Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[waldo]

Ironically, it is impossible to use this technology in developed countries because the anti-CO2 lobby makes it more economic to extend the life of existing inefficient plants than to develop new clearer ones.

uhhh... in spite of you just recently flaunting cheap natural gas... that couldn't be a factor in delays in those earlier planned/projected IGCC coal plants - could it? Oh wait, just in North America alone, even with all that "new found, cheap(er)" natural gas, we still have the following... didn't you just say, "impossible"?

September 12, 2012 - San Antonio, Texas IGCC plant - with integrated CCS

... oh my, TimG - China financing - from both China's Sinopec and Chexim!

2012 completion - Duke Energy, Edwardsport, Indiana IGCC plant - with phased CCS intentions

August 20, 2012 - Coal-fueled Kemper, Mississippi IGCC power plant nearing peak construction - with integrated CCS

[waldo]

The idea that Canada or any other nation owes the developing world anything is nonsense.

guys, guys, c'mon... your wealth distribution boogeyman/strawman isn't complete unless you top it off with the world government meme.

clearly you want the developed world cumulative emissions to be ignored... why you even want to ignore the outsourcing of developed world emissions. The $100 billion a year 'climate fund' must really rub you... raw, hey? I never fail to be amazed by you literal isolationists who feel Canada's atmosphere is a private bubble atmosphere, that Canada's oceans are removed from the rest of the world, that global temperature rise has no impact/affect on Canada, that Canada's security isn't impacted, that affects on global agriculture/food won't affect Canada, that increasing weather extremes won't affect Canada, etc.,. Just keep your blinders on, throw a silly rant against "socialism" (really!)... look for cartoons... and yuk it up. Rinse, repeat!

You obviously don't understand what was written.

First, the developing world has benefited tremendously from the technology, capital and markets in the developed world. No developing countries has lifted itself from poverty without taking full advantage of these. Even where development has been slow the benefits of developed world technology pervade the poorest Africa state (cell phone anyone?). What this means is the emissions from the first world countries have benefited the entire world and therefore the first world countries have no special debt or obligation as a result of those emissions.

Second, developing countries are developing (a good thing). This means that their emission increases will quickly swamp any decreases in emissions in the developed world. So it is completely useless to talk about an emission reduction scheme that does not restrict emissions in developing countries.

Bottom line it is not a isolationist view but rather a rejection of the crude attempt to use the 'guilt train' to justify income redistribution policies that cannot be justified on their practical merits.

bottom line? Really? No - the bottom line is you continually trip over your own talking points... in this case, your proverbial 'Adapt-R-Us' only talking point. Your great consternation over the, "developing world being owed", well... like I said earlier, that $100 billion a year climate fund must really have you on-edge/distressed. You know, that fund that's intended to compensate/assist developing countries with both monetary and technology transfer, principally to deal with, wait for it, wait for it... adaption needs relative to climate change impacts! Oh snap... "polluter pays", hey TimG?

[Moonbox]

perhaps you should read the exchange you're objecting to again; clearly, your comprehension difficulty is even more acute than usual.

When you can write without sounding like Yoda and at a better than grade 7 level, perhaps I'll start taking advice from you.

there are negotiations involved to address per country monetary transfer payments to assist developing countries with adaptation/mitigation needs - and a part of those negotiations requires a historical perspective on just how contributing respective developed countries have been to the overall historical cumulative emission total. The latter seems to be where your confusion/comprehension difficulty stems.

The historical cumulative emissions approach is where this whole thing falls apart though. It's not hard to understand why people think this is a good idea, but it's similarily easy to see why it's not going to be accepted at anything but a token level. This is what's going to completely derail any realistic emissions reduction negotiations. Emissions reduction is the overall goal right?

[waldo]

still struggling, hey Moonbox? Didn't you just a few posts back ask/challenge me to clarify a delay/do nothing approach? How many times do you need to ask the same question?

When you can write without sounding like Yoda and at a better than grade 7 level, perhaps I'll start taking advice from you.

testy, hey Moonbox? You're quite emboldened, aren't you... considering that not only do you know nothing of the related science, you quite clearly know nothing about the historical climate change meetings attempting to realize the results you presume to so "expertly" speak on.

perhaps you should read the exchange you're objecting to again; clearly, your comprehension difficulty is even more acute than usual. Apparently you don't recognize a distinction between emission reduction targets/approaches versus 'polluter pay' transfer payments to address adaptation/mitigation requirements for developing countries, right? You do realize, for instance, that Africa contributes but 4% to the total yearly growth in global emissions... yet Africa is the continent most susceptible to the negative impacts of climate change. So, ya... polluter pays in terms of monetary transfer payments into the 'climate change fund(s)' to help assist developing countries. The same way there are negotiations involved to address per country emission reduction target levels, there are negotiations involved to address per country monetary transfer payments to assist developing countries with adaptation/mitigation needs - and a part of those negotiations requires a historical perspective on just how contributing respective developed countries have been to the overall historical cumulative emission total. The latter seems to be where your confusion/comprehension difficulty stems.

