Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/wp-commentsrss2.php?p=426
Preview: Comments for RealClimate

Comments for RealClimate



Climate science from climate scientists...



Last Build Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:24:55 +0000

 



Comment on Red team/Blue team Day 1 by patrick

Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:24:55 +0000

@11 Victor: Now, if only you'd work on making your own comments as spare and intelligent as the humor you've linked.



Comment on The climate has always changed. What do you conclude? by Adam Lea

Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:01:11 +0000

Regarding (4), I think there is some truth in that, not because of theoretical physical arguments, but because of human psychology. I really have my doubts that enough of the global population do, or will take it seriously enough to drive those with the power and influence to take proper action on a nationwide scale (i.e. not micro-steps that ultimately make a negligible difference). The hard-wired cognitive biases that worked well for survival in the hunter-gatherer days, but are dreadful in today's completely different complex civilizations, are too powerful to overcome, we collectively don't have sufficient intelligence to override in the face of the evidence which strongly suggests we should. Perhaps if humans were more like Vulcans, and operated by logic and reason instead of feeling and emotion, we'd not be in this situation, but sadly this is not the case.



Comment on Unforced variations: July 2017 by zebra

Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:44:16 +0000

Scott Strough #232, I have always wondered about this-- I'm serious-- Why do farmers always have to borrow money from capitalists for seeds and stuff? I understand a start-up business needing funds; I've been in that situation. I understand in some cases that cash flow can fluctuate on a monthly basis. But farmers harvest their crops and (I assume) sell it all at once, and I assume to large entities that pay on time, that is, before you have to plant again. So, why would your regenerative farmer with good soil not be able to be self-sufficient, or even produce the needed seeds himself? Isn't buying seeds from giant seed companies a feature of the "industrial" paradigm?



Comment on Unforced variations: July 2017 by zebra

Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:30:55 +0000

Omega C 235, -Your explanation to nigelj about line voltage may be a bit misleading: https://www.veic.org/docs/Transportation/20130320-EVT-NRA-Final-Report.pdf The difference is significant but nothing like "3 times". (I think you are confusing the "capacity" of a wire, which is a function of pure resistance, with the effects of heating on the charging circuitry components. -With respect to the "business model" of charging stations-- it's just another amenity, whether in a single home or apartment building. Why is this different from nice appliances or marble countertops or any other feature?



Comment on Unforced variations: July 2017 by Mr. Know It All

Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:28:07 +0000

202, 206, Nigel Problem with EVs in the US is high cost and low range. If the batteries are allowed to get cold in winter, range plummets. They will work for city commuters - more are coming online all the time thanks to taxpayers paying a significant chunk of the cost of the car; but don't have the range for long trips; and the facilities to charge them on the road don't exist for the most part. 225 - Zebra Tesla makes a profit? If it takes subsidies then it does not make a profit. ;)



Comment on The climate has always changed. What do you conclude? by jgnfld

Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:28:02 +0000

The denier answer has usually been "e. Any or all of the above according to the needs of the moment."



Comment on Unforced variations: July 2017 by nigelj

Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:17:44 +0000

Killian, just one other point. You were lecturing me on your expertise on sustainability, while admitting you weren't sure how to define it. You went on to claim it was necessary to define sustainability and then rebuild the economic system around this. My country New Zealand already has major environmental legislation on resource management with sustainability as the leading, core objective. This is the Resource Management Act. Its not perfect legislation, but its a step. Sustainability tends to be worked out through a process of environmental hearings on major projects, and various legislation that sets rules for routine projects. Sustainability tends to come down to specific things about protecting the air and water, conserving fisheries and soils etc. I don't see how any of this is incompatible with capitalism or free markets in the classical sense. It simply means such markets cannot be completely free of all boundaries or rules. The new president of France, Macron gets this, but I suppose you would say hes dumb, young and ignorant?



Comment on The climate has always changed. What do you conclude? by Mack

Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:09:17 +0000

That's a nice colourful chart you've got there, of the Radiative forcings, Stefan. Are you expecting to have all your students to accept it with gullible, nodding approval? You've got all these " anthropogenic" forcings, in watts/sq.m, and then the little slot for the "natural" solar forcing... irradiance of 0.12 w/sq.m. I would have thought that would be a tad out...maybe 168w/sq.m in your case...perhaps 340w/sq.m in my case?

[Response: Try to think about this a little. Go on, we'll wait. - gavin]




Comment on Unforced variations: July 2017 by nigelj

Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:03:20 +0000

Thomas @233, yeah I actually totally agree with that about markets and their limitations. I really just meant the market is at least responsive enough and inventive enough to provide some of the answers, but probably not all. Governments may need to provide some help for recharging networks etc. Alternatively we can worry ourselves into paralysis of analysis, and do nothing because there might be a problem. The basic idea of electric cars seems valid, so I'm inclined to think answers will be found to various problems. In fact some of the very first cars ever made were electric, and they were initially the preferred choice due to the simplicity of design, but petrol won the battle because of better range at that time. This was in a recent television documentary on the history of the automobile, much to my surprise.



Comment on The climate has always changed. What do you conclude? by Tim C

Thu, 20 Jul 2017 08:47:27 +0000

The "Climate has always changed" argument always amuses me. If anybody says that I ask them for thermometer data proving that. When they can't I ask how they know the climate has changed. Then they get stuck! It's a remarkable feat of double-think to trust the paleoclimate data but not the Paleoclimatologists who produce it!