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).
Is that a real journal? Because it sounds like something that would give me +5% radiation resistance perk in Fallout 4.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
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's not from the 3-5 mm/year sea level rise. That's from overpumping of groundwater. Once you suck the fresh water out, the silt compacts and the land subsides. You can fairly blame that on overdevelopment, but it doesn't have the slightest connection to climate.
That contained absolutely no science, it was just political debate on a subject. I think someone needs to tell Slashdot what science is.
I was overseas near the Persian Gulf when the accord came together and the local newspapers were lauding Obama for helping their country water down the "shall" to "should." In other words the final version was considered a huge win for countries that want to continue to sell or use as much oil or natural gas as they can.
“I’m skeptical because I don’t think the science is at all clear, and unfortunately a lot of the experts really believe they understand it, and maybe have the wrong answer." -- Freeman Dyson
If Freeman Dyson says your science is rubbish, it is.
This article is a good one, anyway. It's one of the best reports of what happened at the Paris accords. It talks about the different factions (the island nation coalition, the group of 77, etc), and discusses what negotiations went on, compromises made, and how it managed to come to something that looked like an agreement.
It's worth a read if you're interested in what goes on at these conferences.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Silt is compacting and land subsiding in California's central valley from groundwater pumping but that isn't the case in Florida where the underlying bedrock is limestone. What groundwater pumping does in Florida is allow the ocean saltwater to intrude further inland contaminating existing freshwater supplied. Subsidence is not the issue in southern Florida.
Hey I can play that game too!
Cue the usual conga line of Useful Idiots who drank the Kool-Aid and have nothing but bad science and ad-hominem attacks to back up their politically-motivated wish to create their socialist Utopia which in effect will render everyone - except a few elite who Know What's Good For Us Or Else - into grey serfdom.
So easy.