Paris Climate Summit

[On Guard for Thee]

Paris is set to be an interesting meeting. Canada back on the world stage, and with muti party representation.

[poochy]

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=b04fc1ea-e90f-4160-a571-499c6bbc64aa

Even Stephan Dion, before he was leader, knew they up to that point, failed.

"The Liberal party maintains its climate-change plans would meet the 2012 deadline. Mr. Dion is the first senior party figure to cast doubt on that claim."

O but the targets were too tough "Mr. Dion defended the Liberal record on Kyoto by saying Canada signed on for far-tougher targets than many other countries. "

In other words, they signed on to something they knew was impossible and then left it to the conservatives to finish what they hadn't started, who then decided the targets were in fact impossible, and now, guess who's fault that is, well not the liberals!

[Guest]

Paris is set to be an interesting meeting. Canada back on the world stage, and with muti party representation.

It's nice to be proud again...it's been far too long.

[Guest]

http://bigthink.com/age-of-engagement/in-canada-the-liberals-big-kyoto-problem

More firm evidence that the liberals fully planned to and were complying with Kyoto. They had things well in hand.

Interesting...and how did Harper and the conservatives do on the environmental front. Who knows what Trudeau will be able to achieve but it's nice to have a PM who is aiming for laudable goals. Hope feels much better than shame.

[poochy]

http://well-being.esdc.gc.ca/misme-iowb/auto/diagramme-chart/stg2/c_13_64_2_1_eng.png?20150508104415434

You can clearly see here the reduction in the rate of increase and overall reduction in ghg's because of the liberals steadfast devotion to the Kyoto accord.

[poochy]

https://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-indicators/FBF8455E-66C1-4691-9333-5D304E66918D/GreenhouseGasEmissions_Nat_EN.gif

Of course here not only is the reductions in ghg's because of liberal handwork and dedication obvious, so is the precipitous rise in emissions as soon as the conservatives took charge, the recession not withstanding, even people that evil couldn't get the numbers to rise during that disaster.

[On Guard for Thee]

It's nice to be proud again...it's been far too long.

I listened to X country checkup today. What I heard were mostly expressions of guarded optimism, it being early days and all, that we are back on the right track.

[dre]

I listened to X country checkup today. What I heard were mostly expressions of guarded optimism, it being early days and all, that we are back on the right track.

THings will change pretty quick once Canadians are in the middle of a deep long recession.

[waldo]

You can clearly see here the reduction in the rate of increase and overall reduction in ghg's because of the liberals steadfast devotion to the Kyoto accord.

provide a proper source for that graphic... source the article.

[biotk]

provide a proper source for that graphic... source the article.

It is from Environment Canada.

[waldo]

https://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-indicators/FBF8455E-66C1-4691-9333-5D304E66918D/GreenhouseGasEmissions_Nat_EN.gif

Of course here not only is the reductions in ghg's because of liberal handwork and dedication obvious, so is the precipitous rise in emissions as soon as the conservatives took charge, the recession not withstanding, even people that evil couldn't get the numbers to rise during that disaster.

"the recession not withstanding" That's what recessions cause... that's what happened world-wide during the recession - all countries GHG emissions were reduced. I can certainly re-post a summary account of the failed 'Harper file' on climate change... summaries of the multiple target commitments made by Harper Conservatives... that never came close to being reached... that for all intents and purposes were completely ignored. I could start with the almost immediate action taken by Harper in 2006 by his abandoning of Kyoto in favour of the so-called "Made in Canada" alternative "solution"... such a trite name that was actually coined by the president of Imperial Oil.

February 2006:

The newly-elected government cancels billions of dollars in federal spending to address climate change and promote energy efficiency. They also cancel work underway within Environment Canada to regulate greenhouse gases from large industrial facilities, describing the country’s legally-binding Kyoto target as unrealistic.

certainly Harper had no problem making much hyped claims over coal... while never acknowledging it was actually Ontario that was behind the initiative... certainly Harper continued to play up reductions that were entirely a result of provincial actions. Imagine that... Harper never acknowledging he was leveraging the provinces - go figure! From the following Environment Canada graphic (albeit less than optimal for trendline interpretation)... you can clearly "eyeball" the reductions occurring prior to Harper Conservatives taking control... followed by a rise after that control... followed by the precipitous declining recession impact... followed by the slow gradual rise/projection:

.

[TimG]

Event the alarmists are agreeing that reducing emissions is a futile exercise:

Bruno Giussani: Alice, basically what you're saying, the talk is, unless wealthy nations start cutting 10 percent per year the emissions now, this year, not in 2020 or '25, we are going to go straight to the four-plus-degree scenario. I am wondering what's your take on the cut by 70 percent for 2070.

Alice Bows-Larkin: Yeah, it's just nowhere near enough to avoid two degrees. One of the things that often -- when there are these modeling studies that look at what we need to do, is they tend to hugely overestimate how quickly other countries in the world can start to reduce emissions. So they make kind of heroic assumptions about that.

https://www.ted.com/talks/alice_bows_larkin_we_re_too_late_to_prevent_climate_change_here_s_how_we_adapt/transcript?language=en Edited October 26, 2015 by TimG

[waldo]

Event the alarmists are agreeing that reducing emissions is a futile exercise:

nice! Just what "plus degree" scenario are you fronting here? You know it's long established by "many" that it's too late to meet the 2° C target... run with 4° C if you like! There is no futility in mitigation irregardless of your steadfast alignment to adaption only. Both must be done - obviously! You can't presume to continue with ever-increasing GHG atmospheric levels while choosing a forever iterative adaptation-upon-adaptation approach... which, of course, has you presuming upon "rich developed nations" being able to adapt while all others are simply left to "eat cake"!

[-1=e^ipi]

You know it's long established by "many" that it's too late to meet the 2° C target... run with 4° C if you like!

Based on results of integrated assessment models, 4 C would actually be reasonable.

Unfortunately, alarmists are committed to the 2 C target, which has no scientific or economic basis. Some like Hansen are fitting nonsense exponential sea level rise models (actually, not even fitting, rather choosing parameters without basis) to try to justify that the world is doomed if we warm by more than 0.7 C relative to today.

[waldo]

Based on results of integrated assessment models, 4 C would actually be reasonable.

by all means, don't hesitate to speak to what you interpret/understand an earth subject to a global 4°C temperature rise would present in terms of climate change impact... in particular a comparative reference to what we're already experiencing with a 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C temperature rise in the period 1880 to 2012

[TimG]

in particular a comparative reference to what we're already experiencing with a 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C temperature rise in the period 1880 to 2012

Gee. Given the fact that there next to is zero conclusive evidence of negative effects from climate change to date that does not actually help your argument (hint: storms, droughts and floods happen and the simply fact that they occur is not "evidence"). For the most part the world seems to be better off due to the slight warming that has occurred. Edited October 26, 2015 by TimG

[Smeelious]

Gee. Given the fact that there next to is zero conclusive evidence of negative effects from climate change to date that does not actually help your argument (hint: storms, droughts and floods happen and the simply fact that they occur is not "evidence"). For the most part the world seems to be better off due to the slight warming that has occurred.

Source?

Both claims are rather outrageous, and contrary to common thought.

[-1=e^ipi]

Both claims are rather outrageous, and contrary to common thought.

I know, right? Common thought is that the Earth was magically in a pristine condition before humans came along, and then that darn talking snake had to tell Eve to eat that magical fruit! Now the sinful humans are defying god's wish for us to not change the environment.

I'm sure judeo-christian mythology and other mythology hasn't caused any bias in society's perception on the issue of climate change. *sarcasm*

Edited October 26, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[TimG]

Both claims are rather outrageous, and contrary to common thought.

What is outrageous is the endless stream of hacks that make claims that have no supporting scientific evidence and expect others to prove that their claims are wrong.

Here is one paper that refutes the claim that CO2 had anything to with Hurricane Sandy:

http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/grayklotzbach2012.pdf

Similar studies exist for every weather event where the media rolls out the alarmists loonies claiming that it is caused by CO2. It is all a lie. Even the IPCC acknowledges that the only measured increase in extreme weather are heat waves but those heat waves are balanced by a corresponding decrease in cold snaps which are generally much more deadly.

Basically, once you eliminate the false claims where there is no evidence supporting a link between climate change and the weather event you have a situation where there is no evidence of any tangible harm caused by warming to date.

Edited October 26, 2015 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

by all means, don't hesitate to speak to what you interpret/understand an earth subject to a global 4°C temperature rise would present in terms of climate change impact... in particular a comparative reference to what we're already experiencing with a 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C temperature rise in the period 1880 to 2012

Go see the 2013 DICE manual by Nordhaus.

[-1=e^ipi]

What is outrageous is the endless stream of hacks that make claims that have no supporting scientific evidence and expect others to prove that their claims are wrong.

Come on Tim. The flying spaghetti monster totally exists, and the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. Ramen.

[Smeelious]

Here is one paper that refutes the claim that CO2 had anything to with Hurricane Sandy:

http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/grayklotzbach2012.pdf

I was on board with this paper, until figure 23. Suddenly I have to go back and read everything a little more closely. Until I do that generally everything seems reasonable, but that figure is a giant red flag. But really blaming climate change for Sandy was always a reach to begin with, and I don't think anyone is directly blaming it. Most papers I have read argue that climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of abnormal weather events like Sandy, not causing them.

Come on Tim. The flying spaghetti monster totally exists, and the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. Ramen.

The burden of proof lies with the opinion that is more outlandish. In this case: That human created climate change doesn't exist, and/or that it has no significant effect on the global environment. The overwhelming majority of papers and scientists (such a lame turn of phrase) agree that it does exist and that it has a significant effect on the environment.

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[-1=e^ipi]

The burden of proof lies with the opinion that is more outlandish.

I'm not sure what you mean by outlandish, but the burden of proof lies with the less simple position not the less popular position. That's why things like Occam's Razor, preference for the null hypothesis and Akaike's Information Criterion exist in science.

The overwhelming majority of papers and scientists (such a lame turn of phrase) agree that it does exist and that it has a significant effect on the environment.

Moving goal posts. Demonstrating that climate change is a net negative (let alone justifying mitigation policy) is not the same thing as demonstrating the existence of climate change.

[TimG]

But really blaming climate change for Sandy was always a reach to begin with, and I don't think anyone is directly blaming it. Most papers I have read argue that climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of abnormal weather events like Sandy, not causing them.

There is no statistical evidence to support such a claim. It is a hypothesis that is contradicted by other hypothesis that suggest the reduction in polar-equator temperature differentials will lead to fewer storms.

The burden of proof lies with the opinion that is more outlandish.

The outlandish claim is the premise that a modest increase in temperatures will lead to disaster. End of the world hacks have been around since the dawn of time and the onus to show that their claims are credible rests with the end of the world hacks.

In this case: That human created climate change doesn't exist, and/or that it has no significant effect on the global environment.

A strawman. I never claimed otherwise. I simply said there is no evidence of negative effects to date.

[cybercoma]

Gee. Given the fact that there next to is zero conclusive evidence of negative effects from climate change

This is completely and entirely wrong. Scientific consensus is very clear on the consequences of climate change, notwithstanding your head-in-the-sand approach to it.