US Officially Exits Paris Climate Agreement
The United States formally left the Paris climate accord on Wednesday, becoming the first country in the world to withdraw from the international climate pact aimed at reigning in greenhouse emissions.
President Donald Trump’s administration had notified the United Nations last year of the US withdrawal from the accord. The mandatory one-year waiting period required for it to exit ended on Wednesday.
The fate of the US participation in the Paris agreement now rests on the outcome of the presidential election.
Trump to keep US out, Biden wants back in
Trump, a staunch opponent of the international accord, had first announced his intention to withdraw the US from the landmark agreement in 2017, but the UN rules prevented countries from leaving in the first three years.
If Trump were to be reelected, the US — the world’s largest economy and the second-biggest polluter after China — would stay out of the accord.
During his presidency, Trump has questioned climate science on multiple occasions, championed the fossil fuel industry, and weakened environmental protections.
His Democratic rival Joe Biden, in contrast, has vowed to immediately rejoin the Paris agreement if he wins the presidential election. Biden has called climate change and global warming “an existential threat to humanity” and that the US has a “moral obligation to deal with it.”
Biden has also proposed a $1.7 trillion plan to bring US carbon emission to net-zero by 2050.
‘Make or break’
Regardless of how the election turns out, the United States will still be “outside the conversation” when the UK and the UN host a climate summit on December 12, on the fifth anniversary of the Paris accord.
Climate scientists have warned the unless drastic action is taken, global temperatures may rise more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, triggering a series of catastrophic climate tipping points by the end of the century.
This could be averted if global emissions reached net-zero by mid-century, according to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Dutch Climate Scientist Niklas Hohne backed Biden’s plan in a tweet on Tuesday.
“This election could be a make or break point for international climate policy,” he said. “Biden’s climate plan alone could reduce temperature increase in the order of 0.1°C. Every tenth of a degree counts.”
Read more here.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Joseph Olson
| #
NO gas molecule can capture, store, redirect or amplify radiant energy photons moving at the speed of light. The Sky Dragon Slayers have been fighting the false “back radiation warming from Magic Gas” hypothesis for a decade, but the superstition persists. Truth war rages on.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Joseph,
I have not yet observed that the Dragon Slayers have considered any of the data being gathered by the various USA government projects that began observing (measuring) fundamental physical phenomena that has become available since WWII as new technology became available to allow this ‘new’ data of natural systems to become available. The Dragon Slayers and many scientists who have designed the systems by which this data is generated seem to ignore it. Clearly the Dragon Slayers seem to prefer to reason and debate and any experiments they do conduct are artificial construction and clearly not the natural systems they are seeking to understand (explain).
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Joseph and PSI Readers,
I have just looked at the data of a atmospheric soundings launched from the local airport at Salem OR. Where the Weather Service has an automated weather station which detected scattered clouds at lower altitude and the base of an overcast at a higher altitude.
And I reconfirmed to myself that it is very difficult to simply communicate the possible significance of this data to anyone who is not looking at this data as I attempt to explain what I see as I look at this data. And even this, just pointing to the significant data which can be seen, is not really a good solution because I have spent many, many hours familiarizing myself with the data of many different atmospheric soundings.
Here is my best attempt to generalize what the Dragon Slayers are doing ‘wrong’. They assume that the atmospheric temperature always decreases with increasing altitude because their is an accepted theory that it should.. But this morning the atmospheric sounding data discloses that between 2743m altitude and 3007m altitude that atmospheric temperature was a consistent temperature of 2.8C after the atmospheric temperature had decreased with increasing altitude up to the 2743m altitude.
But the Weather Service’s automated weather station at the airport had observed two layers of scattered clouds below an overcast whose base was measured to be at 1680m. But the sounding data indicated there was consistent 20+knot westerly wind which had carrying the sounding balloon miles to the east by the time it had risen to 2743 altitude where the atmosphere’s temperature became a consistent 2.8C as it continued to rise to to an altitude of 3007m.
Now, I believe I know that Richard Feynman’s scattering theory of clouds simiply explains the consistent 2.8C temperature of this overcast cloud layer. But it seems I am one of only a few meteorologists and Dargon Slayers who are even aware of Feynman’s theory. Which theory I considered is strongly supported by this atmospheric sounding data.
How did I do?
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Joseph and PSI Readers,
I forgot to do the most important thing to establish the validity of Feynman’s scattering theory of cloud droplets and the observed consequence of cloud scattering. I did not go outside with my IR thermometer and point it straight up at the base of the overcast. Now at 11am I have and the sky temperature is 45C while the earth’s surface temperature is 60C, which is the air temperature according to my weather station is also 60C. Why isn’t the sky temperature 60C?
My explanation was has no observation to support it is the diffuse solar radiation passing through the cloud has warmed the atmosphere at the base of the overcast. But I do have the experience of pointing the IR thermometer at the base of an ‘thick (800m) overcast cloud and the sky’s measured temperature was within a degree or so of the weather stations measured air temperature.
So, I could have done better.
Have a good day, Jerry
Chris
| #
Their own 2 bottles experiment shows that before co2 could cause even a 1 deg C rise in temp humans would be extinct. Part of the trouble is is that they don’t understand the significance behind the 2 bottles experiment, so they don’t know how to interpret the results. There has been a decline in education.
Dean Michael Jackson
| #
“Trump, a staunch opponent of the international accord…”
Classic ‘false opposition’ tactic of Marxists,[1] who flay their arms, feigning opposition, but naturally never direct our attention to actual physics that identifies the Marxist quest to destroy the West’s economies…
Thermodynamics AWOL Proves Marxist Operation To Destroy The West’s Industrial Base
Climate change mechanics conspires to do away with the physics of the atmosphere, where action and reaction is abandoned. When a new gas molecule is introduced into the atmosphere, dislocation takes place, where if the new molecule is denser than the atmosphere (contains less heat energy), such as carbon dioxide, the gas molecule sinks displacing upwards the warmer nitrogen and oxygen molecules, thereby immediately cooling the area of dislocation. As warmer nitrogen and oxygen molecules rise, they in turn push downwards cooler nitrogen and oxygen molecules, further cooling the atmosphere.
Conversely, if the new gas molecule has more heat energy than the nitrogen-oxygen based atmosphere (such as methane), the new molecule rises, displacing relatively cooler nitrogen and oxygen molecules downwards, which displaces upwards relatively more heat retaining nitrogen and oxygen molecules, thereby cooling the area of dislocation.
Thermodynamics in action in the atmosphere that keeps the Earth cool when increased radiation isn’t the new variable introduced.
As for what is causing the Earth to warm, and the Earth is indeed warming (and getting greener thanks to increased carbon dioxide), see if you can figure that out without my assistance.
Hint: Keep your feet on the…
At my blog, read the articles…
‘House of Cards: The Collapse of the ‘Collapse’ of the USSR’
‘Playing Hide And Seek In Yugoslavia’
Then read the article, ‘The Marxist Co-Option Of History And The Use Of The Scissors Strategy To Manipulate History Towards The Goal Of Marxist Liberation’
Solution
The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology/blackmail, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.
My blog…
https://djdnotice.blogspot.com/2018/09/d-notice-articles-article-55-7418.html
[1] The mainstream media and ‘false opposition’ ‘conservative’ media have conspired to not direct the public’s attention to Trump marrying into a Soviet Bloc Marxist family, whose father-in-law – Viktor Knavs – is a Yugoslav communist party member Quisling, and currently living in the White House under the protection of the Secret Service, otherwise Viktor and wife would be murdered by Yugoslav expatriates, which is why they had to flee Yugoslavia.
Google: express UK trump father communist
Instead of derailing Trump’s presidential bid by inundating the airwaves and cable lines with Trump marrying into a Soviet Bloc Marxist family, the mainstream media naturally supported their man by spiking the shocking news.
Tom O
| #
I’m afraid I need your assistance DMJ, because I don’t see the evidence that the Earth is getting warmer unless you mean it is still warmer than it was in the last ice age. The world that I live in, the valley of the Sun here in Arizona, sure as hell isn’t warmer than it was 20 years ago outside of the enlarged heat island of the metro plex itself, and then it is only at night.
Dean Michael Jackson
| #
“The world that I live in, the valley of the Sun here in Arizona, sure as hell isn’t warmer than it was 20 years ago outside of the enlarged heat island of the metro plex itself, and then it is only at night.”
“Since the 1960s, each decade has been warmer than the previous one, by significant amounts. While the 2010s continued this trend, the second half of the decade was especially warm. The five hottest years ever have occurred during that time span.”
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/15/climate/hottest-year-2019.html
“Arizona’s climate is changing. The state has warmed
about two degrees (F) in the last century.”
https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/climate-change-az.pdf
Actually temperatures have increased greater than ‘climate change’ frauds say, such increases masked by cooling ‘greenhouse gases”.
Carl
| #
“Biden has also proposed a $1.7 trillion plan to bring US carbon emission to net-zero by 2050.”
Knowing that the author of course means “carbon dioxide”, its an unending source of amazement to me why people are obsessed with limiting the amount of plant food that is available to the biosphere.
Using the power of sunlight plants do this: 6CO2 + 6H2O ——> C6H12O6 + 6O2 (photosynthesis)
C6H12O6 = carbohydrates (food for animals)
6O2 = oxygen for animals to breathe
The atmosphere currently only contains 40% of the amount of carbon dioxide that there should be for optimal plant growth, which is ~1,200 ppm.
Its said that photosynthesis was discovered by Jan Ingenhousz in the 18th century.
None of “the data being gathered by the various USA government projects that began observing (measuring) fundamental physical phenomena that has become available since WWII as new technology” has reversed or even in the slightest challenged the scientific reality of photosynthesis. Yet people persist in their obsession with limiting the amount of plant food available to the biosphere.
How odd???
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Carl,
I am aware of the research result to which you refer. But I an not aware of controlled conditions of these experiments but to have an atmosphere with greater than ‘normal’ atmosphere carbon dioxide requires an air tight enclosure. Which has to limit the solar radiation incident upon the plant leaves.
But I have a farming background. And while I have farmed for 55 years, my immediate family is still farming..So I know they are achieving corn yields of 200 bushels per acre on land which 50 bushels per acre were normal. While there are some very obvious reasons for the great improvement, the son’s of my nephew pick to one primary reason–genetics. But I wonder if there are aware what the primary genetic factor was. Many corn plants of the earlier time had leaves which soon became horizontal as they grew from the stalk. I it is easy to see that now the leaves grow vertically from the stalk so there are no horizontal leaves at the top which shade the lower leaves from direct solar radiation. For the factor which was limiting the corn yield at the earlier time was solar radiation.
Just some information for you to consider. Good to hear (read) from you. You study science and are a scientist. For PSI reader’s information, Carl not only read about science, he also performs his own experiments (observations).
Have a good day, Jerry
Tom Anderson
| #
Dear J. Krause, to answer your question, “Where is the experimental evidence that quantifies CO2 atmospheric sensitivity?” I refer you to a recent posting on this site: “The Much Misunderstood Climate Issue of CO2 Infrared Absorption,”Published on October 28, 2020, by Bevan Dockery. Quoting:
“For this study, a spectrum for CO2 was calculated using the HITRAN web site facility [Ref.2] for the parameters of temperature of 12̊C and pressure 0.945 atmospheres being the estimated average conditions at about 500 metres above sea level. The result is shown in Figure 1. The section between wavenumbers 400 to 2600 cm-1 is that referred to in Witteman [Ref.1] as the region of absorption of the thermal emission from the earth.”
The referenced result determined that CO2 molecules interacted with solar irradiation predominantly (you could say “overwhelmingly”) in the 14.97μm band. Calculating the temperature of this interaction with the well established-Wien Displacement Law,or Wien Approximation, Dr. Witteman determines that the molecule interacts at 193.5K or -79.5°C. In fact nearly all of according to Dr. Witteman’s experiment is about minus 80 Celsius – likelier to cool than warm the Earth, especially if concentrations rise. He states:
“Since 99.83% of the photons that may be absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 molecules will be from the 15 micron absorption band and these represent radiation from a source at 193.5̊K, they will not heat the Earth at its average surface temperature of 288̊K. Only radiation of a wavelength less that 10.06 microns, the peak of radiation from a source at 288̊K, will cause heating of the Earth – Second Law of Thermodynamics. The probability of an atmospheric CO2 molecule absorbing radiation in one of the three shorter wavelength, ‘hot’, bands is insignificant.’
Furthermore the main absorption peak for CO2 is at a wavelength of 14.97 microns, the peak for radiation from a source at -79.5̊C. That would likely cause cooling of the atmosphere, not warming except for the fact that the amount of energy involved is infinitesimal when spread through the Earth’s troposphere.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Tom A.,
Sorry, I did not accurately define the atmospheric carbon dioxide temperature sensitivity.
The theory about the greenhouse effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide predicts that average atmospheric temperature, as conventionally measured, would be about 33C less that actually measured, if not for the presence of carbon dioxide (and other atmospheric greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere. This is the temperature sensitivity to which I referred.
If you go to raws.dri.edu (raws–remote automated weather stations) can find a great magnitude of the measurement of air temperature is never less than the dew point temperature of that atmosphere. And it is common understanding that the dew point temperature is the temperature at which water molecules begin to condense on solid surfaces. Which property is not at all related to water molecules ability to absorb any wavelength of radiation. Hence, the atmospheric temperature can never less than the minimum temperature actually measured. Hence, the prediction of the GHE is impossible and the theory of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect of carbon dioxide is absolutely wrong.
Unfortunately it seems that many can not follow this test of scientific ideas. Possibly because many are not familiar with how science can prove wrong ideas to be absolutely wrong; but at the same time science can never prove a scientific idea to be absolutely correct (valid).
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry
| #
Where is the experimental evidence that quantifies co2 atmospheric sensitivity?
All the climate alarmists produce is computational which is not proof of anything.
Carbon Bigfoot
| #
John O’ where is my rebuttal tp D.M. Jackson this AM.