In one graph, why the #ParisAgreement is useless

Activists think the world will be uninhabitable for our children if the U.S. pulls out of the Paris Climate Accord. For example, via Vox

Quitting the Paris climate agreement would be a moral disgrace

President Trump is selling out our kids to give false hope to coal workers.

There is no employment upside to an “America First” retreat from global leadership on one of the few issues that can accurately be described as a potentially existential threat to humankind.

There is only the profound immorality of abdication — of gleefully passing a mounting problem on to our children, and on to the poor.

And one of it’s writers, David Roberts:

https://twitter.com/drvox/status/869997185018077184

Oh, the humanity!

But, the data (er, model) says, essentially “no difference”

Source: Bjorn Lomborg -Impact of Current Climate Proposals DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.12295

Ouch.

Worse, even if we DID stay in it, (and all the other countries too) that .05°C savings is likely to get lost in the noise, since global temperature measurements are rounded. For example, in the USA, NOAA rounds the high and low temperature to the nearest whole degree Fahrenheit (0.55°C, a value over ten times greater than the .05°C savings Paris offers):

From NOAA’s REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS FOR NWS CLIMATE OBSERVATIONS:

The observer will round the entered data to whole units Fahrenheit by rounding up all positively signed values between T.5ºF and T.9ºF inclusive, (i.e., + 66.5ºF to 67ºF), and rounding down positively signed values between T.1ºF and T.4ºF, inclusive. For sub-zero temperatures, special attention is given to –T.5ºF values, to round it down. This method is known as ‘round half up asymmetric.’ For all negatively signed values between -T.5ºF and –T.1ºF, inclusive you round down (i.e., -3.5ºF to -3ºF) to nearest integer. For negatively signed values between –T.6ºF and –T.9ºF, inclusive, the data is rounded up (i.e., -10.6ºF to -11ºF) to higher absolute value.

Source: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/sym/pd01013002curr.pdf

For Global temperature, GHCN data for example, NOAA rounds to the nearest tenth of a degree C, (0.1°C) TWICE the value of .05°C savings Paris offers.

Even the best case scenario out of the Paris Climate Accord will get lost in the data rounding.

Note: some minor edits to the title and formatting were made within 5 minutes of publication

Update 6/1/17 8:30AM: Steve Mosher informs me (via one of his usual drive by jerk comments that doesn’t deserve the light of day – he needs to learn netiquette on how to behave) that at Lucia’s site, there’s an essay on rounding and false precision.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/rounding-of-individual-measurements-in-an-average/

He suggests that the 0.05°C decrease in temperature would be detectable, and not lost in the noise. I’m doubtful of his claim, but it’s worth exploring – Anthony

0 0 votes
Article Rating
180 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
May 31, 2017 2:52 pm

But Paris is virtue signalling, all the way down.

Greg Woods
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 31, 2017 4:13 pm

Me thinks that the Lady’s virtue is in doubt…

Reply to  Greg Woods
May 31, 2017 6:21 pm

Just to clarify, this is not about Paris Hilton.

Reply to  Greg Woods
May 31, 2017 6:38 pm

@Michael – there are many similarities, though, at least to my eye.
First picture I ever saw of Ms. Hilton, I thought “There’s one you take home from the bar, and wake up in the morning with your wallet and good silver gone, and the bank calling to tell you you’ve crashed through your credit limit.”
Very similar to the Paris Agreement…

usexpat
Reply to  Greg Woods
June 1, 2017 6:20 am

Observer,
You’ve got it backwards.
Your credit limit would be maxed out by the time you got her back to your place. The good news is penicillin is relatively cheap.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 31, 2017 5:35 pm

Well, no, real money is changing hands. Our stupid government (Canada) has already handed over billions to the Swiss bank accounts of rich people in poor countries.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
May 31, 2017 5:40 pm

Did I say that virtue signalling was free? Only that it was useless for its purported purpose.

cwon14
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 31, 2017 6:30 pm

There are many divides among skeptics but the clearest one is the refusal to accept the basic mendacity of the climate change agenda culture driven by politics not science.
The article makes a good and valid point on the one hand but on the other at this very critical Paris exit moment these are the weeds to lay in? Skeptics so often surrender the scale and stakes of the moment. Paris is a blueprint for carbon regulation based prison planet nothing less. The entire “non-enforceable” limerick regarding the agreement is a total lie. Yet by inference and trivial distraction the lie becomes truth. So the most basic stakes about the totalitarian nature of the Paris agreement are glossed over, romanticized in leftist circles as I listened today while driving hearing an NPR segment railing a hundred false facts in a few minutes. Paris is important because of the top down totalitarian nature of it for the advocates that are never self described for obvious optic reasons while the dissent babbles on about temperature stats. Can you see the problem with that? Without ever saying it Paris is a yoke on the US or any nations sovereignty and the idiotic resistance wants to talk about almost anything but
the most glaring evils involved.
It’s not the good intentions of the articles specific point itself but it’s illustrative of the
systemic obtuseness of AGW authoritarianism’s hapless, mis-scaled talking points chosen as dissent at the most clutch moments imaginable.

Reply to  Tom Halla
May 31, 2017 7:12 pm

It’s only virtue signaling as the graph above only shows the effects of the Treaty if CO2 has the effects they claim. It is more likely that CO2’s effects are negligible and undetectable in the first place and all three lines will be on top of each other.

Reply to  higley7
May 31, 2017 7:24 pm

why is that “more likely?”

David A
Reply to  higley7
June 1, 2017 2:55 am

It is more likely because the observations lead to ever lower climate senstivity.

gvo1000
Reply to  higley7
June 1, 2017 11:37 pm

[… all three lines will be on top of each other …] AND the values, i.e. temperature rise, will be substantially lower than the graph currently predicts. That presumes that the temperature measurements do not become even more fraudulent than they are already today via retirement of rural and remote surface stations, not correcting for heat island effects, ocean temperature measurement changes, and ignoring satellite sounding data.

Reply to  higley7
June 6, 2017 10:23 am

The “lines” will be where the government bureaucrat scientists want them to be — and if they want to show warming, then they will show warming, even if only a few hundredths of a degree each year — they’ve already been doing that — the books have been “cooked” (a good phrase for the coming global warming catastrophe hoax)

BallBounces
May 31, 2017 2:57 pm

Progressives are ready to commit hari-kari, or, at the very least, move to Canada. OK. At the very, very least, take edgy, transgressive selfies of themselves holding a beheaded earth dripping with CO2.

Donald Kasper
Reply to  BallBounces
May 31, 2017 4:19 pm

No, LIberalism is all about telling others what to do, never what they are obligated to do.

Reply to  Donald Kasper
May 31, 2017 4:22 pm

[snip -wildly off topic -mod]

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Donald Kasper
May 31, 2017 7:26 pm

Saving the world is a responsibility above all else, but with that responsibility there is hereby granted immunity from personal compliance, (i.e. Gore, DeCaprio, etc.) for the purpose of disseminating the propeganda.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Donald Kasper
May 31, 2017 7:31 pm

propeganda progressive propaganda

Joel Snider
Reply to  BallBounces
May 31, 2017 4:22 pm

Saw that Kathy Griffin shot?

tetris
Reply to  BallBounces
May 31, 2017 5:40 pm

Hold on. We’ve got enough “progressive” lunatics this side of the border already.. Hara-kiri is fine but they can do that your side of the border too.

Mick In The Hills
May 31, 2017 3:01 pm

The folly reduced to one graphic.
Bet this doesn’t get the same media exposure as the Hokey Stick though.

Reply to  Mick In The Hills
June 1, 2017 9:52 am

The folly reduced to one graphic.
Bet this doesn’t get the same media exposure as the Hokey Stick though.

Ah, but this one graphic IS a “Hokey Stick” — it’s just not your daddy’s “Hokey Stick”.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t this graphic use the very models upon which it is based to show that these same models show that Paris is useless? … and that’s the beauty of it? — the models cut their own throats?

DonM
May 31, 2017 3:12 pm

Only a 0.05 degrees Celsius projected reduction!
Just shows that we should be doing more. Allocating 5 Trillion/year is not enuf. Mebbe 20 Trillion a year allow my kids to inherit a livable world.

Donald Kasper
Reply to  DonM
May 31, 2017 4:20 pm

Stop screwing around and advocate spending a quadrillion. Climatism clearly need all the money of the countries of the earth. All of it.

Reply to  Donald Kasper
May 31, 2017 4:28 pm

Donald, if you think Paris
does too little, then what is your proposal
that does enough ?

Reply to  Donald Kasper
May 31, 2017 6:04 pm

Well, if they “burn” all the money of all the countries on Earth, wouldn’t that produce a dangerous volume of additional CO2? That is, increasing it’s total volume to at least 0.0% (rounded) of the Earth’s atmosphere!!!

Jeffrey Mitchell
Reply to  Donald Kasper
June 2, 2017 7:28 am

Most of the money is digital and therefore not flammable. I also think he missed using the /sarc tag.

M Courtney
May 31, 2017 3:17 pm

No-one says the Paris Agreement is significant with respect to the climate.
This is about the money.
It is significant with respect to the money.

Auto
Reply to  M Courtney
May 31, 2017 3:30 pm

The title of this thread is:
“In one graph, why the #ParisAgreement is useless”
As far as climate goes – absolutely!
The graph referred to proves that conclusively [even if it references a higher sensitivity to CO2 than some think likely].
But –
M “Courtney May 31, 2017 at 3:17 pm
No-one says the Paris Agreement is significant with respect to the climate.
This is about the money.
It is significant with respect to the money.”
Spot on. Exactamente.
It is about the money – and the power that confers on those who have the money.
And the UN – and a lot of governments (elites? Some think so. Oxbridge/Ivy League/Enarques, etc.) may be – seem to think they should have the money.
And we [the ordinary folk] should not.
Auto, noting I will very possibly not be any one of the 500 million folk ‘permitted to serve the global elite’ if they win.

David A
Reply to  Auto
June 1, 2017 3:00 am

Yet exposing the lie of the CAGW alarmists cryi,g soon is necessary.
I hope this is shared as much as possible.

cwon14
Reply to  M Courtney
May 31, 2017 6:42 pm

It’s about power and central planning authority. Paris is built to add enforcement as the world is conditioned to accept it.
Money buys key cooperation but the designers are driven to rule. If Soros and Steyner wanted more money they wouldn’t be buying fleeting political supports, they have an ideological hunger as do many inside leftists circles.

Reply to  cwon14
May 31, 2017 7:57 pm

cwon: were you coerced when the US
implemented a cap-and-trade
program to reduce SO2 and NOXs?
did you even notice?
in what way did these programs
reduce your freedom
and liberty?

cwon14
Reply to  cwon14
May 31, 2017 9:07 pm

In an incremental way yes, UN statists always point to minor or smaller scale models of authority grasping to rationalize the next larger incursion. The fake ozone hole “fix” a perfect example.
Paris is being sold as near climate placebo “not enforceable” while the massive legalistic expansion model is buried inside. Not unlike the entire UN Climate Framework or the ACA mechanisms. Socialism as government cancer.

Reply to  cwon14
June 1, 2017 4:21 am

We now have a current example of virtue signaling gone awry:
http://reason.com/archives/2017/05/31/noam-chomskys-venezuela-lesson

MarkW
Reply to  cwon14
June 1, 2017 7:03 am

We were coerced into paying for those programs. Every product who’s production involved SO2 or NOx became more expensive.

Auto
May 31, 2017 3:19 pm

Didn’t spill my wine – quite.
Much amused!
It does seem a little unusual for a world view.
And the graphic seems built on a model [a model? Boo! Hiss!] (emotions surfacing) with a sensitivity that is far above the 0.5-1.5C/doubling currently thought ‘likely’.
And my guess is towards the lower end, very probably under 1C/doubling.
And – of course, to the nearest tenth of one percent, the CO2 in our atmosphere is currently 0.0%.
Zilch [to the nearest tenth of one percent].
Nada.
Zippo.
Sweet Fanny Adams.
Auto

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Auto
May 31, 2017 3:46 pm

Lomborg was using the warmunists own assumptions do perform a bit of jujitsu. They can’t complain he didn’t give them a fair shake.

BoyfromTottenham
Reply to  Auto
May 31, 2017 5:28 pm

Yep, use their models against them!

PiperPaul
May 31, 2017 3:22 pm

They emote, attack, shout, accuse, posture, pose, blame…
Not much thinking going on there.

May 31, 2017 3:30 pm

Here’s “my” graph to show Trump: It’s the global average annual GISS temp rise in Fahrenheit from 1880 to 2016. …And even though GISS has probably fudged some of the data. Does it show a Hockey Stick??:comment image

JohnWho
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
May 31, 2017 3:39 pm

Lomborg’s graph above shows a projected almost 4 degrees Celsius increase from 2000 – 2100.
Guess the warming is simply unstoppable no matter what anyone does.

ironicman
Reply to  JohnWho
May 31, 2017 9:40 pm

Lomborg is a lukewarmer, so this comes as no surprise.

Reply to  JohnWho
June 1, 2017 10:09 am

Lomborg’s graph above shows a projected almost 4 degrees Celsius increase from 2000 – 2100.
Guess the warming is simply unstoppable no matter what anyone does.

Again, the beauty of it is that the models THEMSELVES seem to show this inevitability, when applied to the economics of it all.
You don’t have to accept the temperature projections of the models, in order to appreciate that the models THEMSELVES tell us that Paris will do NOTHING, even if the models were accepted as correct.
Models show warming.
According to models, Paris will do NOTHING.
As someone else already suggested, think of it as martial arts, in this case, Aikido — where the opponent takes a fall but the opponent’s models are not injured.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
May 31, 2017 3:41 pm

The graphic above (in the article) shows a 4.5 degree C rise in temp by 2100…?? Not a good thing to show, as it’s probably not going to happen. This one is probably more accurate for predicting the next 100 years, as to the rate of rise in temp…it might get cooler or slightly higher than 60 F…

TA
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
May 31, 2017 5:31 pm

“The graphic above (in the article) shows a 4.5 degree C rise in temp by 2100…?? Not a good thing to show, as it’s probably not going to happen”
That’s the worst-case scenario model. Other models show a less warming.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
May 31, 2017 7:05 pm

Even under those extremely generous estimates, Paris is completely useless. If they used a rational sensitivity to Carbon Dioxide concentration, it would halve or quarter the effect. The basic idea of the argument is “even if you are right, you are still wrong”.
That being said, I do understand your point.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
May 31, 2017 3:50 pm

J Philip: this is a
dishonest graph, and
you know why.

Reply to  crackers345
May 31, 2017 4:13 pm

Why? Tell that to GISS also…that’s where I got the graph…

Reply to  crackers345
May 31, 2017 4:19 pm

This graph has been published many times in WUWT, and I never saw someone state that it is dishonest.
Are you talking about the Y axis which has not been exaggerated as in all the CAGW graphs?

Reply to  crackers345
May 31, 2017 4:23 pm

J Philip: your graph is dishonest
because the y-axis
should obviously go up to 10,000 deg F.

