Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Climate advocates are devastated that President Trump has pulled the budget of a project aimed at monitoring international compliance with Paris Agreement Pledges.
The Trump Administration Just Jeopardized The World’s Ability to Measure Carbon Emissions
You know, the stuff that’s causing climate change.
CARLY CASSELLA, SCIENCE AS FACT
10 MAY 2018
Apparently, withdrawing from the Paris climate accord wasn’t enough. Now, the Trump administration wants to restrict the world’s ability to measure carbon emissions.
According to a new report from the journal Science, the Trump administration has quietly killed NASA’s Carbon Monitoring System (CMS) – a $10 million-a-year research project, which monitors the flow of Earth’s carbon.
The move jeopardizes plans to verify the national emission cuts agreed to in the Paris climate accords, argues Kelly Sims Gallagher, director of Tufts University’s Center for International Environment and Resource Policy.
“If you cannot measure emissions reductions, you cannot be confident that countries are adhering to the agreement,” Gallagher told Science.
…
This doesn’t mean that all carbon monitoring and measuring is gone. It just means that leadership in this area will most likely be passed on to Europe, which has one carbon-monitoring satellite of its own, and more on the way.
“We really shoot ourselves in the foot if we let other people develop the technology,” said Duffy.
…
I don’t see why USA dropping funding for a programme which duplicates European efforts will reduce the world’s carbon monitoring capability, or cause any harm to US interests. The $10 million per year saving might only be a drop in the government budget, but one drop at a time eventually adds up to serious savings.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Spending $10,000,000 on something that is of interest only to plants, seems a bit over the top to me.
Perhaps Trump just loves doing this sort of thing because…
… popcorn.
We need to find out if Trump has invested in popcorn futures.
Something useful for Mueller to do.
gosh this really should be a total non-issue… I heard on the “news” this morning that “California’s efforts to prevent climate change are working.” In the time I watched they didn’t mention what study or proof there was for it but hey the headline has been released it must be true!!! Hopefully the report or study that they were referring to will be seen her on WUWT soon!
Cheers!
Joe
They passed a law requiring somebody else to care.
They’re doing it by exporting their citizens to other places.
I never knew that carbon causes climate change.
Swamp draining in space!
As usual, the world was looking to the USA to provide a big chunk of money to help monitor the “success” of the Paris Accord. I see absolutely NO further offending action in the decision to stop funding a program designed to help monitor the program that the USA decided to stop funding. It’s just practicing a consistent commitment to getting out of that scam altogether.
If tax dollars were going towards creating a huge advertising budget to promote the Paris accord, then that funding logically should be nixed too. Anything, in fact, associated with money that aids and abets the Paris scam should be nixed, because it exists for reasons of flawed logic.
Superficial treatment of a disease is just perfunctory play acting. To get at the root of the infection, you have to treat the entire system that might feed it.
The sun probably does more to change the climate than mere carbon emissions.
That’s the number one driver of, (shudder) Global Warming. Then it’s water vapor, around 13 gasses that make up the atmosphere, natural Co2, and coming in at less then a tenth of a percent, (drum roll) human produced Co2. That is, if you actually look at the science but why bother right?
“The Trump Administration Just Jeopardized The World’s Ability to Measure Carbon Emissions
You know, the stuff that’s causing climate change.”
They never can get it right. CO2 is more the result of temperature (climate) change then the cause of it….
You’re a denier science hater for saying that. I hope we more towards NASA accumulating all the data rather then keeping that they like and throwing out the naughty cooling measurements. That would be less of a waste of our tax dollars.
move
Why were they monitoring Carbon?
“You know, the stuff that causes climate change” OK lets explore this statement
Since 2002 the CO2 level has gone up over 10% yet the global average temperature (with el ninos removed) has stayed almost the same. hmm what was that about evidence and models….
