COP21

Forstå dog

, at hans teorier er hypoteser

, som ingen den dag i dag kan afgøre om de er sande eller falske - eller hvornår de bliver sande

, hvis vi fortsætter udledningen af milliarder af tons drivhusgas/år.

John Niclasen skrev:
Er det ikke påfaldende, hvordan tilhængere af katastrofal menneskeskabt global opvarmning igen og igen skal gå efter personen i stedet for at kommentere på indholdet!

Vi må konkludere, at det er fordi de ingen valide argumenter har.

Hvorfor er du en løgner, Niclasen?

John Niclasen skrev:
Foretager alarmisten her en projektion over på en anden person?

Hvorfor er du en løgner, Niclasen?

Det er en alvorlig anklage!

Forstå dog, at hans teorier er hypoteser, som ingen den dag i dag kan afgøre om de er sande eller falske - eller hvornår de bliver sande, ...

Mikael Obelitz skrev:
Og Niclasen kan kun benytte sig af opdigtede fjendebilleder, løgne, fornægtelse af, hvad der egentligt rører sig i klimadebatten. En crackpot uden realistisk tilgang til almindelig diskussion.

Disintegrationen af West Antarctica er i høj grad en diskussion, der ligger på klimaforskernes bord.
Interessant, hvad de finder ud af - det er et vanskeligt emne at finde endegyldige svar på....

Intet tyder på at udledningen vil falde,som prognosen ellers var

Japan, China, and South Korea are bankrolling environmentally destructive coal-fired power plants in Indonesia despite their pledges to reduce climate-changing emissions under the Paris climate deal, analysts told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
Australia-based environmental finance organization Market Forces said it analyzed 22 coal power deals in Indonesia since January 2010 and found state-run financiers for the three nations were involved in 18 of them.
In all, foreign banks, both commercial and state-owned, are providing 98 percent of the debt finance for the projects, amounting to $16.7 billion.
Indonesian banks provided just 2 percent of the financial resources for the projects, according to the Market Forces analysis published this week.
Japan, China, and South Korea "are on board with the Paris climate change agreement. They make all the right noises politically," Julien Vincent, executive director of Market Forces, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation in a phone interview

Ja,Macron &Co får sandelig noget at snakke om i Paris d. 12.dec.17

...At 3pm, the group met for the third time. Having led the consultations, the EU presented the compromise, and the texts were ultimately adopted and passed to the SBSTA plenary to be adopted – following a surreal moment, where Saudi Arabia agreed to the compromise if the co-chairs sang...
a clip of their performance of "Ooh child" is available here. And let's hope indeed that things are going to get easier someday...

On finance and technology, a couple of things of note for IETA members. The COP decisions on the Green Climate Fund encourage the Fund's board to begin its first "replenishment round" and also for it to begin reporting on its support for technological innovations and/or scaling-up, so as to inform the Technology Mechanism

Kjeld Jul skrev:
Ad. klimaaftalen i Paris 2015.

For kort tid siden blev der i International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Managment vist et dokument,hvor den videnskabelige basis for klimakontrakten i Paris bliver diskuteret.
Analysen er baseret på IPCCs egne rapporter,de observerede temperaturer vs IPCCs modeltemperaturer - dvs effekten af CO2,CH4 mfl. baseret på kritiske studier af klimasensiviteten-CS.
Her et uddrag af analysen : the result of the study confirm that the temperature increase stays below 2C by 2100 per IPCC calculations.The IPCC calculated temperature for 2016 is 1,27C,49% higher than the observed average of 0,85C in 2000.
Two explanations have been identified for this significant difference in the IPCCs calculations.
The model is too sensitive for CO2 increase,and the positive water feedback does not exist.

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/IJCCSM-05-2017-0107

crank skrev:

Kjeld Jul skrev:
Ad. klimaaftalen i Paris 2015.

For kort tid siden blev der i International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Managment vist et dokument,hvor den videnskabelige basis for klimakontrakten i Paris bliver diskuteret.
Analysen er baseret på IPCCs egne rapporter,de observerede temperaturer vs IPCCs modeltemperaturer - dvs effekten af CO2,CH4 mfl. baseret på kritiske studier af klimasensiviteten-CS.
Her et uddrag af analysen : the result of the study confirm that the temperature increase stays below 2C by 2100 per IPCC calculations.The IPCC calculated temperature for 2016 is 1,27C,49% higher than the observed average of 0,85C in 2000.
Two explanations have been identified for this significant difference in the IPCCs calculations.
The model is too sensitive for CO2 increase,and the positive water feedback does not exist.

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/IJCCSM-05-2017-0107

Det er vist begrænset, hvor mange der stadig har tillid til COP cirkusset?

Hvad vil du selv gerne fortælle her, Kjeld?



.

Kjeld Jul skrev:

crank skrev:

Kjeld Jul skrev:
Ad. klimaaftalen i Paris 2015.

For kort tid siden blev der i International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Managment vist et dokument,hvor den videnskabelige basis for klimakontrakten i Paris bliver diskuteret.
Analysen er baseret på IPCCs egne rapporter,de observerede temperaturer vs IPCCs modeltemperaturer - dvs effekten af CO2,CH4 mfl. baseret på kritiske studier af klimasensiviteten-CS.
Her et uddrag af analysen : the result of the study confirm that the temperature increase stays below 2C by 2100 per IPCC calculations.The IPCC calculated temperature for 2016 is 1,27C,49% higher than the observed average of 0,85C in 2000.
Two explanations have been identified for this significant difference in the IPCCs calculations.
The model is too sensitive for CO2 increase,and the positive water feedback does not exist.

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/IJCCSM-05-2017-0107

Det er vist begrænset, hvor mange der stadig har tillid til COP cirkusset?

Hvad vil du selv gerne fortælle her, Kjeld?

.

Nu stopper festen Crank, hvis du ikke er istand til.at føre en anstændig dialog og lade være med dine chikaner, får jeg Branner til at smide dig ud - du bidrager jo alligevel ikke med noget andet end spam.

Morten Riber skrev:
For ikke af snakke om at Branner har giver Niels K Sørensen ubegrænset fripas til at fyrre løs med usaglige agumenter:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/usaglig-argumentation-d12-e3095-s320.php#post_67335

Det svømmer helt over nu, og tråden af samme navn er af samme grund, ganske ligegyldig og meningsløs.

personangreb

After two weeks, an international climate change conference in Bonn, Germany, attended by delegates from over 200 countries, has ended in failure, without no agreement on the major issues of finance and transparency.

China is demanding that it not be held to any climate change standards whatsoever. In return for all the money they are getting from the rich countries starting in 2020, the developing countries are supposed to start reducing emissions in 2020.

The issues are transparency and bookkeeping. Each country is required to open its accounting books to prove that it is meeting its emission reduction commitments.

But China is now demanding "bifurcation." This is a technical term meaning that the transparency and bookkeeping rules apply only to the rich countries, not to the developing countries.

This means that the "rich" developed countries have to pay all the money and also meet the transparency and bookkeeping rules to prove that they're meeting their emission commitments.

But the developing countries just have to sit back and collect money, and claim that they are reducing emissions without having to provide any evidence.

- gad vide, hvordan omtalte 'replenishment' mon skrider frem? På det seneste har Bloomberg jo for egen regning spædet en smule til...men der er givetvis langt igen, hvis fonden fra 2020 skal uddele G$ 100/år, som besluttet ved COP21!

Items on the agenda include a promise to raise $100 billion a year in climate finance, from both public and private sources, by 2020 to help developing countries tackle global warming.
Discussion on the funding is being "blocked across the board" at the meeting by a group of rich nations led by the United States, said Harjeet Singh, a global climate lead at non-profit ActionAid.
"If they don't commit to real finance, it's all going to fall apart. Developing countries will not be able to implement their targets, which they have put forward in anticipation of the money," Singh told Reuters.
"There is a big fear that the $100 billion target will not be met."..

- man kan måske også undre sig en smule over, at netop USA er sat i spidsen

Developing countries rounded on the United States and its allies at emergency climate talks Sunday, accusing the world's richest nations of stalling on a deal aimed at preventing runaway global warming.
Experts from around the world wrapped up discussions in Bangkok geared towards creating a comprehensive rulebook for countries to implement the landmark Paris Accord on climate change.
But talks foundered over the key issue of how efforts to limit climate change are funded and how contributions are reported.
Delegates representing some of Earth's poorest and smallest nations said on the final day of the summit that the US and other Western economies had failed to live up to their green spending commitments...

- nyt fra Bangkok

Poland on Tuesday named the EU's largest producer of high-quality coking coal among several coal-sector companies that it chose to partner with the UN's COP 24 global climate summit opening this weekend in the southern coal city of Katowice...

In a policy paper published this week, its right-wing Law and Justice (PiS) government said it aims to reduce reliance on coal to 60 percent by 2030 by boosting renewables and adding nuclear energy to its mix

Brazil backs out of hosting 2019 UN climate summit