Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/round-up-and-thanks/feed/
Preview: Comments for RealClimate

Comments for RealClimate



Climate science from climate scientists...



Last Build Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 20:33:57 +0000

 



Comment on The climate has always changed. What do you conclude? by nigelj

Mon, 24 Jul 2017 20:33:57 +0000

Thomas @109, yeah, I think climate sceptics fall into two broad groups. The first group is ordinary people, and we all have some healthy scepticism of new ideas, but are open to persuasion. If you explain things they see reason, eventually. The second group are the stubborn, longer term denialists. When I read their rhetoric it often emerges that they have strong political views, strong ideologies, vested interests, various chips on their shoulders. Its not unreasonable to conclude this colours their views of the science. This group are harder to convince and stubborn. Warmists come across as more laid back and less rigid in their politics.



Comment on Joy plots for climate change by Steven Emmerson

Mon, 24 Jul 2017 20:15:51 +0000

My God! The distributions in the first graphic crawl!



Comment on The climate has always changed. What do you conclude? by Mal Adapted

Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:22:51 +0000

MA Rodger:
Mal Adapted @101, I agree with your comment but would put it differently.
While that's by no means unflattering, I'll diffidently point out that I linked leprechauns in toward the end of my comment. That's OK, I don't always read to the end of your comments either. On the whole, your last one was fine 8^D!



Comment on The climate has always changed. What do you conclude? by Mal Adapted

Mon, 24 Jul 2017 18:57:53 +0000

alphagruis:
most people had to struggle the whole day long to simply grow or raise their food.
On the order of a billion people still do. ag:
Slavery, no democracy, no time left to do or study science etc etc.
That's still the case in large parts of the world. ag:
fossil fuels literally “grow your food”.
That's not literally true. On the order of hundreds of millions of people still cultivate kitchen gardens literally by hand. If they didn't literally have to work for someone else, and armies didn't keep literally interrupting, they could produce a lot more literal food. It's literally been that way since the spread of sedentary agriculture following the Younger Dryas. Modern industrial agriculture uses massive inputs of energy, but it need not be fossil. And if consumers paid the full marginal costs of their fossil fuel consumption (i.e. a few bucks more to drive your car across town), market forces would drive global carbon-neutral build-out with alacrity. They would have done so already if not for the political power of fossil fuel profits concentrated in a triple-digit number of people out of 7+ billion. ag:
Well there might be “plenty of evidence that we have to stop using fossil fuels” yet this does by no means provide any evidence that 100 % (and even 80 %) renewables must in any way be a possible alternative for powering a civilization of 7+ billion people !
Well so? We still have to stop using fossil fuels. Believe it or not, AGW has already cost tens of thousands of human casualties globally in this century. If there's no collective intervention to substantially reduce global GHG emissions soon (for values of soon), then by early in the next century the world won't need to power a civilization of 7+ billion people. Long before then, you yourself may be killed by extreme weather you helped cause, or by 'civil unrest' brought by climate refugees who don't appreciate having to pay for your crosstown errands with their homes. Bummer, huh?



Comment on Unforced variations: July 2017 by alan2102

Mon, 24 Jul 2017 18:10:37 +0000

zebra #309: "The distribution of traits among the population is really unpleasant and frightening to think about. It is unpleasant to acknowledge the “negatives” in ourselves, and it is frightening to realize that half of our neighbors are easily manipulated to be full of rage and racism, and have guns that they could easily turn on us. (USA, anyway)" Yes, USA ANYWAY. How much sociobiological thought and hypothesis-generation is informed by the (correct, IN THE U.S.A.) perception that "half of our neighbors are easily manipulated to be full of rage and racism"? How much would sociobiological thought and hypothesis-generation change in a more-humane, more-civilized and more-sane environment, as exists elsewhere in this world? In other words: to what extent is the "science" of sociobiology (and evolutionary psychology) socially/environmentally constructed -- an artifact of the place and time in which its exponents operate (and by way of which their consciousness is determined)? zebra: "So, many come up with some external abstraction to rail against. 'If only we could get rid of money, capitalism, government'. For us pragmatists, it isn’t so easy." Except that those things are not mere "external abstractions" (to be ignored), when they heavily condition behavior. Those who are concerned about said "external abstractions" are the real pragmatists. The sociobiology crowd is, by comparison, nihilistic, going nowhere. Biological determinism is an internal abstraction which leads nowhere, and is actually worse than useless by virtue of energizing toxic elements and ideas (as described in my previous post).



Comment on Joy plots for climate change by Mal Adapted

Mon, 24 Jul 2017 17:46:35 +0000

When I posted my last comment, Google Chrome reverted to showing bylines in English again! I've seen the Finnish rendering of 'says' previously with Firefox, and only on RC. It's a mystery! A low priority one, however.



Comment on Joy plots for climate change by Mal Adapted

Mon, 24 Jul 2017 17:38:59 +0000

Anybody know why comments are appearing bylined in Finnish again? It happens every so often. '-1=e^ipi kirjoitti', for example.



Comment on Joy plots for climate change by Carl

Mon, 24 Jul 2017 16:28:37 +0000

Is the one with the seasonal cycle global? It might be good to do this with a single hemisphere. I initially thought that it was striking that Jan is almost as warm as March used to be, but I don't think that's true in the sense I was thinking, because global data will have a damped seasonal cycle.



Comment on The climate has always changed. What do you conclude? by MA Rodger

Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:29:03 +0000

Mal Adapted @101, I agree with your comment but would put it differently. Victor the Troll's position that a "mysterious natural cycle ... could be operating right now to cause warming" is really just another manifiestation of his "leprechaun" argument @78 which he attempts to wield to poo-poo AGW. @78 he tells us " It is the proposers of the theory who are the ones with the assumption, and it is their responsibility to “show in detail” that their assumption is in accordance with the facts and that no other explanation is possible. That’s a tall order." He then points out that this "tall order" (and indeed it is tall) would prevent someone arguing for the existence of leprechauns, presumably because it could be pixies or perhaps that invisible pink teapot orbiting Earth which provides the "other explanation." He later sets the AGW 'argument' as being "In other words, CO2 must be the culprit because we cannot think of any other possibility. Just as leprechauns must exist because we cannot prove they don’t." This, of course, is fundamentally at variance to his previous leprechaun statement. Leprechauns do not exist because there is no evidence for them. And as with leprechauns, a "mysterious natural cycle ... operating right now to cause warming" cannot exist because, while we cannot prove that it doesn't exist, like leprechauns there is no evidence for its exisence. If this were not the case and Victor's epistemological logic was correct, such thinking could be used to disprove gravity because any religious nutcase worth his salt can then tell you that gravity doesn't exist. Isaac Newton was an idiot. It is actully the hand of God that sets all on its path. Such deluded nutters will not care about any evidence you produce because for them the situation is defined by what they want to see. So, is Victor the Troll and his bullshit any different from a religious nutcase who will deny the whole universe if it is not what they want to see?



Comment on The climate has always changed. What do you conclude? by alphagruis

Mon, 24 Jul 2017 12:04:21 +0000

Re #53 Blatant lies ? Show the evidence ! Please do ! There is none, absolutely none ! Most of their evolutionary path humans were already on 100% renewable energies and by then their population was at best roughly one order of magnitude less and more importantly except an elite of parasites, most people had to struggle the whole day long to simply grow or raise their food. Slavery, no democracy, no time left to do or study science etc etc. Nor to post nonsense wrapped in a lot of wishful thinking as you do in #53 while the fossil fuels literally "grow your food". There is plenty of evidence that we have to stop using fossil fuels and that 100% renewables are the only real alternative for supplying the energy needs of 7+ billion human beings. Well there might be "plenty of evidence that we have to stop using fossil fuels" yet this does by no means provide any evidence that 100 % (and even 80 %) renewables must in any way be a possible alternative for powering a civilization of 7+ billion people ! There is even absolutely no reason to believe that that there must be an alternative at all … You can even show that switching to renewables from fossil fuels will grow the global economy and improve people’s health and well being. No, that's just wishful thinking. Nobody "can even show this" and it most likely plainly violates the laws of physics. No wishful thinking might ever change the latter.