Climate can Kicked down the road

FACT-MAN-2 · #1 by **FACT-MAN-2** » Nov 23, 2011 6:06 am

Climate scientists have said for some time now that if we do not limit the rise in earth's mean annual temperature to 2C above the preindustrial norm there's going to be hell to pay. The only way of achieving that is by reducing our GHG emissions in fairly radical ways and doing so starting now, not tomorrow, not next week, not next month or even next year, but now.

So what do our leaders do? They kick the climate change treaty can down the road nine years to 2020. And who knows besides nobody whether such a treaty will ever be consumated even then.

They are cheering tonight in the boardrooms at Exxon and BP and Shell and coal mining companies.

Rich nations 'give up' on new climate treaty until 2020

Ahead of critical talks and despite pledge for new treaty by 2012, biggest economies privately admit likelihood of long delay

By Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent guardian.co.uk,
Sunday 20 November 2011 20.54 GMT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... intcmp=122

Critically, and despite such pledges, the PM and leaders are now likely to delay any climate agreement until 2012 .

Governments of the world's richest countries have given up on forging a new treaty on climate change to take effect this decade, with potentially disastrous consequences for the environment through global warming.

Ahead of critical talks starting next week, most of the world's leading economies now privately admit that no new global climate agreement will be reached before 2016 at the earliest, and that even if it were negotiated by then, they would stipulate it could not come into force until 2020.

The eight-year delay is the worst contemplated by world governments during 20 years of tortuous negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions, and comes despite intensifying warnings from scientists and economists about the rapidly increasing dangers of putting off prompt action.

After the Copenhagen climate talks in 2009 ended amid scenes of chaos, governments pledged to try to sign a new treaty in 2012. The date is critical, because next year marks the expiry of the current provisions of the Kyoto protocol, the only legally binding international agreement to limit emissions.

The UK, European Union, Japan, US and other rich nations are all now united in opting to put off an agreement and the United Nations also appears to accept this.

Developing countries are furious, and the delay will be fiercely debated at the next round of international climate talks beginning a week on Monday in Durban, South Africa.

The Alliance of Small Island States, which represents some of the countries most at risk from global warming, called moves to delay a new treaty "reckless and irresponsible".

Postponing an operational agreement until 2020 would be fatal to hopes of avoiding catastrophic climate change, according to scientists, economists and green campaigners.

Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency (IEA), and one of the world's foremost authorities on climate economics, told the Guardian: "If we do not have an international agreement whose effect is put in place by 2017, then the door to [holding temperatures below 2C] will be closed forever."

Lord Stern, author of a landmark review of the economics of climate change, said aiming for a 2020 deadline was "pessimistic and risks introducing lethargy" to the process: "It's not fast enough – this is a collective failure, and [leaving agreement to] 2020 is taking considerable risks with the planet."

Continues ...

A world that's warmer in 2100 by four or six degrees C above what it was in 1900 will be largely unrecognizeable to us and hell to live with, far too costly to adapt our way of life to it so we can expect some new "way of life" to emerge. Odds are it won't be a pretty sight.

How many here will still be alive come the year 2050? If you're among that subset you are in for some real shit in your time, shit that may even kill you, and yours, and theirs too.

We're already having a lot of difficulties trying to adapt to a new economic reality, but that pales in comparison to what's coming climatewise. We've already seen the beginnings, and by 2050 it's going to be really underway and there's not a damned thing you can do about it. See that light ahead? Yep, that's the climate change train coming, dead-on and faster than a midnight freight. You won't miss it when it hits. It'll be the worst thing you ever imagined. It'll take your dreams and crush them like so many grapes and never look back.

Globe · #2 by **Globe** » Nov 23, 2011 6:55 am

Oh please....

Don't be so short sighted (also back in time).

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

andyx1205 · #3 by **andyx1205** » Nov 23, 2011 7:10 am

2020, lol. And then it'll be 2030. And then it'll be too late.

I'll be 60 in 2050, I'm looking forward to some interesting times...

FACT-MAN-2 · #4 by **FACT-MAN-2** » Nov 23, 2011 7:12 am

Globe wrote: Oh please....

Don't be so short sighted (also back in time).

Umm, I'm not quite sure what you think your graph represents, but I'd say watch that decimal point, there's a huge difference between .6 and 6.0 degrees C, wouldn't you say?

Six degrees is going to make the MWP look like the inside of a freezer. To get the blue line up to 6 you'd have to expand your graph upward by six or seven inches.

And notice that the dotted line extension shows exactly that kind of trajectory.

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

Well, I'd vote for this. :clap:

FACT-MAN-2 · #5 by **FACT-MAN-2** » Nov 23, 2011 7:15 am

andyx1205 wrote: 2020, lol. And then it'll be 2030. And then it'll be too late.

It's already too late there, pal, don't kid yourself.

andyx1205 wrote:
I'll be 60 in 2050, I'm looking forward to some interesting times...

A brave man but one who probably knows little whereof what he speaks.

