“And how does this compare to the warming from increased longwave radiation due to the additional CO2? Well, again, the calculations are in the endnotes. The answer is, per the IPCC calculations, CO2 alone over the period gave a yearly increase in downwelling radiation of ~ 0.03 W/m2. Generally, they double that number to allow for other greenhouse gases (GHGs), so for purposes of discussion, we’ll call it 0.06 W/m2 per year.
So over the period of this record, we have increased evaporative cooling of 0.10 W/m2 per year, and we have increased radiative warming from GHGs of 0.06 W/m2 per year.
Which means that over that period and that area at least, the calculated increase in warming radiation from GHGs was more than counterbalanced by the observed increase in surface cooling from increased evaporation.” click here
“The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a report on Wednesday which found greenhouse gas emissions decreased during President Donald Trump’s first year in office.” click here
“Take a wild guess what country is reducing its greenhouse gas emissions the most? Canada? Britain? France? India? Germany? Japan? No, no, no, no, no and no.” click here
“New reports show that greenhouse gas emissions are plunging in the United States and rising in Europe—and the drop in the U.S. is due to falling costs of renewable energy and natural gas.” click here
“Positive RGGI program reviews have been from RGGI, Inc. (the program administrator) and the Acadia Center, which advocates for reduced emissions (see Stutt, Shattuck, and Kumar 2015). In this article, I investigate whether reported reductions in CO2 emissions from electric power plants, along with associated gains in health benefits and other claims, were actually achieved by the RGGI program. Based on my findings, any form of carbon tax is not the policy to accomplish emission reductions. The key results are:
• There were no added emissions reductions or associated health benefits from the RGGI program.
• Spending of RGGI revenue on energy efficiency, wind, solar power, and low-income fuel assistance had minimal impact.
• RGGI allowance costs added to already high regional electric bills. The combined pricing impact resulted in a 12 percent drop in goods production and a 34 percent drop in the production of energy-intensive goods. Comparison states increased goods production by 20 percent and lost only 5 percent of energy-intensive manufacturing. Power imports from other states increased from 8 percent to 17 percent.” click here
“The EPA attributed the overall decline to lower carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, which itself came about because of less coal consumption in favor of natural gas, warmer winter weather that decreased heating fuel demand and lower electricity demand overall. ” click here
Regardless of whether you are for or against attempting to control long-term weather patterns (by the way, that’s what climate is) by regulating CO2 (a futile quest) the EPA endangerment finding is both technically and legally flawed. Even a simple analysis such as mine (e.g. here) came to that conclusion in June 2013. But more knowledgeable people than I (e.g. here) have submitted comments ignored by USEPA revealing the inadequacy of USEPA’s GHG endangerment finding. In her 2012 appeals court opinion Justice Janice Rodgers Brown explained the situation well (here) .