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: 66 - 16

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

Quoting JupiterKen:


I didn't fixate on anything other than the graphs you posted. Unlike you, I do understand science; have my whole career. Let's do a little chartsmanship. Lay a straight line from 1998 to 2011. Notice that all the points are ~equal or below the line. There is no way the average can be higher. You pseudoscience types believe everything you are told. Stop with the garbage. There are plenty of halfway decent points you can make. Why post garbage?


You did realize the scale is not the same on the two graphs? If you do it by hand quickly, the graphs are accurate, not pseudoscience - without saying anything about the source data, just going by what was posted.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

You're right, Ken. Those idiotic scientists screwed up again. Thank you so very much for pointing that out. Back to the drawing board, then; something is making all that ice melt, but since it's obviously not heat as you've so helpfully pointed out, it must be something else. Maybe the ice just got tired after hanging around for thousands of years and decided to commit suicide...

Seriously, did you read what I posted? Denialists absolutely love to fixate on 1998, while ignoring the fact that it was the byproduct of a strong El Nino. But once the "noise" from that El Nino was removed--as were all other signals--the anomalous spike mostly disappeared.

The planet is getting warmer. Period. That's a fact that's been verified over and over.


I didn't fixate on anything other than the graphs you posted. Unlike you, I do understand science; have my whole career. Let's do a little chartsmanship. Lay a straight line from 1998 to 2011. Notice that all the points are ~equal or below the line. There is no way the average can be higher. You pseudoscience types believe everything you are told. Stop with the garbage. There are plenty of halfway decent points you can make. Why post garbage?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JupiterKen:


How is it the raw data from 1998 to 2011 is essentially a flat line for all 5 data sets and the average of the 5 is a 45 deg upslope? Like all your averaged, smoothed, adjusted, etc manipulations, it's wrong!


You're right, Ken. Those idiotic scientists screwed up again. Thank you so very much for pointing that out. Back to the drawing board, then; something is making all that ice melt, but since it's obviously not heat as you've so helpfully pointed out, it must be something else. Maybe the ice just got tired after hanging around for thousands of years and decided to commit suicide...

Seriously, did you read what I posted? Denialists absolutely love to fixate on 1998, while ignoring the fact that it was the byproduct of a strong El Nino. But once the "noise" from that El Nino was removed--as were all other signals--the anomalous spike mostly disappeared.

The planet is getting warmer. Period. That's a fact that's been verified over and over.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13721
Quoting Neapolitan:
A distrubing--though not unsurprising--new study has just been published that shows warming continuing "at a steady rate". In the article--published in the journal Environmental Research Letters--raw data from three surface temperature records and two lower-troposhere temperature records have been analyzed, and then, more importantly, "adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability)". In other words, once the "noise" is removed, as climate scientists have been saying all along, "the global warming signal becomes even more evident". In the second graph below, note that, as the abstract says, 2009 and 2010 are the two hottest years (2011 data is not included). Yikes...

Cooling? Ha!

Cooling? Ha!


How is it the raw data from 1998 to 2011 is essentially a flat line for all 5 data sets and the average of the 5 is a 45 deg upslope? Like all your averaged, smoothed, adjusted, etc manipulations, it's wrong!

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting IvanJackinogh:
58:

Sure, if the data in question only traverses a convenient time frame from 1980 to the present calendar year; the yes, the data does indeed illustrate your point...


The "convenient time frame" is of the current 30 year time frame. Would the 1680 to 1710 time frame be more "convenient for you? I do not understand what you are implying.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4764
A distrubing--though not unsurprising--new study has just been published that shows warming continuing "at a steady rate". In the article--published in the journal Environmental Research Letters--raw data from three surface temperature records and two lower-troposhere temperature records have been analyzed, and then, more importantly, "adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability)". In other words, once the "noise" is removed, as climate scientists have been saying all along, "the global warming signal becomes even more evident". In the second graph below, note that, as the abstract says, 2009 and 2010 are the two hottest years (2011 data is not included). Yikes...

Cooling? Ha!

Cooling? Ha!
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13721
Being that most of the industrialized world is in the northern hemisphere,if we had a winter like 1977,what do you think that would do to the co2 output. I would say it would go into warp factor five,Scotty!
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1497
Quoting martinitony:


I've just heard about a terrible injustice. Time has named the person of the year "The Protester" as in Occupy Wall Street. We all know that totolini, Neo and Cyclone were far more worthy. Shame, shame.

