[suxs]

Obama decided to force his way into a meeting called by the Chinese that was limited to delegates from third world countries. The Chinese put a great deal of importance on things like respect and courtesy, and when Obama forced his inside the doors and then marched up to the podium and grabbed the microphone away from the Chinese leaders and started ranting at the meeting that the Chinese had called.......it was too much. The Chinese took it as an insult. When Obama tried to apologize and asked the Chinese leader to meet him the Chinese leader instead sent a very minor third level functionary to the meeting with Obama. And thus they insulted obama back for the insult he had done to them. The Copenhagen meeting dissolved in acrimony and the treaty they had all come to Copenhagen to ratify....the treaty they had all previously agreed to that would

~~Planted Nuttiness~~


How is it that Plant never posts reputable sources for his nutty stories?

[AdamB]

How is it that Plant never posts reputable sources for his nutty stories?

Hard to type on the plane while jet setting to the other side of the planet, chuckling all the way about pretending to care about anything related to the climate and trolling peak oilers.

[Plantagenet]

How is it that Plant never posts reputable sources for his .... stories?

You must be suffering from cognitive decline.

I've posted this story several times before, and usually with links. If your memory was functioning properly you would know that I frequently add links to my comments....which is something you rarely do. In fact, you come here mainly to bash other posters....and now we can add another "bash" to your long list of contentless posts.

But enough about you. Lets get back to the story of what happened at the UN COP meeting in Copenhagen. I"m very familiar with these events because I was one of the official US science delegates to a UN climate treaty science meeting during the prior administration. Naturally because of my own personal experiences working on the UN climate treaty process I watched with great interest to see what would happen at Copenhagen, since so many people from so many countries around the world had worked for years to craft a new UN Climate Accord to replace the failed Kyoto Accords.

Obviously in addition to not remembering what I've posted on this topic before, you don't remember yourself what happened in Copenhagen.

Thats OK. I know you're doing the best you can. I don't believe in mocking the cognitively impaired....other then Joe Biden of course, so I'm happy to provide you with yet another link to this important story.

It just took me a second to google this story up again......you could do it yourself if you could remember how to use google....but thats down the memory hole as well I guess.

So now, for your reading pleasure, I'll provide another link describing what a cock-up the Copenhagen COP meeting in 2009 turned out to be. Obama lied about it and claimed it was a big success, but the facts are very clear. Check it out for yourself.

the-ugly-truth-about-obamas-copenhagen-accord


Read it and weep!

Cheers!

[jedrider]

Scientists in the IPCC can call for voluntary emissions cuts all they want, but without a global climate treaty REQUIRING emissions cuts it ain't gonna happen.

Cheers!

Cheers indeed! And don't forget to include some pictures from your next jet setting/globe trotting CO2 emitting adventures, we love it when people pretend to care about something!

That's a false argument. Anyway, we have inflation and high gasoline prices and high energy prices. Well, about time!

Why High Gas Prices Are a Good Thing
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-high-gas-prices-are-a_b_6855142

[AdamB]

Scientists in the IPCC can call for voluntary emissions cuts all they want, but without a global climate treaty REQUIRING emissions cuts it ain't gonna happen.

Cheers!

Cheers indeed! And don't forget to include some pictures from your next jet setting/globe trotting CO2 emitting adventures, we love it when people pretend to care about something!

That's a false argument.

I wasn't making an argument, I was looking for some of Plant's cool globe trotting and jet setting pix! Plant pretending to care about the environment while happily participating in its destruction is just good ol' American fun!

Anyway, we have inflation and high gasoline prices and high energy prices. Well, about time!

Why High Gas Prices Are a Good Thing
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-high-gas-prices-are-a_b_6855142

Darn right! Down with fossil fuelers!!

[Tanada]

This is a handy link, it will let you select various metrics and scenario assumptions and graph the results for you based on the latest IPCC report.

GRAPHS

[JuanP]

It's funny how global institutions like the IPCC keep existing long after they completely failed. I believe that it would be best for the fight against CC if the IPCC ceased to exist altogether.

[vtsnowedin]

Deal announced but few real details.

What’s in it

The newly dubbed "Inflation Reduction Act of 2022" takes aim at transportation and electricity generation, the two most greenhouse gas-polluting sectors of the U.S. economy, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
It includes $60 billion for the domestic manufacture of clean energy components, in order to grow local supply chains for renewable energy infrastructure such as solar panels and wind turbines.

It also extends tax credits that incentivize the development of wind and solar power projects, and expands them to cover newer energy technologies such as hydrogen power.

There are also a range of budget lines aimed at boosting the adoption of electric vehicles, making it cheaper for Americans and U.S. companies to switch off gas. Qualifying individuals in the market for an electric vehicle would get a $7,500 tax credit for buying one new, or $4,000 for used.

The sheer scope of proposed spending is unusual, said Ladislaw, noting the inclusion of $60 billion for environmental justice work, part of an existing plan to direct dollars to communities disproportionally suffering the effects of climate change and pollution. A long-debated methane emissions programs would reduce climate-warming pollution from fossil fuel production.

From subsidizing manufacturing and construction, to mitigating pollution, to making green technology more affordable for consumers, "it just has the full suite of things that you would want to see in a piece of energy legislation that takes seriously the transition that we need," said Ladislaw.

$60 billion for environmental justice work,??
I'm sure that will be well spent.

https://www.opb.org/article/2022/07/29/ ... dget-deal/

[Doly]

This is a handy link, it will let you select various metrics and scenario assumptions and graph the results for you based on the latest IPCC report.

