Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Twitter Facebook YouTube Mastodon MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Comments 451 to 500:

  1. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    Rabelt @ 34:

    Once again, you have nothing more than your eycrometer of patterns. You continue to ignore any sort of analysis that actually looks at the physics of the carbon cycle.

  2. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    Rabelt:

    Where is your explanation of exactly what "the main narrative" is?

    Until you actually provide a coherent argument, there is no counter-argument to present.

  3. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    Bob Loblaw,

    Let me explain your own field of expertise: Delta C13 starts decreasing around 1750 and continues to decrease ever since, the main narrative blames it on FF.

    I see that the human emissions are too low for the mayority of this 270 years period, as we can see in the cumulative and yearly emissions.

    I also see that even though the emissions multiply by tens and hundreds of times the speed of Delta C13 decreasing doesnt show any meaningful acceleration.

    You use the wildcard "Carbon Cycle", as if that explains something; supposedly this wildcard is able to produce massive amount of co2 with a "deficit" in C13 to compensate the 1750-1850 yearly emissions, as the emission from this years are 0.048 GT of CO2 per year on average with a max of 0.2 GT in 1850, while also making the decline of Delta C13 steady from 1750-1950, even though the yearly emissions have multiplied from 0.01 GT of CO2 per year to 6 GT of CO2 per year.

    This also happens during the 1960-2015 period in which the decrease of Delta C13 is quite steady even while the yearly emissions change from 9 GT of CO2 per year to 35 GT of CO2 per year.

  4. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    Bob Loblaw,

    So you dont have an argument so you evade the topic, great.

    Again no argument so you avoid responding to you putting words in my mouth and not responding to the strawmaning mentioning the "Carbon cycle" as if it was so kind of deity, I am sure you are of much help in the debate. If you are gonna accuse me of not understanding the effects of the Carbon Cycle in Delta C13 I would like to see a quote or a set of specific pages, not a extremely vague statement that mentions the entirety of the concept "Carbon Cycle".

    So follow to you means caused, got it, it is my fault for expecting a minimum of comprehension; still I already said that there had to be a natural process that changed co2 concentrations and Delta C13, not sure why you continue to not read it.

    Didnt adress any point just wanted to score another "debate bro" point using that joke called FLICC, debate the argument not your ego, please, and thank you. We even have a name for people like you, imagine how unoriginal your tactics of debate are.

    "I am talking about emissions not co2 concentrations" It is not directed at you, but following (not causing) another line of debate with another person, but using your own fantasies now I am gonna start accusing the author of this post of believing that co2 concentrations causes changes in Delta C13, because mister Bob teached me how I am supposed to read others people words.

  5. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    Rabelt @ 28: "quote which part I said anything dismissive about the carbon cycle."

    The fact that you say virtually nothing coherent at all about it - when it is essential to understanding the graph/data you criticize - is all the evidence that is needed.

    @ 29: "I love how the guy putting words in my mouth is acussing me of strawmaning his arguments,"

    I am not accusing you of strawmanning my arguments - you have strawmanned "the main narrative" (in the context of what climate science - e.g., the IPCC - has said). If you want to provide a counter-argument, you need to give a thorough explanation of "the main narrative" (including the carbon cycle). Until you provide actual evidence that you have at least a basic level of understanding the carbon cycle (not just an assertion), then you're just blowing smoke.

    Also @ 29: "Quote my comments and explain why they follow your supposed "logical consequences"

    I did quote you, in my comment 19.

    You finish with "I said Delta changes previous to human emissions following co2 concentration not FF emissions as there were none, and the ones that existed were accountable for insignificant amounts of co2." The way you have worded this suggests that you think that either CO2 concentration changes cause C13 changes ("delta changes ... following CO2 concentration"), or that C13 changes cause CO2 concentration changes ("delta ... accountable for ... CO2").

    You have not responded directly to that, to provide any sort of clarification or indicate what you really meant. Yet you come back with "Again, never said co2 concentrations cause changes in Delta C13..." From this view, it looks as if you are just dodging the question.

    And now you are stating "Differences in the carbon cycle are expected, yet only are accepted if they dont contradict the main narrative,"

    Congratulations. You have now scored a third point on FLICC - the 5 techniques of science denial. - Conspiracy theories.

    Since you clearly are unable to actual specify what "the main narrative" is, your speculation about what contradicts it is not worth the electrons used to transmit it.

    And finally, @ 30 "I am talking about emissions not co2 concentrations"

    Yet the graph that you began this whole flood of nonsense over is a graph that shows two things as a function of time: CO2 concentrations, and C13 isotope ratios. There is no coherence or consistency to what you say. Buy a clue please: CO2 concentrations, CO2 emissions, CO2 uptake - all are part of the carbon cycle that you keep dismissing. Oh,, sorry - not "dismissing" but just "ignoring".

  6. wilddouglascounty at 00:59 AM on 18 October 2023
    With whales in trouble, conservationists, fishers, and others team up to protect them

    Thank you for this example of cooperation and collective effort. More spotlights should be directed to these types of examples showing the power of working together: it's really what makes the world go around.

    Too bad so much money making is based on riling people up into opposing camps! We've kinda blown the positive potential of the internet by building our algorithms on the fact that fight or flight is a more reliable attention getting device than examples of community building and cooperation.

  7. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    Rob Honeycutt,

    I am talking about emissions not co2 concentrations.

  8. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    Rabelt... "...yet the annual and cumulative emissions are too small to create any perceptible change..."

    By what method are you making this determination? When I look at the graph I see a clear and proportional correlation between the two. 

  9. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    Bob Loblaw,

    I love how the guy putting words in my mouth is acussing me of strawmaning his arguments, 10/10.

    Quote my comments and explain why they follow your supposed "logical consequences", just saying it again, as you dont show the ability to read the comments I am posting.

    "You see a correlation over the period 1750-1860, and then expect to see the exact same response at later times" During this entire period is a stable trend downwards, yet emissions during this period are incapable of generating such a trend. This is only one of the multiple periods I talked.

    Again, never said co2 concentrations cause changes in Delta C13, I even said that there had to be other natural mechanism capable of producing this effect. What a great ability to read.

    Differences in the carbon cycle are expected, yet only are accepted if they dont contradict the main narrative, unless you wanna say that the decrease during the beginning of the industrial revolution was natural, which I completely agree.

    Again another fantasy about what I belive or think, saying I am trying to invalidate climate science, I only talked about 1 specific thing but the entire field will crumble to the ground for just this specific inconsistency, what a joke of an argument.

    Sorry to say that your ability to read degrades quite quickly, I never said you didnt have knowledge on the carbon cycle, I said you didnt have any authority to say what the main narrative states, and I was right, as you are just another of the thousands of people that provide research and not a spokesman or director of the main organizations.

  10. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    Michael Sweet,

    Again for the 50th time, I have never said that the carbon cycle is irrelevant, inexistent or not worth being mentioned, on the contrary, yet for some reason 3 of you have repeated the same dumb statements like it addresses anything I said; quote which part I said anything dismissive about the carbon cycle.

    I worry about your ability to see, if you are saying the 1000-1800 period is flat, there is multiple trends that vary from increase to decrease, those trends fit Delta C13 with co2 concentrations, not emissions; for industrial periods (1750-2015) we can see 3 main trends, 1750-1900, 1900-1960 and 1960-2015, this 3 trends periods encompass multiple different trends in co2 emissions

  11. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    Rabelt:

    Again, you are saying "I never said..", and avoiding the logical consequences of what you are saying.

    The conversation has all the hallmarks of the following sequence:

    A person says:

    • A = 3
    • B = 8
    • C = A+B

    Someone else says "So, you are claiming that C =  11?

    And the first person says "I never said that C = 11. Stop putting words in my mouth."

    You keep referring to "the main narrative". Unfortunately, what you have written here tells me that your idea of  "the main narrative" is pretty much a strawman. I don't think you have any clue how the carbon cycle works, how different carbon isotopes fit into that cycle and why they would change over time.

    Your comment at 23 illustrates this very well. You see a correlation over the period 1750-1860, and then expect to see the exact same response at later times. You seem incapable of realizing the following:

    • There is no direct cause-effect between C13 ratios and atmospheric CO2 levels. They are part of the same large carbon cycle, but one does not cause the other, regardless of any fantasies you have about "the main narrative". As long as you ignore all the indirect connections (known as "the carbon cycle"), you will continue get everything wrong.
    • The different time periods have different conditions, different fluxes, and different relative important of atmospheric inputs and sinks of carbon as a result, they would be expected to show slight differences in the patterns.
    • Your overly-simplsitic "I see with my little eye..." analysis is telling us nothing about the global carbon cycle. Where you see inconsistencies you think can't be explained (because you won't look) and invalidate climate science, climate science sees the carbon cycle working as expected (because they have looked).

    You are hitting two of the five main components of FLICC - the 5 technicques of science denial:

    • Logical fallacies [your misunderstanding of "the main narrative" is just one]
    • Impossible expectations [your overly-simplistic view of what you think should be happening, and your belief that this disproves something]

    FYI, yes I have some authority with respect to carbon cycles, having been involved in analysis of forest carbon cycles and storage, and having my name on several publications related to that. You can read more about my background on the SkS Team page.

