Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/wp-commentsrss2.php?p=426
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
climate  comment forced  comment  emissions  forced responses  forced  forests  jan  offshore wind  oil  responses jan  responses  years 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments for RealClimate

Comments for RealClimate



Climate science from climate scientists...



Last Build Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 03:39:11 +0000

 



Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by Killian

Wed, 24 Jan 2018 03:39:11 +0000

#254 nigelj says: 23 Jan 2018 at 8:53 PM Scott Strough, thanks for those links. I’m familar with some of that information, but others may not be. I agree trees have very limited potential to sequester carbon. Right now, approx. 30% of human CO2 emissions go into photosynthesis. So for example to sequester 60% of emissions forests would require doubling the area of the planet planted in forests Forests cover 31 percent of the world’s land surface, just over 4 billion hectares. (One hectare = 2.47 acres.) This is down from the pre-industrial area of 5.9 billion hectares. I think 1.9 billion hectares pre-industrial... and much more if you go back farther, is hardly "very limited." Add in that we can include many areas not used for forestation at all in future Food Foresting, a necessary change for a resilient food shed, etc., etc., and that trees are only *part* of the carbon sequestered in forests, I think it's definitely something to do and is far from minor. You need to understand agroforestry, food forests, the role of mycorrhiza, and a woody food sources better.



Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by Lovis Axon

Wed, 24 Jan 2018 03:28:03 +0000

nanoflowcell.com for any/all transportation issues. Electricity to power the nanoflowcell vehicle system has to come from Offshore wind. Problem is, it is barely deployed at this point, 5 turbines near block island and more going up south west of long island. If we deployed offshore wind on the east coast stretching from Maine to Georgia we would have 4 times as much electricity as we currently produce from every source in the USA. Where are the american companies to provide that offshore wind? We need the offshore wind because of the solar tariff, there are very few solar panels that are 100% made in the USA... maybe that number will increase because of the tariff but who knows?! Additionally we have to stop all fossil fuel emission, which means the end of a multi trillion dollar industry. I've had the idea for a while with no way to deploy it, why doesn't the fossil fuel industry take all its cash and begin the offshore wind industry? Where do entrepreneurs play into this? It's such a massive operation to begin and the upstart cost is huge. Not to mention 2036 or sooner for runaway climate change.. I will be 47.



Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by nigelj

Wed, 24 Jan 2018 03:04:22 +0000

"BP Says The World Only Has 53 Years Of Oil Left, Should You Panic?" https://jalopnik.com/bp-says-the-world-only-has-53-years-of-oil-left-should-1602354842 The article points out these are known and declared reserves, and it's probably more. But discoveries of large oil fields have been steadily declining in recent decades, even including deep sea oil I think. But for the sake of argument, let's realistically assume there's 100 years of oil left globally. There's also about 100 years of Natural gas left in America as well, and I assume its similar globally. The point being that some people are debating climate change, and whether to stop using oil, when in just 100 years or maybe less, we will be forced to stop using oil anyway as supplies dwindle, and prices escalate dramatically. People have to get their heads around this. A 100 years is not a long time. Electric cars are inevitable, so now is as good a time as any to transition to this technology, and renewable energy.



Comment on Unforced Variations: Jan 2018 by Killian

Wed, 24 Jan 2018 02:56:20 +0000

#157 MA Rodger said mike @151, Try here. The GCP is authoritative. I think you are using "authoritative" incorrectly here. You use it to argue you are correct, but, frankly, CO2 emissions are, in the very best case, a weak set of assumptions with zero verification. Given the rates of increase we have seen despite claims going back... what? Three years?... that emissions are flat, I find it virtually impossible for there to have been flat emissions. Consider: If flat emissions is accurate, then we suddenly, in the last three years or so, have seen a natural source for 2.2+ to 3.0+ ppm of CO2 arise out of nowhere. Yet, it is claimed it's not CH4 from the Arctic. What, then? Your authority is the most authoritative of a weak lot. That is, actually measuring emissions is impossible and the assumptions related to the numbers used are massive. Yet another way, they're not even equal to an educated guess. I, for one, have never believed them. I think they are a combination of industry false reporting, outright propaganda and shaky assumptions.



