Can Paris pledges avert severe climate change?

From the you’re too late department,

Paris emissions reduction pledges reduce risks of severe warming, study shows  

From DOE/PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY

COLLEGE PARK, Md. – More than 190 countries are meeting in Paris next week to create a durable framework for addressing climate change and to implement a process to reduce greenhouse gases over time. A key part of this agreement would be the pledges made by individual countries to reduce their emissions.

A study published in Science (November 26) shows that if implemented and followed by measures of equal or greater ambition, the Paris pledges have the potential to reduce the probability of the highest levels of warming, and increase the probability of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.

In the lead up to the Paris meetings, countries have announced the contributions that they are willing to make to combat global climate change, based on their own national circumstances. These Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, or INDCs, take many different forms and extend through 2025 or 2030.

Examples of these commitments include the United States’ vow to reduce emissions in 2025 by 26-28 percent of 2005 levels and China’s pledge to peak emissions by 2030 and increase its share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20 percent. In the study, the scientists tallied up these INDCs and simulated the range of temperature outcomes the resulting emissions would bring in 2100 under different assumptions about possible emissions reductions beyond 2030.

“We wanted to know how the commitments would play out from a risk management perspective,” said economist Allen Fawcett of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the lead author of the study. “We analyzed not only what the commitments would achieve over the next ten to fifteen years, but also how they might lay a foundation for the future.”

Although many researchers have focused on the importance of the 2 degree limit, Fawcett and colleagues assessed uncertainty in the climate change system from an overall risk management perspective. They analyzed the full range of temperatures the INDCs might attain, and determined the odds for achieving each of those temperatures. To determine odds, they modeled the future climate hundreds of times to find the range of temperatures these various conditions produce.

“It’s not just about 2 degrees,” said Gokul Iyer, the study’s lead scientist at the Joint Global Change Research Institute, a collaboration between the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the University of Maryland. “It is also important to understand what the INDCs imply for the worst levels of climate change.”

In the study, the scientists compare the Paris commitments to a world in which countries don’t act at all or start reducing greenhouse gas emissions only in 2030.

The team found that if countries do nothing to reduce emissions, the earth has almost no chance of staying under the 2 degree limit, and it is likely that the temperature increase would exceed 4 degrees. They went on to show that the INDCs and the future abatement enabled by Paris introduce a chance of meeting the 2 degree target, and greatly reduce the chance that warming exceeds 4 degrees. The extent to which the odds are improved depends on how much emissions limits are tightened in future pledges after 2030.

“Long-term temperature outcomes critically hinge on emissions reduction efforts beyond 2030,” said Iyer. “If countries implement their INDCs through 2030 and ramp up efforts beyond 2030, we’ll have a much better chance of avoiding extreme warming and keeping temperature change below 2 degrees Celsius. It’s important to know that the INDCs are a stepping stone to what we can do in the future.”

To perform the analysis, the team incorporated the INDCs along with assumptions about future emissions reductions into a global, technologically detailed model of the world called the Global Change Assessment Model or GCAM that includes energy, economy, agriculture and other systems. The GCAM model produced numbers for global greenhouse gas emissions, which the team then fed into a climate model called Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change or MAGICC. Running the simulations for each scenario 600 times resulted in a range of temperatures for the year 2100, which the team converted into probabilities.

Iyer said the next thing to look at was the question of the kinds of policies and institutional frameworks that could pave the way for a robust process that enables emissions reduction efforts to progressively increase over time.

###

This work was supported by the Global Technology Strategy Program, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Department of State, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Reference: Allen A. Fawcett, Gokul Iyer, Leon E. Clarke, James A. Edmonds, Nathan E. Hultman, Haewon C. McJeon, Joeri Rogelj, Reed Schuler, Jameel Alsalam, Ghassem R. Asrar, Jared Creason, Minji Jeong, James McFarland, Anupriya Mundra, Wenjing Shi. Can Paris Pledges Avert Severe Climate Change, Science, November 26, 2015, doi: 10.1126/science.aad5761

Advertisements

167 thoughts on “Can Paris pledges avert severe climate change?

    • I think it would have been more a case of idiots screaming about emission cuts not being enough rather than anyone taking to the streets calling for sanity.
      About five people are already on house arrest for planning to ignore the ban on political demonstrations.
      Getting back to the subject of the article here:

      To determine odds, they modeled the future climate hundreds of times to find the range of temperatures these various conditions produce.

      Such certainty in the value of results of non-validated models that they state it like fact. Never mind that your models have totally failed in the first ten years, let’s just pretend we haven’t noticed and carry on regardless.

      The team found that if countries do nothing to reduce emissions, the earth has almost no chance of staying under the 2 degree limit,

      … all assuming that their models are not over-sensitive, which observational evidence suggests they are.

    • Yip thats what the french 9/11 was about: the state of emergency, the media linking terrorism to climate change deniers and fear mongering.

    • To answer the headline, any pledges on CO2 that come out of the Paris fraudfest will have no effect whatsoever on climate change,
      Why would they, when anthropogenic CO2 is a mere trace in a minor gas in a highly complex atmosphere that has managed more challenging, and more rapid, emission changes for billions of years?

    • From the ‘ Now I’m confused ‘ department..
      I’m wired into the Department of Energy Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; well at least e-mail list wise.
      I also understand a bit of American Geography.
      So whereabouts in the Pacific Northwest, is College Park, Maryland ??
      Enquiring minds want to know !
      I follow the state of the art in Energy from acquisition thereof, to efficient utilization of; as in solid state lighting, and PV and thermal solar; so DOE PNNL is on my intense watch list.
      I’m not at all happy to find DOE PNNL dabbling in the occult of ” Severe Climate Change “.
      I can undo the entire “severe climate change” ,(globally) of the last 150 years, simply by driving about 10 miles south of where I live in Silicon Valley. (well and staying there for 30 years).
      I think of it as driving West, but actually, my GPS swears that the road in question runs dead north and south (geographically, not magnetically).
      I’m also mindful of the fact that ” global climate ” (average) is something that cannot be observed by any physical process. It is something that is computed and then reported on by human beings; none of whom, you can actually talk to and ask what observations and measurements they made.
      And those same human beings (collectively that is) can, and frequently do change their reports of what the global climate is, or even change their reports of what it was a hundred years ago, before any of them were even born.
      So if Paris COP 21 or whatever they call themselves, want to change the climate (globally), they should talk to the people at GISS and UEA CRU, and ask them to change the numbers to something more acceptable.
      Satellitists RSS and UAH, who seem to be the ones who are actually measuring something that relates at least to the Temperature facet of climate; something physically real that is, don’t seem to report that anything much is happening.
      No they aren’t telling us that nothing is happening. We get their ups and downs reports just as they accrue them monthly, so the physical reality is apparently doing something, but there is no indication that the planet isn’t and can’t adapt to whatever is going on.
      Humans are certainly capable of such adaptation.
      So come on folks; just change the numbers to something more pleasant. This morning I arrived at my breakfast place in bright sunshine, and 32 deg. F on the thermometric proxy for Temperature; which was corroborated at least on one end, by a healthy layer of ice on all outside glass surfaces on my automobile.
      And winter time is still about three weeks away; so what gives with this global warming cacaphony ??
      G

      • Have the egotists run any models that extend the time out to 2200 on the assumption that we DO manage to become a Carbon Zero society by 2100 (and still retain some vestiges of society)?
        How does their model world fare if we stop using fossil fuels altogether and allow sinks to absorb the remaining anthropogenic CO2?
        If we kill off the cattle herds so no additional methane is produced in our name?
        If we all become Vegan (oh wait aren’t plants a Carbon sink, charged with scrubbing CO2)?
        …..OK I know, eating the plants Does sink the carbon…

    • FFS. It’s called Tarte au Pomme. And it has no custard and no crust on the top.
      If you complain then you will be deported for showing a lack of cultural sensitivity.
      France is concerned about the invasion of anglicized language, pie lids and custard.
      However they positively welcome Islamization. Providing no guns or veils are involved.

    • I am surprised my comment made such a stir. Yes, I know there is no custard (As I know it in the UK) in France and apple pies don’t have lids. Maybe I should have used a /sarc tag.

    • Custard on a pie ? Not in my dining room you don’t. And if I recall, French AP is the one that has gravel on top instead of flaky pastry. Again that’s a no no.
      I got a free peach pie for thanksgiving. Free; my a*** ! My ” investment ” advisors gave it to me, so I know it was expensive. Well but they do earn their keep, for me.
      g

    • But at what cost and what about the emissions from the hydrogen production facilities? What about safety – traffic accident impact damage cracking a hydrogen filled tank will not produce a pretty sight!

      • The theoretical estimate of keeping below 2 degrees seems optimistic, according to official sources
        “Analysis of the INDCS, endorsed by the UN, has suggested that these pledges are enough to hold the world to about 2.7C or 3C of warming. That is not quite enough to meet the scientific advice. However, that is not the end of the story. One of the key components of any Paris agreement would be to institute a system of review of the emissions targets every five years, with a view to ratcheting them upwards.”
        “….This is a hugely contentious issue. At Copenhagen, where the finance part of the deal was only sorted out at the very last minute, rich countries agreed to supply $30bn ($20bn) of “fast-start” financial assistance to the poor nations, and they said that by 2020, financial flows of at least $100bn a year would be provided.”
        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/02/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-paris-climate-summit-and-un-talks
        What will actually be achieved at Paris?
        “Assuming the proposed cuts are extended through 2100 but not deepened further, they result in about 0.2°C less warming by the end of the century compared with our estimates, under similar assumptions, for Copenhagen–Cancun. Other adjustments in our economic projections resulted in another 0.2°C reduction in warming.”
        http://climateparis.org/2015/11/mit-says-paris-will-make-a-zero-point-2c-difference/
        0.2C reduction doesn’t seem a lot for the huge costs and disruption involved even assuming the warming effects of co2 turn out to be correct.
        tonyb

      • I wouldn’t worry all that much about Paris. What we seem to have here is a plethora of fairly clueless politicians gathering to make promises that mostly will be ignored to solve what probably is not a problem using tools that look to be entirely inadequate. Some idea of the perspicasity, commitment, and seriousness of the leaders of the world can be seen from the fact that they are not only showing up in person after trips of — in many cases — many thousands of kilometers, but are dragging along vast flocks of supporting troops. If they can’t even figure out that saving the planet involves doing those things remotely by teleconferencing, what are the chances they can cope with real problems intelligently?
        So, not to worry, There will be speeches, self congratulations, pomposity. Many promises will be made. Few will be kept. The actual impact will be minimal except probably for a few countries where the poor and middle class are foolish enough to support the undertakings of their leaders. There, the monied classes will no doubt prosper from the incentives (bribes) paid to build and operate renewable power facilities. The populace will pay.

      • Transport societies have just been told that truck will be forbidden on some important roads near Le Bourget on Monday.
        This will be a mess.

    • I can think of nothing more stupid than combining atmospheric oxygen with hydrogen to permanently remove that oxygen from the biosphere – as compared with making CO2 which is recycled to Oxygen by plants. Hydrogen engines are about as sensible as burying our oxygen for millennia in dumber than dumb CO2 Capture and sequestration.
      The only way this works is if the hydrogen is sourced from electrolysis of water instead of steam reforming of natural gas (which is how they actually make it).

      • ” as compared with making CO2 which is recycled to Oxygen by plants” —–
        Actually, that’s not correct. The oxygen comes from the separation of WATER molecules when they give up electrons during the photophosphorylation portion of photosynthesis. The oxidation of hydrogen in a hydrogen engine does not “permanently remove” oxygen from the biosphere.

      • Correct. The process is the Calvin-Benson cycle, the dark reactions. CO2 is reduced in a series of steps where the electrons and hydrogens are added to form phosphoglycerate, a high energy precursor which can then be converted into many other carbohydrate forms, most commonly glyceraldehyde. The oxygens of CO2 are incorporated into the carbohydrates. The electrons and the hydrogen (the energy source) came from chlorophyll and sunlight driven catalysis of water, the light reactions. The catalysis of water of course liberates free oxygen which is what we animals use for aerobic respiration.
        The C3 reaction is called that since the first generated precursor is a 3 carbon intermediate, phosphogylcerate. C4 plants evolved to avoid the problems of photorespiration, which is where low CO2 availability allows oxygen to incorporate rather than CO2, which leads to the formation of glycolate, which is energetically a dead end product for the plant.
        In C4 plants, the first step in the use of CO2 forms malate or aspartate, these are 4 carbon intermediates. You can produce photorespiration if you place a piece of glass or clear plastic sheet over a section of grass on a sunny day. It will take less than a an hour, and the grass blades will die and turn yellow as they were poisoned because they used up the available CO2 under the glass, and began incorporating oxygen, thus energetically poisoning into the pathway. C4 plants are more efficient at incorprating CO2 where the CO2 concentrations are lower but at a higher energy cost overall. Where the light intensity is greater, and the temps higher, C4 plants can easily outgrow C3 plants in hot, drier conditions. Biochemists worked out the temp and conditions for C4 becoming more efficient than C3 several decades ago. That temp is about 28C to 30C, where the gain in efficiency from elimination of photorespiration more than compensates for the higher energy costs of C4’s extra steps. Crabgrass and corn are common C4 plants.

        From Wikipedia, the following is found on C4 evolution:
        C4 plants arose around 25 to 32 million years ago during the Oligocene (precisely when is difficult to determine) and did not become ecologically significant until around 6 to 7 million years ago, in the Miocene Period. C4 metabolism originated when grasses migrated from the shady forest undercanopy to more open environments, where the high sunlight gave it an advantage over the C3 pathway. Drought was not necessary for its innovation; rather, the increased resistance to water stress was a by-product of the pathway and allowed C4 plants to more readily colonise arid environments.
        Today, C4 plants represent about 5% of Earth’s plant biomass and 3% of its known plant species. Despite this scarcity, they account for about 30% of terrestrial carbon fixation. Increasing the proportion of C4 plants on earth could assist biosequestration of CO2 and represent an important climate change avoidance strategy. Present-day C4 plants are concentrated in the tropics and subtropics (below latitudes of 45°) where the high air temperature contributes to higher possible levels of oxygenase activity by RuBisCO, which increases rates of photorespiration in C3 plants.

        BTW: that >27 deg C emp is coincidentally the same as what Willis Echenbach has derived in his essays on his thermoregulatory hypothesis and temperature threshold based emergent phenomena. Like the ocean temp, cloud albedo, evaporative cooling, convective transport physical processes Willis elucidates, it seems to me the evolution and tropical switch to C4 photosynthesis means our planet’s biosphere really found a way to work hard to move energy around when tropical temps exceed 27 deg C, and to deal with high and low CO2 levels over the last 6-7 million years.
        for more on Willis’ hypotheses and musings, here:
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/18/cooling-and-warming-clouds-and-thunderstorms/
        …and links therein.

      • Excellent point. The end result of using only hydrogen and oxygen for our portable energy needs is a substantial increase in the world’s water — Ooops, the oceans will then rise!!

      • So Joel, a serious question (I really want to know).
        A week ago at the farmers market, which I attended unassisted, I bought some very prettily colored chrysanthemums, which my wife wanted. So they have been sitting in a tall flask of clean reverse osmosis water for over a week now (on the dining room table).
        The flowers look spectacular still, but in the last couple of days, the green leaves have all gone droopy and getting quite wilted.
        So I have always wondered what is the best botanical process for keeping cut flowers as alive as it is possible to do.
        Do they want some solar energy on those leaves, or are they wanting some electrolyte in the water, or what is it that is resulting in the leaves wilting.
        We used to put flowers in the ink well on the desks at school, and they took up the ink in their system of capillaries, so I assume my mums are still doing something botanical, but I dunno if I’m treating them properly.
        I recall old wives tales about having flowers in hospital rooms at night or maybe in daytime, or what. I doubt that anybody was ever asphyxiated by some dahlias by their bedside at night, emitting CO2.
        Sounds like you know the bio-chemistry of greenery, better than the average bear.
        So can I do better for my mums or have they about had it ??
        G << g

      • Per Wikipedia, “the residence time of a water molecule in the troposphere is about 9 to 10 days”, so that is not issue. Also, water vapor is already a large emission of the burning of FF.

      • barryjo
        November 28, 2015 at 8:04 am
        ‘Can’t make any money with that scenario.’
        Sure you can. Just call it Dihydrogen oxide.

