“The United States was warned Wednesday by the United Nations it cannot avoid compensating poorer nations hit by climate change, despite Donald Trump honoring his election promise of leaving the 2015 Paris climate agreement”, Simon Kent

Compensation – something, typically money , awarded to someone as a recompense for loss, injury or suffering., Oxford Dictionaries

Reparations – the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged., Oxford Dictionaries

This warning raises significant issues which must be addressed and resolved.

The US, as the richest nation in the world, makes all the remaining nations appear to be relatively poorer. This raises the question of which of the poorer nations are eligible for compensation in the event they have been “hit by climate change”. China, though the second richest nation in the world, appears to believe it is entitled to funding for mitigation and adaptation, in addition to compensation in the event of “loss or damage”.

Another issue is the definition of the expression “hit by climate change”. All nations of the world are exposed, though not uniformly, to the increase in global average surface temperature. In some cases, this increase might be an adverse effect, while in other cases it could be a benefit.

Yet another issue is the determination of the extent to which any adverse effect is the result of anthropogenic emissions rather than natural climate variation. This issue is complicated by the current inability to distinguish between natural and anthropogenic variation. Clearly, natural variation has affected global temperatures, rainfall and drought over earth’s history. The Roman Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are examples of the effects of natural variation on climate.

Another fundamental, though often ignored, issue is the segregation of adverse events into “weather” versus “climate”. Tropical cyclones, tornadoes, droughts and floods are weather events. Being “hit” by one of these events is not the result of climate change, since the occurrence of these events precedes climate change. However, being “hit” by these events more frequently, or for greater duration, or with greater intensity over a 30 year period compared to the occurrence over a reference 30 year period would indicate a “climate change”.

Finally, there are no clear standards of evidence for determining that loss or damage have been the result of weather or climate change, or some combination of the two. For example, damage from a tropical cyclone would occur regardless of climate change, though a documented change in frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones might be the result of natural or anthropogenic climate change.

The US is signatory to no international treaty which commits it to provide reparations to any nation or group of nations for any adverse effects of anthropogenic climate change alleged to have been caused by the US. The US Senate ratified no treaty regarding climate change and thus accepted no obligation under any such treaty. US politicians signed both the Kyoto Accords and the Paris Accords, but did not seek Senate ratification of either accord as a treaty because they knew the accords would not be ratified.

By: CO2 Coalition

“Predictions are hard, especially about the future.”, Yogi Berra, American philosopher

The new year, 2020, is an election year in the US. While there are numerous issues which divide the two parties, climate change is sure to be a very significant point of contention. The current Administration has formally announced US withdrawal from the Paris Accords, which will take effect on November 4^th, 2020. However, all of the opposition candidates are in favor of the US remaining in the Accords; and, should the opposition win the presidency, the US withdrawal would likely be reversed immediately.

The current Administration has also halted US contributions to the UN Green climate Fund. This decision has significant budgetary ramifications, since the US contribution was to have risen to $10 billion annually in 2020; and, probably to $100 billion per year by 2030 as the total GCF funding approached $400 billion per year. The UN is also now seeking approximately $400 billion per year in funding for adaptation in addition to the original GCF mitigation funding goal. It is highly unlikely that funding will approach these goals, even if a new administration were to rejoin the Accords and restore GCF funding.

The focus on climate change will likely be heightened by the opposition party’s declarations of a “climate emergency” and charges of intransigence on the part of the current Administration regarding heroic responses to this “climate emergency”. Several of the leading opposition candidates are also supportive of the “Green New Deal”, which surrounds the climate change issue with a cornucopia of progressive proposals, including free healthcare, free college, student loan forgiveness, guaranteed minimum income, income redistribution, building retrofit for energy efficiency and social, climate and economic justice.

The current Administration will likely move to withdraw or dramatically revise the 2009 EPA Endangerment Finding regarding CO₂, which is the basis for much of the regulatory and legislative activity regarding climate change. This effort will be aggressively resisted by the environmental community and is unlikely to be successful in 2020.

