Page 11 of 19

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Fri 20 Nov 2015, 13:11:13
by onlooker
It seems to me that with the Climate Conference to be held in Paris it provides the perfect excuse for delegates to quickly move through it without any substantial accord and then relate that they had "legitimate" security concerns.

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Fri 20 Nov 2015, 13:37:15
by Plantagenet
dohboi wrote:Top Climate Scientists Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Tom Wigley, Dr. Ken Caldeira and Dr. Kerry Emanuel to Issue Stark Challenge at Paris COP21 Climate Conference
“Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Tom Wigley, Dr. Ken Caldeira and Dr. Kerry Emanuel will present research showing the increasing urgency of fully decarbonizing the world economy..."


This will go absolutely nowhere.

The scientists are proposing shifting to nuclear energy and renewables to decrease CO2 emissions. Liberals and environmentalists won't buy into the nuclear part.

And Ken Caldera is one of the main proponents of "geoengineering"-----and that is also big no-no for environmentalists and liberals.

Some on the right refuse to accept what scientists say about global warming, and some on the left refuse to accept what scientists say must be done about global warming---put them together and you get bipartisan global warming gridlock.

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Fri 20 Nov 2015, 13:59:56
by dohboi
"what scientists say must be done about global warming"

Well...some scientist.

Scientists have a wide range of views on 'solutions,' including crashing the global economy (probably the surest way to also crash CO2 emissions in the short term, and we don't have any 'long term' left).

Scientists can be quite certain about the science of climate change, and we should all heed what they say.

But what to do about climate change is not an entirely scientific question. That doesn't mean we should ignore their suggestions on these fronts, but they are in these areas they are no longer speaking from the center of their areas of expertise, but more as informed citizens.

But, yes--probably nothing will be done, for all sorts of reasons. But of course it is mostly conservatives who have been and continue to be the main enormous road blocks to progress toward a more sustainable future.

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Thu 26 Nov 2015, 14:28:40
by Keith_McClary
Image
The fragile framework

A Nature comic examines the 25-year quest for a climate treaty. Can nations unite to save Earth’s climate?

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Wed 05 Oct 2016, 17:20:27
by onlooker
This article highlights the incongruity of the dire threat of climate and the pathetic feeble response of the world community! A very flawed climate treaty yet even so

Are any of the countries that signed the Paris agreement taking the actions necessary to achieve that target?

No. The US is not. Nor is the world as a whole.

The actions necessary to hold to 2 degrees, much less 1.5 degrees, are simply outside the bounds of conventional politics in most countries. Anyone who proposed them would sound crazy, like they were proposing, I don’t know, a war or something.

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Mon 09 Jan 2017, 14:30:51
by onlooker
I am putting this story here because it is the type of story that shows quite clearly that the large nations of the world have no intention to abide by any climate treaty
"But the reality is China has big plans for coal. Two hundred coal-fired power plants will be built in the coming decade. Some of the older plants will be decommissioned, but even by 2020 coal capacity is estimated to increase by 20 per cent."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-08/c ... se/8168702

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Mon 09 Jan 2017, 15:14:04
by Plantagenet
onlooker wrote:I am putting this story here because it is the type of story that shows quite clearly that the large nations of the world have no intention to abide by any climate treaty
"But the reality is China has big plans for coal. Two hundred coal-fired power plants will be built in the coming decade. Some of the older plants will be decommissioned, but even by 2020 coal capacity is estimated to increase by 20 per cent."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-08/c ... se/8168702


Yup.

And it's all completely in accordance with Obama's moronic Paris Accords Treaty. That idiotic treaty has pretty much guaranteed that a real treaty to reduce CO2 emissions is now off the table for years to come.

Cheers!

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Fri 13 Jan 2017, 19:43:19
by Serial_Worrier
You can be sure that the next 4 years will see no US participation in global carbon reduction. You can thank President P**** grabber for that.

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Fri 13 Jan 2017, 22:00:31
by Outcast_Searcher
Serial_Worrier wrote:You can be sure that the next 4 years will see no US participation in global carbon reduction. You can thank President P**** grabber for that.

True. But OTOH under Obama, better CAFE standards (which were his best achievement, IMO) were pretty much the only truly meaningful thing done to address AGW by the US in the past **8** years. So it's not like the dems have a lot to crow about. (Complaining about the GOP doesn't actually do much to mitigate AGW, after all).

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sat 14 Jan 2017, 07:28:25
by vtsnowedin
onlooker wrote:I am putting this story here because it is the type of story that shows quite clearly that the large nations of the world have no intention to abide by any climate treaty
"But the reality is China has big plans for coal. Two hundred coal-fired power plants will be built in the coming decade. Some of the older plants will be decommissioned, but even by 2020 coal capacity is estimated to increase by 20 per cent."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-08/c ... se/8168702

I would suggest we sell them 200 state of the art stack electrostatic precipitator scrubbers to improve their and our air quality from what it will be without them.

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sat 14 Jan 2017, 07:38:28
by onlooker
Can I ask exactly what that is V? The scrubbers. I do not buy into the carbon capture technology as they themselves utilize FF energy, are expensive and could end up just perpetuating the use of coal as fuel.

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sat 14 Jan 2017, 07:45:20
by vtsnowedin
onlooker wrote:Can I ask exactly what that is V? The scrubbers. I do not buy into the carbon capture technology as they themselves utilize FF energy, are expensive and could end up just perpetuating the use of coal as fuel.

While of no use as far as CO2 goes a modern stack scrubber removes a tremendous amount of the particulate matter as well as most of the sulfur and mercury from the stack gasses. They are required on USA plants when they retrofit or expand and their expense has been the cause of many coal plants switching to cleaner natural gas.
A case of don't let the perfect be the enemy of the possible.

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sat 14 Jan 2017, 11:29:45
by Tanada
onlooker wrote:Can I ask exactly what that is V? The scrubbers. I do not buy into the carbon capture technology as they themselves utilize FF energy, are expensive and could end up just perpetuating the use of coal as fuel.


Scrubbers take the fly ask out of the exhaust, and if you add Precipitators that spray neutralizing agents through the gasses they also take out the Nitrous Oxides, Sulfur Dioxides and Mercury vapor that cause acid rain and poison the water supply down wind from the power plant. Most of the mercury you find in wild caught fish is the legacy of the last 250 years of burning ever more fossil fuel. It vaporizes very easily and goes out with the flue gasses then falls as rain far down wind eventually finding its way to the ocean.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUXHzYLgrB0

https://youtu.be/Jl3vk4nHl8w?t=1m8s

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sat 25 Mar 2017, 09:09:32
by dohboi
participants in the Paris Pact should accelerate their rate of carbon emission reductions.

http://www.dw.com/en/could-the-law-driv ... a-38072984

"A new report says the UN's incremental approach to reducing emissions is all wrong. The effort needs to come on strong early - and lessons can be learned from the evolution of computing."

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sat 25 Mar 2017, 09:15:13
by ROCKMAN
dohboi - Increase the rate of reduction??? Might want to focus on decreasing the rate of the increase. LOL.

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sat 25 Mar 2017, 09:25:00
by dohboi
Yeah, I'm not sure we can talk for sure about reduction yet. But haven't the official figures, at least, shown a plateauing of total emissions of CO2 in the last couple years? So haven't we in fact already greatly 'decreased the rate of increase'?

Of course, the enormously high levels of annual emissions we have plateaued at are still high enough to cook the planet pretty thoroughly and pretty quickly. And increasing CO2 levels that Tanada so dutifully documents on the other thread suggest that the official emissions numbers may be lowballed or that exacerbating feedbacks may be kicking in or both.

So do you see the official omission numbers as wrong, and if so, what exactly are they missing?

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sat 25 Mar 2017, 12:07:19
by Plantagenet
dohboi wrote:... haven't the official figures, at least, shown a plateauing of total emissions of CO2 in the last couple years? So haven't we in fact already greatly 'decreased the rate of increase'?


No.

The amount of CO2 being released each year still seems to be gradually INCREASING. 2015 was the highest increase ever, and last year was a tiny bit lower, but still the third highest increase ever.

2016-atmospheric-co2-concentrations-are-rising-at-the-fastest-rate-ever-seen

Cheers!

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sat 25 Mar 2017, 16:22:24
by Squilliam
We may have reached the point where the increase in CO2 goes up every year even if our own emissions start to decline. Not only are the feedbacks becoming problematic, but the moment food prices increase significantly, large tracts of forest will start to go up in smoke.

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sat 25 Mar 2017, 19:25:36
by dohboi
P, you can't perfectly equate rate of anthropogenic release and rate of increase in atmospheric concentration, especially over short periods like a year. El Nino years typically show increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere because the warmer ocean surfaces are less effective CO2 sinks that year.

And even if emissions plateau, at these high levels of emissions, we would expect continuing increase in concentration...stocks and flows and all that.

If you are gradually cranking up the rate that water is flowing out of a spigot into the tub, of course the water level in the tub is going up rapidly. But if you stop increasing the flow, but leave it running at a high rate, of course the water level in the tub will continue to rise. Its rise will just stop increasing at an accellerating level. It's too early to see whether CO2 levels will stop increasing at an accelerating rate and just go linear.

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Thu 30 Mar 2017, 19:54:44
by sparky
.
Europe has been at the forefront of climate change for decades
however ,recent developments are quite significant
From the guardian
"The curious disappearance of climate change, from Brexit to Berlin "
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -to-berlin