Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Scientists are worried that in 100 years, the effect on global temperature might almost be measurable, if the USA pulls out of the Paris Agreement.
Scientists explain what will happen if Donald Trump pulls out of Paris climate change agreement
The Earth will get dangerously warm even sooner if the U.S pulls out of pledge to cut carbon dioxide pollution
Seth Borenstein Saturday 27 May 2017 22:48 BST
Earth is likely to hit more dangerous levels of warming even sooner if the US pulls back from its pledge to cut carbon dioxide pollution, scientists said. That’s because America contributes so much to rising temperatures.
…
Calculations suggest it could result in emissions of up to 3 billion tonnes of additional carbon dioxide in the air a year. When it adds up year after year, scientists said that is enough to melt ice sheets faster, raise seas higher and trigger more extreme weather.
“If we lag, the noose tightens,” said Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer, co-editor of the peer-reviewed journal Climatic Change.
One expert group ran a worst-case computer simulation of what would happen if the U.S. does not curb emissions, but other nations do meet their targets. It found that America would add as much as half a degree of warming (0.3 degrees Celsius) to the globe by the end of century.
Scientists are split on how reasonable and likely that scenario is.
…
Another computer simulation team put the effect of the U.S. pulling out somewhere between 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius (.18 to .36 degrees Fahrenheit).
…
The scientists interviewed by The Independent are also worried a US walkout might trigger a general walkout, which speaks volumes about the alleged international commitment to climate action.
But the impact of the US contribution to climate change is clear. Even if we accept exaggerated climate models, all that international angst, all that politicking and doom mongering, all those US jobs at risk, to deliver a temperature shift so tiny that it will take a century to even have a chance of detecting it.
President Trump, tear up that useless job destroying Paris Agreement.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’ve got to get higher waders.
I showed that even if the whole planet implemented effective decarbonization the change in century-end temperature would be about 0.38ºC. This results from using a transient sensitivity of 1.35ºC per doubling of CO2 – which is what the surface temperature records suggest.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/30/do-the-math-climate-policies-cannot-change-century-end-temperature-more-than-0-5c/
That scenario assumed an increase in the decarbonization rate of 1% a year. This measure cannot really be compared to the Paris INDCs, which mostly are in absolute emissions rather than emission intensity. But it’s pretty aggressive (equivalent to decarbonizing the entire electricity sector, which is about 40% of emissions in many countries, in 50 years).
The US makes up only 17% of global CO2 emissions and this share is declining. The idea that emission reductions in the US alone could contribute 0.3ºC, or even 0.1ºC, is nonsense.
It is not that easy – keep in mind:
The US is the biggest importer of foreign goods world wide – so a substantial share of the emissions of China, Germany, Mexico etc. are actually emissions which must be attributed to US consumers.
And the US do not represent “only” 17% of the world population.
So consumers are responsible for the emissions of manufacturers? Blame the richer nations again.
@ur momisugly Iee
1. Attribution is not the same as responsibility
2. In this case: Yes!
Your reasoning is identical to the reasoning of solar power plant owners who think their roof top installation is perfectly emission free. Totally ignoring that the production of their subsidized tax money grabbing virtue signaling is causing substantial environmental damage someplace else and more likely than not will never be able to compensate the amount of used primary energy and CO2 emission during its proposed lifetime.
Alberto says…”This results from using a transient sensitivity of 1.35ºC per doubling of CO2 – which is what the surface temperature records suggest.”
————-
The surface warming , if caused by an increase in GHG, is an affect of GREATER tropspheric warming! Since the troposphere is warming much slower then the surface, then saiud observation of surface warming CANNOT be caused be an increase in GHG. Therefore obseved climate senstivity, even if 100 percent of troposphere warming is ascribed to GHG, is MUCH lower then the modest number you state.
97% of pscientists agree, that the sow of the invisible flying pig can have up to 3 litters per year with up to 15 flying piglets per litter.
In case we stop building windmills and solar power plants, that are known to prevent flying pigs from propagation, model calculations based on a worst case scenario prove that in 100 year from now the entire earth will be covered 27 feet deep in piglets of this invasive species.
+242 granted, but without the anthropogenic 0.3 per century litter size increase projected by consensus software around the world. With 5 billion$ my research team can add it to the initial sum.
These people are not scientists.
To be kind I’d suggest ‘panic stricken & over-excited children’
Parents everywhere know it. eg Toilet training: “Look Mummy mummy mummy, come see how big a poo I just done in the toilet’
That’s lovely Little Johnny – just flush it away now, wash your hands and, you don’t need tell me next time.
Comes from playing too many computer games and eating sugar.
Of course and even skeptics say, ‘Technology will save us in the future’
Oh yeah?
Lets ask British Airways right now, or the UK National Health Service from last week.
One Person somewhere inside those organisations, just one, goofed and brought down/crashed national and global enterprises. And we could choke on popcorn watching the ensuing buck-passing.
Then Merkel goes on about Globalisation. There’s one turkey that really is ‘Oven Ready’
Do us all a favour Donald, turn up the gas
‘These people are not scientists.”
They are career scientists. Seekers of prestige and security more than truth.
Consequently, they are easily manipulated.
There are two assumptions being made by the authors of the article about the effects of not committing to the Paris accord. The first is the questionble, but at least arguable effect of CO2 on future temps. But the patently dopey assumption is that, without the Paris accord, U.S. CO2 emissions will continue not only unabated, but probably increasing in the future. Aside from the rather hilarous situation in which the majority of CO2 reductions have occurred because of the substitution of gas for coal fired power generation because of fracking, which these alarmsts oppose, the big, ultra stupid assumption is that power generation and private transportation, which
together comprise the vast majority of carbon emissions, will continue to do so. I’d like to know exactly how that will be possible, given the apparently imminent domination by electric cars, thanks to a newly perfected cathode manufacturing technology which will usher in low cost, more effective lithium auto batteries, and the certain domination by molten salt reactors in the power generation arena. These stupid alarmists are pushing the absurd notion that the mentioned technologies are and will remain stagnant for the next 100 years!!!!!! And that only very costly, inefficient technologies forced on all by the Paris accord is a solution. Talk about clueless people.
“…technologies are and will remain stagnant for the next 100 years!!!!!” Just so.
The major flaw with the Stern review and the flaw in this and virtual all catastrophic predictions. 87 years ago, 1930, has the same comparison to today that today does to 2100. Keeping a quart of milk cool required men with saws, out on a lake, warehouses full of insulation, horse drawn wagons (I remember the iceman’s horse drawn wagon in the early 1950’s) and a crudely insulated box with about 3 cubic feet of space. No comparison in terms of energy used for the net output.
“Michael Oppenheimer, co-editor of the peer-reviewed journal Climatic Change.”
Such an objective, independent journal:
http://www.springer.com/earth+sciences+and+geography/atmospheric+sciences/journal/10584/PSEL?detailsPage=editorialBoard
Includes Peter Gleick, Phil Jones, Tom Karl, Ben Santer, John Schellnhuber, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, Diana Liverman, WWF’s Richard Moss and a host of fellow thinkers from the IPCC.
As pointed out by Richard Lindzen in his 2008 paper, “Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?”, Openheimer was co-founder of the Climate Action Network of NGO’s and became the Barbara Streisand Scientist at Environmental Defense. He was subsequently appointed to a professorship at Princeton University. He is still an adviser to ED.
Had to check the title twice. It is climatic change alright. Well, why not? Inconvenient truth (no pun intended to Pravda), 10:10 no pressure and Return to Almora exist already.
I think they had to tone it down from “Climactic “……..which is possibly a Return to Almora again.
OT, the benefits of GREEN SLIME POLLUTION !!!
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/05/28/the-river-teifis-toxic-tsunami-of-sludge/
So unintended consequences result from greens’ good intentions, also. Maybe such mishaps will teach them to be a little more humble so that when the same type of accidents happen with (what they consider to be) less green technologies, they won’t bitch and moan so much.
btw, I don’t remember a lot of bitching and moaning about the EPA turning the Animas River orange. Can you imagine the media hysteria leveraging that image if that had occurred under (orange) Trump’s term?
The issue of USA withdrawing from Paris agreement: so called scientific groups come up different impacts on global temperature: 0.1 to 0.3 oC by the end of the century [in 87 years] if USA increases the carbon dioxide with that. This shows none of them have the clear view on the sensitivity factor. Let the so called warmists come up with the realistic sensitivity factor and say, is the increase in carbon dioxide realistically increasing the global warming?
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
0.1 to 0.3 C
========
settled science. never gets the same answer twice. at least a stopped clock is right twice a day.
The Trump effect must be the exact opposite of the Gore effect. When Gore turns up the temperatures plummet and it snows and hails. When trump turns up there is a slight and sluggish temperature rise generated in the inflamed minds of Climate Scientists who see their Gravy Train being derailed.
These Chicken Little “scientists” are squawking loudly, and making ever-more wild claims about what “will” happen to climate if the US doesn’t kowtow to world demands, and torpedo its own economy, trampling on the Constitution at the same time. What they really fwar though, is that if the US pulls out of the Paris “agreement”, the whole charade will fall like a house of cards. And that is exactly what will happen.
https://www.axios.com/scoop-trump-tells-confidants-he-plans-to-leave-paris-climate-deal-2424446776.html
There are a dozen independent observations and analysis results that support the assertion that the warming in the last 150 years was caused by solar cycle changes, not anthropogenic CO2 emissions, so the US leaving or not leaving the Paris climate ‘accord’(PCA) will have no effect on planetary temperatures.
It is expected however that the US leaving the PCA will result in a sudden increase in fake news concerning climate, the PCA, and green scams.
Falling planetary temperatures is the other factor that may affect the discussions concerning the fake science.
Aside from the fact that this is just another computer model …er… simulation, since when is 0.3 “as much as” 0.5?
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say it like this?
“One expert group ran a worst-case computer simulation of what would happen if the U.S. does not curb emissions, but other nations do meet their targets. It found that America wouldn’t even add a half a degree of warming (0.3 degrees Celsius) to the globe by the end of century.”
0.5 F = 0.3 C
Should have thought of that.
Thanks.
How about:
“It found that America might only add as much as 0.5 F of warming (0.3 degrees Celsius) to the globe by the end of century.”?
The Paris Accord, implemented or not, will have no identifiable effect on climate.
The observation that CO2 is a ghg (greenhouse gas) is a shallow penetration of the science and means only that it has an absorb/emit band within the range of significant earth OLR (outgoing longwave radiation). Delve deeper into the science and discover that CO2 does not now, has never had and will never have a significant effect on climate.
Here is why.
1) Essentially all absorbed outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) energy is thermalized (i.e. shared with surrounding molecules).
2) Thermalized energy carries no identity of the molecule that absorbed it.
3) Emission from a gas is quantized and depends on the energy of individual molecules.
4) This energy is determined probabilistically according to the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution.
5) The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution favors lower energy (longer wavelength) photons.
6) Water vapor exhibits many (170+) of these longer wavelength bands.
7) The Maxwell-Boltzmann energy distribution in atmospheric gas molecules effectively shifts the OLR energy absorbed by CO2 molecules to the lower energy absorb/emit bands of water vapor. The ‘notches’ in top-of-atmosphere measurements over temperate zones demonstrate the validity of this assessment.
8) As altitude increases (to about 10 km) the temperature declines, magnifying the effect.
The only thing countering the temperature decline that would otherwise be occurring is the increasing trend in water vapor (WV). (‘Otherwise’ results from declining net effect of ocean cycles since 2005 and declining solar activity which has been declining since 2014 and dropped below ‘breakeven’ in early 2016). Average global atmospheric water vapor has been measured and reported by NASA/RSS since 1988 and shows an uptrend of 1.5% per decade. WV has increased about 8% since the more rapid increase began in about 1960. This is more than 2.5 times the expected rate from temperature increase alone (i.e. feedback).
Further discussion of this with graphs and links to source data are at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com which also identifies the factors which do cause average global temperature change (98% match 1895-2016).
The warmer temperature is welcome but the added WV increases the risk of flooding. IMO all rainwater retaining systems (dams, dikes, etc.) should be upgraded from 100 yr floods to 10,000 yr floods.
Your link is excellent, oceans, solar and wv, and their interactions explain much. Add the Milankovich variables, which I realize are to some degree included in the other three, and we get close to climate explanation. The problem is the complex interaction of these, along with other causal variables, which we have not yet figured out, makes modeling the system beyond our present capabilities.
half a degree farenheit of “dangerous warming”? That’s well within their margin of input error.
The real danger is that they refuse to acknowledge the possibility of “output error”.
Recall Kyoto… the USA did not sign yet did better than most countries at meeting the targets.
Worst case climate forecast called for a 9° warming rate. Actual warming has been about 1.5° / century.
So at worst case projection 0.3° would probably lead to reality of .05°
Also, it seems to me that most reductions in energy use come from competitive industry trying to save money. I’m not sure government mandates have done much.
What actually needs to be cancelled to stop the US from wasting billions of false climate research and related topics?
I can understand pulling out of Paris is a good first move, but that only removes a notional commitment.
What does POTUS actually have to do to impact of the swamp members to stop them wasting taxpayers money?
Is there a list of institutions or grants or funding streams that need to be cut?
Do the staffers of POTUS know what to do?
Here is what actually needs to happen. The CO2 endangerment finding must be reversed. Otherwise, cancelling the Paris agreement alone really doesn’t do a whole lot about bringing coal and any coal related jobs back in the US. There will never be another coal plant built in the US for electricity generation built so long as the Endangerment finding exists and all those useless but extremely onerous EPA regulations put on the coal industry (simply to kill it) since 2000 are scrapped.
After consideration of the Alley Greenland ice core data showing three periods of significant climate cycles of optimums after relatively short cold periods, I have identified the period oh cold known as the little ice ge as a period of cold. It follows that iN a cyclical climate system that a period of warming will follow. Examining the recent temperature increase I observe that it is increasing and I can not find any quantifiable causal relationship with CO2 that is separable from this natural climate cyclicity resulting in rising temperature. THEREFORE my prediction based upon established Scientific method is that Trump can do what ever he wants to regarding and it will not change the climate temperature trend. I thus find the CAGW blather uncompelling and obviously relying on a robust truth to carry a significant political misrepresentation. Unfortunately this is the nature of constructing false assertions and as such are powerful tools.
I predict no change in temperature with the departure from the Paris agreement. Who wants to bet who is closer to reality?
And the “Independent Scientists” were gathered together, told what was needed and funded by the Associated Press (AP)!
So instead of reporting News, AP is funding and inventing Fake News! Way to go AP!
And the impact all that money AP threw away will have? Null.
Hay! A new way to de-fund the fraudsters … Yeah!
Ha ha
As at 1500UTC today the recorded temperature range on earth is 108.6C. I live in Hong Kong and the current temperature range throughout the territory is about 8C, which, coincidentally, is much the same as the daily variation. The annual max temperature variation is typically around 25C but has been known to be above 30C. All other regions will have their corresponding range variations.
So, my question is, where is a rise of 0.3C over 80 or so years going to make a noticeable iota of difference?
It’s not about the future but about the green to be gleaned now.
The Paris climate agreement is a ruse, a coverup.
Simply put, it’s just more money coming in for the UN to contribute to the development of a the moneyed elite’s one world order scheme.
There is no difference between 0.3°C and – 0.3°C – its both well inside the tolerance.
It is absolutely ridiculous to take a measurement – such as ‘global temperature’ – that is based on real readings, adjustments to real readings, and extrapolations from readings and then use accuracy number in the tenths of a degree. The error bands must be HUGE. Huge enough to swamp a piddling 0.3 guess.
Last year, China built more new coal power plants than the entire US total number of coal plants.
The US is no longer driving the world’s pollution sources.
President Trump the Paris agreement is an I.Q.test.
It is obvious that you are intelligent and you have money enough.
This leaves you no need for greed.
A passion for uncorrupted science can be your brilliant legacy.