johnbrandt wrote:
Hey no, I don't feel embarassed...after all, I'm in good company...most of our media and a lot of other groups, including environmentalists, were asking the exact same questions I did there when it was on...if the government is so concerned about pollution and restricting every single bit of extra CO2 they can, then why didn't they "meet" by video linkup and not fly a huge cavalcade of people around the world? Big businesses do it all the time to save on costs...but then "saving on costs" has never been high on the list for people with thier snout deep in the public trough, has it...

mcgruff wrote:Fatuous nonsense. It's not as simple as setting up a video link. You can't have a difficult conference of this kind without people.

Obama Is Days Away From Killing Talks on a Climate Deal?

By Joss Garman
Posted: 12/ 4/11 12:55 PM ET
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joss-garm ... 27748.html

You don't hear much about climate change any more, do you? But that doesn't mean it's gone away. The pollution driving rapid shifts in the global climate has actually increased by a record amount over the past year to the highest carbon output in history. But the number of column inches devoted to global warming correlate to the scale of the threat about as closely as media interest in credit default swaps before 2007 matched the impact they had when they helped blow up the global economy a year later.



Nine of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the past decade, while the cap of summer sea ice at the top of the world that acts as our planet's air conditioner has diminished in volume by three-quarters in 30 years. These are our Northern Rocks and our Bear Stearns, and the carbon debt loaded onto the atmosphere is now so large that it's only a matter of time before we face an environmental Lehman Brothers
. 


So I ask you to imagine there had been a conference in 2006 attended by almost every country on Earth devoted to neutralizing the threat from sub-prime mortgages and credit default swaps. Imagine also that 99% of the world's leading economists had written a series of reports detailing exactly how and when the bomb at the heart of the financial system would explode. And now imagine that at that conference the Americans assembled an international coalition to sabotage any action whatsoever to do anything about it.



Welcome to the Durban climate talks.



It's always seemed to me incongruous that the negotiations to agree a deal to prevent dangerous climate change -- a global pact to fundamentally alter the relationship between our energy economy and the natural world -- are held in air-conditioned conference center so sterile that they rarely contain a single plant, tree or even one of those herb pots you can buy at Morrisons.

I'm told that the conference center in Durban, where the climate talks landed this week, is slightly better acquainted with the real world than was the case at the last two annual climate summits in Copenhagen and Cancun. That said, the UK ministers who will have to do the deal (and who start arriving from tomorrow) are staying at the Hilton, inside the secure zone, and can therefore spend their entire time in Africa without actually witnessing life on the continent that's in the front line of rising temperatures.

Talking of Hiltons, rumors are circulating in Durban that the UK prime minister's policy guru Steve Hilton has jettisoned his sandals and is boasting of his new-found climate skepticism, thus aping the cynicism of Stewart Pearson, his character in The Thick Of It, while George Osborne this week articulated an analysis of the value of nature that wouldn't have been amiss coming from the mouth of Dick Cheney. All this leaves Chris Huhne looking like an increasingly isolated figure at home, but in Cancun he played a central role in keeping the Kyoto Protocol alive and in South Africa he will carry the hopes of people who still expect Britain to play a constructive role at these talks.

But whatever the state of the shifting sands of Britain's political culture, the big question in Durban is whether an extraordinarily obstructive Obama administration is days away from killing this process and burying its corpse next to the Doha round of trade talks

The stakes really are that high.

continues ...

johnbrandt wrote:I'm afraid I don't think a simple but catchy response about how money isn't the problem but a lack of political will is, is any answer at all.
You need someone who is used to organising big businesses...because that's what an entire new energy system would be...and who preferably has the infrastructure in place to make it work: transmission lines, refineries, large factories, and transport systems. The sad fact is that in most places the government just doesn't run this sort of thing anymore and relies on private enterprise to organise that sort of thing. Any time governments try and run things like that, it usually falls in an uneconomic heap in short order. Profits rule, like it or not, and if the best alternative energy system in the world doesn't turn a sound and ongoing profit, it isn't going to attract investors in the long term.