Actually, TIME naming "The Protester" Person Of The Year for 2011 has as much--if not more--to do with the very worthy "Arab Spring" uprisings as it does with the equally worthy Occupy movement. And this is only the beginning; the corrupt power brokers at the top who are engorging themselves at the expense of everyone below--you, me, most of us--are going to be made to answer...and then they'll be made to pay.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13721
Quoting frankfish:
50:

As I've said it before, I'll say it again: Just another disgruntled government employee of whom pledges his allegiance to everything government and that is subsidized and receives grants. Yet another who lacks the ability to think for himself. Do you really feel the need to go into other's blogs and tell them to stop using the word Christmas because it offends you? Really?

Ah, poor baby. I'm sorry you feel this way in your politically correct world. Another schmuck at his cubicle clinging onto a theory that is endorsed by 96% of all government.

Another disgruntled government employee that thinks he knows it all that was absolutely bulldozed yesterday in Master's blog by teenagers--kids that know more about climate than others who claim they know everything about anything.

Truly sad. One thing is for certain...you are not fooling anyone, anymore.

Off your meds again this morning, Cat5? Would you like me to call the nurse for you? ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13721
Quoting greentortuloni:


Yo bro, I have no idea what you are prattling on about but you sound postal.

As for post 50, I agree with Nea. As i 've said many time, I am by spirit conservative (which may be different from Nea, i don't know). I am for as much freedom as possible. But we live on a small planet and 'free' enterprize is only free to the extent that an enterprize succeeds on its own merits, i.e. without taking from the common land/environment. If your enterprize has to pollute and destroy to succeed, it doesn't have any right to exist.


I've just heard about a terrible injustice. Time has named the person of the year "The Protester" as in Occupy Wall Street. We all know that totolini, Neo and Cyclone were far more worthy. Shame, shame.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
Quoting frankfish:
50:

As I've said it before, I'll say it again: Just another disgruntled government employee of whom pledges his allegiance to everything government and that is subsidized and receives grants. Yet another who lacks the ability to think for himself. Do you really feel the need to go into other's blogs and tell them to stop using the word Christmas because it offends you? Really?

Ah, poor baby. I'm sorry you feel this way in your politically correct world. Another schmuck at his cubicle clinging onto a theory that is endorsed by 96% of all government.

Another disgruntled government employee that thinks he knows it all that was absolutely bulldozed yesterday in Master's blog by teenagers--kids that know more about climate than others who claim they know everything about anything.

Truly sad. One thing is for certain...you are not fooling anyone, anymore.


Yo bro, I have no idea what you are prattling on about but you sound postal.

As for post 50, I agree with Nea. As i 've said many time, I am by spirit conservative (which may be different from Nea, i don't know). I am for as much freedom as possible. But we live on a small planet and 'free' enterprize is only free to the extent that an enterprize succeeds on its own merits, i.e. without taking from the common land/environment. If your enterprize has to pollute and destroy to succeed, it doesn't have any right to exist.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting theshepherd:


RE: 33

Or perhaps they enjoy Non-fiction?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
More of that magical--and magically ignorant--thinking at work.

There are people, some of them here, who believe in their hearts that tens of thousands of scientists from many nations, of many political beliefs, and working across many disciplines, are all in on a huge and decades-long scam concocted merely to pull money from all of us--yet they can't for a single second imagine why Big Energy, which earns hundred of billions of dollars in profit each year, would possibly want to lie and manipulate and deceive to maintain their cash cow in spite of the damage it's caused, and causing.

There are people who look at long-time politicians--such as James Inhofe--who have raked in hundreds of thousands of dollars from fossil fuel interests over the years, and yet claim that in no way could or would possibly sway that politician to side with those interests.

There are people who look at rising temperatures, and convince themselves that a cooldown is imminent. They look at increasing precipitation, and convince themselves it's not happening. They look at all the other signs of climate change--ocean acidification, disappearing ice, rising sea levels, and so on--and twist themselves into illogical pretzels trying to explain it away through something, anything but what the vast majority of scientists know it to be.

There are people who watch 40 trillion liters a day of fossil fuel CO2 being pumped into the environment, and who convince themselves it can have absolutely no effect on that environment, as though the air and the water are bottomless sponges capable of mysteriously absorbing whatever we tuck into them.

One has to wonder just how long this delusional and magical thinking can continue. The house is on fire, and anyone can see that. Yet some stand in the burning living room complaining that the heat they're feeling and the smoke they're smelling is nothing more than a plot by the fire department to get grant money.

Unbelievable.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13721
Quoting martinitony:


Your attempt at logic would be funny if you were not actually serious.

Men don't fight over weather because they have no ability to control it. They can adjust to it by moving away from it or sheltering themselves. You might be right that there could be fighting over the reduced resources caused by warming if it continues, but men would have decades if not centuries to deal with that. There probably would be a natural adjustment to it much as trhere has been with the aging and more affluent population of the USA. Note the movement to Florida, Arizona etc.

