The farcical COP30 U.N. climate conference ends today. Looking back at 30 of these conferences, one thing is clear: there have been 30 COPs to date after the founding conference in Rio in 1992, and not one has reduced either global temperatures, carbon dioxide emissions, or sea level rise – or even slowed their trajectory.
These COP conferences and the toothless agreements that flow from them are the supposed vehicles for planetary salvation. Based on the data, thus far, they have a perfect record of failure.
See the three graphs below:
I was also going to plot money spent against the COP conferences, but because much of it is not publicly reported I could not find accurate data. However, one can imagine the results are nearly identical to the three graphs above. It’s time to end this COP farce.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
1-30 – A perfect record of failure. I have no reason to be over optimistic….
They are going to claim they need more enforcement authority. Much more enforcement authority. And the novice and the uninvolved will nod.
It’s a good job that none of the participants are big-headed about it…
You’d need to use an exponential scale for money
Eliminate the UN while we’re at it. They show a similar effort-results trend.
The UN was never a very good world wide peace keeper, which was it’s original mission. NATO used to step in occasionally in non NATO countries, but in 10 months Donald Trump stopped 8 wars, a much higher success ratio.
Nobody talks about UNICEF anymore either. Apparently all the world’s children are fed now. Sally Struthers is still alive, but she went quiet years ago too.
The number of delegates has also risen – it’s a perfect hockey stick
Hmmm. Plot a graph of number of delegates vs. temperature rise and I think you will find there is a direct correlation. Looks worth looking into. Just give me some funding and I’ll research it for you.
The satellite data for sea level rise is bullshit. Error range an order of magnitude bigger that the increment they are attempting to measure.
1-3mm per year for hundreds of years, based on the tide guages. Not caused by us (justice “climate change” in general), and all the demanded trillions of COP funding wouldn’t do a damn thing about it even IF there was a “problem” caused by warming compared with The Little Ice Age, which there most certainly is not.
JUST AS climate change in general (autouncorrect strikes again)
Hmmm . . . the most-accurate, satellite-determined, linear rate of global sea-level rise shows it persisting on an essentially linear rise rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/year for 32 years (Ref: https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/socd/lsa/SeaLevelRise )
3.2 mm/year is pretty darn close to the upper limit of 3 mm/year you assert for tide “guages”. BTW, what do you believe the error range for tide gauges to be, given that very few are properly adjusted for land subsidence or land uplift?
Now, you were saying something about bullshit . . .
The most stable tide gauges show a rate of around 1-2mm/year.
The satellite data has been “adjusted” to give a larger number.
Got any science-based reference—just one will do—to go with that absurd assertion?
BTW, “most stable tide gauges” doesn’t cut it . . . I asked AGWiNS to provide the error range covering all tide gauges.
It all started around 2000.
Here’s just an example of what they do.. The original Topex data (red) “adjusted” to align with Jason..
They have continued this process with each change in satellite.
You definition of “adjusted” is what credible scientists and engineers would call “calibration”. Happens all the time.
Yes, all “climate scientists(lol)” adjust data.
Amazing that you think changing past data is “scientific” !! ??
Hmmm . . . there was past data (recorded visual observations) that the Sun orbited the Earth and that planets traveled in epicycles, but then Copernicus and Kepler came along with some science which changed that “data”.
More generally, it is a customary and ethical part of science to change past data that was subsequently recognized to be erroneous . . . happens all the time.
There have been many posts recently showing that the tide gauge sea level rise is strongly clustered just below 2mm/year.
Hopefully someone has the graph and can enlighten you.
Not going to be you, eh?
NOAA results further down….. Try again.!
Why would you want to look at tide gauges that are known to be moving vertically.
Far better to look at ones that have been checked many times, by many methods.
A really good example is Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour. Surveys of several types have shown that it is extremely stable, maybe sinking very slightly ( 2nd or 3rd decimal place mms)
Here is the data from Fort Denison, right back to 1910.
Mean tide level rate is 1.07mm/year, but high tide trend is slightly less at 0.75mm/year.
Hmmm . . . I see that you left out the low tide trend rate value. Any reason?
Also, based on your numbers there is a 40% difference between the rise rate of “mean tide” and that of “high tide”, and given that every 24hours and 50 minutes “mean tide” happens four times while high tide happens twice, one has to wonder what error bands must exist around those values.
IOW, how many years before the “mean tide” trend accumulated magnitude surpasses the “high tid” accumulated magnitude . . . and what happens then??? /sarc
Data comprehension is hard for you, isn’t it. !!
No.
“I asked AGWiNS to provide the error range covering all tide gauges.”
Found this for you.
So, with a reported sea level rise of as much as negative 17.59 mm/year, it is obvious that the NOAA tide gauge date you presented HAS NOT been corrected for local land subsidence or uplift (and other complicating factors as well, such a shoreline geometry versus wind, water temperature changes, barometric pressure changes, etc.).
Thus, this data and any statistics associated with it are basically GIGO . . . garbage in, garbage out.
Hmmm . . . seems like at least one person has a fondness for a “sea level rise” that is reported as a real sea level decline rate of 0.69 inches/year.
Why in just 100 years, the water level at that specific site should be, yeah, about 6.8 feet below the rest of the world’s oceans. /sarc
In 1906, the central coast of California rose one foot in 30 seconds, as evidenced by mussels on pier pilings which never grow above sea level.
In 1989, the central coast of California rose one foot in 17 seconds, as evidenced by mussels on pier pilings which still never grow above sea level.
That’s a two foot rise of the coast in less than 100 years. As a resident of the California central coast, I’m not worried at all about any sea level rise in my lifetime.
I suppose at some point my casket could be under water, but since I’ve directed my survivors to cremate me and cast my ashes into the water anyway, it’s not something I often worry about either.
becoming ?
The (Climate) Graduate…….
Mr. McGuire: I want to say one word to you. Just one word.
Benjamin: Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?
Benjamin: Yes, I am.
Mr. McGuire: Interglacial.
Benjamin: Exactly how do you mean?
Mr. McGuire: There’s a great future in the interglacial. Think about it. Will you think about it?
Well, in the 21st century re-make he couldn’t have said “plastics” because they’re made from fossil fuels.
Jerry Maguire (Tom Cruise) as adapted to replying to a COP attendee (Cuba Gooding Jr.) who is looking for his share of “climate reparations”.
Typing out the dialogue would surely spoil the effect.
Remember, Benjamin was much more interested in getting laid than the economics of plastic. Mrs Robinson was way less influential on him than her Daughter Elaine, who did nothing else but stand there. In the 60 years that have passed since, I don’t think much has changed.
I get your overall point, but have to add that Daughter Elaine will look much less appealing 60 years later. 😉
Just think how bad things would be if we had never had COP. Seas would be boiling and drying up. Cities would be under water. Greta would be really mad. COP has saved the world by just being there.
With respect to the three graphs, recall Einstein’s definition of insanity.
Interesting article I am reading –
The Cost of ‘Green’ and Where Its Proponents Want to Bypass It – PJ Media
As to the above article’s concluding sentence:
“It’s time to end this COP farce.”
IMHO, it’s way, way past the time to end this farce.
I’m interested in whether CO2 affects the weather. Take World War Two – all those burning cities and the massive global industrialisation. Huge amounts of CO2 must have been emitted and the present attempts to deindustrialise made to look insignificant. So what happened in 1940? We started thirty years of cooling to the Great Ice Age Scare in 1975. And a close look at the magnified Keeling curve during the COVID deindustrialisation showed not a WHIT of a change. I conclude we don’t understand the carbon cycle which is so large that humans don’t affect it.
Are any of the developing countries that receive the funding being demanded held accountable for how the money is spent? Pretty sure that, like most foreign aid funds, most is skimmed off by corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. That seems to be pretty much what all UN aid programs are about. Of course wasting vast amounts of money on saving the planet programs isn’t limited to other countries. $128 billion for California High-Speed rail and not 1 mile of finished track? There must be a lot of very rich crooks in California.
Or just very incompetent contractors and bureaucrats.
COP: “Woo-Hoo, we’re number one!”
Here’s another plot. “Spot the effectiveness” of the increased IR absorbing power of rising CO2 to drive ANY warming or a trend of ANY climate variable. Hint: it’s a fraction of the thickness of the index mark at “0” on the vertical scale, which goes from -15,000 W/m^2 to +15,000 W/m^2. A brief explanation is annotated on this image of the plot, which uses the ERA5 “vertical integral of energy conversion” hourly parameter at 45N.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1knv0YdUyIgyR9Mwk3jGJwccIGHv38J33/view?usp=sharing
Even skeptics of climate alarm tend to concede too much influence to incremental CO2.
Thank you, and please carry on against the unsound claims of harm.
Failure? How? UNFCCC had several objectives. Only one was the reduction of CO2 emissions, and on that basis it has indeed failed absolutely.
However, there were two other objectives stated by Maurice Strong at the Rio 93 conference where all this was put in place. One was to force the increase of North-South capital transfers. The second was to weaken or destroy capitalism.
Thus far north-south financial flows have certainly increased. And by implementing as much of the program as agreed to at the various COP conferences, capitalism has been weakened by an increase in government control over the economy.
So, it is not accurate to say that UNFCCC has failed. Only by one of its goals has it failed completely. It’s not even clear that reduction of CO2 was the main goal intended by Strong.
Was there a “Climate Realism” show this week ?
Normally my Saturday morning breakfast watch. 🙂
As I’ve said before, it’s up to governments too quit the charade and stop sending taxpayer-funded delegations to not only future COPs but also climate conferences in general. Anyone wanting to go should fund the trips out of their own pockets; then we’ll see how high the enthusiasm level for combating the mythical climate crisis really is.
My thoughts exactly. However you can’t say they haven’t achieved anything. They have crippled the grid, raised energy prices, caused energy poverty, limited our choices for transportation and appliances, caused more brownouts and blackouts, caused more inflation in general, caused greater distrust in government, academia and science, covered the land with useless and ugly solar panels and windmills, slaughtered thousands of wildlife and much more. Yep they’ve done a hell of a job. The only good that has come from it is that I have met a lot of really smart and nice people here at WUWT.
Physically and economically impossible solution to a contrived problem with little basis in true observational science, only modeled ‘climate science’ is guaranteed to result in repeated abject COPx failure. And not only for 30 consecutive times.
Anthony,
Your claims of failure are pertinent, but your graph with NOAA global temperatures is questionable.
I have studied Australia’s temperature contribution to the alleged global average. The official claim of 1.51 +/- 0.32 deg C of warming since 1910 is wrong. My estimates by two simple methods are about 1and 0.9 deg C, with no uncertainty estimates because correct methodology does not allow them. GUM does not allow confidence intervals on guesses.
The difference between official and correct is from adjustment of historic temperatures on an industrial scale.
https://www.geoffstuff.com/halfwarm.docx
Then as is well documented, NOAA do their own adjustments to accumulated national inputs which are often adjusted like Australia’s are. What a charade. Officials should stick to proper science, not guesswork to support a feeling. Proper scientists should be more active in calling out and correcting junk like these NOAA invented temperatures.
Geoff S
Actually, I think the spending might be shaped like the Mann Hockey Stick, the only actual climate outcome to resemble his “life’s” work!
AI estimates the total cost to date of all the COP conferences at about US$1 Billion