UN Climate Change Summit -- Paris 2015 - continued

[waldo]

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

how high is your horse? The original thread was closed given it was so far off topic... so derailed... and then the guy starts right up again in the same vein. The only 'attack' exists in your self-serving and indulgent imagination.

[waldo]

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.

no - you see, the way the process works is there is ongoing monitoring and requirements for participating nations to supply the UNFCCC with emission inventories. That Harper Conservative "pledge", as minimal as it is, would have been scrutinized for compliance. Equally, of course, Harper had never met a pledge commitment he intended to meet... as each and every one he did make was, for all intents and purposes, ignored.

[waldo]

I think that this is a decent summary.

yours isn't... without substantiation you speak of reduced emissions by France and Sweden... as just "happenstance"; apparently all done without regard to that "silly climate change thingee". And then, waddya know, according to you, when both countries actually took a focused response to reducing emissions they came up/they're coming up... short!

.

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.

yours is a 'double-dose' of alarmism!

.

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 of 2014, my understanding is that Germany has reduced its 1990 level by 27%... that same year the German government acknowledged that under its current trajectory only a 33% emissions reduction would be met by 2020; accordingly, the government responded with new additional plans to attempt to bridge that 7% gap... like the Climate Action Programme (CAP) in combination with a National Action Plan (NAPE) for energy efficiency. It remains to be seen what 'below 1990s level' is met... although it certainly is telling that you presume to equate "sumthin about France/Sweden inaction" (that you don't substantiate) to current actions Germany is following, notwithstanding circumstances arise... like Fukushima and the reaction Germany took with regards to nuclear... like, in the face of a domestic U.S. "war on coal", the U.S. coal industry targeting Germany/EU with massive coal exports/price reductions...

.

[biotk]

yours isn't... without substantiation you speak of reduced emissions by France and Sweden... as just "happenstance"

Emissions reductions was not the goal. Being protected from oil price shocks was.

apparently all done without regard to that "silly climate change thingee".

I take climate change very seriously. Seriously enough that unlike the rest of the greens/environmentalists I know I was willing to drop my ideological positions in favour of science-based ones.

And then, waddya know, according to you, when both countries actually took a focused response to reducing emissions they came up/they're coming up... short!

That is not according to me. That is the numbers. I can, and will, post the numbers. But it shouldn't be necessary for me to post them for you, because people who claim to be concerned about climate change and the solutions to it should already know the examples where reductions in emissions were most successful. They don't because it was not achieved using the preferred solutions of the section of the environmental movement that is ideological and anti-science at its core.

But history matters. Or at least it should. It reminds me of a recent article I read about food. An article by a real expert, who actually knows what she is talking about. So of course she is ignored by the same group of activists. She makes clear that they are not wrong to want to change the food system. But because what they "know" is wrong and based on a set of fantasies their proposed solutions are wrong - ahistorical, classist and dangerous.

yours is a 'double-dose' of alarmism!

You can call it what you want. I don't care about words. I care about science. I care about results. I care about the fact that we have essentially accomplished nothing in the past 25 years, despite prior evidence from two countries showing what could be done. And I care about the environmental movement, which I spent most of my life in, continuing to spread baseless lies about nuclear, and continuing to consider the best current technology we have for reducing emissions to be a non-starter. And that it is doing so while telling climate change deniers to put science ahead of ideology and to listen to scientists like James Hansen while completely refusing to put science ahead of their own ideological based position and ignoring the same scientists like James Hansen when he says: "There is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power."

and: "Continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity's ability to avoid dangerous climate change."

It does. The current environmental movement is as much a threat as climate change deniers (and that is me being kind, because in reality I believe that most policy makers essentially ignore climate change deniers, and that the reason we are not successful in emissions reductions is because of the lack of quality in the solutions brought forth by environmentalists).

as of 2014, my understanding is that Germany has reduced its 1990 level by 27%... that same year the German government acknowledged that under its current trajectory only a 33% emissions reduction would be met by 2020.

