Working Group III

The Working Group III Summary for Policymakers is being launched at the moment.

I've had a quick glance through it and it looks thoroughly political. Take these headings for example:

Sustainable development and equity provide a basis for assessing climate policies and highlight the need for addressing the risks of climate change

Effective mitigation will not be achieved if individual agents advance their own interests independently

The SPM can be seen here.

Update on Apr 13, 2014 by Bishop Hill

Donna Laframboise notes that journalists were excluded from the four-day meeting in Berlin at which the SPM was finalised. Environmentalists, however, were not.

I wonder what the justification for this decision is.

Comments

[TinyCO2]

EM "Most of humanity think no farther than immediate problems or immediate gratification, which is why we have dug ourselves into this hole." That's your opinion of their actions, perhaps they might see it differently. Certainly most of them wouldn't exist if fossil fuels had not been discovered and exploited. Would you be willing to step into a suicide booth if we could turn back the clock and undo all the CO2? Exactly which lifestyles are acceptable and which are greedy? Seriously, I'd like to know because it might turn out I'm on the side of the angels and I can be smug and nag others. Any idea that we should be saintly creatures who never seek more than we need is a denial of what made us successful in the first place. AGW is the obsession of those who have enough money to start worrying about more than their immediate needs and desires.

The only people who think cutting CO2 isn't cripplingly expensive or unpleasant are those who haven't tried it. The 10:10 campaign was typical. Just cut 10%, it's easy. Sure, if you already waste energy 10% is easy. I'm sure Harrison Ford could make a big dent in his emissions by travelling on scheduled flights rather than a personal jet but you would hardly say he's given up as much as the poor sod who is supposed to walk to work to make the same reduction. And what about the next 10% and the next? CO2 reduction gets increasingly harder and more life diminishing the more you do it.

But of course I'm forgetting, it's businesses that are able to slash CO2 from their operations. Because they're notorious for wasting money. Government ministers naively thought that the fast reductions achieved during the dash for gas could be continued indefinitely. Hah!

So a lot of people did take notice of AGW and did do some of the things that they were told to do only the problem didn't get solved. It turns out it's a never ending problem and no fun at all. So they push it down their to do list because it isn't obviously dangerous or urgent for them. What is the response from warmists? Do they set an example? Do they hone the evidence at every opportunity? Do they seek to understand others? No, they sit on their flabby evidence and whinge.

[Athelstan.]

"On a practical level your rejection of mitigation commits you to adaptation, a much more expensive option, involving much more damage to our civilisation. Enjoy! :-)"

"Enjoy"? why..................where are you going?

"a practical level your rejection of mitigation commits you to adaptation"

There are many different factors and they are all lining up to drive temps down. The weak solar cycle 24, the NH Summer Energy divergence from temperatures, a colder than usual NH ocean temp anomaly, and we may be due for the next Bond or Dansgaard Oeschger Event....... Massive Icelandic volcanic event and that is - imminent.

However, US climate expert Professor Judith Curry has questioned how this can be true as that rather than increasing in confidence, “uncertainty is getting bigger” within the academic community.

Long-term cycles in ocean temperature, she said, suggest the world may be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975, when there was a clear cooling trend.

At the time some scientists forecast an imminent ice age.

Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, said: ‘We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”

Or, here.

Adaptation, yes indeed that does sound eminently and rather practical - a logical progression and why should humanity have need of man made CO2 ''mitigation'' - when, the world is cooling? Adaptation, it will become of the utmost necessity during the current cooling phase, as the natural world drifts slumbering into hibernation.

What Britain desperately needs, is what Germany is now building - are at least 10 new base load electricity suppliers - new build coal fired generating plant and now yesterday. Adaptation - we need to adapt alright and to do it now.

[splitpin]

Entropic Man -

Less of your racism if you please.

[tom0mason]

From Donna Laframboise report -

Let us, instead, focus on the fact that this four-day IPCC meeting – which hammered out the exact wording of the summary that will be released tomorrow – was held behind closed doors. The public was excluded. The media was excluded. No independent, outside scrutiny was permitted.

We are all expected to meekly accept the word of those involved that everything that went on during that meeting was entirely proper, reasonable, and of no public interest whatsoever.

Scandalously, however, people associated with one narrow constituency did get access to that meeting. Those people are environmental activists.

It is obvious the UN-IPCC is trying to go over the heads of all (including governments) and play to their grass-root support in the green movement. This is typical of the UN and what they do in many countries through their army of NGOs.

[Martin A]

EM, so if someone does not share your viewpoint, that can only be because they are selfish, stupid or wicked?

It looks as if you've still got "a lot of undirected anger built up sparking in all directions".

