US notifies UN of Paris climate deal pullout

Posted: August 5, 2017 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, fraud, government, Politics
Tags: , ,


This is the same ‘deal’ of which the founder of climate alarm James Hansen said: “It’s a fraud really, a fake”. Of course the BBC ignores that and tells the British public how terrible this US pullout is, in their not-so-humble opinion.

The Trump administration has issued its first written notification that the US intends to withdraw from the 2015 Paris climate agreement, reports BBC News.

But in the notice to the United Nations the US state department said Washington would remain in the talks process.

President Donald Trump drew international condemnation in June when he first announced the US intention to withdraw. He said the deal “punished” the US and would cost millions of American jobs.


Friday’s announcement is seen as largely symbolic as no nation seeking to leave the pact can officially announce an intention to withdraw until 4 November 2019.

The process of leaving then takes another year, meaning it would not be complete until just weeks after the US presidential election in 2020. Any new US president could then decide to rejoin the agreement.

“Today, the United States submitted a communication to the United Nations in its capacity as depositary for the Paris Agreement regarding the US intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement as soon as it is eligible to do so,” the US statement read.

“The United States will continue to participate in international climate change negotiations and meetings… to protect US interests and ensure all future policy options remain open to the administration.”

Continued here.

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    The BBC report has a graphic of a thermometer showing the US pullout is predicted to make a difference of 0.3C to average global temperatures by 2100. Of course this is pure guesswork as nobody knows what temperatures are going to be in 2100 anyway.

    But the graphic footnote says the uncertainty range on the US prediction is 2.1 – 4.7C which is about 7-16 times the estimate!
    – – –
    BBC: US think tank Climate Interactive predicts that if all nations fully achieve their Paris pledges, the average global surface temperature rise by 2100 will be 3.3C, or 3.6C without the US.

  2. E.M.Smith says:

    The UN is not binding on a sovereign nation. This is NOT a treaty as the Senate did not ratify it.

    Trump just needs to issue an executive order declairing it void.

    If nothing else, that puts it in dispute and the courts for years to decades…

  3. renewableguy says:

    BBC: US think tank Climate Interactive predicts that if all nations fully achieve their Paris pledges, the average global surface temperature rise by 2100 will be 3.3C, or 3.6C without the US.

    Supposing the world does better than the Paris climate agreement and now the world gets 3.0*C rather than 3.6*C? What we do makes a difference.

  4. renewableguy says:

    E.M.Smith says:
    August 5, 2017 at 11:32 am
    The UN is not binding on a sovereign nation. This is NOT a treaty as the Senate did not ratify it.

    Trump just needs to issue an executive order declairing it void.

    If nothing else, that puts it in dispute and the courts for years to decades…

    And then the temperature goes higher as pointed out by oldbrew.

  5. oldbrew says:

    ‘And then the temperature goes higher as pointed out by oldbrew’

    Those BBC figures were produced by a ‘think tank’ which must necessarily rely heavily on guesswork. Nobody knows what 2100, or any other random year that far ahead, will really be like.

    Current climate models fail to even predict the present due to their inherent warming bias.
    Observation i.e. real data trumps climate models every time.
    Nothing much has changed in the last 20 years apart from an El Nino or two.

  6. Curious George says:

    Reading a crystal ball is not a guesswork. It is an exact science on par with climatology.

  7. johnbuk says:

    Curious George – you need to keep up. They now have a sophisticated app on their iphone which produces Armageddon regardless of the question. So, in the last couple of days the BBC et al have published a report by “European scientists” showing that by 2100 the number of deaths in Europe due to Climate Change will be 151,500 p.a. How about that for accuracy! I can’t wait for its introduction in the Google Play Store (can’t afford an iPhone) so I can install it on my Android and find out “..how many Thomson’s Gazelles will die each year in 2108 because of Climate Change”. I can then inform the BBC and others so I can sit back and see the scary headlines and learn from the WWF and FOE as they tell us “…its a wake up call …..blah blah blah”. Frightening or what?

