Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
Preview: Comments for RealClimate

Comments for RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

Last Build Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 21:45:37 +0000


Comment on Predictable and unpredictable behaviour by RUSSELL

Wed, 29 Mar 2017 21:45:37 +0000


Comment on Predictable and unpredictable behaviour by Russell Seitz

Wed, 29 Mar 2017 21:36:23 +0000

VIRULENT OUTBREAK OF SANITY STRIKES CAPITOL HILL;postID=2384943228359643146;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=0;src=link

Comment on Unforced Variations: March 2017 by Matthew R Marler

Wed, 29 Mar 2017 17:11:35 +0000

Written testimony to the House science committee here:

Comment on Unforced Variations: March 2017 by mike

Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:08:29 +0000

Daily CO2 March 28, 2017: 409.47 ppm March 28, 2016: 406.02 ppm spikey day CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, temperatures rise. Oceans warm and polar icecap melts. Top of the planet warms significantly and thaws permafrost that transitions to a signifiant new source of carbon dioxide. At some point, the methane clathrates are released from Arctic Ocean floor and we get a spike in methane and temp rise. This is the ballgame. I don't see a lot of temperature rise constraints on the horizon. Warm regards Mike

Comment on Unforced Variations: March 2017 by Disgusted

Wed, 29 Mar 2017 02:42:14 +0000

President Petty and the Party Of Spite strike again! Sad!

Comment on Unforced Variations: March 2017 by TPP85

Tue, 28 Mar 2017 18:46:40 +0000

For your information, but you probably know it. They tried to get this website into the shade with releasing a website called RealClimateScience and trying to reach 1st place on Google. Actually, it depends on time and platform. If you are lucky, you have RealClimate" first. But if you are not, this is RealClimateScience and you can not see RealClimate. I hope they waste more time and money than you do.

Comment on Unforced Variations: March 2017 by zebra

Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:32:49 +0000

nigelj 316, I enjoyed several conversations with you that were clearly "off" the topic of climate science, although obviously related to the current climate crisis. However, asking the moderators to provide a completely open forum seems unfair-- they have to do the moderation, after all, and dealing with on topic or related comments is more than enough work. This monthly open thread seems to be OK when they exercise just enough control to eliminate the compulsive commenters and obvious Denialist trolls. Just my opinion, of course, but I am content if I don't have to scroll past dozens of repetitive rants from "certain individuals".

Comment on Predictable and unpredictable behaviour by Hank Roberts

Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:05:03 +0000

Citation needed. Perhaps I found:
Mathematicians are only dealing with the structure of reasoning, and they do not really care what they are talking about. They do not even need to know what they are talking about …
— Richard P. Feynman In The Character of Physical Law (1965), 55.

Comment on Unforced Variations: March 2017 by MA Rodger

Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:19:24 +0000

mike @299, I have now had a read of Brand et al (2016). Unfortunately it isn't the clearest bit of writing given it is an adventurous narrative, a situation which doesn't assist the 'report back' that I promised @305. Of course, you may have your own interpretation of the paper. And also you may have seen the interpretation in the Daily Rail. "Will global warming lead to the APOCALYPSE? Earth's worst mass extinction was caused by runaway climate change, and experts warn it could happen again." Yes - this is all soooo 'tabloid'. At face value, the numbers being presented by Brand et al (set out in their Table 3) appear worrying. The end-Permian extinction is found to result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 and a quadrupling of atmospheric CH4, enough to turn a "catastrophic" permian climate into an "apocalyptic" one. And today, are we not well on the way to a doubling/quadrupling of CO2/CH4? Well done us, at face value. What Brand et al (2016) doesn't set out so well is the size and context of those end-Permian climate forcings and how their findings fit with the findings of previous studies. So what is it that made the end-Permian so apocolyptic? It probably wasn't temperature of itself as we have temperature reconstructions boldly showing the end-Permian was not as hot as say the PETM. And ditto CO2 levels. So we could be talking the size of the chemical impact of the methane spike along with potential bacterialogical effects. Could be!! That we do not know the story of Permian climate (other than it began very cold and ended very hot) makes it difficult to pronounce on any lessons to be learned. Prior to the end-Permian there had already been at least one Permian extinction event (the End-Capitanian extinction event). The climate forcings (CO2, CH4, solar) suggest a warmer start-point for the end-Permian events, one that would be beyond-catastrophic for today's human civilisation, to which more warming would be required for an end-Permian-style apocalyse to be initiated with yet more warming. The end-Permian and the PETM suggest that methane clathrates (not necessarily in polar regions) can give a hot climate a scorching kick-up-the-backside. But mankind would be stupid-in-the-extreme to precipitate such a hot-house climate, even if it wouldn't lead up to the end-Permian/PETM kick-up-the-backside. Given this, I therefore disagree with Brand et al (2016) in that I do not see in the end-Permian "important lessons for humanity and the problems associated with climate change" especially so within the context of "the 21st century."

Comment on Predictable and unpredictable behaviour by Mal Adapted

Tue, 28 Mar 2017 02:12:18 +0000

Still a little too arch for me, Russell. Much as I would love to have been there when Feynman said that to you, I wasn't. Wait, are you riding your nuclear-winter-warnings-were-exaggerated hobbyhorse again? Ah, here it is: Ehrlich, PR and ten other authors, some of them famous, 1983. Long-term biological consequences of nuclear war. Science Vol. 222, pp. 1293-1300. Is there some point you're trying to make by citing it, other than that even famous, much-published scientists can turn out to be wrong? Or that sometimes science's most dire projected scenarios don't come to pass? Don't be coy, man!