Trump exiting Paris accord will harm US economy – LSE research

[Bergslagstroll]

Exiting the Paris Accord will hurt the US economy.

"Withdrawing from the Paris agreement does not make economic sense for the US, a group of economists has argued, as the cost of clean energy has fallen since the agreement was signed in 2015, while the risks of climate catastrophe have increased.

Economists from the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at the London School of Economics examined the economic case for the US withdrawal, which President Donald Trump signalled in June 2017, and which will take effect on 4 November, the day after this year’s presidential election.

They found that climate breakdown would cause growing losses to US infrastructure and property, and impede the rate of economic growth this century, and that an increasing proportion of the carbon emissions causing global heating would come from countries outside the US. That gives the US a vested interest in whether the Paris agreement succeeds or fails, regardless of whether the US fulfils its own voluntary obligations under the accord."

Trump exiting Paris accord will harm US economy – LSE research | Environment | The Guardian

That renewables are starting to out compete fossil fuels all across the world leading to great economic opportunities.

Plunging Renewable Energy Prices Mean U.S. Can Hit 90% Clean Electricity By 2035 - At No Extra Cost

Why Energy Storage Is Proving Even More Disruptive Than Cheap Renewables

There also just the health benefits from reduction in air pollution alone outweigh the cost of the Paris Accord.

Health benefits far outweigh the costs of meeting climate change goals

 

[Glitch]

The Paris Accord was created by communists and Marxists for the very specific reason to punish the US and cause as much economic harm as possible. Air pollution also has absolutely nothing to do with Climate Change, but leave it to leftist filth to dishonestly conflate the two.

 

[uptower]

The Paris Accord was created by communists and Marxists for the very specific reason to punish the US and cause as much economic harm as possible.

Yes because that's why countries that depend on the US form policies...

 

[bluesmoke]

Exiting the Paris Accord will hurt the US economy.

"Withdrawing from the Paris agreement does not make economic sense for the US, a group of economists has argued, as the cost of clean energy has fallen since the agreement was signed in 2015, while the risks of climate catastrophe have increased.

Economists from the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at the London School of Economics examined the economic case for the US withdrawal, which President Donald Trump signalled in June 2017, and which will take effect on 4 November, the day after this year’s presidential election.

They found that climate breakdown would cause growing losses to US infrastructure and property, and impede the rate of economic growth this century, and that an increasing proportion of the carbon emissions causing global heating would come from countries outside the US. That gives the US a vested interest in whether the Paris agreement succeeds or fails, regardless of whether the US fulfils its own voluntary obligations under the accord."

Trump exiting Paris accord will harm US economy – LSE research | Environment | The Guardian

That renewables are starting to out compete fossil fuels all across the world leading to great economic opportunities.

Plunging Renewable Energy Prices Mean U.S. Can Hit 90% Clean Electricity By 2035 - At No Extra Cost

Why Energy Storage Is Proving Even More Disruptive Than Cheap Renewables

There also just the health benefits from reduction in air pollution alone outweigh the cost of the Paris Accord.

Health benefits far outweigh the costs of meeting climate change goals

We'll get back in the accord after Biden becomes prez.

 

[longview]

We'll get back in the accord after Biden becomes prez.

Yet another reason to not vote for Biden!