Short of printing money and simply taking over these large enterprises...like Shell...the government doesn't have the resources to do it without help.
Did the US government borrow $30 Trillion for WW2? A quick search shows figures that US debt in 1940 was $9 Billion, and in 1945 was $98 Billion, and that WW2 cost as a whole $330 Billion...I imagine that was all countries added up, and not just the USA costs, going by the debt level stated there.

I'd also like my previous statement addressed about China and India...

And therein lies the large grey quadraped with a trunk and floppy ears in the room that no one wants to address...China and India are going to be producing vast quantities of pollution of all sorts, much more than western nations, because they have somehow managed to get themselves labelled as "developing" countries. People complain because someone in a western country doesn't turn off a light in an empty room, yet China for one is commissioning one new coal fired power station every couple of weeks, and yes, as oft-quoted they are shutting down twenty dirty old ones...and replacing them with sixty new ones!
Come back and tell us to all drive Prius' and live in the dark when you've done something about getting China and India to stop thier massive expansions and economic growth...

Does "the west" have to make all the changes while allowing mere lip-service from massive countries that produce the real big levels of pollution? If you're serious about the environment, then you have to demand that they change as well...if not more because of thier numbers. If not, then you're just feeling some sort of guilt about living in a prosperous modern country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_India wrote:"Given India's growing energy demands and limited domestic fossil fuel reserves, the country has ambitious plans to expand its renewable and nuclear power industries. India has the world's fifth largest wind power market[8] and plans to add about 20GW of solar power capacity by 2022.[4] India also envisages to increase the contribution of nuclear power to overall electricity generation capacity from 4.2% to 9% within 25 years.[9] The country has five nuclear reactors under construction (third highest in the world) and plans to construct 18 additional nuclear reactors (second highest in the world) by 2025.[10]"

Globe wrote:Read up on it.
CERN was mentioned earlier in the thread. CERN confirmed a theory put forward in 1996 by a Danish professor about the cosmic ray flux on global cloud cover. Solar influence is important in that respect because, just as the magnetic field around earth, the solar magnetic field fluctuates. In the sun that is cause by the solar activity.
Henrik Svensmark was his name.... it got lost in the corners of my mind.

He was laughed out of the room by IPCC and the vast majority of climate scientists.
I suppose they will have to change their opinion about the effect of clouds, or lack of same, on global warming.

Globe wrote:No. Because he has been ridiculed publicly since he put his theory out there.
http://www.physicstoday.org/daily_editi ... /1.2603412

quotemine of a wall street journal article wrote:Jolis recounts the CLOUD experiment’s background, including the work of Henrik Svensmark, whom she portrays as a victim of the unscientific suppression of climate contrarianism. She also insinuates that anti-contrarian politics caused long delays in the start of the CLOUD experiment. She stipulates that “while the cosmic-ray theory has been ridiculed from the start by those who subscribe to the anthropogenic-warming theory, both Mr. Kirkby and Mr. Svensmark hold that human activity is contributing to climate change. All they question is its importance relative to other, natural factors.”

Wall Street Journal op-ed wrote:Jolis’s piece, however, either incorporates or echoes the arguments of the climate skeptic Nigel Calder, who sees enormous technopolitical implications in the CLOUD experiment and has offered an online posting under the headline “CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Can Influence Climate Change”. Calder comes close to asserting that CLOUD has endorsed what he calls “the Danish heresy — Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis that most of the global warming of the 20th Century can be explained by the reduction in cosmic rays due to livelier solar activity, resulting in less low cloud cover and warmer surface temperatures.”

However, we’ve found that the vapours previously thought to account for all aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can only account for a small fraction of the observations - even with the enhancement of cosmic rays.

Kirby

Global Emissions Grow at Record Rate as Nations Seek Climate Treaty
By Tilde Herrera
Published December 05, 2011

You may have heard the dismal news over the weekend that the global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are back on the rise, following a temporary dip during the recession.

CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels and producing cement grew 5.9 percent in 2010, largely driven by surging emissions in developing countries, as well as a return to the old upward trajectory in the developed nations.

In short, worldwide emissions topped 10 billion tonnes of CO2 for the first time in 2010, which could be the largest annual jump since the Industrial Revolution.

The release of the study from the Global Carbon Project, published in the journal Nature Climate Change and based on data from the U.S., U.N. and British Petroleum Company, comes as negotiators from around the world are meeting in Durban, South Africa over the fate of the Kyoto Protocol. The agreement, which commits developed countries -- except the U.S. -- to emissions cuts that average 5 percent below 1990 levels, expires in 2012.

But as the Global Carbon Project figures reveal, global CO2 emissions have risen 49 percent since then.

News reports were abuzz over the weekend that China was perhaps softening its stance on a binding post-Kyoto agreement. The country is now the world's largest emitter but has steadfastly opposed emissions reduction goals for itself that may hinder its economic growth.

But China told EU representatives that it would not accept binding targets for itself, the Associated Press reported. And Regardless of whether China changes its position, Canada said it would not renew its commitment under Kyoto. Japan and Russia have signaled similar plans.

All of this, as well as the continued uncertainty over the fate of a legally binding climate agreement, doesn't bode well for our chances of keeping global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius. A new report from the U.K.'s Met Office Hadley Centre warns that current trends put the world on a collision course with a 3 to 5 degree temperature rise by the end of the century.

The report analyzed the climate risks of 24 countries, finding that while some countries faced positive climatic changes, they were outweighed by negative impacts. Each country faces some sort of significant climate-related risks, such as coastal flooding, increased periods of drought or a reduction in food production.

andyx1205 wrote:Speaking of Global Warming, not sure if it has anything to do with this but it's December 5 and it has yet to snow in Montreal (it snowed for a day a few weeks ago and then rained the next, since then no snow). Though if it was GW wouldn't that mean the weather would simply be more extreme so it should have snowed more? Whatever the case, last year it not only snowed earlier, but it was muchhh colder, with temperatures hitting -15C on a regular basis around this time of year. Now it's been around -2 to +5 degrees.

Brunitski wrote:I wouldn't celebrate too soon FM, another hallmark of warming is wild fluctuations in average weather temps - so next year you may just find record falls, leading to the JBs of the world to claim the old "climate change is bunk, I mean just look at that snoooooow!"

Good News From Durban

By Jonathan Wootliff
Posted: 12/ 6/11 06:46 PM ET
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan- ... ate-change

It's all-too-easy for the cynics and skeptics to drown out the voices of optimism at the climate talks here in Durban. With environmentalists passionately arguing that politicians are failing the needs of our planet, and climate change disbelievers accusing scientists of fraud, it's hard for any good news to make the headlines.

The presence of the UN climate summit has transformed the largest city on Africa's East Coast into a hive a media activity, as NGOs and special interest groups battle for the attention of the 2,000-plus reporters covering this event.

While Greenpeace protestors get arrested for attempting to hang a banner on a building where business leaders debate low-carbon growth, members of the so-called Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow skydive into the conference trailing a placard discrediting climate change as a big lie.

Meanwhile, in stark contrast to the mass of media stunts going on around town, in the sober environment of the nearby Old Court House Museum, the Global Legislators Organization (GLOBE International) yesterday announced the publication of a weighty study of climate change legislation that's been passed in some 17 nations.

GLOBE's president, John Gummer, the veteran advocate for an enduring international agreement to combat global warming, gave an optimistic account of a raft of positive measures that have been introduced unilaterally by governments around the world.

He refreshingly argues that much is being done to alleviate the threat of climate change. "Many countries are doing a lot, and a few are not," which, he said, "should give considerable grounds for optimism."

Undertaken jointly with the London School of Economics' Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, the GLOBE study identifies a range of impressive national initiatives that give rise to some confidence that the climate challenge is not being ignored.

Examples include China's development of a comprehensive climate change legislation which builds in specific carbon targets in its latest five year plan; and the South African government's white paper, which incorporates a range of plans such as renewable energy targets and a carbon tax.

The study shows that all political parties in Mexico have recently agreed to come together to support new climate change legislation; Germany has outlined a radical new energy plan embraces a massive increase in renewable energy investment; and South Korea is in the process of introducing a legally-binding emissions trading scheme to cover all facilities producing more than 25,000 tons of CO2 per year by 2015.

The European Union has introduced new legislation setting performance standards for light commercial vehicles; Indonesia has enacted a presidential decree which imposes a moratorium on awarding any new forestry concessions; and Australia has just passed a Clean Energy Act which includes a long-debated emissions trading scheme, as well as bringing in a new carbon tax to become law in 2012.

Encouragingly, most of these progressive initiatives enjoy bipartisan support, with a few notable exceptions, like Australia where climate change has long been highly politicized. It is becoming apparent that many national legislators increasingly recognize the win-win benefits that climate change measures deliver in terms of energy efficiency and security, as well as the reduction of atmospheric pollution in their own countries.

Arguably, this trend reflects a shift from the hitherto political debate on climate change being largely framed around the concept of sharing a global burden, with national governments inevitably trying to minimize their share.

continues ...

Not saying that we shouldn't do something about pollution. I think polluters should be force to EAT what they pollute with.

Not saying that it's not troublesome that the climate might change. But let's take a step back and actually look at it with fresh eyes.

Tell me what "Normal" is, and we can start discussing whether we are in a no-normal trend.

Even IPCC are not ABSOLUTELY sure that what is going on is AGW. The probability is sufficiently high to emphasize it, but not so high that we should, mindlessly, disregard other theories/empirical evidence.

I have at no point said that the planet isn't warming. I haven't at no point said it was a hoax.
On the contrary... I gave a specific warning about what NOT to search for in order to avoid the woo-sites out there.

Doesn't really matter if it's for the cause of Global Warming.
I think it's despicable that they wont cut pollution for any reason.
Pollution kills and make people seriously ill, which in turn is very expensive for society as a whole.

When you see a factory you see big plumes of something coming out of the chimneys. That "something" is now mostly water vapor. Water vapor is accredited with as much as 50% of the heat trapping in our atmosphere, and every single factory is pumping it out by the ton each and every day, while the environmentalists are watching in awe and clapping their fat little hands because it's "harmless".
True.... water vapor is very short lived, but the brief time it is aerosolized it traps enourmous amounts of influx-heat.

Globe wrote:I wonder if any of you ever stop to wonder what that "WOOOSJH" sound is?

That's all the stuff I say that you DON'T read because you are all (most of you) caught up in the idea that I am a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-AGW.

When you see a factory you see big plumes of something coming out of the chimneys. That "something" is now mostly water vapor. Water vapor is accredited with as much as 50% of the heat trapping in our atmosphere, and every single factory is pumping it out by the ton each and every day, while the environmentalists are watching in awe and clapping their fat little hands because it's "harmless".

True.... water vapor is very short lived, but the brief time it is aerosolized it traps enourmous amounts of influx-heat.

andyx1205 wrote:Speaking of Global Warming, not sure if it has anything to do with this but it's December 5 and it has yet to snow in Montreal (it snowed for a day a few weeks ago and then rained the next, since then no snow). Though if it was GW wouldn't that mean the weather would simply be more extreme so it should have snowed more? Whatever the case, last year it not only snowed earlier, but it was muchhh colder, with temperatures hitting -15C on a regular basis around this time of year. Now it's been around -2 to +5 degrees.

QUEENSLAND'S summer cold snap has turned into a record-breaking streak, with a string of southern and western towns recording their coldest December days in years - some up to 15C below average.
It came as forecasters predicted almost a month of wet weather, running through Christmas to at least January 3.
And it's already started with rain falling over the southeast this morning.
The Bureau of Meteorology predicts rain periods will continue throughout the day with the weather easing to showers sometime tomorrow.
Showers are forecast to continue until at least Monday, with a possible storm forecast for that afternoon.
Brisbane is predicted to reach a maximum of 23C today – well below the December average of 29.4C
Coolangatta yesterday dipped to 20.7C, its coldest December day in 46 years.

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

Globe wrote:I wonder if any of you ever stop to wonder what that "WOOOSJH" sound is?

That's all the stuff I say that you DON'T read because you are all (most of you) caught up in the idea that I am a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-AGW.

Well, pal, when you refer to well known denialist websites when offering "proof" of something and when you condescendingly speak in scoffing tones about attendees at the COP17 Climate Confernece in Durban, South Africa, and otherwise offer up a load of fuzzified speech that nobody can figure out, you most assuredly leave the stench of a denialist in your wake.

All the references you made in this post to things you posted at earlier times come off like a cheap ruse, like maybe you just randomly plunked all those lines in your posts so they could be gathered up later into one post to "prove" your not a denialist.

You think "polluters should force (sic) to eat what they pollute with ..." and just WTF is that supposed to mean? A person can't eat a gas.

Well, I'd vote for this.

You see? It's fuzzified speech, doesn't really say anything. It's entirely non-commital about warming.

Then you have the temerity to post a real winner like this:

When you see a factory you see big plumes of something coming out of the chimneys. That "something" is now mostly water vapor. Water vapor is accredited with as much as 50% of the heat trapping in our atmosphere, and every single factory is pumping it out by the ton each and every day, while the environmentalists are watching in awe and clapping their fat little hands because it's "harmless".

True.... water vapor is very short lived, but the brief time it is aerosolized it traps enourmous amounts of influx-heat.

which once again scoffs at serious climate scientists (not to mention knowledgeable members of the public) and characterizes "environmentalists" condescendingly and rudely as people with the "little fat hands" who are dumber than a box of bolts. All while offering a starkly misleading remark about the role that water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect and in warming, as if climate science somehow missed all that water vapor and hasn't already studied it half to death.

What say we let folks here know where they can get the real story on that:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... vapor.html

So no, you haven't convinced me of anything ... except that you still haven't learned to use your <Enter> key and use it to properly space paragraphs in a post and that you're a guy who has a lot of trouble absorbing climate science in a balanced and reasonable fashion that comports with what that science is actually telling us.

But I of course don't really care what you think. IF you built and presented good sound logical cases to make your points, it might be a different matter. But from what I've seen you haven't done this. Maybe you're just not a good casemaker, I dunno, but if that's true you shouldn't be posting in this thread anyway.

johnbrandt wrote:
I believe the standard rebuke to this is "it's all about averages"...? Guess that's why it was changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", because "change" can mean anything...

johnbrandt wrote: I believe the standard rebuke to this is "it's all about averages"...? Guess that's why it was changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", because "change" can mean anything...

mcgruff wrote:

johnbrandt wrote: I believe the standard rebuke to this is "it's all about averages"...? Guess that's why it was changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", because "change" can mean anything...

You really like to scrape the barrel of bullshit don't you? Not that it will make any difference, but a warming climate doesn't mean that general patterns of weather will remain the same while everyone experiences the same gradual temperature rise, both on the ground and at all levels in the atmosphere. Climate is a delicate balance of forces as winds, precipitation, and ocean currents distribute heat around the globe. Warming disrupts these patterns; it creates instability. It means that some places will receive more than the average warming and others less. Changing weather patterns could mean greater extremes of hot and cold in some areas. An increasing temperature range can also be entirely consistent with local warming if the average is rising.

That's what matters. Climate is all about statistics not individual weather events. Are you sure you never get embarrassed spouting this kind of junk?