Climate Change

The sensitivity of the global climate to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, specifically to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 270 to 540 ppm, is one of the most critical issues in climate science. Sensitivity in combination with projections of future atmospheric CO2 concentrations essentially drive the climate model projections of potential future global average temperature increases.

The IPCC currently estimates the range of climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration at 1.5-4.5°C. Recent research suggests that climate sensitivity is near, at or below the bottom of the IPCC range.

Research using several different approaches by Lewis and Curry, Spencer and others suggests climate sensitivity in the range of 1.3 – 1.75°C, though there are lower estimates, as shown in the graph above.

Spencer also suggests that 40% of the warming in the post-1979 period is the result of volcanic cooling early in the satellite temperature record.

Further, Spencer observes that “Nature Has Been Removing Excess CO2 4X Faster than IPCC Models”, which means that atmospheric CO2 concentrations would not increase as rapidly as suggested by the IPCC Representative Concentration Pathways would suggest.

Also, recent research suggests that ozone depleting substances were responsible for half of the Arctic warming in the 20^th century; and, that these substances were responsible for one third of the global warming over that period. This research has also determined that China is the primary source of emissions for these gases. These results further reduce the effective climate sensitivity to CO2.

Perhaps the most interesting recent research deals not specifically with climate sensitivity, but rather with the prospect that the globe would not achieve a doubling of atmospheric CO2. This result is based on EIA projections of future CO2 emissions and Spencer’s observation above regarding natural rates of CO2 removal from the atmosphere. Spencer suggests that doubling, if it were to occur, would not occur until the 2200s.

The EIA projection of future CO2 emissions suggests that RCP8.5 is hardly a “business as usual” scenario; and, while not impossible, is highly implausible. However, RCP8.5 has been the basis for most of the scary scenarios of future climate change effects.

This research suggests that the “climate crisis” is anything but a crisis. The “climate crisis” appears to be exclusively a political “crisis” devoid of scientific support, intended to achieve results beyond mitigating climate change.

In light of the research discussed and linked above, it is difficult to understand how the CMIP6 ensemble of climate models could project even more rapid increases in global average near-surface temperatures than the CMIP5 models, which are already projecting rates of temperature anomaly increase more than twice the rates observed by both HadCRUT and UAH.

The graph above clearly demonstrates that climate science is hardly settled with regard to one of the major issues regarding projected future climate change – climate sensitivity to increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

From: Climate Etc.

By: Alan Longhurst

Date: February 24, 2020

Australian fires: Climate ‘truth bomb’?

"Recipe for Australia’s climate ‘truth bomb’:  dubious manipulations of the historical temperature record, ignorance of the climate dynamics of the Southern Hemisphere, and ignorance of Australia’s ecological and social history.

A correspondent of The Guardian newspaper writes that her personal ‘climate truth bomb’ hit her while she was picking ash from her glass at a wine tasting event – the Sydney Harbour bridge being dimly seen through the murk of bushfires. The truth came to her, she wrote, in the eloquent rage of Greta Thunberg and also in heat, smoke and fire.

Although anthropogenic climate change sells well, especially at The Guardian, their Sydney correspondent cannot be so ignorant about the climate of Australia or about bushfires as she pretends. Put briefly, bushfires in Australia and elsewhere have two main sources: from thunderstorms or from human activity, deliberate or otherwise – cigarette butts, sparks from brakes on railway trains, from incautious welding on farm machinery and from electric transmission lines. In California, where almost 2 million acres burned in 2018 and claimed many lives, the electricity supply company now closes down its transmission lines in windy conditions to prevent sparking and fires." ...

Australian fires: Climate ‘truth bomb’?

George Orwell’s novel, 1984 describes a dystopian future in which history is routinely rewritten to fit the requirements of the government and in which independent thought is actively discouraged. Orwell intended 1984 as a warning, not as a script. However, it is progressively being treated as a script, notably in the consensed climate change community. Orwell introduced Big Brother, the Ministry of Truth, the Memory Hole, Thoughtcrime, the Thought Police, Newspeak and Doublethink to the lexicon. Consensed climate science has analogues.

