Slashdot Mirror
Paris Climate Deal Adopted
jones_supa writes: 195 countries have adopted the first global pact to fight climate change by reducing emissions. Countries will have to publish greenhouse gas reduction targets and revise them upward every 5 years, while striving to drive down their carbon output as soon as possible, under the ambitious climate-change pact announced Saturday morning at UN talks in Paris. The agreement commits countries to keeping global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius and hopes to limit it to 1.5 C, with the goal of a carbon-neutral world sometime after 2050. The 31-page text called the Paris Agreement (PDF) was distributed to countries for them to assess, then agreed to at a plenary session.
The RSS satellite temperature record shows no warming since January 1997. Satellite data is the most accurate/unbiased vs. land measurements which are corrupted by urban heat islands, scattered measuring locations, inconsistent equipment+calibrations. Yet during this period mankind emitted 1/3 of all the CO2 emitted since the industrial revolution.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/04/the-pause-lengthens-yet-again/
http://realclimatescience.com/2015/11/record-crushing-fraud-from-noaa-and-nasa-ahead-of-paris/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html
http://www.carbonbrief.org/paris-2015-tracking-country-climate-pledges
http://www.carbonbrief.org/category/policy/paris-2015
Conspicuously missing from TFA... a list of the countries that have signed it.
Oh, it'll probably be most but it is roughly as harmless as signing the UN declaration on human rights. There's no mandatory national goals, no incentives or penalties. It "notes" on point 17 that they're not going to actually reach the global goal of the agreement. It's a pot luck lunch agreement, each country sets their own goals and how they want to reach them and the only harm if they don't set very ambitious goals or fail to reach them is a bit of political egg on their face. The environmentalists of course tout this as a massive victory, but it's really just taking existing national initiatives and calling it a global effort.
This was not very surprising, after Kyoto I and II it was clear they wouldn't get anything with binding targets from the US, China, India or any of the other big polluting nations - only Europe and Australia have binding goals now. So instead of aiming for an agreement that would fail, create a toothless agreement and call it a victory. It's certainly working in the local press here in Norway, now they're talking like we've committed to saving the world. Truth is, nobody got committed to anything and that's why it's going to pass.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Yes, well, I will hijack this post to say that this is a political/ceremonial agreement, not a scientific one. The good news is that oil is loosing its sheen, down below $40 a barrel. Yes, we have past peak oil, in a much better fashion than anticipated.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
https://xkcd.com/1379/
No, 15C is NOT 60F. More like 27F.
It seems you're both pretty terrible at communicating this clearly.
15C is 59F.
0C is 32F.
A change (+/-) of 15C equates to a change (+/-) of 27F.
www.gaiageek.com
Since the last big El Nino (1997) RSS shows a slight decline in temperature. So maybe not forever - but definitely for the last 18 years. And curiously enough, if you look at the RSS data prior to that big El Nino you see basically a flat line, too. We don't have the "continual rise" in temperature so often modeled and predicted as we have, it appears, flat (or actual declining) temperatures with occasional big events that cause a shift in the baseline. Something none of the current models used for the COP21 talks even considers.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!