Comment on The claim of reduced uncertainty for equilibrium climate sensitivity is premature by Phil Scadden

Wed, 24 Jan 2018 02:19:02 +0000

Alan, you dont have to work very hard at WUWT to find "misrepresentation,accusations of fraud, conspiracy theories, strawman arguments, anecdotes, cherry picking and outright denial of the evidence" in just about any article. Try it some time.



Comment on The claim of reduced uncertainty for equilibrium climate sensitivity is premature by Phil Scadden

Wed, 24 Jan 2018 02:16:42 +0000

Alan "I read a SKEPTIC BLOG THAT PUBLISHES REAL SCIENCE" I believe that must be a typo. Shouldnt it be "I read a CONSPIRACY THEORY BLOG THAT PUBLISHES NONSENSE ONLY FOR PEOPLE WITHOUT CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS". Like CO2 Snow in Antarctica? El Nino warming the ocean? The numerous "we're cooling" nonsense? Give us a break. One can also assume you havent read the "75 papers with low sensitivity" (nor the compiler apparently).



Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by nigelj

Wed, 24 Jan 2018 01:53:08 +0000

Scott Strough, thanks for those links. I'm familar with some of that information, but others may not be. I agree trees have very limited potential to sequester carbon. Right now, approx. 30% of human CO2 emissions go into photosynthesis. So for example to sequester 60% of emissions forests would require doubling the area of the planet planted in forests, which is huge and is simply not viable, because the land is simply not available. With population expected to soar to 10 billion, there won't be much land to spare for forests. Its enough of a battle just preserving what forests are left. And that's before we get to problems of carbon saturation, as appears to be happening in some forests. Planting additional trees is basically only going to nibble away at a few % of emissions. IMO the only sense in planting forests would be on hilly land that cannot be used for crops or grazing lands. This can make sense anyway for erosion control and obviously theres also a need for timber for construction and paper. But I think the area of potential land would be limited. I stand to be corrected. The future of natural sinks has to be soil carbon under crops and grasslands, because the potential area is huge, and doesn't have to be increased.



Comment on 2017 temperature summary by Keith Woollard

Wed, 24 Jan 2018 01:35:47 +0000

A few comments... 1) Ray "The sample mean converges toward the actual mean with the error decreasing as the inverse of the square root of the number of samples." IFF the noise is white. IFF you are sampling the same thing Neither of those two conditions exist in the proxy datasets. 2) Putting a one-sigma uncertainty on a paleo temperature dataset is ludicrous. The errors are not normally distributed and there is no account taken of systemic issues. 3) "but the most important point is temperatures coming out of the ice age increased very slowly." Yes, that is what the graph shows without realistic error bars. But the graph is extremely sparsely sampled and the composite of hugely varying datasets. Do any of the individual proxies look as smooth? But Ray, I do like your comment about hogging all the L's



Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by nigelj

Wed, 24 Jan 2018 01:19:26 +0000

Mr Know it all @251 "Problems they need to solve are: increase range, lower price, winter range, charging point availability (similar to gas stations) to allow long trips, grid capacity problems, etc." The Nissan leaf is one of the lower cost models, and still has a 150 mile range, which is pretty good. Most people should be able to get by with a 150 mile range, as studies show most people use their cars almost entirely for short trips. What are your needs such that you would need a longer range? Are you a travelling salesman or something? If so, buy a frigging hybrid and stop complaining! The prices on your list are only retail prices. There's a federal $7,500 income tax credit available, and many states have further incentives as below. So something like the Nissan Leaf can be purchased for near $20,000. The tax credit is still available, even with Trump's tax changes. You are so badly informed: I don't even live in America, and I know this stuff. pluginamerica.org/why-go-plug-in/state-federal-incentives/ Wear a jumper in winter. You won't die without electrically heated seats. Why would a grid capacity problem worry a car purchaser? If demand increases, more generation will be built. Oh its so tempting to be really sarcastic.



Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by Al Bundy

Wed, 24 Jan 2018 00:46:24 +0000

nigelj: we are trying to discourage fossil fuel burning and excessive air travel AB: WHY on earth would one want to discourage air travel???? It is one of the most efficient way to travel from A to B, though with a caveat: Jets are stupid. Go with a simultaneous combined cycle prop plane and air travel is solved.