Paris Agreement would have reduced T by 0.17 degrees

Just stop with your biased tirade please.

You completely failed to mention the key point:
That is, the point is to STOP the rise in temperatures.
ZERO would be a good end result.
ANY tiny reduction is even better.

 

Moronic rant ignored.

 

Calm my friend. If his nonsense get to you, take a break and use the "Ignore User" option that works very well. For example, threads started by the coal troll disappear as well as any postings in a thread. Sometimes this results in amusing if somewhat disconnected postings when others are suckered into his 'work.'

A more effective technique is to cite empirical sources. For example: Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian

Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris treaty is a mostly symbolic act. America’s pledges to cut its carbon pollution were non-binding, and his administration’s policies to date had already made it impossible for America to meet its initial Paris climate commitment for 2025. The next American president in 2020 can re-enter the Paris treaty and push for policies to make up some of the ground we lost during Trump’s reign.

However, withdrawing from the Paris treaty is an important symbolic move – a middle finger to the rest of the world, and to future generations. America is by far the largest historical contributor to climate change. Ironically, on the heels of Trump’s claim that most NATO members aren’t paying their fair share to the organization, America has announced that we won’t do our fair share to curb the climate change threats that we are the most responsible for.
. . .
In short, efforts to pull out of the Paris treaty are woefully misguided, and almost everyone knows it. Everyone except 42% of Senate Republicans including leader Mitch McConnell, James Inhofe, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and of course Trump’s senior advisor Steve Bannon and his EPA administrator Scott Pruitt. Additionally, the Koch brothers and Vladimir Putin are not fans of the treaty. Those two factors may best explain this decision by Trump and the Republican senators.​

Relax as there are plenty of truthful sources to cite and let the propagandists play with themselves. Muther Nature will take care of the empirical data.

BTW, there are common threads found more recently in today's denier crowd:

• 'belief' (Christy) - framing things outside of empirical data obscures the facts and data
• 'uncertainty' (Curry) - can't trust a model because Monte Carlo simulations can't be trusted
• 'economic' (Trump) - claims that withdraw will lead to more employment and jobs

Time is not on their side.

Bob Wilson

 

Well I think a really LOT of people thought something similar to that prior to the last election and just ignored the depraved rantings........and look what THAT got us.

 

You live in San Francisco? CA? And you're not a left-leaning liberal? What happen to you! Protecting and taking care of the environment is a very important issue. However, I do believe there is a lot of flaws involved in that Paris agreement. Maybe even some corruption. A lot of money involved too. I don't like the fact that China and India can mine and sell as much coal as they please? But yet the US has restrictions? I hate to see people lose jobs, but clean energy is important, and anything we can come up with to keep the earth as clean as possible, I'm all for that. But I just hate politicians. No offense to anyone, but I respectfully submit that I hate BOTH parties! They seem to screw everything up.

And is any group checking up on all the countries who signed on to that Paris agreement? Are they REALLY making Environmental changes? No. It's pretty much an impossible task to police them. We just have to take their word for it. LOL. (As they rake in the billions.)

Excuse me, I have to go to work, and I'm driving my 1998 gas guzzling Chevy pick-em-up truck. C'mon Toyota, let's see a hybrid work truck!

 

0.17 C decrease is a lot if consider the rate temperatures are currently rising.

I work with two national laboratories researching fusion energy. There are no time tables that show fusion being an energy source for decades. Best case is the R&D completes by 2030.

 

He is also a liberal democrat. Oops I stop there.

 

The lack of modern agricultural and medical practices had nothing to do with it?

Many of the policies that would had lead to the US meeting its self imposed limits and reductions for the Paris Accord were written up before joining the Accord.

It would have lead to some pain in some parts of the country, but those parts are still heading for pain even if we completely abandon those policies. The world is moving away from coal for power. That means the price of it is just going to drop. With the countries that still make the most use of it having their own coal reserves, the American coal industry is going to shrink.

The US has a lot of natural gas, and it is cheaper than coal. Being cleaner and emitting less carbon is just a plus.

 

And you live in "cyberspace," is that in Osage County?

Bob Wilson

 

Before pigeon-holing him, be aware that you are a newbie, while he has been posting here for years. Unless you have dug back into several years of his postings, any 'assumptions' about his other viewpoints are very likely to fall into some traps.

 

Fuzzy my man, that's just my attempt at humor with poster mojo. I always appreciate hearing both sides of an important issue, even 3 or 4 sides if I can get it. It saddens me, how intolerant, vile, condescending, and even violent society is becoming when they don't agree with the other side's opinion or position. (Even in these forums. A CAR forum! Kinda ridiculous, isn't it? And the silly threats of, "I'm putting him on ignore!") LOL!!! Nobody cares, Mac.

But I'm getting way off topic, my apologies. And like I mentioned earlier, with all due respect to the many Politicos here, I have a strong dislike for politics and politicians. On both sides of the aisle. I just try and avoid those "party" debates. I'd rather be out driving and enjoying my nice new Prius! It's amazing how smooth, quiet, and powerful that car can be if you stomp your foot in it. ZOOM! And who can argue with 60 miles per gallon?! Unbelievable. I think I'll leave the truck parked, and commute to work in the little Prius today. That's as far as I go to becoming "environmentally correct." Ok fellas, you might want to arm yourselves with some Jim Beam or Grey Goose. mojo may have ignited a firestorm. Have fun.

 

AGREED!

I drove just under 100 miles yesterday just because I enjoy our Prius Prime to visit the Albertville airport. Cessna 172 rental rate wet, $130/hr, and jet fuel and aviation gas listed at $4.40/gallon. Not a single takeoff or landing and only one engine turned over briefly to taxi from one spot to another.

Bob Wilson

 

Trillions dollars@1. Pretty sure we can all agree that would be a lot. The 'money part' of Paris Agreement (PA) is Green Climate fund. It has so far accumulated about 0.01 trillion dollars. If it grew at the high rates aspired in PA, it would reach about 1.5 trillion dollars by 2030. I am not aware that years after 2030 are addressed in PA.

We have wondered here before what is global annual research investment in things directly related to climate. US science investment has totaled about 0.04 trillion dollars since 1989 including satellites. Have not been able to clearly separate that out, but satellites have been a large fraction. Rest of the world may have spent just about that much. PA does not address this aspect.

Can such things be inflated to the ranges of hundreds of trillions? Not realistically. On the other side there are vast (well maybe not that vast) costs and damages ascribed to future climate change. Reality of these is also difficult to pin down.

Through 2030 (13 years), full (voluntary) international compliance with PA might very well remove 0.17 oC warming. This was the study result I guess. That amount is a bit larger than current decadal increase in surface T, so in that context it seems quite large.

If PA persists with everybody but US, Green Climate Fund will not grow to 1.5 trillion dollars by 2030. Global fossil CO2 emissions will probably stay near current levels (that's my expectation, anyway). For me the biggest 'loss' here is that renewable E may penetrate less into low-power-production countries. They could really benefit from that. They could really do without air and water pollution, and water consumption associated with fossil C. But helping somebody else (even if it helps you by increasing markets for your exports) seems no longer to be a high priority.

+++
Politics, yes Trump said he'd restore coal industry jobs and Clinton said she'd instead move to develop new industries in affected areas. Fundamental impossibility of the former seems not a barrier to belief. Latter was obliterated by focusing on 'kill coal jobs' which is more a statement of current condition. Politics seems to work that way - strange but true.

There is no need for us to similarly leap into unreality by imagining trillions that aren't there.

Oh, and in hunting for trillions I found that IPCC has a total cost about 0.00007 trillion US dollars so far. Seems good to know such things, even though trillion is an inconvenient unit of measure.

 

My main comment here is to zoom out from a time perspective. In 1000 years, what earth do we want our grand x200+ children to have? The CO2 and other gases that enter the atmosphere will be there for tens of thousands of years. But in 1000 years the economy of today will be meaningless. I wish the playing of prisoner's dilemma with the environment would stop.

I also happen to agree about Thorium nuclear power. The only thing that's really stopping prototype plants from being built is regulation and funding. Thorium power should produce between 1/100 and 1/1000 the amount of nuclear waste versus uranium, and that waste only takes a few hundred years to drop to a safe level of radioactivity (per Wikipedia). It just needs a little push to get the ball rolling.

 

Amusing: Trump pitched solar-powered border wall 'so it pays for itself' | TheHill

During a meeting with Republican Congressional leadership on Tuesday, President Trump pitched the idea of putting solar panels on his border wall.

"The president is committed to building the wall and securing the border and I commend him for it. He's continuing to fight and following through on that promise. One idea he is looking at is a wall that would actually function as a solar panel to ultimately pay for itself," House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) told The Hill after meeting with Trump at the White House.​

What a novel idea. Perhaps we can get some wind turbines with observation posts and/or cameras. Then do another one along the Canadian borders, Alaska and the lower 48.

Hummm, panels on all Federal buildings too. Just use the old foundations of the solar hot water heating systems that Reagan ripped out after Carter.

Bob Wilson

 

Developing fusion for power generation has been underway for decades. Probably continue at about current levels. Total spent so far may be about 0.02 trillion USD. If somebody wanted to increase that it would not bother me. Each of the large ongoing projects would be happy. More employment and 'things' for high-tech researchers.

Thorium fission for power production. Also ongoing but with much less funding so far. I could not find a total but guessing it's less than fusion.

An interesting aspect of both is that they are in energy research (in US budgeting) and that is largest and fastest growing part of money often attributed to climate research. I learned that from JoanneNova.

People who complain about things ought to strive to grasp details of what they are complaining about.