Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
Preview: Comments for RealClimate

Comments for RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

Last Build Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:14:59 +0000


Comment on Unforced Variations: June 2017 by Scott Nudds

Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:14:59 +0000

RE: 188 - Fire due to environmental regulations From the article linked: Kirkham also recommended that the government encourage councils to retrofit sprinklers in tower blocks. But the (conservative) government saw this as an unnecessary burden and suggested instead that it be left to the fire industry to “encourage their wider installation”. This was a tragic missed opportunity, according to Sibert. “If the building had been provided with sprinklers then that fire, if it started in the kitchen, would never have got out of the kitchen and nobody except the firefighters who would have gone there to mop up would have known about it.” Sprinklers were retrofitted in a similar tower at Callow Mount in Sheffield two years ago at a cost of £1,100 per flat. The Fire Brigades Union claims there has never been a multiple death in a building fitted with sprinklers.

Comment on Unforced Variations: June 2017 by Hank Roberts

Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:40:31 +0000

Dave clarified that companies have to internalize the cost of this environmental externality and create sufficient storage facility to take care of down time and run the incinerators to ensure that HFC-23 is not released in the atmosphere. "It is noted that some HCFC–22 producers, even in the developed world, are not handling the HFC–23 in the most professional manner," the statement said. As per Delhi-based think tank Centre for Science and Environment, the move will potentially check emissions of HFC-23 equivalent to 100 million tonnes of CO2 over the next 15 years. "With this domestic legislation to control the emissions of HFC-23, India is sending a strong signal to the world that it is serious about the climate change issue," said CSE deputy director general Chandra Bhushan. CSE stressed that with this move India has also told the world that it will control emissions of HFC-23 on its own—without any financial support from developed countries.

Comment on Unforced Variations: June 2017 by Hank Roberts

Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:30:58 +0000

Oh, and from those search results, there's this company (Google search limited to past year) that claims they have 'patented' (their air quotes) thermoacoustic refrigeration and seeks investment to bring it to market. Hmmmm .... deserves an investigative report on the technology and why it didn't come in to widespread use when freon went out. And, yeah, there are always going to be dead ends, blind alleys, and ripoff alternatives offered as "green" when something turns out to have problems, as HCFCs turned out to be greenhouse gases. Markets fail when there are opportunities to promote cheap but destructive alternatives not yet ruled out by law, regulation, or common decency. China, I recall, was gaming the HCFC compensation system by producing and then being paid to destroy those gases . Y'all remember this tskandal?

Comment on Unforced Variations: June 2017 by Hank Roberts

Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:22:26 +0000
THE REALITY OF A SMALL HOUSEHOLD THERMOACOUSTIC REFRIGERATOR R. Starr, P.K. Bansal, R.W. Jones, B.R. Mace The Department of Mechanical Engineering The University of Auckland Auckland, New Zealand 1996 ABSTRACT This paper discusses the thermoacoustic refrigeration cycle and how it can be applied to real world uses, particularly its use in household refrigeration systems. The commercial viability of this technology is determined by comparing it to a vapour compression system. The paper has two goals: to determine practical applications where thermoacoustic refrigeration may prove a strong rival to current methods, and to determine what future developments are required for this technology to be of commercial value.
Twenty years goes by like nothing ...

Comment on Unforced Variations: June 2017 by Alastair McDonald

Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:10:25 +0000

Lynn, I would just like to add that what I proposed in my previous post is equivalent to a new paradigm for radiative transfer in the climate models, and that this paradigm shift provides a simple explanation for the other issue you mentioned, the hiatus. This new paradigm states that rather than the TOA (top of the atmosphere) energy balance being maintained by changes to the outgoing long wave radiation (which is saturated), it is mainly maintained by changes to the outgoing short wave radiation, i.e. albedo. The hiatus happened because the Antarctic sea ice extent, (largely unnoticed) increased during the 21st Century. At the same time the Arctic sea ice extent was decreasing with the result that the overall global albedo did not change. Of course, the question then arises why did the Antarctic sea ice expand? The answer is that since the effect of CO2 is at the surface, rather than distributed throughout the troposphere, then the surface of the Antarctic ice shelves melted supplying fresh water to the sea ice edge. That fresh water froze at higher temperature and so extended the sea ice. (No doubt other factors were also involved.) I am pointing this out as it is further evidence that this new paradigm is correct. However, there is still one unanswered question, which I have not yet heard asked. Why did the Antarctic sea ice suddenly retreat at the start of September last year? It is still about 10 M sq km less than the previous minimum on a daily basis. See: this chart and click on Antarctica. But that does explain why global temperatures have remained high despite El Nino ending, and may resume their steep upward trend! But, I fully expect strong resistance to these ideas, as with any new paradigm.