  12. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    Rabelt,

    If we decide to not consider most of what scientists know about the carbon cycle, for example by not considering fossil fuels, volcanoes, the ocean and terrestrial plants, than it is difficult to explain why the carbon 13 is changing.  When we consider all that is already known, the explaination for the change in C-13 is that it comes from burning fossil fuels.  There is no reason to only consider a fraction of scientific knowledge in our discussion.

    Looking at the graph in the OP, I see that before 1800 the concentration of C-13 is flat.  You are imagining that you see strong correlations between the carbon concentration and the delta C-13.  After 1800 the C-13 dramatically changes.  I do not underestand why you think this conplete change from the previous flat line is not significant.  The change in C-13 content cannot be from volcanoes or outgassing from the ocean.  The only option left is that the C-13 comes from fossil fuels.

    Keep in mind that scientists have measured the C-13 content of the air going back much further in time, a couple of hundred thousand years.  The only time in the past 400,000 years when there is a dramatic change in the C-13  content of the air in is the last 200 years.  

    The graph shows that the concentration of C-13 in the atmosphere changed dramatically around 1800.  That is when widespread use of fossil fuels started.  The C-13 change excludes a volcanic source of the CO2 and also excludes ocean outgassing.

  13. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    John Mason,

    Can you guys stop fantasizing what I am saying and inventing what I believe? I am not saying that I have a theory on how the changes in Delta C13 are happening, I am criticizing that the main narrative is giving an absolute as if they have a perfect theory when it can not explain its own proxy.

    NEVER SAID ANY REASON AS TO WHY IS HAPPENING, STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH, NO VOLCANOES, NO OCEAN, NO NOTHING, RESPOND TO MY COMMENTS EXCLUSIVELY.

  14. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    Rabelt - The mantle typically has a δ13C of about −5‰, so volcanogenic CO2 emissions can be expected to carry a similar fingerprint. Biosphere carbon is much lighter e.g. in coals, Suto & Kawashima (2016) found −27.4‰ to −23.7‰ (from a sample population of 95 coals from 10 countries). So widespread burning of either vegetation or fossil fuel can be expected to cause a light carbon 'excursion' in the isotope record - and that's what we see. Fig. 3 explains.

    Ref:

    Suto, N., & Kawashima, H. (2016). Global mapping of carbon isotope ratios in coal. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 167, 12-19.

  15. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    Rob Honeycutt,

    During the period 1750-1850, more specifically 1750-1860, there is the start of the industrial revolution as the IPCC says (1750) to 1860, an arbitrary point of time that I am using because the cumulative co2 emissions reach the 7.8 GT of co2 necessary to increase the co2 concentrations 1 ppm, also because its 100 years roughly; during this period there is a downward trend, yet the annual and cumulative emissions are too small to create any perceptible change, so it seems strange that we can see that trend and we can see that following periods, such as 1850-1900 and 1900-1950, show a very similar trend yet the annual and cumulative emissions are tens to hundreds of times bigger; I would expect a faster trend the bigger the emissions, not a 1 to 1, but there is no big change that correlates them.

  16. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    Bob Loblaw,

    You dont have any authority to say what the main narrative says, so I will continue using the main narrative (IPCC, NASA, CSIRO, etc) as the argument I am debating, not your fantasy.

    Delta C13 is a measure that follows the emissions spectrum from human activities, there is no exact correlation indeed, that is what I am arguing, that it doesnt even follow a trend, it follows the co2 concentrations, If we look at the period 1000-1750 (pre-industrial), we can see variations in co2 concentrations are followed by Delta changes, when we look at the other periods, that you are incapable of addressing, we see the same behaviour, Delta follows co2 concentrations not emissions; the narrative from IPCC and similar say that Delta should follow the trends in co2 emissions.

    You continue to mention sources that respond and address nothing I say, they dont explain the difference in trends from Delta and co2 emissions, they are explaining the same things as this post (part 1 and 2); Part 1 is irrelevant to the trends in Delta and co2 emissions as it is a physics class, nothing else, maybe read the post and then comment, it would help.

    Your interpretation of my statements is irrelevant to what was written in them; I never said the period 1000-1800 is related to post 1800 periods, I exclusively talked about the relation in co2 concentrations and Delta trends in that 800 years period, that you cant read or comprehend is not my problem. Quote the specific part where I said what you accuse me of saying.

    The Carbon cycle can affect co2 concentrations and Delta C13, yet your narrative dismiss this and exclusively accuses the change to FF, from 1750-1860 the cumulative CO2 emissions are 8 GT, or the equivalent to 1 ppm, while the change in co2 concentrations was 9 ppm, that presents a mechanism that is not human action that can, and does, change the values and trends from Delta C13 and co2 concentrations.

