Monday, November 30, 2015
india: 6% of the emissions, with 17% of the population.
china: 30% of emissions, with 19% of the population.
canada: 1.5% of the emissions with .5% of the population.
usa: 15% of the emissions, with 4% of the population.
i guess barack has decided to share the blame a little. "blame canada" was maybe getting a little old.
reality?
the democrats have a decent blame-shifting marketing campaign going on, but they've done absolutely nothing substantive.
blame america.
together, china & america make nearly half of the emissions. india is fourth, after the eu, but there's a huge drop from 2nd to 4th.
and, yes, china *must* get their emissions down. but, they also have a fifth of the population, and one would expect they'd produce a fifth of the emissions. somewhere around 20% is a reasonable target.
it's the united states that remains the most egregious polluter and has to take the biggest steps. any suggestions otherwise are just a pr strategy to shift the blame.
one would expect china and india to be the world's biggest polluters, because they have nearly 40% of the world's population. a real solution to this will necessitate that india become the world's second largest polluter due to reductions elsewhere.
it is the day that this becomes true that we will know we've made some progress in reducing emissions in the developed world.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/paris-climate-change-conference-1.3343125
you know what?
screw obama.
let's push for legally binding targets, and make him make the choice to sign it or not. letting him squirm out of this is too easy. you're letting him blame it on the republicans. and, it's a lot of bs.
make it tough. make him sign it. and, make him take the heat when he doesn't.
china: 30% of emissions, with 19% of the population.
canada: 1.5% of the emissions with .5% of the population.
usa: 15% of the emissions, with 4% of the population.
i guess barack has decided to share the blame a little. "blame canada" was maybe getting a little old.
reality?
the democrats have a decent blame-shifting marketing campaign going on, but they've done absolutely nothing substantive.
blame america.
together, china & america make nearly half of the emissions. india is fourth, after the eu, but there's a huge drop from 2nd to 4th.
and, yes, china *must* get their emissions down. but, they also have a fifth of the population, and one would expect they'd produce a fifth of the emissions. somewhere around 20% is a reasonable target.
it's the united states that remains the most egregious polluter and has to take the biggest steps. any suggestions otherwise are just a pr strategy to shift the blame.
one would expect china and india to be the world's biggest polluters, because they have nearly 40% of the world's population. a real solution to this will necessitate that india become the world's second largest polluter due to reductions elsewhere.
it is the day that this becomes true that we will know we've made some progress in reducing emissions in the developed world.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/paris-climate-change-conference-1.3343125
you know what?
screw obama.
let's push for legally binding targets, and make him make the choice to sign it or not. letting him squirm out of this is too easy. you're letting him blame it on the republicans. and, it's a lot of bs.
make it tough. make him sign it. and, make him take the heat when he doesn't.
at
07:48
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
jessica murray
my fall forecast was similar, but i'm not using any fancy models. it's not exactly divination, either. but, there's two things happening: you've got el nino pulling warm air up and you've got that blob exaggerating the pull of cold air down (the solar minimum has now passed). these are acting against each other. but, the difference is that el nino is a primary driver whereas the blob is a secondary one (that is, it exaggerates other things). the conclusion was to expect a mostly mild fall with shots of cold air. this is actually what the professionals here suggested, albeit with more complex formulas. they weren't wrong so much as they were off by a factor - el nino won the tug of war.
my winter forecast is actually that the conditions mostly hold. the graph needs to come down a few degrees, to account for less sunlight (and a colder ground). but, the basic idea of there being a tug of war between el nino and the polar vortex doesn't strike me as changing over the next few months. expect mostly warmer than average temperatures, with periodic blasts of arctic air.
also, i apologize - i should not have said that the solar minimum has passed. it is the opposite - the weak solar max has now passed. i was thinking of how weak the solar max was and jumbled the language. this is why editing posts is useful. we're actually now heading towards solar minimum, which should actually exaggerate the jet stream (on top of the blob, which may also be disappearing). it will be interesting to see what el nino looks like when we get to a more normal solar maximum and the factors begin to compound rather than cancel each other out. but, it's still a basic conflict in air masses and what we get will be determined by which air mass over powers the other.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/winter-is-coming-heres-how-we-develop-our-winter-forecast/60278/
my fall forecast was similar, but i'm not using any fancy models. it's not exactly divination, either. but, there's two things happening: you've got el nino pulling warm air up and you've got that blob exaggerating the pull of cold air down (the solar minimum has now passed). these are acting against each other. but, the difference is that el nino is a primary driver whereas the blob is a secondary one (that is, it exaggerates other things). the conclusion was to expect a mostly mild fall with shots of cold air. this is actually what the professionals here suggested, albeit with more complex formulas. they weren't wrong so much as they were off by a factor - el nino won the tug of war.
my winter forecast is actually that the conditions mostly hold. the graph needs to come down a few degrees, to account for less sunlight (and a colder ground). but, the basic idea of there being a tug of war between el nino and the polar vortex doesn't strike me as changing over the next few months. expect mostly warmer than average temperatures, with periodic blasts of arctic air.
also, i apologize - i should not have said that the solar minimum has passed. it is the opposite - the weak solar max has now passed. i was thinking of how weak the solar max was and jumbled the language. this is why editing posts is useful. we're actually now heading towards solar minimum, which should actually exaggerate the jet stream (on top of the blob, which may also be disappearing). it will be interesting to see what el nino looks like when we get to a more normal solar maximum and the factors begin to compound rather than cancel each other out. but, it's still a basic conflict in air masses and what we get will be determined by which air mass over powers the other.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/winter-is-coming-heres-how-we-develop-our-winter-forecast/60278/
at
06:49
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
he keeps saying that, and harper is going to have to announce a press conference consisting of three words muttered in an austrian accent.
i understand the issue with the american house. but, part of me would like to see "legally binding" targets anyways. i'm just not clear on what that actually means, though.
i mean, call me an anarchist - i'm guilty - but i'd argue that a law is only as valuable as it's means of enforcement. let's say you pass these legally binding targets. what happens if you break that law?
there are examples of enforceable international law. well, sort of. so long as you're not american, anyways. so, we have an international war crimes tribunal in the hague. will there be an international climate crimes tribunal? and, who gets tried?
it just strikes me as an absolute red herring.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-address-climate-change-paris-1.3343394
i understand the issue with the american house. but, part of me would like to see "legally binding" targets anyways. i'm just not clear on what that actually means, though.
i mean, call me an anarchist - i'm guilty - but i'd argue that a law is only as valuable as it's means of enforcement. let's say you pass these legally binding targets. what happens if you break that law?
there are examples of enforceable international law. well, sort of. so long as you're not american, anyways. so, we have an international war crimes tribunal in the hague. will there be an international climate crimes tribunal? and, who gets tried?
it just strikes me as an absolute red herring.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-address-climate-change-paris-1.3343394
at
06:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)