global warming

Science and Politics News Roundup 2022 July

A monthly review of climate, energy, and environmental policy issues

Keep this in mind:

“If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws — the first growing out of the last. A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government.” —Alexander Hamilton (1794)

“Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them.” —Joseph Story (1833)

“Americans rightly concerned with the drift of our public officials away from the constitutional principles that were designed to keep us a free people should not be looking to change the Constitution, but rather to enforce our Constitution. Why do we have so many members of Congress — and of our state legislatures — who are either ignorant of, or disdainful of, our Constitution?”- Steve Byas (2022) in The New American Magazine

CLIMATE ISSUES

Some Background:

Geologic evidence shows that Earth’s climate has been in a constant state of flux for more than 4 billion years. Nothing we do can stop that. Much of current climate and energy policy is based upon the erroneous assumption that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, which make up just 0.1% of total greenhouse gases, are responsible for “dangerous” global warming/climate change. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions have no significant effect on global temperature/climate. All efforts to reduce emissions are futile with regard to climate change, but such efforts will impose massive economic harm to Western Nations. (See links to Wryheat articles at the bottom of this post for details on climate.)

The “climate crisis” is a scam. U.N officials have admitted that their climate policy is about money and power and destroying capitalism, not about climate.

03-Antropogenic contribution to greenhouse effect

(more…)

Why Carbon Dioxide is necessary for life on planet Earth

The main hobgoblin of the current climate scam is carbon dioxide generated by burning fossil fuels (which represents only 0.1% of total greenhouse gases). Our civilization depends on fossil fuels and life on Earth depends on carbon dioxide. The following essay shows why carbon dioxide is necessary for life.

Farming the air

by David Wojick, CFact.org

You are built almost entirely out of carbon dioxide and water. So is all the food you eat. Likewise for all the energy you use moving about and staying alive. Carbon dioxide and water! In short the carbon dioxide in the air is the global food supply. This is why all life on Earth is said to be “carbon based”.

The climate alarmists play a tricky word game here. They call carbon dioxide “pollution” and wind and solar power “clean.” Our food supply is not pollution. Nor is emitting carbon dioxide (which we all do when we exhale) unclean. This is just false advertising. Watching a child grow is watching processed carbon dioxide be reprocessed.

Here is how it works. Plants collect carbon dioxide from the air then use sunlight and water to create the stuff they consume to build their bodies and to live on. They also use tiny amounts of vitamins and minerals, just as we do. Fertilizer is like vitamins, not like food. So almost all of what they use is carbon dioxide and water. Animals eat the plants for food, basically reprocessing the carbon dioxide and water. Then we eat both plants and animals.

There is a saying that you cannot live on air but in fact that is just what we do. All of our food begins as airborne (or waterborne) carbon dioxide. Our farmers are literally farming the air!

Go into a grocery store and look around. All the food you see — vegetables, fruit and meat — fresh, frozen or canned — is processed carbon dioxide. So are the people shopping there. So are you.

The climate scare is based on the fact that the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has been slowly increasing for the last hundred years or so. That this might cause a tiny bit of global warming is really not a problem. The good news is that plant productivity is increasing around the world as a direct result of the increasing carbon dioxide. This is called the “greening” of planet Earth and it has been clearly observed by NASA satellites.

So the global food supply of carbon dioxide has been steadily increasing. This helps explain how we are able to feed our growing human population. Crop yields have consistently increased even though the amount of farm land has actually gone down.

The actual process is a miracle. Plants are passive consumers. They sit there and wait for carbon dioxide molecules to bump into them, where they are then combined with water and sunlight to make the plant’s food. Carbon dioxide is called a trace gas because there is very little of it as a fraction of the air. A hundred years ago it is estimated that there was something like one carbon dioxide molecule out of every 3,000 air molecules. Today it is more like one out of 2,500 which is a big help to the passive plants.

Note that this increase in global plant growth due to increasing carbon dioxide is incorrectly called the “fertilization effect”. It should be called the food effect. Imagine putting on a table everything you will eat in a day. Next to that put a vitamin pill. Fertilizer is like the pill while carbon dioxide is like the pile of food.

Also the carbon dioxide is not there because of our burning gasoline, diesel, natural gas, oil and coal. It is part of a natural “carbon cycle” that is twenty times bigger than our emissions. Life on Earth is part of and depends on this natural carbon cycle. Our carbon dioxide just adds a little bit to it, which is a good thing.

