Fallacy of “carbon” footprint

CO2 molecule

CO2 model: colourless, odourless gas vital to life.

The carbon dioxide molecule itself reveals that what activists call a “carbon footprint” is a fallacy.

For 30 years our emissions of carbon dioxide have been reviled for the dangerous warming CO2 is believed to exert on the climate. Activists abbreviate its name to “carbon”, call it pollution and claim to calculate “carbon footprints” for all manner of activities, products and lifestyles. They say these carbon footprints will cause environmental destruction through global warming in the far future.

The activists claim our carbon footprints must be reduced or eliminated to save the earth. There is no evidence for this, so how it would work is unclear.

The denigration of carbon has no connection with reality and is ridiculous. Carbon is an intrinsic constituent of almost every creature and plant and there’s no reason to treat it as pollution. CO2 is the earth’s most important plant food and pollutes nothing, nor is it toxic. Yet for 30 years to read newspapers and watch the news is to believe carbon dioxide is dangerous.

Is this just a rant against the hostile, unjustified campaign against carbon dioxide? No. There’s a point to be made about this hostile campaign, because the atomic weight of carbon is 12 and two atoms of oxygen total 32. In other words, there’s twice as much oxygen as carbon. In fact, the CO2 molecule contains 2.6 times more oxygen by weight than carbon.

The alarmists don’t even get the physics right. They put the emphasis on carbon, when there’s twice as much oxygen.

It would make more sense to rename our carbon footprints “oxygen footprints” — though it would scarcely help.

Views: 731

78 Thoughts on “Fallacy of “carbon” footprint

  1. Richard C (NZ) on 01/12/2015 at 11:15 am said:

    >”For 30 years our emissions of carbon dioxide have been reviled for the dangerous warming CO2 is believed to exert on the climate.”

    The only evidence for belief in this “dangerous warming” being theory and non-real world CO2-forced climate model simulations based on the theory. But…….

    ‘Why isn’t the Paris conference discussing the complete failure of the warming models?’

    Andrew Bolt Blog

    [see graph http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/climate1111_thumb.jpg%5D

    Jo Nova and others have placed a half-page ad in The Australian today in a bid to counter the extraordinary propaganda in other outlets, particularly the ABC. An excerpt:

    For greenhouse gases there has been a “selective scrutiny of evidence” to support Climate Change alarm. There is no evidence CO2 has determined climate in the past or that it could do so in the future. Just as there was needless alarm over the 37 year cooling from 1940 when CO2 was rising there is now unwarranted public alarm over a threat of dangerous global warming.

    Australia should save the $3 billion plus spent annually supporting renewable energy programs. The heavy burden of these costs falls on taxpayers, business and households.

    No Australian post-2020 emissions reduction target could be justified unless emission-free energy can be produced at a cost competitive with traditional energy suppliers.


    # # #

    The IPCC even offers 3 reasons why the models have failed:

    Chapter 9: Evaluation of Climate Models

    Box 9.2 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years

    …..an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box 9.2 Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21ºC per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing and (c) model response error.


    One of those possibilities, “incorrect radiative forcing” is CO2. New Zealand negotiator Tim Groser should not be making ANY commitments at Paris until the models are reconciled with the observations. Except then there will be no crisis because CO2 is an invalid climate forcing as proven by the IPCC’s own TOA energy balance criteria.

  2. Richard C (NZ) on 01/12/2015 at 1:02 pm said:

    >”Jo Nova and others have placed a half-page ad in The Australian today in a bid to counter the extraordinary propaganda in other outlets, particularly the ABC”

    ‘What you don’t know about the climate (Half page advert in The Australian)’

    Here’s the full copy of a half page advert in The Australian. In a normal world, this would be discussed at conferences, and reported by science reporters in magazines like New Scientist or Scientific American, or on shows like Catalyst. Instead, private citizens have to fork out thousands to pay for an advert. — Jo


    “Other research by behavioural economists shows how the employment of the findings from psychology can be used to “nudge” people to do what “choice architects” think would be in people’s best interests. The book “Nudge” by the authors, Thaler & Sunstein, reviews this research.

    Referring to CO2, an invisible gas, as carbon, which as soot is a black dirty solid, is a good example of a “nudge” to sway public opinion in favour of reducing CO2 emissions. This is a deception which stands in the way of reason.”


    # # #


    Al Jazeera TV (Doha) is busy conflating Chinese air pollution and Pacific typhoons with climate change.

    Not that Al Jazeera is all bad. I know more of what is going on around the world from that channel than any other, NZs TV1 and TV3 being particularly hopeless in this respect.

  3. Richard C (NZ) on 01/12/2015 at 1:25 pm said:

    >”Not that Al Jazeera is all bad. I know more of what is going on around the world from that channel than any other”

    Case in point, their doco series “Snow of the Andes”:


    No, not about some trumped up climate catastrophe but about the new and major cocaine exporter Peru. And the murderous gang takeover of export facilities and control of enforcement agencies by bribery and fear.

    Climate is a non-issue by comparison. The only thing that will disrupt the drug flow through ports is the slowing global economy. A major recession like the one under way might be just what the world needs. Maybe even the Greens will be happy – those that still have jobs.

  4. Mike Jowsey on 01/12/2015 at 2:19 pm said:

    Yes, RC, Al Jazeera ranks for me with RT – sometimes biased, but always investigative and informative, unlike most of NZ MSM. I also like the odd piece at Vice News https://www.youtube.com/user/vicenews the most recent being a 16-min look at Paris climate protesters – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulwEoVjF1vw ,
    thanks for the Andes Snow link.

  5. Mike Jowsey on 01/12/2015 at 2:38 pm said:

    “ranks for me with RT”, that is Russian TV. Not the other RT, who is also biased but informative (joke!).

  6. Richard Treadgold on 01/12/2015 at 3:05 pm said:

    “Not the other RT, who is also biased but informative”

    Thanks for the elaboration (climate denier!). 🙂

  7. Richard Treadgold on 01/12/2015 at 3:14 pm said:


    The only evidence for belief in this “dangerous warming” being theory

    This is compelling material with revelations at every turn.

  8. Richard C (NZ) on 01/12/2015 at 3:19 pm said:

    Speaking of “carbon” footprints:

    ‘Megaliner visit a massive boost for Bay’

    Tauranga is set to celebrate the maiden visit of the 15-deck megaliner Explorer of the Seas on Monday week, bringing more than 3800 passengers to our shores.

    The 312m, 138,194 tonne Explorer of the Seas, which is the Royal Caribbean’s newest and largest megaliner based in this region, sails into the Port of Tauranga at 6.30am on December 7.


    Probably consumes around 140-150 imperial tons of fuel oil per day when at sea:


    That’s a lot of oxygen being emitted. And I’ve yet to see the “low carbon” alternative.

  9. Richard C (NZ) on 01/12/2015 at 3:28 pm said:

    ‘Rising sea predicted to hit 1200 homes’

    BoP Times Nov 29, 2015

    More than 1200 Tauranga homes lie less than 1.5m above the spring tide mark, making them susceptible to rising seas, a new report has found.

    The Preparing New Zealand for rising seas report, released this month by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Jan Wright, found there were 1231 Tauranga homes within 1.5m of the spring tide mark, 107 businesses and 35km of roading.


    Items of interest:

    Lindock Ave resident Carol Ballard said she had been living in her property on the water’s edge for more than 33 years and it had not changed over the time period.

    She was not worried about the new predictions either, she said.

    “According to experts it should have risen already.”


    Engineering and projects manager Peter Clark said the council wanted to avoid the mistakes made in Christchurch where, without consultation, a notice about the potential for erosion was put on all coastal residents’ LIM reports, making it difficult for home owners to sell their homes.

  10. Richard Treadgold on 01/12/2015 at 3:29 pm said:

    “That’s a lot of oxygen being emitted.”

    Without harming one ecosystem.

  11. Richard C (NZ) on 01/12/2015 at 7:27 pm said:

    Interesting that the speeches “filled with soaring rhetoric” (Obama below) from world leaders have come at the beginning of COP21 and not from the middle on as usual:

    ‘Paris UN Climate Conference 2015: Tackling warming ‘inspires us’, Turnbull tells summit’

    Hard negotiations still to get underway

    While Monday in Paris was taken up by the slew of world leaders at the conference that hard grind of negotiations over the text of a new climate deal is yet to kick-off.

    Those talks were set to start in full force on Monday night as most world leaders flew out of the French capital, leaving diplomats to wheel and deal the language of the text.


    # # #

    >”on Monday night……..most world leaders flew out of the French capital”

    Where they were all just one trying to stand out in a crowd of 150 in front of the world’s media. That’s over with now, they will be back to dealing with real problems in front of their respective captive audiences.

    Hard to see how COP21 will make waves from now on, given the competition.

  12. Richard C (NZ) on 01/12/2015 at 8:56 pm said:

    ‘India opposes deal to phase out fossil fuels by 2100 at climate summit’

    “It’s problematic for us to make that commitment at this point in time. It’s certainly a stumbling block (to a deal),” Ajay Mathur, a senior member of India’s negotiating team for Paris, told Reuters in an interview this week.

    “The entire prosperity of the world has been built on cheap energy. And suddenly we are being forced into higher cost energy. That’s grossly unfair,” he said.


    Ambrose Evans-Pritchard seems somewhat unaware of this:

    ‘COP-21 climate deal in Paris spells end of the fossil era’

    Odd really, given the contrary view of the oil majors:

    ‘Oil’s Big Players Line Up for $30 Billion of Projects in Iran’

    Ambrose Evans-Pritchard’s crystal ball needs a tuning tweak I think. As does Barclays who he reports:

    Barclays advised clients to prepare for a more radical outcome, entailing almost $45 trillion of spending on different forms of decarbonisation.

    Right now investors are not getting return OF investment in decarbonisation let alone return ON investment, think Abengoa and before that Solyndra and a plethora of others:

    Fail: US Has Wasted $154 Billion on ‘Renewable Energy’

    And $45 trillion? Where will that come from in this already debt-laden world economy that cannot in many cases (e.g. half the Shanghai stock exchange companies) even pay interest on debt from profits (EBIT)?

    The US was able to waste $154 billion because at that time China was funding Obama’s “Quantitative Easing” (QE 1,2, and 3). Now China is in trouble at home they are repatriating their US funds i.e. there is now no-one to fund any more US extravagance.

    And given European banking’s parlous state I don’t think there will be rivers of gold from them either. Not sure who that leaves.

  13. Richard C (NZ) on 01/12/2015 at 9:15 pm said:

    From Evans-Pritchard article:

    There could still be a dispute over the promised $100bn a year of mitigation funding for developing countries, though this issue is more symbolic than real when set against the trillions at stake. “It’s peanuts,” said Christiana Figueres, the UN’s climate chief.”