Reply to  crackers345
May 31, 2017 4:46 pm

The graph goes from -40 F to +120 F. I have experienced 120 F in Blythe, CA, 1955, but never the -40 F like in Oakland, MD January 13, 1912… The range is completely within the continental USA temperature range. I don’t think the USA has had any temperatures up to 10,000 deg F, except maybe in steel mills, or aluminum smelting plants…
Regards, JPP

Reply to  crackers345
May 31, 2017 4:52 pm

J Philip – this is not the
range of the global
average temperature, is
it?

Reply to  crackers345
May 31, 2017 4:53 pm

J Philip: would you show the
ice ages of the Pleistocene on
your graph, please.

Reply to  crackers345
May 31, 2017 5:06 pm

The graphic only goes back to 1880 which is after the Pleistocene, I would think. What graph for temperature would you prefer? You might also want to check the Extreme Weather Page if you are concerned about that (that extreme weather has increased recently – Not.):
https://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/
Regards,
Phil

John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
May 31, 2017 5:47 pm

Frightening! It’s worse than I thought.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
May 31, 2017 6:12 pm

Yes, absolutely! Anyone can see the blade running from 1880 to about 1898 and the 2015-2016 shows the extra tape on the shaft’s end. That’s perfectly obvious!
BTW, the stick is resting on it’s side and the blade does not display much of a curvature…

Latitude
May 31, 2017 3:35 pm

Worse, even if we DID stay in it, (and all the other countries too) that .05°C savings is likely to get….
….adjusted out

Reply to  Latitude
May 31, 2017 3:51 pm

adjustments correct for
biases, so that the real changes
in temperature can be sussed
out.

firetoice2014
Reply to  crackers345
May 31, 2017 4:08 pm

“Adjustments” might be intended to correct for biases, but we don’t know if they do; and, we don’t know that they don’t introduce their own biases.

Reply to  crackers345
May 31, 2017 4:24 pm

fire: in what way do you think the adjustments
don’t correct for biases?
do you remember why Muller’s BEST project was formed?
do you remember what they
found?

JohnWho
Reply to  crackers345
May 31, 2017 4:44 pm

crackers345 –
I believe the BEST folks found that the biases in the data matched their biases.

MarkW
Reply to  crackers345
June 1, 2017 7:06 am

crackers, that’s the claim. Unfortunately real science shows that the adjustments are bogus.

MarkW
Reply to  crackers345
June 1, 2017 7:07 am

crackers, I also remember the BEST work being shredded by those who actually studied the records.
Anyone who would take known bad data over good data, just because the series was longer isn’t a scientist.

Reply to  crackers345
June 4, 2017 11:46 pm

firetoice2014: perhaps you don’t understand
the methodology these various groups
are using to correct for biases.
but many of us do understand them. so
it’s your problem to catch up and/or offer
some meaningful thoughts and criticism,
which you haven’t
yet.

Reply to  crackers345
June 4, 2017 11:47 pm

MarkW: please cite the science that
“shows that the adjustments are bogus.”
i bet you
can’t.

Reply to  crackers345
June 4, 2017 11:48 pm

MarkW: who “shredded” the BEST work?
provide citations please. (to the
literature, not blog posts.)

emsnews
May 31, 2017 3:39 pm

The Paris climate talks can’t hold a candle to the ‘Meet Russian Women’ ad! Oh, the Russians are bad, we are supposed to hate them all now…
The entire structure of the climate deals are collapsing under their own weight. And the EU is in no danger of roasting to death but in grave danger from a major invasion of hostile foreign people. They better wake up to the real dangers soon.

PiperPaul
Reply to  emsnews
May 31, 2017 3:46 pm

But did those Russian women raise your… temperature by more than 0.05 degrees C?

Pop Piasa
Reply to  PiperPaul
May 31, 2017 7:43 pm

I had a friend who browsed the Russian brides for sale, but then realized “Why should I purchase when I could have Elise?”

Gary Pearse
Reply to  emsnews
May 31, 2017 6:42 pm

emsnews :And the foreign people don’t care about climate change. Who says they don’t make a contribution to their new society!

Gary Pearse
May 31, 2017 3:43 pm

We only have enough fossil fuels to reach about 500ppm CO2 (we would run out before that even because the stuff will be to expensive in competition with needs for petrochemicals and nitrate fertilizers).

Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 31, 2017 3:51 pm

We have plenty of fossil fuels. Hitting 500 ppm will be easy without straining supply.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  David Middleton
May 31, 2017 7:07 pm

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/27/double-the-atmospheric-co2-fuggeddaboutit/
David critique this for us and then I can argue my point. I should have linked it before but my cell can be ornery. Willis used figures out fossil fuel carbon at 600gt to 1500gt and then he jacked it up to 1000 to 2000gt. Still no doubling using Bern model and simple exponential model.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 31, 2017 8:02 pm

Key point: Fossil fuel “reserves” are only a small fraction of the available fossil fuel resources.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 31, 2017 3:53 pm

no where close to being true –
read Swart and Weaver,
Nature Climate Change
Feb 2012

David A
Reply to  crackers345
June 1, 2017 3:09 am

Yes, and all the while any warming is reduced and less effective with each additional CO2 concentration, while the OBSERVABLE benefits increase continuously!

David A
Reply to  crackers345
June 1, 2017 3:10 am

…and crackers, do you have agree with the main post?

Stirling
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 3, 2017 9:02 am

Gary… not to ‘select’ your comment specifically, as there are always several here using the term ‘fossil fuels’… but it is my understanding that a considerable number in that field have determined that the correct term should now be “abiotic” fuels… as the earth appears to be CONTINUALLY producing this stuff. If so, why are persons highly educated in the sciences, still using an obsolete term? Have I been reading incorrect science?

May 31, 2017 3:45 pm

I see the usual rabble of pig ignorant seditious Democrat mayors are vowing to uphold Paris anyway. These guys are properly berserk and seemingly hell bent on cramming their cities full of criminal illegal aliens and turning off the lights so you can’t see what they’re doing.

Reply to  cephus0
May 31, 2017 3:54 pm

now it’s “seditious” to try to keep
the climate from changing?
how so?

Reply to  crackers345
May 31, 2017 4:14 pm

Off you trot and “try to keep the climate from changing”. Report back here when you have a repeatable result. After that perhaps you’d like to move onto trying to halt the tides by punting the moon out of its orbit.

Reply to  crackers345
May 31, 2017 4:26 pm

do you have any science to back
up your ranting? i didn’t
see any.

TA
Reply to  crackers345
May 31, 2017 5:40 pm

“now it’s “seditious” to try to keep the climate from changing?”
No, just silly.

MarkW
Reply to  crackers345
June 1, 2017 7:28 am

It really does fascinate me how liberals are so willing to ignore the law when the law doesn’t support their goals.
While at the same time wanting other people jailed for disagreeing with them. Even when the other people are actually following the law.

firetoice2014
Reply to  cephus0
May 31, 2017 4:11 pm

A US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement would not in any way prevent or inhibit individuals, communities, states, regions or corporations from taking any actions they believe are in their interests to reduce CO2 emissions, as long as those actions are acceptable under current law.

May 31, 2017 3:46 pm

I see the usual rabble of pig ignorant seditious Democrat mayors are vowing to uphold Paris anyway. These guys are properly berserk and seemingly hell bent on cramming their cities full of criminal illegal aliens and turning off the lights so you can’t see what they’re doing.

Reply to  cephus0
May 31, 2017 3:48 pm

Delete duplicate pls mod.

Matt G
May 31, 2017 3:53 pm

So where in climate science suggest CO2 levels are going to double 4 times up to 2100?
The general accepted 1c rise in global temperatures relates to a doubling of CO2. There is no detectable positive feedback from doubling CO2 and more likely scientific evidence shows it to be negative.
People’s future generation kids are going to think what idiots those were, that believed the alarmists back in the old days, not whether the world was liveable. (Really? Nobody is going to notice the difference between 31c to 32 c, 17c to 18c or -3c to -2c)
These people don’t care about science only self interested greed because most scientists know the Paris Climate agreement will do nothing noticeable.
“Activists think the world will be uninhabitable for our children if the U.S. pulls out of the Paris Climate Accord”
Just shows how many have been brain washed by propaganda pseudoscience alarmist rubbish.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Matt G
May 31, 2017 6:40 pm

Present temperatures are virtually identical to the early 1970’s so far as I can tell so I say that the increase in CO2 has zero effect in the last 40 years. If the planet is warming, it is no worse than on a straight incline from the little ice age up to about 2000.

MarkW
Reply to  John Harmsworth
June 1, 2017 7:46 am

It would be more accurate to say that any signal from CO2 is far enough below climate variability and measuring limits as to be undetectable.

Matt G
Reply to  John Harmsworth
June 1, 2017 3:14 pm

There is of course a big difference between theorized and observation. So far the AMO and especially changes in the AMOC explain the difference over the last 40 years. Any sign from unnatural events are undetectable from CO2 using reliable controlled observations.

Steve Borodin
May 31, 2017 4:02 pm

Considering the lost opportunity cost of the Paris agreement and the zero benefit, it would be depraved to implement. A crime against humanity.

Chimp
May 31, 2017 4:29 pm

Do the climastrologists seriously expect any sane person to believe that by AD 2100 GASTA will be 4-5 degrees C higher than in AD 1850, when it was 13 or 14 degrees C?
The mean temperature of the Hothouse Cretaceous Period was around 18 degrees C. At that time crocodile relatives basked at the North Pole. Sea level was so high that much of North America was flooded by inland seas stretching from the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic Ocean.
We are supposed to credit coming out of our current ice age and enter such a world in about eighty years? Yeah, right!

May 31, 2017 4:32 pm

[snip – try getting your point across without being a jerk about it -mod]

Bruce Cobb
May 31, 2017 4:41 pm

Paris was just a beginning. The demands would have become more and more onerous. I don’t know where they thought the money was going to come from though, once western civilizations economies had imploded.

MarkW
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 1, 2017 7:48 am

Leftists believe that taxes have no impact on the economy. I’ve even debated some who claimed that high taxes were good for the economy since people would work harder to make up for the extra money government was taking from their pay checks.

JMA
May 31, 2017 4:42 pm

What assumptions go into the Lomborg plot? I thought the Paris Agreement was about taking whatever measures are required to keep the global T rise less than 2C. Only article I’ve seen about what those measures would entail is one In Science. These include:
• Reduce net emissions from land use — i.e., from agriculture and deforestation — to zero by 2050, meanwhile feeding a growing world population.
• Phase out sales of combustion engine vehicles by 2030.
• Carbon-neutral air travel within two decades.
• Cities going entirely fossil fuel–free in the next 13 years.
• Develop technologies to remove 5 gigatons of CO2 per year out of the atmosphere by 2050 — nearly double what all the world’s trees and soils already do (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6331/1269)
Is any country going to be able to adhere to these policies? Not even close unless they finally start getting serious about MSR nuclear.

benofhouston
Reply to  JMA
June 1, 2017 8:52 am

The assumptions are the actual emission reduction agreements of the treaty. If I see it right, he used a CO2 sensitivity of 4.5C/doubling of CO2. The Paris treaty sets emission limits for each of the signatories and arranges for monetary payments. None of what you listed is actually in the agreement. In fact, most of your bullet points would be fanciful in century-level time scales and are laughably absurd on the short time frames you listed. I don’t think the last one is physically possible.
The Paris Agreement was widely ridiculued by many alarmists, most notably Michael Mann himself, because it was ridiculously ineffective. Most notably, China and India are allowed to have significant increases in CO2 emissions through 2030. That’s the problem. People don’t realize what exactly this does and how massive an investment is necessary to produce a result that’s not even a rounding error.

Chris Hanley
May 31, 2017 4:45 pm

No respected body is prepared to give ‘renewables’ (which includes hydro) anything more than 16% of the primary energy market in the foreseeable future:comment image
The Paris projections a sheer fantasy:
http://www.pleanetwork.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Global-GHG-Scoreboard.jpg
More here: http://euanmearns.com/the-gulf-between-the-paris-climate-agreement-and-energy-projections/

R. Shearer
Reply to  Chris Hanley
May 31, 2017 6:46 pm

Funny, because natural cooling should really kick in around 2025.

ironicman
Reply to  R. Shearer
May 31, 2017 9:44 pm

Natural cooling has already kicked in and we are on a slippery slope to a Gleissberg.

May 31, 2017 4:54 pm

Are you really suggesting that temperatures will rise by 4.5C from pre-industrial norms by the end of the century? That seems very high to me.

May 31, 2017 4:59 pm

Hey, that 0.05C is just the same as the impact of a weak sunspot cycle…

Alan Robertson
Reply to  lsvalgaard
May 31, 2017 5:29 pm

In other words, nothing that Sam, or Bill or Alice would notice on their way home from work.

David A
Reply to  lsvalgaard
June 1, 2017 3:17 am

… then at the worst it is all very Shakespearian; ” much ado about nothing” except crops will grow far faster
, larger, with no additional water or land, and become more drought tolerant.

MarkW
Reply to  lsvalgaard
June 1, 2017 7:49 am

Assuming TSI is the only method by which the sun influences the earth’s climate.

Matt G
Reply to  lsvalgaard
June 1, 2017 6:33 pm

We have disagreed with this before.
The 0.05 c quoted from the impact of a weak sunspot cycle only takes into the account the minimum for only months.
1) Does the planet reach equilibrium with only changes occurring months?
2) What would happen if the same minimum occurred for years or decades?
My answer for 1) is no it doesn’t reach equilibrium.
My answer for 2) is that it is very likely to have a bigger influence than 0.05 c when from a much longer period of time until the planet reaches equilibrium with the solar change that occurred.
This likely happened during the LIA when the sun was consistently at minimum levels for years/decades instead of just months.

ROM
May 31, 2017 5:04 pm

I am fed up to the back teeth with the so called “Activists” of every stripe, colour, race, religion, political, gender and climate change persuasion.
“Activist”;
A “zealot” who is attempting to force their own personal ideology and beliefs onto the rest of society by any means available which includes bullying, violence, discrimination allied with a dose of sheer hate against anybody who dares to question their ideology and beliefs.
Zealot;
A person who is fanatical and uncompromising in their pursuit of their religious, political or other ideals.
By that definition ISIS is an example of a horrifying extremist end product of such “activism”.
An extremist end towards which some [ climate change ? ] activists and their activism are trending towards today in the pursuit of an unbridled power to force their own personal and group ideology and beliefs onto the public, the society and the political and bureaucratic systems at every level.

cwon14
Reply to  ROM
May 31, 2017 5:47 pm

You should redirect some of your anger at the nerd wuss skeptical community that surrenders a dozen debatable activist points in the public forum routinely. The Greenshirts have so intimidated this spineless skeptic dissent and demonstrate their PC dominance daily.
These boards are filled with the problem. The entire gutless and deceitful “mostly a science dispute” is blindly moronic to plain sight evidence of leftist UN agenda setting for decades. If you can’t acknowledge the real climate change agenda you can’t fix the real problem.
When the lack of a full and real Paris exit (total UN Framework exit) dawns on them next week another great opportunity will have been lost due as much to mush skeptic as the Marxist Greenshirt fanatic babbling about saving the planet while their real agenda is ruling the proletariat.
Infirm of purpose skeptics deserve as much blame as orthodox leftist using simpleminded green boilerplate most middle schoolers have figured out.

cwon14
May 31, 2017 5:25 pm

We should be beyond all data babble, of course CO2 claims are garbage. The moment is about politics and we should be of one voice for a full UN Climate Framework exit instead if what the RINO wimps in the Senate signed on for which is essentially the fake exit. Years more of pointless of banter with basic lies of “climate change” central to how the debate is conducted.
Conventional nerd skeptics and the art of political losing.

Logoswrench
May 31, 2017 5:28 pm

It’s uselessness is precisely why we need to stay with it. As long as I can feel good about me that’s all that matters. It’s not about doing good it’s about feeling good.

TRM
May 31, 2017 5:51 pm

Wonderful graph to make the point crystal clear. A picture is worth a thousand words as they say. I’m planning on posting that one everywhere.

May 31, 2017 5:58 pm

Notice in the fine^4 print this graph is based on IPCC AR5 RCP 8.5 W/m^2, the worst^4 case MODEL scenario which requires over 2.5 times the current CO2 concentration. How about plotting the observed CO2 trend next to the model temps.

willhaas
May 31, 2017 6:00 pm

Based upon the paleoclimate record and the work that has been done with models one can only conclude that the climate change we are experiencing today, as it has been in the past, is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scietific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. In their first report, the IPCC published a wide range of their guestimates as to what the climate sensivity of CO2 really is. In their last report the IPCC publiahed the exact same range of values. So after more than two decades of effort, the IPCC has found nothing that would allow them to reduce the range of their guesses one iota which is consistant with the idea that the climate sensivity os CO2 is really zero. IF CO2 really did affect climate one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened. With the climate sensivity of CO2 being zero, the Paris Climate Agreement cannot have any effect on climate. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is nnot one of them.

May 31, 2017 6:33 pm

I posted this from an earlier article:
Has Trump made a final decision/announcement yet???
He should read Anthony’s “Dear Mr. President: @POTUS Please Exit the Paris Climate Agreement” open letter (as his speech) to the nation to announce his decision…
Let’s hope…I don’t think AW would call for plagiarism…

Snarling Dolphin
May 31, 2017 6:47 pm

The righteous decision is to withdraw if for no other reason than to virtue signal that the procedure used to enter into the agreement in the first place was profoundly unAmerican.

ngard2016
May 31, 2017 6:48 pm

Why won’t anyone show this Obama govt EIA graph? Obama and Holdren apparently can’t read or comprehend simple data and graphs.
How many times do we have to provide the evidence about the planet’s human co2 emissions to the extremists? I know they happily live in a fantasy world , so here is the evidence again just for them. Their silly nonsensical garbage doesn’t make any practical sense. And the EIA also tells us co2 emissions will increase by another 34% by 2040. What is it that they find so hard to understand about this data? Please note where 90%+ of co2 emissions will be sourced from up to 2040. And it’s not from the wealthy OECD countries and China and India TODAY emit over 36% of co2 emissions. When will the extremists wake up?
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/emissions.pdf

TA
May 31, 2017 6:51 pm

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
I will be announcing my decision on Paris Accord, Thursday at 3:00 P.M. The White House Rose Garden. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
Retweets
5,199
Likes
18,881
Bernice Gonzalez
Jess Yisca Goldfeld
Espionage1006
Mike Davis
Heart of Dixie
Denise Bogoeff
Don’tStopTheMusicInc
Clarita Saud
Sara Con I Am
6:05 PM – 31 May 2017
end tweet

Chimp
Reply to  TA
May 31, 2017 6:59 pm

Thanks!
LOL over the names of the retweeters.
If nothing else, the Trump Administration is social media fun.
Like the true P. T. Barnum of the 21st century that he is, he’s milking this for all its worth, even when the conclusion is foregone.
Dude is a PR genius. Or maybe his SiL Kushner.
I wonder if DJT even actually tweets his own tweets. He might have a ghost tweeter who was drunk late at night, producing the infamous “covfefe” tweet.

TA
Reply to  Chimp
May 31, 2017 8:28 pm

He does seem to be milking it. 🙂

Oh, yes, it matters!
May 31, 2017 6:52 pm

Claiming America’s withdrawal from international climate policies to be negligible,
means missing the point by light years!
Paris was a beginning – a very slow beginning, showing that governments finally woke up to the most urgent issue of all, it seems. Trump leading USA to abandon not just the Paris deal, but all serious environmental conservation efforts (EPA policies, and even funding for local and international planned parenthood, which will aggravate population pressures on societies and resources) is an absolute desaster.
It will detract credibility from scientists again, who only just managed to get climate issues on the political agenda.
The US are still a vastly influential player – instead of returning to pre-enlightened fuels, USA ought to be a world leader in environmental policies!

Butch
Reply to  Oh, yes, it matters!
May 31, 2017 7:46 pm

“enlightened fuels” ?? Are you talking about Magical Unicorn Farts ?

ngard2016
Reply to  Oh, yes, it matters!
May 31, 2017 7:54 pm

OYIM please tell us how your mitigation fantasy would work and what difference it would make. See my IEA reference at 6.48 pm and try to understand the graph.

J Mac
Reply to  Oh, yes, it matters!
June 1, 2017 9:43 am

“pre-enlightened fuels”????
The Farce is strong in this one!

May 31, 2017 7:09 pm

Rose Garden announcement tomorrow – Thurs…by Trump. I hope he reads the open letter by Anthony…

Gary Pearse
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
May 31, 2017 7:31 pm

Crackers your stuff is neomarxbrothers talking points and bundled ‘official’ links – no science whatsoever. You’ve been shown science here to no avail. But as a social science graduate, you are at least as good as the scientists who prostitute this CAGW drek.
Indeed having no real evidence of impending doom, they prepared the talking points you both use.! Anyway, Trump is about to do the first significant experiment ever done in climate science. The results will lay CAGW to rest, the worst ever abuse of science in history. Trump’s experiment will rank with Einstein’s work as a contribution to the betterment of the world.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 31, 2017 7:53 pm

gary, you do know, right,
that you cannot do an experiment on Earth’s
climate, because there is no second, “control
Earth” to compare it to.
this
situation is common to observational sciences,
such as climate science, medicine,
geology, and others.
so nothing
trump does will be an
experiment, except in the sense that global
warming has been so far.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 31, 2017 8:16 pm

I disagree. If the climate klatch dissolves, as it will have to if the US (hitherto the prime promoter and bankroller) pulls out and we don’t get but <0.5C by 2050, that is an experiment that demonstrates the climate sensitivity of CO2 is less than the theory ''s minimum expectarion

May 31, 2017 8:05 pm

An ambitious design competition that seeks to make the Bay Area a model for how to prepare for sea-level rise kicks off this week.
The competition, dubbed “Resilient by Design,” will select 10 interdisciplinary teams to tackle 10 sites around the bay, with at least one in each county. Each team will focus on a single site and prepare a design response that is intended to be not just visually cool, but scientifically and economically feasible… Resilient by Design received a major boost in January when the Rockefeller Foundation pledged $4.6 million to make the effort happen. Other sponsors include the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the city of San Francisco and the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Design-teams-compete-for-best-solution-to-11183611.php

SAMURAI
May 31, 2017 8:10 pm

We’ve enjoyed about 0.83C of total warming recovery since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850, of which, CO2 forcing contributed a “catastrophic” 0.3C of the total (IPCC suggests 0.4C (50% of total)).
Here’s the approximate bar napkin calculation of CO2 logarithmic forcing to date (1850~2016):
5.35*ln(400ppm/280ppm)*(.31 Stefan-Boltzmann Constant)*(.5 negative cloud feedback)=0.3C
Here’s CO2’s logarithmic forcing between 2017~2100 if we do absolutely NOTHING:
5.35*ln(560ppm/400ppm)*(.31 Stefan-Boltzmann Constant)*(.5 negative cloud feedback)=0.3C
Assuming -0.5C of solar cooling by 2100 from the coming Grand Solar Minimum event starting from 2032, that would mean a net -0.2C of global cooling between now and 2100, or a net 0.1C of total warming between 1850~2100…
The World Bank calculates it’ll cost the world economy $4 TRILLION/year between now and 2100 ($332 Trillion total) to reduce CO2 emissions to levels Leftists think is necessary to avoid “catastrophic” CO2 waaaaarming…
Let’s say we waste $0.00 and experience -0.2C of net COOLING between now and 2100….
The world has gone temporally insane…

Reply to  SAMURAI
May 31, 2017 8:16 pm

except most scientists now think
the cloud feedback
is probably
positive

Roger Knights
Reply to  crackers345
May 31, 2017 8:37 pm

They would!

