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: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 19:41:10 +0000

 



Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by Hank Roberts

Sun, 15 Oct 2017 19:41:10 +0000

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL075353/abstract Research Letter Midlatitude Summer Drying: An Underestimated Threat in CMIP5 Models? First published: 14 October 2017 DOI: 10.1002/2017GL075353



Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by Mitch

Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:53:27 +0000

145-Killian: The 65 deg N summer insolation at the LIG was roughly 540 W/m2 vs 480 W/m2 today. So, the LIG record reveals that significant changes in solar insolation have an important effect on global temperature and sea level. You shouldn't attribute global climate change to CO2 alone. The effects from insolation versus fossil fuel emissions will be different.



Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by MA Rodger

Sun, 15 Oct 2017 09:39:40 +0000

Killian @143, Rather than struggle with the Abstract and diminuative previews of the artwork, it may be more useful accessing the full paper Hearty & Tormey (2017). As with the Abstract, you will note that the paper is described as an "Invited review article" and so the primary sources of Figure 2 (which is presumably what you were describing as the SLR chart "too small to read") may also be of interest. They are Hearty et al (2007) and O'Leary et al (2013) (this last a pdf of the paper complete with somebody's emboldening).



Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by AIC

Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:18:08 +0000

America’s Top Fears 2017 Chapman University Survey of American Fears https://blogs.chapman.edu/wilkinson/2017/10/11/americas-top-fears-2017/ Global Warming/Climate change makes the top ten for the first time since the survey has been started, apparently. Other environmental issues are also high, possibly because of fear that the Trump administration will be destroying our environment.



Comment on O Say Can You CO2… by Scott Denning

Sun, 15 Oct 2017 04:32:56 +0000

Everett F Sargent #12: Ocean carbon storage is ~ 20x land storage, but average ocean sink in a given year is about the same as the average land sink. Chatterjee et al 2017 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6360/eaam5776) in the current issue of Science used OCO-2 and in-situ data to show that El Nino event reduced outgassing of CO2 from tropical east Pacific in 2015, leading to anomalous sink. Under normal conditions upwelling of cold CO2-rich water from depth leads to outgassing when upwelled water warms at the surface. This slows down during ENSO warm phase. Later in the record, this reduced outgassing was counteracted by the land carbon source documented by Liu et al in the paper I described here.



Comment on 1.5ºC: Geophysically impossible or not? by Digby Scorgie

Sun, 15 Oct 2017 02:55:32 +0000

Dan Miller @14 I would've thought World War Two would've seen continued industry -- all geared to producing arms. Or does the arms industry produce less smoke?



Comment on 1.5ºC: Geophysically impossible or not? by nigelj

Sun, 15 Oct 2017 02:40:19 +0000

Dan Millar @14 That makes plenty of sense, except I don't get shut down of industries in WW2. Didn't industry just shift from consumer goods to military weapons? Or perhaps you mean destruction of industry in bombing, but this was replaced quite quickly from what I read about war history, amazing what they did under pressure, and was confined to just a few countries. But ok, maybe industry did play some role. I think warming up to 1945 was mainly driven by CO2, solar and low volcanic emissions.



Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by alan2102

Sun, 15 Oct 2017 01:01:43 +0000

PS: in the previous message, to Mal Adapted, I meant (throughout) NET gain or loss. That is, in the Malthusian view, humans might be capable of production and creation, (they obviously are), but only at a NET loss, or at the price of NET reduction in carrying capacity, etc. I should have made that clear. Pardon. But with that qualification, the same point stands.



Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by alan2102

Sun, 15 Oct 2017 00:44:01 +0000

#130 Mal Adapted 13 Oct 2017: "I used to be a population-growth alarmist, but in the last 20 years I’ve reached the same conclusion you have.... Nowadays I’m more of an I=PAT* alarmist." From this and other comments of yours I gather that you've given up classic strictly population-centered Malthusianism, but you've remained a Malthusian. A Malthusian is one who sees humans only as entries on the debit side of the ledger, never the credit side. Humans are mere hungry mouths -- useless eaters -- ever consuming and destroying, never producing or creating. Humans cause only LIQUIDATION of natural capital, never restoration or regeneration of natural capital. In this view, humans are incapable of building soil and restoring ecosystems, creating new dramatically more-efficient technologies, making scientific and technical breakthroughs which increase carrying capacity and enhance sustainability, and so forth. Humans are not creative and intelligent beings capable of worthwhile contribution; rather, they are only consumers and destroyers. Or so it would seem. Correct me if I've misrepresented your view.



Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by nigelj

Sun, 15 Oct 2017 00:35:26 +0000

Killian says this about me: "In my opinion this post clearly marks you as a denialist. The slow and steady, let’s be careful slow roll approach among denialists goes back a long way. Given the slow roll, the complete discounting of the existential threat, the reliance on gov’t and tech, the false presentation of Capitalism as potentially sustainable, and the constant dishonest use of Straw Man argumentation, I say you have marked yourself." 1) No I'm no climate denialist. I think we are causing climate change, and we need to do much more about it, and more rapidly. 2) Nope, I have never said we should go easy on reducing emissions or go softly on discussing the risks. I Only EVER said we shouldn't catastrophise, for example make unlikely claims that earth will become like venus or rapid change is highly likely this decade. 3) I have never commented on the existential threat issue. 4) I fail to see how reliance on government for example cap and trade or carbon taxes makes me a climate denialist. I also fail to see how supporting technology makes me a climate denialist. Its so illogical its laughable. 5) Never used straw man arguments. I don't think you actually know what they are. 6) Capitalism is defined as private ownership in any dictionary I have seen. This is not unsustainable, in my opinion, and public ownership while it has its place for some things, doesn't guarantee sustainability. The evidence historically is that large scale public ownership is problematic. So you get 7 out of 7 completely WRONG. I have also just spent some time arguing with the resident real life climate denialist Victor. Why would I do that if I was a climate denialist for gods sake? Your views on all this are delusional, illogical, badly informed, and you are acting exactly like an intellectual bully.