Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/wp-commentsrss2.php?p=421
Preview: Comments for RealClimate

Comments for RealClimate



Climate science from climate scientists...



Last Build Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 03:04:16 +0000

 



Comment on Unforced variations: July 2017 by nigelj

Mon, 24 Jul 2017 03:04:16 +0000

Thomas @306 I really just meant by sustainable growth that we should be able in theory to achieve increased output without seriously wrecking the environment, in at least the short to medium term for the next century or so. It just needs responsible technologies, approaches and rules. That's my definition of sustainable growth, and I'm the first to admit it will not be possible forever for millenia time scales. I agree with everything else you said, particularly the paragraph starting with "the existing system". You are preaching to the converted there. Its a mess and maze of problems and absurdities. However the only realistic solution I can see is tightening up some of the rules under which capitalism operates, and even that has no hope with people like Trump in charge, so I don't really know the answers either. Maybe it needs some serious lateral thinking, or maybe humanity will muddle through as it often does. Talking of smartphones I purchased my first smartphone last year, a relatively cheap one to see what these devices were like. I'm a bit late adopting this technology, as it was yet another gadget to learn. However I have a couple of modern, high performance laptop computers, so Im not a total luddite. I was stunned at the performance of the phone, even of the camera, and cant really see what the point of the expensive ones is, unless you feel you absolutely must have a fingerprint scanner, or a desperate desire to go swimming with the cursed thing. People get caught up in constantly having to have the latest products, but in many cases the performance improvements seem rather small (4k television). As you say its all nuts. I'm no paragon of virtue on the whole issue. I do try to resist completely silly purchases where I can.



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

Mon, 24 Jul 2017 01:21:23 +0000

Mr. Ironically Anosognosic Typist:
There is no such thing as a “science denier”.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.



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

Mon, 24 Jul 2017 00:21:23 +0000

Chris O'Neill says: 22 Jul 2017 at 2:37 AM #23 Victor: I see no evidence of a long-term correlation between CO2 emissions and temperature. Why don’t you get a list of CO2 levels and global temperature anomalies for each year since 1910 and see what correlation they have? BD: Been done. https://www.skepticalscience.com/The-CO2-Temperature-correlation-over-the-20th-Century.html



Comment on Joy plots for climate change by Richard Pauli

Sun, 23 Jul 2017 23:24:39 +0000

And it is very nice to see new ways to visualize data. Just a few days ago saw the classic one now animated. useful because not everyone can grasp the ramifications. http://ccimgs-2017.s3.amazonaws.com/2017SummerHeatPrepPackage/2017SummerHeatPrepPackage_BellCurve_Animated_en_title_sm.gif



Comment on The climate has always changed. What do you conclude? by ubrew12

Sun, 23 Jul 2017 22:23:08 +0000

When people tell me 'throughout Earth's history, the climate has always changed', I respond with a challenge 'Name something, in the Universe, that hasn't changed, over those intervals of time'. Everything has changed over geologic time: continents, mountain ranges, the distances between galaxies, the cosmic background radiation. Given this, it would be almost supernaturally odd, if Earth's climate hadn't changed. I took a look at the last 22,000 years of global temperature, and calculated my best estimate of per century temperature change for each of those 220 centuries (this involved applying the standard deviation obtained for the Pages-2k record for earlier records that could only be estimated over millennia). I got an average change of 0.014C/century with std dev of 0.077C/century, so the limit of 'natural climate change' (3-sigma limit) is 3*.077 = 0.24C/century. The change over the 20th century was 0.78C/century, or 3 times this disqualifying limit: modern change is not 'natural' by these statistics. If the last 25 years continues for the rest of this century, then 21st century change will be 2.2C/century, or ten times the disqualifying limit. Nowhere even close to 'natural'.



Comment on Joy plots for climate change by deenngee

Sun, 23 Jul 2017 21:59:49 +0000

Similar but different. In March I noticed an Unknown Pleasures feel to a chart that I'd made of the date and extent of Arctic sea ice annual maxima since 1990. Some visual tweaks later, I posted it at Neven's place. http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,179.msg107101.html#msg107101



Comment on Joy plots for climate change by Chris Pratt

Sun, 23 Jul 2017 21:43:45 +0000

What does it mean when the plotted data points flatten out more particularly in Oct and Nov. but not so much in May and Feb?



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

Sun, 23 Jul 2017 21:35:06 +0000

Mr Know it all @94 "The jet fuel exploding did not do the damage, it was the loss of strength in the building structural steel, due to heat of the burning jet fuel which caused the collapse." Yes fair enough it was primarily heat, but I was simply summarising the issue in one word. It wasn't really worth a detailed explanation to make my point. I understand the steel floor structure was badly affected by intense heat. I think from what I have read the explosion had blown the fire proofing off the steel floor tray, so an explosion was still part of the problem. With the steel floor structure weakened and bending the outer columns failed, as the floor structure held them in place. Once everything failed at that floor level, the full weight of multiple floors above crushed everything.



Comment on Unforced variations: July 2017 by alan2102

Sun, 23 Jul 2017 21:17:14 +0000

zebra #287: I am disappointed that you assume me to be saying something that I did not say. Yes, of course it is "in our nature" to be concerned about status, and so forth. It is in my nature to rape, murder and pillage, in order to secure more resources and reproductive possibilities for ME. ME, ME, ME. And yet, in 60-odd years, I've never once raped, murdered or pillaged. Why is that? You said it yourself: because we can -- UNLIKE MONKEYS, I might add -- transcend those innate characteristics to some degree. Actually to a very large degree; I'm living proof. For some of us, it takes work, but we can do it. For billions of us, each day goes by and we do NOT rape, murder or pillage. This goes on year in, year out, for decades. Amazing, huh? And that in spite of the inescapable genetically-hard-wired "human nature" which renders us, as some might have it, the behavioral and moral equivalent of apes, cockroaches and pond scum. The reality, which is obvious to anyone of average intelligence, is of course that we are not the behavioral and moral equivalent of cockroaches. We're very different, with potentials much greater. Yes, we can backslide, and at our worst can behave as bad -- even worse -- than beasts at their worst. But that describes a minority of us, a very small percentage of the time. The rest of us, the rest of time, well... just look around you. No argument by me required; just look around you. As for "the vast conspiracy fantasy" that I supposedly referenced: I haven't a clue as to what you're talking about.



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

Sun, 23 Jul 2017 21:11:58 +0000

Mack, I am somewhat surprised at you making public statements of your inability to comprehend science and then actually linking to them. I am less surprized that you then move from your inability to understand to assuming dishonesty. Since you still dont seem to have grasped this concept, then try page 664 of the IPCC report which is the ultimate source for how the term is used in climate science. Just because you dont understand something does not make it wrong.