  17. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    Rabelt... Maybe think of it this way: If burning fossil fuels was primarily responsible for the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, based on physics, the prediction would be that there should be an inverse relationship with C13 levels.

    The period prior to 1800 is merely the background state prior to the industrial revolution.

  18. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    Rabelt... "If FF was the only/main reason for the changes in Delta, why is the period 1750-1850 visible?"

    Why is it visible? Can you explain more clearly what you're thinking here?

  19. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    Frankly, Rabelt, you are not making any sense. You are throwing out vague assertions, and you are not providing any logical argument for those assertions.

    Carbon cycles are not interpreted solely on the basis of correlations, which is essentially all that you have referred to.

    You state "..that Delta C13 is a precise indicator of FF usage...", which clearly shows that you do not understand what C13 ratios tell us. As I explained, it is one small piece of the puzzle, and it is combined with additional information to draw conclusions. You seem to expect a perfect correlation - but if you understood why C13 ratios change (different sources and sinks over time), then you would realize how the specific C isotope characteristics of different sources can help us identify which sources are active.

    I have provided additional links to places that will explain it to you, and all you can say is that you think part 1 is irrelevant. I see no evidence that you have understood anything in part 1, or any indication that you have bothered to read any of the other links I provided.

    You also state "I have never said that because there was change before any other change is normal/justified in nature", but that is essentially the logical consequence of what you say. Read Michael Sweet's comment at 10. You are assuming that behaviour patterns of C13 ratios and CO2 concentrations prior to 1800 must follow the same variations that occur once fossil fuel sources are added to the mix. Any argument that you make includes the logical consequences of what  you state, whether you state it explicitly or not.

    You finish with "I said Delta changes previous to human emissions following co2 concentration not FF emissions as there were none, and the ones that existed were accountable for insignificant amounts of co2." The way you have worded this suggests that you think that either CO2 concentration changes cause C13 changes ("delta changes ... following CO2 concentration"), or that C13 changes cause CO2 concentration changes ("delta ... accountable for ... CO2"). This is not even wrong. Both CO2 changes and C13 ratios are the result of other factors in the global carbon cycle. As long as you persist in ignoring the carbon cycle overall, you will be doomed to drawing erroneous conclusions.

  20. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    "or that FF dont have an effect on Delta C13" Sorry, I meant: "or that FF does have an effect on Delta C13"

  21. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    Bob Loblaw,

    Delta C13 is the fingerprint left by FF, if the fingerprint doesnt match then one of the assumptions is wrong: that Delta C13 is a precise indicator of FF usage or that FF dont have an effect on Delta C13, we know the latter true, so it has to be the former. The proof to this is that even using the cumulative co2 gives you a too small amount to affect Delta C13 in any meaningful way, the period specifically is 1750-1850, physically impossible in fact.

    I have never said that because there was change before any other change is normal/justified in nature, I said Delta changes previous to human emissions following co2 concentration not FF emissions as there were none, and the ones that existed were accountable for insignificant amounts of co2.

  22. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    Bob Loblaw,

    I would appreciate if people started to read the comments they are responding to, because I already answered your "response", plus I treated more than 1 period (1000-1800). In fact I used the 1000-1800, 1750-1850, 1850-1900 and the 1960s-2010s periods.

    There is not a single thing from part 1 that is relevant to this part 2, and all the relevant points are adressed again in this part.

    Please next time refer to my comments not to a fantasy you decided to dismantle, thank you.

  23. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    Rabelt @ 9, 11, 13, and 14:

    You are really missing the big picture on carbon isotope ratios. The C13 levels alone are not "proof" that the fossil fuels are causing the atmospheric rise in CO2 - they are one line of evidence that rules out other sources. You are over-interpreting what you are reading here (or elsewhere).

    This post is titled "Part 2". I suggest that you also read Part 1. It gives essential background about how isotope ratios differ across C12, C13, and C14, depending on the source.

    You should also read Climate Change Cluedo. Steps 4 and 5 note the significance of changing C14 and C13 levels. To quote,

    • Declining C14 ratio indicates the source is very old, hence fossil fuel or volcanic (ie, not oceanic outgassing or a recent biological source);
    • Declining C13 ratio indicates a biological source, hence not volcanic;

    Isotope ratios are also discussed on How we know human CO2 emissions have disrupted the carbon cycle, and on What is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    The caption on figure 3, which states that declining C13 ratios tell us it is fossil fuel combustion should really be interpreted as "the declining C13 ratio tells us that it is not volcanic. Since volcanoes are the only other possible source of C14-depleted carbon, the only remaining explanation is fossil fuels".

    And none of those explanations require that C13 ratios be solely dependent on fossil fuel combustion. Figure 3 shows that for 800 years, C13 ratios were only slightly variable, and have now changed significantly once fossil fuel combustion began.

    Your argument that "it changed before, so it can't be fossil fuels now" is just a peculiar flavour of the general "climate's changed before" myth that is number one on the hit parade listed on the upper left of every SkS page.

    Just because you don't know of or understand an explanation does not mean that there isn't one.

  24. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    Rob Honeycutt,

    If FF was the only/main reason for the changes in Delta, why is the period 1750-1850 visible? If the cumulative co2 was just 5Gt, thats not even a full point increase in the co2 ppm, the reduction in Delta should be insignificant; for reference the drop from 1850-1900 is smaller but the cumulative co2 is 45Gt, 9 times greater

  25. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    Rob Honeycutt,

    I am no saying that FF had/has no effect, just saying that our ability to give a good estimate in the human part of this effect is laking at best, when we cant explain with any consistency the behaviour of the data.

  26. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    Rabelt... I don't think it's the correlation alone that makes the basis of this piece of evidence. It's the basic physics in conjunction with the correlation. Say, the cause of warming was something other than burning FF's. In that case you'd expect to not see such a correlation.

  27. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    michael sweet,

    You don't see how delta c13 changes with the co2 concentrations, from 1000-1800? During this 800 years there is no emissions or they are negligible, in terms of yearly emissions and cumulative.

    Ignoring that problem with the theory of changes in delta = emissions, we have the problem of a steady decrease, in delta, from the 1960s to the 2010s, which do not match the increase in emissions, nor the accelerating growth of co2 concentrations.

  28. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    Rabelt,

    I don't see your point.  The graph of delta CO2 clearly shows that around 1800, the start of increasing fossil fuel use, the amount of C13 in the atmosphere changes dramatically.  Before 1800 there are small shifts in the ratio.  These shifts seem to correlate with small changes in total CO2.  After 1800 the delta C13 goes way down; much, much more than anything before 1800.  Are you comparing the small changes before 1800 to the very large changes after 1800 and saying that the small changes indicate the very large changes are natural?  The changes are so different in magnitude that you need to provide an explaination why they are so different.  The scientific explaination is they are different because of fossil fuel use.

  29. From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

    In this post there is a graphic of co2 concentrations and delta carbon 13 that "proves" human emissions cause co2 increases, it seems disingenuous taking into account that prior to 1800 human emissions were null or insignificant yet the value in delta carbon 13 changes, following co2 concentrations not emissions.

  30. PollutionMonster at 21:20 PM on 16 October 2023
    CO2 limits will harm the economy

    One Planet Only Forever @118

    Thank you for the thoughtful post, I am looking into buying/borrowing the book you mentioned. :)

  31. Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41 2023

    There is no "the answer." The concept is found as both an accidental and intentional cognitive short circuit, depending on circumstances. 

    Among the range of "it's not a simple question" there are answers that are ephemeral (fossil fuels, not useful for completing another 5,000 years of attempting to be civilized) and more decently reliable (the fortuitous nearby fusion reactor). 

    Meanwhile, let's not forget: "Climate change evangelists" = "people who accept physics as a means of predicting certain possible features of the future."

    Personally, I'll enthusiastically evangelize that people not accidentally or intentionally hit themselves in the face with a hammer, or change the impedance of the atmosphere's impedance of certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation in a broadly harmful way. Both involve physics as a means of improving outcomes. With regard to the latter, what used to be an accident is now to some degree intentional, something that seems increasingly stupid the more people insist on persisting with that choice. 

     

  32. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #41

    Berkeley Earth also has temperature updates on a monthly basis. The graphics for each month include maps showing where the monthly temperatures are in the 5 hottest or 5 coldest values in the record.

    I wonder if Davz can tell us where on these maps we'll find the UK?

    BEST June 2023

    BEST July 2023

    BEST August 2023

    BEST September 2023

  33. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #41

    And just to pre-bunk Davz' claim... 

  34. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #41

    Davz... I'm not sure there's a point to explaining it to you since you never stick around long enough to listen or discuss any issue. You merely make drive-by comments and disappear.

  35. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #41

    Can you explain why it's been the coldest summer on record in the UK?

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Such blatant, unsupported, erroneous claims are not welcome here. There is no need for anyone to "explain" something that has not happened.

