Kyoto - numele unei mari escrocherii

UN Tells Oil, Gas Industry to Leave Fuel in Ground

Doamna asta, mare oficial UN pe probleme climatice, a gasit problema si, implicit, solutia:

China, the top emitter of greenhouse gases, is also the country that’s “doing it right” when it comes to addressing global warming, the United Nations’ chief climate official said.
[...]China is also able to implement policies because its political system avoids some of the legislative hurdles seen in countries including the U.S., Figueres said.
[...]The political divide in the U.S. Congress has slowed efforts to pass climate legislation and is “very detrimental” to the fight against global warming, she said.

http://www.bloomberg...ueres-says.html

Christiana Figueres? Imi suna cunoscut numele.  http://forum.softped...8#entry14463470

China is also able to implement policies because its political system avoids some of the legislative hurdles seen in countries including the U.S., Figueres said.

Just before the hiatus took hold, that region had turned unusually warm during the El Niño of 1997–98, which fuelled extreme weather across the planet, from floods in Chile and California to droughts and wildfires in Mexico and Indonesia. But it ended just as quickly as it had begun, and by late 1998 cold waters — a mark of El Niño’s sister effect, La Niña — had returned to the eastern equatorial Pacific with a vengeance. More importantly, the entire eastern Pacific flipped into a cool state that has continued more or less to this day.

This variation in ocean temperature, known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), may be a crucial piece of the hiatus puzzle. The cycle reverses every 15–30 years, and in its positive phase, the oscillation favours El Niño, which tends to warm the atmosphere (see ‘The fickle ocean’). After a couple of decades of releasing heat from the eastern and central Pacific, the region cools and enters the negative phase of the PDO. This state tends towards La Niña, which brings cool waters up from the depths along the Equator and tends to cool the planet. Researchers identified the PDO pattern in 1997, but have only recently begun to understand how it fits in with broader ocean-circulation patterns and how it may help to explain the hiatus.

Last year, an interagency working group for the US government used three leading economic models to estimate that a tonne of carbon dioxide emitted now will cause future harms worth US$37 in today’s dollars1. This ‘social cost of carbon’ represents the money saved from avoided damage, owing to policies that reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.

As legal, climate-science and economics experts, we believe that the current estimate for the social cost of carbon is useful for policy-making, notwithstanding the significant uncertainties. The leading economic models all point in the same direction: that climate change causes substantial economic harm, justifying immediate action to reduce emissions. In fact, because the models omit some major risks associated with climate change, such as social unrest and disruptions to economic growth, they are probably understating future harms. The alternative — assigning no value to reductions in carbon dioxide emissions — would lead to regulation of greenhouse gases that is even more lax.

Instead, climate-economic models need to be extended to include a wider range of social and economic impacts. Gaps need to be filled, such as the economic responses of developing countries and estimates of damages at extreme temperatures. Today, only a handful of researchers in the United States and Europe specialize in such modelling. A broader programme involving more people exploring more phenomena is needed to better estimate the social cost of carbon and to guide policy-makers. Otherwise policies will become untethered from economic realities.

The models in question aim to integrate estimates of the costs of greenhouse-gas emissions and of steps to reduce them. First, they translate scenarios of economic and population growth, and resulting emissions, into changes in atmospheric composition and global mean temperature. Then the models apply ‘damage functions’ that approximate the global relationships between temperature changes and the economic costs from impacts such as changes in sea level, cyclone frequency, agricultural productivity and ecosystem function. Finally, the models translate future damages into present monetary value.

The 2013 US analysis1 used the then-most recent vintages of three long-standing models: FUND 3.8, DICE 2010, and PAGE09. Each model applies different climatic and economic functions to simplify the complex picture. Despite the range of approaches and uncertainties, each one predicted sizeable economic damage from greenhouse-gas emissions for warming beyond 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. Two models, ENVISAGE and CRED, published since the US analysis was structured in 2010, have broadly similar projections to these three (see ‘Carbon’s costly legacy’). The analysis suggested that — depending on assumptions about how future damages are valued in today’s money — the expected global cost of one tonne of carbon dioxide emitted in 2020 is between $12 and $64 (with $43 as the central value).

... incalzirii globale .
[...]
Eu cred si sustin ca este o pacaleala.

O singura remarca doresc sa fac; in cazul in care incalzirea globala este reala dar mai ales unica TOCMAI datorita faptului ca oamenii nu existau pe timpul precedentelor incalziri globale, alternativa la actiunile de tipul Acordului de la Kyoto (care apropo, este defunct din 2009 incoace) este UNA SINGURA: disparitia omului si, posibil, chiar a vietii de pe Terra.

Ultima fraza ma depaseste. Cum sa fie fenomen pozitiv?

In sensul ca temperatura va ... creste, adica pozitiv.

O singura remarca doresc sa fac; in cazul in care incalzirea globala este reala dar mai ales unica TOCMAI datorita faptului ca oamenii nu existau pe timpul precedentelor incalziri globale, alternativa la actiunile de tipul Acordului de la Kyoto (care apropo, este defunct din 2009 incoace) este UNA SINGURA: disparitia omului si, posibil, chiar a vietii de pe Terra.

Lucru de care ar trebui să ne bucurăm.
Tu nu ai vrea să avem o climă ca în Italia, ori măcăr ca-n Croația?

Lucru de care ar trebui să ne bucurăm.
Tu nu ai vrea să avem o climă ca în Italia, ori măcăr ca-n Croația?

Aaaa ... că se inundă Olanda (sau măcar o parte din această țară)?
Nicio problemă.  
Acum 12 -15.000 de ani era ditamai banchiza pe deasupra Olandei și nimeni nu comenta că-i nasol