and I could be flat wrong), but with 700% headroom, 400mph sounds doable via the laws of physics.
Mal Adapted, “Dark Money” gets kind of repetitive in a “it’s worse that you thought” way. So, if folks want to just read two or three of the tales and extrapolate, I’m sure you’ll be nauseated enough….
nigelj: But while capitalism is good in essence,
Al: I think you’re conflating “capitalism” with “the free market”. Capitalism is the elevation of capital above labor with regard to importance in mind, convention, and law. Personally, I think that labor, including the building of a business, is more important than sitting on a couch collecting funds because you’re letting your money work for you. “Captialism” encourages the feeding of leeches. “Laborism” encourages good work.
By the way, I just floated the solution to healthcare through the hospital where I volunteer. (As well as the NDP and the OWH) If any of you want a copy, give me a throwaway email address.
Alan 2102 @330, and also Zebra
Evolutionary psychology is not nonsense a such, just in its infancy and very speculative. I agree your examples Alan fall into this category, and look nuts ( I did some psychology at university so know at least where the state of play is)
But morals and ethics do have some biological, and evolutionary origins. Good summary in the book Behave, by Robert Sapolsky.
Humans combine both deep seated, genetically based, evolved selfish and hierarchical tendencies, and also altruistic, cooperative ones. You guys are very informed, so surely realise this?
Evolution is messy. That’s the hand we are dealt. Its really our choice what characteristics we promote, and how we manage it all.
Fast growth in Russia under communism, and China more recently is mainly the centrally planned and owned pressure cooker system. China is still centrally run, or combined capitalism / communism. I have to admire Chinas progress.
The trouble is such heavily centrally planned / owned systems become stagnant over time and things break down. In the 1960s Russias economy stalled and there was no way out. There’s not enough freedom and incentives to innovate. China still has a problem innovating, although it is improving somewhat.
Personally I like the Scandinavia model that flexibly combines the best of capitalist and socialist ideas, and it certainly has a good historical record.
Zebra: . I was referring to ubiquitous guns, which is a particularly USA problem.
AL: Not even close. AK47s are probably more common than vehicles in many countries. The USA is “disarmed” when compared to Afghanistan, for example. Remember the logistical nightmare of trying to dispose of mountains of weapons in Iraq?
———–
Andrew: I personally don’t remember any computer scientist predicting a global catastrophe.
Al: Yeah, it was laughable. Anything that would break spectacularly would have been obvious. And frankly, I have difficulty imagining any possible case (which just means that they were certainly extremely rare.) The issue was that reports which compared 1999 data to 2000 data might barf (9912 v 0001 or 99XX v 00XX). So either one or twelve reports are lost and then the system heals for another 100 years. (Assuming you don’t bother fixing the now obvious bug and re-running the report) Big whup, eh?
330 Andrew says: “The promise of certain and horrible death-by-climate-change”
That’s a straw man (ie untrue) argument. The article/author does not say that anywhere in that text – nor intimate such a meaning. In #329 the climatefeedback comments point to the various aspects/examples scientists see as “hyperbole”.
Using even more inaccurate “hyperbole” to criticise the article/author is not helpful at all, imho. pot-kettle-black iow.
For those with the time to waste digging into the nuances of the article and the criticisms I suggest you read them both for yourself. And all that is written therein rather than only knee-jerk “reactions” based mainly on the cherry-picked words, phrases etc.
It’s worth remembering that the article is an article It is not misrepresenting itself as a Peer Reviewed scientific analysis of future scenarios.
Both the article and the feedback comments are very long and nuanced. To understand both one must read both in full before rushing to judgement, imho.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/scientists-explain-what-new-york-magazine-article-on-the-uninhabitable-earth-gets-wrong-david-wallace-wells/
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans-annotated.html
That being said, much like the scientist’s critiques, some may like the article or parts of it, and some will not. That’s the way it is.
It’s as much the responsibility of the reader to comprehend what is actually being said in the WHOLE article as it is upon the author to convey his intended meaning as best he can.
analogy – Billions have read the Koran. Only a minuscule few in number have become murderous terrorist fanatics.
