Page 1 of 46 [ 685 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 46  Next

ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,430
Location: Long Island, New York

16 Dec 2019, 4:46 pm

Disappointment as marathon climate talks end with slim deal

Quote:
Marathon U.N. climate talks ended Sunday with a slim compromise that sparked widespread disappointment, after major polluters resisted calls for ramping up efforts to keep global warming at bay and negotiators postponed debate about rules for international carbon markets for another year.

Organizers kept delegates from almost 200 nations in Madrid far beyond Friday's scheduled close of the two-week talks. In the end, negotiators endorsed a general call for greater efforts to tackle climate change and several measures to help poor countries respond and adapt to its impacts.

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said he was "disappointed" by the meeting's outcome.

The international community lost an important opportunity to show increased ambition on mitigation, adaptation and finance to tackle the climate crisis," he said. "We must not give up and I will not give up."

The final declaration cited an "urgent need" to cut planet-heating greenhouse gases in line with the goals of the landmark 2015 Paris climate change accord. But it fell far short of explicitly demanding that countries submit bolder emissions proposals next year, which developing countries and environmentalists had demanded.

The Paris accord established a common goal of keeping temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), ideally 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century. So far, the world is on course for a 3- to 4-degree Celsius rise, with potentially dramatic consequences for many countries, including rising sea levels and fiercer storms.

After two nights of fractious negotiations, delegates in Madrid decided to defer some of the thorniest issues to the next U.N. climate summit in Glasgow in November.

Chile's Environment Minister Carolina Schmidt, who chaired the meeting, said she was "sad" no deal had been reached on the rules for international trading in carbon emissions permits.

"We were on the verge," she said, adding that the goal was to establish markets that are "robust and environmentally sustainable."

Economists say putting a price on carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, and allowing countries or companies to trade emissions permits, will encourage the shift to away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy.

Some observers welcomed the failure of a deal on carbon markets, though, and the European Union and developing countries had said beforehand that no deal was better than a bad one.

"Thankfully, the weak rules on a market-based mechanism, promoted by Brazil and Australia, that would have undermined efforts to reduce emissions, have been shelved," said Mohamed Adow, director of Nairobi-based campaign group Power Shift Africa.

Helen Mountford, from the environmental think-tank World Resources Institute, said that "given the high risks of loopholes discussed in Madrid, it was better to delay than accept rules that would have compromised the integrity of the Paris Agreement."

The meeting was moved from Chile's capital Santiago to Madrid at a month's due to violent protests against the Chilean government, which was under pressure to deliver a positive result.

Delegates made some progress on financial aid for poor countries affected by climate change, despite strong resistance from the United States to any clause holding big polluters liable for the damage caused by their emissions. Countries agreed four years ago to funnel $100 billion per year by 2020 to assist developing nations, but so far nowhere near that amount has been raised.

Under the Paris accord, countries are supposed to regularly review their national emissions reduction targets and increase them if necessary. Last week, the European Union agreed a goal of becoming carbon neutral by mid-century, but the move did little to sway discussions in Madrid about setting more ambitious targets in the medium term, an issue that will be on the agenda again in Glasgow.

The United States will be excluded from much of those talks after President Donald Trump announced the country's withdrawal from the Paris accord, a process than comes into force Nov. 4, 2020.


_________________
Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person. - Sara Luterman


jimmy m
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2018
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,237
Location: Indiana

16 Dec 2019, 6:28 pm

COP 25 was an utter failure for the United Nations.

Despite extending the conference into double overtime making it the longest COP ever, the UN was forced to adjourn without advancing the "rule book" for the Paris Climate Accord, or agreeing on a framework for an international carbon market.

UN Secretary General (and former President of the Socialist International) António Guterres was “disappointed” and stated that “the international community lost an important opportunity to show increased ambition on mitigation, adaptation & finance to tackle the climate crisis.”

The big COP breakdown was over something called "Article 6" which deals with international carbon markets. Australia refused to give up past carbon credits and was joined by Brazil which shut the whole thing down.

The big Paris issues are now held over for work by the UN subsidiary bodies in 2020 and another try at COP 26 in Scotland next year.

Protesters expressed displeasure by staging a mock hanging in front of the COP and dumping a truckload of manure. That'll show 'em!

