Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
Preview: Comments for RealClimate

Comments for RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

Last Build Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:32:29 +0000


Comment on Non-condensable Cynicism in Santa Fe by Russell

Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:32:29 +0000

10: Hiring PR firms must surely rank as high on the list or alarm signals for intent to distort science as abetting blog comments.

Comment on 2016 Temperature Records by Mal Adapted

Sat, 21 Jan 2017 17:10:27 +0000

It is amazing that none of you mention the impact of global geoengineering (including their ramp-up periods). The evidence that coal ash with various nanoparticulates and so-called engineered biologicals are being dumped globally is overwhelmingly proved by lab tests and by the work of geophysicist J Marvin Herndon. I encourage you all to go to and explore the vast work of Dane Wigington.
Anna, are you familiar with the least-hypothesis rule, also known as "Occam's Razor"? Yes, some conspiracy theories have turned to be true, but there are more parsimonious (and less sinister) explanations for what Herndon and Wiginton claim are evidence of a conspiracy. I won't cite any here, as conspiracism tends to be self-sealing, thus it's unlikely any evidence can dissuade you from yours. For me, though, science is first and foremost a way of trying not to fool myself ("The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool." -R. Feynman). After taking a look around the geoengineering dot com site, I'm afraid I'm unable to take it seriously, as the contributors seem far too willing to fool themselves.

Comment on Non-condensable Cynicism in Santa Fe by Steve Fish

Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:42:27 +0000

Re: Just Wondering 20 Jan 2017 at 3:20 PM, ~#10 says: “Is there an exhaustive list somewhere of the sceptics variety of positions over the years?” I recommend: They often have several levels of explanation (eg: basic or intermediate) and provide appropriate peer reviewed science references. Steve

Comment on Unforced Variations: Jan 2017 by MA Rodger

Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:22:15 +0000

Thomas @143. I have long since come to the view that attempting to correct your wild assertions is a non-productive and pointless exercise. The lesson learned, I have no interest in remembering that learning experience. For those less ridgidly attached in their own self-beliefs, a plot of recent annual CO2 rises can be seen here (usually two clicks to 'download your attachment') which well illustrates the impact of the recent El Nino & the 1997/98 El Nino on annual CO2 increases.

Comment on 2016 Temperature Records by Victor Venema (@VariabilityBlog)

Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:19:09 +0000

S.B. Ripman says: "She recently viewed the color-coded NASA video showing 1880 to 2016 global warming, as well as NASA’s graphic display. She found them very informative (the video especially as to the arctic) but asked about the global temperature run-up that occurred in 1938-45. To my chagrin I had no ready answer." The situation is not fully clear yet. Part of the WWII peak will be El Nino, but the raw sea surface temperature data also shows a considerable war bias because merchant ships before and after the war have a cold bias, while the war ship making measurements have a warm bias. This is a post of mine on WWII warming with more detail. The necessary adjustments in this period are thus large, which adds the uncertainty. The sea surface temperature of NASA's GISTEMP comes from ERSST. The way ERSST computes the adjustments, they cannot follow the fast changes around the WWII. Well before and well after WWII, the data is good, but in a period around WWII it is more uncertain. If you are interested in this period, HadSST or HadCRUT are better datasets; their methods are better suited for fast changes. It is important for science to get this right. I do not get why this is important for the question whether climate change is real. I hope your wife did not come into contact with the false claim that while the warming after WWII is man-made, the warming before WWII is natural. The warming before WWII is less well understood and partially natural (volcanoes, sun), but also for a large part due to greenhouse gases. See the IPPC estimates of the forcings over time in this post.

Comment on 2016 Temperature Records by Jim Eager

Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:18:20 +0000

Re the temp rise up to the mid 1940s, besides multiple el Ninos and rapidly growing anthro CO2, IIRC solar output also rose in that period, plus there was a lull in large volcanic eruptions in the tropics. And then there is the infamous canvas bucket vs engine cooling intake pipe sea surface sampling change during WW2, which replaced a cooling bias (bucket) with a warming bias (pipe), bumping the peak a bit higher. A rapid boost in particulates and sulfur aerosols in the post-war boom quickly lopped off the peak and masked the warming of ever rising CO2 until the Clean Air Act and similar policies in the UK and Europe rapidly reduced aerosol emissions, ending the 1945-1980 "pause" to reveal the masked CO2 warming that had always been there. In other words, there were multiple reinforcing and dampening drivers.

Comment on 2016 Temperature Records by Rocketeer

Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:17:02 +0000

File under: Duh-oh. Cowtan misspelled on first Figure.

Comment on Non-condensable Cynicism in Santa Fe by Mark Boslough

Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:05:24 +0000

Dear Nick, I appreciate your protective instincts. You say that I "conveneniently did not publish" my expert elicitation abstract. But I did. It is the two paragraphs above, beginning "Forecasts of anthropogenic global warming in the 1970s..." But you said you read it already, and your decision was based on it. Unfortunately, your decision was not communicated to me. If it had been, I would have sent you the memo I recieved from our Human Resources Board, which reviewed the information submitted for this proposed activity. They determined that the activity does constitute human subject research, but is exempt from further HSB review under 10 CSF 745.101(b)(2). I can have our HRB get in touch with the committee and provide this information directly. Who would be the approproiate point of contact? Thank you for clearing up the real reason for the rejection. I will assume that since an HRB ruling has already been made, there will be no further objections to this presentation and I can proceed as planned.

Comment on Non-condensable Cynicism in Santa Fe by zebra

Sat, 21 Jan 2017 14:28:47 +0000

Adam Lea and respondents, Why does the wheel have to be reinvented, over and over? We know that everyone is susceptible to all the well established and deployed "hidden persuaders", and in particular a (perhaps) majority has been conditioned by upbringing and circumstance to exhibit Authoritarian Personality characteristics, and that there is a set of social/political paradigms that is particularly appealing to the majority of those individuals. A minority of them probably adopts the antithetical social/political paradigms for similar psychological reasons rather than through the exercise of reason. Witness the election. So, dudes, the rational folk are probably in the minority overall. There isn't a vast reservoir of people to be "convinced"-- we all, including me, engage in this fantasy of the objective lurker just waiting to be enlightened by our wisdom, but fantasy is all it is. Adam Lea, if you want people to make choices, you have to give them choices, and the choices can't be in the form of "eat your spinach" and "be moral as I define morality". As I've pointed out many times here, there are plenty of Republican Denialists in California with solar panels on their roofs and plug-in vehicles in the garage. This is a political problem. Win the elections. Give people positive reasons to adopt non-FF technologies. They will come, because it's better.

Comment on 2016 Temperature Records by Thomas

Sat, 21 Jan 2017 13:58:18 +0000

PS .... aka "it matters to this starfish"