There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.

[jc456]

I say again, you need to do more thinking before you post. What do you think the IPCC does?

they are not scientific, there is that. Funny you think they are.

 

[Crick]

they are not scientific, there is that. Funny you think they are.

They are, after all, very senior, very well-respected, hugely published and hugely cited scientists. Nothing here is funny, but what is abysmally ignorant is your view of them.

 

[jc456]

They are, after all, very senior, very well-respected, hugely published and hugely cited scientists.

No, the IPCC does not consist of scientists. Sorry bubba.

The IPCC: Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter?

www.ucsusa.org

IPCC history and mission​

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization for the purpose of assessing “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related data.

 

[Crick]

No, the IPCC does not consist of scientists. Sorry bubba.

The IPCC: Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter?

www.ucsusa.org

IPCC history and mission​

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization for the purpose of assessing “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related data.

I was aware that the IPCC does not conduct science. They ASSESS science conducted by others. It is staffed with, and their reports are written by, very accomplished scientists. Why don't you go have a look at who makes up Working Group I for AR6.

 

[jc456]

I was aware that the IPCC does not conduct science. They ASSESS science conducted by others. It is staffed with, and their reports are written by, very accomplished scientists. Why don't you go have a look at who makes up Working Group I for AR6.

oh no, no, you said they are scientists. skating back to your corner yet again.

Here, here's a meteorologist like the IPCC is

John Coleman (meteorologist) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Read up on his take.

Views on global warming[edit]​

Coleman spoke out as a "rejectionis[t]" of global warming in 2007 after watching NBC's "Green is Universal" week, when as a sign of environmental awareness, the studio lights were cut for portions of Sunday Night Football's pre-game and half-time shows.[9] In a 2015 open letter to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he claimed that a causal relationship between rising levels of atmospheric CO2 and rising temperatures had not been shown to exist.[10] He has called global warming the "greatest scam in history"[11] and made numerous false or misleading claims about climate science.[12][13] Coleman held a bachelor's degree in journalism and stated in interviews that he has not conducted any scientific research in the area of climate change.[12][14] Coleman's views contributed to his decision to drop out of the American Meteorological Society.[15]

 

[Crick]

I was aware that the IPCC does not conduct science. They ASSESS science conducted by others. It is staffed with, and their reports are written by, very accomplished scientists. Why don't you go have a look at who makes up Working Group I for AR6.

Open up any chapter within "The Physical Science Basis" and go to its end. There you will find a REFERENCES section listing the published science on which that chapter's material and conclusions are based. There is a reference section at the end of every chapter. For Chapter 7 (referenced recently for its discussion on ECS and TCR) the reference section goes from pg 1,026 to 1,054, 28 pages with roughly 40 listings on each page. Here is a sample page:

Open up "The Physical Science Basis" and go to Annex IX at page 2268. The next 19 pages, at roughly 40 names per page, list the names, employers and nationality of the Contributors to The Physical Science Basis. Here is a sample page:

Open up "The Physical Science Basis" and go to Annex X at page 2,287. The next 50 pages, at roughly 40 names per page, list the names, employers and nationality of the Expert Reviewers of the document. Here is a sample page:

Now... WHAT were you saying? Oh yeah. You said "No, the IPCC does not consist of scientists. Sorry bubba."

Well, sorry Bubba, but you got that about as wrong as something can be.

 

[abu afak]

So when Covid shut down the entire Earth's economies and vast numbers of people just stayed home? We of course saw a change in the CO2 levels? Right, Crick? Oh, wait...we didn't? Hmmmm...

Did your Power Go Off during COVID's 1 bad year?
Did you stop going to the Grocery store?
Did the Trucks stop bringing them food?
CO2 stays in atmosphere for Decades. It would take probably 3-5 yrs of much more shutdown to notice a drop in CO2 from 420PPM to ie 417PPM.

`

 

[Oldestyle]

Did your Power Go Off during COVID's 1 bad year?
Did you stop going to the Grocery store?
Did the Trucks stop bringing them food?
CO2 stays in atmosphere for Decades. It would take probably 3-5 yrs of much more shutdown to notice a drop in CO2 from 420PPM to ie 417PPM.

`

So we need to shut down the entire planet for 3-5 years before we see drop of a few parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere? Is that what you're claiming, Abu? You do realize that we're not going to see anything even remotely like that happening? That China, India and Brazil will continue to increase their burning of fossil fuels while the US destroys it's economy with a forced adoption of "green" energy? So how does that plan work to "save the planet"? (eye roll)

 

[Oldestyle]

Did your Power Go Off during COVID's 1 bad year?
Did you stop going to the Grocery store?
Did the Trucks stop bringing them food?
CO2 stays in atmosphere for Decades. It would take probably 3-5 yrs of much more shutdown to notice a drop in CO2 from 420PPM to ie 417PPM.

`

As for me? My driving was almost completely curtailed. I wasn't working. There weren't restaurants or movie theatres or bars open to socialize at. I was like the majority of people. I stayed home. The roads were empty. It was like that everywhere yet we saw no dip in CO2 levels! Why?

