UN Climate Change Summit -- Paris 2015 - continued

[Big Guy]

Looks like provincial leaders have taken Trudeau's invitation to join him at the summit:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/premiers-paris-climate-summit-1.3285247

How many folks are going? We may need to call back a few transports from Iraq to fly our delegation to Paris. This could be the first chance to go after Trudeau's "extravagant" spending.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Big Guy

[poochy]

The developed world is not going to destroy it's own economy in a kumbaya attempt to fix the climate, sorry kids, it's not going to happen, you can't elect Trudeau enough times to make it happen, 10 years from now nothing of substance will have changed and the temperature will probably have increased. Just as it has since the first of these summits, and all of them since, those of you who are expecting something tangibly better out of this government are going to be no less disaapointed than you have been in the last two. The diffference being is that not only do the liberals not care about your beleifs, they are the most willing to lie about how much they care, and just as they always do, will give all the appearances of working with just about anyone, while accomplishing nothing. It's a harsh, grown up, reality.

[hitops]

The developed world is not going to destroy it's own economy in a kumbaya attempt to fix the climate, sorry kids, it's not going to happen, you can't elect Trudeau enough times to make it happen, 10 years from now nothing of substance will have changed and the temperature will probably have increased. Just as it has since the first of these summits, and all of them since, those of you who are expecting something tangibly better out of this government are going to be no less disaapointed than you have been in the last two. The diffference being is that not only do the liberals not care about your beleifs, they are the most willing to lie about how much they care, and just as they always do, will give all the appearances of working with just about anyone, while accomplishing nothing. It's a harsh, grown up, reality.

That's probably about what will happen.

Fortunately it will not matter. Temp will increase slightly, with no really serious consequences.

We were told by the UN in 2005 that we would have tens of millions of climate refugees. There were none. But we did get tens of millions more people out of poverty since then.

The previous post got closed, I'm not sure how much responding to that one will be accepted.

Edited November 1, 2015 by hitops

[69cat]

Just to catch up from the other thread, it is interesting when people need scientists interpretation of recorded data to create a model rather than simply look at the data.

http://www.cics.uvic.ca/climate/CanadaGriddedClimateData/ReginaT.JPG

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/2013-one-of-the-ten-coldest-years-in-us-history-with-the-largest-drop-in-temperature/

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/ushcn_corn_belt_temperatures.jpg

No one finds it more than just coinicidence that Regina temperatures follow those listed for the corn belt and other parts of the US but do not follow the hockey stick model. Thats a big chunk of north america that is out of step with the model.

And i know 2013 and 2014 were pretty cold here with the winters setting lots of records. Hopefully you all out east set a bunch of records the last few winters to off set our record cold out here. I'm guessing not.

Speaking of setting records

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_b5jZxTCSlm0/RqNZ-eJqyxI/AAAAAAAAAY8/HcOjoswgkaM/s400/Record%2BHigh%2BTemperature%2BChart%2B1884-2006.jpg

One would expect new records to be set all over the US in recent years but it is hard when many were pegged quite high in the 30s and 40s - oh yeah, the climate model doesnt show a significant spike in that era, must not have happened.

Yes its all a bunch of crazy theories:

1. The sun heats the earth

2. The suns output is not a fixed constant

Will see where we are in 5 years but i am pretty confident Regina at least is in an isolated pocket and wont see significant warming for some time. Too bad, these brutal winters are getting tiresome - hopefully the experts have this coming one right.

And one more from Boise Idaho for the heck of it, no hockey stick either,

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_udSTgadqhFc/TRlMJpn_lHI/AAAAAAAACtw/G_Dry_YkITA/s1600/3%2BBoise%2BID%2BGISS%2Bstation.gif

Edited November 1, 2015 by 69cat

[waldo]

Just to catch up from the other thread

what part of derailing the original thread leading to its closure... do you not get? The thread topic is the 'Paris COP 21 meetings'. The thread topic is not an avenue for you to showcase your denial and/or discuss the underlying science that drives the UNFCCC COP meetings... there are no shortage of threads in the 'Health, Science and Technology' forum for you to revel in... or you could start your own thread there.

[waldo]

Fortunately it will not matter. Temp will increase slightly, with no really serious consequences.

The previous post got closed, I'm not sure how much responding to that one will be accepted.

as well! You didn't fare well in the original thread... I trust you will similarly stop derailing this attempt at a new thread intended to discuss the 'Paris COP 21 meetings'... and related on-topic aspects. I look forward to you resurrecting another more appropriate, alternative GW/AGW/CC related thread to attempt to showcase the same 'degree of expertise' you showcased in the now closed original thread. Thanks in advance.

.

