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: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 11:46:15 +0000

 



Comment on Why extremes are expected to change with a global warming by Astringent

Wed, 20 Sep 2017 11:46:15 +0000

Victor @150 The climatic effect of an eruption doesn't just depend on VEI. Unsurprisingly it's more complex. Eruptions with low VEI can produce as much sulphate as eruptions with larger VEI. The location of an eruption can also effect the way in which aerosols are dispersed and the effect on climate. A better measure of the effect of aerosols than counting eruptions on Wikipedia might be to look at Total Visible Optical Depth which measures the 'dimming' of the sun caused by the aerosols. Not hard to find and fairly un-ambiguously shows that, irrespective of event frequency, VOD was lower in the first part of the last century.



Comment on Unforced Variations: Sep 2017 by CCHolley

Wed, 20 Sep 2017 11:43:11 +0000

Victor @299
A factor, yes — a major factor, no. Actually it’s more like 200 years:
Wrong. There is much variability in sea levels. In fact, sea level has been rising somewhat since the 17th century after two centuries of higher sea levels. The period of the 1800s is simply a reflection of this variability. However, the significant change in sea levels did not emerge from the noise until the 1900s corresponding to industrialization. All CO2 has an influence on temperatures and the initial emissions have the greatest effect per unit due to the logarithmic effect of the phenomena. The warming of the first half of the 1900s when sea levels began rising in earnest beyond that of natural variability was mostly due to CO2 warming. http://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/2_22_16_John_CC_NuisanceFlooding_GlobalSLR_1050_718_s_c1_c_c.jpg



Comment on Why extremes are expected to change with a global warming by CCHolley

Wed, 20 Sep 2017 11:15:32 +0000

Victor @149
“You are wrong. You just choose to focus on the least important one, volcanism and ignore the greenhouse gas forcing and solar irradiance.” No, I never ignored either issue, as should be clear from my previous comments. But in this case it’s the effects of volcanic eruptions (and their absence) that is being discussed. Your objection is a straw man, sorry.
Nope. Not a straw man at all. You clearly stated: "So no matter how you want to argue this, you are still left with a dramatic runup in temperature for which there is no explanation based on the current state of climate science." Volcanism, which you appear to be obsessed with, was a minor influencer of the period in question. The temperature rise is clearly understood as mostly driven by CO2 forcing. Your statement is completely false and the point of your volcano discussion is completely absurd. A red herring. Working hard on your denialism. Or more likely intentional obfuscating.



Comment on Impressions from the European Meteorological Society’s annual meeting in Dublin  by Astringent

Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:52:03 +0000

Dan #5, have you ever actually met a scientist? The ones I know would act like a starving wolf when they cornered a crap hypothesis in a dark forest. They might be polite on the outside, but there would be blood in the snow. So maybe they aren't defending bad science......



Comment on Why extremes are expected to change with a global warming by Barton Paul Levenson

Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:46:29 +0000

V: Even if less volcanic activity were somehow able to increase warming (which makes no sense as far as I’m concerned) BPL: Your personal incredulity proves nothing. We have sunlight coming in; we can alter Earth's temperature if we can increase or decrease the sunlight reaching the ground. This is so elementary it's hard to believe you're not trolling. Gavin et al., I recommend putting Victor in the borehole with the other fanatics. When he's here he wastes an incredible amount of other peoples' time.



Comment on Impressions from the European Meteorological Society’s annual meeting in Dublin  by Barton Paul Levenson

Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:40:33 +0000

DDS: If scientists wish to be disciplined in their engagement with society they should back away from the defense of the that which has no defense. Just call it crap and move on. The validity of your scientific studies does not depend on defending bad science. Be righteous my brothers and it will be given unto you. BPL: Could you be more specific about which "crap" scientists are defending, in your pseudoscience worldview?



Comment on Why extremes are expected to change with a global warming by jgnfld

Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:02:31 +0000

Re. "The heat in this case is generated by my body, not any “absence of cooling” produced by my clothing. The clothing simply prevents heat from escaping, it doesn’t generate any heat on its own. If my body didn’t produce any heat, then no amount of clothing could warm me. Duh!" "Duh" indeed. The greenhouse effect "simply prevents heat from escaping" as well though in this case the heat originates in the Sun. And like clothing in the winter, preventing heat from escaping, er, well, produces warming in the affected local environment. In the one case the local environment is the area around your body under your clothes. In the other case the affected area is the planet under the atmosphere. The fundamental radiation budget ideas are exactly the same. True, like a dead body, if the Sun "didn’t produce any heat, then no amount of [greenhouse effect] could warm me." But it's totally irrelevant as well. FYI, the Sun does, actually, shine. And the greenhouse effect is an important component of the resulting radiation budget. So again, my suggestion is you try out your ideas that "the absence of cooling cannot produce warming" on the next subzero day by walking around nude for a few hours to check out your ideas.



Comment on Impressions from the European Meteorological Society’s annual meeting in Dublin  by Dan DaSilva

Wed, 20 Sep 2017 03:43:35 +0000

Title by Keith L. Seitter: "Being as disciplined in our engagement with society as we are in our scientific research" If scientists wish to be disciplined in their engagement with society they should back away from the defense of the that which has no defense. Just call it crap and move on. The validity of your scientific studies does not depend on defending bad science. Be righteous my brothers and it will be given unto you.



Comment on Unforced Variations: Sep 2017 by sidd

Wed, 20 Sep 2017 03:38:26 +0000

I use this forum archive very frequently (and not infrequently to find a reference which I had myself posted ...) and I feel it is an invaluable resource. I would hate, and i am sure many others share my sentiments, if it went away. Therefore I ask if backups are secure, and if the administrators could use a remote mirror or backup. I dont know what the total disk usage is, but it may be that i have enuf resources to do on my own, and i can definitely contribute to a distributed effort. I dont want to do a giant websuck on my own without permission. Please do let me know if a remote backup would be useful and if i can help. sidd



Comment on Why extremes are expected to change with a global warming by Brian Dodge

Wed, 20 Sep 2017 02:38:31 +0000

Steve Case says: 18 Sep 2017 at 9:15 AM "Dr. Hansen should re-do his study using TMax if he wants to talk about summer temperatures." Been done (by others). Improved our knowledge of the interactions between water vapor, clouds, and aerosols. By the way, Hansen et al looked at Northern hemisphere temperatures, which is a somewhat larger dataset than just the Eastern US. "In contrast to the widespread global warming, the central and south central United States display a noteworthy overall cooling trend during the 20(th) century, with an especially striking cooling trend in summertime daily maximum temperature (Tmax) (termed the U.S. "warming hole"). Here we used observations of temperature, shortwave cloud forcing (SWCF), longwave cloud forcing (LWCF), aerosol optical depth and precipitable water vapor as well as global coupled climate models to explore the attribution of the "warming hole". We find that the observed cooling trend in summer Tmax can be attributed mainly to SWCF due to aerosols with offset from the greenhouse effect of precipitable water vapor." https://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=PMC4221782_srep06929-f2&req=4 Attribution of the United States "warming hole": aerosol indirect effect and precipitable water vapor. Yu S, Alapaty K, Mathur R, Pleim J, Zhang Y, Nolte C, Eder B, Foley K, Nagashima T - Sci Rep (2014)