If Climate Change isn’t Real, Then Why is there a Paris Summit? / Persian Gulf May Become too Hot for Human Survival


The Guardian Emissions Curve


The threshold is estimated as a rise in temperature of 35.6 degrees Fahrenheit but based on current data, the earth is heading for a rise of approximately 41 degrees Fahrenheit.

According to http://www.fossilfreemit.org ” getting off that curb,” as illustrated above, “will require an energy revolution at least as profound as the one that got us on it.”

From November 30 to December 11, 2015 representatives from 195 nations of the United Nations will come together at a Paris Conference to discuss whether an a new global agreement can be reached to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the “catastrophic and irreversible” conditions.

For further reading on how conference participants will be able to project the impact to reduced/increased immersions please access this link:


The new agreement would determine what would happen a decade after 2020, when the current agreements run out.

The summit is called the 21st Conference on Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP21). logo-cop21-hpAccording to an article in rfi english by Rosslyn Hyams on August 6, 2015, “The COP works on climate change which is induced by human behavior.”

Climate change negotiations were first started in 1976, but the Rio talks in 1992 — the Earth Summit, as this conference came to be known — established the UNFCCC.”

The last UN climate change summit was in Copenhagen, Denmark in 2009.

Although the world’s developed and biggest developing countries agreed to limit their emissions, a legally binding treaty was not executed and countries not meeting their targets were not sanctioned.

President Obama will not be attending the Paris Conference, because according to The Guardian, the Copenhagen conference ended  “in scenes of chaos and vicious recriminations.”

The new COP21 agreement would be based on pledges, or targets, nations make to reduce their emissions.  These pledges are called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs).

Nations responsible for two-third’s of greenhouse gas emissions have already submitted their targets.  This link will take you to the targets of 79 nations:


The biggest emitters are the European Union (EU), the United States and China.

The EU has pledged to cut its emissions 40% by 2030 compared to its 1990 levels.  The U.S has pledged to cut its emissions 26-28% by 2025 compared to 2005 levels and China has repeated its previously stated goal of cutting emissions by 40-45% by 2020 from 2005 levels.

One problem is India, the world’s fourth-largest polluter, largely because of the size of its population, because it has not agreed to set a target.

According to an article in the October 10 – October 16, 2015 article in The Economist,  “India has promised only to limit the amount of carbon dioxide per unit of GDP; a relative target, not an absolute one.  This might seem like a cop out.

There are plenty of other reasons why India should curb pollution.  Smokey indoor air is one of the countries biggest killers, because hundreds of millions cook by burning wood and cow dung. Outdoors, Delhi’s air is filthier than Beijing’s.”


New Delhi’s Air Pollution – http://www.cnn.com

Another problem is the cost to reach the nations targets.  Poorer countries cannot afford to invest in clean technologies to help them reduce their emissions.  They want wealthier countries to provide financial assistance.

At Copenhagen, wealthy countries agreed to provide $ 30 billion in aid to to the poorer countries and that by 2020 at least $ 100 billion/year.

In a related piece, a study released on October 26, 2015 by Loyola’s Jerimy Pal and MIT’s Elfa A. B. Eltahir in Nature: Climate Change, “The Persian Gulf maybe to hot for human survival by 2090.”


Persian Gulf

Dubai Skyline / October 5, 2015 / http://www.washingtonpost.com

According to Kelsey Campbell-Dollaghan filed to Permanent Heat Waves on 10/26/2015, “Their results show that if climate change continues without reform over the coming decades, much of the Middle East will regularly endure extraordinary heat.”

Further, “They used a type of measurement called ‘wet bulb’ heat, which is a complex concept that the authors simplify by describing it as a combined measure of temperature and humidity, or ‘mugginess.’

They pegged the maximum survivable temperature at six full hours of 35 Celsius or 95 Fahrenheit. Anything above that “would probably be intolerable even for the fittest of humans,” they wrote.

Further, Ms. Kelsey Campbell-Dollaghan wrote: “Which is what makes their projections so disturbing. Using RCP 8.5–aka the IDGAF scenario where emissions continue at the current rate–their model showed that a large portion of the Persian Gulf would exceed that maximum threshold of wet bulb survivability, especially over the Red Sea and the Gulf. They give a couple of reasons for this hot spot, like the fact there’s rarely any cloud cover. And it’s also worse because it has a low rate of ‘albedo,’ a term that describes how much sunlight reflects back up into the atmosphere.

In this super-heated future, it would be extremely dangerous to spend time outside.

‘Even the most basic outdoor activities are likely to be severely impacted,’ say the authors, who note that the conditions would have ‘severe consequences’ for millions of pilgrims who make the Hajj to Mecca, which already uses substantial cooling technology like misters and air conditioners to cool pilgrims.”

Today’s temperature in Kuwait City (October 28, 2015) is 84% Fahrenheit but feels like 92.

“And this isn’t a distant future: It’s one that many of us will live to see–if, again, carbon emissions continue unabated.”

[1] http://www.theguardian.com

3 thoughts on “If Climate Change isn’t Real, Then Why is there a Paris Summit? / Persian Gulf May Become too Hot for Human Survival

  1. Pingback: How Can the United Nations Project Reductions in the Earth’s Warming? | Vero Communiqué

  2. If Climate Change isn’t Real, Then Why is there a Paris Summit?
    I’ll tell you why, because there are people in this world that want to control people and countries and want the money of good, successful nations like the US to do with it what they will. Case in point:

    U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare:

    “At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
    Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
    The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism.”

    And Bill Gates is right in there with them recently stating that we won’t be able to fix global climate change with Capitalism – we’ll have to use Socialism. That’s rich coming from someone who made billions by starting a business in his garage in the only country where that’s possible – the USA, with its free markets and free people. Coming from someone who’s already made billions, a la Al Gore, being told that we’ll all need to sacrifice for Climate Change is a slap in the face to hard working Americans.
    Or as someone said recently regarding the Pope’s angst over air conditioning destroying the environment, “When the Pope shuts down the Vatican air conditioning in Rome in August, I’ll consider moving the thermostat up to 78 in Florida!”

    To make matters worse, these international and UN folks who want the power and the money also want us to believe that they know what’s best for the poor countries around the globe. Here’s a different opinion on their desires from September:
    “Later this week, world leaders will gather in New York at the United Nations to endorse international development goals for the next 15 years. There is no shortage of challenges: a lack of biodiversity, regional conflicts, killer diseases, threats posed by corruption and gender-based violence, the impending problem of climate change.
    …Consider how Ebola became the threat of the moment last year… But in the same year, far from the spotlight, some 600,000 people across the globe died from the less sensational illness of malaria, and around 1.5 million were killed by tuberculosis.
    But consider this: The World Health Organization estimates that the effects of climate change are currently responsible for 141,000 deaths annually. If we look far ahead, to 2050, the death toll is expected to climb to 250,000. By contrast, some 4.3 million people will die this year from indoor air pollution. That is the direct result of poverty, of almost three billion people using dung and wood to heat and cook.”

    From our fight against Seven – 50 to our struggles with the high speed trains, we see non-governmental organizations, consultants and local governments scrambling for federal dollars. We see corporate executives, like Husein Cumber, VP of Corporate Development for FEC (parent to AAF and a part of the Fortress hedge fund companies) moving from the US Dept. of Transportation to his consulting firm to a Tally lobbyist to an exec at FEC – constantly changing his jersey, he’s the same guy grabbing fed dollars to build a railroad and it’s the same regional NGO’s grabbing their share.

    Climate Change is no different…

    This Child Doesn’t Need a Solar Panel
    Spending billions of dollars on climate-related aid in countries that need help with tuberculosis, malaria and malnutrition.

    “In the run-up to the 2015 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris from Nov. 30 to Dec. 11, rich countries and development organizations are scrambling to join the fashionable ranks of “climate aid” donors. This effectively means telling the world’s worst-off people, suffering from tuberculosis, malaria or malnutrition, that what they really need isn’t medicine, mosquito nets or micronutrients, but a solar panel.
    In September, Chinese President Xi Jinping pledged to match President Obama’s promised $3 billion in aid to the U.N.’s Green Climate Fund. Meanwhile, the U.K is diverting $8.9 billion from its overseas aid budget to climate-related aid over the next five years, and France is promising $5.6 billion annually by 2020, up from $3.4 billion today. The African Development Bank is planning to triple its climate-related investments to more than $5 billion a year by 2020, representing 40% of its total portfolio.”

    Do you really believe that a large portion of this money, despite being misspent, will go to help the poor get solar panels in underdeveloped countries? Who do you think pays for all of these conferences around the world, for the offices and staffs around the world, for coffers of dictators and campaign dollars for elected officials around the world who dole out the money, for the consultants and scientists who will staff the offices and direct the dollars? This is one BIG MONEY POT that is being taken out of your pocket and mine and sent overseas to line the pockets of all of those on the gravy train and their corporate cronies. (Let’s see how much the European countries actually kick in while they deal with thousands of Muslim refugees invading their countries!)

    That’s why there’s a Paris Summit!

  3. Pingback: Entertaining Facebook Climate Change Chatter | Vero Communiqué

Leave a Reply