Unfortunately you will seldom, if ever, hear any of this, because of climate change hysteria. Carbon dioxide is called dangerous pollution, when it is actually the stuff of life. The increase is decried as bad when it is actually good. The alarmists want to stop the increase or even reverse it, ignoring that this is the global food supply. As a carbon based life form we should be leery of calls for “decarbonization”.

Likewise calling wind and solar power “clean energy” just because they do not create carbon dioxide is false, bordering on a hoax. There is nothing unclean about carbon dioxide. It is our food.

We should be very thankful that carbon dioxide is increasing, not demonizing it. We are all made of carbon dioxide. (Source)

See also: Why reducing carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuel will have no effect on climate

Comments on the new IPCC climate report, April, 2022

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that unless we reduce or eliminate carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and keep global temperature rise to less than 1.5°C, the planet will become uninhabitable. They ignore the fact that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels constitute just over 0.1% of total greenhouse gases (See article here). They also ignore the fact that for much of the past 600 million years global temperature has been 12°C warmer than now and life has flourished (see figure below). The IPCC is as political organization, not a scientific one. All their climate models run hotter than real observations and all their doomsday predictions have not come to pass.

Here are some comments on the IPCC report:

Heartland Institute Climate Experts React to Latest UN IPCC Report

APRIL 7, 2022

By H. Sterling Burnett, James Taylor, Linnea Lueken, Tim Benson, Anthony Watts

The IPCC has been scandalously wrong regarding virtually all of their past predictions. There is no reason to believe this version will be any more accurate.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) this week. IPCC chairman Hoesung Lee claimed “we are at a crossroads” but need to start reducing overall global emissions of carbon dioxide after 2025 to “secure a livable future.” UN Secretary-General António Guterres said unless we dramatically reduce CO2 emissions, humanity faces a future of “unprecedented heatwaves, terrifying storms, widespread water shortages and the extinction of a million species of plants and animals.”

Climate science and policy experts at The Heartland Institute strongly disagree with this assessment. The Heartland Institute is the world’s most-prominent think tank promoting the work of scientists and other experts who do not think human activity is causing a climate crisis.

The IPCC report is tantamount to ‘old whine (pun intended), in new bottles.’ There is nothing truly new in this report. It makes the same unsubstantiated claims of doom, and the same unsubstantiated claims that we can act now, to, in a very short time period, end the use of fossil fuels to save the earth, and profit in the process. The projections of climate models have repeatedly proven inaccurate, and the resources simply do not exist to – in the time frame the IPCC says saving the planet demands – remake the entire global economy sans fossil fuels. In the process of trying, we would destroy the environment by mining, erecting wind turbines and solar arrays, to save it. (Read more)

See also: The New IPCC Climate Report – More of the Same Hot Air, with Extra Alarmism Added; Facts Missing And: The dread 1.5 degree target is dead.

The Many Benefits of Rising Atmospheric CO2 — An Introduction

By Craig D. Idso — April 6, 2022

Dr. Craig Idso, Chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and a new principal at MasterResource, invites readers to join him in a new series of articles discussing the many ways in which rising atmospheric carbon dioxide benefits humanity and nature.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide: you can’t see, hear, smell or taste it. But it’s there—all around us—and it’s crucial for life. Composed of one carbon and two oxygen atoms, this simple molecule serves as the primary raw material out of which plants construct their tissues, which in turn provide the materials out of which animals construct theirs. Knowledge of the key life-giving and life-sustaining role played by carbon dioxide, or CO2, is so well established, in fact, that humans—and all the rest of the biosphere—are described in the most basic of terms as carbon-based lifeforms. We simply could not and would not exist without it.

Ironically, far too many demonize and falsely label this important atmospheric trace gas a pollutant. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of being shunned like the plague, the ongoing rise in CO2 should be welcomed with open arms. (Read more)

Study: More Evidence Of Climate Model Heat Biases

Professor Nicola Scaffeta of the University of Naples Department of Earth Sciences has just published a detailed, peer-reviewed assessment of the latest generation of global climate models. He begins by noting that there are about 40 major climate models and their climate sensitivity levels vary by a factor of three, from 1.8 to 5.7 degrees C per doubling of carbon dioxide.

