Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
The article offers climate change straw man arguments that distract readers from much more relevant and important climate change alarmist flawed realities.
The article tries to limit the climate change issues discussed by only addressing possible future roles for nuclear power, excuses trying to minimize the importance of China’s CO2 emissions growth and how “decarbonization” schemes in the U.S. will create jobs.
While these issues may be legitimate in some academic context they are far removed from the realities facing climate change propagandists regarding the world’s overwhelming need to continue huge future increases in fossil fuel use (and resulting emissions) to meet the requirements driven by the globe’s developing nations economic growth objectives.
This Times article completely ignores any discussion of global energy use actual data that demonstrates the “fact” that the world’s developing nations overwhelming dominate global energy use (and emissions) with fossil fuels providing 87.5% of these nations energy consumption in 2018.
The Times article ignores energy data demonstrating the “fact” that the developing nations consumed nearly 60% of total global energy in 2018 accounting for nearly 2/3rds of all global emissions.
The Times article ignores the “fact” that the world’s developing nations increased global CO2 emissions by 4.5 billion metric tons in the last decade that overwhelmed and exceeded the developed nations 1 billion metric ton reduction of CO2 during that period. That reduction was led by the U.S. which displaced coal fuel with low cost, more efficient and reliable natural gas.
The Times article fails to discuss “facts” showing that the developing nations will further grow both their future energy use and emissions in the coming decades and by 2050 dominate world energy use and emissions by representing nearly 2/3rds and 70% of these global measures respectively.
The Times article ignores “facts” showing that by year 2050 the developing nations will increase global CO2 emissions by 8.1 billion metric tons while the developed nations CO2 emissions remain little changed.
The Times article ignores “facts” showing that none of the world’s developing nations have any present or future binding emission reduction commitments within the phony Paris Agreement making these nations signatory status of this agreement an embarrassment and signaling that the Agreement was purely politically contrived.
The Times articles concealment of critical global energy and emissions “facts” demonstrates that the primary purpose of this article was to create a distracting smoke screen to hide the “facts” of the world’s present and future global energy use and emissions reality from view.
“The Times articles concealment of critical global energy and emissions “facts”…”
In other words, it’s Propaganda.
The real question is, How dangerous is CO2? Does anybody know?
With a sufficient concentration, it can be deadly. But then again, inhaling a sufficient amount of dihydrogen monoxide can be deadly, too… At lower concentrations it’s plant food and it makes my beer and soda fizz.
Too much oxygen can kill you as well.
SMC
“With a sufficient concentration, it can be deadly.”
It seems Budweiser has an alarm set at 30,000 PPM CO2 for its facilities in Houston Texas. Tried several to make sure taste quality was not compromised.
Long live CO2
Not at all.
According to an Oct 17, 2012 WUWT post, submarines are allowed to reach 8,000 ppm CO2, or 20 times current atmospheric levels.
Curious George September 13, 2019 at 10:46 am
The real question is, How dangerous is CO2? Does anybody know?
Your question implies that CO2 is in fact dangerous. It isn’t.
Stop allowing the Climate Cult to set the agenda.
The full facts are to disruptive to their desired political goals, so they cherry pick and distort them in order to fit the required narrative. The IPCC does the same thing with the science, where the scientific truth is too disruptive to their existence, so they cherry pick and distort science to insure their survival. The pattern is clear and it’s the same misrepresentation of fact that has been a staple of partisan politics forever. It’s just become far more asymmetric lately as much of the press has picked the wrong side. But then again, asymmetric tactics are the last line of defense for a failed ideology facing defeat.
Fake News is an apt description of the LA Times. That’s why they hate being called it so much.
The LA Times confuses “facts” with lies. Other than that, though, not bad.
I agree…if they ever correct that small flaw in their reportage, they will be far less subject to the general criticism of being 100% completely fake news.
If they ever got around to printing an errata page it would likely fill an entire section.
So what? CO2 does not cause global warming. It forms only 0.04% of the atmosphere and of that small percentage only 3% is manmade.
Additionally CO2 only absorbs in three narrow wave length of sun light – 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers. This means that most of the heat generating radiation escapes it. the main green house gas is water vapor. The earth’s surface is 70% covered by water.
Yes, and in addition it should be remembered that the heat is absorbed by CO2 in a decreasing logarithmic way and so has less and less effect..
But where are the scientists who are saying this to counter the ”Group Think” of the nations led by the media, celebrities, politicians etc.?