[splitpin]

(EM had a comment about 'old white men', which seems to have been deleted. Hence my 3.55 am request to him)

[Bishop Hill]

Troll comments and follow-ups removed.

[Jonathan Jones]

When EM writes

The same science which supports climate change also supports quantum mechanics, atomic theory and electronics. If that science is wrong, none of the technology you use to deny it would function.

he kindly picks three of my favourite areas of physics.

Quantum mechanics? Check: I co-wrote Quantum Information, Computation and Communication.

Atomic theory? Check: I'm based in the Sub-department of Atomic and Laser Physics at Oxford.

Electronics? Ahh, there he finds my weakpoint. I was Head of the First Year Electronics Teaching Laboratory, but I gave that up two years ago, no doubt under the pressure of intellectual contradictions.

[Charlie Flindt]

BBC are STILL using the photoshopped 'smokestack' picture to illustrate this story!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27008750

This was the one that WUWT did a comprehensive demolition job on!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/25/photoshopping-in-the-worseness/

[kellydown]

Running out of fossil fuel might also be inconvenient.

Not running out of it has been awfully inconvenient to catastrophists, hence the increasingly hysterical opposition to shale and other extensive reserves..

[Hysteria]

Um... One of the practical things we can do is confront the pro-warming propagandists with some of their own doom-laden predictions. We have been doing this long enough now that some of their predictions are in the public record and now shown to be hopelessly incorrect. Is there a good website that collects the specific predictions and then posts the current status?

[Roger Longstaff]

"The same science which supports climate change also supports quantum mechanics, atomic theory and electronics. If that science is wrong, none of the technology you use to deny it would function."

EM, you have got this wrong. Nobody is denying the science of quantum mechanics, atomic theory and electronics. Indeed, I can confidently predict that my GPS will take me to any desired location, thereby additionally proving that the laws of SR and GR are at least very good approximations of reality. What is more, I can repeat this experiment day, after day, after day...

Conversely, "climate science" makes predictions/projections/forecasts that are invariably incorrect (New York under water, 21st century temperature rise, etc.). What does that tell you? It tells me that the thermodynamic formulation of "climate science" is fundamentally flawed.

[Ex-expat Colin]

@Entropic man
Apr 13, 2014 at 10:36 PM

Not F1. What you do is tear up the planet in China and Africa and work local people to their deaths acquiring rare earth elements. Pollute the hell out of the place and rob them.
You then configure/install the materials to gain a vehicle battery...a rather large one. Is subject to self combustion on the move. As is the Dreamliner, now with fireproof battery box...nice flight?
You then charge the User a fortune for it and any replacement. Range restricted/Charging.
You then fail to dispose of it correctly. Whats new?
Sprinkle with Corporation/Import Tax and VAT

Meanwhile you get the EU to provided regulations on new combustion engines that require a manufacture to 'tweak' everything on a vehicle to get below new lower emissions for type approval. Manufacturers like that, because they charge us for every special process/tweak that needs to be performed.

Users/In-Service are then subject to a special MOT that requires them to tweak their vehicle prior to entering a new MOT.
Add reliability and maintenance issues in service
Insurance issues with batteries ?
Sprinkle with VAT as required

[tonyb]

Did anyone else see the BEEB report on the Berlin conference at 10pm last night?

The point about switching to renewable energy was made against two backdrops; the first was of a massive solar farm on a very cloudy day. The second was against wind turbines that weren't moving.

You would hope the BBC would see the irony and why we need grown up energy from proper power plants instead of the part time expensive stuff.

tonyb

[John Shade]

We do not need the IPCC, nor can we afford the harm and distraction it has helped bring to world and domestic affairs. The more abstract harm to the standings of science, politics, the mass media, and sundry other establishments including the education one, of the relentless and prejudicial pursuit of CO2 as a terrifying spectre will be even harder to pin down, although I like to think attempts will be made to do so over the coming decades.

[Entropic man]

Not going to happen this century, EM. There's an awful lot of coal down there.

Apr 14, 2014 at 12:53 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

You have a coal powered car?

[Entropic man]

Roger long staff

The warming never stopped. The warmest year in the record is 2010.

New York underwater? Remember 2012.

[Big Oil]

Apr 14, 2014 at 9:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Petrol can be produced from coal. The Germans did it towards the end of WW2.

[Martin A]

EM - you have repeatedly said that you wish only to debate the science. But then you come up with

I see five possibilities. These old white men may be

1) Foolish, unable to see that there is a problem.

2) Ostriches, unwilling to look at the problem.

3) Deniers, unwilling to admit that there is a problem.

4) Tight, unwilling to spend money on the problem.