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=2]A fickle faith: Climate change concerns evaporate in US polls[/h]
Donald Trump would be delighted if Biden and Harris make climate change a leading issue.
Climate change is the luxury fear people wear on their sleeves when they can afford it. It’s a piece of fashion. Optional and discarded at a moment’s notice.
[h=3]Amid COVID-19, Americans don’t care about climate change anymore[/h]Will Johnson, Fortune Magazine
In a survey we at the Harris Poll conducted last December, American adults said climate change was the number one issue facing society. Today, it comes in second to last on a list of a dozen options, ahead of only overpopulation. Among Gen X men, in fact, more than third dismiss climate change as unimportant. COVID-19 and the recession have, of course, reordered priorities around the world.
We asked a panel of U.S. adults a series of questions about today’s most crucial issues, environmental policy options, and their own behavior. In all three categories, I was personally surprised and discouraged to discover that our devotion to the world around us is flagging.
The rise in the skepticism of the Gen X men is interesting. In UK polls, the peak age of believers was 30 – 50 years which includes a lot of Gen Xers.
[h=4]The pandemic is undoing years of activism:[/h]And when the pandemic ends—or at least is suitably controlled—American adults say they’ll behave in ways that would increase their carbon footprint. According to our survey, we’ll drive as much as we did before, take public transportation less, bicycle or walk less, buy more clothes, and have more stuff packaged up and shipped to our homes. And most of us plan to jack up the home AC and heat even more than we already have.
It’s taken two decades of relentless advertising to achieve mass compliance and new habits, but just a few months to be reminded of how convenient some things are. The pandemic gave people permission to break the old rules.
This must be killing the greens.
This is perhaps not as huge a shift as implied. Climate change belief has always been wafer thin, and prone to coming and going at a moments notice. No matter how many “cared” when asked the right question, when they have to rank their concerns “climate change” is always near the bottom.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

[h=2]A fickle faith: Climate change concerns evaporate in US polls[/h]
Donald Trump would be delighted if Biden and Harris make climate change a leading issue.
Climate change is the luxury fear people wear on their sleeves when they can afford it. It’s a piece of fashion. Optional and discarded at a moment’s notice.
[h=3]Amid COVID-19, Americans don’t care about climate change anymore[/h]Will Johnson, Fortune Magazine
In a survey we at the Harris Poll conducted last December, American adults said climate change was the number one issue facing society. Today, it comes in second to last on a list of a dozen options, ahead of only overpopulation. Among Gen X men, in fact, more than third dismiss climate change as unimportant. COVID-19 and the recession have, of course, reordered priorities around the world.
We asked a panel of U.S. adults a series of questions about today’s most crucial issues, environmental policy options, and their own behavior. In all three categories, I was personally surprised and discouraged to discover that our devotion to the world around us is flagging.
The rise in the skepticism of the Gen X men is interesting. In UK polls, the peak age of believers was 30 – 50 years which includes a lot of Gen Xers.
[h=4]The pandemic is undoing years of activism:[/h]And when the pandemic ends—or at least is suitably controlled—American adults say they’ll behave in ways that would increase their carbon footprint. According to our survey, we’ll drive as much as we did before, take public transportation less, bicycle or walk less, buy more clothes, and have more stuff packaged up and shipped to our homes. And most of us plan to jack up the home AC and heat even more than we already have.
It’s taken two decades of relentless advertising to achieve mass compliance and new habits, but just a few months to be reminded of how convenient some things are. The pandemic gave people permission to break the old rules.
This must be killing the greens.
This is perhaps not as huge a shift as implied. Climate change belief has always been wafer thin, and prone to coming and going at a moments notice. No matter how many “cared” when asked the right question, when they have to rank their concerns “climate change” is always near the bottom.

There are for example these studies that show an increase awareness of the urgent need for action on climate change both in the US and globally.

"Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the federal government should act more aggressively to combat climate change, and almost as many say the problem is already affecting their community in some way, according to a survey released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center.

In addition, the nationwide survey of 10,957 adults conducted this spring finds that Americans overwhelmingly want the government to do more to reduce the greenhouse gases linked to a warming climate, with significant majorities backing policies that would plant huge numbers of trees, greater restrict power plant emissions, require more fuel-efficient cars and tax corporations based on their emissions."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/06/23/climate-change-poll-pew/

"A new Ipsos poll conducted in 14 countries finds that 71% of adults globally agree that, in the long term, climate change is as serious a crisis as Covid-19 is. The survey shows widespread support for government actions to prioritise climate change in the economic recovery after Covid-19 with 65% globally agreeing that this is important. The survey was conducted online among more than 28,000 adults between April 16th and April 19th 2020."

Two thirds of citizens around the world agree climate change is as serious a crisis as Coronavirus | Ipsos


That there are also great economic opportunities with a transition away from fossil fuels.

Leading economists: Green coronavirus recovery also better for economy


Coronavirus accelerates global shift to cheaper, more sustainable renewable energy

 

[Bergslagstroll]

The Paris Accord was created by communists and Marxists for the very specific reason to punish the US and cause as much economic harm as possible. Air pollution also has absolutely nothing to do with Climate Change, but leave it to leftist filth to dishonestly conflate the two.

