Opinion by Anthony Watts
A final draft of the Paris climate agreement has emerged after days – and years – of negotiation. Laurent Fabius, the president of COP21, called the final draft text “differentiated, fair, dynamic, durable, balanced and legally binding.” French President Francoise Hollande urged leaders to accept the text, calling this an “historic day for mankind”. and adding “This would be a major leap for mankind.” Apparently, it’s a bigger moment for him that the moon landing in 1969, which was “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” Of course, I’m not allowed to quote that, because Professor Lewandowsky thinks I think the moon landing was “faked”.
Climate delegates in the hall reportedly were breaking out in applause and standing ovations. I haven’t bothered to look for the predictable videos.
The final draft says countries will aim “to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century”.
Right, I don’t think anyone will ever remember this agreement 100 years from now, we have bigger problems. The final draft will be brought up for discussion and a vote during a session starting at 3:45 p.m. Paris time.
If adopted, the agreement would constitute the first “universal climate agreement in history”, which sounds better than “galactic climate agreement” I suppose, probably because every time I hear the word “galactic” I think of that line from a Few Good Men, where Tom Cruise delivers a rant that seems apropos here:
Thank you for playing “should or should we not, follow the advice of the galactically stupid!
Even Dr. James Hansen, the “father of global warming” has picked up on the stupidity of the whole thing:
“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”
Yep, it’s all just empty promises and speculation, even their wording pays homage to the RCP (Representative Concentration Pathway) models: (bold mine)
Emphasizing with serious concern the urgent need to address the significant gap between the aggregate effect of Parties’ mitigation pledges in terms of global annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways consistent with holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C,
…
Article 2 1. This Agreement, in enhancing the implementation of the Convention, including its objective, aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by: (a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change
Oh, but wait, we may not make it, so let’s express some concern about it:
Notes with concern that the estimated aggregate greenhouse gas emission levels in 2025 and 2030 resulting from the intended nationally determined contributions do not fall within least-cost 2 ˚C scenarios but rather lead to a projected level of 55 gigatonnes in 2030, and also notes that much greater emission reduction efforts will be required than those associated with the intended nationally determined contributions in order to hold the increase in the global average temperature to below 2 ˚C above pre-industrial levels by reducing emissions to 40 gigatonnes or to 1.5 ˚C above pre-industrial levels by reducing to a level to be identified in the special report referred to in paragraph 21 below;
It will be interesting to see how this upcoming vote goes and who comes to their senses and says “no” to this toothless agreement that will accomplish nothing other than lining the pockets of some corrupt third-world regimes, likely resulting in the death’s and suffering of thousands that a little bit of warming could not accomplish on its own.
Oh, but let’s not dwell on negatives; there’s lots of patting themselves on the back going on right now, via the Guardian, some quotes from the parasitic rent seeking organizations NGO’s that attended:
Avaaz
“a turning point in history, paving the way for the shift to 100% clean energy that the world wants and the planet needs”
WWF UK
“We have a clear vision in the strong long term goal; mechanisms to address the gap between that aspiration and the countries’ current commitments; and the foundations for financing the transition to a low-carbon future.”
Greenpeace
“The wheel of climate action turns slowly, but in Paris it has turned. This deal puts the fossil fuel industry on the wrong side of history. There’s much in the text that has been diluted and polluted by the people who despoil our planet, but it contains a new imperative to limit temperature rises to 1.5C.”
350.org
“This marks the end of the era of fossil fuels. There is no way to meet the targets laid out in this agreement without keeping coal, oil and gas in the ground.”
Oxfam
“This deal offers a frayed life-line to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people. Only the vague promise of a new future climate funding target has been made, while the deal does not force countries to cut emissions fast enough to forestall a climate change catastrophe.”
EDF (Environmental Defense Fund)
The agreement will send a powerful, immediate signal to global markets that the clean energy future is open for business. It makes a moral call for dramatic action that leaves no one behind, and it moves us closer to the crucial turning point when global carbon emissions, which have been rising for more than two centuries, finally begin to decline.”
Christian Aid
“This is a historic agreement and the culmination of a path the world set out on four years ago.”
Cafod, Catholic aid agency
“For poor people living on the frontline of climate change this deal offers hope for a brighter future, but not yet the security that we’ll get there quick enough.”
E3G, thinktank
“The transition to a low carbon economy is now unstoppable, ensuring the end of the fossil fuel age.”
ActionAid
“what we have been presented with doesn’t go far enough to improve the fragile existence of millions around the world”
Here is the full text of the draft agreement via the UNFCC website: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf
Don’t let anyone tell you this isn’t about wealth redistribution, and these two paragraphs clearly show, it’s nothing more than a handout from rich to poor which will probably end up getting diverted and used for anything but the intended emissions reductions, especially in corrupt regimes of Africa
53. Decides that, in the implementation of the Agreement, financial resources provided to developing countries should enhance the implementation of their policies, strategies, regulations and action plans and their climate change actions with respect to both mitigation and adaptation to contribute to the achievement of the purpose of the Agreement as defined in Article 2;
54. Further decides that, in accordance with Article 9, paragraph 3, of the Agreement, developed countries intend to continue their existing collective mobilization goal through 2025 in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation; prior to 2025 the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement shall set a new collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per year, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries;
And the one year “out” clause, which I suspect will reach nearly 100% participation in a decade or so.
Article 28
1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary.
2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal.
3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this Agreement.
Note: shortly after publication, some punctuation and spelling errors were corrected, along with adding some clarifying text to the paragraph on RCP models.
190 countries are attending this socialist love fest, but 185 are only there because the thought they were going to get trillions of OTHER PEOPLES MONEY !!!
190 countries…….185 get paid……5 pay
Let’s vote on it………….
It’s the “democratic” way these totalitarians behave that’s particularly irksome.
Nothing could be clearer than the outright manipulation used to cement any agreement here – shades of the Obamacare vote – where everyone was railroaded up to the last minute, when a replacement text was revealed, when no one had time or would make the time to read it before voting, where blatant misrepresentations were used to support the process, where intimidation and slander awaited dissenters…
Whatever is signed on to will make no difference whatsoever to the climate, because CO2 emissions don’t drive temperatures, solar variation does. It is that simple.
The sun caused global warming.
Sunspot activity was 65% higher for the 70 years of the modern solar maximum from 1935.5-2004.5, when the annual average SSN was 108.5, than it was during the previous 70 years from 1865.5-1934.5, when it averaged 65.8, using http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_y_tot_V2.0.txt.
TSI, which statistically tracks w/sunspot number over solar cycle lengths, was higher during the modern maximum period (from Dr. Kopp at LASP, where the SORCE TSI data is maintained):
The v1 SIDC SSNs were 89% higher during the modern maximum, vs 65% for v2.
High TSI in 2015 enhanced the El Nino and brought barely ‘record’ high temperatures during the year. Even though it’s the lowest SSN cycle in 100 years, SC24 was (and is) still potent.
In order, from high to low, annual average TSI from http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tss/sorce_tsi_24hr.csv
2015, 1361.4512
2014, 1361.3966
2013, 1361.3587
2012, 1361.2413
2011, 1361.0752
2003, 1361.0262
2004, 1360.9192
2010, 1360.8027
2005, 1360.7518
2006, 1360.6735
2007, 1360.5710
2009, 1360.5565
2008, 1360.5382
Sep, 1361.1063
Oct, 1361.3139
Nov, 1361.3688
TSI was also higher for most of October and November, compared to September, driving Nov/Dec temps upward:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_3month_640x480.png
Watch high TSI build higher warm water volume (WWV) through Oct/Nov:
The WWV near the SW Mexican coast, and the Gulf of Mexico/Central Atlantic regions was the source of major recent rains in the US, UK, & Ireland (Cumbrian Floods) – all high-TSI driven:
http://i.imwx.com/images/sat/goesdisk_600x405.jpg
Every bit of the increase in temps since 2008 is from the rise in TSI during SC24. Enjoy it while lasts, solar minimum is on the way… It took 6-7 years for TSI to drop to it’s lowest levels in 2008, and UAH temps followed. SSTs had a similar dip for 2008, also tracking TSI.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2015_v6.png
http://www.climate4you.com/images/SunspotsMonthlySIDC%20and%20HadSST3%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1960%20WithSunspotPeriodNumber.gif
El Nino has peaked, as SSTs and OHC have declined over the past few months:
Had3SST global Sep 0.725; OHC 1.04
Had3SST global Oct 0.699; OHC 1.03
Had3SST global Nov 0.694; OHC 0.93
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/diagnostics/HadSST.3.1.1.0_monthly_globe_ts.txt, http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/index/heat_content_index.txt
2016 will NOT be a record year as there will be no long duration outstanding TSI peak as in 2015. Solar activity is scheduled to decline for many years to come: ftp://ftp.swpc.noaa.gov/pub/weekly/Predict.txt
The warmists’ ‘agreement’ will be rendered a moot point by the sun.