The historical cumulative emissions approach is where this whole thing falls apart though. It's not hard to understand why people think this is a good idea, but it's similarily easy to see why it's not going to be accepted at anything but a token level. This is what's going to completely derail any realistic emissions reduction negotiations. Emissions reduction is the overall goal right?

does it help your failed comprehension to isolate parts of my quote, while ignoring the pertinent statements? Or is it just your mechanism to try to hide that failed comprehension? I've quoted my entire post to showcase your purposeful self-serving quote extract. Look... I even bold-highlighted the distinction you keep failing on. One side of that distinction, and related negotiations concerning transfer payments, reflects directly upon historical cumulative emissions - you know, those I highlighted previously - again, this graphic. Now, as for negotiations toward per country, emission reduction targets, given that 'historical cumulative' emissions are the sum total of all countries contributing emissions and that CO2 can stay in the atmosphere for centuries, some of today's current warming reflects upon those historical emissions.

- another stat: between 1900-to-2008, China emitted ~ 117 Gt of CO2 into the atmosphere..... and in that same period, the United States emitted ~ 337 Gt. Do you see any disparity here, Moonbox?... notwithstanding, again, the actual outsourcing of emissions from developed countries to developing countries.

do you have any silver bullet negotiating solution to deal with the historical emissions aspect when getting countries... all countries... to agree to per country emission reference levels and emission reduction target levels that reflect upon those reference levels? There is kinda one out there, been floating around the last couple of COP meetings... kind of dovetails with the breakout distinction on transfer payments that I keep highlighting for you - the distinction you keep failing on. Hasn't your expertise on climate change meetings/agreements allowed you to realize this latest silver bullet attempt?

[WWWTT]

So to satisfy you, all you need is about 4-4.5 billion years worth of data?

Not exactly.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

=> noob; i.e., new... new to MLW - you came out

=> denier; i.e., someone who ignores facts and evidence; someone who doesn't critically examine any evidence or hypotheses; someone who, without question, embraces any counter proposal, no matter how transparently absurd or false

Why??

WWWTT

[bleeding heart]

Computer Science is only a few decades old. I think it's all bunk. No doubt I can find a couple of blogs about it....

[WWWTT]

Destroying the Earth? Get a grip, we're simply making it a far more inhospitable and dangerous place for a lot of things to live in and for the foreseeable future including a lot of us.

It's not the actual end of the world, it's just a really severe shit-kicking is all.

To destroy it you'd need to drop it into the sun or something.

Actually what you mean to say is that you "claim" that we are making it a more inhospitable place.

Shorelines change.People build in low lying areas that are prone to flood damage.

Making a claim that natural disaster can be averted by using less CO2 seems kind of far reaching.

WWWTT

[waldo]

Making a claim that natural disaster can be averted by using less CO2 seems kind of far reaching.

you're the one using 'alarmist' rhetoric - "destroying the earth". Of course, you keep on keeping on... using the phrase, "natural disaster". The causal tie to disasters (your word), those associated with global warming, those related to anthropogenic sourced atmospheric CO2 increases associated with fossil-fuel burning... those ties... those causal ties, aren't, as you say, natural. It, as you say, "seems kind of far reaching", to you, particularly since you deny the greenhouse effect... you deny global warming. Again, you're on the fringe... of the fringe! You're so far out there, you don't even know how far out you are!

[WWWTT]

you deny global warming. Again, you're on the fringe... of the fringe! You're so far out there, you don't even know how far out you are!

It is you that is "way out there on the edge"!

Making unfounded claims that we are changing the climate,that we are increasing the temperature of the planet.

It is you that completely ignore the fact that in fact the closest source of energy to us is the Earth itself!And NOT the Sun!

In fact the average temperature of the Earth is so incredibly high that its contents are liquified!And only a thin cool layer or "crust" lies on the surface where solids can exist.With an average thickness of 50km(The Earths diameter is app.12.5K km,giving a radius of app.6.25K km.Therefore app. 0.8% of the Earths mass is at a low enough temperature so that silica,the major component of the crust can solidify)

No where in any research that I have read has taken the closest energy source into account.

And then you claim I am a denier???!?!

Those who deny facts can not call those who accept facts deniers!

When hundreds of thousands of people who died from earthquakes around the world recently (since 2004),was this caused by global warming?

Or was it caused by movements within the inner core of our planet?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

you're the one using 'alarmist' rhetoric - "destroying the earth". Of course, you keep on keeping on... using the phrase, "natural disaster". The causal tie to disasters (your word), those associated with global warming, those related to anthropogenic sourced atmospheric CO2 increases associated with fossil-fuel burning... those ties... those causal ties, aren't, as you say, natural. It, as you say, "seems kind of far reaching", to you, particularly since you deny the greenhouse effect... you deny global warming. Again, you're on the fringe... of the fringe! You're so far out there, you don't even know how far out you are!

When an earthquake rips apart your family,your village,killing tens of thousands,then yes your world has been destroyed!

I am sure the victims in Haiti find comfort in your "green house" campaign.

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

When an earthquake rips apart your family,your village,killing tens of thousands,then yes your world has been destroyed!

I am sure the victims in Haiti find comfort in your "green house" campaign.

WWWTT

Sorry, what?

[jbg]

You've implied elsewhere that it's Canadians as a whole. Do make up your mind.

What I have said elsewhere is that Canada is an independent nation and as such speaks its own language, Canadian.

[jbg]

do you even know what the carbon cycle is? The letter "P"? Oh, right... you're the "P"lankton guy!

quit making shyte up. I relish your questions... I've explained why I have no use for them, given your exhibited denier approach. But I relish you asking them - if only to showcase your ignorance on the subject matter!

If it weren't for the entertainment provided by the two of you MLW would not be worth the time. There would be fewer arguments if all posters made coherent sense. And fewer laughs.

[Mr.Canada]

I don't understand what the big deal is anyways. Even if global warming were true, who cares? Does anybody think that in 20 years, technology won't have changed? Does anybody think that in 20 years, we'll still be using the comubstion engine? CO2 emmissions will fall off of a cliff in the future. But there isn't anything significant that can be done now, without destroying the economic lives of hundreds of millions of people.

Well said.

[TimG]

It's not hard to understand why people think this is a good idea, but it's similarily easy to see why it's not going to be accepted at anything but a token level.

The entire 'historical emissions' argument ONLY exists because the people pushing for anti-CO2 policies don't really care about CO2. All they really care about is transferring as much wealth as possible from the rich to the "poor" (I put poor in quotes because all their policies really do is enrich the elites living in poor countries).

[waldo]

The entire 'historical emissions' argument ONLY exists because the people pushing for anti-CO2 policies don't really care about CO2. All they really care about is transferring as much wealth as possible from the rich to the "poor" (I put poor in quotes because all their policies really do is enrich the elites living in poor countries).

ya, ya... let's add wealth transfer... and world government to your growing list, hey:

... TimG, as has been repeatedly highlighted, your MLW posts, your stated positions are founded on, "themes of conspiracy, group think, ideological bias, confirmation bias, job protection, fraud, data manipulation, peer-review corruption, selling disaster porn, rent seeking,

wealth transfer

,

world government

, etc., etc., etc.".

by the by... any insightful comments on the following described emission disparity?

- again,

this graphic

.

- another stat: between 1900-to-2008, China emitted ~ 117 Gt of CO2 into the atmosphere..... and in that same period, the United States emitted ~ 337 Gt. Do you see any disparity here?... notwithstanding, again, the actual outsourcing of emissions from developed countries to developing countries.

[waldo]

If it weren't for the entertainment provided by the two of you MLW would not be worth the time.

more... more jgb drive-by sniping? You have better things to do than snipe - you have a task you're avoiding! Still waiting, jgb, still waiting for you to bring forward what you believe I'm, as you say, "making up". Still waiting - is there a problem for you?

You mean his ability to insult, denigrate, and make up "facts"?

anytime you'd care to actually step beyond your continual sniping and drive-by's, please feel free to speak to what you believe I'm, as you say, "making up".

[eyeball]

But there isn't anything significant that can be done now, without destroying the economic lives of hundreds of millions of people.

That's a rather alarming fearful mindset. I bet there's a whole industry based on concretizing it, probably pays well too.

In either case, if it's really come down to such a simple decision between destroying either our ecosystems or our economy, well...as we all know perfectly well we can get by on the former without the latter but we cannot have it the other way around, so...

The choice is kinda obvious, especially in a moral inter-generational sort of a way don't you think?

Not to mention all the other things that live here.

Edited September 27, 2012 by eyeball

[waldo]

It is you that is "way out there on the edge"!

Making unfounded claims that we are changing the climate, that we are increasing the temperature of the planet.

claims related to anthropogenic sourced climate change are founded... you simply haven't found them yet! But then again, you're not even looking, are you? I mean, you deny the earth's global temperature has warmed/is warming (bloody hell, who denies warming???), and when you're asked, "You haven't seen the data showing average global temperatures increasing", uhhh... what did you say again?

You haven't seen the data showing average global temperatures increasing, then ?

Yes that's right.

It is you that completely ignore the fact that in fact the closest source of energy to us is the Earth itself! And NOT the Sun!

In fact the average temperature of the Earth is so incredibly high that its contents are liquified!And only a thin cool layer or "crust" lies on the surface where solids can exist.With an average thickness of 50km(The Earths diameter is app.12.5K km,giving a radius of app.6.25K km.Therefore app. 0.8% of the Earths mass is at a low enough temperature so that silica,the major component of the crust can solidify)

No where in any research that I have read has taken the closest energy source into account.

say what? You're reading global warming/climate change related research... and your extensive efforts haven't uncovered anything giving consideration to the earth's molten core? Interesting that your research... on research... hasn't actually afforded you an ability to realize the earth's global temperature has risen. But hey now, c'mon - why would you be looking for research to tie warming to the earth's molten core... when you don't believe it's warming?

When hundreds of thousands of people who died from earthquakes around the world recently (since 2004), was this caused by global warming?

Or was it caused by movements within the inner core of our planet?

citation request: who/what organization attributed recent earthquakes to global warming?

[wyly]

say what? You're reading global warming/climate change related research... and your extensive efforts haven't uncovered anything giving consideration to the earth's molten core? Interesting that your research... on research... hasn't actually afforded you an ability to realize the earth's global temperature has risen. But hey now, c'mon - why would you be looking for research to tie warming to the earth's molten core... when you don't believe it's warming?

all that impressive research and yet he refuses to do the simplest of web searches into CO2 to verify it's a GHG...

[WWWTT]

claims related to anthropogenic sourced climate change are founded... you simply haven't found them yet! But then again, you're not even looking, are you? I mean, you deny the earth's global temperature has warmed/is warming (bloody hell, who denies warming???), and when you're asked, "You haven't seen the data showing average global temperatures increasing", uhhh... what did you say again?

HAAAAA!

So how was it again the Earth was warming?

Since you have denied the fact that the closest source of energy being radiated to the planet in fact is the Earth itself tells me that you do not want to listen to facts!

I believe the Earths climate is changing,always has and always will!

Near where I live in the town of Caledon in southern Ontario,there are exposed limestone rock faces.These where formed in a coral bed in some ancient tropical sea.So therefore the climate here millions of years ago was tropical.This is commonly accepted.

I deny that there is sufficient data to make the conclusion of global warming due to the use of fossil fuels.

Oh and by the way when you say "global warming",you actually mean "the thin surface of the Earth is warming" and not actually the entire Earth!

In fact the average temperature of the Earth is around 5 000 to 7 000 degrees celsius.

This whole global warming thing is about the heat retention at the surface and atmospheric levels from solar radiation,completely ignoring the fact that the median temp of the planet is well into the thousands of degrees!

Oh but now it is "I" that is ignoring facts?!?!?!?

Show me something that takes the actual temp. of the Earth into account!

And hurry up,I'm a busy man!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

all that impressive research and yet he refuses to do the simplest of web searches into CO2 to verify it's a GHG...

Did not say that.

Just providing more facts that were previously not included in the debate.

WWWTT

[waldo]

Since you have denied the fact that the closest source of energy being radiated to the planet in fact is the Earth itself tells me that you do not want to listen to facts!

no - did not. What I did do was not offer comment to your unsubstantiated claim... is that your definition of... "denial"?

I deny that there is sufficient data to make the conclusion of global warming due to the use of fossil fuels.

yes, you are a denier. You've expressly stated as much with the many statements you've previously offered... you've now quite categorically, pointedly and directly, loudly and proudly, absolutely reaffirmed that, yes, you are a denier. So, uhhh... why did you put up such a fake display objecting being labeled one, being labeled a... denier? Were you going for the drama effect?

This whole global warming thing is about the heat retention at the surface and atmospheric levels from solar radiation,completely ignoring the fact that the median temp of the planet is well into the thousands of degrees!

Oh but now it is "I" that is ignoring facts?!?!?!?

Show me something that takes the actual temp. of the Earth into account!

Air Temperature and Anthropogenic Forcing: Insights from the Solid Earth

- you're welcome

now, since you've offered nothing to substantiate anything... anything... you've stated... ever, given your expressed "research", please provide scientifically accepted substantiation to your, apparent claim, that the relatively recent (accelerated) rise in global temperature is attributed to, as you state, "the earth's inner molten core". Make sure to provide a direct correlation - thanks in advance. Oh, wait... you don't accept it's warming!

And hurry up, I'm a busy man!

clearly - too busy to actually show/present a genuine skeptic position. Too busy to offer anything to substantiate your unsubstantiated, uneducated, denier opinion.

[WWWTT]

Air Temperature and Anthropogenic Forcing: Insights from the Solid Earth

- you're welcome

What's this?

WWWTT