I tend to agree with most of the criticisms of Kyoto. However while recent months have been cold in some parts of the world polar regions have been undergoing rapid changes. That in turn may swing the climate pendulum back to the populated areas with flood, drought and wild weather.

The fact that climate ministers and their entourage are jetting about rather than video conferencing suggests their approach is ivory tower. On the other hand the recent 7% annual growth in world coal use may have flattened due to recession, in turn triggered by expensive oil perhaps. Some say China is running short on coal and by 2020 most remaining coal deposits will be expensive to mine, underground gasification not up to scale yet if ever. Specifically global warming could be limited to 1.6C over 1990 with CO2 at 460ppm up from the present 387. That's if the models are right. The slight problem is that millions will freeze in cold snaps as there won't be enough heating.

Therefore carbon abatement programs are low regret in the sense that if global warming was to turn out high we could prevent calamity and if it turned out moderate we have prepared early for the inevitable energy frugality of the future. It's a good each way bet. By not reining in emissions we are speeding toward the edge of a cliff under either scenario.

Kyoto is a bad joke for reasons other than the hypocrisy of the participants jetting their way there; even if you assume the record of CO2 increase over the 20thC is an accurate measurement, it is still beyond doubt that 97% of that increase is from natural sources (see DOE); this dovetails with the fact that CO2 follows temperature increase; temperature increase over the 20thC has been due to PDO phase shift with 2 +ve PDOs at the beginning and end of the century; when temperatures are rising the oceans become net emitters of CO2 (which puts the lie to increasing acidification of the oceans due to CO2 build-up); the connection between SST and PDO activity is well documented with papers by Cayon and White, Tsonis et al, Compo and Sardeshmukh, amongst others, noting that SST determines global temperature without the necessity for GHG contribution. Given this the Kyoto agreements may as well be about fairies as CO2.

Cohenite, why don't you just link to your posts on Jennifer Marahasy's website? Your comments there are arguably more succinct and you are not constrained by word and post limits.

If people don't mind the mindless invective, vitriol and persistent ad hominem emanating from you and your fellow compatriots (Jennifer does seem more tolerant of degrading language than GrahamY), then Marohasy's site is worth a look at. Personally, I don't engage much there anymore - I got sick and tired of being called a dipshit while trying to discuss and explain things in a reasoned and rational way.

Alternatively of course, one has to balance your comments with those elucidated by others. One such view is held by Ian Dunlop. His view (IMO) is quite well articulated over at Professor Barry Brook's website:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/12/07/managing-catastrophic-climate-risk-the-six-step-plan/

My interests are in land/ocean/air coupled systems. However, my head is not stuck in the mud.

Just as Krudd & Co have been seem to do a 180 degree turn on a sixpence over "Inflation" and the need for budget surpluses:

Hopefully, the incumbent, inexperienced, incompetents will do the same on Kyoto and fall in line with the old Liberal "sense and reason", versus their pre-election usual socialist bulldust and blather or going it alone and shipping jobs off shore.

Mind you, no industrial activity will seriously reduce our "emmissions", but not as fast as it will reduce average incomes and quality of life.

The children are now running the toyshop, what more should we expect

There have been some developments recently which may make the whole
Kyoto Jugernaut redundant.

A couple of scientists have run the IPCC model with realistic
fossil fuel burning figures. They changed nothing but the fossil fuel inputs.
The result was a projected 1.6 degree C rise by 2075 and a slow
decrease thereafter.

A result such as this should be cause for pause before very large
amounts are imposed in emission trading indulgences.
I just had a quick look for the reference but cannot find it at the moment.

The second item is a report by two scientists at the NOAA who have
been comparing ocean temperatures with land surface temperatures.
They have found conclusively, they say that land temperatures are set
by ocean temperatures.
They do not rule out that CO2 emission may be causing the ocean
temperature rise but they seem to have their doubts.

Anyway for those who can follow their work here is an indirect
reference to it and I am sure anyone with the necessary scientific
connections will find their paper.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/12/03/rethinking-observed-warming/

This web site may cause some to dismiss it all but never the less
they are reporting on something that should be looked into.

Found it !
This is the article I mentioned above.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4807#more

The authors state that they just used the IPCC model and changed the
input data for fossil fuel usage.
It is probably only as accurate as the IPCC model anyway but the point is it gives quite different results.
The accuracy of the IPCC model has certainly not been without critics
but a lot of money is going to be spent on its sayso.
It is quite a detail posting and should be read by all with an interest
in this subject.

The main reason that Kyoto is a bad joke is because it is only addressing one part of the critically urgent imperative for humanity to come into balance with the planet, while absorbing the majority of the world’s mental energies that are in any way directed towards it. Hence it is creating an enormous diversion from addressing other huge sectors, and sustainability overall.

While everyone is concentrating on carbon emissions, population growth continues unabated and the overall paradigm of never-ending economic growth and human expansion just plods on practically unquestioned.

It is utterly extraordinary that all sorts of different governments and their citizenry around the world have perceived a need to decisively deal with climate change, but have just let these other enormous and at least as urgent factors continue practically unaddressed.

I would have thought that concern about climate change would have morphed into deep concern about global sustainability by now. But Noooo….not a hint of it. Not in a meaningful way at least.

Why can’t we have a global effort to implement a one-child policy… or at least no more than 2? Why is that so unthinkable? It can’t be any harder than implementing meaningful carbon emissions cuts. And it is surely at least as important.

