Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
Preview: Comments for RealClimate

Comments for RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

Last Build Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 10:45:19 +0000


Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by Killian

Sun, 18 Feb 2018 10:45:19 +0000

#422 Thomas said we meed a, like, comprehensive model! With, likereal life stuff going on! You mean like my ?

Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by Scott

Sun, 18 Feb 2018 10:43:14 +0000

A couple posts referenced no till and BeCCS. I already posted examples of farming systems earlier. Please keep this in mind when reviewing papers like these. Abandoned land was abandoned for a reason, just farming it again in an I'll conceived idea that as part of BeCCS it solves AGW is a fool's errand. That form of agriculture is what ruined the land to begin with in the vast overwhelming number of cases it's the primary reason the land was abandoned to beg8n with. This is no solution. Nothing more than the last desperate gasp from a dying industrial farming system frantically trying to justify itself. The writing is on the wall for that sort of thing. Only 60 years left without fundamentally changing the paradigm. No till alone is not enough. Not CCS, not BeCCS, the way you restore that land and mitigate AGE is BCCS. This means not just no till, not even just no till with cover crops, but instead at the very minimum no till with at least 4 way blends of multispecies covers. There is more too. BeCCS is a dead end. We must stop growing too much corn and soy for energy. Even if BeCCS did work, and it doesn't, land and ecosystem degradation destroys those paradigms before they even hardly get started. But restore the vast grasslands and 5 to 20 tonnes CO2e / ha / year can be sequestered long term in the soil while producing actually more food for people. Further the extra carbon in the soil also fixes the hydrodynamic so the water cycle improves. Resistant to both flood and drought. All this at a savings of billions in misconceived wasteful subsidies, and a large net gain in profit. There are no losers when dumping antiquated inefficient systems. Don't be fooled by the neoluddites.

Comment on Unforced variations: Feb 2018 by MA Rodger

Sun, 18 Feb 2018 10:31:45 +0000

Killian @128, You object to my description of your comment @112 as "butting in" suggesting your blather @112 was a legitimate "critique" of my comment @102. I see no evidence of legitmacy. Even @128 you go too far with your unsubstantiated opinion (abet tinged with a level of uncertainty). You tell me "I doubt many scientists would agree with you. Perhaps I am wrong, but since they rarely discuss future change outside the context of ranges of risk, I’m fairly confident few would agree with you." At this point you should have then set out a big pile of literature to support your assertion that there is, as described @7:20 in the David Roberts video:-
"These positive feedback systems will take on a momentum of their own that becomes unstoppable. Human beings will lose any ability to control it at all even if we stop all our climate emissions on a dime. Will that happen at two degrees? Probably not though there’s a real chance of it and there’s a lot of debate about that." [My bold]
But you didn't. So if "you doubt many scientists would agree" with me, why would there be approaching 80 promenant scientists named as supporting this graphic IPCC AR5 Fig 12-05 which shows projected global average temperatures to AD2300 ('relative to 1986-2005' so add 0.65ºC for 'relative to pre-industrial')? Note that the graph gives no indications of any 'lost control', not one indication of a decoupling of the link between anthropogenic forcings and resulting temperature rise, even though RCP4.5 sees a central projection well beyond that "two degrees" with its "real chance," RCP4.5 hitting 3.1ºC above pre-industrial by AD2300.

Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by Killian

Sun, 18 Feb 2018 10:31:06 +0000

I see using a long-tail risk basis as the same as applying the precautionary principle: It's a risk that cannot be risked. What level of risk can be avoided? What level *must* be avoided. This is a good take on how risk is done for financial gain and self-serving reasons, and how some here have taken a "good enough" approach to rik and policy, failing to understand how risk must be applied in existential crises.

Comment on The global CO2 rise: the facts, Exxon and the favorite denial tricks by nigelj

Sun, 18 Feb 2018 09:44:11 +0000

P Carson "I deal explicitly with IR emission in Chapter 1A". Your chapter 1A is complete nonsense. I can see its complete nonsense, and more qualified people than me can see it. There are too many dogmatic people on this website with God complexes and obsessions.

Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by nigelj

Sun, 18 Feb 2018 09:05:09 +0000

Killian @419 I couldn't care less what you believe. You fill entire pages with accusations everyone is lying, personal absuse against people, and useless completely pedantic nonsense, trying to justify the unjustifiable. Most of the time you just don't know what you are talking about. Even your knowledge of the soil issue is flawed and non scientific. You have some sort of god complex, and are not as smart as you think you are. We all see mistakes by the dozen in everything your write.

Comment on The global CO2 rise: the facts, Exxon and the favorite denial tricks by alphagruis

Sun, 18 Feb 2018 08:58:03 +0000

Ray Ladbury #117 So, actually, climate diplomacy is on track because a future, unproven, massive technology will save us ? I'm confused now, since I have been told repeatedly by the other amusing RE zealots here that present technology is already capable to readily save us… Their guru M.J. even felt the need to very recently publish yet another paper that once more "demonstrates" it. So funny.

Comment on Unforced variations: Feb 2018 by nigelj

Sun, 18 Feb 2018 08:35:29 +0000

Mike @129 I agree totally about your paragraph on the meaning behind intersectionality, wide solutions, and the Republican Party issue. Inequality and how all the things you mention relate together are important and real, but a bit off topic for this thread. Except to say the strongly conservative / Republican groups are implicated in climate denialism. Its a politics / world view thing, and political leanings go deep. Conservatism and liberalism even have a genetic basis as below, so changing world views can be challenging. I want to emphasise I'm not suggesting any particular "ism" is better or worse, but its a fact that conservatives figure much higher in climate denialism, seen in various polls. I'm pretty polite most of the time I think. I only get angry when I'm seriously provoked. I prefer polite discussion on serious climate websites. There are other unmoderated website where people can play games and have shouting matches, if thats their thing. I do have a bad habit of not walking away. Sometimes as you say that's a good strategy. You know plenty.

Comment on Unforced variations: Feb 2018 by Thomas

Sun, 18 Feb 2018 08:35:26 +0000

#130 ... whatever. (shrug)

Comment on Unforced variations: Feb 2018 by Thomas

Sun, 18 Feb 2018 08:34:19 +0000

#133 K. looks good that paper, I too had pondered when those involved in "paris" would be so definitive and AGREE on it. Of course, it's unknown if they will take the advice provided in this (or any other) Papers. Full pdf paper here a cpl take aways fwiw: From these choices it follows that trend progression 2016 accounts for 1.00 ±0.13◦C and Our proposal shows a GMST progression delta 2016 of 1.00◦C. First, we propose to base GMST warming estimates on data products rather than GCM simulations. Second, since warming estimates vary as a function of the GMST data products chosen (Table 2), we propose to estimate trends on the annual averages of all five data products. Hawkins et al. (2017) define the period 1720–1800 as a reasonable baseline for pre-industrial .... We choose to follow the baseline proposed by Hawkins et al. Since GMST observational data are uncertain in the pre-1880 period (sparse SST data) Finally, we propose to interpret global warming in the context of “Paris” as the sum of natural and anthropogenic warming, consistent with the IPCC definition of climate change Hiatus. As a side result of our trend analyses we note that no signs of an “hiatus”, “slowdown” or “pause” can be discerned in GMST trend progression. This inference is consistent with recent findings (Marotzke and Forster, 2015, Hedemann et al., 2017, Medhaug et al., 2017, Rahmstorf et al., 2017) Maybe the UNFCCC Govts might sign off on something like this before 2040, but I am not at all hopeful on that score either. :-)