Climate Change: Science and Issues

[pegelli]

Also, I don't necessarily believe China's self-reporting figures as they lie a lot to make themselves look good. 

Well, there's a lot of governments I don't believe what they say either, but for CO2 emissions I think the IEA has some checks and balances and does consistencty checks to make sure the numbers are not far off.
So unless you come with some hard evidence I won't believe the FUD you're trying to spread.

[Alan Klein]

What's fud?

[pegelli]

Google is your friend, first item on the list explains it:  FUD

[Alan Klein]

Google is your friend, first item on the list explains it:  FUD

OK now I understand. FUD is like climate change science.

[pegelli]

OK now I understand. FUD is like climate change science.

No, blaming everything on the Chinese is FUD 

[Alan Klein]

Interesting report on the Chinese about CO2 production peaking.  The last point below raises flags regarding Paris's long term hopes.
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/03/31/chinese-co2-emissions-really-peaked/

"Key messages:
-Chinese carbon dioxide emissions grew unexpectedly rapidly during the 2000s, and the growth unexpectedly stopped after 2010. The recent slowdown is mainly driven by economic factors, driving a slowdown in energy-intensive production and hence coal consumption.
-Energy efficiency has improved, but this is only returning to longer term declines after a slowdown in the 2000s.
-Non-fossil energy sources and concerns about air pollution contributed to the recent slowdown, but unlikely played a dominant role.
-Although it looks like China may have reached a plateau in coal consumption and carbon dioxide emissions, significant caution is needed predicting China’s future.
-To keep global average temperatures below 2C above preindustrial levels would require Chinese emissions to drop as fast as they went up. This is unlikely, and whatever the causes of the changes in China, they are nowhere near consistent with the overarching ambitions of the Paris Agreement.

[pegelli]

Alan, I saw that as well, and I agree, we need to be cautious with the China outlooks, and not only China. If in the US coal gets a lot cheaper it will again displace gas and emissions will go up again.

But I don't understand the last point. The Paris accords looked at all countries predictions in CO2 emissions and emission reduction in several scenario's. None of these scenario's had China dropping as fast as they went up since the early 2000's and they still concluded that a max temperature rise of 2 degrees was possible. So I don't understand what has changed that this would no longer be the case. Maybe someone who understands the Paris accords better can chime in.

[Alan Klein]

What it says is China bamboozled Paris.

[pegelli]

What it says is China bamboozled Paris.

Stop spreading FUD, this is a serious discussion.
If you don't have anything to contribute pls. don't do it here, there's enough other places on the internet where you can troll to your hearts' content.

Let me briefly explain my question again:
- China never promised/pledged to reduce their emissions as fast as it rose, to the contrary, they said it would still rise (allthough the actual data show a plateau)
- The Paris accords projected the collective emissions to allow the temperature rise to remain below 2 degrees
- This article now claims the Chinese need to drop as fast as they rose or otherwise the 2 degrees cannot be met

So my question is what new insights does the article Alan linked to use to come to that conclusion, or are they wrong? The article doesn't give any insight to how they got to this conclusion.

[RSL]

And this is the discussion thread for which we have two extra moderators to keep it from capsizing?

 

Glub glub.

[Robert Roaldi]

And this is the discussion thread for which we have two extra moderators to keep it from capsizing?

 

Glub glub.

That's not helpful.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Stop spreading FUD, this is a serious discussion.
If you don't have anything to contribute pls. don't do it here, there's enough other places on the internet where you can troll to your hearts' content.

Let me briefly explain my question again:
- China never promised/pledged to reduce their emissions as fast as it rose, to the contrary, they said it would still rise (allthough the actual data show a plateau)
- The Paris accords projected the collective emissions to allow the temperature rise to remain below 2 degrees
- This article now claims the Chinese need to drop as fast as they rose or otherwise the 2 degrees cannot be met

So my question is what new insights does the article Alan linked to use to come to that conclusion, or are they wrong? The article doesn't give any insight to how they got to this conclusion.

There is nothing wrong with this post and the questions that are posed are reasonable.  I find that Russ's comment above "Glub, glub" not to be helpful at all.  Again, let me remind everyone that we are looking for useful contributions to the discussion.  Think before you post as to whether your comment brings something new to the discussion or raises some useful questions to talk about.

[Peter McLennan]

Excellent, Alan.  Precisely what you'd want a moderator to do.

[Alan Klein]

You can't get too picky as to what people say. You'll destroy the openness and variety of inputs. We're not some fifth grade science class and .have to stick to the subject or else. People come from different backgrounds and different countries and have different viewpoints and want to share them. As long as it's not too very insulting, it should be fair game. Otherwise you'll lose the spontaneity of the thread and you might as well just shut it down.

[Robert Roaldi]

Sometime earlier in this thread (and I can't find where right now) there was mention of the money spent on protecting New Orleans from hurricanes and floods. I believe that this occurred at the time some posts appeared about rising sea levels and the threat to coastal cities. I recently watched this documentary film about the flooding in New Orleans after Katrina (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVS6pZBQ9c4). It's long at 1 hr 38 min, but moves well. I bring it up because there seems to be a belief that an inordinate amount of money was spent on the protections and they didn't do much good. What emerges instead from the doc is that the protection was badly designed and that there was a lot of CYA afterwards. It also shows yet another case where the people who knew something were not listened to and how they were ostracized as a result of speaking out.

It's not directly related to the topics in this thread but is an interesting side issue, since we will be making changes to our environment in the coming century and it might be a good idea to re-visit the mistakes of the past.

[Alan Klein]

How many times have the alarmists demanded things be done and nothing was done but then nothing happened. You won't read about those instances because there is no story there. 

[Robert Roaldi]

How many times have the alarmists demanded things be done and nothing was done but then nothing happened. You won't read about those instances because there is no story there.

I'm not sure what you're referring to but the levees in New Orleans were badly designed on top of sandy soil. Nothing bad happened for years, and then one day something bad happened. All predictable.

Your remark reminds me a bit about the criticism of all the hoopla surrounding the millennium bug, by people who sounded disappointed that no planes crashed and that none of their bank accounts were zeroed out, hinting that it was all nonsense. The reason nothing went wrong is because thousands of programmers all over the world spent several years fixing the software defects.

Sea levels are rising. There are good ways to plan for this and bad ways. Climate changes all the time, and the more we understand about the hows and whys and the mechanisms involved, the better off we'll be. I don't understand why this is controversial. Advances in other fields are not treated this way.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Sometime earlier in this thread (and I can't find where right now) there was mention of the money spent on protecting New Orleans from hurricanes and floods. I believe that this occurred at the time some posts appeared about rising sea levels and the threat to coastal cities. I recently watched this documentary film about the flooding in New Orleans after Katrina (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVS6pZBQ9c4). It's long at 1 hr 38 min, but moves well. I bring it up because there seems to be a belief that an inordinate amount of money was spent on the protections and they didn't do much good. What emerges instead from the doc is that the protection was badly designed and that there was a lot of CYA afterwards. It also shows yet another case where the people who knew something were not listened to and how they were ostracized as a result of speaking out.

It's not directly related to the topics in this thread but is an interesting side issue, since we will be making changes to our environment in the coming century and it might be a good idea to re-visit the mistakes of the past.

This will be close to Alan Klein's heart.  The US taxpayers have spent over $12B to rebuild the flood control system in New Orleans following the devastation resulting from Hurricane Katrina. 

[Peter McLennan]

How many times have the alarmists demanded things be done and nothing was done but then nothing happened.

I give up.  How many?

[LesPalenik]

Sometimes is not so much the alarmists, as the overly idealistic and gullible enthusiasts (i.e. advocating hybrid and autonomous cars).

translated from the latest issue of Spiegel in Germany
Anyone who arrives as a minister or a top bureaucrat in Berlin these days with his company car should have an E on his license plate, E for Elektro. This is considered environmentally friendly, chic and modern. Above all, it will not be so embarrassing if environmental organizations, as they do almost every year, ask about the fleet consumption of the ministry fleet. That's why so-called plug-in hybrids, which have both a combustion engine and an electric motor, are particularly popular in Berlin. They are tall, comfortable and yet economical. At least on the paper. But apparently the top officials from the federal ministries, who are chauffeured in it, grow increasingly frustrated with their new company cars with hybrid drive. Their drivers complain, according to the SPIEGEL, that the cars cover only very short distances electrically, instead of meeting the ranges specified by the factory.

But then, when the internal combustion engine starts, the consumption is exorbitantly high, especially since the cars are heavier because of the electric motors. Because of smaller tanks, the chauffeurs would constantly refuel, it is said. Two State Secretaries from the Federal Ministry of Finance and Transportation now complained to the manufacturer BMW about their company car model 740e iPerformance.

The irritation in the federal government is also so great because the plug-in hybrids had been included in the electromobility promotion, which ensures the customers an environmental bonus of 3000 euros. The subsidy does not seem to be really justified in terms of true CO2 emissions. To enjoy electric privilege, the plug-in hybrids must emit less than 50 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer. In the calculation of these values in the approval tests, components that the electric motor drives at predominantly low speeds and those which the internal combustion engine takes over are included. The rating is chosen favorable for ideal electric operation, that is seldom achievable in normal driving behavior, thus the fueld consumption show lower than it should.

Full article in original form:
http://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/berlin-ministerien-beschweren-sich-ueber-hybrid-dienstwagen-a-1177341.html


Another related article titled "Consumer Lies" points out that the new cars according to one study use on average 42% more fuel than stated by the manufacturer.

Many car owners despair that their car constantly consumed more than promised in the prospectus - even during an intentionally fuel-saving driving mode. The extent to which CO2 and fuel values are far removed from reality has once again been investigated by the environmental organization International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT). The result of their study published on Monday: On average, the consumption of new cars in Europe is 42 percent higher than indicated by the manufacturers.

http://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/wltp-wie-die-verbrauchs-luege-beendet-werden-soll-a-1176194.html