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.
This agreement doesn t matter. We are already being forced into
A number of lower co 2 and so called green energy measures.
For myself, I have had my dairy business exempted from the NZ ETS , and subsequently deregistered.
I am driving an electric vehicle (Mitsi Outlander) which enables me to almost completely avoid ETS charges on petrol.
That just leaves the imposition on diesel fuel for the tractors. Zero cropping , and pasture maintenance by “hoof and tooth” (predominantly) should minimise any effect.
And significant progress was made at this conference with Kerry admitting that climate would be unaffected , and the Chinese pointing out that posturing was the sole reason to be there anyway.
What is not to like?
“one-year opt out”
Should make for a heated election issue.
Thanks for the Hansen quote. I disagree with him, but he’s one of the people on the alarmist side I respect. Also one of the few willing to recognize that being against CO2 ought to mean being for nuclear power.
Aren’t you forgetting his foam-at-the-mouth “coal trains of death” stance on coal? As a scientist, he’s a disgrace.
Oo la la! Paris has come up with the biggest serving of crème brûlée the world has ever seen.
Delicious tasting creamy custard to delight the drooling mouths of any greedy green gourmet sweetened with a layer of brittle caramelized sugar.
And what’s more, if it is not to your taste, you can return it to the chef.
But I suspect that crème brûlée á la socialiste it will not be on the menu for long.
There is a big rumour going around that the house is running out of money and soon the only deserts available will be bread and butter pudding á la Marine Le Pen.
I Danno? – I mean all these poor Pacific Island folk wading around in knee deep water seem pretty happy with the deal, as do the “already feeling the effects” professional (and skilful) beggars all over the “developing world”, (how long does it take to become developed anyway) and why wouldn’t they? To celebrate I went down to the sea, to an old rocky pool I used to fish in 50 years ago, and whadda you know? The exact same pool is exactly the same, even the old rocky shelf we used to bait up on, jeez I even recognize the great, great, great, great grandson of the little rock pool fish we used try catch with a bent pin and cotton when I was 4. But they tell the seas are a rising my son – but what do I know, must be my eyes are deceiving me.
This isn’t a plan to which the United States government has agreed. A negotiator was sent to Paris by the President, but his only role was to put together a package that can be presented to the Senate for its approval. According to the US Constitution, Congress has sole authority to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations”. The Constitution further states that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law”, appropriations which are under the authority of Congress.
Nothing that was said and no document that was signed in Paris can lead to the spending of one dime of US money unless Congress says so. Adding a few weasel words to a document that claims to bypass the US Congress does nothing,
So you can all climb down off the window ledge. Nothing has changed in the US as a result of this farce.
it seems to be politically and legally complicated:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/12/mitch_mcconnell_tpp_could_lose_if_brought_up_before_elections.html
This agreement is very good news indeed. For there will be great reduction of the world population in the future decades. And not only because the declining birth rate of the western world.
In about 1800 the world population was about 0.9 billion. Now it is about 7 billion. Reduction of CO2 to 1800 levels will cause important decline in food production. And starvation and death of lots of people.
What better way to depopulate than to kill them. The left wing fascists must be happy.
George Steiner
I wouldn’t be too worried about us getting to 1800 levels. Will be many hundreds of years before that happens if at all.
There was no vote on this “agreement’. There will be no vote. Under the procedures used by the UN the Chair simply decides that a consensus has been reached and gavels the meeting to an end.The legally binding and enforcement elements are not clear and are probably ineffective given the non specific nature of the promises and goals submitted by the parties. Also the promises and goals are qualified with many caveats which render conventional, meaningful enforcement impossible. Most important activities attendant to the agreement are punted to a later date usually after 2020 and 2030. Nothing substantial or real was agreed to in this document, as was expected by many observers who predicted that a final agreement would constitute a meaningless exercise in futility. “That’s all there is. Let’s pass out the booze and have a ball.” (Peggy Lee).
My understanding is that the agreement does not take effect until 2020 and any country can back out before then as long as they do so by 2019. There are also no monetary numbers involved nor are there any required emissions cuts. Only in the lala land of AGW could they celebrate this as they day the world changed. But I am happy that they are happy. Now can we get on with solving the real problems of the world?