The UN Secretariat and the UNFCCC aspire to the role of Big Brother, attempting not only to halt climate change, but also to control the actions of global governments and institutions in the process, ultimately becoming a global government. In this role, the UN would collect and redistribute funds among nations to fund mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, as well as to compensate nations for loss and damage “caused by” climate change. They would also collect and redistribute funds to achieve social, gender, racial and environmental “justice”.

The UN and the UNFCCC have developed the climate version of Newspeak, progressing from global warming through climate change, global climate weirding, climageddon, global heating, climate crisis, climate emergency, existential crisis, fireball earth and numerous other descriptors. This evolving Newspeak does not correspond to a worsening climate, but rather to the realization that the public has not “appropriately” acknowledged and reacted to the perceived threat.

The UN and UNFCCC have adopted a version of Doublethink which demands that developed countries dramatically reduce their CO2 emissions, regardless of the magnitude of those emissions, while accepting that developing nations which are large and growing emitters continue to grow their emissions. Certainly, the UN and UNFCCC are aware that global CO2 emissions cannot stabilize or begin to decline until the largest emitters halt the growth of their emissions.

The IPCC, NOAA, NASA GISS and the Hadley Center at UEA appear to be the principal components of the climate Ministry of Truth. Perhaps the poster child for revisionist climate history is the Mann “hockey stick”, which removed the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age from broadly acknowledged climate history, replacing them with a virtually featureless flatline global average near-surface temperature until the advent of significant growth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the mid-20^th century.

This climate Ministry of Truth also collects and analyzes climate research and aggregates the research conclusions into technical reports, which are then educed to a Summary for Policymakers. This summary portrays the working group reports consistent with the accepted narrative of the consensed climate science community. In the research aggregation process, research which does not comport with the accepted narrative is dispatched down the Memory Hole, never to be seen again. Researchers who object to this treatment of their research are judged to be guilty of a Thoughtcrime. Some such researchers have also been pursued and attacked by the climate Thought Police, as documented in the Climategate e-mails.

The media have developed their own analog of the Two Minutes Hate, criticizing skeptical science and skeptical researchers, as well as those who fund their research, thus advancing the propaganda efforts of the climate Ministry of Truth.

George Santayana warned that those who will not learn from history are destined to repeat it. However, constantly revised history makes learning useful lessons from that history both difficult and questionable.

From: Watts Up With That?

By: Andy May

Date: February 23, 2020

Do We Really Have Only 12 Years to Live?

"Why have uninformed celebrities and politicians been telling everyone, who will listen, we are all going to die in a climate catastrophe in 10 to 30 years? U.N. General Assembly President María Fernanda Espinosa Garcés of Ecuador warned us that:

    “We are the last generation that can prevent irreparable damages to our planet”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, once said:

    we only have 12 years or “the world is going to end.”

Prince Charles of the UK on July 11, 2019:

    “Ladies and gentlemen, I am firmly of the view that the next 18 months will decide our ability to keep climate change to survivable levels and to restore nature to the equilibrium we need for our survival.”

However, these absurd statements are not supported by even the most fanatical climate alarmists, like Kate Marvel (NASA), Gavin Schmidt (NASA), Katharine Hayhoe (Texas Tech), or Andrea Dutton (University of Florida) (link). The original inspiration for these statements came from a 2018 IPCC report entitled Global Warming of 1.5°C. Even the alarmist Scientific American does not think the world is ending in twelve years." ...

Do We Really Have Only 12 Years to Live?

-phobia (noun combining form)  (Merriam Webster)

1. exaggerated fear of
2. intolerance or aversion for

The consensed climate science community has not been particularly congenial to, cooperative with or even tolerant of scientists skeptical of the consensus climate change narrative. The earliest public manifestations of these attitudes were the use of epithets including “denier”, “anti-science”, “climate mis-informer”, “climate zombie” and “oil industry shill”. The use of these epithets has been persistent but not particularly effective, largely because of the professional reputations of the skeptical scientists and the popular response to juvenile “name calling”. These efforts continue to be pursued by numerous organizations, using funding from unnamed sources.

