Booker: Rising CO2 emissions show Paris climate agreement is an act of delusion 

Posted: September 6, 2016 by oldbrew in climate, Politics, propaganda

Not news to Talkshop readers, but it helps when these points appear in mainstream outlets like the Daily Telegraph.
Via the GWPF

It is hard to recall any event in history that has been more absurdly and comprehensively misrepresented by politicians and the media.

Naturally the BBC and others have been quick to trumpet the news that China and the US yesterday agreed to ratify last December’s Paris agreement on climate change.

This “historic landmark”, it is being claimed, will be a major step towards saving the planet, by slashing the world’s emissions of carbon dioxide, thus supposedly preventing global temperatures from rising more than two degrees C above their pre-industrial levels.

But like everything else we have been told about that Paris agreement, it is all smoke and mirrors.

We would never guess from all the hype, for instance, that China – already the world’s largest CO2 emitter, contributing 28 per cent to the world’s total – has no intention of halting the rise in its “carbon emissions” at all.

On the contrary, while saying it will cut emissions per unit of GDP, it projects that its economic growth will result in a CO2 rise of 50 per cent by 2030. This alone would add up to 30 per cent of the world’s total.

As for President Obama, despite his wish to make “the fight against climate change” a centrepiece of his “legacy”, he has no power to ratify any international agreement. This could only be done with the agreement of two-thirds of the US Senate, which it is unlikely to give.

Another empty claim constantly made about the Paris agreement is that it was “legally binding”. Even if the agreement is eventually “ratified” by 55 countries representing 55 per cent of global emissions, as is required for it to take effect, this applies to only one part of what they signed up to in December.

And this is merely that every signatory country should come up with a “nationally determined contribution” (NDC), giving its own version of just how much CO2 it expects to be emitting by 2030. In fact, it is from these NDCs that we can see just how utterly meaningless the whole exercise has turned out to be.

From the documents they all submitted in Paris, it is clear that almost all the world’s major emitters are planning to build enough new coal-fired power stations to ensure that their CO2 emissions will rocket.

India alone, already the world’s third-largest emitter, is planning to build more than 400 coal-fired plants, and anticipates that by 2030 its emissions will actually be three times greater than they are today.

It is hard to recall any event in history that has been more absurdly and comprehensively misrepresented by politicians and the media.

Source: Rising CO2 Emissions Show Paris Climate Agreement Is An Act Of Delusion | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

  1. oldbrew says:

    They pretend it’s a treaty but it’s not. You can’t ‘ratify’ an agreement – even the language used is misleading i.e. as Booker says it’s ‘smoke and mirrors’.

  2. Peter Lloyd says:

    It does show that what matters to the campaigners and to the governments is giving the impression they are doing something and that effective measures don’t really matter at all.

    Thus the summit serves its purpose. Politicians feel virtuous, campaigners pretend they’ve got somewhere and can justify getting further backing and the hard nosed economic realists, especially in India and China get to keep their heavy industries going without restraint.

    The only losers are the western countries with their expensive alternate energy sources who make consumers and / or businesses pay more and become less competitive as a result. So the western politicians try to convince their long suffering electorates that it’s virtuous to be green and to hell with the actual cost ,and don’t look too hard for any real benefits because there aren’t any.

  3. TinyCO2 says:

    This a model they’ve borrowed from World Peace. What countries do is less important than what they promise. The worse the country, the more praise is heaped on them for making any moves in the right direction. Raising kids has taken on the same concept too. And it doesn’t work. The bad kid/country gets away with murder and the good kids/countries get it in the neck on a regular basis until they think ‘I’m a mug’.

    Negotiation is always a corner stone of this model, irrespective of whether there are any points on which you can all agree. Negotiation becomes the metric for success rather than actual prgress.

  4. craigm350 says:

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    I didn’t know Keeping Up Appearances was back on the beeb 😉

  5. oldbrew says:

    Something like a third of all man-made CO2 has been emitted since 1998 but there’s not much temperature change to show for it, i.e. a serious correlation problem if science is anything to do with it.

    But then again, science seems to be a key part of the smoke and mirrors.