State and local efforts to terminate operation of coal and nuclear generators, resist coal export facility expansion, resist electric transmission and gas and oil pipeline expansion, halt expansion of gas service in new construction and otherwise hinder expansion of fossil energy consumption will continue and expand. The DOE program to advance the goal of deep decarbonization and energy system electrification will also continue, absent Administration actions to halt the effort.

The US will continue to reduce CO₂ emissions, largely as the result of replacement of coal generation wit natural gas combined-cycle generation. Meanwhile, China, India and other developing nations will continue to increase their CO₂ emissions, favoring economic growth and prosperity over climate change austerity and deprivation.

The IPCC will develop its Sixth Assessment Report and release the CMIP6 model ensemble. The SAR Summary for Policymakers will likely reiterate and reinforce the “climate emergency” meme. It appears that the CMIP6 models will project even more rapid temperature anomaly increases; and, thus deviate even more rapidly from observations.

There will almost certainly be a COP26, which will present yet another opportunity for the climate change community to wine, dine and accomplish little else. The UN will continue agitating for some form of global governance and for increased developed country efforts to transfer wealth to the developing nations, where it would likely be squandered.

                “Those who will not learn from history are bound to repeat it.”, George Santayana

By: TEDx Talks

The EPA 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding is still in effect and provides the basis for multiple government climate change initiatives.

The EPA Clean Power Plan has been replaced by the EPA Affordable Clean Energy Rule, though the new ACE Rule is being challenged in court by both states and local governments.

The near-surface temperature data continue to be “adjusted” and “infilled” and “homogenized” in an attempt to compensate for data measurement accuracy, measuring station compromise, paucity of measuring stations and other factors.

The consensed climate science community has acknowledged the shortcomings of the current near-surface temperature measurement network, with the exception of the US Climate Reference Network, and has identified the need to develop a global measurement network similar to the US CRN. However, there is apparently no current effort underway to develop and place this network.

The calculated near-surface temperature anomalies continue to display unresolved differences from the tropospheric anomalies measured by satellites. However, there is apparently no effort underway to resolve these differences.

The CMIP5 climate models continue to project larger anomalies than are observed by both the near-surface and satellite anomaly measurements.

The consensed climate science community has acknowledged that the models are “running hot” and that efforts must be made to resolve this issue. However, this effort would be compromised by the fact that the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 and the forcings and feedbacks which occur in the atmosphere are not known.

The consensed climate science community continues to use the discredited Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 to conjure up scary potential future scenarios, which then feed the anxiety/frenzy of climate change extremists who demand immediate, heroic actions to avoid the potential scary futures.

Sea level continues to rise at a relatively constant rate, though there remains a significant difference between the tide gauge measurements and the satellite measurements. However, there does not appear to be any significant effort underway to resolve this discrepancy.

Unverified climate models continue to be used to attempt to attribute some share of the causes of various perceived changes in weather events, such as hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes, wildfires, etc. to climate change. These attribution studies remain highly questionable.

Extremist efforts to vilify and/or punish anthropogenic climate change skeptics continue apace. The subject of “re-education camps” has been raised, among other potential “ultimate solutions to the denier problem”.

The 2019 Atlantic hurricane season featured 20 tropical cyclones, 18 named storms and only 6 hurricanes. Only hurricane Dorian made landfall in the US and then only as a Category 1 hurricane. Dorian however devastated the North islands of the Bahamas as a Category 5 storm.

US drought experience in 2019 was relatively typical, although two areas alleged to be in “permanent drought” in California and Texas are no longer in drought.

The annual number of violent tornadoes (F3-5) in the US continues the general pattern of decline since 1950, notably the year in which anthropogenic CO2 emissions are generally regarded to have begun impacting the global climate.

Regardless, panicked calls for urgent action to avoid “Climategeddon” continue to grow more frequent and louder.

From: Climate Depot

By: Marc Morano

Date: December 10, 2019

Skeptical Climate ‘Talking Points’ 36-Page Report Released at UN Climate Summit in Madrid

INTRODUCTION: Global warming hype and hysteria continue to dominate the news media, academia, schools, the United Nations, and the U.S. government. The Green New Deal being pushed on Capitol Hill and in the 2020 presidential race is based upon “solving” an alleged “climate crisis.”

