Climate Change: Science and Issues

[Alan Klein]

Will China and India be excused from having to meet the new steps?

[pegelli]

Will China and India be excused from having to meet the new steps?

No, only the US (the second largest emitter of CO2) has excused himself.

Let me apologise for this post to the moderators, this thread was supposed to be about science and issues and not about politics. My post doesn't meet that criteria, but neither does Alan's and I thought his question better be answered then left hanging. Maybe it's even better to delete both posts to keep the discussion on topic.

[Alan Klein]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/11/03/a-warming-planet-is-helping-shrink-the-ozone-hole-to-smallest-since-1988/amp/

See chart at bottom of linked page. Why did the ozone area be reduced in 2002 by roughly 50%? Are their other factors involved beside temperature and clouroflourocarbons?

[Alan Klein]

No, only the US (the second largest emitter of CO2) has excused himself.

Let me apologise for this post to the moderators, this thread was supposed to be about science and issues and not about politics. My post doesn't meet that criteria, but neither does Alan's and I thought his question better be answered then left hanging. Maybe it's even better to delete both posts to keep the discussion on topic.

Who's exempt or isn't complying are "issues" that effect the science and outcomes.   Excusing China and India until 2030 for political and economic reasons will substantially effect the science and timeline to reduce CO2 in the world. Also,  how do you know China will meet the new requirements?   They haven't yet been announced or negotiated.   It seems you're an apologist for China.

[Alan Goldhammer]

No, only the US (the second largest emitter of CO2) has excused himself.

Let me apologise for this post to the moderators, this thread was supposed to be about science and issues and not about politics. My post doesn't meet that criteria, but neither does Alan's and I thought his question better be answered then left hanging. Maybe it's even better to delete both posts to keep the discussion on topic.

I look at this as an issue that is ripe for "civil" discussion.  Political decisions weigh heavy on how climate change might be addressed.

[pegelli]

It seems you're an apologist for China.

Can't stop pointing fingers and resort to ad hominem attacks Alan? There's really no place for that in this thread.

[pegelli]

Excusing China and India until 2030 for political and economic reasons will substantially effect the science and timeline to reduce CO2 in the world. Also,  how do you know China will meet the new requirements?   They haven't yet been announced or negotiated.   

China is taking actions, shutting down many old inefficient power stations that they wouldn't do if they hadn't signed up to the Paris agreement. There was also a graph in the "poofed" thread which showed China CO2 emissions are at a plateau and projected to go down. So I think you crying wolf over China is not based on facts or performance.

[Alan Klein]

China is taking actions, shutting down many old inefficient power stations that they wouldn't do if they hadn't signed up to the Paris agreement. There was also a graph in the "poofed" thread which showed China CO2 emissions are at a plateau and projected to go down. So I think you crying wolf over China is not based on facts or performance.

China is shutting down inefficient plants because they're inefficient and also very polluting.  Communists have to breathe too.  America is uipgrading its plants as well.  Many coal fired are now cleaner natural gas. 

There are no plateaus.  China will be producing more not less CO2.  Why do you think they wanted to be excluded from any requirements until 2030? 

The fact is there are a billion remaining Chinese who want to live like the rest of the 400 million Chinese who've already made it to middle class.  China's going to produce something like 24 million vehicles a year, way more than anyone else.  Boeing has forecast that Chinese airlines will buy 7,240 commercial aircraft worth $1.1 trillion between now and 2036. ... For wide-body planes, Boeing forecasts China will require 1,670 new airplanes over the same time period.  Think of all that JP4 jet fuel getting burned up.  Boeing estimates that 100 million Chinese will fly for the first time per year for the next few years.  Multiply that for refrigerators, toilets, air conditioners, bigger houses, gasoline, heating fuels, manufacturing processes for things these billion people will buy, and you'll realize there's no way the Chinese can hold back the CO2 tide. And when 2030 comes rolling around, they'll demand an extension and the rest of the world will swallow it.

[Paulo Bizarro]

I am a geologist, and I have a good understanding of long term trends, and of data that underpins them. What interests me the most in this discussion are the data measurements and observations. For instance, in Portugal (my home country), 2017 is turning out to be a very harsh year in terms of climate: every successive month previous records of high temperatures are beaten. This was also observed during large parts of 2016.

With the devastating and deadly fires that took place in June and October, people are paying more attention to "climate change". To me, it is obvious that the climate is changing: we just had the warmest October since there are records, with temperatures hovering around 30 Celsius... rainfall has been increasingly scarce too, many water levels in reservoirs are at a historical low.

Mankind should be preparing today to cope and to mitigate against these changes. Let the scientists gather the data and do their work, without political influences to cater for personal or partidarian agendas.

[pegelli]

There are no plateaus. 

The graph (from a report you linked to) clearly showed the plateau. Find it again and you'll see for yourself

[Alan Klein]

I am a geologist, and I have a good understanding of long term trends, and of data that underpins them. What interests me the most in this discussion are the data measurements and observations. For instance, in Portugal (my home country), 2017 is turning out to be a very harsh year in terms of climate: every successive month previous records of high temperatures are beaten. This was also observed during large parts of 2016.

With the devastating and deadly fires that took place in June and October, people are paying more attention to "climate change". To me, it is obvious that the climate is changing: we just had the warmest October since there are records, with temperatures hovering around 30 Celsius... rainfall has been increasingly scarce too, many water levels in reservoirs are at a historical low.

Mankind should be preparing today to cope and to mitigate against these changes. Let the scientists gather the data and do their work, without political influences to cater for personal or partidarian agendas.

It requires policy decisions "politics" to get things done. Those are based on personal and national priorities.  Scientists can't act on their own.  You may feel that reducing CO2 is important.  Others may feel that spending money to reduce malaria is more important or having a job to feed their family.  Politicians follow their voters in a democratic society. 

[Alan Klein]

The graph (from a report you linked to) clearly showed the plateau. Find it again and you'll see for yourself

There are no plateaus.  If China was reducing the CO2, they wouldn't have objected to meeting any Paris standards until 2030.  The fact is China is increasing their CO2 production by leaps and bounds.  5 years ago they produced 27% of the world's CO2 against America's 17%.  In 2016,  China was up to 30% while America's went down to 14%. 

As an aside, you;re always pointing to per capita.  Another per unit statistic is that America produces half the CO2 per dollar of GDP than does China.  So we're twice as carbon clean as they are in manufacturing.  Our processes are way better in the area of pollution of the air and water. 

The main point is that without China and India, the Paris accord will never reach their goals.  It's just adding a burden to every other country in the world including yours.  Trump said that he would consider getting back into the accord if China's requirements were changed.  That's economic fairness in my mind something you ought to support as well if you want to really reduce Co2. 

[pegelli]

There are no plateaus.  If China was reducing the CO2, they wouldn't have objected to meeting any Paris standards until 2030.  The fact is China is increasing their CO2 production by leaps and bounds.  5 years ago they produced 27% of the world's CO2 against America's 17%.  In 2016,  China was up to 30% while America's went down to 14%. 

Just find the report and you'll see. You brought it to us the first time, but after we pointed out it debunked the China argument you "can't find" it. What a coïncidence

As an aside, you;re always pointing to per capita.  Another per unit statistic is that America produces half the CO2 per dollar of GDP than does China.  So we're twice as carbon clean as they are in manufacturing.  Our processes are way better in the area of pollution of the air and water.

This was debunked in the poofed thread as well, higher wages doesn't give you any excuse to emit more CO2 

The main point is that without China and India, the Paris accord will never reach their goals.  It's just adding a burden to every other country in the world including yours.  Trump said that he would consider getting back into the accord if China's requirements were changed.  That's economic fairness in my mind something you ought to support as well if you want to really reduce Co2.

If everybody meets what they pledged the goals will be reached. At this moment there is only one country backing away from their pledges.

[Alan Klein]

China won't be allowed to advance on the backs of Americans.  If you're willing to accept it for your countrymen, well that's your business.

[pegelli]

China won't be allowed to advance on the backs of Americans.  If you're willing to accept it for your countrymen, well that's your business.

It seems you're out of arguments and spreading more FUD isn't giving your case any credibility.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

China won't be allowed to advance on the backs of Americans.

Alan,

You seem to struggle with a couple of facts, the main ones being a misconception of what a "fair deal" is, and what the Paris agreement is about.

Let's try and solve these issues.
1. Fair comparisons
To simplify, let's look at the USA and China (together producing 44% of worldwide CO2 emissions), and for the moment forget the rest (the remaining 56% of worldwide CO2 emissions). Afterall, the USA and China are the world's largest polluting countries in the world (but they are also pretty large countries anyway). We could also include India if needed, but it has quite a different industrial dynamic going on.

China has approx. 1,409,517,397 inhabitants, and the USA some 324,459,463, as per UN estimates for 1 July 2017. To be fair, one could expect them to pollute by roughly equal amounts on a per Capita basis although China has many more Coal powered utility plants. Yet, despite their 4.3x larger polulation with mouths to feed and energy consumption to satisfy, they only are responsible for 2.1x more CO2 emissions than the USA. China produced in 2015 (latest numbers I have) some 10,641,789 kt of CO2, versus 5,172,338 kt for the USA.

So, the average US citizen produces (through consumption of goods and energy) twice as much CO2 per capita. And to add some perspective, the European Union with some 510,284,430 inhabitants, produces some 3,469,671 kt of CO2, even less per capita than both.

2. The Paris Climate agreement
There appears to be a huge misunderstanding about the Paris Climate agreement, especially in the USA, and the fact that some countries (like China) have projected to grow their emissions before they (can) start reducing them.

The Paris Climate agreement is a worldwide agreement (except for Syria, and the USA is pulling out) that aimed at limiting the global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius. This was agreed, and deemed achievable (but not easy), after adding all projected emissions and economic development estimates, which obviously differ for already industrialized countries (like the USA and most of the EU) versus growing economies and populations (like China, India, and the African counties to name a few).

The only real commitments made were for each country to submit their "Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)", so that other countries could monitor the progress towards the common goal. The Conference of the Parties (COP) invited all Parties to communicate to the secretariat their INDCs well in advance of COP 21 (by the first quarter of 2015 by those Parties ready to do so) in a manner that facilitates the clarity, transparency and understanding of the INDC.

So much for the non-existing bad deal that the USA wants to pull out of.

Cheers,
Bart

[RSL]

And of course this discussion is all about "science"; we're staying strictly away from politics. 

[pegelli]

And of course this discussion is all about "science"; we're staying strictly away from politics. 

The moderator himself approved discussing political points, since in his mind they are issues:

I look at this as an issue that is ripe for "civil" discussion.  Political decisions weigh heavy on how climate change might be addressed.

I was sceptical at first, but it livened up the thread a little

[Robert Roaldi]

And of course this discussion is all about "science"; we're staying strictly away from politics. 

In the main it has been. Now and then some contributors stray a bit, only to have others later complain about that very thing, as you just did. The moderators have requested a couple of times already to narrow the focus to discussion topics backed by researched findings. That's not that hard to do. Yet now and then some chime in with their unbacked opinions that such science doesn't exist.

I have to ask, are some people deliberately trying to send the thread off-topic as an excuse to end the discussion? Repeatedly offering the opinion that no valid climate science exists serves no purpose and violates the stated aim of this thread.

[pegelli]

In the main it has been. Now and then some contributors stray a bit, only to have others later complain about that very thing, as you just did. The moderators have requested a couple of times already to narrow the focus to discussion topics backed by researched findings. That's not that hard to do. Yet now and then some chime in with their unbacked opinions that such science doesn't exist.

I have to ask, are some people deliberately trying to send the thread off-topic as an excuse to end the discussion? Repeatedly offering the opinion that no valid climate science exists serves no purpose and violates the stated aim of this thread.

Robert, as I mentioned in my post #141 I have no problem if the moderators would delete all posts that are political and don't deal with science (or the lack thereof). However Alan G in post #144 said politics are covered under the "issues" flag in the title as politics determine the policy decisions being taken to respond to the science (or lack thereof).

I would be in favour of keeping it strictly scientific, however if the denyer side of the discussion start making political arguments I feel I have the right to present the other side. I'm not trying to derail or stop the discussion and believe I reacted in accordance with the latest guidance from one of the moderators of this discussion.