It i a very extreme and ridiculous belief that "Paris Accord was created by communists and Marxists for the very specific reason to punish the US and cause as much economic harm as possible". That even federal agencies under Donald Trump have to acknowledge the urgent need for action on climate change.

Fourth National Climate Assessment

Fossil fuels leads to both climate change and toxic pollutions. So a transition away from fossil fuels also means less toxic pollution. There 90 percent of children globally and 50 percent of children in high income countries breathe toxic air every day.

More than 90% of the world’s children breathe toxic air every day

 

[istodolez]

The Paris Accord was created by communists and Marxists for the very specific reason to punish the US and cause as much economic harm as possible. Air pollution also has absolutely nothing to do with Climate Change, but leave it to leftist filth to dishonestly conflate the two.

At times like these, I take comfort in science. Which is why I go HERE

 

[istodolez]

[h=2]
Donald Trump would be delighted if Biden and Harris make climate change a leading issue.
Climate change is the luxury fear people wear on their sleeves when they can afford it. It’s a piece of fashion. Optional and discarded at a moment’s notice.
Amid COVID-19, Americans don’t care about climate change anymore

Well, as long as the earth knows we don't give a flyin' f anymore about it, then I'm sure it will shape up and take what we do to it and SMILE.

We have MORE IMPORTANT things to worry about!

And in Climate Denial...errr, I mean "climate skeptic" land....we can only deal with one disaster at a time!

If we take a poll and opt to "ignore" the climate change one then it will all be fine!

 

[istodolez]

Yet another reason to not vote for Biden!

...because he's more likely to listen to experts in any given field?

I can see how most Trump Supporters would hate that! It simply STINKS of "education".

 

[longview]

...because he's more likely to listen to experts in any given field?

I can see how most Trump Supporters would hate that! It simply STINKS of "education".

No because he would go with what "feels good" without considering the consequences.

 

[istodolez]

No because he would go with what "feels good" without considering the consequences.

Hmmm, "consequences". That's a nice word.

But ignoring an unfolding disaster like anthropogenic global climate change will surely have no consequences, right?

Paris, while imperfect, was at least something. But Trump doesn't understand the nature of "consequence" after a lifetime of living free of them. Others took care of his messes. His dad, Roy Cohn, Russian bankers...

Now America has broadly proclaimed they don't even want a seat at the table. We have ceded anything like leadership. So events will ultimately overtake us and we will be without any control.

So do tell us all about "consequences".

 

[longview]

Hmmm, "consequences". That's a nice word.

But ignoring an unfolding disaster like anthropogenic global climate change will surely have no consequences, right?

Paris, while imperfect, was at least something. But Trump doesn't understand the nature of "consequence" after a lifetime of living free of them. Others took care of his messes. His dad, Roy Cohn, Russian bankers...

Now America has broadly proclaimed they don't even want a seat at the table. We have ceded anything like leadership. So events will ultimately overtake us and we will be without any control.

So do tell us all about "consequences".

The bad consequences of AGW are simply prediction of what might happen "IF" quite a few assumptions plugged into the models are accurate.
IF, the climate has a high sensitivity to added CO2!
IF the future emissions average 12 ppm per year for the next 80 years, (RCP8.5), Current emissions are below 3 ppm per year!
IF the predicted net feedbacks, which have not been observed in the instrument data are both positive and high.
And lastly IF the predicted warming causes the predicted changes.
On the other side of the coin, are the consequences of spending time and money on a non issue.
Humanity's real problem is energy, We do not have enough natural hydrocarbons to allow everyone alive today,
to live a first world lifestyle for very long. We have to address the global energy gap.

 

[istodolez]

The bad consequences of AGW are simply prediction of what might happen "IF" quite a few assumptions plugged into the models are accurate.

In the same manner that IF I drive my car at 100mph into a wall I can predict I will not fare well.

IF, the climate has a high sensitivity to added CO2!

Then we should start getting worried:

(SOURCE: https://www.researchgate.net/profil...radiation-changes-Nature-Geosci-1-735-743.pdf)

IF the future emissions average 12 ppm per year for the next 80 years, (RCP8.5), Current emissions are below 3 ppm per year!