Or, as you say, they just don't care.
Apr 13, 2014 at 10:59 PM Entropic man

So as someone above said, you are now making racist remarks. Ageist too, I'd add. Plus it seems that you think that if someone does not share your viewpoint, that has to be because they are selfish, stupid or wicked.

It looks as if you've still got "a lot of undirected anger built up sparking in all directions" as you yourself said in a different thread. Is that the reason for your decision to abandon scientific discussion in favour of abusing those you disagree with?

[tom0mason]

The latest reports says that the UN-IPCC missive on climate change is expected to call for a trebling of the planet's use of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power.

Well UN to show the way?
The UN go for full renewable energy? -

All UN building (including owned, rented, hired, stolen, or donated) and all the building's equipment to be powered by solar cells and windfarms only.

All transport for all UN personnel, equipment transport, and contract suppliers to be powered by renewable sources only.

All equipment used by UN personnel to be resourced from sustainable and renewable sources only. This includes all hired equipment.

All waste disposal to take place as close (within 1,000 meters) to the point of use or discard. Waste will be as far as possible, recycled, or disposed of in a sustainable method. This includes human waste and wasted humans.

These rules apply to all UN staff, and includes NGOs, troops, ‘peacekeepers’, contractors, volunteers, walking dead, and temporary hired staff.

I live in hope that this happens.

[lapogus]

EM (9.23am):

New York underwater? Remember 2012

Sandy was only a Cat2 storm when it made landfall in NY. Are you saying that the tidal surge was due to climate change? What about the 1937-38 storm which hit NY and New England with a much higher tidal surge - and would have been much much worse than Sandy had it coincided with high tide as Sandy did. From the same wikipedia page:

The Great September Gale of 1815 (the term "hurricane" was not yet common in the American vernacular), which hit New York City directly as a Category 3 hurricane, caused extensive damage and created an inlet that separated the Long Island resort towns of the Rockaways and Long Beach into two separate barrier islands.

The 1821 Norfolk and Long Island Hurricane, a Category 4 storm which made four separate landfalls in Virginia, New Jersey, New York, and southern New England. The storm created the highest recorded storm surge on Manhattan Island of nearly 13 feet and severely affected the farming regions of Long Island and southern New England.

The 1869 Saxby Gale affected areas in Northern New England, decimating the Maine coastline and the Canadian Outer Banks. It was the last major hurricane to affect New England before the 1938 storm.

The 1893 New York hurricane, a Category 2 storm, directly hit the city itself, causing a great storm surge that pummeled the coastline, completely removing the Long Island resort town of Hog Island.

Sandy was a fairly typical 50 year storm and feck all to do with CO2. Weather not climate. You are more gullible and dim than I thought.

[Jon]

One comment from EM and the place goes crazy...sums it up really.

[lapogus]

Jon - it is the IPCC's proposal to switch from fossil fuels to renewables that is crazy:

Solar and wind produce so little they don't even make it on the graph.

[michael hart]

"You have a coal powered car?
Apr 14, 2014 at 9:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man "

Excellent, you've derailed yourself back to my question about how the UN thinks we are going to replace the internal combustion engine. And your answer is....?

You are also old enough, should you choose to remember, that South Africa made liquid fuels from coal to get round an oil embargo. It's possible you even taught schoolchildren about the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, but it apparently didn't sink in.

[stewgreen]

offtopic reply to (@EM .."coal powered car"= electric car ,,as they get most of their power from coal)
.. Now please people stay on topic

[Paul Matthews]

Robert Wilson says that the IPCC is wrong about bio-energy and "needs a good kick up the arse".

[stewgreen]

The on topic thing is : Low integrity means alarmists are wrong.
- The Alarmist message is wrong cos they cannot let the science stand on it's own, but instead rely on tricks like including political NGO and excluding challenging voices.
- Laframboise says "activists included, media excluded" "There’s nothing new about this. This is normal IPCC procedure."
.. to me this proves that the IPCC Is political rather than scientific.
..and as Paul points out via Robert Wilson the science they do spout is often BS .. "Renewables are a magic solution." Rubbish renewables are no solution at all, for wind and solar follow the maths and they might increase CO2, but as Tony Blair said "We could just stop all UK CO2, but China's growth would add that amount of CO2 back within 2 years"
- Pissing with wind is just "pissing in the wind"

- Robert Wilson is saying the IPCC seriously suggests man can resort to getting 20% of energy from biofuels, but when you follow the maths that would involve converting wild land of size equivalent to 43% of existing world farming land. (I wonder if they mentioned getting biofuels from the sea)

[kellydown]

South Africa made liquid fuels from coal

I believe they still did for some time after the embargoes, and also export the technology and expertise.

As stewgreen also pointed out, an electric car is a coal-powered car.

There is no perpetual motion machine, and there is no free lunch with energy. You can spend a fortune building batteries but you'll never get remotely as good a storage medium as hydrocarbons. All "free" sources of energy are only potential until converted to deliverable energy - and then their total costs , cumulative "carbon footprint" etc can be worse than the current whipping boys.

[tom0mason]

As Joanne Nova has put on her latest post -
<Blockquote>
IPCC ambit demands tithe of 10% of everything

As Graham Lloyd points out, in March the IPCC Working Group II estimates the cost of a 2C temperature rise as being between “0.2 and 2.0 per cent of income.”

So how much should we spend to prevent 2% damage to our GDP? The IPCC Working Group III says “10%”.

Only a large government funded committee could suggest that spending 10% to save 2% is an idea worth writing in actual words on actual paper.

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/04/ipcc-ambit-demands-tithe-of-10-of-everything/

[sherlock1]

tonyb - I saw that BBC report - and couldn't help but chuckle at the reporter standing in front of a bunch of STATIONARY wind turbines...
No doubt he was having a chuckle as well off-camera - but had to keep a straight face to do his report...
Seems to me the IPCC is 'upping the ante' - waving their arms and shouting, because Ukraine, Pistorius and the lost plane are taking too much air time...
Noticed that The Sunday Times, moderately warmist, relegated its report on the IPCC summary to a smallish paragraph at the bottom of an inside page...

[It doesn't add up...]

SASOL still makes motor fuels from coal at Secunda. In fact, the economics are very good at current oil prices. They're also expanding their GTL operations, turning shale gas into liquids in the US for example.

[tom0mason]

Entropic man and Big Oil

America has quite a lot of coal (as well as oil and gas) and would not run-out in your or your great grandchildren's time.
Pound for pound coal, with its high calorific value, is the simplest and cheapest way of making electricity.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Energy.html

[not banned yet]

For EM:

"Shale Revolution Reverses Global Energy Flow"

http://www.downstreamtoday.com/news/article.aspx?a_id=42873

[Entropic man]

Lapogus

New York must be gullible too. Their flood defence budget has soared.

[Entropic man]

TomOMason, not banned yet

I' m a warmist. I factor in CO2 production, on which coal scores poorly. You sceptics ignore it.

[not banned yet]

EM - did you read the article?

[Entropic man]

Not banned yet

It is irrelevant to the basic problem. It does not matter too much where the fossil fuel comes from when, from my worldview, most of what remains should be left in the ground.

[not banned yet]

Is that a yes or a no?

[Entropic man]

Not banned yet

I read the article, but fail to see its relevance to our prospects of following RCP2.6 rather than RCP8.5. As I said, if you want to mitigate our effect a lot of fossil fuel will have to go unburned. The prospect of having to write off the value of those reserves may have been one of the reasons behind past Exxon Mobil lobbying against the reality of climate change.

[not banned yet]

"Running out of fossil fuel might also be inconvenient."

vs.

"As I said, if you want to mitigate our effect a lot of fossil fuel will have to go unburned."

Ah, ok - so running out isn't the issue after all.

[Martin A]

EM - please stop your hypocrisy.

You repeatedly state that you wish only to debate scientific matters.

Then you come up abuse of other commenters on this blog saying they are

1) Foolish, unable to see that there is a problem.
2) Ostriches, unwilling to look at the problem.
3) Deniers, unwilling to admit that there is a problem.
4) Tight, unwilling to spend money on the problem.
Or (...) they just don't care.

Or, because I express the opinion that foreign aid is harmful to recipient nations you tell me

Enjoy your riches. Pity your are too selfish to share them around.

Your lack of awareness of the contradictions in your own behaviour is painful to watch. It's like seeing a badly injured dog. Now and then you excuse yourself by referring to problems that you have. Please go and sort out your problems elsewhere and stop posting your nastiness here.

[Entropic man]

Not banned yet

Unavailable because it runs out, or unavailable because it is too dangerous to burn. Either way, fossil fuel powered vehicles are due to become an obsolete technology.

[not banned yet]

Blah blah blah - Either way fossil fuels are not in danger of running out which was your original assertion:

"Running out of fossil fuel might also be inconvenient."

[kellydown]

Exxon Mobil lobbying against the reality of climate change.

Examples please.

[Jon]

"Environmentalist = helpful fool
Journalist = might just report the real back room goings on!

Mailman"

I suspect that the enviro's are there to assist the UNEP with arguments and winning arguments?
The UNEP and radical enviro's have the same vision and agenda?