AARP members get more! Take a look at your member benefits.

Reply
Trusted Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
2386
Views

Fact Check trump's Claims on Paris Accord

2,386 Views
Message 1 of 93

It's hard to understand why Trump Lovers are so dead set against using logic. 

 

Donald Trump withdrew from the Paris Accord because he said it was bad for business.

Business leaders across the country are outraged at Trump for withdrawing from the Paris accord

 

This includes companies such as Goldman Sachs, Disney, Apple, Exxon, Shell, Conoco, Space X, Google, Facebook, etc. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
2386
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
2391
Views

Re: Fact Check trump's Claims on Paris Accord

2,391 Views
Message 2 of 93

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@CriticalThinking wrote:

Glad to hear that NH,

 

Trump's argument for leaving the Paris Accord is a bogus claim it's bad for business. Please explain why the overwhelming majority of American Companies, who are in business to make money, support the Paris Accord.


The support from businesses (for the most part) has to do with money.  I can't speak to every company, but here are some reasons: In Exxon-Mobils case, they are big natural gas sellers for commercial use (utilities) as well as home use.  With a huge carbon tax, it would encourage use of natural gas over coal or oil.  With Tesla (electric cars), they are producing batteries which have a carbon footprint of the amount of fossil fuel consumed to recharge them but certainly less than a gasoline engine.  They also receive government assistance via several methods.  Again, the carbon tax makes both Tesla cars and their batteries  more attractive.

 

So, what's bad?  The carbon tax that rewards certain companies comes out of our pockets and then is redistributed to poorer countries.  How high is this tax?  Will it stop growing?  The tax punishes Americans and rewards others.

 

American Corporation GREED is the best motivator to corporations to support or reject rules, treaties, laws.

 

Google any of the above to verify.


Not, you just proved trump was lying....AGAIN!!!  As you've illustrated, it's good for business.


It's good for SOME businesses and BAD for ALL consumers!


So you agree trump was lying.....the "net" is that it's good for business...VERY FEW binesses are adversely impacted.

 

Clean air and protecting the planet, is GOOD for ALL humans!!!


NO, I agree the left is lying big time.  Really?  What are the lying about?  The only business that will win are those that get preferential treatment by encouraging carbon products with less CO2 like in Exxon's case, a seller of natural gas.  In Elon Musk's Tesla, lithium ion batteries will be sold.  "From Facebook to Wal-Mart and now even Exxon (until recently helmed by Trump’s Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson), businesses increasingly view sustainability as critical to their bottom lines."  

 

"The tech industry has naturally been out front on this issue. Facebook’s data centers, those energy-gulping engines of the knowledge economy, are now powered by 100 percent clean and renewable wind energy. The company aims to power all of its operations with at least 50 percent clean and renewable energy by next year. Facebook also negotiates renewable energy tariffs on behalf of itself and other businesses and has open sourced its data center designs for other tech companies to build atop. Meanwhile, Google expects to run its entire global operation, including data centers, on 100 percent renewable energy this year. The new Apple Park is already running on 100 percent renewable energy. Last year alone, Apple reduced its carbon emissions by nearly 585,000 metric tons."

 

"But the private sector’s commitment to sustainability extends far beyond tech. In April, Walmart announced its plan to remove one gigaton of emissions from its supply chain by 2030, the equivalent of taking 211 million cars off the road for a year. And just this week, Exxon shareholders overwhelmingly voted in favor of the company sharing more transparent information about the impact of climate change on its business."

 

https://www.wired.com/2017/06/even-without-paris-business-will-leave-trump-behind-climate-change/

 

OK, NOT, what industries do you think will be harmed by the US remaining in the Paris Accord?

 

The left doesn't even know that CO2 does NOT cause dirty air.  

 

YOU, does that mean "The Right"?  Don't even know that CO2 is a pollutant!

 

Although it has some very important and beneficial effects, CO2 meets the legal and encyclopedic definitions of a "pollutant", and human CO2 emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare.

Climate Myth...

CO2 is not a pollutant
'To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant.' (Robert Balling, as quoted by Popular Technology)

 

Before assessing whether or not CO2 is a pollutant, we must first define the term.

What is an Air Pollutant?

The US Clean Air Act was incorporated into the United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Chapter 85.  Its Title III, Section 7602(g) defines an air pollutant:

 

The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.