However, what is suggested by the warmists would bring instant economic catastrophe and great depression to the world. Wars would ravish the world as they did in the 30s and 40s and perhaps the warmists would get what they want very quickly with the resulting dramatic reduction in the population of humans.

But, hey, I could be wrong. If you guys can put together a global totalitarian government, you might be able to get people to live on 1200 calories a day while they learn to live without cars, TV, computers and toasters and save the world. I just don't know why you'd go to the trouble of saving us for that kind of world.


So according to you, men fight over 200 mile fishing limits and water rights but move when the climate changes? I don't have a word to describe your stupidity.

Fighting global warming requires neither a totalitarian government nor a 1200 calorie diet. Nor do warmists want the poulation to die off. All that is what big oil appeasers suggest as solutions.

Niether do warmists want to live without TV, computers or toasters. This kind of statement is barely even worth responding to. I personally want the world to get rid of cars until cars can be made oil free. But electric cars and pollution free transport are things I have no problem with.

If you can't imagine a solution, then just get out of the way please. You are the worst sort of pseudo conservative: ridiculing those who want to help the world in order to protect your life built on the backs of others. I honestly don't see much difference between you and the president of Syria.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
I give thee, a American Senators View.

(This Blogger does not in any way endorse the opinions of the Republican Senator from Oklahoma.)

:)





Top Comments

James Inhofe: proudly broadcasting from The Wrong Side of History. Smugness is no substitute for science.

yowowulu1 2 days ago 7


A vile message from a vile mind, shilling for vile interests.

rjlchristie 2 days ago 4


I give thee your pick for President and his actions to date.





One of the fundamental sticking points in Durban will be between developed nations that have made much of the fact that recent increases in emissions have come predominantly from developing countries which were exempt from binding emissions reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol. Led by the United States, OECD countries have used this argument to cudgel developing nations into agreeing to drop their insistence on any new climate agreement treating poor and rich countries differently.

Using this argument, OECD countries proclaim that they won’t do anything that would undermine their competitiveness when faced with economic competition from developing countries unconstrained by having to limit carbon emissions. They reinforce their position by trotting out the argument that even if they took action it wouldn’t have any effect because the increases in emissions are coming from the developing world.

Leaving aside the fact that the developed world has a historical debt to pay for bringing the planet to the brink of biospheric crisis by its 150 year production of carbon dioxide, on which that development rests, the United States alone consumes 30% of world resources and produces 25% of CO2 emissions with only 4% of world population. The US could not only set an example to the rest of the world by investing seriously in renewable technologies but would simultaneously generate millions of jobs for those millions of Americans currently out of work. But again, the rules of imperial competition between nation states override taking unilateral action to protect the only planet we have; the myopia of those who run the system and their fixation on profit taking prevents them from recognizing the slogan “There is no Planet B”.

One could argue that the US government has a point: don’t we need developing countries like China and India to reduce their emissions? Of course we do; however the question is: how can this best be achieved? By refusing to seriously invest in renewable energy technologies the US encourages other countries with less money and technological expertise to do like-wise. As President Obama has authorized the resumption of deep sea off-shore drilling as well as offshore drilling in the Arctic, there’s no incentive for others to do anything except continue to construct coal plants, build roads and clear-cut forests for biofuel production.

While 40% of emissions still come from OECD countries, it’s true that only 25% of the latest increase in emissions came from that source. However, it is important to note that per capita emissions in the OECD are almost double those of China and more than six times those of India. Furthermore, these figures are a serious distortion of which countries are really responsible for carbon emissions. While the EU is likely going to achieve its Kyoto target of 5% emissions reductions from 1990 levels next year, this is only because they outsourced them.

According to a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Under the IPCC accounting rules of only reporting territorial emissions, many developed countries have reported stabilized emissions. However, our results show that the global emissions associated with consumption in many developed countries have increased with a large share of the emissions originating in developing countries.”

If the carbon cost of imports from industry that was relocated to boost profit margins by taking advantage of lower labor costs and weaker health, labor, safety and environmental standards is added to the developed countries column, instead of stabilizing, emissions are shown to have increased by 7%. Even without accounting for overseas manufacturing, the US is headed in the opposite direction: between 1990 and 2008 US emissions increased by 17%. If imports are taken into account from US corporations now located overseas, primarily in China, the increase is 25%. If China’s imports and exports are accounted for, Chinese emissions drop by 20%, putting the country well behind the United States.

As another example, take Obama’s recent trip to Asia. Here is President Obama, having just dispatched US troops and aircraft to a base in Australia, essentially letting China know in no uncertain terms what will and will not be tolerated in the Pacific:

“With most of the world’s nuclear power and some half of humanity, Asia will largely define whether the century ahead will be marked by conflict or cooperation, needless suffering or human progress. As President, I have, therefore, made a deliberate and strategic decision -- as a Pacific nation, the United States will play a larger and long-term role in shaping this region and its future, by upholding core principles and in close partnership with our allies and friends…As we plan and budget for the future, we will allocate the resources necessary to maintain our strong military presence in this region. We will preserve our unique ability to project power and deter threats to peace…The United States is a Pacific power and we are here to stay.”

