Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby onlooker » Fri 20 Nov 2015, 13:11:13

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.
“For a moment they saw the nations of the dead, and, before they joined them, scraps of the untainted sky." -- E.M. Forster
User avatar
onlooker
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6380
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 20 Nov 2015, 13:37:15

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.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 19378
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby dohboi » Fri 20 Nov 2015, 13:59:56

"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.
User avatar
dohboi
Master
Master
 
Posts: 15586
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Thu 26 Nov 2015, 14:28:40

Image
The fragile framework

A Nature comic examines the 25-year quest for a climate treaty. Can nations unite to save Earth’s climate?
"I could go on, but let’s veer off in another direction instead."

– The Archdruid
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7273
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby onlooker » Wed 05 Oct 2016, 17:20:27

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.
“For a moment they saw the nations of the dead, and, before they joined them, scraps of the untainted sky." -- E.M. Forster
User avatar
onlooker
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6380
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby onlooker » Mon 09 Jan 2017, 14:30:51

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
“For a moment they saw the nations of the dead, and, before they joined them, scraps of the untainted sky." -- E.M. Forster
User avatar
onlooker
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6380
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 09 Jan 2017, 15:14:04

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!

"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 19378
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby Serial_Worrier » Fri 13 Jan 2017, 19:43:19

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.
User avatar
Serial_Worrier
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1534
Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008, 02:00:00

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Fri 13 Jan 2017, 22:00:31

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).
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 3205
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 07:28:25

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.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7033
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby onlooker » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 07:38:28

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.
“For a moment they saw the nations of the dead, and, before they joined them, scraps of the untainted sky." -- E.M. Forster
User avatar
onlooker
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6380
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 07:45:20

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.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7033
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 11:29:45

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
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13384
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 25 Mar 2017, 09:09:32

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."
User avatar
dohboi
Master
Master
 
Posts: 15586
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 25 Mar 2017, 09:15:13

dohboi - Increase the rate of reduction??? Might want to focus on decreasing the rate of the increase. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9535
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 25 Mar 2017, 09:25:00

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?
User avatar
dohboi
Master
Master
 
Posts: 15586
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sat 25 Mar 2017, 12:07:19

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!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 19378
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby Squilliam » Sat 25 Mar 2017, 16:22:24

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.
Squilliam
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2013, 00:51:46

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 25 Mar 2017, 19:25:36

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.
User avatar
dohboi
Master
Master
 
Posts: 15586
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Previous

Return to Environment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests