Durban – Conference of Parties – What Happened?

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 8:26 PM GMT on December 12, 2011

Share this Blog
15
+

Durban – Conference of Parties – What Happened?

The Conference of the Parties in Durban, South Africa is over. The Conference of the Parties' (COP) are the annual meetings that are part of the governing body of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. So what happened in Durban? (Rood Interviewed at livescience.com)

From the official point of view, the place to go is the UN Framework website. With a little bit of exploration, there are two official, short, perhaps preliminary documents. One is on the development of a Green Fund. This is something of a follow up from the 2010 COP in Cancun, Mexico. This is the development of a mechanism where the developed nations pay (certain) developing nations funds for both response to climate-change impacts and technological development. Tracing much further back, there were the seeds of this in the The Kyoto Protocol.

The other is being called the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action. Here is the current official link and another link with a couple of readable introductory paragraphs. As I understand this agreement, in 2012 nations will start to develop a policy, a protocol, a treaty, some entity with legal implications, that will be completed in 2015 and will initiate reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in 2020.

It is hard to look at these short documents from Durban and to state with any precision what will happen. It is the nature of high level diplomatic documents to be ambiguous or perhaps to support flexibility so that the parties can agree to work together but can leave the details of implementation and execution to the individual parties. The implementation will vary widely from country to country.

Given this ambiguity allows people to see success and failure in different ways. It is a measure of success that the countries keep talking, and one gets the impression from year to year that more and more major greenhouse gas emitters are agreeing that something has to be done to try to limit warming and its societal disruptions. On the other hand, there is no real evidence that these continued international machinations are leading to meaningful reductions or strategies for reductions. It remains true that an international “solution” to the greenhouse gas emission problem is an unrealistic expectation, and solutions will trickle up from below. As the solutions trickle up perhaps some will be disruptive enough to markets and economies to have major impacts. Then these will define the international response.

What seems to be important to me? Durban continues to show the realignment of global power represented by the emergence of China as a economic and political power. The role of India, South Africa, and Brazil continues to grow. The European Union is in an interesting position, because of their commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, and the Kyoto Protocol, practically, expiring in 2012. There is, still, a seeming European commitment to emissions reductions, and this is motivating alliances of small island states and the “Least Developed Countries” with the European Union – at least there is a commitment to trying to reduce. The United States remains in its curious position as something of loner – a position that, IMHO, grows as the world economies realign. What is interesting to me is seeing that the countries that are most heavily investing in alternative energies are starting to say they might consider the 2020 reductions … even China, from Wall Street Journal.

Here are some links to different takes on the meeting:

Guardian: Durban a breakthrough leading towards a possible global treaty

Asian Age: India-EU deal saves global climate meeting.

Irish TImes: Durban falls short.

BBC: Durban winners and losers.

Aljazeera: “Important Advance”

Washington Post: Last Minute Compromise.

And here is a nice analysis from Mother Jones.


I will end this potpourri of Durbanesque events with a couple of points from the International Energy Agency (IEA). What is the IEA? From their website:

“The International Energy Agency (IEA) is an autonomous organisation which works to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for its 28 member countries and beyond.

Founded in response to the 1973/4 oil crisis, the IEA’s initial role was to help countries co-ordinate a collective response to major disruptions in oil supply through the release of emergency oil stocks to the markets.” (about the IEA)

Prior to the Durban Conference the IEA did a press release associated with their annual World Energy Outlook. (Executive Summary ) The IEA documents state that the lock-in to current energy infrastructure and investments is making it increasingly difficult to imagine holding global-average warming to 2 degrees C. This year they do a thorough analysis of coal and the consequences of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. And in an Durban-related interview IEA Chief Economist, Fatih Birol, says that we are currently on the track for six degrees C warming. This analysis of our energy reality places any optimism reflected in some of the articles above in stunning realism. Here is the start of the Executive Summary:

“There are few signs that the urgently needed change in direction in global energy trends is underway. Although the recovery in the world economy since 2009 has been uneven, and future economic prospects remain uncertain, global primary energy demand rebounded by a remarkable 5% in 2010, pushing CO2 emissions to a new high. Subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption of fossil fuels jumped to over $400 billion.” Executive Summary

Without the availability and implementation of a low-carbon energy infrastructure that is cheap relative to fossil fuels, we have few choices and weak incentives to face the needed emissions reduction. So from Durban we are left with the same difficult choices, but with something of a new agreement and growing feeling of urgency for moving forward.

r


A new survey from Yale Project on Climate Change Communication: Majority in U.S. Support Emissions Reduction


Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 266 - 216

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Quoting Ossqss:


So is this :)

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Manmade-Global-Warm ing-The-Solution

P.S. -- And, of course, non-prime time game show hosts are the absolute best source for climate change news and opinion.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13457
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
I've never trusted government climate data. Come to think of it, I don't trust any government data, because it is always fraught with adjustments, smoothing, and the like. This article demonstrates how the government simply changes data to support their position:

Link

Yeah, I myself tend to put greater faith and trust in whatever Big Energy tells me, and what I hear from such great Americans as Limbaugh and Hannity, and what neofuedalists such as Gingrich and Inhofe have to say. Oh, and I always avoid universities and credible science journals, for they aren't to be trusted, either; I find it best to get my "science" from peer-reviewed science websites like C3 Headlines.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13457
I've never trusted government climate data. Come to think of it, I don't trust any government data, because it is always fraught with adjustments, smoothing, and the like. This article demonstrates how the government simply changes data to support their position:

Link
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
A logical and reasoned approach:

Link


So is this :)

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Manmade-Global-Warm ing-The-Solution
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8185
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
A logical and reasoned approach:

Link
Worst case scenario,worldwide famines,decreased populations,less co2 in the air. Problem solved anyway,earth goes back into an ice age and only a handful of survivalists make it and we start all over again!
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1457
A logical and reasoned approach:

Link
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting Ossqss:


An absolute, perfect example of exactly what my point/post was about :)

Gnight!

What happens when fossil fuel is to expensive for everyone?

There is no real substitute.

The "Message" is clear!


"What happens when fossil fuel is to expensive for everyone?"

I have made points along this line before. I often hear that alternative energy sources are too expensive compared to carbon based fuels. This will not be the case for much longer as oil/coal/gas becomes more expensive to extract and they are not limitless. Anytime the economy shows signs of recovery the price of the barrel and price at the pump makes a jump up. This effectively kills any new strength to a recovering economy. ... The dog watches, as we chase our own tail.

"There is no real substitute."

Not completely true. There are several alternatives and they will need to be employed collectively to reduce the amount of carbon based fuels we use today.

"The "Message" is clear!"

I am not sure of which "message" you wish to be heard. The "message" is that we will not be able to continue "business as usual" for too many more years into the future. This is true even without AGW impeding our future outlook. New oil deposits are becoming less cost effective to extract and is taking more and more energy needs compared to the energy you gain. The Canadian tar sands are an excellent example of this.

Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting martinitony:
Yes, the Earth is cooling.

Current Lower Atmospheric Temperatures


Wow Martinitony sure looks like it is getting warmer here.







Sure looks like the red is more numerous and more massive than the blue. What say you?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Quoting petewxwatcher:
Ossqss never posts anything relevant either. Just stupid off-topic videos.


An absolute, perfect example of exactly what my point/post was about :)

Gnight!



What happens when fossil fuel is to expensive for everyone?

There is no real substitute.

The "Message" is clear!

You really don't understand what your policy (Ideological) position actually leads to............ out>>>>>>>>>

Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8185
Quoting petewxwatcher:
Ossqss never posts anything relevant either. Just stupid off-topic videos.

Not true! Just last night he was kind enough to inform me that virtually all of the Earth's heat comes from the Sun.

It's rather unfortunate, however, that he considered that a "gaping hole" in AGW Theory.