Comment on Unforced Variations: June 2017 by Alastair McDonald

Thu, 22 Jun 2017 10:42:21 +0000

Lynn, It seems that at last someone is admitting that the models are wrong! I presented a poster at EGU 2016 which explains Santer's Tropical Lapse rate problem and how it is caused by ignoring the fact that absorption only takes place in the boundary layer. Of course, such a fundamental error is very (impossibly) difficult for the experts involved to accept. You only have to look at the blog post by Prof Halpern where he shows that the transmission between 600 rcm (reciprocal centimeters) and 750 rcm is zero for both 280 ppm and 560 ppm CO2, and claims that shows CO2 is not saturated! Well it is nearly saturated over that band, which is what Dr. Koch showed. There is another recent paper which hints at the models being flawed: The Holocene temperature conundrum. That can also be explained if you accept that CO2 is nearly saturated and so climate sensitivity is low i.e. during the Holocene climate was driven by solar isolation not CO2. How CO2 affects the climate is by heating the surface air which alters the planetary albedo by melting ice sheets and increasing cloud cover by encouraging evaporation of water vapour.

Comment on Unforced Variations: June 2017 by Lawrence McLean

Thu, 22 Jun 2017 03:43:31 +0000

I have a question relating to the contributors of this website: Gavin Schmidt Michael Mann Rasmus Benestad Ray Bradley Stefan Rahmstorf Eric Steig David Archer Ray Pierrehumbert Are any of the these contributors banned from that propaganda site run by A. Watts?

Comment on Why global emissions must peak by 2020 by Thomas

Thu, 22 Jun 2017 02:31:14 +0000

144 Glen Koehler: "Am I the only one who sees Figure 1 as ludicrous?" No, not at all. Many have questioned the contents. The article certainly pushed my buttons into a red hot range: Very discouraging state of affairs. Looks ot me that no one is taking a sustained strategy of "debating/debunking" the denialist PR industry nor aggressively outing the luke warmist political powers that be. imo the core problem is this: "When there is no unity and no significant institutional power behind a "scientific point of view" or "activist movement" then the more outspoken get picked off one by one while others on the same team tend to tone it down or retreat from public outspokeness. But I do seriously question even with a perfectly coordinated and well funded science based pro-agw/cc activist campaign existed it could make a difference or change anyone's beliefs enough or change enough politicians Votes. Ultimately it's only Nature herself who is going to the one who changes minds.

Comment on Why global emissions must peak by 2020 by Thomas

Thu, 22 Jun 2017 02:03:23 +0000

142 Larry Edwards, good post and reviewed the 2009 refs. Well said. Another of the many voices in the wilderness? Also in RealClimate’s 2009 post “Hit the Brakes Hard” (4/29/09) was: "But getting everybody to agree to this is the discouraging part. The commentary by Parry et al advises us to prepare to adapt to climate changes of at least 4°C, even though they recognize that it may not be possible to buy our way out of most of the damage..." RC authors were right then, and they are right now (albeit far more wishy washy today), however they, rc readers and commenters lack power and influence. Continue to prepare to be discouraged, as that is a healthy rational psychological approach which may minimise self-harm and inappropriate guilt.

Comment on Unforced Variations: June 2017 by Thomas

Thu, 22 Jun 2017 01:38:35 +0000

#196 Lyn - See pgs 6 & 7 of the nature article - "Reliability of model variability estimates" that section may help. eg Our analysis is unlikely to reconcile divergent schools of thought regarding the causes of differences between mo del led and observed warming rates in t he early twenty-first century. Howe ver, we have shown that each hypothesized cause may have a unique statistical signature. These signatures should be exploited in improving understanding. Although scientific discussion about the causes of short-term differences between modelled and observed warming rates is likely to continue, this discussion does not cast doubt on the reality of long-term anthropogenic warming. To me the paper is like detailed discussions about the nature of quarks inside atoms. While the article and commentary on Breitbart is basically like this: "Hey dude, look at that lump of mud. Ha ha ha. So funny dude!" iow what created the conditions in the futuristic movie Idiocracy imo Breitbart and Delingpole are best ignored and avoided as a total waste of time. A slow read of the Paper contents can only help.