Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/broad-irony/feed/
Preview: Comments for RealClimate

Comments for RealClimate



Climate science from climate scientists...



Last Build Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:15:44 +0000

 



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

Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:15:44 +0000

Re: Dan Miller said 5 Sep 2017 at 11:30 AM ... Jim Hansen, et al, did a great study showing that average summer temperatures that are 3 standard deviations (“3-sigma”) above the 1951-1980 baseline have increased over 100X since the baseline period. Dr. Hansen should re-do his study using TMax if he wants to talk about summer temperatures. Averages lose to much information. After all, the average of 49 and 51 is 50 and the average of 1 and 99 is also 50. Two very different data sets, same average. NOAA's Climate at a Glance shows that TMax for the Contiguous U.S. May through October has a declining trend since 1930 and most of the states east of the Rockies show a declining trend since the 19th century.



Comment on Unforced Variations: Sep 2017 by Kevin McKinney

Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:42:35 +0000

Victor: "There is a huge difference between raw data and speculation..." And there is a huge difference between "speculation" and numerical modeling. (Also, the data in question aren't really 'raw', but whatever...)



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

Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:28:09 +0000

Victor, #137-- "The reason you don’t understand my “joke” is because you don’t understand the absurdity of the notion that heat can be generated from the absence of cooling." Victor, a suggestion: find out what cooling system your computer has and disable it. Do let us know how that works out for you. I'm sure you can reach Gavin via snail mail. (A theoretical hint: you are stumbling over "generated." It's the wrong conceptual framing.)



Comment on Unforced Variations: Sep 2017 by JCH

Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:16:02 +0000

NO sign of sea level acceleration over the last several years — in fact there has been some deceleration, apparently. The satellite-era (1993 to last data point, July 22, 2017) rate of sea level rise at AVISO is: 3.29 mm/yr. The 20-year rate is: 3.32 mm/yr. The 10-year rate is: 4.23 mm/yr. The 5-year rate is: 4.53 mm/yr. Over the last several years, the rate of SLR has been above the satellite-era trend, currently 3.28 mm/yr, for the longest period of time in the satellite record. Far above it. So, what would an impending increase in the rate of satellite-era SLR look like? The already bigger numbers, see above, would have to be even bigger? Fine, they will fluctuate and they will eventually get even bigger.



Comment on Unforced Variations: Sep 2017 by Scott Strough

Mon, 18 Sep 2017 12:45:53 +0000

@ #283 Nigelj, Grasslands, not trees. As has been explain multiple times here, trees are an important part of the short carbon cycle (labile carbon). It is the grasslands/savannas that force carbon out of the short cycle and into the long cycle (stable carbon). http://blogs.uoregon.edu/gregr/files/2013/07/grasslandscooling-nhslkh.pdf But it seems no matter how many times this is pointed out, people go right back to the tree paradigm. Trees will not reverse AGW, not even a whole bunch of them. Not even if we plant so many trees we can't even grow a crop anymore. We could try planting trees on every square inch of open ground on the whole planet and it still wouldn't reverse AGW...ever. Grasslands on the other hand, can be a huge powerful pump of carbon into the stable fraction of soil. Many many tonnes per hectare. http://amazingcarbon.com/PDF/JONES-LiquidCarbonPathway(AFJ-July08).pdf You keep focusing on trees and you'll never get it. It's a diversion, an obfuscation, part of the denialsphere.



Comment on Unforced Variations: Sep 2017 by CCHolley

Mon, 18 Sep 2017 12:14:03 +0000

Victor @280
What we DO know is that sea levels have been steadily rising for well over one hundred years, long before CO2 could have become a major factor.
Wrong. CO2 has been a major factor since pre-industrialization and most certainly the last 100 years.



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

Mon, 18 Sep 2017 11:53:32 +0000

Victor @137
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. It really doesn’t matter whether the 1940 levels were produced by some sort of rebound due to the absence of volcanic cooling or whether those levels would have been attained had it not been for previous volcanic cooling — they still have to be explained.
You ignored my link to "forcings:" No matter how you want to argue this there absolutely is an explanation for the temperatures based on the current state of climate science. You are wrong. You just choose to focus on the least important one, volcanism and ignore the greenhouse gas forcing and solar irradiance. You've been told this over and over again yet you continue. In that period, although CO2 levels were minimal over pre-industrial, they were growing and it is the initial increases that have the greatest effect due to the logarithmic nature of the phenomena. Once again, you are working hard on your denialism. Or is it intentional obfuscating?



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

Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:52:18 +0000

Re. "The reason you don’t understand my 'joke' is because you don’t understand the absurdity of the notion that heat can be generated from the absence of cooling." Uh, the basis of global warming is precisely that greenhouse gases result in heat residing where it did not before from the absence of previously occurring cooling in that location. Reducing your notion to absurdity: There is no reason to put clothes on in the winter because heat cannot by generated from the absence of cooling.



Comment on Unforced Variations: Sep 2017 by Mr. Know It All

Mon, 18 Sep 2017 09:21:51 +0000

Method to radiate energy to space at such a frequency that CO2 and H20 in the atmosphere do not absorb it. They're proposing to use it for cooling buildings. https://phys.org/news/2014-11-cool-high-tech-mirror-space.html



Comment on Unforced Variations: Sep 2017 by nigelj

Mon, 18 Sep 2017 02:14:13 +0000

Kevinn McKinney @274, I expect a certain person is paid not to finish quoting abstracts. What else could possibly explain the consistent pattern of partially quoting things?