« The 11th Key Science Moment of 2016 | Main | EGU 2017 call for abstracts »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Rob Dekker

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 :

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.

Rob Dekker

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.


Rob Dekker | January 24, 2017 at 05:21
Rob Dekker | January 24, 2017 at 05:41


Oh dear, the ultimate insult, to be compared to a climate science denier. Of course, as you would expect, I deny the denial charge.

Regarding the climate science; I have not yet read a peer reviewed paper or cited article with which I disagree. So, unless I am a 'spoiler' or 'stupid' our differeces of opinion must be on the 'interpretation' of what we read.

I am looking for your help here in trying to understand your position, because I hope that you are right.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I beleive our respective positions differ on:-

1. If the reduction in Fossil Fuel emissions are achieved then atmosperic CO2 will reduce to an acceptable level over a reasonable period of time (say 100 years?) because of the Ocean Sink.

2. The part played by the Intermediate/Deep Ocean Sink in the future reduction of atmospheric CO2.

If we could at least agree on where we disagree perhaps that would be a good starting point.

Perhaps it would also help with communication if points could be numbered as above with the response being AGREE or DISAGREE. Obviously if the response is DISAGREE then an explanation of our respective thinking on that point would help to progress the debate.

If we could at least agree on where we disagree perhaps that would be a good starting point.

Or maybe it's just a good ending point that you agree to disagree, and that we all agree that emissions need to be reduced and then go negative asap.


It gave hope to read this thread and that is important, to find hope, and change things in life and show others (at least your child). The 'we are doomed' thing is destructive per se.


navegante | January 25, 2017 at 07:31

Navegante, there IS hope.

The Paris Agreement was the first step only. I beleive that step by step the Agreement will move towards implimentation of the correct IPCC RGP in time to achieve a successful outcome to AGM; ordinary men and women will also act as a catalysts to ensure the appropriate political responses are put into practice.

IPCC new emphasis into research into SR 1.5degC following submission of independent report:-

(copy and paste)

The timetable for submissions is very, very tight but the scientists have said they will 'rise to the challenge' (good luck to them).

Also important in the changed format of working and presentation is the integration of socio-economic assessment factors, previously a sequential process. This is also an important area of study for Neven. I am sure that he will be pleased about this development although his interest, I beleive, relates more to a Global System of Fairness and new Financial Structures. It is my hope that the Global co-operation to combat AGM will also require a new system of Global values to emerge.

All the latest IPCC Reports that I have read now refer to removal of atmospheric C02 direct from the atmosphere to acheive RCP targets aided by reforestaion, afforestation, land management and related issues. And, yes, control of the global Energy balance affected by Solar Insolation.

The most comprehensive and detailed Report that I have read to date is:-


6.5 (through to Acknowledgements)
Potential Effects of Carbon Dioxide
Removal Methods and Solar Radiation
Management on the Carbon Cycle

I beleive that a successful resolution of the AGW threat will require tolerant and informed debate between scientists, politicians and the ordinary men and women of the world.

If we are all successfull our children and grandchildren will inherit a better place with greater understanding between all peoples of the world.

Rob Dekker

D-Penquin, you really hit my buttons. Congrats on that.
You said :

The Paris Agreement was the first step only.

No. The first step was the Kyoto agreement, which was adopted in 1997, TEN YEARS AGO.

In your second sentence you said :

I beleive that step by step the Agreement will move towards implimentation of the correct IPCC RGP in time to achieve a successful outcome to AGM;

You probably mean RCP (Representative Concentration Pathways) instead of RGP, and AGW (anthropogenic global warming) instead of AGM.
Not to mention that it is interesting that you do not mention which RCP you find to be "correct".

And these were just the first two sentences.

Rob Dekker

Ah. The first step, the Kyoto agreement, was adopted in 1997, which is now TWENTY YEARS ago, thank you very much.

Bill Fothergill

It is perhaps worth noting than both David Archer and Ralph Keeling were contributing authors to AR5 WG1 Chapter 6.

@ Rob "Twenty Years".

As we are talking about international agreement/cooperation on an environmental time-bomb, one could think about the "Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer" which was agreed 30 years ago.

The very need for that agreement causes me grave concern when forms of geo-engineering get mentioned. I'm pretty sure that Thomas Midgley and the rest of the chemistry boffins at General Motors didn't see that one coming. At the time, dichlorodifluromethane (aka Freon 12, aka CFC-12) must have seemed like the answer to a maiden's prayer.

Similarly, several years earlier, when the unfortunate Mr Midgley, Charles Kettering, et al (we're still talking General Motors) were discovering how good tetraethyl lead was at boosting octane rating, they were not quite so quick at recognising some of the adverse effects.


Rob Dekker | January 26, 2017 at 08:50

Paris Agreement - Countries agreed to reduce FF emissions on a voluntary basis and in that sense, this was, the 'first step' towards implementation of a policy; not per se the Paris meeting. Whereas, Kyoto was very much about procedural agreement.

RGP and AGM errors - You are correct, my typo errors.

The reason why I did not volunteer a preference was because it was not relevant in responding to the comment made by Navegante. I was simply explaining why I thought that there was 'hope'.

The comments to this entry are closed.