Paris climate summit in December 2015

[BornFromTheVoid]

17 minutes ago, Hocus Pocus said:

Judith Curry remains a thorn in the side of proponents of AGW, more so due to her stance on  subjects such as over amplifying projections and feedbacks and this from a leading climate scientist who has produced several peer reviewed publications for the IPCC summits. Obviously she's been nobbled by big oil and tobacco to fund her lavish lifestyle.

Interesting that most of her peer reviewed work contradicts her blog posts, eh?

When it comes to scientific discourse, of ramblings of Judith Curry don't even feature on the agenda, let alone being a thorn in anyone's side.

[Hocus Pocus]

27 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Interesting that most of her peer reviewed work contradicts her blog posts, eh?

When it comes to scientific discourse, of ramblings of Judith Curry don't even feature on the agenda, let alone being a thorn in anyone's side.

Interesting so you're implying a leading climate scientist is irrelevant because she questions aspects of her own science. That sums up all that is wrong with climate science as science is about asking  probing questions and doubting conclusions until there's sufficient empircal evidence at hand, which is what we don't have at the moment due to doubts over how much warming we may see. 

The whole concept of this debate  is tiresome, well when I say  debate  I mean arguments put forward questioning the above, as one side distinctly dismisses any evidence laid down and merely sneers at any discussion which dares to rear its ugly head above the pulpit. 

[BornFromTheVoid]

36 minutes ago, Hocus Pocus said:

Interesting so you're implying a leading climate scientist is irrelevant because she questions aspects of her own science. That sums up all that is wrong with climate science as science is about asking  probing questions and doubting conclusions until there's sufficient empircal evidence at hand, which is what we don't have at the moment due to doubts over how much warming we may see. 

The whole concept of this debate  is tiresome, well when I say  debate  I mean arguments put forward questioning the above, as one side distinctly dismisses any evidence laid down and merely sneers at any discussion which dares to rear its ugly head above the pulpit. 

No, the comments she makes on her blog have little, if any, impact on climate science. Advancements in science get subjected to peer review, and very little of what JC has published goes against the consensus as far as I can tell (the not so highly regarded stadium wave theory being the main exception). In no way did I suggest a scientist is irrelevant because they question their own work. Directly contradicting your own work in order to push an opinion that has no evidence isn't great science though (Example, JC used expanding Antarctic sea ice as evidence against global warming in a congressional testimony, yet her own published work concluded that global warming altered the hydrological cycle, resulting in extra sea ice.).

For every Judith Curry claiming that there isn't enough data, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of equally qualified scientists that disagree. Perhaps the problem with this debate, is that so many people will ignore thousands of scientists and thousands of studies that they simply don't like, in favour of just one voice that says what they want to hear.

[knocker]

Just to add to what BFTV has posted above you can find some scientific rebuttal to some of her misleading claims here and note some of the dubious company she keeps.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_blog.htm

 

[knocker]

The Road to Two Degrees, Part Two: Are the experts being candid about our chances? Quote The first part of this three-part series looked at the staggering magnitude and the daunting deployment timescale available for the fossil fuel and bioenergy carbon capture and storage technologies that many 2°C mitigation scenarios assume. In this second part, I outline Kevin Anderson's argument that climate experts are failing to acknowledge the near-impossibility of avoiding dangerous climate change under current assumptions of the political and economic status quo, combined with unrealistic expectations of untested negative-emissions technologies. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Anderson.html

Edited December 11, 2015 by knocker

[Hocus Pocus]

4 hours ago, knocker said:

Just to add to what BFTV has posted above you can find some scientific rebuttal to some of her misleading claims here and note some of the dubious company she keeps.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_blog.htm

 

It's a blog site, which is kind of ironic using a blog site to attack a blog site.

[Hocus Pocus]

I don't see the problem when qualified climate scientists question aspects of the science , I mean let's face it how many on this forum are qualified climate scientists. So to question the motives and belittle them is no better than what you're complaining about from the likes of Watts etc, etc.

Edited December 11, 2015 by Hocus Pocus

[Methuselah]

Unfortunately, most of the critique of AGW comes from tw*ts like these: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/lord-lawson-climate-think-tank-under-review-after-adviser-offers-to-write-paper-for-sham-oil-company-a6767261.html

[interested & confused]

This year the temps have been rising because of El Nino - I'm waiting to see what happens after that......

[Hocus Pocus]

Looks like a deal has been struck to try and limit the warming to under 1.5c, whether or not any of this is relevant is besides the point but the single most thing I would've liked to see is viable alternatives put forward instead of posturing about limiting CO2 emissions.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Hocus Pocus

[knocker]

H/T Hotwhopper

The latest draft can be downloaded here. As at the time of writing, it's Draft 2. (You can compare it with Draft 1 to see the progress in negotiations. Where the brackets have been removed it signifies agreement was reached on that point.)

---

UPDATE: I've just seen that the final text has been agreed. I'll let you know as soon as it's available - or you can keep an eye on the UN website. There's a press conference scheduled for 11:30 am CET today - Saturday (Europe time).

[knocker]

Final draft

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf

Some of the main elements of the final draft agreement are:

• Keep well below 2C, and aim for no more than 1.5C
• Legally binding - a universal legal agreement
• Differentiated, depending on the circumstances and capacity of each nation
• Updated / stocktake every five years
• Includes an increased role for adaptation to climate change
• Cooperation on loss and damage - $1 billion a year at the base level to be be reviewed by 2025 (I think)
• Caters for: island states re sea level, Africa re development, South America re forest protection
• Also addressing food security, public health, poverty and peace.

Edited December 12, 2015 by knocker

[Roger J Smith]

Kept my promise not to read any more of this, just noting that they appear to have achieved about half of the almost nothing they could possibly achieve, so half of almost nothing, that's, umm almost nothing.

Delusionals picked a random target, that they think they can sell to their home governments, and that will of course have about a 0.05 C impact on actual temperatures.

When people read this in 2040, know this -- some of your ancestors were sane. Not everybody was taken in. If your economy has fallen apart, don't blame Roger J Smith.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Agree 100%'  Temp rises to be kept to sub 2c.  So  to me it is clear that the 'settled science' suggests that global temps can't fall and the reductions in carbon output will only curb rises.  So if we see a fall in global temps in next decade and beyond then it will be obvious the settled science  errr  isn't settled.  Its black and white now

 

BFTP    

[knocker]

9 hours ago, Roger J Smith said:

When people read this in 2040, know this -- some of your ancestors were sane. Not everybody was taken in. If your economy has fallen apart, don't blame Roger J Smith.

Indeed they were but that wouldn't include Monckton, Lawson, Steyn, Goddard, Watts,Morano Lomborg, the Republican Party, assorted US meteorologists and all the rest of the boys in the band, unless you are redefining sanity.

Even leaving CO₂ out of the equation., which would be ridiculous,  there is an overwhelming case for phasing out fossil fuels on environmental and pollution grounds alone.

 

Edited December 13, 2015 by knocker

[BornFromTheVoid]

Ah yes, climate change is a grand global conspiracy where 10s of thousands of scientists spend years in training and research in order gain the ability to manipulate climate and weather records - all to pursue their master plan of punishing the poor, destroying economies and helping to instill a one world communist government. Totally sane, sound and logical that.

I'm sure in many decades people will look back and wonder why more of us didn't come to such an obvious conclusion, and why only the extreme right wing media, extreme right wing politicians and brave, laissez-faire free market bloggers had the brains to get together will the fossil fuel industry and expose climate change for the massive hoax it is!

[Evening thunder]

On 11/12/2015 at 5:16 PM, interested & confused said:

This year the temps have been rising because of El Nino - I'm waiting to see what happens after that......

True, but then the same is true for 1998 which is often used by some to suggest we haven't warmed since. If this year is significantly warmer (it is), that would suggest we have warmed since 1998.

 

5 hours ago, Roger J Smith said:

Kept my promise not to read any more of this, just noting that they appear to have achieved about half of the almost nothing they could possibly achieve, so half of almost nothing, that's, umm almost nothing.

Delusionals picked a random target, that they think they can sell to their home governments, and that will of course have about a 0.05 C impact on actual temperatures.

When people read this in 2040, know this -- some of your ancestors were sane. Not everybody was taken in. If your economy has fallen apart, don't blame Roger J Smith.

What? Well, I resisted my urge to reply to some of your previous comments before.. but would you like to suggest a realistic better plan? (like you explained why you think the warming trend is mainly natural and posted studies/evidence to support your view.. oh wait.. no, you just resorted to accusations, digs and ignoring things while still not providing any counter evidence to BFTV's excellent post with lots of evidence.. which was quite telling).

From reading comments online, what is odd about those that can't seem to believe climate change, is many seem to believe way more ludicrous things... 

and I'm sorry, but with what you have posted so far and especially this post tonight, I can no longer take much notice of any forecasts you make and post on this forum.. reputation gone for me (should I have said that, not sure but I have so there).  That goes for anyone who clearly doesn't understand the Earth's climate system that well because they use the fact that natural climate change glacial-interglacial cycles occur to suggest it is not possible that the current trend is primarily anthropogenic.

I don't expect it, but I'd happy find that I'm deluded/misguided and the predictions don't actually happen.. (apart from being angry with those that had somehow magically mislead all the climate scientists, authors, fantastic uni lectures, etc that have taught me what I know..)

In reality I expect to look back and see how many seemed unable, for whatever reason, to accept what the overwhelming consensus is telling us (with some believing way more ludacrous things like 9/11 being an inside job, chemtrails, and 'Haarp'...)

Edit: Actually I would worry for the consequences of peoples reactions if it actually turns out the science is wrong, even though it should be a huge relief.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Evening thunder

[knocker]

7 hours ago, knocker said:

Indeed they were but that wouldn't include Monckton, Lawson, Steyn, Goddard, Watts,Morano Lomborg, the Republican Party, assorted US meteorologists and all the rest of the boys in the band, unless you are redefining sanity.

Even leaving CO₂ out of the equation., which would be ridiculous,  there is an overwhelming case for phasing out fossil fuels on environmental and pollution grounds alone.

 

Can I spot Mr. Smith?

And some thoughts of John Quiggin  which coincide with my own.

http://johnquiggin.com/2015/12/13/turning-the-corner/

 

Edited December 13, 2015 by knocker

[Sainsbo]

10 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Ah yes, climate change is a grand global conspiracy where 10s of thousands of scientists spend years in training and research in order gain the ability to manipulate climate and weather records - all to pursue their master plan of punishing the poor, destroying economies and helping to instill a one world communist government. Totally sane, sound and logical that.

I'm sure in many decades people will look back and wonder why more of us didn't come to such an obvious conclusion, and why only the extreme right wing media, extreme right wing politicians and brave, laissez-faire free market bloggers had the brains to get together will the fossil fuel industry and expose climate change for the massive hoax it is!

It's completely baffling, looks like I'm gonna be handing out tinfoil hats at Christmas this year.

 

The fact they've managed to make an agreement on the first place in the aim to limit warming to 1.5C is a milestone in itself. I don't think we'll manage to do it, but the fact they're trying is a fantastic start (better late than never, I guess)

[Hocus Pocus]

On 12 December 2015 at 11:47 PM, BornFromTheVoid said:

Ah yes, climate change is a grand global conspiracy where 10s of thousands of scientists spend years in training and research in order gain the ability to manipulate climate and weather records - all to pursue their master plan of punishing the poor, destroying economies and helping to instill a one world communist government. Totally sane, sound and logical that.

I'm sure in many decades people will look back and wonder why more of us didn't come to such an obvious conclusion, and why only the extreme right wing media, extreme right wing politicians and brave, laissez-faire free market bloggers had the brains to get together will the fossil fuel industry and expose climate change for the massive hoax it is!

There's certainly no conspiracy but what we do have is a complete lack of dialogue between climate scientists, with accusations flying left, right and centre  in a pointless point scoring exercise. The truth of the matter is that the science isn't settled when we have prominent climate scientists arguing the very same, lets embrace the uncertainty going forward and admit this instead of attacking anyone who doesn't agree with the prognosis, or as science changed in the last 10 years.

[BornFromTheVoid]

18 minutes ago, Hocus Pocus said:

There's certainly no conspiracy but what we do have is a complete lack of dialogue between climate scientists, with accusations flying left, right and centre  in a pointless point scoring exercise. The truth of the matter is that the science isn't settled when we have prominent climate scientists arguing the very same, lets embrace the uncertainty going forward and admit this instead of attacking anyone who doesn't agree with the prognosis, or as science changed in the last 10 years.

There is plenty of dialogue, sharing of data, methods, code, etc. All the accusations about the science are coming from a group with very similar political opinions.

Sure there are details to be settled, but the basics are very much settled. Just because one or two qualified scientists voice disagreement with something, doesn't automatically mean we don't know what's going on. In every branch of science you will always find the odd few well qualified people that disagree, often vehemently, with the basic principals of that branch of science. But as science isn't about opinions, so their opinions don't matter really. What does matter is what data can they gather, what studies they conduct, what evidence they can present and what they can prove.

[knocker]

Quite. I don't know why but of late I keep being reminded of Daniel Patrick Moynihan — 'You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.'

Anyway, part three of the road to two degrees.

The Road to Two Degrees, Part Three: Equity, inertia and fairly sharing the remaining carbon budget

http://critical-angle.net/2015/12/14/2025/

Edited December 14, 2015 by knocker

[Hocus Pocus]

1 hour ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

There is plenty of dialogue, sharing of data, methods, code, etc. All the accusations about the science are coming from a group with very similar political opinions.

Sure there are details to be settled, but the basics are very much settled. Just because one or two qualified scientists voice disagreement with something, doesn't automatically mean we don't know what's going on. In every branch of science you will always find the odd few well qualified people that disagree, often vehemently, with the basic principals of that branch of science. But as science isn't about opinions, so their opinions don't matter really. What does matter is what data can they gather, what studies they conduct, what evidence they can present and what they can prove.

This then brings us back to the likes of Judith Curry who is a reputable and established climate scientist who is viewed with great disdain amongst many bloggers in the climate debate which I find amusing as she's forgotten more than any of these will go on to learn. The unknowns I refer to is simply the magnitude of warming nothing more nothing less. 

[knocker]

1 hour ago, Hocus Pocus said:

This then brings us back to the likes of Judith Curry who is a reputable and established climate scientist who is viewed with great disdain amongst many bloggers in the climate debate which I find amusing as she's forgotten more than any of these will go on to learn. The unknowns I refer to is simply the magnitude of warming nothing more nothing less. 

You may well find it amusing but rather than just bloggers, although your disdain of them is rather amusing as Curry relies on hers, her mutterings on climate issues have systematically been dismantled by various climate scientists over the last few years. The very period when she decided to depart reputable climate science and join the forces of darkness such as being co opted by the Republican Party to appear at Senate hearings. She is no longer a reputable established climate scientist and before you say it, yes she knows a lot more than I do.

I must say it's rather puzzling why it took you a number of posts just say the magnitude of the future warming is not definitive Still the probability of it being within certain dangerous parameters is pretty compelling. Just as well we didn't sit around for too long before Montreal under the guise of waiting another 30 years to see what happens.

Edited December 14, 2015 by knocker

[Snipper]

Whatever the causes of global warming are the ever increasing population will  cause pressures for this planet that cannot be ignored forever. 

Why is population control not a high priority?

Snipper