Clearly this is a very broad definition.  More importantly, its Title 42, Section 7408 states that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator must publish a list of certain air pollutants:

 

"emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare"

In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (in 2007), the US Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. Two years after the Supreme Court ruling, in 2009 the EPA issued an endangerment finding concluding that

 

"greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare....The major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator’s endangerment finding."
Greenhouse gases including CO2 unquestionably fit the Clean Air Act's broad definition of "air pollutants," and must be listed and regulated by the EPA if it can be determined that they endanger public heath and/or welfare.
 
Alternatively, the definition of "pollution" from Encyclopedia Brittanica is:
"the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form."
Thus legally in the USA, CO2 is an air pollutant which must be regulated if it may endanger publich health or welfare.  And according to the encyclopedic definition, CO2 is a pollutant unless our emissions can be stored "harmlessly."
Is Increasing CO2 Dangerous or Harmless?
Humans are Increasing Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations
Humans have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% over the past 150 years, primarily through the combustion of fossil fuels.
 


Figure 1: CO2 levels (parts per million) over the past 10,000 years. Blue line from Taylor Dome ice cores (NOAA). Green line from Law Dome ice core (CDIAC). Red line from direct measurements at Mauna Loa, Hawaii (NOAA).

 

We know that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic from a number of lines of evidence.  Atmospheric oxygen is decreasing at approximately the same rate as the atmospheric CO2 increase, which tells us that the source of the change is from a release of carbon combining with atmospheric oxygen rather than a natural release of CO2.  We also know that the 30 billion tonnes of CO2 released by human activity must go somewhere, and in fact atmospheric CO2 is only increasing by about 16 billion tonnes per year (the rest is going into the oceans).  CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests also has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere, because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios.  And indeed we've observed this ratio decline in the atmosphere.

 


Figure 2: Atmospheric 13C ratio as measured at Mauna Loa (CDIAC)

The Increasing CO2 is Causing Global Warming

Thus we know that human emissions are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which as a greenhouse gas, in turn increases the greenhouse effect.  This increases the amount of energy (in the form of longwave infrared radiation) reaching the Earth's surface.  We've observed this increase through spectroscopy, which measures changes in the electromagnetic spectrum.  Climate scientists have also quantified the amount of warming we expect to see from the energy imbalance caused by this increased downward radiation, and it matches well with observations.  Given the amount of CO2humans have added to the atmosphere already, once the planet reaches a new equilibrium state, it will have warmed approximately 1.4°C from pre-industrial levels.  Additionally, we have observed numerous key 'fingerprints' of anthropogenic global warming which confirm that the warming we've experienced is due to an increased greenhouse effect.

How Much Warming is Dangerous?

There are some positive effects of global warming from increased CO2 emissions.  For example, improved agriculture at high latitudes and increased vegetation growth in some circumstances. However, the negatives will far outweigh the positives.  Coast-bound communities are threatened by rising sea levels. Melting glaciers threaten the water supplies of hundreds of millions.  Species are  already becoming extinct at a rate 100 to 1000 times higher than the “background” rate of long spans of geological time, partially due to the effects of global warming and climate change

 

Quantifying exactly at what point global warming will become dangerous is a difficult task.  However, based on the research and recommendations of climate scientists, more than 100 countries have adopted a global warming limit of 2°C or below (relative to pre-industrial levels) as a guiding principle for mitigation efforts to reduce climate changerisks, impacts, and damages.  This 2°C warming level is considered the "danger limit". During the last interglacial period when the average global temperature was approximately 2°C hotter than today, sea levels were 6.6 to 9.4 meters higher than current sea levels. Large parts of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melted, with the southern part of Greenland having little or no ice.

 

As discussed above, the CO2 we've already emitted has committed us to about 1.4°C warming above pre-industrial levels.  Given a climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 of 2-4.5°C and the fact that on our current path we're headed for a CO2doubling by mid-to-late 21st century, we're fast-approaching the danger limit.

 

More at:  https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm


 


If windmills are so great, they will sell - climate accord or NOT!  Something the left can't understand.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
2391
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
2399
Views

Re: Fact Check trump's Claims on Paris Accord

2,399 Views
Message 3 of 93

RWNJs make me roll on the floor and laugh.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
2399
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
2398
Views

Re: Fact Check trump's Claims on Paris Accord

2,398 Views
Message 4 of 93

So....after I though about this just a bit more, I decided I had something more to say.  No matter what the cause of climate change it affects everyone on this planet now and in the future, whatever that might be. 

 

It is absolutely clear that IF climate change proceeds as projected by about 97% of the Accredited Scientific Investigators who have studied the issue, everyone WILL experience the consequences.  Even the ones who have done nothing at all to contribute to climate change. Even the ones who pooh-pooh what the reality is for what has already occurred.  Let us be clear about all this.  WE...ALL OF US...live on space ship Earth. Neither Technology nor Available Resources will allow us to leave what we have 'spoiled'. There ain't no place else we can go....not even a select few, let alone the whole damned shebang.    

 

Doesn't matter one whit about what happened in prehistoric times,  what caused it, and how severe that particular event was....That Was Then...This Is Now!  

 

In this case, what, why, when, how, where and who is of no importance whatsoever. There are absolute limits to what THIS earth can provide or can absorb. The whole earth is one non-renewable resource. When it's gone, it's gone.  There just ain't no more.  There has to be something seriously wrong with anyone unable or unwilling to see that. Has to be!

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
2398
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
2405
Views

Re: Fact Check trump's Claims on Paris Accord

2,405 Views
Message 5 of 93

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@CriticalThinking wrote:

Glad to hear that NH,

 

Trump's argument for leaving the Paris Accord is a bogus claim it's bad for business. Please explain why the overwhelming majority of American Companies, who are in business to make money, support the Paris Accord.


The support from businesses (for the most part) has to do with money.  I can't speak to every company, but here are some reasons: In Exxon-Mobils case, they are big natural gas sellers for commercial use (utilities) as well as home use.  With a huge carbon tax, it would encourage use of natural gas over coal or oil.  With Tesla (electric cars), they are producing batteries which have a carbon footprint of the amount of fossil fuel consumed to recharge them but certainly less than a gasoline engine.  They also receive government assistance via several methods.  Again, the carbon tax makes both Tesla cars and their batteries  more attractive.

 

So, what's bad?  The carbon tax that rewards certain companies comes out of our pockets and then is redistributed to poorer countries.  How high is this tax?  Will it stop growing?  The tax punishes Americans and rewards others.

 

American Corporation GREED is the best motivator to corporations to support or reject rules, treaties, laws.

 

Google any of the above to verify.


Not, you just proved trump was lying....AGAIN!!!  As you've illustrated, it's good for business.


It's good for SOME businesses and BAD for ALL consumers!


So you agree trump was lying.....the "net" is that it's good for business...VERY FEW binesses are adversely impacted.

 

Clean air and protecting the planet, is GOOD for ALL humans!!!


NO, I agree the left is lying big time.  The only business that will win are those that get preferential treatment by encouraging carbon products with less CO2 like in Exxon's case, a seller of natural gas.  In Elon Musk's Tesla, lithium ion batteries will be sold.

 

The left doesn't even know that CO2 does NOT cause dirty air.


The RW doesn't even know burning fossil fuel does more than release CO2 - Benzene, Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxide, Formaldehyde, Mercury, Radon and Hydrofluoric Acid are just a few of the wonders of the "clean" air Republicans think we should all breath more of.

 

That's not to say CO2 is "okay" - continuing our current levels of production of CO2, and the other greenhouse gases, is much more certain to end civilization as we know it than a Nuclear War.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
2405
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
2415
Views

Re: Fact Check trump's Claims on Paris Accord

2,415 Views
Message 6 of 93

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

 

Clean air and protecting the planet, is GOOD for ALL humans!!!


 

"There he goes again".  Being rational, I mean.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
2415
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
2415
Views

Re: Fact Check trump's Claims on Paris Accord

2,415 Views
Message 7 of 93

@CriticalThinking wrote:

Final comment:

 

NH said, "We part ways on this one.  There is no carbon tax without the Paris Accord.  My vote is with Donald."

 

I am betting a large sum of money that eventually NH will regret that vote.


Sorry CT.  You got this one wrong.  NH will not be around to see the end of the opera..  He will be lucky if he makes it through the 'overture'.  Our progeny may still be when "the fat lady sings" but that's not his concern, now is it?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
2415
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
2420
Views

Re: Fact Check trump's Claims on Paris Accord

2,420 Views
Message 8 of 93

How can someone put their faith/trust in a pathological liar and ignorant man like Donald Trump when numerous CEOs are on the other side of the argument? Come on Centrist! Would you listen to the CEO of Goldman Sachs, GE, Disney, Exxon, Google, Apple, or Donald Trump? I'm LOL!

 

Centrist said about Trump supporters, "he's got the uneducated as his base.  I bet they're proud of their ignorance."

