It’s about time
(Reuters) The US State Department has officially informed the United Nations it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement in a document issued on Friday, but left the door open to re-engaging if the terms improved for the United States.
The State Department said in a press release the United States would continue to participate in United Nations climate change meetings during the withdrawal process, which is expected to take at least three years.
“The United States supports a balanced approach to climate policy that lowers emissions while promoting economic growth and ensuring energy security,” the department said in the release.
Said press release reads in full
Today, the United States submitted a communication to the United Nations, in its capacity as depositary for the Paris Agreement, regarding the U.S. intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement as soon as it is eligible to do so, consistent with the terms of the Agreement. As the President indicated in his June 1 announcement and subsequently, he is open to re-engaging in the Paris Agreement if the United States can identify terms that are more favorable to it, its businesses, its workers, its people, and its taxpayers.
The United States supports a balanced approach to climate policy that lowers emissions while promoting economic growth and ensuring energy security. We will continue to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions through innovation and technology breakthroughs, and work with other countries to help them access and use fossil fuels more cleanly and efficiently and deploy renewable and other clean energy sources, given the importance of energy access and security in many nationally determined contributions.
The United States will continue to participate in international climate change negotiations and meetings, including the 23rd Conference of the Parties (COP-23) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, to protect U.S. interests and ensure all future policy options remain open to the administration. Such participation will include ongoing negotiations related to guidance for implementing the Paris Agreement.
It will be very interesting to see just how the Trump administration engages at COP-23, to be held in Bonn, Germany this November. They’re obviously against all those big, big initiatives which place burdens, restrictions, fees, and taxes on citizens on the United States. But, what you do not hear is the support for alternatives to go with oil and natural gas. So, how does Team Trump engage at COP-23? Time will tell.
Regardless, the idiotic ‘climate change’ policies of Barack Obama are being slowly wiped away.
The U.S. represents a decreasing share of the world economy. Instead of being first among equals, the U.S. is reneging on previous agreements, surrendering its leadership role, and will consequently have less say when future international agreements are struck. This will also tend to result in less political stability. Notably, there is a rise in reactionary forces in many democracies, with only a feeble response from the U.S. The U.S. President has also been attacking leaders of democratic allies, while cozying up to autocratic leaders, such as Putin in Russia.
Could have sworn those were the talking points of little jeffuckery.
Do y’all belong to a club or something?
Or to put it another way, Trump got us out of a wealth distribution scheme that would do nothing for the climate.
j typed:
How much would this “scheme” cost the US?
If you can’t answer that’s OK. If your answer is “ANY cost is too much!”, that is not OK. We call that answer a “daan” – it cloaks ignorance in ideology.
Coincident with tRumpski’s weakening of our nation, the Earth continues to warm rapidly.
Nice try, J. As far as wealth distribution, any money is too much when it won’t do any good. But here, a question for you: the earth is rapidly warming compared to…what? If you can’t answer , that’s ok, because “it cloaks ignorance in ideology.”
“Rapidly” is a scientific term to little jeffuckery, that’s all.
And like little jeffuckery it has no relevance.
j,
As I’ve explained many times… more rapidly than the increase coming out of the last glacial period into the Holocene. In fact, about ten times more rapidly. But why do you care? You don’t think the Earth is warming at all, so hardly warming “rapidly”.
But you have no answer to your claim of redistribution other than your shiftless “any is too much”.
The Earth is warming rapidly and we’re already seeing the effects in Bangladesh, Australia, Kansas City, France, Miami, BC etc. We ignore the obvious at our own peril. We’re puzzled as to why the American right refuses to acknowledge reality – we DO understand that tRumpski’s position is pandering to the right wing ignorati.
We have met the enemy and he is us. – Pogo (Walt Kelly)
Total BS, as I’ve explained many times. You can’t take a 150 yr period of thermometer temperatures and compare it to paleo records, which is what you and the alarmists are trying to do. In other words, how fast was the temperature rise during other 150 yr time spans earlier during the Holocene? What was the rate of temp rise from say, 20,000 yrs ago to 19,850 yrs ago? You mean you don’t know? Then you can’t say “rapidly” because you can’t compare it to anything. “We’re seeing the effects in Bangladesh, Australia, Kansas City, France, Miami, BC, etc.”. Really? What effects are we seeing? They’ve never happened before? And the proof they’re cause by AGW is…what? Good luck
j,
As we stated, you reject that the Earth is warming. Do you have access to thermometer data from 10,000 years ago? We didn’t think so. According to your “logic” it is as likely to cool 1C the next century as to continue warming.
To what physical mechanism do you attribute the current period of rapid warming if not greenhouse gases?
Jl: You can’t take a 150 yr period of thermometer temperatures and compare it to paleo records
Not directly, but they can be compared.
Jl: how fast was the temperature rise during other 150 yr time spans earlier during the Holocene?
NASA Earth Observatory: “As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.”
Notice they use the Mann Hockey Stick for their “analysis”.
The one where Mann eliminated the Medieval and Roman Warm periods.
A joke.
drowningpuppies: A joke.
On the one hand, we have a scientific organization that actually collects scientific data from many different sources, from space to oceans to ice caps; and on the other hand, we have drowningpuppies. Sure. you could be right and NASA could be wrong on a scientific question within their domain of expertise, but what are the odds?
drowningpuppies: Notice they use the Mann Hockey Stick for their “analysisâ€.
The basic findings of Mann et al. have been supported by many independent studies.
Please defend the Hockey Stick graph.
Even the IPCC no longer endorses it.
But then we have the kidz.
drowningpuppies: Please defend the Hockey Stick graph.
Jukes et al., Millennial temperature reconstruction intercomparison and
evaluation, Climate of the Past 2007.
Lee et al., Evaluation of proxy-based millennial reconstruction methods, Climate Dynamics 2007.
North et al., Surface temperature reconstructions for the last 2,000 years, Washington, D.C., National Academies Press, 2006.
https://judithcurry.com/2014/04/29/ipcc-tar-and-the-hockey-stick/
Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, plus many others have extensively debunked statistics that went into the Mann hockey stick showing where errors were made, or in some cases known and simply ignored because it helped “the causeâ€.
Ice cores provide temperature records, for high latitudes, at least.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/26/we-dont-believe-the-ice-cores-can-be-interpreted-purely-as-a-signal-of-temperature/
Nice paper. They still teased out the temperature data. Presumably you support the findings, including that “climate sensitivity as assessed from ice core records may underestimate the severity of rapid regional warming over Greenland in response to present and future anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions” and that most of the warming was due to the greenhouse effect.
Not sure how that helps your case.
Y’all don’t seem to be sure of anything anymore.
Wanna take a guess at the global mean temperature of the earth in Kelvin?
You cited a paper. The paper says that climate sensitivity is higher than expected. Did you not expect us to actually read what the paper says?
Ah, you kids see only what you want to see.
If you would have read further you would see that they use a model about how temperatures at the surface and temperatures at bedrock migrate through the 3 km deep ice-sheet and they can guesstimate what the surface temperatures were in the past. They then recalibrate the dO18 isotopes to those guesstimates rather than the known conversion formula. The problem is that the borehole models appear to be wrong by a factor of 2.
As one commenter stated:
Summary:
Greenland ice core data does not agree with climate models that have CO2 as a main forcing. Therefore Greenland ice core data needs to be adjusted.
BTW the answer to my question is 288K.
See ya, kidz.
Never said the earth wasn’t warming, as it has been since the LIA. “Do you have temp records from 10,000 yrs ago”? No, which is why you can’t say this warming is “rapid”, which was my point, which is still un-refuted. “Ice cord provide temp records…”. Yes, they do, but not anywhere as near specific as thermometers, and only for very long periods, not 150yrs. Which is why they can’t be compared. “To what physical mechanism do you attribute the current period of rapid warming if. Not greenhouse gasses?” First, you don’t know it’s rapid, as shown. The same warming mechanisms that have been warming the earth since the last ice age. The same mechanism that was melting Arctic ice and glaciers early in the 1900s with CO2 much lower.
Jl: The same mechanism that was melting Arctic ice and glaciers early in the 1900s with CO2 much lower.
Early twentieth-century warming is believed to be due to increased solar activity and lower volcanic activity, which do not explain current warming.
We didn’t ask if you had “temp records from 10,000 yrs ago” we pointedly asked if you had “thermometer records”. The point being we must use the best data available. The current warming period is warming 10 times more rapidly than the when the Earth entered the Holocene. It’s interesting that your entire argument centers around an adverb.
An analogy even J can understand, using the second hand on a watch to time a race compared to using a stop watch to time a race. Before stop watches, races were probably at one time timed using the second hand on a clock. 100 yard dash times may have been 10 sec, or 11 sec., or at it’s most specific maybe half-seconds. The stop watch is invented and the times are 10, 10.1, 10.3. Few days later we have a 9.9 recorded. Jeffery and his alarmists buddies would proclaim “fastest hundred yard dash ever run!” But was it? We don’t know. Several people could have easily run the same 9.9 or lower earlier in time, but it was not decernable due to the second hand of a watch not being as specific as a stop watch. The only thing one could say for certain is that the 9.9 was the fastest 100 yards dash run using that specific measuring device, and nothing more.
If a sprinter runs 100 meters ten times more rapidly than the current record holder, he would run it in 1 second instead of 10 seconds, a difference easily detectable, even with the second hand of a Timex.
Jeffery, to what physical mechanism do you attribute these glaciers and Arctic ice melting when temps were lower and CO2 was much lower?
https://realclimatescience.com/disappearing-glaciers/
from Wikipedia, arguably more reliable than your source:
It is believed the LIA ended as a result of a warming sun.
The human impact on extreme weather must’ve been rockin’ when Noah built the ark. –Marie Harf pardy tweet
drowningpuppies: Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view …
We provided citation to three different studies. The verbal opinion of a lone scientist doesn’t refute the data. Did he publish his refutation in a scientific journal for review?
drowningpuppies: Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick …
McIntyre and McKitrick’s analysis has been considered by other scientists. Where appropriate, changes were made in the relevant papers, but nothing they have published undermined the basic findings, which have been supported by many different researchers and methodologies.
There are always naysayers. That doesn’t undermine the consensus findings. Only scientific data can do that.
drowningpuppies: they use a model about how temperatures at the surface and temperatures at bedrock migrate through the 3 km deep ice-sheet and they can guesstimate what the surface temperatures were in the past.
There are several sources of data, with the Greenland ice cores being anomalous. They resolve that anomaly, finding that the Greenland ice cores are consistent with the melting of the Laurentide ice sheet allowing the introduction of moisture from the Pacific Ocean. Not sure why you think that is problematic.
drowningpuppies: Ah, you kids see only what you want to see.
Now that’s funny. Not only do you refer to a blog post about the paper, without referencing the paper, but you are now referencing comments on the blog post about the paper.
In any case, the paper YOU cited found that “climate sensitivity as assessed from ice core records may underestimate the severity of rapid regional warming over Greenland in response to present and future anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions†and that most of the warming was due to the greenhouse effect.