Why can’t we gear our economies towards a steady state instead continuing with the delusion that they’ve got be continuous growing or else we’ll all go into recession and ruin?

THESE are the things that really matter….at least as much as climate change.

Thanks for that link Bazza.
It looks to be an interesting article that once again points out the weakness of all modeling, the base assumptions. I am looking forward to reading it more throughly.
The other problem with population growth Ludwig, is that we are not breeding like rabbits, we have just stopped dieing like flies.

Bazz
Good link. I hope you were able to glean something from the (lengthy) comments section.

Little Brother
Interesting it may be, but that in itself is not worth a cracker - something which many antagonists (I-don't-know-what-to-call-them-anymores) don't seem to understand.

Ergo, "interesting articles" need to stand up to robust critique by the scientific process e.g. just because a paper is published, or a book written, or a report circulated - doesn't mean someone has discovered the holy grail.

As to your statement: "once again points out the weakness of all modeling, the base assumptions ..."
Ummm ... no model is perfect, and er, yes ... some base assumptions have to be made. Whilst I do have some issues with SRES modelling by econometricians, you should realise that GCM hindcasts have been quite robust - do you not agree?

I'm intrigued L'il Bro, are you going to study the full article by de Sousa and Mearns, or the IEA WEO 2008 report, in reading it more thoroughly?

Oh yeah, we are not breeding like rabbits (in the so called 'no baby-bonus' developed world), but they are in the under-developed world where health and education are real issues - they're dying like flies too. What do you suggest?

Ah, here we go again.

Q&A goes straight on the defensive attack, which sets the scene for him to feel persecuted and retreat in about 100 posts time. The words invective, vitriol and persistent ad hominem seem self-descriptive in your case. Still waiting to hear about those "senior's moments" (You know to what I refer, and, no, I haven't forgotten.) If I have missed your apology somewhere, I'm sorry, please direct me to it. All I read was false empathy about your own senior's moments, which is just a sycophantic, cowardly retreat and avoids the fact you didn't substantiate your comment. Something quite diabolical (Roald Dahl-esque) about telling a senior he is having lapses, but not telling him what they were. If this is your idea of reason and rationality, then I can empathise with people's frustration, but I will refrain from backing their insult.

I am taking some delight watching the wheels fall off the AGW wagon. First the unpredicted economic crisis, and coming soon, the unpredicted climatic response. As the sun peters, and people start feeling the cold, they will wonder why we are paying when the thermometer is heading downwards, and was it really that bad before? Perhaps we'll see government ads in which, instead of black balloons, little pink batts will fly out of the TVs, encouraging us to do our bit to insulate the planet. Perhaps companies and individuals will get credit for feeding carbon into the atmosphere. People will be asked to breathe more times a day. Target155 breaths per hour.

I must confess I havn't read the story but if you ask me kyoto is a total waste of time in it's present form. Either we are all in or nobody should be in. How are we going to survive on the ecconomic front if we have to start from so far behind the field and carry such a heavy burden.

As for the leaders, well this comment by a previous poster sums it up for me ...

The fact that climate ministers and their entourage are jetting about rather than video conferencing suggests their approach is ivory tower.

well said!

As I have suggested before,

Kyoto, AGW and the like are merely thinly disguised attempts by the intellectually challenged trolls of the left to impose

Socialism by Stealth

Socialism by stealth huh? How, um, Republican. I keep hearing this but no-one's explained how energy efficiency and socialism are connected.

Climate change continues as it has done for thousands of years. THe conspiracy theorist and the deceitful high priests are still cashing in while the gullible are too proud to admit they were sucked in and were wrong. I find the whole thing hilarous. Its a pity so many young children have been brainwashed with this crap. We will really know what global warming is when Israels enemies finally do what the sure word of the Lord declares.

What's this runner? An allusion to the end times?

Climate change continues but not as it did for thousands of years. The entire point being made by the IPCC and others is that the climate is changing much faster this time round, and the only known cause is...oh what's the use? I'm debating a creationist.

Yes Kyoto is unworkable for all the reasons stated and more. Only when the entire planet is in deep depression and China's factories close will we make a difference.

I never expected Kyoto to reduce emissions or even stabilise them, but I did expect it to put the world on notice that policies with teeth are going to come along further down the line.

Mark Lawson may well be correct that nothing much will happen, that setting targets for emissions and meeting them are two different things, that the shorter term economic consequences of strong action will preclude such action. But of course there will be serious climatic consequences further down the line and those will have economic consequences. Serious consequences that make a credit crisis look fairly benign. I want a serious, world changing issue taken with the seriousness it deserves. I for one am not happy that an economic downturn has a short term consequence of reducing the growth rate of emissions, as it's not an underlying shift from dirty energy to clean energy and doesn't represent a serious start of such a shift. So, no cheering about the financial crisis from this "activist".

Mark hasn't really expressed strong concern for the expecteds, very serious consequences of climate change or presented any kind of suggestions of how to reduce the consequences and costs of the consequences of climate change by other means. Is the point of the article that it's too hard, it's not in our short-term self-interest and we shouldn't even bother trying? Sorry Mark but I think, in light of the best science based knowledge of climate and climate change, such an attitude is dangerous and irresponsible and going to cost more than we could ever gain by avoiding action.