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
2420
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
2428
Views

Re: Fact Check trump's Claims on Paris Accord

2,428 Views
Message 9 of 93

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@CriticalThinking wrote:

Centrist said, "CeeTee....he's right on this one....NH and other trump supporters will NEVER, EVER admit they're wrong...just like trump....they NEVER do.  They just double-down or just ignore anyone who points it out.  Just watch Jeffrey Lord"

 

Centrist, the hypnotic trance Trump holds over millions of Americans is terrifying. They are immune/allergic to using logic and facts in their arguments. How can someone put their faith/trust in a pathological liar and ignorant man like Donald Trump when numerous CEOs are on the other side of the argument?

 

Come on Centrist! Would you listen to the CEO of Goldman Sachs, GE, Disney, Exxon, Google, Apple, or Donald Trump? I'm LOL!


Trump doesn't need any lemmings like the left.

 

Agreed, he's got the uneducated as his base.  I bet they're proud of their ignorance.

 

Education, Not Income, Predicted Who Would Vote For Trump


 


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in Washington DC, January 21, 2017.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
2428
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
2430
Views

Re: Fact Check trump's Claims on Paris Accord

2,430 Views
Message 10 of 93

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@CriticalThinking wrote:

Glad to hear that NH,

 

Trump's argument for leaving the Paris Accord is a bogus claim it's bad for business. Please explain why the overwhelming majority of American Companies, who are in business to make money, support the Paris Accord.


The support from businesses (for the most part) has to do with money.  I can't speak to every company, but here are some reasons: In Exxon-Mobils case, they are big natural gas sellers for commercial use (utilities) as well as home use.  With a huge carbon tax, it would encourage use of natural gas over coal or oil.  With Tesla (electric cars), they are producing batteries which have a carbon footprint of the amount of fossil fuel consumed to recharge them but certainly less than a gasoline engine.  They also receive government assistance via several methods.  Again, the carbon tax makes both Tesla cars and their batteries  more attractive.

 

So, what's bad?  The carbon tax that rewards certain companies comes out of our pockets and then is redistributed to poorer countries.  How high is this tax?  Will it stop growing?  The tax punishes Americans and rewards others.

 

American Corporation GREED is the best motivator to corporations to support or reject rules, treaties, laws.

 

Google any of the above to verify.


Not, you just proved trump was lying....AGAIN!!!  As you've illustrated, it's good for business.


It's good for SOME businesses and BAD for ALL consumers!


So you agree trump was lying.....the "net" is that it's good for business...VERY FEW binesses are adversely impacted.

 

Clean air and protecting the planet, is GOOD for ALL humans!!!


NO, I agree the left is lying big time.  Really?  What are the lying about?  The only business that will win are those that get preferential treatment by encouraging carbon products with less CO2 like in Exxon's case, a seller of natural gas.  In Elon Musk's Tesla, lithium ion batteries will be sold.  "From Facebook to Wal-Mart and now even Exxon (until recently helmed by Trump’s Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson), businesses increasingly view sustainability as critical to their bottom lines."  

 

"The tech industry has naturally been out front on this issue. Facebook’s data centers, those energy-gulping engines of the knowledge economy, are now powered by 100 percent clean and renewable wind energy. The company aims to power all of its operations with at least 50 percent clean and renewable energy by next year. Facebook also negotiates renewable energy tariffs on behalf of itself and other businesses and has open sourced its data center designs for other tech companies to build atop. Meanwhile, Google expects to run its entire global operation, including data centers, on 100 percent renewable energy this year. The new Apple Park is already running on 100 percent renewable energy. Last year alone, Apple reduced its carbon emissions by nearly 585,000 metric tons."

 

"But the private sector’s commitment to sustainability extends far beyond tech. In April, Walmart announced its plan to remove one gigaton of emissions from its supply chain by 2030, the equivalent of taking 211 million cars off the road for a year. And just this week, Exxon shareholders overwhelmingly voted in favor of the company sharing more transparent information about the impact of climate change on its business."

 

https://www.wired.com/2017/06/even-without-paris-business-will-leave-trump-behind-climate-change/

 

OK, NOT, what industries do you think will be harmed by the US remaining in the Paris Accord?

 

The left doesn't even know that CO2 does NOT cause dirty air.  

 

YOU, does that mean "The Right"?  Don't even know that CO2 is a pollutant!

 

Although it has some very important and beneficial effects, CO2 meets the legal and encyclopedic definitions of a "pollutant", and human CO2 emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare.

Climate Myth...

CO2 is not a pollutant
'To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant.' (Robert Balling, as quoted by Popular Technology)

 

Before assessing whether or not CO2 is a pollutant, we must first define the term.

What is an Air Pollutant?

The US Clean Air Act was incorporated into the United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Chapter 85.  Its Title III, Section 7602(g) defines an air pollutant:

 

The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.

Clearly this is a very broad definition.  More importantly, its Title 42, Section 7408 states that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator must publish a list of certain air pollutants:

 

"emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare"

In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (in 2007), the US Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. Two years after the Supreme Court ruling, in 2009 the EPA issued an endangerment finding concluding that

 

"greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare....The major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator’s endangerment finding."
Greenhouse gases including CO2 unquestionably fit the Clean Air Act's broad definition of "air pollutants," and must be listed and regulated by the EPA if it can be determined that they endanger public heath and/or welfare.
 
Alternatively, the definition of "pollution" from Encyclopedia Brittanica is:
"the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form."
Thus legally in the USA, CO2 is an air pollutant which must be regulated if it may endanger publich health or welfare.  And according to the encyclopedic definition, CO2 is a pollutant unless our emissions can be stored "harmlessly."
Is Increasing CO2 Dangerous or Harmless?
Humans are Increasing Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations
Humans have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% over the past 150 years, primarily through the combustion of fossil fuels.
 


Figure 1: CO2 levels (parts per million) over the past 10,000 years. Blue line from Taylor Dome ice cores (NOAA). Green line from Law Dome ice core (CDIAC). Red line from direct measurements at Mauna Loa, Hawaii (NOAA).

 

We know that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic from a number of lines of evidence.  Atmospheric oxygen is decreasing at approximately the same rate as the atmospheric CO2 increase, which tells us that the source of the change is from a release of carbon combining with atmospheric oxygen rather than a natural release of CO2.  We also know that the 30 billion tonnes of CO2 released by human activity must go somewhere, and in fact atmospheric CO2 is only increasing by about 16 billion tonnes per year (the rest is going into the oceans).  CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests also has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere, because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios.  And indeed we've observed this ratio decline in the atmosphere.

 


Figure 2: Atmospheric 13C ratio as measured at Mauna Loa (CDIAC)

The Increasing CO2 is Causing Global Warming

Thus we know that human emissions are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which as a greenhouse gas, in turn increases the greenhouse effect.  This increases the amount of energy (in the form of longwave infrared radiation) reaching the Earth's surface.  We've observed this increase through spectroscopy, which measures changes in the electromagnetic spectrum.  Climate scientists have also quantified the amount of warming we expect to see from the energy imbalance caused by this increased downward radiation, and it matches well with observations.  Given the amount of CO2humans have added to the atmosphere already, once the planet reaches a new equilibrium state, it will have warmed approximately 1.4°C from pre-industrial levels.  Additionally, we have observed numerous key 'fingerprints' of anthropogenic global warming which confirm that the warming we've experienced is due to an increased greenhouse effect.

How Much Warming is Dangerous?

There are some positive effects of global warming from increased CO2 emissions.  For example, improved agriculture at high latitudes and increased vegetation growth in some circumstances. However, the negatives will far outweigh the positives.  Coast-bound communities are threatened by rising sea levels. Melting glaciers threaten the water supplies of hundreds of millions.  Species are  already becoming extinct at a rate 100 to 1000 times higher than the “background” rate of long spans of geological time, partially due to the effects of global warming and climate change

 

Quantifying exactly at what point global warming will become dangerous is a difficult task.  However, based on the research and recommendations of climate scientists, more than 100 countries have adopted a global warming limit of 2°C or below (relative to pre-industrial levels) as a guiding principle for mitigation efforts to reduce climate changerisks, impacts, and damages.  This 2°C warming level is considered the "danger limit". During the last interglacial period when the average global temperature was approximately 2°C hotter than today, sea levels were 6.6 to 9.4 meters higher than current sea levels. Large parts of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melted, with the southern part of Greenland having little or no ice.

 

As discussed above, the CO2 we've already emitted has committed us to about 1.4°C warming above pre-industrial levels.  Given a climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 of 2-4.5°C and the fact that on our current path we're headed for a CO2doubling by mid-to-late 21st century, we're fast-approaching the danger limit.

 

More at:  https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm


 


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in Washington DC, January 21, 2017.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
2430
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Roundtable Discussion:
Ask questions and get advice from fellow entrepreneurs
Now through Nov. 22

Top Authors