Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/wp-commentsrss2.php?p=406
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
antarctic  climate change  climate  comment climate  comment  july  science  time  unforced variations  variations july  warming  waves 
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: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 22:36:35 +0000

 



Comment on Unforced variations: July 2017 by nigelj

Tue, 25 Jul 2017 22:36:35 +0000

Zebra @325, I don't have much time right now, but might get back to it because its interesting. Just briefly, I totally see your point on the state , capitalism, Musk and Koch now you have fleshed it out. I totally agree as well, I think we are roughly on the same page. Its definitely also more a question of what we do with the technology. But while capitalism is good in essence, and produces the goods, do you accept that capitalism may have to at least evolve somehow, as it always has anyway? And do you accept a place for strong environmental laws? I mean sensible controls, not outrageous stuff requiring people hug trees three times a day.



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

Tue, 25 Jul 2017 22:13:53 +0000

Victor @120, you are also comparing apples and oranges I think. BPL's calculations are based on long term data of about 70 years, while your link was just looking only at the alleged pause of a few years.



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

Tue, 25 Jul 2017 22:10:45 +0000

Victor @12O I'm not sure of your point. You seem to be claiming no correlation between CO2 and temperature, but the graphs in your links show a pretty obvious and strong visual correlation for the full period of 1950 - 2016. Of course The correlation breaks down during the alleged pause from about 2006-2013.You simply cant seem to grasp nobody has ever claimed or expected a perfect correlation over short time frames like this of about 10 years, due to the influences of natural variation, (noise). All climate science has ever claimed is we expect an approximate correlation between CO2 and temperature on long time scales. I know this has been explained to you before so why dont you get it? The pause is only because a combination of ocean processes and solar cycles suppressed temperatures for a short period. My university maths is pretty limited and rusty, but BPL's methods and calculations look valid and conventional to me from what I do remember. There's no tweaking or selective use of anything. He has been upfront with methods, data, probabilities, limitations etc. I think you are way out of your depth, or refusing to listen to people.



Comment on Unforced variations: July 2017 by alan2102

Tue, 25 Jul 2017 21:06:47 +0000

zebra #319: "like the Denialists, you ignore the science." Feel free to cite science that I ignore. And please use discretion, omitting the pseudo-scientific bullshit that characterizes most of sociobiology/evolutionary-psychology. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology --- "evolutionary psychology as a field is notoriously full of woo and cranks producing theories that are either proven wrong or cannot be disproven to promote bigotry. Examples include the idea that black people and women have not evolved the same ability to understand science as white men[1], that standards of beauty not evident outside the West are actually universal[2], and that black women have not evolved to be as good looking as women of other races[3]... snip ... much of evolutionary psychology's claims about selective regimes are pseudoscientific in nature, as proposals about particular selective pathways often cannot be theoretically disproven. In a broader sense...EP has failed to produce any new insights into human evolution that move beyond a purely speculative character, remaining at the level of generating hypotheses without having generated evidence to build upon these initial hypotheses.[7][8] As such, it hasn't matured into a field of study analogous to other areas of biology, remaining merely a novel proposal." END QUOTE zebra: "all the billions you point to live in societies rife with oppression and inequity." Some do, some don't. But it goes to show our intrinsically cooperative, non-murderous, non-rapey, non-pillaging natures, which remain cooperative and socially well-adjusted even under sometimes trying conditions. That would be as opposed to the "red in tooth and claw", "survival of the fittest" (etc., etc.) sociobiological narrative of human nature. Billions of us live in peace and harmony almost all of the time, with rare exceptions. Amazing, huh? How is that possible, if we are mere animals, impelled by our selfish killer-ape genes to secure our existence atop the corpses of others? zebra: "Slowly, in the minority, some changes have occurred, by virtue primarily of economic improvements, brought about by technology, which would not occur without the ability to accumulate and distribute wealth over time (Capitalism)." See post #262. The economic improvements in China and Russia, after their revolutions, were not "brought about by technology"; they were brought about by committed communist social renovation and reconstruction. Technology of course played a role, but technologies do not have lives of their own. Technologies are applied/instituted by humans. China has accumulated and distributed a vast amount of wealth over time, and its novel system can hardly be described as capitalist.



Comment on Unforced variations: July 2017 by Susan Anderson

Tue, 25 Jul 2017 21:03:53 +0000

I just read an interesting hypothesis from ClimateCentral, referencing an article in Nature Climate Change and was brought up all standing by a reference to ocean waves (not the breaking kind) going 400 mph, rounding the coast from East to West Antarctica, something to do with the Circumpolar Deep Water current. Now I'm a real layperson but follow and understand science up to the point where it gets technical. I've doing my best to follow science and evidence for a good while. I have a some friends who are deeply concerned (as am I) but not off the wall, and excited by extremes (we all do it sometimes) and they just seemed to take it as a given. I can't do that. 400 mph? What am I missing? Isn't that impossible? Here's the article and an extract. I've looked up quite a bit about wind and waves and talked to a couple of knowledgeable people, and they agree with me that this appears to be out of whack. How Distant Winds May Be Causing Antarctic Meltdown (Andrea Thompson 24 July 2017):
What seems to be happening is that the changes in winds along the East Antarctic coast cause sea levels to drop near the coastline, which sets off large-scale waves (not quite like those that break on the ocean's surface) that travel along the coastline at more than 400 mph. When these waves hit the steep topography off the western coast of the Antarctic Peninsula, they pull the warm water of the current called the Circumpolar Deep Water toward the coast. The work of [Paul] Spence and his colleagues, detailed July 17 in Nature Climate Change, shows that this process can cause significant warming under the ice shelves. “These coastal wave phenomena are found all over the ocean, but their influence on climate (and Antarctic melt) was never recognized. Indeed, it’s kind of strange and unexpected that they can drive glacial melting,” Spence, of the Climate Change Research Centre of the University of New South Wales in Australia, said.
I didn't find a reference to the journal article at CC, but here it is, paywalled; figures at link: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3335.html
Localized rapid warming of West Antarctic subsurface waters by remote winds, Paul Spence, Ryan M. Holmes, Andrew McC. Hogg, Stephen M. Griffies, Kial D. Stewart & Matthew H. England The highest rates of Antarctic glacial ice mass loss are occurring to the west of the Antarctica Peninsula in regions where warming of subsurface continental shelf waters is also largest. However, the physical mechanisms responsible for this warming remain unknown. Here we show how localized changes in coastal winds off East Antarctica can produce significant subsurface temperature anomalies (>2 °C) around much of the continent. We demonstrate how coastal-trapped barotropic Kelvin waves communicate the wind disturbance around the Antarctic coastline. The warming is focused on the western flank of the Antarctic Peninsula because the circulation induced by the coastal-trapped waves is intensified by the steep continental slope there, and because of the presence of pre-existing warm subsurface water offshore. The adjustment to the coastal-trapped waves shoals the subsurface isotherms and brings warm deep water upwards onto the continental shelf and closer to the coast. This result demonstrates the vulnerability of the West Antarctic region to a changing climate.
This will probably convey meaning to you that I am unable to follow, though I do know about Kelvin waves. The ClimateCentral contains a comment from Eric Rignot, who is not someone I associate with distortion or exaggeration. What am I missing?



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

Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:32:32 +0000

re: 120. "but for me such differences confirm a long held suspicion of findings based purely on statistical analyses, which can all too easily be tweaked to produce just about any desired result. " Intellectual laziness rears its head once again. Once again you make it abundantly clear that you have made no effort to learn the scientific method. Your "suspicion" is irrelevant. Science is based on data, analyses, fact, and peer-review. You've been told this countless times yet you make no effort to comprehend it and continue to simply troll based on preconceived, anti-science beliefs. Statistics are not "tweaked to produce just about any desired result". Now read that last sentence again, this time for comprehension. Peer-review...learn what that is. Hint: It is the cornerstone of science and has been for centuries. Even the select science you might perchance "believe".



Comment on Unforced variations: July 2017 by Mal Adapted

Tue, 25 Jul 2017 19:08:04 +0000

nigelj:
The state already owns basic resources, and gives extraction rights, and none of this has solved the climate change problem.
L'Etat, c'est Koch.



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

Tue, 25 Jul 2017 18:14:14 +0000

I'm surprised at the level of uncertainty in the solar irradiance term -- in both the uncertainty bars and the level of scientific understanding (LOSU). Of all the radiative forcing terms, I would have thought that one to be nailed. Would someone please explain.



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

Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:51:06 +0000

A new paper concludes that humankind's available carbon "budget" — the amount of emissions that can be emitted in years ahead while still preventing the most dangerous warming levels — may be smaller than previously estimated. In essence, the paper in Nature Climate Change says that while the researchers have commonly viewed "pre-industrial" as the mid-late 1800s, even the small amounts of human-influenced warming that occurred before that means there is less leeway to avoid more than two degrees celsius of temperature rise. "For stabilization at 2 ◦ C, allowable emissions decrease by as much as 40% when earlier than nineteenth-century climates are considered as a baseline," the paper states. The Washington Post has a detailed piece on the new paper here. A summary from Penn State, where scientist and co-author Michael Mann is a professor, is available here, and the full paper ($) is here. That's from: https://www.axios.com/generate-2464763535.html



Comment on Unforced variations: July 2017 by Andrew

Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:37:59 +0000

The promise of certain and horrible death-by-climate-change It's the very first phrase in the article proper: "It is, I promise, worse than you think." Note that DWW directly engages the reader and writes in the first person. And right off the bat, DWW is *promising* you something. It's actually a well-known trick used in all sorts of fraudulent schemes and by politicians in general. You are promised that Guantanamo will be closed. You are promised more and better paying jobs. You are promised that your hair will grow back. You are promised that you'll lose weight. Etc... Footnote: Personally, the "I promise" trick makes my bullshit detector go off the scale, but that's just me. In this case, the promise if of - wait for it - certain death. Yes, we are all going to die, that's something we all know already but try not to spend too much time thinking about in our daily lives. So since shouting "we are all going to die" at the top of one's lungs usually does not gather crowds (you can try it though), DVV spells out in great detail how we are all going to die because of climate change. Inevitably. And quite horrible deaths, too: some of us will drown, many will die of famine or plagues, some will even be "cooked to death inside and out". You scared yet? Me neither. But, "he promised!", you say. Ah now, here is the neat trick: DVV says it's all science. It's just that scientists are reticent, so he took it upon himself to let us in the little secret that scientists have carefully kept to themselves for years: we are all going to die because of climate change - and there is nothing we can do about it, either. (continued)