More effective approaches to dealing with skeptical scientists were exposed in 2009, with the release of the “Climategate” e-mails. These approaches included: preventing skeptical research from being reviewed and included in the IPCC Assessment Reports; refusal to provide access to research data and analytical methods for skeptical review; efforts to keep skeptical research papers from being published in the premier scientific journals; attempting to have skeptical scientists fired from their positions at scientific journals, state climate offices and universities; and, attempting to have skeptical scientists doctorates revoked.

These approaches were followed by requests by members of Congress to the employers of skeptical scientists to provide voluminous information regarding the scientists work and the entities which provided the funding for their work, in an attempt to associate the scientists work with companies in the energy industry or conservative organizations. These efforts were aggressively resisted by both the scientists and their employers because of the enormous time and effort which would have been required to comply.

The next step in the process has been decisions by various media organizations to exclude skeptical opinions from their reporting, exclude skeptical scientists from their panel discussions, refuse to publish skeptical letters to the editor, etc. These media outlets have decided that the consensed climate science community narrative will be accepted and defended as “real truth”. This has since evolved to an organized and coordinated “climate week” saturation campaign which completely excluded skeptical facts and opinions. This “climate week” represented a transition from selective reporting to focused promotion (propaganda).

Fear that the skeptical scientists continue to have influence has led environmental activists and their allies in the media and government to ratchet up their rhetoric, proclaiming a “climate crisis” or “climate emergency” and demanding immediate and heroic efforts to avert the perceived impending cataclysm. These hysterics are a reaction, not only to skeptical scientists and other “non-believers”, but also to members of the consensed climate science community who are viewed as being too circumspect and cautious in their approach to supporting aggressive CO₂ emissions reduction efforts. Even the IPCC is being criticized for being too cautious in its Summary for Policymakers.

The early intolerance or aversion for skeptical scientists and their research has evolved into an exaggerated fear that their efforts are delaying the time-critical efforts to avoid “climageddon”. Calls for prosecution of energy companies, skeptical scientists and other “non-believers” are just the latest efforts to discredit skepticism and demand acceptance of climate change “sackcloth and ashes”.

"Let the jury consider their verdict," the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
"No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first–verdict afterward."
"Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!"
"Hold your tongue!" said the Queen, turning purple.
"I won't!" said Alice.
"Off with her head!" the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.
"Who cares for you?" said Alice. (She had grown to her full size by this time.) "You're nothing but a pack of cards!"

            Lewis Carroll, “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”

Sound vaguely familiar?

From: Climate Etc.

By: Judith Curry

Date: February 13, 2020

Plausible scenarios for climate change: 2020-2050

"A range of scenarios for global mean surface temperature change between 2020 and 2050, derived using a semi-empirical approach. All three modes of natural climate variability – volcanoes, solar and internal variability – are expected to act in the direction of cooling during this period.

In the midst of all the angst about 1.5^oC or 2.0^oC warming or more, as defined relative to some mythical time when climate was alleged to be ‘stable’ and (relatively) uninfluenced by humans, we lose sight of the fact that we have a better baseline period – now. One advantage of using ‘now’ as a baseline for future climate change is that we have good observations to describe  the climate of  ‘now’.

While most of the focus of climate projections is on 2100, the period circa 2020-2050 is of particular importance for several reasons:" ...

Plausible scenarios for climate change: 2020-2050

The graph below from Dr. Roy Spencer’s website shows the entire history of the UAH satellite temperature anomaly record, which began in 1979. The anomaly has increased at a relatively consistent rate of 0.13°C per decade over the 40-year period, though there have been rapid and large short-term deviations from this trend.

The graph below from the ggweather.com website shows the history of the ENSO phenomenon since 1950. The dark blue arrow on the graph marks the start of the UAH satellite temperature anomaly record.

Several significant messages emerge from these graphs. Comparison of the graphs illustrates the influence of ENSO on global average temperatures, particularly the super El Ninos in 1997/1998 and 2015/2016, but also the weaker 2009/2010 and 2018/2019 El Ninos, as well as the strong La Ninas of 1988/1989, 1998/1999, 1999/2000, 2007/2008 and 2010/2011. These El Nino events produced increases in global average temperature anomalies of as much as 1°C (1997/1998) in a few months, or at as much as 20 times the decadal trend rate. Note that there was no strong La Nina after the 2018/2019 super El Nino. ENSO clearly illustrates he strong impacts of natural variation on global climate.

The UAH graph also illustrates that global warming has been occurring at a relatively constant rate over the satellite period, showing no significant acceleration despite continual increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the period. The graph below from the climate.gov website shows that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased approximately 80 ppmv over the period from 1975-2019, approximately 1.8 ppmv per year. This rate would indicate a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration from the pre-industrial level of approximately 270 ppm in 1950 to approximately 540 ppmv in 2100.

Assuming the rate of increase of the UAH temperature anomaly continues at the rate of approximately 0.13°C per decade, the UAH temperature anomaly would increase by approximately 1.04°C through 2100, or to approximately 1.6°C above the 1981-2010 climate reference period. This would place the increase at the low end of the range of climate sensitivity estimated by the IPCC and used in the climate models. This result would be consistent with numerous recent estimates of climate sensitivity.

There is no support in these numbers for a “climate crisis” or a “climate emergency”. There are no climate “tipping points” in the picture. These numbers do indicate that the total temperature anomaly increase through 2100 will be very close to the 2°C target set by the UNFCCC, assuming current trends continue. Should the rate of growth of global annual CO2 emissions stabilize, or begin to decline, as the result of increased national “ambition” in response to the Paris Accords, the expected temperature anomaly increase through 2100 could be somewhat less than 2°C and perhaps even approach the 1.5°C revised target established after COP21 in Paris.

From: U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Global Energy Institute

Date: Fall 2016

What If Hydraulic Fracturing Was Banned?

"The U.S. shale energy revolution was not an accident. It was the result of innovation, strategic investment, and old fashioned hard work. More than anything, it was an event made possible by the development, refinement and application of cutting-edge technology – technology developed by engineers, geologists, and other scientists who spent decades trying to “crack the code” of tight oil and gas. These efforts delivered nothing short of an energy renaissance. After years of projections that America’s energy future would grow more dependent on imports, the U.S. energy landscape is now defined by abundance, not scarcity.

We don’t have to look back very far to see the significance of this technological breakthrough. In July 2003, TIME Magazine carried a feature story entitled, “Why U.S. Is Running Out of Gas,” which boldly predicted that the United States was heading to its “first big energy squeeze since the 1970s.” The magazine claimed further that “the U.S. is finally beginning to run out of domestic oil and easily recoverable natural gas.” A few years later, in 2008, oil was nearly $150 per barrel, and gasoline prices spiked to more than $4 per gallon. Henry Hub natural gas prices were also above $8 per million BTU, or about two and a half times what they are today." ...

What If Hydraulic Fracturing Was Banned?

Ambition          a : an ardent desire for rank, fame, or power

(link)                 b : desire to achieve a particular end

“I expect from the COP (COP25) a clear demonstration of increased ambition and commitment showing accountability, responsibility and leadership.”, Antonio Guterres, UN Secretary General (link)

The UN call for increased ambition from the signatories to the Paris Accords is focused on definition “b” above: “desire to achieve a particular end”. That end includes: halting climate change before the global annual temperature anomaly increases by 2°C (1.5°C?); providing financial and other assistance necessary to assure appropriate mitigation and adaptation actions by affected nations; and, providing funding as compensation for “loss and damage” caused by climate change. The total estimated cost for all required mitigation and adaptation actions and expected “loss and damage” compensation is $100 – 150 trillion.

The UN’s ambition regarding climate change is focused primarily on definition “a” above: “an ardent desire for rank, fame, or power”. The UN’s ultimate ambition is global governance by the UN. The details for the pursuit of this ambition are contained in Agenda 2030. Climate change is merely a subset of Agenda 2030, specifically calling for carbon pricing, fossil fuel abandonment, net-zero CO2 emissions and massive fund transfers by 2050. Achievement of the climate change objectives would be far easier and far more likely if the UN had the authority to compel compliance, rather than being limited to moral leadership and cheerleading.

Agenda 2030 is a blueprint for global socialism which calls for income and wealth redistribution, both within and among nations and nationalization of the means of production. Agenda 2030 also addresses social and environmental justice, universal health care, reproductive health and numerous other social issues.

Agenda 2030 was agreed to by the UN membership in 2015. The Obama Administration signed the Agenda, but chose not to submit it to the US Senate for ratification, in the certain knowledge that it would fail. It is highly unlikely that the suspension of national independence and identity, the abjuration of the US Constitution, the nationalization or internationalization of the means of production, the abolition of private property rights, and the international redistribution of wealth and income are high on the list of priorities of the Trump Administration, which is not obligated by Agenda 2030.

It is extremely unlikely that the objectives of Agenda 2030 could be achieved unless the UN was established as a global government with the power to compel compliance. Clearly, Agenda 2030 is far more attractive to the developing and not-yet-developing nations than it is to the developed nations, whose economies would be eviscerated in the process.

There was a suggestion recently that the UN might eventually choose to use military force to compel compliance with its climate change objectives. Such action might more likely be necessary to compel acquiescence to Agenda 2030 on the part of the developed nations. The concept of the UN using its “Blue Helmets” to enforce compliance with Agenda 2030 by the nations with standing militaries, such as the US, Russia, Australia, UK, China, India, Pakistan, Canada, etc. is surreal.

From: Cliff Mass Weather Blog

By: Cliff Mass

Date: January 26, 2020

The Future of U.S. Weather Prediction Will Be Decided During the Next Month

"During the next few weeks, leadership in NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Weather Service (NWS) will make a key decision regarding the future organization of U.S. numerical weather prediction.  A decision that will determine whether U.S.  weather forecasting will remain third rate or advance to world leadership.   It is that important.

Specifically, they will define the nature of new center for the development of U.S. numerical weather prediction systems in a formal solicitation of proposals  (using something called a RFP--Request for Proposals).

This blog will describe what I believe to be the essential flaws in the way NOAA has developed its weather prediction models.  How the U.S. came to be third-rate in this area, why this is a particularly critical time with unique opportunities, and how the wrong approach will lead to continued mediocrity.

 I will explain that only profound reorganization of how NOAA develops, tests, and shares its models will be effective.  It will be a relatively long blog and, at times, somewhat technical, but there is no way around that considering the topic.  I should note that this is a topic I have written on extensively over the past several decades (including many blogs and an article in the peer-reviewed literature), given dozens of presentations at professional meeting, testified about  in Congress, and served on a number of NOAA/NWS advisory committees and National Academy panels dealing with these issues." ...

The Future of U.S. Weather Prediction Will Be Decided During the Next Month

Ambition             a : an ardent desire for rank, fame, or power

(link)                      b : desire to achieve a particular end

“I expect from the COP (COP25) a clear demonstration of increased ambition and commitment showing accountability, responsibility and leadership.”, Antonio Guterres, UN Secretary General (link)

The Secretary General of the United Nations, in the above quote, referred to increased ambition on the part of the signatory nations to the Paris Accords to achieve their emissions reduction commitments under the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) they had made at COP21. He also referred to increased ambition regarding the magnitude of the reductions pledged in their INDCs, since the UNFCCC has asserted that the existing committed reductions are insufficient to hold future temperature anomaly increases below the 2°C level agreed to in Paris, no less the 1.5°C preferred level announced after the Paris Accords had been adopted. The next level of increased commitments is scheduled to be adopted at COP26 in 2020.

The Secretary General also referred to increased ambition with regard to funding of the UN Green Climate Fund (GCF), which was to achieve annual funding of $100 billion by 2020, but is far short of that funding level. The UNFCCC has indicated that the annual funding for climate change mitigation under the Green Climate Fund would need to grow to ~$400 billion annually to meet the anticipated needs of the developing and not-yet-developing nations. The UNFCCC has also indicated that additional funding of ~$400 billion annually would be required to fund climate change adaptation projects; and, that ~$400 billion annually would also likely be required to compensate affected nations for loss and damage resulting from climate change.

Clearly, there is a severe lack of ambition on the part of the nations expected to provide this massive level of funding. However, not surprisingly, there is great ambition on the part of the nations which would receive the funding. The nations expected to provide the funding would also be required to invest in their own transitions to a net-zero CO2 emissions economy while funding the transitions to the same net-zero emissions economies for the developing and not-yet-developing nations.

The funding nations would largely lose control of the funds they provide, as the UN GCF would be responsible for evaluating funding proposals and allocating funding to them. The mitigation funding would be allocated to meet the requirement to achieve net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050 from each of the recipient nations. The adaptation funding would be allocated based on the anticipated future effects of climate change on each of the recipient nations and the measures required to avoid adverse impacts on the individual nations’ populations.

The mitigation and adaptation funding requirements are relatively straightforward. The loss or damage funding, however, is far more subjective and there are currently no standards of evidence for loss or damage. This funding is, therefore, far more subject to fraud and abuse.

Unfortunately, the UN has an abominable history regarding the administration of such large financial programs, which is one of the issues which adversely affects the ambition of the funding nations.

From: Climate Change Dispatch

By: J. B. Shurk

Date: January 13, 2020

The Global Warming Alarmists Really Do Have A Plan

"There is a credibility crisis for Western governments. For too many years, their incompetence and deceit have forced ordinary citizens to question whether they produce more harm than good.

On both sides of the Atlantic, the governing elite play by a set of rules that separates them from those they govern. They ignore popular discontent while placing themselves above the law.

It is in this volatile climate that they push the greatest con game ever concocted: man-made global warming. This is the hubris that brings empires crashing down.

Like any confidence scheme, global warming rests entirely on misdirection and bad faith.

While Western governments create hundred-trillion-dollar programs for fighting the weather, they have (1) never scientifically established that man’s use of hydrocarbon energy causally leads to temperature change of any kind, (2) never articulated some baseline climate ideal for the planet, and (3) never produced a cost-benefit analysis detailing the loss in human life and standard of living required in order to impose upon the world the type of global command-and-control economy necessary to restructure all industry and commerce.

These three pillars are so fundamental that a normal person could be forgiven for assuming they’ve long ago been calculated. That’s part of the con." ...

The Global Warming Alarmists Really Do Have A Plan

The UNFCCC program objectives center on stabilizing and ultimately reducing global annual CO2 emissions. The Kyoto Accords and the Paris Accords place great emphasis on developed country reductions in annual emissions. However, over the life of the UNFCCC, annual CO2 emissions continue to grow at a rate of approximately 1.5% per year. Virtually all of the increase in annual emissions is emissions from developing countries. China’s emissions are growing most rapidly and are expected to equal 50% of global annual emissions by 2030, the year China has suggested it would reach peak annual CO2 emissions. Emissions from India and other Asian nations are also growing rapidly.

The UN Secretariat, the UNFCCC, numerous NGOs and others have proclaimed a climate emergency and are demanding heroic emissions reduction actions from the developed nations, but appear to be totally ignoring that the primary driver of increased annual CO2 emissions is from the developing countries. The media have accepted and then trumpeted the “emergency” message, although also ignoring the role of the developing countries.

Many elements in the US and the EU are pushing the “emergency” meme, asserting that we must drastically reduce CO2 emissions within 10 years or risk exceeding a “tipping point”, though they must realize that the US and the EU alone could not offset the growth in CO2 emissions from the developing countries.

China has aggressively proclaimed its efforts to install wind and solar generation and to promote electric vehicles and high speed rail systems. However, it has been less candid about its efforts to add new coal generation facilities, though there are reportedly approximately 100 generation plants currently under construction and or in the planning process.

The UN rails against CO2 emissions, yet chooses to ignore or even oppose construction of new nuclear generation plants capable of providing reliable baseload power with zero CO2 emissions. Meanwhile, most NGOs actively oppose new nuclear generation and the continued operation of existing nuclear generators. However, there is growing recognition among climate scientists and some NGOs that nuclear generation is absolutely essential if net zero global annual CO2 emissions are to be achieved without destroying the global economy and producing untold misery.

There exists broad understanding that there is no alternative to fossil fuel consumption for the production of iron and steel and the calcining of cement. However, proliferation of wind generation would require massive increases in the production of iron, steel and cement for use in the construction and installation of wind farms. There is currently no “off-planet” facility available to support that increased production and avoid the resulting emissions to earth’s atmosphere.

The UN complicates and confuses the focus of its efforts by including unrelated or tangentially related issues, such as environmental equity and justice, economic inequality, gender inequality, women’s reproductive rights, etc. to the climate change discussion. These are all issues justifying some attention. However, they are hardly on a par with the purported climate “emergency”.

Finally, the UN and the developing nations claim to be very concerned about funding for mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage remediation. However, there are currently no clear definitions of what constitutes climate “loss and damage”, what constitutes a situation which must be mitigated, and what defines a situation demanding adaptation. The levels of funding “demanded” for these efforts are such that a “loosey goosey” approach is totally inadequate and unacceptable, especially to those from whom the funding is being demanded.

By: Burt Rutan

Date: January 2011 (old but still relevant)

An Engineer’s Critique of Global Warming ‘Science’

"Our CO2-starved Atmosphere

Note, the green life along the Nile river and the dead desert elsewhere. When co2 is greater in the atmosphere, plants need less water to thrive.

When dinosaurs roamed we had 3 to 5 times current co2 and planet was nearly all green, pole-to-pole Near catastrophe when CO2 declined to 180 ppm, since below 150 ppm plants, then animals die.

If you promote a green healthy planet, then you should lobby for a co2-fertilized atmosphere, not a co2-starved atmosphere." ...

An Engineer’s Critique of Global Warming ‘Science’

“A conference is a gathering of people who singly can do nothing, but together can decide that nothing can be done. A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling to do the unnecessary.”, Fred Allen
 

IPCC

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established jointly by the UN Environmental Programme and the World Meteorological Organization in 1988.

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change.”

The IPCC reviews climate change research in three Working Groups (Working Group I (The Physical Science Basis), Working Group II (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability), and Working Group III (Mitigation of Climate Change). The Assessments produced by these Working Groups are then summarized in the Summary for Policymakers.

UNFCCC

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is an international environmental treaty. It was authorized by the UN in 1992 in anticipation of the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and adopted in 1994 upon ratification by 50 nations.

“The UNFCCC objective is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". The framework sets non-binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual countries and contains no enforcement mechanisms. Instead, the framework outlines how specific international treaties (called "protocols" or "Agreements") may be negotiated to specify further action towards the objective of the UNFCCC.” (Wikipedia)

The Conference of the Parties is the decision-making body of the UNFCCC. These conferences have been held annually, beginning in 1995.

COP1

The first Conference of the Parties focused primarily on organizational issues.

COP3

COP3 in Kyoto Japan produced the Kyoto Accord, which represented the initial commitments of the developed nation parties to efforts to stabilize and reduce CO2 emissions. Vice President Gore signed the Kyoto Accords on behalf of the Clinton Administration. However, the accords were not submitted to the US Senate for ratification, because the Administration knew the Senate would not ratify them.

COP15

COP15 in Copenhagen, Denmark was to have been the next major step toward emissions reductions. However, the release of the Climategate e-mails shortly before the beginning of the COP made substantial progress exceedingly difficult. The primary effect of COP15 was to expose the division of the parties into three distinct groups: developed countries with technology and money; developing countries which want access to the technology; and, not-yet-developing countries which simply want the money. This fundamental division made agreement on substantial actions difficult.

COP23

COP23 in Paris, France produced the Paris Accords, which were intended to become a treaty which would impose enforceable emission reduction goals on the parties. However, the US Administration lobbied to assure that the accords were not binding, since the Administration knew they would not be ratified as a treaty by the Senate. Instead, the parties offered widely varying Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). Many of the parties appear unlikely to meet their commitments under the accords. The US has formally announced its intention to withdraw from the accords, which will become effective in November 2020. Regardless, the US has been a leader in emissions reductions.

COP25

COP25 just concluded in Madrid, Spain. The parties failed to agree on any significant increases in emissions reduction “ambitions”, as well as about issues related to UN-administered funding for climate change mitigation, adaptation and reparations for “loss and damage”. Those issues were all deferred to the next COP (a COPout?).

COP25 involved representatives from 197 nations totaling about 25,000 attendees. The larger a committee, the more difficult it is to accomplish anything of substance. Attempting to lead a committee of 197 is like “herding cats”. Attempting to lead a committee of 25,000 is a fate worse than death, especially when the attendees have very different focuses.