SAMURAI
Reply to  crackers345
May 31, 2017 8:49 pm

No, Crackers-San…
Actually, “most scientists” think increased cloud cover would have a net global cooling effect because the increased albedo reflects more solar radiation out to space…
Regardless, 30% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 have been made over the last 20 years with virtually NO significant global warming trend observed over the past 20 years…Oh, my…
Both the PDO and AMO will be in their respective 30-year cooling cycles from 2019, and global temps ALWAYS fall when thIs phenomenon occurs: (1880~1910, 1945~1977) and global temps always rise when they’re in their 30-yr warm cycles: (1850~1880, 1910~1945, 1980~2020)– perfect causation/corrletion). CO2 has almost nothing to do with it..
CAGW is dead.

David A
Reply to  crackers345
June 1, 2017 3:25 am

Hey cracker, where is your survey of most scientists with regard to cloud increase causing overall warming?
Or are you firing blanks?

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
May 31, 2017 8:22 pm

The figure shows 4.0 C raise in 100 years. But from the same figure it is seen around 1.7 oC in the 100 years — starting 18 years the raise is 0.3 oC [0.1 oC per six years] then in 100 years [if we assume the same level but in nature it is not so but increase by classic sigmoid model pattern] this is around 1.7 oC only. In this around half is global warming component. However, from satellite data this comes down further by more than half.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Paul R. Johnson
May 31, 2017 8:29 pm

I notice here that the baseline is RCP8.5, a “nightmare scenario” that has been thoroughly debunked by Judith Curry here: https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/13/a-closer-look-at-scenario-rcp8-5/

miha
June 1, 2017 12:12 am

“And one of it’s writers, David Roberts:”
You mean ‘one of its writers’.

June 1, 2017 12:26 am

If you want to know, what is the CO2 concentration in 2100, you have to know the yearly emissions up to 2100 and you must calculate, in which way the atmospheric CO2 concentration will change taking into account the CO2 circulation between the atmosphere, the ocean and the biosphere. If you cannot show these calculations, the warming value in 2100 in just guesswork without any value. No matter, what is the physical warming effect of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
For example, if we keep the CO2 emissions at the present level about 10 GtC per year, the CO2 concentration will increase at least with the present growth rate, which is 2.2 ppm per year. Then the CO2 concentration is about 590 ppm in 2100. According to IPCC science the warming effect of CO2 would be less than 2 degrees. According to my studies, the temperature increase since 1750 would be only 1.1 degrees C.
Link for the potency of CO2: http://www.seipub.org/des/paperInfo.aspx?ID=17162

Proud Skeptic
June 1, 2017 12:53 am

Since when is a projection beyond next year worth a damn?

theButcher
June 1, 2017 12:55 am

Too bad, it looks like he’s staying.

Frank
June 1, 2017 1:12 am

Andy: Your Figure from Lomborg’s paper has been incorrectly modified. The data for Paris “extended for 70 years” is found in Figure S4. That scenario calls for a 0.7 K reduction in warming. In the interest of accuracy, a correction should be published (preferably in a separate post.)
The figure you displayed is Figure 11 in the paper with different legends on the lines: Red RCP 8.5, Blue “Pessimistic World INDCs (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) and Green, “Optimistic INDCs. Someone presumably modified Lomborg’s published figure before giving it to you. The words optimistic and pessimistic apply to the assumptions Lomborg made as to what would happen after 2030. The “optimistic” scenario is not simply “Paris extended for 70 years”. Nor is it “optimistic”. The optimistic scenario is:
1) US emissions declining 32% from 2005 (26% below 2015; 15% below 1990) to 4.65 Gt CO2-eq and remaining constant through 2100.
2) The EU is already at its 2020 goal of 20% below 1990 and intends to be 40% below 1990 by 2030. Lomborg’s optimistic scenario assumes EU emissions will then rise to be HIGHER than they are TODAY, ending up about 15% below 1990 and 37% ABOVE 2030. Current EU goals are to continue reducing to at least 50% by 2050, but they are not part of the formal INDC for Paris. “Optimistic” isn’t a correct description.
3) China’s commitment to Paris is based on speeding up its planned reduction in emissions intensity, so the actual emissions reductions will depend on economic growth through 2030. Data Lomborg obtained from others projected roughly at 25% increase above today by 2030 (4.6-fold above 1990). Lomborg’s optimist scenario IGNORES China’s pledge to reduce absolute emissions after 2030, and predicts 75% MORE emissions than today at the end of the century. There is nothing optimistic about this scenario! (But it may be realistic.)
4) The rest of the world is assumed to cut expected emission by 1.5 Gt by 2030 remaining 1.5 Gt below business as usual (presumably increasing) through the end of the century. Lomborg cites a wide variety of emissions reductions up to 8 Gy by 2030. His assumptions are not “optimistic”.
Combined, the big three emitters increase from 24 Gt in 2030 to 31 Gt in 2100, a 31% increase, mostly due to China. At that point Chinese emissions would be 4.4X the US (and higher per capita). Lomborg didn’t make these post-2030 numbers up, but there are many possible futures after 2030. If Chinese emissions do peak by 2030, Lomborg’s assumptions will be way off. They certainly aren’t “optimistic”.
Lomborg’s “pessimistic” projections assume that all countries abandon efforts to reduce emissions after 2030 and quickly return to business as usual projected before Kyoto. If that is the world’s intention, the Paris would be absurd. I don’t think any nation is likely to return to business as usual. (Even the US under Trump will continue fracking and shifting to natural gas. Many states, especially CA and TX, intend to exploit their relatively cheap renewables.)
Figure S4 provides an alternative projections for post 2030. The increase in temperature is:
4.7 K, for RCP 8.5
4.0 K, for meeting 2030 INDCs and holding emissions constant thereafter
3.5 K, for keeping emissions constant at 2016 level.
The 3.5 K figure is the most interesting. The US and EU emissions are intended to drop about 25% each between today and 2030, but the “intention” of the rest of the world negate our reductions and produce an enough more CO2 to raise temperature another 0.5 K – even if their emissions plateau after 2030.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12295/full

Ian_UK
June 1, 2017 1:16 am

Mr Trump has a very big responsibility – not just to pull out of the Paris Agreement, but to get his experts to explain why and start a proper debate. Sceptics will never have a better platform. The need for this was very evident in the political debate/shouting match that took place last night in the UK, where the only thing the politicians had in common was the delusion that climate change is going to kill us all. Correction – there was one note of caution, the Ukip rep. noting how India and China are going hell for leather on coal power. No impact, though.

