This is bobcobb's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following bobcobb's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
[snip. Bob Cobb is a concern troll who has posted here and on the forum under different names such as BryantFinlay, Bryant Morganelli and Bryman. I'm fine with people changing names, or posting under different ones, but let people know, so they know who they are talking to. This guy has never done that. I guess his goal is to sow discord and spoil the atmosphere on blogs and forums, setting up strawmen and provoking. I don't know if it is because he's a cornutopian or a (paid) climate risk denier, and I don't care. Sorry for not catching this earlier (someone mailed me about it), especially to you Susan, who took the effort to engage and keep the peace. I suspected Bob Cobb was a concern troll, but didn't know it was the same guy I had blocked/banned previously. Neven]
Toggle Commented Jun 7, 2016 on Crisis in the Cryosphere at Arctic Sea Ice
Andy, I cannot agree with you more. In my humble opinion, whether the renewables surge continues to gain steam or not, particularly in the States, really depends on the election here. I realize some environmental proponents aren't excited about Clinton, but her policies are actually pretty good. I think the chances of a Trump win are slim to none. Not even the electorate here, stupid as they can be sometimes (or pardon my language, but the idiots who don't bother to vote in the midterms that left us with Repugnant majorities in Congress), are going to make that bad a mistake. Neven, Lol.
Toggle Commented Jun 6, 2016 on Crisis in the Cryosphere at Arctic Sea Ice
Your flair for the doom amazes me. Michael Mann, who I dare say is a lot more qualified than you are, views things quite differently:
Toggle Commented Jun 6, 2016 on Crisis in the Cryosphere at Arctic Sea Ice
D, Pardon me for saying so, but I'm pretty sure the Canfield ocean you're referring to isn't going to happen for a long time, if at all
Toggle Commented Jun 6, 2016 on Crisis in the Cryosphere at Arctic Sea Ice
Yes, andy, you're right, but the whole point is to reduce emissions and avoid as much damage as possible.
Toggle Commented Jun 6, 2016 on Crisis in the Cryosphere at Arctic Sea Ice
Sam, Have you not paid any attention to the studies and articles I have cited regarding oceanic methane release? I'll say it again, you make a lot of assumptions without backing it up. I seem to remember Chris Reynolds questioning them as well. Your claims regarding emissions and renewables are simply false. There was no recession in 2014 or 2015. It's not "enough" for me because you make patently false claims and extreme predictions which you don't provide any convincing evidence for.
Toggle Commented Jun 6, 2016 on Crisis in the Cryosphere at Arctic Sea Ice
And I don't know where you're getting the hundreds of additional Co2 equivalent PPM. That's simply hogwash. Those gases are already accounted for, and even then it's a bit misleading:
Toggle Commented Jun 6, 2016 on Crisis in the Cryosphere at Arctic Sea Ice
You also seem to be making a lot of projections that aren't necessarily inevitable. I would go so far as to say they might be extreme. And there was a study done that posited that emissions did fall:
Toggle Commented Jun 6, 2016 on Crisis in the Cryosphere at Arctic Sea Ice
Sam, What you're saying is simply untrue: Emissions slowing is not happening due to recession at all. You have provided no evidence to support that claim.
Toggle Commented Jun 6, 2016 on Crisis in the Cryosphere at Arctic Sea Ice
Sam, With all due respect, emissions stalled in 2014 and then dropped slightly in 2015. Even Michael Mann said that in his latest interview with Thom Hartmann. I'm pretty sure no recession was going on then
Toggle Commented Jun 6, 2016 on Crisis in the Cryosphere at Arctic Sea Ice
Sam, While I appreciate your urgency, all the evidence I've seen from reading various articles on climate news sites and posts by climate scientists indicate we're not doubling down on burning everything. Quite the opposite actually
Toggle Commented Jun 5, 2016 on Crisis in the Cryosphere at Arctic Sea Ice
D, While I agree with you that using Archer's post from four years ago is flawed, there is much recent research to indicate that marine shelf methane is probably less of a problem than you think it is. The Center for Arctic Gas Hydrate has a good deal of expertise on the subject, as the following links indicate: 1. 2. There are also atmospheric constraints: Even so, you are definitely corrrect to say that we have to keep ch4 emissions in mind.