    Mr Jacobs from the Global Commission on Energy and Climate, “…..we have gone past the turning point in the US and China, and both countries have come to the realisation that it is possible to decarbonise without hurting economic growth,”

    And Evans-Pritchard,

    The sums of money are colossal. Macro-economists say this is just what is needed to soak up the global savings glut and rescue the world from its 1930s liquidity trap. There might even be a boom.

    # # #

    These people are mad.

  14. Richard C (NZ) on 02/12/2015 at 11:05 am said:

    How to grotesquely distort the climate picture. By Jonathan Chait, NY Mag, with the aid of the NOAA:

    Here, via the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is a depiction of that wee 1.7-degree [Fahrenheit since 1880] increase. This is Stephens’s idea of “natural variation” that is going to stop on its own:


    ‘How Republican ‘Thought Police’ Enforce Climate-Science Denial’ By Jonathan Chait

    The “depiction” is CO2 vs Observed Temperature i.e. NOT apples-to-apples, and the correlation obviously breaks down PRIOR to about 1975. A direct comparison, as made by the IPCC below, is CO2-forced Model Temperature vs Observed Temperature:

    IPCC AR5 WGI Figure 10.1 (a)

    Now it becomes clear that the correlation breaks down AFTER nominally MDV-neutral 1955. Don’t be misled by the after-the-fact, and unnecessary, short-term 1960s volcanic “tweaking”. Modeled temperature after MDV-neutral 1985 once the effect of volcanic “tweaking” has passed is wildly higher than observations when it SHOULD be going through the MDV-neutral observations of 1985 from above and 2015 from below.

    the direct mid-troposphere depiction is similar. From ‘Why isn’t the Paris conference discussing the complete failure of the warming models?’ upthread:


    Anyone that depicts the climate picture by substituting CO2-forced Model Temperature vs Observed Temperature with CO2 vs Observed Temperature without an accompanying temperature-only comparison, as per NOAA, NY Mag, Jonathan Chait above, is a charlatan.

    The reference in the quote to Stephens’s idea of “natural variation” (see source) is the correct approach. The IPCC admits that natural variation (MDV) is missing from the models and a probable reason why the models are wrong this century (see upthread) i.e. the models are MDV-neutral, they should NOT be as warm as they are now that MDV is neutral again in 2015.

    Note too that the current El Nino has nothing to do with MDV cyclicity. The El Nino will be followed by a La Nina just as the ’98 El Nino was. The MDV cyclicity is inherent in the temperature series since 1880 once all ENSO activity is accounted for. MDV cyclicity is the minor oscillation however.

    The major natural variation is solar and is the driver of the underlying secular trend over millennia. Expect that to kick in to temperature some time around 2020 or just after – the date so critical to the COP21 negotiations. I expect some red faces among those negotiators and politicians in about 5 years time. Hopefully they will not have irreparably sunk the global economy on top of what a global recession is doing anyway.

  15. Richard C (NZ) on 02/12/2015 at 11:17 am said:

    ‘Transcript of Obama remarks to COP-21’

    Obama goes apocalyptic. Here’s the apocalyptic part:

    “This summer, I saw the effects of climate change firsthand in our northernmost state, Alaska, where the sea is already swallowing villages and eroding shorelines; where permafrost thaws and the tundra burns; where glaciers are melting at a pace unprecedented in modern times.

    And it was a preview of one possible future — a glimpse of our children’s fate if the climate keeps changing faster than our efforts to address it. Submerged countries. Abandoned cities. Fields that no longer grow. Political disruptions that trigger new conflict, and even more floods of desperate peoples seeking the sanctuary of nations not their own.”


    Sounds bad.

  16. Richard C (NZ) on 02/12/2015 at 6:09 pm said:

    ‘World headed toward ‘suicide’ if no climate agreement: pope’

    “Every year the problems are getting worse. We are at the limits. If I may use a strong word I would say that we are at the limits of suicide.”


    Sounds bad.

  17. Richard C (NZ) on 02/12/2015 at 8:21 pm said:

    ‘Global Growth In CO2 Emissions Stagnates’

    A new report claims that the rate of growth in global CO2 emissions has fallen and indeed, stalled. The report does not explain how this links to the continuing increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations

    From the European Commission Joint Research Centre 30.11.2015

    After a decade of rapid growth in global CO2 emissions, which increased at an average annual rate of 4%, much smaller increases were registered in 2012 (0.8%), 2013 (1.5%) and 2014 (0.5%). In 2014, when the emissions growth was almost at a standstill, the world’s economy continued to grow by 3%.

    The trend over the last three years thus sends an encouraging signal on the decoupling of CO2 emissions from global economic growth. However, it is still too early to confirm a positive global trend. For instance India, with its emerging economy and large population, increased its emissions by 7.8% and became the fourth largest emitter globally.



    Trends in Global CO2 Emissions 2015 Report by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (EC-JRC) and PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

    Get the report here.

    Source. EC JRC news release here

  18. Richard C (NZ) on 03/12/2015 at 9:34 am said:

    China’s emissions might be about to top out earlier than their predicted 2030s (not that the CO2 is a problem though):

    ‘The Lull Before The Storm—–It’s Getting Narrow At The Top, Part 2’

    by David Stockman • December 1, 2015

    More stimulus from China? Now that’s a true absurdity—-not because the desperate suzerains of red capitalism in Beijing won’t try it, but because it can’t possibly enhance the earnings capacity of either Chinese companies or the international equities.

    In fact, it is plain as day that China has reached “peak debt”. Additional borrowing there will not only prolong the Ponzi and thereby exacerbate the eventual crash, but won’t even do much in the short-run to brake the current downward economic spiral.

    That’s because China is so saturated with debt that still lower interest rates or further reduction of bank reserve requirements would amount to pushing on an exceedingly limp credit string.

    To wit, at the time of the 2008 crisis, China’s “official” GDP was about $5 trillion and its total public and private credit market debt was roughly $8 trillion. Since then, debt has soared to $30 trillion while GDP has purportedly doubled. But that’s only when you count the massive outlays for white elephants and malinvestments which get counted as fixed asset spending.

    So at minimum, China has borrowed $4.50 for every new dollar of reported GDP, and far more than that when it comes to the production of sustainable wealth. Indeed, everything is so massively overbuilt in China——from unused airports to empty malls and luxury apartments to redundant coal mines, steel plants, cement kilns, auto plants, solar farms and much, much more—-that more borrowing and construction is not only absolutely pointless; it is positively destructive because it will result in an even more costly adjustment cycle.

    That is, it will only add to the immense already existing downward pressure on prices, rents and profits in China, thereby insuring that even more trillions of bad debts will eventually implode. And that, in turn, will prolong the CapEx depression, which is the inexorable flip-side of the credit driven investment spree that has so massively bloated and deformed China’s economy.


    # # #

    New term: “peak debt”

  19. Alan "A" on 06/12/2015 at 12:31 pm said:

    Expanding on the articles’ initial content:

    CO2 has as much oxygen as O2…

    Consider that CO2 is respirated by animals as a waste product. Yes, and we can’t help it. But, this is, of course, THE necessary molecule for photosynthesis. As such, plants and animals are symbiotic.

    No one speaks of the basic & fundamental “chemistry” of the situation…

    The climate change community promotes the idea that most “bad” CO2 is derived from burning of fossil fuels and hence this is their target. But, combustion of any organic fuel (methane, coal, oil, gasoline, alcohol, wood, etc) is essentially resulting in the end products of heat, water vapor and CO2.

    By definition: CO2 and water vapor are low energy state (and very stable / non-reactive) molecules. Once the water vapor is condensed and additional heat removed the liquid water is at a much lower energy state as well.

    This being said, I challenge anyone in the world, with even a basic knowledge of chemistry, to explain what sort of magical behavior enables low energy molecules (CO2 & H2O) to retain / trap / store large amounts of energy after they have undergone a chemical reaction that is highly exothermic and therefore have a greatly reduced energy state. This is purportedly done by these sneaky little molecules even though CO2 and H2O vapor are already in their highest energy state (gaseous state).

    How, exactly (physically / chemically) do they hold onto all this extra energy and still maintain their low (chemical) energy state. Tell me, please, how they manage to defy the laws of simple chemistry.

    Further study of their (CO2 & H2O) physical chemistry characteristics indicate they have no remarkable difference in their “heat capacity” relative to other atmospheric gases.

    From life sciences we know that photosynthesis requires a large energy (in form of solar) input plus water & CO2 along with chlorophyll and miscellaneous nutrients in the presence of enzymes (organic catalysts) that lower “activation energy” to create molecules of the plant matter at a higher energy state.

    Lastly from Chemical Engineering, we know that it requires approximately 1,000 BTUs to evaporate one pound of water, while it only takes 1 BTU to raise that same pound of water 1 degree F. Thus, evaporation requires / consumes / stores (heat) at 1,000 times the heat that a single degree temperature rise does. That is to say, the water’s vapor / liquid equilibrium and constant evaporation / condensation cycle is the unappreciated “flywheel” which modulates our global temperatures in terms of seasons and the daily illumination cycle.

    Simple calculations indicate, irrefutably, that without water’s vapor-liquid equilibrium modulating our earth’s temperature fluctuations, life here would be very different, if not impossible. No water to evaporate and absorb the heat would heat the atmosphere to an intolerable temperature and, without water to condense (and re-release) the heat, night-time temps would drop to deadly levels.

  20. Richard Treadgold on 06/12/2015 at 7:12 pm said:

    Alan “A”,
    Brilliant comments, thanks. But I struggle to fathom how senior scientists might have missed/obfuscated/deceptively represented such basic characteristics of CO2 and water for so long. Is there a text book or study that might set it out simply for those of us ill equipped to understand it?

  21. Richard C (NZ) on 07/12/2015 at 7:44 am said:

    Alan “A”, tough questions. rhetorical I’m guessing, but here goes anyway……..

    >”How, exactly (physically / chemically) do they hold onto all this extra energy and still maintain their low (chemical) energy state.”

    They don’t.

    This is not actually physical, it is a phenomenon that exists in the minds of those who think this process exists in reality. Odd, because a greenhouse gas by definition absorbs and RE-EMITS radiative energy (and dissipates by collision). And CO2 in the atmosphere re-emits in the IR-C band of the EM spectrum, a relatively lower energy state than excitation of surface matter caused by solar IR-A/B. CO2 is merely a passive energy transfer medium in air, a coolant by definition, refrigerant code R744. Of course there will be initial heat just from the mere presence of matter (absorbing molecules) enabling radiation-matter interaction. This is the difference between atmosphere and space. In space, no matter, no heat.

    >”Tell me, please, how they manage to defy the laws of simple chemistry.”

    By decree and assumption.

    Apparently they also defy the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics that heat will not of itself move from a cold object (atmosphere) to a hot object (surface). This is enshrined in the law of the Supreme Court of the United States as the “endangerment finding” i.e a decree.

    The assumption (incorrectly) also defies the Kelvin-Planck statement of the Second Law in regard to heat sinks (space in this case) and is the basis of climate models i.e. the models retain heat that in reality is dissipated to space in accordance with physical laws. This assumption is being proved incorrect every month (natch) by observations of temperature that come up short of model projections despite “hottest ever” records. The incorrectly retained heat is in addition to real heat caused by mass/gravity/pressure and solar input i.e. it is superfluous.

    Demonstrated by CFACT at COP21 (see #1):

    ‘CFACT presents four inconvenient facts about global warming at COP 21 display’

    I hope this helps.

  22. Richard C (NZ) on 07/12/2015 at 8:49 am said:


    >”I struggle to fathom how senior scientists might have missed/obfuscated/deceptively represented such basic characteristics of CO2 and water for so long.”

    They are climate scientists RT, they are not heat specialists e.g. chemical, process, thermodynamic engineers, technologists, and physicists. Climate scientists have not deferred to these specialties, they have made it up as they go along and have not had the necessary critique of the relevant peer group(s).

    >”Is there a text book or study that might set it out simply for those of us ill equipped to understand it?”

    The study is the field of applied heat, by definition:

    heat (redirected from applied heat)
    1. Physics
    a. A form of energy associated with the motion of atoms or molecules and capable of being transmitted through solid and fluid media by conduction, through fluid media by convection, and through empty space by radiation.
    b. The transfer of energy from one body to another as a result of a difference in temperature or a change in phase.

    Basic texts introduce the Laws of Thermodynamics e.g.

    Applied heat and introduction to thermodynamics / Roger Kinsky

    A student edition should be easy to order from any Univ/Polytech bookstore. But beware, these texts will cost you a bundle and not necessarily what you are looking for. You can probably glean as much as you need off the internet for free. For example this series:

    What is Thermodynamics?

    This is directed at k-12 school level (17- to 19-year-olds) so is probably a good start if the basic principles are all new to you. Then same for the specific properties of the CO2 and H2O molecules in respect to absorption and re-emission. Just follow your nose on the internet for free.

  23. Richard C (NZ) on 07/12/2015 at 9:15 am said:

    >”Then same for the specific properties of the CO2 and H2O molecules in respect to absorption and re-emission”

    For example see this simple animation and explanation from UCAR (but too simple, and wrong):

    ‘Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation’

    Note that it is internally contradictory:

    “The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating.”


    “This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas.” and “which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons”

    If the “extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon” and “the carbon dioxide stops vibrating”, then CO2 is not “trapping” heat neither does it “capture” photons. It is heat and photon transfer after interception i.e. CO2 is an energy transfer medium, a coolant by definition.

    And they neglect energy dissipation by collision.

    Thus the fallacy is promulgated.

  24. Richard C (NZ) on 07/12/2015 at 9:46 am said:

    Basically, thermodynamics is heat TRANSFER processes.

    Climate scientists misconstrue heat TRANSFER for heat TRAPPING.

    Case in point: University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) above who manage the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

    NCAR Authors & Reviewers for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    2013–2014 Working Group I

    Lead authors
    Julie Arblaster
    Jean-François Lamarque
    Gerald Meehl
    Bette Otto-Bliesner
    Claudia Tebaldi

    James Hurrell
    Linda Mearns
    Kevin Trenberth

    Thus the fallacy is promulgated.

  25. Richard C (NZ) on 07/12/2015 at 9:55 am said:

    NCAR Authors & Reviewers for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    2013–2014 Working Group I


  26. Richard C (NZ) on 07/12/2015 at 10:04 am said:

    Also see at the above link:

    NCAR 2007, 2001, 1995, 1990 Authors and Reviewers Working Group I. These are long lists.

    Thus the fallacy is promulgated.

  27. Alan "A" on 07/12/2015 at 2:26 pm said:

    Regardless of the mechanism of energy transfer via photo absorption, convection, conduction, radiation… the inevitable universal conclusion of all the heat transfer analysis is that the temperature of a collection of molecules – such as air – is directly ,measurable as its’ temperature. Lower temperature directly indicates less energy content and higher temperature indicates greater energy content.

    On a quantum level, any / all light absorption occurs in discretely sized energy packets. The energy is from the photons is certainly stored in molecules via the mechanism of electrons moving to higher energy states “orbitals”. Of course, when too much energy is added by such means, the electrons reach a threshold state whereby chemical bonds are broken. Regardless of this mechanism of energy storage, the measure of energy content as temperature is always valid.


    As examples:

    Photosynthesis happens this way too. That is, plant tissue absorbs discrete photons & growth results in higher energy state systems (collections of molecules relative to the raw materials the plant consumed) ).

    Therefore, we can imply that in the absence of plants, the ground and near-ground air temperature would be greater because there are organisms to uptake the solar energy and convert such to higher energy state molecules – like sugars, peptides, cellulose, semi-cellulose, triglycerides, etc, etc.

    Lighting occurs because we excite electrons at a filament or in a contained “field” and they “re-emit” their energy as they return from their higher energy “excitation state” to a lower energy state in the form of photons. This happens regardless of the light type (incandescent, fluorescent, mercury vapor, etc.). Is light causing global warming ??? No there is complete CONSERVATION OF ENERGY. Nothing is gained or lost, only transferred.

  28. Alan "A" on 07/12/2015 at 2:48 pm said:

    Back to TEMPERATURE: when CO2 cools, its’ electrons certainly collapse to lower orbital states. But, bond vibration is not simply “on / off” like a toggle switch. Is is more a function of multiple / many energy states.

    Let’s remember that all molecules can store energy and their overall energy is manifested as temperature. A molecule of anything at absolute zero temperature has, by definition, zero energy state. At any temperature above absolute zero it has some (greater) energy content.

    We could use, for this example, any molecule, but because it is so familiar to us – in all of its’ phases – let’s consider water. At absolute zero water is frozen solid and has zero energy.

    As water molecule warms it is still solid and cannot “store” (manifest) its’ energy state in any manner except by vibration of its chemical (molecular) bonds. More energy = higher temperature = more bond vibration.

    When water warms and transitions from a solid to a liquid, the water molecule can now also spin to store some energy and translate (move through a puddle of other water molecules) as another mechanism of starting more energy. The collection of millions (or more) or water molecules will, at any time, have molecules with low spins, medium spins and high spins, and low translation (velocities), medium and high velocities. Of course, the spins & velocities are constantly changing, due to collisions,. but, regardless, the temperature of the overall collection of molecules is the direct measure of its’ energy. NO molecules have a pocket to store a sandwich for later or can they gain fat (like people) or any means of storing energy that does not contribute to the overall gross energy of the collection of molecules.

    When water is heated further, it begins to evaporate. Relatively speaking, evaporation (transition to vapor state) requires a huge amount of energy. That additional energy is stored in greater bond vibrations, EXTREMELY more rapid spins and translations and strong collisions. As the water vapor (which we call steam) is heated more and more (i.e. more energy being added), the energy is stored within the steam molecules by the same mechanisms described previously.

    Of note: When evaporating al water does not vaporize instantly. the highest energy state molecules (those on the extreme right of bell curve) gain a bit of energy and move from the liquid phase to the vapor phase. At a given instant that a single event of this type happens, the overall energy state of the liquid is slightly reduced (because the liquid lost its’ highest energy molecule to the vapor phase). This is manifested as a slightly reduced temperature. It is the basis of evaporative cooling – why you cool from sweating; without which life would likely be impossible.

    Bottom line: temperature is a direct measurement of the energy content of a system and Energy is always conserved (it can be moved ). It is not created or destroyed by interactions of matter – except in nuclear reactions.

  29. Alan "A" on 07/12/2015 at 2:53 pm said:

    Perhaps we can abandon all heating and cooing systems and instead slightly increase CO2 in our homes in winter and slightly reduce CO2 in summer.

    And, if the concentrations would be toxic, perhaps we can have little sealed boxes of 100% CO2 – I am guessing some folks think these little CO2 boxes would somehow generate heat from thin air or “trap” the heat and stay warm permanently. I want one for a permanent hand warmer while skiing.

    If the don’t think that, then maybe they don’t really know what they think….

    Who wants to go first ?

  30. Alan "A" on 07/12/2015 at 4:17 pm said:

    Richard, I will MILDLY disagree with you that thermodynamics is more about the laws of energy (in terms of the physics of energy) and heat is only one manifestation of energy.

    1st law – conservation of energy
    2nd: increasing entropy in all systems
    3rd: zero entropy is for academic / ideal / theoretical processes (thought experiments) like those at: absolute zero, on frictionless planes, etc.

    My experience with HEAT TRANSFER is that it is about the mechanisms of (moving heat) transfer: conduction, convention, radiation and the methods to analyzed different systems and conditions to predict / design for desired behavior. Detailed study of heat exchange devices, material and energy balances including heat energy, high temperature radiative bodies (so-called cavity radiators), etc. Certainly we meet in the middle by agreeing that HEAT transfer is based, in its’ theoretical derivations, on the laws of thermodynamics (as a subset) within PHYSICS.

    An interesting item from many years ago with my friend Brian S. illustrates what many folks misunderstand. In discussing experiments approaching absolute zero (which has never been achieved – but they have been very close), Brian stated that in his estimation – if they ever achieved absolute zero the system would explode… His rationale was that all that energy had to go somewhere and it would just “come out” resulting in an explosion…

    The fundamental point he did not understand – temperature is the direct measure of energy content. At absolute zero there would be no energy in the material in question and hence no potential (energy) for an explosion or a reaction of any kind. That is, in the process of cooling to absolute zero, all the energy is / has been removed (by definition).

    Of course, the reason they don’t ever achieve absolute zero is because they cannot isolate a system to the extent that there is ABSOLUTELY no energy transferred from the surrounding and/or experimental equipment… Close, but not perfect. The 3rd law of thermodynamics tells me they never will…

  31. Richard C (NZ) on 07/12/2015 at 6:15 pm said:

    Alan >”Richard, I will MILDLY disagree with you that thermodynamics is more about the laws of energy (in terms of the physics of energy) and heat is only one manifestation of energy.”

    Yes, I dropped the distinction in my response to RT for the sake of expediency – my bad. In my defense i did provide a definition of heat which stated:

    Heat Physics a. A form of energy associated with the motion of atoms or molecules……..

    But again yes, plenty of energy being transferred in space but no evidence of heat, until there’s some matter in the way like a planet, moon, or International Space Station.

  32. Alan "A" on 08/12/2015 at 9:36 am said:

    Richard, please do not think that heat transfer (as an engineering discipline) accounts for transmission over the vacuum of space, through air, etc. The mechanism is radiation (light / photons).

    The mechanism is minimal to zero at “normal” life temperatures. Many common materials decompose into other compounds / molecules / mixtures before they get “hot” enough to emit appreciable heat by radiation.
    Look into black body cavity radiators for good background…

    But, consider items from our own experience / knowledge. Hot steel glows and emits much “heat” to the surrounding air but can also be “felt” when one is close. Similar effects from heating elements in electric ovens, toasters, etc. Anything stable enough to maintain its “chemical form” when it gets hot enough will emit heat via radiation (hot lava, lighting elements, burning wood, etc. etc).

    The point being that radiation heat transfer is extremely minimal at temperatures we are comfortable with (cannot be burned by). We do not see little glowing balls of CO2 floating along in our air. But that same air does glow and transfer significant heat via radiant means when directly adjacent to a fire. That is the hot gas that is glowing, as fire is not a “thing” (not composed of matter).

    So, heat transfer is also associated with a mechanism of direct “radiant transfer”. This is due to reduction in energy state of individual electrons from high orbitals (excited energy states) to lower orbitals (lesser energy states). The “recovered” energy associated with these electrons dropping to lower orbitals – which are in discrete (very specific & defined quantities {quanta}) amounts – is emitted as energy in the form of light: “photons”. We know much about the so-called “dual nature of light” in that it behaves both as a wave and as though in discrete bundles / packets (photons).

    My analogy for this is water, which behaves in and of itself as an individual molecule. A collection of a large number of water molecules is what we typically observe and we seldom appreciate that the “bulk” properties of “water” arise from both the sum total of the individual water molecules properties and the interactions between all of these, very special, molecules through hydrogen bonding, van der waals forces, extreme polarity of bonds, etc. As a result of these “interactive” properties, we see “water” with its extreme latent heat of vaporization, expansion upon freezing, special solvation properties, and so on.

  33. Alan "A" on 08/12/2015 at 10:15 am said:

    We expect significant radiant heat transfer from glowing objects / materials / processes, whether they are: stars, lava, ovens, fires…

    We do not expect to feel appreciable energy transfer “radiantly” from objects / material / process at or below room temperature. No one has ever gotten “burns” (like sunburn) from exposure to from temperature CO2. At such low energy levels, there simply is not enough radiant energy available to do anything except stimulate very sensitive receptors like eyes. Said otherwise, energy transfer by this mechanism at such low temperatures is close to zero and has only a theoretical value.

    We should note that per Stefan-Boltzman equations: power emitted via radiation is proportional to the absolute temperature of the material to the 4th power ( T(abs) to the 4th power). Calculate your absolute temperature to the 4th power (98.6 + 460) degrees K vs temp of sun (6000 K) to the 4th power.

    560 degrees K to the 4th power vs 6000 degrees K to the 4th power indicates that in cases of objects (of equal surface area) at these two temperatures, the suns radiant energy emitted (per unit area) is 393 million times that of a person. The obverse says that a ball of CO2 @ 99 degrees F radiates one / 393-millionth that off a ball of mass at 6000 K (sun temp), or for all practical purposes ZERO.

    This is a bit like dropping a ball to the ground… In theory, the earth attracts the ball – based on earths’ mass and the distance between the two objects. Simultaneously, the ball also attracts the earth based in its’ (the balls’ ) mass and that same distance… Did you “feel the earth move” ?

    Does it get cooler in the daytime because; as our surface heats from solar radiation, that surface radiates slightly more energy to space ? Me thinks not !!!

    The “greenhouse effect” is that glass acts as a check valve to allow radiant energy to heat ground and then retain it from being dissipated more rapidly than it would through other forms of heat transfer (convection, conduction) that would otherwise occur if there were no sealed glass dome surrounding that ground space and the air within (the ground / surfaces heat the surrounding air) and eventually the air cools via loss to the environment through the glass (conduction / convection).

    Even considering the glass allowing re-radiating (by the ground and/or materials within the greenhouse), the loss via radiant heat transfer would be about one – three hundred ninety three millionth of that gained from sunshine (unless the inside temp of the greenhouse gets like that of the suns’ surface (never seems to happen in my greenhouse) !!!

  34. Richard C (NZ) on 08/12/2015 at 1:20 pm said:

    Alan >”Richard, please do not think that heat transfer (as an engineering discipline) accounts for transmission over the vacuum of space, through air, etc. The mechanism is radiation (light / photons).”

    Relax Alan, I don’t. I think we are talking at cross-purposes. I made the clarification and distinction upthread but perhaps it would be helpful to summarize:

    The distinction is: energy transfer which includes transfer of energy as radiation and transfer of energy as heat.

    Energy transfer mechanism through space, through air, troposphere, upper atmosphere without interaction with matter (molecules): radiative, for example heat in matter (e.g. sun) => radiation through space and air => heat in matter (e.g. earth). This is in effect heat transfer but not by that mechanism because the intermediate energy state is radiation and the transfer is by radiation.

    Energy transfer mechanisms in fluids and matter (i.e. molecules including CO2): heat conduction, heat convection, heat diffusion, latent heat of evaporation. also heat advection.

    Heat transfer

    6.3 “Greenhouse effect” in the above link is dead wrong in respect to an erroneous transfer of energy as radiation from a cool fluid (troposphere) to heated matter (surface material) i.e. spurious heat (therefore energy) transfer. 6.3 is a violation of the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states:

    “Heat will not of itself move from a cool object to a hot object”

    That means heat will not be transferred in such a manner by any mechanism including as energy in the form of radiation whereby the energy transfer is: heat energy (cool troposphere) => radiative energy => heat energy (hot surface). This is in effect heat transfer by radiative energy transfer but an impossibility from cool to hot.

    Climate science makes this violation and the US Supreme Court has enshrined it in Law as the “endangerment finding” as upthread.

  35. Richard C (NZ) on 08/12/2015 at 1:52 pm said:

    [A] >”Energy transfer mechanism through space, through air, troposphere, upper atmosphere without interaction with matter (molecules): radiative…….”

    CO2 in the troposphere is a passive radiative energy transfer medium and in effect a heat transfer medium i.e. a coolant by definition (refrigerant code R744).

    [B] >”Energy transfer mechanisms in fluids and matter (i.e. molecules including CO2): heat conduction, heat convection, heat diffusion………”

    CO2 in the troposphere is ALSO a passive heat transfer medium in the fluid (air). UCAR neglects [B} in the article and animation upthread reproduced here:

    ‘Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation’

    It is the “passive” nature of CO2 in both [A] and [B] that explains why CO2 is not an effective climate forcing as per the IPCC’s own climate change criteria: earth;s energy balance measured at top of atmosphere (TOA).

    Using pre-industrial and 2015 CO2 levels of 280ppm and 400ppm, theoretical CO2 “forcing” at TOA is 1.9 W.m-2 (net antho is even more). But the observed TOA imbalance is only 0.6 W.m-2 as cited in IPCC AR5 Chapter 2 i.e. theory is more than 3x fact.

    Worse, the surface energy imbalance is also 0.6 W.m-2 i.e. theoretical CO2 “forcing” does not fit between surface and TOA. The actual forcing has already occurred via sun-ocean(+land) interaction and lagged oceanic heat transport.

    Over the coming decade these inconvenient laws, realities, and truths, will eventually crush the UNFCCC/IPCC and the theory of man-made climate change. And reveal all the COP negotiations to be the most idiotic process in human civilization.

  36. Alan "A" on 08/12/2015 at 2:01 pm said:

    Assuming many folks are familiar with “heat capacity of gases”. It is, an experimentally derived value for the amount of heat required to be a added to specific amount of gas to raise its’ temperature by one degree.

    The values for these are well know and defined by many experiments over many years for many pure substances, materials. mixtures. compounds and over quite a wide range of conditions (temperature and pressure). It is not uncommon that the heat capacity to raise a gas one degree at say 100 degrees F is somewhat different than heat capacity at say 1,000 degrees. Us engineer types find that we can often use dimensionless parameters, to define “regimes” of application where certain models, empirical equations and approximate constants might be applied for purposes of simplification yet still quite accurate prediction. Common examples of these dimensionless parameters are Reynolds numbers, Mach numbers, Prandtl numbers, fried numbers and Debeye numbers. Many exist for many purposes to define “regions of application”.

    The advantage to this approach is that we can precisely state the “FUNCTIONAL” relationship between energy input (or output) and temperature rise (or drop). And this relationship is INDEPENDENT of our need to know, on a molecular bond level, exactly how the energy is absorbed / stored / exists at that particular state (bond vibrations / twists / molecular rotation / translation / collisions). Regardless, the energy IS (by first law – conservation of energy) ALWAYS MANIFESTED (& measurable directly) as TEMPERATURE.

    THE GWC people would have us believe that CO2 defies this and somehow can be heated, share that heat with surrounding molecules (everything else in the air) – which does, in fact, occurs by heat transfer (i.e. the entire mixture is constantly “working” to equilibrate to the same temperature by natural processes) yet, simultaneously that same CO2 molecule also retains the same heat that it is / has shared to elevate the bulk gas temperature.

    If this were to occur, it would be spontaneous generation of excess energy. But, it does not. And since conservation of energy is a fundamental law in this universe – the CO2 cannot simultaneously keep (store) its heat gain and give it away too.

    Want to help me prove this ? I have an experiment in mind …..

  37. Alan "A" on 08/12/2015 at 2:41 pm said:

    Agree – radiative transfer applies where the medium through which transfer occurs is transparent to that radiative energy (such as most (but not all) natural light through air).

    Explains why:

    Sunlight hits the ground {but not so great through clouds, dust, rain, snow) / radio waves go through the air / X-rays go through soft tissue / high energy particles (say neutrinos) go through the earth…

    A not very well understood area is the Ozone layer. Most folks follow the simplified explanation that Ozone filters the sunlight and removes a large fraction of the harmful Ultraviolet rays – from the sun. Well, NOT EXACTLY…

    A goodly fraction of the UV energy “band” (range of frequencies / wavelengths) is of the right can be (IS) absorbed by molecular Oxygen (O2). As the UV is absorbed, at high energy levels, by the Oxygen – Oxygen double bond, most of this occurs at the bottom of the Ozone layer where the concentration of Oxygen is sufficient. Above that elevation, the Ozone has been, to a large degree, converted to Ozone (O3). Ironically, O3 also absorbs UV light and it (relatively unstable) bonds break and the some is reconverted to O2 and/or O3.

    The 2 points of the above is that UV is not exactly “filtered”. Rather, it is consumed in constantly energizing molecular oxygen bonds (both O2 & O3) and maintaining a high concentration of Ozone in that “layer”. O3 is highly reactive as an oxidant and will serve to destroy excess amounts of organic solvents / organic particles / etc which it may encounter. Thus, the Ozone layer also cleans and disinfects the upper atmosphere. Secondly, these reactions occur, even in the extreme cold, of the upper atmosphere ONLY BECAUSE UV light can be directly absorbed into the O2 and O3 bonds (hence, the upper atmosphere is NOT transparent to a large portion of the UV band of sunlight). Lucky thing for us ! Or, maybe it’s not luck at all ;-

    The absorption of much UV makes life in sunlight possible. If all UV were transmitted to the surface there would likely her total destruction of any DNA in its’ path. These days, UV light is used to disinfect drinking water and wastewater treatment plant effluent, instead of industrial chemicals.

    We learned long ago that hanging on a clothesline the bedclothes, in the sun, somehow sanitizes them. Well, it wasn’t because they were sterilized since that would require pasteurization temperatures, like say 180 degrees F.

    We know there are ” Ozone holes” at the poles…. We also know, by many means – like weather / ice / measurements: that the poles get much less sunlight (both seasonally and in terms of intensity). So, less sunlight means less UV and therefore less excitation of the upper atmospheric Oxygen. There is also a time-lag between the measurable reduction in Ozone and the seasonal change / reduction in light.

    This is a bit like a warm day remaining so – well into the evening – until the ground yields much of its excess “heat of the day” back to the air by conduction / convection. And very much like the wind direction changing from landward to seaward in cycles of land / sea uneven heating / cooling (land and sea have very different heat capacities) due to SUNSHINE.

    This place is amazing. the more one studies it the more it’s sophistications and intricacies are revealed. As such, each hard-won revelation should increase humility.

    I am considering changing the rules and turning off chemical bonding unless everyone pays me an appropriate tax. How much will you pay ?

  38. Alan "A" on 08/12/2015 at 7:35 pm said:

    By the way:

    Since we are supposedly at, or past,”PEAK OIL, (Hubberts’ peak) what’s the difference. Supposedly, if we have already burned more than half of all fossil fuels and we only see a minor CO2 & temp increase, why bother – we should run out of fossil fuels before a true problem arises.

    Does anyone know what orchid growers do in their greenhouses to increase growth rates ? Toss in dry ice…Yes, increased CO2 concentration increases growth rate. The problem is you have to keep putting in more CO2 because the dang plants use it all up… And they lose less water because the reduce the opening on their stomata as CO2 uptake gets easier (i.e. with increased partial pressure of CO2). Maybe they can engineer another tax to increase CO2 after they tax us to reduce it.

    Same is true on large scale earth – balance between plants and animals (most animals are microscopic or at least little). Termites are a major source of CO2 emission – as they decompose wood. If they did not, we would be buried in wood. Maybe we would call that “wood pollution”.

  39. Richard C (NZ) on 10/12/2015 at 11:17 am said:

    Too much fun. COP21 is due to wind up Friday (they hope) but progress is mixed:

    First this:

    ‘Paris climate change talks yield first draft amid air of optimism’
    Saturday 5 December 2015

    Tuesday 3 days later this:

    ‘Roadblocks remain as COP 21 talks enter final stretch’

    Wednesday this:

    ‘Fabius presents new draft ahead of climate deal deadline’
    Latest update : 2015-12-09

    So now they’re off to the races with a new draft, with only 2 days left:

    ‘A New Draft of the Paris Climate Agreement, and What Remains’

    December 9, 2015

    LE BOURGET, France – It all comes down to the nitty-gritty. The latest draft of the international climate agreement that 195 nations have been haggling over was released midafternoon Wednesday, just after Secretary of State John Kerry gave an impassioned speech urging consensus.

    Read the full text of the agreement here. [hotlink]

    The remaining points of disagreement will seem fairly abstruse to anyone who doesn’t follow climate politics closely, but they have important implications. Here are some of the major unresolved questions.

    • Should the talks’ purpose be to keep the temperature increase since the Industrial Revolution “below” or “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)? Or should there be a more ambitious target of 1.5 degrees Celsius?

    (In reality, even a goal of 2 degrees won’t be met. If all the countries here were to carry out their emissions pledges, it would result in a long-term increase between 2.7 and 3.5 degrees Celsius. Nonetheless, island states that will face catastrophic consequences even under a 1.5 degree rise have been calling for a stronger target.)

    • How should the “common but differentiated responsibilities” that countries have accepted, in theory, be met in practice? Rich countries like the United States emphasize the word “common”: Although developed countries have caused the warming of the planet, developing countries now account for nearly two-thirds of emissions. Poorer countries emphasize the word “differentiated,” because they were not historically responsible for the problem. And the poorest countries want the document to emphasize that they will need lots of financial and technological help to meet their goals.

    • When it comes to fossil fuels, should the long-term goal be “zero greenhouse gas emissions,” “climate neutrality” or “decarbonization”? Oil producers like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela have balked at the word “decarbonization,” which implies a rapid, permanent move away from fossil fuels, even though scientists are in general agreement that the world economy must shift almost exclusively to renewable sources of energy.

    • Should all countries agree to take steps that are “measurable, reportable and verifiable,” as the United States is strongly pushing for? This is a crucial sticking point. In the absence of a global government, this week’s agreement will be largely based on the honor system. But Mr. Kerry and the European Union want stringent, data-based oversight so that the world will know whether countries are meeting their targets. Many other countries are resisting specifying such a quantified approach.

    • When it comes to financial and technological help to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change, should only rich countries be officially on the hook, or all countries “in a position to do so” (as the United States favors)?

    • What provisions should be made for “loss and damage” suffered by countries that will suffer long-term damage to their infrastructure, health and even existence as a result of extreme weather?

    — Sewell Chan


    # # #

    So just a few minor loose ends to tie up and the announcement of an “ambitious agreement”.

    We saved!

  40. Richard C (NZ) on 10/12/2015 at 11:26 am said:

    >”In the absence of a global government…….”

    Interesting phrase by the NY Times. What are they implying?

  41. Richard C (NZ) on 11/12/2015 at 8:40 am said:

    >So just a few minor loose ends to tie up and the announcement of an “ambitious agreement”.

    Oh dear, not looking good in the “high” ambition faction:

    ‘Is Coalition of High Ambition, led by EU and US, a sham?’

    Behind closed doors US and EU argue against their poor partners in the coalition; the Coalition turns out to be of just 15 countries and not 90 plus as claimed

    Nitin Sethi | Paris December 10, 2015


    Maybe they really mean “low” ambition.

  42. Richard C (NZ) on 11/12/2015 at 9:02 am said:

    ‘Stormy Weather Ushered In The Little Ice Age – HH Lamb’

    By Paul Homewood. December 10, 2015

    Anybody who thinks that storms around the UK have anything to do with global warming should read what HH Lamb had to say about the period around the 13th and 14thC , when the warmth of the medieval period was beginning to disappear

    [see text reproduced]


  43. Richard C (NZ) on 11/12/2015 at 9:13 am said:

    Laurent Fabius’ draft COP21 agreement:

    Wow… draft climate agreement refers to ‘Mother Earth’. Now that’s some science.

    Here’s the draft agreement. [hotlink] Here’s the first page — note highlighted text:


  44. Richard C (NZ) on 11/12/2015 at 9:17 am said:

    ‘UN Chief: Global Warming ‘Not Visible,’ But We Still Need Global Treaty’

    Michael Bastasch 12/07/2015

    United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon admitted Monday that even if global warming can’t be seen or felt by humans, the world should still agree to an international treaty to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

    “We are living in a world of peril,” Ban tells Mashable, according to ThinkProgress. “This climate change, even if it is not visible, is the worst threat to human beings.”

    “This agreement should have a long term ambitious vision,” Ban says. “Unfortunately, our world has a fever. The prescription should have a 2°C limit.”


  45. Richard C (NZ) on 11/12/2015 at 10:02 am said:

    >“This agreement should have a long term ambitious vision,” Ban says.

    The word for COP21 is “ambitious”.


    Got it?

    Here it is again:

    ‘Paris climate talks deadlocked, India is the key ‘

    Chetan Chauhan, Hindustan Times, Paris | Updated: Dec 10, 2015

    India’s crucial role at the climate change talks in Paris has once again been underlined by a high-level outreach by the United States, including a call to Prime Minister Modi from President Barack Obama who hopes to cement his legacy with an ambitious global agreement on curbing global warming.


    “Binding” appears to have been abandoned, now it is just “ambitious”.

    ambitious/adjective – “having or showing a strong desire and determination to succeed.”

    Yes, a lot of “showing” going on but “showing” and actually mutually succeeding are very different concepts.

    This is all about brinkmanship; “showing” for appearances but all the respective aims are different i.e. everyone has a different idea of what “success” will be for them and each wants THEIR success not someone else’s. But great they have “ambition”. Groser’s mastered the art, which is why he’s there of course.

    I don’t think Ban Ki-moon realizes that “ambitious” is probably not a word that carries any notion of finality. It is merely intent.

  46. Richard C (NZ) on 11/12/2015 at 1:02 pm said:

    ‘NZ cuts temperature target to 1.5ºC in Paris talks’

    New Zealand will line up with more than 100 other countries behind the so-called ‘high ambition’ target to limit global temperature rises to 1.5ºC

    Source: NZN

    Mr Groser said it had been his view that limiting global temperature rise to 1.5ºC was unachievable, but he didn’t want the potential for an agreement in Paris to founder over an issue of “aspirational language”.

    “Since it’s obviously so important to Pacific Island countries (some of which face possible inundation as sea levels rise), we’ve said ‘OK’,” he said.


    At this stage, there were no red flags for New Zealand in the emerging agreement, although neither New Zealand nor the US would accept proposals that would make developed countries legally liable to fully compensate developing countries for natural disasters created by more extreme weather.

    “The reality is that whenever a hurricane goes through the Cook Islands or somewhere else in the Pacific, New Zealand and Australia step up,” said Mr Groser.

    “But we won’t live with language that says we are legally liable to fully remedy loss and damage.”


    # # #

    Gosh, “HIGH” ambition.

    The “aspirational language” is reaching tipping point now.,

  47. Richard C (NZ) on 11/12/2015 at 2:06 pm said:

    ‘At COP21, a Victory for 1.5 Degrees?’

    Major powers make a major concession on their stated climate targets. Given the money and the science, that concession remains largely rhetorical.


    That victory, though, is all too symbolic, especially as brinkmanship continues on the financial side. This morning, Oxfam issued a troubling statement about recent developments in the text—specifically, the deletion of language that would commit an interim finance target of $100 billion to the Green Climate Fund by 2020.


    This morning, Harjeet Singh of ActionAid told reporters that including 1.5 in the final agreement is useless without proper finance and accountability.

    “We need not language but implementation that also accounts for displacement and permanent loss and damage,” he said.