Fact: CO2 feeds Carbon Based Life Forms.
Yup, that’s why you can’t kill yourself by holding your breath.
Naomi Oreskes? Really?
Huff said
That’s ugly talk.
Another inconvenient fact:
The US per-capita energy consumption is 295 GigaJoules (GJ). The world average is less than a third of that (76 GJ). All of Africa averages 15 GJ per capita. All those people living on a lower energy ration want to increase their energy use a whole lot more than Americans are willing to reduce theirs. And there are a whole lot more people in energy poverty than there are in energy affluence. The pressure for increased emissions greatly outweighs the appetite for reductions.
See here (page 12 in the report, but page 14 in the PDF).
That’s a good point. We could lower our energy consumption to zero per capita, and even if the gross amount of energy were transferred to the rest of the world, there would still be an upward pressure on consumption.
Can somebody please make a post about this please.. its about SF6 and the damage it us doing due to green energy…. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/science-environment-49567197
So SF6 has risen to 9 parts per trillion and each Kg is equivalent to 23,500 Kg of CO2. This means all of the SF6 in the atmosphere has the same warming effect as an increase of 0.2 ppm in the CO2 concentration. Yawn !
Relax, I just checked. SF6 has a single, very narrow and sharp absorption peak at ~10.6-10.7 um. This seems to be just about getting out of range of absorbing LWIR, so it should not be very IR active in the atmosphere. In addition, the peak is very narrow, so not likely to do much in any event.
Fear And Loathing:
The article states 23,500 times worse than CO2. HORROR!
It is GWP, the Global Warming Potential. This is a totally fake number which is meaningless in any real way. This is how it works. You take a molecule, and assign a value (however you do that). Then, you *multiply* by some amount of time you assert the molecule will be in the atmosphere before it decomposes.
A Real World Example:
You have $100 on your bank account. You have had this amount in your account for 10 years.
Well, 10 years = 3630 days. Now we calculate your “Money Potential”.
3650 * 100 dollars = 36,500 dollars, and you are rich, Rich, RICH!!!
And that is how they come up with these absurd numbers. It does not make sense for your personal finance, and it does not work for science. It does work for propaganda.
At least you article showed measured concentrations of SF6 in the atmosphere. 6 to 9 PPT!
Single digits in the Parts Per Trillion range. Any idea how small that is? 1 Part Per Trillion is equal to 1/1000 of a Part Per Billion, equal to 1/1,000,000 of a Part Per Million. It is about as close to nothing as you can get and still have something.
One time I was working down at the single digits PPT, myself. I used the most sensitive instrumentation I could build, and got good results. At that low level, *everything* goes wrong. It is not easy.
Here is the spectrum of SF6:
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C2551624&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=13#IR-SPEC
And the Greenhouse Gas of record on planet Earth, water vapor:
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C7732185&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC
(Do note the change in Y-Axis between the plots)
So, let’s see, 23,500 x 0 = ??? …ummmm… 0! That’s ZERO!!! Still!!! Now I understand that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO₂ is probably above zero, but given the inability of researchers to narrow the range of “most likely” sensitivities, I don’t see convincing proof that eliminates zero, either. Even if it isn’t equal to zero it is likely not only small, but could even include negative numbers still. So, nothing to worry about, certainly nothing worth a post!
It probably also conceals the Fact that you cannot run an Industrial Nation on “Renewables”.
A good point. Roger Pielke Jr. has looked at reduced CO2 emissions per-capita and CO2 intensity per dollar of GDP. He attributes much of the UK’s and US’s emissions reductions to simple de-industrialization. The industries that used to make things now move production offshore where wages and regulation reduce costs substantially. For global corporations, they substantially reduce costs and risks while increasing profits. Consumers get lower prices. It’s no wonder global executive suites love globalization and a lot of blue collar workers feel like they are getting the short end of the stick.
Sean,
“offshore where wages and regulation reduce costs…” Agree, we’ve been doing that for 50 years, but another major component is energy cost. No other country can compete with America’s natural gas and coal resources. We need to immediately re-develop our most energy intensive industries. The delusional left will fight it all the way but it can be done.
Talk to biotech billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong. He owns the LAT. He may not edit each story, but they have a pretty good idea what he wants to see, and doesn’t.
Then again, he may.
From the LA Times authorities–
“The land taken out of its current uses and converted into power production is 6,570 km2 (460 km2 for wind and 6,110 km2 for solar PV), or 0.08% of the contiguous US.”
“These constraints can be found in Supplementary Information Section 1.6.”
From Section 1.6 “The mathematical optimization chosen for the current paper is a cost minimization that has linear constraints with regards to the electric load requirements, the transmission and losses encountered, the facilities required to be built, and the land use allowed for wind and solar technologies.”
“The wind and solar electricity production depends, among other things, on characteristics of the weather, which are best provided by numerical weather prediction (NWP) assimilation models that are used for operational weather forecasting.”
“ Although it would be a difficult transition, the challenges are not dissimilar to previous US projects for the creation of national markets, such as the transcontinental railroads of the nineteenth century, and the interstate highway system of the twentieth century.”
While I have not read the whole 77 pages, this is beyond my electrical/ construction/ weather/ modeling/ land acquisition/ economic/ and other skills the paper claims, and was not around when they built the railroad, I do remember the interstate project and I find it hard to believe that consistent energy could be based on worldwide sun and wind, much less the US, even including Hawaii.
I do have the skill to ask who reviews these papers?
Also ignored is the “fact” that the climate alarmists are the very same people who are preventing actual and doable changes that could substantially reduce fossil fuel usage.
If not for the opposition by these groups, many more nuclear plants would be in use, under construction, and planned for the future.
The same goes for hydroelectric power made possible by building more and more dams and reservoirs.
And the same goes for fracking, which has not only lowered CO2 production back to levels of several decades ago in the US (while our population and economy have continued to grow), it has done so while greatly reducing the cost of power and also the real pollution which comes from burning coal, but which is entirely absent from nat gas combustion. Also saved is a lot of fuel burnt and money spent on transporting coal.
I would not be a bit surprised if it also takes a lot less energy to get nat gas from a fracked well than it takes to get coal out from a coal seem.
To summarize, these jackass hypocrites are their own worst enemies, if the real goal is anything like what they say…reducing CO2 production. They are the very ones actively preventing any real reductions!
And as a final word, I will predict that they will never ever get their way and cause people to commit economic and literal suicide by refusing to keep using the means by which we all stay alive, comfortable, and healthy.
Never!
Ever!
No matter how much and what color of lipstick the leftist community puts on the wind and solar pig it will still be an unattractive beast. Back in the 1970’s”alternative energy” got it’s start as an alternative to suddenly expensive oil. Continuing to mandate and subsidize bio-fuels/wind/solar in today’s energy reality is beyond stupid.
http://potentialgas.org/press-release
Record resource of 3.4 quadrillion cubic feet of potential gas.
That’s about 120 years at current use consumption. If you add in the proved reserves (not included in above), it’s about 3.8 thousand trillion cubic feet, or 140 years of runway.
At a bar last night,I found an easy way to convert fellow Canadians into “skeptics”…….Just tell them the liberal gooberment is going to ban beer because it contains too much evil co2 ….! : )
Sort of appropriate that all of your facts are in quotes.
The Times article ignores energy data demonstrating the “fact” that the developing nations consumed nearly 60% of total global energy in 2018 accounting for nearly 2/3rds of all global emissions.
How could the LA Times admit that the oft-repeated meme that … “The USA uses 85% of the world’s resources, but has only 5% of the world’s population” … is actually statistical sleight of hand, aka a LIE. Every middle schooler is taught Americans are greedy pigs, who “steal” the world’s resources. And we should all feel guilty and be punished.
“Democrats could stress that the clean energy sector is the economy’s fastest growing job sector, with jobs that are not easily automated or outsourced …” ( Oreskes )
(The New Yorker, Alex Gregory, May 11, 2009).
“… Yes, China’s CO2 emissions, as of 2017, were more than double those of the United States, but there are three times as many people in China as in the United States. In fact, per capita emissions are still far higher in the U.S. than in China …”.
========================================================
Naomi Oreskes is trying to turn the tables, it’s not the realist position that China should cut its overall emissions to the US level.
It’s her position that US per cap. emissions should be reduced to a level at or below that of China.
Chris,
I would like to see Naomi Oreskes lead by example and lower her personal emissions level to the average Chinese level or lower and demonstrate how she has accomplished that feat. Otherwise she is a hypocrite.
Most people don’t realize how many things in their lifestyle depend on fossil fuels … almost everything that can be purchased and consumed. You pretty much have to go back to an early 1800’s lifestyle to fully eliminate fossil fuel emissions. You can’t use computers or cell phones or drive any kind of vehicle other than maybe a horse drawn wooden cart, for instance. You will have to grow your own food and make your own clothing from materials you produce from your land. Maybe join a Mennonite or Amish group? Even they probably buy items that are made using fossil fuels.