The problem I have with the IPCC report is that none of the scenarios I've seen appear to consider fossil fuel depletion.

[vtsnowedin]

This is a handy link, it will let you select various metrics and scenario assumptions and graph the results for you based on the latest IPCC report.

The problem I have with the IPCC report is that none of the scenarios I've seen appear to consider fossil fuel depletion.

By depletion do you mean reduction in use? Coal and oil reserves are still so enormous there is no chance they will be depleted before the goal dates set forth by the climate doomers.
The use of them will only really decline on a worldwide scale once alternatives are in place and cost less then the oil or gas they replace.
Oil saved by an American driving a solar charged electric car will just get shifted to India or some other developing country for an ICE engine of some sort.
The atmosphere is worldwide so shifting a tailpipe or smokestack from one place to another accomplishes nothing.
The IPCC report and the agreements from it let China and India carry on for decades insuring that there will be no net positive for the climate.

[AdamB]

This is a handy link, it will let you select various metrics and scenario assumptions and graph the results for you based on the latest IPCC report.

The problem I have with the IPCC report is that none of the scenarios I've seen appear to consider fossil fuel depletion.

How would you have them consider it? Arguably, it began for natural gas in 1821, and for oil in 1859, it has been with us all along, maybe it is just so normal it isn't worth detailing for folks?

[Tanada]

New IPCC Updated Report

[Doly]

How would you have them consider it? Arguably, it began for natural gas in 1821, and for oil in 1859, it has been with us all along, maybe it is just so normal it isn't worth detailing for folks?

Show me where in the IPCC report it says something to the effect: "We didn't consider fossil fuel depletion for this or that reason". I haven't seen that. They have a lot of other information for naive readers, so if there is some silly reason that escapes me, that wouldn't be an excuse not to mention it.

As for how to consider it, you yourself have mentioned the latest peak oil study by Bentley, Hall and Laherrere. That would be a good starting point. I'm sure they would be happy to provide a few scenarios, if asked.

[AdamB]

How would you have them consider it? Arguably, it began for natural gas in 1821, and for oil in 1859, it has been with us all along, maybe it is just so normal it isn't worth detailing for folks?

Show me where in the IPCC report it says something to the effect: "We didn't consider fossil fuel depletion for this or that reason".

No. It would require me reading it and then checking the references and pretty soon I'd be invested and have to become a climate scientist next. I've seen the intersection of some peaker work with IPCC work, related to CO2 emissions from said future combustion and whatnot. I don't read the reports, or the conclusions, for very particular and scientifically grounded reasons. We are doing to the world what we are doing. It seems reasonable that we should change our ways. We aren't. Collective humanity has spoken. The End.

I haven't seen that. They have a lot of other information for naive readers, so if there is some silly reason that escapes me, that wouldn't be an excuse not to mention it.

Within the context of science, I do not assume much. Just because I haven't seen something doesn't mean it can't exist. Like the existence of an electron for example. As far as excuses, and an organization that dispatched decades of paleo climate work one afternoon in favor the The Hockey Stick and the bad statistics contained therein, it isn't a surprise that they might not have the clean hands they would like to present on this topic.

As for how to consider it, you yourself have mentioned the latest peak oil study by Bentley, Hall and Laherrere. That would be a good starting point. I'm sure they would be happy to provide a few scenarios, if asked.

I'm sure they would not. For 2 reasons. 1) They have no incorporation of the correct independent variables within their schema, of which there are two, and when you choose one of the two to be independent, the other by definition becomes dependent. 2) Their supply side representation is puerile. The available technical data and its application to the supply side question has advanced beyond them.

[vtsnowedin]

New IPCC Updated Report

That is a great example of graduate student thesis paper verbal diarrhea.
An executive summary might include some clear sentences like: "Our initial assessments have proven false (or correct). Worldwide emissions are going down (Or up). We need to change X. Or we need to stop Y.
You can find what they are trying to say or trying to hide if you have the time to sort through the verbiage but great communicators they are not.

[Tanada]

Sixth IPCC Report March 2023

Chapter 10:
Linking global to regional climate change
Executive Summary
• Regional phenomena, drivers, feedbacks and teleconnections
• Regional scale observations and reanalyses
• Interplay between internal variability and forced change at the regional scale, including
attribution
• Evaluation of model improvements, methods, including downscaling and bias adjustment
and regional specificities
• Confidence in regional climate information, including quantification of uncertainties
• Scale specific methodologies e.g. urban, mountains, coastal, catchments, small islands
• Approaches to synthesizing information from multiple lines of evidence
Frequently Asked Questions
Chapter 11:
Weather and climate extreme events in a changing climate
Executive Summary
• Extreme types, encompassing weather and climate timescales and compound events
(including droughts, tropical cyclones)
• Observations for extremes and their limitations, including paleo
• Mechanisms, drivers and feedbacks leading to extremes
• Ability of models to simulate extremes and related processes
• Attribution of changes in extremes and extreme events
• Assessment of projected changes of extremes and potential surprises
• Case studies across timescales
Frequently Asked Questions
Chapter 12:
Climate change information for regional impact and for risk assessment
Executive Summary
• Framing: physical climate system and hazards
• Region-specific integration of information, including confidence
• Information (quantitative and qualitative) on changing hazards: present day, near term
and long term
• Region-specific methodologies
• Relationship between changing hazards, global mean temperature change, scenarios
and emissions
Frequently Asked Questions