      • > But isn’t water vapour a greater green house gas than CO2
        About the same I believe, but there’s a LOT more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2 so water vapor is the Earth’s primary greenhouse gas. (It’s a bit messier if you drill down to the details)

        • You can’t talk about water vapor without considering the end to end effect which includes weather. More water vapor means more storms and more rain. A hurricane is a self contained version of the heat engine that drives weather and the net effect is to cool the surface (i.e. net negative feedback). Otherwise, we would see a trail of warm water in the wake of a hurricane. Of course, the Second Law has something to say about this too, where a heat engine can not warm its source of heat, which for weather is mostly the surface of the oceans which dominate the surface of the planet whose temperature variability we seem to be concerned about. This source of net negative feedback is completely ignored by consensus climate science and often not even understood by skeptics.

      • A few months back there was an article on the various GHGs and how the IPCC handled these. I think that it was by Dr Ball.
        I commented upon burning gas which emits CO2 and water vapour in equal quantities. Of course, water vapour being a more potent GHG compared to CO2 so the switch from coal to gas whilst producing less CO2, produces far more GHGs.
        Dan Hue (November 28, 2015 at 8:11 am) points out that water vapour has a short residency time of about 9 to 10 days, but I strongly disagree with his conclusion.

        Per Wikipedia, “the residence time of a water molecule in the troposphere is about 9 to 10 days”,

        But this is not the point since the switch from coal to gas will result in more and more fossil fuel power generators emitting ever more water vapour, and these power stations will be running 24/7 so that the amount of water vapour will not simply be replenished on a daily basis but will gradually be added to.
        The residency time only becomes an issue if man were to stop emitting GHGs. In that scenario, then it becomes important to know when the atmosphere would be restored to its earlier condition. But as long as man emits GHGs on a 24/7 basis, it does not matter that the residency time of water vapour may be only around 10 days.
        Once again, no one is considering in sufficient detail as to whether any of the mooted policy response will achieve anything of substance. They will not. They are a complete waste of money not simply because they seek to address something which appears to be a non issue, but because even if CO2 was an issue, the policy response do not result in the meaningful reduction of GHGs.,

      • Wiki and others keep on insisting that H2O is different from CO2 in that it is “condensable”, and falls out of the atmosphere.
        So they give us this 1,000 year residence time for CO2 versus 10 days for H2O.
        What utter rubbish.
        Both of those molecules cycle in and out of the troposphere (I call it atmosphere) continually, and one molecule is indistinguishable from another of the same isotope.
        So talking about the lifetime of any individually serial numbered molecule is just nonsense.
        Both CO2 and H2O are in the atmosphere for the forseeable future, and have been for as long as time has mattered to human beings.
        Both species come and go as they please.
        g

        • “Wiki and others keep on insisting that H2O is different from CO2 in that it is “condensable”, and falls out of the atmosphere.”
          I would have to agree with this, although as I pointed out earlier, they deny the end to end effect is cooling quantifiable as net negative feedback. Try and add this to the wiki page …
          CO2 obviously has a short residency, otherwise we wouldn’t see seasonal variability in the Mauna Loa CO2 record.

    • Yeah… but you have to crack water to do that… and that takes energy… you’ve just displaced the problem farther down the energy chain and solved nothing. Also hydrogen is hazardous to transport. If a cheap way is found to crack H2O then hydrogen fuels cells become viable.

      • Conceptually, you can use solar, wind, nuclear, burning corn husks or hamsters running in wheels linked to generators to get the electricity to hydrolyze the water. So hydrogen cars don’t HAVE to be polluting. But the hydrogen from carbon free sources (other than nuclear or hydro or maybe steam if you have a volcano handy) is likely to be expensive

      • Water is the upper dungeon of the stored chemical energy hierarchy. It is one of the places that good energy goes to die.
        Only the lower dungeon is lower on the totem pole than H2O, as a stored chemical energy source. To get there you have to add lots of dissolvable salts to the H2O.
        The earth’s salty oceans are the ultimate energy garbage landfill.
        Extracting usable stored chemical energy from sea water, will cost you more energy capital than any other resource we have.
        The best use of hydrogen for energy, is going on about 93 million miles from here, and that is a good place to try and get usable energy from hydrogen.
        g

    • “hydrogen powered cars only emit water vapour.”
      Will the hydrogen be made exclusively with solar/wind power? Will the hydrogen be stored in an organic, cardboard box?

      • “Will the hydrogen be stored in an organic, cardboard box?”
        Cardboard? Heavens no. Pasta. Buy a litre of H2, when it’s gone, you will bust up the container, boil it, and serve it in an alfredo sauce. And who knows in the year 2415, maybe your great, great, ever so great grandkids will do exactly that. But right now, in the 21st century, I think maybe steel or aluminum. Hydrogen BTW is notorious for leaking through very small holes. Per Wikipedia

        The storage and use of hydrogen poses unique challenges due to its ease of leaking as a gaseous fuel, low-energy ignition, wide range of combustible fuel-air mixtures, buoyancy, and its ability to embrittle metals that must be accounted for to ensure safe operation.

    • >> hydrogen powered cars only emit water vapour.
      Hydrogen cars are the most inneficient and most polluting cars of all.
      London Transport set up a small fleet of hydrogen busses, claiming they were ’emissions free’. But the gas reforming hydrogen generator was based in the London Docklands, and spewing CO2 and pollutants all over east London. And since the efficiency of hydrogen as a battery (storage medium) is much lower than a conventional battery, these busses were the most CO2 polluting in London. Much worse than the standard diesel bus.
      Likewise the Nissan Leaf came to Britain with an advert saying ’emissions free’. But after I explained the truth to the Advertising Standards Agency, Nissan were forced to change their advertising to ‘with no exhaust pipe’. Which is still highly disengenous, because the Nissan Leaf has a ruddy great exhaust pipe down at the local power station. So much for emissions free.
      Ralph

    • Hydrogen does not power cars. It is only a chemical battery charged by something else. ALL primary power is nuclear or tidal. Even fossil fuels are stored solar nuclear.
      So we have a choice of solar, solar via wind and hydro, solar stored as fossil fuels , or tidal hydro. Or we can skip the middle man and go direct to nuclear. Everything else is a battery of some sort. Also, every conversion of type has large losses, so avoid conversions whenever possible, like turning solar electric into hydrogen…

      • The best use for solar is smelting metals and other low voltage, high current applications. No transformers or AC/DC conversion is required, at least while the Sun is shining. A good use is smelting Aluminum, whose most significant by-product is CO2, so it helps green up the world as well, in order to replace the emissions that would otherwise be required. win-win

      • The best use of solar is low grade heating. It is cheap and therefore immediately cost effective.
        So installing windows on the south of the property helps heat internal rooms.
        Solar is very good at heating hot water for domestic consumption. Systems can be had for as little as about £600 that will provide most of the hot water requirements for a small family (more expensive tank storage is required for larger families) almost year round if one lives in a sunny climate. Such a system pays for itself within about 3 years.
        I have a holiday home in Spain. A neighbour has a system that was installed 25 years ago and it is still working fine. Occasionally, it requires back up (the storage tank is fitted with an electric heater) if there are 2 to 3 consecutive cloudy days, particularly in the winter months. I think that it provides all the hot water requirements for in excess of 90% of the time.
        Even without any system, in sunny climes, solar is very good for heating a swimming pool, but even then for only about 6 to 7 months of the year unless one is living in the tropics. I have a solar heating system on my pool, which is essentially a 3 dome system of tightly spaced black piping covering an area of about 25 to 30 sq.m which will add a couple of months to the season.
        Solar PV is too expensive for domestic use unless one is off grid and has no choice. Although panel price is coming down, this is only a small part of the system, and hence only a small part of the cost. Further, these systems seem to need quite a bit of maintenance and part renewal even after 5 to 10 years, so they never pay for themselves. If it was not for feed in tariffs (which are subsidised by other tax payers often those who can least afford to subsidise someone else), they make no financial sense at all. The public is being sold a pup with that one.

    • “If you’re able to view it, hydrogen powered cars only emit water vapour..”
      Which is, as I recall, several times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas?

  1. Yet more number manipulation to “prove” some theory in lieu of science and evidence! I suppose we must allow the academics something to pass their time with, but not at taxpayers’ expense. I’d like to think that all those who have jumped on the CAGW bandwagon and milked it can be sued when it eventually becomes even more obvious that the temperature rises and consequences they now forecast haven’t occurred and we’ve wasted even more £billions through following their advice!

