RealClimate logo


Unforced Variations: Apr 2021

Filed under: — group @ 1 April 2021

This month’s open thread for climate science discussions. Be nice, it’s Earth month.

361 Responses to “Unforced Variations: Apr 2021”

  1. 351
    Ray Ladbury says:

    Mr. KIA: “On imagination, the video lacked just that. Engineers and technology will pull our butts up off the hot sand so that AGW doesn’t kill us – we’ll be pulling large quantities of CO2 out of the air soon.”

    It always astounds me that the most anti-science idiots are the ones who believe most in technology. They look on technology as a magic wand they can wave at problems to make them go away. They do not realize that their ignorance of science poses a direct threat to the development of future technologies. How can a modern technological society survive when plagued with such Luddites.

  2. 352
    Ray Ladbury says:

    TM: “Pigs fly just fine with enough thrust.”

    That is why I prefer the analogy “when pigs floss.” It shows that it isn’t a technical problem, but rather that we are expecting them to do something antithetical to their nature.

  3. 353
    William B Jackson says:

    351 This is similar to the claims that coal can be made clean with scrubbers etc. Turns out is isn’t that easy and its costs a lot! But Mr. KIA is ever optimistic!

  4. 354
    nigelj says:

    KIA “Engineers and technology will pull our butts up off the hot sand so that AGW doesn’t kill us – we’ll be pulling large quantities of CO2 out of the air soon.”

    Kia probably imagines we can just go on burning fossil fuels, and technology will suck all that CO2 out of the atmosphere plus whats already there that we have added to date. He clearly has no concept of the volumes involved and the gigantic cost of trying to do that. And who does he expect to PAY for this sucking out of the air? And how will he MAKE them pay? Does he think the fossil fuel industry will just stick up its hand and say “we will pay”!

  5. 355
    CCHolley says:

    Ray Ladbury @351

    It always astounds me that the most anti-science idiots are the ones who believe most in technology. They look on technology as a magic wand they can wave at problems to make them go away. They do not realize that their ignorance of science poses a direct threat to the development of future technologies. How can a modern technological society survive when plagued with such Luddites.

    So true.

  6. 356
    MA Rodger says:

    Piotr @348,
    If you haven’t grasped the situation yet, I am generally no longer taking heed of any comment you present as in recent weeks such response has resulted in this thread being clogged with your pedantic nonsense which are seemingly set out with the sole purpose of showing how you are always entirely right and everybody else is always entirely wrong. In such circumstance it appears sensible to me not to feed the pedant.
    I hope you will be able to grasp why I do not wish to engage with the comments you aim at me and thus be able to refrain from making them.

  7. 357
    Killian says:

    351 Ray Ladbury says:
    30 Apr 2021 at 7:19 AM

    How can a modern technological society survive when plagued with such Luddites.

    Luddites were neither anti-science nor anti-technology, they were like the robotics-fearing workers of today: They were not concerned with the advancement of technology, but protested the application of technology to make them jobless.

  8. 358

    K 348: Taxes don’t fund anything. They destroy money and reduce money supply.

    BPL: That would come as a surprise to recipients of social security.

  9. 359
    Hank Roberts says:

    > protested the application of technology to make them jobless.

    That’s a political platform I’ve heard a lot about lately, arguing that reducing industrial production of fossil fuels would put people out of work.

  10. 360
    Piotr says:

    MA Rodger (348) “ If you haven’t grasped the situation yet

    Oooo, I have a bad feeling, it sound … really ominous …

    MAR: I am generally no longer taking heed of any comment you

    When the going gets tough the tough get going ? ;-) I guess I’ll have to learn to live with that, as I have already with Killian’s, KIA’s and other McGuffins generally no longer taking heed of any my comments. [the corners of Piotr’s lips beginning to quiver, he breaks down, big tears rolling down his cheeks]: Uuuooooh, who am I kidding? How on Earth could I live without your insightful comments?, But I guess, we will always have Minnett… :-)

    MAR: “this thread being clogged with your pedantic nonsense

    Amazing! Killian had the same reaction to seeing his claims questioned with falsifiable arguments: cut those arguments, justify that by calling me “pedantic”(“you’re a nasty, uselessly pedantic little [ankle]-biter […] rabid chihuahua“), repeat his own claims, as if repeat made them stronger, and left in a huff, saying how he is above discussing with me. The great minds do indeed think alike!

    MAR “ are seemingly set out with the sole purpose of showing how you are always entirely right and everybody else is always entirely wrong

    Since you and Killian can’t understand the implications of the papers you rely on, I am not surprised that you would also misinterpret the motivations of your RC adversaries. And perhaps project your motivations onto others?

    ==================================================

    P.S. As for tmarvell question – my response that adding salt to water increases its volume was proven with calculations, while the effect of redistribution of the salt already in the water column was explained and illustrated with an experimental pictures: melting of floating ice increases sealevel.

    The latter was to challenge the fallacy, common not only climate change deniers but also many non-deniers (including me a few years back) that claims that melting of the floating sea-ice has zero direct effect of water volume and therefore on the sea level.

    MARodger response was to … quote himself that “dissolving of salt into water has zero direct impact on volume” and his entire proof was to call on van Lopik et al (2015), that …. do not support his claims.

    You choose which of the two arguments is more believable.

  11. 361
    Adam Lea says:

    The UK has copped yet another destructive locked in weather pattern this year.

    After a mild/warm spell at the end of March I started cultivating my allotment, planting potatoes and sowing carrots in April. Little did I know that we were about to experience the frostiest April for 100 years thanks to the jet stream getting locked in position south of the UK leaving us stuck under cold air masses combined with persistent high pressure, with frosts as or more frequent than an average winter. Needless to say none of my 50 or so potatoes have grown and none of my carrots germninated (except the ones I sowed in the greenhouse). Now we have moved into May and we are about to move from cold and bone dry to cold and soaking wet, with gales and up to two inches of rain forecast at the tail end of the bank holiday.

    The problem with these once in a lifetime meteorological events is they seem to be happening virtually every other year. Over the last 15 years I have experienced the coldest winter month for 100 years, some of the hottest summer heatwaves on record, the wettest summer months on record, the stormiest winter for goodness knows how long, one of the longest spells of drought for decades, the hottest summer since at least 1976, the wettest February on record, one of the driest and sunniest springs on record last year and the wettest calendar day over the country on record last October. I don’t know how to make my allotment more resiliant to extremes like this, but I will need to come up with something if this is all a manifestation of a changing climate.