  8. tom0mason says:

    @renewableguy

    Please be aware the BBC’s quoted source ‘US think tank Climate Interactive’ are a bunch of people with some having Masters Degree in Futurology, and all of them believe that they can tell what the future can bring.
    In earlier time these sort of people where know for their seance, not their science.

  9. renewableguy says:

    Those BBC figures were produced by a ‘think tank’ which must necessarily rely heavily on guesswork. Nobody knows what 2100, or any other random year that far ahead, will really be like.

    Current climate models fail to even predict the present due to their inherent warming bias.
    Observation i.e. real data trumps climate models every time.
    Nothing much has changed in the last 20 years apart from an El Nino or two.

    Modeling long term ghg effects on future climate is actually much simpler than modeling weather. All the variations of climate are short term and cancel out over the shorter time periods except co2 ghg change. It is the longest term change by a long shot. After hindcasting the models to reproduce the past temperature observations, you get a trend accurate modeling of the future. All the climate models show, the more you add co2 to the atmosphere, the more increase in temperature you get. Should we do the fossil fuel happy time energy, we will easily get to hell and high water on earth. If we take the fast way out of fossil fuels, we get the best possible living conditions based on out past behavior use of energy.

  10. oldbrew says:

    THE GREEN KAISER HAS NO CLOTHES
    Date: 05/08/17 The American Interest

    Whatever Trump is trumpeting — the United States is doing more to reduce CO2 emissions than Germany.
    . . .
    Germany imports hard coal to supply 17 percent of its power, and sources another 23 percent of its electricity from domestically produced lignite, an especially dirty variety of coal. All of that adds up to a lot of emissions.

    http://www.thegwpf.com/the-green-kaiser-has-no-clothes/

  11. scute1133 says:

    Hi Oldbrew

    Regarding Climate Interactive and the supposed US contribution of 0.3°C, you’ve just slid open the cover to a snake pit of deception.

    I’ve been researching Climate Interactive and MIT (who railed against Trump for using their “0.2°C” research) for two months now. I know their research publications and claims inside-out and it makes for a long catalogue of misleading statements and hidden truths. News outlets like the BBC, Guardian Factchecker, Washington Post Factchecker and FactCheck.org have all fallen for it.

    This BBC article is just one tiny part of a concerted attempt to bump up the supposed effect of the Paris Agreement and therefore exaggerate the effect of the US leaving.

    The following cites Climate Interactive and MIT modelling scenarios of the 2100 surface air temperature (SAT). We all know their results are prone to error and have wide error bars anyway. However, the point is that whatever figures they come up with, they are using them to make highly misleading statements.

    First of all, here is the Climate interactive (CI) page that lays out their ‘reasoning’ for this supposed 0.3°C contribution by the US to the Paris Agreement:

    https://www.climateinteractive.org/analysis/us-role-in-paris/

    Here are the crucial quotes from that page that betray the deception:

    “The difference between the US pledge and the US following the business-as-usual scenario…is that US emissions are estimated to be 6.7 Gigatons of CO2 equivalents per year by 2025, compared to emissions of 5.3 GtCO2e/year if the US follows through on its commitments.”

    This first quote definitely defines the “US pledge” as being the US Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) agreed to at Paris. We know this because 2025 is the deadline that the US chose as opposed to the optional/latest deadline of 2030 for Paris NDC implementation.

    The next quote (which is the next sentence):

    “If US emissions follow the business-as-usual scenario instead of meeting its Paris pledge, while all other countries fulfill their commitments (and no further action is taken), the world would warm an additional 0.3°C (about one-half a degree Fahrenheit) by 2100.”