    In comment #3, Rob Honeycutt has posted data that shows that your claim is not true. In addition, a simple web search provides reports that contradict your claim, such as:

    Record-breaking June temperatures means that the UK has had one of its ten warmest summers on record, despite an unsettled July and August, according to provisional Met Office figures. Meteorological summer 2023 was the eighth warmest on record by mean temperature, thanks largely to June’s record breaking temperatures, in a series which dates back to 1884.

     

    Warning:

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

    If you wish to continue posting here, your habit of drive-by statements with little supporting evidence and no responses to criticism will not be allowed. Unless you return to this thread and do at least one of the following, any future posts will be subject to deletion with a pointer back to unfinished business here.

    • Admit that your above statement is wrong.
    • Provide supporting evidence of your statement, in the form of
      • a clear definition of the area you refer to as "the UK",
      • a clear indication of the period of time you consider to be "summer",
      • a clear indication of the period of time your claim of a "record" covers,
      • and a link to the source of data that you have used to draw your conclusion.

     

  36. Clouds provide negative feedback

    Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on October 15, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance

  37. Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41 2023

    Davz... Is this another drive-by posting or are you willing to discuss this issue in a substantive manner? 

  38. Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41 2023

    Davz @1

    "Solar and wind power is not the answer purely down to cost. In the uk there is currently approx 12 thousand wind generators supplying between 5% to 20% of requirements dependant on velocity of the wind. Much of the energy created is lost as there is little requirement for energy at night.To save the energy would require a significant investment in batterie. "

    Some wind power is wasted at night but it's the same with gas and coal fired power, so its a weak reason to criticise wind power. However if demand is low at night some wind generators (and gas generators etc) are typically switched off so not much power is wasted. So no batteries are needed. You have been told this several times before.

    "The uk would need approximately 100,000 wind generators and batteries, this will cost a minimum of triple the UK's Gdp, completely unaffordable for the UK and completely unaffordable for the consumer, facts that completely ignored by not just environmentallists, climate change evangelists but also govt, who are just waking up to the reality, hence the govt postponing the transition to Ev's"

    The average cost of wind turbines is about 1 million pounds so you need 100,000 equals 100 billion pounds. The Uks gdp each year is 2.2 trillion pounds and triple this is 4.6 trillion pounds. Its very difficult to believe batteries would cost over 4 trillion pounds and you provide no evidence they would.

    Another alternative is to rely on an overbuild of wind power,  so rely purely on wind power with no battery backup. This means you have to assume 12,000 generators operating at the the lowest wind velocity thus providing only 5% of power. To provide 100% of power this is about 200,000 wind turbines, so this is a total cost of 200 billion pounds. This is far less than 4.6 trillion pounds, even allowing for cost escalation, other grid infrastructure like transmission lines, etc, etc.

    So your numerical claims just dont look credible.

    In reality you would actually combine some level of overbuild of the wind power and some battery backup.

    The government  is more likely postponing the transition to Ev's because they are a right wing conservative government, and such governments globally have a track record of doing as little as possible about climate change.

  39. Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41 2023

    Solar and wind power is not the answer purely down to cost.  In the uk there is currently approx 12 thousand wind generators supplying between 5% to 20% of requirements dependant on velocity of the wind.  Much of the energy created is lost as there is little requirement for energy at night.  To save the energy would require a significant investment in batterie.  The uk would need approximately 100,000 wind generators and batteries, this will cost a minimum of triple the UK's Gdp, completely unaffordable for the UK and completely unaffordable for the consumer, facts that completely ignored by not just environmentallists, climate change evangelists but also govt, who are just waking up to the reality, hence the govt postponing the transition to Ev's

  40. Antarctica is gaining ice

    Suggested supplemental reading:

    Forty percent of Antarctica’s ice shelves are shrinking, worrying scientists by Kasha Patel, Environment, Washington Post, Oct 12, 2023

  41. Antarctica is too cold to lose ice

    Suggested supplemental reading:

    Forty percent of Antarctica’s ice shelves are shrinking, worrying scientists by Kasha Patel, Environment, Washington Post, Oct 12, 2023

  42. One Planet Only Forever at 09:18 AM on 12 October 2023
    American society wasn’t always so car-centric. Our future doesn’t have to be, either

    nigelj is correct that 'modern city building' has most unfortunately been based on 'car culture'. That has put all those 'car fuelled developments' at a competitive disadvantage. Owning and operating a car is a significant cost (a pick-up truck is even costlier) that is not suffered by people living in a '15 minute city'.

    The concept referred to as the '15 minute city' does not require personal vehicle ownership. NPR's Climate Week included the following article about the 15 minute city concept: "It's a global climate solution — if it can get past conspiracy theories and NIMBYs". It also presented the following similar article as part of its Climate set of articles: "The '15-minute city' could limit global warming — if it can counter misinformation"

    The absurdity of claims made about the pursuit of '15 minute city' redevelopment by people fighting against learning to be less harmful and more helpful would be amusing if they were not so absurdly popular. And it is particularly nasty that some of the arguments against the helpful harm reducing redevelopment are fuelled by the desire of people in 'isolated un-diverse suburbs' to 'not have those other types - the poorer people - living among them'.

  43. One Planet Only Forever at 05:52 AM on 12 October 2023
    CO2 limits will harm the economy

    PollutionMonster @117,

    As a Professional Engineer with an MBA who is interested in ‘actually sustainable’ human development, particularly the sustainable improvement of living conditions for everyone who suffers a less than a basic decent life, I agree with your concerns. But solving the climate change problem is more complex.

    Carbon pricing, cap and trade (and related carbon offsets) are potentially helpful actions within the currently developed socioeconomic political systems. Those measures can motivate people be less harmful. But note that Carbon Fees are harder to evade or manipulate than Cap and Trade or carbon offsets. Also rebating Carbon Fees can be helpful, more helpful if more rebate goes to lower income people (no rebate to high income people).

    There is plenty of evidence to justify concerns about individuals or organizations (like companies or political groups) trying to benefits by being more harmful and less helpful because that is often easier and cheaper. ‘Pursuit of self interest’ can motivate people to evade or fight against things like fees, fines, restrictions, or programs paid for by taxes that are related to getting people to be less harmful or more helpful. That evasion and fighting includes unjustified demands for more freedom to believe and do as they please.

    Also, it is important to understand that the required objective is ending the accumulation of global climate change impacts (and reducing the likely excessive harm done by delayed reduction of unnecessary harm by the most fortunate), not just reducing the rate that it is happening. And, ethically, that objective has to be achieved while sustainably improving the living conditions for all of the less fortunate people. A major challenge to achieving that objective is getting all of the people who enjoy better than basic decent lives to help end the harmful unnecessary activities they enjoy benefiting from.

    Carbon pricing measures may not achieve the required result of altering the actions of all of the most harmful people, even if the price is very high. Some of the most harmful higher status people will delay the required correction by abusing misinformation to gain support for their fight against costs and restrictions on harmful things they benefit from. In addition, the most fortunate will be able to pay the higher price and claim that that justifies their continuing to be unnecessarily harmful.

    A nasty complexity of Carbon Pricing is the many ways that it can negatively impact people who need assistance to sustainably develop to live basic decent lives. And richer people will fight against paying more to help those who need assistance. They try to evade changing by complaining that measures to end climate change impacts will hurt the poor. What they do not admit is that the more fortunate need to do more to help the least fortunate sustainably develop basic decent livings while the more fortunate give up benefiting from more damaging, but cheaper and easier, ways to unnecessarily obtain more benefits.

    This is an age-old systemic problem. And Matthew Stewart presents it well in "The 9.9 Percent". His evidence-based book (loads of references) explains how the most powerful 0.1% unjustifiably win with harmful unjustified support from the rest of the top 10% (the 9.9%), and are excused by a portion of the remaining 90% that divisively fights with misunderstanding trying to become 'higher-status' like the top 10%. It is a developed systemic problem. In a nut-shell the required corrections compromise the ability of the undeserving among the top 0.1 Percent (in wealth and power) to be supported and excused by the rest of the top 10% or any of the 90%. Note: 0.1% of the current global population is 8 million. And 10% is 800 million. Essentially every nation, corporation, and political group is influenced by undeserving trouble-makers.

    So, it is justified to be concerned about ‘harmful cheaters’. However, a key challenge is increased awareness and understanding of the magnitudes of harmful influence. All people, companies, political groups, or nations are not equally harmful or helpful. And they can all change to be less harmful and more helpful (note that people who are less fortunate can be excused for being more harmful and less helpful). The important difference is how hard people, and the organizations they are part of, try to be less harmful and more helpful. More fortunate people who fight hardest against the undeniable required corrections need to be the focus of concern.

  44. At a glance - How reliable are CO2 measurements?

    Atmospheric CO2 has been measured at Cape Grim in Tasmania for the last 50 years where there has been no volcanic activity for at least hundreds of thousands of years. See:LINK. Results are similar to those obtained at Mauna Loa.

    Moderator Response:

    [RH] Activated link

  45. American society wasn’t always so car-centric. Our future doesn’t have to be, either

    Our cities have mostly been designed around the automobile. I agree that its not inevitable that we base our transport system on the automobile, but we have thus far and the end result is we have desined  cities with certain activities zoned and grouped together for practical reasons, and so we typically live in suburbs quite long distances from our places of work, the shops, the entertainment, the farms.We have become frighteningly reliant on automobiles, trucks and buses etc,etc to make this system work.

