Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Scientists met last week in Geneva, to try to work out how to save the world – but likely more meetings at exotic locations will be required.
OSLO (Reuters) – Scientists on Thursday set the outlines of a report on how to restrict global warming to a limit agreed last year by world leaders – even though the temperature threshold is at risk of being breached already.
The U.N.-led study, due to be published in 2018 as a guide for governments, will look into ways of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to cap the rise at 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.
It will examine impacts of a 1.5C rise on vulnerable parts of the world including Greenland’s ice sheet and coral reefs.
Thelma Krug, a Brazilian scientist who led the four-day meeting in Geneva, said it will also cast the fight against climate change as part of a wider struggle to end poverty and ensure sustainable growth.
“Rapid changes are needed for (no rise above) 1.5C,” she told Reuters.
…
The Geneva meeting was scheduled at the meeting in Nairobi in April this year, at which it was agreed to select 70 experts to prepare a special report.
… The IPCC was invited to prepare this Special Report by the 21st Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP21) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Paris in December 2015. The Conference reached an agreement to limit the increase in global average temperature to well below 2ºC above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5ºC. The Special Report, which the IPCC agreed to produce at its last Session in April held in Nairobi, will provide an evaluation of the scientific state of knowledge of this topic in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.
The report will be delivered in 2018, in time for a “facilitative dialogue” that will take place that year to take stock of progress under the Paris Agreement. …
Read more: http://newsroom.unfccc.int/paris-agreement/strong-interest-for-new-ipcc-special-report/
I can’t find any of these meetings on the UNFCCC calendar, but I suppose when you have so many jetset climate events being scheduled, a gathering of a mere 70 climate scientists and assistants, or non UNFCC climate events such as the 2017 Boston US China Climate Summit, just don’t make it to the main list.
As for that effort to eradicate poverty – a good start might be to teach climate scientists how to use Skype.
Skype? The major purpose of a conference is to party.
Skype should come out with Party Skype. That way they can hold virtual parties in addition to their conferences. If the virtual reality of climate models is good enough to replace actual observations when it comes to climate research, then virtual parties should be good enough for them as well. Can’t they have just as much fun modeling the parties as they would partying with the models? 🙂
So was Paris the “Conference of Party(s)”
They should call it a “symposium.” The OED defines symposium as a drinking festival.
+1
But this is the “marriage” (of climate change with sustainable development) that Pachauri (or, more likely, his speechwriters) had called for in the July 2009 pre-WG5 days. See: A merchant in Venice: Pachauri’s “vision” for AR5, which included:
So poor ol’ Pachauri was only one AR cycle ahead of time!
It will be interesting to see how much the results of this recent gathering of the great and the good coincide with the word salad – tossed up for participants’ guidance and/or edification – reflect that which had oh-so-conveniently handed to them on a virtual platter.
See http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/pdf/sr15_scoping_background_doc.pdf
Eric, it may not be on the UNFCCC calendar but it may be on that of the IPCC – which was oh-so-conveniently “tasked by” the UNFCCC to produce this report.
As for the cost of such gatherings … I’m inclined to think historian Victor Davis Hanson’s Five Green Commandments are definitely worth considering. As I had noted and quoted in Dec. 2009, these are:
(1) No green public advocate shall have personal business interests predicated on climate-change remedies.
(2) No green public advocate shall fly in a private jet.
(3) No green public advocate shall ride in a limousine.
(4) No green public advocate shall live in a mansion.
(5) Every green advocate shall limit transcontinental jet trips to one per year.
So, Skype, as you suggested, would be a perfect solution that meets such sensible “commandments”. But as the old Buddy Holly song goes “That’ll be the day”!
Sounds like one of those forced marriages where one party has little or no say in the matter and if it all turns to crap then that party gets set on fire in the kitchen anyway.
One jet flight a year? I haven’t flown anywhere for two decades. I am a real conservationist/anti-global warmist. These clowns are all fakes, charlatans, idiots, fraudsters.
(6) To ensure peak operating efficiency, no green public advocate using a gas-driven car shall exceed the posted highway speed limit.
(6a) No green public advocate using a gas-driven car who posts to WUWT shall exceed the optimum highway speed of 55 mph.
… and shall be forbidden from driving for miles and miles and miles in the fast lane with their turn signal on.”
You forgot something there, BallBounces.
