Climate Change News

International Science Group Decries Trump Climate Pact Exit

The International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics also criticizes the U.S. withdrawal from the Green Climate Fund as perhaps more damaging than the nation’s exit from the Paris climate agreement.

By

The fallout continues from U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision earlier this month to withdraw the country from the Paris climate change accord.

The International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) issued a statement last week stating that the organization “is dismayed” that the United States seeks to renegotiate or withdraw from the accord.

“The world expects that scientific excellence and scientific knowledge will be incorporated into decision-making and that internationally binding decisions, once made, will be honored by governments and their successors,” the 12 June IUGG statement reads. IUGG, established in 1919, is the oldest nongovernmental international scientific organization dealing with Earth and its environment.

By withdrawing from its leadership role in the Paris accord, the United States “has lost the opportunity to help reduce emissions,” the statement continues. “IUGG therefore encourages the United States to continue to meet the aspirations of the Paris Agreement through the efforts of the states, cities, industries and citizens.”

The IUGG statement also notes that the decision by President Trump to terminate U.S. funding to the Green Climate Fund to assist developing nations with climate change–related investments is “as damaging, or more damaging than a potential US withdrawal” from the Paris accord.

Paris Withdrawal Causes “Serious Damage”

Trump’s plan to withdraw from the Paris agreement “was not only a political decision, but a serious damage to international scientific cooperation,” IUGG secretary-general Alik Ismail-Zadeh told Eos. “Hence IUGG could not stay silent and needed to issue a statement on this topic.”

Ismail-Zadeh said the plan for IUGG to make a public statement was initiated on 3 June, a couple of days after Trump announced that he would withdraw the United States from the climate agreement.

“IUGG assesses soberly the situation and believes that this statement would not have a significant impact on the decision of the current U.S. government,” he told Eos. “But IUGG wanted to let the international scientific community know that we are against such political games related to our future and the future of new generations.”

On a personal note, Ismail-Zadeh said that everybody has the right to criticize any agreement. However, he added, “I think that it does not mean that the president of one of the world’s greatest countries should ignore the opinion of the world’s scientific and political communities and impose his own opinion on top of it.”

—Randy Showstack (@RandyShowstack), Staff Writer

Citation: Showstack, R. (2017), International science group decries Trump climate pact exit, Eos, 98, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017EO076593. Published on 21 June 2017.
© 2017. The authors. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
  • Badgersouth

    drseismo: Your assertion that “The implications from these developments are that CO2 does not play a significant role in global warming…” is dead wrong on two counts. First, the CERN article that you cite does not support it. Second, and more impotatantly, the overwhelming body of scientific evidence about manmade climate change tells us that CO2 has been and continues to be the primary driver of the enhanced greenhouse effect.

  • Badgersouth

    drseismo has fabricated pseudo-science poppycock about the implications of CERN research findings about the role of aersols in global warming.

    The introductory paragraphs of the CERN post, “CLOUD experiment sharpens climate predictions” by Matthew Chalmers (Oct 17, 2016) read as follows:

    According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Earth’s mean temperature is predicted to rise by between 1.5 – 4.5 °C for a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is expected by around 2050. One of the main reasons for this large uncertainty, which makes it difficult for society to know how best to act against climate change, is a poor understanding of aerosol particles in the atmosphere and their effects on clouds.

    To date, all global climate models use relatively simple parameterisations for aerosol production that are not based on experimental data. Now, data collected by CLOUD have been used to build a model of aerosol production based solely on laboratory measurements. This more robust understanding of the nucleation process that gives rise to aerosols has allowed researchers to establish the main causes of new particle formation throughout the troposphere, and could narrow the variation in projected global temperature rise.

    “This marks a big step forward in the reliability and realism of how models describe aerosols and clouds,” says CLOUD spokesperson Jasper Kirkby. “It’s addressing the largest source of uncertainty in current climate models and building it on a firm experimental foundation of the fundamental processes.”