Which right away tells you there is a lot of guesswork going on. He groups the models into low-, medium-, and high-sensitivity categories and asks a simple question: how well did the models do at reproducing the warming from 1980 to 2021? Among the high-sensitivity models, they got the pattern wrong for over 80 percent of the Earth’s surface. The medium-sensitivity models did better, but they were still wrong for over 68 percent of the Earth’s surface. Finally, the low-sensitivity models did the best, but they were wrong on 60 percent of the Earth’s surface. (Read more)

Reality Cannot Penetrate Into The Fantasy World Of Climate Campaigners

by Francis Menton

It was only a few weeks ago when the UN’s International Energy Agency issued its Report on “CO2 Emissions in 2021.” I covered the IEA’s Report in my previous post a few days ago. The Report gives detail as to the obvious fact that world CO2 emissions, after a downward blip in 2020 due to the Covid pandemic, have resumed their rapid increase, mostly attributable to massive deployment of coal-fired electricity generation resources in large-population developing countries like China and India. In any rational world, this Report would have to have dashed any remaining dreams of climate campaigners that overall world CO2 emissions would see anything but large ongoing increases for the foreseeable future. The climate-obsessed jurisdictions in the U.S. and Europe already represent only a shrinking minority of world energy consumption, headed for insignificance as the large-population countries of the developing world join the fossil fuel age. (Read more)

CCIP fig 2

Compared to the past, Earths temperatures are low now because we are in an ice age, but fortunately in an interglacial period.

The following shows the output of climate models compared to reality.

Christy models vs observations

See these blog articles for more information:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

The Broken Greenhouse – Why Co2 Is a Minor Player in Global Climate

A Summary of Earth’s Climate History-a Geologist’s View

ATMOSPHERIC CO2: a boon for the biosphere

Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth

Plant Evapotranspiration Reduction Causes Global Warming, not CO2 GHG

Wryheat note: The following is an original research paper written by David Motes, a chemical engineer with 43 years professional experience. Below I provide the paper abstract with a link to the full paper as a PDF file. The full paper discusses nine problems with the Greenhouse hypothesis and then presents Motes’ alternative hypothesis. Mr. Motes may be contacted at davidmotes7@gmail.com.

Plant Evapotranspiration Reduction Causes Global Warming, not CO2 GHG
by David Motes

Abstract
Anthropogenic (manmade) Global Warming (AGW) has many causes. CO2 drives recent global warming by Plant Evapotranspiration Reduction (PER), not CO2 Green House Gas (GHG) theory. For example, the irrefutable correlation between global temperature and CO2 concentration for the last 800+ thousand years can only be explained by plant evapotranspiration increases / decreases and not by the prevailing CO2 GHG effects. The prevailing GHG theory cannot explain why CO2 increased or decreased or the carbon source prior to fossil fuel emissions, but PER does. Quantitative evidence for PER driving global warming over CO2 GHG follows:

  1. Using a NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency) energy balance, the scientific consensus 0.70%/year plant water use efficiency increase (evapotranspiration reduction) caused by higher CO2 generates a calculated temperature rise 12 times the actual measured temperature rise.
  2. Similarly, the measured 0.23%/year deforestation and land use change (causing same plant evapotranspiration 0.23%/year reduction) generates a calculated temperature rise 3 times the actual measured temperature rise. From scientific consensus, global development, deforestation, commercial farming, and commercial ranching have reduced plants (consequently evapotranspiration) since the 1960 industrial global expansion. Explaining the 12 and 3 factors:
    A. The actual temperature increase was less due to increasing infrared radiation emitted by the atmosphere to space from that same temperature rise.
    B. Terrestrial biomass increases in deserts and arid lands partially offset the measured evapotranspiration reductions.
  3. Only 8% photosynthesis reduction is equivalent to all 2020 fossil fuel CO2 emissions.
  4. Water vapor is 192 times stronger GHG than CO2 when you factor in both infrared absorbances and atmospheric concentrations. Consequently, CO2 GHG contributes only ~0.3% to AGW, balance driven by PER.
  5. The PER impact on global warming is demonstrated in real life at many locations such as city centers being 1-3 °C warmer than the surrounding suburbs or countryside. Secondly, the air is 3-4oC cooler above a green grass lawn vs a black asphalt parking lot. PER provides an explanation for the undeniable Global Warming that fits all the scientific data (climate history, carbon sources, carbon mass balances, energy balances, GHG parameters, humidity data, etc.) as quantified and explained in this engineering and scientific study. “Greening” the earth (increasing plant life) is less expensive and substantially more effective than just reducing annual fossil fuel CO2 emissions (contributes only 1% of existing atmospheric CO2).