Whoopee.
We’re saved.
Hooray.
All I see hear is an opportunity for governments to create and collect a carbon tax. Said tax will most likely just go to the general coffers. At least of the majority of the tax collected. Big win for the governments for decades to come. If temps go down they claim that it’s working but more needs to be done. If temps rise they claim more must be do. When I say “more must be done” I mean taxes must be raised.
22 January 2017. Not a problem. Ha ha.
No holds barred, I luv it.
NBC News tonight didn’t even make this “history making” moment that “marked the end of fossil fuels” one of its top three stories.
Fortunately…it’s the purview of the US Senate to agree treaty’s.
THe US didn’t commit to Kyoto and we won’t commit to this nonsense.
The whole thing is just an international version of ‘if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor”.
It is worth reading the agreement.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf
Particularly paragraphs 17 and 21
P17 states that the INDCs are nowhere close to being on track for the 2C limit. That would require emissions in 2030 to be 40 gigatonnes or less, whereas the forecast (with policy) is for 55 gigatonnes.
In P21 the UNFCCC asks the UNIPCC for some more scary stories and some more modelled emissions forecasts. There is a lot of hot air, but no global plans at all to reach any 2C target.
http://manicbeancounter.com/2015/12/13/no-global-plan-from-cop21-paris-to-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
We’ve reached peak stupid.
probably not yet
Meanwhile, in the real world …. global oil consumption about 94 million barrels per day, heading for $30/bbl …. Ideal time to go and buy some fossil fuel energy stocks.
Now that we have a climate agreement, the end of terrorism is automatic, right?
/snark
I think that you have marvelously downplayed the difficulty of this negotiation. Of course we haven’t solved the climate issue. However, to say that we aren’t taking steps in the right direction, and that countries should opt out of this agreement, is outright foolish. We are moving in the right direction, but it takes time!! So long as carbon is the cheapest form of energy yes, it will continue to be burned. Yet we are trying to make it more expensive!! This treaty (and its continuous amendment), will with time force nations to adopt either carbon taxes or cap and trade programs, along with other incentives to move away from the burning of ghgs. I see your point that policy makers and organizations may be overstating to the public how this agreement is successful. Yet in the context of where we were-not so much as 5 years ago, to where the world is heading now, this agreement made is very successful. Also, the redistribution of wealth? I mean really, one of the most prominent issues with climate negotiations -common yet differentiated responsibility-have you ever heard of it? The disparity of wealth between developed and developing nations, and their per capita emissions, is huge. Yet developing nations make up 60% of global ghg emissions, and are only growing. We need to give incentive for them to reduce. Who should do this? Those economies which are rich due to their large emissions in past years. They gain too from aiding in developing countries reductions. Honestly, without a policy enforcing this patter, we would never, ever, ever get anywhere. Also, it requires extensive review to prove that such projects are going towards mitigation efforts (although there is controversy with this, to say it with such vehement force that it would not go to reducing emissions as you did is outright foolish. Btw Africa makes up a minuscule portion of the CDM credit market). Sure, we haven’t solved the climate problem, and we are by no means on our way to the 2 degree mark. But to say that this agreement is just a bunch of pointless talk, and that we aren’t getting anywhere, is just incorrect.
Matt says:
Of course we haven’t solved the climate issue.
What’s there to solve?
The ‘climate’ we’ve been enjoying for the past century is the most benign in the entire temperature record. It really couldn’t be any better.
Temperatures have not fluctuated more than about 0.7ºC. Show us a century-long time frame in the geologic record where global temperatures were as flat as the past century.
You say:
…without a policy enforcing this patter, we would never, ever, ever get anywhere.
Where should we want to “get”? Be specific.
But of course you’re just repeating the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ narrative that you hear 24/7/365.
Matt, listen up: the whole “climate change” scare is nothing but a giant head fake. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening with the ‘climate’. The rise in CO2 has been entirely beneficial, with no downside at all. CO2 is a completely harmless trace gas, and more would be even better.
The ‘climate’ scare is a ridiculous false alarm; a hoax on the taxpaying public.
The connivers who are orchestrating the ‘carbon’ scare have only one thing in mind: making you open your wallet so they can reach in and help themselves.
A carbon tax is their goal, and it would sharply raise the cost of all goods and services. Whatever your income is, it would not be compensated for the increased taxes. Your standard of living would plummet. And like the income tax, carbon taxes would be a ratchet: they would constantly rise, with no end in sight. But a carbon tax would not lower the planet’s temperature by 0.000001ºC. Why? Because the whole thing is a scam!
Twenty years ago we were all being assured that global warming was accelerating, and that it would continue, resulting in a climate cartastrophe. Polar bears would die out, Manhattan would be submerged, the polar ice caps would melt, and global warming would skyrocket.
None of that ever happened! They were 100.0% wrong. In fact, global warming stopped almost 20 years ago, and there is no indication that it will resume. So, why would you or anyone else believe them now?
I’ll tell you why:
More than $1 billion is handed out in grants, every year. That money goes to scientists on the take; the ones who fan the flames of climate alarmism. The media does the same thing, always interviewing climate alarmists, but rarely interviewing rational scientists who tell the truth: nothing unusual is happening.
And a large part of the public sits in front of their TV sets, watching the local anchorbabe show clips of polar bears on ice floes, and calving icebergs, while telling the mouth-breathers watching her that global warming is gonna getcha. And the government-edumacated, dumbed down, scientifically illiterate head-nodders begin to repeat “global warming”, “carbon footprint”, and “climate change” in their conversations — until they actually believe the nonsense they’re being told, and parroting to others.
Wake up, Matt. They’re lying to you, for the oldest motive there is: for money. Your money. They want it, and the easiet way to get you to go along is by scaring you.
Matt, there has been no global warming for almost twenty years! They were flat wrong. All of them. If you start thinking for yourself, you will see that they could not have been more wrong. But do they ever admit it? Any of them?
No. Because it’s not about science at all. It’s about money and control. So you can either swallow their globaloney nonsense hook, line and sinker… or you can think for yourself. It’s your choice. But please, don’t say ‘we’ need to give developing nations money to reduce their CO2 emissions. There is no science-based reason why they should. If you want to send them your own money, fine. But don’t speak for the rest of us. We know a hoax when we see one.
Exxon Mobile and other large energy corporations have bribed news industries to publish false data on climate change. Don’t believe all you read. My sources on climate change all come from academia. I know what I am talking about. You seem to not understand how climate change works on a very fundamental level. First off, your figure that there has been no global warming in the last twenty years could not be more incorrect. Second, climate change alters various parts of the earth differently, in some places it becomes cooler in others warmer. You can think what you want, but if you really want to know the truth I suggest reading some academic papers. The science behind climate change is not up for debate anymore, it’s universally understood.
Reply to Matt 10:13pm, possibly below. “The science behind climate change is not up for debate anymore, it’s universally understood.”
Ah, so the science is settled, again, is it? Sensitivity, sensitivity, sensitivity. Yes, the science of radiation absorption by greenhouse gases is well understood, but what is not is the reaction of the Earth’s climate to that. Are strong positive feedbacks really at play, as are needed to give the scary numbers? Estimates of sensitivity have been coming down in recent years, which is hardly surprising because the Great Pause 2000-2014 has flattened the trends post-1940. I think that sensitivity will turn out to be in the 1 to 1.5K range, which the world will be happily able to live with.
Note that I wrote “2014” there. The current El Nino is probably ending The Pause for a bit, though curiously the satellite estimated temperatures seem slow to respond. This will probably stop the post-1940 trends from continuing to decrease year by year, but it will take a big new leap to put them into a 3K-per doubling scenario.
Rich.
Matt – re Exxon. I suggest you look very carefully at where Exxon has been spending its CC money. Exxon has an enormous amount to gain from the destruction of the coal industry. And in case you can’t work out why – the reason is that gas can then take over power generation. Cui bono.
