It can be explained, just not to the level of certainty you want. How many times does this need to be said? Take your head out of the sand and maybe some of this information will sink in...
Durban Climate Change Conference 2011
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
It can be explained, just not to the level of certainty you want. How many times does this need to be said? Take your head out of the sand and maybe some of this information will sink in...
So why should I trust models of the future if the past is unexplainable and can't be modelled? If you don't know the past with certainty the future is all just a guessing game without any hope of being reliable.
P.S. 1934 was the hottest on record globally not just in the US.
P.S. 1934 was the hottest on record globally not just in the US.
This is going to be my last post to you, because I actually have to study for a final tonight...in stats no less.
There's a number of problems with what you wrote here. The first is that you're jumping around from one post to the next; the precise causes and weighting to factors is not the same thing as knowing what happened in the past and modelling it. You're confusing response with factors.
As to the certainty, you yourself posted a model that could hindcast drought conditions using the sea surface temperatures. The model broke down when defining the spatial characteristics of the teleconnections. That's not surprising, because of the uncertainty inherent in any model, and because it's a global model paired down to a regional scale, which will increase the uncertainty (a smaller sample space).
The next point you utterly failed at is when you state we can't learn anything without having certainty. That's plainly not true. Scientific experiments never have absolute certainty in the results, yet we learn all sorts of useful things from conducting experiments. The results are interpreted with probabilistic statistics. That's why results are probable.
Lastly, no model is absolutely correct. But some are useful. We can't know precisely what the mean of the population is, unless we have census data, but that makes very little sense for something like a global climate. How would you define the census of global temperature, or solar radiation? We can always split the space into smaller units to the point where it no longer has application to the question we want to attempt to answer.
Not that I expect this will sink in, but for what it's worth anyways...
No it wasn't...go back and read your link from NASA.
Did you do an environmental impact study before constructing your below grade reservoir? What about down stream impact should your above ground storage facilities rupture? And most important did you consult in a meaningful manner with the affected first nations prior to construction?
None of which has anything to do with the question of whether or not human activity changes our climate.
Tell me, if I hit you with a shovel, and it hurts, does that mean it won't hurt if someone else hits you with a shovel?
All of a sudden models that are allegedly reliable enough to used to convince billions people to change their lifestyles, cost of living and livelihoods aren't all that reliable?
Are they reliable enough to base a global economy on and ask billion of people to, change their lives in dramatic ways and pay trillions of dollars a into a carbon bank?
Quote was from before the 2007 corrections. 1934 still needs to be explained in detail before any model based future assumptions can used to set policy for billions of people and trillions of their dollars all blamed on carbon. If 1934-39 wasn't carbon, WTF was it? Apple sauce?
What is the name of that UN Committee that is in so much hot water over the people they hire as experts. Is it UNPCC. not sure.
I thought it was the IPC - Insane Posse of Clowns. Thank you for clarifying that. Less confusion for us old Army guys the better ya know.
The below grade puddle (containment) is the City's responsibility, if my water barrels fail my raspberry bushes get a really lucky break. As for first Nations, I never say no when they ask to be hosed down on a hot day.
Last edited:
Climate change doesn't exist because thousands of scientists are colluding to get our money.
DON'T CALL ME A CONSPIRACY THEORIST!
Green Climate Fund a big bargaining tool in Durban
The rich nations used the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and long-term finance commitment of $100 billion to push big emitters China, Brazil and India against the wall and woo poorer nations to come out with an agreement having majority of elements they wanted.
The United States till the last moment was insisting that GFC should not be accountable to United Nations body on climate convention and work under the World Bank or Global Environment Facility (GEF).
India, China and some other developing countries wanted GCF to be under direct control of multilateral UN framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC).
Although the functional framework of GCF, having equal representation of developed and developing world, was decided earlier this week, the final decision was held back as the US used it as a bargaining tool to get transparency in implementation of climate actions and binding deal for all nations.
The conference decided that GCF will be an autonomous organisation under UNFCCC.
The GCF also helped the EU get support of island and least developed nations, as Germany and Denmark on Thursday committed 55 million Euros for fast track finance to be available from 2012. On Friday, island and least developed nations backed EU's roadmap, which in truncated form was agreed upon.
The funds to be provided under GCF to developing countries will be as per policies of each country. The conference also approved the governing principles of the fund.
The fund will be used for both adaption and mitigation actions. Meaning India will be able to seek money both to reduce its carbon emissions and implementing adaption strategies in climate vulnerable areas.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/India...argaining-tool-in-Durban/Article1-781077.aspx
DON'T CALL ME A CONSPIRACY THEORIST!
Green Climate Fund a big bargaining tool in Durban
The rich nations used the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and long-term finance commitment of $100 billion to push big emitters China, Brazil and India against the wall and woo poorer nations to come out with an agreement having majority of elements they wanted.
The United States till the last moment was insisting that GFC should not be accountable to United Nations body on climate convention and work under the World Bank or Global Environment Facility (GEF).
India, China and some other developing countries wanted GCF to be under direct control of multilateral UN framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC).
Although the functional framework of GCF, having equal representation of developed and developing world, was decided earlier this week, the final decision was held back as the US used it as a bargaining tool to get transparency in implementation of climate actions and binding deal for all nations.
The conference decided that GCF will be an autonomous organisation under UNFCCC.
The GCF also helped the EU get support of island and least developed nations, as Germany and Denmark on Thursday committed 55 million Euros for fast track finance to be available from 2012. On Friday, island and least developed nations backed EU's roadmap, which in truncated form was agreed upon.
The funds to be provided under GCF to developing countries will be as per policies of each country. The conference also approved the governing principles of the fund.
The fund will be used for both adaption and mitigation actions. Meaning India will be able to seek money both to reduce its carbon emissions and implementing adaption strategies in climate vulnerable areas.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/India...argaining-tool-in-Durban/Article1-781077.aspx
Last edited:
Less than an hour can be catastrophic with respect to climate change. It is well known how fast a mammoth can freeze and virtually a whole hemisphere with it. That near instantaneous climatic change still persists.
A clearer picture of the conference's conclusion..
Q The 11th hour climate deal struck in Durban, South Africa on Sunday is being hailed as “historic.” Why?
A It is the first time in history that all of the world’s countries (well, 194 of them) — including major polluters like the United States and China — have agreed to take action on climate changes emissions. The much-anticipated 2009 negotiations in Copenhagen, Denmark fell apart without anything close to a legally-binding treaty on global emission. Last year, negotiations in Cancun, Mexico wrapped up with nothing more than a few token promises to curb deforestation and share green technology. Saved only by a snap 20-hour extension to negotiations, Durban came extremely close to a similar unravelling — which might explain the jubilation of South African foreign minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, who declared Sunday that “we have saved planet Earth for the future of our children and our great grand children.”
Q So do we finally have a legally-binding treaty on carbon emissions?
A Not for another four years. The “Durban Platform for Enhanced Action” calls for a legally-binding treaty to be decided by 2015, and it would not come into force until 2020. In legalese, the countries of the world have agreed to “develop a new protocol, another legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal force that will be applicable to all Parties to the UN climate convention.” Nobody has any idea what “legal instrument” or “agreed outcome” means, though.
Q Does this replace the Kyoto Protocol?
A Not yet. Until a new treaty takes effect in 2020, Durban negotiators decided to extend the Kyoto Protocol for another five years — although the protocol is weaker than ever. Developing countries like India and China remain exempt, Japan, Canada and Russia have all ditched the protocol and the U.S. never ratified Kyoto in the first place. So, aside from a handful of European states — which are bound by EU law to comply with Kyoto — much of the world essentially has a free pass on pollution for the next nine years — to the tune of 48 gigatonnes of emissions per year.
Q Canadian environment minister Peter Kent has never been shy about his contempt for Kyoto. Why is he “cautiously optimistic” about this new deal?
A The division between the developed and the developing world has been a constant sticking point at international climate talks. Just as thousands of Chinese and Indians are suddenly able to afford cars and coal-fired electricity, they have balked at calls to rein in their carbon emissions — particularly when their per-capita emissions remain well below those of Canada and the United States. Nevertheless, Mr. Kent was clear when he went to Durban that he would only accept a climate deal that included the developing world. “Canada has said all along we need a new climate change regime which includes all major emitters,” he told reporters in a teleconference last week. On Sunday, Mr. Kent praised the Durban agreement as the “fair and balanced” deal he was looking for.
Q The whole point of these United Nations Climate Conventions is to avert a “catastrophic” rise in global temperature of more than 2C. Success?
A Not likely. WWF International, OXFAM, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Union of Concerned Scientists are all in agreement that the Durban agreement is “watered down” and “ineffective.” Nevertheless, African states and small island nations — two groups most vulnerable to global climate change — expressed hope that at least negotiators had settled on something. “I would have wanted to get more, but at least we have something to work with,” said Selwin Hart, chief negotiator on finance for the coalition of small states.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/11/peter-kent-cautiously-optimistic-about-climate-deal/
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/11/peter-kent-cautiously-optimistic-about-climate-deal/
Q The 11th hour climate deal struck in Durban, South Africa on Sunday is being hailed as “historic.” Why?
A It is the first time in history that all of the world’s countries (well, 194 of them) — including major polluters like the United States and China — have agreed to take action on climate changes emissions. The much-anticipated 2009 negotiations in Copenhagen, Denmark fell apart without anything close to a legally-binding treaty on global emission. Last year, negotiations in Cancun, Mexico wrapped up with nothing more than a few token promises to curb deforestation and share green technology. Saved only by a snap 20-hour extension to negotiations, Durban came extremely close to a similar unravelling — which might explain the jubilation of South African foreign minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, who declared Sunday that “we have saved planet Earth for the future of our children and our great grand children.”
Q So do we finally have a legally-binding treaty on carbon emissions?
A Not for another four years. The “Durban Platform for Enhanced Action” calls for a legally-binding treaty to be decided by 2015, and it would not come into force until 2020. In legalese, the countries of the world have agreed to “develop a new protocol, another legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal force that will be applicable to all Parties to the UN climate convention.” Nobody has any idea what “legal instrument” or “agreed outcome” means, though.
Q Does this replace the Kyoto Protocol?
A Not yet. Until a new treaty takes effect in 2020, Durban negotiators decided to extend the Kyoto Protocol for another five years — although the protocol is weaker than ever. Developing countries like India and China remain exempt, Japan, Canada and Russia have all ditched the protocol and the U.S. never ratified Kyoto in the first place. So, aside from a handful of European states — which are bound by EU law to comply with Kyoto — much of the world essentially has a free pass on pollution for the next nine years — to the tune of 48 gigatonnes of emissions per year.
Q Canadian environment minister Peter Kent has never been shy about his contempt for Kyoto. Why is he “cautiously optimistic” about this new deal?
A The division between the developed and the developing world has been a constant sticking point at international climate talks. Just as thousands of Chinese and Indians are suddenly able to afford cars and coal-fired electricity, they have balked at calls to rein in their carbon emissions — particularly when their per-capita emissions remain well below those of Canada and the United States. Nevertheless, Mr. Kent was clear when he went to Durban that he would only accept a climate deal that included the developing world. “Canada has said all along we need a new climate change regime which includes all major emitters,” he told reporters in a teleconference last week. On Sunday, Mr. Kent praised the Durban agreement as the “fair and balanced” deal he was looking for.
Q The whole point of these United Nations Climate Conventions is to avert a “catastrophic” rise in global temperature of more than 2C. Success?
A Not likely. WWF International, OXFAM, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Union of Concerned Scientists are all in agreement that the Durban agreement is “watered down” and “ineffective.” Nevertheless, African states and small island nations — two groups most vulnerable to global climate change — expressed hope that at least negotiators had settled on something. “I would have wanted to get more, but at least we have something to work with,” said Selwin Hart, chief negotiator on finance for the coalition of small states.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/11/peter-kent-cautiously-optimistic-about-climate-deal/
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/11/peter-kent-cautiously-optimistic-about-climate-deal/
Last edited:
We'll see.
It really depends on how negotiations go for the next 3-4 years.
They will be a lot easier if investments in clean energy are reasonably spent and the technology is well developed.