Quantified problems with the proposed CO2 annual emission reduction
plans follow:

  1. Will certainly fail by focusing on the 1%/year contribution and foolishly ignoring the 99% existing atmospheric CO2.
  2. Focuses solely on reducing the 8% CO2 emissions driver, while ignoring the 92% plant life CO2 driver. Prior to attempting to resolve the current global warming problem, we should identify, quantify, and confirm the root cause(s) and magnitudes. Then, solutions become clearer and more cost effective.

Read the full paper:

CO2 & Global Temperature 19apr2021

The “Social Cost of Carbon” Scam Revisited

As I wrote in 2015:

The “social cost of carbon”(SCC) is a computer-generated artifice that puts a dollar figure on the alleged environmental and economic damage caused by carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. This number is supposed to allow bureaucrats to offset the alleged damage through regulation and taxes, i.e., it will increase the cost of electricity and gasoline. The computer models fail to take into account the benefits of carbon dioxide, such as making our crops more robust and more water efficient. Also, there is absolutely no physical evidence that our carbon dioxide emissions have any significant role in controlling global climate. (Read more on Wryheat)

Recent articles on SCC:

Why ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ Is Most Useless Number You’ve Never Heard Of

by Kevin Dayaratna

Dubbed by some as “the most important number you’ve never heard of,” the social cost of carbon is defined as the economic damages associated with a ton of carbon dioxide emissions across a particular time horizon. That metric, relied upon heavily by the Obama administration, has been used as the basis for regulatory policy in the energy sector of the economy. Three sets of statistical models are used to estimate the social cost of carbon. Social cost of carbon estimates are based on very questionable assumptions regarding the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide emissions, naive projections reaching 300 years into the future, and ignorance of discount rate recommendations by the Office of Management and Budget regarding cost-benefit analysis. Our results tell the same story: Assumptions made by modelers can drastically change the purported estimates and thus beef up the damages as much as they want. (Read more)

Social Cost of Carbon May Be Social Benefit of Carbon, Economist Finds

by James Taylor (commenting on Dauaratna’s paper)

The Biden administration made headlines by imposing a “social cost of carbon” – to be factored into federal cost-benefit analysis – that is more than six times higher than the social cost of carbon determined by the Trump administration. However, economist and data scientist Kevin Dayaratna published an article documenting that the alleged social “cost” of carbon may actually be a social “benefit” of carbon. In an article for the Daily Signal, Dayaratna observes that any accurate assessment of the social cost of carbon must include social benefits as well as merely social harms. Importantly, Dayaratna observes that any sound cost/benefit assessment must take into account “positive agricultural feedback effects associated with carbon dioxide emissions.”

“In fact, we found that under very reasonable assumptions, those benefits can outweigh the costs, suggesting that the social cost of carbon can indeed be negative,” Dayaratna writes. “The policy implication of a negative social cost of carbon is that the government should not be taxing carbon dioxide emissions, but should be subsidizing it instead.” (Source)

See also: The Social Cost of Carbon Fantasy and

Biden’s Arbitrary Social Cost of Carbon: What You Need to Know

12 State Attorneys General Sue Biden Admin Over Its Climate Policies The lawsuit said Biden’s executive order enables regulatory agencies to place restrictions on nearly every aspect of Americans’ lives in order to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions.

For a tutorial on climate read:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

Bjorn Lomborg on how to deal with climate change

Dr. Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and visiting professor at Copenhagen Business School. The Copenhagen Consensus Center is a think-tank that researches the smartest ways to do good.

His new paper: Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change, and the cost of climate policies

Abstract:

Climate change is real and its impacts are mostly negative, but common portrayals of devastation are unfounded. Scenarios set out under the UN Climate Panel (IPCC) show human welfare will likely increase to 450% of today’s welfare over the 21st century. Climate damages will reduce this welfare increase to 434%.

Arguments for devastation typically claim that extreme weather (like droughts, floods, wildfires, and hurricanes) is already worsening because of climate change. This is mostly misleading and inconsistent with the IPCC literature. For instance, the IPCC finds no trend for global hurricane frequency and has low confidence in attribution of changes to human activity, while the US has not seen an increase in landfalling hurricanes since 1900. Global death risk from extreme weather has declined 99% over 100 years and global costs have declined 26% over the last 28 years.

