Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
claim reduced  climate sensitivity  climate  comment  new deal  new  ppm  reduced uncertainty  science  sensitivity  weeks ppm 
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, 22 Jan 2018 21:41:20 +0000


Comment on Unforced Variations: Jan 2018 by MA Rodger

Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:41:20 +0000

Thomas @174, So when you wrote back @163 "Apples speak about atmospheric CO2 ppm increasing rates of increase, while Orange builds another Strawman by totally changing the subject to human induced Emissions. (sigh) " you were not complaining that I had changed the subject. And this is evident because you said @103 that the atmospheric CO2 change "closely resembles the size of" human emissions. Perhaps then the speaking apples and Orange have some other metaphorical useage for you, one entirely indecipherable to me, and perhaps all others here. And when you wrote @103 "(my estimated) January-February weekly ppm average 2015 ~400, 2016 ~403, 2017 ~406, 2 weeks of Jan 2018 ~409 ppm avg., and heading towards 410 ppm / +4 ppm above last year, " this isn't a prediction or a projection. So what is it? I have previously pointed out to you that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere is what is causing AGW so while folk here will be pleased that you agree, your continally repeating this as the "subject matter of" is perhaps become a bit tiresome now. And I may do so again. And while you tell us "Every single additional Molecule of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere matters. (shrug)" This isn't entirely true. It is the continued accumulation that "matters." And finally I should perhaps point out that your tortuous calculation of peak CO2 this coming year (which did rather compare apples with oranges, that is in the conventiona sense of apples & oranges) could be simply achieved by totting up the average of annual increases in CO2 over recent weeks. That would be +1.9ppm over this year so far (3 weeks), +2.1ppm over the last 6 weeks, +2.2ppm 9 weeks, +2.0ppm 12 weeks, +2.0ppm 15 weeks...

Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by nigelj

Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:39:07 +0000

The same goes for Killian's ideals about low tech sharing communities. These are idealistic and there's nothing wrong with idealism in principle. All the improvements humanity has made originate with ideals. Such ideals should be examined more on their practical merits, (and in that respect I do have some doubts about some of Killians vews). I like idealism. I don't like cynics. I understand where cynics come from, and some cynicism is normal and ok, but it can quickly get kind of excessive, and negative and susceptible to confirmation bias, and poor understanding of actual evidence. Cynicism is often as flawed as blind optimism.

Comment on Unforced Variations: Jan 2018 by MA Rodger

Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:31:56 +0000

mike @170, Concerning CO2 sinks & Global Carbon Project: You may have spotted the Hypergeometrics comments over @Open Mind that did initially suggest that he had some take on a dropping-off of CO2 sinks in GCP data. But he didn't sound very convincing as to what he was about and has since commented there that the/a finding is actually third-hand from GCP itself, findings that I am unaware of. The GCP data resides in an Excel spreadsheet that is accessed via this URL. The only odd thing that I have seen is the size of the biosphere sink back in the 1970s which exhibited a large wobble for the length of the decade. I see no signs of more recent oddities that may presage reduced sinks.

Comment on The claim of reduced uncertainty for equilibrium climate sensitivity is premature by Bill Henderson

Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:21:46 +0000

Thanks Rasmus, informative even with my poor math background. David Spratt has an interesting take on the denial aspects of the Cox paper: And what about Proistosescu et al

Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by nigelj

Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:15:07 +0000

Regarding discussion on "ideals" like sustainable communities, renewable energy etc, and Roosevelt's New Deal, (which included social security payments and public works and public education and so on). The New Deal seemed to me to be the obvious practical answer to an economic crisis, and to relieve obvious human suffering. It was a combination of economic commonsense, and simple human compassion surely? Nobody had a better idea a the time, and it without doubt helped halt an economic decline so catastrophic it's unimaginable. Of course the New Deal is not set in stone, and should be re-evaluated, but think carefully before shredding it. I like to see things like unemployment assistance as just a form of insurance, except it's typically provided by the state, rather than the private sector. Whats the problem? Its no different in principle to insuring your car, except its funded out of taxation. Yes the new deal involved a lot of idealism, but isn't that how humanity progresses, with ideals, and novel answers to problems? All improvements in human rights start with ideals don't they? So in that sense how is promoting renewable energy, and more sustainable communities wrong? Even promoting smaller population is a form of idealism. And yes, some people are weak and hypocrites and soon start to resent paying taxes, or helping the poor too much. But that is not a reason to be overly cynical. Clearly the New Deal has survived numerous governments, so vast the majority support it. This is a simple observation surely? I agree there's a case to subsidise farmers to farm using methods that sequester soil carbon. However lets not pretend only conservative subsidies are good things. Plenty of liberal ideas on subsidies make sense. Unfortunately both conservatives and liberals have subsidised fossil fuels, which are a senseless subsidy. In fact let's go back to basic economics, and first principles and try to avoid ideology of liberalism and conservatism. In free market capitalist economies market forces solve many problems, but not all problems. New high risk enterprises sometimes struggle to get started. The market sometimes fails to provide enterprises of obvious public value. Subsidies make sense in these cases and examples include electric cars, renewable energy and possibly sustainable types of farming, but subsidies are tricky things that can become abused or embedded, so should be time limited. There's absolutely no real case to subsidise fossil fuels any more. In the past, there may have been an argument to help with high risk oil exploration, but in the climate change era subsidies make no sense whatsoever. The bottom line is subsidies should have to pass economic cost and benefit tests, and be based on logical principles and avoid more obvious political motives. They are best decided by technocrats rather than politicians trying to win votes. Or am I being too "idealistic"?

