Opinion By Dr. Jay Lehr & Tom Harris
Thanks largely to Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders and 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg, “existential’ was selected as the word of the year by Dictionary.com. The on-line dictionary describes the phenomenon as follows:
Searches for existential spiked throughout 2019, especially after politicians used the word to characterize the dangers and disruptions climate change is widely held to pose for human life and the environment as we know them.
At a town hall on February 25, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders helped send searches for existential up over 179% when he called climate change “an existential crisis that impacts not just you and me and our generation but our kids and our grandchildren.”
Search volume for existential was higher than average throughout summer and fall 2019. August witnessed fires rage across the Amazon and Hurricane Dorian ravage the Bahamas. Many outlets and organizations discussed these disasters not only in connection to climate but also in existential terms. The non-profit Amazon Watch, for instance, framed the conflagration starkly: “ … it’s not only the Amazon, but our entire planet that is in crisis as the devastation of this life-giving biome poses a real, existential threat for all of humanity.”
September saw the worldwide Climate Strike and major speeches by the Swedish teenage activist Greta Thunberg. On September 18, Thunberg notably urged the US Congress: “I have a dream that the people in power, as well as the media, start treating this crisis like the existential emergency it is.”
Similarly, Oxford Dictionaries picked “climate emergency” as its word of the year. Clearly, alarmists are winning the war of words in the climate debate. Here’s why none of it makes any sense.
Our atmosphere is made up of 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 0.9% Argonne, some trace gases and only 0.04% of carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas most often blamed by alarmists for the supposedly ‘existential’ climate change threat. There is no way that this minuscule volume of life-giving gas (the only reason we can inhabit the Earth) is a threat to life as we know it today.
Direct atmospheric CO2 measurements began in 1958 at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. They show a steady rise in CO2 from 314 parts per million (ppm) in 1958 to 406 ppm in 2017.
The 40% increase from 280 ppm at the end of World War II to 410 ppm in 2019 is widely recognized to be mainly man-made, derived primarily from fossil fuels, including power plants, factories, and automobiles. But these CO2 levels are neither unusual nor dangerous when viewed in the context of the long-term record of our planet’s climate.
We know from our fossil record that CO2 levels throughout Earth’s history have averaged more than six times our modern concentrations. We also know that nuclear submarines submerged beneath the ocean for weeks at a time, average 5000 ppm CO2, with no health problem ever reported.
Antarctica has had the longest continuous accumulation of ice. It has provided data going back 800,000 years, while data from Greenland in the Northern Hemisphere gives CO2 data going back into the last interglacial period 128,000 years ago. Temperature and CO2 levels have varied during this long period, and importantly, temperature changes preceded changes in CO2. In other words, carbon dioxide has NOT driven temperatures for the last 800,000 years.
During each glacial advance, CO2 levels dropped to dangerously low concentrations, to below 200 ppm. These low levels were dangerous because the minimum threshold for plant life to exist is 150 ppm, and we nearly reached that ‘line of death’ during our most recent ice age. Not only is rising CO2 not a bad thing, it could save civilization for future generations, centuries and thousands of years into the future.
Dr. Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, who now battles the lies that alarmists often tell to enrich themselves, believes the day will come when we will be crushing limestone to add more carbon dioxide to our atmosphere. He seriously describes this future need because the record shows that over the past 150 million years in the fossil record there has been an alarming downward trend toward CO2 starvation.
The forecasters of climate doom assert that CO2 levels have never been as high as today. Well that is only true for the past 800,000 years. They prefer to view the increase of 120 ppm over the past 150 years through the narrow lens of recent geologic time. To properly analyze the current levels, we need to put the data into the proper context. During our current geologic period, called the Quaternary, there has existed the lowest average CO2 levels in the entire history of the Earth. In the lush vegetative days of the dinosaurs, the CO2 levels stood in excess of 1600 ppm. The average C02 concentration in the preceding 600 million years was more than six-times our modern era level.
The combustion of fossil fuels has allowed humanity to increase concentration of this beneficial molecule and perhaps avert an actual CO2-related climate apocalypse. The climate delusion used by alarmists in their attempts to defeat capitalism and destroy human freedom would set us back centuries to a time when backbreaking work and shortened life expectancy was the norm.
Carbon dioxide emissions are not an existential threat, but the climate alarmists most assuredly are.
Portions of this article were excerpted with permission of the author of the book “Inconvenient Facts” by Gregory Wrightstone, which is recommended for everyone desiring the full story of the climate delusion.
Dr. Jay Lehr is Senior Policy Advisor with of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) and former Science Director of The Heartland Institute which is based in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Tom Harris is Executive Director of ICSC and a policy advisor to Heartland.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Folks searched for the word – via Google? – because they weren’t sure exactly what it meant and they inherently distrusted use of the word by politicians. One can hope they found out
Indeed, the fact that this was the most searched on a dictionary site means it was the most unknown word of 2019.
…as proved by those who use it in about as irrelevant a context as people use ‘gay’
Because they have TELEVISION! All you have is graphs and statistics. What is more compelling? Real time videos of flooding,
hurricanes, fires, etc. or graphs and statistics that few understand?
They are winning the war of words but it is mostly because the average person has a near zero technical IQ. When Gore_Bull Warming believers attempt to push their rhetoric on me, I ask.. “uh.. how much CO2 is in the atmosphere anyway.” They are seldom even capable of understanding the question. I than assert .. correctly.. “it is obvious that you have done no research into this because this is the issue at the heart of the AGW aka Al Gore Warming debate.” When I do this, I win no points but I do find enormous satisfaction in seeing their confused and frustrated expressions.
