Slashdot Mirror
India Ratifies The Paris Climate Change Agreement (npr.org)
"India just ratified the Paris climate deal -- bringing it extremely close to taking effect," reports the Washington Post, calling India the world's fourth-largest producer of greenhouse gas. An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes NPR's update on the Paris agreement:
It will not become binding until it's ratified by 55 countries that contribute a total of at least 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The 55-country requirement has already been fulfilled -- India is No. 62 -- but...the current signatories account for about 52 percent of global greenhouse emissions, according to a statement released by the U.N. on Sunday.
India currently produces about 4.5 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions [and] has set a goal of producing 40 percent of its electricity with non-fossil fuel sources by 2030. India also promised to plant or preserve enough tree cover to act as a sink for at least 2.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide, and has called on the U.S. and other fully developed countries to share technologies that help decrease emissions.
India currently produces about 4.5 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions [and] has set a goal of producing 40 percent of its electricity with non-fossil fuel sources by 2030. India also promised to plant or preserve enough tree cover to act as a sink for at least 2.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide, and has called on the U.S. and other fully developed countries to share technologies that help decrease emissions.
Canada (1.95% of the percent of global greenhouse emissions) is supposed to ratify the agreement later this week. With the liberals having the majority of seats, this should easily pass. Not enough to bring it to 55%, though.
A little earlier we were told that the US is no. 4 on the list of polluters (sic) in the post[1] on reservoirs as a source of greenhouse gases.
So which is it?
[1] https://news.slashdot.org/stor...
... 55 countries that contribute a total of at least 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions
So, in effect, 55% of the countries should pollute more to get an agreement working to pollute less. And, off course, every country that does not wait for the agreement to take effect and starts pollution reduction now is spoiling it for the rest.
Stupid rules like this are why only politicians believe the climate agreement actually helps to achieve something.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Yeah evolution is a lie and the devil put the fossils in the ground. Sorry climate deniers, you're in the same basket with those pricks now. Enjoy it.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
It's years to late and even if it where ratified by the required number of countries there is no mechanism to force compliance and no targets from previous treaties have even come close to being met
Can we just admit we don't care about children and get on with the business of enslaving them and destroying the planet for our own limited comfort without pretense of ethics or morality
When you stopped telling everyone that the earth is flat, because if it would be round you would fall over and the useable area would be small.
"Climatedepot" that is a nice name: If you use the deposed liquid and solid hydrocarbons and react them to CO2, do you really think that nothing will happen, as CO2 has a certain spectral property?
Obviously its just going through a natural climate cycle however, that temperature obviously has nothing to do with its atmosphere being composed of CO2. [/sarcasm]
And before anyone says its simply because its closer to the sun, Mercury is even closer than Venus yet its colder.
Of course co2 is harmless, 6000 years since the earth was created we don't have enough data.
Remember when "acid rain" was the #1 environmental problem? - No? - Neither does anyone else under 40 because Reagan and Thatcher pushed for (and won) a global cap + trade treaty on sulphur emissions. Besides, if climate treaties don't make a practical difference, why has the coal industry spent the last 30-40yrs doing everything it can to sabotage them?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Carbon dioxide is a life giving gas. Slashclimate does the world a disservice.
Fact: cows create methane through flatulence
Fact: Indians don't eat cows
Fact: cows run rampant in India
Fact: Indians responsible for global warming
I look forward to you piping your tailpipe into your car to prove your point.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Reversing the global wealth redistribution would also be a noble goal.
This is why humanity is doomed. Super moron silentcoder does not know the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.
so do us all a favor silentcoder and go suck on that tail pipe.
How about we redistribute the wealth in your neighborhood?
>> call on west to "share" tech
Not a problem, it's on sale now.
>> Er...we really meant "give"
Thought so.
Fact: cows create methane through flatulence ...
Fact: Indians don't eat cows
Fact: Therefore, India does not factory-farm cows
Fact: Therefore, India produces far fewer cows than places that mass-produce beef
Fact: therefore, Indians really are not particularly responsible for global warming
I look forward to you piping your tailpipe into your car to prove your point.
It's not the CO2 that will kill you if you try that.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
As does water vapor, which is why it's a greenhouse gas
Lots of water vapour in the air also tends to condense and form clouds, which are white and reflect energy away from the Earth. The greenhouse effect happens when shorter wavelengths (which can penetrate carbon dioxide) hits the ground and are re-radiated as infra red. The IR is then unable to radiate into space because of the greenhouse gasses. If you have a lot of white clouds in the air, then the energy is simply reflected. This causes cooling, which causes the air to be unable to gold as much water vapour, which causes rain, and the system largely balances with respect to water vapour.
Not quite so simple. Clouds also reflect thermal infrared, and so they have both warming and cooling effects. Whether the sum is warming or cooling depends, among other things, on the cloud altitude. The first-order effect is that clouds reduce the day/night temperature swings.