The second intractable problem for capitalism in dealing with a global problem like climate change is that any effective plan has to be internationally coordinated because no major country is able to put forward and carry out unilateral actions that would contravene the laws of capitalist competition and undermine its competitiveness on the world market. The intractable problem faced by the US in particular, with intense economic pressures from rising competitors and an economy built on the premise of endless cheap oil, is that it’s the country least capable of making concessions at climate talks.

As a result, US government representatives are constantly hunting for allies amongst other major polluting countries to bribe or browbeat into obstructing, watering-down and delaying any and all action toward a binding climate treaty. Whatever the change in language, this is as true of President Obama’s administration as it was of George W. Bush’s. It appears that in Durban the US will this time collaborate with major coal producer and nuclear ally India, with the likely help of Russia and Japan in order to block any attempt by vulnerable states to take firmer and quicker action to reduce emissions.

As some nations become desperate in the face of climate change, and infected with the power of the Occupy movement for change, some may attempt to force the issue against the interests of the major emitting countries. In an exciting example of this, the former president of Costa Rica, José María Figueres, has called for vulnerable countries to “Occupy Durban” to force more serious negotiations. Climate protesters in Durban outside the conference can use this potential split to make their own push for tighter emissions controls and a shift away from fossil fuels, just as Global Justice protesters did in Seattle in 1999 that led to the collapse of international trade talks.

However, it is clear that if we want real change with regard to climate negotiations, we will have to follow the Egyptian people and replace our governments with ones that are more responsive to the democratic demands of their people. While we should obviously continue to protest outside of climate talks, we need to direct our energies to where we are more able to effect change, which is on the national level. And if we really want to save our world, we need to see fighting for real reforms and the reining in of corporate power not as an endpoint, but rather as a stepping stone toward a completely different society. One that, in contrast to a capitalist system based on endless growth, competition in pursuit of profit, exploitation, oppression and imperial warfare, will be based on real democracy and cooperation between all people and the planet we depend on. For that, we will need a revolution.

By Chris Williams. Chris is a long-time environmental activist and author of Ecology and Socialism: Solutions to Capitalist Ecological Crisis. His writings have appeared in International Socialist Review, The Indypendent, Truthout, and ZNet. He is a chemistry and physics professor at Pace University and chair of the Packer Collegiate Institute science department. His website is www.ecologyandsocialism.org and he can be contacted at ecologyandsocialism@gmail.com.


Link


Bush Obama - The same old thing.
Fascinating!




Keith Olbermann excoriated President Obama on his Friday show for halting the impending toughening of environmental regulations against smog. The announcement from the White House...




Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey Where wealth accumulates and men decay: Princes and lords may flourish or may fade; A breath can make them, as a breath has made; But a bold peasantry, their country's pride, When once destroyed, can never be supplied.

- Oliver Goldsmith
The Deserted Village, l.51^6.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1094
Quoting greentortuloni:


Hypoocrit!

If you think people kill over water rights, imagine what happens when global warming puts thier house under water, destroys their crops, etc..

That is exactly what a large part of the fear over global warming is about, not a petty in comparison lack of cash or economic system stress but a real physical problem.

It's not that we shouldn't ask questions but that we should find answsers right now and realize it's a choice of solving it the right way now (IMMEDIATLY) or fighting for scraps with people who will kill and have have real reasons for beleiving they need to kill to survive.

Honestly, I think you are the sort of scum of humanity who would rather twist facts to suit his emotional belief / emotional need to win rather than care about other people.


Your attempt at logic would be funny if you were not actually serious.

Men don't fight over weather because they have no ability to control it. They can adjust to it by moving away from it or sheltering themselves. You might be right that there could be fighting over the reduced resources caused by warming if it continues, but men would have decades if not centuries to deal with that. There probably would be a natural adjustment to it much as trhere has been with the aging and more affluent population of the USA. Note the movement to Florida, Arizona etc.

However, what is suggested by the warmists would bring instant economic catastrophe and great depression to the world. Wars would ravish the world as they did in the 30s and 40s and perhaps the warmists would get what they want very quickly with the resulting dramatic reduction in the population of humans.

But, hey, I could be wrong. If you guys can put together a global totalitarian government, you might be able to get people to live on 1200 calories a day while they learn to live without cars, TV, computers and toasters and save the world. I just don't know why you'd go to the trouble of saving us for that kind of world.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
Quoting Ossqss:


Chicken Littles ? LOL!

You should preview what you type prior to posting.

Yep, those climate models are "dead on" accurate,,,, right?

Quite a robotically programmed response, as expected..... !









Which climate model are you refering to?

1. The climate model that says the world is getting warmer?

2. The climate model that says the world is not getting warmer?

I thikn if you compare all the evidence, and not just find exceptions here and there, that climate model 1 that says the world is getting warmer is more accurate.

Waffle on about macro economics and Greece's problems because you own a small business (which is really cool, honestly, no sarcasm intended). Not everyone in Greece retired at 50 (if any did), but even if they did, that doesn't change the fact that the world is warming and billions are going to die and you will lose your business because of that.

If you think retirement at age 50 in Greece causes ripples causes economic problems with effects world wide, imagine what happens with drought, famine, disease, etc..

I really can't believe you guys are serious.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting martinitony:


Globally there is no shortage of cash? Is that right? I didn't know that. I'm glad I know it now. With no shortage of cash the world can now quickly get rid of that Greek problem, that Italian problem, that Spanish problem and that Irish problem. The Iceland problem is already solved. I'm sure they wish they had known about all that cash before everyone there went broke. Can we undo that and make that country all better?

Can we solve this climate problem and keep our social security, our pensions, our medicare and Obamacare. Is our house so on fire right now that we shouldn't even ask such silly questions?

Would it be easier to just stop having babies and limit people to only 70 years of life or 60 if necessary?

Do you think my questions are stupid Dr. Rood?

Honestly, Dr. Rood, if i didn't know better, I'd think you were just one of those silly college professors who doesn't realize that history is full of war and death and fighting over stuff as silly as water rights and 200 mile limits. I doubt anyone anywhere these days would kill anyone over the right to keep their family warm and fed.



Hypoocrit!

If you think people kill over water rights, imagine what happens when global warming puts thier house under water, destroys their crops, etc..

That is exactly what a large part of the fear over global warming is about, not a petty in comparison lack of cash or economic system stress but a real physical problem.

It's not that we shouldn't ask questions but that we should find answsers right now and realize it's a choice of solving it the right way now (IMMEDIATLY) or fighting for scraps with people who will kill and have have real reasons for beleiving they need to kill to survive.

Honestly, I think you are the sort of scum of humanity who would rather twist facts to suit his emotional belief / emotional need to win rather than care about other people.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
A discourse on "global warming" by everyone's favorite long-range meteorologist:

Link


And then you post a link to Joe Bastardi???? LMAO!

I must admit. You bring some of the best comic relief I have seen on this blog. Keep up the good work!
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4764
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


How many made landfall? One year does not an average make. What's the average since 2005? I should have clarified myself. We've had the lowest number of hurricanes making landfall since the Civil War. NOAA's classification system leaves a little to be desired. They classified a storm as a hurricane on the East Coast last season when no winds above tropical storm force were felt.


LMAO! What? They do not qualify as hurricanes unless they make landfall? I wish ALL hurricanes never made landfall. Not even Joe Bastardi is soooo far off base as to say this. LMAO!
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4764
If you're an environmentalist "scientist" bent on destroying the fossil fuel industry, and you don't have enough evidence, just make it up:

Link
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting Neapolitan:
I see a bunch of Fox-ian drivel starting to work its way into the conversation. Pathetic. And altogether typical. But you know what's funny (or not so funny)? While all the Chicken Littles run around screaming "Socialism!!!", humanity is moving closer to the brink. Funny, yes. Hard-dee-har-har.

The thing is, many very smart people believe that in order to avoid climate disruption that threatens civilization itself, we--the nation, and the world--need to approach the problem of climate change as though we're in a war. Because we are. We need to act aggressively, quickly, and on a scale never before seen in human history. It's going to be expensive; it's going to be inconvenient; it's going to require sacrifice from all sides. And nobody wants to hear it, of course; it's human nature to avoid and ignore uncomfortable and painful truths. But as with health problems and other unpleasant things, denial of the those truths is wasteful and dangerous.

Don't believe me? Read this. Here's a salient passage: "...a 4 degrees C future is incompatible with an organized global community, is likely to be beyond 'adaptation', is devastating to the majority of ecosystems, and has a high probability of not being stable."

Whining about "socialism" in the face of this, the greatest threat humanity has ever faced, is ludicrous, shortsighted, and, frankly, stupid. Not to mention unforgivable.


Chicken Littles ? LOL!

You should preview what you type prior to posting.

Yep, those climate models are "dead on" accurate,,,, right?

Quite a robotically programmed response, as expected..... !







Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
I see a bunch of Fox-ian drivel starting to work its way into the conversation. Pathetic. And altogether typical. But you know what's funny (or not so funny)? While all the Chicken Littles run around screaming "Socialism!!!", humanity is moving closer to the brink. Funny, yes. Hard-dee-har-har.

The thing is, many very smart people believe that in order to avoid climate disruption that threatens civilization itself, we--the nation, and the world--need to approach the problem of climate change as though we're in a war. Because we are. We need to act aggressively, quickly, and on a scale never before seen in human history. It's going to be expensive; it's going to be inconvenient; it's going to require sacrifice from all sides. And nobody wants to hear it, of course; it's human nature to avoid and ignore uncomfortable and painful truths. But as with health problems and other unpleasant things, denial of the those truths is wasteful and dangerous.

Don't believe me? Read this. Here's a salient passage: "...a 4 degrees C future is incompatible with an organized global community, is likely to be beyond 'adaptation', is devastating to the majority of ecosystems, and has a high probability of not being stable."

Whining about "socialism" in the face of this, the greatest threat humanity has ever faced, is ludicrous, shortsighted, and, frankly, stupid. Not to mention unforgivable.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13721
Quoting theshepherd:


Actually Dr rood is correct. There are tons of cash out there. Tons of cash waiting on confidence.

When confidence returns, the cascade will begin. Nobody enjoys just sitting on money and having it burn a hole in their pocket.

My only qualm is "who's" cash.

When Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland become a good investment....Get the point?





Shepard, you are just wrong about this. The creation of wealth happens when we are productive. If you need a house and I build it and you give me a profit, together we have created wealth. The destruction of wealth happens when you don't pay for the house , I evict you and can't pay off my bank loan for the project. The destruction of wealth over the last 4 years makes what happened during the Great Depression look small by comparison. It is on the magnitude of tens of trillions.

Yes, there is some cash on the sidelines waiting to go back to productive endeavors, but there is not anywhere near enough to pay for the promises that governments across the world have made. Why do you think the Federal Reserve has been printing money. The only way the debts get paid is to devalue the money. Get it. And there isn't 2 cents that the world has ready to pay for climate change preparation. It will just have to wait while we prime the well by getting the economy back on track.

Now, for the professor, take what I just wrote to one of your finance professors and ask him if what I say is a fair description of what is going on.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
Quoting theshepherd:


Actually Dr rood is correct. There are tons of cash out there. Tons of cash waiting on confidence.

When confidence returns, the cascade will begin. Nobody enjoys just sitting on money and having it burn a hole in their pocket.

My only qualm is "who's" cash.

When Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland become a good investment....Get the point?





Yep!

We all feel better about having confidence and clarity of value as part of our planning processes, no matter the specific matter involved.

Things are most certainly becoming very clear to many.

Is that lip-syncing, more importantly, can you tell if it is ? :)



Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188

I find myself compelled to address the global cash item referenced.

The EU's problems as addressed in a prior post is not only accurate, but prophetic.

They are effectively insolvent. Why?

You could retire with full benefits in Greece at age 50.....

I will not dwell on their self inflicted problems.

That type of thing is inevitable in a socialist environment.

So, we can perhaps get the Cash from the USA?

Hummmm, did we not just pass 100% debt to GDP as a country?

So, we could simply borrow more money to pay for it from China and Japan ?

Sorry I am not more inspired, but I just finished another 12 hour day as a small business owner.

Just another beautiful day, you ? (ª¿ª)

Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
Quoting martinitony:


Globally there is no shortage of cash? Is that right? I didn't know that. I'm glad I know it now. With no shortage of cash the world can now quickly get rid of that Greek problem, that Italian problem, that Spanish problem and that Irish problem. The Iceland problem is already solved. I'm sure they wish they had known about all that cash before everyone there went broke. Can we undo that and make that country all better?

Can we solve this climate problem and keep our social security, our pensions, our medicare and Obamacare. Is our house so on fire right now that we shouldn't even ask such silly questions?

Would it be easier to just stop having babies and limit people to only 70 years of life or 60 if necessary?

Do you think my questions are stupid Dr. Rood?

Honestly, Dr. Rood, if i didn't know better, I'd think you were just one of those silly college professors who doesn't realize that history is full of war and death and fighting over stuff as silly as water rights and 200 mile limits. I doubt anyone anywhere these days would kill anyone over the right to keep their family warm and fed.



Actually Dr rood is correct. There are tons of cash out there. Tons of cash waiting on confidence.

When confidence returns, the cascade will begin. Nobody enjoys just sitting on money and having it burn a hole in their pocket.

My only qualm is "who's" cash.

When Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland become a good investment....Get the point?



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


How many made landfall? One year does not an average make. What's the average since 2005? I should have clarified myself. We've had the lowest number of hurricanes making landfall since the Civil War. NOAA's classification system leaves a little to be desired. They classified a storm as a hurricane on the East Coast last season when no winds above tropical storm force were felt.