I am really quite certain that Gore_Bull warming will not be a top issue for voters in 2020. The smartest way for Trump to play this is to simply downplay it until after the election.
The word “Existential” will get worn out in a few years and lose its provocative meaning, just as other overused terms have in the past! Remember, sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me!
I remember in 2000, George W. Bush had just won the Nomination to run for President by the Republican Party. The networks and cable news finished their morning conference call with the New York Times and the next word you heard 24 hours a day for the remainder of the general election cycle was “gravitas” as in George W Bush “ain’t got none.”
In a single day an exercise of spin the channel would land you on Gravitas with every spin of the dial. It was the first day that I actually had hard evidence that the news was baked in Propaganda. It was against all laws of probability that every channel would draw upon the same word on the same day and begin repeating it on an hourly basis for months on end.
The following January Bush was sworn in as president and before he could travel to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave the “homeless problem in America,” which had mysteriously resolved itself during the previous 8 years under Bill Clinton, reared its ugly head as if W was the countries landlord and people with homes had suddenly and with “Mean Spirit” been kicked to the curb. The very same homeless that Ronald Reagan had evicted in the 80’s were homeless once again. “Oh what was the country to do?”
To be clear those are the same organizations that today are beating their drums about this existential threat from man made global warm…aahhh we really meant climate change all along. Ignore them at your own peril Rocky. Words can incite the masses to break your bones and Authoritarian Governments with a powerful Propaganda Press can disappear you. Never become complacent. The unrelenting wave erodes the shore.
I remember when the BBC would use jingoistic and Euroskeptic in every other sentence. That was a long time ago, which shows how long the BBC were pushing the meme that British people who didn’t want to be ruled by Germans were of the provincial non-elite types and/or Northern monkeys. How long did it take to fix that? Phew.
My girlfriend at University studied French and she and her friends were always going on about Jean-Paul Sartre being an existentialist. Didn’t know what it meant then or now and still don’t care.
Anyone that believes AGW is a proven hypothesis is either naive or not paying attention.
Or *incapable* of understanding science. (I think this is why most people accept what they are told by the media)
+1
Robert of Texas
I am undoubtedly one of the least educated contributors to this blog. No scientific or Higher education of any type, and I get it completely.
It’s not difficult to understand that the planet is roughly 250ppm atmospheric CO2 away from certain extinction. No doubts, no arguments, if we get down to 150ppm, we are all 100% dead!
On the other hand, we know C3 plants (~95% of all plant life) flourish ~1,200ppm.
In my ill considered opinion, it also seems logical that a greener planet would naturally be better protected from the effects of drought and other natural events.
And finally, of the 0.04% of atmospheric CO2, mankind’s contribution is ~3%. Anyone stupid enough to imagine that level of contribution is dangerous, when the benefits are so ’empirically manifest’ (yes, we sceptics have have our own terms to describe the temperature change phenomenon) deserves what little they get from, or contribute to, life.
I could go on at great length here but I won’t. Suffice it to say that no one needs to understand science to follow a logical train of thought, just a little curiosity.
As usual, HotScot, you said it more eloquently than most! Agreed 100%!
That’s very kind of you Phil.
Not really. Say it’s hotter In Australia And they get more growth…. the back burn season is shorter due to the drought plus increased growth so they can’t back burn as much safely. It’s either winter and too damp and then 2 weeks later too hot Equals more fire possibly. In addition, these fires have actually burnt through areas that were back burned….
Also…. CO2 increases right?….causing more plant growth…. so causes a global effect. Why wouldn’t increased CO2 also Cause a global warming affect. If you believe the greening bit, why disbelieve the warming bit?
Because the greening bit is povable, the warming bit is not. When these great climate scientists can explain with specificity why the midieval warm period and the little ice age happened, then they can start to “show” what is causing the current (last 150 years) changes in climate.
Crap, their hokey stick didn’t even show the midieval warm period or little ice age. That simple fact is why I am an AWG “denialist”. I called BS when that fraud appeared, no other scientific research required, just my knowledge of history. But time on Climate Audit and here over the years since have only confirmed my original “opinion”. So I second HotScot’s statement:
“I could go on at great length here but I won’t. Suffice it to say that no one needs to understand science to follow a logical train of thought, just a little curiosity.”
What is your opinion Simon?
Possibly because there is a sound explanation for the effect of CO2 on plant growth. Demonstrated through observation and repeated experiments.
The effect of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 on local, regional or global temperature is still a poorly conceived hypothesis, awaiting any solid, repeatable, objective evidence.
CO2 absorbs longwave radiation. It is increasing. Lots of gases do not absorb this. A thin sheet of paper blocks more light than a 20 metre deep swimming pool. Physics mate. Not engineering.
The CO2 fertilization effect is large, measurable and significant. CO2 warming effect is small, unverifiable against natural climate change and insignificant. Growers do not pump CO2 into their greenhouses to make them warmer, but to make the plants grow better.
Climate data shows that it is wetter and cooler today than it was 80-90 years ago in Australia, completely opposite of the climate crisis narrative. This shows the insignificance of the warming effect of increasing CO2. The combination of wetter weather and increasing CO2 does benefit the plant growth, requiring more efforts around forest and bruch management. Stupid environmentalists have worked to reduce forest and brush management just as it became more important.
The catastrophic fires in Australia are not the result of climate change. They are the result of stupid environmentalists and the laws they force upon the population.
Don’t totally disagree that there are defo land reasons the fires are bad.
Just wondered what’s your opinion is on two facts in the attached article
1) the safe burni season is getting shorter making it tricky to safely burn- it’s either too wet or basically a tinderbox
2) the fact that the fire has burned through some areas where they HAVE done backburning.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/05/explainer-how-effective-is-bushfire-hazard-reduction-on-australias-fires
Australia isn’t wetter, it’s got more CO2 and dryer and hotter. Land practices defo a factor but the worst fires ever…. hmmm they might burn 10 million hectares at this rate (6mil already) which would be double 1939/1974. Whatever it’s a bad year. It’s hard to totally put that all on land management just off the cuff in my opinion.
They would of course say that they have done everything they can To avoid bushfires but it doesn’t sound like they have been totally ignoring the situation there
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/05/explainer-how-effective-is-bushfire-hazard-reduction-on-australias-fires
183 people have been arrested and charged with arson in Australia over the last several months, for lighting bush fires. ‘Man Made’ causation but not Global Warming , in fact and in deed. No ‘possibly’ waffling or ‘If you believe….’ specious arguments needed.
Yeah cos no one was arrested last year. Its only this year and the other bad fire years that the firelighters come out. Conspiracy mate.
It’s dryer which is one of the reasons they have burnt thru 6 million hectares. Which is one million past the previous record and there are 2.5 hot months to come…
Simon, what you are missing and I mentioned this to Nick Stokes in a more pithy way, I think on this thread even, is that the Calvin Cycle is linear with respect to CO2 usage. Double CO2 and there’s the potential to essentially double plant growth. Conversely, the effect of CO2 is reduced logarithmically as it accumulates. Between 280ppm and now, 415ppm, it has been neutered dramatically. If temperature rise was linear with respect to CO2 rise, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
There’s a reason that you haven’t been told this before
Where are these plants going to grow? Can’t have them in Australia or London or the U.K. in general woth 13% forest cover. The amazon is getting logged. Yeah more plant growth… but where? If the plans could grow in the region 50-100 metres off the ground then that would help.
“Conversely, the effect of CO2 is reduced logarithmically as it accumulates.”
This myth has been repeated so many times it has become one the (so-called) skeptics 10 commanments. I read it so may times I believed it. It is a myth, but the reasons it is a myth are complex and so instead of making a hash of the explanation I suggest going here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument for an easy to understand history of how and why this myth emerged.
(Suitable reading only for actual skeptics).
“A thin sheet of paper blocks more light than a 20 metre deep swimming pool.”
Simon thinks it’s confetti floating around in his beer. Who’s the designated driver or can somebody call an Uber for him?
😂, hilarious. Great scientific reply. I’ll hang about and point out things as I see fit.
Loydo January 7, 2020 at 8:24 pm
Loydo says at 8:24pm:
“Conversely, the effect of CO2 is reduced logarithmically as it accumulates.”
This myth has been repeated so many times it has become one the (so-called) skeptics 10 commanments. I read it so may times I believed it. It is a myth, but the reasons it is a myth are complex and so instead of making a hash of the explanation I suggest going here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument for an easy to understand history of how and why this myth emerged.
(Suitable reading only for actual skeptics).
You really are beyond repair aren’t you? Even your tribe knows that units of climate change are measured versus a “doubling of CO2 concentration”. Do you know anyone who thinks CO2 causes a linear change in temperature? You can show the Beer-Lambert Law is
logarithmic with two pieces of kitchen roll and a window.
Well YOU obviously can’t, but anyone with a correctly-functioning brain can.
… but go ahead anyway and show us what an increase in the effect of CO2 would have on Earth’s temperature if it was linear. Heck, we might have even reached the Marcott et al., singularity by now and set fire to the entire galaxy. I’ll help you with the math if you need it.
“Where are these plants going to grow? Can’t have them in Australia or London or the U.K. in general woth 13% forest cover. The amazon is getting logged. Yeah more plant growth… but where?”
On the fringes of deserts, for one, as satellite pictures show. Also, more densely and rapidly in already-green areas, as indicated by rising crop yields per acre.
It does Science no favors when miseducated people keep mimicking “junk science” claims as if they were factual truths.
Excerpt from article:
The claim that atmospheric CO2 was at 280 ppm in 1945 is pure agitprop, phony baloney.
The 1st accurate measurement of atmospheric CO2 was conducted at the Mauna Loa Observatory in March 1958 and it was measured at 315.71 ppm.
In March 1959 it was measured at 316.71, …. an increase of 1.0 ppm.
In March 1960 it was measured at 317.58, …. an increase of 0.87 ppm.
In March 1961 it was measured at 318.54, …. an increase of 0.96 ppm.
So, for 4 years running, the yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 was an average 0.94 ppm/year.
But, if atmospheric CO2 was at 280 ppm in 1945, …. and at 315.71 ppm in 1958, …. then atmospheric CO2 had to have increased by 35.7 ppm in those 13 years, which means it increased at an average of 2.74 ppm/year.
What the ell could have possibly caused 13 consecutive years of an average of 2.74 ppm/year increase in atmospheric CO2?.
Junk science is the answer.
It’s going up though obviously which is the main point and probably other places had other readings. I could be wrong about the second point however.
Mind you, hypotheses are not “proven”
Rather, they are “DIS-proven” by application of the null hypothesis principle of the scientific method.
If the subject hypothesis does not hold to just one prediction outcome it purports to explain upon being subjected to the null hypothesis, it is disproven, and can be rejected.
Where to start with null hypotheses disproving the AGW hypothesis . . .
When someone starts pontificating about the “null hypothesis”, you can bet they know nothing about it. Dis-proving is just what a null hypothesis statistical test cannot do. One possible outcome, is rejection, not of the hypothesis, but the null hypothesis. That is a positive for the hypothesis. The other is a failure to reject the null hypothesis. That doesn’t disprove anything either. It just says that the null hypothesis can’t be ruled out, so you can’t say the hypothesis is necessary to explain the observations. It is not disproved.
Like computer modellers who define variable constants eh Nick?
Nick,
It’s easier to falsify a prediction. For example, the IPCC’s hypothesized nominal ECS is 0.8C per W/m^2 of forcing, which represents an increase in NET surface emissions of 4.4 W/m^2 that would arise if the solar input increased from 239 W/m^2 up to 240 W/m^2. Since Joules are Joules and Watts are a rate of Joules, each W/m^2 of total solar forcing MUST contribute equally to the output. The IPCC nominal ECS predicts that each W/m^2 of solar forcing will be amplified up to 4.4 W/m^2 of surface emissions resulting in over 1000 W/m^2 of NET surface emissions corresponding to a temperature close to the boiling point of water. Obviously, the surface tempreature is not boiling, so falsification could not be more obvious.
I’m curious to see how you wriggle out of this … What part of this falsification test are you going to deny?
Nick,
As expected, crickets. It’s abundantly clear that you, nor anyone else, can dispute this falsification test of the presumed ECS since arbitrary violations of Conservation of Energy are not allowed under any circumstances.
The bottom line is that no one Joule is any more powerful than any other at the work of both warming the surface and sustaining its warmth. The work required to change the temperature is linear to T, while the work required to maintain a temperature is proportional to T^4. In the steady state, only the work required to maintain the temperature is relevant, as the temperature has already been changed. By linearizing the relationship between W/m^2 and T, the IPCC only considers the work to change T which is irrelevant to the steady state which requires work proportional to T^4.
You still haven’t learned that you can’t just ignore science that doesn’t fit the narrative, nor can you invent fake context to support the unsupportable.
So Nick you agree with climategate participant Kevin Tremberth that when it comes to agw, the null hypothesis should be discarded from the scientific method?
I guess it doesn’t really matter to the realities of the agw bullsh1t, but for the sake of your own self esteem, please stop pretending this is proper science.
Forget Karl Popper – the Great Stokes has spoken!
“When someone starts pontificating about the “null hypothesis”, you can bet they know nothing about it.” Says the man who then goes on to pontificate about the null hypothesis.
Has it ever even been a hypothesis? I don’t think so.
A conjecture from the time when it was thought by some that there were canals on Mars, never formulated as a hypothesis. Maybe Loydo or Simon can come along and formulate one for us – or Nick or Mosher?
Interesting observation Phil. Actually I believe the science became “settled” before an actual hypothesis was formulated.
ALGORE was then sent forth on morning television to declare the “debate to be over,” before a discussion had ever begun, as he was promoting his Government Sponsored Docu-propaganda.
“The 40% increase from 280 ppm at the end of World War II to 410 ppm in 2019 is widely recognized to be mainly man-made, derived primarily from fossil fuels, including power plants, factories, and automobiles.”
That increase maybe widely thought to come from fossil fuel burning but that thought is founded on unverified assumptions and erroneous calculations. Salby has shown the correct way to estimate human additions to the atmosphere. Harde has followed up with publishing and defending those and other first principle methods of determining that contribution. Berry has developed a model to compute it and published that model along with clear proof of some of the errors in the IPCC aproach. Salby has now demonstrated at least seven independent methods to get to his conclusion. No one has reasonably refuted their work. At some point this work needs to become central to any effort to control CO2 in the atmosphere because they clearly show that almost all of that 40% increase is natural.
With respect to Salby, your assertion that no one has refuted him is incorrect. Both Willis Eschenbach and I have done so each more than once, here, years ago. He made several egregios errors like misdefining efold time. Worse, he made different errors in each of his three supposed explanatory presentations. His excuse when called was reconstruction from memory. Beyond sloppy. So bad that Judy Curry decided a proposed back to back joint post wasn’t worth the effort, since so obvious.
For the record, I published in June 2019 that I was still agnostic on this question, but some very intelligent people have accepted it. What is your detailed disproof please, to counter Salby, Berry and Harde?
Best personal regards, Allan
CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/
Excel: https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Rev_CO2-Global-Warming-Climate-and-Energy-June2019-FINAL.xlsx
[excerpt}
Scientists including Salby, Berry and Harde have hypothesized that the increase in atmospheric CO2 to more than 400 ppm is largely natural and not mostly human-made. While my 2008 observations support this hypothesis, I have considered this question for ~11 years, and am still agnostic on the conclusion. Regardless of the cause, the increase in CO2 is strongly beneficial to humanity and the environment.
References:
The Keeling Curve, Scripps Institution of Oceanography https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/
Address to the Sydney Institute, Murry Salby, 2011 http://youtu.be/YrI03ts–9I
“Human CO2 Has Little Effect on Atmospheric CO2”, Edwin Berry, 2019
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/contradictions-to-ipccs-climate-change-theory/
“What Humans Contribute to Atmospheric CO2: Comparison of Carbon Cycle Models with Observation”, Hermann Harde, International Journal of Earth Sciences Vol. 8, No. 3, 2019
The mass of CO2 in the atmosphere increased by 22Gt last year.
