COP21 – More than we expected, less that we needed

Written By: - Date published: 11:00 am, December 14th, 2015 - 108 comments
Categories: climate change, global warming, leadership, uncategorized - Tags: , , ,

After some initial optimism based on early reports, it’s clear that we didn’t get what we needed from Paris.

A surprising number of politicians and activists are upbeat, e.g. Avaaz:

Victory! The end of fossil fuels has begun…

World leaders at the UN climate talks have just set a landmark goal that can save everything we love!
This is what we marched for, what we signed, called, donated, messaged, and hoped for: a brilliant and massive turning point in human history.

It’s called net-zero human emissions — a balancing of what we release into the air and what is taken out — and when the dust settles and the Paris Agreement is in the hands of lawmakers, clean energy will be the best, cheapest, and most effective way to keep their promise. This gives us the platform we need to realize the dream of a safe future for generations! …

This includes our own Greens:

Green Party welcomes the Paris Agreement

The Green Party has welcomed the Paris climate agreement saying New Zealand must now honour the commitment it made in Paris with action at home.

“There’s no doubt this is an historic moment,” said Green Party Co-leader James Shaw, who is at the talks.

“It’s not a perfect deal by any means and there are lots of details to work out but it’s frankly an incredible achievement.” …

Sadly, the fact is that we didn’t get what we needed from Paris. Here’s the key point:

The overall agreement is legally binding, but some elements – including the pledges to curb emissions by individual countries and the climate finance elements – are not.

If it’s not legally binding in these crucial aspects it might as well be a wet bus ticket. Our own useless government – which couldn’t lead a buzzy bee – has already made it clear that we won’t be seriously addressing our emissions in NZ. Here’s James Hansen:

James Hansen, father of climate change awareness, calls Paris talks ‘a fraud’

The former Nasa scientist criticizes the talks, intended to reach a new global deal on cutting carbon emissions beyond 2020, as ‘no action, just promises’

“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

Here’s a pretty balanced summary from George Monbiot:

Grand promises of Paris climate deal undermined by squalid retrenchments

By comparison to what it could have been, it’s a miracle. By comparison to what it should have been, it’s a disaster.

Inside the narrow frame within which the talks have taken place, the draft agreement at the UN climate talks in Paris is a great success. The relief and self-congratulation with which the final text was greeted, acknowledges the failure at Copenhagen six years ago, where the negotiations ran wildly over time before collapsing. The Paris agreement is still awaiting formal adoption, but its aspirational limit of 1.5C of global warming, after the rejection of this demand for so many years, can be seen within this frame as a resounding victory. In this respect and others, the final text is stronger than most people anticipated.

Outside the frame it looks like something else. I doubt any of the negotiators believe that there will be no more than 1.5C of global warming as a result of these talks. As the preamble to the agreement acknowledges, even 2C, in view of the weak promises governments brought to Paris, is wildly ambitious. Though negotiated by some nations in good faith, the real outcomes are likely to commit us to levels of climate breakdown that will be dangerous to all and lethal to some.

The talks in Paris are the best there have ever been. And that is a terrible indictment.

So yes, let the delegates congratulate themselves on a better agreement than might have been expected. And let them temper it with an apology to all those it will betray.

Not with a bang, but a whimper.

108 comments on “COP21 – More than we expected, less that we needed”

  1. Colonial Viper 2

    I don’t understand how people believe that the Paris talks were going to change the fundamental basis of capitalist driven economic expansion or transnational corporate control of resource exploitation and consumption for profit.

    edit – I mean, isn’t it crystal clear to the left that a complete restructuring of the status quo economic and social goals of our civilisation is necessary?

    • Draco T Bastard 2.1

      I mean, isn’t it crystal clear to the left that a complete restructuring of the status quo economic and social goals of our civilisation is necessary?

      To those of us on the Left it is. Unfortunately, we don’t seem to have that many people on the Left any more as so many people seemingly have come to believe that having lots of money is more important than having life.

    • RedLogix 2.2

      I mean, isn’t it crystal clear to the left that a complete restructuring of the status quo economic and social goals of our civilisation is necessary?

