[y66]

From the Shenandoah Valley's Climate Action Alliance weekly roundup on climate news:

Quote

Many people are wondering what outcome is required from the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 21) in Paris for it to be considered a success. Anthony Hobley of the Carbon Tracker Initiative provides a set of criteria. One concern about the conference is how much aid to developing countries the developed countries will commit to. In the past developed nations have promised to provide $100 billion annually, but pledges have fallen short of that value. Now French President Francois Hollande has pledged to increase France’s contribution from $3.3 billion annually to $5.6 billion by 2020.

Six large U.S. Banks have called for a strong international agreement on climate change. They said that putting a price on carbon is essential to unlocking investments in clean energy. In addition, Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England warned of the huge financial risk exposure faced by the insurance and other industries as a result of climate change and 15 insurance executives echoed his call for action.

[Daniel1960]

Zelandakh, on 2015-October-05, 08:20, said:

Saying it is so does not make it true. Provide evidence that the underlying science projecting future warming is untrue, then respond to criticism when those arguments are challenged.

See the following plot of climate model predictions compared to observed data.

http://www.drroyspen...s-thru-2013.png

Those models that rely most heavily on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels when calculating future warming, have fared the worst. Those that take into account solar and oceanic cycles have fared much better.

http://www.clim-past...-9-447-2013.pdf
http://science.nasa....jan_sunclimate/

Many seem to overlook the assertions by the IPCC concerning the accuracy of the climate models. "Most simulations of the historical period do not reproduce the observed reduction in global mean surface warming trend over the last 10 to 15 years. There is medium confidence that the trend difference between models and observations during 1998–2012 is to a substantial degree caused by internal variability, with possible contributions from forcing error and some models overestimating the response to increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing. Most, though not all, models overestimate the observed warming trend in the tropical troposphere over the last 30 years, and tend to underestimate the long-term lower stratospheric cooling trend."

https://www.ipcc.ch/...ter09_FINAL.pdf

[Al_U_Card]

[CO2] is the only climate "forcing" that we can affect by our actions.
Climate models use [CO2] as the main control knob for global climate "warming". (All effects derived from studies that rely on model-generated projections to elaborate and extend the analyses of data observed over the recent past.) If [CO2] is not of any real consequence in global climate then it cannot be used to control anything and its use as a market, price or evaluation of our energy footprint has no relation to climatic extremes or results.

That banks and bankers (insurance companies as well) want to have a new means of affecting markets or exploiting them is no surprise.

Mark Carney (such a name...Carney..) used to be the Gov. of the Bank of Canada until Harper got tired of his green leanings. Carney's wife Diana is a fervent supporter of Greenpeace. Perhaps England's tendency towards government involvement in things environmental helped him decide on his change of career venue?

Either way, the models are unable to handle global climate. Any improvement to them must involve a better replication of ACTUAL GLOBAL CLIMATE and not just agreement among themselves. Dr. David Evans work is aimed in that direction, whether it please enviro-zealots or not. Real science will eventually describe the actual relationship that exists between [CO2] and climate. At present, it is clear that the current IPCC generated scenarios only serve the interests of environmental scare-mongers and bankers...

[Zelandakh]

Al_U_Card, on 2015-October-05, 16:58, said:

[CO2] is the only climate "forcing" that we can affect by our actions.

Once again, your initial assumption is trivially untrue. Back up your claims with supporting data.

[Al_U_Card]

The other basic problem is that we only account for about 4% of the total CO2 in circulation at any time. Reducing that would have a correspondingly minor effect on the overall carbon cycle. Perhaps the warming oceans are out-gassing the CO2 that has been really greening our planet lately?

Take your pick

[Zelandakh]

Al_U_Card, on 2015-October-06, 06:18, said:

The other basic problem is that we only account for about 4% of the total CO2 in circulation at any time.

You are using a misleading definition of the word circulation here. Tell us instead what proportion of atmospheric CO2 is attributable to humans. Please compare with pre-Industrial Revolution levels but not with historic numbers.

[phil_20686]

Zelandakh, on 2015-October-06, 08:25, said:

You are using a misleading definition of the word circulation here. Tell us instead what proportion of atmospheric CO2 is attributable to humans. Please compare with pre-Industrial Revolution levels but not with historic numbers.

That's not the main problem. The CO2, and the atmosphere generally, accounts for substantially all the reason that the earth does not approach the temperature of space at night time. Thats about 300 degrees kelvin colder than the average temperature of the earth, so changing that knob by 4% is pretty f****** huge.

