Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/wp-commentsrss2.php?p=410
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
chance staying  chance  comment chance  comment  emissions  global warming  global  staying °c  staying  warming  °c global  °c 
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, 23 Sep 2017 19:50:26 +0000

 



Comment on Unforced Variations: Sep 2017 by alan2102

Sat, 23 Sep 2017 19:50:26 +0000

"[Response: The thought is appreciated, but we do have secure backups. – gavin]" Good to know. However, no single backup is secure. Think: floods, fire, hurricanes, nuclear war; climate change, even. ;-) Redundancy is most excellent. 100 copies in different places, best in different regions on different continents, is better than one copy in one place. Also, there are uses for local copies other than just backup. Having a local copy is great for keyword searching and other tasks; better than google.



Comment on Unforced Variations: Sep 2017 by mike

Sat, 23 Sep 2017 19:47:53 +0000

For MAR mostly: ATTP has a post up assessing global temp and the takeaway appears to be that monitoring ocean temps should be the gold standard because they may have less natural variation than air or land temps, plus the water temp monitor is more responsive to changes in the planet's energy balance and will show the temp changes better and with less noise. Here's a quote from ATTP: "it may take more than 20 years for a trend to emerge from the noise in surface temperature data, but it only takes about 4 years if you consider ocean heat content (OHC), or sea level rise (SLR), data. Therefore, ocean heat content (and SLR data) are more robust indicators of global warming, than surface temperature data." Any thoughts about this post and topic?



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

Sat, 23 Sep 2017 19:37:06 +0000

The following is a good overview of the idea that greenhouse gases will prevent the next ice age. Detailed enough to be useful without being a long research paper, paywalled etc. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/01/13/scientists-say-humans-have-basically-canceled-the-next-ice-age/?utm_term=.e3d24f58c63a It also appears early human agriculture may have changed the CO2 profile just enough to already have had a significant effect. The main point was that we have already emitted enough greenhouse gases to prevent an ice age or at least seriously reduce its impacts.



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

Sat, 23 Sep 2017 19:32:04 +0000

-1=e^ipi, As Stefan mentioned, the 2015 model/obs comparisons use the Otto et al 2015 approach of isolating the forced anthropogenic and natural components from the data. You can find their spreadsheet here: https://t.co/15IS9IWdQJ In general, comparing warming from models and obs since the mid-1800s isn't ideal, since there is large observational uncertainty prior to 1900. Comparisons like this over particular periods of interest (e.g. the mid-2000s 'slowdown') tend to be a lot more informative: https://s26.postimg.org/xi5sivcp5/simple_comp_1970_2020_1970_2000_baseline.png



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

Sat, 23 Sep 2017 18:29:24 +0000

Scientist love to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. They can compute the brand of pin, circumference, density and even the size of the angels. But what they can't seem to know is the entire discussion is irrelevant from the onset. Nobody cares. What they're doing may seem important, but it only adds fuel to the fire. And waste increasingly valuable (irreplaceable) time. We're in for the fight of our lives (really) and that is the message and urgency that needs to be conveyed. All this useless discussion about "budget" simply enables more of the very same destructive practices (burning carbon) as before. It also entirely misses the chaos and suffering and destruction already caused by climate change - with more to come. In effect, the "budget" arguments tend to reduce the observable reality into a quasi-spreadsheet of assumptions, negating the real costs already being experienced in lives and dollars. The entire argument is IRRELEVANT to put too-fine a point on it and always has been. It is another red-herring being used by interest groups to further another absolutely useless debate which we all know as "is climate change real" and "are humans causing this?". These are distractions. The reality is we do not "have a budget" and never did. To claim that we do is to say that "we can safely kill xx number of humans, and acidify the world's oceans to xx levels" while also falsely claiming that surface temperatures can be stabilized for civilization because "we will stop emitting more carbon". We have not stopped emitting carbon, and probably can't. Any "budget" is in effect, too much carbon as the evidence actually shows. We've already blown past the "no effect on the planetary environment or climate" as the evidence also shows. There is no "budget" and never was. Enabling the budget arguments simply enables more delay, more inaction, more denial, more refusal since there are contradictory claims that indicate we've got "more time" and "more allowable" emissions. How many people need to die before these numbers finally reach parity? Apparently, all indications are that many, many more people need to die before we can finally accept the fact that there never really was any kind of a budget. This is a irrelevant argument, and has always been a red-herring. So quite frankly, I do not care for the "science" behind these false claims. They are based on an enormous amount of assumptions that totally fail to accept the unfolding reality we already have. It matters not how many of these angels can dance on the head of this pin and never, ever did.



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

Sat, 23 Sep 2017 17:07:22 +0000

Breakthrough energy technology, can replace fossil fuels fast. 24/7 fuel-free engines will soon power generators of all sizes that need no fuel. A converted Ford engine proved the concept. A second engine has been converted and will be ready for validation by an independent laboratory. Inexpensive engines are being designed. They can be made of polymers (plastics) since there is no combustion. The science expands the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, few believe such engines are possible. A White Paper is available. The work reflects 27 years of effort. See aesopinstitute.org to learn more. Imagine power generation at every scale operating 24/7 without fuel - homes, buildings & industry. Cars, trucks, boats, ships and aircraft, having unlimited range, with no need for fuel. Similar engines will self-power refrigeration, heating and air-conditioning. Trolls are certain such work reflects fraud and dishonesty, making efforts to find urgently needed small financial support a nightmare. A bold soul can accelerate this potentially life saving effort. Substantial capital for commercialization world-wide is pending. Political realities indicate only unusually rapid development of this (and parallel) revolutionary science and technology can improve the odds for human survival on this dangerously warming planet. Action now can greatly speed this urgent effort!



Comment on Is there really still a chance for staying below 1.5 °C global warming? by ...and Then There's Physics

Sat, 23 Sep 2017 16:26:58 +0000

Correction to the above comment - "to stabilise *concentrations* would require continually decreasing emissions".



Comment on Is there really still a chance for staying below 1.5 °C global warming? by ...and Then There's Physics

Sat, 23 Sep 2017 16:04:18 +0000

Mitch, I'm not even sure that that is correct. To stabilise emissions would require continually decreasing emissions. If we simply cut emissions in half, atmospheric concentrations will continue to rise (although, an instantaneous cut in half may cause them to drop initially).



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

Sat, 23 Sep 2017 15:44:17 +0000

For David Appell. Humans currently produce 10 GtC (30 GtCO2) per year, while ocean and terrestrial processes remove about 5 GtC. If we stabilize our CO2 output now, we would get roughly 2 ppmV increase in CO2 for each year that we continue emitting. In order for atmospheric CO2 level to stabilize, we need to cut emissions roughly in half.

[Response: Initially, yes. But then the CO2 sinks start to saturate, they stop taking up so much, and you need to cut the emissions further. -Stefan]




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

Sat, 23 Sep 2017 15:31:02 +0000

Technical P.S. to my #10 above and the P.S. in the article: WRT human contribution to observed warming circa 2014 Gavin Schmidt indicates the human contribution is likely 110% of observed due to the cooling effect of anthropogenic SO2 emissions (and other). see: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/ipcc-attribution-statements-redux-a-response-to-judith-curry/ I note that the Miller paper adopts some methodologies used in the climate denier sphere to base projections on ECS using past observed temperatures (this was very common during the faux 'pause').