So in 24 years Germany has managed to achieve: 90% of what France achieved in 9 years (from 1979 - 1988) and 64% of what Sweden achieved in 14 years. That essentially works out to 1/3rd the emissions reductions per year as France and Sweden achieved. Keep in mind that in this case we are comparing the best green example with two countries for which ghg emissions reductions were not the goal, but a happy side effect.

German emissions Swedish emissions (24.1 MT in 1976, 14.0 MT in 1990) French emissions (529 MT in 1979, 372 in 1988).

Letter from James Hansen and other climate scientists.

If the world built nuclear plants at the rate Sweden did there would be no need for fossil fuels in 25 years.

If the people who claim to care about climate change the most can't put aside their nonsensical beliefs then how can they expect those who don't care to do so?

Edited November 2, 2015 by biotk

[-1=e^ipi]

---SNIP---

Waldo, I refuted your claim of China's pledge not being BAU in the other thread, and I also addressed why fitting a linear trend to the last 2 data points in a time series is not BAU. I suggest you either simply accept the truth of China's pledge being BAU, or you try refuting my arguments (which I doubt you can since your mathematical ability seems to be on par with Justin Trudeau).

Edited November 2, 2015 by Charles Anthony
[---SNIP---]

[waldo]

Emissions reductions was not the goal. Being protected from oil price shocks was.

That is not according to me. That is the numbers. I can, and will, post the numbers. But it shouldn't be necessary for me to post them for you, because people who claim to be concerned about climate change and the solutions to it should already know the examples where reductions in emissions were most successful. They don't because it was not achieved using the preferred solutions of the section of the environmental movement that is ideological and anti-science at its core.

You can call it what you want. I don't care about words. I care about science. I care about results. I care about the fact that we have essentially accomplished nothing in the past 25 years, despite prior evidence from two countries showing what could be done. And I care about the environmental movement, which I spent most of my life in, continuing to spread baseless lies about nuclear, and continuing to consider the best current technology we have for reducing emissions to be a non-starter. And that it is doing so while telling climate change deniers to put science ahead of ideology and to listen to scientists like James Hansen while completely refusing to put science ahead of their own ideological based position and ignoring the same scientists like James Hansen when he says: "There is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power."

and: "Continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity's ability to avoid dangerous climate change."

Letter from James Hansen and other climate scientists.

If the world built nuclear plants at the rate Sweden did there would be no need for fossil fuels in 25 years.

If the people who claim to care about climate change the most can't put aside their nonsensical beliefs then how can they expect those who don't care to do so?

see... it wasn't that difficult for me to get you to actually say the word... "nuclear"! Not sure why you chose to avoid mentioning it in your initial post! You're new here; you don't know the background positions of others here - but you could have used MLW search... and if you'd done so, you would have quite easily observed my repeated references to and position alignment with, so-called 4th gen, "advanced nuclear"... to my repeated references to Hansen and his advocating lead in that regard... of me linking to and quoting in its entirety that exact same Hansen et al letter you've linked to. Notwithstanding the point you fail to make/highlight is that Hansen does not advocate nuclear in its current form given concerns over safety - "to embrace the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems"; "by calling for the development and deployment of advanced nuclear energy"

now, in the face of practical reality... in the absence of little to any collective political will/capital towards a global shift to nuclear, in the absence of little to any collective political will/capital to research, develop and trial advanced nuclear options... in the presence of the continued "fallout" from Fukushima and your personal claim to being a "caring environmentalist', would you have the community of nations do... nothing? Nothing to attempt to reduce accelerating GHG emissions... nothing to attempt to shift reliance away from fossil-fuels?

.

