Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
adjustments  change  climate  comment nasa  comment  data  global warming  global  graph  jan  make  ocean  people  persuade  warming 
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: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 14:46:08 +0000


Comment on Unforced Variations: Jan 2017 by Lauri

Thu, 19 Jan 2017 14:46:08 +0000

RE #126 Global sea ice has been some 2 mill. sq. km below the usual level for about three months by now: Does anyone have an idea how much radiative forcing this lack of ice surface would generate?

Comment on 2016 Temperature Records by Jack Barrett

Thu, 19 Jan 2017 14:41:05 +0000

Excellent, Gavin, I hope Lord Lawson & Co. will take notice

Comment on Non-condensable Cynicism in Santa Fe by Adam Lea

Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:39:48 +0000

4: "As climate change begins to bite, is there any event or set of events that we can expect to occur that will make it impossible for most people to deny the reality of the phenomenon?" In my opinion, no, or at least not before it is too late. It is like trying to persuade a smoker to give up by appealing to the destructive side effects of smoking, or trying to persuade someone who loves driving to ride a bicycle for local journeys, or trying to persuade someone who binge drinks to cut back on the alcohol, or trying to persuade a clinically obese person to clean up their diet. The person involved has to want to do it, and you can't force people to want to do something (I don't class making something compulsory by law as forcing someone to WANT to do something). I would love to be proved wrong, but I can't see it happening. The human race is still hardwired by instincts that worked well for survival in the hunter-gatherer days, but are hopeless for dealing with modern day problems.

Comment on The NASA data conspiracy theory and the cold sun by ottnott

Thu, 19 Jan 2017 09:58:04 +0000

#34 Brian Blagden has 3 questions. 1) What is the trick in the graphic? Brian, the numbers, as you noted, are correct. Stefan called our attention to the black arrows, for 0.45C at the start of the graph and 0.71C at the end of the graph. They are not proportional, because (again, as stefan pointed out) the graph leaves out a big chunk of the vertical axis. As a result, the unadjusted 1910 and 2000 temperatures appear to be much, much closer together than they are after adjustments. Visually, the arrows in the graph suggest that adjustments were about 400% of the unadjusted temperature change from Jan 1910 to Jan 2000. The actual adjustment was about 60%. 2. "Is the upward adjustment to the 2000 data typical of the scale of adjustments made or, as with the Jan 1910 data, are there data with even larger adjustments?" Stefan linked to a Twitter discussion where Gavin Schmidt included a graph (with an erroneous title) showing the adjustments to the January data for every year from 1880 to 2003. The magnitude of the adjustment to Jan 2000 is unremarkable. See: 3. Would it be better to leave past temperatures fixed and adjust only current data, to avoid the charge that you are manipulating the data to exaggerate the warming trend? Failure to correct errors, or to adopt improved methods, or to make use of additional good-quality data is manipulation and will hinder the goal of improving our understanding of the natural world. Scientists cannot control what charges are made against them. They best establish/maintain credibility by doing careful work using the best data, knowledge, and methods available, and by carefully consider criticism that might lead to improvements.

Comment on The NASA data conspiracy theory and the cold sun by Pat

Thu, 19 Jan 2017 09:00:43 +0000

Folks, a few other types of "OTEC" will work also but they are not as efficient as "Ocean Mechanical Thermal Energy conversion'' or "OMTEC". One would be "Ocean Wind Mechanical Thermal Energy Conversion " or "OWMTEC" and "Ocean Solar Thermal Energy Conversion" or "OSTEC" . Different combinations of all of these can get us out of the quagmire... If you think not then I'll be glad to give you a blackboard tutorial on the subject and let your scientists work out the maths.. TYVM..

Comment on The underestimated danger of a breakdown of the Gulf Stream System by Pat

Thu, 19 Jan 2017 02:02:19 +0000

@ Susan #63 I would be glad to give a blackboard tutorial and explain how the idea works and can be combined to a board of scientists if they are interested in ending fossil and nuclear fuels.... Pascal and Bernoulli had it figured out many moons ago..

Comment on Unforced Variations: Jan 2017 by Hank Roberts

Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:31:45 +0000
... the long-term rise can be easily masked by short-term variations, and the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study -- the one conducted by global warming skeptics that reached the same conclusions as the rest of the climate science community -- reached the following conclusion: Some people draw a line segment covering the period 1998 to 2010 and argue that we confirm no temperature change in that period. However, if you did that same exercise back in 1995, and drew a horizontal line through the data for 1980 to 1995, you might have falsely concluded that global warming had stopped back then. This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years. There are prominent climatologists who have made these arguments before (who will likely make these arguments again), and they will be quoted in a great many news outlets and by numerous science writers. If you see an article that cites one of them claiming global warming has stopped and it isn't yet 2033, the 17 years from now that we're required to wait to see if the rise continues, please refer them back to this article....

Comment on Unforced Variations: Jan 2017 by Scott Strough

Wed, 18 Jan 2017 23:38:42 +0000

@ 105 You said, "Why do I get the increasing impression that nothing is going to change, and consequences will hit down the line. Can anyone offer anything optimistic to help me counter despair and negativity about humanity in general?" Maybe this might help? Can we reverse Global warming?

Comment on The NASA data conspiracy theory and the cold sun by Jeff Davis

Wed, 18 Jan 2017 23:01:41 +0000

Climate Mitigation Engineering: possibly new approach Hello, I would like to know if anyone is working on using ocean plankton to mitigate Climate Change using Emiliania huxleyi? It is the single biggest source of Oxygen on Earth. Eats Carbon like there is no tomorrow, and at the rate Methane is dissociating in the Artic there may not be one for kids under 12. Is it feasible to select and drain appropriate swamps or lakes in the Artic areas and lay pipe or cannels to bring in sea/ocean water? The latitude would of course be important. The plankton may prove to be the most cost effective way to reduce atmospheric Carbon. To paraphrase Bill Gates, we need to consider every option. Windsor ON CA 226-788-5548 Thanks, Jeff

Comment on Non-condensable Cynicism in Santa Fe by Digby Scorgie

Wed, 18 Jan 2017 22:55:42 +0000

As climate change begins to bite, is there any event or set of events that we can expect to occur that will make it impossible for most people to deny the reality of the phenomenon? I say "most people" because, as Michael Mann puts it, there will always be flat-earthers. Also, if there is such an event, when will it likely occur? An example of a likely event is an ice-free Arctic in September, although even this might not persuade the doubters. As a friend cynically remarked, the probable response would be, "Oh, good. We've melted the Arctic. Now we can drill for oil!"