Last I heard the prevalent theory was that if you continue long enough down that road you get enough weather to flip you over into an ice age
That's one of the predictions.
A while back, there was a hypothesis that climate warming could affect thermohaline circulation, cutting off one of the mechanisms circulating heat northward from the equator, and hence triggering a northern-hemisphere glaciation ("ice age"). I don't think anybody was able to come up with a reasonable model showing this happening, though, so nobody credits that hypothesis right now. It was never a "prediction"; it was a hypothesis that never got well accepted (except by Hollwood, which will take any excuse to make a disaster movie.)
Trust me, CO2 will kill you too. Just ask anybody who ever got trapped on a sunken submarine... oh wait, you can't - that's the point.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Modern, well tuned, car tailpipes won't kill you. Not enough CO.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Yeah, let's send him some Somalis.
It certainly will, at high enough concentrations for a long enough time. But breathing exhaust gas won't prove that, because the carbon monoxide will kill you long before the CO2 becomes a problem.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Dude, I'm trying to help GP win his richly deserved Darwin Award. Show some charity.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Why does "prosperity" mean "the USA's profligate wastefulness"???
Think, if you can, only one more step ahead. Increased CO2 levels stimulate increased plant life and the release of O2. Wonderful.
The article says that the U.S. has joined the agreement, but that is not actually true. Obama has not even submitted this agreement to the Senate to START the process of the U.S. joining it. Until the Senate ratifies it, this agreement is not legally binding upon the U.S.. If other countries want to bind themselves to an agreement based on the assumption that all future Presidents and Congresses will honor Obama's word on this treaty, that is up to them. But if they do so, they are being foolish because the reason Obama has not submitted it to the Senate is because he knows the Senate will reject it (just like a previous Senate rejected the Kyoto accords...even without them being submitted that Senate voted 99-0 on a statement opposing the Kyoto Accords).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The U.N. (useless nations) have no way to enforce it. It's a piece of paper, that they will hail as a way to "save the planet", but, most nations will ignore/cheat anyway.
Clearly India hasn't been subjected to enough black-ops false-flag terror attacks to convince them of the foolishness of this course of action.
Or maybe they just, y'know - want the world to be a better place.
Requiem for the American Dream
Yeah. You see libturds everywhere, because you're incapable of nuanced thinking.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
CO2 absords and re-remits IR - which would otherwise escaped from the atmosphere - in a random direction (ie scattering it) therefore heating the atmosphere up. The physics is not up for debate.
So when the lower levels of the atmosphere are warmer than the upper levels of the atmosphere, the radiation of IR by CO2 in the upper levels of the atmosphere is going to pump heat down into the lower levels, moving more heat from the cold region to the hot region than the hot region moves to the cold region? Is there a thermodynamicist in the house?
I'm a physicist; I can answer that question!
Short answer: in the greenhouse effect, as in all other things, net thermal radiation moves from hot to cold. Notice that word "net".
"Net" means upwelling IR flux minus downwelling flux. If you look at only one component of the flux, you will get a wrong answer.
Everything at a temperature not equal to absolute zero radiates infrared. So, if you put a hot object next to a cold object, yes, the cold object will radiate infrared to the hot object. But, since the hot object radiates more than the cold one, the net flux is from hot to cold.
So, yes, the (cooler) upper atmosphere radiates infrared downward to the warmer lower atmosphere. But the lower atmosphere radiates more infrared, so the net flux is from hot to cold..
Your argument consists of two parts:
(1) a statement that doctors misdiagnosed you, therefore experts are idiots. The previous poster has commented on this.
(2) a statement that many years ago the Institute of Forecasters criticized the global circulation models as not being verified as methods of forecasting.
Looking at what the Institute of Forecasters publishes articles about, it seem that they mostly have expertise at economic forecasts, with a few outliers such as forecasting television ratings and forecasting election results. The author of the most recent paper on climate prediction is a professor of "management science" and his postdoc, also in management science. I don't see much in the way of publications showing that they know anything about physics or about climate.
Their most recent publication (Robert Fildes and Nikolaos Kourentzes, "Validation and forecasting accuracy in models of climate change," pp 968-995, International Journal of Forecasting Volume 27, Issue 4, October–December 2011) doesn't seem to be as negative as you suggest, and the conclusions, described in the paper as "tentative and limited," are mostly that the predictions need to be analyzed and verified. Despite this being a not very controversial recommendation, it is debated by two follow-on commentary papers (by Patrick E. McSharry and Noel S. Keenlyside). It seems that the Institute of Forecasters argue about climate prediction but don't actually have a consensus opinion.
The way science is done-- as opposed to management-science "forecasting"-- is that you compare your hypothesis to the null hypothesis. In the case of climate science, the null hypothesis is strongly ruled out. If you want to disbelieve climate science, the correct way to do it is come up with an alternative hypothesis that fits the evidence and makes predictions. So far that alternative hypothesis has failed to materialize.