Bali, UNFCCC, after Kyoto
Bali, UNFCCC, after Kyoto
In the many comments of the last blog were mentions of the meeting in Bali. First a little background. The meeting in Bali is called the Conference of Parties (conference link) and includes the nations that are part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC site. The UNFCCC was negotiated in the early part of the 1990s, and the US did sign the Framework Convention. It is, in fact, part of our environmental law. It preceded the Kyoto Protocol. The UNFCCC called for, amongst other things, voluntary control of carbon dioxide emissions. The Kyoto Protocol had specific emission targets; it was signed by the United States, but it was not sent to the Senate for ratification. The decision to not send it for ratification was during the Clinton-Gore administration; it was certain that it would not be ratified.
Figure 1: Chart of commitments made in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (thanks to Rosina Bierbaum, SuperDean)
The meeting in Bali was not, first and foremost, a meeting of scientists. It is a meeting to talk about how to respond to the assessments presented by the IPCC. Some people talk about it as what comes after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. (For fun here are links to UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and a nice introduction to the Kyoto Protocol.) This is a big meeting, with a lot of people, and a lot of spectacle. There is not a real expectation that new policy will be formed at the meeting, but the people, the countries are stating and re-stating their positions.
There are two big notions that seem to rise out of the meeting. The first is the statement, or really restatement, that if we want to limit the atmospheric carbon dioxide to, approximately, double the amount in 1850, then we need to do something in the next decade. This amount is 550 parts per million and the model predictions show that even at this amount there will be consequential climate change. There is a May 2007 WU blog entry about this need to take action soon if we want to limit the carbon dioxide to 550 parts per million. The reported discussions from Bali show the diversity of opinions and accusations – and the United States once again maintains the position of requiring economic growth – hence, the need for cheap energy.
The second big notion is trees. There is a lot of talk about trees and how if we stop cutting down trees we will slow the release of carbon dioxide, and if we plant more trees then they will consume carbon dioxide. The issue of trees is complex. There is no doubt that having more trees is good for reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide, but trees are not a magic solution to the growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. First, trees have a finite lifetime, and they have a finite ability to take up carbon dioxide. Second, trees take a lot of water, and planting a lot of trees in a place like Phoenix, Arizona is trading one environmental stress for another.
Nevertheless, the role of trees in climate change is an important one. In anticipation of a growing environmental market that places a value on carbon dioxide emissions, countries, such as Indonesia, are starting to think of their standing stock of forest in terms of carbon dioxide valuation. This starts to give the rain forests value that can be weighed against value as, for instance, lumber, food cropland, or bio-fuels cropland. This becomes a mechanism for conservation and management of forestry resources that includes some valuation of the climate.
My student Gabriel Thoumi is in Bali. He has spent much of the year in Indonesia setting up and negotiating policies and businesses to give valuation of the carbon dioxide stored in trees and how to use that valuation in the mitigation of climate change. Gabriel contributed to an effort with a group of Green Governors whose states hold a large portion of the Earth’s rain forests. Here is a paragraph from the press release announcing the efforts of this group of governors.
“The destruction of tropical forests accounts for about 20% of global carbon emissions – more than the entire global transport sector. The UK government’s 2005 Stern Review identified forest protection and limitation of deforestation as being quick and cost-effective avenues for reducing global carbon emissions – yet until now they have barely featured in governments’ plans to tackle climate change. By acting to protect forests and reduce emissions from deforestation now, on their own lands, the Governors have sent a strong message to their national governments and have opened the door to millions of dollars of potential investments from carbon markets. Already investments are beginning to flow, both from voluntary carbon markets and from private investments to protect the ecosystem services forests provide to humanity.”
Here is the whole press release, with information on how to get more information.
Forests Now Press Release
Green Governors’ Press Release
r
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 — Blog Index
Short version
If they do not agree with you,
it does not get published
Or they send it back with notes in the margin
like a school paper
telling you, if you change something
they will re-consider it.
Most of the time, if something strongly disagrees with
the conventional wisdom, it will not get a
favorable review, called a hostile review
The people doing the review, also want to get their work published
and they can not disagree with themselves
That would be saying their own work is flawed.
Of course it has.
The UN and the IPCC, first blind sided most of the people by releasing
reports that the IPCC had jiggled
Then immediately shut down their acceptance of all new science after that.
The IPCC has not taken any new science in over 2 and a 1/2 years.
So anyone that wanted to even contest their own work, or how their work was quoted,
was shut out.
Don't forget, the IPCC is not a neutral body of scientists
The IPCC is only a group of publishers,
that scan the material
and only present material that promotes the agenda of the IPCC, UN.
ScienceDaily (Dec. 17, 2007) — Record-breaking amounts of ice-free water have deprived the Arctic of more of its natural "sunscreen" than ever in recent summers. The effect is so pronounced that sea surface temperatures rose to 5 C above average in one place this year, a high never before observed, says the oceanographer who has compiled the first-ever look at average sea surface temperatures for the region.
Link
years over hyped melting.
Ice cover is almost back to normal,
it has not had time to build up the thickness of the ice yet.
The graph only goes to Nov 8, and does not take into account the massive
cold weather after Nov 8
Here's the graph Link
And these animations are great, they illustrate the rapid rate of recovery
Link
or drift, or shift, or not
In spite of the sensational headline, they don't know
Link
"But a lot of this is speculation at the moment because so much of this information is new and we are not sure what to make of it."
"It's a possibility, but as I say this is still speculative," stressed Dr Bottenheim
" It tells us the layers in the ocean don't work in quite the way we thought they did."
But we can design very accurate climate models
and tell you exactly what imminent disasters are in the immediate future.
"With just over half of International Polar Year (IPY) still left to run"
Which means, they have not hit the really cold weather yet.
If a publication does not agree with the IPCC consensus(?), it is not worth siting? How narrow minded is that. The chart provided was a review of scientific papers and what the current consensus was, based upon those papers regarding the Mideval Warming Period. So what's the problem, is the chart inaccurate? Did I try to hide the source of the material, I sited it with a link. I did not say the chart was peer reviewed only that the chart represented peer reviewed articles.
Guess what there are a lot of publications, web sites and scientist who do not agree with the IPCC consensus, do you have a problem with that? Are they evil or something? Please tell us how you really feel. Your opinion is just as valid as mine or anyone else, so please let her rip, I simply post articles and scientific info that I believe support my basic beliefs, why not post yours instead of attacking mine. Go ahead, I promise not to attack any scientific articles, credentials or opinions you may put on here, if you'll do the same. Feel free to post any scientific information that counters any info I put on here, I certainly post info that counters IPCC consensus material. I think that is called reasonable debate.
Hut Point Peninsula, near Scott Base, Antarctica , is in an unusual
heatwave of 3 degrees Celsius (37.4 degrees Fahrenheit).
Image courtesy Scott Base.
heatwave of 3 degrees Celsius (37.4 degrees Fahrenheit).
I don't know if it would be called unusual.
They are in summer, and summer temps average 20F. That's an average of the highs and lows.
Link
"The lowest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica was -129F.
The warmest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica was 59F.
The average summer temperature is 20F. The average winter temperature is -30F."
I didn't know this:
"The Antarctic is colder than the North Pole because it warms up faster and it cools down faster.
Antarctica gets warmer faster than the Arctic because the Ocean water carries heat from the equator to the poles.
The land of Antarctica heats up faster than the waters of the Arctic."
but that is funny, don't worry I will no longer respond to you at all.
I guess that's a difference between you and me. I consider myself to be a critical thinker
and take care to examine the things that I post (before posting)
765. sebastianjer 6:42 PM EST on December 17, 2007
Hendrik (Henk) Tennekes (born December 13, 1936, Kampen) was the former director of research
at the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut, or KNMI),
and is a professor of aeronautical engineering at Pennsylvania State University.
766. salvadore 6:59 PM EST on December 17, 2007
Tennekes has not published any original research in a peer-reviewed journal since 1990.
In 1990, a state-of-the-art computer would have had an Intel486 processor and a 40MB hard drive.
The world wide web barely existed. I'm guessing that computer modelling has come a long way since then.
""and is a professor of aeronautical engineering at Pennsylvania State University. ""
Truth be told, the main reason I've been hanging around is because
I enjoy calling people on their crap and seeing how they react.
816. salvadore 1:57 PM EST on December 18, 2007
I guess that's a difference between you and me. I consider myself to be a critical thinker
and take care to examine the things that I post (before posting)
765. sebastianjer 6:42 PM EST on December 17, 2007
Hendrik (Henk) Tennekes (born December 13, 1936, Kampen) was the former director of research
at the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut, or KNMI),
and is a professor of aeronautical engineering at Pennsylvania State University.
766. salvadore 6:59 PM EST on December 17, 2007
Tennekes has not published any original research in a peer-reviewed journal since 1990.
In 1990, a state-of-the-art computer would have had an Intel486 processor and a 40MB hard drive.
The world wide web barely existed. I'm guessing that computer modelling has come a long way since then.
""and is a professor of aeronautical engineering at Pennsylvania State University. ""
820. GulfScotsman 1:28 PM CST on December 18, 2007
what is the current number for atmoshpheric carbon dioxide? 370 or something?
Current Co2 readings are 378.658 Captain.
When people retire, they literally stop
I am amazed I can still drive a car.
Truth be told, the main reason I've been hanging around is because I enjoy calling people on their crap and seeing how they react. Lots of opportunity for that here and it has been amusing.
Yes, the truth is a good thing! Thanks, sal and glad to know the reason you're here is purely for psychological perspective and comical review. Evidently though, "truth" as you see it has little merit as evidenced in your belief that the IPCC is an unbiased, above reproach body of "true" science.
Now, that truly is comical!
They tell you exactly that they are biased, right on their website.
Link
"The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change
with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor
does it monitor climate related data or parameters.
Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis
the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide
relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change,
its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific,
technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards,
and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage."
To report only on the risk of human-induced climate change.
and only the risks
of only human-induced climate change
That eliminates any thing that is not a risk,
and anything that might not be caused by humans.
Believe it or not, I just heard on the news that some town has
banned Christmas lights because of Global Warming
Believe it or not, I just heard on the news that some town has
banned Christmas lights because of Global Warming
Saw it, too! And, O'Reilly called GW a ruse! LMAO
Christmas
Christmas
Christmas
I'm in the ~90% majority on that one.
I believe the c02 level at which we cannot exceed is 450 ppm now to avoid dangerous Climate Change.
In 1997, when the first Kyoto Treaty was ratified, the believed amount to which we could let World emissions rise to was 550.
This change of 1/5 concerning the global level of carbon over just a 10 year period shows the haste at which Climate Change is moving, how how we as a people need to take this issue into our hands and work with one another.
We as a people must make up the difference of anyone else not reducing emissions fast enough. Since there is an adherent need, if we are to set the example, other will naturally be inspired to reduce their emissions and we will see a significant increase in progress.
We need to put more focus into actually reducing our ecological footprint and coming up with solutions. The time we have to achieve the goals alloted by the IPCC is short. So there is no better time for us to make progress towards creating a World that is sustainable for ourselves and our children.
Thanks all
Patrick
Viewing: 801 - 843
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 — Blog Index