by E. Calvin Beisner
Britain’s Prince Charles said it: “the next 18 months will decide our ability to keep climate change to survivable levels.”
There you go. 18 months.
And you thought AOC was shrill!
Why 18 months?
Supposedly because, as Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, founder and director emeritus of the Potsdam Climate Institute, and one Pope Francis’s chief advisors on his 2015 environmental encyclical, put it, “The climate math is brutally clear: While the world can’t be healed within the next few years, it may be fatally wounded by negligence until 2020.”
Ah. Yes. “The climate math.”
Is that kind of like the old “new math” that drove parents crazy back in the sixties and seventies? Or the “Common Core” math that prizes creativity more than getting the answers right? (Warning: Don’t fly on a jet engineered that way.)
“Climate math.” What a fascinating concept!
According to the average results of computer climate models, we should have seen about 0.27˚ C of global warming per decade since the late 1970s.
But the best data we have show about half that much—0.13˚ C per decade according to the University of Alabama at Huntsville’s satellite data.
Don’t get me wrong. There has been warming. But the models simulate about twice what we’ve observed.
And they simulate that as coming entirely from CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere. But the world has warmed similarly many times in the past. That makes it pretty likely that at least some of the warming we’ve seen came from natural causes, not our CO2 emissions.
What’s more, the models estimate “climate sensitivity”—how much warmer the atmosphere will be after the whole climate system adjusts to a doubling of atmospheric CO2—at 1.5–4.5˚ C with a 3˚ “best estimate.” But more empirically driven estimates put “climate sensitivity” at about 0.5–1.5˚ C.
So the models are wrong. Almost unanimously wrong. Hopelessly wrong.
(Take a look at that first graph again. The closest to right is a Russian model. Collusion, anyone?)
And if the models are wrong, they provide no rational basis for predicting future temperature. Hence no rational basis for any policy.
But don’t sweat the small stuff. “Climate math,” you know? That solves everything.
So don’t even bother to ask about the math for global temperature if the countries signed onto the 2015 Paris climate treaty meet their targets for CO2 emission reductions—and what it’ll cost.
But let’s ask anyway.
Temperature? It’ll be at most 0.17˚ C cooler in 2100 than otherwise—statistically barely detectable, and utterly inconsequential to ecosystems and human welfare. (By the way, that number’s generously calculated from the Paris treaty’s own assumptions.)
Cost? A mere $70 to $140 Trillion. And that’s just from 2030 onward—doesn’t count 2016–2030. (Again, based on the treaty’s own assumptions.)
That figures to $23.3 to $46.6 Trillion per tenth of a degree Fahrenheit. But don’t worry. “Climate math” makes that a deal you can’t pass up!
And what do the climate warriors insist we commit to, within 18 months, to achieve this magnificent result?
Simple. By 2050, cut annual global CO2 emissions by 90 percent of what they were in 1990.
But there’s a catch. CO2 emissions are forecast to rise to nearly 50 Billion metric tons by 2050, compared with about 20 Billion in 1990. Hitting the target means reducing the 2050 emissions by 96 percent.
And there’s another catch. Most CO2 emissions come from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels provide over 80 percent of all the world’s energy—and they’ll continue to do so well past 2050.
Meanwhile, energy and economic production march together almost lockstep. More energy means more production. And that means less poverty and less of the troubles it brings, like disease and early death and—ironically—a dirtier environment.
So massive cuts in CO2 emissions will mean massive cuts in energy and thus massive cuts in poverty reduction—i.e., massive increases in poverty.
And poverty’s a greater threat to human welfare than anything related to climate or weather.
But, hey, what’s to worry about? President Trump is pulling the United States out of the Paris treaty. So we’re okay.
Except for AOC’s “Green New Deal.” And such a deal it is!
Economist Benjamin Zycher did the math—the real math, not “climate math”—on the GND’s costs. He shared the results at the 13th International Conference on Climate Change, in Washington, July 25. Take a deep breath.
Just to meet the GND’s renewable electricity mandate would cost, at a very conservative estimate, $491 Billion a year—or $3,845 per household.
And then there are the indirect costs. What are those? The costs of building the political coalition necessary to turn the GND (which AOC introduced as a resolution) into law:
- $3.2 Trillion for a single-payer health care system;
- $680 Billion to guarantee everyone employment;
- $107 Billion for “free” college and family-and-medical leave;
- $200 Billion for high-speed rail (because planes won’t fly on batteries!);
- $4.5 Trillion for the marginal excess burden of the expanded tax system. (It costs a lot to collect all those taxes!)
That totals $9 Trillion a year. A paltry sum. Just slightly over two-fifths of our economy.
So the real math tells us the 18-month deadline, and the 12-year deadline, and all the other deadlines are fantasies.
What’s the real reason why Schellnhuber, Prince Charles, AOC, and others insist we have only a short time to get serious about fighting climate change?
Simple. Don’t by any means give people time to think carefully about what you’re demanding they do—time to do the math to carefully assess your case for rapid CO2-driven warming, your case for catastrophic results from it, your case for being able to prevent catastrophe by your policy, your case that the benefits of your policy will outweigh the harms.
No, no, no! Got to do it NOW!!!
E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is Founder and National Spokesman of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“And they simulate that as coming entirely from CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere.”
While if they had disregarded rising CO2 forcing and just modeled the warming of the AMO and associated changes in cloud cover since 1995, they could of estimated how little warming that rising CO2 forcing is driving.
Funny thing is, if you assume climate sensitivity = 0 all the models suddenly work.
But climate sensitivity = 0 means it is very unlikely there will ever be a climate crises, because the impacts of rising carbon dioxide concentrations decreases as concentrations become elevated. In fact we are likely through the worst impacts possible with increasing carbon dioxide concentrations – future impacts will be much less than what we have already experienced.
Which means we have all the time in the world to solve the problem – no sense in implementing costly solutions that will make little difference. we can take decades to solve the problem. Which is great because it will likely take many decades to solve the problem. Anyone promising a quick solution here is a liar. It is nota question of concern, or political will, it is how much clean energy capacity can we possibly build? Not enough to make a difference for several decades.
That’s because particle physics shows climate sensitivity to CO2 varies by altitude and temperature. The net for the whole of the atmosphere is negative, becoming increasingly negative with increasing altitude and increasing temperature.
Now, if a ‘lowly’ nuclear physics trained individual who is autodidactically adept at quantum mechanics, particle physics, quantum electrodynamics, stochastic electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics can figure this simple fact out, why can’t the so-called climate ‘scientists’?
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair
All radiative molecules play the part of atmospheric coolants at the temperature at which the combined translational mode energy of two colliding molecules exceeds the lowest vibrational mode quantum state energy of the radiative molecule. Below this temperature, they act to warm the atmosphere via the mechanism the climate alarmists claim happens all the time, but if that warming mechanism occurs below the tropopause, all it does is increase Convective Available Potential Energy, which increases convection, which is a net cooling process. So the alarmists, as usual, are wrong yet again, on every count.
CO2 is the most prevalent atmospheric coolant above the tropopause. Water vapor is the most prevalent below the tropopause, with CO2 playing a relatively smaller cooling role below the tropopause and above ~288 K. Below ~288 K and below the tropopause, CO2 does indeed cause warming… which increases convection, which is a net cooling process.
At all atmospheric temperatures, vibrationally-excited CO2 radiatively emits and thus some of that radiation is shed to space. This is a cooling process.
Below ~288 K and at low altitudes, vibrationally-excited CO2 undergoes collisional de-excitation, slightly (considering the Equipartition Theorem) warming the air and increasing Convective Available Potential Energy, which increases convective energy transfer to the upper troposphere, where that CO2 will be more likely to undergo radiative de-excitation rather than collisional de-excitation due to lower air density. The radiation from this process which exits to space constitutes a cooling process.
At temperatures above ~288 K, two CO2 molecules (or a single CO2 molecule and any other molecule in the atmosphere, due to the Equipartition Theorem) have sufficient translational mode energy to vibrationally excite a CO2 molecule to its {v21(1)} vibrational mode quantum state, whereupon some of those vibrationally excited CO2 molecules will undergo radiative de-excitation, some of that radiation goes out to space, which is a cooling process. This process is a direct conversion of translational energy (temperature) into radiation, and thus cools the atmosphere, which acts to damp temperature excursions above ~288K. With an increasing CO2 concentration, a greater number of CO2 molecules will undergo radiative de-excitation, thus the damping becomes more prevalent.
———-
All radiative emission to space is, by definition, a cooling process. The only way our planet can shed energy is via radiative emission to space.
N2 and O2, comprising ~99% of the atmosphere, are homonuclear diatomics and therefore have no net magnetic dipole, rendering them unable to effectively emit (or absorb) IR. Thus the only way they can cool is via conduction by contact with a cooler surface, or via transfer of their translational mode energy to the vibrational mode quantum state energy of radiative molecules.
———-
The radiative cooling of air via solely translational mode energy converting to radiation
CO2{v20(0)} (at 288K+) + CO2{v20(0)} (at 288K+) -> CO2{v20(0)} + C02{v21(1)} -> CO2{v20(0)} + CO2{v20(0)} + 667.4 cm-1
You’ll note the above interaction is a direct conversion of translational mode energy (which we perceive as temperature) to 14.98352 µm radiation. This directly cools the air, and the effect is significant, since nearly all the translational mode energy is converted to radiation, leaving the CO2 molecules at a very low temperature, whereupon they absorb energy by colliding with other atmospheric constituents. The effect begins taking place significantly at ~288 K, the temperature at which the majority of the molecules will have sufficient translational mode energy to convert to vibrational mode energy.
288 K also happens to be the stated average global temperature… that is not a coincidence, it is a mechanism long known, partly a result of CO2 radiative emission ramping up at ~288 K. As CO2 concentration increases, this effect will become more pronounced, increasingly damping any temperature excursions above ~288 K by increase of radiative emission via this interaction, and below ~288 K by reduction of radiative emission via this interaction.
