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”
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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
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
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.
He does seem to be milking it. 🙂
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!
“enlightened fuels” ?? Are you talking about Magical Unicorn Farts ?
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.
“pre-enlightened fuels”????
The Farce is strong in this one!
Rose Garden announcement tomorrow – Thurs…by Trump. I hope he reads the open letter by Anthony…
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.
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.
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
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
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…
except most scientists now think
the cloud feedback
is probably
positive
They would!
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.
Hey cracker, where is your survey of most scientists with regard to cloud increase causing overall warming?
Or are you firing blanks?
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
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/
“And one of it’s writers, David Roberts:”
You mean ‘one of its writers’.
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
Since when is a projection beyond next year worth a damn?
Too bad, it looks like he’s staying.
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
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.
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.
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.
Why haven’t I seen this graph before? It is not unlike the Koyoto graph.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?