Indeed, I will agree that we need to pay PARTICULAR attention to emissions. Which is why it is important for us to be at the table in the conversation...not running away from it as if it isn't a real problem.

And lastly IF the predicted warming causes the predicted changes.

If I drive my car at brick wall at 100mph I wonder what will happen? Maybe I'll "quantum tunnel" and appear on the otherside unscathed!

Humanity's real problem is energy, We do not have enough natural hydrocarbons to allow everyone alive today,

This is an interesting point. Seems like a great call for de-carbonization of our energy infrastructure! That would help.

to live a first world lifestyle for very long. We have to address the global energy gap.

Agreed. We will soon have little choice either way.

 

[longview]

In the same manner that IF I drive my car at 100mph into a wall I can predict I will not fare well.



Then we should start getting worried:

(SOURCE: https://www.researchgate.net/profil...radiation-changes-Nature-Geosci-1-735-743.pdf)

The difference is the level of certainty. driving into a solid surface at 100 mph has a much higher certainty than the catastrophic predictions
of the IPCC!
I am not worried in the least, the same assumptions apply!

Indeed, I will agree that we need to pay PARTICULAR attention to emissions. Which is why it is important for us to be at the table in the conversation...not running away from it as if it isn't a real problem.

Why do you think it is important that we have a seat at a table, when emissions in the US are falling faster than those who are at the table?
Perhaps, you think wasting tax payers money is a good thing?

This is an interesting point. Seems like a great call for de-carbonization of our energy infrastructure! That would help.

Actually, we do not need to be concerned about emissions, they will be taken car of as a side effect to a viable energy solution.
Also we should not decide on de-carbonization of our energy infrastructure, as that limits our possible solutions.
Nature stores energy as hydrocarbons, perhaps it is wise for us to follow an example that has evolved over billions of years!

Agreed. We will soon have little choice either way.

We have to address the energy gap with viable solutions, which include energy storage and accumulation
plans that allow the poor duty cycle poor energy density alternative sources to fill our modern energy demand,
not just for the first world, be everyone alive.

 

[istodolez]

The difference is the level of certainty.

That's why those little squiggles are there. Those are distributions with an assessment of how likely the modal value is.

Why do you think it is important that we have a seat at a table, when emissions in the US are falling faster than those who are at the table?

1. WE (along with western Europe) are the largest contributors to the current excess CO2 load in the atmosphere due to our 150 years of massive industrialization.
2. If the people who are most responsible for the mess don't act like they want to be part of the solution, why would anyone like India or China care? They just want to have what we already enjoyed.

Actually, we do not need to be concerned about emissions, they will be taken car of as a side effect to a viable energy solution.

From your mouth to God's ear as they say. But, sadly, owing to our entrenched energy infrastructure which is currently built on and solidly supported by fossil fuels it is unlikely that the necessary changes in infrastructure will happen fast enough.

Why do you think fracking is all the rage now? It's exactly the behavior you are taught in any economic geology class. As a source for material becomes less available the pursuit moves to lower and lower "grades" and more cost can be borne in "beneficiating" the raw material.

The EROEI for petroleum is really low right now in part because of how we have structured our energy infrastructure so we can accept more costly extraction for a while. The key is do we want to? Right now we don't factor in the real down-stream costs of using fossil fuels so we aren't making rational decisions on this front.

Also we should not decide on de-carbonization of our energy infrastructure, as that limits our possible solutions.

Sid Vicious should not "de-heroinize" his daily routine since that will limit him.

Nature stores energy as hydrocarbons, perhaps it is wise for us to follow an example that has evolved over billions of years!

Nature stores these hydrocarbons through the carbon cycle which takes a very long time to accumulate just a ton of fossil fuel. We can burn that in a couple minutes.

Therein lies the rub. Making a seam of coal is a very long process. Burning a ton of coal is a very quick process.

Excess CO2 in the atmosphere can't really be cycled back out quickly to the previous "lower level" because the carbon cycle is inherently slow. Contrast that with the hydrologic cycle which is relatively fast. Excess H2O (another greenhouse gas) can easily be re-equilibrated to a lower level with a simple rainstorm.