  2. When you divert economic activity to unproductive pursuits you end up with a Pyramid, but everybody stays poor.

    • Does your thinking apply to military spending? What about buying a Lexus over a just-as-useful Toyota? These are not unjustifiable choices, but in light of the severe climate disruption we are experiencing, neither is moving away from fossil fuels.

      • Dan Hue, November 28, 2015 at 6:25 am
        “Does your thinking apply to military spending?”
        Oh sure. You think you have enough weapons and ammo… until the zombies come. Then you always wish you’d spent a lot more. A couple of degrees of global warming pales in significance when compared to 4-5 billion zombies running loose, and they don’t seem to mind the heat.
        You have to ask yourself which is the more likely scenario; CO2-based Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming or a Zombie Apocalypse? Plan accordingly.
        But, since neither scenario has ever happened in the history of the planet, I’d just as soon keep my own money to spend in response to whatever Gaia’s weather machine throws at me. A new snow-blower would be nice this year.

      • Dan,
        When you refer to today’s weather as ‘severe climate disruption’ it reveals that you haven’t bothered to learn about past climate and weather events in any way. Even though we have very limited knowledge of weather and climate in historic and pre-historic times, we have enough to clearly show that today’s weather is in no way unusual. We have evidence of greater extremes in nearly every facet of weather over the last 2,000 years, than what we are experiencing today.
        Now, I know that there are ‘scientists’ that claim that today’s weather is unprecedented or extreme. And I know that they arrive at that conclusion by simply discounting or ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. They call that evidence circumstantial or unreliable proxy data. Of course, if the proxy data appears to support their claim, like the statistically and ethically challenged hockey stick, then it is put on the front of their most prestigious documents and circulated to every media outlet in the world.
        Dig up some climate books that were written before 1988; before there was an agenda about what the past was supposed to look like. Climate is and always has been naturally variable. They only climate change deniers I know are the warmests who call our current weather ‘extreme’ or ‘disrupted’. They are denying the natural changes of the past and present.

      • Dan Hue
        November 28, 2015
        “What about buying a Lexus over a just-as-useful Toyota?”
        Have you ever had to run from Zombies? I guarantee you, if you gotta’ get away from ’em you’re going to find out you’d prefer the Lexus. Reliability and build quality are greater: You sure don’t want that car to break down when zombies are chasing you. And, sure, the luxury may seem superfluous, but it sure helps when you’re trying to keep your cool when you’re all stressed out because you’ve almost gotten eaten by one.

      • “severe climate disruption”? where? There are no ominous trends, in fact things seem to be getting better if anything.

      • In reply to “Define ‘disruption'”, I would just point out the 1°C temperature rise since pre-industrial times, when perhaps a slight cooling would have been expected based on known natural variability. Given the trajectory, we should expect much more warming, perhaps 2, 3 or even 4°C by the end of the century (and to those who point to ancient climate change, that is way too fast to be comparable). I don’t know in what world you are all living, but in mine, that is very worrisome. With the rapid shift of climate zones that will all but surely ensue, my biggest concern (besides human upheavals) is the loss of bio-diversity, which we are already seeing at the modest level of warming experienced so far.
        I realize that most people here don’t accept the scientific consensus on climate, but I do. To me (i.e., a non-scientific person), it’s clear as day that there is no credible science to counter it. John Cook’s 97% study was pretty devastating in that regard. If climate scientists are so corrupt, where is the evidence? I take away from my readings that, while skeptics can occasionally point to gaps in the knowledge, or even errors made here or there, they don’t have an alternative description of the climate system that does not involve CO2 as a major control knob. If there is one, I missed it, but otherwise, I am left with risible conspiracy theories, which to normal people, sound like losing arguments that end all conversations. I don’t fall for them.

      • Dan Hue: “…but in light of the severe climate disruption we are experiencing…”

        What!?
        Where!?
        Weather has been unprecedentedly normal!
        That is, if one accepts fewer Hurricanes than normal,
        And fewer tornadoes than normal,
        fewer heat waves,
        fewer droughts,
        fewer floods…
        This lull in dangerous weather is very unusual! In the coming decades, dangerous storms will be increasing in frequency and energy just getting back to the historical normal.

        Dan Hue: “In reply to “Define ‘disruption’”, I would just point out the 1°C temperature rise since pre-industrial times, when perhaps a slight cooling would have been expected based on known natural variability…”

        What natural variability is that?
        Naturally, the world should be warming because it is coming out of a colder period, called ‘Little Ice Age’. A 1°C rise expected along with some more.
        On a longer cycle, the Earth is cooling. And well should you dread the day that it does turn colder. Perhaps you should get a head start on what cold weather does to agriculture and start eating black bread made from grains that survive colder weather.
        Go ahead and buy that Lexus. It takes just as much energy and materials to construct and has a roughly equal fossil fuel consumption rates. For that matter, you really should consider a truck as they are very utilitarian vehicles and don’t mind loads of manure.

      • “If climate scientists are so corrupt, where is the evidence?’
        Read the Climategate emails Dan then as a ‘normal person’ come back and tell me climate scientists are not corrupt.
        “Does your thinking apply to military spending?’
        Without military spending you won’t be doing any thinking,Bozo!

      • I appreciate the answers (though could do without the veiled insults), and I don’t want to misguide anyone and waste your time. I am not here to be converted, as I think that the case for climate skepticism (loosely defined as “CO2 emissions are not a problem and we don’t need to do anything about it”) does not stand even a modicum of scrutiny.
        That said, I have always been puzzled by the assertion that somehow climate science is deeply corrupted and the global warming theory is a hoax. I mean, seriously, that would be a HUGE feat to pull off, i.e., to convince (or coerce) nearly the entire field of climate science, and all the science bodies of the developed world, to accept a scientific theory with real implications to our way of life, threatening well established vested interests with direct access to the levers of power. Also to somehow prevent these said vested interests to mount their own defense on the scientific front, and to get the army of scientific operators in the field to indulge with raw data in support. And let’s not forget, get the Pentagon to cooperate too. There is just no way this could be done, and certainly not without major cracks at the seams, for which there is no evidence, save for “climate-gate”, which was a joke. In the meantime, it is clear to anyone who wants to see that the climate is warming, as evidenced by ratio of record highs to record lows, retreating glaciers, shorter winters, rising oceans, disappearing sea ice, shifting of climate zones, freakish heat waves, etc. I know that some seemingly odd events (e.g., expanding winter sea ice in Antarctica) can sometimes muddy the picture, but these too can often be explained in a warming world (even when the explanation is tentative and needs more research).
        A corollary question would be: to what end? If the aim is to exact revenue or to subvert democracy (the “one world” government), then I really don’t see that as the easiest approach, not by far. On the revenue front, Europe has been doing it for decades. No need for climate scaring, which only promotes avoidance of the product one wants to tax. And if one is going to do it, then concomitant support of alternatives is simply dumb. As for curtailing liberty, promoting decentralization of energy production will hardly achieve anything. There is no “Big Wind” or “Big Solar”, or at least not anything that comes close to matching “Big Oil”. I do agree though that the obvious way to get us to concede on that front is to scare us, and there is plenty of that with the Middle East situation and terrorism, but that is a whole different story.

      • Dan,
        There is just so much wrong with your assertions of doom, it’s hard to know where to begin.
        ”In reply to “Define ‘disruption’”, I would just point out the 1°C temperature rise since pre-industrial times, when perhaps a slight cooling would have been expected based on known natural variability.”
        Usually, you would expect to see temperatures rising as you emerge from an Ice age.
        You mention that you expect much more warming by 2, 3 or 4 degrees by the end of the century. Maybe you could let us know, when you know, which one it will be. So far we have seen an increase of aprox. .7dgrees in the past 150 years. So your guesses are a bit, eh, alarming. Especially as we have not seen any significant warming trend in almost 19 years now. Could it happen that we may see some of that cooling perhaps?
        You say that you don’t know what world the rest of us are living in. Well you could be on to something there. Your comments would seem to imply, you’re not of this world.
        As for your belief in the 97% consensus, I can only say I’m more than surprised no one else here has educated you on this as yet. Maybe, like me, they feel they would probably be wasting their time.

