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

Comments for RealClimate



Climate science from climate scientists...



Last Build Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 11:03:39 +0000

 



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by Kevin McKinney

Mon, 29 May 2017 11:03:39 +0000

"Building EV’s to replace all the cars now on the road would require massive quantities of lithium..." Which is why the Rethink model, in which the same level of utility is obtained by many fewer vehicles--actually, a greater level of utility, it seems to me--is of interest here. With all of the differences of opinion and perception on display here, I think we all do agree that the future is not going to be much like the current status quo. So we aren't going to just be doing "drag and drop" replacements.



Comment on Nenana Ice Classic 2017 by MA Rodger

Mon, 29 May 2017 08:25:25 +0000

Titus @52 & Dan H @53. Sorry to interupt your nonsense but it has to be said. The last full calendar 2016 was the warmest year on record for the HadCRUT, NOAA, NASA and BEST global temperature records. And the last five calendar years were the warmest 5-year periods on these temperature records. And the last ten years. And the last fifteen years. And the last twenty years. Need I go on? As for your use of the term "peanut," the "peanut gallery" heckles the show. What is this 'show' you feel is being heckled? Does it actually exist? You may have some deluded view of the science that tells you your scepticism of AGW is justified but that particular 'show' only exists in fantasy.



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by Killian

Mon, 29 May 2017 07:30:02 +0000

Re #228 E Swanson. Yup. Still within the realm of possibility to fix it all. Ironically, the extra pressure from SLR may help keep the CH4 in place. Maybe we lose the coasts to save the rest. Forget the study, but I'm sure I posted about it here, but one did a quick-and-dirty "what if?" scenario with emissions stopped today and dropped back to preindustrial atmospheric levels. I was shocked because I'd been calling for such a study for years. Result? Ice sheets began stabiliing within decades. If we get very, very lucky and really change things up, we may have to deal with no more than 10ft. SLR, altered coasts, but end up with a far more stable, far happier, far healthier world. Until all realize the solutions are in the mirror, we will be in danger, and perhaps even then if we let the permafrost and clathrates get too far elong first.



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by Kevin McKinney

Mon, 29 May 2017 01:42:09 +0000

"The CCL proposal for a Tax-and-Dividend plan to “solve” the climate change dilemma is likely to fail, even if it were possible to be enacted." CCL does not pretend that fee and dividend "solves" our climate crisis. It is simply the step they have decided to prioritize. IMO, it's a reasonable choice. Thomas, thanks for your thoughts on the Rethink article. It seems, though, that you may have missed the bit about how government's role in promoting or delaying the transition is pretty limited. Also, yes, it is seen as a global transition, analogous to the global explosion of smart cell phones. Finally, you say it's a sales document. Inexplicably, my browser seems not to display the 'click to buy' button.



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by Killian

Mon, 29 May 2017 00:36:00 +0000

Re #233 Kevin McKinney said 1) This is not a matter of tweaking where the power lies or which party holds power, or even as large a change as from English monarchy > U.S. This is way beyond that. We are talking about fundamentals; changing the **basis** upon which society functions, the assumptions, the principles. There are no exemplars for this kind of shift. You will not get there from here. Well, we are here–so we’d better hope we can get ‘there’ somehow, no? I meant you cannot go through Capitalism and current governance to get to sustainability because those things cannot be changed to be regenerative. Try to understand this: The principles underlying regenerative systems and current systems are opposites. They cannot be reconciled. The former must replace the latter, not be morphed from the latter. And, no, Canada did not make such a transformation. Such a transformation has never been done. Ever. Anywhere. At this scale. To the extent such societies exist, it's because they never stopped being regenerative ion the first place. It’s disingenuous to talk about ‘which party holds power’, when it is really about the concrete actions those parties may take. Dancer/dance. Nothing disingenuous about it. Yes, it’s hard to change fundamentals. But it can be done, and it can be done incrementally in democratic ways You are forgetting the risk assessment: 5C or more in a single decade. I say again, if every other incrementally changed social issue has taken hundreds of years and none of them are yet accomplished in full, how do you think this happens incrementally and gets done quickly when we are talking about fundamentally changing the lives of virtually every citizen of the OECD nations? Who cares? More efficient isn’t the goal. But it is one of your principles: don’t waste stuff. Don't waste is about resilience, not efficiency.



Comment on Nenana Ice Classic 2017 by Dan H.

Sun, 28 May 2017 14:03:25 +0000

Titus, Yes, we certainly have plenty of peanuts. Whenever we have a particularly hot or cold year, wet or dry, high or low sea ice, etc., the appropriate peanuts make exceptional claims, based on short term (1 year) data. They then retreat into their shells until the next event occurs.



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by Dan

Sun, 28 May 2017 12:24:48 +0000

re:74. Wow. Quite reprehensible and puerile (oh sorry, look the word up). You are back to insulting the hosts who are far more educated about climate change than you? Clue for you: People have lives.



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by Charles Hughes

Sun, 28 May 2017 09:59:00 +0000

224 Victor says: 24 May 2017 at 10:56 Weaktor, the borehole beckons your return. You're not providing any scientific enlightnment and, since Summer is just around the corner why don't you take a vacation. We deserve it.



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by MA Rodger

Sun, 28 May 2017 07:39:51 +0000

Dennis Coyne @222, The actual paper Krissansen-Totton & Catling (2017) 'Constraining climate sensitivity and continental versus seafloor weathering using an inverse geological carbon cycle model' is here. The article you link (or more correctly, the Uni of Washington article it repeats) is surely mistaken in saying-
"Their calculations also indicate a stronger relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature, known as climate sensitivity. Doubling CO2 in the atmosphere eventually triggered an increase of 5 or 6 degrees Celsius in global temperatures, which is about twice the typical projections for temperature change over centuries for a similar doubling of CO2 due to human emissions."
This is a bit odd as it should be well known that ECS does not take account of the sort of long-term effects (eg rock weathering) examined by the paper. That long-term effects do result in a higher climate sensitivity is surely quite well known (as per figure 7 of Hansen & Sato (2012)(PDF) and Krissansen-Totton & Catling simply confirms this finding, stating their work "supports the view that the long-term climate sensitivity of the Earth system is greater than the fast-feedback Charnay sensitivity captured by Global Circulation Models (GCMs)."



Comment on Unforced Variations: May 2017 by Thomas

Sun, 28 May 2017 04:42:26 +0000

228 E. Swanson, PS http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/05/unforced-variations-may-2017/comment-page-5/#comment-678589