Paris Climate Accord vs. Scientific Results

Eiffel Tower under construction (1888)

Climate alarmists and their accomplices in the media are still fussing about President Trump’s refusal to go along with the Paris Climate Accord, although his refusal is justified.

For example, here is an excerpt from a 2016 congressional testimony that the American public should be aware of:

“No one knows the climate impact of the proposed carbon emission reductions agreed to in Paris. The main reason for this is that there is considerable latitude for countries to do as little or as much as they desire. Examining the history of global carbon emissions, it is clear that countries, especially developing countries, will continue to seek to expand energy use through carbon combustion because of their affordability in providing considerable positive benefits to their citizens.

In any case, impact on global temperature for current and proposed reductions in greenhouse gases will be tiny at best. To demonstrate this, let us assume, for example, that the total emissions from the United States were reduced to zero, as of last May 13th, 2015 (the date of a hearing at which I testified). In other words as of that day and going forward, there would be no industry, no cars, no utilities, no people – i.e. the United States would cease to exist as of that day. Regulations, of course, will only reduce emissions a small amount, but to make the point of how minuscule the regulatory impact will be, we shall simply go way beyond reality and cause the United States to vanish. With this we shall attempt to answer the question of climate change impact due to emissions reductions.

Using the U.N. IPCC impact tool known as Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change or MAGICC, graduate student Rob Junod and I reduced the projected growth in total global emissions by U.S. emission contribution starting on this date and continuing on. We also used the value of the equilibrium climate sensitivity as determined from empirical techniques of 1.8 °C. After 50 years, the impact as determined by these model calculations would be only 0.05 to 0.08 °C – an amount less than that which the global temperature fluctuates from month to month. [These calculations used emission scenarios A1B-AIM and AIF-MI with U.S. emissions comprising 14 percent to 17 percent of the 2015 global emissions. There is evidence that the climate sensitivity is less than 1.8 °C, which would further lower these projections.]

As noted, the impact on global emission and global climate of the recent agreements in Paris regarding global emissions is not exactly quantifiable. Knowing how each country will behave regarding their emissions is essentially impossible to predict besides the added issue of not knowing how energy systems themselves will evolve over time.

Because halting the emissions of our entire country would have such a tiny calculated impact on global climate, it is obvious that fractional reductions in emissions through regulation would produce imperceptible results. In other words, there would be no evidence in the future to demonstrate that a particular climate impact was induced by the proposed and enacted regulations. Thus, the regulations will have no meaningful or useful consequence on the physical climate system – even if one believes climate models are useful tools for prediction.”

The above-quoted testimony comes from climatologist Dr. John R. Christy, one of the climatologists whom climate alarmists and their government accomplices have been trying to silence (as Dr. Christy mentions in his testimony).

Physicist Dr. Tom Hartsfield gives additional scientific reasons for disagreeing with the Paris Climate Accord:

“Another pillar of the Paris Accord is its reliance on predictions of global temperatures over the next century. Surprisingly, climate models aren’t so hot at predicting global average temperatures either. Even the advocates of climate science, publishing in the most respected scientific journal in existence, will admit that they utterly failed to predict just the past 20 years. Over that period there was far less warming than predicted.

. . . I am not an expert on climate science. But when I see models that fail so badly in their predictions, it triggers my basic trained instincts as a scientist. Something is wrong. We need to stop, calm down, and think.

The actions called for in the Paris Agreement are founded upon the predictions of models that have a poor track record of success. That’s not a failure of scientists or computers. Earth’s climate is so incomprehensibly complex and hard to fully understand that no computer ever built could model its vastness and detail. You’ve heard of the ‘butterfly effect.’ This is its most grand expression. No empirical model could successfully predict the climate in more than weak detail for an extended period before succumbing to chaos.

Yet, we are planning our future based on the these terribly oversold predictions. We might not fare much better trusting the divining of Miss Cleo.”

Are the climate alarmists’ media accomplices talking about the failures of the climate models used by the IPCC? No, not that I am aware of.

Regarding the effectiveness of the Paris Climate Accord, economist Oren Cass states, “In theory, international discussions, negotiations, and agreements on climate change aim to reduce global greenhouse-gas emissions and thus lessen the expected warming of the climate. In fact, the Paris accord does not even attempt to achieve this goal, except nominally. Instead, countries can pledge as much or as little climate action as they see fit, and no enforcement mechanism ensures that they deliver on their commitments. A country unhappy with its pledge can simply change it.”

In short, the Paris Climate Accord is, in the words of Ed Sullivan, “a really big shew,” but it won’t have any real effect on Mother Nature. One would have a better result by feeding Mother Nature some Chiffon Margarine, and we know what happens when you do that.

“It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.”

Now, that is climate change.

(Featured Image in Public Domain. Via Wikimedia Commons.)

This has all happened before, it need not happen again.
Climate Alarmists vs. Mother Nature
  • It was a method of getting the US to pay. And pay. And pay… knowing full well that everyone involved would be long dead before the supposed ‘effects’ could be either proven or disproven.

    Trump smelled the bullshit and cut off the money. Good for him.