      • @Eamon,
        Don’t you agree that we are past the current interglacial optimum and heading back into the next ice age? If so, why would you expect temps to go up, if not for human emissions? I couldn’t tell, since I don’t discern a common theme in the articles or the comments (besides saying that CO2 is not a problem).
        As for 1°C rise, I think that will be the case in 2015, from pre-industrial era baseline (I’m looking at this graph: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif). Incidentally, this will bust the so-called “pause” that you are mentioning, and will go a long way towards reconciling the actual trend with that of models. Given that I believe CO2 is responsible, and that emissions keep increasing with no end in sight, a simple projection of the trend of the last 50 years suggests we will double that before the end of the century, and so will be on our way to 3°C by the dawn of the 22nd century.
        Finally, what is the issue with the 97% consensus? To me it quantifies what we all know, which is that there is almost no academic research in support of a contrarian view on the climate. If the field is stifled, why don’t ambitious researchers find alternative sources of funding? Judged by the billions of dollars going into the US elections, there is plenty of private money that could be tapped for such a potential game changer, if anybody truly believed in it.

        • “there is plenty of private money that could be tapped for such a potential game changer”
          why would it be a game changer? for who?

      • “which there is no evidence, save for “climate-gate”, which was a joke.”
        When you have decided to ignore evidence, there is no evidence…
        What would be more undeniable evidence of corruption, malpractice, suppression of data, suppression of dissent, bullying, etc.?

      • So Dan, you have identified yourself as a non scientific person. Fine, lots of nice people don’t know any science. They probably know a whole lot more about other stuff, than I do.
        But a whole lot of WUWT readers ARE scientific persons, and there are a host of highly credible and reputable scientists who are actively engaged in the climate research field, who do NOT subscribe to the claimed catastrophic scenarios, that the Paris COP21 extravaganza is pushing.
        Now in all fairness, these other climate scientists also are desirous of having THEIR researches continue to be funded, and they also face the terrors of peer review.
        Yet they still report their results openly and without fanfare, for all to see.
        And many of us, who do consider ourselves scientific persons, do look at both points of view, and we weigh them according to our own scientific expertise, which here at WUWT is quite diverse.
        So if you think we are all funded by “big oil”, and are flag waving for some “Koch” brothers or other gremlins; you are just naïve.
        I’ve worked for over half a century, applying Physics in Industry, always aimed at improving the efficiency of free enterprise, and use of natural resources, including energy.
        I’ve been actively involved in efficient solid state lighting substitutes for energy hogging legacy lighting, since circa 1966. So if you were engaged in that field before then, you probably know more about it than I do.
        And our efforts have paid off in spades. The energy savings of solid state lighting, is probably the single biggest factor in energy conservation that has come to pass, and is usable universally all over the world, by rich and poor alike. Comparable results for solid state energy conversion (from solar) or thermal collection, have yet to demonstrate any significant increase in net available energy, although they do enable such energy availability in remote places, where infra-structure does not exist for legacy sources.
        So if you are looking for corroboration for your current acceptance of the CAGW threat, you likely won’t find it here; but you might find some other ways to see where the vested interests in that unlikely outcome are running off the rails, and following an agenda, that has little to do with surviving climate change, which no sane person disagrees with.
        g

    • All those blizzards, that’s what. Since there are no hurricanes…look! It has changed! In the future it will be many more blizzards. Like the ice storm today over much of Texas and Oklahoma…

  3. Here is an interesting one.
    What are the commitments to the Green Climate Fund so far (the fund hoping to have $100 Billion per year by 2020).
    Answer: $5.8 Billion US so far; another $4.3B in almost commitments.
    http://www.greenclimate.fund/documents/20182/24868/20151102_-_Status_of_Pledges.pdf/d2f4b2b2-667b-4915-a72e-78894dad4db3
    How much has actually been paid in so far in cash:
    Answer: $236 Million and Sweden has a promissory note for another $485 Million:
    http://fiftrustee.worldbank.org/webroot/data/GCF_TR_06_15.pdf
    Spent on Administration so far: $74 million.
    How much spent on Climate projects:
    Answer: Zero
    Committed to projects: $168 Million
    http://www.gcfund.org/fileadmin/00_customer/documents/MOB201511-11th/04_-_Consideration_of_funding_proposals_20151015_fin.pdf
    One really has to know how to dig to find out this information.
    You won’t hear this at Paris of course.

    • Our new Prime Minister “Junior” Trudeau couldn’t wait for the formal shakedown in Paris. He’s already comitted $2.65 billion of Canadian taxpayer money to help alleviate the effects of climate chaneg on developing countries over the next 5 years.

      • What’s hilarious is that Canadas wealthy-gadabout will spread it over five years, that’s peanuts. The UN wants $100 billion EVERY YEAR.
        And the media has completely let him off the hook. It’s unbelievable.
        Can you imagine the outcry if Steven Harper had made the same pledge?!

      • I wonder if that $2.65 billion will all go into a fund for legal fees when developing countries start to sue those developed nations which are allegedly responsible for all the CO2 pumped into the atmosphere.

    • Very interesting.
      Such worthy-sounding projects financed with that $168 million, especially the $12.3 mil for “Scaling Up the Use of Modernized Climate Information and Early Warning Systems” in Mali.
      NOAA was building a “modernized climate information and early warning system” called the U.S. Regional Climate Reference Network (USRCRN). In spite of protests from NWS meteorologists, maintenance of the USRCRN was stopped in 2013 and the system was dismantled in 2014 as a budget-cutting measure. NOAA deciders apparently considered the propaganda budget more important. Perhaps the NWS should’ve applied for a Green Climate Fund grant.

      • Oops, sorry, that’s Malawi getting the $12.3 mil, not Mali.
        According to Transparency International, Malawi is slightly less corrupt than Mali (though still among the worst). Malawi is a landlocked African nation whose people are mostly very poor, with short life expectancy, high infant mortality, and a high incidence of HIV infection. These people are in dire need of a climate early warning system.
        Of course, all of the grant recipient nations fare poorly in terms of corruption, with the dictatorship in the Maldives likely being the worst. But you can rest assured that money poured into these nations for climate change adaptation and mitigation will significantly improve conditions for some of the inhabitants.

    • The wealth transfer to poor nations to combat the effects of climate change is guaranteed to be 100% consumed by overhead, crony contracts, and swiss bank accounts. Which of course means we’ll just have to give even more.

  4. What is worse: Climate change or WWIII?
    November 24: Turkey just shot down a Russian Fighter Jet over Turkish air space, but the surviving pilot landed in Syria, taken by Syrian rebels fighting Assad on behalf of Turkey. Turkey is fighting Assad and the Kurds in Syria. Russia is assisting Assad in fighting Syrian rebels assisted by Turkey, and are also fighting ISIS. Iran is assisting Assad in fighting the Syrian Rebels and the Kurds, and maybe ISIS. Turkey is helping ISIS fight Assad. U.S. is helping Turkey helping ISIS and the Syrian rebels, but is also fighting ISIS. France is jumping in fighting ISIS. U.S. say they are helping the Kurds fight ISIS, but are not, because that would offend the Turks and Iran. And then there are the Chinese trying to gain influence in the region. This is the coalition Obama says he is leading fighting ISIS, (or ISIL as Obama insists calling it, as the Levant also includes Israel).
    Obama is still scheduled, together with 40000 other delegates to go to Paris next week for the 2015 Climate Change Conference COP21. Alongside French President François Hollande at a joint news conference Obama said:
    “Next week, I will be joining President Hollande and world leaders in Paris for the global climate conference. … What a powerful rebuke to the terrorists it will be, when the world stands as one and shows that we will not be deterred from building a better future for our children.”
    What could possibly go wrong?
    Which leads to verse 69 of the Obama Impeachment song (as if sung by President Barack Hussein Obama to the tune of “Please release me, let me go”)
    Climate change or World War III?
    Yes, Climate Change much worse must be.
    World Wars come and go, you see.
    But Climate Must Not Change, That’s my decree.
    Here is the complete impeachment song: http://lenbilen.com/2015/02/25/the-complete-obama-impeachment-song/

    • I can’t help wondering if ISIS is bright enough to recognize the gigantic target those folks make.
      I know France is doing everything possible to secure the place, and hope they succeed. I hope for a peaceful and quiet (and irrelevant) gabfest… but if I were headed there, I’d be more than a little worried…
      Big juicy targets attract extra crazies… I’d expect the area of the conference to be a minor police state of its own for the duration.

      • And of course, if there is another terrorist attack in Paris, it will be blamed on….Glo.Bull Warming !! And Dan Hue will be screaming that it is proof that the climate is being ” disrupted ” !!!! LOL

  5. The world doesn’t have enough problems, so it has to invent one to pretend to be “solving”.
    Good plan.

    • Bruce. I watched a video of former president Clinton talking to Jimmy Fallon about UFOS and aliens. Near the end the former president said it would great to bring the world together to fight the invaders if they were unfriendly invaders like in the movie Independence Day. There you have a former president looking for an enemy of the earth to bring all the nation’s together. Fighting a made up enemy will do just fine until everyone realizes the common enemy is not real.

  6. …From the you;re too late department,…
    The ‘You’re too late’ department has a punctuation defect…
    Reply: Fixed, thanks. ModE.

  7. Sure it can avert global warming. By making it too expensive to heat or cool homes for a large portion of the world, we can reduce the amount of heat pumped into the atmosphere. Also, this has a secondary benefit of killing off more people who are endangered by heat or cold resulting in less breathing and pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Also, it has a tertiary benefit of using less resources.

  8. Oh boy, yet another model with so many conditional statments and assumptions that one could drive a truck through. I am sure those models will be open sourced for review.
    Yeah, right.

  9. Such irony that the Model is called “MAGICC”. A quick sanity-check with models should show, other things being equal, heating up of 2 degrees K means 2.8% more heat emitted from the earth. Heating up of 3 degrees means 4.2% more heat emitted. These are big numbers on order of 10^23 J/year compared to 10^21 J/yr claimed associated with ocean heat and solar variation. Get the first significant digit right before dwelling on the third or fourth digits in the calorimetry.

  10. A $100,000,000,000 slush fund for the UN. Yeah, that’ll stop the weather in its tracks. /sarc
    A modest proposal; I say we buy an umbrella for everyone on the planet. If the planet warms and we get more rain, then everyone is covered. If the sun beats down a little more on everyone, then everyone has their own little bit of shade. With 7 billion people on the planet, $100,000,000,000 would buy a nice $14 golf-sized umbrella for everyone. And if the GAST is on a downward path, we’ve only wasted $100,000,000,000.
    The only fly in the ointment I can see is that 7 billion open umbrellas might have some effect on the earth’s albedo. Perhaps black umbrellas should be used in the colder climes and only white umbrellas used in the warmer climes. I’m sure someone would be willing to model the optimal distribution of the two colors.

  11. This nonensical gabfest in Paris is really just a re-run of the Peter Cooke classic, “The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer”

  12. A quick read of the paper shows that the optimistic “Paris Continued” Ambition results in gross GHG CO2 equivalent rising from 45 Gt in 2010, to 53 Gt in 2030.
    Net GHG (incl LULUCF) won’t increase quite as fast, as we stop chopping trees down as much. (Though this is extremely hard to measure, and any commitments to such are probably worthless.
    Coincidentally, DECC gave me their estimates of the INDC’s last week, 52 to 56 Gt for 2030.
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/decc-admit-paris-will-not-cut-ghg-emissions/
    What is clear is that Paris won’t stop emissions from rising before 2030. Any projections after 2030 are pure pie in the sky

  13. “From the you”re too late department.” What would you rather have, 1 ft. of sea level rise, or 4 ft? I guess it doesn’t matter if you live in a glass house on a hill.

    • Sorry, you want the Idiotic questions and Inane red herring comments” department. Down the hall and to your left.

      • WordPress is now a time machine!
        With later post here published before earlier below. Cool –
        Just Steve November 28, 2015 at 9:19 am (before)
        Bruce Cobb November 28, 2015 at 8:52 am (after)
        just like the software magic in models

    • Barry, you realize you just advertised yourself as someone who is extremely gullible. Watch out for people selling bridges.

  14. “but in light of the severe climate disruption we are experiencing,”
    The dirty 30s have been over for some time now.

    • Canadians are constantly whining about how unbearably cold their winter is, so they vacation and ultimately retire in places like Florida and Phoenix.
      Yet these are the same people who will gladly pay a tax to fight Canada getting warmer. Its bizarre.
      Canucks have a screw loose. No doubt about it.

  15. Facts, logic, and observations mean next to nothing to the sorts of people going to the Paris anti-civilization confab. Certainly the scientists that point out CO2 on net will cool the planet and not warm it will not be heard, nor the lukewarmers who say that CO2 does warm the planet a bit but it is a minor thing.
    OK then. What if thermodynamics and physics is wrong and CO2 will warm the planet? What if the planet warmed 10 degrees Celsius? Impossible you say? So? What if the planet warmed that much? The warming would come, so they say, mostly towards the poles and by warmer nights. A warmer Russia and Canada? That would be bad?
    Just think, the damn Yankees might say in the northeast US in the winter rather than invade Florida! Win/Win!
    I have never seen any real factual reason to fear global warming but rather have seen many reasons to welcome it. Why are we trying to hasten the end of this interglacial? Why do people want to see it stay cold?
    The dinosaurs seemed to enjoy warm weather. I think we could come to love it too!
    PS: Carl Sagan was an idiot. Venus does not have CO2 caused “run away global warming”. It has a much greater atmospheric density.

    • Hi Mark. Your remark about Carl Sagan might be right, but he sounds so convincing. Maybe if we practice saying “there are billion and billions of stars ” we could be as convincing.

  16. Coming next – if we all promise to avoid synchronised jumping up and down we can prevent earthquakes.
    That should be an easy sell in California (no offence intended Anthony).

  17. Once again no one is attacking the real elephants in the room: the concept of an average global temperature, the concept of what the Goldilocks global temperature should be and the concept of why colder is deemed to be better.

  18. “….the team incorporated the INDCs along with assumptions about future emissions reductions into …. the Global Change Assessment Model or GCAM…. The GCAM model produced numbers for global greenhouse gas emissions, which the team then fed into a climate model called ….MAGICC. Running the simulations for each scenario 600 times resulted in a range of temperatures for the year 2100, which the team converted into probabilities.”
    They took assumptions of promises (INDC), combined them with more assumptions and used those as inputs into one computer model (GCAM) and the outputs as inputs into another computer model (MAGICC).
    They then ran the models 600 times to get a range of temperatures and then created probabilities. The results are the probabilities of the reproducibilities of 2 non-verifiable massively complex computer programs run in series. There is no indication that they considered the errors in their original data or their assumptions.
    Had the authors taken all errors into account, I am confident that the standard deviations would show their results to have no statistical significant.

  19. [Comment deleted. “Jankowski” has been stolen by the identity thief pest. All Jankowski comments saved and deleted from public view. You wasted your time, sockpuppet. -mod]

  20. Latest News !!!
    It has just been announced that the next “beanfeast” will be in Bangladesh!!
    As of yet, none of this years 190 countries have volunteered to attend..

  21. If you believe the RCP8.5 scenario, or at least the ClimateInteractive version, the per capita emissions will
    – take off in the OECD countries, despite have stalled decades ago
    – continue growing in China and Russia, even though both are virtually fully industrialized
    – rapidly slow down in India, despite it currently booming
    – in Africa will stagnate and never develop
    The whole effect is to grossly exaggerate the impact of policy in the USA and the EU, whilst virtually eliminating the impact of India and other poor, but growing economies (Bangladesh, Vietnam etc.)
    https://manicbeancounter.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/ffems-tonpc.jpg
    Compare with the trends from the post a couple of days ago, using virtually the same measure of emissions from fossil fuels.
    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/co2-emissions-stagnates.png?w=780&h=548
    It is this biased data that enable ClimateInteractive (and repeated by Joe Romm) to claim that the INDCs will mean global emissions are 40% lower in 2100 than without policy. It is nearly all due to the RCP8.5 being a very unrealistic forecast.
    http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/03095051/graphical-summary-1024×785.jpg

    • Let’s apply a smoke test to the 4.5C claim in 2100. Starting from the average 286K at the start of the IR, the BB emissions of the surface were 379 W/m^2. If the temperature increases by 4.5C to an average of 290.5K, the emissions will be 403.8 W/m^2, or a 24.8 W/m^2 increase. Why isn’t it evident to anyone with a brain that this is impossible? How can anyone, especially a scientist, be so incredibly gullible?
      Given that the current post albedo input is 239 W/m^2, it takes about 140 W/m^2 of ‘feedback’ to replace emissions at the current temperature, where only about 45 W/m^2 of this can be attributed to CO2. Even if CO2 concentrations increased to 0.4% (a thousand fold increase), the return to the surface attributed to CO2 still wouldn’t come close to the 24.8 W/m^2 claimed for a far smaller increase.

    • It looks (mark 1 eyeball) that the US emissions in 2005 were about 18 tonnes per capita.
      Now then if the US is to reduce its emissions by about 25 to 26% percent, below the emissions of 2005 as per its pledge, ignoring population growth, this would mean that the per capita emissions need to be reduce to around 13.4 tonnes.
      The population in the US was around 292 million in 2005. The estimated population in 2015 is estimated to be a little under 322 million. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
      It appears that the US is growing in population very rapidly and if the same population growth continues then by 2025 will be a little under 350 million.
      So with this anticipated population growth, we are talking about reducing CO2 per capita down to around 11 tonnes.
      So I would like to know in which year did the US emit CO2 of around 11 tonnes per capita and what was life like back in those day?
      Am I the only one who considers the figures for Russia look strange. I agree that the figures for India look way too low, and so too China. At least the 2050/60 figures do. It is difficult to predict further than that since new technologies will probably be available that will render the discussions regarding CO2 an irrelevance (or the science my show that Climate sensitivity to CO2, if any at all, is extremely modest and everyone might be welcoming a warmer world).

  22. “… the Paris pledges have the potential to reduce the probability of the highest levels of warming, …”
    Potential to reduce a probability, Hmmm, as my dear mother more than once told me, “There is so much wasted potential.”

  23. “A study published in Science (November 26) shows that if implemented and followed by measures of equal or greater ambition, the Paris pledges have the potential to reduce the probability of the highest levels of warming, and increase the probability of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.”
    Of course it will. So will doing nothing.

  24. I would hazard a more meaningful outcome of COP21 would be the Obama regime shutting down the Turkey Government’s support of ISIS by transfers of NATO armaments and cash (including gold). This is likely the reason for the shoot down of the Russian SU-24.
    That is not likely to happen as Obama is a supporter of the Turkey Government and by that a supporter of ISIS.

  25. This is kind of like saying if the whole developed world gave it’s entire GDP to the undeveloped nations would the earth be cooler?

  26. “The team found that if countries do nothing to reduce emissions, the earth has almost no chance of staying under the 2 degree limit, and it is likely that the temperature increase would exceed 4 degrees …”.
    =====================================
    My math may be a bit shaky but by my calculation for the GAT to reach 2C above the current average (around 14C) through CO2 emissions the atmospheric concentration must quadruple to 1600 ppm which at the current rate would take around 550 years, to rise by 4C around 3000 years.

  27. The Paris meeting may not achieve anything to reduce the effects of climate change BUT if they succeed in getting an overall agreement that ‘something must be done’ then they will want a *single authority to act in the collective name*.
    This could take the form of a worldwide-recognised and accepted authority taking control of any monies pledged to direct in the best interests of the ‘group’.
    This authority would therefore be seen as a ‘global governening body’ with (effectively) unlimited financial resources that could, in time, demand mandatory payments (i.e. a tax) towards the cause.
    The fears of a One World Government will have been realised.

  28. Can Paris pledges avert severe climate change?
    No, but apparently it can end terrorism:
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/climate-change-talks-paris-ban-ki-moon-1.3341598
    In related Canadian climate news, Mo Strong death; could there be a climate link?
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/maurice-strong-climate-and-development-pioneer-dead-at-86-1.3341829
    Explanation: The Warmistas suggest the deaths of thousands is due to climate change; I am simply doing the same over one death.

  29. Here’s my primer for those on their way to the “Parisite conflation on climate change”:
    (Maybe educators will make use of it in the future)
    Mother Goose on Climate Prediction
    As record winds blow
    Unprecedented snow,
    Oh, where is our globe a’ warming?
    That depends on the sun
    And the ways oceans run,
    Plus clouds (with complexity) forming!
    Now, and for quite long,
    Climate models are wrong.
    So, what caused the pause in the warming?
    Yes, look to the sun,
    The ways oceans run,
    And the clouds, in complexity forming.
    CO2 is “too small”
    To stop temperature’s fall
    When the sun, clouds and oceans together,
    Begin to cause cold
    in a cycle so old…
    That no one alive can remember!
    So if I do some harm
    By just keeping warm,
    You’ll have to kindly forgive me!
    I find my solution
    Is carbon pollution…
    Ere this planet will quickly outlive me!

  30. The latest research on CO2 temperature sensitivity shows that even if we did nothing, we would be unlikely to achieve a one C.degree temperature increase across the World. Satellites show no increase for 18 years which is a good start. The plants are all shouting for more CO2 though, and people in cold countries are still taking their holidays in warm ones.

  31. Let me guess as to how the policies will be implemented. First that pesky thing called individual freedom really needs to be severely curtailed. Just ask Bill Gates representative democracy bogs down blind alarmism.

  32. it’s all smoke and mirrors:
    27 Nov: Reuters: David Ljunggren: Canada backs U.S.: climate deal should not be legally binding
    Canada on Friday backed the U.S. approach to major climate change talks in Paris, saying any carbon reduction targets agreed at the negotiations should not be legally binding.
    The announcement by Environment Minister Catherine McKenna could irritate host nation France, which wants any deal to be enforceable.
    That would be politically impossible for the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama, however, since it is clear the Republican-dominated Congress would not ratify any treaty imposing legally binding cuts on the United States.
    “Everyone wants to see the United States be part of this treaty,” McKenna told reporters on a conference call before flying to Paris.
    “There are political realities in the United States … they cannot have legally binding targets. We don’t expect that the targets will be internationally legally binding,” she said…
    While Trudeau will not provide a new greenhouse emissions target in Paris, he has committed to coming up with a goal with Canada’s 10 provinces within 90 days of returning from the talks.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/27/us-climatechange-canada-idUSKBN0TG1YF20151127#BTfkzSyTTSIvcTOP.97

  33. Tranfer of $ $ Billions per year to UN control will do nothing to fix anything, and even less for the climate. There will continue to be no climate change in human life spans.

    • Ancient cultures made votive offerings to the gods by tossing valuable items into bogs and the like without retrieval in the hope of forestalling disasters, the UN is simply the latter-day bog.

  34. “…To perform the analysis, the team incorporated the INDCs along with assumptions about future emissions reductions into a global, technologically detailed model of the world called the Global Change Assessment Model or GCAM that includes energy, economy, agriculture and other systems. The GCAM model produced numbers for global greenhouse gas emissions, which the team then fed into a climate model called Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change or MAGICC. Running the simulations for each scenario 600 times resulted in a range of temperatures for the year 2100, which the team converted into probabilities…”

    Ignoring the fact that global climate models fail because of complexity and simplistic assumptions; these loons also include energy, economy, agriculture and mysterious ‘other systems’.
    To completely fudge it up, they run the model 600 times and then treat the output as real data that ‘probabilities’ can be drawn from.
    These are loons, pure and simple. Rather amusing to see EPA researchers don’t mind dragging the EPA deeper into the lunatic world.

    • ATheoK

      Ignoring the fact that global climate models fail because of complexity and simplistic assumptions; these loons also include energy, economy, agriculture and mysterious ‘other systems’.

      But it is then outputting future predictions … by “MAGIC” “mysterious ‘other systems” …
      Yet “they” claim “they” are using 97% of scientific consensus.

  35. Canada has changed its mind!
    29 Nov: Australian: Dennis Shanahan: Commonwealth wants legally-binding COP21 result
    THE Commonwealth has pledged itself towards an “ambitious” and legally-binding outcome from the world climate change summit, saying it was “deeply concerned” about the disproportionate threat to its most vulnerable members.
    LEADERS from the 53-country family, which represents around a third of the world’s population, on Saturday came up with a “message of Commonwealth ambition and determination” for the COP21 talks in Paris, which kick off on Monday.
    “We are committed to working towards an ambitious, equitable, inclusive, balanced, rules-based and durable outcome of COP21 that includes a legally-binding agreement,” they said in a Statement on Climate Action…
    Because its membership includes industrialised G7 powers like Britain and Canada, emerging giants like India and tiny island microstates such as the Maldives, agreement in the Commonwealth has historically boded well for deals being struck beyond its bounds.
    Among the few things concluded at the flop 2009 Copenhagen global climate change summit were things agreed beforehand by the Commonwealth.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/chogm-urges-strong-climate-action/story-fn3dxix6-1227626950970

  36. CONFUSED? there’s more…
    28 Nov: CNBC: Financial Times: France bows to Obama and backs down on climate ‘treaty’
    by Anne-Sylvaine Chassany in Paris and Pilita Clark in London
    France has offered a key concession to the US on the eve of historic climate talks in Paris, saying a new global climate accord will not be called a “treaty” and might not contain legally binding emissions reduction targets.
    In a significant climbdown, Laurent Fabius, French foreign minister, said signatories to the planned deal would still be legally required to meet many of its terms but most likely not the carbon-cutting goals underpinning the agreement…
    “The accord needs to be legally binding. It’s not just literature,” Mr Fabius told the Financial Times. “But it will probably have a dual nature. Some of the clauses will be legally binding.”
    Mr Fabius, who is to chair the UN climate conference, added: “Another question is whether the Paris accord as a whole will be called a treaty. If that’s the case, then it poses a big problem for President Barack Obama because a treaty has to pass through Congress.”
    The comments are among the first by a senior official to signal a willingness to accommodate the world’s second largest carbon emitter to achieve a successful deal…
    But Mr Fabius said: “It would be pointless to come up with an accord that would be eventually rejected by either China or the US.” …
    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/28/france-bows-to-obama-and-backs-down-on-climate-treaty.html

  37. Perhaps more important than the content is its demonstation of just how scientifically meaningless has become the so called publication “Science”.
    Those with oversight of its funding should shut the valve.

  38. Examples of these commitments include the United States’ vow to reduce emissions in 2025 by 26-28 percent of 2005 levels and China’s pledge to peak emissions by 2030 and increase its share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20 percent

    It is easy for Politicians to band around such commitments, they are vague and no one stops to think about how one can achieve the reduction.
    For example, how much CO2 did the US emit in 2005?, What is a 25 to 26% reduction of that figure? In which year did the US emit some 25% less CO2 than it emitted in 2005? What was its population, and GDP when it emitted 25% less CO2 than it did in 2005? What is the cost involved in capping future emissions to this figure, what impact will it have on energy prices, industrial competitiveness and GDP etc?
    Now it is often thought that switching from coal to gas will reduce so called GHG emissions since gas has a higher calorific value, and hence less gas is used per unit of energy produced with the result that less CO2 is produced. Indeed, this is why out of all the developed West, the US, whilst not signing up to Kyoto, has achieved the greatest reduction in CO2 emissions this past decade.
    However, no one stops to thing about the consequences of switching from burning coal to burning gas. burning coal only produces CO2 (save for cooling purposes) whereas burning gas produces CO2 and water in the form of water vapour. The amount of water vapour depends upon the chemical composition of the gas. but is approximately similar to the amount of CO2 produced.
    Now water vapour is a much more potent GHG, and therefore the switch from coal to gas not reduce GHG emissions, but rather makes GHG emissions even worse.
    The IPCC seeks to play down the role of water vapour. This is apparently because it does not have a long residency time in the atmosphere; some 7 to 9 days. But what is the relevance of a short residency time when we switch to a process that will emit on an hourly basis water vapour. There will be an ongoing replenishment of the water vapour day by day. As more gas is used to replace coal, more and more water vapour will be emitted. And since not only will the switch be an ongoing process, the amount of water vapour each new gas plant will emit will also be an ongoing daily occurrence such that despite having a short residency time (of about 7 to 9 days) water vapour levels will begin to rise.
    Hence there will be a switch from one GHG to another GHG, and that other is a more potent GHG.
    So how will the switch from coal to gas achieve anything? How will it curb future temperature rise?
    It seems to me that no one thinks through the implications of any of these commitments. No doubt this is because it is a bunch of politicians merely talking hot air with each politician wishing to appear to be morally superior to the next man. If only thee were some engineers involved who could inject some reason.
    Whilst I have major concerns about the science, my biggest gripe is at the policy response. This is because not one single policy response would result in the meaningful reduction, on global basis, of so called GHGs. At most, there may be a switch of where CO2 is emitted, ie from the developed West to developing Asia. IF global warming is truly a problem (which I do not think that it is), and if this is due to manmade emissions of GHGs (and I see no strong evidence that in the real world Climate Sensitivity to CO2 is substantial), not one policy response being discussed will reduce GHGs in any meaningful manner, let alone to a figure substantially below 1990s figures. Renewables cannot achieve any reduction since they are not despatchable and require 100% back up by fossil fuel generation.
    All this money is being wasted, not simply on the basis of unsound science, but also because the policy responses being discussed do not achieve the goal. The science may be complex, but assessing whether the policy response results in any meaningful reduction of GHGs (on global basis) is not complex. This is schoolboy stuff (or school girl stuff). Any 14 year old ought to be able to consider the mooted policy response and ascertain whether this results in the meaningful reduction of GHGs.
    And the elephant in the room for Europe which no one wants to discuss is mass migration. It is likely that over the next 20 years Europe (unless it does an about face) will take perhaps 10 million people from the Middle East and Africa, and will allow Turkey to join the EU and take a further 10 million from Turkey such that there will by 2045 be about an extra 20 million people in Europe (more with births). This will greatly increase the amount of CO2 that Europe will emit since this number is the equivalent of 4 Norways, or 2 Swedens, and will require a huge amount of infrastructure to be built (steel and concrete are high emitters of CO2) and then will require a substantial year on year energy increase to meet the needs of these people for electricity and transport etc. There is no way Europe can significantly reduce its CO2 emissions if it is going to open its boarders like that.

    • @Richard V, don’t tell them that that the “smoke” coming out of coal fired smoke stacks is water vapor, then they’ll have 2 reasons to shut them down (:

  39. The climate models used to make these projections of 2 degrees C or whatever are total garbage as clearly demonstrated in the IPCC AR5 report which shows these model projections have no defined certainty at all. These projections mean absolutely nothing and are just pure guesses of climate behavior. To use these projections for defining world climate policy actions is absolutely absurd. It’s time for the entire world to stop paying any attention to climate alarmist garbage based on completely hypothetical, unproven and flawed climate models projections.

  40. Hanson’s blog posts at Huff Po read like a sexual deviant demanding the killing of his sexual challengers to the Pussy aka Vagina of Obama.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/title-tk_1_b_8665400.html
    “Earlier this year I received a message from a long-time reader of my Communications [1], who was persuaded of the urgency of the climate problem. As a significant supporter of the Democratic Party, he had the opportunity to meet President Obama, and he was preparing a specific question: would the President be willing to “meet with Jim Hansen,” who, the supporter asserted, understood the problem as well as anyone and has “some viable ways to fix the problem?” ”
    Lets see if Hanson gets a room with Obama as his … “succulent”.
    Ha ha

    • [Comment deleted. “Jankowski” has been stolen by the identity thief pest. All Jankowski comments saved and deleted from public view. You wasted your time, sockpuppet. -mod]

  41. Paris climate change meeting is tailor made for UN community organizer known as Odama. Huge demands of the rich countries to benefit the “poor countries”–nothing but a conduit of wealth transfer.
    I call it socialized communism, the coming new world order–brought to you by colluding governments, manipulated “science”, unvalidated climate models and cultish zeal to enslave mankind. It has nothing to do with saving the earth.

  42. , national leaders are firmly committed to programs of economic growth. Most national governments are fully aware that their continued political power depends on delivering economic well-being. Failure is not an option. And that creates a problem for those who think we should burn less coal, oil and natural gas. Economic growth takes energy. Until the 19th century, slavery was a primary source of commercial energy. Slavery was largely replaced in the 20th century by machines which either burn fuels, or are driven by electricity generated by the consumption of fuels. As a result, there is a close correlation of economic activity and fossil fuel consumption. The modern State cannot exist unless it consumes an ever increasing quantity of energy, and that fact is never going to change.

  43. Prof. David Carter has shown the flaws in the basic CO2 warming model. CO2 is not causing global warming. No CO2 reduction promises are needed at all. This makes most of the above discussion meaningless. Ref. http://www.climatespeak.com

  44. The model used was the GCAM, the Global Change Assessment Model
    but as the Global weather is an entire interlinked system and GCAM is only underrstood by a limited number of people then perhaps a better word to use would be
    System Change assessment Model which abbreviates to ….
    SCAM
    now that`s more understandable to more people

  45. Ross says, “This makes most of the above discussion meaningless.
    =========================================================================
    Actual we, and likely most of those attending the Paris conference, know this has zero to do with CO2. “Such is the nature of the Tyrant, when he first appears he is a protector.” Plato. (I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.)

Comments are closed.