 

[abu afak]

As for me? My driving was almost completely curtailed. I wasn't working. There weren't restaurants or movie theatres or bars open to socialize at. I was like the majority of people. I stayed home. The roads were empty. It was like that everywhere yet we saw no dip in CO2 levels! Why?

The problem is you are Stupid.
WAY stupid.
The problem for 90% of the people here.
Aside from what I've already explained.....
You ever hear of G O O G L E?
LOOK IT UP YOU EFFING DOPE. IT'S SO EASY THESE DAYS.

how long does co2 stay in the atmoshere half life - Google Search

www.google.com

`

 

[Oldestyle]

The problem is you are Stupid.
WAY stupid.
The problem for 90% of the people here.
Aside from what I've already explained.....
You ever hear of G O O G L E?
LOOK IT UP YOU EFFING DOPE. IT'S SO EASY THESE DAYS.

how long does co2 stay in the atmoshere half life - Google Search

www.google.com

`

Ok...you've pointed out that CO2 lasts a very long time. That has zero however to do with the levels of CO2 being produced. So if Covid shut down economies throughout the world with people not driving? Shouldn't we have seen much smaller increase in CO2 levels? So where was that, Abu? Should I capitalize that question to make it seem more intelligent? (eye roll)

 

[Crick]

Ok...you've pointed out that CO2 lasts a very long time. That has zero however to do with the levels of CO2 being produced. So if Covid shut down economies throughout the world with people not driving? Shouldn't we have seen much smaller increase in CO2 levels? So where was that, Abu? Should I capitalize that question to make it seem more intelligent? (eye roll)

Because it has a long lifetime, what is currently in the air has builty up in over a century. During the worst of the pandemic, annual CO2 emissions dropped no more than 7% but that is a tiny amount compared to what it already in the atmosphere.

 

[Oldestyle]

Because it has a long lifetime, what is currently in the air has builty up in over a century. During the worst of the pandemic, annual CO2 emissions dropped no more than 7% but that is a tiny amount compared to what it already in the atmosphere.

Which of course means you're TOTALLY against the Paris Accord, right Crick? I mean if you're really against the burning of fossil fuels then why would you sign an accord that lets the three largest polluters continue to increase their levels of pollution while the US and Europe hamstring their Economies with strict green legislation?

 

[EMH]

are written by, very accomplished

.... taxpayer funded left wing fudgebaking liars who laughably call themselves "scientists."

 

[EMH]

The problem is you are Stupid.
WAY stupid.
The problem for 90% of the people here.
Aside from what I've already explained.....
You ever hear of G O O G L E?
LOOK IT UP YOU EFFING DOPE. IT'S SO EASY THESE DAYS.

how long does co2 stay in the atmoshere half life - Google Search

www.google.com

`

It doesn't matter how long it stays because IT IS DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

 

[Crick]

Which of course means you're TOTALLY against the Paris Accord, right Crick? I mean if you're really against the burning of fossil fuels then why would you sign an accord that lets the three largest polluters continue to increase their levels of pollution while the US and Europe hamstring their Economies with strict green legislation?

I will take progress of any size and nature.

The US is the second largest emitter.

The Paris Accords do not require any specific mitigating action by signatories .

So, read the text below and educate yourself.

From the Wikipedia article on "The Paris Agreement"

The Paris Agreement's long-term temperature goal is to keep the rise in mean global temperature to well below 2 °C (3.6 °F) above pre-industrial levels, and preferably limit the increase to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F), recognizing that this would substantially reduce the effects of climate change. Emissions should be reduced as soon as possible and reach net-zero by the middle of the 21st century.[3] To stay below 1.5 °C of global warming, emissions need to be cut by roughly 50% by 2030. This is an aggregate of each country's nationally determined contributions.[4]

It aims to help countries adapt to climate change effects, and mobilize enough finance. Under the agreement, each country must determine, plan, and regularly report on its contributions. No mechanism forces a country to set specific emissions targets, but each target should go beyond previous targets. In contrast to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the distinction between developed and developing countries is blurred, so that the latter also have to submit plans for emission reductions.

The agreement was lauded by world leaders, but criticized as insufficiently binding by some environmentalists and analysts. There is debate about the effectiveness of the agreement. While current pledges under the Paris Agreement are insufficient for reaching the set temperature goals, there is a mechanism of increased ambition. The Paris Agreement has been successfully used in climate litigation forcing countries and an oil company to strengthen climate action. On 4 July 2022, the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil recognized the Paris agreement as a human rights treaty.[5][6]

---

Nationally determined contributions​

Countries determine themselves what contributions they should make to achieve the aims of the treaty. As such, these plans are called nationally determined contributions (NDCs).[54] Article 3 requires NDCs to be "ambitious efforts" towards "achieving the purpose of this Agreement" and to "represent a progression over time".[54] The contributions should be set every five years and are to be registered by the UNFCCC Secretariat.[55] Each further ambition should be more ambitious than the previous one, known as the principle of 'progression'.[56] Countries can cooperate and pool their nationally determined contributions. The Intended Nationally Determined Contributions pledged during the 2015 Climate Change Conference are converted to NDCs when a country ratifies the Paris Agreement, unless they submit an update.[57][58]

