Speaking Out About Climate Change

[waldo]

I think you're too literal.

I work with the words you provide. For future reference, I've taken note to consider you may be speaking in code! Why so mysterious, hey?

We could all walk off a cliff. When any CO2 from our decomposing bodies had peaked and started to come down, we would have had an effect. We're not going to though.

whatever this means???

[waldo]

Its a little of this and a little of that, and some of this and other stuff we dont know. It's all CO2 and nothing BUT CO2? You're thinking too small here.

nice strawman! You have a most selective recall, particularly when challenged. I've taken lengths to emphasize CO2 is the principal causal tie... and many times over, I've detailed the complete radiative forcing components - all of them, not just CO2. Like I said, don't hesitate to make your case for, as you say, "some of this and other stuff". Of course, you've received this same request many times in the past - still waiting.

[bush_cheney2004]

CO₂ is not the principal "greenhouse gas" forcing agent on this planet. It is not even the principal man-made forcing agent. One estimate:

• Water vapor (H₂O) = ? (but a lot more than CO₂)
  
• Carbon dioxide (CO₂) = 1
  
• Methane (CH₄) = 21
  
• Nitrous oxide (N₂O) = 298
  
• Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF₆) = 22,200
  
• Chlorinated fluorocarbons (CFC's) = 1000 to 9000
  

[Guest]

I work with the words you provide. For future reference, I've taken note to consider you may be speaking in code! Why so mysterious, hey?

whatever this means???

The one refers to the other. When I say we can't do anything to affect climate change what I mean is we can't do anything within the realms of reason. Your post about the efforts made and their lack of any kind of mitigating effect on atmospheric CO2 levels confirms this.

I would have thought that was obvious by the "cliff" scenario. We can affect change, but we're not going to go those extremes. It's pointless taking other, less radical but still painful measures if the result is not going to change.

[waldo]

CO₂ is not the principal "greenhouse gas" forcing agent on this planet. It is not even the principal man-made forcing agent.

if/when you actually get around to making a point... make sure you offer a distinction between potency, (current) atmospheric concentration... and the resulting warming contribution associated with the respective concentration of your stated 'agents'.

[waldo]

The one refers to the other. When I say we can't do anything to affect climate change what I mean is we can't do anything within the realms of reason. Your post about the efforts made and their lack of any kind of mitigating effect on atmospheric CO2 levels confirms this.

I would have thought that was obvious by the "cliff" scenario. We can affect change, but we're not going to go those extremes. It's pointless taking other, less radical but still painful measures if the result is not going to change.

I see... you're one of those types. You argue against doing anything, negate/ignore actual reduction initiatives in play (from secondary contributors), while equally ignoring the fact that the principal contributors have been doing little/nothing to actively reduce emissions to recognized target levels. You're quite content to over-emphasize the relative emissions reduction impact of the secondary contributors... of course you are!

[GostHacked]

nice strawman! You have a most selective recall, particularly when challenged. I've taken lengths to emphasize CO2 is the principal causal tie... and many times over, I've detailed the complete radiative forcing components - all of them, not just CO2. Like I said, don't hesitate to make your case for, as you say, "some of this and other stuff". Of course, you've received this same request many times in the past - still waiting.

Some of the forcing is done through deliberate weather modification.

[waldo]

Some of the forcing is done through deliberate weather modification.

perhaps you could offer a definition of what you're referring to as "forcing"... and then quantify your "some of" - yes?

[Guest]

I see... you're one of those types. You argue against doing anything, negate/ignore actual reduction initiatives in play (from secondary contributors), while equally ignoring the fact that the principal contributors have been doing little/nothing to actively reduce emissions to recognized target levels. You're quite content to over-emphasize the relative emissions reduction impact of the secondary contributors... of course you are!

I argue against doing something for the optics. I argue against doing something for political expediency. Stop getting your dirty oil from Canada and get it from the Niger Delta instead. The first effort is well publicized, the second, not so much.

I argue against putting people out of work for nothing.

I'm not sure when I negated/ignored then over-emphasized the relative emissions reduction impact of the secondary contributors, but I'm sure I must have done.

And you accuse me of talking in code.

[waldo]

I argue against doing something for the optics. I argue against doing something for political expediency. Stop getting your dirty oil from Canada and get it from the Niger Delta instead. The first effort is well publicized, the second, not so much.

it is enlightening to read you're also one of Ezrant's 'Ethical Oil' followers!

I argue against putting people out of work for nothing.

how alarmist of you

I'm not sure when I negated/ignored then over-emphasized the relative emissions reduction impact of the secondary contributors, but I'm sure I must have done.

And you accuse me of talking in code.

you started off with your "government's can't have an affect"... I offered you an update on the affect some governments have realized (this was your initial negate/ignore). Your over-emphasis on the same came forward when you belittled the results of these secondary emission contributors, while conveniently ignoring the fact the world's principal contributors have done little.

[Guest]

it is enlightening to read you're also one of Ezrant's 'Ethical Oil' followers!

how alarmist of you

you started off with your "government's can't have an affect"... I offered you an update on the affect some governments have realized (this was your initial negate/ignore). Your over-emphasis on the same came forward when you belittled the results of these secondary emission contributors, while conveniently ignoring the fact the world's principal contributors have done little.

Ah, I see. I'm not ignoring the fact that the world's principal contributors have done little. That's the thrust of my argument. Until all the principal contributors, and the secondary contributors get together and come up with a plan that actually achieves a measurable reduction in CO2, then causing pain for nothing seems like causing pain for nothing to me.

I don't know about Ezra Levant. I know who he is, of course, but the last time I read more than a sentence about or by him was when he and Mark Steyn were about to be railroaded by some Human Rights Commission somewhere. If he agrees with me then he's on the right track. You can tell him I said so when you see him.

As for alarmist, a job is a job. If you can come up with a way of closing down the oil sands without losing jobs, I'm all ears.

Edited February 14, 2013 by bcsapper

[GostHacked]

perhaps you could offer a definition of what you're referring to as "forcing"... and then quantify your "some of" - yes?

I still think your narrow focus on Co2 is allowing you to ignore other aspects that do have an impact. If you are seeding the skies, you are creating a blanket in which it traps the heat at the same time reflecting it back to space.

You ignore or marginalize the impact of the sun.

You ignore or marginalize the impact of deforestation.

You ignore or marginalize the impact of deliberate weather modifications that have existed for decades.

We have evidence the magnetosphere is collapsing, as has the upper part of the atmosphere called the thermoshpere.

Found this interesting http://www.space.com/8770-record-collapse-earth-upper-atmosphere-puzzles-scientists.html

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/

n their GRL paper, the authors acknowledge that the situation is complicated. There's more to it than just solar EUV and terrestrial CO₂. For instance, trends in global climate could alter the composition of the thermosphere, changing its thermal properties and the way it responds to external stimuli. The overall sensitivity of the thermosphere to solar radiation could actually be increasing.

I just simply don't buy the Co2 as the ultimate sole culprit to explain off the warming of the earth.

[bush_cheney2004]

if/when you actually get around to making a point... make sure you offer a distinction between potency, (current) atmospheric concentration... and the resulting warming contribution associated with the respective concentration of your stated 'agents'.[/size]

My point was very clear, and only serves to contravene the typical alarmist spin machine for CO₂

[waldo]

Ah, I see. I'm not ignoring the fact that the world's principal contributors have done little. That's the thrust of my argument. Until all the principal contributors, and the secondary contributors get together and come up with a plan that actually achieves a measurable reduction in CO2, then causing pain for nothing seems like causing pain for nothing to me.

no - the 'thrust' of your (failed) argument was that, again, "governments can't affect"... and the reduction pursuits/results (of secondary contributors) are the basis for your measured defeatist mentality. Of course you're not intellectually honest in your measure since you negated/ignored the fact principal contributors have done "mice nuts". And now, as a bonus, after you're called on it, you now have the temerity to claim that, "it's the thrust of your argument", all along!!!

I note you didn't have anything to say about the COP17 agreement I mentioned earlier: "UN COP 17 resulted in an agreement to establish a legally binding emissions reduction deal... for all countries,.. by 2015, intended to take effect in 2020".

I don't know about Ezra Levant.

you channel him well - your ethical tarsands vs. the unethical conflict Niger Delta oil echo's Ezrant... just happenstance, hey?

As for alarmist, a job is a job. If you can come up with a way of closing down the oil sands without losing jobs, I'm all ears.

right! The tarsands will be "shuttered"!!! Perhaps you might redirect some of your alarmism towards having BigOil redirect some of their record profits back into tarsands focused emission reductions - ya think?

[waldo]

I still think your narrow focus on Co2 is allowing you to ignore other aspects that do have an impact.

the only ignoring is your repeated ignoring the (scientific based) challenges provided to you in the past. You keep throwing up these "others"... yet you never substantiate the claimed impact you attribute to them... whether that's you fixation with the sun, your folly with a "just plant trees" solution, your "weather modification" nonsense or your latest musings on the "shrinking of the outer atmosphere". Of course, in all of this, you quite conveniently ignore the real science showing the impact of increased CO2 atmospheric levels.

of course, there is one other significant ignoring at play here... it's you continuing to ignore the direct question asking you to answer why you reach for anything/everything (other than CO2). You refuse to acknowledge the impact of CO2 while continuing a feverish pursuit for sumthin else!

[waldo]

My point was very clear, and only serves to contravene the typical alarmist spin machine for CO₂

no - you simply threw up GWP figures without actually knowing what they meant in practical terms. Here, try again:

if/when you actually get around to making a point... make sure you offer a distinction between potency, (current) atmospheric concentration... and the resulting warming contribution associated with the respective concentration of your stated 'agents'.[/size]

[Guest]

no - the 'thrust' of your (failed) argument was that, again, "governments can't affect"... and the reduction pursuits/results (of secondary contributors) are the basis for your measured defeatist mentality. Of course you're not intellectually honest in your measure since you negated/ignored the fact principal contributors have done "mice nuts". And now, as a bonus, after you're called on it, you now have the temerity to claim that, "it's the thrust of your argument", all along!!!

I note you didn't have anything to say about the COP17 agreement I mentioned earlier: "UN COP 17 resulted in an agreement to establish a legally binding emissions reduction deal... for all countries,.. by 2015, intended to take effect in 2020".

you channel him well - your ethical tarsands vs. the unethical conflict Niger Delta oil echo's Ezrant... just happenstance, hey?

right! The tarsands will be "shuttered"!!! Perhaps you might redirect some of your alarmism towards having BigOil redirect some of their record profits back into tarsands focused emission reductions - ya think?

One thing I notice is that you can be pretty obtuse when it suits you. Your points regarding my "government can't affect" claims are really straining credulity. I made my position as simple as possible, just for you, time and time again, but you claim you don't get it.

I did comment on your

"COP17 agreement I mentioned earlier: "UN COP 17 resulted in an agreement to establish a legally binding emissions reduction deal... for all countries,.. by 2015, intended to take effect in 2020".

I even quoted Scientific American regarding it.

I notice you read my posts very quickly. You missed that, and you missed the bit where I said I was concerned about emissions, actually making the claim that I had said the opposite.

As for this:

"Perhaps you might redirect some of your alarmism towards having BigOil redirect some of their record profits back into tarsands focused emission reductions - ya think?"

Yes, absolutely. I'd actually prefer they concentrated on reduced fresh water use and mitigation of downstream medical concerns, as the emissions reductions achievable would be balanced out by China's next coal fired power plant.

[waldo]

One thing I notice is that you can be pretty obtuse when it suits you. Your points regarding my "government can't affect" claims are really straining credulity. I made my position as simple as possible, just for you, time and time again, but you claim you don't get it.

no - your so-called argument had to be teased out of you... and it's something you shaped on the fly. You of the "nothing can be done, why bother" defeatist mentality. You kept harping on the absence of a "plan"... until I pointed out the commitments realized towards such a plan.

I did comment on your

"COP17 agreement I mentioned earlier: "UN COP 17 resulted in an agreement to establish a legally binding emissions reduction deal... for all countries,.. by 2015, intended to take effect in 2020".

no - you gave it 'short shrift'... your so-called comment was nothing more than another of your negatives: "how can it be enforced". Perhaps you should spend some time and see what goes into these plans in terms of monitoring and enforcement proviso... or you could continue to showcase you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

As for this:

"Perhaps you might redirect some of your alarmism towards having BigOil redirect some of their record profits back into tarsands focused emission reductions - ya think?"

Yes, absolutely. I'd actually prefer they concentrated on reduced fresh water use and mitigation of downstream medical concerns, as the emissions reductions achievable would be balanced out by China's next coal fired power plant.

China signed on to that COP17 agreement towards a legally binding agreement

[GostHacked]

no - your so-called argument had to be teased out of you... and it's something you shaped on the fly. You of the "nothing can be done, why bother" defeatist mentality. You kept harping on the absence of a "plan"... until I pointed out the commitments realized towards such a plan.

[

I had a plan to plant more trees. But that was not a feasible plan according to some. Reducing the bio accumulative toxicity of our environment, which could have an impact on how vegetation absorbs Co2, not a concern.

Let's try A - no that's dumb.

Let's try B - no that's dumb.

Let's try *.*, no that's dumb.

no - you gave it 'short shrift'... your so-called comment was nothing more than another of your negatives: "how can it be enforced". Perhaps you should spend some time and see what goes into these plans in terms of monitoring and enforcement proviso... or you could continue to showcase you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

China signed on to that COP17 agreement towards a legally binding agreement

If they fail to live up to the agreement, who is going to hold them responsible? The UN?? Why am I laughing.

[Guest]

no - you gave it 'short shrift'... your so-called comment was nothing more than another of your negatives: "how can it be enforced". Perhaps you should spend some time and see what goes into these plans in terms of monitoring and enforcement proviso... or you could continue to showcase you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

China signed on to that COP17 agreement towards a legally binding agreement

Yes, but I believe I also pointed out that coal use is actually increasing in the developing world, especially China. Worryingly so, according to the lady I quoted.

So if China are going to build all those coal burning power plants, and commit to buying all that coal, and then meet the targets in the COP17 plan, well, good. Good for them.

And while we're at it, how can any of this be enforced if countries decide not to fulfil commitments? We can't even stop one of the poorest countries in the world setting off nuclear bombs while their population are eating their children.

[waldo]

I had a plan to plant more trees. But that was not a feasible plan according to some. Reducing the bio accumulative toxicity of our environment, which could have an impact on how vegetation absorbs Co2, not a concern.

Let's try A - no that's dumb.

Let's try B - no that's dumb.

Let's try *.*, no that's dumb.

If they fail to live up to the agreement, who is going to hold them responsible? The UN?? Why am I laughing.

again, you simply ignore anything you're presented with... here's a quick recap on a few related prior instances of you ignoring responses. For good measure I've tossed in a reference to actual UN COP led efforts towards considerations of afforestation/reforestation... since you've got nothing better to do than, 'laugh at the UN':

Such a simple thing to do. Cost effective yes (forestry companies do this all the time) and would be the most effective at scrubbing CO2 out of the air compared to any technology we'd develop in the next 100 years.

yes... and no... (to a limited, qualified degree, depending on, for example, geographical location and/or chosen land/application).

we've had this discussion before; e.g. prior (extracted) exchange:

Reforestation has many (other) value-add purposes, obviously; however, from the standpoint of this discussion centered on carbon sink impacts, there is a most significant difference between the positive major impacts that can be realized in a tropical climate/latitude, than what can be seen from trees within northern/temperate latitudes... repeating again, for the umpteenth time, "changing albedo impacts coupled with a slow/shortened growth period within northern/temperate latitudes counter, significantly, any appreciable carbon sink gains.

what you perceive as outright dismissal is more a response that questions your reforestation/afforestation approached solution, that on a practical, scaleable level, borders on an almost geo-engineering mindset and applicability, notwithstanding it's viability, merit or subjected political/policy adherence.

in putting your solution eggs in the reforestation basket, you may also want to give consideration to a recent paper -

Ecosystem Carbon Stock Influenced by Plantation Practice: Implications for Planting Forests as a Measure of Climate Change Mitigation

...

a study that finds that reforestation and afforestation may lower the potential for forests to lessen the impacts of climate change - questioning whether large-scale plantation growths have the same ecosystem carbon stock as natural forests; in effect showing that plantations substantially reduce carbon stock in ecosystems in comparison with natural forests. The study challenges the idea that planting non-native or native-improved growth species on historical forest land yields greater carbon accumulation rates. The papers authors argue against the replacement of natural forests by reforestation (plantations), to help stave off climate change. This reforestation on non-forested fields (e.g. agricultural lands) does help with the control of carbon emissions; however, it in turn, has a negative impact in regards to the conversion of farmland to forests and a corresponding decrease in the amount of soil carbon absorption. Additionally, the papers shows that the conversion also has an affect on methane, as converted soil loses 80% of its capability to degrade methane as compared to natural forests.

... re: Cancun COP16 agreements concerning land use and deforestation...

press release from the UN-REDD Programme

(Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD)):

The UN-REDD Programme, a collaborative initiative of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), commends the great effort and political will shown at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 16th Conference of the Parties (UNFCCC COP16) in Cancun, Mexico, which has resulted in an agreement on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in

developing countries

(REDD+).

.

.

Tropical forests

store more than half of all carbon found in terrestrial vegetation worldwide and contain at least two thirds of the world's terrestrial biodiversity, making REDD+ a critical component in the global fight against climate change.

The COP16 agreement on REDD+ is expected to revitalize and increase funding flows to support REDD+ readiness and invigorate donor pledges for REDD+ that now amount to close to US$5 billion for early actions until 2012.

"REDD+ means that farmers and rural people in developing countries can now be compensated for the climate services they provide for us all, helping us to avoid dangerous climate change. We will need investments in sustainable agriculture both to reduce pressure on forest land and, primarily, to secure food for everyone.

[waldo]

So if China are going to build all those coal burning power plants, and commit to buying all that coal, and then meet the targets in the COP17 plan, well, good. Good for them.

what the usual China bashers omit is that China is shuttering old inefficient coal plants in favour of newer more efficient plants... while also fostering world-leading efforts towards CCS emission reduction technologies.

And while we're at it, how can any of this be enforced if countries decide not to fulfil commitments? We can't even stop one of the poorest countries in the world setting off nuclear bombs while their population are eating their children.

moving from voluntary to binding agreement includes implicit support for compliance in terms of a state's willingness to accept international emissions monitoring. Transparency is a political wedge to any degrees of compliance. At the end of the day, if a state offers an international commitment and reneges on the domestic application of that commitment... it will be in non-compliance of an international agreement it is a signatory to. At the end of the day, if a state ignores imposed penalties for non-compliance, it will simply be in breech of its international agreement/obligations. If we're looking at the world's two main contributors, I would suggest the relatively recent actions by China positions it as a more likely candidate to meet it's commitments... the clown show within the U.S. Congress does not bode well for the U.S. to meet any international agreement it may sign.

[bush_cheney2004]

... the clown show within the U.S. Congress does not bode well for the U.S. to meet any international agreement it may sign.

...and that is a good thing, just like Kyoto going down in global warming flames in the U.S. Senate ratification vote (95 - 0).

[waldo]

and 15 years ago, it made sense to not include developing countries within the Kyoto Annex 1 country grouping. The U.S. Senate won't have that weasel outlet to substantiate voting down a resolution for ratification of the 2015 agreement... they'll need to vote it down as a matter of principal having no principles!

but let's be clear here: presuming to an equitable 2015 agreement, one where all world nations are signatories to binding emission reduction commitments, you're quite content to have your Senate vote down a resolution that would ratify the agreement and pave the way for domestic U.S. compliance - yes? You'd be quite content to have the U.S. shunned by the rest of the world body as the only country not willing, not accepting, to ratification and domestic compliance of an international agreement intended to reduce worldwide CO2 emissions - yes?

by the way, you also believe the U.S. has it's own distinct atmosphere and coastal ocean makeup... distinct and isolated from the rest of the world, right?

[Peanutbutter]

If we're going to reduce pollution it has to be every nation, not just the most prosperous. We all live on the same planet, so until we get every nation to agree Canada shouldn't be involved in any of these half baked measures IMHO.