This is Rob Dekker's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Rob Dekker's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Rob Dekker
California
Recent Activity
Looking forward as to which irrelevant detail in my post you want to argue with next. I think lodger had it right all along, from the start.
Toggle Commented 12 hours ago on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
D-Penquin, arguing with you is like pulling teeth. You constantly misinterpret was is said, discredit scientific findings, call into doubt basic facts and ignore the important stuff. Let's do this slowly this time. You quote from Hansen et al 2013 : "...but it omits climate-carbon feedbacks, e.g., assuming static global climate and ocean circulation." then you claim : Your position follows the Static Model and my position follows the dynamic model. which suggests that you find your own position 'dynamic' w.r.t. carbon feedbacks and thus more accurate than even Hansen et al 2013's Bern Cycle Model. However, your position does not include carbon feedbacks either. So your model is not dynamic w.r.t. carbon feedbacks either. To make matters worse, as Micheal Sweet correctly points out, your models does not include the deep ocean. That's where even according to your own referenced data 82% of the carbon went that was absorbed by the oceans : https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-7-3.html Ignoring the deep ocean makes your position irrelevant, and should be discarded as bunk. Yet you call into question the opinions from the experts, call into question my understanding of some pretty basic figures in Hansen et al 2013, you discard any opinion that runs counter to your beliefs, you ignore the important parts (deep ocean carbon storage) and hype the irrelevant parts (ocean sediments) and you seem entirely impervious to reason based on facts. Sorry D-Penquin, but you act no different from a defacto climate science denier.
Toggle Commented 12 hours ago on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
D-Penquin, Hansen et al 2013 states explicitly : We use the dynamic-sink pulseresponse function version of the well-tested Bern carbon cycle model [169], as described elsewhere [54,170]. How is your model better than the Bern carbon cycle model ?
D-Penquin said Your position follows the Static Model and my position follows the dynamic model. No D-Penquin, your model does not include ANY carbon feedbacks, so it's not dynamic. In fact, your model excludes the largest carbon storage tank on this planet : the deep ocean. So your model is bunk.
Bill, thanks ! No comparison. Such a silly post by Eschenbach. I always enjoy posts by climate science deniers, and Eschenbach is definitively one of the least professional ones. I especially like the part where he presents Ireland records in a post that deals with the Arctic. Classic !
Toggle Commented 2 days ago on A new Arctic feedback (?) at Arctic Sea Ice
D-Penquin said I do not beleive that they represent what you think they represent. What do you believe they represent and what do you believe that I think they represent ?
zebra said I am not familiar with how much consensus there is among those big dogs, and I thought the responses to Bill indicated considerable uncertainty. In this thread, Bill presented responses from the experts Pieter Tans, Ralph Keeling and David Archer. I thought their response was pretty consistent regarding the question of what happens if we cut emissions today. Which "considerable uncertainty" are you talking about ?
Correction: "restore the damage" should read as "fix some of the damage".
A bit off topic, but the SIPN post-melting-season analysis report is out : https://www.arcus.org/sipn/sea-ice-outlook/2016/post-season And special congrats to Nico Sun (Tealight on the Forum), http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1749.50.html whose work on Albedo Warming Potential (AWP) receives special attention in this report. Great work, Nico !