Teen school-skipping climate activists are testifying to the U.S. Congress and the United Nations and young children are being recruited for lawsuits against the U.S. government for its alleged climate “inaction.” The phrase ‘climate emergency’ has emerged as the favorite for climate campaigners.

But the arguments put forth by global warming advocates grossly distort the true facts on a host of issues, ranging from rising sea levels and record temperatures to melting polar caps and polar bears, among others. In short, there is no “climate crisis” or a “climate emergency.”

The UN, climate activists, the media, and academia are using the climate scare as an opportunity to lobby for their alleged “solutions” which require massive government expansion and central planning.

This talking points memo is designed to arm people with the voices of the rising number of scientists, the latest data, peer-reviewed studies on key facts so they can better engage in climate change debate with those advocating the UN/Al Gore/Green New Deal positions.

The global warming movement has morphed into a coalition of “climate cause deniers.” They deny the hundreds of causes and variables that influence climate change and instead try to pretend that carbon dioxide is the climate “control knob” overriding all the others factors and they pretend that every bad weather even it somehow “proof” of their “global warming.” ...

Skeptical Climate ‘Talking Points’ 36-Page Report Released at UN Climate Summit in Madrid

Demonstrations regarding a variety of issues are becoming more common in the US and several other countries. Climate change is one of the issues which is a focus of these demonstrations. Spontaneous demonstrations are frequently referred to as “grass roots” or “organic”, while organized and orchestrated demonstrations are referred to as “Astroturf” (fake grass with no roots). One common characteristic of “grass roots” demonstrations is personal commitment on the part of the demonstrators. Another common characteristic is membership in a cohesive group which coalesces this personal commitment. One common characteristic of “Astroturf” demonstrations is paid demonstrators, frequently bussed from remote locations at the expense of the demonstration’s sponsor(s).  

Climate change related demonstrations fall into two broad categories: protests against individuals or companies proposing to take actions which the protestors and/or their sponsors view as damaging to the climate, such as the construction of pipelines, powerplants, coal mines and coal export facilities; and, protests against the effects of government actions to reduce CO2 emissions, including carbon taxes and other actions which increase the cost of living, such as mandates for expensive renewable energy adoption. Demonstrations in the first category tend to be “Astroturf” in nature, while demonstrations in the second category tend to be more “grass roots”.

One of the most visible examples of “Astroturf” demonstrations was the massive effort to interfere with the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Recent examples of more “grass roots” demonstrations include the “yellow vest” demonstrations in France last Spring and the demonstrations in Chile this fall, which resulted in the cancellation of COP25 in Chile, as well as “Chile Explodes: Expensive Climate Policies Spark Mass Riots” a scheduled meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). In both of the latter cases, the protestors opposed government actions to reduce emissions, which had the effect of increasing prices in the respective economies.

Demonstrators at “Astroturf” demonstrations are reportedly well paid, primarily from donated funds. Organizers can reportedly earn $1,500 per week, while individual demonstrators can reportedly earn $15 per hour. Individual demonstrator payments are frequently made in cash, so there is no “money trail”; and, no income tax payments. Organizers have used Craig’s List and other internet sites to recruit protestors.

Climate change protests in the US have so far fortunately not matched the intensity of the French and Chilean protests, but there is no guarantee that will not happen in the future. The California wildfires and the massive electric power interruptions in California are being attributed, at least in part, to climate change. The wildfires endanger residents and their property, while the power interruptions are a major inconvenience to the residents and businesses in the areas affected.

Several electric utilities in California have been accused of responsibility for the wildfires. Pacific Gas & Electric is the defendant in numerous lawsuits, which have forced the company into bankruptcy. The resolution of these lawsuits and the treatment of residents displaced by the wildfires and inconvenienced by the power interruptions intended to prevent future wildfires could have a significant impact on the nature and extent of demonstrations in the future.

From: C3 Headlines

Global Warming Quotes & Climate Change Quotes: Human-Caused Global Warming Advocates/Supporters

"Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it."