Arguments for devastation typically ignore adaptation, which will reduce vulnerability dramatically. While climate research suggests that fewer but stronger future hurricanes will increase damages, this effect will be countered by richer and more resilient societies. Global cost of hurricanes will likely decline from 0.04% of GDP today to 0.02% in 2100.

Climate-economic research shows that the total cost from untreated climate change is negative but moderate, likely equivalent to a 3.6% reduction in total GDP.

Climate policies also have costs that often vastly outweigh their climate benefits. The Paris Agreement, if fully implemented, will cost $819–$1,890 billion per year in 2030, yet will reduce emissions by just 1% of what is needed to limit average global temperature rise to 1.5°C. Each dollar spent on Paris will likely produce climate benefits worth 11¢.

Long-term impacts of climate policy can cost even more. The IPCC’s two best future scenarios are the “sustainable” SSP1 and the “fossil-fuel driven” SSP5. Current climate-focused attitudes suggest we aim for the “sustainable” world, but the higher economic growth in SSP5 actually leads to much greater welfare for humanity. After adjusting for climate damages, SSP5 will on average leave grandchildren of today’s poor $48,000 better off every year. It will reduce poverty by 26 million each year until 2050, inequality will be lower, and more than 80 million premature deaths will be avoided.

Using carbon taxes, an optimal realistic climate policy can aggressively reduce emissions and reduce the global temperature increase from 4.1°C in 2100 to 3.75°C. This will cost $18 trillion, but deliver climate benefits worth twice that. The popular 2°C target, in contrast, is unrealistic and would leave the world more than $250 trillion worse off. *

The most effective climate policy is increasing investment in green R&D to make future decarbonization much cheaper. This can deliver $11 of climate benefits for each dollar spent.

More effective climate policies can help the world do better. The current climate discourse leads to wasteful climate policies, diverting attention and funds from more effective ways to improve the world.

This article will outline how to establish a rational climate policy in the context of many other, competing global issues. Read full paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157 

*Wryheat comment: I disagree with Lomborg’s stance on “carbon taxes” because where they have been imposed show that they fail to deliver advertised benefits, see:

Carbon Tax Failures – Lessons from Australia and Germany

See also:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

The Fortuitous Link Between CO2 Emissions and Economic Growth (video)

Is Rising Atmospheric CO2 Causing Dangerous Global Warming? (video)

Many people are concerned about the potential impacts of rising levels of atmospheric CO2. For years they have been bombarded with claims that unless its concentration is slowed or even reduced, dangerous global warming will ensue, producing all sorts of undesirable consequences with little to no positive effects. Watch this video to lean why this scenario is unlikely to occur and why CO2 is not the all-important driver of temperature that climate alarmists make it out to be.

Hurricane strength and frequency just part of natural variation

The several recent hurricanes making landfall in the southeastern U.S. have spawned claims that they are the result of global warming. However, real data show that these hurricanes are consistent with natural variation. The following graphs were constructed by meteorologist Dr. Ryan N. Maue, who has recently been appointed as chief scientist at NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. See his website: http://climatlas.com/tropical/

Hurricane Frequency

On the graph below, the upper line shows all hurricanes with wind speeds of greater than 64 knots. The bottom line show major hurricanes with wind speeds of greater than 96 knots. As you can see, overall, there has been no increase in frequency.

Hurricane Strength

Hurricane strength is measured as “accumulated cyclone energy” ACE. In the graph below, the upper line is global, the bottom line is for the northern hemisphere.

 

Dr. Maue notes:

“Tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has exhibited strikingly large global interannual variability during the past 40-years. In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low. Here evidence is presented demonstrating that considerable variability in tropical cyclone ACE is associated with the evolution of the character of observed large-scale climate mechanisms including the El Nino Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. In contrast to record quiet North Pacific tropical cyclone activity in 2010, the North Atlantic basin remained very active by contributing almost one-third of the overall calendar year global ACE.”

Hurricane landfalls:

The graph below shows the number of land-falling hurricanes since 1970. The dark bars are category 1&2 hurricanes; the grey bars are hurricanes of category 3 and above.

 

See also:

Why Hurricanes Can’t Be Blamed On Global Warming

A Review of the state of Climate Science    See why reducing carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels will have no effect on global temperature.

 

 

What Global Surface Temperature is Ideal for Human Habitation?

The fake fear of climate change is the current boogeyman of our age. Some say we must eliminate some or all of our carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions or the Earth will become uninhabitable. They say we must limit global temperature to a maximum of 2°C. In articles referenced below I show why that is nonsense.

So, what is an ideal temperature? A new study led by Washington State University and published in the Journal of Astrobiology proposes an answer. This study examines exoplanets in the universe. The study is titled: In Search for a Planet Better than Earth: Top Contenders for a Superhabitable World. (Link to full study)

Paper Abstract:

The fact that Earth is teeming with life makes it appear odd to ask whether there could be other planets in our galaxy that may be even more suitable for life. Neglecting this possible class of “superhabitable” planets, however, could be considered anthropocentric and geocentric biases. Most important from the perspective of an observer searching for extrasolar life is that such a search might be executed most effectively with a focus on superhabitable planets instead of Earth-like planets. We argue that there could be regions of astrophysical parameter space of star-planet systems that could allow for planets to be even better for life than our Earth. We aim to identify those parameters and their optimal ranges, some of which are astrophysically motivated, whereas others are based on the varying habitability of the natural history of our planet. Some of these conditions are far from being observationally testable on planets outside the solar system. Still, we can distill a short list of 24 top contenders among the >4000 exoplanets known today that could be candidates for a superhabitable planet. In fact, we argue that, with regard to the search for extrasolar life, potentially superhabitable planets may deserve higher priority for follow-up observations than most Earth-like planets.

Bottom line: The best habitable planets will have a mean surface temperature about 5°C higher than on Earth.

My previous articles on the subject show why reducing CO2 emissions will be a multi-trillion dollar, futile exercise that will send us back to the dark ages :

Who Is Afraid Of Two Degrees Of Warming?

During the past 10,000 years (the Holocene), Earth experienced several cycles of warming and cooling which exceeded the mythical two degree limit. Civilizations thrived during the warm periods and had a harder time during cold periods.

Estimates Of Global Warming Reduction By Reducing CO2 Emissions

The latest talking point of progressive politicians, pundits, and activists is that America cannot afford not to spend trillions of dollars to “solve the climate crisis” because global warming is an existential threat. Even a complete elimination of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would avert only 0.083°C to 0.173°C by year 2100. All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100.

A doubling of current atmospheric carbon dioxide will produce global warming of just over one degree Celsius. Since carbon dioxide is plant food, such a doubling would make the planet greener and food farming more productive.

See also:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

No Reduction of Atmospheric CO2 Due to Economic Slowdown

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is continuously measured by several observatories such as that at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. So far, the reduction of emissions due to the pandemic-induced economic slowdown has not resulted in a lower carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere.

As explained by Dr. Roy Spencer: “Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) continue to increase with no sign of the global economic slowdown in response to the spread of COVID-19. This is because the estimated reductions in CO2 emissions (around -11% globally during 2020) is too small a reduction to be noticed against a background of large natural variability. The reduction in economic activity would have to be 4 times larger than 11% to halt the rise in atmospheric CO2.” (Source) This means that carbon dioxide is an insignificant driver of global warming.  It also shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will have very little effect on global temperature.

See also: A Review of the state of Climate Science

New study shows that carbon dioxide is responsible for only seven percent of the greenhouse effect

Comments on the alleged megadrought

During the past few weeks, media have been hyping alarm about a new study  that claims that the Southwestern US is entering a megadrought and that the drought is made more severe by human-caused global warming. That claim is based on tree-ring analysis and computer modeling speculation.

Droughts have occurred due to natural cycles, but there is no physical evidence that carbon dioxide emissions play a significant role is controlling global temperature or precipitation. The new paper presents no evidence that alleged “human-caused” global warming is making the drought worse, it is just speculation. In fact, many droughts are associated with cooler periods.

Let’s put things in perspective. Here are the data for the past 1,200 years. It seems that “megadroughts” have occurred naturally, without any human influence.

These data show that the 20th century was wetter than normal. However, the next graph shows that there have been droughts. But, rather that entering a megadrought, we seem to be emerging from a dryer period according to NOAA.

The graph above comes from a 4-minute video posted by Tony Heller, on his “Real Climate Science” blog. This video destroys claims that the western United States is currently experiencing a nearly unprecedented megadrought. Video: https://youtu.be/W9xCWDZmUT4

 

Related:

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

The Broken Greenhouse – Why CO2 is a minor player in global climate

A Review of the state of Climate Science

Drought in the West