[waldo]

Waldo, I refuted your claim of China's pledge not being BAU in the other thread, and I also addressed why fitting a linear trend to the last 2 data points in a time series is not BAU. I suggest you either simply accept the truth of China's pledge being BAU, or you try refuting my arguments (which I doubt you can since your mathematical ability seems to be on par with Justin Trudeau).

as you've been apprised of several times now... not just by me... your presumed "blah, blah, blah" "math wizardry" is effectively ignored by everyone here; notwithstanding you drop these gems to a level that, typically, even if someone were inclined, they would have little opportunity to actually check your ego! That's certainly the case in the linked wizardry you're touting! And, again... you clearly don't know your MLW audience, nor do you care to speak to that audience in plain English narrative.

ya, ya, I recall... where you claimed China's BusinessAsUsual was simply the pledge it made in that U.S.-China emission reduction agreement. On a generic level, when I asked you what label YOU use to refer to continued unrestricted emissions growth distinguished by no accompanying commitments/pledges to do anything... you called that BAU. So, to you, its BAU irregardless... BAU with existing and pledge actions, BAU without them! Not only do you simply choose to dismiss China's own current domestic reduction/efficiency initiatives, you equally outright dismiss the impact of changes required by China to meet its 2030 pledge (earlier if possible). One would think any simplistic attempt to project CO2 emissions would certainly factor energy (intensity) consumption per unit of GDP and/or emissions per unit energy consumption... to you, apparently, change actions resulting in a decline rate of CO2 intensity of energy use and/or the decline rate of CO2 intensity of GDP are inconsequential inconvenient truths.

[-1=e^ipi]

continued unrestricted emissions growth distinguished by no accompanying commitments/pledges to do anything... you called that BAU.

BAU does not imply unrestricted emission growth. BAU can involve a decline in emissions.

[waldo]

BAU does not imply unrestricted emission growth. BAU can involve a decline in emissions.

and somehow... you so casually dismiss mitigation policies and related actions/changes in that regard having any... any... impact on reducing emissions... they're "just there"; they would have happened anyway/irregardless - MAGICAL BAU!

the recognized "business-as-usual” baseline case assumes that future development trends follow those of the past and no changes in policies will take place. You certainly have a most unique position on just what BAU is - indeed!

.

[-1=e^ipi]

the recognized "business-as-usual” baseline case assumes that future development trends follow those of the past and no changes in policies will take place.

No, it takes the last 2 data points and fits a straight line and idiotically calls that BAU.

In the other thread, I explained what business as usual would look like if you look at trends in population, CO2 intensity and real GDP per capita growth.

[hitops]

how high is your horse? The original thread was closed given it was so far off topic... so derailed... and then the guy starts right up again in the same vein. The only 'attack' exists in your self-serving and indulgent imagination.

If you are blaming me for getting it closed, that makes no sense. My last post was #319, and it closed at #384. I did not start up anything, the new thread was started by somebody else.

No the attack is just your style. You do it in nearly every post, against any poster, on any topic. Why?

Another example:

see... it wasn't that difficult for me to get you to actually say the word... "nuclear"! Not sure why you chose to avoid mentioning it in your initial post! You're new here; you don't know the background positions of others here - but you could have used MLW search... and if you'd done so, you would have quite easily observed my repeated references to and position alignment with, so-called 4th gen, "advanced nuclear"... to my repeated references to Hansen and his advocating lead in that regard... of me linking to and quoting in its entirety that exact same Hansen et al letter you've linked to. Notwithstanding the point you fail to make/highlight is that Hansen does not advocate nuclear in its current form given concerns over safety - "to embrace the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems"; "by calling for the development and deployment of advanced nuclear energy"

now, in the face of practical reality... in the absence of little to any collective political will/capital towards a global shift to nuclear, in the absence of little to any collective political will/capital to research, develop and trial advanced nuclear options... in the presence of the continued "fallout" from Fukushima and your personal claim to being a "caring environmentalist', would you have the community of nations do... nothing? Nothing to attempt to reduce accelerating GHG emissions... nothing to attempt to shift reliance away from fossil-fuels?

.

When you could communicate the exact same thing by saying:

"Hansen does not advocate nuclear in its current form given concerns over safety."

"would you have the community of nations do... nothing? Nothing to attempt to reduce accelerating GHG emissions... nothing to attempt to shift reliance away from fossil-fuels?"

Just try it out, is all I'm saying. Way easier to read, the exact same amount of information is delivered, you will be better received, and we don't have to cringe. Win win.

Yet again:

as you've been apprised of several times now... not just by me... your presumed "blah, blah, blah" "math wizardry" is effectively ignored by everyone here

Is how you talk to people in real life?

Edited November 2, 2015 by hitops

[hitops]

Waldo, I refuted your claim of China's pledge not being BAU in the other thread, and I also addressed why fitting a linear trend to the last 2 data points in a time series is not BAU. I suggest you either simply accept the truth of China's pledge being BAU, or you try refuting my arguments (which I doubt you can since your mathematical ability seems to be on par with Justin Trudeau).

You previously mentioned BEST being a good way to deal with the problem of Kriging not being able to make reliable estimates for areas very dissimilar to areas with known measurements. Can you explain a bit why?

Also just curious, do you agree that the costs of intentionally reducing CO2 are in the trillions?

[-1=e^ipi]

Just try it out, is all I'm saying. Way easier to read, the exact same amount of information is delivered

Yeah, I've tried to ask waldo to speak normally with limited success. Either I've gotten somewhat used to it over the past year or Waldo has improved slightly, I can't tell.

You previously mentioned BEST being a good way to deal with the problem of Kriging not being able to make reliable estimates for areas very dissimilar to areas with known measurements. Can you explain a bit why?

Well with respect to coverage bias, it tries to take things into account such as ocean sensitivity being different from land sensitivity. So it does krig but it also includes parameters in the model that take into account such differences (I don't remember the exact methodology though).

Also just curious, do you agree that the costs of intentionally reducing CO2 are in the trillions?

It depends on how much CO2 reductions you want to perform, but yes benefits and costs of mitigation policy for the globe are in the trillions of dollars per annum .

[hitops]

Yeah, I've tried to ask waldo to speak normally with limited success. Either I've gotten somewhat used to it over the past year or Waldo has improved slightly, I can't tell.

If it is improving then perhaps it is possible that just getting older could yield further improvement.

Well with respect to coverage bias, it tries to take things into account such as ocean sensitivity being different from land sensitivity. So it does krig but it also includes parameters in the model that take into account such differences (I don't remember the exact methodology though).

Any good sources? The paper itself doesn't seem to justify it. I furthermore do not know why using an alternate source of temps would be considered a legitimate way to interpolate for missing data, especially when the entire basis for omitting the 'pause' is entirely based on that data from the missing areas.

It depends on how much CO2 reductions you want to perform, but yes benefits and costs of mitigation policy for the globe are in the trillions of dollars per annum .

Would you agree that there is no convincing data that the costs of not mitigating could possibly be even a fraction of that? And that in fact there may be a net benefit?

Edited November 2, 2015 by hitops

[waldo]

No, it takes the last 2 data points and fits a straight line and idiotically calls that BAU.

In the other thread, I explained what business as usual would look like if you look at trends in population, CO2 intensity and real GDP per capita growth.

you're replying to the generalized baseline BAU definition; your quoted response makes no sense... you know, the definition you reject - this one: "the recognized "business-as-usual” baseline case assumes that future development trends follow those of the past and no changes in policies will take place."

simple question: will the current Chinese policies (still coming into effect), along with that U.S.-China pledge and related policies required to effect it, will have any resulting impact on China's CO2 emissions trajectory? How do reconcile saying that ongoing and future policy changes (policies not even wriiten/effected yet) are simply "BusinessAsUsual"?

[waldo]

If you are blaming me for getting it closed, that makes no sense. My last post was #319, and it closed at #384. I did not start up anything, the new thread was started by somebody else.

No the attack is just your style. You do it in nearly every post, against any poster, on any topic. Why?

why so sensitive? Again, the only "attack" is in your self-serving imagination and purposeful intent to derail this thread

[waldo]

You previously mentioned BEST being a good way to deal with the problem of Kriging not being able to make reliable estimates for areas very dissimilar to areas with known measurements. Can you explain a bit why?

Also just curious, do you agree that the costs of intentionally reducing CO2 are in the trillions?

NO! The temperature/kriging subject has nothing to do with this thread topic... why do you insist in continuing efforts to derail yet another thread? Are you trying to get another one closed? Does the actual thread topic cause you personal discomfort?

[waldo]

Yeah, I've tried to ask waldo to speak normally with limited success. Either I've gotten somewhat used to it over the past year or Waldo has improved slightly, I can't tell.

I'm not following... can you put that into a mathematical equation for greater clarity!

.

[waldo]

Any good sources? The paper itself doesn't seem to justify it. I furthermore do not know why using an alternate source of temps would be considered a legitimate way to interpolate for missing data, especially when the entire basis for omitting the 'pause' is entirely based on that data from the missing areas.

again! You are off thread topic... why do you insist in purposely attempting to derail this thread? Looking to have another attempt at discussing the Paris COP 21 (and related on-topic aspects) CLOSED?

[hitops]

NO! The temperature/kriging subject has nothing to do with this thread topic... why do you insist in continuing efforts to derail yet another thread? Are you trying to get another one closed? Does the actual thread topic cause you personal discomfort?

You even do it in conversations that do not involve you......that's like meta level....

Edited November 2, 2015 by hitops

[waldo]

note to those still intent in purposely derailing this thread: there is no shortage of threads to resurrect related to GW/AGW/CC... within the 'Health, Science and Technology' forum. Alternatively, feel free to create a new thread.

equally, those intent in derailing the thread through overt personalization should take their over-sensitivities and agenda elsewhere!

[biotk]

see... it wasn't that difficult for me to get you to actually say the word... "nuclear"! Not sure why you chose to avoid mentioning it in your initial post! You're new here; you don't know the background positions of others here - but you could have used MLW search... and if you'd done so, you would have quite easily observed my repeated references to and position alignment with, so-called 4th gen, "advanced nuclear"... to my repeated references to Hansen and his advocating lead in that regard... of me linking to and quoting in its entirety that exact same Hansen et al letter you've linked to. Notwithstanding the point you fail to make/highlight is that Hansen does not advocate nuclear in its current form given concerns over safety - "to embrace the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems"; "by calling for the development and deployment of advanced nuclear energy".

Nonsense. Hansen does advocate for nuclear in its current form. Of course, he does strongly advocate for R+D into fourth generation nuclear plants to bring them online as fast as possible. But he also advocates for third generation nuclear plants - making it clear in his book that as those plants are ready to be built right now they would lead the way in getting us off coal. In that same book he talks about meeting with Merkel's minister of the environment in which he advised against their position of phasing out/taking off line their existing nuclear plants and he has published on the lives saved and emissions not created by the current generation of nuclear plants.

and your personal claim to being a "caring environmentalist', would you have the community of nations do... nothing? Nothing to attempt to reduce accelerating GHG emissions... nothing to attempt to shift reliance away from fossil-fuels?

Yes, I would have us do nothing about emissions reductions until we are serious about actually doing something. At the current moment we are just wasting time and money painting a fantasy that it can be done with windmills, solar etc. As long as we live at a time when 300 plus environmental groups will attack Hansen for talking about reality instead of fantasies, and when those same ideological, anti-science groups hold unearned influence over politicians

(as outlined again in Hansen's book):

"I was bombarded with messages from environmentalists and antinuclear people. Mostly it was friendly advice—after all, they agreed with my climate concerns—but they invariably directed me to one or more of a handful of nuclear experts. Some of the experts were associated with organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, the World Wildlife Fund, or the Union of Concerned Scientists—and there was Amory Lovins of Rocky Mountain Institute.

Then I learned that the same small number of organizations and experts, who had been repeating the same message for decades, had an influence way out of proportion to their numbers. I found that members of Congress and their staffers, none of them nuclear scientists, were getting most of their advice on nuclear power from the same organizations. The organizations trot out the same few “experts,” who speak with technical detail that snows the listener and who conclude that the United States, in effect, should terminate peaceful use of nuclear energy.

That’s what began to make me a bit angry. Do these people have the right to, in effect, make a decision that may determine the fate of my grandchildren? The antinuke advocates are so certain of their righteousness that they would eliminate the availability of an alternative to fossil fuels."

...as long as we live in such a time when the anti-science mobs of unreason control our allowed responses to climate change, I say do nothing except try to educate people, and counter the steady steams of lies spread by these groups. Of course if people and environmental groups want to put up windmills and solar panels, all the power to them. But the public reponse should not be beholden to the delusions of ideological anti-science groups.

Edited November 2, 2015 by biotk

[-1=e^ipi]

Any good sources?

If you want to go through their methodology, it is here: http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Methods-GIGS-1-103.pdf

But obviously that would take a long time and I haven't bothered to go through it. Kriging makes sense because it results in the estimates being 'best linear unbiased estimates' and from what I have read BEST tries to deal with differences between land and ocean sensitivity (I don't think Cowtan and Way do this).

especially when the entire basis for omitting the 'pause' is entirely based on that data from the missing areas.

Part of the observed slowdown is due to natural variability such as the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation and decrease in solar output. But part of it, when it comes to some datasets like HadCRUT4, is due to coverage bias.

Would you agree that there is no convincing data that the costs of not mitigating could possibly be even a fraction of that? And that in fact there may be a net benefit?

It's not so much mitigating vs not mitigating, it's also how much. Trying to meet the 2 C target is probably a net negative to humanity relative to no mitigation. But some mitigation does seem preferable to zero mitigation, at least that is the result of integrated assessment models like DICE and FUND. Is it possible that there might be a net benefit? Yes, that is quite possible given all the uncertainty that exists.

Edited November 2, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[waldo]

If you want to go through their methodology, it is here: http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Methods-GIGS-1-103.pdf

But obviously that would take a long time and I haven't bothered to go through it. Kriging makes sense because it results in the estimates being 'best linear unbiased estimates' and from what I have read BEST tries to deal with differences between land and ocean sensitivity (I don't think Cowtan and Way do this).

Part of the observed slowdown is due to natural variability such as the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation and decrease in solar output. But part of it, when it comes to some datasets like HadCRUT4, is due to coverage bias.

yet another brazen and purposeful intent to derail this thread - take it elsewhere! Why do you insist in attempting to derail this thread? Are you also attempting to get it closed?

Edited November 2, 2015 by waldo

[waldo]

Nonsense. Hansen does advocate for nuclear in its current form.

even if one accepts a practical global nuclear political will could happen, as remote as that current likelihood is, there is a need for a current treaty to address the accumulation and continued acceleration of emissions that would occur even if some miraculous charge towards building nuclear were to occur (over the next decade+)... notwithstanding required negotiations toward adaptive measures.

as for your continued comments on Hansen, he also recognizes there is little to no gain to be had by trying to front 3rd gen nuclear - hence his more recent emphasis on safety concerns and 4th gen research/trial... your own linked 'Hansen et al' letter speaks directly to that. And yes, quite obviously, there is an anti-nuclear "lobby"... one that Hansen realizes he must attempt to sway/'win over' given those concerns (rightly or wrongly) over safety/radiation.

thanks for answering the question; however, your answer, "Yes, I would have us do nothing about emissions reductions until we are serious about actually doing something."... rings hollow in the face of accumulated and accelerating emissions growth. Would you wait, what... 5 years, 10 years, 15... or more? While doing nothing else, waiting for a politicized acceptance of nuclear deployment?

.