Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
climate  coal  comment unforced  comment  global  record  unforced variations  unforced  variations june  variations  year  ºc ºc  ºc 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments for RealClimate

Comments for RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

Last Build Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 23:42:02 +0000


Comment on What do you need to know about climate? by Mal Adapted

Mon, 26 Jun 2017 23:42:02 +0000

Jeff Harvey:
Ecologists keep having to bang home the message that the natural economy not only matters with respect to anthropogenic stressors, but that humans depend on nature in a myriad of ways for our survival.
As someone who pursued a childhood fascination with 'natural history' through two years in a Ph.D. program in Ecology and Evolution, I'm receptive to Jeff's message. The problem, not only with some commenters here but with a dismaying large fraction of my countrymen, is an abysmal ignorance of and indifference to all natural phenomena not obviously related to human welfare. I'm sure Jeff, at least, is acquainted with Aldo Leopold's remark in "Round River": One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise. FWIW, I attest the truth of Leopold's lament.

Comment on Unforced Variations: June 2017 by Hank Roberts

Mon, 26 Jun 2017 22:51:08 +0000 Impressive data visualization

Comment on Unforced Variations: June 2017 by MA Rodger

Mon, 26 Jun 2017 22:06:01 +0000

HadCRUT4 has posted for May at +0.66ºC, down from +0.74ºC in April and +0.87ºC in March. It is the third warmest May on record after 2015 (+0.71ºC) and 2016 (+0.69ºC) and ahead of 2014 (+0.61ºC) and 2010 (+0.59ºC). May 2017 is the 38th warmest month on the full record. The start of 2017 remains the second warmest Jan-to-May on record with an average equalling the warmest average calendar year. ... ... ..Ave Jan to May ... Annual ave ... ..Annual ranking 2016 ... ... +0.93ºC ... ... +0.77ºC ... ... ... ... ... 1st 2017 ... ... +0.77ºC 2015 ... ... +0.69ºC ... ... +0.76ºC ... ... ... ... ... 2nd 2010 ... ... +0.62ºC ... ... +0.56ºC ... ... ... ... ... 4th 1998 ... ... +0.60ºC ... ... +0.54ºC ... ... ... ... ... 6th 2002 ... ... +0.59ºC ... ... +0.50ºC ... ... ... ... ... 11th 2007 ... ... +0.59ºC ... ... +0.49ºC ... ... ... ... ... 12th 2014 ... ... +0.54ºC ... ... +0.58ºC ... ... ... ... ... 3rd 2005 ... ... +0.53ºC ... ... +0.55ºC ... ... ... ... ... 5th

Comment on Unforced Variations: June 2017 by Barton Levenson

Mon, 26 Jun 2017 21:59:25 +0000

ABM 229, No, net absorption takes place above the boundary layer, too. You're just wrong.

Comment on Unforced Variations: June 2017 by Killian

Mon, 26 Jun 2017 21:58:16 +0000

#230 Mal Adapted said Our host: Eli, even if there are a few days a year above 37 C web bulb, places (like the Ganges Valley) become uninhabitable Yes, I don’t think this point is fully appreciated. "It's the extremes, stupid." Me. to self, 2011. Thus, "It's the food supply, stupid." - Me, to self, 2011, seconds later, after years of thinking energy or more general rapid climate changes were the primary concerns. Food is going, folks. We can't keep having all these extremes in multiple locations and expect food supply to stay stable. I'm askeered to look at grain stocks... I don’t know about all y’all, but I’m planning to still be alive in 2050. We are cursed, to live in such interesting times. Not so much. My son, however, would be in his prime, and I'd likely have a grandchild or two, so motivation is high.

Comment on What do you need to know about climate? by Barton Levenson

Mon, 26 Jun 2017 21:56:18 +0000

Afb 34, Your explanation is pretty much just playing with numbers. Gravity does not need a power source, certainly not from temperature; it is a warping of space directly proportionate to the amount of mass involved, cold or hot. There are multiple physical processes you fail to account for in your calculations; you are simply indulging numerical coincidences. My advice would be to study an introductory text on physical climatology and/or planetary astronomy. For the former, Dennis Hartmann's "Global Physical Climatology" is a good one. For the latter, try William K. Hartmann's "Moons and Planets." BTW, scientists have had good greenhouse models of the Venus atmosphere since the 1960s.

Comment on What do you need to know about climate? by Russell Seitz

Mon, 26 Jun 2017 21:54:04 +0000

K-Street has a new terminator on the block, to make sure your climate questions go officially unanswered:

Comment on Unforced Variations: June 2017 by Andrew

Mon, 26 Jun 2017 15:25:43 +0000

Re: Tony #221 Obviously I can't speak for Dr. Mann, but (also obviously) he must be fully aware that we have blown past the 405ppm threshold. Hence, we will find ourselves in a situation of >2C average global warming compared to pre-industrial sometime around 2036, if Dr. Mann's estimate for ECS is roughly correct. And 1.5C should be reached around 2026, which is less than ten years from now. By then not only climate scientists, but I would think a large part of the global population will be fully aware of the dangerous consequences of global warming and the urgency of public policies to reduce carbon emissions - thanks in a large part to Dr. Mann, James Hansen and many other vocal figures in the climate science community. "Given that he thought, in 2014, that some parts of the world were already seeing dangerous impacts, what does he think now?" I am curious too, and would appreciate an "update" article by Dr. Mann. It's always good to know how deep a hole we have already dug ourselves in.

Comment on Why global emissions must peak by 2020 by Karsten V. Johansen

Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:21:58 +0000

Sorry for some misspellings due to the fantastic AI in my smartphone software. Republican senators, not just one of them. And iranian forces.

Comment on Why global emissions must peak by 2020 by Karsten V. Johansen

Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:14:40 +0000

Here comes news for the Paris"agreement" (it's not by any means binding if you didn't notice) optimists: "The world's biggest coal users — China, the United States and India — have boosted coal mining in 2017, in an abrupt departure from last year's record global decline for the heavily polluting fuel and a setback to efforts to rein in climate change emissions. Mining data reviewed by The Associated Press show that production through May is up by at least 121 million tons, or 6 percent, for the three countries compared to the same period last year. The change is most dramatic in the U.S., where coal mining rose 19 percent in the first five months of the year, according to U.S. Department of Energy data. Coal's fortunes had appeared to hit a new low less than two weeks ago, when British energy company BP reported that tonnage mined worldwide fell 6.5 percent in 2016, the largest drop on record. China and the U.S. accounted for almost all the decline, while India showed a slight increase. The reasons for this year's turnaround include policy shifts in China, changes in U.S. energy markets and India's continued push to provide electricity to more of its poor, industry experts said. President Donald Trump's role as coal's booster-in-chief in the U.S. has played at most a minor role, they said." We don't need any more silly optimism. We need James Hansen's carbon fee and dividend, as fast as possible. It's working in British Columbia. So where are you, sandernistas, Greens, climate scientists? Some Republican senator are in. I'm pretty sure more neomccarthyism and bombraids against syrian, Iranians and whatever forces won't save us from climate desaster. In fact it won't even save us from more trumpism, even if dressed as Clinton III or Bush III...