It could be time to panic, per uber-Warmist Seth Borenstein
What happens to Earth if the US exits the climate deal?
Earth is likely to hit more dangerous levels of warming even sooner if the U.S. pulls back from its pledge to cut carbon dioxide pollution, scientists said. That’s because America contributes so much to rising temperatures.
President Donald Trump, who once proclaimed global warming a Chinese hoax, will soon decide whether the United States stays in or leaves a 2015 Paris climate change accord in which nearly every nation agreed to curb its greenhouse gas emissions.
Other global leaders have been urging him to stay during high level security and economic meetings in Italy that began Friday. Pope Francis already made the case with a gift of his papal encyclical on the environment when Trump visited the Vatican earlier this week.
In an attempt to understand what could happen to the planet if the U.S. pulls out of Paris, The Associated Press consulted with more than two dozen climate scientists and analyzed a special computer model scenario designed to calculate potential effects.
Yes, those who computer models which have failed 95% of the time.
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.
In other words, they know it is a bunch of mule fritters, but, they’re cool with going along with the doom and gloom
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).
While scientists may disagree on the computer simulations they overwhelmingly agreed that the warming the planet is undergoing now would be faster and more intense.
So, in order to supposedly save the Earth from a tiny bit of warming per computer models and soothsaying, we need a massive monetary redistribution scheme, which will have virtually no impact on the climate but cost a $100 trillion, and have devastating effects on economies.
Can you even tell the difference with .18 to .36F?
TEACH typed:
This is one of several falsehoods that TEACH re-types. He bases his false claim on a falsified figure “created” by climate change denier Roy Spencer.
TEACH knows this is false yet keeps typing it.
We probably can’t tell the difference in the room temperature between 70F and 70.18F or 70.36F. But that’s not the point is it? The temperature the scientists are discussing is the mean global surface temperature, where tenths of degrees do matter.
It’s unlikely that most humans can tell the difference between 70F and 71.5F but that 1.5F increase in the mean global surface temperature is causing arctic sea ice and Greenland/Antarctic land ice to melt and the sea level to rise. Do you understand now?
Not really. No global temperature estimate is that exact, little guy.
I don’t really care if the ice melts and most of the areas that would drown are liberal, so good things do happen.
dave,
We thought you didn’t believe that the Earth was warming and seas rising. We’ve noticed other the years that deniers flip flop their positions as the evidence becomes more and more overwhelming. Where will all these climate refugees on the coasts move? The US south will likely be uninhabitable by the turn of the century, so folks will be moving northward. What if Canada builds a wall?
Liberal FL, SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, TX? We’ve had at least 4 “500 yr floods” here in conservative MO since the mid 90s. Two massive floods costing hundreds of millions in the past 16 months alone.
dave, in your blind ignorance you assume that blue states are ALL liberals – untrue – they are just majority liberal. 40% of the populace in blue states are conservative – probably not as backward and a white supremacist as you, but certainly reliably Republican.
Wow, J, that’s even ignorant for you-the “cost” of a climate event is basically irrelevant when determining if it was strong or severe. Of course, there’s more people and structures in the way of whatever’s happening and every year things cost more. According to J’s logic, if Katrina had hit in 1500 instead of 2005, that would mean it wasn’t a very strong storm because it would have caused hardly any damage.
Plus, Inconvenient for some, glaciers were melting long before high levels of CO2. https://realclimatescience.com/glacial-retreat-before-1950/
j,
You seem to be criticizing statements I didn’t make. Are you confused? Again.
j,
Inconvenient for you is that you cite the debunked denier, SteveGoddard/TonyHeller. Nothing he types can be trusted. Is your point that some glaciers may have been receding before the latest bout of rapid warming? It’s possible but certainly not proven by a few newspaper clippings from SteveGoddard.
Trump has to sign that agreement! If I don’t lose more rights and pay more taxes, all the icebergs on my street will melt!
trump has told EPA topper Pruitt that he is pulling out of the agreement.
Keep trying J, those were newspaper articles from the time period. They have nothing to do with Heller, except that he published them
“It’s not possible..” Yes, it’s very possible because it happened. “Debunked denier..” Then it should be very easy to refute the info I posted, right? Good luck
Even more inconvenient truths:https://realclimatescience.com/disappearing-glaciers/
Heller aka Goddard is a proven liar. How do we know he’s not made this up too? Since these are “news” articles how do you know they are not “fake” news, LOL? How do we know he didn’t selectively cherrypick his data? Heller aka Goddard is not a reliable source.
Try: http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers
http://nsidc.org/data/search/#keywords=glaciers/sortKeys=score,,desc/facetFilters=%257B%257D/pageNumber=1/itemsPerPage=25
Do you and Goddard aka Heller have a point with your cherrypicked press clippings? Is it that some glaciers have been receding since the beginning of the industrial revolution and as the Earth “left” the little ice age? Is it to deny the increased rate of glacial recession in the past half century?
Glaciers grow and recede based on local conditions, which, in turn are largely influenced by the overall climate. Soot deposited on glaciers from burning of fossil fuels can cause a glacier to recede. Did you know that? Glacial ice grows during extended cold periods, e.g., the little ice age and recede when the Earth starts to warm. See how that works? Cold –> growth. Warm –> recede. As someone who still denies that the Earth is warming, it’s small wonder that you deny that a warming Earth will cause the glaciers to recede. Overall, the Arctic is losing ice, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing ice, and the glaciers are losing ice.
Your and Goddard aka Heller’s argument that the receding glaciers 150 years ago as the Earth “emerged” from the little ice age proves that glaciers can’t be receding now from the current period of human caused rapid warming melts under examination.
Seems like the little guy is melting.
That’s just the U.S. share. Without efforts to reduce emissions, temperatures are projected to rise about 2-4°C this century. If the U.S. pulls out of the Paris Agreement, it could lead other nations to pull out. If the Agreement holds, it would make the U.S. an outlier, and probably subject to sanctions in international trade.
In many ways, and not just on climate, the U.S. is sacrificing its leadership role in the world.