    In other words, the U.S. is happy to ratchet up ambition, as long as it means re-negotiating the financial mechanisms to modulate their commitments.

    Still, 1.5 is great if it leads to a more ambitious—and frequent—review process of INDCs, one that begins by 2020 rather than by 2030, the year that several major players, including the European Union, are sticking to.

    “That’s what 1.5 is actually about—it’s about stimulating action today,” Heather Coleman of Oxfam told reporters yesterday.


    # # #

    >“That’s what 1.5 is actually about—it’s about stimulating action today,”

    No Heather, it is actually about “ratcheting up” AMBITION i.e. this is merely “aspirational language” to fool people like you who are not paying enough attention.

  48. Simon on 11/12/2015 at 3:47 pm said:

    Here is a nice analysis by Tamino looking at the divergence between RSS and radiosonde data, which is what RSS is supposed to be calibrated against. RSS is not a reliable measure of surface temperatures, even
    Carl Mears (who developed RSS) confirms that. If you want to look at surface temperature trends, look at the surface temperature data.

  49. Richard C (NZ) on 11/12/2015 at 5:59 pm said:

    ‘In the midst of the negotiations this week new research indicated carbon emissions will fall in 2015.

    This drop in emissions is a turnaround from the more than 2 per cent growth seen on average for the previous decade. It also comes at a time when the world is experiencing global economic expansion, unlike the previous emissions drop which coincided with the global financial crisis.

    The findings come from the Global Carbon Budget, an annual report of carbon dioxide emissions incorporating data from multiple research institutes from around the world. It waspublished in the journal Earth System Science Data, with acommentary from the authors also being published in Nature Climate Change.

    “This paper offers some very exciting results and prospects for the future,” Prof James Renwick from Victoria University of Wellington, told the SMC.

    “After decades of ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions, and at a time when we need some real action on climate change, this paper is very welcome news indeed – if it really indicates a long-term shift.”


    # # #

    Except, global CO2 levels are not flat or falling too.

    Which means global CO2 levels are unrelated to human CO2 emissions.

  50. Richard C (NZ) on 11/12/2015 at 6:27 pm said:

    Simon, you say

    >”…the divergence between RSS and radiosonde data, which is what RSS is supposed to be calibrated against. RSS is not a reliable measure of surface temperatures, even Carl Mears (who developed RSS) confirms that. If you want to look at surface temperature trends, look at the surface temperature data.”

    OK fine.

    Here’s HadCRUT4 surface temperature vs CO2-forced climate models:


    And here’s BOTH radiosondes and RSS/UAH tropical mid-troposphere vs CO2-forced climate models:


    Your argument FAILS on both counts Simon.

  51. Richard C (NZ) on 11/12/2015 at 6:54 pm said:

    >”Here is a nice analysis by Tamino looking at the divergence between RSS and radiosonde data,”

    And here is the difference between satellite and radiosonde data from Remote Sensing Systems:

    Upper Air Temperature Validation
    MSU & AMSU Data Comparison with In Situ Observations

    Satellite data must be sub-sampled to provide an apples-to-apples comparison such as Tamino’s.

  52. Richard C (NZ) on 11/12/2015 at 7:22 pm said:

    >”the U.S. is happy to ratchet up AMBITION, as long as it means re-negotiating the financial mechanisms to modulate their commitments.”

    Here’s the reason:

    Peter Schiff Warns: “The Whole Economy Has Imploded… Collapse Is Coming”

    Mac Slavo December 6th, 2015

    Read by 35,413 people

    Back before 2008 Peter Schiff was harshly criticized and laughed at for his predictions about a coming economic collapse. Among other things Schiff warned that consumer spending had hit a wall, stocks were overpriced and lax credit lending practices would lead to a detonation of the banking system. Rather than heed the warnings, the biggest names in mainstream media tried to discredit him for not toeing the official narrative. Shortly thereafter, of course, Schiff was vindicated and much of the doom he had forecast came to pass.

    Today, Schiff continues to argue that the economy is on a downhill trajectory and this time there’ll be no stopping it. All of the emergency measures implemented by the government following the Crash of 2008 were merely temporary stop-gaps. The light at the end of the tunnel being touted by officials as recovery, Schiff has famously said, is actually an oncoming train. And if the forecast he laid out in his latest interview is as accurate as those he shared in 2007, then the the train is about to derail.

    “We’re broke. We’re basically living off of debt. We’ve had a huge transformation of the American economy. Look at all the Americans now on food stamps, on disability, on unemployment.

    The whole economy has imploded… the bottom hasn’t dropped out yet because we’re able to go deeper into debt. But the collapse is coming.”

    Fundamentally, America is worse off now than it was pre-crash. With the national debt rising unabated and money being printed out of thin air without reprieve, it is only a matter of time.

    Schiff notes that while government statistics claim Americans are saving again and consumers seem to be spending, the average Joe Sixpack actually has a negative net worth. But most people don’t even realize what’s happening:

    “I read a statistic… The average American has less than a $5000 net worth… it’s pathetic… we’re basically broke… but in fact it’s much less… If you actually took the national debt and broke it down per capita, the average American has a negative net worth because the government has borrowed in his name more than the average American is able to save.

    What’s happening is pretty much what we would anticipate. I don’t see from the data any real economic recovery, certainly not in the United States.

    We’re spending more money, but it’s not because we’re generating more wealth. We’re generating more debt. We’re using that borrowed money to consume and so temporarily it feels that we’re wealthier because we get to spend all that money… but we have to come to terms with paying the bill.

    The bills are going to come due. Right now interest rates are being kept at zero which makes it possible to service the debt even though it’s impossible to repay it… at least we can service it. But once interest rates go up then we can’t even service it let alone repay it.

    And then the party is going to come to an end.”

    The problem, of course, is that no one with any real influence over public perception, like our elected officials or the media, will do anything about it. They’ll continue the party until it comes to an abrupt and irreversible end, and anyone who goes against the official narrative will be branded a lunatic gloom and doomer or extremist.

    But vilifying those who are blaring the warning sirens will do nothing to change the end result:

    “We’re going to have a crisis… There are always going to be people who say ‘well, you’re a stopped clocked… you keep predicting doom and eventually it happens’… but you have to back and listen to why… Why are they saying it?

    If you look back at things that I’ve said and the things that Ron Paul has said… This is why it’s happening… it’s not like we’re just saying negative things to be negative and then when something negative happens we can claim credit for it happening.

    If you look back at the events it bears out that we’re right… unfortunately our opinions are in the minority… and you have governments that have a vested interest in ignoring these opinions because they don’t want to change because they’re at the root cause of the problem. But they don’t want to acknowledge their role in creating the problem. They don’t want to acknowledge that the problem is more government and that we need less government because that’s not how they stay in power. They promise something for nothing… they promise that government is the solution for your problems, not the cause of your problems.

    They’re never going to acknowledge people like Ron Paul for what they’re saying… but they’ll try to discredit you by saying ‘well, you’ve been saying this for years and nothing bad has happened.’

    But look around. A lot of bad stuff has happened. We just haven’t had the final and complete collapse. But what good is it when that happens? Now it’s too late to do anything about it.”

    The reality is that the American economy is on its last leg. Black Friday sales were pitiful, some of the world’s leading companies are warning of recession, and U.S. national debt will soon surpass $20 Trillion.

    Just as was the case before the Crash of 2008, all of the signs are there. And just like before, the stock market continues to hover near all-time highs.

    If you’ve been paying attention you know what happens next.


    # # #

    Not much different in China or EU. This is why emissions are falling (see upthread). They will fall a whole lot more rendering COP negotiations redundant. And yes, the global economy will be “transformed” just not the way the UN is planning.

    When the inevitable crunch comes, nobody will be giving a toss about climate change.

  53. Richard C (NZ) on 11/12/2015 at 8:46 pm said:


    A reminder. Surface temperature, or temperature anywhere on the planet or atmosphere, is NOT the IPCC’s primary criteria for climate change.

    That metric is the earth’s energy budget ‘measured at top of atmosphere’ (TOA).

    Haggling over the minutia of temperature trends is an exercise in irrelevancy when it is now obvious that theoretical CO2 “forcing” (1.9 W.m-2, increasing) is NOT the cause of the earth’s energy balance (0.6 W.m-2, trendless).

  54. Richard C (NZ) on 11/12/2015 at 9:00 pm said:

    Should be “earth’s energy [im]balance”

  55. Magoo on 12/12/2015 at 10:47 am said:

    RT – you should rename the ‘Climate Conversation Group’ the ‘Richard Cummings Soliloquy’.

  56. Richard C (NZ) on 12/12/2015 at 10:57 am said:

    #COP21 Talks Delayed – US Threatens To Walk Out Of Paris Talks If Financial Obligations Made Legally Binding


    66% of pledges have nothing to do with the climate. Billions in claims “inflated”


  57. Richard C (NZ) on 12/12/2015 at 11:24 am said:

    NZ Herald (Morton) Q & A with Groser:

    [Morten] We’ve got a New Zealand delegation here that includes both Labour and the Greens. Is this what you’d like to see more of going forward?

    [Groser] We have an understanding that there are certain policy frameworks in New Zealand which take decades to put in place, and where you need a very high degree of consensus – particularly amongst the two major parties of Labour and National – on at least a structure of a policy response.

    You can have an argument about the speed of adjustment, and that’s legitimate – we might want to go faster on trade than Labour and they might want to go faster on climate change than us, we can live with that – but what we can’t live with is radically different policy structures.

    So one day, New Zealand’s free trade, and the other day we’re protectionist; one day New Zealand has got an emissions trading scheme, the other day we junk it.

    We’ve seen this in Australian politics – where the complete absence of any broad consensus between the Australian Labour Party and the Australian Liberal Party on the core response to climate change has been the most divisive issue there in the last five years.

    We don’t want that.


    # # #

    Agreed. It leads us into an economic morass but we don’t live in a dictatorship.

    In a democracy the government of the day has a responsibility to represent everyone on issues that may span multiple governments of different stripe. That, unfortunately, includes points of view that are disagreeable to the govt of the day and the electorate that voted them in.

    The Left would prefer that democracy has no place in these issues and that they should dictate the terms for everyone.


  58. Richard C (NZ) on 13/12/2015 at 8:53 am said:

    Forget COP deal, check out the acronyms:

    ‘Paris Climate Talks Called a ‘Fraud’ By the Father of Climate Science [Hansen] as Nations Make a Deal’

    When asked for his take on the negotiations, James Hansen, formerly NASA’s chief climatologist and arguably the most famous climate scientist on Earth, called it all one big fraud. From the Guardian:

    “It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

    Hansen has called for a climate “fee,” similar to a carbon tax, to be levied on countries that are major emitters—an idea that has failed to gain mainstream traction.

    Meanwhile, lawmakers and leaders in Paris are working on more important things, like creating ludicrous acronyms, as The Atlantic points out.

    Yet CBDRILONCWRC turns out to be pretty important. According to Ryan Mearns, a Kiwi university student who has become one of the conference’s most important (if unofficial) scribes, it stands for “Common But Differentiated Responsibility In Light Of National Circumstances With Respective Capability.”

    The climate negotiations in summation: no to binding emissions tax, yes to CBDRILONCWRC.


    ‘The Most Stupendous Acronym From the Paris Climate Talks’


    # # #

    Still looking for news that govt heads have actually voted the deal in. All the articles so far just assume it’s a done deal ahead of the vote but they don’t report the actual vote.

  59. Richard C (NZ) on 13/12/2015 at 9:18 am said:

    >”Still looking for news that govt heads have actually voted the deal in. All the articles so far just assume it’s a done deal ahead of the vote but they don’t report the actual vote.”

    UN News trumpets a triumph but now timeline. The closest I can get is this from FT:

    ‘COP21: Paris agreement formally adopted’

    Last updated: December 12, 2015 6:47 pm

    Delegates from nearly 200 nations cheered and hugged one another on the floor of the convention centre hall at Le Bourget airport, north of the city centre, as France’s foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, declared the new pact had been formally adopted, just before 7:30pm in Paris.


    Even this is odd. If the update was 6:47 pm how could they possibly know for sure what happened “just before 7:30pm” ?

  60. Richard C (NZ) on 13/12/2015 at 9:34 am said:

    If the actual “Paris Agreement” is anything to go by, no Parties have signed yet. That’s not until next year or even the year after:

    Proposal by the President
    Draft decision -/CP.21

    1. Decides to adopt the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as “the Agreement”) as contained in the annex;
    2. Requests the Secretary-General of the United Nations to be the Depositary of the Agreement and to have it open for signature in New York, United States of America, from 22 April 2016 to 21 April 2017;
    3. Invites the Secretary-General to convene a high-level signature ceremony for the Agreement on 22 April 2016;
    4. Also invites all Parties to the Convention to sign the Agreement at the ceremony to be convened by the Secretary-General, or at their earliest opportunity, and to deposit their respective instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, where appropriate, as soon as possible;


    Source: UNFCCC website


    # # #

    There’s no agreement until the Parties sign. I don’t think this saga is over yet despite the grand statements by all and sundry.

  61. Richard C (NZ) on 13/12/2015 at 10:03 am said:

    ‘Final draft of #COP21 reached – with a 1 year “opt out” clause’


    Article 28
    1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary.
    2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal.
    3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this Agreement.


    # # #

    So any Party can “opt in” to agree to “opt out” but first they have to formally “opt in” sometime from 22 April 2016 to 21 April 2017;

    This is a “landmark” deal already?

    Gigantic joke more like.

  62. Richard C (NZ) on 13/12/2015 at 11:32 am said:


    I’m sorry, I know a lot of you have a lot of emotion invested in this, and it’s a good emotion, and you’re thinking this conference is really important and all, and our ‘last chance’ to save the planet. But you’ve been had, it’s as simple as that. And co-opted. And conned.


  63. Richard C (NZ) on 13/12/2015 at 12:02 pm said:


    An imploding global economy may be your best shot at lowering emissions. But then again, it will lead to people burning anything they can get their hands on just to keep warm. Not a pretty prospect either.


  64. Richard C (NZ) on 13/12/2015 at 12:14 pm said:

    Meanwhile, the oil situation:

    ‘Russia plans $40 a barrel oil for next seven years as Saudi showdown intensifies’

    By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard 11 Dec 2015

    Russia is battening down the hatches for a Biblical collapse in oil revenues, warning that crude prices could stay as low as $40 a barrel for another seven years.

    Maxim Oreshkin, the deputy finance minister, said the country is drawing up plans based on a price band fluctuating between $40 to $60 as far out as 2022, a scenario that would have devastating implications for Opec.

    It would also spell disaster for the North Sea producers, Brazil’s off-shore projects, and heavily indebted Western producers. “We will live in a different reality,” he told a breakfast forum hosted by Russian newspaper Vedomosti.

    The cold blast from Moscow came as US crude plunged to $35.56, pummelled by continuing fall-out from the acrimonious Organisaton of Petrol Exporting Countries meeting last week. Record short positions by hedge funds have amplified the effect.

    Bank of America said there was now the risk of “full-blown price war” within Opec itself as Saudi Arabia and Iran fight out a bitter strategic rivalry through the oil market.

    Brent crude fell to $37.41, even though demand is growing briskly. It is the lowest since the depths of the Lehman crisis in early 2009. But this time it is a ‘positive supply shock’, and therefore beneficial for the world economy as a whole.

    The International Energy Agency said in its monthly market report that Opec has stopped operating as a cartel and is “pumping at will”, aiming to drive out rivals at whatever cost to its own members. Opec revenues will fall to $400bn (£263bn) this year if current prices persist, down from $1.2 trillion in 2012. This is a massive shift in global wealth.

    The IEA said global oil stocks were already at nose-bleed levels of 2,971m barrels, and were likely to increase by another 300m over the next six months as “free-wheeling Opec policy” floods the market.

    The watchdog played down fears that the world was running out of sites to store the glut, citing 230m barrels of new storage coming on stream. Inventories in the US are still only at 70pc capacity. But this could change once Iranian crude comes on stream later next year.

    Russia’s $40 warning is the latest escalation in a game of strategic brinkmanship between the Kremlin and Saudi Arabia, already at daggers drawn over Syria.

    The Russian contingency plans convey a clear message to Riyadh and to Opec’s high command that the country can withstand very low oil prices indefinitely, thanks to a floating rouble that protects the internal budget.

    Saudi Arabia is trapped by a fixed exchange peg, forcing it to bleed foreign reserves to cover a budget deficit running at 20pc of GDP.

    Russia claims to have the strategic depth to sit out a long siege. It is pursuing an import-substitution policy to revive its industrial and engineering core. It can ultimately feed itself. The Gulf Opec states are one-trick ponies by comparison.


    # # #

    >”It [Russia] is pursuing an import-substitution policy to revive its industrial and engineering core”

    Globalisation in reverse, good idea. This is what many other countries will be forced into anyway, best to start now.

  65. Richard C (NZ) on 13/12/2015 at 1:49 pm said:

    Sydney Morning Herald:

    Nearly 200 countries have struck a landmark grand bargain on climate change, agreeing for the first time to take action to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

    After two weeks of grinding negotiations in Paris, nations signed off on the new deal that aims to stop the emission of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere by the second half of the century.


    >”landmark grand bargain”?

    I don’t think so, unless bargain means con-job for the masses. In which case then yes it is.

    >”nations signed off on the new deal”

    No they didn’t. No Party has signed yet, that’s still to happen between 22 April 2016 and 21 April 2017. That’s if they opt in. If they do opt in there’s a clause to opt out again if they want to.

  66. Richard C (NZ) on 13/12/2015 at 4:21 pm said:

    Dave Frame:

    “Personally I think this sets us on a promising course. The goal of net zero CO2 emissions at some point in the century, which is implied by a 2C target, lurks implicitly in Article 4. Scientifically, that’s probably the best that we could realistically hope for – major fossil fuel economies couldn’t cope with a clear statement of a net zero CO2 target at this stage. But the direction of travel is clear.

    James Renwick:

    “Great to see (in article 4) that developed countries shall undertake “economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets”. Take note, New Zealand – no hot-air credits, actual emissions reductions are required. But, targets remain voluntary and the required actions remain daunting.


    # # #

    Frame and Renwick either haven’t thought this through or are ignorant of observations, or both.

    Here’s the first paragraph of Article 4:

    Article 4
    1. In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.


    >”a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks” BY NATION.

    There are now 2 satellite datasets observing this: JAXA IBUKI (GOSAT) and OCO-2. What they reveal is that vast swathes of industrial countries, notably entire States of USA, are actually already net absorbers. It is only really Sydney and Melbourne in Australia that are net emitting zones, the country as a whole is net absorbing.

    New Zealand is a net absorber.

    Some of the greatest net emitters are at the bottom of the “developing” category, and even demanding
    “climate reparations” like Bolivia. Hence…….

    ‘The Revenge of the Climate Reparations’ [IBUKI GOSAT]
    Willis Eschenbach / July 5, 2014

    On the public release of carbon dioxide flux estimates based on the observational data by the Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite “IBUKI” (GOSAT)
    December 5, 2012

    We don’t have net graphics from OCO-2 yet but we do have this:

    ‘Finally: visualized OCO2 satellite data showing global carbon dioxide concentrations’
    UPDATE: Eric Swenson provides this map in comments showing CO2 over the entire year from From September 2014 to October 2015. Also, reader “edimbukvarevic” provides this map of anthropogenic CO2 emissions for comparison:

    A nation’s “carbon footprint” certainly does not necessarily reflect CO2 levels above it. When the net emission/absorption data is formally determined on national levels, the result will be anything but what Frame and Renwick think. There will be an inter-State squabble in USA for starters.

    And again, for Frame and Renwick, New Zealand is a net absorber.

  67. Richard C (NZ) on 13/12/2015 at 5:05 pm said:

    Article 4 both opens a can of worms and lets the cat out of the bag at the same time – nice going COP21.

  68. Richard C (NZ) on 13/12/2015 at 9:28 pm said:

    GOSAT and OCO-2 (eventually) do what CarbonTracker doesn’t, include fossil fuel emissions in the net flux.

    CarbonTracker shows the net sources and sinks for North America, China, Europe, which are mostly sinks:


    But it provides no means of overlaying fossil fuel emissions on specific regions. Now we know that global fossil fuel emission growth has probably gone negative (see upthread) but total CO2 continues to grow i.e. fossil fuel emissions are unrelated to total CO2 levels. So until CarbonTracker includes fossil fuel emissions, only the satellite metrics can show the net effect over time in specific regions. The blanket national averages of fossil fuel emissions from CarbonTracker say nothing about what is happening to net fluxes within a region.

  69. Richard C (NZ) on 14/12/2015 at 8:06 am said:

    “Shall” out “Should” in.

    ‘Mystery Over Last Minute Change To Paris Agreement’

    December 13, 2015 By Paul Homewood

    There was one interesting development yesterday, as governments came together to approve the final draft of the Paris Agreement, as the Telegraph reported:

    [Telegraph…..”shall changed to “should” in passage on emission targets………]

    And who objected?

    [Telegraph……..”US unhappy”……….]

    The difference between “shall” and “should” is huge, as “shall” would make it legally binding.

    Why then did the US object? It is not quite as surprising as it first appears.

    This clause goes to the heart of the agreement, as it would oblige developed countries to reduce emissions. Obama knew that any such legally binding treaty would not get through Congress. The word “should” effectively makes emission cuts a voluntary exercise, which needs no treaty approval.

    All of this leaves one question. It seems inconceivable that US negotiators would not have spotted the significance of the original wording, and in such an important clause.

    On the other hand, the EU and UN have been enthusiastic to make emission cuts legally binding. Was there skulduggery at the last minute, with the word “shall” being slipped back in, with the hope that it would not be noticed?

    Here are the two versions: >>>>>>>

    # # #

    This caught out many in the media who were not paying attention. An Al Jazeera guy conducting a forum with 3 interviewees kept saying – “But Laurent Fabius says it’s legally binding…..”.

    Yes, Laurent Fabius’ draft WAS legally binding, but the final draft after the last minute change is NOT legally binding.

  70. Richard C (NZ) on 14/12/2015 at 8:12 am said:

    ‘Reprieve! Binding Paris treaty now voluntary mush’

    December 13, 2015, by Paul Driessen and Roger Bezdek

    Thus, in the end, what we apparently got out of Paris is voluntary emission caps, voluntary progress reviews, no international oversight of any voluntary progress, and voluntary contributions to the Fund.


  71. Richard C (NZ) on 14/12/2015 at 8:21 am said:

    >”Yes, Laurent Fabius’ draft WAS legally binding, but the final draft after the last minute change is NOT legally binding.”

    Fabius even offered a meally-mouthed apology. Something about lack of sleep and language difficulties.

    I don’t think so. Fabius was crowing the draft was “legally binding”, it was no mistake.

  72. Richard C (NZ) on 14/12/2015 at 8:35 am said:

    ‘GWPF Welcomes Non-Binding And Toothless Un Climate Deal*) ‘

    Written by Dr. Benny Peiser, GWPF, guest post on 13 December 2015.

    Dr Peiser said:

    “The Paris agreement is another acknowledgement of international reality. The deal is further proof, if any was needed, that the developing world will not agree to any legally binding caps, never mind reductions of their CO2 emissions.”

    “As seasoned observers predicted, the Paris deal is based on a voluntary basis which allows nations to set their own voluntary CO2 targets and policies without any legally binding caps or international oversight.”

    “In contrast to the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris deal removes all legal obligations for governments to cap or reduce CO2 emissions. This voluntary agreement also removes the mad rush into unrealistic decarbonisation policies that are both economically and politically unsustainable.”

    Lord Nigel Lawson, Chairman of the Global Warming Policy Forum, added:

    “The UK’s unilateral Climate Change Act is forcing British industry and British households to suffer an excessively high cost of electricity to no purpose. Following Paris, it is clearer than ever that the Act should be suspended until such time as a binding global agreement has been secured.”

    *) We would like to apologise to editors and correspondents as this is exactly the same statement we issued a year ago, with the sole change of Paris for Lima; but since there has been no substantive change in the COP21 deal there is no change in our assessment.


  73. Richard C (NZ) on 14/12/2015 at 7:07 pm said:

    ‘A Worthless Piece Of Paper’

    December 13, 2015 By Paul Homewood

    There have been many media reports that the Paris Agreement is a legally binding one, at least in part. It is therefore important to understand which bits of it are.

    There are many administrative clauses in the Agreement, but the ones that are of any significance and are legally binding appear to be:

    Article 4 […..see excerpts 2 and 9, 5, 13……]

    [Re 2 and 9] The existing INDC’s are already agreed to become formal NDC’s once the Agreement is ratified, so effectively this refers to future plans, which are agreed to be made every five years.

    [Re 5] It is also agreed that support be provided to developing countries, but there is no specific amount mentioned, or timescale.

    [Re 13] We then come on to GHG stocktaking, which crucially is up to the countries themselves, and not independently verified.

    So we find two basic areas where there is some sort of legally binding agreement:

    1) Submitting of new Nationally Determined Contributions every five years.

    2) A five-yearly GHG stocktake, which will commence in 2023.

    Although in theory there is an obligation that each future plan should reflect a progression on the previous one, this will in practice stand for very little, as countries are free to come up with whatever plan they like, and plead extenuating circumstances.

    The bottom line is that there is no provision to fine or otherwise punish any country that fails to meet its targets.


    # # #

    The last minute change (see upthread), probably enforced by the US, was in respect to the first “should” (was “shall”) in Article 4 clause 4 below:

    Article 4
    4. Developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets. Developing country Parties should continue enhancing their mitigation efforts, and are encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances.


    “Shall” would have made that clause legally binding and would have killed the agreement stone dead. So instead a limp deal which in 5 years time after this El Nino will all look insanely stupid.

  74. Richard C (NZ) on 14/12/2015 at 7:44 pm said:

    >”The last minute change (see upthread), probably enforced by the US, was in respect to the first “should” (was “shall”) in Article 4 clause 4″

    They’re not onto this at Hot Topic, They’re stuck on the Fabius draft wording (“shall”) and NBR reporting James Renwick but getting the language wrong (should be “should”):

    the biofarmer December 14, 2015 at 8:01 am

    [Quoting NBR] – “The developed countries shall undertake “economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets” but the targets remain voluntary and the required actions remain daunting, he [Renwick] says.”


    NBR was wrong not Renwick, unless Renwick used the word in response the reporter but the word “shall” is outside of the Renwick quote in NBR.

    Robert M December 14, 2015 at 1:05 pm

    “Article 4 may say that developed countries shall undertake “economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets”, as James Renwick says, ………”


    Still wrong.

    Don’t these guys bother to actually read the agreement directly themselves and to compare before-and-after draft-final? That “shall” => “should” change makes monumental difference. It changes the text from legally binding language to merely aspirational language.

    Small wonder they don’t understand the scientific deficiencies of climate change theory if they can’t attend to detail like this. NGO Lawyers (think Greenpeace) will be going over these nitty-gritty details, they wont miss the subtle difference. Eventually the reality will dawn on all concerned that the teeth of what really mattered was pulled at the last minute.

    I’m guessing Cindy Baxter (HT post author from Greenpeace) is onto it though. Be interesting to see her follow-up if she posts one.

  75. Richard C (NZ) on 15/12/2015 at 7:30 am said:

    ‘NZ traders see carbon at $10 a tonne by Christmas, foresters hopeful’

    Monday 14th December 2015

    The New Zealand price of carbon is closing on $10 a tonne and could reach that level before the end of the year, says carbon trading house OMF, spurred by the global climate change agreement in Paris and signs the government will remove subsidies to major industrial emitters in next year’s review of the emissions trading scheme.

    New Zealand Units, equivalent to a tonne of carbon each, broke through $9 for the first time since October 2011 this morning and were trading at $9.30 by mid-afternoon, having risen sharply since the announcement of the ETS review on Nov. 24.

    The price of NZUs plummeted from above $25 a tonne in early 2011 to trade at times below 50 cents a tonne before the government banned the use of international carbon credits in the middle of this year. That made the New Zealand market for carbon “domestic only” and underpinned the local carbon price, although the government wants international carbon credits trading to help meet the country’s emissions reduction target.

    “Predictions are hard to make,” said OMF’s director of financial markets, Nigel Brunel. “I think we could see $10 (per tonne of carbon) by the end of the month and $15 (a tonne) by the middle of next year.

    “This market has definitely turned,” he said.

    The rising carbon price potentially spells good news for New Zealand plantation forest owners, who have largely stopped planting trees for carbon farming since the carbon price plunge. Carbon of around $12 to $15 per tonne is seen as essential to make carbon farming break even.

    However, New Zealand Forest Owners’ Association executive director David Rhodes said there was a long way to go to get global rules in place that secure the future for forestry plantations as a source of carbon mitigation and abatement.

    The Paris deal “adequately recognises forestry and forestry benefits” in combatting climate change, Rhodes told BusinessDesk from Paris, where he has been attending the climate change talks.

    “What we haven’t got is all the rules that will achieve a new agreement.”

    The Paris talks ended in a historic new agreement covering more than 190 countries, who have made non-binding commitments to reduce carbon emissions and to try to prevent global temperatures from rising “well below” 2 degrees Celsius.

    New Zealand has committed to cut carbon emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030 – a goal seen as unambitious by environmental campaigners, but nonetheless difficult to meet because New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions have been rising. Offshore carbon credits and carbon locked up, or ‘sequestered’, in the trees in plantation forests are key ways the country has been able to meet its goals to date.

    Outgoing Climate Change Minister Tim Groser was reluctant to discuss the process for writing new land use and land use change and forestry (LULUCF) rules.

    There would need to be “another full set of negotiations under one or other of the subsidiary bodies established” in Paris, said Groser. “It will take years.”

    However, Groser was confident there was sufficient consensus among signatories in Paris to ensure that internationally trading carbon markets would emerge, despite the opposition of some countries and environmental groups to allowing trading in carbon across borders.

    “In the long term, we have to have a global price on carbon,” said Groser, but it was likely to emerge “piece by piece rather than as one grand scheme.”


    # # #

    >”New Zealand has committed to cut carbon emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030″

    But is the climate committed to any carbon-driven atmospheric warming by 2030 from 2005?

  76. Richard C (NZ) on 15/12/2015 at 8:31 am said:

    ‘Climate deal requires $16.5 trillion investment to cut pollution’

    Targets outlined in the agreement on Saturday, involving 195 countries, will require $16.5 trillion of spending on renewables and efficiency through 2030, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). To accomplish that, governments will have to offer incentives for clean energy production, scale back support for fossil fuels like oil, make emissions more costly, and reduce deforestation. The changes will touch industries from transport to construction, and encourage people to change their behaviour.


    # # #

    >”$16.5 trillion of spending ………… governments will have to…….”

    Good luck with that. No QE4 splurge after QE’s 1,2, and 3 in the US, China has left the party. Coincidentally:

    According to the OECD, general government gross debt (federal, state, and local) in the United States in the third quarter of 2012 was $16.3 trillion, 108% of GDP.


    I suppose the US could just print some more money but that option is already taken for the event of debt default in the case of US. That’s the priority now given Obama’s played all the QE cards. No more renewables splurges for climate agreements.

  77. Richard C (NZ) on 15/12/2015 at 8:46 am said:

    There’s an interesting interpretation in the above article:

    ‘Climate deal requires $16.5 trillion investment to cut pollution’


    The deal also sent a longer-term signal to investors, saying nations should work toward “a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century.” That means that greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels must be equal to those absorbed by planting trees and the facilities capturing carbon for permanent underground storage.

    No It doesn’t mean that. According to GOSAT data, New Zealand is already a net absorber i.e. not only is that balance objective already in place but the region is taking up more than it emits. Same for Australia.

    What it means is that “anthropogenic emissions by sources” is offset by “removals by [ALL] sinks”. If it really means the former as quoted then it would (or should) have been stated “removals by [anthropogenic] sinks”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation