Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
comment unforced  comment  global warming  global  tech  time  unforced variations  unforced  variations sep  variations  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: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 02:26:46 +0000


Comment on Unforced Variations: Sep 2017 by nigelj

Tue, 26 Sep 2017 02:26:46 +0000

Killian @344 What is your definition of low tech and sustainable? Please make this in reference to specific technology and cover all items below. Please be detailed, comprehensive and specific, and justify each claim. It would still take less space than any of your long posts, so I'm not being unreasonable. Until you do this, I cannot take you seriously, not even slightly. Please don't give me empty rhetoric about first principles, or philosophies, or generalisations of less is better. People have to make DECISIONS on specifics. So what types of foods are acceptable, meat or vegetarian only? Size of houses? Are we allowed machine made clothing? Is electricity acceptable for making clothing, of just water power like in the early industrial revolution? Are we allowed cars, or just bicycles, or horse and cart? If cars are allowed this is high tech and would be an exception. How many cars per community of 100 people and why? What about home appliances like ovens, washing machines, allowed or not? Are we allowed televisions, phones, computers, air travel? These are all high tech. and there's no real low tech. or even medium tech. version. And if high technology is allowed like for example phones, how many is each family permitted, or each community of 100 people permitted? What about modern medical drugs? Remember all these need high tech. manufacturing equipment at large scale. The only exception would be herbal medicine, and even much of that now relies on high tech to be made in bulk, and cheaply.

Comment on Is there really still a chance for staying below 1.5 °C global warming? by Dan H.

Tue, 26 Sep 2017 02:24:57 +0000

Kevin, "A dangerous and unwarranted assumption." Not really. The bigger assumption would be that the rain forests cease to exist. Granted, there is significant destruction occurring today that could lead to that assumption, but that is a separate issue. Crops must continue to grow to support a growing population, most of which will increase uptake as concentrations and temperatures rise. The biggest sink is still the oceans, which will continue to dissolve carbon dioxide, continuously reaching new equilibriums.

Comment on Unforced Variations: Sep 2017 by Mal Adapted

Tue, 26 Sep 2017 01:44:56 +0000

Sorry, my previous comment was intended for aTTP. I wish wordpress had an instant preview feature 8^(.

Comment on Unforced Variations: Sep 2017 by Mal Adapted

Tue, 26 Sep 2017 00:54:25 +0000

I thought the greatest irony was the GWPF decrying, as they saw it, the suppression of research findings that didn’t “support the cause of extremist climate communication” (sic[k])
Fify. David Whitehouse redundantly verifies that the GWPF is a professional disinformation services firm offering quick-turnaround, high-volume custom AGW-denial on contract to investors in the highly-profitable fossil fuel industry, thinly disguised as a 'non-profit' public education organization. 'Stink tank' is a puerile but evocative rubric for the business model.

Comment on Unforced Variations: Sep 2017 by Scott Strough

Mon, 25 Sep 2017 23:05:35 +0000

Killian, You are in favor of a 90:10 I get that. But the world isn't only yours to rule. Others may prefer a 100%:0% ratio. Some might prefer 50:50. 60:40. 40:60. Whatever...... The important thing is that they balance, not that the whole world turns into a carbon copy of Killian's wishes wants desires and visions. That's the social aspect to this you are unwilling to let go of. We need to be able to make permaculture designs that are more flexible to anyone's culture, not just your own ideal, not just my ideal, not just any single person, country or culture, rich and poor alike. Ironically I actually do like the simple lifestyle in principle and I have lived it many periods in my life. But I also have lived long enough to know that is not something you can sell to everyone. So try and understand that. Once you let go of this idea that you must control the world your way or it all fails, then you can open up your mind to many new possibilities.

Comment on Is there really still a chance for staying below 1.5 °C global warming? by Mal Adapted

Mon, 25 Sep 2017 22:02:44 +0000

Mark Goldes:
The science expands the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, few believe such engines are possible.
Well, no wonder 8^D! Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You haven't presented any. Eric Swanson:
The “AESOP Institute” appears to be a scam site.
Claiming "The science violatesexpands the Second Law of Thermodynamics" tells us all we need to know.

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

Mon, 25 Sep 2017 19:36:18 +0000

Let's see. First you assume there is no global warming from the greenhouse effect caused by the warming from additional greenhouse gasses being added to the atmosphere between time one and time two, and then you conclude that if your assumption is true, there is no global warming. GREAT--and quite typical--example of denier "logic"! The GWPF published a study last year which made the same assumption and quite unsurprisingly came to the same conclusion. Try real logic: Aerosols (in general) cool and greenhouse gases warm. One must establish the radiation budgets at time one and at time two to attribute what is going on. It is quite possible for man-released greenhouse gasses to contribute over 100% of warming over time if there is concurrent cooling going on or for aerosols to contribute over 100% of cooling over time if there is concurrent warming going on if one looks at both factors simultaneously. Example: If there is .1 degree of cooling from aerosol additions from time one to time two and there is .5 degree of warming overall, unless something else is going on, you must conclude that greenhouse gases warmed the atmosphere .6 degrees and so man caused greenhouse gas additions caused 120% of the warming while aerosols caused 20% of the cooling. 120%-20%=100%. And you really do need to look at warming factors and cooling factors simultaneously. See IPCC AR5 Summary for Policy Makers Section C and Figure SPM 5 in that section.

Comment on Unforced Variations: Sep 2017 by Barton paul levenson

Mon, 25 Sep 2017 18:13:53 +0000

K 355: A very nice overview of the “100% renewables” fantasy. BPL: Gee, if you can't trust, who can you trust?

Comment on Unforced Variations: Sep 2017 by Al Bundy

Mon, 25 Sep 2017 17:37:01 +0000

A curiosity: It appears that some posters' comments get posted immediately upon submission, while others' comments get held for a day or two. This wouldn't be an issue except that the delayed comments are sorted so that they appear in the "past", and so pretty much might as well not have been posted at all, as only by going back to the past can one see the words. Comments should be sorted based on when they post as opposed when they are submitted.

Comment on Unforced Variations: Sep 2017 by Kevin McKinney

Mon, 25 Sep 2017 17:16:50 +0000

Speaking, as we were above, of renewable energy and energy efficiency (and the related concept of reduced energy usage): Both-and.