Another thing I never hear discussed is that solar/wind/battery power equipment and associated raw materials are all acquired, transported, manufactured, and assembled primarily using fossil fuels. Thus rapidly ramping up their production will rapidly ramp up fossil fuel emissions. Very ironic and not at all the way to rapidly reduce fossil fuel emissions.
Thus, about the only way to rapidly reduce fossil fuel emissions over a decade or less is through severe conservation, as in reverting to an early 1800’s lifestyle. Not what most people want to do. So, if the supposed man-made fossil fuel induced climate catastrophe is coming in 12 years, we are all doomed and those who truly believe in the climate crisis might as well give up and do the best they can to adapt to its consequences (which are not at all likely anyway).
Consequently, regardless of whether you believe the climate crisis hype or not, the best course of action is simple adaptation to whatever climate change occurs. That’s what humans have done for many thousands of years and it has worked so far.
SF6 gives great response in an electron capture detector and is stable chemically so that interferences can be removed chemically. I like SF6.
Sear and Dennis, Sept. 13. make the point. Send all the high CO2
emissions industry offshore, and then pretend to be Oh So Green.
Snag is that having done that we are now reaching the point that we need
a much smaller work force than before. Result is far more people on the
“”Dole”. Forget the usual nonsense of Green jobs filling the gap.
So any decrease in the cost of goods, now mostly from Third World
Countries , will be cancelled by the higher taxes to pay for the Dole.
Of course our politicians will not want to mention this unfortunate “Fact” .
C couple that with the ever higher Cost of Living, the result of higher cost
of electricity as a result of the renewables , and a Politicians lot is not a
Happy One.
MJE VK5ELL
Forgive me, but does not this very site also use straw man arguments against renewables?
I think of the ridiculous positions advocated over the amount of land needing to be covered if all US generation is only to be derived from wind, or only from solar…
No quote
No citation
No argument
Standard Griff
Me thinks you miss the point of “straw man”. From thoughtco.com:
So pointing the consequences and drawbacks of something really proposed would not be a straw man, now would it? Granted, commenters do occasionally (read frequently) do supply straw man arguments on occasion, but this article itself is not a straw man.
Yes, every time you post.
Fossil Fuel Percentage Unchanged for Over 43 years
In the 1970s the big worry was fossil fuels would soon run out, and so we should “use them wisely”. But in the 1980s the risk changed to one of an overheating planet, and so we should not use them at all. This article shows unchanged fossil energy use from 1970 to 2013, a period of 43 years.
http://notrickszone.com/2018/01/12/green-energy-revolution-a-flop-fossil-fuels-share-of-total-energy-use-unchanged-in-40-years/ – sthash.ppb98WN4.dpbs
Fossil fuels have been 78 to 80 percent of total primary energy for at least 43 years, despite trillions of dollars having been spent on RE during the past 20 years. It appears there is plenty of FF for at least the next 80 to 100 years, albeit at higher prices.
FF CO2 emissions are only about 36.183 b Mt, FF/53.4 b Mt, all sources = 68% of all manmade emissions in 2016. Considering the extreme steepness of the FF CO2 reductions to stay within 2 C by 2100, which are impossible to implement (see graphs in URLs), even steeper reductions to reduce ALL manmade CO2 would be impossible as well, even if the entire world were to build only nuclear and hydro plants as of right now. See URLs.
http://euanmearns.com/global-co2-emissions-forecast-to-2100/#more-21109
https://www.carbonbrief.org/what-global-co2-emissions-2016-mean-climate-change
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-set-to-rise-2-percent-in-2017-following-three-year-plateau
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-world-making-almost-no-progress-towards-renewable-energy
If the LA Times owners were oh so concerned they would immediately stop massacring trees for their daily disposable product . Think of how much ink ends up in land fills .
All those uncut trees could be just a soaking up all that evil carbon .
My bet is the print MSM are looking for government subsidies to keep themselves a float
so they better play ball .
But really the two papers with the most intellectual midgets, N Y Times and LA Times ,
are sowing the seeds of their own demise .
Think of their premise to readers … stop using fossil fuels in order to control the earths temperature
and get the climate to a happy place as stated by a committee of rent seeking sleaze bags .
It is absolutely astonishing that these people have gotten away with their scam for so long .