The decimation of civilization won't be "interesting," young fella, it'll be absolutely shattering.

andyx1205 · #6 by **andyx1205** » Nov 23, 2011 7:24 am

Shattering is interesting, by "interesting" I simply mean we'll be seeing many...many changes to our normal way of living and life. It'll be a world of troubled times, when we'll think...jee...why didn't we act earlier...like a few decades ago?

Ihavenofingerprints · #7 by **Ihavenofingerprints** » Nov 23, 2011 7:38 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_ ... arison.png

Better graphs on wiki.

Globe · #8 by **Globe** » Nov 23, 2011 9:24 am

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Globe wrote: Oh please....

Don't be so short sighted (also back in time).

Umm, I'm not quite sure what you think your graph represents, but I'd say watch that decimal point, there's a huge difference between .6 and 6.0 degrees C, wouldn't you say?

Six degrees is going to make the MWP look like the inside of a freezer. To get the blue line up to 6 you'd have to expand your graph upward by six or seven inches.

I am sorry.... Where do you get the "6C" from? :scratch:

And notice that the dotted line extension shows exactly that kind of trajectory.

See... that's the problem.

This is IPCC's prediction from 1999:

This is the actual development:

Had it been an economist that had been that far off target in a prediction we would all have been :rofl:

But it's climate... so we ignore (pretty much) the actual results, and focus on the faulty prediction as gospel truth.

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.

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

Well, I'd vote for this.

I think many would. But it wont be put to a vote because the ones polluting have the final say about what is put to the vote.

Ihavenofingerprints · #9 by **Ihavenofingerprints** » Nov 23, 2011 9:38 am

Co2 has been rising for the past 100 years and the underlying trend (of global average temperature) is upwards.

You can go to any area of the temperature record and find a few years where co2 rose and average temperature didn't. It doesn't somehow discount the greenhouse effect from the list of potential causes of global warming. There are other factors on the climate that can cause variations in average temperature, these can offset the effect of greenhouse gasses and are well documented.

Wiðercora · **#10** by **Wiðercora** » Nov 23, 2011 9:53 am

97pc of climatologists agree that Global Warming is caused by human activity. I think I'm gonna side with those guys instead of a graph on the internet of dubious provenance.

Globe · **#11** by **Globe** » Nov 23, 2011 10:04 am

Wiðercora wrote:97pc of climatologists agree that Global Warming is caused by human activity. I think I'm gonna side with those guys instead of a graph on the internet of dubious provenance.

That "dubious graph" is figures used by IPCC.
As was the first example with predictions.

My point is that the predictions and the real world is pretty far from each other, so maybe a deep breath and fresh eyes could be a good idea, rather than uncritically accept predictions made more than a decade ago, and which have been shown to be wrong by the very people who made the prediction.
(Not that they actually brag about being THAT wrong. But then again.... who would?)

Ihavenofingerprints · **#12** by **Ihavenofingerprints** » Nov 23, 2011 10:10 am

Most of the graphs are fine. You just can't compare a long term prediction to a 10 year trend.

If the co2 concentration in the atmosphere keeps rising I don't see how the average temperature is going to drop back down to what it was 30, 50 or 100 years ago. The question is, whether or not the temperature would be the same if greenhouse gas concentrations remained at pre-industrial levels. Most scientists in the field think it certainly wouldn't.

Globe · **#13** by **Globe** » Nov 23, 2011 10:36 am

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:Most of the graphs are fine. You just can't compare a long term prediction to a 10 year trend.

Exactly.... just as you can't claim to have an "average temperature" by looking at the last 50 years and the decide on a "Normal Year".
Temps on earth have always fluctuated too wildly for that. :dunno:

If the co2 concentration in the atmosphere keeps rising I don't see how the average temperature is going to drop back down to what it was 30, 50 or 100 years ago. The question is, whether or not the temperature would be the same if greenhouse gas concentrations remained at pre-industrial levels. Most scientists in the field think it certainly wouldn't.

Which pre-industrial levels?
1400-1800 (it was shitting cold)?
1000-1400 (warmer than now)?
Just after last ice age (most CO2 was trapped)?
Before last ice age (CO2 level equal to now or higher) ?

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

newolder · **#14** by **newolder** » Nov 23, 2011 10:51 am

Jasper Kirkby @ CLOUD expt. @ CERN, brings teh science up to date.
edit: yewtewbz brokn? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63AbaX1dE7I

Ihavenofingerprints · **#15** by **Ihavenofingerprints** » Nov 23, 2011 11:16 am

Globe wrote:
Ihavenofingerprints wrote:Most of the graphs are fine. You just can't compare a long term prediction to a 10 year trend.

Exactly.... just as you can't claim to have an "average temperature" by looking at the last 50 years and the decide on a "Normal Year".
Temps on earth have always fluctuated too wildly for that.

You are just making up stuff now. The global average temperature is measured on a yearly basis and added to the record. I haven't said anything about taking a "normal year" from a 50 year record.

If you are reffering to this comment:

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:You can go to any area of the temperature record and find a few years where co2 rose and average temperature didn't. It doesn't somehow discount the greenhouse effect from the list of potential causes of global warming.

Then quote it and reply to it in the context it is written. But it is a basic fact. The co2 concentration can rise one year, and the temperature can drop. Especially during after a strong La Nina cycle, or some other big influence. That is why you take long-term trends instead of extremely short term data-sets. People can pull the same trick on you to make the co2 influence on global warming look much higher than it actually is.

If the co2 concentration in the atmosphere keeps rising I don't see how the average temperature is going to drop back down to what it was 30, 50 or 100 years ago. The question is, whether or not the temperature would be the same if greenhouse gas concentrations remained at pre-industrial levels. Most scientists in the field think it certainly wouldn't.

Which pre-industrial levels?
1400-1800 (it was shitting cold)?
1000-1400 (warmer than now)?
Just after last ice age (most CO2 was trapped)?
Before last ice age (CO2 level equal to now or higher) ?

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

[/quote]

Do you have a real objection to what I said? The question is, what is causing the warming we have seen over the last 100 years? Natural causes/explanations have so far have failed to suffice. The greenhouse effect is well documented and the experts agree that the higher concentration of co2 over the last century is a contributing factor.

"Skeptics" love moving the goalposts in discussions like these. But I don't really think it's worth going through each one of your medieval-era climate concerns. Anyone can find the answers with a simple google search.

As to the "CERN cloud". It's overblown by a lot of people. Potholer did a video on it recently but I can't find the link right now.

Globe · **#16** by **Globe** » Nov 23, 2011 11:32 am

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:
Snipping.... lol... it looked as if you were discussing with yourself.

Do you have a real objection to what I said? The question is, what is causing the warming we have seen over the last 100 years? Natural causes/explanations have so far have failed to suffice. The greenhouse effect is well documented and the experts agree that the higher concentration of co2 over the last century is a contributing factor.

"Skeptics" love moving the goalposts in discussions like these. But I don't really think it's worth going through each one of your medieval-era climate concerns. Anyone can find the answers with a simple google search.

As to the "CERN cloud". It's overblown by a lot of people. Potholer did a video on it recently but I can't find the link right now.

But if you go back and look at ice core records, what we are seeing now is not really all that exceptional.
Just because WE have become "civilized" and "advanced" doesn't mean that the planet should stop doing what it has done since it was formed. Being a fluctuating planet with not only seasons, but also cycles.

CO2 levels are by no means "Exceptionally high" if we look at them in geological spans of time.
Neither is temps.
Or Methane.
Or water vapor.
Or dust.
Or solar influx/outflux, solar pressure or any of the other of the factors they calculate with.
We evolved on this planet, and this planet will kill us off the moment we can't adjust to it.
The question is are we killing ourselves before the planet does.
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.

If we can't adjust we, as a species, don't have any justification to be here.

And then I'm going to repeat myself.
I think that polluters should be forced to eat what they are polluting with. :coffee:

Ihavenofingerprints · **#17** by **Ihavenofingerprints** » Nov 23, 2011 12:04 pm

Co2 levels in the atmosphere have been higher at previous stages in history (same with all other gases/chemicals). This is something that climate scientists look at (it's part of their job). There are explanations for the high level of greenhouse gas concentration and lower temperature readings (in the past), it isn't some sort of silver bullet in climate science. There are always many factors to consider.

IMO we can't just brush of what is happening in this day and age just because levels where higher in the past. It would be illogical to do so. Any scientist proposing such an idea would be called out for the errors in his methodology, thats how the science works.

Anyway, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

johnbrandt · **#18** by **johnbrandt** » Nov 23, 2011 12:54 pm

No no no...you don't get it. Climate predictions are the only ones in science that are totally off-limits to ridicule, doubt, or change to suit what is obviously not happening. Please get it right next time... :mrgreen:

It's also bad form to reveal to the simple-minded general public the facts that the planet has been far warmer and far colder in the past (sometimes not all that distant a past either), that the whole of human civilisation has arisin during one "unseasonably temperate" period in Earths history, and that it is in fact unusual to have ice at both polar caps, as we have had lately.
Annoying revealing of facts like this isn't helping:

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:
Which pre-industrial levels?
1400-1800 (it was shitting cold)?
1000-1400 (warmer than now)?
Just after last ice age (most CO2 was trapped)?
Before last ice age (CO2 level equal to now or higher) ?

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

Keep the message simple, and make it as frightening as possible.

newolder · **#19** by **newolder** » Nov 23, 2011 1:21 pm

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:...snip...

As to the "CERN cloud". It's overblown by a lot of people. Potholer did a video on it recently but I can't find the link right now.

WTF!1!!@!!! r u a physicist?

Ihavenofingerprints · **#20** by **Ihavenofingerprints** » Nov 23, 2011 2:25 pm

No, I'm sure their physics is spot on. But when their paper's came out everyone started circulating these links from right-wing blogs claiming it was a "massive blow to AGW". But their findings don't seem to be anything of that sort. Thats what I'm referring to.