Susan 332 … seems they are referring to subsurface “barotropic Kelvin waves” specifically.
eg “Much of the energy of tide waves traveling along continents is transmitted in the form of barotropic Kelvin waves with a speed of about 200 m s -1.
see Oceanic Kelvin Waves Page 4 …
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/MET/Faculty/bwang/bw/paper/wang_103.pdf
Don’t quote me, I may be wrong here, but basically 200ms = 447 MPH
http://www.kylesconverter.com/speed-or-velocity/meters-per-second-to-miles-per-hour
#333 & zebra: “Slowly, in the minority, some changes have occurred, by virtue primarily of economic improvements, brought about by technology, which would not occur without the ability to accumulate and distribute wealth over time (Capitalism).”
Me thinks ur conflating/ignoring the idea of concentrated power in human affairs. and the truism of money is power.
simple example Man 25watts (?), a 2000lb bullock 250 watts (?) and a large lump of coal (?). Maybe ponder some of the ideas floated / hinted at in #328
Also consider that a sea bed dwelling fish has no idea about winged birds or jumbo jets.
But if you already accept that what your dealing with / promoting here is ideology/belief/dogma that excludes all other possibilities (like the fish does) then that’s all well and good.
eg […] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
For over 65,000 years up to 1788 the Australian Aboriginal nations had pretty much achieved a secure existence of Life, Liberty and Happiness. No wars, no money, no capitalism, no economics, no taxtion, loads of recreation time, reasonable health care services, no toxins, no drugs, and a range of incredibly effective “basic technology” needed to be the longest continuous surviving group of human beings on this planet, ever … swimming in nothing but natural wealth.
Personally I feel they were the most “civilized” humans on this Earth. But that is of course a personal value judgement, and not scientific. :-)
Oh dear. Someone’s forgotten that vulcanism has been more or less a constant background source of CO2 and blamed the recent increase on volcanos. It’s as though some mystery force stopped removing CO2 from the atmosphere since 1750 ….
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit-bbc045be015d
323 t marvell says: “It is my belief that climate scientists have long been too moderate in their forecasts and too optimistic in their hopes that current actions by world governments will address the problem.” [and related matters]
I was quite critical of the recent RC article https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/06/why-global-emissions-must-peak-by-2020/ which was an “edited draft” pre-release of a science paper by the same authors and others here: https://www.nature.com/news/three-years-to-safeguard-our-climate-1.22201
and reported on here: http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/we-have-a-2020-deadline-to-avert-climate-catastrophe-experts/news-story/bcbe18fd8f96efba3ae411f53a12de93
Meanwhile an ex-denier/skeptic and Republican aligned Economist at CATO raises other relevant issues I already linked above. https://shift.newco.co/addressing-climate-change-should-be-a-pillar-of-republican-policy-6578fb831554
I’ll edit something he said into my own words:
If you want to change public policy and choose to do that by spending your time trying to change public opinion, that’s all well and good.
It’s not going to change very much of anything, nor change the ‘beliefs” of existing skeptics/deniers, let alone shift the predominant public opinion one point.
The people you need to talk to and convince are the political decision makers themselves.
That’s where the focus must be on — decision makers who actually have the power to make changes — with communications directed to them personally and collectively in every nation.
—
That’s where the major communication effort by climate scientists and pro-agw/cc action enthusiasts must be directed.
Climate scientists must not provide an opportunity anywhere for Victors or Mr KIA and the clowns (white ants) who came out of the woodwork to comment on this RC article https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/07/the-climate-has-always-changed-what-do-you-conclude/
Stupid ignorant denier trolls like that must not be given the space nor the oxygen to say a word. They have no ‘freedom of speech nor democratic rights’ to say a single word here nor on any other internet forum or news outlet – None. It’s a waste of everyone’s time, a waste of space and EFFORT for anyone to address their ridiculous assertions.
Winners don’t react to naysayers – they lead from the front and remain focused 24/7/365.
17 Climate scientists reacted to this recent article https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/scientists-explain-what-new-york-magazine-article-on-the-uninhabitable-earth-gets-wrong-david-wallace-wells/
It’s only about “public opinion” and nothing they have said addresses serious Government policy being made every day by the decision makers who already hold the power in their hands.
