United Nations Climate Change Copenhagen

[Devonian]

Exceeding expectations already:

http://www.guardian....ray-danish-text

Disarray.

I like the sound of that.

It should be borne in mind that Jonah Brown went to great lengths to convince all & sundry that Copenhagen was of monumental and far-reaching importance.

I guess its' fate was sealed there and then.

Oh, so you were just looking for an excuse to lambast the PM...

[rob48]

Ha Ha,

no mate.

No shortage of those!

[Devonian]

Ha Ha,

no mate.

No shortage of those!

So, you're here for political reasons not scientific?

[Solar Cycles]

Exceeding expectations already:

http://www.guardian....ray-danish-text

Disarray.

I like the sound of that.

It should be borne in mind that Jonah Brown went to great lengths to convince all & sundry that Copenhagen was of monumental and far-reaching importance.

I guess its' fate was sealed there and then.

The plot thickens, now who said this knees up was nothing more than a PR exercise! We should have known there would be deals done behind closed doors, what with the Prince of darkness himself, setting out to save the world AGAIN!!

This may take a while because I'm writing this as I read through!

I'm doing a search for the word "solar" in the text to see what references they make. Here's a list:

1. Page 9 - Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. This makes the assumption that solar effects are near-instantaneous (or at least not lagged by more than a year or two). There's plenty of evidence that this is not the case, and that solar lags can occur over far larger timescales.
2. Page 13 - Every year this century (2001-2008) has been among the top 10 warmest years since instrumental records began, despite solar irradiance being relatively weak over the past few years. Same as above, but with the added point that if temperatures stagnate at a high level then you would expect the temperatures during those stagnant years to be among the top.
3. Page 13 - At the same time [2008], solar output was also at its lowest level of the satellite era, another temporary cooling influence. Once again, same as the previous two points.
4. Page 14 - Lean and Rind (2008) analyzed the role of natural factors (e. g., solar variability, volcanoes) versus human influences on temperatures since 1889. They found that the sun contributed only about 10% of surface warming in the last century and a negligible amount in the last quarter century, less than in earlier assessments. I will come back to this one another time (I have included it here so as to prove I'm not cherry-picking references!). I do recall that Lean's solar reconstructions have become odder- and odder-looking (to me mind) over the years. I shall return to this point once I've done some checking...
5. Page 15 - Most of these short-term variations are due to internal oscillations like El Niño – Southern Oscillation, solar variability (predominantly the 11-year Schwabe cycle) and volcanic eruptions (which, like Pinatubo in 1991, can cause a cooling lasting a few years). First off, I'm not sure that solar variability technically constitutes an "internal oscillation", but maybe that's just me. I am also unsure about the assertion that the Schwabe cycle is necessarily the predominant one - it is certainly one of the most frequent, but that's a different matter.
6. Page 15 - If one looks at periods of ten years or shorter, such short-term variations can more than outweigh the anthropogenic global warming trend. For example, El Niño events typically come with global-mean temperature changes of up to 0.2 °C over a few years, and the solar cycle with warming or cooling of 0.1 °C over five years (Lean and Rind 2008). However, neither El Niño, nor solar activity or volcanic eruptions make a significant contribution to longer-term climate trends. References Lean and Rind 2008 again. Where is the evidence that solar activity makes no significant contribution to longer-term climate trends? What about the multi-year lags found by numerous scientists?
7. Page 16 - Can solar activity or other natural processes explain global warming? No. The incoming solar radiation has been almost constant over the past 50 years, apart from the well-known 11-year solar cycle (Figure 5). In fact it has slightly decreased over this period. In addition, over the past three years the brightness of the sun has reached an all-time low since the beginning of satellite measurements in the 1970s (Lockwood and Fröhlich 2007, 2008). Once again this ignores lag effects, but it also fails to address - in fact it cleverly glosses over - the fact that incoming solar radiation has been at an all-time high for the past 50 years. Constant, yes, but also unprecedentedly high.
8. Page 51 - briefly reiterates point 6 above.
9. Page 54 - References the paper "Benestad, R.E. & G.A. Schmidt (2009) Solar Trends & Global Warming, Journal of Geophysical Research 114, D14101".

I shall see if I can find a readable version of the Schmidt and Benestad paper later on.

There are no references to "TSI" (Total Solar Irradiance) or to "sunspots", so it would appear that the above is all they have to say on the subject of solar activity. Looks like they didn't include those "forced-out" solar papers after all...

CB

Off course they won't CB, after all how can that big ball of fire, have any relevance to increasing global temperatures!

[rob48]

"So, you're here for political reasons not scientific?"

I didn't know I needed a reason.

I thought it was a public forum where anyone could join in.

[cyclonic happiness]

I cannot understand what they are all trying to acheive?

Any "evidence" they have is all speculative and with alot of holes it it too.

And now they are telling us that reducing CO2 "may" help reduce global warming?

Well until they say "WILL" why would anyone want to do anything?

[Admiral_Bobski]

So, you're here for political reasons not scientific?

Well nobody else seems to be here for scientific reasons - so far only SC has commented on my previous post. In fact it seems that it goes very quiet on here whenever actual science is discussed, the leaky integrator being a prime example. At the risk of shamelessly plugging another thread, the LI thread is there for all to comment on and so far there has been pretty much nothing said.

If people are so concerned with keeping discussions on a scientific track then might I suggest that certain people put their money where their mouths are and actually engage in a scientific discussion?

CB

[Devonian]

"So, you're here for political reasons not scientific?"

I didn't know I needed a reason.

I thought it was a public forum where anyone could join in.

It is just asking.

[rob48]

I'm here to try and see why some people are so sure about global-warming theories because I'm not convinced.

As for the politics element - this government (in particular) seem to be a bunch of tax-grabbing control freaks who are desperate for any excuse to frighten us and justify further taxation.

Brown just seems to be a jinx on everythging he touches.

So the answer is political AND scientific.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I cannot understand what they are all trying to acheive?

Any "evidence" they have is all speculative and with alot of holes it it too.

And now they are telling us that reducing CO2 "may" help reduce global warming?

Well until they say "WILL" why would anyone want to do anything?

Unfortunately that attitude places climate scientists and politicians in a lose-lose situation.

1. If people aren't going to take action unless we can definitely say "this WILL reduce global warming", then regardless of how serious AGW is, or how avoidable it is, they are never, ever going to take any action. Why? Because the global climate system is so complex that we are never going to be 100% certain, and all we can do regarding future climate change is to forecast it. We can get better at it, we can improve our understanding of it but we can never predict the future with 100% certainty.

2. Why is there this law that we shouldn't take action regarding AGW unless we can be certain about it, which doesn't apply to any other aspect of science? Would it be fair to say that if there was a 90% chance of snow in 2 days' time we shouldn't do anything because it's only 90% chance and not 100%? Many risk assessments deal with probabilities not absolutes.

3. If this attitude prevails then it adds justification to the political desire to make out that AGW is more certain than it really is, so that the scientists' "may", "is very likely to happen" and "probable" becomes replaced with the politicians' "will", "will" and "will". Many people are intelligent enough to see past this, and it makes them feel they are being lied to and being taken in by some kind of conspiracy aimed at increasing tax revenues. Scientists and politicians in that situation can only ever lose, regardless of how right or wrong they are.

[Roger J Smith]

Did these people not check the weather before embarking on this misadventure?

Too bad they didn't plan to hold the conference about eight time zones west at the same latitude where it is currently about -30 C. No doubt this would have caused them to see the error of their ways so that they could sheepishly return home and as Lord Monckton said in an interview today, "find better things to do with their time."

I know, they think they are saving humanity and fixing the climate.

IT'S FIXED ITSELF, WE CAN'T TAKE ANY MORE COLD. PLEASE, DOWN TOOLS AND GO HOME. <_<

Edited December 8, 2009 by Roger J Smith

[cyclonic happiness]

Unfortunately that attitude places climate scientists and politicians in a lose-lose situation.

1. If people aren't going to take action unless we can definitely say "this WILL reduce global warming", then regardless of how serious AGW is, or how avoidable it is, they are never, ever going to take any action. Why? Because the global climate system is so complex that we are never going to be 100% certain, and all we can do regarding future climate change is to forecast it. We can get better at it, we can improve our understanding of it but we can never predict the future with 100% certainty.

2. Why is there this law that we shouldn't take action regarding AGW unless we can be certain about it, which doesn't apply to any other aspect of science? Would it be fair to say that if there was a 90% chance of snow in 2 days' time we shouldn't do anything because it's only 90% chance and not 100%? Many risk assessments deal with probabilities not absolutes.

3. If this attitude prevails then it adds justification to the political desire to make out that AGW is more certain than it really is, so that the scientists' "may", "is very likely to happen" and "probable" becomes replaced with the politicians' "will", "will" and "will". Many people are intelligent enough to see past this, and it makes them feel they are being lied to and being taken in by some kind of conspiracy aimed at increasing tax revenues. Scientists and politicians in that situation can only ever lose, regardless of how right or wrong they are.

Trouble is that there are alot of people who will never look into anything like climate change with any great depth like folk on here do, we all have to deal with them.

And also there are a HUGE amount of stupid people as well which couldn't care less whether it was saving the planet of just common sense cutting down on carbon emissions, which most know is unsustainable.

So long as they have their house at 100f all year and are able to go on holiday to "Ibeefa" and the like.

Then there are the cynical masses (me amongst them) who, over the years have heard so much conflicting science that we just dismiss the whole lot and anyone else in authority that tries to tell us the latest way we are all gonna perish horribly.

Perhaps they should be a little quieter about "world destruction" and concentrate more on convincing people that "living greener will save you MONEY", which we all know is probably the main incentive for 90% of the poulation to do anything?

I agree with you that my attitude may be a great hurdle to overcome, but I think they are going about things the wrong way and we can get carbon down in a backdoor sort of way, as a side effect to becoming more effecient as a species

[Dartmoor_Matt]

I'm happy to recycle all I can, I'm happy to walk/cycle where feasible, I am happy to switch off lights etc when not in use, but I refuse to give up on holidays just because some greenie thinks flying is bad. (Ya see, the savings from the previous three mean I can)

And this is where politicians are going wrong, instead of preaching 'saving' the planet, they should preach saving money... in alot of cases, the two are the same. But only one is going to really attract peoples attention.

[rob48]

For Devonian:

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=39655

It's not just me who thinks he's a jinx!

[Roger J Smith]

I'm just hearing about the circle of commitment.

Is that where a group of men in white coats surround a lunatic and drag him off to an asylum? Because if that's about to develop at Copenhagen, there may be some hope of a sensible solution.

[Roger J Smith]

Now I hear something about kicking Canada out of the Commonwealth.

Boo-hoo, that would be a terrible loss, we would really miss Zimbabwe and the other super-enlightened countries of this social club extraordinaire. Is Pakistan still in the Commonwealth? Now there's a model of social development.

I wish we could actually take a much more strident position. If I were the PM of Canada, I would go to Hopenchangen, tell the rest of the world that we did not want to share in the mass delusion and follow the Pied Piper of Goreville down the garden path to global economic ruin, and pull out of the "process" altogether. Our actual PM would probably like to do that, but Canadian political opinion is dreadfully p.c. due to mass media censorship of most non-p.c. points of view for the past forty years or so, and this government is tolerated mainly because they are honest and not corrupt like the favoured Liberals turned out to be a few years ago.

I know, it doesn't sound like much, rational thought, honesty and a lack of corruption, but it was the best we could do on short notice. I'm sure we'll be back to the Liberals after the world community gets through shaming our government for not jumping as high as the Chinese are demanding everyone else must do.

What this conference really signals is the usurpation of national sovereignty by a cabal of the UN, China, and various corporations and powerful figures behind the curtains, who want to impose yet another level of taxation on everyone to finance their operations. It is a totally non-productive concept that can only damage if not ruin the global economy, and turn the world into a sort of dumping ground for Chinese consumer products made by underpaid workers in a polluted nightmare world (remind you of anywhere?) ... and if that's the Commonwealth's vision, then they can have it.

I have to wonder when the world will pull out of this mass hysteria and delusion. We have no shortage of it here either, the CBC (our version of the BBC) is forever on about how the world looks down on Canada for "lagging behind." There are some things that you really want to lag far behind, and this circus is one of those.

[stewfox]

Unfortunately that attitude places climate scientists and politicians in a lose-lose situation.

1. If people aren't going to take action unless we can definitely say "this WILL reduce global warming", then regardless of how serious AGW is, or how avoidable it is, they are never, ever going to take any action. Why? Because the global climate system is so complex that we are never going to be 100% certain, and all we can do regarding future climate change is to forecast it. We can get better at it, we can improve our understanding of it but we can never predict the future with 100% certainty.

2. Why is there this law that we shouldn't take action regarding AGW unless we can be certain about it, which doesn't apply to any other aspect of science? Would it be fair to say that if there was a 90% chance of snow in 2 days' time we shouldn't do anything because it's only 90% chance and not 100%? Many risk assessments deal with probabilities not absolutes.

3. If this attitude prevails then it adds justification to the political desire to make out that AGW is more certain than it really is, so that the scientists' "may", "is very likely to happen" and "probable" becomes replaced with the politicians' "will", "will" and "will". Many people are intelligent enough to see past this, and it makes them feel they are being lied to and being taken in by some kind of conspiracy aimed at increasing tax revenues. Scientists and politicians in that situation can only ever lose, regardless of how right or wrong they are.

What 'action' would you suggest

This obsession with reducing CO2 is comical

I would make it MANDATORY that the 12 articles published in the New Scientist are discussed

With regard to your point 2 there is a unknown unverified unsupported chance that a Hurricane will blow your house down, should I spend £300,000 to secure it in case ?

Anyway back to Polar Bears

http://www.cbc.ca/ca...l-manitoba.html

Find 50 bears and thats enough to spin a story

Edited December 9, 2009 by stewfox

[laserguy]

With regard to your point 2 there is a unknown unverified unsupported chance that a Hurricane will blow your house down, should I spend £300,000 to secure it in case ?

Very good,I like that! Be funny to watch on 'News at When' all the bozos being airlifted out of Copenhagen with frostbite and pending starvation when supply lines of their posh nosh are disrupted,and all the while babbling incoherantly about global warming.

Roger J Smith - wish you would post more frequently on these threads!

[noggin]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234598/British-taxpayers-pay-1-billion-year-help-poor-countries-fight-global-warming-new-deal-backed-Brown.html

How very nice of us. We, the British taxpayers will pay £1billion per year into a fund to help poor countries fight global warming. I bet they'll be thrilled to know that their most urgent needs are being met.

[stewfox]

Very good,I like that! Be funny to watch on 'News at When' all the bozos being airlifted out of Copenhagen with frostbite and pending starvation when supply lines of their posh nosh are disrupted,and all the while babbling incoherantly about global warming.

Roger J Smith - wish you would post more frequently on these threads!

Of course there are serious issues and maybe we can start looking at them

I for one will never swim with trained dolphins again and thats where we start. UNDERSTANDING our planet

How many at the summit could give you to within 1,000,000 sq kms the current ice cover at the Artcic ?? 3% ??

http://www.dailymail...cked-Brown.html

How very nice of us. We, the British taxpayers will pay £1billion per year into a fund to help poor countries fight global warming. I bet they'll be thrilled to know that their most urgent needs are being met.

It use to called 'food aid'

[Solar Cycles]

Very good,I like that! Be funny to watch on 'News at When' all the bozos being airlifted out of Copenhagen with frostbite and pending starvation when supply lines of their posh nosh are disrupted,and all the while babbling incoherantly about global warming.

Roger J Smith - wish you would post more frequently on these threads!

Why rescue them!

[Devonian]

Now I hear something about kicking Canada out of the Commonwealth.

Boo-hoo, that would be a terrible loss, we would really miss Zimbabwe and the other super-enlightened countries of this social club extraordinaire. Is Pakistan still in the Commonwealth? Now there's a model of social development.

I wish we could actually take a much more strident position. If I were the PM of Canada, I would go to Hopenchangen, tell the rest of the world that we did not want to share in the mass delusion and follow the Pied Piper of Goreville down the garden path to global economic ruin, and pull out of the "process" altogether. Our actual PM would probably like to do that, but Canadian political opinion is dreadfully p.c. due to mass media censorship of most non-p.c. points of view for the past forty years or so, and this government is tolerated mainly because they are honest and not corrupt like the favoured Liberals turned out to be a few years ago.

All good knock about stuff, Roger, (and I'll resist similar name calling) but you're the one who has to live in a country turning one of it's provinces into a vast tar pit because of the lure of filthy (literally) lucre...

I know, it doesn't sound like much, rational thought, honesty and a lack of corruption, but it was the best we could do on short notice. I'm sure we'll be back to the Liberals after the world community gets through shaming our government for not jumping as high as the Chinese are demanding everyone else must do.

What this conference really signals is the usurpation of national sovereignty by a cabal of the UN, China, and various corporations and powerful figures behind the curtains, who want to impose yet another level of taxation on everyone to finance their operations. It is a totally non-productive concept that can only damage if not ruin the global economy, and turn the world into a sort of dumping ground for Chinese consumer products made by underpaid workers in a polluted nightmare world (remind you of anywhere?) ... and if that's the Commonwealth's vision, then they can have it.

China is no nirvana but that's no excuse for ignoring science reality.

I have to wonder when the world will pull out of this mass hysteria and delusion. We have no shortage of it here either, the CBC (our version of the BBC) is forever on about how the world looks down on Canada for "lagging behind." There are some things that you really want to lag far behind, and this circus is one of those.

More knock about and name calling...

Edited December 10, 2009 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

I sense an approaching shoal of red herrings!

PS: why not blue sardines???

[Admiral_Bobski]

I sense an approaching shoal of red herrings!

PS: why not blue sardines???

Because "blue sardines" would just be silly. Besides, you'd be blue, too, if you were crammed in a tin with all those other sardines...

CB

[rob48]

No doubt half of the cash will line the pockets of corrupt politicians or disappear into the arms trade:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/11/tax-climate-aid-brown-sarkozy

Why on earth are we contributing more than anybody else, is it because Gordon thinks our economy is doing better than theirs, although we're the only ones still in recession?