It becomes more an more clear that climate change has become a tool to bring about radical changes – I´m sure it works fine in their mind:
“Thelma Krug, a Brazilian scientist who led the four-day meeting in Geneva, said it will also cast the fight against climate change as part of a wider struggle to end poverty and ensure sustainable growth.”
So the idea is to end poverty by increasing the cost of energy.
“Nebojsa Nakicenovic, deputy director general of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, said 1.5C would be possible only if combined with sweeping U.N. goals for sustainable development by 2030 agreed last year, including ending hunger and poverty. Taken together, that would mark “a fundamental transformation” of the world economy, he said.”
United Nations seems to have become a mingling place for revolutionary, megalomaniacal, un-elected bureaucrats. The only thing missing now is that Christina Figueres becomes the new Secretary General of the United Nations. (These are the candidates, a nice bouquet of watermelons ):
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for the, at least, 150 years, since the industrial revolution,”
– Christiana Figueres
Not to forget the following quote:
“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization…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.”
– Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official:
And there is no doubt that radical and revolutionary changes are intended by United Nations:
Quote from the UN’s Own “Agenda 21”: “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”
I can think of a few others who intentionally brought about radical changes to a society or developed new financial structures. It didn´t always turn out well.
And now United Nations is about to give it a try – frightening – much more frightening than climate change.
What’s wrong with public transport for such cognoscenti?
“It will examine impacts of a 1.5C rise on vulnerable parts of the world including Greenland’s ice sheet and coral reefs”.
It’s got warmer in Greenland than I realised.
It’s warm in Greenland?
https://www.wunderground.com/gl/summit
I love it when people put up the weather to show that the climate has changed. Ignorance is wonderful.
“Coral reefs” would suggest so.
They find a nice bar, pull out a thermometer, breathe heavily at it until it climbs 1,5 C, then order drinks to save the world. The main task is to invent new cocktails like “Hockey Stick”, “Goredom” and “Yamalaya”. Takes a lot of testing.
Surprise … coral reefs are a possibility in the arctic.
What to do about global (sic) warming (sic) ? Change the definition to:
WARMING is an increase in temperature that can be discerned by
a human with ‘normal’ sensory faculties.
Anything not so detectable is just ‘an increase in temperature’.
Since the philosophers have all crawled away to live under stones,
I am here to do the job for them.
“It will examine impacts of a 1.5C rise on vulnerable parts of the world…”
Do they plan to examine the actual impacts from higher global temperatures, or just the output of climate models? Silly me. The more vulnerable parts of the world are not where these people like to party.
They find a nice bar, pull out a thermometer, breathe heavily at it until it climbs 1,5C, then they order drinks to save the world.
The main task is to invent new cocktails like “Hockey Stick”, “Goredom” and “Yamalaya”. Takes a lot of testing.
Sadly the drinks contain no ICE.
The solution to their problem is simple. Just abandon their “1.5C, demonise CO2, save the world” fantasy. It used to be said that this fantasy is costing the world $1 billion a day, but recently the estimate seems to have increased to $4 billion a day? Is that believable or is it just another WAG? Even a small proportion of that diverted to “efforts to eradicate poverty” would help. If these people were to be defunded, then that would be a big contribution to “sustainable development” they profess to support, as they are classic examples of the unsustainable.
?dl=0
“[their study] It will examine impacts of a 1.5C rise on vulnerable parts of the world including Greenland’s ice sheet and coral reefs.”
While I’m not in a position to advise on Greenland, I can help them out with the GBR, as I have been monitoring direct surface-level airflow off the Coral Sea from time to time. Is there a direct link to any of these people? I’ll offer to do more methodical monitoring if they are willing to pay my costs. (These costs won’t be substantial compared to the amounts they are currently wasting, and at least is payment for real information, not fantasy.)
The levels here at 19° 11′ 38″S 146° 40′ 31″E are usually 380 – 390ppm daylight hours. Starts to climb after sunset to 420 – 450ppm by 9pm, goes back to +/- 400 around sunrise. No change over 5 years. There is an occasional daylight “spike” which could be the carbon pipe effect, eg outgassing. The post-sunset rise is due to photosynthesis shutting down and the cycle reversing. There isn’t much in the way of land-based vegetation between my sensor and the shoreline, but there is a vast area of mangrove bubbling away happily to the north-east.
Let’s see what’s happening at the moment. Check the airflow. Yep – north-east. [Nullschool says south-east, but remember that Nullschool is modelling, not current observation. BoM Station ID 032040 says NE. BoM do tell porkies but I doubt if that extends to wind direction. ]
I’ll turn on the K-30 1%. Results for a few minutes observation are at the link below. It tends to start a bit high, then settles down. That little spike around 2pm is probably a settling artefact, but it could be caused by my next door neighbour firing up his Harley and rolling off about 7m away. Lawn mowers passing under the sensor and large trucks idling 10m away sometimes register. The occasional car passing 20m away doesn’t register. There are no other non-natural processes in the area.
At the above time, outside temperature 29.5C RH 57 at the sensor. That’s a bit higher than the maximum has been for a while, but is “comfortable”. (29.5C, 90% RH and no airflow would be uncomfortable.) Station 032040 (about 15km east of here) has 25.2C, 64% RH, wind speed 26 km/h.
I previously commented on the expansion of IPCC’s brief to include planning the entire planet’s detailed activities to achieve climate stability, sustainable development, poverty eradication and social justice. According to their own published papers, agendas and whatnot, they plan on creating and vastly expanding a new world socialist utopia based on the ideas of the old Soviet Union’s five-year plans.
Without an army to enforce its will, the IPCC is rushing into the largest public humiliation of all time. Notwithstanding current activist politicians, nation states and their peoples will not submit themselves to a system designed based upon the overwhelming UN voting power of the non-producing states and various dictatorships.
I believe that in the not-to-distant future, the IPCC will fade into obscurity. Without significant and frequent weather disasters (beyond past experiences) through the mid-2020’s, the CAGW demands for people’s’ sacrifices will not be sustainable.
From your lips …
” will also cast the fight against climate change as part of a wider struggle to end poverty and ensure sustainable growth”
One way to end poverty is to provide cheap energy to the poor… That will do the most to end poverty.
“cast the fight against climate change as part of a wider struggle to end poverty and ensure sustainable growth”
This is got to be either the most barefaced lie that anyone could put in front of an audience or the most appalling ignorance.
Fighting climate change, in the manner expected by the IPCC, will kill modern economies.
For a start, success in getting petrol and diesel vehicles off the road and rail and air will simply result in grinding our economies to a halt.
For those that do not understand what this means – it means grinding poverty and wide spread hunger far greater that the great depression of the ’30’s!
But I guess all the readers here already know that, but what is up with these lefties?
There are only three options here. Either these people a stupid, either they are ignorant or they are malignant.
If its the last, we have a fight on our hands.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
They all fondly remember the Cultural Revolution in China, that is what is going on here. Luckily for us all, the Chinese also remember those years and hate it…greatly.
“For a start, success in getting petrol and diesel vehicles off the road and rail and air will simply result in grinding our economies to a halt.”
It would be interesting to put this to a practical test, such as forbidding the use of fossil fuels within a major city for a period of about three months.
Cities typically contain no more than a few days food supply in shops and warehouses. Almost all deliveries of food are made to and within cities via fossil-fuelled vehicles, typically diesel trucks and trains. Take away fossil fuels and within a few days a typical city would run out of food. Food shortages would begin to occur at the end of the first week, starvation and rioting in the second week. Cannibalism would probably appear before the end of the first month. By the end of three months a typical city would be a charnel house.
Hey, but it’s all in the cause of fighting climate change, right?
Roger, I agree but the other 2 things, besides food supplies are the Booze and pharmaceutical issue, I think food as you said will be an issue but the other 2 play huge, and don’t forget the TV and other tech stores that get looted at first sight although after the power goes off on day 2 they won’t be much good now will they! And I also think it will be less than a month before fires and backed up sewers and lack of water will turn big cities in to hell holes.
Gosh I didn’t realise the globe has warmed so much already that Greenland has ice sheets and coral reefs
Damn, I need to correct myself – Greenland does have coral reefs http://www.livescience.com/43116-greenland-coral-reef-discovered.html
You learn something new every day
Extra warmth will enhance them too – http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/study-finds-coral-reef-growth-thrives-in-warmer-waters/story-e6frg8y6-1226261278615?nk=ebe66a98cf1afac2fe38dc260db2737a-1471784340
To produce a report now, and to have an agreement now, puts a lot of scientists out of work. So I see the next report will take until 2018, even though they say they are certain and have been for years of the climate outcome. I suspect this paper will take at least a decade more of analysis when including such simple tasks as figuring out how to end all world poverty. Many generations of grad students have contributed to the low budget IPCC documents, and more are to come.