Henry Galt
Reply to  Ian_UK
June 1, 2017 3:58 am

Now the Exxon shareholders have forced Tillerson’s old firm to ‘explain’ how warming will impact their business it is the time for them (all the oil cos as Exxxon were the last domino) to do some real science and publish it. If it were to cost them 5% of income for a couple of years it would be a cheap fix for them and all of us.
I hope Musk’s threats are ignored as he is a not insignificant layer in the swamp.
DT has the chance to be a saviour of mankind. I hope (beyond hope) he grasps the nettle.

Frank
June 1, 2017 1:24 am

Lomborg expects little from the Paris agreement because he expects emissions to return to “business as usual” after the agreement expires. Does this make sense? If your emissions reductions come from building a nuclear power plant, they will last long past 2030. If your emissions reductions come from expensive solar panels, today’s are guaranteed to produce 80% of rated output after 25 years and drop about 1% per year. They will still be functioning well after 2030. If your emissions reductions come from wind power, your turbine is likely to last less than 20 years. You need to keep investing more capital in wind to keep whatever reductions they produce. A new wind turbine usually means new “everything”, blades, tower and gears.

gerald the mole
June 1, 2017 1:48 am

Why haven’t I seen this graph before? It is not unlike the Koyoto graph.

Ed Zuiderwijk
June 1, 2017 3:20 am

Perhaps, but a presentation like this unintendedly adds credence to the flawed models. The temperature will not rise by 5 degrees. It will go down, go up, go down again just like over the past century because the temperature is primarily driven by natural processes.

knr
June 1, 2017 4:12 am

The need to keep the USA in is not about Carbon anything, but because their expected to be the ones given out the big pay days to those looking for guilt cash , and China offer no hope on this front as they expect money in not out.
While a great deal of the ‘warmest industry’ on the academic side is based there. A lot of third rate scientists got ‘lucky ‘ with AGW ,with no real ability and poor evidenced they managed to get often long term and profitable careers, and not a little expenses paid foreign travel to ‘climate events ‘ . None of which they could get otherwise and if Trump pulls out of Paris a lot of ‘research cash ‘ is likely to pull out of ‘the cause ‘
If not AGW , can you imagine what people like Mann or Cook would be doing given their ‘quality ‘ ?
China of course will stay is , as all it is required to do is ‘nothing ‘ and then be the people who judge if they done even that.

June 1, 2017 5:38 am

The rounding error argument is wrong, it would apply if there were only one temperature measurement, but with (say) 10,000 measurements then the rms error goes down by the square-root of 10,000, i.e. by a factor of 100.

Reply to  climanrecon
June 1, 2017 6:17 am

That would be true if you were taking multiple measurements of the same thing – like micrometer measurements of a prop shaft diameter for example. But you aren’t because weather/climate isn’t a static system and the parameters are constantly changing. Each and every measurement is unique and so the rounding error argument certainly does apply.

Reply to  cephus0
June 1, 2017 9:36 am

I think not. If 10,000 people all read the same thermometer, then the rounding error will apply to all results, but if there are 10,000 measurements of different thermometers in different places, then the rounding errors are uncorrelated. There would only be a problem if (say) the temperature everywhere is between (say) 70.1 and 70.2 F, but that ain’t so.

Fred TO
June 1, 2017 5:38 am

Lomborg’s study, which takes the IPCC’s sensitivity estimates as realistic, strikes me as a devastating blow to the Paris agreement and climate alarmism in general. Who could justify spending many trillions for such negligible benefit? Wondering – has anyone refuted it, or come up with different numbers?

John
June 1, 2017 6:11 am

Did Obama hate his country so much? Paris Agreement is wealth redistribution. The US is already cutting emissions for the past decade, while China keeps on steaming away. China gets to do as it pleases for 15 years and in return America has to accelerate the rate it is declining emissions? Added to that, China already emits twice what the US does.
Not just about China, but the idea what it is somehow find for countries to accelerate, while others decrease, doesn’t at all solve the problem you claim to want to solve. Even if I don’t believe in the problem, I could at least get behind a proposed solution for it. There isn’t too much shame in solving something that doesn’t need to be solved. Doing a mass juggling act and dressing it up as solving a problem is fraud.

June 1, 2017 6:11 am

Haha the globalists and their fake press are whining all over the news fit to burst today. Donald Tusk is tweeting/pleading Trump and the Guardian is in overdrive. It’s almost as if none of them know that the Paris accord won’t make any measurable difference to anything – other than the destruction of the Western economies of course.

Griff
Reply to  cephus0
June 1, 2017 6:58 am

Certainly a huge number of national leaders/governments, prominent politicians and scientists, leader of the UN etc etc have been reported as commenting critically on the possible pull out. Notably including China, the EU, Russia, UK…
Is that globalists and the fake press? Or everyone on the world stage outside the Trump administration?

Reply to  Griff
June 1, 2017 11:17 am

Since when is expressing an opinion – factual? You can opine on anything you want. That does not make it factual. I am sure you could find an equal number of world leaders in 1939 that were denying the Holocaust. I guess that made them right since there were so many of them?
Seriously Griff, do you ever think before you post?

Tom S.
June 1, 2017 6:45 am

For those making negative remarks about Paris Hilton at the top: This is the worst kind of slut shaming, criticizing a woman for the pleasures she enjoys. This is almost always driven by jealousy. She is gorgeous, with Tolkien elf-like little bones. I’d love to be in her presence and especially mix chromosomes with her, making god-like Nordic children. Can we try to stay on topic here?

tadchem
June 1, 2017 6:49 am

Regarding the discussion of rounding procedures in NOAA’s “REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS FOR NWS CLIMATE OBSERVATIONS”: This is known as the ’round half away from zero’ protocol, and is free of overall bias if the original numbers are positive or negative with equal probability. Unfortunately, more temperatures are positive numbers than negative numbers (especially when using Fahrenheit temperatures), so this procedure introduces a bias toward higher temperatures when the reading is midway between reportable values – a T.5°F ‘half-value’.
This was not a significant issue in the early days of floating-point math on computers, but it became an issue when large scale iterative modelling was performed where large numbers of calculations were involved and the round-off errors accumulated.
The bias could be removed by rounding these values up half the time, and down the other half of the time.
A better protocol is the ’round half to even’ protocol, which rounds T.5°F temperatures up or down equally depending on whether the number before the .5 is even or odd. The round half to even method treats positive and negative values symmetrically, and is therefore free of sign bias. More importantly, for reasonable distributions of y values, the average value of the rounded numbers is the same as that of the original numbers.
The IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic (IEEE 754) was developed over several years and promulgated in 1985 to address these problems.
It is inexcusable that NOAA and the NWS has not recognized the impact of these problems on its weather/climate modelling and failed to implement this 32-year old standard.

June 1, 2017 6:59 am

Paris Climate Pact –
“It is a treaty made by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” – With apologies to William Shakespeare.

vjtorley
June 1, 2017 7:50 am

Hi Anthony,
I’m no climate alarmist, but I have to say that Bjorn Lomborg’s graph is flat-out wrong. It’s been taken down by the Climate College at the University of Melbourne, Australia – the very team which developed the climate model that Lomborg relies on, in his analysis. Here’s a brief quote that says it all:
“Lomborg’s assertion that a Paris agreement would only reduce global temperatures by 0.17 degrees Celsius by 2100 is wrong. For multiple reasons. Here[‘s] just one. China’s INDC’s [Intended Nationally Determined Contributions] state[s] that CO2 emissions peak by 2030. Hence, in the worst case, they are staying flat thereafter. Lomborg’s analysis ignores that. Implicitly, this is the same as assuming that non-CO2 emissions in China will be more than 3 times higher compared to the no-climate policy scenarios from IPCC AR5. Wrong assumptions lead to wrong results.”
The authors go on to say that the IPCC AR5 scenarios “all assume that non-CO2 emissions in China will be around 2 to 4 GtCO2eq [equivalent Gigatonnes of CO2] throughout the century. Lomborg’s trajectory is more like 8 to 11 GtCO2eq.”
Their refutation of Lomborg is pretty devastating, and I would urge you to read it.
In my opinion, there’s only one good reason for not signing the Paris agreement: we don’t yet have the technology to stop global warming. Wind and solar won’t do the job:
http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/15.WINDTURBINE.pdf

Frank
Reply to  Anthony Watts
June 1, 2017 9:54 am

Anthony: Everything about what happens after 2030 is a guesstimate (and before merely “intentions”). However, whoever prepared your Figure has INACCURATELY charactered the assumptions behind these guesstimates.
Figure S4 of Lomborg’s paper clearly says that “Paris extended for 70 years” will reduce warming by 0.7 K, not 0.17 K. Wrong is wrong. Read the paper.
The figure you show from Lomborg’s paper (0.17 K) is based on a 50% increase in Chinese emissions AFTER 2030, large increases in emission in the EU AFTER 2030, and (presumably) in the rest of the world AFTER 2030. Some of these may happen, but it is grossly misleading to say they are “Paris extended for 70 years”. There are more details in my earlier comment.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/1758-5899.12295/asset/supinfo/gpol12295-sup-0004-FigureS3.pdf?v=1&s=bd1072e835a8350848a97f2e06822677f87b82ba
Please correct this mistake.

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  Anthony Watts
June 3, 2017 7:59 pm

Shouldn’t the article state the assumptions made for the projection shown? How is the reader to assess the veracity of the graph without knowing the underlying assumptions?

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  Anthony Watts
June 3, 2017 10:34 pm

Actually, thinking about it a bit more, it’s a two step thing. First, does the graph accurately represent the result of the assumption, and more importantly, is the assumption likely to be correct?
This article has skipped the important bits and jumped straight to, well, here is a graph showing little difference, so therefore, headline: “In one graph, why the #ParisAgreement is useless”
Not very skeptical.

Matt G
June 1, 2017 4:10 pm

Instead of projections why not estimate the contribution USA has made so far, firstly if all warming was due to 100% CO2?
According to this link :- (I know it can be unreliable for anything controversial)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
USA CO2 emissions were in 2015 14.34% of the worlds total. (This would have varied over the years)
Global temperatures during the last 40 years have warmed 0.4c.
Hence USA’s contribution to warming 14.34% of 0.4c = 0.057c = 0.06c.
Therefore the trend of warming that USA has contributed has only been at 0.06c over the past 40 years. This value is actually very similar to the OP projection graph.
Decade trend 0.57c / 4 = 0.014c.
Over further 80 years = total of 0.11c
Remember this is for all warming detected caused by CO2, when it was impossible to occur when the paused occurred so long. The pause indicated that the natural climate ruled any underlying CO2 emissions and at the very most would be only 50% instead.
50% of warming contributed by USA = 0.055c until 2100.
NOTE – This value is almost the same by projections.

Ronald Hettich
June 1, 2017 5:14 pm

Where does the graph in the article come from? I do not see it at the listed source: Bjorn Lomborg -Impact of Current Climate Proposals DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.12295

Frank
Reply to  Ronald Hettich
June 1, 2017 11:26 pm

Figure 11 of Lomborg’s paper, but someone who created a Powerpoint using this Figure added the header and false information stating that the green line was Paris extended for 70 years. It is not. It assumes dramatic increases in Chinese and European CO2 emissions after 2030 – a return to business as usual everywhere except the US. “Paris extended for 70 years” can be found in the supplementary material Figure S4. Nowhere does the text mention Figure S4 or discuss its implications. One possibility is that a reviewer asked for a “Paris extended for 70 years” scenario and Lomborg added one without changing the text of the paper. Clearly he doesn’t want readers to know that if Paris objectives were reached and then continued through 2010, warming would be reduced from 4.7 to 4.0 degC.

Editor
Reply to  Frank
June 2, 2017 12:10 am

Frank

Clearly he doesn’t want readers to know that if Paris objectives were reached and then continued through 2010, warming would be reduced from 4.7 to 4.0 degC.

You are assuming for some reason that China and India and Brazil and Indonesia and the rest of developing nations of the world are going to mindlessly kill their people and beggar their nations in dream of some “climate change control” benefits that only enrich European and New York bankers and their socialist-communist politician sponsors? Why should ANY nation follow this deadly treaty?

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  Ronald Hettich
June 5, 2017 9:09 pm

Here is a link to the actual paper:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12295/full
It is under a creative commons license, so I have no idea why the article doesn’t include a link to the paper it is talking about.
I also don’t know why the article doesn’t explain the circumstances that would have to occur for the result to be that shown on the graph. Apparently we don’t need to know that.
Anthony says “It’s all assumption and projections on both sides.”, but he hasn’t updated the article to explain what these assumptions might be, or provide a link to the paper.
Apparently all you need to know is that this one graph shows why the #ParisAgreement is useless…

Reply to  Philip Schaeffer
June 8, 2017 4:59 pm

philip – you link _is_ to
the entire paper.

Jim Austin
June 1, 2017 6:39 pm

Science is supposed to be about induction, reasoning from observation, experimentation, etc. to conclusions. Debate is supposed to be about whether the methodology is applied correctly. If it is, then the conclusions are true. If not, conclusions are rejected.
Leftists have tried to make science deductive, as in, conclusion oriented. Championed by Stalin’s pet scientist Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, debate is centered on whether proposed conclusions are acceptable to a specific ideological outlook. If politically correct, conclusions are accepted. If not, then conclusions are rejected and their proponents silenced — permanently.
In the former Soviet Union, dissenting scientists were sent to the Gulag. In the U.S., leftists have to settle for character assassination and/or legal harassment.

Reply to  Jim Austin
June 8, 2017 5:00 pm

Tell us how to do an experiment in climate science.
Where is your control Earth?

KV
June 2, 2017 5:04 am

No link to Lomborg. How did he arrive at the .05 percent figure? Is that what the Treaty proponents say, or is it Lomborg’s independent analysis?

Reply to  KV
June 8, 2017 5:01 pm
B
June 2, 2017 5:50 am

So what if it is lost in the noise or not? It’s meaningless either way. The US should continue to focus on energy efficiency (e.g. LED bulbs) and technology advancements. Everything else is “noise”.

styrgwillidar
June 2, 2017 9:57 am

You’re showing the wrong graph.
Paris agreement isn’t about reducing carbon, or reducing warming.
It’s about wealth redistribution and reducing US GDP. You need a graph showing how the projected wealth extracted from the US changes, and GDP changes in order to show how the US dropping out affects the actual goal of the agreement vice the justification for it.

June 2, 2017 11:36 am

“But, the data (er, model) says,”
No, the data from Bjorn Lomborg says, this data is not from the Paris agreement itself.
And even if he is right, both you and him are ignoring the fact that we have to start somewhere to prevent global warming and climate chaos. The Paris agreement was the first climate action agreement all nations agreed to, and it got all nations to agree to picking the lowest hanging fruit to fight carbon emissions. Any other agreement that followed would simply take it further, and would have to cover these “tiny changes” you’re pointing out here anyway.

RW
June 3, 2017 7:01 am

This might have value had the premises been not predicated upon two pieces of erroneously extrapolated data from Facts4COP21’s MAGICC climate model (http://climate-energy-college.org/facts4cop21).

%d bloggers like this: