tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post548169551202692597..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: Dizzying Array of Climate NewsMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-86926760091354781082010-07-08T14:53:05.685-07:002010-07-08T14:53:05.685-07:00Brian, hairs well split.
Still I like Caldeira&#...Brian, hairs well split. <br /><br />Still I like Caldeira's mugging formulation and intend to keep using it. We would certainly be a lot better off if we aimed for zero than if we didn't aim for anything at all.<br /><br />Or, I can split them back/<br /><br />Regarding the mugging, what amount of mugging is optimal, if it isn't zero?<br /><br />You are mentioning practical tradeoffs with other goals (police power, expense of perfect security) not the mugging-specific optimum. <br /><br />Also, after all, the in the very long-term limit, the target for any cumulative human perturbation on the planet must be zero.<br /><br />I'd rather not split the hairs at all. Mugging - bad. Carbon emissions - bad. Close enough for present purposes.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-50959675685579404342010-07-08T14:30:53.634-07:002010-07-08T14:30:53.634-07:00Maybe MT already knows this and I'm missing th...Maybe MT already knows this and I'm missing the subtlety, but the right target for old lady mugging isn't zero - that target requires a police state that even old ladies would find undesirable.<br /><br />OTOH, the right target for emissions is a trend line to zero and then to negative emissions by 50-70 years from now. <br /><br />I don't know how you can get negative old lady muggings, unless you count old ladies running around and punching out teen hoodlums.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-25065383762241806762010-07-07T18:36:19.849-07:002010-07-07T18:36:19.849-07:00They got bupkis!
Sing it!
http://www.youtube.com...They got bupkis!<br /><br /><i>Sing it!</i><br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE6lGAUimgUafemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08364320934289732272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-78091798547346779232010-07-07T15:07:54.070-07:002010-07-07T15:07:54.070-07:00Nice post, thanks. I gave up on KK a while back.Nice post, thanks. I gave up on KK a while back.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-41848668126991016522010-07-07T14:50:28.116-07:002010-07-07T14:50:28.116-07:00Republicans hold no monopoly on economy-crippling ...Republicans hold no monopoly on <a href="http://learningresourcesinc.blogspot.com/2010/07/cpsia-deaf-congress-makes-up-its-own.html" rel="nofollow">economy-crippling legislation</a>.Therrin (Ben S)https://www.blogger.com/profile/05744164800086819760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-5809344470589001002010-07-07T11:20:53.724-07:002010-07-07T11:20:53.724-07:00Michael, reading through the Kloor thread was depr...Michael, reading through the Kloor thread was depressing, except for Brin coming back with what he really meant - the resulting pearl clutching and fainting was quite impressive. What was noteworthy (I think in that thread, and I think brought up by Dr. Curry) was the Air Vent "who are you" (paraphrase) thread. My impression was lots of engineers, and that is why <a href="http://www.the-scientist.com/2010/7/1/29/1/" rel="nofollow">this article</a> caught my eye. <br /><br /><i>When working with these multidisciplinary groups, I have observed a definite cultural difference between scientists and engineers. Basic scientists seem to be very comfortable with ambiguity and the unknown. Applied engineers, however, depend on and expect established knowledge and certainty. </i>Deech56https://www.blogger.com/profile/01075060714218498521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-4392577426050189662010-07-07T11:16:27.998-07:002010-07-07T11:16:27.998-07:00"Pearce de resistance" -- once again you..."Pearce de resistance" -- once again your humor hit me like a sucker punch.<br />jgjghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00588440067862480858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-27962133017758165572010-07-07T11:09:56.472-07:002010-07-07T11:09:56.472-07:00from Tobis' post "Unfortunately, as a dil...from Tobis' post "Unfortunately, as a diligently reasonable middle-of-the-roader, Keith is unable to accept the idea that the right target for carbon emissions is the same as the right target for mugging little old ladies. I am sure he is looking to split the difference."<br /><br />This is not strictly true. Kloor would just like to first vet the old ladies before setting a cap and trade on muggings. ;-)<br /><br />Why are the so-so-so-balanced so-so-so-reasonable also so-so-so-laughable?manuel moe ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04878149837118503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-16308096983752450932010-07-07T10:07:45.402-07:002010-07-07T10:07:45.402-07:00Not literally, but the closer you get to Beaumont ...Not literally, but the closer you get to Beaumont the more humid it gets. <br /><br />Central Texas has two kinds of weather, dry heat and moist heat. It depends on which way the wind is blowing.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-38363848498580070092010-07-07T09:56:39.256-07:002010-07-07T09:56:39.256-07:00Does Texas have 110 per cent humidity?Does Texas have 110 per cent humidity?bigcitylibhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-56728827426700405352010-07-07T09:50:48.193-07:002010-07-07T09:50:48.193-07:00re: SPM on 3%...
You may recall Mashey Summarizes ...re: SPM on 3%...<br />You may recall <a href="http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2008/05/mashey-summarizes-carbon-urgency.html" rel="nofollow">Mashey Summarizes Carbon urgency</a>.<br /><br />1) Read pp.180-183 of the AR4 WG III.<br />See caption on Fig 3.3.<br /><br />2) I talked to Bert Metz when he was out here ~2008 and asked him how they got their numbers for GDP growth projections. A: they use the "standard" numbers, like World Bank, DoE, IEA ... i.e.,. they try to not to invent their own.<br /><br />3) if you go back and read, you may note I've been on a campaign for a while to point out that the (X% loss from climate problems) is almost irrelevant if the basic assumptions are wrong. *I* think Aryes & Warr, or Charlie Hall are much more likely to be closer to reality than the happy projections based on the last 100 years of increasing fossil fuel use.<br /><br />4) BUT, the problem is in the standard economic projections.<br />I don't think the IPCC can easily say: "We reject them..."<br />However, I hope the next round can more strongly consider the (minority) view of the relationship of GDP to energy...<br />Because on the current path, we're headed for the path where people put up dikes against the sea using shovels. I have yet to see a convincing that GDP/person can grow anything like the standard scenarios, which imply something like 6-15X higher GDP/person in 2100.John Masheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786354229618237133noreply@blogger.com