Obviously, its not linear etc etc, but the idea that "we only account for a small amount therefore can't be important" is pretty inane. I mean, the Russian's only accounted for a small amount of the food that Alexander Litvinenko ate, but it was terminal none the less!

[y66]

Here are some items from Les Grady's roundup of climate news for the week ending October 16th:

Quote

In a Commentary published in the journal Nature Geoscience UK climate scientist Kevin Anderson accuses his fellow climate scientists of deliberately downplaying the challenge of keeping warming below 2 degrees C. His analysis concludes that to have even a slim chance of staying under that limit will require a revolution in how we both consume and produce energy. This is a very sobering commentary, as discussed by Ed King, who also cites a paper published this week in Environmental Research Letters that warns that the combined climate plans of the U.S., the EU, and China leave little room; for emissions from other countries if we are to stay below the carbon budget.

In a new series of articles, The Guardian asks “Which countries are doing the most to stop dangerous global warming?”. In those articles they examine the pledges of 14 nations ahead of the November Paris climate conference.

N. Gregory Mankiw is a conservative economics professor at Harvard, yet he advocates a carbon tax as the best way to fight climate change. To find out why, read this interview by Amanda Little in Grist. Then read what Eduardo Porter has to say about “Bringing Republicans to the Climate Change Table.”

A new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change examined precipitation in the Sierra Nevada mountains of California to determine how frequently it has been as low as this past year. They used precipitation records back to about 1930 and tree ring data back to around 1500. They found that the current drought was the worst in the entire 500 year record. Furthermore, with further warming the frequency of such a drought is likely to increase.

In an article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences researchers from the US and Germany examine the possible fate of US cities in the face of sea level rise. A key finding is that millions of Americans may already live in cities destined to be inundated. Whether they will or not depends on whether we reduce our CO2 emissions and the fate of the West Antarctic ice sheet. Andrew Freedman provides a more detailed analysis in Mashable.

Climate feedbacks have a very important impact on the outcome from adding CO2 to the atmosphere. In fact, they are the major complicating factor that makes it difficult to know exactly how much Earth will warm in response to more CO2. Prof. Eric Wolff of the University of Cambridge in the UK has explained the term feedback and summarized the major ones acting on the climate system, indicating where uncertainties lie. His piece was prepared for a general audience.

Three items from the oil front. BP's top economist has admitted that some of the world's oil will not be burned because of concerns over climate change. While many factors enter into decisions concerning oil exploration, it is encouraging to note that exploration for new oil reserves has been significantly curtailed. On Friday the Interior Department announced that it is cancelling oil lease sales for the Arctic Ocean for 2016 and 2017.

Perhaps it's the crazy weather we've been having, but according to a new poll, there has been a significant increase in the percent of Americans who believe that climate change is happening and that humans are influencing it.

[Daniel1960]

In other news, renowned physicist Freeman Dyson was interviewed about his views on the evidence for global warming and the consequences and benefits.

https://e360.yale.ed...g-skeptic/1880/

While the data shows that California is indeed experiencing its driest episode in 500 years, the period up until the year 1500 was significantly drier, with mega-droughts lasting over a century. We have been living in a relatively wet era for the state.

http://www.mercuryne...ave-lasted-more

Neither the satellite data, nor the tidal gauges shows any change in sea level rise. Yes, some cities may be inundated, but it will take centuries, if not millennia.

http://www.kaltesonn...massage-helfen/

[Al_U_Card]

Yes, the world is warming, gradually, gently and intermittently for the last several hundred years. We are in an intermittent pause for the last 20 years or so. This despite atmospheric [CO2] going from more than 0.3 parts per thousand to 0.4 parts per thousand. This compared to the much greater presence/influence of water vapor as a GHG...
The sun appears to be headed for a much quieter (and therefore cooler on earth) period after decades of heightened activity.
Global sea-ice is steady overall and weather is no "weirder" than it has been since recorded history. If anything, lately despite being closely watched, it has been generally more beneficial than previously. The earth is "greening" under the increased food supply provided by our thoughtless carbon recycling (from the ground to the atmosphere to the plants).

Climate models predict thermageddon but they are inaccurate and unsubstantiated. The UN wants more money to pay for islands sinking (that are not) storms increasing (that are not) and guilty consciences at are definitely more guilty.

Look at the claims and discard model-based conjecture. Rely on the data and factual analyses. Save your money to pay for snow removal.

[blackshoe]

That reminds me. I need to buy the electric shovel that I should have bought last year. :-)

[y66]

From the Climate Action Alliance of the Shenandoah Valley weekly climate news roundup.

