“Contributing to”―Foolish Words in the Climate Change Debate

By Steve Goreham

Originally published in World Net Daily.

Earlier this month, The New York Times featured an article titled “Hockey in the Desert.” The article concluded that by building a hockey stadium in Las Vegas, the National Hockey League was contributing to climate change. The phrase “contributing to” is used over and over by political leaders and the media to voice concern about human-caused global warming, but “contributing to climate change” is a meaningless phrase.

In his address at Georgetown University in June of 2013, President Barack Obama stated, “…the planet is warming, and human activity is contributing to it.” In 2011, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said, “…climate change is occurring and that humans play a contributing role…” In Congressional confirmation hearings, Energy Secretary Rick Perry affirmed that man-made activity was contributing to climate change.

Every human activity contributes to climate change. If you have a housecat, it “contributes to” climate change. As we burn sugars in our body, we produce carbon dioxide (CO2). Every time you exhale, you breathe out 100 times the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. The real question is “What is the size of human contribution compared to natural factors?”

Earth’s climate is amazingly complex. It’s driven by gravitational forces of our solar system, radiation from the sun, and cosmic rays from stars in deep space. Climate is a chaotic, interdependent system of atmosphere, biosphere, ocean, and deep oceans. Climate has been changing through cycles of warming and cooling, tropical ages, temperate ages, and ice ages throughout all of Earth’s history. Climate change is not only real, it’s continuous.

Energy from the sun drives all weather on Earth. Sunlight falls directly on the Equator and Tropical Regions, where much energy is absorbed. Sunlight falls indirectly on Polar Regions. All elements of Earth’s weather, storm fronts, hurricanes, the jet stream, and even ocean currents, are driven to redistribute energy from the tropics to the poles.

The oceans have a powerful effect on Earth’s climate. The Gulf Stream current in the Atlantic Ocean dominates weather and temperatures in Europe. The El Niño cycle in the Pacific Ocean affects weather all over the world. The oceans have 250 times the mass of the atmosphere and can hold more than 1,000 times the heat.

Aerosols are an important factor in Earth’s climate. Dust from volcanos, desert dust, and pollen from plants rise into the atmosphere and influence the climate. Yet today’s climate scientists are obsessed with the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a small part of the overall picture.

Carbon dioxide is a trace gas. Only four of every 10,000 molecules in our atmosphere are CO2 and the amount that human industry could have added over all of our history is only a fraction of one of those four molecules.

Earth’s greenhouse effect, the capture of outgoing infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, is said to be strengthened by emissions from industry and is blamed for human-caused global warming. But even the greenhouse effect is dominated by natural factors. Earth’s dominant greenhouse gas is neither carbon dioxide nor methane. Water vapor is Earth’s dominant greenhouse gas. Somewhere between 70 and 90 percent of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor and clouds.

Even the majority of the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere was placed there by nature. The oceans hold 50 times as much carbon dioxide as the atmosphere and the oceans are continuously releasing CO2 and absorbing CO2. When plants die, they release carbon dioxide, and they absorb CO2 when they grow. Volcanos above the surface of the ocean, and about ten times as many under the surface of the ocean, continuously emit CO2 and other gases into the environment.

Every day, nature puts about 20 times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as all of human industry, and removes about the same amount. If we halted all industrial CO2 emissions, we probably could not measure a change in global temperatures.

Political leaders and newscasters, understand that the phrase “contributing to climate change” is meaningless, so please try to use something a little more intelligent.

Steve Goreham is a speaker on the environment, business, and public policy and author of the book Outside the Green Box: Rethinking Sustainable Development.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

110 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
M___ S___
July 5, 2018 10:53 am

Every time I light a match, I contribute to heating the environment——which may be a good thing, since there is no proof that a warmer climate wouldn’t be more beneficial to our species.

littlepeaks
July 5, 2018 11:00 am

Someone ought to compute The New York Time’s contribution to climate change (and publish it).

Robert W Turner
July 5, 2018 11:01 am

Missing a big variable on the chart — total mass of the atmosphere. This affects planetary climate far more than composition.

rocketscientist
Reply to  Robert W Turner
July 5, 2018 3:18 pm

I had read that as implied with the thermal mass mentioned (which isn’t exactly the same, but given that most of both are the same substances it goes hand in hand).

July 5, 2018 11:14 am

Steve Goreham:

Carbon dioxide is a trace gas. Only four of every 10,000 molecules in our atmosphere are CO2 and the amount that human industry could have added over all of our history is only a fraction of one of those four molecules.

Except that man is responsible for (near) the full one of these four molecules, not a fraction of it.

Another point: quantities in CO2 “reservoirs” like the oceans don’t contribute, as long as these are not exchanged.
CO2 exchanges between reservoirs don’t contribute, as long as inputs and outputs are equal.
Only the difference between inputs and outputs contributes, and that is negative for the sum of all natural in and out fluxes over the past 60 years, while the human contribution is mostly one-way positive and twice the CO2 increase in the atmosphere…

But I agree that climate “science” is full of weasel words, because of lack of real science… The “contribution” of that extra (human induced) CO2 to climate change still is very questionable…

rocketscientist
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
July 5, 2018 3:59 pm

Are you suggesting that 25% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere is due to man?

Reply to  rocketscientist
July 6, 2018 12:24 am

At least 12.5% probably is and up to 25% might be. While our annual contribution is minuscule, over the past 150 years, we have moved a lot of carbon out of geologic sequestration and into the active carbon cycle.

While each individual molecule of CO2 has a brief residence time in the atmosphere, it takes more time (maybe >500 years) for the anthropogenic carbon to move back into geologic sequestration (E-folding time).

Every source of preindustrial CO2 estimates, apart from Antarctic ice cores, indicates that CO2 could have risen from 280 to 320-350 ppmv without human assistance… But, at least 50 ppmv is on us… And not terribly relevant to the climate or marine geochemistry.

Reply to  rocketscientist
July 6, 2018 4:56 am

rocketscientist,

Just a matter of balance: at least since the Mauna Loa and South Pole measurements started, humans in average have added twice the amount of CO2 each year than was measured as increase in the atmosphere.

In every year, there were more human emissions than increase, thus in every year nature was a net sink for CO2, despite the huge (mostly seasonal) in/out fluxes between atmosphere and oceans/vegetation. Both the oceans and vegetation are proven, increasing sinks for CO2, thus not the cause of the increase.

See further: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html

John Bell
July 5, 2018 11:22 am

Another weasel phrase is, “emerging science suggests…” I hear on TV ads.

Bruce Cobb
July 5, 2018 12:00 pm

Within the Greenie ideology, every human child born “contributes to” the death of our planet.
Because “carbon footprint”.

John F. Hultquist
July 5, 2018 12:19 pm

Nice photo at the top of an atmospheric action “contributing to” – – weather.
I’d head for shelter.

July 5, 2018 12:54 pm

I just remembered that I was having a discussion with my sister this morning about foolish words, but the particular words under discussion were not associated with climate “science”.

Talk about foolish ! There’s a popular statement of well wishing here in the southern United States, and it stems from religious beliefs. It’s a group of words that some people use to wish you well, at the end of an interaction, where you part company with that person — where the phrase is the last thing said. Those words are, “Have a blessed day.”

I assume that the day is supposed to be blessed by a higher power in my favor. But, assuming a person believed in a higher power, how can I be the one to HAVE this blessedness, if the higher power does not bestow it upon me ? It’s not up to me to HAVE it. No matter how badly I might WANT it or how badly YOU might want it for me, I cannot HAVE it, unless the higher power signs off on it. Just telling me to HAVE it is like telling me to usurp this power from the source and bestow the blessedness upon myself, no matter what the higher power might think of it. Are you telling me that I can have it no matter what the higher power might think? Maybe the higher power does not want me to have it, and yet you tell me to have it anyway. Again, its not up to me ! Why do you tell me to have something that requires a higher power to sign off on it first ? Have you personally cleared this with the higher power, before instructing me to accept it ?

Anyhow, that was the gist of the conversation.

Even though I do not operate on the premise of a sentient higher power, I could gladly deal with a less foolish phrase, like, “May you have a blessed day” or “I hope your day is blessed”, but just telling me to HAVE it is far too presumptuous and out of touch with how such blessedness is, in faith, acquired.

Okay, I’d best try to relate this to the topic, for fear of having an off-topic rant killed in moderation.

What would a climate alarmist tell you as a parting wish of good fortune ? — “Have a zero-carbon day” ??

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
July 5, 2018 10:03 pm

It is shorthand for (May you) have a blessed day.

Same as Goodbye is (May) God be wi’ye…

Marcus
July 5, 2018 1:00 pm

“Scott Pruitt resigns as EPA chief, Trump announces”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/05/scott-pruitt-resigns-as-epa-chief-trump-announces.html

Oh crap !!! (I think) ?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Marcus
July 5, 2018 1:33 pm

The snowflakes are probably wetting themselves with joy over this. Let them. It will be all the sweeter when they realize they haven’t won a thing.

Coeur de Lion
July 5, 2018 1:57 pm

We wouldn’t be here if the climate was not self-adjusting

Gamecock
July 5, 2018 2:42 pm

“contributing to climate change” is a meaningless phrase.

Since ‘climate change’ is a meaningless phrase, ‘contributing to climate change’ is meaningless.

zazove
July 5, 2018 3:32 pm

“What is the size of human contribution compared to natural factors?”

That question is relatively simple and the answer well known. But then straight to the disingenuous talking points…sigh.

“Carbon dioxide is a trace gas. Only four of every 10,000 molecules in our atmosphere are CO2 and the amount that human industry could have added over all of our history is only a fraction of one of those four molecules.”

“Every day, nature puts about 20 times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as all of human industry”.

That is the parrotted garbage that “contributes” to the deliberate misinformation and doubt-mongering of vested interests. Shame.

July 5, 2018 5:31 pm

“Sir, would you like to make a contribution to Climate Change?” Ans: Apparently, I already am.

Reply to  BallBounces
July 6, 2018 12:26 am

I gave at the office (literally… I’m a petroleum geologist).

Chris
July 5, 2018 11:29 pm

“Political leaders and newscasters, understand that the phrase “contributing to climate change” is meaningless, so please try to use something a little more intelligent.”

Steve, instead of just criticizing, why not provide a suggestion?

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
July 6, 2018 3:54 am

Please find my recent article “Fallacies in studies of Global Warming vs Agriculture”, published in Acta Scientific Agriculture, Vol. 2. issue 8, pages 33-39, 2018 [Mini Review]

https://www.actascientific.com/ASAG/pdf/ASAG-02-0141.pdf

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

July 6, 2018 6:19 am

It’s like they are not taking Climate Change seriously.

Climate Change May Have Claimed A Significant Victim – The Barents Sea
https://www.evolving-science.com/environment/climate-change-claimed-significant-victim-barents-sea-00712

brian
July 6, 2018 6:30 am

Perhaps I missed the MSM headlines on this, but with the steady drum beat that we are destroying the environment, how many people know that the “U.S. has been reducing CO2 emissions faster than any other nation on Earth over the last decade”?

https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2018/07/06/more_natural_gas_is_slashing_us_co2_emissions_110310.html

michael hart
July 6, 2018 9:01 am
Marcus K
July 7, 2018 7:41 pm

Loved the article. One minor critique though… At the end, you say “we probably could not measure a change in global temperatures.” (and I agree), but saying [probably could not] is really no different than [contributing to] in the sense that this article is trying to argue against. The alarmists could easily just get hung up on that one phrase and completely overlook all the facts it presented. Cheerio! 🙂

Fin
July 12, 2018 7:04 am

My favourite is any action by the luvvies is to “tackle” climate change. Tackling is big in Climate World.

Verified by MonsterInsights