Imagine if those 17 climate scientists actually communicated DIRECTLY & PERSONALLY with any number of Representatives, Senators and Govt Ministers/Secretaries — wrote something to them personally that was designed and checked by Communication/PR experts to get past their Gate-Keepers and actually get to their desk and To Read Folder?
Something that could have been shared with other climate scientists, economists and environmentalists that could be COPIED to thousands of others all over the world?
Because folks, this actually is how the real world works. The squeaky hinge gets the oil. Repetition and persistence actually works – like water boring a hole over time through solid granite rock! :-)
So can you imagine a coordinated global leadership movement, backed by genuine science, run by genuine scientists and communication experts that operated a Climate Action Hasbara group of volunteer scientists, academics and activists using verified scientifically accurate materials BUT selecting and personalizing the topical issues of the day and sending off letters and emails to every Policy Maker and Decision Maker in every Government week after week year after year?
I assure you that the current Minister for Energy and the Environment in Oz is NOT reading RC articles, or the latest Peer Reviewed Papers, nor any of the hundreds of other articles written each week about AGW/CC.
Surely you do not want to keep wasting your time and efforts arguing with people on Twitter or with the likes of Victor, Heller, Curry, Spencer, Heartland and Watts et al forever on ‘blog sites’ and newspaper comments boards?
Or writing good articles and having great Papers published that barely anyone in power will read … let alone understand and put into proper context?
re 320-330 Andrew.
Stumbled across an interesting *news report* about Stephen Hawking’s recent comments on agw/cc with a retort from M. Mann:
Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Man said: “Hawking is taking some rhetorical license here”.
“Earth is further away form the sun than Venus and likely cannot experience a runaway greenhouse effect in the same sense as Venus — ie a literal boiling away of the oceans. However Hawking’s larger point — that we could render the planet largely inhabitable for human civilisation if we do not act to avert dangerous climate change — is certainly valid.”
from
http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/space/stephen-hawking-warns-earth-to-be-hesitant-about-contacting-extraterrestrials/news-story/79456fb488b00b63b22eb4ed481190e0
I am not ‘certain’ that that is an accurate quote from Mann. Anyone else know if it is/isn’t?
Do AGW/CC deniers and shills Lie? You bet they do! :-)
Bestselling author David Gillespie turns his attention to a phenomenon that damages businesses, seeds mental disease and discomfort and can bring civilisations to the brink of implosion- the psychopath.
Taming Toxic People: The Science of Identifying and Dealing with Psychopaths at Work
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/mind/author-david-gillespie-on-how-to-deal-with-a-psychopath-boss-friend-or-lover/news-story/6f5449a71ff1bceec491457fe4fba4bf
https://www.panmacmillan.com.au/9781743535875/
One in Five Corporate Workers may have this Disorder – would be even higher in Political circles and Boardrooms, I suspect.
“The higher or more powerful a position, the more likely that person is going to be a psychopath,” he said.
“The most obvious, immediate behaviour is that they lie. They lie a lot and they’re very convincing liars.
“At first you don’t pick up on it. Over time, you start to realise that you’ve just been told a lie and when you confront them with that lie, you get another lie.”
Have to agree with Alan about sociobiology. It really is pseudoscience, and I’m sorry so many people (including, sad to say, my own brother) have latched onto it.
nigelj 334,
Thanks.
Really, my issue is with those on the Left who mirror those on the Right: The Right uses “socialism” as a universal pejorative; it has no real meaning except that it is associated with “bad” stuff for them. And too much on the Left, the same applies to “capitalism”. No attempt to understand what the terms actually mean.
Anyway, of course we are in agreement on environmental regulation; in fact I agree with the other points you have made with respect to continuing economic activity when you replied to others. We can go a long way recycling most of our resources and losing a small percentage each time. If we can bring some form of non-FF prosperity to developing societies, we will bend the population curve, and perhaps eventually reach that “sustainable” balance.
On capitalism: Again, of course, we strongly regulate it. But I have no idea how things are going to end up when robots and AI replace large segments of the existing working population, so maybe some more paradigms will have to shift?????