Archive for Monday, December 7, 2009

Climate efforts gaining ground

December 7, 2009


— Delegates converged Sunday for the grand finale of two years of tough, sometimes bitter negotiations on a climate change treaty, as U.N. officials calculated that pledges offered in the last few weeks to reduce greenhouse gases put the world within reach of keeping global warming under control.

Yvo de Boer, the U.N.’s top climate official, said on the eve of the 192-nation conference that despite unprecedented unity and concessions, industrial countries and emerging nations need to dig deeper.

“Time is up,” de Boer said. “Over the next two weeks governments have to deliver.”

Finance — billions of dollars immediately and hundreds of billions of dollars annually within a decade — was emerging as the key to unblocking an agreement that would bind the global community to a sweeping plan to combat climate change.

Nations also must need to commit to larger emission reductions, de Boer said.

South Africa on Sunday became the latest country to announce an emissions target. It said over the next 10 years it would reduce emissions by 34 percent from “business as usual,” the level they would reach under ordinary circumstances. By 2025 that figure would peak at 42 percent, effectively leveling off and thereafter begin to decline.

“This makes South Africa one of the stars of the negotiations,” said the environmental group Greenpeace.

President Barack Obama’s decision to attend the conclusion of the two-week conference, after phone consultations with other heads of state, was taken as a signal that an agreement was getting closer. He originally planned to make only an hourslong stop in the Danish capital this week.

More than 100 heads of state and government have said they will attend the last day or two, making Copenhagen the largest and most important summit ever held on climate.

“Never in the 17 years of climate negotiations have so many different nations made so many firm pledges together,” de Boer said. “It’s simply unprecedented.”


just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

"Finance — billions of dollars immediately and hundreds of billions of dollars annually within a decade — was emerging as the key to unblocking an agreement that would bind the global community to a sweeping plan to combat climate change."

What's not said here is that these $billion will fund the creation of new, sustainable economic models, resulting in $trillions in economic production-- and failure to spend (invest is the more accurate term here) these $billions will lead to economic disaster, and it will likely come sooner, rather than later.

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

Hundreds of limos, more private jets than can fit in the Copenhagen airport, a carbon footprint a major volcano would envy. Praise the Goreacle!

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

I'm glad to see that you support measures that would allow reductions in the carbon footprint required to convene such meetings, snap-- measures that may get a boost at this very meeting. That would be things like a carbon tax, much of which would be used to create more efficient transportation and communication systems. You're such a progressive, snap.

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

I support ending the massive charade that is extortion pretending to be AGW.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

I believe that is the main platform of the Progressive Flat Earth Society, snap. If you aren't a card-carrying member, you at least qualify for an honorary membership.

Chris Golledge 5 years ago

Well Pilgrim; that is one interpretation. Nevermind that there have multiple peaks and valleys since, oh, 1950, and only one of many measurements, shows a slight downward trend in the last decade, and that only if you pick 1998, an exceptionally hot year, as your starting point. If you pick 1997 or 1999, the trend remains positive, but really, one should take any trend less than about 20-25 years with a grain of salt. At least, that is what the IPCC said, when discussing the warming trend.

But, if anyone wants a counter to what Pilgrim is saying, here is a link full of fact, figures, and lots of arguments just like the one we could repeat here.

Chris Golledge 5 years ago

GTG, but I should say I appreciate the way the discussion at the link above at least some potential influence from cosmic rays.

And, it looks like 2009 will be warmer than 2008; so, not sure if you can still massage a negative trend out of the data.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

Sounds like a pretty reasonable approach, given the need to counter loud-mouthed know-nothings like yourself, pil.

Chris Golledge 5 years ago


I believe that quote you love so much fits in better in the context of press releases rather than the actual papers. What percentage of the public reads the actual papers? Judging by the links commonly posted here, not much. But, the press releases get widespread attention, particularly if the media can emphasize something in it that seems out of the ordinary. It's like the OJ trial; the jury hears that there is a 1 in of a million chance that the DNA evidence is wrong, and thinks, 'Oh, there is a chance.' My belief is that Scheider's statement fits in with dealing with public perception rather than the contents of the papers themselves, which are really written for researcher peers rather than the common public. If you have evidence otherwise, please show it.