Toggle Commented 3 days ago on A new Arctic feedback (?) at Arctic Sea Ice
zebra said I think the input from the experts (great job Bill F) serves to validate what I have said all along, which is that pinning down the rate of atmospheric CO2 reduction is still a work in progress-- for them, much less those of us who aren't working at that level. Not really. The big boys had this all figured out already. For example : Hansen et al 2013 : http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648&type=printable Look at figure 4, where the result is shown for cutting emissions at various times. See the steep decline after we stop emitting ? And how it levels off after centuries ? That is the ocean absorbing our past emissions. First quickly and then slower as our carbon ends up deeper and deeper into the oceans, and the air-ocean system obtains a new equilibrium. And figure 5 in the same paper shows the result of what happens when we not immediately stop emitting, but instead lower emission by some set amount per year. The same effect of peak and then decline caused by oceans absorbing our past emissions is apparent. And note that just a decade or two of WAITING (not acting) has a profound effect on the final equilibrium CO2 level that the planet will level off to as the oceans mix our carbon over the centuries ahead. Waiting right now makes it much harder for future generations to clean up the mess we are making right now. Of course we could have used these figures during our argument, but it would have been sort of an appeal to authority. That is why I appreciate the discussion we had here, and I hope that the discussion did increase understanding of the way that our planet responds to our insanely fast pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere, and what will happen in the future once we start cutting emissions. Just to show what happened with the carbon we emitted over the past century as it was absorbed by the oceans, here is an image from the article that zebra posted before showing where our carbon went in the oceans : Note that the deep ocean (tank 3 in DCS analogy) is still in in its pre-industrial state, with plenty of space to mix carbon thoroughly in the decades and centuries ahead. This is the reason why atmospheric CO2 levels will go down after we reduce/stop emitting. As I stated before : The oceans (and the terrestrial biosphere) are trying everything they can, but they need a break to restore the damage we are doing by so rapidly dumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
Bill, thank you so much for consulting the experts on this, and reporting back to us their response. And if they read this blog thread, a big thank you to Pieter Tans, Ralph Keeling and David Archer for their valued insights. Personally, I find Archer's interactive model the most interesting of the responses. It allows us to play with the parameters and see how atmospheric CO2 responds : http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/isam/ I trust that this model implementation settles the disputes on this thread about what happens when we cut emissions in half, and what happens when we cut emissions altogether today.
D-Penquin, I don't see anything "misleading" in Monroe's paper. Monroe (1) is sustained by the paper Monroe (3) is sustained by Prof. Keeling's statement (and the bulk of evidence that comes with that) and Monroe(2) is Monroe's own statement, which is sustained by BOTH the paper AND Prof. Keeling's statements. I guess we have to agree to disagree in this case.
Important note is that we are working with a very simple model here. That is good, to get the conceptual points agreed upon (which we seem to have a hard enough time with), but in reality ocean-atmospheric CO2 exchange and surface-deep ocean carbon exchange is pretty chaotic with wide temporal and spatial variability. One example of that is at some point it looked like the Southern Ocean was not absorbing more carbon (like a 30 year 'pause') despite a sustained increase in atmospheric CO2. Work reported by Le Quere et al. [2007]. Later work showed that the Southern Ocean actually did pick up the pace again, but the natural variability in that sink is quite significant (nothing like "equilibrium" within a year or so). David Archer did a pretty good piece on that development here at RealClimate : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/is-the-ocean-carbon-sink-sinking/
Thank you Neven. I am not a meteorologist, but it seems to me that these storms reach the Arctic since the jet-stream appears to meander high up north over the Northern Atlantic this winter : http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~ovens/wxloop.cgi?npole_h250_wind+/-168// Could that have to do with Northern Atlantic sea surface temperatures which have been getting warmer and warmer over the years ?
Toggle Commented 5 days ago on A new Arctic feedback (?) at Arctic Sea Ice
Thank you James Cobban, for clarifying DCS' position, and thank you DCS for confirming, and also for your great analogy (with the three tanks). Now it is time to crank the numbers. In the same paper (from 1993) where DCS found the statement that "surface sea water reaches chemical equilibrium with the atmospheric CO2 concentration within a year" : https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/us9301.pdf there is figure 1 which shows the fluxes and storage of carbon (in and between the three tanks). There you see that for an atmospheric increase of 3.4 Gton/year, the surface ocean absorbs about 0.4 Gton/year. That is only 12% of atmospheric increase. The bulk of the carbon that goes into the oceans descends down to the deep ocean. In DCS' analogy, the flow of water between the second and third tank is not a 'trickle' but in fact a solid flow of 80% of flow between the first and the second tank. This makes sense, because the surface ocean not only has a short time constant, but also a very limited amount of storage capacity. So, Navegante is right. The leak between tank 2 and tank 3 is responsible for a large fraction of CO2 removal. And that flow is very stable and tank 3 is insanely large (already contains some 38,000 Gton carbon (not a typo)). Back to first principles : Given these numbers, if we stop emitting right now, atmospheric CO2 will start to fall at a rate of about 2ppm/year, (since all the carbon sinks continue as they are today), this rate of decline will be reduced by some 12%, because the surface ocean is no longer accumulating carbon. And (again in this super simple model) if we cut emissions in half today, CO2 atmospheric levels will level off, but after 1 year start to increase at 12% of previous rate. Do we all agree on that now that the numbers are in ?
Sorry. That last sentence should read as follows : So exactly WHICH conclusion that Monroe drew IN HIS OWN WORDS was not supported by the referenced paper ?
D-Penquin, Sorry to drive this through, but regarding the Scripps paper you said : with a conclusion in his own words that were not supported by the referenced paper. When I asked you (twice) about which conclusion you are talking about you answered It is very difficult to explain something that is not there And you elaborated on something that was NOT in Monroe's paper. So WHICH conclusion IN HIS OWN WORDS are you talking about ? Its kind of important, because you are accusing Monroe of writing something that is not in the referenced paper, but when confronted you are stating only things that Monroe never wrote. So what exactly is it that bothers you about Monroe's paper ?
DCS, could you please confirm or deny that james cobban summarized your position correctly ? A simple yes or no would greatly help in moving this discussion forward.
D-Penquin, Regarding the Scripps paper, you mentioned Monroe revert to type, with a conclusion in his own words that were not supported by the referenced paper. to which I asked : I am really looking forward to your explanation of where Monroe's summary was "not supported by the referenced paper" as you claim. Still waiting for that explanation, D-Penquin
DCS said If CO2 emission were to stop in the short term then CO2 absorption by the oceans would almost stop in the short term You just keep on going with this myth, don't you ? If we stop emissions today, then tomorrow CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is virtually unchanged. So the oceans will continue their absorption rate, and not almost stop in the short term. Are you playing games, trying to see how far you can go denying basic physics ?
DCS, In an effort to understand your comments I read this from you : So a halving of the current CO2 emission rate would result in about a halving of the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration, as measured on an annual basis. which is in direct contradiction to the RCP2.6 simulations in the figures I posted above. Are you now convinced that halving the current CO2 emission rate would result in a leveling off of atmospheric CO2 concentration, instead of the halving of the rate that you assert, or not ?
Toggle Commented Jan 16, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
D-Penquin said I find it really difficult to understand why so many comments posted have denied or resisted acknowledging the fact that oceans play no part in the solution of reducing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is a very strange comment to make, D-Penquin, since the very paper that your quoted yourself http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/095012 shows (in figure 3 for example) that the oceans are are very significant carbon sink, and even under the RCP2.6 scenario will continue to do so until at least 2300. What were you thinking when you wrote "The oceans have no effect on atmospheric concentration of CO2. " ?
Toggle Commented Jan 15, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
DCS said : I think that I've explained my position that a halving of the CO2 emission rate would result in about a halving of the CO2 absorption rate by the oceans in the near term. Yes. You have asserted that 'position' for four or five times now, but that does not make it correct. You seem to be impervious to reason and evidence, and just continue to assert your 'position' without presenting any evidence yourself. Based on first principles (like that oceans and plants respond to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, not our RATE of emission) we can expect that the current carbon sink of the oceans and land plants (absorbing some 5 Gton Carbon/year; about half of our current emission rate of 9.3 GtonC/year according to the Scripps paper) is not going to change much unless we substantially change the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Thus, if we cut our emission rate in half, we will see a leveling off of CO2, NOT a halving of the rate as you assert. And if we cut emissions to zero, we will see a decline of 5 GtonC/year (about 2ppm/year) in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Here is another piece of evidence that you are wrong and Bill and Bfrazer and me are right : Look at the RCP2.6 scenario simulations. Here is the emission rate going forward to 2100 : and here is the resulting atmospheric CO2 concentration : Note that the CO2 concentration peaks (levels off) around 2045, which coincides with an emission rate of about half our current rate. And note that when emissions go to zero (at around 2070), that the atmospheric CO2 rate is on a 2ppm/year downslope. Which is consistent with the view that the oceans and land plants absorb carbon based on atmospheric CO2 concentration, NOT based on our rate of emission.
Toggle Commented Jan 15, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
D-Penquin, I am really looking forward to your explanation of where Monroe's summary was "not supported by the referenced paper" as you claim.
Toggle Commented Jan 13, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
D-Penquin, If you really think that Monroe's summary of the Scripps paper is not "acceptable", then why did you link to it ?
Toggle Commented Jan 13, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice