you do realize that 0.1 and 0.3 is an average and some areas are more severely affected than others, right?

And that temperature affects many things - anyone with a basic understanding of chemistry and physics knows that it upsets pH, chemical equilibrium, pressure, etc.

Many lifeforms are sensitive to this. Humans are lucky because we can adapt our surroundings to us. Most other animals don't do this. They will die.
- twiztedmike

Of all species that have existed on Earth, 99.9 percent are now extinct.

Of all species that have existed on Earth, 99.9 percent are now extinct.
- D0PPELGANGER

it's too bad homo dopperatus ain't one of them

https://www.bloomberg.com...-whats-warming-the-world/

case closed dopps, find a new hobby horse.

https://www.bloomberg.com...-whats-warming-the-world/

case closed dopps, find a new hobby horse.
- aschuter82

#FakeGraphs

#FakeGraphs
- dt99999

#FakeComputerModels

#FakeComputerModels
- D0PPELGANGER

#NoGraphPaper

#(frank)

hey dopps, a bit of good news for you:

https://www.newscientist....snt-the-end-of-the-world/

Following the announcement this week that the Trump Administration in the United States will withdraw from the climate change agreement reached at the international conference in Paris in December, 2015 (COP21), the Trudeau Government announced that it will continue to pursue its emissions reduction policies and to support the international environmental agenda.

I suggest that the policies pursued by governments in Canada must recognize that we live in a pluralist society, in which Canadians want many goals including economic development, safety and security, social justice, and public health and environmental quality. Public policies also must reflect the geographical diversity of Canada; a public policy that seriously harms one or more regions, allegedly to benefit the whole, can place the federation at risk.

Some groups, however, believe so completely in the theory that human emissions are causing catastrophic global warming that they insist Canadians should take all possible measures to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible. They want restrictions on fossil fuel production, transportation and use; limitations on energy investments; and vastly increased subsidies for renewable energy sources to displace traditional sources of electricity generation, regardless of the economic cost. For them, emissions reduction overrides all other public goals.

The COP21 agreement did not impose legally binding commitments on countries to reduce emissions by certain defined targets. It was a “best efforts” political agreement to reduce emissions, and it included commitments to file with the United Nations secretariat ever-more-stringent plans for emissions reduction every five years, in perpetuity. It committed countries like the United States and Canada to contribute at least $100 billion per year to a Green Climate Fund to pay for emissions reductions elsewhere.

How much are we told to reduce emissions? Today, Canada is politically committed to reduce GHG emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. As a result of previous political commitments, however, we are nationally bound to reduce emissions by 50% or more (up to 80%) by 2050. So, the carbon taxes of up to $50 per tonne that Canadians will have to pay by 2022 under the Trudeau government’s plan are just the beginning; taxes could go to $300 per tonne or higher.

Reducing Canada’s emissions by 50% by 2050 would be the equivalent of completely eliminating emissions from oil, natural gas and coal production, electricity generation, and energy-intensive industries – mining, petrochemicals, automobile and parts manufacturing, iron, steel, aluminum and cement. Reducing emissions by 80% would mean taking Canada’s per capita energy consumption down to the level of Bolivia.

That’s not going to happen. The Trudeau government must recognize that, with the departure of the United States from the Paris agreement, Canada’s principal trading partner will not bind its economy to impossible goals. The world has changed, and so should we.

With so much media coverage and outrageous claims one way and the other about the Trump Administration's decision to withdraw the United States from the COP21 Agreement, I thought that stating the basic facts might help people understand.

Question: What, exactly did COP21 commit countries to do?

Answer: COP21 contains no commitments for the Parties to the agreement to meet any emissions reduction target, either globally or individually. It contains very few binding legal requirements, there is no formula for determining what each country’s obligations are, and there are no legal penalties for non-compliance. Rather, it represents a best-efforts political commitment to keep the level of global GHG emissions below that which, in theory, might produce a 1.5 degree Celsius increase in average global temperatures.

Each country is committed "to prepare and maintain successive individual nationally determined contributions (INDCs) that it intends to achieve", to update these plans every five years and to pursue and report on the related domestic emission reduction measures. After three years, a Party may withdraw from the Agreement with one year's notice.

COP21 reiterates a goal first articulated in the 2010 Copenhagen COP agreement. The developed countries, meaning the 24 countries on the “Annex II” list, committed again to "set a collective goal" for a Green Climate Fund of at least U.S. $100 billion a year, "taking into account the needs and priorities of the developing countries". This too is voluntary and there is no formula as to which country should pay what. The Annex II countries include several OECD countries but not some of the world’s largest and highest income countries like China, Russia, Brazil, or Saudi Arabia. The developing countries eligible to receive contributions from the fund include the middle-income countries like China, Brazil, Mexico and India. There is no requirement for developing countries to report what they do with the money. In fact, the least developed countries are exempted entirely from the requirement even to prepare "nationally determined contributions" to emissions reductions.

Finally, COP21 authorizes the establishment of several new programs to be run by the United Nations Secretariat, which will administer and advise on adherence to the agreement. There will be "progress reviews", all voluntary.

Question: What did the COP21 Parties commit to do their first submissions of Individual Nationally Determined Contributions?

Answer: On October 30, 2015, the U.N. secretariat published a synthesis report on the aggregate effect of the INDCs that had been submitted up that point. By then, 119 submissions had been received, covering 147 Parties to the Convention and representing 86% of global emissions to 2010. According to the U.N. synthesis, the actions set out in the INDCs would result in global emission levels of 55.3 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2025 and 56.7 Gt of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2030. When presented in ranges, global emissions would be 34-46% higher than 1990 levels in 2025 and 37-52% higher than 1990 levels in 2030. The U.N. estimates that the growth of emissions would be slowed by 10 to 57 % from the rate that occurred between 1990 and 2010.

Bjorn Lomborg, a professor at the Copenhagen Business School, has analysed the temperature reduction impact of the INDCs submitted to date, using the standard MAGICC climate model. Even optimistically assuming that promised emission cuts are maintained throughout the century, the impacts are generally small. All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100. In effect, these commitments will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades.

Question: Is it true that China’s INDC shows it to be the world leader in addressing global warming?

Answer: China’s INDC has been very favourably reviewed by a number of environmental groups. China is by far the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. The Chinese economy and population continues to grow rapidly by comparison with other countries, so the challenge for China is somehow to break the link between economic growth and the increases in emissions associated with higher energy demand. The Chinese INDC projects that this will be accomplished by making the economy less emissions-intensive. Thus, the goal is to decease the carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 60% to 65% from the 2005 level by 2030. China also hopes to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20% and to substantially increase the size of its forests. The result would be that China’s carbon dioxide emissions would peak around 2030 and possibly decline from there.

Even if these goals were attained, however, Chinese emissions by 2030 would be two to two and a half times as high as those of the next largest emitter, the United States.

China is not required under the COP21 agreement to make any contributions to the funding of the Green Climate Fund. As noted previously, it can in fact qualify as a recipient of that fund.

With so much media coverage and outrageous claims one way and the other about the Trump Administration's decision to withdraw the United States from the COP21 Agreement, I thought that stating the basic facts might help people understand.

Question: What, exactly did COP21 commit countries to do?

Answer: COP21 contains no commitments for the Parties to the agreement to meet any emissions reduction target, either globally or individually. It contains very few binding legal requirements, there is no formula for determining what each country’s obligations are, and there are no legal penalties for non-compliance. Rather, it represents a best-efforts political commitment to keep the level of global GHG emissions below that which, in theory, might produce a 1.5 degree Celsius increase in average global temperatures.

Each country is committed "to prepare and maintain successive individual nationally determined contributions (INDCs) that it intends to achieve", to update these plans every five years and to pursue and report on the related domestic emission reduction measures. After three years, a Party may withdraw from the Agreement with one year's notice.

COP21 reiterates a goal first articulated in the 2010 Copenhagen COP agreement. The developed countries, meaning the 24 countries on the “Annex II” list, committed again to "set a collective goal" for a Green Climate Fund of at least U.S. $100 billion a year, "taking into account the needs and priorities of the developing countries". This too is voluntary and there is no formula as to which country should pay what. The Annex II countries include several OECD countries but not some of the world’s largest and highest income countries like China, Russia, Brazil, or Saudi Arabia. The developing countries eligible to receive contributions from the fund include the middle-income countries like China, Brazil, Mexico and India. There is no requirement for developing countries to report what they do with the money. In fact, the least developed countries are exempted entirely from the requirement even to prepare "nationally determined contributions" to emissions reductions.

Finally, COP21 authorizes the establishment of several new programs to be run by the United Nations Secretariat, which will administer and advise on adherence to the agreement. There will be "progress reviews", all voluntary.

Question: What did the COP21 Parties commit to do their first submissions of Individual Nationally Determined Contributions?

Answer: On October 30, 2015, the U.N. secretariat published a synthesis report on the aggregate effect of the INDCs that had been submitted up that point. By then, 119 submissions had been received, covering 147 Parties to the Convention and representing 86% of global emissions to 2010. According to the U.N. synthesis, the actions set out in the INDCs would result in global emission levels of 55.3 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2025 and 56.7 Gt of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2030. When presented in ranges, global emissions would be 34-46% higher than 1990 levels in 2025 and 37-52% higher than 1990 levels in 2030. The U.N. estimates that the growth of emissions would be slowed by 10 to 57 % from the rate that occurred between 1990 and 2010.

Bjorn Lomborg, a professor at the Copenhagen Business School, has analysed the temperature reduction impact of the INDCs submitted to date, using the standard MAGICC climate model. Even optimistically assuming that promised emission cuts are maintained throughout the century, the impacts are generally small. All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100. In effect, these commitments will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades.

Question: Is it true that China’s INDC shows it to be the world leader in addressing global warming?

Answer: China’s INDC has been very favourably reviewed by a number of environmental groups. China is by far the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. The Chinese economy and population continues to grow rapidly by comparison with other countries, so the challenge for China is somehow to break the link between economic growth and the increases in emissions associated with higher energy demand. The Chinese INDC projects that this will be accomplished by making the economy less emissions-intensive. Thus, the goal is to decease the carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 60% to 65% from the 2005 level by 2030. China also hopes to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20% and to substantially increase the size of its forests. The result would be that China’s carbon dioxide emissions would peak around 2030 and possibly decline from there.

Even if these goals were attained, however, Chinese emissions by 2030 would be two to two and a half times as high as those of the next largest emitter, the United States.

China is not required under the COP21 agreement to make any contributions to the funding of the Green Climate Fund. As noted previously, it can in fact qualify as a recipient of that fund.
- D0PPELGANGER

hmmmm food for thought.. .

Soros Paid Al Gore MILLIONS To Push ‘Aggressive US Action’ On Global Warming



http://dailycaller.com/20...action-on-global-warming/

Soros Paid Al Gore MILLIONS To Push ‘Aggressive US Action’ On Global Warming



http://dailycaller.com/20...action-on-global-warming/
- D0PPELGANGER

Do you ever read the links you post?

http://www.winnipegfreepr...ate-change-428030543.html

11,944 peer reviewed papers on climate &change related papers in 21 journals 1991-2001, total do 41 papers .03% said what little global warming there has been in recent years was mostly man made ...,not 97%
The IPCC is mandated to look at human caused global warming change....without taking into consideration of all other aspects which affect climate change ie: the sun, it is rather like saying have an investigation on why the mice are in your house ....gee must be because you left garbage so that's why they are there...when in fact maybe they are there because the predators of mice ie: owls went through a decline due to disease ( actually occurred in Northern West Coast of BC)
If as a scientist, a body who pays your salary, directs you to examine climate change but narrows your research window automatically by definition to "man made" you lose all credibility in the world and the what large.
We live on an amazing planet which we know little about. Disband the IPCC and replace with scientists from all disciples which affect climate, and DO REAL RESEARCH!
At present it seems there are motives driving this insanity...some of them being UN 2030 and Leaf Manifesto.
We are waking up, and will not be coerced onto buying in.
Be proud of your countries and Stand Up for the Right Things.
And I thank the countless real scientists who at personal peril and cost have stood up!
There are tipping points in history...this is one of them....

It's really great that basically the whole world other than Dopps, the current nutjob administration in the US, and a few scientists who are quite awful at their jobs have decided to move ahead on climate solutions.

Must be infuriating for you dopps.

It's really great that basically the whole world other than Dopps, the current nutjob administration in the US, and a few scientists who are quite awful at their jobs have decided to move ahead on climate solutions.

Must be infuriating for you dopps.
- aschuter82

Do you still think all those carbon taxes being collected, are being used to "move ahead on climate solutions"?

You're too easy to be fooled eh?

Show me anything, anything, that has been done to "solve climate".

Do you still think all those carbon taxes being collected, are being used to "move ahead on climate solutions"?

You're too easy to be fooled eh?

Show me anything, anything, that has been done to "solve climate".
- D0PPELGANGER

Show me anything, anything, that was in my post that said "solve climate".

You're too meticulous to only see what you want to see eh?

Show me anything, anything, that was in my post that said "solve climate".

You're too meticulous to only see what you want to see eh?
- aschuter82

Did you not say "move ahead on climate solutions".

They've been collecting carbon taxes for years in Europe, and more recently in North America.

"Solutions" infers that you try to solve them, do you not agree?







Face it, all the tax dollars collected, in the name of Man made global warming, is just a transfer of wealth from first world countries, to third world countries.

Did you not say "move ahead on climate solutions".

They've been collecting carbon taxes for years in Europe, and more recently in North America.

"Solutions" infers that you try to solve them, do you not agree?







Face it, all the tax dollars collected, in the name of Man made global warming, is just a transfer of wealth from first world countries, to third world countries.
- D0PPELGANGER

Maybe. Likely getting into semantics here, but climate change is a pretty large issue, and we are kinda past the point of being able to "solve" it. Mitigating disastrous consequences is where we're at. I'm cool with taking those steps.

And improving the wealth of 3rd world nations seems like it might be kind of a good thing?