Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
Preview: Comments for RealClimate

Comments for RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

Last Build Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 00:41:26 +0000


Comment on Alsup asks for answers by Hank Roberts

Wed, 21 Mar 2018 00:41:26 +0000

Oops. broken link. The Alsup quote in the Forbes article is cited to: which links to: Case 3:17-cv-06012-WHA Document 118 Filed 03/01/18 Page 1 of 2

Comment on Alsup asks for answers by Hank Roberts

Wed, 21 Mar 2018 00:38:56 +0000

Hey, this is relevant news:
On March 1, U.S. District Judge William Alsup requested that the United States study these lawsuits and file a friend-of-the-court brief that would be due 10 days after briefing is completed on anticipated motions to dismiss filed by the various fossil fuel companies. The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment. "The United States is invited to read the complaints, motions to dismiss, and oppositions and to submit an amicus brief on the question of whether (and the extent to which) federal common law should afford relief of the type requested by the complaints," Alsup wrote. [cited to:]
Block quote from:

Comment on Unforced variations: Mar 2018 by Hank Roberts

Wed, 21 Mar 2018 00:32:32 +0000
Spring is springing earlier and earlier Higher temperatures for much of the country are popping first blooms ahead of schedule in recent years. ... in large expanses of the continental United States, spring is actually arriving earlier than in past years. ... Change in first leaf date between 1951–1960 and 2006–2015 The USA National Phenology Network monitors the status of spring in the form of first-leaf and first-bloom indexes.

Comment on Alsup asks for answers by Russell

Tue, 20 Mar 2018 23:42:52 +0000

How long has Keith been boycotting scientific works written by smokers?

Comment on Unforced variations: Mar 2018 by nigelj

Tue, 20 Mar 2018 23:12:18 +0000

Victor think's that Occams Razor says that the simplest explanation is the correct explanation. It doesnt, it only says the simplest explanation is "usually" the correct explanation. And the term simplest is only relative to available explanations. Clearly atmospheric warming has multiple causes, including CO2 and solar changes, geothermal energy and forest fires etc and all can be at the same time, but research shows solar changes have limited effect, and CO2 is dominating in recent decades and will continue to dominate.

Comment on Unforced variations: Mar 2018 by nigelj

Tue, 20 Mar 2018 22:48:58 +0000

Victor says "If YOU are stupid enough to plead there was CO2 forcing pre-1940 causing the pre-1940 warming, how can there not have been ANY warming 1940-70 when CO2 emissions continued to increase, smarty-pants?’ Golly!! That’s a tricky question!!!" Its not a question of belief. CO2 levels increased from approximately 1900 - 1940 so indisputably had some role in that warming period. And Victor levels of coal burning prior to 1940 were comparatively small. Remember we have evidence of three drivers of warming over the pre 1940 period, CO2 emissions, increased solar activity and an unusually reduced period of volcanic activity. This could easily explain the warming, and overwhelm any effect of coal burning during the same period. After 1940 there were very high sulphate aerosols from the boom in industrial activity in western countries and the consumer revolution and increase in population really taking off. This only really started in earnest during WW2 and after then. Remember the industrial revolution of the Victorian age was mostly confined to Europe, and the industrial boom after WW2 was much wider globally. From the 1940's to 1970s approximately, the particulates and sulphates reflected sunlight, with the net effect that temperatures were stable despite increasing CO2 levels then controls on these pollutants were introduced around the 1960s to 1970s (using a cap and trade scheme in some countries). This is not unlike the principle behind proposals to introduce geoengineering reflectors in space (not good proposals however), to counter the effect of the greenhouse effect by reflecting solar radiation. The issue is not all about agw theory. Its about observing changes in temperature up and down, and finding logical reasons. It so happens that climate is rather sensitive to sulphate aerosols. And yes China is burning coal in recent decades, but many of the sulphates are filtered out, so its not enough to supress global temperatures. And quantities of atmospheric CO2 are also higher. Its just not that hard to explain the flat periods in temperatures, and its not trickery, its just looking carefully for possible explanations like with any field of science or exploration.

Comment on Alsup asks for answers by nigelj

Tue, 20 Mar 2018 21:46:45 +0000

Keith Woolard "If CO2 emissions are such an issue, don’t do it!!!! Let’s not start suing companies, and trying to get governments to impose laws and taxes – just stop. I don’t mean cut back, I mean stop. Sell your car, get rid of central heating and aircon, walk/cycle to work or telecommute, don’t get on a plane…. ever! Until you do these things, people will not trust you." One of the problems will all this is no one individual wants to make changes or sacrifices until everyone does, so nobody moves. This is why carbon taxes make sense, as they help push everyone along in unison by sending everyone a price signal that's hard to ignore. And individual action by the general public wont be enough to change electricity generation from fossil fuels to renewables. Only laws and subsidies will work, and the UK is a good example.

Comment on Unforced variations: Mar 2018 by prokaryotes

Tue, 20 Mar 2018 21:41:17 +0000

#313 Some quick thoughts (first draft) There is possibly a chain mechanism underlying climate system feedbacks. From a natural system perspective the first principle is planetary albedo (the sum of landscapes, water bodies and clouds). If we start out with a balanced system which contains frozen water at the poles, the mid to high latitudes begin to thaw, triggering soil greenhouse gas feedbacks (permafrost thaw and following oxic and anoxic sources add to the greenhouse gas budget), a chronic linear process (which helps to accelerate changes of the equilibrium state, reduces the ability of the atmosphere to break down greenhouse gases - less hydroxide radicals). Weather gets more erratic (more heat, drought, fires, flash floods). Now we have to consider anthropogenic feedbacks - which are positive and negative. Negative are ofc the actions to reduce emissions, which at the same time make societies more resilient, since renewable's are per design more decentralized. Positive can continue to dominate due to aspects related to psychological handling, and more heat has been shown to increase conflict potential, increased disruptions means increased rebuilding efforts, by all means (using wood and coal for burning if someone lacks technological advancements). Then if a warming trend continues, overtime the oceans get warm enough and release continental margin located hydrates from shallow regions. With even further warmth over time coastal waters become more stratified, less perturbation reduces the amount of CO2 absorption (less water is transported into the deep, less carbon is transported to the deep, most is consumed again). More feedbacks develop (serious algae, dead zones, acidification, and cloud cover changes). Very stormy background due to chaotic distribution of cold and hot regions (icebergs from disintegrated ice sheets, and high levels of atmospheric CO2), due to global deglaciation. At this stage extinction of high magnitude. With even further warming more hydrates are released, additional global soil feedback (extreme soil respiration rates, compost bomb instability) and weathering becomes a driver, now Ocean very stratified, maybe things like permanent El Nino, weather systems probably move very slow - everything gets stuck due to lack of perturbed ocean, no or very little frozen water at the poles. Oxygen decline in ocean and atmosphere gets so little that only very few species can adapt or survive at all. If this state continues the planet could get the Venus syndrome.

Comment on Alsup asks for answers by nigelj

Tue, 20 Mar 2018 21:35:43 +0000

K McKinney @127 and Hank Roberts @132, yes I missed that the judge has a technical background. It would really have helped if the article had stated these things clearly right at the beginning.

Comment on Unforced variations: Mar 2018 by Dan

Tue, 20 Mar 2018 21:18:08 +0000

re:308 It is certain that Victor has reached a new level of scientific ignorance and arrogance. It has been long established here that he has no clue about the scientific method. And now in desperation (which he won't admit of course) he resorts to videos on a scientific blog run by peer reviewed climate scientists? How vile and insulting. Clue for you Victor: Science is not conducted by videos or TV debates.It is done via research, data analysis, peer review and scientific conference debate. You are become the poster child of intellectual laziness vis a vis scientific ignorance. There is no excuse for failing to try to learn. But you take it another level: You are now trying (and utterly failing) to be condescending to peer reviewed scientists while you have no clue. I am still waiting for you to explain why the stratosphere has been cooling (it should be warming if the sun/natural causes are the cause of global warming) without violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (look it up and learn). I asked you this quite a while back and you conveniently ignored it. Of course the reason you did is that you have not read the peer-reviewed science. And the scientific method has been the cornerstone of all science for centuries. The idea that somehow you think you know something that literally thousands of climate scientists do not is the absolute height of scientific arrogance. And ignorance.