Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Comments 1201 to 1250:
-
wilddouglascounty at 21:54 PM on 24 October 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
So what I'm hearing about this report is that the investors in fossil fuels are effectively circling around the 80 recommendations to develop game plans AGAINST making those recommendations come to fruition, and then the media is beginning to focus on how devious the fossil fuel investors are in using misinformation and obfuscation along the lines of the tobacco mercenaries.
But where is the political will emerging that will take these recommendations seriously and move them into accomplishments? Why are we not seeing a groundswell of conversations, commitments and policies being passed that embrace these recommendations? Shouldn't we be asking advocacy, corporate and governmental leadership to be providing, well, leadership?
Please highlight a list of educational resources, incentives, and campaigns that put these recommendations front and center and help our communities disseminate quality information up front instead of just reacting to well funded disinformation programs designed to delay, dilute and deceive!
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:06 AM on 24 October 2023John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist
groovimus... Did you have some reason why we should entertain Clauser's position on climate change in spite of the fact he's never in his career done research in the field?
-
groovimus at 08:11 AM on 24 October 2023John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist
Speaking of talking points: that's quite a rehash of the ole "let's insult these guys and their cognitive functioning, cuz they're only old guys now and we can rub it in". I've seen it happen in all kinds of fields. Thomas Nagle with a lifetime of philosophical materialist belief, writes a book a couple of years before retiring from NYU, the book indicating second thoughts on that ironclad materialistic hegemony in academia. He got roasted over the coals for that and of course the standard "he's an old guy in decline" BS. the exact thing happened to Anthony Flew, retired Brit philosopher with a lifetime of comitted atheism, changed his mind late in life in favor of deism. Same exact tactic, "his mind has declined, and he got someone to ghost write his book." they said.
You guys should be ashamed for hiding behind this argument. You know that working academics are in jeopardy like never before in the West from being cancelled for wrongthink, and you are part of that problem. You can even watch Lintzen's videos and see for yourself his use of precise vernacular and reasoning to explain exactly where he is coming from on this mass delusion gripping the world's intelligentsia.
-
John Hartz at 09:43 AM on 23 October 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
Just Dean: Thank you for the positive feedback. Posting links to the above articles on the SkS Facebook page and listing the posts in the Weekly Digest series has been a labor of love for me.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:31 AM on 23 October 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
I agree with Just Dean's compliment to the SkS team for highlighting important action that can lead to limiting the damage done by people who want to delay ending of climate change impacts they benefit from.
I would add that the following NPR news item relates to Just Dean's mention of the selective reporting by the Washington Post. It also relates to the challenge of achieving popular support for the required changes of developed ways of enjoying life and profiting from economic activity:
How gas utilities used tobacco tactics to avoid gas stove regulations, by Jeff Brady, Climate, NPR, October 17, 2023.
The NPR includes the following 'rejection of what is required' by the collective of profiteers from natural gas consumption:
"The gas utility industry is ramping up rhetoric and openly talks about fighting to save its business. In 2021, Harbert told NPR that her industry wants to be part of solving the climate problem and has developed a position statement on the issue. "If the goal is to reduce emissions, we're all in," she told NPR. "If the goal is to put us out of business, not so much.""
The profit pursuers are willing to participate in profitably reducing the impacts they profit from. But the required rapid ending of the accumulation of global warming impacts is 'contrary to their profit interests'. The undeniable need to end the natural gas utility operations is anathema to them. And, as the NPR reporting clearly indicates, they have spent many decades developing their ability to scientifically fight against limits on their ability to benefit from being more harmful.
Developed popularity and profitability and the power of misleading marketing to delay corrections of damaging popular and profitable activity is a significant impediment to achieving the required limiting of damage done to the future of humanity.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:58 AM on 23 October 2023New report has terrific news for the climate
I have an important concern about the examples presented in the NPR article “How gas utilities used tobacco tactics to avoid gas stove regulations” I refer to in my comment @9 regarding the way that ‘conservative’ has been used by some scientists regarding evaluations of risk of harm.
As an engineer my learned conservative concern is to severely limit the potential for harmful results. An opposite use of ‘conservative’ appears to be abused as justification for higher risk of harmful outcomes. Tragically, trending to be more harmful, fighting against developing evidence of harm or potential harm, seems to align with what some ‘political interests’ want to claim is conservative – maintaining, excusing and defending the status quo - avoid harming/restricting developed popular or profitable activities that are potentially, or actually, harmful.