      Yes … and I’ve been quietly speaking to that around here for the last 8 years.

    • Bill 2.3

      Abundantly, obvious and crystal.

    • weka 2.4

      “edit – I mean, isn’t it crystal clear to the left that a complete restructuring of the status quo economic and social goals of our civilisation is necessary?”

      Yes, but it’s easy enough to recognise what should change, less straight forward for people to say how it can be done. By ‘can’ I mean given the way the world is.

      I haven’t seen anyone saying that COP21 is going to end capitalism.

    • Pat 2.5

      more a case of hope than believe……or a disbelief that the weight of evidence and opinion can continue to be so thoroughly ignored?

  2. acrophobic 3

    Fascinating. Hordes of people build up a massive carbon footprint to determine a global goal that will ever be met to solve a problem that isn’t. Oh the joy when politics infiltrates science.

    • Colonial Viper 3.1

      What do you mean “a problem that isn’t.”

      Our political class doesn’t care about facts any more. That’s a major problem.

      • acrophobic 3.1.1

        Anthropogenic climate change is the ‘problem that isn’t’. And I agree with you totally about politics. Unfortunately many scientists are swallowing the snake oil.

        • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1

          So the gigatonnes of CO2, a known greenhouse gas, that industrial civilisation pumps into the atmosphere every year has no appreciable effect?

          • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1.1.1

            That’s right, the magic Exxon fairy pays it to flout the laws of Physics.

          • acrophobic 3.1.1.1.2

            Oh it has an amazing effect. It stimulates plant growth. It is directly responsible for the food we eat and the oxygen we breath.

            But it has little or no impact on climate.

            • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.2.1

              But it has little or no impact on climate.

              ???

              It is a key reason why the surface of the Earth is not as cold as the surface of the Moon.

              How do you justify saying that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

              You really are an obsolete model of climate change denier.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.2

      You’re absolute ignorance and stupidity is showing again.

      If you’ve got proof that Anthropogenic Climate Change isn’t a problem then I suggest you shout it from the rooftops – you’ll become famous really fast. Of course, you don’t have such proof because no such proof exists.

      And it’s not politics that’s infiltrated science but really stupid people, such as yourself, that has helped to force politics to ignore the science.

      • acrophobic 3.2.1

        Let me give you a lesson in how science works. Those who propose a hypothesis are required to work painstakingly to disprove it. They test, replicate, reset constantly while the original hypothesis is refined.

        AGW is not my hypothesis. It’s advocates OUGHT to be testing it repeatedly, but alas that isn’t happening because the science is being corrupted by politics and money. Dissent, once the great tool of science, is ridiculed. Only private funding is available for the alternate view to what is politically correct. This is not science, it is scientism.

        So what is happening? Quite simple really. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is minute, and could go significantly higher with little or no impact on the environment. The environment is changing, always has and always will, because of largely natural factors over which mankind has virtually no control. The steps being taken by the lunatics in Paris will simply transfer large amounts of wealth to corrupt politicians such as Al Gore, while starving large parts of the planets population by pushing the cost of food out of the reach of the poor.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 3.2.1.1

          Testing, testing, testing.

          Ice melting, check.

          Surface temperatures increasing, check.

          Nights warming more than days, as predicted, check.

          Winter warming more than summer, as predicted, check.

          The Arctic warming more than the Antarctic, as predicted, check.

          CO2 performing exactly as Quantum Mechanics predicts it will, check.

          Dribbling fuckwits who wouldn’t recognise a molecular dipole to save their lives, check.

          • acrophobic 3.2.1.1.1

            CO2 doesn’t perform. It is a harmless gas, part of the planets natural life cycle.

            Your other comments are childish. The climate is always changing. In the 1970’s scientists were predicting cooling, as are an increasing number of climate scientists today. There is nothing about CO2 concentrations that helps with these predictions. Otherwise the list of false and grossly exaggerated predictions by so called ‘alarmists’ would not be so long.

            • Colonial Viper 3.2.1.1.1.1

              ???

              CO2 is a confirmed greenhouse gas and a major component of why the Earth isn’t freezing like the surface of the moon.

              You really are a fool.

              And as a denier, you’re roughly only a ~2010 model. So sad.

              • acrophobic

                You suffer from an affliction common amongst alarmists, failure to read for comprehension.

                Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Where did I say it wasn’t?
                Yes CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect of the planet. Where did I say it didn’t?
                At 400 ppm we could do with more, not because of it’s impact on climate, but because it is plant food!

                I am trying to make this as simple as possible for you.

                • Macro

                  At 400 ppm we could do with more, not because of it’s impact on climate, but because it is plant food!

                  LOL
                  We have a right one here!
                  Did you know all that excess CO2 is killing Koalas!?
                  http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10502412
                  You are aware that we are heading for a climate similar to that not experienced on earth for more than 1 million years?
                  You are aware that plants also require rainfall – not floods and droughts and high winds?
                  You are aware that simply increasing one component does not necessarily result in increased growth. Plants need more than CO2 to grow.

                  • acrophobic

                    Oh I’ve read all sorts of catastrophic nonsense about CO2. I prefer to listen to biologists. Do the reading.

                    • Macro

                      You mean read watts up with that? lol

                      I think you will find only biologists in their dotage will tell you that no species is under threat from Global Warming. If you were to have read the link re Koalas you would have seen that the article was based upon a scientific report by – wait for it! – not one – but two biologists!.

                      Just so you can read it for yourself – here they are being quoted:

                      “What we’re seeing, essentially, is that the staple diet of these animals is being turned to leather,” said science professor Bill Foley, of Australian National University, in Canberra.

                      “This is potentially a very significant development for the future of some marsupial populations. Life is set to become extremely difficult for these animals.”

                      Climate change could help to explain decreases in the numbers of brushtail possums and greater gliders (a large possum) in certain parts of Queensland where none of the usual factors – disease, hunting, loss of habitat – appears to be to blame.

                      Jane De Gabriel, a zoologist at ANU, told the Australian newspaper that brushtail possums had been found to breed more prolifically in woodland areas where the protein levels in eucalyptus leaves were high. “This suggests that in areas where nutrient levels are inadequate, animals will not be able to reproduce successfully,” she said.

                      “What follows are extinctions of wildlife populations. It’s pretty scary stuff.”

                    • acrophobic

                      I am on record as saying I don’t read Anthony Watts.

                      As to brush tail possums, have you ever heard of extinction? Of darwinian evolution? Animal and plant forms come and go, it is a natural part of the cycle of life. Some adapt, some don’t. We may well be responsible in some cases. But any anthropogenic component of climate change is so small that we simply have nothing to do with the potential demise of these furry creatures, and any suggestion we are that significant is sheer arrogance.

                    • Macro

                      OMG – you are an ignoramus!
                      I’ve met some deniers before – but you sir take the cake!
                      “But any anthropogenic component of climate change is so small that we simply have nothing to do with the potential demise of these furry creatures”
                      That is an incredibly bold statement to make – you have of course proof???
                      I don’t mean a reference or two to a denier blog – I mean scientific peer reviewed articles which show conclusively that the anthropogenic component of the current Global Warming is as negligible as you claim.
                      You also seem to be unaware that the sixth great extinction of species on this planet is underway.
                      http://time.com/3035872/sixth-great-extinction/
                      and global warming forms a significant part of it.

                • Draco T Bastard

                  You really are an ignorant schmuck who views things far too simply.


                  More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.

                  3. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat.

                  Photosynthesis and Plant Growth at Elevated Levels of CO2

                  In this review, we discuss the effects of elevated CO2 levels on photosynthesis in relation to the whole plant growth in terrestrial higher C3 plants. Short-term CO2 enrichment stimulates the rate of photosynthesis. Plant mass is also enhanced by CO2 enrichment. However, the effects of long-term CO2 enrichment on photosynthesis are variable. Generally, the prolonged exposure to CO2 enrichment reduces the initial stimulation of photosynthesis in many species, and frequently suppresses photosynthesis. These responses are attributed to secondary responses related to either excess carbohydrate accumulation or decreased N content rather than direct responses to CO2. Accumulation of carbohydrates in leaves may lead to the repression of photosynthetic gene expression and excess starch seems to hinder CO2 diffusion. Therefore, the species which have the sink organs for carbohydrate accumulation do not show the suppression of photosynthesis. The suppression of photosynthesis by CO2 enrichment is always associated with decreases in leaf N and Rubisco contents. These decreases are not due to dilution of N caused by a relative increase in the plant mass but are the result of a decrease in N allocation to leaves at the level of the whole plant, and the decrease in Rubisco content is not selective. Leaf senescence and plant development are also accelerated by CO2 enrichment. However, they are independent of each other in some species. Thus, various responses to CO2 observed at the level of a single leaf result from manifold responses at the level of the whole plant grown under conditions of CO2 enrichment.

                  Climate change surprise: High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth, study reveals

                  The prevailing view among scientists is that global climate change may prove beneficial to many farmers and foresters — at least in the short term. The logic is straightforward: Plants need atmospheric carbon dioxide to produce food, and by emitting more CO2 into the air, our cars and factories create new sources of plant nutrition that will cause some crops and trees to grow bigger and faster.

                  But an unprecedented three-year experiment conducted at Stanford University is raising questions about that long-held assumption. Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change — namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil.

                  The results of the study may prompt researchers and policymakers to rethink one of the standard arguments against taking action to prevent global warming: that natural ecosystems will minimize the problem of fossil fuel emissions by transferring large amounts of carbon in the atmosphere to plants and soils.

                  • acrophobic

                    Your reading is very selective Draco. “Some” plants is the dead giveaway. Here’s an alternative view, although if you are a true alarmist you probably won’t be interested.

                    http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?MenuItemID=103

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Your understanding is very selective.
                      What effect does higher temperature have on plants?

                    • acrophobic

                      Only if there’s no rain OAB. Now what were those alarmists saying about rain…

                    • acrophobic

                      Which if we adapt to, and harness, will water the larger plants we will be growing! Get used to it. We aren’t causing it, so nothing we do will change it.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Yes, we’re causing it, as the atmospheric carbon isotope ratio trend demonstrates.

                      “Harness”.

                      What a fool you are.

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      You stopped reading on my first quote didn’t you?

                      And as for this BS:

                      Which if we adapt to, and harness, will water the larger plants we will be growing!

                      You may not have noticed but we’ve continuously failed to control floods. The most most notable failure would be New Orleans during Katrina.

                    • acrophobic

                      “Yes, we’re causing it, as the atmospheric carbon isotope ratio trend demonstrates.”

                      No, we’re not. And even if we are, half a degree warming for every doubling of CO2…who cares?

                    • acrophobic

                      “You may not have noticed but we’ve continuously failed to control floods. The most most notable failure would be New Orleans during Katrina.”

                      The planet, and humans with it, have adapted to and survived far worse. We will most likely have to adapt to all sorts of events in the future, most well out of our control. Global warming being one of them. Or maybe cooling…

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Yes, we are: the trend in the ratio is unequivocal.

                      It’s obvious that you care very much that this not be happening. So much so that you publicly parade your fatuous wishful thinking all over the interwebs.

                      And not an original thought in any of it. Pathetic.

                    • acrophobic

                      What I care about is that humanity is not hoodwinked into taking action that will starve millions (look at the transfer of investment from food sources to bio fuels) for no good reason other than to lineAL Gore’s pockets.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Conspiracy parrot with Al Gore fixation fails Physics, Maths and English.

                  • Paul

                    I sense you are wasting your time, draco.
                    acrophobic seems quite fervent in his faith.

              • Paul

                It is not worth discussing the issue with deniers.
                There isn’t the time to waste on pointless debate.

                • McFlock

                  true, but it’s fun when they start to contradict themselves – humans aren’t increasing the teensy weensy CO2 levels enough to have a significant effect on climate, but apparently we can increase them enough to provide global “plant food”…

                  • acrophobic

                    I haven’t seen anyone argue that here. Mankind’s influence on climate is miniscule. Further, a doubling of CO2 concentration would only increase global temperatures by around 0.5c anyway. The most recent warming cycle (up to the 1990’s) was similar to two previous warming cycles over the past 200 years. There is nothing extraordinary going on.

                    • Macro

                      Further, a doubling of CO2 concentration would only increase global temperatures by around 0.5c anyway

                      🙄

                      You seem to be completely unaware of the science of Global Warming – its actually not a new science and I suggest you read this:
                      https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

                      In 1896 Arrhenius completed a laborious numerical computation which suggested that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by half could lower the temperature in Europe some 4-5°C

                      But he wasn’t the first to understand the importance of the “green house” gasses. that goes to Fourier in the 1820’s – the science of C.C is at least 200 years old.

                      During the 1970s, the greenhouse effect became a major topic in many overlapping fields. Scientists eventually determined that a bit over half of the effect of humans on climate change is due to emissions of CO2 (mainly from fossil fuels but also from deforestation and cement manufacture). The rest of the effect is due to methane and other gases emitted by human activities; atmospheric pollution by smoke and dust; and changes in land use such as replacing dark forest with sunlight-reflecting crops or desert.

                      The most recent IPPC (an international body of scientists convened by the UN on behalf of all Nations) Report states that we are now 99% certain that AGW is occurring and that humans are primarily responsible for the almost 1 degree C rise in temperature since the pre-industrial era.
                      If you have important information that proves your outlandish statement above you need to publish it in a reputable scientific journal – and quick!

            • McFlock 3.2.1.1.1.2

              When you say “CO2 doesn’t perform”, are you arguing that it is inert? Or even that it does not absorb and radiate electromagnetic energy at specific frequencies?

              Or are you merely stating that CO2 won’t be taking the lead at the Globe Theatre any time soon? /sarc 🙄

              • acrophobic

                Ref OAB’s comment. I should have put the ‘perform’ in inverted commas.

                • McFlock

                  Doing you have difficulty parsing the everyday language of humans?

                  It’s perfectly normal to talk about inanimate objects or substances “behaving” or “performing” when discussing their physical and chemical properties. Just a protip for your future automated stonewalling.

                  • acrophobic

                    No, no difficulty at all. OAB said “CO2 performing exactly as Quantum Mechanics predicts it will, check.” CO2 does not ‘perform’ in the context of climate science. It may cause other elements to perform in certain ways, but thats about it. As I said earlier, the comprehension of alarmists is not their strong point.

                    • McFlock

                      CO2 does not ‘perform’ in the context of climate science. It may cause other elements to perform in certain ways, but thats about it.

                      So it neither absorbs nor emits electromagnetic energy?

                      You can collect your Nobel prize at the door /sarc

                    • acrophobic

                      CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. Do you understand the greenhouse effect?

                    • McFlock

                      So it only absorbs IR?

                      Are you a slow reader, or are you just intentionally telling half the story?

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      Well, McFlock, I figure that acrophobic probably doesn’t even know quarter of the story and he’s clutching at any straw that he hopes will stop his beliefs being drowned in the facts.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 3.2.1.1.1.3

              There is nothing about CO2 concentrations that helps with these predictions.

              So you’re ignorant as well as a fool. The predictions I listed (apart from the QM findings, Guy Callendar 1936) were authored by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 (pdf). He was studying atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and extrapolated his conclusions using a global circulation model.

              He got every single prediction right. That you run your mouth on the subject without knowing that speaks volumes.

              • acrophobic

                Svante Arrhenius made predictions about the impact of CO2 on climate, but most particularly surface temperatures. He would be spinning in his grave with the alarmism today. He would also be the first to acknowledge that the satelite data shows warming virtually stopped around 20 years ago.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  Shall we discuss orbital decay or the number of corrections that Spencer has had to make to his paper?

                  Or an oxymoron like this, in your own words:

                  “CO2 is a greenhouse gas that has little or no effect on climate”.

                  Edit: “20 years” – you ought to know that for successful denial along those lines the base line is 1998. Colossal fail 😆

                  • acrophobic

                    Spencer who?

                    CO2 is a greenhouse gas. CO2, in it’s current concentrations, has little or no effect on climate. Every time C02 concentration doubles, we get around 0.5c in warming. Climate sensitivity to C02 has been grossly exaggerated by alarmists (primarily non-scientists).

        • Colonial Viper 3.2.1.2

          So what is happening? Quite simple really. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is minute, and could go significantly higher with little or no impact on the environment.

          According to your own criteria, where are all the worlds you have tested this on in order to reach this conclusion?

          Oh that’s right, you’re just another full of shit denier who doesn’t actually care about science but just mouths the words.

          • acrophobic 3.2.1.2.1

            “According to your own criteria, where are all the worlds you have tested this on in order to reach this conclusion?”

            CO2 levels have reached 7000 ppm in the past. It was close to 400 in the 1940’s, and the early 19th century, long before man industrialised.

            Some biologists actually argue that a CO2 concentration of up to 1000ppm would massively benefit plant and animal growth on earth.

            Do some reading.

            • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1.2.1.1

              CO2 levels have reached 7000 ppm in the past.

              [citation needed]

              Especially a citation that life was present at the same time.

              Some biologists actually argue that a CO2 concentration of up to 1000ppm would massively benefit plant and animal growth on earth.

              [citation needed]

              • Paul

                By googling 400 ppm Co2 1940s, I may have found the source of acrophobic’s information ( that he is so reluctant to reveal)

                http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/a-brief-history-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-record-breaking/

                David Middleton (the author) features regularly on this denier site.
                His own website below should be enough for any thinking person to realise he is not a valid scientist.

                This quote is enough for you all to get a flavour.
                ‘I also frequently use the word “Enviromarxism” or “Enviromarxist.” Enviromarxists are those politicians and scientists who are threatening to take away our freedom and prosperity in order to protect the environment of the Earth from the ravages of capitalism.’

                https://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/about/

                • acrophobic

                  Hi Paul…I don’t read Antony Watts, at least not if I can help it. Here’s a graph to support my contentions about atmospheric CO2…http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/.

                  The fact that you and others didn’t know this speaks volumes.

                  • Paul

                    Ernst Georg Beck was a contributor to Watts’ pseudo-Science site.
                    What web source do you use then?

                    • acrophobic

                      Hi Paul…I not only avoid Watts but also Skeptical Science. These sorts of sites read more like triumphalist religious sites than scientific literature. I don’t have any particular favourites, whatever reproduces the scientific literature and data faithfully. Regrettably people such as Al Gore set the tone for the deception that characterises this debate, and it is evident on both sides, although more so from alarmists IMHO.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Nature, for example.

                      🙄

                    • Paul

                      Could you simply give us a link to the site/sites you use?
                      Why are you so reluctant to divulge this?

                    • acrophobic

                      “Could you simply give us a link to the site/sites you use?
                      Why are you so reluctant to divulge this?”

                      I’m not. I have been providing citations as I have posted. If I have claimed something you would like further citations for, please let me know. There are an increasing number of scientists prepared to speak out against alarmism.

                  • McFlock

                    lol

                    googling your source also speaks volumes, let alone reading it.

            • Corokia 3.2.1.2.1.2

              “It was close to 400 in the 1940’s, and the early 19th century, long before man industrialised.
              Citation needed here too.

              There have been periods in the geologic past when there was no ice at the poles, doesn’t mean its a good idea to knowingly make it happen again.

            • Paul 3.2.1.2.1.3

              zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

            • Paul 3.2.1.2.1.4

              Ignorant.
              Very ignorant.

              Find a deniers’ website where you can share your fantasies.

            • greywarshark 3.2.1.2.1.5

              a….phobia
              Do let us know what you have been reading and please be specific – the book, article name, publication, author or the link with all the infor.

              • acrophobic

                The ‘book’? You mean you read a book and think that’s definitive? Sigh. FYI, I read the published record, both in the scientific literature and in the analysis of data sets measuring factors effected by climate sensitivity. I don’t listen to Greenpeace, I don’t read blogs from political lobby groups.

          • Paul 3.2.1.2.2

            That’s acrophobic …our new climate troll.

            • weka 3.2.1.2.2.1

              An actual out and out denier, how retro.

            • lprent 3.2.1.2.2.2

              Probably an old one that has been regurgitated.

              Now people, please remember that when you finish playing with your food that you are NOT to present him as a present to me. This one looks too stupid to provide any interesting links to dissect….

        • McFlock 3.2.1.3

          The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is minute, and could go significantly higher with little or no impact on the environment

          That’s your hypothesis, and it is inconsistent with the observed data, theoretical models, practical experiments, and the laws of physics.

          • acrophobic 3.2.1.3.1

            “That’s your hypothesis”
            No, it’s fact. The current concentration of CO2 is around 400ppm. That’s parts per million. That is 0.04%. A doubling of CO2 would take this to only 0.08%.

            • McFlock 3.2.1.3.1.1

              The current concentration of CO2 is around 400ppm. That’s parts per million. That is 0.04%. A doubling of CO2 would take this to only 0.08%.

              That is an observed fact described in a few different ways.

              The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is minute, and could go significantly higher with little or no impact on the environment

              That is your hypothesis, and it is inconsistent with the observed data, theoretical models, practical experiments, and the laws of physics.

              The fact that it is a small concentration relative to other chemicals has nothing to do whether significantly increasing that concentration will have a major effect on the climate.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 3.2.1.3.1.2

              The amount of hydrogen cyanide in this room is trivial, only 300ppm (that’s parts per million). Please enter, and take a deep breath.

              You see: no effect whatsoever. Your brain remains dead both before and after the experiment.

              • acrophobic

                Hydrogen cyanide is a poison compound. CO2 is vital to life on earth. Bring it on!

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  *whoosh*

                • McFlock

                  CO2 is also a poisonous compound, einstein

                    • McFlock

                      So some substances can have a big effect even if their concentrations are “minute” compared to the concentrations that other substances would require to have an effect of similar magnitude?

                      Gosh, that sounds familiar…

                    • acrophobic

                      “So some substances can have a big effect even if their concentrations are “minute” compared to the concentrations that other substances would require to have an effect of similar magnitude?”

                      You’re confused. A CO2 concentration of 60,000ppm is 6%, not ‘minute’. Not only that, that represents a concentration that is 150 times what it is today, and almost 10 times the highest levels ever recorded.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      How do you know what the properties of CO2 are? Mainstream Physics is telling lies about it, remember? NASA and NOAA and the Pentagon and the academies of science of every single country have falsified the record.

                      You’re telling us they can be trusted on toxic concentration levels?

                      Now you just look even more ridiculous, eh.

                    • acrophobic

                      OAB I trust the science. That is different from trusting all scientists.

  3. Gosman 4

    Weird that people who have in the recent past called out international agreements as breaching our sovereignty are quite willing to do the same here with nary an outcry.

  4. The Paris agreement could be likened to asking the passengers in steerage on the Titanic to sign an agreement agreeing to no pushing.

  5. greywarshark 6

    A piece on CO2 and a volcano in Italy. This another reason why we have to down sharply our own emissions. Natural causes will keep pushing the envelope.

    The closest quiescent volcano to Rome is Colli Albani, 25 km from the centre, lying to the South East. It last erupted about 7000 years ago, so would perhaps be classed as dormant by many people.

    However, Colli Albani almost certainly has an active magma chamber below it. Firstly, magma chambers can take tens or even hundreds of thousands of years to cool down even if there is no more material supplied. Secondly, there’s been plenty of local recorded seismic activity which may relate to magma movement, as well as uplift which was directly centrerd on the volcanic complex, and suggests chamber recharge.

    Finally, the volcano is known to emit very large volumes of CO2, which could only be derived from outgassing of magma interacting with the local host limestone/marble. So much CO2 in fact that it reaches hazardous levels in the local communities, and managed to kill off a field full of cows grazing on the slopes about 15 years ago.

    "A small volcanic vent suddenly appeared near Rome’s airport." Can any geologists out there explain what’s going on? Link in comments. from askscience

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago