UNFCCC Accord de Paris

[JimL]

wow, three cliches at once. congrats.

The left is strong in this one.




Great, then get India and China to stop burning coal - their carbon emissions have actually gone up. They belong to the UNFCCC. Why isn't it stopping them from polluting?

Because its a process, different countries are working under different circumstances. For instance, carbon emissions for China will not peak in this agreement until 2030, because due to their circumstances they can not do it any faster. The idea is to get every country to begin the process, and to reach their particular goals to the best of their abilities with respect to their particular circumstances, not for them all to just magically end the use of fossil fuels. If you are going to argue against the deal, you should at least understand a little something about it.

[Sparko]

Because its a process, different countries are working under different circumstances. For instance, carbon emissions for China will not peak in this agreement until 2030, because due to their circumstances they can not do it any faster.

[tabibito]

Source: Science Daily (2013)

"By continuing to put these huge amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we're gambling with climate and the outcome is still uncertain," Zeebe said. "The legacy of our fossil fuel burning today is a hangover that could last for tens of thousands of years, if not hundreds of thousands of years to come."

© Copyright Original Source

With the ice gone, the cooling effects because of its albedo will also be gone. So it is already too late to stop the effect, particularly with countries continuing to increase output of CO2 for the next decade and more - we need to devise strategies to cope with the effects..

Source: https://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2007/01/

in 2003, an estimated 53 percent of the U.S. population lived in coastal communities; many of these people would be forced to move inland in the face of unpreventable sea-level rise caused by a natural cycle of global warming.

Whether increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations are anthropogenic or not, Armstrong says that with glacial melting factored in, sea levels are expected to rise by 2 to 9 m over the next century. "The best science today is telling us that we have got to start planning," Armstrong said. The more scientific research that the USGS, NOAA, and others conduct on the numerous impacts of rising CO2 levels, Armstrong believes, the better scientists will be able to quantify the critical nature of the situation for policymakers.

© Copyright Original Source

Ultimately, the cause is irrelevant (except insofar as it can be controlled) - we have global warming and it won't be going away any time soon, nor because we stop carbon emissions. That isn't to say the exercise is pointless - just that killing off CO2 emissions won't be enough ... we'll still have to deal with the residual effects of what has already been done.

[Sparko]

Source: Science Daily (2013)

"By continuing to put these huge amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we're gambling with climate and the outcome is still uncertain," Zeebe said. "The legacy of our fossil fuel burning today is a hangover that could last for tens of thousands of years, if not hundreds of thousands of years to come."

© Copyright Original Source

With the ice gone, the cooling effects because of its albedo will also be gone. So it is already too late to stop the effect, particularly with countries continuing to increase output of CO2 for the next decade and more - we need to devise strategies to cope with the effects..

covering the earth with large areas of BLACK solar cells won't help.

[Sparko]

Source: Science Daily (2013)

"By continuing to put these huge amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we're gambling with climate and the outcome is still uncertain," Zeebe said. "The legacy of our fossil fuel burning today is a hangover that could last for tens of thousands of years, if not hundreds of thousands of years to come."

© Copyright Original Source

With the ice gone, the cooling effects because of its albedo will also be gone. So it is already too late to stop the effect, particularly with countries continuing to increase output of CO2 for the next decade and more - we need to devise strategies to cope with the effects..

Source: https://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2007/01/

in 2003, an estimated 53 percent of the U.S. population lived in coastal communities; many of these people would be forced to move inland in the face of unpreventable sea-level rise caused by a natural cycle of global warming.

Whether increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations are anthropogenic or not, Armstrong says that with glacial melting factored in, sea levels are expected to rise by 2 to 9 m over the next century. "The best science today is telling us that we have got to start planning," Armstrong said. The more scientific research that the USGS, NOAA, and others conduct on the numerous impacts of rising CO2 levels, Armstrong believes, the better scientists will be able to quantify the critical nature of the situation for policymakers.

© Copyright Original Source

Ultimately, the cause is irrelevant (except insofar as it can be controlled) - we have global warming and it won't be going away any time soon, nor because we stop carbon emissions. That isn't to say the exercise is pointless - just that killing off CO2 emissions won't be enough ... we'll still have to deal with the residual effects of what has already been done.

according to the experts like Al Gore, we should all be under water NOW.

From 2007:

Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

[tabibito]

There were a few factors that were not anticipated. Like 7 (if I remember the number rightly) major volcanic eruptions in about a year that pumped a lot of dust into the upper atmosphere which blocked sunlight a bit. And (personal opinion) they didn't factor in the effect of mega x gigalitres of ice water flooding from land into the sea.

Global warming isn't a new thing by the way - it was first touted as an issue in the 1890s ... back then, the measures that they're talking about now would have been effective.

[Sparko]

There were a few factors that were not anticipated. Like 7 (if I remember the number rightly) major volcanic eruptions in about a year that pumped a lot of dust into the upper atmosphere which blocked sunlight a bit. And (personal opinion) they didn't factor in the effect of mega x gigalitres of ice water flooding from land into the sea.

Global warming isn't a new thing by the way - it was first touted as an issue in the 1890s ... back then, the measures that they're talking about now would have been effective.

really? show me something.

I remember in the 70's when they were predicting an ice age.

[JimL]

Thats correct, we would have had more time had we begun the process long ago but were forstalled by all you science deniers out there. This deal is based on the time factor, which once again the idiots of the world, mainly the conservative base of the U.S., is undermining.

[Sparko]

Thats correct, we would have had more time had we begun the process long ago but were forstalled by all you science deniers out there. This deal is based on the time factor, which once again the idiots of the world, mainly the conservative base of the U.S., is undermining.

[JimL]

Gee Sparko, you don't really seem to be this stupid most of the time, why can't you understand the subtleties of this deal? China, et. al, are not stopping their utilization of fossil fuels outright for the same reason we in the U.S. are not stopping outright, it can't be done like magic, each country has a different timeline dependent upon the circumstances of their own countries. The point is that it gets the process going and it gets each country to do their part to the best of their ability within the overall timeline needed to stop global temperature rise.

[Sparko]

Gee Sparko, you don't really seem to be this stupid most of the time, why can't you understand the subtleties of this deal? China, et. al, are not stopping their utilization of fossil fuels outright for the same reason we in the U.S. are not stopping outright, it can't be done like magic, each country has a different timeline dependent upon the circumstances of their own countries. The point is that it gets the process going and it gets each country to do their part to the best of their ability within the overall timeline needed to stop global temperature rise.

ahem. this line of argument started when I was arguing that forcing a country to artificially drop using fossil fuels by destroying the economy was a foolish idea. Tassman was the one who responded:

Reduce carbon pollution. Right now,But we have to act now.

https://www.climaterealityproject.org/climate-101

The problem is that Christian kooks aren't concerned with climate change or any other threat - because Jesus will return soon, and God promised not to destroy the earth. Wow. Science cannot argue with that mentality.

So you are arguing against Tassman, not me.

I love making you two argue against each other.

[tabibito]

really? show me something.

I remember in the 70's when they were predicting an ice age.

Yes. They were expecting cooling of the oceans by ice water from the big melt to trigger an ice age. The ice didn't melt in the short time span that might have caused that.

Climate change noted, but not attributed to human activity (the then current state of scientific research maybe didn't allow for it - and this isn't the one I remember ... it's just available on a fast scan.)
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...lobal-warming/

As to all the hype about the ocean cooling etc and so forth showing cause to doubt the warming stories. As I mentioned in 2014 (from memory) the cooling ocean temperatures have not even put a dent in the rising sea level rate. Even when the oceans actually show a drop in temperature - the sea level continues to rise at a nice steady 3mm per year. That water is ice water run off from land - the shrinking tundra has an impact, as does the melt from Antarctica ... melting and freezing of the arctic icecap doesn't.

Source: https://skepticalscience.com/Mystery-of-the-vanishing-ocean-heat.html

To close the sea level budget, total sea level rise (hTOT observed by altimeter satellites) should match the steric component (hSTERIC observed by Argo) plus the mass component (hMASS calculated from GRACE satellite measurements of the Earth's gravity field). The big surprise is that the rate of sea level rise hasn't dropped since 2003, continuing at over 3mm per year.

© Copyright Original Source

[Sparko]

Yes. They were expecting cooling of the oceans by ice water from the big melt to trigger an ice age. The ice didn't melt in the short time span that might have caused that.

no that is not it. They were talking about solar cooling and how it was time for the next ice age to hit us. It had NOTHING to do with global warming. I was there. I read the articles at the time. You can look them up. besides arguing that melting ice will trigger an ice age is just dumb.

Climate change noted, but not attributed to human activity (the then current state of scientific research maybe didn't allow for it - and this isn't the one I remember ... it's just available on a fast scan.)
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...lobal-warming/

yeah nothing to do with AGW at all. In fact there WAS no AGW in the 1890s. Full article: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...609C94619ED7CF

[One Bad Pig]

I love making you two argue against each other.

It's not exactly difficult to make Tassman argue against himself.

[tabibito]

no that is not it. They were talking about solar cooling and how it was time for the next ice age to hit us. It had NOTHING to do with global warming. I was there. I read the articles at the time. You can look them up. besides arguing that melting ice will trigger an ice age is just dumb.

Hmm. I could have mis-remembered in my old age.

yeah nothing to do with AGW at all. In fact there WAS no AGW in the 1890s. Full article: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...609C94619ED7CF

I'll keep looking for the article that had a bit about it.