It’s noise the alarmist claim? What noise?
Despite the ongoing El Nino overlaying nearly 2 years, the change in global temperatures using RSS lag the change in sun spots quite closely as shown below.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:2013/normalise/derivative/plot/rss/from:2013/derivative/to:2015.45
This shows without doubt that solar activity controls El Ninos and resulting global temperatures along with this below.
http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/SunSpots_v_NINO3.4Minrem_zpsjazoxqcs.png
The central Pacific surface upper 200-300 m also flows eventually into the Atlantic ocean and joins the Gulf stream moving towards the NAD and becomes part of the AMOC reflecting changes in the AMO. The result is the AMO lagging changes in the NINO3 and NINO3.4 regions, although not greatly so in amplification.
At least now we can quit worrying about terrorists and wars because this agreement will put an end to their root causes. If only we had taken this most important step of history before 9-11.
Reminds me of pirates divying up the booty. Argh, matey!
I love this from the BBC
“The agreement is partly legally binding and partly voluntary”
Priceless
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35084374
tic tock, tic tock, . . . .
. . . and the vote is?????
John
2 degrees c is easy. Just adjust the data back
Spot on, Man Bearpig!! As the temps dive in the next five years, as they will anyway, the Climate Politburo will take credit for it. Let’s face it, already in the UK they are claiming that CO2 – which heretofore they have claimed remains in the atmosphere for tens, if not hundreds of years – is due to start declining. They are really trying to line up their shots for when the temp drops so they can claim it was all down to them.
I’ve been trying to second guess how they are going to push this sting but it’s going to be tough because it’s pretty easy to simply measure atmospheric co2. Can’t see them making it stick – even with the bent BBC and so forth backing it – and I suspect NASA are already wobbling and electing to go with at least the semi-unadjusted truth. I think there are a considerable number of worried climate manipulators out there and I predict an ever increasing rush to distance themselves from the icebound CAGW ship with whistle blowers popping out of every porthole blowing very loud whistles.
From the NY Times report. Extraordinary!
“Leaders among the climate change denial movements outside of the United States include Nick Griffin, the former leader of the British National Party; Christopher Monckton, the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley; and Tony Abbott, the former prime minister of Australia. “
It’s done. They’ve all agreed. Let the speechifying and back-slapping and partying begin.
Yup, no more need for these silly things. This was our “last chance” and “we got it done”. So be it.
Now what is the next boogie man they will thrust upon us to justify their lives?
When failure results the ruling class will always resort to expending ‘others’ money.
““to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century”.”
hmm.. that puts Australia in a nice position.
We are already a net carbon sink. 🙂
Watching on CNN, they are all clapping and hugging one another. I think they are just happy that the “meeting” is over…nonstop coverage on CNN.
Published just in time to analyse this agreement
http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf
“On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit”
After WWI Germany was made to suffer under the terms of the Versailles Treaty – and we know where that led. This is the modern-day version of that treaty. The developed world can only wonder where this treaty will lead. It does not help that there is gloating talk that this is the end of fossil fuel. That alone will be a major turning point in determining whatever comes next. This will not unite the world states. It will divide them. One has to wonder if that was not the intention of the power-hungry.
Like moving a drinks cabinet 1ft closer to Berlin (Black Adder)?
Arrhenius believed that space was aether.
This was proven false.
Therefore, his GHG Hypothesis must be false.
This from an article called: “The Shattered GHG Effect”
Aethereal Misunderstanding versus Subatomic Heat Transfer
Arrhenius (1906b, pp. 154 and 225) still clung to the aether hypothesis, which refers to the unspecified material medium of space. Arrhenius’ adherence to this hypothesis remained firm in spite of its sound refutation by Michelson & Morley (1887). This leaves the conceptual underpinning of radiation in Arrhenius’ “Greenhouse Effect” to Tyndall (1864, pp. 264-265; 1867, p. 416), who ascribes communication of molecular vibration into the aether and communication of aethereal vibration to molecular motion. This interaction conceptually separates radiated heat from conducted heat so that radiation remains separate and distinct from conductive heat flow – effectively isolating conductive heat flow from the radiative mode of heat transfer. Thus no consideration is made for internal radiative transfer as a part of conductive transfer, in the context of aethereal wave propagation. However, Arrhenius’ contemporaries, having moved beyond the debunked aether hypothesis, had a much more realistic perspective of the interactions between radiation, heat, and subatomic particles.
I think Rex Murphy sums up things quite well: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-the-high-church-of-global-warming
With this agreement in place……it will now become the west’s ambition to show that global warming doesn’t hit the mark set……we might actually start seeing global temperatures,be adjusted downwards.
Only need to correct the recent adjustments in the surface data sets to cause movement downwards.
Josh was spot on with all of it, and was the last minute save. Again. It’s kind of like Groundhog Day except with fresh money.
People Please the US government has used Bogus science many times in the past. Why should this garbage on COP21 be any different. Sen., George McGovern Sen., Albert Gore Sr., and many other Big D Liberals used flawed science to screw the world. Passing laws changing what we eat. This is Big Business : 980 Billion dollars in 2015 US Budge for Health care and Oh add 37 billion for exchange subsidies Obama Health Care program. See how the did it to speed up my point go to the 26 minute of the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRe9z32NZHY
As I see matters, the issue here is twofold:
First, given this ‘deal’ will there be a need for AR6?
Second, is there a need for COP 22,, and if so, what will be its purpose and what will it discuss?
Unless there is a step change in temperature coincident upon the current strong EL Nino (as there was coincident with the Super El Nino of 1997/98), it is likely that come 2019 the ‘pause’ will be over 21 years in duration, and all the model projections (or all but 2 of them) will be outside their 95% confidence bound. That will create some major problems for the drafting of AR6.
Further, in the above scenario, one may expect to see a number of papers published late 2017, 2018 and early 2019 suggesting ever lower figures for Climate Sensitivity.
This ‘deal’ which is crazy will soon lose its gloss unless there is a long lasting step change coincident upon the current strong El Nino.
And, should the globe begin to cool through to 2020 (perhaps due to oceanic cycles and/or a quiet sun), what then?
Many countries may be filing their notice of opt out/withdrawal.
Well I just got back from a magnificent afternoon walk on a trail through the mangroves along the intercoastal waterway at Lemon Bay Park. Shorts, tee shirt and sneaks, toasty warm, big blue sky with puffy white clouds and fresh green growth on everything. If those who lock themselves up in dark and dank government offices could only understand why warmer is better.
Hollande may look decidedly less than masculin, but his name definitely is, i.e., Francois, not Francoise.
If greenhouse gases are the cause of temperature rise, why is there no mention within the agreement of the ppm required of any of these gases to achieve the temperature limits they are aiming for?
‘Greenhouse gas’ appears 23 times but ”CO2′, ‘carbon dioxide’ and ‘ppm’ do not appear at all.
As it becomes ever more obvious that CO2 does not warm the surface the alarmists need to back away from that scare mongering idea and use a more general term as a first step in the walk-back.
One word was changed from shall to should-this is significant. If I say to my grandkids “You shall
pick up your clothes”. This is completely different than saying “You should pick up your clothes.” The first is an order the second is a request.
I think the second is a value judgement.
“…Parties to the Paris Agreement shall set a new collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per year”
At least it doesn’t start at 3 trillion. But do these contributions to developing nations have to be in money or can they be in technology and equipment? (The Pope called for a transfer of technology.) If it has to be cash, this is a deliberate redistribution scam and has nothing to do with combating climate change. That’s because everyone knows the money will end up in the pockets of well-connected elites and will not go to reducing carbon emissions.