Dear #COP25, I see all your "ambition" - as I saw your ambitions since 1995 and before...
You talked enough, I don't trust your ambitions anymore. Your spoken words filling whole bookshelves and they are nothing worth, even if they were spoken with "ambition".
Shut up now, all participants should go back to their country's and act.
@tuxom Why do you think politicians would do more if they would not go to conferences and have to explain there what they did?
For me that works the other way around. If there is a scientific conference coming, I prioritize work I can show there.
Yes. You can see the effort on the magenta line ...
@tuxom As a human I would naturally have preferred more action, but if I may respond in my role as a scientist.
1. You do not have a counter-factual. How the curve would have looked like without climate negotiations.
2. When we can see a change by eye in this magenta line, we are almost finished solving the problem. Better early indicators are greenhouse gas emissions (of rich first-mover countries), their energy efficiency and the percentage of newly build power capacity that is zero-carbon.
As scientist I answer with a cite:
“Limiting warming to 1.5°C is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics but doing so would require
UNPRECEDENTED changes,” said Jim Skea, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group III.
(I see only "changes")
As geologist I answer: For stratigraphic uses we need clear borders. A mass extincition for example. Let's create the golden spike for the anthropocene - now!
As human I say: 20 years ago I made my master in the himalaya, up to 4500 m altitude.
People died there in the 1980, 1990s because of climate unduced glacial lake outbursts. During my work there people died on altitude sickness and I recognized there is no border between "human" an "scientist". I throw the border far, far away.
And at last: NO, if the growth rate of the magenta curve shows a slowing tendence, we dont have won. You can see such a slow down immediately after the breakdown of the "old soviet" system.
If the negotiations where successfull you would see the effect in the Keeling curve with a short time lag.
One - last - question for your combined human and scientific opinion:
IPCC trajectories for Paris agreement (2° goal) means a GLOBAL decrease of greenhouse gas with approx 3% per year - that means an accelerated, non linear decrease for the next 10 years starting in 2020.
Do you think next year we have -3% GHGs ?
@tuxom "IPCC trajectories for Paris agreement (2° goal) means a GLOBAL decrease of greenhouse gas [emissions] with approx 3% per year - that means an accelerated, non linear decrease for the next 10 years starting in 2020.
Do you think next year we have -3% GHGs [concentration]?"
No, I do not expect that. Unfortunately. Do you think we can see a 3% decline in emission in the concentration by eye?
Hmm, yes, you where right. Wont see that ..
I did not write we would have won. We will loose, the question is by how much. At the moment it looks like it will be a lot.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!