there seems to be more stories being floated to the media about who is responsible for blocking the deal than about realistic paths to actually getting one.
it's understood by outside observers that the saudis are not a rational actor in much of any context. that is a region that may legitimately become uninhabitable....well, unless you're absurdly rich and live in an air conditioned high rise. which describes enough of the population. the people with a voice, certainly. hey: the more the peasants starve in the sun, the less chance they'll revolt.
i have little doubt that they're being less than constructive.
but, if (it's clear: when) the deal fails, it's hardly going to rest entirely on their shoulders. we're just being conditioned to blame somebody.
it was "blame canada". then, we got a new prime minister with close ties to the whitehouse.
then it was "blame india". but, the argument collapses quickly under any cursory analysis.
now, it's "blame the saudis". and, it's hard to make the counter-argument. but, it's no less propagandistic.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/climate-talks-contend-with-both-villains-heroes-as-deadline-looms-1.3355327
GordonRobertson
The entire meeting is a charade perpetuated by deniers. The difference today is that the deniers are those who have ignored the 2013 IPCC announcement that no warming has been detected since 1998.
No warming = No climate change.
This meeting is about money managers trying to profit from an orchestrated catastrophe imposed on us by climate alarmists.
jessica murray
more nonsense.
can you do me the favour of actually reading that document?
or, is that even worthwhile, given that you're unlikely to understand it?
GordonRobertson
Which part don't you understand Jessica?
See page 6:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter02.pdf
"Despite the robust multi-decadal timescale warming, there exists substantial multi-annual variability in the rate of warming with several periods exhibiting almost no linear trend including the warming hiatus since 1998. The rate of warming over 1998–2012 (0.05°C [–0.05 to +0.15] per decade)..."
Is it this one..."... including the warming hiatus since 1998"?
or this one..."The rate of warming over 1998–2012 (0.05°C [–0.05 to +0.15] per decade)..."
The first states very clearly there has been a hiatus in warming since 1998. Hiatus means stopped.
The second gives the figures of 0.05C/decade with an error margin of -0.05C to +0.15C. That could mean there was a slight cooling. Either way, 5/100ths of a degree C is considered an insignificant warming. You could not even see 5/100ths of a degree on a common room thermometer.
No model predicted this hiatus and all of them predicted far more warming.
The IPCC opinion comes from surface data. The inifinetly more accurate satellite data is showing no warming and little or no warming since 1979.
jessica murray
it doesn't appear to have been worthwhile, as you didn't understand it.
this is the part you are quoting, in context:
It is certain that Global Mean Surface Temperature has increased since the late 19th century. Each of the past three decades has been significantly warmer than all the previous decades in the instrumental record, and the first decade of the 21st century has been the warmest.
The global combined land and ocean surface temperature data show an increase of about 0.89°C (0.69°C–1.08°C) over the period 1901–2012 and about 0.72°C (0.49°C–0.89°C) over the period 1951–2012 when described by a linear trend. Despite the robust multi-decadal timescale warming, there exists substantial multi-annual variability in the rate of warming with several periods exhibiting almost no linear trend including the warming hiatus since 1998. The rate of warming over 1998–2012 (0.05°C [–0.05 to +0.15] per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (0.12°C [0.08 to 0.14] per decade). Several independently analyzed data records of global and regional Land-Surface Air Temperature (LSAT) obtained from station observations are in broad agreement that LSAT has increased. Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) have also increased. Intercomparisons of new SST data records obtained by different measurement methods, including satellite data, have resulted in better understanding of uncertainties and biases in the records.
i'm not going to bother explaining this to you. i'm just going to give you another chance to try and understand it.
enough effort has been put into explaining this. if you still don't understand, nobody should care anymore.
GordonRobertson
Jessica given the data I provided from the IPCC in 2013, NOAA, the official climate experts in the United States have set out to rewrite that temperature record since 1998 to show a warming. NASA GISS is also rewriting the historical record, replacing cooler years with warmer years.
NOAA is priceless, however, provided you can find humour in their chicanery. There used to be 6500 global weather stations from which they derived surface data. NOAA slashed the number to 1500 and they are using climate models to fill in the missing 5000 stations using data from only 1500 stations.
As a student of science and someone not enamoured by pseudo-science, I understand only too well. I am a big fan of the scientific method and the anthropogenic warming theory does not meet the criterion of that historic method.
Neither am I a fan of the scientific miconduct currently being perpetrated by NOAA, a US government organization that answers to climate alarmists like Obama.
jessica murray
the thing about 1998 was that it was unusually warm. the passage that you cited attempted to explain why you wouldn't expect to see large trends since 1998, not to suggest that there has been a pause in warming.