We have to address the energy gap with viable solutions, which include energy storage and accumulation

Agreed.

But we must also understand that fossil fuels are a dangerous, polluting and horrible source for that energy. (And I did my doctorate on coal chemistry. I love that stuff. I love the chemistry of kerogen, coal, oil, etc. I also realize it is a rather nasty means of getting energy. And I accept that it must end. Not only for the purposes of environmental stewardship but also downstream healthcosts and, finally, the climate.)

 

[longview]

That's why those little squiggles are there. Those are distributions with an assessment of how likely the modal value is.



1. WE (along with western Europe) are the largest contributors to the current excess CO2 load in the atmosphere due to our 150 years of massive industrialization.
2. If the people who are most responsible for the mess don't act like they want to be part of the solution, why would anyone like India or China care? They just want to have what we already enjoyed.



From your mouth to God's ear as they say. But, sadly, owing to our entrenched energy infrastructure which is currently built on and solidly supported by fossil fuels it is unlikely that the necessary changes in infrastructure will happen fast enough.

Why do you think fracking is all the rage now? It's exactly the behavior you are taught in any economic geology class. As a source for material becomes less available the pursuit moves to lower and lower "grades" and more cost can be borne in "beneficiating" the raw material.

The EROEI for petroleum is really low right now in part because of how we have structured our energy infrastructure so we can accept more costly extraction for a while. The key is do we want to? Right now we don't factor in the real down-stream costs of using fossil fuels so we aren't making rational decisions on this front.




Sid Vicious should not "de-heroinize" his daily routine since that will limit him.



Nature stores these hydrocarbons through the carbon cycle which takes a very long time to accumulate just a ton of fossil fuel. We can burn that in a couple minutes.

Therein lies the rub. Making a seam of coal is a very long process. Burning a ton of coal is a very quick process.

Excess CO2 in the atmosphere can't really be cycled back out quickly to the previous "lower level" because the carbon cycle is inherently slow. Contrast that with the hydrologic cycle which is relatively fast. Excess H2O (another greenhouse gas) can easily be re-equilibrated to a lower level with a simple rainstorm.




Agreed.

But we must also understand that fossil fuels are a dangerous, polluting and horrible source for that energy. (And I did my doctorate on coal chemistry. I love that stuff. I love the chemistry of kerogen, coal, oil, etc. I also realize it is a rather nasty means of getting energy. And I accept that it must end. Not only for the purposes of environmental stewardship but also downstream healthcosts and, finally, the climate.)

I know what the error bars mean!
But even with those they started with assumptions.

You start with the assumption that we have created a "Mess", when there is scant evidence that the added CO2 is any issue at all.
China and India, (and everyone else) will come around, when a solution that provides the same level of functionality as oil based fuels,
can be sold for less than oil based fuels.

Again, a viable solution will solve any issues that may exists with CO2 emissions.

We can already make our own hydrocarbon fuels on demand, and speed up the carbon cycle.
taking in atmospheric CO2 to make fuel that will be burned in a few weeks, and achieving carbon neutrality.

You are letting your bias against hydrocarbons, limit your vision of possible solutions.
There are only a few ways to achieve the same energy density as what we get from gasoline and jet fuel.
Rather than re engineer everything, why is it not simpler to re engineer the fuel, into something that is carbon neutral?

 

[istodolez]

I know what the error bars mean!

Sorry.

(I just noted you were talking about "surety" as if it wasn't implied from the data I presented from Knutti and Hegerl).

But even with those they started with assumptions.

But don't state what those "assumptions" are that set the confidence intervals.

You start with the assumption that we have created a "Mess", when there is scant evidence that the added CO2 is any issue at all.

The earth's climate experts over the last 60 years or so disagree with you.

We can already make our own hydrocarbon fuels on demand, and speed up the carbon cycle.

Not economically. Which is why we still drill for and even frack to get it from the ground.

You are letting your bias against hydrocarbons, limit your vision of possible solutions.

Well, to be fair to me and MS and PhD in the area of organic geochemistry I know a goodly amount about hydrocarbons.

 

[longview]

Sorry.

(I just noted you were talking about "surety" as if it wasn't implied from the data I presented from Knutti and Hegerl).



But don't state what those "assumptions" are that set the confidence intervals.

The model output error bars are different from the assumptions used at the model initialization.
An example might be that they assumed that the temperature warmed 5C from the last glacial maximum to the pre industrial temperature,
and that CO2 levels rose from 180 ppm to 280 ppm. Both assumption could be off by quite a bit.

The earth's climate experts over the last 60 years or so disagree with you.

You have not provided evidence that the climate experts think the added CO2 is causing a mess,
some think so, but others do not.

Not economically. Which is why we still drill for and even frack to get it from the ground.

You likely have not noticed, but almost no one is fracking for oil anymore.
Fracking jobs few and far between in Oklahoma and rest of US – Oklahoma Energy Today

Well, to be fair to me and MS and PhD in the area of organic geochemistry I know a goodly amount about hydrocarbons.

And yet, you seem to be unable to see that man made hydrocarbons could be part of our energy future.
Perhaps, you can tell us, which other molecule can carry as many hydrogen atoms, and is liquid at normal pressure and temperature,
and is compatible with our existing distribution infrastructure?

 

[istodolez]

An example might be that they assumed that the temperature warmed 5C from the last glacial maximum to the pre industrial temperature,
and that CO2 levels rose from 180 ppm to 280 ppm. Both assumption could be off by quite a bit.

So why do you think so many different lines of independent, unrelated evidence point to about the same estimate?

You have instrumental data, you have data from volcanic eruptions, you have paleoclimate proxies. All are dramatically different methods of estimating the value, yet they all converge on a similar range.

You have not provided evidence that the climate experts think the added CO2 is causing a mess,
some think so, but others do not.

No, it's been discussed ad nauseam. The fact that you and others have never actually met or talked to a climate scientist doesn't change the very real facts on the ground.

And yet, you seem to be unable to see that man made hydrocarbons could be part of our energy future.

No, I can "see" it, I just have no reason to think it is wise. Based on the science.

Perhaps, you can tell us, which other molecule can carry as many hydrogen atoms, and is liquid at normal pressure and temperature,
and is compatible with our existing distribution infrastructure?

Why does it have to be a liquid at normal temps and pressures? I mean there are more energy dense materials (nuclear at 3000000MJ/kg vs petroleum at a measly 42MJ/kg) and we KNOW how to make electric vehicles (I have one in my drive way as we speak).

But this all assumes that we need to have the energy infrastructure that has developed around fossil fuels. That is putting the cart before the horse. As I noted earlier our energy infrastructure has been CUSTOM DESIGNED to work with fossil fuels (mostly petroleum and coal but also some natural gas).

Either way it doesn't much matter. We WILL one day have to adapt to a different energy infrastructure. Whether it's because we've run out of fossil fuels or it's because finally the world's denialists were forced to accept that they were wrong all along and AGW is as real as most of the scientific community thinks it is.

So in the meantime we'll have to argue basic science with "skeptics", denialists and scientific subliterates until our choices are virtually non-existant.

 

[longview]

So why do you think so many different lines of independent, unrelated evidence point to about the same estimate?

You have instrumental data, you have data from volcanic eruptions, you have paleoclimate proxies. All are dramatically different methods of estimating the value, yet they all converge on a similar range.

First off model results are not really evidence, they are results based on the input assumptions.
and a bunch of them fall into a group, because they start from the assumption of CO2 being the primary driver of climate change,
and extrapolate from there.

And yet, you seem to be unable to see that man made hydrocarbons could be part of our energy future.

No, I can "see" it, I just have no reason to think it is wise. Based on the science.

What is wise about casually dismissing the energy packaging that has lead to the greatest advances in human civilization?

Why does it have to be a liquid at normal temps and pressures? I mean there are more energy dense materials (nuclear at 3000000MJ/kg vs petroleum at a measly 42MJ/kg) and we KNOW how to make electric vehicles (I have one in my drive way as we speak).

People do not just get around in cars, we also have to fly jets across the ocean, and ships across the sea.
There is that energy density problem, jet fuel at ~13,000 W⋅h/kg, vs Lithium-ion battery at 243.06 W⋅h/kg,
even counting the Carnot efficiency, the energy density of the jet fuel is more than 10 times that of a Lithium-ion battery.

But this all assumes that we need to have the energy infrastructure that has developed around fossil fuels. That is putting the cart before the horse. As I noted earlier our energy infrastructure has been CUSTOM DESIGNED to work with fossil fuels (mostly petroleum and coal but also some natural gas).

Either way it doesn't much matter. We WILL one day have to adapt to a different energy infrastructure. Whether it's because we've run out of fossil fuels or it's because finally the world's denialists were forced to accept that they were wrong all along and AGW is as real as most of the scientific community thinks it is.

The infrastructure was designed around hydrocarbons, it does not really care about the source of those hydrocarbons.
Only the front end of a refinery for example is designed to input crud oil, the middle and and end stages are for reassembling
the ole fins into the desired finished fuel product.
Your bias against fossil fuels, is blinding you to the fact that man made hydrocarbon fuels could be a viable solution to a sustainable future.
The man made fuels will not ever run out, and will not raise the CO2 level, but could leverage vast amounts of existing infrastructure, and demand.
By eliminating the CO2 emissions from almost all transport, we could cut emissions much faster than the measures proposed by the Paris agreement.
Man made hydrocarbon fuels could also provide the much needed storage device for wind and solar power.
While transport fuels could be economically viable within the decade, natural gas will take longer.
but man made methane, has some of the greatest possibilities, and that the original idea out of the Fraunhofer Institute about 2010,
they envisioned, using Germany's natural gas grid to store summer surplus electricity as "un"natural gas for winter heating.

 

[Nickyjo]

The Paris Accord was created by communists and Marxists for the very specific reason to punish the US and cause as much economic harm as possible. Air pollution also has absolutely nothing to do with Climate Change, but leave it to leftist filth to dishonestly conflate the two.

Can you tell us how many countries of the world agreed to this communist plot that mandates (as I understand it) voluntary measures. Probably easier if you can name the countries that *didnt*.

 

[istodolez]

First off model results are not really evidence, they are results based on the input assumptions.

In point of fact the models are physical models which means that the majority of the assumptions are predicated on known physical relationships. Only in those cases where no known equation exists do they "tune" the model based on statistical responses.

This facile and non-science junk about "models aren't real" is just that: facile junk. Pretty much all the science that impacts your life daily is based on models at some point.

Even the basic "F=ma" you learned in high school physics is a "Model".

Further climate models are continually tested. They can most powerfully be tested by hindcasting in which they test the model with given starting conditions against a known block of time with data that was already collected! AND THEY FIT THE REAL DATA. Not because they had assumptions built in to fit it...they fit because the models are good.

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

So let's drop this line about Models aren't Evidence until you can show a FLAWED factor included in the model. (And then figure out a way to explain why so many of the models seem to WORK!)

and a bunch of them fall into a group, because they start from the assumption of CO2 being the primary driver of climate change,
and extrapolate from there.

They start with known forcings from BOTH NATURAL and HUMAN-CAUSED. The results fall out form there.

Your bias against fossil fuels, is blinding you

How about my "bias against those things which have been definitively proven to be damaging to the environment and are sold and used without factoring in the full costs of them".

I don't know where you are getting your rosy picture of "manmade hydrocarbons" as a real-world, ready to use system. Yes, hydrocarbons CAN be made from pre-existing material. But if you want to make sure you are doing non-net-CO2-increase then you will have to make them from CO2 which is going to cost energy (and money) to reduce the carbon first and then build it up to longer chains. Even with a catalyst to make it more energy positive, it's still a long way off from reality. So it's not going to "pay for itself". If you start from pre-existing carbonaceous fuels you are, by definition, going to put more CO2 into the atmosphere (that's basic chemistry).

So this dream you are harboring of some magical "man-made hydrocarbon" as a savior for this topic seems to be sometime off in the future.

If we had all the time in the world that'd be a great idea. But we don't. Thanks to having to fight with non-scientists over basic chemistry for these past few decades we are running out of time to make necessary changes.

 

[longview]

In point of fact the models are physical models which means that the majority of the assumptions are predicated on known physical relationships.



I don't know where you are getting your rosy picture of "manmade hydrocarbons" as a real-world, ready to use system. Yes, hydrocarbons CAN be made from pre-existing material. But if you want to make sure you are doing non-net-CO2-increase then you will have to make them from CO2 which is going to cost energy (and money) to reduce the carbon first and then build it up to longer chains. So it's not going to "pay for itself". If you start from pre-existing carbonaceous fuels you are, by definition, going to put more CO2 into the atmosphere (that's basic chemistry).

So this dream you are harboring of some magical "man-made hydrocarbon" as a savior for this topic seems to be sometime off in the future.

You have to read the early works of climate modeling where they describe some of the basic assumptions.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1997/1997_Hansen_ha01900k.pdf

Thus the 2xCO 2 forcing is almost as large as for +2% So, and in both cases the expected surface temperature change in the absence of climate feedbacks is 1.2-1.3•C. However, the quantity of most interest is •T•, the surface temperature response when climate feedbacks are allowed to operate. The classical 2xCO2: and 2% solar irradiance GCM experiments yielded a global mean of T ~ 3C for ether forcing.

So they assume that the forcing, the forced energy imbalance is roughly equal to a 2% increase in solar output.
but then later say that the top of the atmosphere forced imbalance from doubling the CO2 level is 2.6W/m2,
Lets consider what their 2% increase in solar output would look like.

The Earth absorbs about 240 W/m2 of solar energy and, on average must radiate that amount of thermal energy back to space.

If the Earth absorbs 240 W/m2, adding 2% would add 4.8W/m2 of imbalance at the top of the atmosphere,
but they have already said that the 2XCO2 TOA imbalance is 2.6W/m2, which is it?
Are they looking at the energy imbalance of the total system, or some predicted level where we cannot measure,
that is not relevant to the energy in the entire system?
No, all these complex models are initialized from a starting place, and plenty of assumptions are used there and within the run.
There is a reason that Hurricane path projections have an ever larger cone of uncertainty, the errors are cumulative!
Even a tiny error in assumed total net feedbacks, could throw a model off by a large factor after many cycles,
and the 3C range (1.5 to 4.5C) is mostly from our poor understand of how clouds interact with radiation.

On to man made fuels!
There is no such thing as a free lunch! No one expects storing energy as hydrocarbons to be free!
And man made hydrocarbons do not need to be made from pre existing materials, they can be made from hydrogen and carbon atoms.
The Navy sources the carbon from sea water based CO2, whereas others use atmospheric CO2, or try to harvest from other emission sites.
There are some high level articles which describe some of the processes,
Power to liquids and power to gas: closing the carbon cycle - EE Publishers
but the reality is that we can make ole fins from hydrogen and carbon, and everyday modern refineries
convert ole fins into liquid fuels that are in demand, mixing and matching to make seasonal blends.
The source of those ole fins, need not be oil, coal, natural gas, or any type of naturally occurring hydrocarbon.
Sunfire seems to think they can get 80% efficiency, while the Navy is claiming 60%.
Power-To-X: Sunfire reports successful test run of co-electrolysis system of >500 hours; e-Crude demo targeted - Green Car Congress

SUNFIRE-SYNLINK—a co-electrolyzer based on solid oxide cell (SOC) technology—enables the highly efficient production
(a projected ~80% efficiency on an industrial scale) of synthesis gas in a single step using water, CO2 and green electricity.

It is not a matter of if we can make carbon neutral transport fuels from scratch, but the cost of goods sold of that fuel.
Using the Navy's more realistic 60% efficiency number, a gallon of gasoline contains ~33Kwh of energy,
If our storage efficiency is 60%, then it would take 55Kwh to create that gallon of gasoline.
At a wholesale electricity price of $.05 per Kwh, that is $2.75 per gallon, costs.
A barrel of oil can make about 35 gallons of fuel, so the current cost is ~ equal to $96 a barrel oil.
If Sunfire can realize their 80% predicted efficiency, the break even price would be $72 a barrel.
If oil get above that price, the refinery could have greater profits by making their own feedstock, than buying oil.
In the early phases they could capture CO2 emissions from other units in their operations to simplify the CO2 collection.