Many portions of the NPR article present versions of this twist of political influence on science.
A specific (lengthy) quote is the entire section headed Identifying uncertainty and highlighting it: (I bolded the secific words in the quote, but the rest of the quote contains presentations of thinking that are also contrary to 'conservative meaning limiting harm', especially contrary when limiting harm requires 'change')
Another strategy deployed by the gas industry focused on uncertainties in the emerging body of indoor air research and amplified them. Uncertainty and questions are part of research, but giving them disproportionate emphasis makes the science seem shakier than it is.
The Gas Research Institute, which funded research for the gas industry, hired the firm Arthur D. Little to produce this kind of material. Arthur D. Little had a history of conducting similar work for the tobacco industry. A 1981 paper completed by Arthur D. Little surveyed available research on the health effects of gas stoves but focused on questions the research did not answer and found the epidemiological data was "incomplete and conflicting."
The company says it doesn't have access to records for this project, conducted more than 40 years ago. "We have no reason to believe that the GRI report wasn't conducted with the same high standards of rigor and objectivity with which Arthur D. Little approaches all client engagements," Etienne Brumauld des Houlières, global marketing and communications director, wrote in an email.
The industry also favored reputable scientists who were considered scientifically conservative, for generally wanting to see a larger body of evidence than their peers before reaching conclusions.
Among them is Dr. Jonathan Samet, dean of the Colorado School of Public Health, who has a long history as an epidemiologist and researcher. A 1995 review produced by tobacco company Philip Morris concluded that his reputation "as an authority in pulmonary medicine and epidemiology" was "probably due at least in part to his scientific conservatism."
Samet's 1993 study of infants living in Albuquerque, N.M., homes found no connection between respiratory illness and the presence of a gas stove. It was funded by the Health Effects Institute, which received funding from a wide variety of sources, including the gas industry.
Samet says he never did research for the tobacco industry and that it set "a high water mark for egregious behavior and discrediting science." He does not see that same behavior when it comes to the gas industry and health effects of cooking with gas.
"Over my career, there are people who felt that I waited too long before perhaps saying that X causes Y. But that's because I don't think we want to have false positive determinations," Samet told NPR. Scientists say accomplishing that in epidemiology can be tricky because often there are multiple factors present that could be causing a health problem.
When it comes to assessing science that will inform new policies, Samet says it's rare that one study is enough to reach a conclusion. "I've been involved in enough of the development of authoritative reports in different contexts to take the view that the right way to understand what the science shows is to put it all together," Samet says. "And sometimes, unfortunately, the answer is that we don't have enough. So if that's conservative, that's fine."
As evidence around the health effects of gas stove use has accumulated, Samet's views are changing. "If I had a child who might be particularly susceptible because of asthma, for example, then I would probably think carefully about what I could do to make my home safer and a gas stove would be on that checklist," Samet says.
-
Just Dean at 22:04 PM on 22 October 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
John,
Thanks. This is exactly the kind of exposure/coverage I was hoping to see here.
I have been disappointed with lack of coverage by the media. It is understandable given recent world events and maybe it is early days. Instead of choosing to cover the overall impact of the release on policy, even the Washington Post chose to zero on a single controversial recommendation, the the banning of natural gas lines in areas that haven't been served.
An article by Sarah Isgur writing for Politico last year resonated with me. Here is a quote from that article,
"Climate change can’t be fixed in four-year increments. To effectively stem carbon emissions, the country needs a long-term plan that can be followed for 25, 50, even 100 years — something that can only be put in place by the U.S. Congress."
I think you could argure that this plan would be a good plan to follow and a good plan today beats a perfect plan tomorrow.
-
BaerbelW at 18:04 PM on 22 October 2023They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
Please note: a new basic version of this rebuttal was published on October 22, 2023 which 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
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:06 AM on 22 October 2023New report has terrific news for the climate
Fred Torssander,
In addition to the helpful responses by MA Rogers and nigelj, I offer another perspective regarding the question you ask @3:
How can we know that government action, external governing of the socioeconomic-political marketplace rather than simply allowing marketplace game players the freedom to believe and do whatever they want, has resulted in reduced harm?
This can be particularly challenging if pursuers of benefit from harmful actions deliberately develop and disseminate disinformation and misinformation.
How much less harmful are things today, or will things be in the future, due to policy actions? A more important question not asked by people asking that question is: How much more harmful are things due to a lack of development and implementation of effective harm reduction actions – especially the lack of effective limitations on the ‘freedom to benefit from developing and disseminating disinformation and misinformation’?”
A good example of this problem is NPR’s recent, well researched and presented (and long and detailed), reporting (in parallel with efforts by the regarding the efforts to cast doubt on the science regarding harm done by gas stoves “How gas utilities used tobacco tactics to avoid gas stove regulations”.
Essentially, the understanding is that "...industry-backed reports confused consumers and muddied the science that regulators relied on about the potential dangers of cooking with gas, according to an investigation by NPR and documents uncovered in a new report from the Climate Investigations Center (CIC), a research and watchdog group." And that can happen regarding climate change impact reduction efforts.
The section of the NPR reporting “How Gas Utilities followed the tobacco strategy” presents ways that science can be harmfully biased by the pursuit of money (the American Gas Association – AGA – referred to its pursuit of popular support for gas use in homes as “Operation Attack”). As mentioned in the article “the AGA was hiring researchers who previously accepted research funding from tobacco companies”.
A particularly enlightening part of the NPR article is
“Ralph Mitchell of Battelle Laboratories conducted work for the tobacco industry and had sought funding for research from Philip Morris in 1964 and the Cigar Research Council in 1972. Mitchell and colleagues at Battelle and the Ohio State University reexamined earlier studies that concluded there were health problems linked to use of gas stoves. Using an alternative, and in some cases controversial, analysis technique, Mitchell's team found "no significant difference in reported respiratory illness between the members of households cooking with gas and those cooking with electricity."
None of the authors of the 1974 Battelle paper are alive today to answer questions about their work.
"The research in question occurred nearly 50 years ago, and it would be inappropriate to speculate on the researchers' methods or conclusions," said Benjamin Johnson, spokesman for Ohio State, in an email to NPR. A Battelle spokesman offered a similar statement and wrote that the organization "conducts research that conforms to the strictest standards of integrity."”
It is challenging to ‘conclusively prove the harm reduction of a policy action’. The only ‘certain way to eliminate doubt about the benefits of harm reduction actions’ is to have a parallel planet where the only difference is the action in question with monitoring for a long enough period of time to be highly confident of the ‘measurable differences’. Without that ‘impossible proof’ any suggested harm reduction action is open to the ‘raising of doubt about its merits’. Of course, there is also an inability to be certain about the benefits of actions that are potentially harmful ... but the potential perception of personal benefit can tragically over-power the ability to learn to be less harmful and more helpful.
An obvious problem is the ways that disinformation and misinformation efforts can unjustifiably raise questions about the effectiveness of ‘likely very effective harm reduction actions’, especially when ‘perceived benefits’ have to be given up to reduce the damage being done, or when being less harmful requires more effort or is more expensive.
-
nigelj at 10:08 AM on 21 October 2023New report has terrific news for the climate
Fred Torssander @5
"It's great - in a way - to have my suspicions and my amateurish comparisions between reported emissions of GHG and measured atmospheric CO2 confirmed by Washington Post no less!"
Yes although I think we all had those suspicions. However IMO while the under measurement of emissions is very concerning, for our purposes it isn't the big issue, because its been reasonably constant going well back. As I stated the big issue is the trend in emissions whether increasing or declining over time, and that trend is likely to be roughly accurate and the growth in emissions looks like it is nearing a plateau from data I've seen.
"Variations in atmospheric CO2, when and if such changes appear, will be hard or even impossible to claim this as an effect of human political (democratic?!) activity. "
Not really. Fistly atmopsheric CO2 levels have been increasing reasonably steadily except that the trend includes a lot of short term wiggles up and down, but those wiggles only last a year or two. They are a result of such things as the yearly seasonal growth cycle, el nino, and the occasional volcanic activity. But these all have very short term effects and known causes.
Once we see something like a change in this atmospheric CO2 trend that lasts at least ten years we could be pretty confident its because of reducing human emissions. It's very difficult to see what else it could be, because no natural cause of emissions is likely to cause a ten year effect on the trend. And if it did it would have to be massive, unprecedented volcanic / geothermal activity of some sort and we would certainly notice that.
"Even in the case that the figures and charts showing temperature confirmed the good news, they would have a margin of error +23%, -0%(!) depending on what the reporting parties (states/nations) pleases."
Temperatures will not be 100% accurately measured, but I doubt temperatures would be that innacurate as 23% out. Where did you get the number?