Quote

According to NOAA data, September 2015 was the hottest September on record. In addition, so far 2015 is progressing as the hottest year on record by a wide margin.

The latest installment of Inside Climate News‘ investigative report on Exxon focuses on its role in sowing doubt about climate change by stressing uncertainty.

Because of accounting procedures adopted in previous climate negotiations, countries are responsible only for the CO2 emissions from within their own borders, regardless of where the fossil fuel being burned originated. This has allowed the U.S. to chide India and China about their increased use of coal, even though some of that coal came from the U.S. Not only that, the coal came from public lands (i.e., it belongs to American citizens) and is being sold to coal companies at a deep discount. Such situations make it difficult for us to be taken seriously in climate negotiations.

A new analysis by the International Energy Agency of the pledges by over 150 nations prior to the Paris climate summit shows that while CO2 emissions will be slowed, the global emission rate will still be increasing by 0.5% a year in 2030.

Krill is the foundation of the entire Antarctic aquatic food chain, as well as an important target for commercial fishing. Thus it is disturbing to find that ocean acidification could reduce Antarctic krill production by 20 to 70 percent by 2100.

[Zelandakh]

y66, on 2015-October-29, 20:32, said:

From the Climate Action Alliance of the Shenandoah Valley weekly climate news roundup.

So they believe it is ok to use the dirtiest energy sources possible so long as they get bought from another country? Interesting concept but perhaps one they should think through a little bit.

[mike777]

Zelandakh, on 2015-October-30, 04:07, said:

So they believe it is ok to use the dirtiest energy sources possible so long as they get bought from another country? Interesting concept but perhaps one they should think through a little bit.

I believe the objection is for a few people with economic and political power in govt to destroy the coal industry and coal jobs.



There would be far less push back if the coal industry was destroyed via the decisions of tens of millions of consumers in the marketplace. Granted there would still be DEMANDS by the unions FOR THE government to step in and save the industry. See what is happening with the steel industry in the UK.


I believe the main discussion is that people are violently opposed to the proposition that "We must concentrate power in Washington sufficient to avoid these terrible consequences."

"...How do you get people to accept scientific research?" "... Do you do that by insulting those who disagree with you, with sarcasm, rudeness, arrogance." "... quite a large number of people feel that that's the way to go...."

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2015-October-30, 12:41, said:

I believe the objection is for a few people with economic and political power in govt to destroy the coal industry and coal jobs.



There would be far less push back if the coal industry was destroyed via the decisions of tens of millions of consumers in the marketplace. Granted there would still be DEMANDS by the unions FOR THE government to step in and save the industry. See what is happening with the steel industry in the UK.


I believe the main discussion is that people are violently opposed to the proposition that "We must concentrate power in Washington sufficient to avoid these terrible consequences."

"...How do you get people to accept scientific research?" "... Do you do that by insulting those who disagree with you, with sarcasm, rudeness, arrogance." "... quite a large number of people feel that that's the way to go...."

So, you prefer mob rule over a representative form of government?

[Al_U_Card]

You read the scientific research carefully and analyze the uncertainties and inaccuracies. Once you realize that the only rational conclusion is NOT alarmism and mitigation but cost-effective adaptation as required.
When CO2 rises and temperatures do not then you rethink all the fuss about carbon footprints etc.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2015-October-30, 13:17, said:

So, you prefer mob rule over a representative form of government?

1) I don't equate capitalism and markets with mob rule..I see you do...ok
2) I don't define representative form of government with having economic and political power in the exact same few hands...if you do ...ok. You do thus the discussion.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on 2015-October-30, 13:17, said:

So, you prefer mob rule over a representative form of government?

In the future, as the effects of climate change continue to worsen, the very people who oppose government action now will blame the government for not doing enough to stop the carbon polluters. That's always the way it goes...

[mike777]

PassedOut, on 2015-October-30, 13:27, said:

In the future, as the effects of climate change continue to worsen, the very people who oppose government action now will blame the government for not doing enough to stop the carbon polluters. That's always the way it goes...

Yes that is a comment we often hear. The actions/methods of those who prefer a more limited Washington DC are in fact resulting in just the opposite, more and more economic power flowing into the hands of political power in DC.

[Al_U_Card]

Much like the Montreal protocol concerning CFCs and the ozone hole ( natural cycle so no need to spend trillions on UN bureaucracy and refrigerant changeovers...)
Those fearsome climate changes caused by our energy use have so far resulted in? Greening of the biosphere. Energy availability to the 3rd world.
All for a supposed .7C rise and steady sea level rise.