How much will President Trump affect Global Warming?

[Aji_de_Gallina]

Since for most of the really worried people about GW the msot they’ll do is get some solar panels and maaaaaaaybe get an electric or hybrid, Trump of HRC would’ve been the same.
If GW is as impending as you’re saying the world needs to massively reduce its CO2 emmsions, not 10% or 20%, but closer to 50% to really make an impact. It’s not “every bit helps” it’s “are you willing to drasctically change the economy of the planet, possibly plunging a couple of billion people into unescapable poverty while also consuming like an 1900 middle class person?”. If the answer is no, then you don’t really care about GW.

If you’re not controlling India AND China, then a few Teslas and Volt are nuthin’.

[GIGObuster]

@Aji_de_Gallina

Since for most of the really worried people about GW the msot they’ll do is get some solar panels and maaaaaaaybe get an electric or hybrid, Trump of HRC would’ve been the same.
If GW is as impending as you’re saying the world needs to massively reduce its CO2 emmsions, not 10% or 20%, but closer to 50% to really make an impact. It’s not “every bit helps” it’s “are you willing to drasctically change the economy of the planet, possibly plunging a couple of billion people into unescapable poverty while also consuming like an 1900 middle class person?”. If the answer is no, then you don’t really care about GW.

If you’re not controlling India AND China, then a few Teslas and Volt are nuthin’.

If we do not develop the technologies now then when the situation becomes more clear (for fake skeptics in government) we would then be in a worse situation. It is better to have the technology abailable that can then be put on line once the Republicans move their asses or are voted out of office for their inaction.

And as for using China and India as a reason to stop making efforts, that old excuse is even less valid today.

India Ratifies Paris Climate Change Agreement

India Ratifies Paris Climate Change Agreement
October 2, 20163:54 PM ET

The 55-country requirement has already been fulfilled — India is No. 62 — but the emissions percentage still falls short. Even with major polluters like the U.S. and China signing on early, and including India’s addition, the current signatories account for about 52 percent of global greenhouse emissions, according to a statement released by the U.N. on Sunday.

We will become the weakest link if Trump does as he promised.

[usedtobe]

This is one area where Trump can keep his “Conservative” label (hint: he ain’t nuthin but a Trumper) - he can give the rabid Right this bone without hurting his brand (all he cares about).

The people who will hate him for killing the Paris Accord already hate him, so no loss.

[watchwolf49]

Oregon has been taking advantage … with the new wind farms we can phase out coal-fired electricity over the next twenty years … it’s not the complete answer, just one step closer …

“Oregon becomes first state to pass law to completely eliminate coal-fired power” — The Guardian — Mar. 3rd, '16

[Sam_Stone]

Trump’s policies may well reduce the U.S.'s carbon footprint, and his focus on fossil fuels may in fact bring more countries to the global warming negotiation table.

The left’s prescription for global warming so far has been a failure. Countries that have tried to move to straight renewables, like Germany, are seeing their emissions flatline or increase as they are forced to buy fossil power from outside the country. Germany’s CO2 emissions have been essentially flat since 2010, and actually went up 1% last year. Ontario has nearly bankrupted itself trying to build the progressive new ‘green economy’, and now they’re planning to spend another $7 billion on it. Despite this, wind and solar still make up a tiny fraction of Ontario’s energy needs.

The U.S. has actually had the biggest reductions in CO2 output in the last 10 years, and this is due almost entirely to fracking, which the left has opposed in favor of expensive alternatives like solar and wind. In the meantime, global climate treaties are failing to capture the worst offenders and are completely unenforceable.

If Trump doubles down on fracking and oil exploration, it may have the same effect on global climate treaties that the U.S. arms buildup had on peace treaties in the 80’s. In other words, it became advantageous for other nations to step up and play ball, because it was in their best interests.

The fundamental flaw of the unilateral disarmament movement in the 80’s has been carried over to the global warming movement of the 21st century. The mistake is thinking that if you just show ‘vision’ or ‘good will’ and unilaterally start punishing yourself, you will set a moral example for other nations and they will join in. But that’s not the way international diplomacy actually works. Surprisingly, countries don’t act like moral actors - they act in their own national interest. In fact, unilateral carbon restrictions makes your own energy more expensive, giving nations who don’t play along an increasing comparative advantage over you in terms of energy. At the same time, reducing your carbon output unilaterally, to the extent that it actually helps slow global warming, takes the pressure off other nations to reign in their own carbon.

