Surprise U.S.-China climate deal reverberates north and south

[EagleSmack]

Never.

And it is sad to see someone put so much faith and trust in them because he thinks they can stop the climate from changing.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

If it wasn't for the blizzard of bullsh*t, we might be able to talk to the True Believers. As it is, mocking them is the only thing we can really do. Not that mocking them ain't kinda fun, mind.

They surely do get worked up, though. Make ISIS seem like real laissez-faire, laid-back fellas.

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

Dude... get a grip.

You're going to be just fine.

When I was a boy in the 60s the police came to arrest an elder who had set fire to a forest around Lac La Biche. He wasn't being mischievous or nefarious. He set the fire because every several generations the tribe had done so since time immemorial to improve biodiversity and hunting. Today the elders tell me the forest is suffering from lack of fire. Natural fires are not permitted as the province puts them out and no one risks even trying to start one today.

We are not fine nor will we be fine. Take a step out of your suburb and start communing with the natural environment that sustains us all. Whole forests are dying due to climate change. Whole watersheds have completely dried up (ref this Oct National Geographic), Colony collapse disorder is threatening 2/3 of our food supply and whether CCD is man made or not, the loss of pollinators through the disappearance of biodiversity is.

You alarmists are so emotionally invested in this religion that you can't think straight.

If you took what was going on seriously then you would likely feel the same way. Obama isn't coming for your gun but watch folks get riled about an issue.

The Climate has and will change.

This is the first time the climate has changed due to the activities of a single species. Same challenge as to petros; tell me precisely what you do believe avoiding telling me what you don't.

 

[Goober]

Normally this would be a check mate thing T.

Kyoto 1 & 2 clearly did not stop the climate from changing therefore they were failures and the people that crafted them are either con men or incompetent.

Kyoto was full of shxt as we all know.
CC is coming, what do we do to mitigate it.
Now consider the BRICS - 1 has signed on- yet they, China have been given a timeline to keep on increasing before lowering. 2 coal fired power plants a week online is their present rate of expansion.
Ya think the rest will not want more.
Sure they will.
It all comes down to jobs. And by the time that it is to late, well then we will hear people start to yell.
This deal with China is one sided.

 

[taxslave]

nonsense... or degrees of nonsense

SO the Arctic is now ice free?

 

[EagleSmack]

When I was a boy in the 60s the police came to arrest an elder who had set fire to a forest around Lac La Biche. He wasn't being mischievous or nefarious. He set the fire because every several generations the tribe had done so since time immemorial to improve biodiversity and hunting. Today the elders tell me the forest is suffering from lack of fire. Natural fires are not permitted as the province puts them out and no one risks even trying to start one today.

The elders! The elders!

What elders do you speak of?

Born in the 1930s... 1940s? Lol

We are not fine nor will we be fine. Take a step out of your suburb and start communing with the natural environment that sustains us all. Whole forests are dying due to climate change. Whole watersheds have completely dried up (ref this Oct National Geographic), Colony collapse disorder is threatening 2/3 of our food supply and whether CCD is man made or not, the loss of pollinators through the disappearance of biodiversity is.

Man get a grip and have a drink. Remember the Amazon was going to be gone by 2000?

We're going to be fine.

If you took what was going on seriously then you would likely feel the same way. Obama isn't coming for your gun but watch folks get riled about an issue.

I don't own a gun.

Quit bellyaching and grow a pair.

This is the first time the climate has changed due to the activities of a single species.

How stupid

Same challenge as to petros; tell me precisely what you do believe avoiding telling me what you don't.

I believe you should be fitted for a bra. You should probably start wearing diapers again.

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

1. Modelling - last I heard, all the computer power in the world couldn't accurately model a mouse. Well, I calculate the whole world's probably a mite more complex than a mouse, so my question is can you verify the accuracy and comprehensiveness of your model?

You cannot and never will (at least in my opinion) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. For example, failing astronomical models lead to the hypothesis of dark matter and while we don't fully understand the effects of invisible mass on the universe or even what exactly it is, we nevertheless have a better understanding.

You should take the predictions in climate models with a grain of salt if you're looking for biblical type predictions of X occurring when Y arrives. However, if you use the models as a base or step to the next level of understanding they are invaluable.

2. Sampling - how good, widespread, and comprehensive is your sampling? I'm asking because, best I know, we've only had thermometers for a smidge over a hundred years, and Mr. Fahrenheit's six-foot tubes of water weren't exactly precision instruments.

Fahrenheit's mercury and alcohol thermometers from the early 1700s were surprising accurate. By 1800 they had excellent ways to measure temperature. We can assess average temperatures from the past by looking at the types of plants and animals that once resided in the subject environment, the types and quantities of gasses trapped in bubbles in ice, the study of tree rings (dendroclimatology) and of course there is coral.

I mean, considering the Earth is exactly 6017 years, two months, thirty days, eleven hours, and 47 minutes old

If you believe that statement then you simply lack the cognitive abilities to understand anything scientific or natural or otherwise outside the stipulated doctrines of faith and you shouldn't pretend otherwise.

3. Compensatory factors - OK, I get it. If you dump megatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, planet's gonna warm up. Any fool can see that. But what about plants? They eat carbon dioxide, and seems to me if there's more carbon dioxide, the plants'll be all well-fed and happy. And when they're well-fed and happy, they reproduce a lot (don't we all?). Which'd tend to bring down the CO2 some. Now, being an Oklahoma redneck, I'd never use words like "self-correcting systems" or "homeostatsis," but I figured you smart guys might could. Got that in your model?

CO2 from fossil fuels is more like junk food for plants than the quality CO2 you exhale so it is not really making the plants grow better. But aside from CO2 being a greenhouse gas the other immediate problem with high concentrations of CO2 is that the oceans are absorbing it and through a chemical reaction are changing in PH which is really bad news for marine life and ultimately....us. And as we learn more about how the oceans are deteriorating, which is happening much faster than previous models suggested, newer models are being updated.

4. Closed systems - I hear a lot about treating the Earth as a closed system. But the helmsman of Starship Earth just reported a fair-sized thermonuclear reactor 'bout 150,000,000 kilometers off the starboard bow. And the one thing we know even from our Tuesday-afternoon observations is its output ain't steady. Don't vary much, but with a million-mile-wide wildcatting fusion reactor, how much y'all need? I'd never use big ol' words like "insolation," but maybe y'all should think on it some.

Solar variation is the change in radiation intensity as the sun moves through it's well known 11 year cycles. While on the surface it might appear counter intuitive but our atmosphere does much more to control the temperature of our planet then the Sun and it's intensity. For example, between lunar day and night on the moon the temperature fluctuates between -225 C to +125 C. Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect going on with it's atmospheric CO2 and has an average surface temp off 450 C.

5. History - Ice ages? Do we know how they happen? Might that have some effect?

The Best Documentary Ever!! - The Story Of Earth And Life - YouTube

People post a lot of videos that others ignore. If you truly want to learn as a layman about our earth, where it came from and what science thinks it knows about it I highly recommend the above video or one of the hundreds like it. Pop some corn and give it a go and tell me what you think. This is the one I used for the kids last summer.

 

[EagleSmack]

 

[petros]

So what?

Here's a thought; why not tell me precisely what you do believe so I know where you're coming from. It seems both you and eaglesmack are eager to dismiss any evidence with soundbite style quips as if you're the official opposition without countering with anything of substance.

I don't believe anything. I'll let you know how I feel when we have a full grasp on why we're in an interglacial period in the first place.

If my response bothers you make a booking with a climate psychologist for grief counselling.

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

I don't believe anything. I'll let you know how I feel when we have a full grasp on why we're in an interglacial period in the first place.

If my response bothers you make a booking with a climate psychologist for grief counselling.

What bothers me is that neither you or Eaglesmack have not a goddamned clue about the environment or climate and other than to bounce from poster to poster regurgitating the odd Rush Limbaugh talking points - if we're lucky - but otherwise coming across in debating style like a couple of classic party line Liberals would just hurling nonsense and insults with zero substance to back it up.

At least unreasoning fanatics like MHz have the decency too toss a few bible quotes your way to tell you why you're hell bound.

Personally I think you ought to put up or shut up on this topic.

 

[petros]

No clue? We are living in an interglacial period in an ice age and nobody has s clue why or a clue about the climate stability of an interglacial period and the wobbly systems involved which are brand new after the geomorphing from each glaciation. Each interglacial is unique and of the last 16 they've all had unstable climates with gas cycles patterned hundreds of years after climate swings.

Nobody has a clue why but it sure is scary. Ghostly.

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

The elders! The elders!

What elders do you speak of?

I grew exposed to more ndn than my recent DNA test just revealed. Regardless, I have the utmost respect for the elders of any tribe as time and again over my life they have proven to be brilliantly in touch with the environment and I am just starting to get it. While a guy like you probably has zero respect for their words I am proud to stand beside them and believe much of their ways should be incorporated into our greater soceity.

If you'd like I am happy to post some documented comments by the elders of various Canadian tribes.

No clue? We are living in an interglacial period in an ice age and nobody has s clue why or a clue about the climate stability of an interglacial period and the wobbly systems involved which are brand new after the geomorphing from each glaciation. Each interglacial is unique and of the last 16 they've all had unstable climates with gas cycles patterned hundreds of years after climate swings.

Nobody has a clue why but it sure is scary. Ghostly.

I think it is a perfectly reasonable belief that our position within an interglacial period explains the wonky weather. I can even extend that belief to see how it could even be partially affecting the migratory patterns of birds, the thinning out of biodiversity and few other things and it's probably above my pay grade to effectively debate what the difference between the two potential causes specifically is.

But putting climate change aside, do you believe that the Earth's position in an interglacial period is what iss contributing to the current acidification of the oceans?

 

[captain morgan]

I think it is an extremely fair concern that governments might use a crisis such as climate change to their taxation advantage and to use the windfall for anything other than preventing or dealing with the affects of AGW. Given the past histories of all governments of all types I essentially agree with you here.

This issue is being leveraged by various groups for gain. The UN is proposing that only select nations pay the piper, other more opportunistic nations see this as a wonderful opportunity to gain financially from the confusion.. Even more obtuse are those groups that seek 'climate reparations' for the development of some nations, apparently at their expense.

In the end, there is no concrete and undeniable facts that identify humanity as the fundamental and principal cause of global warming (climate change, etc)

Here is an easy one you can do yourself if you live in Canada. Go downtown with a thermometer and take the temperature and have a friend equally skeptical take a temperature standing in a field in a farm at least 20 mi from any city urban build up. Your results will vary by upwards of 5 degrees celsius depending on time of day and year. Take a measurement of the depth of snow or the amount of moisture in the soil on non irrigated land and compare it with a similar nonirrigated patch in the city. Thus you will have established as fact that at least at a micro level, mankind has an effect on the climate around us both through temperature and precipitation that you can touch and feel and see personally instead of reading dry data.

That experiment can easily prove or disprove AGW/CC... Yes, I get it that humanity impacts the local climate, and I can also understand that if the local climate can be influenced, then it is possible that affect can translate on a larger scale.

That said, the elephant in the room on this issue is that there is essentially no recognition of the natural forces that shape, and have shaped the environment for aeons.

Considering that these factors are barely even paid lip-service, assessing the full weight of the 'blame' on humanity does not make any sense

You're just flat out wrong here. Reference my earlier post from NASA and the list of two hundred current scientific groups in the link which constitute almost all the world's climate scientists and feel free to refute with verifiable data to the contrary if you can.

I referred to the original IPCC claim.

Also, that group also claimed 'consensus' for a number of individuals that did not agree with the broad statement that the IPCC attacehd to their (respective) names... Many requested that their names be removed, some had to go to Court to accomplish this

I am not a scientist but guys like Tonnington who are tell me all the time there are no absolutes in science and that it is essentially just a process of test, observe, change variable, test observe change variable and so on. As the understanding off climate becomes more sophisticated and the input values and variable are better understood new theories and directions will be pursued but overall the core of the hypothesis remains the same.

I agree with the notion that there are no absolutes in science... This is one of the very large sticking points in being 'told' that AGW is definitive.

If your perception of failed scientific absolutes is what you hang your skeptical hat on you'd better reevaluate that because that type of thinking is like looking at a Hockey News assessment on the future of the league in the 21st century from 1975 and expecting it to accurately predict league expansion and labour strife.

I hang my hat on realistic observations from the Earth's historical record.

Multiple events of continental glaciation, interrupted by warming that allowed the glaciers to recede... No one disputes this notion, and considering that the majority of these glaciation events occurred prior to man walking the Earth, I believe it is disingenuous to magically attribute variations in the climate, weather (whatever) to anthro sources... This takes us back to the premise that money transferred to developing economies will somehow stem AGW/CC

You need to absorb things in context and be less concerned about the future predictions and how you'll think they'll fail and more concerned about the past and present realities.

See above.. I look at the big picture prior to delineating the micro aspects of the situation/problem, etc.

.. And yes, if I am expected to believe sensational commentary (ie: 'It may already be too late'), then yes, the legitimacy of the models and forecasts mean quite a bit... Perpetually forwarding failed models and projections that do not transpire do not provide any form of confidence in the underlying message

And don't get too hung up on terminology like global warming or climate change. These are just words at the time to best reflect the understanding of the issue in layman's terms. The semantics of words like "crash can mean auto accident, a drop in the Stock Market, to attend a party without being invited, ocean waves hitting the shore or the sound of a cymbals being struck together". As climate change research is even still in it's infancy expect more sophisticated terminology as we learn more

.

AGW, in it's original context was highly defined, there is (was) no question about it.

Once the sensational predictions were not realized, the movement took great pains to transform itself in reinventing the issue.

The scientific strength of a position should not require so heavily on marketing and branding to justify anything

Classic made up style tecumshefact and easily refuted:

MIT EAPS: Graduate Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, & Climate (PAOC)
climate change | Future Graduate Students - McGill University
Masters Degree Program in Climate & Society | Earth and Environmental Sciences
https://uwaterloo.ca/environment/climate-change
Master Programme | Climate-KIC | Climate-KIC

Went to the MIT site. Appears that the they have amassed a variety of existing disciplines under 'Oceans & Climate'.

In my eye, that does not generate a one-stop academic degree in 'Climate Science'

 

[Zipperfish]

OK, I get it. If you dump megatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, planet's gonna warm up. Any fool can see that.

Apparently not, though. That's the crux of it. Most skeptics on here don't accept that at all.

 

[captain morgan]

Apparently not, though. That's the crux of it. Most skeptics on here don't accept that at all.

Where did that carbon come from and what is it's fate?

You speak as if it was synthesized from no where as opposed to the reality that it is simply being recycled as it has been for 100s of millions of years.

Really man, think about this objectively for one moment

 

[Zipperfish]

Where did that carbon come from and what is it's fate?

You speak as if it was synthesized from no where as opposed to the reality that it is simply being recycled as it has been for 100s of millions of years.

Really man, think about this objectively for one moment

The fact that it has always existed is irrelevant to the argument. If you add more molecules of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, more longwave radiation is "reflected" back to the earth which warms the troposphere and cools the stratosphere. Which is what we see happening. You don't need any fancy global circulation models to determine that.

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

This issue is being leveraged by various groups for gain. The UN is proposing that only select nations pay the piper, other more opportunistic nations see this as a wonderful opportunity to gain financially from the confusion.. Even more obtuse are those groups that seek 'climate reparations' for the development of some nations, apparently at their expense.

I completely agree that the politics of climate change are bull**** and just shows how even the governments who know it is occurring still don't take it seriously. Cap and trade policies and ignoring the BRIC or third world was a recipe for disaster from the start. Far left environmental extremists trying to pass off CO2 as 'pollution' in word play like calling oilsands 'tar' only reinforces the Conservative side to counter with their own irrational position.

In the end, there is no concrete and undeniable facts that identify humanity as the fundamental and principal cause of global warming (climate change, etc)

There is more than enough empirical evidence for any rational nonpartisan person to come to the conclusion that climate change is more likely a result of human activities than a natural cycle. I feel someone really has to work to convince themselves otherwise just like the 9/11 truthers who put considerable energy into any alt theory other than the actual truth.

IThat experiment can easily prove or disprove AGW/CC... Yes, I get it that humanity impacts the local climate, and I can also understand that if the local climate can be influenced, then it is possible that affect can translate on a larger scale.

That said, the elephant in the room on this issue is that there is essentially no recognition of the natural forces that shape, and have shaped the environment for aeons.

Considering that these factors are barely even paid lip-service, assessing the full weight of the 'blame' on humanity does not make any sense

I have to disagree here in that not only are natural forces strongly considered in climate change models, there are full disciplines researching them from the millions NASA spends studying the solar magnetic activity cycle to the millions spent by NOAA studying how the oceans affect the climate, what the precise impact of water vapour is etc.

II referred to the original IPCC claim.

Also, that group also claimed 'consensus' for a number of individuals that did not agree with the broad statement that the IPCC attacehd to their (respective) names... Many requested that their names be removed, some had to go to Court to accomplish this

Yup. I remember it well as I used it may times back when I was an anthropogenic climate change denier, however, you'll also notice you see a lot less of these types of stories and basically that's because as the evidence becomes more clear a lot of people like me who were wrong have changed our opinions.

I agree with the notion that there are no absolutes in science... This is one of the very large sticking points in being 'told' that AGW is definitive.

There is a debate in the scientific community as to whether or not we have entered a new epoch and are in the age of the anthropocene. Scientists as part of the evidence to support the theory they claim we are moving more dirt than the combined forces of erosion and rivers, that we have put a hole in the ozone layer and that we manage 2/3 of the world's landmass not under ice. Also as part of the argument, they point out that mankind's activities are changing the climate.

In other words, these eggheads, both those for or against this being the anthropocene all accept the point that mankind does change the climate through his activities. That part isn't in dispute. So if the world of intellects accepts it what do idiots like us with limited access to information and ideological biases have to offer? For them it must be like a mechanic watching two people who know nothing about automotives debating in theory what is wrong with a car.

Once the sensational predictions were not realized, the movement took great pains to transform itself in reinventing the issue.

The scientific strength of a position should not require so heavily on marketing and branding to justify anything

Agreed but let's also be realistic about the world we live in today where 2 billion dollar US presidential campaigns hardly raise an eyebrow and terrorist organizations have full and functioning public affairs departments.

Went to the MIT site. Appears that the they have amassed a variety of existing disciplines under 'Oceans & Climate'.

In my eye, that does not generate a one-stop academic degree in 'Climate Science'

That's kinda like saying heart surgeons don't exist because you don't arrive on campus and study heart surgery from day one.

Where did that carbon come from and what is it's fate?

You speak as if it was synthesized from no where as opposed to the reality that it is simply being recycled as it has been for 100s of millions of years.

Really man, think about this objectively for one moment

Actually, most of the world's carbon is trapped in rocks and because of that carbon cycle, when the earth was new and volcanoes were spewing trillions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere trapping this carbon in rocks eventually led to a habitable environment for us.

The Carbon Cycle : Feature Articles

 

[mentalfloss]

Latest supercomputers enable high-resolution climate models, truer simulation of extreme weather

Nov 12, 2014 by Julie Chao

Not long ago, it would have taken several years to run a high-resolution simulation on a global climate model. But using some of the most powerful supercomputers now available, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) climate scientist Michael Wehner was able to complete a run in just three months.
What he found was that not only were the simulations much closer to actual observations, but the high-resolution models were far better at reproducing intense storms, such as hurricanes and cyclones. The study, "The effect of horizontal resolution on simulation quality in the Community Atmospheric Model, CAM5.1," has been published online in the Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems.

"I've been calling this a golden age for high-resolution climate modeling because these supercomputers are enabling us to do gee-whiz science in a way we haven't been able to do before," said Wehner, who was also a lead author for the recent Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). "These kinds of calculations have gone from basically intractable to heroic to now doable."

Using version 5.1 of the Community Atmospheric Model, developed by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) for use by the scientific community, Wehner and his co-authors conducted an analysis for the period 1979 to 2005 at three spatial resolutions: 25 km, 100 km, and 200 km. They then compared those results to each other and to observations.

One simulation generated 100 terabytes of data, or 100,000 gigabytes. The computing was performed at Berkeley Lab's National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), a DOE Office of Science User Facility. "I've literally waited my entire career to be able to do these simulations," Wehner said.
The higher resolution was particularly helpful in mountainous areas since the models take an average of the altitude in the grid (25 square km for high resolution, 200 square km for low resolution). With more accurate representation of mountainous terrain, the higher resolution model is better able to simulate snow and rain in those regions.

"High resolution gives us the ability to look at intense weather, like hurricanes," said Kevin Reed, a researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and a co-author on the paper. "It also gives us the ability to look at things locally at a lot higher fidelity. Simulations are much more realistic at any given place, especially if that place has a lot of topography."

The high-resolution model produced stronger storms and more of them, which was closer to the actual observations for most seasons. "In the low-resolution models, hurricanes were far too infrequent," Wehner said.

The IPCC chapter on long-term climate change projections that Wehner was a lead author on concluded that a warming world will cause some areas to be drier and others to see more rainfall, snow, and storms. Extremely heavy precipitation was projected to become even more extreme in a warmer world. "I have no doubt that is true," Wehner said. "However, knowing it will increase is one thing, but having a confident statement about how much and where as a function of location requires the models do a better job of replicating observations than they have."

Wehner says the high-resolution models will help scientists to better understand how climate change will affect extreme storms. His next project is to run the model for a future-case scenario. Further down the line, Wehner says scientists will be running climate models with 1 km resolution. To do that, they will have to have a better understanding of how clouds behave.

"A cloud system-resolved model can reduce one of the greatest uncertainties in climate models, by improving the way we treat clouds," Wehner said. "That will be a paradigm shift in climate modeling. We're at a shift now, but that is the next one coming."

Phys.Org Mobile: Latest supercomputers enable high-resolution climate models, truer simulation of extreme weather

 

[B00Mer]

Canadians For Global Warming - YouTube

Global warming could make Canada flourish: Rising temperatures may bring back ancient forests to icy northern borders | Daily Mail Online

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Apparently not, though. That's the crux of it. Most skeptics on here don't accept that at all.

How's the cherry crop looking?