Climate Change Consensus?

[Guest rattler]

Seems that there wants to be "Winners and Losers" in this regard. I fail to understand how Credits traded between countires, with no overall reduction in pollution, can resut in a WIN for the average Joe Citizen.

Developing countries end boycott at UN climate talks after assurances from rich nations

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

at 16:40 on December 14, 2009, EDT.

By Michael Casey, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

A character dressed as death on horseback and holding a scythe, rides outside parliament in Copenhagen Monday Dec. 14, 2009. During the Greenpeace action four people on horses synoptically represented the impact of climate change as they rode outside parliament. (THE ASSOCIATED PRESS/Peter Dejong)

COPENHAGEN, Denmark - Poor countries ended a boycott of U.N. climate talks Monday after getting assurances that rich nations were not conspiring to soften their commitments to cutting greenhouse gases, European officials said.

European Union environment spokesman Andreas Carlgren said informal talks resolved the impasse, which was started by African countries and backed by major developing countries, including China and India.

Rich and poor countries "found a reasonable solution," he said.

Developing countries agreed to return to all working groups that they abandoned earlier in the day at the 192-nation conference, said Anders Frandsen, a spokesman for conference president Connie Hedegaard.

The boycott had disrupted efforts to forge a pact on global warming and forced the cancellation of formal working groups, delaying the frantic work of negotiators trying to resolve technical issues before the arrival of more than 110 world leaders, including President Barack Obama, later this week.

The move was largely seen as a ploy to shift the agenda to the responsibilities of the industrial countries and make emissions reductions the first item for discussion Tuesday.

"We are really prepared to discuss all issues in the negotiations. It means also absolutely all issues under the Kyoto Protocol," Carlgren said.

The developing countries want to extend the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which imposed penalties on rich nations if they did not comply with its strict emissions limits but made no such binding demands on developing nations.

Poor countries, supported by China, said Hedegaard had raised suspicion that the conference was likely to kill the Kyoto Protocol. The United States withdrew from Kyoto over concerns that it would harm the U.S. economy and that China, India and other major greenhouse gas emitters were not required to take action. China is now the world's largest greenhouse gas polluter.

It was the second time the Africans have disrupted the climate talks. At the last round of negotiations in November, the African bloc forced a one-day suspension until wealthy countries agreed to spell out what steps they will take to reduce emissions.

"They are trying to put the pressure on" before Obama and other world leaders arrive, said Gustavo Silva-Chavez, a climate change specialist with the Environmental Defence Fund. "They want to make sure that developed countries are not left off the hook."

An African delegate said developing countries decided to block the negotiations at a meeting hours before the conference was to resume. He said applause broke out every time China, India or another country supported the proposal to stall the talks.

But not all developing countries supported the move. Carlgren said Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed, whose island nation is threatened by rising sea levels, delivered an impersonate plea to the delegates to resume talks.

Later Monday, Nasheed told The Associated Press that there was a wide range of opinions in the bloc of developing countries, which includes both impoverished nations and fast-growing economies like China.

"There are countries who do not agree to what is happening here but I don't think we should put all the developing countries together and say there is one unified or one single voice coming out," Nasheed said after delivering a speech to climate activists in Copenhagen.

Canada's Environment Minister Jim Prentice said the dispute was a setback to negotiations.

"We have lost some time. There is no doubt about that," Prentice said. "It is not particularly helpful, but all in all it is our responsibility to get on with it and continue to negotiate."

A draft agreement distributed last week to the conference set no firm figures on cutting greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming nor financing.

Scientist have warned that the commitments so far fall short of what is needed to keep global temperature increases below 2 degrees C (3.6 F) above preindustrial levels and head off the worst of global warming.

Former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore illustrated that point when he told the conference the Arctic polar ice cap may disappear in the summer just a few years from now.

Some computer models suggest "that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years," Gore said.

Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change, joined the foreign ministers of Norway and Denmark in presenting two new reports on melting Arctic ice.