    This is the very next sentence and again, it uses the word “pledge” in relation to the US. So having given us the correct definition of the US pledge (its NDC) as laid out above, CI puts us in a position where we can only assume that just the US NDC agreed to at Paris would furnish a 0.3°C rise in surface air temperature (SAT) in 2100. However, this isn’t the case at all.

    The 0.3°C is *mostly* made up of the as-yet unagreed Mid-Century Strategy (MCS) that the US submitted in November 2016 (not agreed at Paris in 2015). The Paris Agreement did ask for the future submission of “Long-term Strategies” in a three-line paragraph (Article 4, Paragraph 19) but these were not commitments agreed at Paris or at any other time. They’re just vague, long term plans which they have no certainty at all of being able to implement. Decision COP1/21 in 2016 dubbed them Mid-Century Strategies. Both the US and EU hope for an eyewatering 80% of emission cuts in their MCS’s. All researchers at CI and MIT know this means a punitive carbon tax, carbon capture, “extraordinary political agreement” and “unforeseen breakthroughs in technology” (quoted from MIT’s own research- sources available).

    This is why the MCS submitted by the US has no place in discussions about the US pledge made at Paris. And yet there are the MCS’s lower down the linked CI page. They’re being used to bump up the impact of the Paris Agreement (see their scenario 2). Since the US has already submitted its MCS, the next scenario down the page, scenario 3, excluding the US MCS, shows the huge 0.3°C drop. No wonder, they’re going from 80% emission cuts lasting half a century (2050-2100) with similar gearing-up rates towards 2050 and comparing that with zero effort for 80 years (2020-2100). The real comparison is to compare 28% with 17%, I kid you not- see below.

    The CI page linked above goes on to say in scenario 3:

    “3- Paris Pledges without the US

    Here all countries fulfill their pledges as in scenario 2, except the US, which takes no action. This scenario is offered as a thought experiment to highlight the contribution that the United States is making with the Obama-era national pledge.”

    CI say it’s a thought experiment because they know it’s a completely unrealistic scenario. This is because they know that the Obama era national pledge (the US Paris NDC) rolls in the already agreed and mostly implemented Copenhagen Agreement commitments from 2009. The US commitment from Copenhagen was a 17% emission cut below 2005 levels by 2020. They’ve achieved 13% so far and CI, MIT and The Economist all assume the 17% will be achieved despite leaving the Paris Agreement. CI knows that to “achieve” their supposed 0.3°C penalty if the US leaves the agreement, the Copenhagen 17% would have to be undone, returning the US to 2005 emission levels. That’s simply not going to happen and it’s why the words “thought experiment” have been slipped in as a fig leaf of an excuse in case anyone like me comes along and starts poking around. Did you see the words “thought experiment” in the BBC article? No, but CI can swipe them out at any time.

    So if the US Copenhagen commitment of 17% is in the bag, that leaves just the extra 9-11% extra cuts that the US actually agreed to at Paris and not Copenhagen. That makes a total of 26-28% by 2025. An extra 11% for the US would have an impact of 0.031°C on the 2100 SAT, even when maintained at 28% from 2025-2100 (Bjorn Lomborg 2015):

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12295/full

    Yes, 0.031°C is to 3dp but all these figures are the median within the probability density function. However inaccurate they are, the main issue here is that once they’ve been established, CI and MIT are using them to make misleading statements.

    CI tried to discredit Lomborg’s paper but it can’t be more than a 0.05°C contribution because the entire global contribution for these extra commitments within the NDC’s, i.e. over and above Copenhagen, is 0.2°C. This is what Trump cited (correctly) from MIT research and what MIT got so annoyed about, hence their statement admonishing Trump. Here’s their study proving the 0.2°C. It’s a “Key Finding” on page 2:

    https://globalchange.mit.edu/sites/default/files/newsletters/files/2015%20Energy%20%26%20Climate%20Outlook.pdf

    This 0.2°C is attributable to what was indisputably agreed to at Paris: the extra commitments over and above what was already agreed at Copenhagen and Copenhagen is now largely implemented. The US contribution to the 0.2°C is 0.031°C, or one tenth of what is claimed by Climate Interactive and the BBC article you linked. This 0.031°C is sandwiched, chronologically, on one side by the US Copenhagen commitment which won’t be lost anyway because it’s almost in place, and on the other side by the unagreed, post 2025 MCS’s.