Humans emitted 40Gt. Where do you think it went?
Into the greening of the planet.
“Scientists including Salby, Berry and Harde have hypothesized that the increase in atmospheric CO2 to more than 400 ppm is largely natural and not mostly human-made.”
IF we have had temperature increase, the hypothesiz that the increase should be “human-made” is extremely easily debunked:
How much must the temperature in our oceans increase with, to release 100 ppm CO2 according to “old-school” Henry and Dalton (gas laws)?
Have we had temperature increase?
(The answer is “not measurable” albeit calculable.
Oddgeir
Loydo – that is called the Mass Balance Argument – and others have capably debated it in these pages for over a decade – I am familiar with that argument. In case you did not read my post, I remain agnostic on this entire question.
Occasionally, when we stand down from the toxic politics, this forum serves to educate and inform. That is the objective of my question.
Kindly let Rud respond to my question, if he has the time.
You are using 2 differently sourced figures – one is an increase and one is a total. Humans have been decreasing their rate of increase for years and I believe it is currently below 3% year on year (1.6% 2017 and 2.7% 2018 but overall decreasing). That is an increase of just (3% of 40GT – your figure) 1.2GT. That is the figure you need to line up next to a global increase of 22GT.
Something else is causing the ‘increase’ of 20.8GT other than humans. Eliminating humans will not remove this underlying cause – only mitigate it.
22Gt is how much of 5,000,000Gt of atmosphere?
In order to clarify the “Mass Balance” argument:
Atmospheric pressure at sea level is about 101,300 N/m2, so that the weight of the atmosphere above 1 m2 of the earth’s surface is about 101,300 Newtons. Mass is weight divided by the acceleration of gravity, so that the mass of atmosphere above 1 m2 is 101,300 N / (9.806 m/s2) = 10,330 kg.
If we estimate the radius of the earth as 6350 km = 6.35(10^6) m, then its surface area would be 4 * pi * [6.35(10^6)]^2 = 5.067(10^14) m2. Multiplying by 10,330 kg/m2 results in a mass for the atmosphere of 5.235(10^18) kg.
Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are in volume or mole fraction. Assuming the atmosphere to be 78 mol% nitrogen (MW = 28), 21 mol% oxygen (MW = 32) and 1% argon (MW = 39.95) results in an average molecular weight of 0.78 * 28 + 0.21 * 32 + 0.01 * 39.95 = 28.96, so that the total number of moles in the atmosphere would be 5.235(10^18) / 28.96 = 1.807(10^17) kg-mol.
In order to increase the CO2 concentration by 1 ppm, 10^-6 * 1.807(10^17) = 1.807(10^11) kg-mol of CO2 would have to be added to the atmosphere. Since CO2 has a molecular weight of 44.01, this corresponds to 1.807(10^11) * 44.01 = 7.953(10^12) kg = 7.953 GT of CO2. If 7.953 GT of CO2 are required to increase its concentration by 1 ppm, the emission of 1 GT of CO2 corresponds to an increase of 1 / 7.953 = 0.1257 ppm per GT emitted.
If we are using rounded numbers for “executive summary” people, a good rule of thumb is 1 ppm increase in CO2 concentration per 8 GT emitted, if CO2 is not removed from the atmosphere by natural processes.
The discrepancy between this theoretical rate of increase due to man-made emissions and the actual observed rate of increase can be attributed to the net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by natural processes (natural sinks less natural sources of CO2).
Allen
I note your references only show one Salby video, his first, and would like to take this opportunity to list some others for your use or other readers.
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/murry-salby-co2-follows-integral-of-temperature/
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/what-is-really-behind-the-increase-in-atmospheric-co2/
In these he develops multiple derivations from first principles to calculate the evolution of anthropogenic CO2 emissions and refute Kohler 2017. His derivations all build off the conservation equation and he shows that that some of the IPCC derivations do not satisfy this basic requirement.
Thank you DMA.
Murry Salby is a friend and I spent time with him in Calgary this summer.
I really have not devoted sufficient time to his work and though I am aware of ~three of his videos, my last review was years ago.
I will try to find the time to revisit his work and that of Berry and Harde.
Regards, Allan
I’ve read those so called refutations. As an engineer familiar with the concepts, what Rud Istvan calls efold time, the alleged refutations stuck me as rather lame. DMA is spot on.
“Carbon dioxide emissions are not an existential threat, but the climate alarmists most assuredly are.”
YES! Yet too few know it since too few words name it. And should we maybe stop using misleading alarmist language? …
Dictionary.com:
Emissions: an act or instance of emitting: the emission of poisonous fumes.
“The on-line dictionary describes the phenomenon as follows:”
Can you PLEASE make quotes a different font or something to set it apart from the main text? Readers have to guess where your quote ends.
I agree that climate change is an existential threat to society, but no one has proposed what we’re going to do about those ice sheets that are going to pulverize half of the northern landmasses and aridity in the remaining unglaciated half.
If only the back radiation pseudoscience was real.
We need to pound the fact that if we’re going to reduce CO2 emissions to zero, we have to declare war on China and India. Are any of the Democrat contenders pushing for that? Why not?
Why are folks pushing an agenda they know has ZERO chance of success? They have to be exposed for the lying liars they are.
It has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with supporting the narrative. You don’t need to be a “conspiracy theorist” to understand which side is failing with their narrative. When the majority of the world catches up with the truth there will be hell to pay.
Their narrative, not limited to quasi-scientific prophecy, is more like a ball of yarns that threatens to unwind with catastrophic force. Thus the acutely phobic reaction, desperate pleas, audacious measures, following loss of a principal seat in the global sociopolitical model. Well, that, and revelation of diverse quid pro quos, carbon credits, sales of indulgences, etc. Despite their sincere hopes and dreams, the facts speak to truth, not “truths to facts” (h/t/ Biden). People aren’t that green.
(from the article)
‘Thunberg notably urged the US Congress: “I have a dream that the people in power, as well as the media, start treating this crisis like the existential emergency it is.”’
Hang on? Didn’t Nordic Thanos moan in rage that we had stolen her dreams?
Is she just making this stuff up as she goes? Or is it a literal translation from Swedish and actually means something slightly different?
You have confused me, Greta. HOW DARE YOU.
Maybe they stole her dreams of growing up and becoming a nurse, and those insidious monsters inserted “their” dream of growing up and becoming a world dictator.
Seems more likely.
Thanks largely to Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders and 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg, “existential’ was selected as the word of the year by ”
I’d like to offer Bernie and Greta my most sincere contrafibularities in their interfrastic pericombobulations!
Well played, Edmund, well played.
What a collection of tired old strawmen!
” There is no way that this minuscule volume of life-giving gas”
Yawn
“throughout Earth’s history have averaged more than six times our modern concentrations”
Yes, but we weren’t there. The question is whether we can feed 7 billion people in a different climate.
“with no health problem ever reported”
Strawman. No-one ever suggested the problem with CO2 was respiratory.
“carbon dioxide has NOT driven temperatures for the last 800,000 years”
No-one said it was. Something has to force CO2 for that to happen. We’re doing it by digging up and burning Gtons of C. Hasn’t happened before.
“we will be crushing limestone to add more carbon dioxide to our atmosphere”
We’re doing that now. But in the long term, it won’t work, an acid-base thing. The CaO residue will eventually absorb the CO2.
” In the lush vegetative days of the dinosaurs, the CO2 levels stood in excess of 1600 ppm. “
Good for dinosaurs, not so much for mammals.
Not an ounce of sense or logic in that Nick
Nick appears to be in the final stages of AGW dementia, sadly. He used to make some valid points.
Yawn.
As soon as you read disinformation like: “this minuscule volume of life” or “how can a trace gas” you know science is being abandoned for politics.
Nick, you call many of the AGW skeptic arguments a “collection of old strawmen.” What about claims made by AGW advocates–for example, (a) the average temperature of the earth would be 33 degrees Kelvin cooler if the earth’s atmosphere was devoid of greenhouse gases, (b) backradiation (i.e., the absorption by atmospheric greenhouse gases of earth-outgoing radiation in sub-bands of the IR followed by the re-radiation of a portion of the absorbed outgoing radiation back to the earth’s surface) will produce an increase in earth surface temperature, and (c) the argument that is ubiquitous (and I believe fundamental) to the AGW position: CO2 is a heat-trapping gas?
The first argument uses a model that is fundamentally flawed because it is internally inconsistent. If you’re going to develop a model to compute the earth’s surface temperature in the absence of atmospheric greenhouse gases, the model’s albedo should be representative of an atmosphere devoid of greenhouse gases. The model that produces a 33K temperature difference uses an absorption albedo of approximately 0.3, which corresponds to an earth atmosphere with cloud cover. Without water vapor (the dominant greenhouse gas) there would be no cloud cover; and as such using an albedo of 0.3 for the model of an earth atmosphere devoid of greenhouse gases is internally inconsistent.
Backradiation may in fact produce a warmer earth surface temperature; but that must be proven, not simply treated as fact. Examples (e.g., comparison of the temperature behavior of a vacuum thermos bottle versus the temperature behavior of the same thermos bottle where the vacuum region is filled with a greenhouse gas) exist where greenhouse-gas-induced backradiation results in lower temperatures, not higher temperatures. If cases exist where greenhouse-gas-induced backradiation results in lower temperatures, why should anyone believe without proof that atmospheric greenhouse gases will result in higher earth surface temperatures?
Finally, there is no such thing as a “heat-trapping gas” for the simple reason that heat cannot be trapped. If placed between a hot object and a cooler environment (to include surrounding the hot object), no substance known to man (including greenhouse gases) will prevent thermal energy in the hot object from being transferred to the cooler environment–i.e., will trap the thermal energy in the high-temperature object. Thermal energy transfer (heat) will cease only when the object and the environment are at the same temperature. If you know of such a substance, please pass that information along to the heating/refrigerating industry–I’m sure they would appreciate your help.
Based on the above, if you characterize many of the skeptic arguments as being “strawmen,” I characterize many of the AGW arguments as bering “disingenuous” in that AGW advocates deliberately use invalid scientific arguments to sway the general public that AGW is real. It might be true that many AGW advocates are unaware of the incorrectness of their arguments, but that doesn’t change the fact that bogus arguments are being used to sell the AGW position to the general public.
“The question is whether we can feed 7 billion people in a different climate.”
I guarantee that the answer is no way at the CO2 levels and temperatures of the last ice age. We know those temperatures will come back and no amount of CO2 will stop it. This is a real threat that will occur with absolute certainty and not a phony threat supported with ignorant, self righteous indignation and fake science that’s so horribly broken, it’s an embarrassment to legitimate science. The only real question is will we be able to keep agriculture from crashing as the next, inevitable, ice age arrives. Mankind was around for the last one, but not near as many and not spread across regions that will once more be covered in km thick glacial ice.
“…assert that CO2 levels have never been as high as today. Well that is only true for the past 800,000 years.”
Instead of just making it up why wouldn’t just check: its 15-20 million – back in the Miocene. When it passes 500ppm it will be about 25 million. 600ppm? maybe 30-40 million, taking us back to the Oligocene. We will have managed this in a three human lifetimes.
?fit=1200%2C869&ssl=1
So much for assertions.
And in exactly none of those eras have CO2 levels ever PRECEDED temperatures.
Clearly you didn’t get the memo. In Climate “Science” effect can precede cause.
“They are winning the War of Words. ”
Not surprising. They OWN the media, which is the battlefield the War is being fought on.
Science, now, is a different matter….
It stopped being science the minute the IPCC started its campaign of interference.
Not surprising. They OWN the media, which is the battlefield the War is being fought on.
They may be winning the battle in the echo chamber battlefield, but outside it? “Global warming/climate change/whatever they’re calling it this week” still ranks dead last on the list of issues people are concerned about and when ever policies directly affect the people (IE require money or other sacrifices from the people), the people want nothing to do with them. Lots of lip service and hypocrisy, but little in the way of actual willingness to live the belief.
You just tipped you hand Nick. “…The question is whether we can feed 7 billion people in a different climate.”
This has never been about global warming except as an excuse to menace the population, in free countries, to turn all control over to Central Planning. This is all about population control and controlling the population to the billionaires that control the puppets we call politicians.
This whole “The globe is warming and it is all our fault for burning fossil fuel” is just a ruse for the elites who fear over-population in the face of limited resources. This fear was born out of Ehrlichs “Population Bomb” and they who have the most to lose have a near manic desire to not just control but drive down population and get the masses to bless Government taking control of the distribution of resources through the bureaucracy they control.
“The question is whether we can feed 7 billion people in a different climate.”
No, the question is should we put more effort into adapting to an ever-changing world, or try to control the weather? the latter has never worked, the former works beautifully.
Semantic games. Proxies in lieu of observations. Hypotheses (“models”) with missing links infilled with brown matter in order to remain compliant with reality. How very Pro-Choice, a hard problem, a wicked solution, even. The climate is a system, that changes, not progressively (i.e. monotonically), but chaotically (“evolutionary”), and, occasionally, liberally (i.e. divergent) with an unpredictable plan outside of a limited frame of reference. The sociopolitical justification for redistributive change is not driven by science (i.e. near-domain philosophy and practice), but through empathetic appeals, psycho and journolistic manipulations forcing diverse phobias, and threats of of cancellation for anyone who denies the flat-Earth and does not remain current with the protection rackets. That said, this game is a double-edged scalpel, and fraught with risk to the hunters and judges who have the audacity to conflate logical domains, abort democracy in darkness, gerrymander the vote, and fail to provide the promised secular incentives to their followers. An existential crisis, indeed.
Yeah, what he said.
Roughly 10 years ago (+/- my hazy memory) here on WUWT, I read an account of all of the ways the Earth’s systems work to sequester CO2.
I can’t recall if it was an article or a longish, well written comment, but until then I had not been aware of how greedy for CO2 almost all things terrestrial are and how they literally take CO2 with them to their graves. It may have been a discussion in the context of the Gaia hypothesis, but I really can’t recall.
The take-home that stayed with me is that modern humans are the last best hope of preventing every last bit of CO2 from being sucked out of the atmosphere and sequestered, to end with the demise of all carbon-based lifeforms on Earth.
That’s the real existential threat. Earth’s natural processes are set up to extinguish life. Humans are the last line of defense against total sequestration of CO2.
Someone commenting just a bit before me mentioned that we may have to start liberating CO2 from limestone if we want life to continue. That’s not alarmist, and note that there’s no date on it, but the current “Powers That Be” are not even considering the possibility that we may soon (in geological-ish time) need to solve the problem of too little CO2.
The rate of carbon sequestration by biology exceeds the rate of release from natural sources, so the long term fate of life on Earth is to die off by carbon starvation. It’s a good thing mankind is here to help and I will do whatever I can to economically increase my carbon footprint.
Declaration of a “climate emergency” is tantamount to the declaration of marshal law. Marshal law is declared to combat some existential threat. It inevitably leads to human rights and freedoms going by the wayside. ALL resources of the state are at the beck and call of the state to combat the said existential threat. In the case of “climate change”, it is an enemy that has not even been defined, let alone debated as to whether it is even dangerous, let alone catastrophic.
In a perverse way, “climate change” is an existential threat to humanity, but the threat is from vainly trying to “combat” the non-existent threat.
Climate alarmists may be winning the war of words but their words so far are wasted; the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere from whatever source continues at a slightly increasing rate and likewise global human emissions show no sign of a slow-down, let alone a decline.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/plot/esrl-co2/trend
http://folk.uio.no/roberan/img/GCB2018/PNG/s09_2018_FossilFuel_and_Cement_emissions_1990.png
Apart from the ‘purely’ pecuniarily motivated, protesting and disrupting is how many of them get their jollies and others, as Richard Lindzen pointed out in 2009:
“… [are] well-meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake”.