I cant believe you are all still having these discussions and that the concensus is that “its a waist of time”, “its not my problem” any idea how that sounds on the world stage? The science on co2 is now very, very clear, but its still being looked at by population only as a belief system and its backing some very much already well debunked “data” is still bieng circulated as current. We are burning 21.3 giga Tones of co2 into the atmosphere every year, with new records reached every year. Natural processes only take care of halve that. We are over by apx 10.6 Giga Tons. That doesnt include “Natural releases” (unfortunatly) but the problem there is just how you term the definition. The release of co2 held in the Ice caps, or the depletion of kelp forists could “be termed natural” argued even, but it is still caused by…. ……. If temps rise too much these sorses -will be- released. Scientists are having a tough time on predicting the RATE of this one -not the effect -from a lack of data to model on, but the increase is already well under way,(ice caps hard, kelp easy predictions) anyway.. ATM fosil fuels ARE the biggest release of co2
This really is a fact!! .. these “natural releases” could surpass our own at some point (thats not actually ok btw) There is a chart of co2 increases into the earths atmosphere that scientists have been closely looking at that help with their climate change models, the data collection thankfully was never abandoned over the years, particularly when sudgested when the correlation of warming was found. even when fundidg was tough/gone. Anti climate scientists havn’t been able to have a halleuluya moment when it comes to this modeling to say it isnt aprominent problem after all. Trouble is they are conceeding, while the model is gettiing stronger with mesurments and facts with time….. but wait, there is a way out of this!.. disrupt the info gathering and go blind. Scientists have stated their concern that America switching off their machiens will make some co2 modeling more difficult in the future. Big buisness argued their case in Australia and the CSIRO got gutted, NASSA may never again be allowed to produce data on climate change? Could the last signatories on emmissions quit due to extra cost, trade agreements? Its all possible. Ill skip all that. But take a look at the modeling results so far, take a look at 2056 and such there is a critical amount to cut down by and it is urgent. Pathways are now, once its gone its gone.Steadilly growing into a grumpy old man, I dont like change much myself, but is a little bit of change so hard? so as to prevent BIG change? There are somethings /processes renuables can never replace, should we use them wisley, or not?? …Why doesnt anyone use the word -wisdom- anymore.
see below
“But take a look at the modeling results so far”
I did. And this is the worst modelling I ever saw. Even crappier than “limit to growth” modelling, and this says much on how (not) trustworthy it is.
“take a look at 2056 …it is urgent.”
2056 is 38 years from now. How something in 38 year can be urgent? I swear that, in less than half time, you’ll say, “hell, how could I have been so blind, and worry about climate change, instead of this real issue that was right before my eyes? ”
“Pathways are now, once its gone its gone. ” So says the snake oil salesman. When someone tells it is NOW or forever gone, the wise man knows he is been conned.
“Steadilly growing into a grumpy old man, I dont like change much myself, but is a little bit of change so hard? so as to prevent BIG change?”
Just lead the change yourself, and tell us.
“There are somethings /processes renuables can never replace, should we use them wisley, or not?? …”
There is an old tale of wise use of apples. To make the story short:
A miser stores some apples. Never eats any, save when it is getting rot, with a sigh for the loss. A nephew breaks in, and makes an orgy. The miser is furious. The nephew plays it candid “why, uncle, I just ate the good one, saving the rotten for you”.
Who was the wiser?
“Why doesnt anyone use the word -wisdom- anymore.”
Oh, lots of people do use the word. Always to advocade UNwise things.
“We are burning 21.3 giga Tones of co2 into the atmosphere every year, with new records reached every year. Natural processes only take care of halve that. ”
Actually Natural process do NOT “only take care of halve that”. Natural process eat up over 10 GT CO2 a year, and rising. It happens to be roughly half of what we humans burn, but it is coincidence, and if we stopped burning, these process would keep going on eating up roughly the same, and pCO2 would drop at ~2ppm/year rate. Would that be good?
“but wait, there is a way out of this!.. disrupt the info gathering and go blind. ”
This is funny. Somehow, the 10 million dollar weren’t needed to spend TRILLIONS in a war against coal and fossil fuel, but are now needed? Just explain yourself.