The Paris Agreement does not prescribe the exact nature of the NDCs. At a minimum, they should contain mitigation provisions, but they may also contain pledges on adaptation, finance, technology transfer, capacity building and transparency.[59] Some of the pledges in the NDCs are unconditional, but others are conditional on outside factors such as getting finance and technical support, the ambition from other parties or the details of rules of the Paris Agreement that are yet to be set. Most NDCs have a conditional component.[60]

While the NDCs themselves are not binding, the procedures surrounding them are. These procedures include the obligation to prepare, communicate and maintain successive NDCs, set a new one every five years, and provide information about the implementation.[61] There is no mechanism to force[62] a country to set a NDC target by a specific date, nor to meet their targets.[63][64] There will be only a name and shame system[65] or as János Pásztor, the former U.N. assistant secretary-general on climate change, stated, a "name and encourage" plan.[66]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I will take progress of any size and nature.

The US is the second largest emitter.

The Paris Accords do not require any specific mitigating action by signatories .

So, read the text below and educate yourself.

From the Wikipedia article on "The Paris Agreement"

The Paris Agreement's long-term temperature goal is to keep the rise in mean global temperature to well below 2 °C (3.6 °F) above pre-industrial levels, and preferably limit the increase to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F), recognizing that this would substantially reduce the effects of climate change. Emissions should be reduced as soon as possible and reach net-zero by the middle of the 21st century.[3] To stay below 1.5 °C of global warming, emissions need to be cut by roughly 50% by 2030. This is an aggregate of each country's nationally determined contributions.[4]

It aims to help countries adapt to climate change effects, and mobilize enough finance. Under the agreement, each country must determine, plan, and regularly report on its contributions. No mechanism forces a country to set specific emissions targets, but each target should go beyond previous targets. In contrast to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the distinction between developed and developing countries is blurred, so that the latter also have to submit plans for emission reductions.

The agreement was lauded by world leaders, but criticized as insufficiently binding by some environmentalists and analysts. There is debate about the effectiveness of the agreement. While current pledges under the Paris Agreement are insufficient for reaching the set temperature goals, there is a mechanism of increased ambition. The Paris Agreement has been successfully used in climate litigation forcing countries and an oil company to strengthen climate action. On 4 July 2022, the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil recognized the Paris agreement as a human rights treaty.[5][6]

---

Nationally determined contributions​

Countries determine themselves what contributions they should make to achieve the aims of the treaty. As such, these plans are called nationally determined contributions (NDCs).[54] Article 3 requires NDCs to be "ambitious efforts" towards "achieving the purpose of this Agreement" and to "represent a progression over time".[54] The contributions should be set every five years and are to be registered by the UNFCCC Secretariat.[55] Each further ambition should be more ambitious than the previous one, known as the principle of 'progression'.[56] Countries can cooperate and pool their nationally determined contributions. The Intended Nationally Determined Contributions pledged during the 2015 Climate Change Conference are converted to NDCs when a country ratifies the Paris Agreement, unless they submit an update.[57][58]

The Paris Agreement does not prescribe the exact nature of the NDCs. At a minimum, they should contain mitigation provisions, but they may also contain pledges on adaptation, finance, technology transfer, capacity building and transparency.[59] Some of the pledges in the NDCs are unconditional, but others are conditional on outside factors such as getting finance and technical support, the ambition from other parties or the details of rules of the Paris Agreement that are yet to be set. Most NDCs have a conditional component.[60]

While the NDCs themselves are not binding, the procedures surrounding them are. These procedures include the obligation to prepare, communicate and maintain successive NDCs, set a new one every five years, and provide information about the implementation.[61] There is no mechanism to force[62] a country to set a NDC target by a specific date, nor to meet their targets.[63][64] There will be only a name and shame system[65] or as János Pásztor, the former U.N. assistant secretary-general on climate change, stated, a "name and encourage" plan.[66]

The Paris Accords do not require any specific mitigating action by signatories .

A virtue signaling waste of time? LOL!

 

[Crick]

The Paris Accords do not require any specific mitigating action by signatories .

A virtue signaling waste of time? LOL!

You seem to be ignoring the meaning of the word "specific". It DOES require each signer to produce a nationally determined contribution. What sort of enforcement mechanism would you liked to have seen?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You seem to be ignoring the meaning of the word "specific". It DOES require each signer to produce a nationally determined contribution. What sort of enforcement mechanism would you liked to have seen?

It DOES require each signer to produce a nationally determined contribution.

What is the punishment for not producing it?

 

[Crick]

It DOES require each signer to produce a nationally determined contribution.

What is the punishment for not producing it?

Naming and shaming. What is the punishment for driving a car that produces a lot of CO2?