Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Comments 1401 to 1450:
-
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".
-
wilddouglascounty at 00:59 AM on 18 October 2023With 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.
-
Rabelt at 00:08 AM on 18 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
Rob Honeycutt,
I am talking about emissions not co2 concentrations.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 00:00 AM on 18 October 2023From 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.
-
Rabelt at 23:57 PM on 17 October 2023From 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.
-
Rabelt at 23:25 PM on 17 October 2023From 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
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:20 PM on 17 October 2023From 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.
-
michael sweet at 22:48 PM on 17 October 2023From 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.
-
Rabelt at 19:31 PM on 17 October 2023From 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.
-
John Mason at 19:16 PM on 17 October 2023From 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.