Comment on The claim of reduced uncertainty for equilibrium climate sensitivity is premature by Phil Scadden

Mon, 22 Jan 2018 20:14:21 +0000

Dan DaSilva, I am trying to parse your odd comment. It seems that you are trying to construct a strawman. ie the scientist are saying the estimates of climate sensitivity is settled whereas "skeptics" claim it not. However, where is the claim that you making? The IPCC reports extensively on ECS estimates and put it between 1.5 and 4.5 with median at around 3. Whether you regard that as "settled" or not depends on your point of view. If you knew for certain that sensitivity was 4.5, then that would require a stronger policy response than if you knew for certain that it was 1.5. However, the new study is presenting evidence to narrow that range (though median is still around 3). As with any study, before it is accepted, scientists need to be assured it is valid. Clearly not. However, this is not "denial". It is examination of the methodology and assumptions. By contrast, climate "skeptics" are usually of the "I dont like the policy options, therefore climate science is wrong" or "not what my tribe believes" kind. Instead of publishing credible critiques of climate science, jump to misrepresentation,accusations of fraud, conspiracy theories, strawman arguments, anecdotes, cherry picking and outright denial of the evidence. A very big difference. See any of those in Rasmus's article? Compare that with a "skeptic" blog.

Comment on The claim of reduced uncertainty for equilibrium climate sensitivity is premature by Barton Paul Levenson

Mon, 22 Jan 2018 20:10:55 +0000

DDS 1: “The claim of reduced uncertainty for equilibrium climate sensitivity is premature” This is what many climate skeptics have been saying for years and they have been called deniers for their efforts. How does it feel to be a denier? Probably feels like you are doing science and you do not care what other less informed may say. Welcome to the camp of “the deniers”, those for who the science is not settled. BPL: Doesn't follow. Deniers are insisting that climate sensitivity has to be low. Scientists are saying that it's uncertain. Do you understand the difference?

Comment on The claim of reduced uncertainty for equilibrium climate sensitivity is premature by Larry Gilman

Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:07:41 +0000

That the article in question was deemed headline-worthy by The Guardian is significant. Culture is part of the climate system: e.g., scientific thought interacts with mass and elite beliefs and through them, potentially, with emissions. One might define a new term, at least a soft or analogical one: “science sensitivity,” the tendency of increasing global temperature to decrease future warming through scientific understanding leading to cultural and behavioral change. Journalism is a major path in this feedback but, alas, a weak one: even honest media like the Guardian favor, as in this case, tales of the unexpected or apparently anomalous, science bites dog. (If the Nature paper's climate sensitivity range had matched that of most prior research, I doubt it would have made the news.) “News” is thus a highpass filter for science (and everything else). That which changes slowly or not at all, being persistent or structural rather than spiky and “new,” tends not to get through. So we have the phenomenon that many people who consume an endless diet of news (even the non-fakest) never gain much substantive structural understanding of climate (or much else). "Science sensitivity" is therefore low. The most important part of the science signal, the part that isn’t changing or novel every day or week, gets attenuated by news media. Another way of saying it: Although we are seeing less outright false balance in climate coverage than a decade or two ago, bias against mainstream science understanding persists in the relatively subtle form of selective reporting of eyebrow-raising claims, which strengthen the impression that scientists are always changing their story, in which case, shrug. Our narrative-making powers are too often confounded by an endless shriek of high-frequency news noise. What would help, but which news media are structurally unlikely to deliver, are regular headlines more like this: “10,566 Papers Across Many Fields Confirm Climate Change in 2017: Scientists Pursue Questions, but Core Narrative Is More Fruitful than Ever.” But from an editor’s point of view, there’s no _news_ there . . .

Comment on 2017 temperature summary by lijing

Mon, 22 Jan 2018 18:11:57 +0000

ocean heat content record from 1958-2017, see here:

Comment on 2017 temperature summary by Ric Merritt

Mon, 22 Jan 2018 18:07:09 +0000

With all due respect (and that's a tremendous lot of it) to the folks who fuss over anomalies and graphs and removing El Nino from the trend (thanks Tamino) -- What the clueless folks you are trying to reach actually need to know is that each decade is warmer than the last, at a rate near 2 degrees Celsius per century, which might well increase, and for comparison the difference between Ice Age glaciation and the climate we like is about 6 degrees Celsius. There's a bit more about pointing out lead times to change infrastructure, but muddying the waters with squabbles about El Nino-scale wobbles will not help that at all. Anyone trying to mislead the clueless with quibbles should just be challenged to provide a prediction (especially one made decades ago that may be checked now, but a current one for the next few decades is fair game as well). Then slam them with the 1970s the 1980s, the ... Story since the 1970s is darn clear. This is the best answer **for the general public** to nonsense about short wobbles, pauses that either don't exist or don't matter, etc. etc.