Was Exiting Paris Wise or Unwise?

Was it wise for President Donald Trump to pull the United States out of the Paris climate agreement? The President offered mostly economic reasons for his decision. Although they’re important, it’s also important to know whether there’s good scientific basis. As some critics reason, “So what if the economy booms? What if the earth dies?”

So here’s a 15-point summary of relevant facts, mostly scientific but some economic:

1. Global average temperature has risen and fallen cyclically, driven by cycles in solar energy output, solar magnetic wind output, galactic cosmic ray influx (moderated by solar magnetic wind), ocean cycles, cloudiness (influenced by all of the previous cycles), volcanic cycles, and other natural causes, with both the rate and the magnitude of temperature increase and decrease considerably exceeding the allegedly anthropogenic warming of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. It is impossible to rule out these natural causes as contributors to recent warming.

2. Global average temperature (GAT) has risen about 1–1.2 degrees C since about 1850, about half of that rise occurring before 1940, before anthropogenic additions to atmospheric CO2 concentration could have contributed significantly. This, too, implies that it’s impossible to rule out natural causes from the warming of the late 1970s through late 1990s (since when GAT has been relatively stable) that is the primary basis for claims of rapid anthropogenic global warming.

3. The range from nighttime low to daytime high and wintertime low to summertime high temperatures at most locations around the world is 10, 20, 30, 40, or more times the entire increase in GAT since 1850. In light of that, Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, one of the world’s most prominent climate scientists, says the proper response to the post-1850 warming is “So what?”

4. According to the theory that provides the basis for the computer climate models, greenhouse gas-driven warming should occur primarily toward the poles, not the equator; primarily in winter, not summer; and primarily at night, not in day. I.e., it should raise low temperatures more than high temperatures, but, because toward the poles, should not result in significant acceleration in the melt of land-based ice in the Arctic and Antarctic regions that could lead to accelerated sea-level rise. That expectation is consistent with observations. This means longer growing seasons and the expansion of cultivable land into higher latitudes, meaning more food.

5. That increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration should make GAT higher than it otherwise would be is basic physics, and critics of belief in dangerous manmade warming don’t challenge it. But it’s also basic physics that if you drop a rock and a feather at the same moment from the same height, they’ll land at the same moment—unless they’re in air, in which case the rock plummets while the feather wafts slowly downward, and if it’s windy the feather might blow up into a tree and never come down. This illustrates the fact that basic physics tells us very little about the real world, because the real world is a very complex place, and the climate system is probably the most complex thing we’ve ever studied other than the human brain and DNA. The interesting question, therefore, is not whether our CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) emissions make GAT higher, but how much higher?

6. To answer that question, first we do the basic physics (the Stefan-Boltzmann equation) about black-body radiation, from which we infer that every doubling of atmospheric CO2 (or CO2-equivalent) concentration should cause about 1 to 1.2 degrees C of increase in GAT without any feedback mechanisms. (Some scientists, due to some thermodynamic and mathematic issues, think this initial, pre-feedback warming is actually much smaller, but this is adequate to work with for this discussion. If they’re right, all that follows about climate sensitivity—how much warming comes from adding CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere—would be strengthened. Warming to come would be less, hence all risks associated with it would be less, and cooling due to reduced emissions would be less, so the cost per unit of cooling would be higher.)

7. The computer climate models on which alarmists like those associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and various government agencies that depend on it predict post-feedback warming from doubled atmospheric CO2 (or CO2-equivalent) concentration of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C, with 3.0 degrees remaining, in most discussions, their “best estimate.” 3.0 degrees would require that net feedbacks multiply pre-feedback warming by 250 to 300 percent.

8. According to the models, GAT should have been rising by about 0.216 degree C per decade over the relevant period. Actual observed change in GAT has been only about 0.117 degree C per decade. I.e., the models call for nearly twice the warming actually observed. (And this rests on data through 2016, which, like 1998, was abnormally warm because of an abnormally strong El Nino. If the data since the post-El Nino cooling were added, the difference would be greater.)

9. Additionally, the models say all that warming should have come only from increased CO2. If any of it came from natural causes, then their error is even greater.

10. But recent research finds that once you control for solar, volcanic, and ocean current (especially El Nino/Southern Oscillation) variability, all of the temperature variability throughout the relevant period has been explained, leaving none to be blamed on increased CO2.

11. This doesn’t mean CO2 doesn’t make GAT higher than it otherwise would be—as basic physics predicts. Instead, it helps us answer the key question, “How much?” And the answer appears to be: so little we can’t detect it.

12. It follows that if CO2 isn’t the main driver of global warming, reducing CO2 emissions won’t have much effect on future GAT—indeed, if CO2’s warming effect is so little we can’t detect it, then the effect of reducing it will also be so little we can’t detect it.

13. But even assuming the modelers’ estimates of CO2’s warming effect, full compliance with the Paris accord would reduce GAT in the year 2100 by no more than 0.17 degree C, which is far too little to have any significant effect on any ecosystem or on human wellbeing. It follows that there is no temperature benefit to be anticipated from the Paris accord.

14. Meanwhile, the cost of implementing the Paris accord would run in the range of $1 to $2 trillion per year from 2030 through the end of the century, for a total of $70 to $140 trillion dollars, making the cost per tenth of a degree C of cooling roughly $41.2 to $82.4 trillion.

15. Those trillions of dollars would, in other words, achieve no significant difference in GAT. But if instead they were spent to provide pure drinking water, electricity, sewage sanitation, nutrition supplements, infectious disease control, industrialization, better housing, etc., to the roughly 2 billion people in the world who lack those things, the improvement in human health and wellbeing would be immense.

And that—even before we get to all the arguments about the effect on the U.S. economy—is why it made perfect sense to pull out of the Paris accord. The rest of the world should follow.

Europe, India, China and scam green energy companies are crazy mad because Trump pulled out of the insane Paris Accord.

1. Notice it is not a treaty but an “agreement.” Obama, alone, “agreed” to the Paris Accord because even his own party wouldn’t have voted for it in the Senate to make it a treaty. And since it is NOT a treaty - it has no legal enforcement in America. None.

2. The obama Paris Accord would kill hundreds of thousands of jobs, harm American manufacturing, and destroy $2.5 trillion in gross domestic product by the year 2035.

3. China and India - the largest polluters in the world, were except from doing anything, unless America paid for it.

4. The entire world was waiting for the trillion dollar obama gravy train to include the scam companies of “green energy” such as Telsa. Elon Musk (a huge obama donor) just saw his company turn down the road to bankruptcy.

Climate voodoo is not a science. These fake sciences have been steadily changing the historic temperature records to show warming and the original records are now corrupt and unusable. Current temperatures from ground stations are few and far between and improperly located so the readings are not accurate. Satellites do not cover the polar regions which are just guessed.

There is no way to even know if the earth has been increasing in temperature let alone assign responsibility to CO2. And, even it CO2 is assigned responsibility, man contributes a small fraction of the CO2.

The entire climate subject is nonsense. There is not only no effort there is actual avoidance in applying scientific principles like experiments to test the null hypothesis, use of the scientism method, reproducing experiment results, publishing data and methods, etc, etc.

Climate people are in a cult or religion, not a scientific endeavor.

“But it’s also basic physics that if you drop a rock and a feather at the same moment from the same height, they’ll land at the same moment”

https://youtu.be/E43-CfukEgs skip the prelims and go to about 2:49

Aristotle taught that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones, in direct proportion to weight.
Galileo predicted that bodies of the same material falling through the same medium would fall at the same speed.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If they could show that “global warming” is real, we would be on board. But they can’t, any more than they show that the Russians did it. Too much crying “wolf” from these phonies.
They should kill themselves.

Climate people are in a cult or religion, not a scientific endeavor.

Thank you! Your entire post nailed it. That is why these morons are out “marching” for science and calling for actual scientists to be jailed or killed if they disagree with their agenda. (as if any of these lard butts even knew how to march)

However the left must be given some credit for managing to cultivate the largest group of ignoramuses that the world has ever seen. These idiots armed with iPhones, iPads and laptops believe that the technology they own makes them more intelligent than previous generations. Yet if you took away their electronics most would be incapable of adding up a Yahtzee score let alone a grocery receipt. Do not try to give one of these geniuses some extra change after the register already has figured it out for them. Few are capable of figuring out that $20.17 - $5.17 = $15 without using a calculator. Yet these same people are certain that the exact temperature of the earth can be calculated to 100th of a degree and predicted 100 years from now. That is a religious belief not a scientific belief.

I’ve noticed that no MSM is running a poll on the matter — maybe they don’t want to know the results.

I don't know if we want to know the results either. Far too many Americans didn't bother to read the fine print on the Paris Accords and have no idea of the trillions it would cost in lost productivity, the hundreds of billions in wealth transferred from the United States to the Third World or the millions of manufacturing jobs lost. They have no idea of the stringent restrictions placed on the United States AND NO OTHER NATION that would have kneecapped our economy while China and India got to play catch-up.

And because President Trump had the courage to pull us out of this nightmare, these Americans who are currently telling pollsters and posting on Facebook how angry they are at Trump will never experience the ruin that the Paris Accords would have wrought on this country. All they know is what CNN tells them; that President Trump wants to poison the Earth.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.