[waldo]

related on-topic content from the original now closed thread:

These summits are a complete waste of the time that offer no "solutions" to the stated problem and only seek to exploit it as a means to extort money from developed countries in order to fill Swiss bank accounts of third world dictators.

care to offer past examples of same... and the practical mechanisms of how such "exploit seeking" have been... or, in the future, could be... carried out? Considering the long established UNFCCC COP focus on a 'funding mechanism'... and given the highly contentious area of exchange between developing versus developed countries in that regard, there is clearly no absence, no lack of attention, to ensure a fully transparent, accountable and audited practice exists to cover financial disbursements --- UNFCCC Review of the Financial Mechanism

[waldo]

It "collaborative" because at this point in time all of the invites are going to be singing from the Trudeau playbook (even the CPC leader would likely keep quiet out of politeness). Trudeau would not be so keen to have people in his entourage if they were out to undermine the position of the Canadian government as was the case for Harper.

the Harper Conservative INDC submission to COP 21 stands as the Canadian 'record of account' going into the meetings... where, pre-negotiations, Canada has committed to, "reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions economy-wide by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030". Certainly it's easy to critique the long-standing failed record of prior Harper Conservative commitments made... as it is in regards to the nonsense peddled in that Harper Conservative INDC submission... particularly where a federal target was presented without regard to any... TO ANY... consultation with Canadian provinces; i.e., the "Harper Way"!

imagine that, the PM-designate Trudeau... actually inviting provincial premiers to the meetings! What a concept.

[waldo]

Well, unlike people who disagree Harper, people who disagree with Trudeau tend to be more polite about and would not seek to undermine Trudeau at the summit.

versus Harper Conservatives attempting to scuttle/undermine actual past summits? Canada wins ‘Lifetime Unachievement’ Fossil award

...the special prize was given to point to the Harper government’s longstanding failure to make meaningful contributions and instead resort to blocking and stalling progress at the UN climate talks.

“After winning the Colossal Fossil award – given to the country doing the most damage to climate talks in a given year – five years in a row, Canada is in a league of its own for its total lack of credibility on climate action,” said Christian Holz, Executive Director of Climate Action Network Canada. “The utter lack of a credible climate policy plan on the part of the Harper government has gone a long way towards undermining Canada’s standing in the world, even as a clear majority of Canadian citizens seek action and leadership on climate change.”

[cybercoma]

The politeness of obstructionism: http://www.ctvnews.ca/tories-blasted-for-handbook-on-paralyzing-parliament-1.241797

[waldo]

No biggee...the previous ruling Liberals (Chretien/Martin) made lots of promises for Kyoto and promptly ignored the treaty.

Appearances are far more important than substance.

there was a monumental effort undertaken by the Liberal Party to actually get the treaty ratified... that took years of working with provinces and the business world. The Liberals also enacted an action plan with a $half-billion commitment intended to reduce GHG's... along with a formal climate change plan with target reduction measures/commitments. The Liberals also pledged an additional $1 billion for its climate change plan - while offering business/industry/consumers incentives. The Liberals also provided an ongoing series of promotional campaigns aimed to bring awareness of climate change and GHGs' as well as what individual Canadians can do to reduce energy use/emissions. The Liberals also enacted an emissions standard agreement with Canadian automakers. The Liberals also brought forward the formal Kyoto implementation plan with $10 billion pledges, target commitments and industry reduction requirements. Of course, we can't ignore the Opposition Conservative party efforts to counter Liberal Kyoto related actions/intent during the minority governing period.

so ya, considering Kyoto went into effect in 2005, the Liberal Party did a fair amount before the anti-Kyoto Harper came on in 2006. And through all that lead-up time, it was the obstructionist Harper doing his best to undermine any progress attempted/made. This Alliance Party fundraising letter from Harper pretty much sums up that obstruction sentiment and positioning.

[waldo]

CO2 reduction "targets" are a joke. Smart countries will promise targets that they will meet anyway with no additional effort (e.g. China).

I've already dispensed with that same talking point, vis-a-vis China's requirements in regards to the "one-on-one" agreement it made with the U.S.. Clearly, you're a devotee of the nonsense that claims peak can simply be met (and never exceeded) by simply following BAU!

[waldo]

the recent days ending Bonn meetings finalized the draft negotiating text for COP 21 in Paris: Draft Climate Change Agreement Forwarded to Paris

as of now, I've not found a 'for public release' version of that draft text. WRI offers a summary assessment of the Bonn meetings:

Negotiators made some significant strides here in Bonn, but a much more vigorous pace is needed to secure a strong climate agreement in just a few weeks. We’ve been running a marathon to reach to this point. Now we need an all-out sprint to get over the finish line in Paris.