Countries have so far only offered short-term pledges to help developing countries deal with climate change, including the U.S. which on Monday announced a new program drawing funds from international partners to spend $350 million over five years to give developing nations clean energy technology to curb greenhouse gas emissions and reduce global warming.

The program will distribute solar power alternatives for homes, including sun-powered lanterns, supply cleaner equipment and appliances and work to develop renewable energy systems in the world's poorer nations.

The U.S. share of the program will amount to $85 million, with the rest coming from Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in Copenhagen.

Meanwhile, some leaders announced they were moving up their dates for arriving in Copenhagen in a bid to inject momentum into the talks.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's office said he would go to Copenhagen on Tuesday, two days earlier than planned. His spokesman denied that Brown - facing a national election by June - was seeking any personal credit if a deal is struck.

Throngs of newly arrived delegates, journalists and climate activists jammed the security and accreditation lines at the conference centre, forcing police to shut down the nearby subway stop.

In downtown Copenhagen, police said they detained about 20 people among 3,000 climate activists protesting outside Parliament.

More than 1,200 others were detained in weekend protests, although almost all were released after questioning. About a dozen were arraigned on preliminary charges of assaulting police officers or carrying sharp objects.

There were also sporadic reports of vandalism across the city overnight Monday. Police said 12 cars were set on fire, including three vehicles belonging to Danish power company Dong Energy. Vandals also smashed windows and threw red paint at the headquarters of the Danish Immigration Service. It was not immediately clear whether those attacks were related to the conference.

[mo32a]

I fail to understand how Credits traded between countires, with no overall reduction in pollution, can resut in a WIN for the average Joe Citizen.

There is no win for Joe Average, he goes broke and third world countries get rich, social engineering at its best. And judging by past practice, it will only be a very select few in those third world countries that will be the benefactors of our largess.

[Canus Chinookus]

A "low blow" Canus?

Ok let's try this scenario: Two couples live in a cave... one of those couples has two children, the other has none.... One day the four adults (all nearing the age when their own parents met their makers) are discussing whether or not they should build a door to the cave to keep critters out while they sleep. The couple without kids likes the fresh air and don't want a door.

The couple with the kids wants to keep their children safe...

Who has more at stake? Should the kids get a vote? If those kids are too young to know what's best for them, should their parents be able to vote on their behalf?

"Low blow", my fanny! Seems to me it's a simple fact of life that those with progeny will have more of an interest in what sort of world they leave behind.

I initially asked the question when I began to wonder if some of the difference between opposing points of view might have anything to do with what people have to lose, either way....

Obviously, if there are huge costs involved in reducing our contribution to the greenhouse gasses - and clearly there are - those who stand to lose the most money will have an elevated interest... I submit that likewise, those who have

hopes of thier children, and grandchildren, etc, carrying on their family line, will also have an elevated interest.

Where is the fault in that?

Nothing wrong with your scenario as long as the reasoning for doing something is sound. What if the childless couple knew that putting a door on the cave would block their only source of fresh air, thereby causing brain damage from oxygen starvation, or even death? Not to mention that stagnant air is a source of sickness, which is why a tightly built modern house has a fresh air intake pipe(usually installed in the furnace room or directly to the furnace).

If you're looking for a skeptic who have children, you can use me for an example. I am fully convinced this CO2 issue is a scam, it's misguided, it's propaganda, and I say again, even if I'm wrong there are BIGGER and more pressing issues we should be dealing NOW than CO2 emmisions!

I have(IMO) a far more of an elevated interest for my children for other issues than a poorly hidden attempt by politicians and activists to reorganize the world order to their advantage(to gain power and money).

[Canus Chinookus]

I suppose I should apologize Mtich, I should have used a different term from 'low blow', to something more appropriate like 'completely irrelevant to the argument'. I say this because from what I've read on this thread is a guy who didn't like real facts thrown his way as part of an argument from another guy, instead of actually arguing his side he went for the bleeding heart strategy of tossing children under the 'climate bus'. Sorry mitch.