    • drseismo

      More obfuscation from Badgersouth. The punch lines of the CERN article are in the last two paragraphs of the post, which are conveniently ignored in his comment but copied below. The CLOUD results show model sensitivities to anthropogenic activities are too high. The implications in my comment follow directly from that result.

      “Early this year, CLOUD reported in Nature the discovery that aerosol particles can form in the atmosphere purely from organic vapours produced naturally by the biosphere (CERN Courier July/August 2016 p11). In a separate modelling paper published recently in PNAS, CLOUD shows that such pure biogenic nucleation was the dominant source of particles in the pristine pre-industrial atmosphere. By raising the baseline aerosol state, this process significantly reduces the estimated aerosol radiative forcing from anthropogenic activities and, in turn, reduces modelled climate
      sensitivities.”

      “This is a huge step for atmospheric science,” says lead-author Ken Carslaw of the University of Leeds, UK. “It’s vital that we build climate models on experimental measurements and sound understanding, otherwise we cannot rely on them to predict the future. Eventually, when these processes get implemented in climate models, we will have much more confidence in aerosol effects on climate. Already, results from CLOUD suggest that estimates of high climate sensitivity may have to be revised downwards.”

      • Bart_R

        CLOUD measures whatnow?

        A tiny part of a tiny part of a tiny part of the chain connecting GHG levels to outcomes.

        Directly comparing CO2 level and global temperature outcomes obtains 20-year Charney ECS of 5.0 +/- 0.3 K per doubling CO2, far higher than IPCC estimates. Nineteen times in twenty, IPCC estimates are found to be too conservative, too low, when the work is reproduced by scientists.

        Fossil deadbeats just don’t want to pay what they owe.

    • Badgersouth

      drseismo: Your inference is total bullocks and is not supported by the last two paragraphs of the CERN post.

      • drseismo

        Simply denying facts is not an effective argument. That is “the head in the sand position.” CO2 does not play a significant role in global warming, climate models used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
        Change to estimate future temperatures are too high, and the models should be redone.

        • Bart_R

          Fossil deadbeats repeatedly subvert any source to spin an argument where they have no case, simply to try to evade their fossil debts.

          Collect what they owe.

  • drseismo

    President Trump’s carefully considered decision to exit the Paris Accord does not “ignore the opinion of the world’s scientific and political communities…” On the contrary, his decision recognizes important new developments in climate science that have dramatically changed the premise on which the Paris Accord was based. That premise is “…that climate change has already occurred and is human-induced, due to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere…”

    The CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) website reported on November
    11. 2016 the discovery “…that aerosol particles can form in the atmosphere purely from organic vapours produced naturally by the biosphere. … By raising the baseline aerosol state, this process significantly reduces the estimated aerosol radiative forcing from
    anthropogenic activities and, in turn, reduces modelled climate sensitivities…”

    The implications from these developments are that CO2 does not play a significant role in global warming, climate models used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to estimate future temperatures are too high, and the models should be redone.

    This result is a game-changer! The framework for the Paris Treaty has been constructed based on the wrong science, and the policies flowing from the Treaty are the wrong policies. Solving the climate change conundrum before the world wastes 100 trillion dollars running in the wrong direction is the major problem for climate science. Ill-advised environmental regulations must be rolled back before they destroy the U.S. economy. A rational environmental protection program and a vibrant economy can co-exist. The Paris Climate Agreement is nothing more than a millstone on the world’s economy and windfall profits for connected politicians and alternative energy ventures that are not ready for prime time. It is high time that the U.S. is getting out of the Paris Agreement.

    • Bart_R

      Fossil deadbeats will write the most absurd things to try to evade their responsibility to pay what they owe for the fossil waste dumping they do.

  • tolo4zero

    Trumps withdrawal will do serious damage to CCCC ( CashCowClimateChange)
    The climate will not even notice and continue changing like it always does.