Countries such as China and India remain firm in exempting themselves from serious emissions reductions under the Paris Accord. They continue to assert their rights to expand their economies, burn more coal, increase their emissions, and produce the goods that become too expensive to produce in Japan and the West.

China emits more CO2 than the U.S. and E.U. combined! Taking the world's number one and number three emitters out of the mix effectively renders anything the UN does under the Paris Accord meaningless in terms of altering world temperature.



blazingstar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2017
Age: 66
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,958

16 Dec 2019, 7:06 pm

This is the tragedy of the commons writ large.

Richard Dawkins, in his book The Selfish Gene, showed mathematically how it is never in one's best interests to have win-win scenarios for all. Better to lose some and make the other side lose more.

I haven't read the book for many decades, so I might be remembering it wrong.


_________________
Eyes that watch the morning star
usually shine brighter,
Arms held out to dark they say,
usually hold tighter.


Threnody, Dorothy Parker
as modified by David Tamulovich


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,333

16 Dec 2019, 9:56 pm

jimmy m wrote:
COP 25 was an utter failure for the United Nations.

Despite extending the conference into double overtime making it the longest COP ever, the UN was forced to adjourn without advancing the "rule book" for the Paris Climate Accord, or agreeing on a framework for an international carbon market.

UN Secretary General (and former President of the Socialist International) António Guterres was “disappointed” and stated that “the international community lost an important opportunity to show increased ambition on mitigation, adaptation & finance to tackle the climate crisis.”

The big COP breakdown was over something called "Article 6" which deals with international carbon markets. Australia refused to give up past carbon credits and was joined by Brazil which shut the whole thing down.

The big Paris issues are now held over for work by the UN subsidiary bodies in 2020 and another try at COP 26 in Scotland next year.

Protesters expressed displeasure by staging a mock hanging in front of the COP and dumping a truckload of manure. That'll show 'em!

Countries such as China and India remain firm in exempting themselves from serious emissions reductions under the Paris Accord. They continue to assert their rights to expand their economies, burn more coal, increase their emissions, and produce the goods that become too expensive to produce in Japan and the West.

China emits more CO2 than the U.S. and E.U. combined! Taking the world's number one and number three emitters out of the mix effectively renders anything the UN does under the Paris Accord meaningless in terms of altering world temperature.


On a per capita basis, though, China is well below the US, which is also pretty down there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... per_capita


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,188
Location: Twin Peaks

16 Dec 2019, 10:21 pm

beneficii wrote:
jimmy m wrote:
COP 25 was an utter failure for the United Nations.

Despite extending the conference into double overtime making it the longest COP ever, the UN was forced to adjourn without advancing the "rule book" for the Paris Climate Accord, or agreeing on a framework for an international carbon market.

UN Secretary General (and former President of the Socialist International) António Guterres was “disappointed” and stated that “the international community lost an important opportunity to show increased ambition on mitigation, adaptation & finance to tackle the climate crisis.”

The big COP breakdown was over something called "Article 6" which deals with international carbon markets. Australia refused to give up past carbon credits and was joined by Brazil which shut the whole thing down.

The big Paris issues are now held over for work by the UN subsidiary bodies in 2020 and another try at COP 26 in Scotland next year.

Protesters expressed displeasure by staging a mock hanging in front of the COP and dumping a truckload of manure. That'll show 'em!

Countries such as China and India remain firm in exempting themselves from serious emissions reductions under the Paris Accord. They continue to assert their rights to expand their economies, burn more coal, increase their emissions, and produce the goods that become too expensive to produce in Japan and the West.

China emits more CO2 than the U.S. and E.U. combined! Taking the world's number one and number three emitters out of the mix effectively renders anything the UN does under the Paris Accord meaningless in terms of altering world temperature.


On a per capita basis, though, China is well below the US, which is also pretty down there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... per_capita


The problem with Wikipedia is whoever writes information in it is supposed to cite a source. But it doesn't necessarily have to be the best source or even a good source. So one can't really take the surface information in a Wiki article at face value. Basically what one is reading someone's essay on the subject. I'm not saying the information in this article is no good and challenging it, I'm just saying what one should to take into consideration when it comes to relying on Wikipedia articles.