Toggle Commented Jun 3, 2016 on Crisis in the Cryosphere at Arctic Sea Ice
ColoradoBob, While that may be true for the long-term average, the 2016 SIE is 10 days behind 2015, which I think is a better measure of the scale of things. Either way, as Chris would say, should make for an exciting melt season. Neven, The extent loss was particularly pronounced in April and the first half of May, but it's slowed down considerably in the second half of May despite the high temperatures. Any ideas on why that is? Something with the winds?
Toggle Commented May 30, 2016 on ASI 2016 update 1: both sides at Arctic Sea Ice
Ac A, What did Box say? I like that guy
Toggle Commented May 29, 2016 on ASI 2016 update 1: both sides at Arctic Sea Ice
Of course, Susan. Vaughn, you make a fair point. I have a history of dealing with Mcphersonites and their ilk who have insulted me before on when I've brought up my points in Fractal Planet and elsewhere. So you might understand why I post the way I do. I will ease off on the abruptness and such. That being said, I think most on here would agree that there's virtually no chance of ice free this year.
Fair enough Susan.
Alright, I'll refrain myself
Neven, I find it funny you take offense against me instead of someone like fufu. If you're going to judge people, at least be fair about it. Fryingpan, There's a difference between being concerned and overdoing it. AMEG is a textbook example of that. Of course I think abrupt methane release is something to consider and plan for, but it's a far cry to say the sky is falling. And if you're so concerned about trolls, then why are you jumping in right now instead of earlier.
D, I take it personally when I see doomers spread false alarm and make it seem like the world is ending, and I often find their arguments fall apart. And shipboard observations support my argument about seabed methane: Paul Overduin has done work in the Siberian Shelf area for as long as Shakhova has, and his conclusions are different: To say nothing of one of the chief GHG monitoring scientists at NOAA:
Fufu, What an insightful statement! Did you spend hours coming up with that pathetic statement? Btw, I can footnote everything I said. I can also spot shills, and you have the look of one
Sam, I think you're overstating the importance of seabed methane. Indeed, all the evidence from the latest studies and from atmospheric methane readings suggest no substantial release from clathrates are occurring or will occur any time in the near future. More likely it will be a gradual release over centuries to milennia. For terrestrial permafrost, the work of Natali et al suggests gradual release on a centennial scale, largely dependent on RCP scenarios. As far as progress going forward on emissions, that really hinges on the elections in Australia on July 2 and here in the US in November. David, the temperatures for 2016 so far add up 1.45C, but a La Nina is most likely to happen. When the effects of the El Nino die down and La Nina start to take effect, it's likely the average will drop 1.2 at max and probably around 1 at the minimum, maybe less.
Oliver, What do mean if we are still there? You're not a Mcphersonite, are you?
Abbott, I'm gathering you haven't been paying attention to the polls that much or the demographic changes in the States. Clinton is beating Trump handily in the national polls and in the key swing states of Virginia, Pennysylvania, Florida, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. All she has to do is merely defend the swing states she currently has, while Trump has to basically sweep the Rust Belt. Not a likely scenario. Also, Hispanics, women, and blacks have been growing in the population and turn out to vote in large numbers in the presidential elections, mainly for Democrats. Of course if they got off their asses to vote in midterms, we wouldn't have a repugnant Congress right now. Either way, I would be extremely surprised if Clinton doesn't win by a relatively large margin in the electoral college, especially considering she's competitive against Trump in states like Georgia.
Tony, my position still is more or less intact. Rignot has doubt about whether Hansen's projections will happen. Chris more or less supported my position
The ridge isn't there anymore. The El Nino took out the blob that is connected with it. What I mean is that saying it's too late in general is not necessarily true. Emissions have stalled over the last two years (which could mean global emissions may have peaked already), renewable energy is making great strides (still a long way to go), China's emissions trend is looking very promising, and India is focusing more on solar than previously though. Even so, there's a very long way to go and we're in for some tough times, but I don't think we're screwed. The Arctic Ocean will become ice-free in the summer at some point. Who knows when? But the extent of that can be limited. And let's not forget SRM as a potential wildcard. Now if a Repugnant gets elected here in the States, then that changes things for the worse. But I don't see that happening.