Here is a scientist's own lament at the common inability of scientists to communicate to the public so that it real meaning is understood.

sfjayhawk 5 years ago

Hey barry, greenland was not named because it was green. Wrong again. Nice try thought.

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

“…E is for environmentalism, which the philosopher Harvey Mansfield has defined as “school prayer for liberals,”…” Read the rest at:

Chris Golledge 5 years ago

barrypenders (Anonymous) says…

Greenland was named so because it used to be lush and green. What color is it now Jabot b?

Umm, Barry, how old do you think the Greenland ice sheet is?

BigPrune 5 years ago

If you look back in history, you will find the hype of the coming ice age in the mid '70's, you will find the hype of global warming back in the 50s, then back in the 1920s science was saying global ice age, but back in the 1890s science was claiming global warming.

People say things like "scientific consensus" like it means something. It means absolutly nothing.

Note the so called Scientific Consenses with the Climategate email which showed how people peddling the Global Warming/climate change agenda stroked data, supressed data that did not conform to there already decided outcomes.

“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Sir Winston Churchill

Looks like we're repeating history, again.

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

Ever hear of the Medieval Warm Period? “…According to the American Geophysical Union, the Little Ice Age was the period between about A.D. 1350 and 1850 when global air temperatures were generally cooler than those of the 20th century. For centuries before the Little Ice Age, there was a Medieval Warm Period. Both climate trends appear to have been widespread and were responsible for a number of changes in various civilizations. For example, the Medieval Warm Period coincides with the Vikings' settlement of Greenland, Iceland and possibly North America. Farmsteads with dairy cattle, pigs, sheep and goats were prevalent in Iceland and along the southern coast of Greenland. Even England was able to compete economically with France in wine production. On the other hand, agriculture steadily declined at higher latitudes during the Little Ice Age, while mortality rates and famines increased. By 1500, settlements in Greenland had vanished and the inhabitants of Iceland were struggling to survive. Although European climate is better documented, the impacts during the Little Ice Age were widespread. In Argentina, Chile and southern Peru as well as southern Africa and northern China, records indicate that the last millennium began with marked warming supplanted by extreme cold during the middle centuries. Proxy indicators - such as tree rings and ice cores - in New Zealand, Australia and California confirm that the changes were widespread. Such effects have been well documented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.”

chzypoof1 5 years ago

Snap, Pilgrim, Barry: You MUST stop putting out truths about this movement. The "smart followers" know that global warming isn't real, that's why it was retagged "climate change". You MUST fall in line, and start believing everything you are told. We have to save the planet from all that naughty carbon in the know, one of the main elements of life....logic is so skewed today :)


Chris Golledge 5 years ago

Barry, It's at least 11,000 years old in an area larger than that.

"Four of the drillings analysed are from the central ice sheet, while two of the drillings are from small ice caps outside of the ice sheet itself, at Renland on the east coast..."

Personally, I think it is improbable that "lush and green" existed near a large ice sheet.

Chris Golledge 5 years ago

Really, all this talk of past warm or cold periods is irrelevant. No one questions that there are other factors involved besides anthropogenic emissions. Saying that the climate has changed before, without human influence; therefore, human emissions aren't causing a change today, is like a lawyer saying that lots of people have died in when my client was not around, therefore my client could not have killed the victim. It's not a sound argument.

Chris Golledge 5 years ago

BigPrune, Would you mind getting on Google Scholar and searching for research papers, not press articles, which indicated a cooling period was coming?
How many were there? Do you think that constitutes a 'consensus'?

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

Translation from cgspeak, "ignore the evidence that contradicts my beliefs". Does that pretty well sum it up?

devobrun 5 years ago

cg: "Really, all this talk of past warm or cold periods is irrelevant" This statement is wrong. It is relevant, just not definitive.

"therefore, human emissions aren't causing a change today" So, I reviewed the above entries and saw nowhere the statement that human emissions aren't causing a change today. Some have said that compared to non-human factors, the human caused influence is small. But, not the words you used.

Regarding your logic:

If the accused in your above legal argument is seen entering a closed space with the victim, and only the accused comes out, then you may blame the accused. By conducting a test, or gathering evidence that is difficult to refute, with no alternative that is plausible, you may say that the accused did it.

However, because other murders have happened in the past which didn't involve the accused, you may say that somebody else could have done it. Or the accused did it. The information is insufficient at this point to say without some additional information.

And that is where we are in climatology. No experiment can be conducted where the influence of the sun, cosmic rays, ocean currents, etc. can be held in abeyance. There has been a rise in CO2 and a rise in modeled atmospheric temperature. Did the CO2 do it? Dunno. Are there other possibilities? Yes, but we don't know if they are to blame either.

Earlier (10:37) you used the word "facts". Scientists avoid that term because they are almost never available. Evidence exists, estimations show, etc. are what you will read. There are no temperature facts available, cg. All temperature measurements are estimates. They go through models, both objective and subjective. All temperature measurements are small subsets of the atmosphere, Don't believe me? How 'bout Jim Hansen:

We don't know cg. That's where we are. And we are about to make massive economic and cultural changes based upon computer models. I don't believe the computer models, cg. You apparently do.

devobrun 5 years ago

Blasphemy and needling is the best form of humor.

Hanging lights on your house and manipulating data. Great fodder.

Merry Christmas to all.

BigPrune 5 years ago

"At the time that Greenland was discovered, the Earth was a bit warmer and southern Greenland actually had green meadows and could sustain villages of Norse settlers and their cattle, sheep, goats, horses, etc. The name was actually an accurate description of the land at the time.

Since that time the Earth had cooled down some and the ice sheets advanced, forcing the Norse settlers out again.

A similar history befell the early Norse settlers to "Vineland" (North America). When they arrived the weather was warm enough to grow grapes. Ultimately global cooling drove the Norsemen back to Greenland and then Iceland. The colony in iceland was well established by that time and survived."

It's just as the bible states in certain passages that a flocks grazed on certain areas that are now barren wastelands.

The climate changes.

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

Someday the Goreacle will take his rightful place in the scammer's hall of fame beside John R. Brinkley and Charles Ponzi.

Chris Golledge 5 years ago

Snap, Please explain what point you are trying to make with bringing up the MWP and LIA, because it isn't clear. I made the assumption that you think you are providing evidence that anthropogenic emissions aren't causing the current warming. Hard to follow what Devo thinks, but he faults me for making that assumption. Could you clear that up?

Devo, you know, when your mom is cooking a turkey, she has only an estimate of what its average temperature is, but it's not that hard to tell it's getting warmer.

jaywalker 5 years ago

"Gaining ground" my aunt fannie. A whole buncha talk just adds heat to the carbon footprint these 20,000 'delegates' tromped in getting to Copenhagen. Obama's 'iniitiative' is a farce and has absolutely NO chance of becoming reality, China ain't gonna change and they already pollute more than we do, and Brazil, India, etc. won't be helpin' out much either. I believe going green is just good, common sense. But countries that have been poor for decades finally took our advice and got involved in the free trade market, now they're prospering, ........they ain't givin' that up.

Chris Golledge 5 years ago

Hmm, except, the data and statistical analysis are typically not in the press releases; so, not sure how they can be cooked where they aren't presented.

And, really, you are showing a bias towards a preconception in your interpretation of the words.

And, as I pointed out earlier, his motivation in making this statement is to prevent dire consequences resulting from AGW. He, and the ones he is addressing, believe wholeheartedly that the risk of things going very badly, unless the course of BAU is changed, is very high. How does that indicate a falsification of the AGW theory? What, they made up the data to create the theory and then forgot that they made it up? And somehow this conspiracy/amnesia has been shared amongst thousands, and persisted for decades, without anyone blowing the whistle. Phenomenal.

How does a reluctance to give too much meaning to a short-term warming trend indicate a manifestation of a marketing strategy to push a warming theory? Is it not more likely that such a long time period was chosen because it was well understood and acknowledged that there are other influences besides anthro GHGs on the climate?

You are loosing coherence.

ReadingSports 5 years ago

I'll take climate fraud seriously when everyone single nut job involved in climate gate is shunned by the Climate science community.

If a scientist sent or received one of those emails they should lose their job, their research should be burned, and they shouldn't be allowed to teach long division to third graders.

One if the scientists involved is Micheal Mann who fabricated the hockey stick.

This climate science isn't!!!!!

devobrun 5 years ago

Porch: Point measurements of atmospheric temperature are limited spatially and temporally.
The thermometers are placed 5 feet above ground in shelters. The shelters modify the temperature data and so the data is adjusted by the shelter model. The data is recorded on a continuous basis, but the average is not computed from integration. The average daily temperature is found by adding the daily max and min and dividing by two. This too is a model. Each temperature site is given a value from 1 to 5. This value is based upon local conditions like proximity to trees, buildings, slope and heat sources. The temperatures are further adjusted with models associated with the site valuation. The temperature measurements can be separated by a hundred miles between sites. Extrapolation is used. Each site only measures at 5 feet above ground. Verticle profiling is not done. Many of the sites are read manually by a guy who goes out to the site, pulls off the paper record, finds the max and min and sends them into NOAA. Mistakes can happen.

Porch, the thermometer is the instrument. The temperature is the result of several models.

Clearly you didn't read the giss site that I linked earlier.

Porch, we test fires all the time. We set buildings on fire and test techniques, equipment, procedures and train firemen. When a fire is called in, the first thing the firemen do is determine if and where the fire is. They have an algorithm they follow to ascertain the situation. Then they apply their protocol and procedures to the situation. It is very rational and all of it is tested.

You're not making much sense here, porch. Your fireman reference is weak. Your failure to do homework (reading the giss site), and your diatribe regarding Popper are troubling. Has emotion become too great to have a reasoned discussion? Perhaps you should pause and think about the level of emotion exhibited in your posts. They are slipping.

jaywalker 5 years ago


Your biggest problem is thinking you could possibly have a "reasoned discussion" with porch person. And you obviously know what you're talking about while porch continues to try and play grown-up. Save yourself the angst, don't feed the troll.

jaywalker 5 years ago

I'm not sure he's qualified to take that yet.

Chris Golledge 5 years ago

Meanwhile, regarding temperature data and transparency, this is just in:

Chris Golledge 5 years ago

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Porch: Point measurements of atmospheric temperature are limited spatially and temporally.

And the difference between this and your mom's turkey is what?

By your argument, we can not know what the actual global mean temperature is. This is true; we only have estimates. However, a turkey's temperature while it is being cooked is also just an estimate; would you argue that we can't tell that a turkey gets warmer as it is cooked?

devobrun 5 years ago

Porch, cg: Looks like you two have been havin' some fun talking turkey and about big words.

Do you think that ridicule advances your argument?

Do you think that restating other peoples words does too?

Do you think that analogies to unrelated items like turkey gives credence to your assertions?

Lemme give you a hint. The mechanism of heat transfer in a cooking turkey is not the same as global warming. There is no greenhouse gas involved with a turkey cooking in an oven.

Convection currents in the oven and Stefan-Boltzmann radiation are two different things.

The folks who read these blogs have a choice. Believe a coupla knuckleheads, or somebody who has measured emissivity as part of his PhD. dissertation.

Yep, I'm outta here. Does anyone find a maniacal tone to Porch's laughter interjections? Not convincing, Porch, scary. You might wanna reconsider that tactic.

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

You can easily tell when porchie's losing it.














(yuk, yuk)

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

"...So why do leaders like Barack Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown continue identifying themselves with the climate change agenda and policies like cap and trade? Perhaps it's best to see this as a clash of classes. Today's environmental movement reflects the values of a large portion of the post-industrial upper class. The big money behind the warming industry includes many powerful corporate interests that would benefit from a super-regulated environment that would all but eliminate potential upstarts. These people generally also do not fear the loss of millions of factory, truck, construction and agriculture-related jobs slated to be "de-developed." These tasks can shift to China, India or Vietnam--where the net emissions would no doubt be higher--at little immediate cost to tenured professors, nonprofit executives or investment bankers. The endowments and the investment funds can just as happily mint their profits in Chongqing as in Chicago. Global warming-driven land-use legislation possesses a similarly pro-gentry slant. Suburban single family homes need to be sacrificed in the name of climate change, but this will not threaten the large Park Avenue apartments and private retreats of media superstars, financial tycoons and the scions of former carbon-spewing fortunes. After all, you can always pay for your pleasure with "carbon offsets.""

Commenting has been disabled for this item.