I was in a mood, and felt like stirring things up, glad I'm over it now.

[Guest rattler]

Despite those who say we are in the midst of Global Warming, mother nature seems to have taken a different turn. I know the GW disciples will discount this record as an anomaly while quoting record heating singularities as being a trend but for those who are interested.

CALGARY - Cold weather records across the province snapped in the face of continued bone-chilling temperatures Monday, including one in Calgary that had lasted more than a century.

In all, 14 records were set as Alberta continued to be blanketed by an Arctic chill. Of those, Rocky Mountain House experienced the coldest temperature in the province when the thermometer dipped to -42.9 C.

Calgary's -32.4 C broke the previous Dec. 14 record of -32.2 that had been set in 1893.

Environment Canada meteorologist Bill McMurtry said other communities, such as Lethbridge, Drumheller, Claresholm and Sundre also broke records Monday.

A northerly flow of air has been behind the sub-zero temperatures that have kept the province in the deep freeze over the past several days, but McMurtry said there is light at the end of the tunnel.

"Warming is on its way; it's just a question of how much," he said.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Calgary+cold+snap+breaks+century+record/2341950/story.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3a+canwest%2fF233+(Calgary+Herald+-+News)

[Guest rattler]

Don Martin: Canada's worst enemy at Copenhagen is itself

Posted: December 14, 2009, 6:54 PM by Ron Nurwisah

Don Martin, Canadian politics, climate change

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...x#ixzz0Zlkx8PAC

The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

• And then there is the most pressing of issues — the apparent split among Canadian provinces. On one side of the divide are energy-consuming provinces such as Ontario and Quebec that claim to wear a green halo. On the other are oil producers such as Alberta and Saskatchewan, who the consumers view as wearing the black hat.

It’s easy for the world to blame Canada. Our energy source is extracted from gaping black holes requiring massive shovels to dump tonnes of black sand into the world’s largest trucks. It looks awful from aerial photographs.

But what’s happening in Copenhagen is bizarre. Canada’s worst enemy has become ... itself.

Quebec, Ontario and lameduck Toronto Mayor David Miller (who, if it’s true that he’s lined up a future job with an environmental cause, should be kicked out) seem determined to use the global podium to turn clean air into dirty politics.

They are “embarrassed” by Alberta’s carbon footprint and insist Canada must cut deeper into greenhouse gas emissions, even if that means shutting down oilsands expansion at a hefty cost to the Alberta economy .

All the Canada bashing by premiers and ministers had the government’s quiet advisory group gobsmacked around the dinner table last night.

The group, including ATCO President Nancy Southern, Loblaw’s Galen Weston, ambassador Gary Doer, GE Canada president Elyse Allan and television show host Mike Holmes, reacted with “dismay and horror” to the day’s developments, according to a dinner participant.

Of course, the easy response would be to rub Quebec’s nose in the $8.4-billion worth of equalization payments it received this year. Although it’s not directly from Alberta, that level of transfer could not be possible without Alberta’s perennial net contribution to the federal bottom line.

It would be just as easy to sneer at Ontario, whose own environment commissioner warned this month that the province has no chance of meeting its own greenhouse gas reduction targets. Gosh, maybe Albertans should be “embarrassed” by this lousy performance.

It’s also worth noting in passing that almost two-thirds of the gas-guzzling vehicles registered in Canada are found in Quebec and the car-manufacturing headquarters of Ontario.

The kicker is that neither province has legislated carbon reduction levels that are dramatically different from the federal goal and nobody complained when the feds gave them hundreds of millions for green purposes they haven’t delivered.

But interprovincial bickering is counterproductive when there’s a serious discussion to be had — and like it or not, the world is taking aim at carbon pricing, trading and capping.

Jim Prentice seems to get it. He has given every indication he will balance the impact on those who do the producing with the provinces that do the consuming, if only he can get the Cabinet to agree to his plan.

However, that’s a domestic negotiation that does not require provinces and mayors to grandstand at an international conference just to increase tensions amongst themselves.

It doesn’t pay to needlessly rile up Albertans. They do not wave the separation threat easily or often. But if the feds impose economically punitive caps on oilsands production to block expansion, well, easterners will be freezing in the dark while the Republic of Alberta prospers.

To vilify a safe and reliable energy source that emits just 0.01 per cent of global gas emissions for cheap political gains is not worth the risk of dividing a country.

National Post

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...x#ixzz0ZlhRAOjC

The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

[Mitch Cronin]

Canus,

I appreciate the thought, thanks. ... but you haven't been paying attention... I don't have a "side"! ...and, you misunderstood my intent. I think it is quite valid to include those who have children in the group of those who have reason for elevated interest in the subject. It's well acknowledged that there are monetary interests on both sides of the debate. I don't need to offer you any more links to establish that. Surely you can't deny that concern for the welfare of your kids, and theirs, takes one to where monetary concerns are in the back seat. So isn't it worth noting that point when considering the motives of those who believe we need to act?

Rattler,

Way back near the beginning of this thread we established that a few day's worth of weather does not equate to "climate", ...and that extremes and new records are an expected result of "climate change".

[Guest rattler]

Canus,

I appreciate the thought, thanks. ... but you haven't been paying attention... I don't have a "side"! ...and, you misunderstood my intent. I think it is quite valid to include those who have children in the group of those who have reason for elevated interest in the subject. It's well acknowledged that there are monetary interests on both sides of the debate. I don't need to offer you any more links to establish that. Surely you can't deny that concern for the welfare of your kids, and theirs, takes one to where monetary concerns are in the back seat. So isn't it worth noting that point when considering the motives of those who believe we need to act?

 

Rattler,

Way back near the beginning of this thread we established that a few day's worth of weather does not equate to "climate", ...and that extremes and new records are an expected result of "climate change".

We did? I thought we agreed, at least based on your earlier statement, that going back a couple of years wasn't correct, this record goes back over 100 years.

However, over a shorter period of time we have indeed been blessed by a slightly warmer temp.

Analysis of Alberta Temperature Observations and Estimates by Global Climate Models

Description

Mean, minimum, and maximum temperature trends were investigated for the province of Alberta. Measured temperature data from 25 Alberta climate stations were used to identify annual and monthly temperature trends observed in the province, and outputs from a GCM (global climate model) were used to estimate annual trends. Trends in the minimum and maximum temperatures were compared, and these trends were compared to the trends estimated using GCM outputs. In addition to analyzing the observed temperature trends spatially, a temporal analysis was performed to investigate the effect of time period on the magnitude of temperature trends in Alberta. Observed temperature trends were examined over two time periods, 1938–1995 and 1960–1995. The observational temperature data indicate that Alberta has undergone warming since the 1930s. The mean temperature increase over the 1938–1995 period was 0.6°C, or 0.1°C/decade. Over the more recent time period, 1960–1995, mean temperature increased 1.3°C, or at an average rate of 0.4°C/decade. Therefore, the rate of mean temperature increase over the shorter, more recent time period was four times the rate of increase over the longer time period. In addition, more stations had statistically significant trends over the more recent time period.

http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/posting.asp?assetid=7001

So what are your thoughts on the article from the National Post?

[boestar]

Have a look here. This goes back 90 days in YYZ. The middle graph depicts departure from the normal temp. It does seem we have spent more time on the up side than the down

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/glob.../tn71624_90.gif

[Mitch Cronin]

So what are your thoughts on the article from the National Post?

Two things... - None of those grandstanding putzes speak for me. and - Your blue highlight stirs an anger in me. I'm getting tired of hearing that line. The writer is wrong, it's used far too often.

I would like to answer Albertans who like to think like that, that if they don't like Canada, then they are quite welcome to vamoose! The rest of us can work out the details of a deserving nation of decent people who want to work together.

That, is really a topic for another thread.

As for the record temperatures. Yes, that's an expected result of this global climate change that we're all discussing here. It would seem that few doubt our "climate" is changing, though the direction of change is not wholly agreed, nor the causes....

What I meant was, holding up record low temps across the province and saying something like "it sure doesn't look like global warming is happening here" makes it appear to me that you've missed these two points:

1- as stated above, broken records (on either end of the tube) are an expected result.

and

2 - what happens over a few days or weeks or months, in any given locale, does not say anything about what the global climate is doing.

[chockalicious]

I admire your persistence Mitch

[boestar]

I loke this quote from the ICSC.

" Nobody believes a weather prediction 7 days ahead but now we are asked to reorder our economy based on climate predictions 100 years hence"

[boestar]

and another fine quote.

"It is clear that, with the deep roots of the global warming scare, it is not about to go away. It has the added advantage of not being able to be proven false in our lifetime. In the meantime, the sanest course for us would be to gain what limited perspective we can (remembering the global cooling alarm of a generation ago) and proceed cautiously. We are going through a scare with many causes, and we need to step back from it, take a long second look at the scientific evidence, and not do anything rash"

[Mitch Cronin]

I loke this quote from the ICSC.

" Nobody believes a weather prediction 7 days ahead but now we are asked to reorder our economy based on climate predictions 100 years hence"

And that's really the meat of the problem isn't it. Big money is being thrown at technologies to improve climate models..., so we'll continue getting updates on what they find... It certainly does seem like haste is ruling the day... but some say we've already taken too long.

It'll be an interesting ride.

[boestar]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...-in-Redcar.html

Forget Big Oil: the new world power is Big Carbon.Truly it has been a miracle of our time that they have managed to transform carbon dioxide, a gas upon which all life on earth depends, into a "pollutant", worth more than diamonds, let alone oil. And many of those now gathered in Copenhagen are making a great deal of money out of it.

[boestar]

The inability of current computer hardware to cope with a realistic climate model projection was put in perspective by Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard Smithsonian Institute who calculated that to run a 40 year projection using all variables across all spatial scales would required 10 to the power 34 years of supercomputer time.  This is 10 to the power 24 times longer than the age of the Universe

[Moon The Loon]

Have a look here.  This goes back 90 days in YYZ.  The middle graph depicts departure from the normal temp.  It does seem we have spent more time on the up side than the down

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/glob.../tn71624_90.gif

Meaningless in the current debate ('less of course it was tongue-in-cheek ). Now if you had offered stats that go back one or two or ten THOUSAND years, you might be on to something.

Just to be clear - the entire world climate has warmed significantly in the last 10,000 years. Whether it continues to do so or not has little if anything to do with us as a species, in my opinion. Ice ages come and go. When they arrive, they create near catastrophic change to life forms on earth. Our current species managed to emerge from the last ice age and learn to control fire. And measure time.

So far, no evidence has been uncovered that our present species (today's "human") even existed prior to the onset of the last ice age.

Two terrific articles to illustrate what scientists DON'T know about climatology:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm and

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm

These are a part of a series of articles, all very well documented and foot-noted that cite research, ideas and theories going back 500 years investigating solar effects on earth's atmosphere and climate connections.

Then there is this: Geothermal activity in the oceans - bodies of water that cover over 75% of the earth's surface.

http://nov55.com/icecause.html

The atmosphere is warmed/cooled primarily by its contact and interaction with the oceans and to a lesser degree, land masses.

Not the other way around, as the Gore and Suzuki fanatics have perpetrated.

[FireFox]

Good post Moon...and thanks for the links.

Moon, you've probably seen this, but for anyone who hasn't the link below is to a good site that was the 2008 Weblog winner as best Science blog.

Watt's Up

[Mitch Cronin]

The atmosphere is warmed/cooled primarily by its contact and interaction with the oceans and to a lesser degree, land masses.

Not the other way around, as the Gore and Suzuki fanatics have perpetrated.

I didn't know anyone had claimed it was the other way around..., but surely you're not denying the existence of the "greenhouse effect", which serves to keep the heat in our atmosphere... are you?

[Moon The Loon]

I didn't know anyone had claimed it was the other way around..., but surely you're not denying the existence of the "greenhouse effect", which serves to keep the heat in our atmosphere... are you?

Not at all Mitch. Look at it from a different perspective. Say that the heat was not retained in the atmosphere.

What would happen then?

[Moon The Loon]

Here is a fantastic example of the amounts of money that are being taken in by the snake oil salesmen. Get a load out of the last paragraph below (not the final paragraph in the actual article):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-b...article1400969/

Group plans to bury CO2 under sea

John Acher/Toronto Globe & Mail

Copenhagen — Reuters

Published on Tuesday, Dec. 15, 2009 12:37PM EST

Danish shipping and oil group A.P. Moller-Maersk has teamed up with Finnish power producers Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) and Fortum in a project to capture carbon on land and bury it under the seabed.

The plan, which depends on European Union support, could be the first carbon capture and storage (CCS) project in the world to involve transport of carbon dioxide (CO2) aboard vessels instead of through pipelines, Maersk officials said.

The partners aim to capture CO2 at the Meri-Pori coal-fired power plant on Finland's west coast, transport it on Maersk tankers and store it in depleted oil and gas fields in the Danish part of the North Sea, the partners said Tuesday.

“The aim is to capture, transport and store in excess of 1.2 million tonnes of CO2 per year,” A.P. Moller-Maersk and Fortum said in joint a statement. “The project aims to be in operation by 2015.”

In addition to storing CO2, Maersk will also explore the potential for injecting CO2 for enhanced oil recovery.

************* Back to words from the Moon -

That's what this particular project is all about. Have

the people/government provide the raw material for further oil exploration beneath the ocean floor, all in order to produce what? MORE CARBON DIOXIDE. Amongst other things...

[Mitch Cronin]

Not at all Mitch. Look at it from a different perspective. Say that the heat was not retained in the atmosphere.

What would happen then?

Of course. We need it. I don't understand your last point (quoted in my above post) then... Who has it wrong? I haven't heard anyone claim the atmosphere is doing the heating. ? Put plainly, what is it that either Gore or Suzuki claim regarding the process that you specifically disagree with? (other than whether or not we're causing any problems ourselves.... where I gather you stand firmly on the side that say's we're not)

[AME]

I haven't been following all the arguements with regards to "Climate change" in this thread all I know is I can hardly wait for the climate in Alberta to return to what it was when these guys were here

http://www.tyrrellmuseum.com/research/collections.htm

[Say Again, Over!]

Great perspective:

[Canus Chinookus]

I find this blurp interesting:

…”perhaps a conspiracy is unnecessary where a carrot will suffice”

11

12

2009

We recently had a story about the UK Met Office putting out a petition amongst scientists (even non-climatologists) to prop up the image of the CRU. Some scientists said they felt “pressured” to sign.

This story explains how they might feel that way.

WUWT reader Norris Hall commented on this thread: Americans belief of global warming sinking – below 50% for the first time in 2 years

… it is possible that this is just a big conspiracy by climate scientist around the world to boost their cause and make themselves more important. Though I find it hard to believe that thousands of scientists…all agreed to promote bogus science …Pretty hard to do without being discovered.

To which Paul Vaughan responded as follows:

Actually not so hard.

Personal anecdote:

Last spring when I was shopping around for a new source of funding, after having my funding slashed to zero 15 days after going public with a finding about natural climate variations, I kept running into funding application instructions of the following variety:

Successful candidates will:

1) Demonstrate AGW.

2) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.

3) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 & 2.

Follow the money — perhaps a conspiracy is unnecessary where a carrot will suffice.

Opposing toxic pollution is not synonymous with supporting AGW.

From Planet Gore: This confirms the stories that I’ve been hearing over the last few years.

New maxim: The Carrot Train

h/t to Planet Gore, who got it from Bishop Hill, who got it from comments here on WUWT

Sometimes there’s so much happening on WUWT, it is impossible to take it all in.

Thanks guys!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/perh...ice/#more-13997