When science is part of the conversation
Obtain correct zero: what really “real” means
Ma Rodger says May 30, 2025 at 4:37 am
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833899
Talking with and about William, Ma Rodger says:
However, allow me to be useful and provide some learning.
Among the “layoffs, insults, (and) false accusations” of your recent portion of comments here in RC, you tell us that “the concentrations of atmospheric co₂ will continue to increase every year until we achieve zero real real.”
That is false.
There is an army of science people involved in the global carbon project and its main objective is to completely quantify the carbon cycle. Every year they publish a carbon budget.
and
Then, once the world obtains CO2 emissions below the capacity of the oceanic/terrestrial sinks/of concrete and remains below, the atmospheric CO2 will decrease. [NOTE -insert- and not before then] (The sinks will also slowly decrease).
Therefore, it is completely false to affirm that “the atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ will continue to increase every year until we achieve real real zero.”
Thessalia: My opinion is that William is right and Rodger is wrong to say that it is not true. William tells the truth, Rodger does not distort her. I will let William explain it, I was following this and it is disappointing to see that it is swept under the carpet, and ignored by Ma Rodger in his next answer.
What a pity that there is no neutral referee to judge the affairs of science here about the real climate. It is not surprising that it is a dog fight. Please have patience with me here:
William says
May 31, 2025 at 6:51 pm
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-May-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833995
To Thessalonia – May 30, 2025 at 6:39 pm
Yes, everything is very strange, right?
Rodger thinks with problems above:This is completely fake To affirm that “the concentrations of atmospheric co₂ will continue to increase every year until we achieve zero real real”. I hope it is a useful learning for you.
William continues:
Rodger is wrong – again. What I said: “Atmospheric co -concentrations will continue to increase every year until we achieve real real zero” – it is 100% scientifically true.
At this time, if we broadcast around 11.3 GTC, while natural sinks (oceans, forests, earth, etc.) absorb only around 5.4 GTC. The result? Atmospheric Co₂ continues to increase. That is what I said, and exactly what confirms both the data and science.
The facts are not complicated, but ignoring them and writing beyond recognition to try to win “debate points” is beyond the pale. [Ken Towe has said the same things]
And still Ma Rodger Cuervos
May 31, 2025 at 4:23 am
“This William commentator bothers so much —” [end quotes]
Thessalonia:
William proceeded to explain how the framing he uses places the approach now, today. Which is a much better communication than presenting future deadlines when the climatic problem is supposed to be solved if programs such as Net Zero for 2050 work as promised.
Surely no one needs science referees that show that William is right, right? https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/net-zero-coalition For a backup then.
William already declared the scientifically obvious, that CO₂ concentrations continue to increase until zero of the real network is reachedWhat does it mean Emissions fall below the ability of natural sinks. That is not controversial. It is not controversial. It is not misleading. It is not in dispute. It’s alone TRUE.
So, when Ma Rodger declares with confidence that this is “completely false”, he is not only wrong, Your statement is itself false. That is a fact.
William explained it clearly and data. Rodger simply ruled it out. What tells you everything.
It is important to note that William’s Narrative framework Instead, it focuses at this time, but even if some regions or nations reduce their own GHG emissions, it does not prevent CO2 PPM from increase every year, because excessive GHG emissions still get in the atmosphere. Atmospheric Iow CO2 PPM continues to increase; And that atmosphere continues to increase its forcing of global temperatures and an unstable climate.
To frame it only in the future, once we arrive at Net Zero in 2050, we must assume that everything will be fine because then the “sinks” will begin to tear down those levels of atmospheric GHG, and will stop a greater warming. That remains only a theory, a plan, an objective, one that has not been achieved and has not been achieved with the intention described by the dominant climate consensus narrative.
First, energy and emissions already show 2050 is unattainable: a collapse of a global civilization in advance. What is your best assumption when it can be achieved? And what will the global CO2 ppm mean then? Can you provide your calculations and your data -based energy transition work?
Ma Rodger is telling everyone here (that they could believe his comment without thinking) that what William said is not true. But it’s true. It is a 100% solid climatic science. The way William (and others) choose to describe it is not the point. Rodger should pay better attention to what was said and what means scientifically.
When Ma Rodger responds again to William in the next comment, Rodger ignores everything, he omits, it is not a word, and instead returns to William about some other problem that Rodger finds failures. Here looks for yourself:
Ma Rodger says May 31, 2025 at 4:23 am
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-May-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833947
William,
Golly !! So, are you saying that your May 8 comment is not equivalent to saying “‘Forgets Agw! Our problem is that there are too many humans!”? ”
and
This William commentator bothers so much When the obvious meaning of your comment is pointed out. He bothers so much that he even feels the need to establish a gas sock puppet. William, you are in a state worse than I thought. Like that very famous president of the United States of paraphrase, you really need help, chum. You are losing your control of reality, being absorbed by a fantasy existence. Maybe it is that “in Springfield, they are eating the Dawgs!”
Oh, really, how nice. What a projection! This seems to me one of the most false answers I’ve seen here. What do William’s comments have to do with Trump? Nothing.
If someone else already exposed this, I apologize, but I have not seen it mentioned. It needs to be. In my humble opinion, the dominant climate consensus narrative is fatally defective and unreliable. The world deserves objective truth without ornaments, not the public relations of future glory in ever. Which suggests something indefinitely postponed, possibly forever.
Would you like some sources of climatic sciences to support all these “opinions”? I have a zero net narrative that I would like to share, that supports William’s positions and others with dozens of useful sources to share. Later.
To recapitulate:
William said:
“Co will continue to go up every year until it reaches the real network.”
Rodger said:
“That is completely false. “
But here is the truth:
William is right. Rodger is wrong.
Because:
If we are still issuing more than the planet can absorbCo₂ Go up. It only stops uploading when emissions fall Ability under the sink. That is what “real zero real” means. That is the point that William was doing.
So Rodger calls him “false” is … well, objectively false.
[Response: As a matter of definition, this is not correct. Stable CO2 levels will be achieved at with a ~70% cut of current emissions but will entail continued temperature rises as the planet moves towards equilibrium energy balance. Net zero is achieved at ~100% emission cuts which will lead to falling CO2 levels and (roughly) stable temperatures. These are not the same thing. – Gavin]
[Updated Response: Minor correction of previous comment. Sorry]
#REALCLIMATE #FORCED #VARIATIONS #June