“This week, negotiators took full ownership in crafting the draft agreement which demonstrates their strong commitment to a successful outcome in Paris. This determination needs to continue at all levels to connect the dots between the negotiations and the ministerial gatherings ahead of COP 21.

“The current state of the draft agreement reflects how close countries are to reaching consensus on key topics. For example, progress was made on mitigation and transparency where negotiators are now debating the details, while on adaptation and finance more fundamental differences remain. Progress was also made to achieve a long-term goal and a robust ratchet mechanism, but the details matter and need to be included in the agreement.

“Over 150 countries have put forward national climate plans, an unprecedented achievement. Now countries need to solidify the rules and norms to maximize the impact of these plans and drive climate action for decades to come.”

[waldo]

https://www.ec.gc.ca...ions_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:

.

[waldo]

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

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"!

[waldo]

many here seem quite willing to speak derisively of the IPCC... while actually avoiding the UNFCCC-IPCC ties/mandate, particularly as relates to this thread and the upcoming Paris COP 21 meetings... meetings that, by design, are preceded by the just recently completed first-ever meeting of G20 Energy Ministers and the upcoming mid-November G20 heads of government meeting. It must be quite disconcerting to the "IPCC naysayers" to recognize past G8/G20 meetings that have had direct reliance upon the IPCC findings...

in any case relevant high-level findings of the IPCC AR5 "Summary for Policymakers" report... those effectively "driving" the COP process:

Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.

Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions which, together with adaptation, can limit climate change risks.

Adaptation and mitigation are complementary strategies for reducing and managing the risks of climate change. Substantial emissions reductions over the next few decades can reduce climate risks in the 21st century and beyond, increase prospects for effective adaptation, reduce the costs and challenges of mitigation in the longer term, and contribute to climate-resilient pathways for sustainable development.

Many adaptation and mitigation options can help address climate change, but no single option is sufficient by itself. Effective implementation depends on policies and cooperation at all scales, and can be enhanced through integrated responses that link adaptation and mitigation with other societal objectives.

[waldo]

Effective implementation depends on policies and cooperation at all scales, and can be enhanced through integrated responses that link adaptation and mitigation with other societal objectives.

The unelected IPCC objective.....Social Engineering cloaked in save-mankind, sheep's clothing. The failure of Kyoto has knocked these guys off their plan. Paris won't just be about targets - the Social Engineers have to get governments talking about money again. The rich pay the poor.

the IPCC doesn't set policy... (some of) it's reports are 'signed off' by representatives of the participating world nations. The IPCC, quite obviously to the thinking knowledgeable, can't determine respective world nation social policies/programs. The IPCC has no "Social Engineers" engaged in "Social Engineering"; it was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.

I expect you should set your sights a bit higher and target the UNFCCC: the IPCC FAR report (1990) played a decisive role in leading to the creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the key international treaty to reduce global warming and cope with the consequences of climate change.

The UNFCCC was adopted in May 1992 in New York and opened for signature at the ‘Rio Earth Summit’ in Rio de Janeiro a month later. It entered into force in March 1994 and has achieved near universal ratification with ratification by 189 countries of the 194 UN member states (December 2006).

1.2.1 Article 2 of the Convention

Article 2 of the UNFCCC specifies the ultimate objective of the Convention and states:

‘The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner’ (UN, 1992).

.

[waldo]

If IPCC reports are not released until acceptance by political bodies, that is an obvious source of bias. Science is not supposed to depend on politicians. Why you believe this dependence is advantageous, is known only to you.

there are 2 report groupings that are "signed off" by participating government representatives... the Summary for Policymakers report and reports related to respective nation emission inventories. The sole reason for the sign off of that summary report is to allow government representatives the opportunity to scrutinize it... to make sure it reflects the underlying content/data in all other IPCC reports... particularly the underlying physical science basis, technical summaries, synthesis, etc.. There is no, as you say, "science depending on politicians"!

[-1=e^ipi]

The developed world is not going to destroy it's own economy in a kumbaya attempt to fix the climate

Your overconfidence concerns me. Look at the recent doubling of energy prices in Ontario. Look at Germany's insane energy policy.

I've already dispensed with that same talking point, vis-a-vis China's requirements in regards to the "one-on-one" agreement it made with the U.S.. Clearly, you're a devotee of the nonsense that claims peak can simply be met (and never exceeded) by simply following BAU!

I demonstrated that China's pledge is just BAU here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24698-emission-scenarios-and-economic-impacts-of-climate-change/?p=1072167

[-1=e^ipi]

to provide the world with a clear scientific view

Scientific like Rajendra Pachauri?

'For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.'

[hitops]

what part of derailing the original thread leading to its closure... do you not get? The thread topic is the 'Paris COP 21 meetings'. The thread topic is not an avenue for you to showcase your denial and/or discuss the underlying science that drives the UNFCCC COP meetings... there are no shortage of threads in the 'Health, Science and Technology' forum for you to revel in... or you could start your own thread there.

Waldo. Sit back and just think for a second. You are attacking a person in the very first sentence of the thread.

Do you understand the problem? You need to learn to communicate in a civil way. Your posts are just full of demeaning, ad hominem monologues, with little substance.

I'll give you an example of how disagreeing like an adult works. The above quoted is how you responded. The way a polite respectful person would respond, would be something like this:

"Let's not also derail this thread"

See how easy that is?

Here's another example:

as well! You didn't fare well in the original thread... I trust you will similarly stop derailing this attempt at a new thread intended to discuss the 'Paris COP 21 meetings'... and related on-topic aspects. I look forward to you resurrecting another more appropriate, alternative GW/AGW/CC related thread to attempt to showcase the same 'degree of expertise' you showcased in the now closed original thread. Thanks in advance.

And the respectful version:

"We should focus on the Paris COP 21 meeting."

So much simpler, and the same point is made.

It just takes a little self control. The exact same thing was said, except simpler, shorter, and without the surrounding hyper charged emotionalism. Try it out, please. If your goal is to convey information, you will be more effective.

Edited November 2, 2015 by hitops

[hitops]

Canada has committed to, "reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions economy-wide by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030".

This is a smart plan, because it means we don't have to do anything until then, and at that point it will be clear that it doesn't matter anyway, and we can forget about it.

[waldo]

I demonstrated that China's pledge is just BAU

ya, ya... clearly, you're yet another devotee of the nonsense that claims peak can simply be met (and never exceeded) by simply following BAU! Yours is simply a continuation of the blather attempting to discredit that U.S.-China agreement... to cast direct and/or implicit aspersion toward any influence it may have/hold on a possible COP 21 binding agreement.

that US-China agreement formed a part of both the U.S. and China's, "Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)" submissions to the Paris COP 21 meetings... the publicly outlined post-2020 climate actions both countries were undertaking on their respective national levels. Of course, for all countries party to the COP, without prejudice to the legal nature of these respective national focused contributions (INDCs), they are intended as a possible reference guide, "in the context of adopting a formal protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the UNFCCC Convention applicable to all Parties".

per the relatively recent U.S.-China agreement, China has committed to a peak pledge level (cutting its net carbon pollution between 2015 and 2030 by about 20 billion tons.)... notwithstanding as a part of that U.S.-China deal, China has pledged to increase the share of energy consumed from non-emissions sources like renewables, nuclear energy and hydro-electricity to 20 percent by 2030 --- Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong (America can meet President Obama’s climate pledge relatively easily, but China’s will require dramatic change):

.

[biotk]

The developed world is not going to destroy it's own economy in a kumbaya attempt to fix the climate, sorry kids, it's not going to happen, you can't elect Trudeau enough times to make it happen, 10 years from now nothing of substance will have changed and the temperature will probably have increased.

I think that this is a decent summary.

The developed world will not destroy it's economy to stop climate change, and environmentalists will continue to ensure that the only solutions that governments can embark on will destroy their economy.

That, of course, doesn't need to be the case. Sweden lowered their carbon emissions by 42% in 14 years between 1976 and 1990 without any concern for climate change, and in the 25 years since have really not lowered emissions much at all despite actually trying to. The same goes for France - lowered their carbon emissions by 30% in 9 years between 1979 and 1988 despite it not being their goal, and again have done far less well in that department in the almost 3 decades since despite lowered emissions actually being the goal (and emissions will likely start to rise there soon because of their new "green" friendly President).

Of course Germany is the country that greens love and they set an ambitious target of lowering their emissions by 40% between 1990 and 2020. As Sweden lowered theirs by more then 40% in less than half the time, it shouldn't have been that hard, but Germany will not come close. That desired drop of 500 million tonnes of CO2 in 30 years worked out to about 17 MT a year. In the first 10 years they averaged a drop of 21 MT, and they should have picked up the pace after that. After all the year 2000 was the year the Green Party (as part of the governing coalition) achieved their one major political accomplishment. Since that time Germany has averaged reducing CO2 by only 9 MT a year and Germany may reach their 40% CO2 reduction target in 41 years (instead on 30 years) - meaning that they are spending a whole lot more money to achieve results 1/3rd as fast as Sweden and France did without trying.

Edited November 2, 2015 by biotk

[waldo]

Scientific like...

to you, do the IPCC reports acting as a driver to the UNFCCC COP process, present a clear scientific view? If not, why not?