    The Copenhagen component of the US commitment within the Paris NDC must add somewhere around 0.048°C (0.031 x 17/11). 0.048°C + 0.031°C = 0.079°C. So 0.079°C is the US Paris NDC commitment’s (Lomborg-modelled) impact. For reasons beyond the scope of this comment, it may be nearer to 0.093°C when adjusted to CI’s research for the sake of parity. But the figure claimed by CI for the impact of the US contribution is 0.3°C (BBC article and linked CI page). This means the vague, unagreed MCS’s contribute a whopping 0.207°C to the supposed 0.3°C figure. That’s two-thirds of the claimed figure spirited from no agreed commitments whatsoever. That’s not at all surprising since the 28% Paris NDC submitted by the US is one third of its 80% MCS.

    Just like CI, MIT play this game of conflating the NDC’s with the MCS’s. However, at least CI admit to using the MCS’s to bolster the 2100 surface air temperature reduction. Conversely, MIT insisted in their statement admonishing Trump, that the Paris Agreement (all NDC’s) could deliver “on the order of 1 degree Celsius” and that it could do so with no post-2030 “strengthening” of the commitments. The MCS’s are most certainly post-2030 strengthening (if they ever get implemented). But MIT, who have close links to CI, used CI as their source for their claimed 1°C. The CI “Scoreboard” page they linked as the source says it uses the MCS’s to achieve a 0.9°C SAT reduction in 2100. MIT were happy to round the 0.9°C to 1°C while knowing their own research for that very scenario (strictly NDC’s only) is 0.65°C. Here’s the link to their study (see page 9, 2nd paragraph, 4.25°C-3.6°C = 0.65°C):

    https://globalchange.mit.edu/sites/default/files/MITJPSPGC_Rpt291_1.pdf

    MIT should retract their statement immediately and apologise.

    The above represents just a tiny portion of the misleading statements and omitted truths regarding Climate Interactive and MIT. The full story is here, a 16-part saga on how MIT got tripped up by their own NDC/MCS conflation game and then double-counted the extra 0.35°C to boot:

    https://investigativeanalysis.wordpress.com/2017/07/18/on-trump-and-mits-on-the-order-of-1-degree-celsius/

  12. oldbrew says:

    Excellent Scute. But for me the trouble is all these so-called ‘figures’ about temperatures are fictional anyway :/

  13. oldbrew says:

    renewableguy says: ‘All the climate models show, the more you add co2 to the atmosphere, the more increase in temperature you get. ‘

    Which proves that climate models are wrong, since observations do not show that.

  14. p.g.sharrow says:

    The theory of “Green House Gas” was proved to be an error in research fact and science, by Max Plank in 1906. Still academia is still teaching it as proved fact!
    Just how long can this lie continue to have life?…pg

  15. Paul Vaughan says:

    V = [5E-Φ√5(J+S)+1/25]/3 = 1 / 0.615197163689601
    V = (5E-φJ+ΦΦS)/3 = 1 / 0.615197069188456

    Suggested exercise:
    From the preceding derive 5J ~= QBO.

  16. Paul Vaughan says:

    Exploratory Update: Lunisolar frame ties into Hale Core to within 0.000000357%.

  17. tallbloke says:

    Paul V: V = (5E-φJ+ΦΦS)/3
    derive 5J ~= QBO.

    OK. we need to rearrange for J and multiply by 5 on both sides of the equation.

    5J = 5((5E+ΦΦS-3V)/φ) ~= 1/2.372 ~= QBO

    Is that right?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s