Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
climate change  climate  comment forced  comment  emissions  energy  forced responses  jan  land  ppm  reactor  responses jan  year 
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: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 20:36:14 +0000


Comment on Unforced Variations: Jan 2018 by Thomas

Sun, 14 Jan 2018 20:36:14 +0000

Interesting CO2 ppm data coming out of Mauna Loa already this non-El Nino year. (my estimated) January-February weekly ppm average 2015 ~400 2016 ~403 2017 ~406 2 weeks of Jan 2018 ~409 ppm avg., and heading towards 410 ppm / +4 ppm above last year. ref data compare with 2017 april-may = the only time the avg has been above 409 ppm 2017 4 16 2017.2890 409.61 6 407.48 387.49 126.55 2017 4 23 2017.3082 409.92 6 407.67 386.85 126.62 2017 4 30 2017.3274 409.13 5 407.68 386.44 125.67 2017 5 7 2017.3466 409.28 7 407.77 386.48 125.75 2017 5 14 2017.3658 410.36 5 407.39 386.30 126.86 2017 5 21 2017.3849 409.96 7 408.16 386.79 126.61 2017 5 28 2017.4041 409.52 7 407.62 386.92 126.39 2017 6 4 2017.4233 409.65 7 406.77 386.81 126.82 2017 6 11 2017.4425 409.39 4 To my minds eye, the Annual Mean Growth Rate for Mauna Loa, Hawaii here only keeps Growing ie the Growth Rate is in fact Increasing. There have been several discussions about this "issue" in the UV comments section here on RC last year. So what is the 'CO2 ppm data' now telling us? The 2010-2017 growth rate appears to be very close to an avg of ~2.5 ppm annually now - up from ~2.0 ppm per year during 2000-2010. This data closely resembles the size of known yearly increases in ff energy use globally during the same periods. And closely resembles the science based IPCC 8.5 RCP projections/forecasts/estimates. This means that as we 'speak' even more climate forcings are being embedded into the climate system for decades and centuries to come until such times as atmospheric ghg concentrations begin decreasing on a permanent and sustainable basis. That is what the science and the data is in fact now saying, isn't it? Or is there a better way to say it?

Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by Adam Lea

Sun, 14 Jan 2018 20:03:26 +0000

130: "It is truly staggering that mankind, who pride ourselves as supreme beings with covenant over nature and all life forms have lost our own instinct for long term survivability." Mankind is driven by instincts and cognitive biases that evolved millions of years ago. These instincts worked well for survival in that era when the world was a very different place, and we were living essentially like any other wild animal, but they are hopeless for dealing with the problems of complex globally integrated societies that exist today. One of the primnary problems is people value the here and now over the future, they choose to smoke, drink, and eat fatty sugary food because it gives them gratification now. The consequences happen in the future which is out of sight out of mind. That is the same problem you have with the climate change issue. The activities which contribute most to CO2 emissions and degradation and depletion of natural resources also go towards providing the things that people value highly, things which they get instant gratification from. What might happen as a result in the future is out of sight out of mind, yeah whatever, it will be someone elses problem, I'll be dead so I don't care. We have to think about how (if possible) to get around this cognitive bias. "There’s a two-year-old in the back of our minds that’s still there that we’ve learned to overrule that wants to have their one marshmallow now rather than wait for two marshmallows. Very few people on this planet want to destroy planet earth. It’s just that our other agendas get in the way of things that might have a longer time horizon."

Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by Thomas

Sun, 14 Jan 2018 19:11:09 +0000

While Trump keeps talking poop, the real world keeps moving on .... eg First HTR-PM vessel head in place 04 January 2018 The pressure vessel head has been installed at one of the two high-temperature gas-cooled reactor units that make up the demonstration HTR-PM plant under construction at Shidaowan in China's Shandong province. "This is the first installation of the pressure vessel cover of the world's first Gen IV reactor, indicating that the internal installation of the reactor pressure vessel has been completed before the closure," CNI23 noted. The demonstration HTR-PM is expected to be connected to the grid and start electricity generation this year. AND Construction of China's 600 MWe demonstration fast reactor at Xiapu, Fujian province, has officially begun with the pouring of the first concrete for the reactor's basemat. The reactor is scheduled to begin commercial operation by 2023. Based on this, a 600 MWe design - the CFR-600 - was developed by the China Institute of Atomic Energy. The Xiapu reactor will be a demonstration of that sodium-cooled pool-type fast reactor design. This will have an output of 1500 MW thermal power and 600 MW electric power. The reactor will use mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel with 100 GWd/t burnup, and will feature two coolant loops producing steam at 480°C. Later fuel will be metal with burnup of 100-120 GWd/t. The reactor will have active and passive shutdown systems and passive decay heat removal.

Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by Thomas

Sun, 14 Jan 2018 18:48:39 +0000

85 etc. Scott E Strough and Land Use Changes/Drivers and Reversing those drivers. You may find this paper , and especially the papers (know-how) it relies upon to calculate the impact of land use changes on global temps a useful measuring stick to highlight. eg Table 1. Contribution to total temperature change between 1800 and 2005 from each type of emissions. The total warming from CO2 emissions represents the sum of all individual country contributions, estimated based on the climate response to cumulative emissions. The total warming from methane, nitrous oxide and aerosol emissions were each estimated from climate model simulations driven by historical forcing pathways for each gas, and were allocated to individual countries as described in section 2. Category of emissions Warming (°C) Fossil fuel CO2 0.5 Land-use CO2 0.25 Methane 0.25 Nitrous Oxide 0.09 Aerosols −0.4 Total warming 0.7 The amount of land use co2 contribution is 50% of the total amount of fossil fuel co2. Surely it is patently obvious that anything which can help to reverse that ongoing Land Use driver, or return it back into a modern day CO2 Sink is a rational logically good thing to be working on. Logically it would also be somewhat a Double return for the "effort" involved - cutting ff use only cuts it, for it doesn't create a ff emissions sink. Adding renewable energy still has a positive ff use impact, for rewnewables are not a sick, but an offsetting. Stopping forest destruction reduces ongoing Land Use contribution, but anything that can restore the balance of Land Use activities which becomes both stopping additional CO2 contribution and simultaneously switches Land Use back into a sink will have a DOUBLE impact on "reducing net emissions". Like buy a big mac and get one free offer. Seems to me that cherry-picked, narrowly framed criticisms by the likes of by West and Briske are totally missing the point by totally ignoring the fact that Land Use changes have contributed to HALF the historical CO2 emissions of Fossil Fuel Use.... as well as the capacity of Land Sequestration globally and therefore the massive impact it can have by reversing those Drivers back into a sink. Be that by restoring global forests as net sinks or restoring the agricultural/pastoral land itself back to a net sink again. Smart people would be cheering any positive work in this area and not defaulting to be knee-jerk critics of it and refusing to even look into it properly and HOLISTICALLY while using BASIC MATHS and current scientific Knowledge. But here we are anyway. I'm not surprised one bit. Disappointed and angry about it sure, but it's unfortunately very understandable. people aren't that smart basically. And generally waaaaay too lazy and self-indulgent. Scientists are people too. Kinda goes with the territory. :-)

Comment on A brief review of rainfall statistics by Genetic testing in pakistan

Sun, 14 Jan 2018 15:37:57 +0000

Vectors are categorised as both viral or nonviral.

Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by Killian

Sun, 14 Jan 2018 11:58:14 +0000

I have tried to make others here aware our "nature" is not selfish and competitive, but cooperative. This is a prima facie argument, not a hippie-dippy idea, basedon a very simple fact: Tribal First Nations living in intact ancient ways live this way. I have also oft mentioned the Caral-Supe site of the Norte Chico civilization in Peru who were building pyramids around the same time as the Egyptians. Caral shows zero evidence of warfare or violence despite it's being by far the most advanced early civilization in the Americas. Here we have a different approach to this issue, but the same conclusion.

Comment on Unforced Variations: Jan 2018 by MA Rodger

Sun, 14 Jan 2018 10:51:47 +0000

Thomas @86, You ask if there is "a ‘science’ repository for (or a series/collection of published papers that addresses ) these kinds of climate change impacts already happening all over the world," with exemplars of "these kinds" given as jellyfish, toads and coral bleaching. To my knowledge there is not. A single phenomenon will be treated scientifically and many will have bold reviews of the global or regional state-of-play-so-far published from time to time. A few phenomenon (more the climatic ones than the eco ones) will have maintained catalogues (of variable usefulness). Non-scientifically, there are those fully reporting such events (folk like say EcoWatch) but they don't do much to fill in the blanks and they manage to mix it in with other reporting - certainly it is not catalogued. The IPCC AR5 Synthesis Report managed to report numbers of scientific papers on such subjects by region (in Fig 1.11) but I see no resulting catalogue in the public domain. So there is scientific work pointing in that direction but I have never met any of it actually arriving. I was reminded by your question of the 'catalogue' set up within Drijfhout et al (2015) but having tracked it down their Catagories/Types/Cases were all climate and less eco and future modelled events rather than actual events. Of course, the work required to catalogue extreme/exceptional events is massive while the value is not immediately apparent. And even when data is available, it doesn't necessarily easily translate into useful numbers. For instance, this NOAA web-page shows that over the last year (which was globally the second/third warmest on record, depending on the record, so certainly a warm year) there were globally more cold (max & min) records being broken than hot records, and that some places were record-breakingly wet/snowy although record dry spells are not so easy to enumerate and so absent. It also shows that the maximum daily temperatures are presently far more variable than minimum ones (which may be a matter of fact for any year). There is obviously a whole mass of useful data being accessed to provide these tables yet this attempt to provide something useful set out on a page has fallen short of the mark. Yet with a bit more work, it does become seriously informative as this contiguous US version demonstrates. (Although I would recommend adding some presentation of a couple of the indicators as a time series over the full record. It would improve that US page no end.)

Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by Killian

Sun, 14 Jan 2018 07:53:49 +0000

How can we commit sui-geno-ecocide? Let me count the ways...

Comment on Unforced Variations: Jan 2018 by James McDonald

Sun, 14 Jan 2018 07:11:30 +0000

Alastair @ 85: If it is all absorbed at lower levels then what happens higher up “is f*****g irrelevant”. Only if you completely ignore conservation of energy. CO2 can't just absorb energy ad infinitum without then re-emiting it. So anything going on with CO2 at low levels cannot possibly affect the total energy unless it redistributes photons that otherwise would escape to space. And that is exactly what CANNOT happen if the absorption is saturated, BY THE DEFINITION OF SATURATION. Any extra energy absorbed at low levels by added CO2 is exactly equal to the added energy then reemitted. A maze of mirrors would have the same effect -- both simply redistribute energy within the lower atmosphere. Neither magically creates energy from nothing. By contrast, extra CO2 at the top of the atmosphere captures and redistributes energy that otherwise would escape to space, and that DOES make a difference -- more energy is sent back to lower levels.

Comment on Unforced Variations: Jan 2018 by nigelj

Sat, 13 Jan 2018 20:42:18 +0000

"How Australia's extreme heat might be here to stay" Of course we all know climate change increases probability of heatwaves etc, but this comment is particularly interesting: "While it is record-breaking that tends to make news, scientists say it is the unbroken run of hot days in the high 30s and 40s that causes the significant problems for human health, and other life."It's not being able to cool down at night, and in the days that follow, that causes problems," he says. "I was camping in the Blue Mountains [west of Sydney] on Saturday night. It was about 30 degrees at midnight, and I could feel my heart racing. Now, that extra stress on my cardiovascular system didn't kill me, but it might have if I was 20 years older."