    It seems unlikely to me that we can keep this system going indefinitely at large scale because of the pollution and load it puts on the earths resource base. Its just not very sustainable. Evs are an improvement on ICE cars but dont solve all the problems.

    The walkable city concept has been proposed as a solution( easily googled but one source below) .

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15-minute_city

    I've heard this expressed as everyhting should ideally be within comfortable walking or cycling distance, so your place of work, the shops, the doctors and dentists, ideally even the farms. This means you dont need a car unless you have special needs. We would presumably still need some cars for emergency services, travel between cities etc,etc and during the transition phase to walkable cities -  and better that they are EV's.

    And I can see the walkable city working for office workers but it would be more challenging to deal with industry. Although China have designed entire new industrial cities so that housing is grouped quite close to the places of work within cycling distance.

    And there is the issue of our food sources. Do we continue to live in large centralised cities remote from our food sources? Or should we move back to a small town model where everyone can walk or cycle to the farms?

    Most existing cities are designed around the car and assuming we stay living  within these cities, physically changing them to make them even partly walkable cities will clearly be a big undertaking. But we have to start somewhere, because its not plausible for billions of cars to be made and this continued indefinitely, and walkable cities have multiple benefits.

    The question is whether we are proactive and push things slowly towards a walkable city (of some sort), or we do nothing and wait until scarcity of materials forces a collapse of our transport system and makes the transition to a walkable city urgent and more painful to achieve. I hope for the former, but my cynical side thinks the later.

  46. PollutionMonster at 22:48 PM on 6 October 2023
    CO2 limits will harm the economy

    I had some concerns about a cap and trade program and carbon tax. Is this simply a form of greenwashing or will this actually work?

    I worry that companies which already find lots of ways to avoid fines and taxes will just find loopholes. I might be being paranoid, but what's to stop a company from just transfering all their fines to a victim corporation via leveraged buyout, saddeling the corporation with debt and selling all the assets? Like what is already happening with private equity firms.

    I feel carbon pricing is a system designed to be abused and is greenwashing when we could focus on more effective means like simply shutting down all coal plants and making the switch to electric cars. Is a carbon price just another form of greenwashing similar to carbon capture and storage?

     

  47. At a glance - Climate scientists would make more money in other careers

    My organisation funds a wide variety of scientists (including many related to sustainability & environment), so we cross check FTE rates carefully as people costs are often the largest prject expense.  I can confirm that scientists employed in the public arena (universities etc) are not that well paid - working for commercial and private organisations often pays a lot more. And working for fossil fuel, tobacco companies etc pays best of all (for obvious reasons). Ridiculous to think that climate scientists work just for money, especially given the constant hate mail and controversy that they receive.  

  48. At a glance - How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

    amhartley @ 4:

    You've had a few answers that might help. I'll add the following.

    You mention "thickness of the atmosphere". When discussing radiation transfer (absorption in this case), it is not the physical distance that matters. It is the number of molecules of the absorbing gas that affects the probability of radiation absorption. You can pack the same number of molecules into a short physical distance, or spread them over a larger distance, and the absorption characteristics will remain the same. In radiation transfer, you will see the term "optical thickness" or "optical depth". to distinguish this from physical distance.

    This post on Beer's Law gives an illustration of this.

    ...but yes, IR radiation emitted at low altitudes will be unlikely to reach space directly. But at each level, the atmosphere also emits IR radiation, and the further up you go, the more likely it is to reach space directly. Understanding the greenhouse effect writ large requires looking at both absorption and emission, and at all levels.

    There is more discussion of this on the Beer's Law post I linked to above, but a useful resource online is MODTRAN. You can play around there with a full atmospheric IR radiation transfer model that includes all these effects.

  49. At a glance - How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

    CORK @7 :

    What is your phrase "less arriditic explanation"  [unquote] ??

    . . . "arriditic"  is not in my English or German dictionaries.

    Hossenfelder is a German woman, but speaks fluent English and also supplies some humorous quips in her many Youtube videos.  She is a mainstream scientist ~ not a denialist crank, nor harridanitic at all.

    ( Or am I misunderstanding your dry humor, CORK ? )

    On the GHE, you find a better explanation at SkS , really.

  50. At a glance - How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

    There is also a less arriditic explanation here. it is a bit longer but there are some drawings that help the simple minds like mine. 

    Enter "I Misunderstood the Greenhouse Effect. Here's How It Works"; and the name of the author: "Sabine Hossenfelder" in the search bar and you will find it on Utube. 

    Moderator Response:

    [RH] Link added. She's saying exactly the same thing as Dessler in the PhD version.

Prev  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us