Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
climate  comment forced  comment  forced responses  forced  jan nigelj  jan  metals  nigelj  people  responses jan  responses  science  temperature 
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: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 22:17:24 +0000


Comment on Unforced Variations: Jan 2018 by Ray Ladbury

Sat, 20 Jan 2018 22:17:24 +0000

Alistair, I have a very clear idea of the description in Spencer's post. So do the other scientists here. It is accepted because it is what is going on. The fact that the inverted lapse rate yields cooling in the stratosphere--as predicted--is a pretty good indication that the scientists know what they are talking about. This isn't controversial. It isn't in question. It isn't cutting edge. It is established science. Period.

Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by Mr. Know It All

Sat, 20 Jan 2018 22:13:51 +0000

192 - Kevin Thanks for the battery link. Looks promising. 201 - Thomas 208- nigelj Good year to year centralized planning, Thomas. Looks like something you'd see from wild-eyed naive environmental wackos. Only problems I see are: winter (people need heat to stay alive) and collapse of the world economy. Minor problems, right? :) Why shut down NG exploration? Apparently NG powered vehicles emit less CO2 per mile than gasoline vehicles: 209 - nigelj "Since we are trying to discourage fossil fuel burning and excessive air travel,..." "We" aren't trying to discourage anything. Environmentalists are pointing the finger at everyone else and saying: "YOU, stop doing this and that" while continuing to do those same things themselves. That's the problem: people willing to tell others what to do, but not willing to do it themselves. Motor vehicle use could be cut by around 25% in one day in the USA if all those on the left simply started carpooling. Nope - not willing to do that. Instead they tell everyone else: "We want a carbon tax so the price of fuel rises to the point you can't afford to use it." Geniuses. Not! 213 - Killian Again, I've just skimmed the ongoing barrage of comments, insults, etc, around your simplification theme, but basically you want the world population to go back to living like aboriginals, right? If so, how long do you propose the world should take to make that transition? If it turns out that people refuse to do it, is there some middle ground that might work? In your vision, would there be modern medicine, disease curing drugs, electric lights? Candles?

Comment on 2017 temperature summary by nigelj

Sat, 20 Jan 2018 22:11:41 +0000

Mr KIA @7 Notice how it took 8000 years after the last ice age for temperatures to increase approximately 4 degrees C. We are doing the same or more in 100 years. Big difference in terms of rate and impacts on ability to adapt / adjust.

Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by Randall

Sat, 20 Jan 2018 21:28:25 +0000

Plans, plans, sails, taxes, Geoengineering. All delusional hope. By the way to all the commenters on Geoengineering,,THEY ALREADY HAVEBEEN DOING THAT FOR YEARS, if you would just look up at the spraying with an educated mind you would have known that. There is no answer to extinction, funny how thecommonman knows this. The masses will never wake up. The governments can't even fix public schooling finances let alone climate change. Haha. The planet and nature know how to fix, and has started, with no stopping her action now. Get used to hearing the word extinction.

Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by nigelj

Sat, 20 Jan 2018 21:22:47 +0000

Jim Baird @217 It would have helped to get a description of how such heat engines work in your post. They would require a lot of energy to run, and a lot of engines to extract enough heat from the atmosphere, so the cost would be in the many trillions of dollars wouldn't it? However if we don't reduce emissions, such ideas might require serious consideration.

Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by nigelj

Sat, 20 Jan 2018 20:52:10 +0000

Killian @213 Regarding general issues of materials and metals. You have promoted a low tech. culture, but conceded it will still use some metals. Therefore eventually even a low technology culture will completely run out of metals, its just a matter of time. We both know recycling has some level of waste over long time periods. Humanity is slowly heading towards a culture without metals and also oil etc. IMO we will be forced down in population size and consumption, but its too far in the future to really know what will happen, and what novel science and recycling discoveries will be made. All you are doing is rationing use of metals (and other materials)and delaying the inevitable. There is some sense in this, but over rationing creates as many problems as excessive use. I think the best option is zero gdp growth, or mildly negative growth. This will smooth the transition. Cutting consumption more radically will cause huge problems, and still wont avoid ultimate resource limits. Please understand I'm being sceptical about some things, because this is a science forum and we should be sceptics. People have promoted low tech sustainable communities where I live, and I have said to people listen and think about it. I have certainly not rubbished the idea.

Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by nigelj

Sat, 20 Jan 2018 20:40:50 +0000

Killian @213 "nigelj, # who cares, I made no point about cobalt and batteries nor cars" Yes you did. You said "And, none of the three bits mentioned, cobaly and its sources,are used solely in batteries, so… your point is…?" "You also made some dumb comment about having to use all three…" No I essentially said cobalt has a range of current applications and the main ones are in gas turbines and aircraft. I said we should not be using gas fired generation as much as we are, and aircraft travel so we can use cobalt more for batteries. Of course its a specific material. I know you are also talking about general materials substitution as well, and I respect that, but you raised specifics about cobalt.

Comment on Unforced Variations: Jan 2018 by Thomas

Sat, 20 Jan 2018 20:34:59 +0000

fwiw NASA report on the Cause of Record Carbon Dioxide Spike: Climate change to expand impacts of El Nino/La Nina extremes and imho, the 2017 global temperature remains stubbornly high. Conceivably this continued temperature excursion above the trend line is not a statistical fluke, but rather is associated with climate forcings and/or feedbacks. Moreso, the growth rate of greenhouse gas climate forcing has accelerated in the past decade. There is also concern that polar climate feedbacks may accelerate. Therefore, temperature change during even the next few years is of interest, to determine whether a significant excursion above the trend line is underway.

Comment on Unforced Variations: Jan 2018 by CCHolley

Sat, 20 Jan 2018 20:30:38 +0000

Alistair McDonald @150
The answer is tha the energy is radiated back down to the surface at night and then out to space through the IR window. It cannot go directly to space since absorption is saturated.
This is nonsensical. The energy is radiated back down to the surface both during the day and at night. Matter with heat energy does not care what time of day it its, it radiates in all directions per the Stephan-Boltzmann Law based on its absolute temperature. Likewise for radiation going up into the atmosphere above where it can be reabsorbed and eventually be radiated to space.
But stating the facts is pointless. Who am I goinng to convince? You have all blindly accepted the lapse rate feedback model as described in the second part of Spence Weart’s blog post, even if you only have a vauge idea of what it proposes.
Apparently stating the facts to you is pointless. But you are so arrogant to think that your gibberish, which is what it is, actually means something. It doesn't. And you are arrogant to state that anyone other than you on here has blindly accepted anything. My acceptance of the science is based on decades of study and research. You are just an arrogant fool. Not an ad hominem, just the truth based on direct observation.

Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by nigelj

Sat, 20 Jan 2018 20:21:03 +0000

Killian @212 You are starting to sound a lot like Donald Trump. In the sense of the same empty rhetoric and simplistic denials, and precisely zero facts, and zero carefully developed rational argument.