If instead of taking unilateral action on fossil fuels the U.S. uses its huge advantage in cheap natural gas to lower its energy costs while also lowering carbon output, it can put competitive pressure on countries who rely on fossil fuels as well but who don’t have large reserves of cheap natural gas. This may give them the incentive to broker deals that eliminate fossil fuels in a way that’s really enforceable, because it will be in their own best interests to do so.

In any event, a wide scale shift to natural gas power has a much better chance of actually reducing CO2 emissions than all the solar freakin’ roadways and solar houses could manage together.

[GIGObuster]

@Sam_Stone

Trump’s policies may well reduce the U.S.'s carbon footprint, and his focus on fossil fuels may in fact bring more countries to the global warming negotiation table.

The left’s prescription for global warming so far has been a failure. Countries that have tried to move to straight renewables, like Germany, are seeing their emissions flatline or increase as they are forced to buy fossil power from outside the country. Germany’s CO2 emissions have been essentially flat since 2010, and actually went up 1% last year.

Not sure about that:

http://energytransition.de/2016/08/germany-already-has-more-green-power-than-it-ever-had-nuclear/

In Germany, however, solar and wind are reducing the wholesale prices that baseload nuclear and coal sell at—because green power is growing fast. In 2002, the country adopted a plan to phase out nuclear by around 2022 (this is still the target). Most onlookers thought it would be impossible to ever offset nuclear power with renewables in such a short time. In fact, Germany hit that target last year—seven years early.

The NYPSC nonetheless says carbon emissions are rising in Germany; they are not (spreadsheet). CO2-equivalent emissions from energy were down two percent from 2010 to 2014. German emissions were 28 percent lower in 2014 than in 1990, only 10 percentage points of which resulted from Reunification (so 18 percentage points come from the Energiewende). By the way, during the same timeframe, US emissions were up.

So where do the claims of rising German carbon emissions come from? There were minor upticks in 2012 and 2013 (an argument that reminds me of the famous face-palm graphic for global warming). And though we don’t have the CO2 numbers yet, energy consumption rose overall in 2015 and the first half of 2016—due, as the official explanation reads, to colder weather, economic growth, and the sudden population growth from refugees. Essentially, the pro-nuclear camp mistakenly attributes a rise in emissions from oil and gas for heat supply to coal consumption in the power sector (which is flat to down).

In their attempt to promote nuclear, some New Yorkers thus overemphasize the role of coal in Germany and exaggerate the limits of wind and solar. For instance, the New York Times recently claimed that the German government “will pay billions to keep coal generators in reserve, to provide emergency power at times when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine.” In reality, these plants will have 11 days to ramp up. No weather forecast extends that long, and no power shortage announces itself that far in advance. Experts doubt this lignite reserve will be used at all. It is a political compromise: to meet the 2020 carbon targets, Berlin has paid coal firms to shut down old coal plants. The payoff for a shutdown is called a “reserve” to make it more palatable to the public.

“Unless we’re willing to go back to candles, which would be uncomfortable and inconvenient, we need energy generation,” New York’s Governer Cuomo said in explaining the nuclear bailout. In doing so, he unwittingly reiterated the long-disproven claim by German nuclear proponents that the lights would go out without nuclear. Like the rest of the US, New York State counts downtime (SAIDI) in hours (PDF), with New York coming in at around two hours of power outages annually—or just over 10 minutes a month. Germany had 12 minutes a year in 2014.

As for the rest of the post, it seems to come from nowhere as it completely dismisses all the treaty verifications made after Paris. Diplomacy actually works but not as it was described there.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@Sam_Stone

Trump’s policies may well reduce the U.S.'s carbon footprint, and his focus on fossil fuels may in fact bring more countries to the global warming negotiation table.

What policies? I’ve been searching high and low for what the Trump administration actually plans to do regarding energy production regulation and incentives, and the most detail I can find is in a 26 May speech in which Trump spends about half the speech attacking Obama and Clinton, and otherwise pledging to bring back coal mining jobs, remove restrictions on oil extraction in protected preserves, and then applying all the presumed profits into infrastructure. As a plank of the Trump campaign it is more detailed than most of his statements, but as energy policy it is essentially just a bunch of word salad with no substantive research or fact-based projections behind it. Trump is as full of shit on energy policy as he is on every other topic, and that should terrify even more than his threats to round up Muslims or nuke countries he doesn’t like, because unlike those vapid pledges, if he doesn’t follow through on an effective and well thought out energy policy, and does retard progress in developing sustainable alternatives we’ll be living with the impact for decades to come.

