World 'needs Plan B' on climate - UN

[Monkfish]

I didn't believe in the Millenium Bug either. I' m not in denial. You are mis led and misleading.

PS If you talk to God that's OK If God talks to you you are schizophrenic. It's just a question of position.

( Encouraging them to follow the same trajectory which got us into the crisis is the deepest kind of folly.) Sadly they don't see it that way.They see it as manipulating, elitist and selfish.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Monkfish

[Frank Merton]

Mankind caused global warming is real; all the scientific publications I trust are of one mind so the chances they've got it wrong is just too small.

I think though that it's going to be a little ironic, as technology (especially solar power) is coming along nicely and will probably save us from the consequences of our folly. The irony is that those who have it right now will not be able to say, "I told you so."

(By the way, there are no guarantees the technology will work as hoped, so I wouldn't count on it.)

[Guest]

I didn't believe in the Millenium Bug either. I' m not in denial. You are mis led and misleading.

PS If you talk to God that's OK If God talks to you you are schizophrenic. It's just a question of position.

( Encouraging them to follow the same trajectory which got us into the crisis is the deepest kind of folly.) Sadly they don't see it that way.They see it as manipulating, elitist and selfish.

Denial of reality is what its called when you haven't got another account for the facts on the ground. We could get into a long debate about why you believe that climate change is a crock, but I doubt you would be up for the fight. When it comes down to discussing the nitty gritty details people of a faith based position almost never are.

The people of the developing world were more than happy to sign up to what was necessary at Copenhagen, but the developed world stymied the negotiations in order to avoid binding curbs on their own emissions. You credit the poor with less sense than they actually have since they know very well that they will be in the main firing line when climate change really kicks in - and it is overwhelmingly in their interests to cooperate with the UN mission to prevent it. It is the selfish rich who want no action and your position is just another example of that.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 15, 2014 by Guest

[Frank Merton]

I don't think it is a good idea to have a different set of rules for one country than another. First, as we have seen, it creates a serious barrier against approval. I can't imagine the US Senate approving such a treaty, so why should the administration even try. Also, were such an arrangement to come into force, it would create all sorts of arbitrage opportunities, both legal and otherwise.

I think when dealing with issues of public policy it is best to set "fairness" aside. What is fair always seems to depend on who is assessing it, and strictly go by what is best for achieving the ends intended.

[Guest]

I don't think it is a good idea to have a different set of rules for one country than another. First, as we have seen, it creates a serious barrier against approval. I can't imagine the US Senate approving such a treaty, so why should the administration even try. Also, were such an arrangement to come into force, it would create all sorts of arbitrage opportunities, both legal and otherwise.

I think when dealing with issues of public policy it is best to set "fairness" aside. What is fair always seems to depend on who is assessing it, and strictly go by what is best for achieving the ends intended.

Frank its all about convergence to a parity of per capita emissions. that means equality for every citizen of the world. The only reason why countries like China are not compelled to cut their emissions as drastically as the US/EU is because they are on an upward trend towards parity rather than downwards for the US/EU.

There is nothing unfair about the arrangement - other than the unwillingness of the worst offenders to play their part.

Br Cornelius

[Frank Merton]

It will create arbitrage that would defeat the purpose of the treaty. Also, I see it as unfair. It's all a matter of how you define fair. That poor countries should be allowed to increase their pollution is to my mind offensive.

[Guest]

Let me just point out that convergence to parity doesn't necessarily means anyone in the US/EU giving up the quality of their life. It is quite possible to remove the main burden of emissions simply by designing and building zero carbon housing. Zero carbon house's have been around for about 20 years at this point so there is no technological barrier to takeup. That would reduce the average American/EU citizens carbon footprint by 50% just like that.

Switching to distributed wind and solar could make another 20-30% cut in almost everyones emissions.

The world can be changed and would be considerably better for the doing of the things that can be done now.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 15, 2014 by Guest

[Guest]

It will create arbitrage that would defeat the purpose of the treaty. Also, I see it as unfair. It's all a matter of how you define fair. That poor countries should be allowed to increase their pollution is to my mind offensive.

When you consider that the vast majority of the world population still has emissions of less than 1 tonne of carbon per capita per year, compared to Americans average of about 20-30 tonnes - how is it unfair to allow those citizens to double their emissions to vastly improve their standard of living ?

Progress for the poor is not about rolling out massive infrastructural projects to pump out huge amounts of power to a grid. Progress for the poor is about widespread roll out of solar panels and biogas (domestic) and water wells which profoundly impact the quality of life at almost no additional carbon burden. The poor of the world need a different type of development than copying the wasteful ways of the average American.

to not allow the very poorest to increase their emissions is to guarantee the status quo and to consign them to grinding poverty in perpetuity. The poor are not the problem here - it is the rich and their denial of responsibility which is.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 15, 2014 by Guest

[Monkfish]

Finished with this now very bored.

Don't believe in God either. The argument which you keep wanting to come back to isn't my stance. I don't, repeat don't believe the so called facts. Some much has been lied about and manipulated to serve purposes which you simple souls have failed to comprehend. You are being manipulated by the biggest fraud and hoax of the 21st century. Someone is getting rich on it. Probably the same someone who is getting rich on everything else you gullible people invest in.

[Guest]

Let me clarify what belief and faith actually means - to accept an idea without supporting evidence. It has nothing to do with God, though the religious are the most prominent example of it.

Conspiracy then

Not interested in discussing the evidence - exactly as I stated.

Bored, or more precisely, haven't got an argument to make.

So we are finished then. Good.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 15, 2014 by Guest

[Doug1029]

Let me clarify what belief and faith actually means - to accept an idea without supporting evidence. It has nothing to do with God, though the religious are the most prominent example of it.

Conspiracy then

Not interested in discussing the evidence - exactly as I stated.

Bored, or more precisely, haven't got an argument to make.

So we are finished then. Good.

Br Cornelius

I don't think he even understands what we're talking about. His blame-the-other-guy approach won't solve any problems, anyway.

Doug

[Phaeton80]

Yessir, thats probably it. No one really understands the topic at hand if and when they do not concur with your assessment(s). How marvellously convenient that must be.

Fact is, staring yourself blind, first on CFCs, presently on CO2, isnt going to help the situation as a whole. For example, capping CO2 emission while doing next to nothing to thwart deforestation (primarily regarding SA rainforests) is rather self defeating, highly illogical, and counterproductive. Why havent we heard about 'planned obsolescence', why is nothing being done about that? We need a hollistic approach. And as stated before, the modern day capitalistic state of mind simply will not facilitate that. As long as $ rules, the only ecological actions will be those sanctioned - or subscribed to - by big business. And it will be selective, instead of comprehensive.

Fact is, there are ample examples of the IPCC being caught lying c.q. doctoring (read: misrepresenting) scientific data to conform with their agenda.

Fact is, misrepresentation of scientific facts so to align 'perceived reality' with certain politically colored aspirations is as old as the dawn of Man itself.

Fact is, people subscribing to the mainstream consensus - perceived reality - have been trying to get the intellectual highground (read: inclination to ridicule) over those who do not, since the beginning of civilization.

I cant remove myself from the notion you both display a certain air of self stroking arrogance, signing every single post with your respective signature, doesnt really help. Then again, its probably me just 'misinterpreting data'.

Phaeton80

Edited April 15, 2014 by Phaeton80

[Monkfish]

Ecology and quality of life issues are on everybody's priority list, but not at the top. First a person wants food and water for himself and his family; then he wants a decent house to live in and then after he has supplied the more basic needs, he wants a clean place to live, clean air to breathe and so on. Climate change is a ways down the list.

OK so here you are living in a mud hut in the back of beyond in Zimbabwe. Your wife has leprosy, your kids have aids.Your President is a genocidal megalomaniac who is living better off than an IOC committee member and you don't feel so good either. So what are your priorities. Now hang on buddy you are not living in a nice house in the midwestand 3 square meals a day, Dodge Caliber on the drive, all electric services, kids at university. You have been dealt a pretty s****y hand. Do you really give a toss about CO2 emissions, carbon profiles, fossil fuels. Are you looking for clean air and a clean place to live. NO Sir, you are looking to survive. So before you start saving the world which incidentally has been here for 4.5 billion years without you or Al Gores help please think.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Monkfish

[+OverSword]

Every change in climate in the past had a definite cause. It is the purpose of paleo-climatology to determine what those causes were. It does a damn fine job of accounting for all historic episodes of climate change.

The only cause which explains the current change is man and his terraforming efforts. To try to attribute climate change to nature without identifying the underlying cause is called magical, or wishful, thinking.

Br Cornelius

They do a damned fine job in hindsight but were they examining it in real time would be as baffled as they are now. Man is not the primary driver of climate change.

[Doug1029]

Yessir, thats probably it. No one really understands the topic at hand if and when they do not concur with your assessment(s). How marvellously convenient that must be.

Apparently you don't understand it either. I WAS AGREEING WITH HIM. Only he didn't understand that. He's not even reading the posts. And that makes me wonder if you are, either.

Fact is, staring yourself blind, first on CFCs,

I recently ran across an article saying that the anticipated Arctic Ozone Hole has not developed. And, it seems, the Antarctic one is shrinking, albeit slowly. We seem to be getting a handle on CFCs. It's not all gloom-and-doom.

presently on CO2, isnt going to help the situation as a whole. For example, capping CO2 emission

Capping, as in cap-and-trade, won't work. At best, it only moves pollution around a little. There are also too many exceptions for some politician's buddy (or "campaign contributor"). AND: it doesn't give the consumer a stake in combatting CO2. But that can be solved by a fee on carbon charged at the source (mine mouth, well-head, port-of-entry) and distributed to ALL citizens as nearly as possible on an equal basis; the billionaire and the derelict both get the same-sized check. Each year the amount charged is increased slightly and the money evenly distributed. Every bit, excluding a small amount needed to operate the system, is returned to citizens. NO money can be diverted for other uses. That would work (maybe). Nothing else that has been proposed has much chance of success.

while doing next to nothing to thwart deforestation (primarily regarding SA rainforests) is rather self defeating, highly illogical, and counterproductive.

Deforestation in the Amazon has only a small effect on atmospheric CO2. That's because the land is abandoned within a few years of being cut or cleared. It takes only four years to restore the canopy and the functioning of the forest. There is a loss of carbon sequestration capacity due to removal of large trees, so the net effect is negative. The people of Brazil will have to live with what they do to the land, just as we in the US must live with the damage done by slash-and-burn cotton and corn production in the south, but for the rest of the world, the Amazon is not that big of a deal.

In Europe and North America we are planting more acres than we are clearing. That's a result of increased efficiency and the loss of government price supports. But we are running out of plantable sites. I don't foresee a great improvement in that area.

The problem with forests is that they are highly-susceptible to warming and are rapidly declining worldwide. Foresters are trying to anticipate future conditions and prepare with proper planting and selection systems, but even in the American South it takes forty years to change over the rotation, so it's a slow process.

Why havent we heard about 'planned obsolescence', why is nothing being done about that?

Problem with building things to last: they cost more. And that means the rich can buy them, but the rest of us can't afford them. You have to have a little money in the bank before you can afford the more-expensive item, even if it is cheaper in the long run. So the question is really: how do we help those at the bottom of the economic ladder get ahead enough to buy the more-efficient products?

We need a hollistic approach.

I just gave you one: charge a fee on carbon at the source. That affects all users equally. And all uses equally. When the money is returned to the citizens, just get out of the way and let them decide how best to spend it. Most will shy away from high-carbon products because of the expense and put the money into making their lives better. The greatest effects will result from decisions made by millions of people living on the margin.

And as stated before, the modern day capitalistic state of mind simply will not facilitate that. As long as $ rules, the only ecological actions will be those sanctioned - or subscribed to - by big business. And it will be selective, instead of comprehensive.

You have just hit a mighty big nail on the head. I think the US is headed for a real revolution if we don't figure out how to throw the billionaires out of government peacefully and soon (like within one or two election cycles). Revolutions follow a predictable course. Right now, we're in the politics stage. If most people start believing that the politicians aren't getting the job done, then efforts will get more forceful.

Fact is, there are ample examples of the IPCC being caught lying c.q. doctoring (read: misrepresenting) scientific data to conform with their agenda.

Fact is, misrepresentation of scientific facts so to align 'perceived reality' with certain politically colored aspirations is as old as the dawn of Man itself.

Would you mind presenting a few concrete examples? It's really hard to answer an unsupported rant.

Fact is, people subscribing to the mainstream consensus - perceived reality - have been trying to get the intellectual highground (read: inclination to ridicule) over those who do not, since the beginning of civilization.

That's politics. And I don't believe in "moral high ground." That's for the snooty folks. All I'm looking for is effective action.

I cant remove myself from the notion you both display a certain air of self stroking arrogance, signing every single post with your respective signature, doesnt really help. Then again, its probably me just 'misinterpreting data'.

Phaeton80

What's this? A signature? Does that indicate "self stroking arrogance?" Welcome to the club, Phaeton80.

I don't know about "arrogance," but I have been working in forestry, agriculture and now, environmental science for 43 years. I have first-hand experience with farm programs and what they are trying to do. I work with climate science daily - it's my job - they pay me to do it. I like to think I have learned something in that time.

Doug

Edited April 15, 2014 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

Ecology and quality of life issues are on everybody's priority list, but not at the top. First a person wants food and water for himself and his family; then he wants a decent house to live in and then after he has supplied the more basic needs, he wants a clean place to live, clean air to breathe and so on. Climate change is a ways down the list.

OK so here you are living in a mud hut in the back of beyond in Zimbabwe. Your wife has leprosy, your kids have aids.Your President is a genocidal megalomaniac who is living better off than an IOC committee member and you don't feel so good either. So what are your priorities. Now hang on buddy you are not living in a nice house in the midwestand 3 square meals a day, Dodge Caliber on the drive, all electric services, kids at university. You have been dealt a pretty s****y hand. Do you really give a toss about CO2 emissions, carbon profiles, fossil fuels. Are you looking for clean air and a clean place to live. NO Sir, you are looking to survive. So before you start saving the world which incidentally has been here for 4.5 billion years without you or Al Gores help please think.

I don't know who your rant is addressed to, but none of it seems to apply to what I am doing. It would really help if you'd read the posts. Otherwise, there is no point in even trying to have a discussion.

Doug

[Monkfish]

What are you doing Doug, please tell. Then I will be sure to explain the simile.

[Guest]

Fact is, there are ample examples of the IPCC being caught lying c.q. doctoring (read: misrepresenting) scientific data to conform with their agenda.

Please list them so that we can analysis what really happened. The IPCC has revised its assessments in line with new information, and has made a few minor errors, but there is certainly no proven case of them lying about a single thing.

Denying climate change will not save the rainforests. They are separate but related issues and should be dealt with as such. Planned obsolescence is a consequence of consumerism - which in turn is one of the main drivers of climate change. I do not see how you can dissect climate change out of your obvious concern about the ecological crisis - they are all inextricably linked and driven by consumption gone wild.

Fact is, people subscribing to the mainstream consensus - perceived reality - have been trying to get the intellectual highground (read: inclination to ridicule) over those who do not, since the beginning of civilization.

The reality is I started out as a conspiracy believing skeptic, until I looked into the data and found the skeptics to be so full of holes and self contradictory to begger belief that anyone could take them seriously. I then went on to study Environmental Science and became a scientists. As a result I learnt how to read scientific papers and come to conclusions of the probability of the presented evidence. There is nothing arrogant about that - its a simple learn't skill which even you could aquire if you tried. There are no credible scientific studies which support the notion that man is not the primary driver of climate change. None.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 15, 2014 by Guest

[Guest]

They do a damned fine job in hindsight but were they examining it in real time would be as baffled as they are now. Man is not the primary driver of climate change.

They do a fine job of predicting as well - and they are able to do this because they study the history of climate.

Man at the moment is the primary driver of climate.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

Ecology and quality of life issues are on everybody's priority list, but not at the top. First a person wants food and water for himself and his family; then he wants a decent house to live in and then after he has supplied the more basic needs, he wants a clean place to live, clean air to breathe and so on. Climate change is a ways down the list.

OK so here you are living in a mud hut in the back of beyond in Zimbabwe. Your wife has leprosy, your kids have aids.Your President is a genocidal megalomaniac who is living better off than an IOC committee member and you don't feel so good either. So what are your priorities. Now hang on buddy you are not living in a nice house in the midwestand 3 square meals a day, Dodge Caliber on the drive, all electric services, kids at university. You have been dealt a pretty s****y hand. Do you really give a toss about CO2 emissions, carbon profiles, fossil fuels. Are you looking for clean air and a clean place to live. NO Sir, you are looking to survive. So before you start saving the world which incidentally has been here for 4.5 billion years without you or Al Gores help please think.

We says nothing about the issue. You state the self evident but then ignore the fact that climate change will make that already terrible situation worse. It is our duty and responsibility to prevent adding to that already dire state by adding another crisis to that list.

By the way I thought you were done here. Why still talking ?

Br Cornelius

[Phaeton80]

What's this? A signature? Does that indicate "self stroking arrogance?" Welcome to the club, Phaeton80.

Youre kidding, right?

[Doug1029]

What are you doing Doug, please tell. Then I will be sure to explain the simile.

I am involved in several projects at the moment:

1. I have completed a regional shortleaf pine chronology for the Ouachita Mountains and submitted it to my co-authors for review. When I get the review back I will make corrections and submit it for publication along with:

2. A paper describing an ice storm signature in shortleaf pine (how to recognize that an ice storm occurred in a given year at a given place). Along with this I will include an ice storm calendar for the Ouachita Mountains going back to 1745. I know that doesn't sound like much, but shortleaf pine is a shortlived tree. These first two papers should be complete by the end of the summer.

3. A paper quantifying ice storm damage in shortleaf pine in the Ouachita Mountains (They're not as damaging to timber as most people think.).

Collectively, these papers will contribute to better forest management prescriptions that will increase the yield of timber from the region(as well as jobs and a reduction in timber prices; although the reduction will only be about 4% and take 40 years to take full effect.). They also provide some insight into climate systems as the ice storms are related to the El Nino Southern Oscillation. There is also a connection between extreme cold in the area (< -11 degress C) and the North Atlantic Oscillation and there is an extreme cold signature in the tree rings - it still needs a lot of clarification, though.

4. I am working on a forest inventory computer program (in C#). Though it's specific to the United States, it could be adapted for world-wide use. There is a huge amount of data-processing and statistics in forest inventory, so much so that even with computers, a lot of the needed work never gets done. There are six component programs: three are used to look up land survey records and send them to a user at a distant location. Another does the inventory analysis and produces reports. A second is used in the field to tell cruisers what to measure (Continuous inventories get so complicated it's hard to remember everything that is needed and, as a result, important data is often left out.). A third program sets the parameters for the others. It will produce site-specific maps and handle other mapping problems (like traverses that don't close), record data for four different types of cruises/inventories and produce output in 13 different scales. It will handle the slopover problem that occurs when a plot overlaps a property line (seven different methods), determine deductions for multiple crooks and other defects within a tree (It "bucks" the tree into sawlogs and "saws" each of them into lumber, all inside the computer.). It also estimates amounts of each grade of wood produced. There are also wildlife inventory components, such as a system that counts and analyzes the condition of dead trees and their suitability for nesting sites; forest fuel estimators to assess fire hazards; and a carbon sequestration estimator (for buying and selling carbon credits). It will simulate growth using a variety of models so that future yields can be estimated. It will have two types of thinning models so the computer can decide how best to thin a stand. An economic analysis system will help with appraisals, estimate planting and thinning costs and discount various management schemes over time (stand basis only - I'm not about to tackle this at a forest level). It will also provide needed tax information for the Federal goverment and each of the 50 states. I expect to be working on this the rest of my life and then turn it over to somebody else to continue. Forestry projects often last decades; some last centuries, so such an idea wouldn't be a problem. The US land survey system has been on-going since 1795, for example.

5. I have retrieved 24 sawlogs from the bottom of a mill pond that went out of business in 1910. The logs have been under water for a hundred years. They would make a good 19th-century chronology for southeast Oklahoma, an area where these are in short supply (Michael Mann even said that in his book "The Hockey Stick Controversy."). I can use it to test the ice storm signature. The oldest log dates to 1795.

6. I have started a post oak chronology with which I hope to identify a wind storm signature. The oldest series so far dates to 1841. I will need about 85 cores; so far, I have collected only 13. My dog helps me with this one (She keeps the armadillos away.).

7. A Federal wildlife refuge has a lot of dead and dying pin oak trees in a bottomland situation. The suspicion is that they are being killed by a bacterial disease ("wetwood") that is predisposed by drought stress (There was a severe drought in 2006; the tree deaths began in 2008.). Anyway, my part of the project is to collect the samples and determine a drought signature, extending the drought records back as far as the tree ring record will let me. With climate change, serious droughts are expected and this will give us a pretty good description of how the trees affected will actually die and how much might be salvaged.

The last three projects are specifically aimed at learning more about the effects of climate change in Oklahoma, an area that will be particularly hard hit.

Sorry I was so long-winded, but you asked me to talk about my favorite topics. I couldn't resist.

That's what I'm doing. What are you doing?

Doug

Edited April 16, 2014 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

Youre kidding, right?

Not actually. If your work isn't worth signing, why do it?

I have been doing climate science work, mainly dendrochronology and a growth-and-yield study for the last 13 years and have a Ph.D. in Environmental Science. I'm sorry if I come off as arrogant. Many of us with Ph.D.s are not all that good at explaining what we do, or what we have learned, especially those of us who aren't in the teaching end of the business. Sometimes people make off-the-cuff remarks without any understanding of climate science. For example, I don't think Monkfish knows the difference between climate science and climate politics. You sometimes hear the ecofreaks saying some stuff that is every bit as uninformed as the climate-change deniers. I can read Br. Cornelius' frustration at dealing with this in his posts.

I try to explain what is going on with the climate and with climate science. That usually means correcting an amazing amount of ignorance and misinformation. I don't understand how someone can be so adamantly opposed to something he has barely even heard of and has no knowledge at all of climate history or climate science.

For that wetwood study (previous post), I looked up and read every paper about wetwood that has ever been published. I have read the entire literature set - I'll know instantly if a statement is true, false or unsupported. In a discussion of wetwood, I would probably sound arrogant. Wetwood is not a controversial topic, so nobody is going to have opinions about it. But climate change is a different beast. I have read hundreds of papers on it. I have a pretty good idea of what is known, what isn't and how sound the information is. When I see something on here that simply isn't true, I'll challenge it. If that makes me sound arrogant, I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.

If you really want your opinion on climate change to carry weight, you're going to have to do a lot of reading. Then you too can come across as arrogant.

Doug

Edited April 16, 2014 by Doug1029

[Monkfish]

As I said previously, brevity is the soul of wit.

[Guest]

There's brevity and then there is saying nothing of substance. The latter is intrinsically wasteful.

Br Cornelius