Heads up!
4-5 October, 2016, the Clean Energy Conference
Melbourne, Australia
. . .
So, let’s see if there is parking … oh, a travel link … but of course!
TRANSPORT & PARKING
The Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre is located on the banks of the Yarra River, only a short walk from Melbourne’s central business district, and a 20-minute drive to Melbourne Airport connects MCEC to the rest of Australia and the world.
http://www.all-energy.com.au/en/getting-there/transport-parking/
. . .
As Bill McKibben said when explaining photos of him using plastic bags, driving cars and traveling on jet planes in a pathetic attempt to justify his self: ““Hypocrisy” is the price of admission in this battle.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/opinion/sunday/embarrassing-photos-of-me-thanks-to-my-right-wing-stalkers.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1
Only if you ‘believe’, Bill.
If every person in favour of a carbon tax just went to their doctor for an assisted suicide note, the planet could be saved.
Have you noticed that Global Warming now only affects vulnerable regions?
A bit like weather.
Twitter and Skype are a precondition for Climate Science and must not impede UNeconomic Flights.
[…] Thelma Krug, a Brazilian scientist who led the four-day meeting in Geneva, said it will also cast the fight against climate change as part of a wider struggle to end poverty and ensure sustainable growth. [/quote]
My underscore and therein lies the rub.
Climate change is the vehicle but has **** all to do with it, the whole shebang insofar as the UN is concerned is to;
i. shaft the west.
ii. shake the money tree [western taxpayers] in order to glean then, remit the proceeds – to despots [and mainly Islamic states] – in the ‘Third World’.
QED.
Exactly, and the money that flows to these despots will pay for new military equipment and weapons. The UN won’t be saving the world, they’ll be arming it.
Progressives……Democrats, Communists, the labour party:
Cicero.
What would be a big help, if we could just make the likes of Hillary Clinton see sense and if we could just stop fighting each other in order to define just who are the existential threat……ah but then, there’s more chance of the Antarctic ice cap melting……..next spring.
Would be enlightening to document all of the nutty past estimates by these 70 “experts.”
They had to be there to commune with the horned god in the Gotthard tunnel I assume (whatever happened to just having a decent dinner in a tunnel to celebrate its opening?).
“It will examine impacts of a 1.5C rise on vulnerable parts of the world…”
Mostly the groin and armpits, with some attention given to the buttocks.
We have a saying, “scratch where it itches”.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzr6wk7FVXE]
Monty Python’s people standing in water should be executed skit comes to mind.
Hilarious analogy by TinyCO2 pointing at the blatant hypocrisy http://www.businessinsider.com/c/57b96c129037f78c527ea44d
A million thumbs up!
🙂
it will also cast the fight against climate change as part of a wider struggle to end poverty and ensure sustainable growth.
Bureaucratism in the name of Socialism and Enviromenta;ism. How could one not be against poverty. Of course, the best way to end poverty is rampant capitalist growth, with the cheapest forms of energy available – coal. So, Dona Krug is not being honest is she.
I also picked up that quote with the intention of adding that Krug had better be careful about saying things like that or she will be in danger of giving the game away.
It is almost six years since this site quoted Edenhofer as saying,
“Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”
Obviously things are taking a little longer than anticipated but the plans for the demise of western civilisation are still evidently under active consideration.
Socialists discussing the redistribution of other people’s money.
There truly is nothing new under the sun.
Ah, but the operative word here is “sustainable”. It’s a sneaky word meaning whatever they want it to mean.
Currently the temperature difference between the palm and the back of my left hand is 1.7C.
Humans have no thermostat on the world’s climate; and the merest glance at a graph of the past 5,000 years tells even a fifth-grader all they need to know about natural variation. Thirty years have passed and the “climate” has hurt no one and advantaged many; the warmist narrative is getting much harder to sell except for the Useful Idiots who prefer to believe anything the NYT or Guardian blather.
“Thelma Krug, a Brazilian scientist who led the four-day meeting in Geneva, said it will also cast the fight against climate change as part of a wider struggle to end poverty and ensure sustainable growth.”
Of course this would be included. CAGW is the poster child of the sustainability movement. (Remember the 1987 U.N. Brundtland Commission report “Our Common Future” that launched the post-modern sustainable development movement?). We just ended the U.N.’s Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, during which the sustainistas aggressively infiltrated via outside activists K-12 and higher education with their propaganda about climate, GMOs, locavorism, Eco-feminism, wealth redistribution and the evils of capitalism, the evils of chlorine, indigenous peoples, renewable energy, fossil fuel divestment and a hundred other favorite causes of the left. These fall under three categories: environment, social, and economic. I have worked in higher education administration through this period and have witnessed the invasion. Sustainability is not about having an open, inviting conversation among the whole community. It attracts lunatic lefties who plot to take over the campus, and it alienates and disenfranchises the vast majority.
Like having an office of diversity a decade ago was the pop culture thing to do in higher education, that has been eclipsed by every college and university striving to show how “sustainable” they are. Many campuses now have an Office of Sustainability, code for “a bunch of busybodies” who don’t know how to do real work for a day’s pay. They have an association, AASHE, backed by the usual suspects (John Kerry, et al) and they meet nationally and regionally every year. They are now trying to elevate sustainability to the level of being a profession. In the curriculum, they are force feeding sustainability into every college subject (Was Chaucer sustainable? Is 2+2 sustainable?). And they are teaching the K-12 teachers, and writing their curricula!
All based on a mantra of lies trotted out and believed in faith. If you ask them for references to back up their assertions, or dare to ask if they ever question their tenets, you are called a “denier” to your face. I recently made a presentation at one of their conferences and experienced this firsthand. My co-presenter used the word “paternalism” in a quote from one of their (sustainistas) own authors, and a terrified eco feminist in the back of the room jumped up and ran from the room in anger and protest.
For an expose on the sustainability movement in higher ed, see https://www.nas.org/articles/sustainability_higher_educations_new_fundamentalism1
The UN has out lived it’s usefulness.There was always a danger that it would be captured by it’s less savory members. Nuclear weapons prevented a general conflagration while local conflicts have multipled. I can envision a sustainable free world without the UN. I can also envison the UN playing a villains role in the demise of representative democracy. Let’s scrap it and donate the budget to the sainted poor.
The UN was never anything more than a fanciful dream by the terminally clueless. By it’s very design, it never had any usefulness in the first place.
The absurd fly around the world to talk endless about nonsense is a symptom of the true problem.
It is impossible to address any problem(s) when the science, economics (we have run out of money to spend on everything – currency collapse is the next stage in the sad process – so there is no money to waste on green scams that do not work to address a problem that does not exist), and engineering is all incorrect.
The majority of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 was due to natural sources, not anthropogenic sources and the majority of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar cycle changes.
If the cult of CAGW idiots were genuinely interested in helping to abolishing poverty they would support the lending of money to construct coal fired power plants in impoverished regions such as the entire African continent.
The long term energy solution is nuclear power not intermittent ‘green’ energy.
The practical Russians who must make due with less, continue to make real scientific and engineering progress.
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/08/russia-will-build-11-additional-nuclear.html
make do
heat management
Haven’t you heard? Even the internet causes global warming…
Oh and Troe I’ve been advocating the UN in NY be turned into a homeless shelter for years…
When you know you may be wrong, when you doubt what you advance, when your conscience nudges you awake at night, you need reinforcement from friends……………..thus the need for another symposium, convention. meeting……whatever you want to call it. Fortified with liquor on somebody else’s tab you return home ready to carry on the “good” fight.
Brazil is already killing the world single handedly….from pollution.
“including Greenland’s ice sheet and coral reefs.”
Just how many coral reefs does Greenland have?
“the fight against climate change as part of a wider struggle to end poverty”
Lets make fight poverty by making energy expensive and unreliable.
That’s the ticket.
The fight against poverty is IMPORTANT! It is NOT important to WIN that fight – just to fight. After all how can we hope to get increases in budgets and travel allowance if we actually WIN? That would go against the first law of bureaucracy – which is to perpetuate itself.
Geeeez, everyone has the wrong idea about doing away with poverty – that is NOT a desirable outcome.
[sarc for those who need such things explained]