It is not necessary for CO2{v20(0)} to collide with another CO2 molecule for this interaction to take place, any other molecule will do… the Equipartition Theorem dictates that all atmospheric constituents at the same temperature will have the same translational mode energy. So in reality, the above interaction could be represented thusly:
X (at 288K+) + CO2{v20(0)} (at 288K+) -> X + C02{v21(1)} -> X + CO2{v20(0)} + 667.4 cm-1
where X is any atmospheric molecule.
Further, you’ll note that if a CO2 molecule is already in the CO2{v21(1)} vibrational mode quantum state, a collision at just 0.1 K higher temperature (ie: ~288.1 K) can excite it to the CO2{v22(2)} state, whereupon it can emit a 14.97454 µm photon to de-excite to the CO2{v21(1)} state, and a 14.98352 µm photon to de-excite to the CO2{v20(0)} state.
Even further, you’ll note that if a CO2 molecule is already in the CO2{v22(2)} vibrational mode quantum state, a collision at just 0.1 K higher temperature (ie: ~288.2 K) can excite it to the CO2{v23(3)} state, whereupon it can emit a 14.96782 µm photon to de-excite to the CO2{v22(2)} state, a 14.97454 µm photon to de-excite to the CO2{v21(1)} state, and a 14.98352 µm photon to de-excite to the CO2{v20(0)} state.
This implies that for temperatures above ~288 K, more of the translational energy of atmospheric molecules will flow to CO2 vibrational mode quantum state energy, rather than vibrational mode quantum state energy of CO2 flowing to translational energy of other atmospheric molecules, simply for the fact that at and above that temperature, the combined translational energy of two colliding molecules is sufficient to excite the CO2 vibrational modes. This increases the time duration of CO2 vibrational mode quantum state excitation and therefore the probability that CO2 will radiatively emit, breaking LTE. Therefore the energy flow is to CO2, not from it.
In other words, at and above ~288 K, the combined translational mode energy of two molecules is higher than C02{v21(1)} vibrational mode energy, and therefore energy will flow to CO2 from other atmospheric molecules’ translational mode energy during molecular collision, simply because CO2 can radiatively emit that energy and break LTE, rather than that energy flowing back to other molecules.
You’ll note that’s diametrically opposite to the claimed mechanism by which CO2 purportedly causes global warming. Liberals tend to invert reality, and rely upon the low standard of education to sustain that inversion’s claims.
———-
Satellites see CO2 and (a bit of) water vapor radiating at the temperature of the lower stratosphere (at the ‘characteristic-emission surface’ altitude, or just less than one optical depth from TOA for any given wavelength) all over the planet. This is because ozone (O3, excited by incoming solar radiation) and collisional processes excite nitrogen (N2) to its {v1(1)} (symmetric stretch) vibrational mode, and N2 then transfers energy to the {v3(1)} (asymmetric stretch) mode of CO2 via collision as shown in the image, whereupon the vibrationally excited CO2 partially de-excites by dropping from the {v3(1)} (asymmetric stretch) mode to either the {v1(1)} (symmetric stretch) mode by emitting a 10.4 µm photon, or to the {v20(2)} (bending) mode by emitting a 9.4 µm photon.
This is the same method by which a CO2 laser works… the laser filling gas within the discharge tube consists of around 10–20% carbon dioxide (CO2), around 10–20% nitrogen (N2), and a few percent hydrogen (H2) and/or xenon (Xe), and the remainder helium (He). Electron impact vibrationally excites the N2 to its first vibrational mode quantum state {v1(1)}, the N2 collides with CO2, the CO2 becomes excited in the asymmetric stretch vibrational mode quantum state {v3(1)}, and de-excites to its {v1(1)} or {v20(2)} vibrational modes by emission of 9.4 µm or 10.4 µm radiation (wavelength dependent upon isotopic composition of the CO2 molecules) as described above. The helium is used to fully de-excite the CO2 to the {v20(0)} ground state after it’s radiatively de-excited to maintain population inversion (which is necessary for stimulated emission), but this is unimportant to the process of energy transfer from vibrationally excited N2 to CO2 in the atmosphere. The process by which the N2 becomes vibrationally excited (in the case of a CO2 laser via electron impact; in the atmosphere via translational-to-vibrational collisional processes and via vibrational-to-vibrational collisional processes with solar-excited O3) is similarly unimportant… the concept of energy flowing from N2 to CO2 is the same. Laser wavelength can be tuned by altering the isotopic ratio of the carbon and oxygen atoms comprising the CO2 molecules in the discharge tube, with heavier isotopes resulting in longer wavelength emission.
The Boltzmann Factor shows that ~10.26671% of N2 molecules are in the N2{v1(1)} excited state at 288 K due to collisional (t-v) processes. That’s 195 times more excited N2 molecules than all CO2 molecules (vibrationally excited or not).
———-
Seems obvious, 18 months is the time remaining until Trump begins his second term. End of the world as warmistas know it. Got to act NOW, before it is too late!!!
Announce cancellation of all tax havens . $31 trillion windfall going to set the earths temperature . Scary global warming would end quickly .