The agreement is monumental. All of our climate problems have been instantly solved and the USA does not have to pay for it because we are a poor nation. Extreme weather will never happen again and the sea levels have stopped rising. We can now redirect funds from studying and trying to prevent climate change to paying down our debt. Now we need to redirect our energies to solving our over population problem,
There is one truth to all of this bulk, which is that the age of fossil fuels is largely drawing to a close. Modern wind farms are supplanting new coal-fired burners in the USA (I consult to large utilities on water & environment and have been watching this), and rooftop solar is coming on as strong as cell phones did in the 1980s.
When I was consulting at the Gas Technology Institute in Des Plaines, IL, we called coal the “fuel that won’t go away.” Maybe now it will, and take all the arsenic, mercury, particulates, noxious ash and other problems with it. Good riddance. The world is changing, and change is good. The newest technologies under development are exciting, and our children will have amazing new possibilities.
Not that any of this will reduce global temperatures much, that is happening on its own.
What is your power source for backup, when the skies are cloudy, and the winds are calm? If you don’t support nuclear, then we will continue to have fossil fuel plants for the entire grid capacity.
Easy answer…I support a balanced energy supply that combines solar, wind, fossil, geothermal, hydropower, and nuclear sources. Nukes are fine…I stood in the suppression pool of the Clinton, Illinois reactor (beneath the core) a couple of weeks before fueling, and no one will stand in that spot for a long time. However, it takes a lot of time to build them, and I’m still upset at a lack of a nation policy to handle waste (I supported the FAST reactor concept to handle this material). Coal is the source of much of the mercury in our environment, I’m in favor of fracking and natural gas development as a bridge to more advanced stuff. As one of my utility clients told me, “Coal’s time has come.”
“CRS, DrPH
December 12, 2015 at 10:49 pm”
Solar and wind have their place, but NOT for large scale base-load generation and are too intermittent to connect to the grid. It has it’s place in remote off-grid locations and services like street/traffic/park lighting with conventional battery backup. This is proven in Australia now. More and more people are migrating from rural areas in to cities (Conurbations)…and as cities grow so do energy demands (Clean water, sewage treatment etc etc not just light, heating and cooking). The transmission losses of wind and solar are huge…and vast areas of land are required. So if you think coal is dead, speak to the Chinese and Indians. They will just thumb their nose at you and keep right on developing their energy base with fossil fuels (Coal the original bio-fuel).
“rooftop solar is coming on as strong as cell phones did in the 1980s”
Rooftop solar is growing due to a large number of shysters coming into the field and enormous government subsidies propping them up. There is a very low satisfaction rate among people having installed solar; from energy savings that never appear, not advising solar customers that electric companies change billing from monthly to annual giving them false impression that they are saving when at the end of the year they get a whopping bill, numerous installation delays, screw-ups, unforeseen costs and headaches, leasing schemes that are usurious, difficulties in re-selling homes with solar panels under 20 year contracts, and the list goes on.
To compare solar with cell phones is not reasonable or even rational. Cell phones experienced exponential growth because of the incredible communication, computing, and digital media power that could be fit into a shirt pocket. Making it work was infrastructure growing concurrently at the same rate. Cell phones provided tremendous value and were market driven. Solar is government/ideology/politics driven and value is not only limited but injurious to a large number of consumers who took the plunge.
Look at the trends: http://www.windpowerengineering.com/featured/business-news-projects/doe-report-u-s-clean-energy-technologies-are-accelerating/
Sorry to rain on your parade, but the latest wind and PV technologies will bury coal. Good riddance.
CRS, DrPH
Justify that claim, please.
I think the link provides sufficient justification for the claim.
…. and Spain has achieved up to 31% of domestic electricity needs from wonder power alone.
Given that it looks increasingly likely we will come in below (delta) 2C on a near ‘business-as-usual’ basis; I can see why the control freaks need a new 1.5C target.
Could someone who understands these things better than I let me know what disaster will happen at 2C that will not happen at 1.5C over the same time period?
Of course para 21 shows that they don’t know either but I don’t know if that makes me feel any better. So, anyone, why 1.5C?
There is obviously nothing that will happen at 1.5 °C – or 2.0 °C. No one can determine the “moment” when the level is reached, anyway. Different teams measuring the global mean temperature routinely differ by 0.2 °C in their estimate of the temperature. This difference is equivalent to 15 years of the apparent underlying trend.
Look for webs about the 2014 Nature article by Victor and Kennel – two keywords – who ditched the 2 °C target. It is completely meaningless, nothing interesting occurs at any of these levels, and the global mean temperature is in no way correlated with the health of the planet, they argue.
The history of this 2 °C meme – which was so popular among the alarmist politicians talking about the hysteria in the recent 10 years – began in a paper by William Nordhaus, an economist, in the 1970s. So there is absolutely no “underlying science” that would make 2 °C or 1.5 °C any special. He said many random sentences about 2 °C warming and 3 °C warming and 5 °C warming etc. and the sentence about the smallest warming became popular among the activists. They obviously picked the lowest temperature difference as a “point to scare” because this gives them some power immediately. Someone said that 2 °C is dangerous, so listen to us! After some time, people forgot where the claim actually came from. It became a part of the mass culture in certain corners.
In reality, a cooling by 5 °C could be economically bad – although nowhere near a chance to eliminate life or mankind or anything like that (ice ages were lower, even rather recently). If we indeed returned to some ice age, new continental ice sheets would begin to grow and many big regions would become unfit for agriculture if not living. The ecosystems are more sensitive on the cool side because things freeze over at 0 °C and life etc. depends on liquid water. But on the opposite side, something qualitative – a phase transition – only takes place at 100 °C, the boiling point of water.
One would need dozens of degrees Celsius of warming for things to get dangerous. The warming by 10 °C would still be beneficial for most of the countries we live in, especially for the Northern ones. But even my country, Czechia, in the ultimate moderate zone, would benefit from 10 °C of warming. The average annual temperature in the whole country would go from 7 or 8 °C to 17 and 18 °C. One can see other similar places at these temperatures that are so much better off. Many things like preferred crops and food would change substantially if the temperatures went up by 10 °C but there would be no serious threat to the well-being as such.
To spread panic about 1.5 °C relatively to the preindustrial era is completely insane especially because according to some ways to quantify the warming, we have already surpassed that level while there’s clearly nothing wrong happening to the ecosystems because of a wrong global mean temperature. This is the most prosperous world that has been around for quite some time – also a world that is very hospitable to plant and animal life. The extra CO2 helps. It reduces the sensitivity of plants on water and allows their growth to be some 20% higher than before. A billion of people in the world is being fed thanks to the concentration of CO2 that went up by 40 percent since the preindustrial era.
The 1.5 °C or 2 °C level cannot be determined with the required accuracy. Even if they chose a methodology to determine the global mean temperature this amazingly accurately, the methodology would still produce fluctuating values of the temperature due to the natural variations. Big enough El Niños or La Niñas routinely change the global mean temperature by more than 0.5 °C just in one year. And even if one neglected that it’s impossible to determine the temperature this accurately and if one also ignored the unavoidable natural variations, the task to “set” the value would still lead to no particular prescriptions about the fossil fuels because the strength of CO2 in driving temperature is not known accurately at all. According to the IPCC, the warming per doubling of CO2 is between 1.5 °C and 4.5 °C, and this interval only has 80% probability to be right – the odds are 20% that the right figure is outside this broad interval. Skeptics obviously believe that the true figure is even below the lower bound of the interval.
But even if one picks the IPCC data, the 2 °C limit can’t tell us anything accurate enough what to do with emissions. If the upper sensitivity is right, we might need to reduce emissions to 1/3, but if the lower one is right, it is OK to keep the emissions the same because the effect of each CO2 molecule is lower by a factor of 3. There is obviously no accurate link between the temperature and CO2 even if we neglect all the other natural oscillations because people don’t know how strong the greenhouse effect actually is.
Now that COP21 is over, I wonder if the Karl, et al “Pause Buster” paper will be reconsidered and the resultant temperature record adjustments re adjusted?
Why would they? They consider them to be accurate.