Completely false. NeapolitanFan, you need to stop going to anti-Semitic holocaust deniers like Alex Jones to get your news. You lied again.

Since 2005 we have had hurricanes Humberto, Dolly, Gustav, Ike, and Irene make landfall in the USA.

Definitely not the lowest number of hurricanes making landfall since the Civil War.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RickyRood:


Let's see ... I would start paying by explicitly identifying some of the money associated with "development" to address specifically issues of climate adaptation and technology transfer.

I would imagine that most any country that provides aid for strategic purposes, for instance access to natural or geopolitical resources, would find benefit to augment their aid incrementally to incorporate climate change into development.

Organizations (e.g. World Bank) and countries are already doing this, so it is not an idea that is especially novel.

As for your other provocative questions ... perhaps I would cut, perhaps I would reprogram, perhaps I would raise revenue. I have a history of pretty responsible management. My own grants? I could imagine rational programs that, for instance, have a international impacts section. There are regularly grant requirements that support special programs - some sensible, some not. My own paycheck, comparable to other charities, NGOs, programs, that I support - Planusa for instance has climate interests. ... I have seen many carbon tax strategies that I would support.

Norway.

More to the point, I don't see this only as a cost with no return. There are plenty of other countries willing to spend money to buy favor, influence and opportunity. There are corporations willing to spend money to make opportunity. Globally, there is no shortage of cash.


Globally there is no shortage of cash? Is that right? I didn't know that. I'm glad I know it now. With no shortage of cash the world can now quickly get rid of that Greek problem, that Italian problem, that Spanish problem and that Irish problem. The Iceland problem is already solved. I'm sure they wish they had known about all that cash before everyone there went broke. Can we undo that and make that country all better?

Can we solve this climate problem and keep our social security, our pensions, our medicare and Obamacare. Is our house so on fire right now that we shouldn't even ask such silly questions?

Would it be easier to just stop having babies and limit people to only 70 years of life or 60 if necessary?

Do you think my questions are stupid Dr. Rood?

Honestly, Dr. Rood, if i didn't know better, I'd think you were just one of those silly college professors who doesn't realize that history is full of war and death and fighting over stuff as silly as water rights and 200 mile limits. I doubt anyone anywhere these days would kill anyone over the right to keep their family warm and fed.

Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Here is scale model that works physically. I didn't place a turbine in it yet but as you can see it moves water from the bottom to the top or just straight through the top. I tested both phases of operation without power generation phase of the operation. That generation phase is a given especially with a venturi section installed.


BOTTOM COOLING PHASE:

img src="">


TOP NON COOLING PHASE:

img src="">


TUNNEL SIDE VIEW OF MODEL:


img src="">


COMPRENDE?

Action:
Quote
| Ignore User


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 17063





I see an unending, and obviously sanctioned, spamming on this blog of your, patent applied for, contraption which is a direct violation of Wu Standards.

Maybe the powers that be simply enjoy comedy?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AlwaysThinkin:


Weird I saw this story somewhere else two hours later on Dr. Master's blog:



Hmmmmmmmmmmm dunno why, but something seems fishy about this....


The only thing fishy is that I don't read Dr. Masters' blog anymore, so I didn't see the post.
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
A discourse on "global warming" by everyone's favorite long-range meteorologist:

Link
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting petewxwatcher:
We had 7 hurricanes form in the Atlantic hurricane season in 2011. That's above the average of 5.9 hurricanes in hurricane seasons since 1950. Not a record low.


How many made landfall? One year does not an average make. What's the average since 2005? I should have clarified myself. We've had the lowest number of hurricanes making landfall since the Civil War. NOAA's classification system leaves a little to be desired. They classified a storm as a hurricane on the East Coast last season when no winds above tropical storm force were felt.
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Sorry, cyclone. I have to ask. What is the atmospheric CO2 concentrations of your garage before and after you put the scale model in there?

Seriously, I do not doubt that your plan will have some benefit. How much benefit it will have will not be known until you can get at least a functional, in real world conditions, model built and in place. I have stated before, and I will stand by this statement, should a full scale, operational model help reduce the effects of a rising atmospheric CO2 concentration I will gladly pay royalties to you. I believe that all of us will gladly collect $1,000,000,000,000 for you, if it works.

I know what you are thinking. Too many excellent ideas have never made it off the drawing board. You would be correct.


Here is scale model that works physically. I didn't place a turbine in it yet but as you can see it moves water from the bottom to the top or just straight through the top. I tested both phases of operation without power generation phase of the operation. That generation phase is a given especially with a venturi section installed.


BOTTOM COOLING PHASE:

img src="">


TOP NON COOLING PHASE:

img src="">


TUNNEL SIDE VIEW OF MODEL:


<>img src="">


COMPRENDE?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Quoting cyclonebuster:


I already built a working scale model. It sits in my garage.


Sorry, cyclone. I have to ask. What is the atmospheric CO2 concentrations of your garage before and after you put the scale model in there?

Seriously, I do not doubt that your plan will have some benefit. How much benefit it will have will not be known until you can get at least a functional, in real world conditions, model built and in place. I have stated before, and I will stand by this statement, should a full scale, operational model help reduce the effects of a rising atmospheric CO2 concentration I will gladly pay royalties to you. I believe that all of us will gladly collect $1,000,000,000,000 for you, if it works.

I know what you are thinking. Too many excellent ideas have never made it off the drawing board. You would be correct.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4764
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Maybe climate forecasters, as in UEA, should take a hint from this and do the same:

Link


Weird I saw this story somewhere else two hours later on Dr. Master's blog:

Quoting PurpleDrank:

Hurricane predictors admit they can’t predict hurricanes

Monday, December 12, 2011
By Tom Spears




Two top U.S. hurricane forecasters, revered like rock stars in Deep South hurricane country, are quitting the practice because it doesn’t work.

William Gray and Phil Klotzbach say a look back shows their past 20 years of forecasts had no value.

The two scientists from Colorado State University will still discuss different probabilities as hurricane seasons approach — a much more cautious approach. But the shift signals how far humans are, even with supercomputers, from truly knowing what our weather will do next.

Gray, recently joined by Klotzbach, has been known for decades for an annual forecast of how many hurricanes can be expected each official hurricane season (which runs from June to November.) Southerners hang on his words, as even a mid-sized hurricane can cause billions in damage.

Last week, the pair dropped this announcement out of a clear, blue sky:

“We are discontinuing our early December quantitative hurricane forecast for the next year ... Our early December Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasts of the last 20 years have not shown real-time forecast skill even though the hindcast studies on which they were based had considerable skill.”

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen



Hmmmmmmmmmmm dunno why, but something seems fishy about this....
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 394
We had 7 hurricanes form in the Atlantic hurricane season in 2011. That's above the average of 5.9 hurricanes in hurricane seasons since 1950. Not a record low.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:


More water vapor available for hurricanes to form.


But we have had record low hurricane formation. Obviously they were wrong.
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


Climate forecasters have had just about the same record as hurricane forecasters, perhaps even worse. Funny that you mention global warming and hurricanes. The global warming doomsayers predicted a great increase in hurricanes due to AGW. How did that prediction come out?


More water vapor available for hurricanes to form.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Quoting overwash12:
Of course it has been somewhat of an educated guess predicting how many hurricanes there will be in an upcoming season. There are always variables that come into play they did not foresee! Like global warming taking the breath right out of the storm. JMO


Climate forecasters have had just about the same record as hurricane forecasters, perhaps even worse. Funny that you mention global warming and hurricanes. The global warming doomsayers predicted a great increase in hurricanes due to AGW. How did that prediction come out?
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting Nekeopbarren:
Neapolitan,

You have some blog defending to do over in Masters. You might even make a couple friends.

So march on over there and quickly tell these bloggers that they are wrong and you are always right and that GW is occurring no matter what anyone else says!!

Hurry up there, Bud. I'd truly be saddened if you begin to lose your foothold in there...


Nekeopbarren, You have some blog defending to do over in the physical blog of mother nature. You might even make a couple of friends. So march on over there and quickly tell mother nature that temperatures and CO2 concentrations are wrong and you are always rihgt and the GW isn't occurring no matter the physiocal evidence says!!

Hurry up there, butthead, I wouldn't really want you to get struck by lightening, but I would laugh to see you get sturck by enlightenment but that would take a lot a lot of change.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


The problem with your approach, cyclone, is that you want to risk everything to the confines of one basket. Your idea may prove to be a part of the solution but, too risky a venture to not diversify into other areas. You firmly believe in your tunnels and that is fine. Until a working model is in place and functioning, it is wise to keep compiling other methods for success.


I already built a working scale model. It sits in my garage.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Good to see you back theshepherd. I hope you don't cuss again and get yourself banned for good.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
#16, why did you use a Holocaust denier and an anti-semite as a news source in the previous blog entry in comment #405? Do you consider holocaust deniers and anti-semites to be valid news sources?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Maybe climate forecasters, as in UEA, should take a hint from this and do the same:

Link
Of course it has been somewhat of an educated guess predicting how many hurricanes there will be in an upcoming season. There are always variables that come into play they did not foresee! Like global warming taking the breath right out of the storm. JMO
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1497
Maybe climate forecasters, as in UEA, should take a hint from this and do the same:

Link
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303

Viewing: 66 - 16

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.