Persephone29
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2019
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,538
Location: Everville

16 Dec 2019, 10:46 pm

They should fail. And then be renamed something along the lines of 'Pollution Talks.' That's something everyone can/should get behind. Each country cleans up their act or get penalized in trade, or something. Impose sanctions...

The climate has always changed and it will continue to change. We have always found civilizations underwater. The planet shifts, melts, cools, cracks, floods, erodes, freezes, etc... Why would someone pay for a scheme that politicians have paid unscrupulous scientists to claim? Pay 5 billion dollars and we'll make the Volcanoes stop? We will halt the waters? There will be no more earthquakes? The earth is a living organism. Do you really think stopping a natural process is wise, even if you could? I think it's smarter to put pontoons on my house and float.

I'm sorry, but it's just the nuttiest thing I've ever heard.

Recycle, find clean energy sources, properly dispose of industrial wastes. It's terrible to think of kids drinking bad water, or whales dying. I am very supportive of that, because it's the right thing to do. But, I don't like politicians insulting my intelligence by telling me it will stop climate change.


_________________
Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I hate you, it just means we disagree.


SoloSailor
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2015
Age: 56
Posts: 354

17 Dec 2019, 12:27 am

Persephone29 wrote:

They should fail. And then be renamed something along the lines of 'Pollution Talks.' That's something everyone can/should get behind. Each country cleans up their act or get penalized in trade, or something. Impose sanctions...

The climate has always changed and it will continue to change. We have always found civilizations underwater. The planet shifts, melts, cools, cracks, floods, erodes, freezes, etc... Why would someone pay for a scheme that politicians have paid unscrupulous scientists to claim? Pay 5 billion dollars and we'll make the Volcanoes stop? We will halt the waters? There will be no more earthquakes? The earth is a living organism. Do you really think stopping a natural process is wise, even if you could? I think it's smarter to put pontoons on my house and float.

I'm sorry, but it's just the nuttiest thing I've ever heard.

Recycle, find clean energy sources, properly dispose of industrial wastes. It's terrible to think of kids drinking bad water, or whales dying. I am very supportive of that, because it's the right thing to do. But, I don't like politicians insulting my intelligence by telling me it will stop climate change.


Oh noes!
Heretic! Denier!
How dare you!! (Think for yourself and question the official narrative.)
Hasn't the relentless 24/7 assault of doom porn taught you anything?

Quote:
For it is written:
“If we stay on our current trajectory, it’s estimated that global temperatures could more than double by the end of this century.
This will have enormous negative consequences for humanity and threaten our existence on this planet. We need an immediate and urgent change in trajectory.”


Thou shalt not question the motives of the great prophet Al Gore or those of any of his holy acolytes!




Oh..and @#$% the drooling &^%$$%% who decided that captchas were a &$%&$^#% good idea.


_________________
Without deviation from the norm progress is not possible.
-Frank Zappa


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,188
Location: Twin Peaks

17 Dec 2019, 12:31 am

A denier and a captcha hater :evil:



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,333

17 Dec 2019, 5:46 am

Persephone29 wrote:
The climate has always changed and it will continue to change. We have always found civilizations underwater. The planet shifts, melts, cools, cracks, floods, erodes, freezes, etc... Why would someone pay for a scheme that politicians have paid unscrupulous scientists to claim? Pay 5 billion dollars and we'll make the Volcanoes stop? We will halt the waters? There will be no more earthquakes? The earth is a living organism. Do you really think stopping a natural process is wise, even if you could? I think it's smarter to put pontoons on my house and float.


This is one massive strawman you're taking down. No serious scientist has ever said the volcanoes will stop, or they will they will halt the waters, or any of that.

Also, the argument, the climate has changed in the past, fails to take into account the fact that the warming occurring now is going at a very fast clip:

Quote:
Climate is always changing. Why is climate change of concern now?

The largest global-scale climate variations in Earth’s recent geological past are the ice age cycles (see Learn about... the ice ages), which are cold glacial periods followed by shorter warm periods (see Figure 3). The last few of these natural cycles have recurred roughly every 100,000 years. They are mainly paced by slow changes in Earth’s orbit which alter the way the Sun’s energy is distributed with latitude and by season on Earth. These changes alone are not sufficient to cause the observed magnitude of change in temperature, nor to act on the whole Earth. Instead they lead to changes in the extent of ice sheets and in the abundance of CO2 and other greenhouse gases which amplify the initial temperature change and complete the global transition from warm to cold or vice versa.

Recent estimates of the increase in global average temperature since the end of the last ice age are 4 to 5 °C (7 to 9 °F). That change occurred over a period of about 7,000 years, starting 18,000 years ago. CO2 has risen by 40% in just the past 200 years, contributing to human alteration of the planet’s energy budget that has so far warmed Earth by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F). If the rise in CO2 continues unchecked, warming of the same magnitude as the increase out of the ice age can be expected by the end of this century or soon after. This speed of warming is more than ten times that at the end of an ice age, the fastest known natural sustained change on a global scale.


https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/ ... uestion-6/

Here's the chart the website provides:

Image

Quote:
Figure 3. Data from ice cores have been used to reconstruct Antarctic temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past 800,000 years. Temperature is based on measurements of the isotopic content of water in the Dome C ice core. CO2 is measured in air trapped in ice, and is a composite of the Dome C and Vostok ice core. The current CO2 concentration (blue star) is from atmospheric measurements. The cyclical pattern of temperature variations constitutes the ice age/ interglacial cycles. During these cycles, changes in CO2 concentrations (in blue) track closely with changes in temperature (in red). As the record shows, the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is unprecedented in the past 800,000 years. Source: Figure by Jeremy Shakun, data from Lüthi et al., 2008 and Jouzel et al., 2007.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,188
Location: Twin Peaks

17 Dec 2019, 6:08 am

beneficii wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
The climate has always changed and it will continue to change. We have always found civilizations underwater. The planet shifts, melts, cools, cracks, floods, erodes, freezes, etc... Why would someone pay for a scheme that politicians have paid unscrupulous scientists to claim? Pay 5 billion dollars and we'll make the Volcanoes stop? We will halt the waters? There will be no more earthquakes? The earth is a living organism. Do you really think stopping a natural process is wise, even if you could? I think it's smarter to put pontoons on my house and float.


This is one massive strawman you're taking down. No serious scientist has ever said the volcanoes will stop, or they will they will halt the waters, or any of that.

Also, the argument, the climate has changed in the past, fails to take into account the fact that the warming occurring now is going at a very fast clip:

Quote:
Climate is always changing. Why is climate change of concern now?

The largest global-scale climate variations in Earth’s recent geological past are the ice age cycles (see Learn about... the ice ages), which are cold glacial periods followed by shorter warm periods (see Figure 3). The last few of these natural cycles have recurred roughly every 100,000 years. They are mainly paced by slow changes in Earth’s orbit which alter the way the Sun’s energy is distributed with latitude and by season on Earth. These changes alone are not sufficient to cause the observed magnitude of change in temperature, nor to act on the whole Earth. Instead they lead to changes in the extent of ice sheets and in the abundance of CO2 and other greenhouse gases which amplify the initial temperature change and complete the global transition from warm to cold or vice versa.

Recent estimates of the increase in global average temperature since the end of the last ice age are 4 to 5 °C (7 to 9 °F). That change occurred over a period of about 7,000 years, starting 18,000 years ago. CO2 has risen by 40% in just the past 200 years, contributing to human alteration of the planet’s energy budget that has so far warmed Earth by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F). If the rise in CO2 continues unchecked, warming of the same magnitude as the increase out of the ice age can be expected by the end of this century or soon after. This speed of warming is more than ten times that at the end of an ice age, the fastest known natural sustained change on a global scale.


https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/ ... uestion-6/

Here's the chart the website provides:

Image

Quote:
Figure 3. Data from ice cores have been used to reconstruct Antarctic temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past 800,000 years. Temperature is based on measurements of the isotopic content of water in the Dome C ice core. CO2 is measured in air trapped in ice, and is a composite of the Dome C and Vostok ice core. The current CO2 concentration (blue star) is from atmospheric measurements. The cyclical pattern of temperature variations constitutes the ice age/ interglacial cycles. During these cycles, changes in CO2 concentrations (in blue) track closely with changes in temperature (in red). As the record shows, the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is unprecedented in the past 800,000 years. Source: Figure by Jeremy Shakun, data from Lüthi et al., 2008 and Jouzel et al., 2007.


It looks to me like that chart is showing a pattern of extreme fluctuation cycles going back millennia. What is that series of totally vertical dots with a star at the top?



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,333

17 Dec 2019, 6:12 am

EzraS wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
The climate has always changed and it will continue to change. We have always found civilizations underwater. The planet shifts, melts, cools, cracks, floods, erodes, freezes, etc... Why would someone pay for a scheme that politicians have paid unscrupulous scientists to claim? Pay 5 billion dollars and we'll make the Volcanoes stop? We will halt the waters? There will be no more earthquakes? The earth is a living organism. Do you really think stopping a natural process is wise, even if you could? I think it's smarter to put pontoons on my house and float.


This is one massive strawman you're taking down. No serious scientist has ever said the volcanoes will stop, or they will they will halt the waters, or any of that.

Also, the argument, the climate has changed in the past, fails to take into account the fact that the warming occurring now is going at a very fast clip:

Quote:
Climate is always changing. Why is climate change of concern now?

The largest global-scale climate variations in Earth’s recent geological past are the ice age cycles (see Learn about... the ice ages), which are cold glacial periods followed by shorter warm periods (see Figure 3). The last few of these natural cycles have recurred roughly every 100,000 years. They are mainly paced by slow changes in Earth’s orbit which alter the way the Sun’s energy is distributed with latitude and by season on Earth. These changes alone are not sufficient to cause the observed magnitude of change in temperature, nor to act on the whole Earth. Instead they lead to changes in the extent of ice sheets and in the abundance of CO2 and other greenhouse gases which amplify the initial temperature change and complete the global transition from warm to cold or vice versa.

Recent estimates of the increase in global average temperature since the end of the last ice age are 4 to 5 °C (7 to 9 °F). That change occurred over a period of about 7,000 years, starting 18,000 years ago. CO2 has risen by 40% in just the past 200 years, contributing to human alteration of the planet’s energy budget that has so far warmed Earth by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F). If the rise in CO2 continues unchecked, warming of the same magnitude as the increase out of the ice age can be expected by the end of this century or soon after. This speed of warming is more than ten times that at the end of an ice age, the fastest known natural sustained change on a global scale.


https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/ ... uestion-6/

Here's the chart the website provides:

Image

Quote:
Figure 3. Data from ice cores have been used to reconstruct Antarctic temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past 800,000 years. Temperature is based on measurements of the isotopic content of water in the Dome C ice core. CO2 is measured in air trapped in ice, and is a composite of the Dome C and Vostok ice core. The current CO2 concentration (blue star) is from atmospheric measurements. The cyclical pattern of temperature variations constitutes the ice age/ interglacial cycles. During these cycles, changes in CO2 concentrations (in blue) track closely with changes in temperature (in red). As the record shows, the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is unprecedented in the past 800,000 years. Source: Figure by Jeremy Shakun, data from Lüthi et al., 2008 and Jouzel et al., 2007.


It looks to me like that chart is showing a pattern of extreme fluctuation cycles going back millennia. What is that series of totally vertical dots with a star at the top?


Read the paragraph immediately below the chart, which explains it.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,188
Location: Twin Peaks

17 Dec 2019, 6:24 am

beneficii wrote:
EzraS wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
The climate has always changed and it will continue to change. We have always found civilizations underwater. The planet shifts, melts, cools, cracks, floods, erodes, freezes, etc... Why would someone pay for a scheme that politicians have paid unscrupulous scientists to claim? Pay 5 billion dollars and we'll make the Volcanoes stop? We will halt the waters? There will be no more earthquakes? The earth is a living organism. Do you really think stopping a natural process is wise, even if you could? I think it's smarter to put pontoons on my house and float.


This is one massive strawman you're taking down. No serious scientist has ever said the volcanoes will stop, or they will they will halt the waters, or any of that.

Also, the argument, the climate has changed in the past, fails to take into account the fact that the warming occurring now is going at a very fast clip:

Quote:
Climate is always changing. Why is climate change of concern now?

The largest global-scale climate variations in Earth’s recent geological past are the ice age cycles (see Learn about... the ice ages), which are cold glacial periods followed by shorter warm periods (see Figure 3). The last few of these natural cycles have recurred roughly every 100,000 years. They are mainly paced by slow changes in Earth’s orbit which alter the way the Sun’s energy is distributed with latitude and by season on Earth. These changes alone are not sufficient to cause the observed magnitude of change in temperature, nor to act on the whole Earth. Instead they lead to changes in the extent of ice sheets and in the abundance of CO2 and other greenhouse gases which amplify the initial temperature change and complete the global transition from warm to cold or vice versa.

Recent estimates of the increase in global average temperature since the end of the last ice age are 4 to 5 °C (7 to 9 °F). That change occurred over a period of about 7,000 years, starting 18,000 years ago. CO2 has risen by 40% in just the past 200 years, contributing to human alteration of the planet’s energy budget that has so far warmed Earth by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F). If the rise in CO2 continues unchecked, warming of the same magnitude as the increase out of the ice age can be expected by the end of this century or soon after. This speed of warming is more than ten times that at the end of an ice age, the fastest known natural sustained change on a global scale.


https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/ ... uestion-6/

Here's the chart the website provides:

Image

Quote:
Figure 3. Data from ice cores have been used to reconstruct Antarctic temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past 800,000 years. Temperature is based on measurements of the isotopic content of water in the Dome C ice core. CO2 is measured in air trapped in ice, and is a composite of the Dome C and Vostok ice core. The current CO2 concentration (blue star) is from atmospheric measurements. The cyclical pattern of temperature variations constitutes the ice age/ interglacial cycles. During these cycles, changes in CO2 concentrations (in blue) track closely with changes in temperature (in red). As the record shows, the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is unprecedented in the past 800,000 years. Source: Figure by Jeremy Shakun, data from Lüthi et al., 2008 and Jouzel et al., 2007.


It looks to me like that chart is showing a pattern of extreme fluctuation cycles going back millennia. What is that series of totally vertical dots with a star at the top?


Read the paragraph immediately below the chart, which explains it.


I'm not quite getting its explaination of why a solid line was replaced by dots. I thought maybe you could explain it in simpler terms.



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,333

17 Dec 2019, 6:51 am

EzraS wrote:
beneficii wrote:
EzraS wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
The climate has always changed and it will continue to change. We have always found civilizations underwater. The planet shifts, melts, cools, cracks, floods, erodes, freezes, etc... Why would someone pay for a scheme that politicians have paid unscrupulous scientists to claim? Pay 5 billion dollars and we'll make the Volcanoes stop? We will halt the waters? There will be no more earthquakes? The earth is a living organism. Do you really think stopping a natural process is wise, even if you could? I think it's smarter to put pontoons on my house and float.


This is one massive strawman you're taking down. No serious scientist has ever said the volcanoes will stop, or they will they will halt the waters, or any of that.

Also, the argument, the climate has changed in the past, fails to take into account the fact that the warming occurring now is going at a very fast clip:

Quote:
Climate is always changing. Why is climate change of concern now?

The largest global-scale climate variations in Earth’s recent geological past are the ice age cycles (see Learn about... the ice ages), which are cold glacial periods followed by shorter warm periods (see Figure 3). The last few of these natural cycles have recurred roughly every 100,000 years. They are mainly paced by slow changes in Earth’s orbit which alter the way the Sun’s energy is distributed with latitude and by season on Earth. These changes alone are not sufficient to cause the observed magnitude of change in temperature, nor to act on the whole Earth. Instead they lead to changes in the extent of ice sheets and in the abundance of CO2 and other greenhouse gases which amplify the initial temperature change and complete the global transition from warm to cold or vice versa.

Recent estimates of the increase in global average temperature since the end of the last ice age are 4 to 5 °C (7 to 9 °F). That change occurred over a period of about 7,000 years, starting 18,000 years ago. CO2 has risen by 40% in just the past 200 years, contributing to human alteration of the planet’s energy budget that has so far warmed Earth by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F). If the rise in CO2 continues unchecked, warming of the same magnitude as the increase out of the ice age can be expected by the end of this century or soon after. This speed of warming is more than ten times that at the end of an ice age, the fastest known natural sustained change on a global scale.


https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/ ... uestion-6/

Here's the chart the website provides:

Image

Quote:
Figure 3. Data from ice cores have been used to reconstruct Antarctic temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past 800,000 years. Temperature is based on measurements of the isotopic content of water in the Dome C ice core. CO2 is measured in air trapped in ice, and is a composite of the Dome C and Vostok ice core. The current CO2 concentration (blue star) is from atmospheric measurements. The cyclical pattern of temperature variations constitutes the ice age/ interglacial cycles. During these cycles, changes in CO2 concentrations (in blue) track closely with changes in temperature (in red). As the record shows, the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is unprecedented in the past 800,000 years. Source: Figure by Jeremy Shakun, data from Lüthi et al., 2008 and Jouzel et al., 2007.


It looks to me like that chart is showing a pattern of extreme fluctuation cycles going back millennia. What is that series of totally vertical dots with a star at the top?


Read the paragraph immediately below the chart, which explains it.


I'm not quite getting its explaination of why a solid line was replaced by dots. I thought maybe you could explain it in simpler terms.


It represents atmospheric vs. ice core measurements.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,188
Location: Twin Peaks

17 Dec 2019, 7:39 am

So the ice core measurements are giving a different level reading than the atmospheric measurements.



Persephone29
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2019
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,538
Location: Everville

17 Dec 2019, 8:09 am

beneficii wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
The climate has always changed and it will continue to change. We have always found civilizations underwater. The planet shifts, melts, cools, cracks, floods, erodes, freezes, etc... Why would someone pay for a scheme that politicians have paid unscrupulous scientists to claim? Pay 5 billion dollars and we'll make the Volcanoes stop? We will halt the waters? There will be no more earthquakes? The earth is a living organism. Do you really think stopping a natural process is wise, even if you could? I think it's smarter to put pontoons on my house and float.


This is one massive strawman you're taking down. No serious scientist has ever said the volcanoes will stop, or they will they will halt the waters, or any of that.

Also, the argument, the climate has changed in the past, fails to take into account the fact that the warming occurring now is going at a very fast clip:

Quote:
Climate is always changing. Why is climate change of concern now?

The largest global-scale climate variations in Earth’s recent geological past are the ice age cycles (see Learn about... the ice ages), which are cold glacial periods followed by shorter warm periods (see Figure 3). The last few of these natural cycles have recurred roughly every 100,000 years. They are mainly paced by slow changes in Earth’s orbit which alter the way the Sun’s energy is distributed with latitude and by season on Earth. These changes alone are not sufficient to cause the observed magnitude of change in temperature, nor to act on the whole Earth. Instead they lead to changes in the extent of ice sheets and in the abundance of CO2 and other greenhouse gases which amplify the initial temperature change and complete the global transition from warm to cold or vice versa.

Recent estimates of the increase in global average temperature since the end of the last ice age are 4 to 5 °C (7 to 9 °F). That change occurred over a period of about 7,000 years, starting 18,000 years ago. CO2 has risen by 40% in just the past 200 years, contributing to human alteration of the planet’s energy budget that has so far warmed Earth by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F). If the rise in CO2 continues unchecked, warming of the same magnitude as the increase out of the ice age can be expected by the end of this century or soon after. This speed of warming is more than ten times that at the end of an ice age, the fastest known natural sustained change on a global scale.


https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/ ... uestion-6/

Here's the chart the website provides:

Image

Quote:
Figure 3. Data from ice cores have been used to reconstruct Antarctic temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past 800,000 years. Temperature is based on measurements of the isotopic content of water in the Dome C ice core. CO2 is measured in air trapped in ice, and is a composite of the Dome C and Vostok ice core. The current CO2 concentration (blue star) is from atmospheric measurements. The cyclical pattern of temperature variations constitutes the ice age/ interglacial cycles. During these cycles, changes in CO2 concentrations (in blue) track closely with changes in temperature (in red). As the record shows, the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is unprecedented in the past 800,000 years. Source: Figure by Jeremy Shakun, data from Lüthi et al., 2008 and Jouzel et al., 2007.



My first question would be, "how do you know?" Then, it would be, "were the scientists there to sound the alarms bells?" Did the politicians of the day ask for seeds and potsherds to slow the water that eventually enveloped the Doggerlands? That's where some of my Maternal Haplogroup migrated through... It's underwater now.

Yes, the Volcano statement was extreme. But, so is claiming you can stop lands from being eventually enveloped by water. I think it's a fear thing. Unfortunately, governments and scientists aren't above feeding on those fears as a way of dispersing money globally. As a sort of, "drink, eat and be merry, for tomorrow we die," philosophy.


_________________
Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I hate you, it just means we disagree.