Paris Climate Accord Threatened by Inaccurate Data

[Chance]

In some cases, countries have no idea how much, and of what, they're emitting. In other cases, they're just rampantly lying. From BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40669449):


Potent, climate-warming gases are being emitted into the atmosphere but are not being recorded in official inventories, a BBC investigation has found.

Air monitors in Switzerland have detected large quantities of one gas coming from a location in Italy.

However, the Italian submission to the UN records just a tiny amount of the substance being emitted.

Levels of some emissions from India and China are so uncertain that experts say their records are plus or minus 100%.

These flaws posed a bigger threat to the Paris climate agreement than US President Donald Trump's intention to withdraw, researchers told BBC Radio 4's Counting Carbon programme.

....

Among the key provisions of the Paris climate deal, signed by 195 countries in December 2015, is the requirement that every country, rich or poor, has to submit an inventory of its greenhouse-gas emissions every two years.

Under UN rules, most countries produce "bottom-up" records, based on how many car journeys are made or how much energy is used for heating homes and offices.

But air-sampling programmes that record actual levels of gases, such as those run by the UK and Switzerland, sometimes reveal errors and omissions.

In 2011, Swiss scientists first published their data on levels of a gas called HFC-23 coming from a location in northern Italy.

Between 2008 and 2010, they had recorded samples of the chemical, produced in the refrigeration and air conditioning industries, which is 14,800 times more warming to the atmosphere than CO2.

Now the scientists, at the Jungfraujoch Swiss air monitoring station, have told the BBC the gas is still going into the atmosphere.

"Our estimate for this location in Italy is about 60-80 tonnes of this substance being emitted every year. Then we can compare this with the Italian emission inventory, and that is quite interesting because the official inventory says below 10 tonnes or in the region of two to three tonnes," said Dr Stefan Reimann, from the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology.

"They actually say it is happening, but they don't think it is happening as much as we see.

....

China's approach to reporting its overall output of warming gases to the UN is also subject to constant and significant revisions.

Its last submission ran to about 30 pages - the UK's, by contrast, runs to several hundred.

Back in 2007, China simply refused to accept, in official documents, that it had become the largest emitter of CO2.

"I was working in China in 2007," said Dr Angel Hsu, from Yale University.

"I would include a citation and statistics that made this claim of China's position as the number one emitter - these were just stricken out, and I was told the Chinese government doesn't yet recognise this particular statistic so we are not going to include it."



None of this is at all surprising. At this point, the best response to climate change is to train your children to be survivalists and innoculate them to the idea of cannibalism.

[blues]

http://spacecoastdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/GLCI-photo.jpg

"So then I tried to explain to them that if they start grazing, the methane they produce will create even more climate change...but they just don't get it. And they call us cows."

"You're preaching to the choir."

[FNFAN]

There's a great YouTube from one of the climate changers about how far they had to go up the bay before they saw a glacier in Alaska... It's like they think the fjords were cut out since the industrial age. Same thing with the Great Lakes. Those were formed right after the Ford Excursion came out with a V-10...

[RevolverRob]

The biggest issue to addressing global climate change is precisely what is described in the OP...the globe. Either countries that lack the infrastructure to properly report emissions outputs or counties that deliberately lie about their outputs. It won't matter how many regulations we pass in the US or Europe, if India or China grossly under-reports their outputs and does nothing to change. - This is the simple reality, global climate change is real and virtually nothing can be done to stop it, we're strictly into the mitigation of effects stage. And unfortunately, we're going to be completely unable to arrive at a global solution to a global problem. At least until climate change represents a genuine existential threat to humanity.

[RoyGBiv]

The greatest issue to addressing global climate change is the narcissistic presumption that the primary contributor is anthropomorphic.
The second greatest issue is that EVERYONE in the game has a personal axe to grind. Governments, Gore, Academics on both sides.
The data is unbelievable because.... humans. The interpretation of the data is rife with self interest because.... humans.
Please don't tell me "99% of scientists agree"... <insert barf smiley here>

I remember growing up in the 70's with media breathlessly reporting the coming ice age.

[Default.mp3]

I remember growing up in the 70's with media breathlessly reporting the coming ice age.Probably because what scientific consensus is and what is reported by the media often don't match.
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/significant.png
Source: https://xkcd.com/882/

I mean, come on, how often do they get things about firearms right? What makes you think they're any better with actual science stuff? The Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is real. Trying to learn about science through mainstream media is like trying to learn about love by watching porn.

[SAWBONES]

The greatest issue to addressing global climate change is the narcissistic presumption that the primary contributor is anthropomorphic.
The second greatest issue is that EVERYONE in the game has a personal axe to grind. Governments, Gore, Academics on both sides.
The data is unbelievable because.... humans. The interpretation of the data is rife with self interest because.... humans.
Please don't tell me "99% of scientists agree"... <insert barf smiley here>

I remember growing up in the 70's with media breathlessly reporting the coming ice age.

Agree.

I too remember the frantic predictions of the impending New Ice Age several decades ago.

While climate change is going on, and has done so for aeons at various times and places (according to both recorded history and geologic history), the question is how much any of it is or has been specifically attributable to human activity.

Certainly human contributions are reasonably presumed to have been more since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, but the spectrum of qualified, expert scientific opinions about the degree of climate change effects due to human activities varies from "almost none" to "humans are destroying the planet".

Having read a reasonable sampling of primary source scientific literature on the subject, I remain skeptical.

The left always needs a cause celebre, and this seems to be just one of the current touchstones.

[RevolverRob]

The greatest issue to addressing global climate change is the narcissistic presumption that the primary contributor is anthropomorphic.

You're almost right. Except that its the presumption that seven billion, four-hundred and thirty million, six-hundred and sixty-three thousand, two-hundred and seventy-five humans cannot be affecting change on a global scale.

That's essentially 7.5 billion people...linked arm and arm they would stretch around the equator about 300 times give or take a few. We have people with permanent establishments on every continent, industry exists on virtually every land mass, in every ocean, under every land mass, and under quite a bit of the ocean. We move trillions of dollars worth of goods annually, we extract millions maybe even billions of pounds of resources from the planet annually...We permanently alter landscapes with infrastructure...

But you're right...it's the narcissistic assumption that humans are the cause that's the problem. Or maybe it's just the humans?

Seriously, the math doesn't work on this guys. Sorry. 7.5 billion humans that change their planet every day is the greatest contributor to the rate and magnitude of change on this planet at this point in time.

You're right if you think we don't have good comparisons from the past, we don't. The conclusions that most folks who are studying this are arriving at, is we're in an unprecedented period of change where we only have quasi-decent comparisons with major catastrophic events in the past (i.e., mass extinctions caused by major events). If the predictions change regularly, it's because studies are refined, models change, errors are uncovered. You'll forgive us, we're also human and we're working to improve things constantly, that's how we do.

I'm going to exit this one now.

[RoyGBiv]

You're almost right. Except that its the presumption that seven billion, four-hundred and thirty million, six-hundred and sixty-three thousand, two-hundred and seventy-five humans cannot be affecting change on a global scale.
Did not say "cannot". Said "primary".

How many times bigger is the Sun an influence on Earth's climate than humans? (An inconvenient fact?)
The Earth's crust bears record of great changes in climate going back before humankind. No?

Correlation is not causation.

[FNFAN]

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-admits-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate

If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

Such was originally published by Germany's NZZ Online Sunday, and reprinted in English by the Global Warming Policy Foundation moments ago:

(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

For the record, Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.

[Chance]

A science debate! Eeeee! :D

It's true that a quite a few scientists were predicting a global cooling trend in the 1970s. What would lead them to believe something as ridiculous as the world getting cooler?

Because the world was getting cooler. Very clever, these scientists. And it was true: beginning shortly after World War 2, and continuing through the mid-70s, the world got pretty dramatically cooler. You can see that in this chart:

18870

But what did they think was making the world cooler? Aerosols from fossil fuels. Man made pollution.

The debate was whether aerosol cooling would Trump (heh) CO2 emissions. Some scientists sided one way, some the other.

Ars Technica has an excellent article about that here (https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/), including links to many of the original papers. If you'd like to read one of those papers, but find it's behind a paywall, fire me a DM and I'll get it to you.

Natural hot/cold cycles are attributed to variations in the Earth's orbit. I'm told we're due for another ice age in another few millennia, but I can't recall where I read that.

Anyways, there are still numerous unanswered questions, and I don't take issue with people being skeptical. But mankind is a force of nature, and our ability to break things shouldn't be underestimated.

[breakingtime91]

I think its dangerous to think that humans don't have an impact at all. Could we have less of an impact than other outside factors, sure. Does that mean we have no impact? No. This is has become a topic that you have to be on one side or another. I don't believe that is the case because while I don't think its as terrible as its made out, I think we need to take steps to cut down on waste and protect our planet for future generations.

[Chance]

I think most can agree that putting a bunch of crap where there was previously no crap should be avoided, when possible.

[peterb]

As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.

Misuse of data does not mean that all the data is invalid.

[peterb]

I think most can agree that putting a bunch of crap where there was previously no crap should be avoided, when possible.

Right. That's what I don't get -- regardless of climate change, there are plenty of other good reasons to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and waste management.

[JohnO]

Please do not be fooled into discussing the data, science or expert opinions. Global Warming, Global Cooling or the flavor of the day, Climate Change is all about CONTROL! Academia is addicted to the research grants. More findings equates to more money needed to study the problem. Governments are only too happy to fund these projects because their ultimate goal is control.

Just wait until the carbon tax is added to gunpowder. Oh! You turned up the heat in your home this Winter above the government mandated limit. It has therefore been determined you are unable to purchase any ammo as you do not have the available carbon credits.

I used gunpowder since the is a firearms forum. However you can apply my example to countless other carbon based products.

[RoyGBiv]

A science debate! Eeeee! :D

............

Anyways, there are still numerous unanswered questions, and I don't take issue with people being skeptical. But mankind is a force of nature, and our ability to break things shouldn't be underestimated.

I'm on board with both the sentiment and the conclusion.

[RoyGBiv]

Right. That's what I don't get -- regardless of climate change, there are plenty of other good reasons to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and waste management.

Too bad THAT very useful discussion is swamped by the fanatics clamoring for government control of everything.

[Jim Watson]

I don't see anything current, but a few years ago the retreat of Martian ice caps was reported, and global "warming" on Neptune and Pluto.

[GardoneVT]

I'm just gonna say this: I have more important matters to worry about then what temperature the planet may or not be on my kids 70th birthday.

[peterb]

But mankind is a force of nature, and our ability to break things shouldn't be underestimated.

Such as a few thousand square miles of the Gulf of Mexico.....
http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/gulf-of-mexico-dead-zone-is-largest-ever-measured

Heck, relatively small groups of humans managed to hunt species to extinction using 19th century technology. I have no doubt that billions of us can screw things up on a global scale.

[Chance]

I don't see anything current, but a few years ago the retreat of Martian ice caps was reported, and global "warming" on Neptune and Pluto.

Right. Like I said, orbital variations. We can't really compare direct observations of this phenomenon, as the orbit of Neptune is 165 years, and the orbit of Pluto is 248 years. By the time astronomers make a full series of observations for an entire orbit, they'll be really old. Possibly dead.


I'm just gonna say this: I have more important matters to worry about then what temperature the planet may or not be on my kids 70th birthday.

TiNK F TUH CHLiRDEN!!1!

[ACP230]

What if the fixes do more harm than good?
(It has happened.)

There's an area not far from me that had a stamp mill on it years ago.
The mill filled a valley with small bits of broken rock. When I first saw it,
more than 40 years ago, I thought it would take 100 years for nature to fix things
I was wrong.

First the creek banks filled with trees and grass. Then the trees
and brush started to move in from the sides. The place had been a good place to
fish but had few animals in it for years. When the trees moved in deer tracks
started showing up. Things were looking up.

Then some government department decided the area needed "remediation."
That entailed a lot of heavy equipment roaring away, removal of the creek, and
all the trees in the middle of the valley, big, small, or not. Then, eventually, grass seeding.
A windstorm right after the grass was seeded piled all the cover material on the side of
the valley. The grass did finally come up, but I wonder if it all was worth it.

Lots of diesel and gas was burned to "fix" the sand area. I was hunting up the hill from the
operation for months that fall and heard lots of "noise pollution." The area that was "fixed" used to be open for
hunting and fishing. After the "remediation" it is now fenced, posted, and off limits.
In my opinion nature, while slow, was doing a better job overall. And while it was in charge
I could still fish in the creek and hunt in the valley.

[TAZ]

Lets for the sake of argument agree that humans, particularly those societies going through an industrial revolution (aka China and India), are the biggest polluters. We should also agree that these nations also have the LEAST amount of environmental safeguards within their borders. Aka India and China dump a lot of crap into the environment, but we turn a blind eye cause we can make good profit margins. If these things are true, why do we insist on allowing, even encouraging more factories and products to be made in these locations. Why is it that a Mercury filled light bulb made in an unregulated Chinese factory and shipped to the USA is more environmentally sound than an plane jane bulb made at an EPA approved and monitored USA plant?

All the science, made up or not, is irrelevant. The climate change/green movement is a scam of epic proportions intent on doing nothing more than fleecing first world economies until there is nothing left to fleece. If they were truly intent on stopping pollution from being dumped into mother Gaya they wouldnt start with taking $$ from the group of clean folks and giving it to the polluters to build more factories. They would start by demanding more factories in areas that are capable of being monitored and properly operated. AKA Bringing jobs back into the USA, Germany, England... is GREEN.

What we are doing is akin to a date rape intervention where we shout and scream about how bad date rape is and declare a WoDR. WoDR would be a massive tax scheme whose proceeds would support making rufies available over the counter.

[45dotACP]

All I know is we won't destroy the planet. The planet has proven it will endure and the fossil record is filled with many an animal whose livable climate was different than it is today right?

I think we certainly should be mindful of the planet...while of course realizing that it's really about being mindful of ourselves. Being good conservationists, hunters, and sportsmen used to come with the territory as gun owners. Keep the wild game alive and around so we can still hunt and fish and have fun in this life. Preserve habitats, don't litter or dump toxic shit into water tables...that's all no brainer stuff.

At the end of it all, remember that Earth has survived without humans. It will continue to do so, even if we nuked every square inch of land. Ain't our planet I'm worried about. Nature/Darwin tends to be fairly self correcting. I just have no intention of homo sapiens being in the fossil record as another animal whose ideal climate changed and they died off en masse.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[FNFAN]

Misuse of data does not mean that all the data is invalid.

Data is relevant if it is accurate. Manipulating and extrapolating data in pursuit of a political agenda makes the data, at a minimum, suspect. There is no doubt that our climate changes. The half-mile thick glacier that carved out the Great Lakes is conspicuous in its absence. There also is no doubt that humankind can eff-up vast areas of our planet. That doesn't mean that we as Americans need to surrender chunks of our GDP to globalist organizations whose agendas are also suspect.

I don't want to return to American rivers being polluted to the point of periodically catching fire. I don't think it's a good think to have towns in India or Pakistan where acid runs through the gutters, just so we can have cheap stainless steel bowls in which to toss our salads.

We can be much better stewards of our environmental without a doubt. We need to step back and follow the money; determine the true agenda and ensure we don't get played by people capitalizing on our concerns.

[Wondering Beard]

I think you will find this interesting:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zk7Xfyv6k4

More commentary here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/11/dr-judith-curry-explains-the-reality-of-bad-climate-science-and-bad-politics/

[TheNewbie]

If the world and the media are hysterical about a problem then I know not to worry. This how I combat climate change.

[peterb]

Data is relevant if it is accurate. Manipulating and extrapolating data in pursuit of a political agenda makes the data, at a minimum, suspect. There is no doubt that our climate changes. The half-mile thick glacier that carved out the Great Lakes is conspicuous in its absence. There also is no doubt that humankind can eff-up vast areas of our planet. That doesn't mean that we as Americans need to surrender chunks of our GDP to globalist organizations whose agendas are also suspect.

I don't want to return to American rivers being polluted to the point of periodically catching fire. I don't think it's a good think to have towns in India or Pakistan where acid runs through the gutters, just so we can have cheap stainless steel bowls in which to toss our salads.

We can be much better stewards of our environmental without a doubt. We need to step back and follow the money; determine the true agenda and ensure we don't get played by people capitalizing on our concerns.

No argument here.

I do get angry when I see the "global warming is politically spun, therefore all environmentalism is bogus" argument. There are plenty of reasons to clean up our act that have nothing to do with the UN agenda.

[parkerjake]

When the elitists who profit most from promulgating fear stop preaching sanctimonious bullshit and start acting like there really is a problem (i.e., stop flying in privately owned Gulfstreams so they can virtue signal to each other over lobster and caviar at conferences in third world countries, then I'll consider there is a problem. Until then, not so much.