    Surveys in Geophysics published a special issue in 2012, titled ‘Observing and Modeling Earth’s Energy Flows’. Kato et al. give uncertainty estimate of surface irradiances, computed with MODIS-, Calipso- and CloudSat-Derived properties. The best value and uncertainty (1σ) of the annual global mean surface Downward Longwave Radiation is DLR = 345 ± 7 W/m2; and of the annual global mean surface Upward LongWave radiation is ULW = 398 ± 3 W/m2. Trenberth and Fasullo, while tracking Earth’s energy, give a mean value of Outgoing Longwave Radiation as OLR = 238.5 W/m2. Stevens and Schwartz refer to the data of NASA CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) EBAF (Energy Balanced and Filled) product, which gives a Long-Wave Cloud Radiative Effect, LWCRE of +26.5 W/m2. — First we observe here that the above-given mean values of DLR, ULW and OLR are integer multiples of the referred LWCRE, far within to their 1σ uncertainty range: DLR = 13LWCRE (+0.5 W/m2), ULW = 15LWCRE (+0.5 W/m2), OLR = 9LWCRE (+ 0.0 W/m2). — In the light of latest observations, Stephens et al. (2012, Nature Geoscience) give an update on Earth’s energy balance, with very similar mean flux values (ULW = 398, DLR = 345.6, OLR = 239.7 W/m2), with higher uncertainties (±5, 9, 3 W/m2, respectively), and present also clear-sky values as OLR(clear) = 266.4 W/m2 and DLR(clear) = 319 W/m2; LWCRE is 26.7 ± 4 W/m2 there. — Based on the same satellite product, Wild et al. (2015) tabulate the CERES values as ULW = 398.8, DLR = 345.3 and OLR = 239.8 W/m2, and propose estimate of the absorbed shortwave fluxes as Absorbed Solar Radiation, ASR = 240 ± 2 W/m2; Solar Absorbed by Atmosphere, SAA = 80 ± 6 W/m2, and Solar Absorbed by Surface as SAS = 160 ± 6 W/m2. Loeb et al. (2015), reviewing a longer time period of CERES observations, suggest again practically the same values. — We realize that SAA = 3LWCRE (+0.5 W/m2) and SAS = 6LWCRE (+1 W/m2); both are again far within to the given uncertainty ranges. — With special focus on the NASA Energy and Water Cycle Study (NEWS), Stephens and L’Ecuyer (2015) present an objectively optimized estimate of the turbulent heat flows of the energy budget: Sensible Heat (SH) and Latent heat (LH) fluxes are given as SH = 26 ± 5 W/m2 and LH = 82 W/m2. — We recognize that both of these fluxes fit into the structure as SH = 1LWCRE (– 0.5 W/m2) and LH = 3LWCRE (+2.5 W/m2), again with a much smaller difference than the acknowledged uncertainty estimates. — In our study we show that all the atmospheric energy flow elements F can be written as F = F0 + ΔF, where F0 = I × U; here I is an integer, U is a unit flux, and ΔF is a deviation of the observed F flux value from its prescribed F0 position. We present the F0 flux values in three different units: (i) for the global average all-sky fluxes, the unit flux is the Long-Wave Cloud Radiative Effect, LWCRE (termed also the greenhouse effect of clouds); (ii) the cloudy unit is LWCRE/β, where β is cloud area fraction; and (iii) the clear-sky unit is the atmospheric window radiation (called also surface transmitted irradiance, STI(clear)). The ΔF values are well within the ±1σ range. — We point out definite internal relationships between these energy flows; the primary relations indicate: (a) the sum of the energy flows at the atmosphere’s lower boundary (Earth’s surface) appear to be unequivocally connected to the energy flows at the atmosphere’s upper boundary (top of the atmosphere), separately to the clear-sky and the all-sky case; (b) the greenhouse factor has a given position in the structure at g(clear) = 1/3 and g(all) = 2/5; (c) the total cloud area fraction seems to be constrained at the value of the planetary emissivity at 3/5; and (d) even Earth’s planetary albedo appears to have a preferred value of α = 1 – √2/2 = 1 – sin 45°. We start our study with a preliminary hypothetical explanation on the possible physical mechanism. Note that the validity of the found relationships does not depend on the validity of the proposed conceptual framework. Our results are compiled into a new energy budget diagram and poster.

  7. oldbrew says:

    Poland wants to carry on with coal, so not much point in signing anti-coal ‘agreements’ is there?

    Poland makes Paris ratification conditional on new coal plant development

    Poland Bans Wind Power & Orders a Double Helping of Coal to Keep the Lights On

  8. oldbrew: If what I say in the Abstract is true, no CO2-global temperature direct link exists.

  9. […] Source: Booker: Rising CO2 emissions show Paris climate agreement is an act of delusion  […]

  10. oldbrew says:

    Natural variation will catch up with the doomsters in the end.

  11. […] to   issuing pious statements about their emissions intentions, while they in fact work towards increasing their emissions  by 50% and 300% respectively by […]

  12. […] to   issuing pious statements about their emissions intentions, while they in fact work towards increasing their emissions  by 50% and 300% respectively by […]

  13. E.M.Smith says:

    Do note that ‘Green Agreement’ enforcement is being wedged into all the ‘trade’ agreement. These can be used to enforce the paris agreement.