However I would say atmospheric CO2 levels would be a bit more accurate than temperatures (or emissions trends) and would be the most compelling proof we have made a difference provided we see a decent 5 - 10 year difference in the trend. CO2 levels are quite accurately measured.
"And worse. The emissions of type iii in my first comment, will be compleatly hidden!"
You mentioned el nino and volcanoes. But el nino is not hidden. It is a well known cycle and we know approximately what effect it has on CO2 emissions and its a very short term effect of a couple of years. El nino does not explain long term (greater than five years) trends in CO2 levels.
And volcanic activity is not hidden. Scientists monitor this activity. Unless there is a massive krakatoa sized eruption it is not a significant generator of CO2. Its more significant related to aerosols.
"Lastly: More power produced by "significant solar and wind power" does not neccesarily result in less power produced by burning fossil fuels.Remember Jevons Paradox!"
Jevons paradox says (roughly) that making energy use more efficient does not decrease total energy use, and this has proven to be true, unless you actively fight against the paradox. Germany has had some moderate success making energy use more efficient and also decreasing total energy use, but its required some tight government lead incentives and programmes. And Germany is very disciplined as a people, so other countries might struggle to emulate their modest success.
Regarding the wind and solar power issue, I'm not sure its strictly a Jevons paradox issue because we are not trying to achieve more efficent energy use "per se". We are substituting renewables for fossil fuels. So far those efforts have only stopped the growth in fossil fuels, but as wind and solar power uptake improves in scale, fossil fuel use will fall in absolute terms and has already done in some places. For example, Paraguay, Iceland, Sweden, and Uruguay and France get something like 90% of their electricity from low carbon sources.
-
Fred Torssander at 08:00 AM on 21 October 2023New report has terrific news for the climate
nigelj @5
It's great - in a way - to have my suspicions and my amateurish comparisions between reported emissions of GHG and measured atmospheric CO2 confirmed by Washington Post no less! But the problem is still there. Variations in atmospheric CO2, when and if such changes appear, will be hard or even impossible to claim this as an effect of human political (democratic?!) activity. So how can we build an informed opinion on claims that "governments have made substantial progress in curbing their climate pollution" and even that "global temperatures are on a less dangerous path than they were a decade ago" which can't be seen, at least I can't see it in the temperature data? Or in the CO2 data.
Even in the case that the figures and charts showing temperature confirmed the good news, they would have a margin of error +23%, -0%(!) depending on what the reporting parties (states/nations) pleases.
And worse. The emissions of type iii in my first comment, will be compleatly hidden!
Lastly: More power produced by "significant solar and wind power" does not neccesarily result in less power produced by burning fossil fuels.Remember Jevons Paradox!Yours
Fred Torssander -
nigelj at 06:08 AM on 21 October 2023New report has terrific news for the climate
Fred Torssander @5
"The still accelerating growth of the CO2 part of the atmosphere can have several types explainations - I think. i) First of all (Occhams razor) itt might be that the growth is actually accelerating, and the measurements of emissions of GHG are wrong or falsified. There is still very big money being invested in further expanded use of fossil fuels. "
There is good evidence measurements of humanities total yearly CO2 emissions under report emissions by as much as 23% (much of this is agricultural related emissions) as below:
www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/interactive/2021/greenhouse-gas-emissions-pledges-data/
But this has probably been a roughly consistent under reporting over time. We are interested in rates of change and trends. I think its likely that emissions growth is starting to level off. Coal use has started to level off, and the world is definitely building significant solar and wind power and this sort of thing can be independently verified.
-
Fred Torssander at 21:22 PM on 20 October 2023New report has terrific news for the climate
MA Roger @4;
Thanks for your answer.a) My use of the word fraction was not meant to create misunderstanding. I ought to have used part or ppm instead. Sorry.
1.) The still accelerating growth of the CO2 part of the atmosphere can have several types explainations - I think. i) First of all (Occhams razor) itt might be that the growth is actually accelerating, and the measurements of emissions of GHG are wrong or falsified. There is still very big money being invested in further expanded use of fossil fuels. ii) Then comes non-antropogenic generation, which varies with the activity of volcanoes and the weather, like El Niño that you mention. iii) Then there is the different effects of growing CO2 part of the atmosphere and of rising temperature. Like for example melting ice-lids on gas kettles. Some containing methane.
There seems to be an adequate amount of scientific work on the non-antropogenic and maby also on the iii) category. But how much is done on the question of mistaken or falsified measurements of the emissions?
The temperature anomaly could be verified by scientific use of a common houshold thermometer. At least in populated areas.
Maby that makes temperature the only useful and reliable measure? In that case mabe good news using other measures should comment on the discrepancies between those and the rising of the temperature?[Berkeley Earth story link]
Yours
Fred TorssanderModerator Response:[BL] Link activated.
The web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box. -
MA Rodger at 18:28 PM on 20 October 2023New report has terrific news for the climate
Fred Torssander @3,
That's not so easy to fathom.
You presumably** ask about atmospheric CO2 levels.
They should theoretically begin to stop increasing at an accelerating rate when we stop pumping CO2 into the air at increasing rates. So far, our emissions are leveling off but not yet levelled off.
And if we could actually begin to drop the rate of emissions (and we need to do this quickly), the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 levels would begin to slow and helpfully they would level off roughly when we have halved emissions***.
So a long way to go, theoretically.As for when we should see the good news, the increase in annual CO2 levels is impacted by El Niño (which changes many rainfall patterns across the globe and wobbles annual CO2 increases by some +/-0.5ppm). These resulting wobbles seen in the CO2 increase make it difficult to be precise as to the actual state-of-play. So we can see that the decadal increases**** since 1960 have been accelerating strongly (+0.9ppm/y, +1.2ppm/y, +1.6ppm/y, +1.5ppm/y, +1.9ppm/y, +2.4ppm/y) but being more precise is difficult. While the beginning of the present decade 2020-22 does show the lowest 3-year average increase (+2.2ppm/y) since 2012-14 and Covid would have not made a big change to that, the strong La Niña impacting 2020-22 will have made a big difference.
(** The word "fraction" is not so useful here as its usual use is in the 'Airborne Fraction' which is the ratio of [increase-in-atmospheric-burden] to [the-emissions]. It takes 2.16Gt(C) to raise atmspheric CO2 by 1ppm. So our emissions of ~10ppm would have seen atmospheric levels rise by +4.6ppm if Af=100% & all the emissions remained in the atmosphere.)
(*** The 'Airborne Fraction' is running at about 50% but this is not all because of a single year's emissions. Only a few percent would be due to the immediate annual emissions. The 50% is the sum of the decreasing 'few percents' from years running back many decades.)
(**** The 'trend' numbers given by NOAA on their 'trend'page are a bit odd as they compare only the months at the start/end of the years, not the whole 12 months which I use in this comment. The NOAA method actually adds a bit more wobbliness to their numbers.) -
Doug Bostrom at 05:30 AM on 20 October 2023Skeptical Science New Research for Week #42 2023
Thank you for the steer, Dean! The NAS report is of exactly the type we like to include.
The "purpose and methods" boilerplate could use some updating. Especially it doesn't mention at all our "government/NGO" section, added a couple of years ago. Marc Kodack handles that part of the weekly compilation and it's entirely manual. With "final assembly" happening on Wednesdays, a Tuesday release date ends up as a bit of a squeaker as to whether an item will get in the same week's review.
As well, it's possible to have a clean miss; a glance at Marc's bio shows how well suited he is for this work, but it's a big world emitting a constant Niagara of material for consideration. It's undoubtedly the case that more eyes would help, if they can be harnessed properly. We have the UI parts in place to widen our net by soliciting community input but that will need process methods and additional labor to support without descending into chaos. Fingers crossed, we may arrive there.
In the meantime, we're delighted to accept suggestions here and in the case of the NAS report we'll make sure it's in next week's edition even if it doesn't surface directly for Marc.
(The academic portion has evolved as eyeball review/select/categorize from a torrent of jounal RSS feeds, typically about 700 items per week, with automated metadata collection and formatting.)
-
Bob Loblaw at 03:39 AM on 20 October 2023Skeptical Science New Research for Week #42 2023
JUst Dean:
Understood. Keep i mind that if you want to post a link to something of interest, it helps to provide a summary and some indication of why you think it is relevant.
-
Just Dean at 02:48 AM on 20 October 2023Skeptical Science New Research for Week #42 2023
Bob,
Thanks. I understand. I'm not being critical, I'm just trying to help. It seems like an important report that has gotten very little attention in the media or among climate change sites/blogs.
I try to follow experts in energy systems transitions, e.g. Dr. John Bistline, Net-Zero America at Princeton, and was glad to see that they are referenced heavily in the 653 page report.
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:38 AM on 20 October 2023Skeptical Science New Research for Week #42 2023
Just Dean:
A lot of the process is automated, so it all depends on where the information is available. Skeptical Science is a volunteer organization.
It also may take time for new reports to make their way into the automatic feeds that are scanned.
-
Just Dean at 02:21 AM on 20 October 2023Skeptical Science New Research for Week #42 2023
Bob:
What about this section, "Articles/Reports from Agencies and Non-Governmental Organizations Addressing Aspects of Climate Change?"
It seems to me it fits there.
-
Fred Torssander at 00:50 AM on 20 October 2023New report has terrific news for the climate
When is the good news expected to be visible as some change in the still accelerating CO2 fraction in the atmosphere? https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:36 PM on 19 October 2023Skeptical Science New Research for Week #42 2023
Just Dean:
The methodology in assembling the New Research report is discussed near the bottom of the post. I don't think it typcailly covers general government or organization publications. There is also a link to the page that describes which journals are included. That page includes the following text:
Journals we cover
Skeptical Science New Research is driven primarily by RSS feeds from the journals listed below.
New journals appear frequently and as well it's not always obvious where articles related to climate change may be found. If you notice an omission you believe may be significant, please let us know via our contact link.
-
Just Dean at 21:42 PM on 19 October 2023Skeptical Science New Research for Week #42 2023
I didn't see a shout out to the National Academies Consensus Study Report released on Tuesday - Acclerating Decarbonization in the United States .
-
Gordon21829 at 07:47 AM on 19 October 2023New report has terrific news for the climate
sailrick, you might be interested in this Video
Moderator Response:[BL] You are not new here, and have no excuse for ignoring the Comments Policy. Note that it says:
No link or picture only. Any link or picture should be accompanied by text summarizing both the content of the link or picture, and showing how it is relevant to the topic of discussion. Failure to do both of these things will result in the comment being considered off topic.
-
sailrick at 03:50 AM on 19 October 2023New report has terrific news for the climate
According to this article, the most common lithium ion batteries now will be replaced by lithium iron phosphate batteries (LFP) in the near future. Major car manufacturers are making the switch already. So, no cobalt, manganese or nickel, making them cheaper, while having less environmenal impact, and almost impossible to catch fire.
www.pv-magazine.comModerator Response:[RH] Activated link
-
Rob Honeycutt at 23:35 PM on 18 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
"...next time I will we more careful and not comment in privileged blogs."
Or, perhaps, just read the commenting policies beforehand and play by the house rules. It's not that difficult.
Moderator Response:[BL] As a side note to general viewers, the only comments from Rabelt that are no longer visible are content-free complaints about moderation. Other recent comments that violated the Comments Policy had "warning snips" applied, which strikes them through but leaves them visible to all readers (including casual readers that have not registered or logged on). This is the usual process, in the hope that the offending participant will step back, modify their behaviour, and follow the rules.
Rabelt rapidly devolved into full-blown violations of the Comments Policy. Continuing on this path will lead to his posting privileges being rescinded.
-
Rabelt at 23:34 PM on 18 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
Its been a pleasure partaking in the mainstream debate and seen the consequences, have a nice day and I hope you would be more interested in a free impartial discussion next time Mister Bob
[Moderation complaints deleted]
Moderator Response:[BL] Clearly unable to follow simple instructions.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 23:32 PM on 18 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
My suggestion, Rabelt, is that you find a constructive way to move the conversation forward. And I think that's going to require that you spend some time better understanding the science surrounding carbon isotopes. Here's a good place to start.
-
Rabelt at 23:31 PM on 18 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
I see no problem with having 1 of the participants being also a moderator capable of modifying and deleting comments, next time I will we more careful and not comment in privileged blogs
[more moderation complaints deleted]
Moderator Response:[BL] Clearly you have no interest in reading or understanding the Comments Policy.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 23:30 PM on 18 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
Rabelt... You really should go read the comments policy. Moderation complaints are also against the rules here.
You've been asked for supporting materials to better explain your arguments here and, thus far, all I've seen is a belligerent inability to comprehend what's being explained to you followed by repeating what you'd previously stated. That doesn't advance the discussion.
-
Rabelt at 23:23 PM on 18 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
MA Rodger,
At least for the pre-satellite period
-
Rabelt at 23:22 PM on 18 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
MA Rodger,
[snip]
Fearing the abuse of power some people here want to exert and the complete arbitrarity of censorship I will have to keep it short and pray that Mister Bob is not angry enough at me.
LUC is a measure that requieres immense amounts of precise knowledge about human activity and the specific happenings in the carbon cycle during that year, something we completely lack in both departments, so I would not give it much accuracy
Moderator Response:[BL] More moderation complaints deleted.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.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.
-
Rabelt at 23:13 PM on 18 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
wow censorship, great job Bob, I suppose your inability to see that I am having a different conversation with other people and explaining in more detail to that other person because they are asking for clarification doesnt matter for a child that cares more about his ego than for science comunication; contrary to you Bob, I care, so I dont repeat the same term multiple times instead of explaining like the other people that partake in the discussion
Moderator Response:[BL] From the Comments Policy you clearly are not willing to follow:
- All comments must be on topic. Comments are on topic if they draw attention to possible errors of fact or interpretation in the main article, of if they discuss the immediate implications of the facts discussed in the main article. However, general discussions of Global Warming not explicitly related to the details of the main article are always off topic. Moderation complaints are always off topic and will be deleted
-
MA Rodger at 22:07 PM on 18 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
I'm reluctant to engage with a commenter that peppers a comment thread at a rate of one every couple of hours for almost two full days without establishing some form of understanding as to their purpose. But here goes...
Rabelt @46,
The OP does not claim to show that "emission from FF are responsible" for changing levels of atmospheric CO2. It is providing an explanation of "how measurements of changing isotopic ratios are described" and this in regard to the atmospheric 13C:12C ratio.
This ratio is shown in the OP fig3 waggling over a whole millennium in a very similar way to the level of atmospheric CO2. CO2 levels go up/down and the 13C:12C ratio goes down/up. Such a remarkable correlation tells us (although this is beyond the message of the OP) that the source (and sink) responsible for the changing CO2 levels has a 13C:12C ratio far lower than the atmosphere. Thus that the oceans cannot be the source/sink of that extra carbon waggling the atmospheric CO2 levels.
The source of this rogue CO2 messing up the atmosphere is thus plants, either by their direct destruction or indirectly via fossil fuels which retain the low 13C:12C ratio.
(The middle section of your comment @46 mentions "this change" but does not make entirely plain whether you refer to the "changes in discourse" or the "changes in Delta C13". So, if it is in any way relevant, it is not clear which you don't accept.)
Your comment make two final assertions which I find a little odd. You suggest annual and cumulative CO2 emissions 1750-1900 do not explain the changing atmospheric CO2 levels, the latter being "too small". Further you suggest a mismatch in the AtmosCO2:Delta C13 ratio "the 1950s-2010s periods."
The Global Carbon Project is always a good go-to source for annual carbon emissions. Although their historic LUC data only runs back to 1850, it is plain from their various source-sink numbers that the Atmospheric Fraction does not show emissions that are "too small" prior to 1850. You may have sight of other numbers which show it different and if so you do need to explain such 'other numbers' properly. (I note @34 you put the CO2 emissions for 1850 = 0.2Gt(CO2). This is presumably ignoring the LUC emissions which would increase the full 1850 emissions to 2.6Gt(CO2) using the Global Carbon Project numbers.)
It is also not clear what you are considering with this 1950s-2010s mismatch which you perceive between accelerating CO2 levels and steadily decreasing Delta C13 levels. If it is the OP's Fig 3 (& I don't see a problem there), perhaps a sight of the original may help as it shows the data points without the assumed solid δ13C trace.
-
Rabelt at 16:48 PM on 18 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
Rob Honeycutt,
This post claims emission from FF are responsible yet decides to use a completely different measurement, that changes the discourse from emissions to co2 concentrations, which as the other kid mentioned can not be the cause of changes in Delta C13; even accepting this change, which I dont, the problem still persist, 1750-1900 yearly and cumulative emissions are unable to explain the changes in co2 concentrations, they are too small, and the co2 concentrations show an acceleration during the 1950s-2010s periods that dont match with the steady decrease in Delta C13.
Moderator Response:[BL] This simply repeats previous assertions without evidence. This violates the portion of the Comments Policy that states:
Comments should avoid excessive repetition. Discussions which circle back on themselves and involve endless repetition of points already discussed do not help clarify relevant points. They are merely tiresome to participants and a barrier to readers. If moderators believe you are being excessively repetitive, they will advise you as such, and any further repetition will be treated as being off topic.
-
Rabelt at 16:42 PM on 18 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
Bob Loblaw,
I have no interest in losing time with people like you so I will imitate your infantile behaviour and just scream IPCC report, good luck with finding anything in those 2k pages reports
Moderator Response:[BL} Alas, you have forced me to disconnect from the discussion, and switch to moderator role.
You raised the issue of the IPCC and "the main narrative" in comment 22, and clearly it was nothing more than bluster.. You obviously have nothing constructive to say. Please read the Comments Policy. This post is a clear violation of t he following portion of that policy:
No profanity or inflammatory tone. Again, constructive discussion is difficult when overheated rhetoric or profanity is flying around.
Unless your behaviour changes to a more constructive discussion, expect to see portions of comments - or entire comments - deleted according to the Comments Policy.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:46 AM on 18 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
Rabelt... Assuming your "main narrative" is "[d]elta C13 starts decreasing around 1750 and continues to decrease ever since, the main narrative blames it on FF"... Your narrative is a basic misinterpretation of the science.
The C13 narrative (if you want to call it that) is merely the physics behind carbon isotopes for natural sources vs through burning hydrocarbons. That it. If you're saying this area of physics is wrong, you need to explain why.
The accepted understanding of this physics merely creates a prediction that can be tested. If the increasing concentrations of CO2 are primarily due to the buring of FF's, then we should see a corresponding relationship with C13. And that's all this is. It's just one piece of evidence that contributes to the scientific understanding that our uses of FF's is the source of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:35 AM on 18 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
Rabelt @31... "I am talking about emissions not co2 concentrations."
Well, therein may lay your problem since the graph is concentrations.
-
Davz at 08:17 AM on 18 October 2023With whales in trouble, conservationists, fishers, and others team up to protect them
[Contents snipped]
This report is yet another example of climate alarmism and is nothing more than choosing to ignore the facts to fabricate yet another over blown story. The facts are that the algal blooms have affected all coastal U.S. states. They are most commonly caused by dinoflagellates or diatoms but can also be caused by cyanobacteria. Harmful blooms form where there are high levels of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphmates, otherwise known as fertilisers used by farmers which run off the land into rivers, lakes and seas. The blooms are not just at surface level but also much deeper and will be harmful to ecosystems in the sea, hence the lack of krill for the whales, nothing to do with climate at all. It is yet another man made problem but not one that can be attributed to climate change.
Dont climate alarmists get that the more they make up stories where they ignore the real facts that more and more people are turning away from climate change and see it as a hoax. This is doing a great disservice as I want to see much more care being taken of our planet but these idiotic stories are back firing.
Moderator Response:[BL] Contents snipped.
I told you on this thread, under this comment, that you would not be allowed to post any more drive-by comments on new threads until you go back to that thread and respond. To repeat the instructions posted there:
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.
There are several responses to your comment on that previous thread. Please read them, and follow my instructions on how you are expected to respond.
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:21 AM on 18 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
Rabelt @ 40., 41.
All I see is your narrative. It does not resemble any scientific narrative. In comment 22, when you introduced "main narrative", you said:
...so I will continue using the main narrative (IPCC, NASA, CSIRO, etc) as the argument I am debating
Since you want to use the IPCC as a source, please show the sections of the IPCC reports that illustrate this "main narrative".
-
Rabelt at 06:39 AM on 18 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
Bob Loblaw,
Now show me where does the IPCC address those changes in the trends, or where in this great library of knowledge there is an explanation fo them.
-
Rabelt at 06:37 AM on 18 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
Bob Loblaw,
Already said what the main narrative had to say about C13, comment 34.
If you want the entire narrative, you have the reports of the IPCC.
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:32 AM on 18 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
Rabelt:
I'm waiting for your explanation of what you think "the main narrative" is...
-
Rabelt at 06:19 AM on 18 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
Bob Loblaw,
There has been not a single argument coming from you except the massively broad term "Carbon Cycle" and mentioning that you read followed as caused and supposedly it was my fault
-
Rabelt at 06:16 AM on 18 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
Bob Loblaw,
Start using arguments instead of relaying on big words you will reach futher, until then please behave like an adult
-
BaerbelW at 06:13 AM on 18 October 2023The Debunking Handbook 2020: Downloads and Translations
On October 16, the Polish translation of the Debunking Handbook was published, thanks to the efforts of the Nauka o climacie team, our partner website in Poland!
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:10 AM on 18 October 2023From 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.
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:07 AM on 18 October 2023From 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.
-
Rabelt at 06:07 AM on 18 October 2023From 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.
-
Rabelt at 05:45 AM on 18 October 2023From 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.
-
Bob Loblaw at 04:33 AM on 18 October 2023From 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".
