We don’t need to repeat the Trump experiment 

What does a second Trump presidency mean for the Earth's climate system?

Our answer to this question is based on our own experience in climate science. We routinely use observational data, theoretical understanding, and computer models to disentangle human and natural influences on Earth's climate. We often work in virtual laboratories, analyzing computer model simulations with and without human impacts on the climate.

In a counterfactual “world without us” simulation, humans do not burn fossil fuels or increase the levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere. Alternatively, the “world with us” simulation includes burning fossil fuels that add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and cause significant global warming.

Comparing computer model experiments in a world with us and a world without us can tell us something valuable about the relative magnitude of human and natural influences on the climate. This work provides convincing scientific evidence that humans are responsible for almost everything Global warming of nearly 1.5 degrees Celsius has been measured over the past 170 years.

That global warming is on us. We also have a responsibility.

Our political system is also a laboratory for experimentation. In 2016, the United States conducted an experiment that elected Donald Trump as the 45th president.^th president. results of the experiment, have a significant impact on climate policy. The United States withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement. Federally funded climate research at the EPA and other agencies was undermined. Regulations directly related to greenhouse gas emissions, such as vehicle efficiency standards and rules governing the amount of methane leakage allowed from oil and gas production, were challenged. The social cost of carbon, a measure of the damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions, has been devalued.

Repeating this political experiment by electing Donald Trump to a second term is highly unlikely to produce a different outcome. We already know how this experiment will unfold. Donald Trump has given us advance notice.

He will once again pull the US out of the Paris climate accord. “drill baby drill” serves as a guideline for energy policy. Federally funded climate research would be reduced or canceled. U.S. involvement in organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change would be blocked. Scientific expertise will be ridiculed and attacked by self-styled “.”A very stable genius.”

It’s easy to lose sight of the seriousness of the moment. We are overwhelmed by many other threats. A brutal and never-ending war. Daily images and stories of death, suffering, and hunger. A mass shooting incident that brings out the cliché “''.thoughts and prayersNot a solution.” The rise of populist politicians who seek to divide the country rather than unite it. Tech moguls who use their platforms to spread viral hate and conspiracy theories. We worry about access to food, energy, clean air, and clean water. About the safety of our family. For many, the fate of the Earth's climate system has been relegated to a secondary concern.

That should be your primary concern.

Shakespeare famously wrote in As You Like It:all the world's a stageAnd all men and women are just players. ” Human-induced climate change is an integral part of that world stage. This is the backdrop against which all important geopolitical events of the next century will unfold. war and famine. international competition. Political unrest. Millions of people are caught up in the diaspora, forced from their homes by rising sea levels, extreme heat, floods, drought and food insecurity. This world stage will shape future history not only in the 21st century but for centuries to come.^cent century.

We all have some say in how this play unfolds. Let's call it “.”greenhouse is coming” — it is a tragedy that will last for generations. Our collective choices influence the outcome of the play. In the United States, the narrative arc of “The Hothouse Cometh” will be largely shaped by how people decide to vote in the 2024 presidential election.

In this way, the effects on the climate of repeating the “President Trump'' experiment are serious. The rest of the world will receive a very clear message: “The Trump administration doesn't care about human-induced climate change. Neither do you. Let the climate system take care of itself. Let future generations take care of themselves.”

Laissez-faire “do nothing” climate policy is a recipe for current and future climate and societal harm. If we continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the climate system will not magically repair itself. Returning to the “all the world is a stage” metaphor, destroying the climatic stage in which all human stories are told is not a wise move. If you truly care about the well-being of your children and grandchildren, this is a terrible choice. Or do you believe that the risks to world peace and stability will increase if the United States rolls back potential climate change leadership, while those least responsible for climate change will bear the brunt of its effects? If so.

So before you vote in 2024, carefully consider the results of the first Trump experiment. These results are available for everyone to view. A second Trump experiment would create a very different world than the one we currently live in.

Benjamin Santer is an atmospheric scientist who has worked on all of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's previous scientific assessment reports.

Henry Jacoby is the William F. Pounds Professor Emeritus of Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management and founding co-director of the MIT Joint Program on Global Change Science and Policy.

Richard Richells has served as lead author on several chapters in the areas of mitigation, impacts and adaptation for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He was also part of the National Assessment Comprehensive Team for the first U.S. National Climate Assessment.

Gary Yohe is Huffington Foundation Professor Emeritus of Economics and Environmental Studies at Wesleyan University in Connecticut. From 1990 until 2014 he served as lead author on multiple IPCC chapter and synthesis reports and served as vice chair of the Third US National Climate Assessment.