Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

[kerplunk]

Greeny said:

Mrr T said:

kerplunk said:

Who cares if they don't resolve to 1yr - you think global concentrations can zing up and down in a decade/century by significant amounts? No plausible mechanism for that. Where did it come from and where did it go? You lack joined-up physical understanding.

You do make me laugh. Because we know CO2 levels have hardly changed since 1950.

Edited by Mrr T on Monday 16th December 16:36

I think we might need to consult VAR here, that looks very much like an own goal there

duh we have a rather obvious and unprecedented mechanism for that. Now come up with something on a similar scale that could have happened naturally with great regularity and yet has somehow escaped detection. And explain how it disappeared overnight too while you're at it.

Edited by kerplunk on Monday 16th December 17:33

[Kawasicki]

mondeoman said:

Kawasicki said:

robinessex said:

COP25: Longest climate talks end with compromise deal

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/post.asp?h=0&a...

The longest United Nations climate talks on record have finally ended in Madrid with a compromise deal.
Exhausted delegates reached agreement on the key question of increasing the global response to curbing carbon.
All countries will need to put new climate pledges on the table by the time of the next major conference in Glasgow next year.
Divisions over other questions - including carbon markets - were delayed until the next gathering.
What was agreed?
After two extra days and nights of negotiations, delegates finally agreed a deal that will see new, improved carbon cutting plans on the table by the time of the Glasgow conference next year.
All parties will need to address the gap between what the science says is necessary to avoid dangerous climate change, and the current state of play which would see the world go past this threshold in the 2030s.......................continues

Er, all came to nowt then. Oops, what a surprise. Let's have another party again though soon.

The rich countries that want to show leadership should just fund the rich countries that don’t and of course the countries most at risk...for example Puerto Rico and, er, Germany.

How hard can it be?

Who are these rich countries that you speak of?

Ah, yes - Lichtenstein will save the world!!
https://www.debtacademy.com/the-debt-free-countrie...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by...

Rich countries are generally the western first world countries.

Am I missing something? For example, Poland doesn’t want to join in. They state it will cost them x trillion...give them x trillion and a bit more in incentives and they will sign up to save the world straight away. I guarantee it.

[Mrr T]

kerplunk said:

Greeny said:

Mrr T said:

kerplunk said:

Who cares if they don't resolve to 1yr - you think global concentrations can zing up and down in a decade/century by significant amounts? No plausible mechanism for that. Where did it come from and where did it go? You lack joined-up physical understanding.

You do make me laugh. Because we know CO2 levels have hardly changed since 1950.

Edited by Mrr T on Monday 16th December 16:36

I think we might need to consult VAR here, that looks very much like an own goal there

duh we have a rather obvious and unprecedented mechanism for that. Now come up with something on a similar scale that could have happened naturally with great regularity and yet has somehow escaped detection. And explain how it disappeared overnight too while you're at it.

Edited by kerplunk on Monday 16th December 17:33

If you mean man adding about 3% per year more to CO2 production. That's unpresidented but since we currently only have a limited understanding of the CO2 cycle does it explain the rapid rise.? The fact is we do not know.

What we do know is the major changes in the input and output elements of the CO2 cycle are likely to have occured over a period of 650k years. Therefore it would seem odd that CO2 levels had remained in such a limited range.

As with much climate science. There are more questions than answers and considering the time scale involved that is unlikely to change.

[kerplunk]

Mrr T said:

kerplunk said:

Greeny said:

Mrr T said:

kerplunk said:

Who cares if they don't resolve to 1yr - you think global concentrations can zing up and down in a decade/century by significant amounts? No plausible mechanism for that. Where did it come from and where did it go? You lack joined-up physical understanding.

You do make me laugh. Because we know CO2 levels have hardly changed since 1950.

Edited by Mrr T on Monday 16th December 16:36

I think we might need to consult VAR here, that looks very much like an own goal there

duh we have a rather obvious and unprecedented mechanism for that. Now come up with something on a similar scale that could have happened naturally with great regularity and yet has somehow escaped detection. And explain how it disappeared overnight too while you're at it.

Edited by kerplunk on Monday 16th December 17:33

If you mean man adding about 3% per year more to CO2 production. That's unpresidented but since we currently only have a limited understanding of the CO2 cycle does it explain the rapid rise.? The fact is we do not know.

What we do know is the major changes in the input and output elements of the CO2 cycle are likely to have occured over a period of 650k years. Therefore it would seem odd that CO2 levels had remained in such a limited range.

As with much climate science. There are more questions than answers and considering the time scale involved that is unlikely to change.

So if I have this right, you're saying that maybe at the same time we've been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate that more than accounts for the observed rise, carbon sinks increased absorbing all of our output, whilst at the same time natural carbon sources also increased outputting that amount and more besides, and the fact the ice core data show CO2 in quasi-equilibrium for several thousand years before this happened is just a mirage, and huge century-scale oscillations of global CO2 concentrations are actually the norm and we've just failed to detect it. That's your theory.

All I'll say is, for a 'sceptic' you don't half believe some fantastic things!

[robinessex]

Rwanda climate change: Kigali homes built near wetlands are destroyed

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-50813776

Authorities in Rwanda have begun demolishing homes in the capital Kigali which they say are threatened by "climate dangers".
Officials say the destruction of hundreds of houses built on or near wetlands is necessary to protect people from flooding and landslides after unusually heavy rains.
But residents complain that they have received no compensation so far.
The UN says the weather in Rwanda is becoming "more and more unpredictable".
The country, which relies heavily on agriculture and hydropower, is said to be highly vulnerable to climate change.........continues

This is what happens when the CC bullst gets out into the wild. Just why is this country anymore susceptible than others? The UN talking gibbersih as normal.

"The effects of global warming on seasonal rainfall in East Africa are unclear, according to BBC Weather's Darren Bett"

[ZeroGroundZero]

This video about cognitive bias goes a long way to describe the political/scientific debate, not just around climate but any field of science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNeD2a95ROE

[anonymous-user]

robinessex said:

This is what happens when the CC bullst gets out into the wild. Just why is this country anymore susceptible than others? The UN talking gibbersih as normal.

Because it’s on the ITCZ and gets affected more than other countries by the long and short rains plus it’s poor and lacks infrastructure.

[Wayoftheflower]

ZeroGroundZero said:

This video about cognitive bias goes a long way to describe the political/scientific debate, not just around climate but any field of science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNeD2a95ROE

Fascinating stuff.

If we can indulge in tangential topics of relevance I enjoyed this short video on the butterfly effect (chaotic systems) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDek6cYijxI

[robinessex]

El stovey said:

robinessex said:

This is what happens when the CC bullst gets out into the wild. Just why is this country anymore susceptible than others? The UN talking gibbersih as normal.

Because it’s on the ITCZ and gets affected more than other countries by the long and short rains plus it’s poor and lacks infrastructure.

The 'cause(s)' of their variable weather can't be laid at the door of anything other than natural (unusual), events. UN & CC bks again.

[Jinx]

El stovey said:

Because it’s on the ITCZ and gets affected more than other countries by the long and short rains plus it’s poor and lacks infrastructure.

Now this is the real problem. Ability to cope with natural (and unnatural) disasters is pretty much based on economic power. If there was a concerted effort to improve the lot of these countries by free trade, suitable infrastructure investment that only hinged on political reform towards democracy, universal suffrage and education I would happily support that UN project.
Making better off nations contribute to a "climate fund" to be "administered" (wink wink) by the UN to sanction "Green" projects in developing countries without a commitment to the above is not the way to help the world cope with any afore mentioned disasters (remember better off = better able to adapt - that includes everyone) .

[anonymous-user]

Jinx said:

El stovey said:

Because it’s on the ITCZ and gets affected more than other countries by the long and short rains plus it’s poor and lacks infrastructure.

Now this is the real problem. Ability to cope with natural (and unnatural) disasters is pretty much based on economic power. If there was a concerted effort to improve the lot of these countries by free trade, suitable infrastructure investment that only hinged on political reform towards democracy, universal suffrage and education I would happily support that UN project.
Making better off nations contribute to a "climate fund" to be "administered" (wink wink) by the UN to sanction "Green" projects in developing countries without a commitment to the above is not the way to help the world cope with any afore mentioned disasters (remember better off = better able to adapt - that includes everyone) .

Right but assuming there will be climate change, AGW or otherwise, different countries will be affected differently. Places in Africa around the ITCZ and other areas where the monsoons influence the weather will see bigger changes than higher more temperate latitudes.

Which is what I thought Robinessex was asking but no matter as despite asking the question he’s decided “it’s all bks” as usual anyway.

[jshell]

El stovey said:

Jinx said:

El stovey said:

Because it’s on the ITCZ and gets affected more than other countries by the long and short rains plus it’s poor and lacks infrastructure.

Now this is the real problem. Ability to cope with natural (and unnatural) disasters is pretty much based on economic power. If there was a concerted effort to improve the lot of these countries by free trade, suitable infrastructure investment that only hinged on political reform towards democracy, universal suffrage and education I would happily support that UN project.
Making better off nations contribute to a "climate fund" to be "administered" (wink wink) by the UN to sanction "Green" projects in developing countries without a commitment to the above is not the way to help the world cope with any afore mentioned disasters (remember better off = better able to adapt - that includes everyone) .

Right but assuming there will be climate change, AGW or otherwise, different countries will be affected differently. Places in Africa around the ITCZ and other areas where the monsoons influence the weather will see bigger changes than higher more temperate latitudes.

Which is what I thought Robinessex was asking but no matter as despite asking the question he’s decided “it’s all bks” as usual anyway.

I'm curious, I thought that with the poles warming more than equatorial regions, that reducing energy differentials in the atmosphere was going to reduce weather cycle effects. No?

[anonymous-user]

jshell said:

I'm curious, I thought that with the poles warming more than equatorial regions, that reducing energy differentials in the atmosphere was going to reduce weather cycle effects. No?

That’s not what I was taught. I was always told when I studied climatology years ago, that with an overall increase in warming, we’d have more record weather events, which might be record hot and record cold or dry or wet etc depending on the regions, but the worst affected areas would be places like the equatorial zone in Africa (where Rwanda is) due to changes to the ITCZ in width and strength.

Which is what Robinessex was asking, I think, when he asked why Rwanda would be affected more than perhaps other countries might. It doesn’t matter though because it was obviously one of those questions when he thinks he’s right and the U.N. etc are all lying or wrong.

[jshell]

El stovey said:

jshell said:

I'm curious, I thought that with the poles warming more than equatorial regions, that reducing energy differentials in the atmosphere was going to reduce weather cycle effects. No?

That’s not what I was taught. I was always told when I studied climatology years ago, that with an overall increase in warming, we’d have more record weather events, which might be record hot and record cold or dry or wet etc depending on the regions, but the worst affected areas would be places like the equatorial zone in Africa (where Rwanda is) due to changes to the ITCZ in width and strength.

Which is what Robinessex was asking, I think, when he asked why Rwanda would be affected more than perhaps other countries might. It doesn’t matter though because it was obviously one of those questions when he thinks he’s right and the U.N. etc are all lying or wrong.

I'm curious as to what is correct, but I don't 'know'. However, I lived for 7 1/2 years in the ITCZ and for half the year it was so hot that a degree here or there was utterly meaningless and for the other half year it was so bloody wet and stormy that another/bigger/wetter day would be completely lost in the climatic 'noise'.

[anonymous-user]

jshell said:

I'm curious as to what is correct, but I don't 'know'. However, I lived for 7 1/2 years in the ITCZ and for half the year it was so hot that a degree here or there was utterly meaningless and for the other half year it was so bloody wet and stormy that another/bigger/wetter day would be completely lost in the climatic 'noise'.

I’m not sure where you are but I expect in Rwanda specifically, it’s about possible future changes in the ITCZ causing changes in duration to the long and short rains as it moves north and south throughout the year.

The point is though that in equatorial regions of Africa the ITCZ affects everything so any changes in it would be expected to have a large affect on the countries of the region, like Rwanda.

[robinessex]

El stovey said:

Jinx said:

El stovey said:

Because it’s on the ITCZ and gets affected more than other countries by the long and short rains plus it’s poor and lacks infrastructure.

Now this is the real problem. Ability to cope with natural (and unnatural) disasters is pretty much based on economic power. If there was a concerted effort to improve the lot of these countries by free trade, suitable infrastructure investment that only hinged on political reform towards democracy, universal suffrage and education I would happily support that UN project.
Making better off nations contribute to a "climate fund" to be "administered" (wink wink) by the UN to sanction "Green" projects in developing countries without a commitment to the above is not the way to help the world cope with any afore mentioned disasters (remember better off = better able to adapt - that includes everyone) .

Right but assuming there will be climate change, AGW or otherwise, different countries will be affected differently. Places in Africa around the ITCZ and other areas where the monsoons influence the weather will see bigger changes than higher more temperate latitudes.

Which is what I thought Robinessex was asking but no matter as despite asking the question he’s decided “it’s all bks” as usual anyway.

Weather isn't CC. Please show the link(s) that prove CC will re-arrange the weather. I suspect if any of these disadvantaged countries do manage to extract £millions from US wealthy 'polluters', it'll probably end up in some dictators Swiss Bank account.

[Phud]

El stovey said:

I’m not sure where you are but I expect in Rwanda specifically, it’s about possible future changes in the ITCZ causing changes in duration to the long and short rains as it moves north and south throughout the year.

The point is though that in equatorial regions of Africa the ITCZ affects everything so any changes in it would be expected to have a large affect on the countries of the region, like Rwanda.

The long and short rains have never been aligned to dates, the best one can do is within a few weeks.

As you know the ITCZ is a zone, not a line, throughout it's existance the ITCZ has never been a fixed/finite measurable.

The ITCZ has a massive range during the year, within it some of the most fertile land on earth.

[anonymous-user]

Phud said:

El stovey said:

I’m not sure where you are but I expect in Rwanda specifically, it’s about possible future changes in the ITCZ causing changes in duration to the long and short rains as it moves north and south throughout the year.

The point is though that in equatorial regions of Africa the ITCZ affects everything so any changes in it would be expected to have a large affect on the countries of the region, like Rwanda.

The long and short rains have never been aligned to dates, the best one can do is within a few weeks.

As you know the ITCZ is a zone, not a line, throughout it's existance the ITCZ has never been a fixed/finite measurable.

The ITCZ has a massive range during the year, within it some of the most fertile land on earth.

Yeah I have to fly through it fairly regularly on my way down to the Indian Ocean destinations from the U.K. it is often a fairly significant obstacle that we have to work our way through with pretty poor air traffic control from the African ATC centres controlling the region. You know when you get there because it’s a big line of cumulonimbus clouds that sit there ominously with tops up to 50,000ft plus (my aircraft only goes up to 43,000ft)

There’s no VHF radio coverage down there so we have to either use HF radio or datalink communications when available and often large doglegs are required off our route to avoid the worst bits.

Anyone that’s flown through Africa knows all about the ITCZ.

[LongQ]

Jinx said:

El stovey said:

Because it’s on the ITCZ and gets affected more than other countries by the long and short rains plus it’s poor and lacks infrastructure.

Now this is the real problem. Ability to cope with natural (and unnatural) disasters is pretty much based on economic power. If there was a concerted effort to improve the lot of these countries by free trade, suitable infrastructure investment that only hinged on political reform towards democracy, universal suffrage and education I would happily support that UN project.
Making better off nations contribute to a "climate fund" to be "administered" (wink wink) by the UN to sanction "Green" projects in developing countries without a commitment to the above is not the way to help the world cope with any afore mentioned disasters (remember better off = better able to adapt - that includes everyone) .

Seems like that Indians and the Chinese are already on the case.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/China-and-India-st...

One might understand if they would prefer to deal directly rather than through the UN.

[jshell]

LongQ said:

Seems like that Indians and the Chinese are already on the case.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/China-and-India-st...

One might understand if they would prefer to deal directly rather than through the UN.

Ties in with the 'Chinese Dream' (google it) and massive global expansionist policies...