(I'm still snickering about that one. Classic!)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Ossqss never posts anything relevant either. Just stupid off-topic videos.
Member Since: March 24, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 392
Quoting martinitony:


It pointless to argue this with you. Let's just leave it to others on the board can judge your abilities to interpret a graph.


You are right!

It is about understanding. If incapable of understanding, losing would be invisible to them.

L8R :)



Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8185
It's not pointless. Hopefully you learned you were wrong.

You lied over and over about about arctic sea ice being within 1 standard deviation of the average. I conclusively proved you wrong every time.

End of story

Quoting martinitony:


It pointless to argue this with you. Let's just leave it to others on the board can judge your abilities to interpret a graph.
Member Since: March 24, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 392
Quoting petewxwatcher:
False again Martinitony! The graph says the gray area represents +/- one standard deviation. And 2011 is well below the - 1 standard deviation boundary of the graph.

I'm sorry reading comprehension and basic statistics are so difficult for you to understand martinitony.




It pointless to argue this with you. Let's just leave it to others on the board can judge your abilities to interpret a graph.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
False again Martinitony! The graph says the gray area represents +/- one standard deviation. And 2011 is well below the - 1 standard deviation boundary of the graph.

I'm sorry reading comprehension and basic statistics are so difficult for you to understand martinitony.


Quoting martinitony:


You've slipped up and don't even know it. It is easy to eyeball the chart I gave and see the gray area, one standard deviation. It is obvious to the eye that the distance from the reading to the gray area is less than the width of the gray area, one standard deviation. But you don't know that whatever one standard deviation is, that two are exactly double that. Your statement displays this ignorance of the most basic of statistical knowledge.
Link
Double click to see enlarged view if you are having dificulty.
Member Since: March 24, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 392
Yes, the Earth is cooling.

Current Lower Atmospheric Temperatures
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
Quoting spbloom:


Heh, martinitony accusing others of displays of ignorance. Pretty funny.


Thank you for your in-depth views on climate change. You should be proud.
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Quoting petewxwatcher:
False. That graph your provided shows 2011 ice still well belowthe 1 standard deviation bound. Neither does it say anything about arctic sea ice being within the 2 standard deviations bound.



You've slipped up and don't even know it. It is easy to eyeball the chart I gave and see the gray area, one standard deviation. It is obvious to the eye that the distance from the reading to the gray area is less than the width of the gray area, one standard deviation. But you don't know that whatever one standard deviation is, that two are exactly double that. Your statement displays this ignorance of the most basic of statistical knowledge.
Link
Double click to see enlarged view if you are having dificulty.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
300 plus years...sea level must not be rapidly increasing too much. Go Saints (what am I supposed to do; cheer for the 'fins)?
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
One dosent have to convince a fool, He believes all there is to end infinity'.



The Global Crisis dosent care one iota what any human mind "believe's".

The Damage continues at a ever expanding Rate.

As well as the affects.

Exponentially.


Sorry if this steer's into ones comfort zone of Believably.



Now I must retire to "Henry's" on magazine for a Quorum call.




Beneath a lover's moon I'm waiting
I am the pilot of the storm - adrift in pleasure I may drown
I built this ship - it is my making
And furthermore my self control I can't rely on anymore
I know why - I know why
Crazy on a ship of fools
Crazy on a ship of fools
Turn this boat around - back to my loving ground

Who claims that no man is an island
While I land up in jeopardy - more distant from you by degrees
I walk this shore in isolation
And at my feet eternity draws ever sweeter plans for me
I know why - I know why
Crazy on a ship of fools
Crazy on a ship of fools
Turn this boat around - back to my loving ground
Oh no, oh no - ship of fools --




Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 420 Comments: 127549
False. That graph you provided shows 2011 ice still well belowthe 1 standard deviation bound. Neither does it say anything about arctic sea ice being within the 2 standard deviations bound.

Quoting martinitony:



No, true. I don't think the Norwegians are denialists, or are they?This graph shows 12/15 extent greater for this day than any of the preceding four years. It also shows extent almost at the 1std level. The graph you present is an obvious attempt to continually compare to 2007 levels. Why is that? Perhaps the organization has an agenda. Yes, I believe that. Also, whether you like to hear it or not, the lower atmosphere is colder on this date than the same date over the last decade. The Earth is cooling rapidly. Get used to it.

Member Since: March 24, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 392
Quoting JupiterKen:


It may force Pat' to pole the pirogue down the bayou. If anyone should be concerned the ocean is rapidly rising, he should look at home and not the Indian Ocean.

Doesn't it say wind? How much did it increase due to wind? or w/o wind? time period?


Home been here 300 plus years, New York and Miami,,well they all in da same Boat sport.

All ports will be and are being affected.

One should read more.

`"Calamity knows no border's, only men's minds and map's do."

And hey, we won a Super Bowl 2.

:)
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 420 Comments: 127549
Quoting JupiterKen:


It may force Pat' to pole the pirogue down the bayou. If anyone should be concerned the ocean is rapidly rising, he should look at home and not the Indian Ocean.

Doesn't it say wind? How much did it increase due to wind? or w/o wind? time period?
Whatever happened to the prediction of the Maldives going under the ocean,I see they are still aroundLink
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1457
Quoting overwash12:
What will the sea-level rise do to city of New Orleans?


It may force Pat' to pole the pirogue down the bayou. If anyone should be concerned the ocean is rapidly rising, he should look at home and not the Indian Ocean.

Doesn't it say wind? How much did it increase due to wind? or w/o wind? time period?
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Quoting Patrap:
Alaskan village stands on leading edge of climate change

..Maybe give a few examples of Sea level Lowering ?

No "FOX" fact's allowed though

:)











This 1.1 sq mi village is located on a RIVER, is below sea-level and sinking due to erosion from run-off not from sea-level rise. In any case, this snippet is of no use to me.
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Quoting Neapolitan:

I suppose if I take the time to do this again, you'll respond by saying something along the lines of, "Eight inches in 50 years! Ha! The earth is billions of years old! And sea levels have been much higher in the past!!!" I'd reply by producing much data and models showing the damage that's already occurred and what's expected. You'll return by telling me models can't even forecast next Tuesday's weather, so how can they be trusted for telling us what will happen decades from now. I'll present to you a pile of peer-reviewed articles showing that climate change has mostly been worse than the models predicted. You'll answer back by saying it doesn't matter anyway, because it's all part of a natural cycle. I'll show more peer-reviewed science that says that it's not, that it is indeed humanity's fault. You'll response by telling me you're much older and more experienced, so what do I know anyway. I would respond by asking you what that has to do with anything, and you'll respond by calling me a socialist idiot (or something close). Then you'll disappear for a few days, and reappear after I post some more science news to claim that there are no signs of planetary warming.

That about covers it, no? ;-)


So...you have no sources of actual sea level measurements? I know I could Google it but I assumed you would respond with the best one or two sources that make your point. Instead you have a conversation with yourself. Not very convincing.
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Link Look at these temps these fine Russians will be enduring,that is if they live to tell about it!
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1457
What are they saying here? Link BTW,Key West is still on the map!
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1457
Quoting JupiterKen:


Please provide "scientific data" on "quickly-rising sea levels". One or two will suffice.

I suppose if I take the time to do this again, you'll respond by saying something along the lines of, "Eight inches in 50 years! Ha! The earth is billions of years old! And sea levels have been much higher in the past!!!" I'd reply by producing much data and models showing the damage that's already occurred and what's expected. You'll return by telling me models can't even forecast next Tuesday's weather, so how can they be trusted for telling us what will happen decades from now. I'll present to you a pile of peer-reviewed articles showing that climate change has mostly been worse than the models predicted. You'll answer back by saying it doesn't matter anyway, because it's all part of a natural cycle. I'll show more peer-reviewed science that says that it's not, that it is indeed humanity's fault. You'll response by telling me you're much older and more experienced, so what do I know anyway. I would respond by asking you what that has to do with anything, and you'll respond by calling me a socialist idiot (or something close). Then you'll disappear for a few days, and reappear after I post some more science news to claim that there are no signs of planetary warming.

That about covers it, no? ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13457
What will the sea-level rise do to city of New Orleans?
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1457
Feel free to "Browse"..

Sea level rise, threatens areas
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 420 Comments: 127549
..Indian Ocean sea level rise threatens coastal areas

July 13, 2010


BOULDER—Indian Ocean sea levels are rising unevenly and threatening residents in some densely populated coastal areas and islands, a new study concludes. The study, led by scientists at the University of Colorado at Boulder (CU) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), finds that the sea level rise is at least partly a result of climate change.

Sea level rise is particularly high along the coastlines of the Bay of Bengal, the Arabian Sea, Sri Lanka, Sumatra, and Java, the authors found. The rise—which may aggravate monsoon flooding in Bangladesh and India—could have future impacts on both regional and global climate.

The key player in the process is the Indo-Pacific warm pool, an enormous, bathtub-shaped area spanning a region of the tropical oceans from the east coast of Africa to the International Date Line in the Pacific. The warm pool has heated by about 1 degree Fahrenheit, or 0.5 degrees Celsius, in the past 50 years, primarily because of human-generated emissions of greenhouses gases.

"Our results from this study imply that if future anthropogenic warming effects in the Indo-Pacific warm pool dominate natural variability, mid-ocean islands such as the Mascarenhas Archipelago, coasts of Indonesia, Sumatra, and the north Indian Ocean may experience significantly more sea level rise than the global average," says lead author Weiqing Han of CU's atmospheric and oceanic sciences department.

While a number of areas in the Indian Ocean region are experiencing sea level rise, sea level is lowering in other areas. The study indicates that the Seychelles Islands and the island of Zanzibar off Tanzania's coast show the largest sea level drop.

"Global sea level patterns are not geographically uniform," says NCAR scientist Gerald Meehl, a co-author. "Sea level rise in some areas correlates with sea level fall in other areas."

The new study was published this week in Nature Geoscience. Funding came from the National Science Foundation, NCAR's sponsor, as well as the Department of Energy (DOE) and NASA.

Wind and sea level
The patterns of sea level change are driven by the combined enhancement of two primary atmospheric wind patterns, known as the Hadley circulation and the Walker circulation. The Hadley circulation in the Indian Ocean is dominated by air currents rising above strongly heated tropical waters near the equator and flowing poleward at upper levels, then sinking to the ocean in the subtropics and causing surface air to flow back toward the equator.

The Indian Ocean's Walker circulation causes air to rise and flow westward at upper levels, sink to the surface and then flow eastward back toward the Indo-Pacific warm pool.

"The combined enhancement of the Hadley and Walker circulation forms a distinct surface wind pattern that drives specific sea level patterns," Han says.

In the Nature Geoscience article, the authors write, "Our new results show that human-caused changes of atmospheric and oceanic circulation over the Indian Ocean region—which have not been studied previously—are the major cause for the regional variability of sea level change."

The new study indicates that in order to anticipate global sea level change, researchers also need to know the specifics of regional sea level changes.

"It is important for us to understand the regional changes of the sea level, which will have effects on coastal and island regions," says NCAR scientist Aixue Hu.

The research team used several sophisticated ocean and climate models for the study, including the Parallel Ocean Program—the ocean component of the widely used Community Climate System Model, which is supported by NCAR and DOE. In addition, the team used a wind-driven linear ocean model for the study.

The complex circulation patterns in the Indian Ocean may also affect precipitation by forcing even more atmospheric air than normal down to the surface in Indian Ocean subtropical regions, Han speculates.

"This may favor a weakening of atmospheric convection in subtropics, which may increase rainfall in the eastern tropical regions of the Indian Ocean and drought in the western equatorial Indian Ocean region, including east Africa," Han says.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 420 Comments: 127549
Alaskan village stands on leading edge of climate change

..Maybe give a few examples of Sea level Lowering ?

No "FOX" fact's allowed though

:)









Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 420 Comments: 127549
Quoting Neapolitan:

The #1 Denialist Crock, nicely summarized in just five words. It may be "cooling rapidly" in the fantasy-laden minds of those who so desperately wish it were true so they could continue the delusional and destructive charade that pollution doesn't exist and fossil fuels are limitless and clean. But as highlighted by tens of thousands of land-, sea-, and space-based thermometers, by tremendous losses of sea ice, by quickly-rising sea levels, by increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather events, by increased precipitation in places, by intensifying droughts in others, and by just about every other single available piece of real scientific data--the planet is warming, and it's getting worse.


Please provide "scientific data" on "quickly-rising sea levels". One or two will suffice.
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Uploaded by Nasawhatonearth on Sep 15, 2011

Watch as sea ice in the Arctic ocean declines from its near-maximum state in early spring 2011 through the summer and up until Sept. 9, 2011, in this visualization of data collected by the AMSR-E instrument on NASA's Aqua satellite.

Sea ice goes through this shrink-and-swell rhythm every year, but since consistent satellite observations began in 1979, both the annual minimum at the end of summer and the annual maximum at the end of winter continue to decline in area and thickness. Consistent with rising temperatures globally and specifically in the Arctic, climate scientists are concerned with this trend both as an indicator of climate change and as a feedback mechanism. As the white, highly reflective ice disappears, darker ocean waters appear.

This darker surface absorbs more solar radiation and acts as a positive feedback to the warming that is already occurring and causing the change in the first place.

Visualization courtesy of NASA's Scientific Visualization Studio, Goddard Space Flight Center.


Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 420 Comments: 127549
The Earth is neither cooling rapidly ,or warming rapidly! It is a slow progression that is taking place over time(decades). When we say rapidly we get this
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1457
Quoting martinitony:
The Earth is cooling rapidly.

The #1 Denialist Crock, nicely summarized in just five words. It may be "cooling rapidly" in the fantasy-laden minds of those who so desperately wish it were true so they could continue the delusional and destructive charade that pollution doesn't exist and fossil fuels are limitless and clean. But as highlighted by tens of thousands of land-, sea-, and space-based thermometers, by tremendous losses of sea ice, by quickly-rising sea levels, by increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather events, by increased precipitation in places, by intensifying droughts in others, and by just about every other single available piece of real scientific data--the planet is warming, and it's getting worse.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13457
Quoting petewxwatcher:


Not true. Arctic sea ice extant is more than 2 standard deviations below the 1979-2000 mean.




No, true. I don't think the Norwegians are denialists, or are they?This graph shows 12/15 extent greater for this day than any of the preceding four years. It also shows extent almost at the 1std level. The graph you present is an obvious attempt to continually compare to 2007 levels. Why is that? Perhaps the organization has an agenda. Yes, I believe that. Also, whether you like to hear it or not, the lower atmosphere is colder on this date than the same date over the last decade. The Earth is cooling rapidly. Get used to it.

Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
Would some one kindly let Dr. Jeff Masters know my idea here on this

Link

solves the problem of Fossil Fuel GHGs which melts the Arctic Ice.



Our extreme weather: Arctic changes to blame?

By Dr. Jeff Masters
Published: 9:50 PM GMT on December 16, 2011
"The question is not whether sea ice loss is affecting the large-scale atmospheric circulation...it's how can it not?" That was the take-home message from Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University, in her talk "Does Arctic Amplification Fuel Extreme Weather in Mid-Latitudes?", presented at last week's American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco. Dr. Francis presented new research in review for publication, which shows that Arctic sea ice loss may significantly affect the upper-level atmospheric circulation, slowing its winds and increasing its tendency to make contorted high-amplitude loops. High-amplitude loops in the upper level wind pattern (and associated jet stream) increases the probability of persistent weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere, potentially leading to extreme weather due to longer-duration cold spells, snow events, heat waves, flooding events, and drought conditions.

Summertime Arctic sea ice loss: 40% since 1980
The Arctic has seen a stunning amount of sea ice loss in recent years, due to melting and unfavorable winds that have pushed large amounts of ice out of the region. Forty percent of the sea ice was missing in September 2007, compared to September of 1980. This is an area equivalent to about 44% of the contiguous U.S., or 71% of the non-Russian portion of Europe. Such a large area of open water is bound to cause significant impacts on weather patterns, due to the huge amount of heat and moisture that escapes from the exposed ocean into the atmosphere over a multi-month period following the summer melt.

Click on his blog here.
Link
..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Quoting Ossqss:

Hummm, while doing a basic assesment of the posting tonight, I ran across an interesting theory. Do you think most of the pro-AGW views have a college education? I am talking about just a general 4 year degree and have actually learned how to learn, and not just lead down a road with cut and paste tactics ?

I think that is where much of the divide exists here. Just sayin! It becomes obvious to me after a while that some cannot differentiate from the beauty of the story and the gaping holes in the science.

Like a Sy-Fy movie.

What do you think, eh?





"Do you think most of the pro-AGW views have a college education?"
Hmmmmmmmmm, I do not know anyone that is pro-AGW. There are many that have seen the evidence of the AGWT, and see it as being a valid theory. Then again, it does not take a 4 year degree to understand the basic concepts of science and how it works. ... "Views" are able to have a college education???? Kuhl!

"learned how to learn" Yes. Kinda like I am tired of being tired? What an interesting way you word this. Some do not have the mental capacity to learn beyond a certain level. Some do not have the desires to learn. Some would just rather the rest of us did not learn basic science.

"It becomes obvious to me after a while that some cannot differentiate from the beauty of the story and the gaping holes in the science."
I agree, Ossqss. I offer you the opportunity to show us the gaping holes in the science concerning:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Methane is 20 times more potent than is CO2 as for it being a greenhouse gas.

Carbon based fuels release tons of carbon into the atmospheric environment when burned.

Now, for your listening pleasure, I present to you a song by the late, great Glenn Miller -

"Fools Rush In"
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting Ossqss:


Interestingly, you did not respond to the first questions, no?

I'm Gone>>>>>>>!




Sure I did. You just didn't like the answers very much. lol

Oh, and so long, Mr. Gish!
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Ossqss:
Did I mention I hate smartphones :)

Once again, no real answers.......

Do you hear it too? LOL !



No real answers? So links to scientific papers that prove your assertion false isn't a real answer? Pointing out that your logic on the source of the excess heat isn't a real answer?



You ever gonna get around to answering my questions, or are you going to go with the standard message board ploy and make believe that they aren't relevant? Answering would be a bold play. The latter is trite.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Birthmark:
"Does cloud formation hinder or help the GH effect?"
Both. It depends on the altitude of the clouds. Generally speaking, high clouds enhance the GH effect and low clouds hinder the GH effect.

"Better yet, what do the climate models do with cloud formation and forcing?"
You don't know? You should look it up. If you have a problem, then specify it.

Does Co2 concentration have a linear, logarithmic, or other relationship with temp?
Why do you think that's important or are you C&Ping someone else's questions as I'm beginning to suspect.

What is that clicking sound :)
I believe it's peculiar to you. Perhaps you should consult your physician.

Gnight!
It has been for me. I've learned that you know of no "gaping holes" in AGW theory and that I'm on the good side of the "who learned to think" question.

Look, I've followed you a fair way on your gallop, though admittedly I became bored toward the end. But I've answered enough of your questions to allow me to in good conscience ask you to answer some of the questions I've asked. If you can't, just say so. If you can, then get on with it and quit galloping.


Interestingly, you did not respond to the first questions, no?

I'm Gone>>>>>>>!



Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8185
Quoting martinitony:


It is approaching the 1 standard deviation area, the grey area and should be there in the next days or a week or so. 68% of samples should lie within one standard deviation. You will know extent has reached normal when the posts switches from extent to volume. That should happen any moment. You are using the biased data.


Not true. Arctic sea ice extant is more than 2 standard deviations below the 1979-2000 mean.

Member Since: March 24, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 392
Did I mention I hate smartphones :)

Once again, no real answers.......

Do you hear it too? LOL !

Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8185
Quoting martinitony:


Right. I want you, your children, my children and grandchildren to inhale dirty air,eat mercury contaminated foods, be forced to smoke tobacco and starve as the world turns into desserts or drown as cities are inundated with melting glacier's waters. I smile every time I think about it.


Well I am here to change your theology!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
"Does cloud formation hinder or help the GH effect?"
Both. It depends on the altitude of the clouds. Generally speaking, high clouds enhance the GH effect and low clouds hinder the GH effect.

"Better yet, what do the climate models do with cloud formation and forcing?"
You don't know? You should look it up. If you have a problem, then specify it.

Does Co2 concentration have a linear, logarithmic, or other relationship with temp?
Why do you think that's important or are you C&Ping someone else's questions as I'm beginning to suspect.

What is that clicking sound :)
I believe it's peculiar to you. Perhaps you should consult your physician.

Gnight!
It has been for me. I've learned that you know of no "gaping holes" in AGW theory and that I'm on the good side of the "who learned to think" question.

Look, I've followed you a fair way on your gallop, though admittedly I became bored toward the end. But I've answered enough of your questions to allow me to in good conscience ask you to answer some of the questions I've asked. If you can't, just say so. If you can, then get on with it and quit galloping.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Ossqss:
Here a few problems to solve on a Friday night.

You have been consistently told that x Trillion liters of CO2 are pumped into the atmosphere every day.

What density is that liter of CO2?

How many Liters is the actual atmosphere it goes into as referenced in total ?

What percentage of a percentage did CO2 constitute in the past and what is it in the current atmosphere ?

What is the delta between the past and current saturation rate?

Just a start :)




All of that is a mere re-stating of the "there's too little CO2 in the atmosphere to make a difference" and the old "saturated" argument. Both are false. And they have been demonstrated to be false by science.

You may read these
papers to see that both of those "gaping holes" are filled. Actually, the abstracts should be enough to demonstrate that given the observations, your implied assertions are demonstably untrue.

(I sincerely hope that you aren't angling toward the "CO2 is heavier than air, so it stays near the ground" nonsense.) I'm willing to make believe you didn't...for your sake.

I'll deal with the remainder of your Gish Gallop in a separate post.

Are you going to answer my questions about the models? You brought it up. But perhaps I've filled those "gaping holes" as well.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Here, a few problems to solve on a Friday night.

You have been consistently told that x Trillion liters of CO2 are pumped into the atmosphere every day.

What density is that liter of CO2?

How many Liters is the actual atmosphere it goes into as referenced in total ?

What percentage of a percentage did CO2 constitute in the past and what is it in the current atmosphere ?

What is the delta between the past and current saturation rate?

Just a start :)



Does cloud formation hinder or help the GH effect?

Better yet, what do the climate models do with cloud formation and forcing?

Does Co2 concentration have a linear, logarithmic, or other relationship with temp?

What is that clicking sound :)

Gnight!

Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8185
Quoting Ossqss:
Enjoy a story about where 99.9% of the energy on this planet comes from :)

We will not talk about cloud formation and climate model deficiencies. Boorrring, no?


Are you kidding me? ROFLMAO!! Really? That's a "gaping hole?" LOL

Gotta stop laughing.

Okay. The problem, you see, isn't with the energy coming in. The problem is the energy going out. The CO2 we're spewing is cutting down the amount of heat escaping Earth. It is that retained heat that is causing the warming.

What is the problem you see with imperfect models? You do realize, don't you, that no scientific model is perfect...and probably never will be? So tell me *exactly* what the problem is with the models that changes CO2 from a GHG. Please. I enjoyed that first laugh immensely.

Any other "gaping holes" I can clear up for you?

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469

Viewing: 266 - 216

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.