Stranger

[SmartAlecCat]

@Stranger_On_A_Train

What policies? I’ve been searching high and low for what the Trump administration actually plans to do regarding energy production regulation and incentives, and the most detail I can find is in a 26 May speech in which Trump spends about half the speech attacking Obama and Clinton, and otherwise pledging to bring back coal mining jobs, remove restrictions on oil extraction in protected preserves, and then applying all the presumed profits into infrastructure. As a plank of the Trump campaign it is more detailed than most of his statements, but as energy policy it is essentially just a bunch of word salad with no substantive research or fact-based projections behind it. Trump is as full of shit on energy policy as he is on every other topic, and that should terrify even more than his threats to round up Muslims or nuke countries he doesn’t like, because unlike those vapid pledges, if he doesn’t follow through on an effective and well thought out energy policy, and does retard progress in developing sustainable alternatives we’ll be living with the impact for decades to come.

Rolling back regulations derived from the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, etc. that drive up costs on industry. Disband or neuter the EPA. This will make dirty coal very cheap, and bring back coal mining jobs.

[Sam_Stone]

From the World Bank:

Germany’s CO2 output in metric tonnes per capita:

2008: 9.5
2009: 8.815
2010: 9.276
2011: 8.95
2012: 9.192
2013: 9.221

One of the reasons CO2 emissions are increasing is because Germany foolishly decided that all nuclear plants must close by 2021. In 2010 Germany got over 20% of its electricity from nuclear. At current rates of adoption, renewables cannot hope to replace the nuclear power shortfall in 5 years, meaning the Germans will have to rely on fossil fuels.

So after all this time and money, Germany now gets about 10% of its power from renewables. The cost? Billions upon billions of dollars, and the highest energy costs in Europe by a wide margin (other than Denmark). And that gargantuan effort is about to be completely undone by their decision to phase out nuclear. Replacing 20% of your zero-GHG power with 10% zero-GHG power and 10% coal and gas does not help global warming in any way.

In 2014, Germans paid 29.81 cents per kwh for electricity. The French, powered mostly by nuclear, paid 15.85 cents. This gap is going to get worse as Germany decommissions its own nuclear plants and replaces them with either expensive solar or power purchased from the grid.

And Germany is currently the ‘gold standard’ for government efforts to switch to renewables. Other countries that have been trying it have had even poorer results.

Oh, I forgot to compare the table above to the U.S.:

2008: 18.489
2009: 17.192
2010: 17.485
2011: 17.019
2012: 16.287
2013: 16.39

On a per-capita basis, Germany decreased its CO2 output by about .3 metric tonnes, while the U.S. decreased by more than 2 metric tonnes. As a percentage of per capita CO2 emissions, the U.S. still beats Germany.

If you think I’m cherry-picking the start dates, let’s go back to 2000, when Germany started its big green shift. Then, U.S. CO2 emissions per capita were 20.218, while Germany’s were 10.096. So, since the start of Germany’s shift to a ‘green economy’, Germany has managed to reduce per-capita CO2 emissions by .875 metric tonnes. During the same period, the U.S. lowered its per-capita CO2 emissions by 3.828 metric tonnes - a decline 4.37 times as much as Germany’s.

Here’s an excellent chart that shows the absolute CO2 per capita between the U.S. and Germany from 2000 to 2013 (latest data available). That covers the entire ‘green shift’ movement in Germany. Notice that the U.S. decline is much steeper than Germany’s. It’s almost like all that renewable power just doesn’t translate very well into actual CO2 reductions by the time it all comes out in the wash.

[Sam_Stone]

@Stranger_On_A_Train

What policies? I’ve been searching high and low for what the Trump administration actually plans to do regarding energy production regulation and incentives, and the most detail I can find is in a 26 May speech in which Trump spends about half the speech attacking Obama and Clinton, and otherwise pledging to bring back coal mining jobs, remove restrictions on oil extraction in protected preserves, and then applying all the presumed profits into infrastructure. As a plank of the Trump campaign it is more detailed than most of his statements, but as energy policy it is essentially just a bunch of word salad with no substantive research or fact-based projections behind it. Trump is as full of shit on energy policy as he is on every other topic, and that should terrify even more than his threats to round up Muslims or nuke countries he doesn’t like, because unlike those vapid pledges, if he doesn’t follow through on an effective and well thought out energy policy, and does retard progress in developing sustainable alternatives we’ll be living with the impact for decades to come.

Stranger

I’m not trying to claim that Trump’s policies are smart, or science based, or whatever. I’m simply saying that the practical effect of lowering the cost of natural gas could well be a boon for global warming. As for coal, it would be much worse, but what Trump doesn’t tell anyone is that even without a government plan to kill coal, natural gas is doing a pretty good job of it all by itself. Coal power is dying out because it’s having a hard time competing, and nothing Trump does will change that.

BTW, if you are looking for Trump’s actual policies and not just stuff said to win an election, you can find some not-very-detailed policy plans at his transition web site. Here’s the section on energy policy:

The Trump Administration will make America energy independent. Our energy policies will make full use of our domestic energy sources, including traditional and renewable energy sources. America will unleash an energy revolution that will transform us into a net energy exporter, leading to the creation of millions of new jobs, while protecting the country’s most valuable resources – our clean air, clean water, and natural habitats. America is sitting on a treasure trove of untapped energy. In fact, America possesses more combined coal, oil, and natural gas resources than any other nation on Earth. These resources represent trillions of dollars in economic output and countless American jobs, particularly for the poorest Americans.

Rather than continuing the current path to undermine and block America’s fossil fuel producers, the Trump Administration will encourage the production of these resources by opening onshore and offshore leasing on federal lands and waters. We will streamline the permitting process for all energy projects, including the billions of dollars in projects held up by President Obama, and rescind the job-destroying executive actions under his Administration. We will end the war on coal, and rescind the coal mining lease moratorium, the excessive Interior Department stream rule, and conduct a top-down review of all anti-coal regulations issued by the Obama Administration. We will eliminate the highly invasive “Waters of the US” rule, and scrap the $5 trillion dollar Obama-Clinton Climate Action Plan and the Clean Power Plan and prevent these unilateral plans from increasing monthly electric bills by double-digits without any measurable effect on Earth’s climate. Energy is the lifeblood of modern society. It is the industry that fuels all other industries. We will lift the restrictions on American energy, and allow this wealth to pour into our communities. It’s all upside: more jobs, more revenues, more wealth, higher wages, and lower energy prices.

The Trump Administration is firmly committed to conserving our wonderful natural resources and beautiful natural habitats. America’s environmental agenda will be guided by true specialists in conservation, not those with radical political agendas. We will refocus the EPA on its core mission of ensuring clean air, and clean, safe drinking water for all Americans. It will be a future of conservation, of prosperity, and of great success.

I still think Trump is an idiot, but I have been pleasantly pleased to see that some of his nuttier ideas have not made the transition past "election bullshit’. For example, the section on trade doesn’t mention a single tariff, but instead talks about improving competitiveness with training, regulatory reform for American businesses, etc. The section on immigration kicks the whole deportation can down the road so far it will never happen. Sounds like maybe some adults are in charge now that the rubber has to meet the road.

I’m sure you won’t like any of it, but at least it’s been pulled back from the, “holy shit, this guy is a moron” place it was at, to the “Oh, great, the same old Republican playbook” place it’s at now.

[Dr_Paprika]

Trump seems like the type of guy who would say anything. On some policies, he took every viewpoint. Doesn’t mean he believes it. Of course he’ll respect you on the morning. Trust me.

[GIGObuster]

@Sam_Stone

That covers the entire ‘green shift’ movement in Germany. Notice that the U.S. decline is much steeper than Germany’s. It’s almost like all that renewable power just doesn’t translate very well into actual CO2 reductions by the time it all comes out in the wash.

Of course the 2014-2015 decline mentioned was ignored, as it is that Germany has even more ambitious plans, somehow it looks like the spin you are giving it is that everyone should throw their arms up and give up, the Germans, with Europe and many other nations are not.

National Geographic Magazine

German politicians sometimes compare the energiewende to the Apollo moon landing. But that feat took less than a decade, and most Americans just watched it on TV. The energiewende will take much longer and will involve every single German—more than 1.5 million of them, nearly 2 percent of the population, are selling electricity to the grid right now. “It’s a project for a generation; it’s going to take till 2040 or 2050, and it’s hard,” said Gerd Rosenkranz, a former journalist at Der Spiegel who’s now an analyst at Agora Energiewende, a Berlin think tank. “It’s making electricity more expensive for individual consumers. And still, if you ask people in a poll, Do you want the energiewende? then 90 percent say yes.”

But here’s the thing about the Germans: They knew the energiewende was never going to be a walk in the forest, and yet they set out on it. What can we learn from them? We can’t transplant their desire to reject nuclear power. We can’t appropriate their experience of two great nation-changing projects—rebuilding their country when it seemed impossible, 70 years ago, and reunifying their country when it seemed forever divided, 25 years ago. But we can be inspired to think that the energiewende might be possible for other countries too.

In a recent essay William Nordhaus, a Yale economist who has spent decades studying the problem of addressing climate change, identified what he considers its essence: free riders. Because it’s a global problem, and doing something is costly, every country has an incentive to do nothing and hope that others will act. While most countries have been free riders, Germany has behaved differently: It has ridden out ahead. And in so doing, it has made the journey easier for the rest of us.

BTW I do agree that it is foolish to cut nuclear power, but then if they do succeed it will make many wonder if Nuclear is needed. While it is not a solution that I would recommend to the USA other nations that do not have access to nuclear power should have an option and solutions that do not depend on it.

[Yersenia_Pestis]

For most us - with the privilege of living in North America/Europe - it will expensive but mostly manageable. Lots money to build barriers, water walls, etc. by the way, I fully expect the right to keep their denial strong even as the dang walls are being build… “it’s cyclical, just a bad storm, this past winter we had so much snow!..”

The people that are really screwed (as usual) are the billions of souls in places like Bangladesh, Africa, pacific islands, Asia, etc… 'merica!

Edit: would love to be wrong about this but the deplorables keep me thinking otherwise… it’s a slow moving disaster being caused by 25% of the voting public

[marshmallow]

Don’t panic, folks. We’re going to build big, beautiful sea walls, and Gaia is going to pay for it! By the way, Gaia, great goddess, big fan, but she’s really let herself go lately. Hit the treadmill, sweetheart.

[watchwolf49]

@marshmallow

Don’t panic, folks. We’re going to build big, beautiful sea walls, and Gaia is going to pay for it! By the way, Gaia, great goddess, big fan, but she’s really let herself go lately. Hit the treadmill, sweetheart.

Well … the good news is that we should only see a one inch rise during the Trump’s two terms in office … that number comes from NOAA “Is sea level rising?” … note the flooding problems are also caused by the land sinking due to man’s activities …

These issues will be coming upon us incrementally … thus the solutions can also be incremental … we don’t need to add ten feet to our sea walls in the next 6 months or even in the next 6 years … looks like we’ll be fine pacing ourselves out over the next 60 years … hard to say how much our technology will improve over that time …

1/8 inch per year … up from a 1/16 inch per year … we have plenty of time and in eight years we may well have the Democrats back in power …

[GIGObuster]

And the bill increased 10 feet, I mean 10%.
Well, that was optimistic. Actual number is about 40%, compared to what it can be saved if we make a concerted effort with government and industry. Most economical experts involved in the issue do agree that delaying will be more costly to the nation.

Of course the Donald will by then get his tax cut and his family will pay 0% because the inheritance tax will also be gone as per his promises.

Trump and his ilk are not only trying to ignore the issue, they are also trying to avoid paying when the situation becomes even more clearly worrisome. Only the little people will pay for all that delaying.

[puddleglum]

There would be no difference in the response to Global Warming from a Trump administration compared to a Hillary administration. Anything that would impose costs to energy consumers would be unpopular and Hillary would not have had the votes to get them passed. The only thing Obama did was to take forever to review a pipeline and that had no effect on global warming whatsoever. Obama had two years where the democrats were in total charge of congress and Hillary would not even have that. So the alternatives were an administration that talks about global warming and does nothing or what the does not talk about global warming and does nothing.
The good news is that it doesn’t matter. Carbon emissions are declining because of a switch from coal mining to fracking. Other good signs are lower cost batteries and solar cells, more efficient cars, and the collapse of Venezuela’s oil production.

[watchwolf49]

Well … that Time article does stipulate “… temperature increases on the higher end of the range of scientific uncertainty …”, so we’re looking at a remote possibility. We could just as easily look at the lower end of uncertainty and project economic benefit, but such is equally remote. We need to also look at what is most likely to occur.

The headline in the article is definitely weaselly … continuing the Obama policies will still cause a 0.6% increase in prices, the assumed policies of The Donald will increase costs to 0.9% … yes, that’s a 40% increase but 0.9% per decade isn’t very much compared to general inflation. That’s the high end of scientific uncertainty, so there’s exceptionally high odds the costs will be lower.

The amount of natural gas leakage is truly astounding, and if it was cheap to fix it would be fixed by now. The Donald does not seem inclined to force these natural gas producers to tighten up their systems … We the People don’t want to pay the price right now … and yeah, we’ll have to pay the price later … worrisome indeed … and foolish, this is like an Iowa corn farmer watching the crows eat 10% of his crop saying it’s too expensive to build scarecrows … false economy indeed …

[GIGObuster]

@watchwolf49

Well … that Time article does stipulate “… temperature increases on the higher end of the range of scientific uncertainty …”, so we’re looking at a remote possibility. We could just as easily look at the lower end of uncertainty and project economic benefit, but such is equally remote. We need to also look at what is most likely to occur.

The headline in the article is definitely weaselly … continuing the Obama policies will still cause a 0.6% increase in prices, the assumed policies of The Donald will increase costs to 0.9% … yes, that’s a 40% increase but 0.9% per decade isn’t very much compared to general inflation. That’s the high end of scientific uncertainty, so there’s exceptionally high odds the costs will be lower.

Nope, putting it that way is not so kosher either, that still translates to billions that will be indeed wasted for not being more proactive. And I say that because it is more likely for Trump to get rid of many of the changes and measures made so far.

@watchwolf49

The amount of natural gas leakage is truly astounding, and if it was cheap to fix it would be fixed by now. The Donald does not seem inclined to force these natural gas producers to tighten up their systems … We the People don’t want to pay the price right now … and yeah, we’ll have to pay the price later … worrisome indeed … and foolish, this is like an Iowa corn farmer watching the crows eat 10% of his crop saying it’s too expensive to build scarecrows … false economy indeed …

Agreed.

[septimus]

@Stranger_On_A_Train

Well, you are certainly enthusiastic about ellipses, anyway. But you are not well informed on the impact of climate change. While rising mean ocean levels are the most obvious result, they are neither the most dramatic or threatening. We can at least make reasonable predictions for that and, presuming governmental bodies act in a preventative manner, relocate populations that are in areas threatened by rising sea level. The bigger impact is on the climate itself, and particularly on the ocean currents that drive the climate and the hydrologic cycle which delivers fresh water inland. While more storms might seem to the casual observer to offer more rainfall, the opposite is actually true; we can expect to see damaging storms that deliver a deluge of water to coastal regions while inland regions suffer progressively worse droughts due to volatility unprecedented since long before the beginning of human agriculture.

Windmills and solar panels to supplement energy demand are all well and good for what they are, but they really aren’t going to do anything to mitigate the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. What is needed is an aggressive program to develop technology to supplement future energy demand while reducing carbon emissions, at the same time making preparations for the impact of the unavoidable change that global climate circulation models predict. And regardless of how you feel ideologically about overarching government regulation and international treaties that significantly limit national sovereignty (I’m personally not a fan), this is in fact the only way to effectively counter the worst effects of climate change. Throwing up ones hands and saying “India and China won’t go along so why bother?” is absurdist ignorance at its worst. Both China and and especially India will be substantially impacted by elevated temperature and volatile weather, and given a reasonable cost-effective way of avoiding it could be engaged.

What happens to your insurance premiums on your fucking beach house isn’t even significant noise in terms the cost impact of climate change.

Stranger

++.

My own prediction is that before too long, some attention will switch from temperature and sea level to ocean acidity. The facts of rising temperatures and increased storm intensities will be too clear to deny, and humans will mitigate the heat by installing coolants in the upper atmosphere. But this will have no effect on ocean acidity.

The ocean is said to comprise 99% of the biosphere; its use as a source for human food has been increasing. The ocean has plummeted from a pH of 8.2 to 8.1 since the industrial age began and this has had serious effects on ocean ecology. I think typical projections are for acidity to be about 7.75 pH by 2100, and to continue falling after that.