Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Paris climate summit in December 2015


stewfox

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne
25 minutes ago, Snipper said:

Whatever the causes of global warming are the ever increasing population will  cause pressures for this planet that cannot be ignored forever. 

Why is population control not a high priority?

Snipper

It's not being ignored as there is quite a lot going on but it's a terrible complex and difficult problem. You can get an idea by just reading this for example and I've recently read an article on the problems the contraception programme has encountered in Africa.

http://www.globalization101.org/the-battle-over-birth-control-for-developing-nations/

Edited by knocker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
16 hours ago, Hocus Pocus said:

This then brings us back to the likes of Judith Curry who is a reputable and established climate scientist who is viewed with great disdain amongst many bloggers in the climate debate which I find amusing as she's forgotten more than any of these will go on to learn. The unknowns I refer to is simply the magnitude of warming nothing more nothing less. 

 

Like I said previously, for every Judith Curry claiming we don't have enough data there are dozens, if not hundreds, of equally qualified climate scientists that disagree. The fact that they are all ignored while Judith Curry is lauded as a rare and noble scientist, says more about the political viewpoint of her fans than anything about the science.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Newton in Bowland
  • Location: Newton in Bowland
1 hour ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

 

Like I said previously, for every Judith Curry claiming we don't have enough data there are dozens, if not hundreds, of equally qualified climate scientists that disagree. The fact that they are all ignored while Judith Curry is lauded as a rare and noble scientist, says more about the political viewpoint of her fans than anything about the science.

So you're implying it's more political by Judith Curry and all those who agree are noble. That statement just sums up nicely what a shambolic affair the whole climate debate is and how it's become politicalised and has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics from the environmental lobby and the so called big oil. Meanwhile the observational data remains at odds with modelled data and instead of collaborating together we have the above.

Anyway that's me out of this debate as I like to keep an open mind from both sides of the camp and regularly read both Skeptical Science and Watts Up as well as many other scientific contributions in various publications. These sort of places for me represent all that is bad about climate science forums with no middle ground and just reinforced stereotypes from all sides.

Edited by Hocus Pocus
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne
12 minutes ago, Hocus Pocus said:

So you're implying it's more political by Judith Curry and all those who agree are noble.That statement just sums up nicely what a shambolic affair the whole climate debate is and how it's become politicalised and has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics from the environmental lobby and the so called big oil. Meanwhile the observational data remains at odds with modelled data and instead of collaborating together we have the above.

Anyway that's me out of this debate as I like to keep an open mind from both sides of the camp and regularly read both Skeptical Science and Watts Up as well as many other scientific contributions in various publications. These sort of places for me represent all that is bad about climate science forums with no middle ground and just reinforced stereotypes from all sides.

To say that the climate debate has nothing to do with science Is about the most ridiculous comment I've read for many a day. And I've read a few.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
8 minutes ago, Hocus Pocus said:

So you're implying it's more political by Judith Curry and all those who agree are noble. That statement just sums up nicely what a shambolic affair the whole climate debate is and how it's become politicalised and has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics from the environmental lobby and the so called big oil. Meanwhile the observational data remains at odds with modelled data and instead of collaborating together we have the above.

Anyway that's me out of this debate as I like to keep an open mind from both sides of the camp and regularly read both Skeptical Science and Watts Up as well as many other scientific contributions in various publications. These sort of places for me represent all that is bad about climate science forums with no middle ground and just reinforced stereotypes from all sides.

 

No, that's not what I'm saying. My comment was about her fans, which I thought was quite clear. But go ahead, put words in my mouth and then feign dismay.

Reading WUWT as a balance for anything in the climate debate, is like reading the genesis as a balance for a text book on evolution.

Perhaps reassessing where the middle ground is might help? For me, the expert consensus is the middle ground. While Judith Curry and co. occupies one end and Guy McPhearson and co. occupy the other end.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

The science questions following a global deal on climate

Quote

There has been a huge amount of worldwide media coverage following the weekend’s announcement of a globally agreed deal to try to limit global warming to 2 °C or less. Here Professor Stephen Belcher, the Director of the Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Science and Services, discusses some of the scientific questions raised by the agreement.

http://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2015/12/15/the-science-questions-following-a-global-deal-on-climate/

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Newton in Bowland
  • Location: Newton in Bowland
7 hours ago, knocker said:

To say that the climate debate has nothing to do with science Is about the most ridiculous comment I've read for many a day. And I've read a few.

 

3 hours ago, knocker said:

This forum suggest otherwise

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Newton in Bowland
  • Location: Newton in Bowland
7 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

 

No, that's not what I'm saying. My comment was about her fans, which I thought was quite clear. But go ahead, put words in my mouth and then feign dismay.

Reading WUWT as a balance for anything in the climate debate, is like reading the genesis as a balance for a text book on evolution.

Perhaps reassessing where the middle ground is might help? For me, the expert consensus is the middle ground. While Judith Curry and co. occupies one end and Guy McPhearson and co. occupy the other end.

Again selective confirmation bias as there is some good science in-between the nonsense on Watts Up. I really like to read both spectrums of the argument and  for me the whole debate centres around the magnitude of warming expected.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
10 minutes ago, Hocus Pocus said:

Again selective confirmation bias as there is some good science in-between the nonsense on Watts Up. I really like to read both spectrums of the argument and  for me the whole debate centres around the magnitude of warming expected.

It might seem like good science, but the vast majority of people with any experience in the physical sciences, especially climate science, can see right through it. If they actually had some good science to present they'd get it published in a reputable journal, but rather tellingly, they don't.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Newton in Bowland
  • Location: Newton in Bowland
42 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

It might seem like good science, but the vast majority of people with any experience in the physical sciences, especially climate science, can see right through it. If they actually had some good science to present they'd get it published in a reputable journal, but rather tellingly, they don't.

But the peer process isn't all that it once was BFTV, there was a recent article on this though it wasn't regrading climate science but highlighted the follies of the peer review process. Also I tend to stick to the science on WUWT, which there is plenty although admittedly there is quite a number of pseudo posts amongst them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
2 minutes ago, Hocus Pocus said:

But the peer process isn't all that it once was BFTV, there was a recent article on this though it wasn't regrading climate science but highlighted the follies of the peer review process. Also I tend to stick to the science on WUWT, which there is plenty although admittedly there is quite a number of pseudo posts amongst them.

What do you think has changed then? The peer review process isn't perfect, I think we can agree on that point. The rise of "predatory" journals that require little more than payment for publication is an example of issues facing the system.
However, provided something is published in a reputable journal, it's an awful lot better than simply trusting a blog that's known for posting horribly inaccurate and biased articles, isn't it?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Solihull, West Midlands. - 131 m asl
  • Weather Preferences: Sun, Snow and Storms
  • Location: Solihull, West Midlands. - 131 m asl

Have been away recently whilst the Paris conf has been going on.!!! (phew!)

So I have just skim read back this blog to try and catch up.

So where are the technical and science details?

Why has no-one on here posted any details. I thought it was supposed to be a science based forum and so far all this blog is political posturing.

Can I ask - why are the IPCC preparing for a rise of temps of only 1.5C? I am assuming it is political - since  they have proposed no mechanism for actually  achieving it.  Why have they done this?

I thought problems would only occur when it got to 2C?

I think that the lower limit of their temperature  increases has reduced with each successive report. Is this correct? ie 3C >2.5C>2,0C>1.5C......

Perhaps they are preparing to reduce their warming estimates even further inline with what the actual data is currently flagging up. ie it is currently showing a rise of 1.5C, assuming the current EN is followed by a LN of similar magnitude. Does this not mean that if the temperature rise is limited to 1.5C they can then claim it as a success for the warmers and hence it is political posturing point of view.

Whereas in practice  we all know that the so-called deniers  have been saying this for a long time now., with ranges between 1.0 and 1.8C.

So what are the new IPCC figures? Or hasn't the technical part of the report been issued yet?,

Edited by Midlands Ice Age
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mid Essex
  • Location: Mid Essex
On 14 December 2015 at 9:19 PM, knocker said:

It's not being ignored as there is quite a lot going on but it's a terrible complex and difficult problem. You can get an idea by just reading this for example and I've recently read an article on the problems the contraception programme has encountered in Africa.

http://www.globalization101.org/the-battle-over-birth-control-for-developing-nations/

As population growth is the root cause of the man made element of global warming a stage is going to be reached when most unpalatable remedies will have to be taken if wars and pestilence does not do the job. Bit apocalyptic I know but that is the way mankind has been heading for years. 

This is world has finite space and deminishing resources. Better to confront things now head on than than leave it to future generations to try and solve. 

If you think the problem is complex now it ain't going to get any easier in the future. 

Snipper 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

Dr Ricky Rood on Paris. He is someone who, IMO, is always worth a read.

This Might Change Some Things

Quote

The Conference of the Parties - 21, COP21, is over. I hope that some of you followed the students on Facebook and Twitter. ( @ClimateBlue on Twitter , http://www.facebook.com/ClimateBlue ).

This is my discussion and analysis of what came out of COP21. There has been a wide range of analyses published in virtually every media outlet we have going (Revkin, Climate Path Ahead, Harvey, Paris climate change agreement: the world's greatest diplomatic success, ExxonMobil on the U.N. Climate Talks ). There is also, at least for today, a large effort at outreach from both governmental and non-governmental organizations. This morning (December 14), I attended a telecon sponsored by the White House and this afternoon, I will attend another one. The White House has prepared a fact sheet that summarizes the outcomes as well as touting U.S. leadership U.S. Leadership and the Historic Paris Agreement to Combat Climate Change.

he_is_us.thumb.jpg.6e042a5d0043ed6a71854

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/this-might-change-some-things

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
10 hours ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Have been away recently whilst the Paris conf has been going on.!!! (phew!)

So I have just skim read back this blog to try and catch up.

So where are the technical and science details?

Why has no-one on here posted any details. I thought it was supposed to be a science based forum and so far all this blog is political posturing.

Can I ask - why are the IPCC preparing for a rise of temps of only 1.5C? I am assuming it is political - since  they have proposed no mechanism for actually  achieving it.  Why have they done this?

I thought problems would only occur when it got to 2C?

I think that the lower limit of their temperature  increases has reduced with each successive report. Is this correct? ie 3C >2.5C>2,0C>1.5C......

Perhaps they are preparing to reduce their warming estimates even further inline with what the actual data is currently flagging up. ie it is currently showing a rise of 1.5C, assuming the current EN is followed by a LN of similar magnitude. Does this not mean that if the temperature rise is limited to 1.5C they can then claim it as a success for the warmers and hence it is political posturing point of view.

Whereas in practice  we all know that the so-called deniers  have been saying this for a long time now., with ranges between 1.0 and 1.8C.

So what are the new IPCC figures? Or hasn't the technical part of the report been issued yet?,

 

I'm not sure how much faith I have in the agreement, especially considering that the limits are not legally binding and so far there appears to be no effort to reduce drilling permits and such. We'll see what happens, but I do worry that the COP21 is just a temporary distraction.

They are aiming for 1.5C, ideally, but 2.0C is the real target. Not because they think climate sensitivity is lower (sure we've already gone 1C above pre-industrial and haven't even added an extra 50% CO2 to the atmosphere, nor arrived at equilibrium) but because of the range of uncertainty in climate sensitivity, the fact that some areas will suffer quite badly even with just 1.5C of warming and because it sounds good. While even 2C limit is unlikely to be achieved, the 1.5C is far from realistic and will require methods to extract CO2 from the atmosphere.

The full IPCC report is available on their website, MIA. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Solihull, West Midlands. - 131 m asl
  • Weather Preferences: Sun, Snow and Storms
  • Location: Solihull, West Midlands. - 131 m asl
11 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

 

I'm not sure how much faith I have in the agreement, especially considering that the limits are not legally binding and so far there appears to be no effort to reduce drilling permits and such. We'll see what happens, but I do worry that the COP21 is just a temporary distraction.

They are aiming for 1.5C, ideally, but 2.0C is the real target. Not because they think climate sensitivity is lower (sure we've already gone 1C above pre-industrial and haven't even added an extra 50% CO2 to the atmosphere, nor arrived at equilibrium) but because of the range of uncertainty in climate sensitivity, the fact that some areas will suffer quite badly even with just 1.5C of warming and because it sounds good. While even 2C limit is unlikely to be achieved, the 1.5C is far from realistic and will require methods to extract CO2 from the atmosphere.

The full IPCC report is available on their website, MIA. 

Thanks BFTV...

So you are not particularly happy with the conclusions, unlike the politicians who are claiming the ultimate success for the outcome.

Does this mean it is a political whitewash to make it appear a success?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and heatwave
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft
On 16 December 2015 at 9:35 PM, Midlands Ice Age said:

Thanks BFTV...

So you are not particularly happy with the conclusions, unlike the politicians who are claiming the ultimate success for the outcome.

Does this mean it is a political whitewash to make it appear a success?

 

I did find it interestng pre sumit , the 'propose' stong agreement from attendees

Left with 'we propose to do something'

At the end of the day you have 10 folk out of 18,000 who are interested in this on a weather site which is probably reflected in wider society

We are a long way from main stream interest , onto the next one

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
1 hour ago, stewfox said:

I did find it interestng pre sumit , the 'propose' stong agreement from attendees

Left with 'we propose to do something'

At the end of the day you have 10 folk out of 18,000 who are interested in this on a weather site which is probably reflected in wider society

We are a long way from main stream interest , onto the next one

 

There are plenty more interested, that don't feel the need to participate in discussions, the "lurkers".
From moderating on reddit, I know that climate change matters to a lot of people, because climate stories often make it to the front page of reddit (which has 10s of millions of subscribers).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Romford Essex.
  • Location: Near Romford Essex.
7 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

There are plenty more interested, that don't feel the need to participate in discussions, the "lurkers".
From moderating on reddit, I know that climate change matters to a lot of people, because climate stories often make it to the front page of reddit (which has 10s of millions of subscribers).

It may well matter to many people here in the UK and Eire , but what exactly can 'we' do about it.................?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
  • Location: Alston, Cumbria
  • Weather Preferences: Proper Seasons,lots of frost and snow October to April, hot summers!
  • Location: Alston, Cumbria

My take on the COP21 in Paris was that it was a formalised promise of 148 countries together promising to make their countries carbon-neutral by 2050 but without needing to commit to any specific measures in order to achieve it:  The measures required, massive taxes on oil and gas consumption/production in order to fund green and renewable energy alternatives, closing power stations and having rolling-black-outs- no government will get this past their respective electorates!!  In practical terms, the only way we can prevent global temperatures rising above the 2C above pre-Industrial threshold is a) more R & D into the means of directly removing CO2 from the atmosphere and b) Geoengineering Solutions.

It is going to require a collective commitment to really go on the offensive against Global Warming with resources that require international cooperation (yes, there are risks and side-effects but none as bad as letting temperatures rise out of control) to have a real hope of preventing dangerous levels of warming.  Having said that, I do think the Sun entering a Maunder Minimum phase lasting 30-plus years (during which solar physicists predict its output will drop by 0.5% or more) will buy us time from circa 2020 to 2060 but in fifty years' time the mean Solar Constant will return to normal and if governments are still wringing their hands with CO2 levels upwards of 550 ppm (as seems most likely to happen) we will all be in big trouble if nothing else (aside trying to brow-beat governments into imposing recession on their economies- they wont!) is done. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Edinburgh (previously Chelmsford and Birmingham)
  • Weather Preferences: Unseasonably cold weather (at all times of year), wind, and thunderstorms.
  • Location: Edinburgh (previously Chelmsford and Birmingham)
On 01/01/2016 at 10:54 PM, iapennell said:

My take on the COP21 in Paris was that it was a formalised promise of 148 countries together promising to make their countries carbon-neutral by 2050 but without needing to commit to any specific measures in order to achieve it:  The measures required, massive taxes on oil and gas consumption/production in order to fund green and renewable energy alternatives, closing power stations and having rolling-black-outs- no government will get this past their respective electorates!!  In practical terms, the only way we can prevent global temperatures rising above the 2C above pre-Industrial threshold is a) more R & D into the means of directly removing CO2 from the atmosphere and b) Geoengineering Solutions.

Agree with this. The way I see it there really is only one way to counter warming and that is to geoengineer. And given that we are very capable of effective geoengineering it makes me wonder why we aren't doing it. Which leads me to think that governments are using climate change as a means by which we can phase out fossil fuels. No bad thing, but if things really are going to become as catastrophic as they are predicting, with many people dying due to extreme weather events, surely geoengineering has to be considered?

Edited by Relativistic Sting Jet
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-29 07:13:16 Valid: 29/03/2024 0600 - 30/03/2024 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - FRI 29 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    Difficult travel conditions as the Easter break begins

    Low Nelson is throwing wind and rain at the UK before it impacts mainland Spain at Easter. Wild condtions in the English Channel, and more rain and lightning here on Thursday. Read the full update here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-28 09:16:06 Valid: 28/03/2024 0800 - 29/03/2024 0600 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH - THURS 28 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather
×
×
  • Create New...