We start with Mencken's quotes because they are so well known from the past, but yet still so relevant so many years later. His past insights to those whose lives are addicted to the seeking of power, or control, or fame, or money is still as valid today, as it was 70 years ago. Below are quotes from the powerful; the rich; the religious; the studious; the famous; the fanatics; and, the aspiring, all sharing a common theme of keeping "the populace alarmed" to further their own personal, selfish goals.

The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose their values and desires on others. The people below represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately.

166 Quotes: Once you read the below quotes, come back and re-read the previous paragraph. The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose an 'Agenda' based on their elite values and self-importance. The people below represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately." ...

Global Warming Quotes & Climate Change Quotes: Human-Caused Global Warming Advocates/Supporters

Current climate change research is focused on what has happened in the past and what is projected to happen in the future. The study of the past relies on retrieval and analysis of temperature proxies, collection and “adjustment” of data and observations of event frequency and intensity. The projections of the potential future are based on climate models, fed with estimates of climate sensitivity, forcings and feedbacks and “tweaked” to approximate the measured past. The accuracy of the information obtained from proxies is limited. The accuracy of “adjusted” measurements is questionable. The climate models are being progressively falsified by observations. The state of the “settled science” is relatively unsettled.

While the focus of climate change research has been on anthropogenic climate change, climate continues to change as the result of natural variation as well, as it did prior to anthropogenic influences. It is not currently possible to isolate the anthropogenic change from the natural variation. The causes of the natural variation are not well understood; and, therefore, the ability to predict future natural variation is extremely limited.

The earth has fluctuated between glacial and interglacial periods. The factors which result in the initiation and termination of these periods are not well understood, since our knowledge of the transitions is based on proxies.

Within the Holocene (current) interglacial, there have been multiple fluctuations such as the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Again, the factors which result in the initiation and termination of these fluctuations are not well understood, since our knowledge of them is again based on proxies. There remain questions regarding the geographical extent of these fluctuations, though recent studies continue to suggest that they were global in extent. There also remain questions about the potential future occurrence of such fluctuations, their timing and duration.

There are numerous other weather and climate phenomena which we have been able to observe and study, but which again are not clearly understood and are not being aggressively studied. For example, we have observed that the sun passes through sunspot cycles, each of approximately 11-year duration; and, that successive cycles are of progressively decreasing strength, until they revert to higher strength for reasons that we do not understand. The Maunder Minimum coincided with the Little Ice Age. The sunspot cycle is now approaching another minimum, though its depth is still uncertain.

Another example of climate phenomena we observe but do not understand are the major ocean currents and cycles: Thermohaline Circulation (the Global Conveyor Belt), the Pacific Decadal Oscillation; the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation; the Indian Ocean Oscillation; and, the El Nino Southern Oscillation. The Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Ocean oscillations are climate events, in that their oscillation periods are greater than 30 years. However, the causes of individual oscillations are uncertain, as is their duration. We do not know whether there are significant variations in the strength of the oscillations over some cycle.

The ENSO oscillation is a weather event because of its much shorter, multi-year period. The strength of ENSO events varies considerably, as does the timing between events. We have experienced very strong Super El Ninos in 1997 and 2016, with numerous lesser events in the interim, not always accompanied by subsequent La Nina events of similar strength.

Most recently, we have observed an event in the North Pacific Ocean commonly referred to as the “Blob”. The first observed “Blob” occurred during the winter of 2013/2014. There is currently another “Blob’ forming for the winter of 2019/2020. It is too early to tell how the strength and duration of this new “Blob” will compare with the previous event.

In summary, there is a lot we do not currently know or understand about significant global weather and climate events, which drastically limits our ability to predict their future occurrence and the potential impacts of those occurrences.

There is much more climate science to be done before the “science is settled”.

From: Medium

By: Dr. Ronan Connolly

Date: September 23, 2019

How the UN’s climate change panel created a “scientific consensus” on global warming

"The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC for short) is a highly influential organisation that has heavily shaped public and scientific opinion on climate change. In their most recent Assessment Report — published in 2013/2014 — they concluded that most of the climate change since at least the 1950s was human-caused.

"The IPCC reports have been used to justify international efforts to try and reduce carbon dioxide emissions, such as the Kyoto Protocol (1997) and the more recent Paris Treaty (2015). They also are heavily relied on by scientists studying climate change. Many scientists treat the IPCC reports as “the Climate Bible” and they are assumed to reflect “the scientific consensus” on global warming.

"For that reason, it might surprise many people to know that their 1st Assessment Report (1990) was unsure whether global warming was human-caused or natural.

"So, in this post, we look at the changes in the IPCC’s views on whether recent climate change is human-caused or natural. Why did the IPCC decide in their 1990 Assessment Report that the recent climate change could be either human-caused, natural or both? And, why did they change their mind for the most recent 5th Assessment Report (2013) and conclude that it was mostly human-caused (from greenhouse gas emissions)?" ...

How the UN’s climate change panel created a “scientific consensus” on global warming

The focus of the UN-led initiatives regarding climate change has been almost exclusively on mitigation programs, although attention is now turning toward adaptation as well. This is a timely and welcome change, though mitigation is still the primary objective.

The climate of the earth has changed continually over the period of history we have been able to study, cycling between glacial and interglacial periods. Within the interglacial periods, such as the current Holocene, there have been cycles of lesser magnitude and duration, such as the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and the Little Ice Age. It is only over the most recent ~70 years that the concept of a human contribution to these climate cycles and changes has been contemplated; and, over the most recent ~40 years that efforts to mitigate the human contribution have been devised and implemented.

However, the stark reality is that none of the mitigation efforts have demonstrated any success in slowing, halting or reversing the perceived changes in the climate resulting from the human contribution, no less the changes resulting from natural variation. The UN, through the UNFCCC and the IPCC, has been encouraging the nations of the globe to make Herculean efforts to reduce emissions of “GHGs”, but their achievements have so far fallen short of their commitments; and, far short of the achievements believed to be necessary to halt and reverse the perceived human contribution.  Pleas for increased “ambition” have been largely ignored.

Humans have a long history of successful adaptation, including to weather events and climate changes. Humans moved into caves, constructed lean-to shelters and tents, built elevated shelters for protection from animals and discovered fire to warm themselves and cook their food. Humans progressed from nomadic hunter-gatherers to farming and animal husbandry. They developed progressively more capable and useful tools for hunting, farming and construction.

Humanity has accumulated records of historical precipitation, seasonal temperatures, frost and freeze dates and growing season duration which assist in crop selection and planting dates. We have also developed approaches to extending growing seasons, such as greenhouses and shade structures. We have learned to dam rivers and streams to impound water for our own consumption, animal consumption and for crop irrigation. We have developed insect, disease and drought resistant crop plants which allow increased yields.

Satellites have made it possible to identify potential weather threats sufficiently in advance to permit orderly evacuations, which have resulted in drastically reduced loss of life from weather events. Observations have established areas most likely to be affected by various types of weather events and the periods during which they are most likely to occur, facilitating advanced preparation. Construction materials and designs have improved the resistance of buildings to weather events.

Regardless of human progress on weather and climate adaptation, humans persist in living in and investing in areas prone to adverse weather and climate change impacts. Increasing property values and continuing investment increase the economic value of at-risk property and thus the potential economic losses from adverse weather events, or ultimately from climate change.

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers.”,  Socrates

“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”, Carl Sandburg

Socrates apparently did not envision a situation in which the debate was not allowed to occur, but the slander occurred regardless. In this sense, the response of the consensed climate science community and climate alarmists to Socratic skepticism and the existence of non-conforming data has not been particularly Socratic, but rather strongly Sandburgian sophistry. The Socratic “philosophical method of systematic doubt and questioning of another to elicit a clear expression of a truth supposed to be knowable by all rational beings” appears to have been replaced in climate science by a political method of massive indoctrination and repetition to elicit unquestioning belief in scary scenarios produced by unverified climate models.

Climate alarmists have proclaimed climate change to be a “crisis”, an “emergency” and an “existential threat”. These proclamations have been presented without any evidence of events which would justify such descriptions; and, in fact, in contravention of the mass of existing evidence. Observations and data support the assertion that the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events such as hurricanes and typhoons, excessive precipitation and drought, tornadoes, etc. have remained stable or declined over the decades since organized data and observation collection has been practiced.

Financial damage from severe storms has increased in absolute terms but declined as a percentage of global GDP. The absolute increase has been the result of increased asset values and continued construction of high value infrastructure in areas prone to storm impacts, largely low-lying coastal areas. The loss of human lives, on the other hand, has declined precipitously as the result of early warnings of impending events and mandatory evacuations from areas expected to be impacted.

The actions of the consensed climate science community and the climate alarmists would suggest that the debate has not been allowed to occur because those groups have concluded that the debate could not be won. The consensed climate science community is surely aware of the weakness of the near-surface temperature record, the ongoing falsification of the climate models resulting from their failure to accurately predict observed temperatures, their inability to explain the differences between the near-surface and satellite temperature anomalies, their inability to explain the differences between the tide gauge and satellite sea level rise measurements and the incongruity of the global greening measured by the satellites.

The consensed climate science community is also surely aware of the observational data showing the decline of the frequency and magnitude of severe weather events. They are also clearly aware of the nearly 20 year warming hiatus, for which they provided more than sixty possible explanations before declaring that it did not happen.

Research which suggests lower climate sensitivity, issues with the magnitude of forcings and feedbacks, solar influence on cloud formation, a greater role for natural variation and other alternatives to anthropogenic CO2 emissions as the sole or predominant cause of recent warming continues to be excluded from consideration by the IPCC process, continues to be resisted or rejected for publication in major journals and continues to be ignored or vilified. Skeptical researchers continue to be referred to as “deniers” and “dis-informers” and “anti-science”.

From: Watts Up With That?

By: Rud Istvan

Date: November 8 - November 14, 2019

Edison’s Roadmap to Energy Hell

Pathway 2045 – Part 1

Pathway 2045 – Part 2

Pathway 2045 – Part 3

Roadmap 2045 – Part 4

Pathway 2045 – Part 5

Pathway 2045 – Part 6

"California WUWT reader Cal B alerted Charles the Moderator to a new document just published by Edison International, the holding company parent for SoCal Edison, the largest electric utility for southern California. Cal B asked if WUWT posters might like to take it on? In his usual charming fashion, CtM got me (after some initial reluctance) to volunteer today over a lunch overlooking South Florida’s Intercoastal Waterway. The key was his sensible solution to my ‘too big a subject’ objection—break it into parts! ...

"My reasons for agreeing were several.

"First, most of the technical difficulty issues buried in Pathway 2045 I previously covered, albeit at posts over at Judith Curry’s Climate Etc and/or in my ebook Blowing Smoke. So there was not a whole lot of new research required.

"Second, it is stunning that an electric utility could foist such technical and economic nonsense onto its California customers. One presumes it was forced by coming California requirements imposed by Newsom worse than the crazy 2030 requirements to which SoCalEd already crazily responded in 2017.

"Third, as WUWT matures and changes from just the climate science to the climate politics, it is attracting new readers that may not be familiar with long past technical analyses. This is an opportunity to “bundle’” the big ‘Green New Deal’ energy fact picture together again."

Pathway 2045 – Part 1

Pathway 2045 – Part 2

Pathway 2045 – Part 3

Roadmap 2045 – Part 4

Pathway 2045 – Part 5

Pathway 2045 – Part 6

“The precautionary principle is the concept that establishes it is better to avoid or mitigate an action or policy that has the plausible potential, based on scientific analysis, to result in major or irreversible negative consequences to the environment or public even if the consequences of that activity are not conclusively known, with the burden of proof that it is not harmful falling on those proposing the action.” , New World Encyclopedia

The Precautionary Principle has been a tenet of UN climate change efforts since the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) Rio Summit in 1992. It was one of the principal drivers of both the Kyoto Protocols and the Paris Climate Accords.

Climate alarmists have cited the principle as the basis for their demands for aggressive global mitigation efforts to reduce and eliminate anthropogenic CO2  emissions by some future date certain. However, their resort to the principle as justification for action has become less frequent as they have adopted the position that the consequences of anthropogenic emissions are “conclusively known”, since “the science is settled”. The models have spoken and “climategeddon” must be avoided at all costs. However, the developing nations appear less concerned about “climategeddon” than about economic development and the UN Green Climate Fund.

Others in the consensed climate science community have become concerned that the mitigation efforts agreed to in the Paris Accords are not aggressive enough to avoid significant adverse climate change impacts; and, that even those efforts are not being implemented consistent with national commitments. They have begun shifting emphasis from precautionary mitigation to what I refer to as precautionary adaptation.

The recent formation of the Global Commission on Adaptation is one effort to emphasize the need for adaptation and to plan for the diversion of funds to deal with perceived adaptation infrastructure needs. The Commission accepts the notion that climate change is a crisis requiring far greater response from the global community. It has identified the need for funding of $140 - 400 billion for adaptation. This is in addition to the $100 – 400 billion sought for the UN Green Climate Fund. So far, the nations expected to provide funding for these programs appear to view them as less urgent than the nations demanding the funding.

Precautionary adaptation is not a new phenomenon. The Netherlands has perhaps the oldest and most ambitious adaptation to sea level rise and storm surge in its Sea Wall. The country has not only protected its largely low-lying land mass, but also added approximately 12% to its land area which lies below the adjacent sea level. England has installed the Thames Barrier to manage storm surge in the upper Thames River.

New Orleans, Louisiana has installed a network of levies to control Mississippi River flooding and to contain storm surge. However, due to general land subsidence, these levies are sinking, reducing their effectiveness, as was demonstrated clearly during Hurricane Katrina. Funding had been provided to raise and reinforce the levies, but was diverted to fund other projects, to disastrous effect.

Numerous nations with exposures to the global oceans, particularly areas with historical exposure to hurricanes, typhoons and tsunamis are considering the construction of sea walls and other infrastructure projects to deal with what they believe will be inevitable future sea level rise and increasing storm frequency, magnitude and intensity. Others are investigating construction of dams and other alterations to riverbeds to deal with both projected increased floods and droughts.

However, against this background of climate change concern, infrastructure investment in areas prone to sea level rise and storm surge continues apace, increasing the financial exposure to storm damage.

From: The Global Warming Policy Foundation

By: David Whitehouse

Date: November, 2019

COLD WATER? The Oceans and Climate Change

"Executive summary

• The study of ocean heat content (OHC) is a subject struggling with inadequate data, but exposed in a public forum.
• Only since the introduction of data from the Argo array have there been convincing estimates of errors. The inhomogeneity of different data sets is a major problem.
• There is no real understanding of the difference between random and systematic errors in OHC data.
• Changes in OHC are at the limits of our ability to measure, and made with much uncertainty and many unknowns.
• It is likely that OHC has increased over the past few decades, although this is not a highly robust result. Movements in energy are typically 1022 J from year to year, with large uncertainties. For comparison, this is about the energy the Earth receives from the Sun every day and about twice the world’s energy consumption. It represents a small change in the ocean’s total heat content (about 165 × 1025 J).
• It is difficult to put these changes into a proper historical context. There is much uncertainty about long-term ocean cycles, and the OHC earlier in the Holocene seems to have been larger than today and changing on the same timescales as seen today. In addition, the timescales for change in the deep ocean are very long. This could mean that some (possibly most) of what is happening there has nothing to do with recent human activity.
• The jump in the OHC data seen at the time of the introduction of the Argo floats is a big problem. Post-Argo behavior is different to what it was before Argo. A case could be made to disregard all OHC observations made before the Argo deployment and treat Argo data on its own, and this is sometimes done; when it is, evidence for changes in OHC is much reduced.
• There are major uncertainties in our understanding of the way heat is transported from the ocean surface to the depths.
• Almost all of the ocean warming is coming from one region, 30°–50°S, in the Pacific Ocean." ...

COLD WATER? The Oceans and Climate Change