Was it Right for Trump to Pull the US out of the Paris Agreement?

Wind energy went from supplying less than 1% of the electricity in the US, to over 7%, under Obama. It will probably meet the target 10% by 2020. This would not have happened without Obama's policies. Yes, he has a legacy! The Paris agreement was part of this legacy. It is supported, with a majority, in 49 of the 50 states. He did the correct thing, by bypassing the highly partisan Boehner congress, and McConnell senate, who did nothing but listen to the "Big Oil" lobbyists.

Trump, on the other hand, has a Republican-controlled House and Senate, and he still didn't go to them. Why? Because the American people want the Paris Accord, and any legislation would have failed. Climate change is a global problem, that requires a global solution.

 

Oh, no, Plate Tectonics is markedly different than Continental Drift.

It was the Caribbean Plate's collision with the Nazca Plate 23 Million years ago that formed the Panamanian Isthmus, creating the climate that we now know changes from a glaciated period (80% of the time) to a transitional post-glacial period (5% of the time) to an inter-glacial period (10% of the time) back to a transitional pre-glacial period (5% of the time) and then the cycle repeats itself.

This climate model will continue until the Nazca Plate and Caribbean Plate move off to the northeast about 100+Million years from now.

 

Peer-reviewed articles and your own NASA and US Geological Survey.

How warm was Greenland during the last interglacial period?

Abstract. The last interglacial period (LIG, ∼ 129–116 thousand years ago) provides the most recent case study of multimillennial polar warming above the preindustrial level and a response of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to this warming, as well as a test bed for climate and ice sheet models. . . . The LIG surface temperature at the upstream NEEM deposition site without ice sheet altitude correction is estimated to be warmer by +8.5 ± 2.5 °C compared to the preindustrial period. This temperature estimate is consistent with the 7.5 ± 1.8 °C warming initially determined from NEEM water isotopes but at the upper end of the preindustrial period to LIG temperature difference of +5.2 ± 2.3 °C obtained at the NGRIP (North Greenland Ice Core Project) site by the same method.

http://www.clim-past.net/12/1933/2016/

8.5°C corresponds to 15.3°F warmer.

7.5°C corresponds to 13.5°F warmer.

Note that the pre-industrial period is pegged at 13.8°C or 56.8°F, so add 56.8°F + 15.3°F = 72.1°F.

 

But wait, there's more...

Got that? See not only is "Greenland" back then "The Earth" now, but if we futz around with our model just so, a tad less sea ice here, shift an ice sheet away there, hey, damned if there ain't nothin' we can't misrepresent and concoct to deny the obvious!

Ah, that's nothin'. A fisherman once told me this story... oh, you would not believe!

 

Just the facts, ma'am. None of that BS.

 

Yes I understand and agree with you.


I was merely pointing out that while the US, Australia, Europe and Canada may not have, on a whole, the best "stats" of the progressed nations and or regions, they are the core "Hubs" of which the wealth, progressed institutions, financial structure and all core modern structures of society are run and or based on and which all influence ultimately derives in our current world (like that fact or not).

 

Okay.

 

Some people just cannot comprehend the meaning of "Interglacial Period."

Estimates indicate that the MIS 11 high sea stand likely was at least + 9 m (relative to present sea level) and could have been as high as + 24 m. The most conservative estimates of palaeo-sea level during MIS 11 would require an ice mass loss equivalent to all of the modern Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets; the more extreme estimates would require additional ice mass loss from the East Antarctic ice sheet. Extralimital southern species of mollusks, found in both MIS 11 and MIS 5.5 deposits on the Canary Islands, imply warmer-than-modern sea surface temperatures during at least a part of MIS 11 and much warmer sea surface temperatures during at least a part of MIS 5.5

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018213005099?np=y#bb0280

 

Oh,my! So bold! Stronger words one dare not utter.

What, no bold for "imply"? Yet "at least a part of" rates it?
Do you have a point? Allow me. So this bunch "estimates" that (overall) more ice developed in the previous period. So what? Maybe it got colder or cold for longer. Ice floats and expands water. The volumes and heights are therefore not directly comparable. You're just "floating" a bunch of data analysis and calling it proof of something. Speak plainly. What is your problem?

 

No problem...just trying to educate people so that they come to understand the meaning of Inter-Glacial Period.

If you haven't figured it out yet, it's perfectly normal for the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets to melt during an Inter-Glacial Period That's what happens, and you can't stop it, so sit back and enjoy.

 

But at what cost. This is a list of the companies Obama backed that have gone belly up.
I'm not going to do the math but it looks like 1 watt of power cost $10.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

1. Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
2. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3. Solyndra ($535 million)*
4. Beacon Power ($43 million)*
5. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
6. SunPower ($1.2 billion)
7. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
8. Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
9. EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
10. Amonix ($5.9 million)
11. Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
12. Abound Solar ($400 million)*
13. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
14. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
15. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
16. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
17. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
18. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
19. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
20. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
21. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
22. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
23. Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
24. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
25. Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
26. GreenVolts ($500,000)
27. Vestas ($50 million)
28. LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
29. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
30. Navistar ($39 million)
31. Satcon ($3 million)*
32. Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
33. Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

 

Switching to solar power is not as easy as it appears. California power companies are making the switch, but still need fossil fuels to ensure steady electrical supply. As a result, California has had to pay Arizona to take the excess power generated off their hands. This could be mis-management, or teething pains, of the process

 

Bankrupcies occur every day, in every industry. Also, adding these totals doesn't even come close to the $6 Trillion Bush/Cheney Iraqi oil war.

 

What did he need to go to the Senate for?

 

Many studies on solar energy, in California, and the other Western states, have shown that solar is a peak-load producer. On hot sunny days, solar produces optimally, when consumers are cranking up air conditioning.

Actually, California is proposing measures to get more than 40% of their peak-load power from clean-energy sources.

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/how...-renewable-generation-with-power-dema/438969/

The CPUC would be required to increase the percentage of electricity output delivered by clean resources by 5% in 2020 and by 6% “every third year thereafter until December 31, 2029, or until 40% of demand during the peak load time period is supplied by clean peak resources,” the bill reads.

 

The key to success of the 40% plan will be improved battery storage.

 

Yes, the link talks about storage. Other methods, such as pumped water storage, which has a 85% efficiency, could be used as well. Much depends on the local geography, but other obstacles, such as complicated water usage laws will factor in as well. These complications may lead the Utilities to pursue the less-efficient, and higher maintenance, battery storage.

 

Even if he says 1+1=11?

Obviously many do so, otherwise it is not explainable why so many people believe the worst BS of him with switched off brains!

Look only for what reason he pulled out from Paris agreement and even a blind man can see that his reasons are BS only and will not solve the problems of US coal mining, which have total other reasons as that!
Explain me, for example, that with the pull out from Paris agreement are US power plants, using much cheaper US natural Gas instead coal are now saying "hell on natural gas, we use the coal again and pay more as for gas"!

 

So-called Climate Warming is a leftist lie targeting destroying of western manufacturing and outsourcing of industry to China.

 

Well your opinion is shared by 3% of scientists who have studied the issue. 97% believe that the climate is warming because of mankind's activities. Fossil fuel industry fan?

 

Oh, my sincerest apologies then. See, I was sure you'd figured out by now that this discussion concerns the catastrophic effect upon average global temperature (IGP and otherwise) of humans adding carbon to the biosphere like there's no tomorrow. The additional CO2 in the atmosphere due to human activity alone has in fact resulted in increased global warming where a leveling off or slight cooling had been projected by climatologists. Perhaps "the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets" will entirely melt this time along with all the ice in the Arctic. But that's okay, right? You can just sit back and flip through your thousands of hundred dollar bills, singing "Sorry grand kids,... sure must suck,... being yoooooooou. Hahahahahahahahaaa!"

 

And the worst polluter after China on place no. 2 is .... the USA!!! Irony, eh?

 

I never said it was okay, rather I merely pointed out that it was normal.

If you ceased 100% of CO2 emissions tomorrow, you'd still have to deal with melting glaciers and ice sheets, because that's what happens during an Inter-Glacial Period.

It's not my fault that people are just figuring it out.

Perhaps if the Imperial Roman Catholic Church had not stifled real science for so long, someone would have figured this out 500 yeas ago, and armed with the knowledge of climate events during Inter-Glacial Periods, no one would have been stupid enough to build edifices and structures along coastal areas.

You all are just going to have to learn to deal with it, and it doesn't require transferring wealth or money from 1st World States to the 3rd and 4th World to deal with it.