Using google search results for something as clearly partisan as “climate change” is asking to be misled.
The web is filled with documented stories of evidence showing how Google’s AI interactive search suggestions actively skews search results compared to sites like DuckDuckGo and Bing. Bottomline, don’t trust google to be objective on partisan issues.
It’s like asking the fox if the hens are safe tonight.
I know that, you know that, and most everyone here knows that. The vast majority of people who don’t follow these things, however, aren’t aware of just how partisan Google is. They just think of it as a search engine and blindly trust that it will give them proper results. Slowly they’re learning, usually when they google on a subject that they have some familiarity that google blatantly skews the results of.
“There is no way that this minuscule volume of life-giving gas (the only reason we can inhabit the Earth) is a threat to life as we know it today.”
looks like you are losing the war of logic as well with the lame use of the ‘trace gas’ argument.
Yes
“no way that this minuscule volume…”
but
“dangerous because the minimum threshold for plant life to exist is 150 ppm”
A linear process is the same as a logarithmic process – that logic Nick?
Enviro’s credo pre-Climate Scam:
“The solution to pollution is dilution.”
Today’s qualification: “nless it is CO2.”
Which means it ain’t pollution. Despite what the Ignorati claim.
Yet the consensus science community refuses to push back on “carbon pollution.”
The great science question that lurks in the room of blind men like an elephant:
“What is Earth’s ideal CO2 level?”
Science’s great downfall.
Both Happer and Dyson clearly express that reality, but are dismissed.
ya, They dont et threshholds
Kudos to WUWT Mods for letting retarded, non-English-speaking trolls post on here. Very progressive sirs.
Then you must explain how each molecule of CO2 can raise the energy levels of the other 2,500 atmospheric molecules surrounding it to make a significant contribution to global warming.
I’m surprised you didn’t come out with the old drop of cyanide analogy.
“The forecasters of climate doom assert that CO2 levels have never been as high as today. Well that is only true for the past 800,000 years.”
We can’t rule out CO2 spikes in the past, because they blend out over time. CO2 can diffuse through ice. It takes tens of thousands of years to do much, but we have that and then some. The variation of CO2 in the record gets smaller as you go back in time, supporting the notion of diffusion. A spike like we now have would probably show up in the next interglacial record, depending on how long it lasts.
We’re going to shoot the ferals because yada yada and global warmening-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/shooters-will-cull-more-than-10000-australian-camels-from-the-air-tomorrow-because-they-drink-too-much-water-and-their-flatulence-contribute-to-global-warming/ar-BBYG4Lf
Sporting Shooters saving the planet (you have to qualify with marksmanship) and earning carbon credits so belt up snowflakes and Petaheads. LOL.
Because they have TELEVISION! All you have is graphs and statistics. What is more compelling? Real time videos of flooding,
hurricanes, fires, etc. or graphs and statistics that few understand?
The real problem is that as population expands, low IQ thinking ends up dominating the group, it was well explored in a famous Science Fiction story: The Marching Morons by Cyrus Kornbluth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons
It is in the Hall of Fame listing as it is a great story.
“The 40% increase from 280 ppm at the end of World War II to 410 ppm in 2019…”
Where does the 40% figure come from? Talking CO2 levels, 410 – 280 = 130. 130ppm/v increase from 280 (Estimated) to 410 (Measured). As a change in percentage that is 130/410 x 100 = 31%.
Now do the full maths for the full atmosphere as measured (Parts Per MILLION by volume, ppm/v);
130/1000000 x 100 = 0.013%. Show how that changes climate!
More alarmist BS.
Patrick,
I think the 40% comes from considering the start level of 280 ppm with the increase of 130 ppm. That actually equates to 46% increase in CO2 concentration, in the atmosphere.
I would personally like to see a 100% increase from the 280 PPM level we had back in the last century. I am sure 560 PPM would provide all plants and animals with a happier existence, than they had during the last little ice age. 🙂
“I would personally like to see a 100% increase from the 280 PPM level”
I would too Rod. It’s only a pity that we couldn’t have built up to it over a geological time frame, say 4 or 5,000 years, instead of 200% instananeously. It actually might have worked.
Loydo,
From where I come from, 100 years is between 4 and 5000 years so all is good with the world.
I am glad we are in agreement.
Patrick MJD: you’re quite right to ask where the 40% value came from, but unfortunately there’s a slip up in your calculation.
The formula for calculating a percentage increase is higher value minus lower value (in this case 410-280 = 130) divded by the lower value (280) and multiplied by 100 to give a percentage. So 130/280 = 0.46, multiplied by 100 = 46%.
If something increases from 100 to 1000 is that a 90% increase or a 900% increase?
The percentage of change is usually referenced to the starting point, so for an increase it’s the lower value and for a decrease it’s the higher value.
“Argonne” is not a gas!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argonne
“Marshal” is not a kind of law, either….
It is in the old west.
Green new deals in California and Australia have failed. They did not prevent wildfires which was one of the promises of GND.
Right and prudent way of handling wildfires is proper forest management and preventing ignition.
Let’s test. I have a heater in my sauna with excellent access to oxygen and plenty of dry wood (mulched). Temperature is 60 C, higher than in Australia. But nothing happens. I need to have a matchstick or a lighter.
How could wind turbines and solar panels have prevented wildfires? Manufacturing went to China. Paris accord promises that China and India continue CO2 emissions as usual. I don’t understand green logic?