Slashdot Mirror
The Science Behind the Paris Climate Accords (thebulletin.org)
Lasrick writes: The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists offers a pretty thorough run-down of the pros and cons of the Paris climate accords. William Sweet examines not only the political machinations behind the agreement but much of what the agreement entails and how it got there after 21 years of COP meetings. "As for the tighter 1.5-degree standard, this is a complicated issue that the Paris accords fudge a bit. The difference between impacts expected from a 1.5-degree world and a 2-degree world are not trivial. The Greenland ice sheet, for example, is expected to melt in its entirely in the 2-degree scenario, while in a 1.5-degree world the odds of a complete melt are only 70 percent... But at the same time the scientific consensus is that it would be virtually impossible to meet the 1.5-degree goal because on top of the 0.8–0.9 degrees of warming that already has occurred, another half-degree is already in the pipeline, 'hidden away in the oceans,' as Schellnhuber put it." In an additional audio recording of a teleconference briefing given to the Bulletin's Science and Security Board and other leading scientists and policy makers, Sivan Kartha and Richard Somerville (both on the S & S Board) explain what was accomplished (and not accomplished).
Considering how none of the new "agreements" are binding, what real difference does it make? Show and no go, feel good BS.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
That contained absolutely no science, it was just political debate on a subject. I think someone needs to tell Slashdot what science is.
It doesn't really matter, it's not even an agreement in any formal sense of the word. It is not a treaty, it has not enforcing power, and really it would be more accurate to say that the leaders of the world got together and made a statement.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
And drive it around all you want.
But I get to shoot you, in that oh-so-unlikely event that every scientist is a moron and every corporate asshole with a vested interest in not having to pay to clean up the mess he makes is right, and you want to escape the water by climbing onto my hill.
Deal?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The article you cite is about the abyssal ocean below about 7,000 feet. There's a lot of water between 7,000 feet and the surface. As per usual simple analyses like yours are usually wrong.
From TFA, the reference to Kerry's speech "In the version of the speech he delivered upon arrival in Paris, he said the flat-earthers seem to think that as the world’s oceans rise, the water is just going to pour off the sides." shows the fundamental disconnect; the AGW proponents aren't willing to even consider the premises of the skeptics, so they make ad hominem attacks against the skeptics themselves to make them personally ridiculous and their positions inherently fallacial. It's always seemed to me, though, that if the proponents of one side of a scientific disagreement have to resort to bad-mouthing the proponents of the other side, rather than the research and data presented by the other side, they do it because they know that their research and data won't stand up to close scrutiny in a comparison.