https://twitter.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1848359716180869290
Let’s do this again. . .
Here are 10 fundamental questions that climate pant-soilers never answer.
➊ You claim that the Earth is overheating. That it’s “too hot.” So, what is the correct global mean surface temperature (GMST) for life on Earth and why? 🌡️
Please provide a numerical answer. Use units and round it to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius. Then, explain why that value is ideal and cite evidence to justify your answer.
➋ What is the correct atmospheric CO₂ level for life on Earth?
What is best to optimize our agricultural productivity? 🌽
What CO₂ level will make da weatha less scary? 🌪️
Give your answer as an exact value as a mole fraction or volume percentage, and then explain why that value is ideal.
➌ What exactly makes CO₂ “pollution”?
The EPA considers CO₂ to be a pollutant, legally speaking, under the Clean Air Act, and their scientific justification is simply that, it “…𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑓𝑎𝑟𝑒.”
That’s pretty ambiguous.
Because by that measure, water vapor should also be classified as a “pollutant” because it’s also a “greenhouse gas” (GHG) — it’s also the most abundant and potent GHG; it absorbs a wider spectrum of IR wavelengths than CO₂. 🌈
So, what actually makes CO₂ pollution?
➍ Why are temperature departures from 1850-1900 climate conditions deemed as the human welfare control knob given that the overall human condition has never been better than it is today? How is was climate during the end of the Little Ice Age — the coldest period in the last 10,000-years — preferable to today’s? On what account was the weather more benign? By what measure? Be specific. Tell me how the climate was supposedly less dangerous in the 17-19th centuries.
➎ The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that President Biden signed into law in 2022 was popularized as the “biggest climate bill in history,” but ever since the bill was signed, climate alarmists insist climate change has only gotten worse.
Why are we not seeing the bill work its magic? 🎩 🪄
🔗https://axios.com/2024/07/21/biden-legacy-election-2024
➏ If we spend $75 trillion to decarbonize the economy by 2050, by how much will it reduce the GMST by the end of the century? Please provide your answer to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius and show your calculations.
What does the perfect climate look like? How will we know when we get there? By what measure?
➐ The estimated cost of net zero by the year 2050 in the U.S. is $75 trillion ($3 trillion per year), according to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. 💰
🔗https://politico.com/news/2024/07/27/yellen-amazon-climate-change-00171522
That’s a hefty price tag. 🏷️
And with ~260 million adult taxpayers, it would cost each of us $288,461.54 to get to “net zero emissions” by the target date. That’s 3-6-years’ worth of peoples’ salaries.
Are you willing to shell out that money, or do you just expect that everyone else will foot the bill for you? 🤔
Secondly, if you don’t know the answer to question six, then are we supposed to just spend that $75 trillion and see what happens? 🤨
➑ If “combating climate change” is a global concerted effort, why do China and India get a free pass to continue emitting carbon dioxide without bound?
➒ Why are you so vehemently opposed to the deployment of nuclear power? It is the safest, most sustainable “carbon-free” energy technology and without the compliance regulations, isn’t expensive when compared to solar PV and wind, which are inefficient, intermittent, costly add-ons to existing electricity generation sources.
➓ If humans are a parasite to the Earth since we are destroying it, why then are you worried that climate change could wipe us all out? Wouldn’t that be better for Earth? Why don’t you be the change you want to see and “net zero” yourself?
I guarantee not one person will give me a coherent point-by-point answer.
“I guarantee not one person will give me a coherent point-by-point answer.”
Given that there are climate alarmists stating that
these questions would not be that hard to answer for those alarmists!
Now as avid WUWT reader you might disagree with their point of view and likely have a good reason for it, but does not change that if alarmists believe in those two points, they would know how to answer to all those questions.
these questions would not be that hard to answer for those alarmists!
Then why haven’t they?
For example alarmists
However, like I already wrote, a strong believe in my two statements above would give an alarmist the answers to those questions.
I think every academic should have to answer these questions before they can be considered for a position. Every academic already working should have to answer these questions to keep their job.
Let’s be clear : I’m from the significance of the middle class’ passage of time and my mother saved us, you know ?
“What is the correct atmospheric CO₂ level for life on Earth? … etc”
Of course we don’t know that. What we do know is that we have built a massive population and civilisation in our present climate, CO2 etc. If you want to change that, let’s hear reasons why that will still be OK.
Not an answer.
You are the one advocating that we have passed a reasonable increase in both temperature and CO2 concentration. Therefore it is up to you to define the proper values for each of these.
Word salad !
ROFLMAO.
Nick has just exposed himself for what he is .. a HATER OF HUMANS and HUMAN CIVILISATION.
Cannot answer a single one of the questions.
Stokes has been asked #2 multiple times in the past and has done a Sir Robin each time.
Isn’t that a sceptics question? Certainly one I’d ask Miliband if I ever met him.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
A perfect example of a dead-on arrival comment that doesn’t address anything of the 10 questions posed.
It’s a warmist/alarmist climate SCAM, nick!
🙂 I like that you are now free to comment as you like, without feeling the restrictions of being a site moderator. 🙂
Your presuppositional argument isn’t even hinted at.
Ok. The point made is a question to be added. Nick does have a negative reputation, but ignore that for the moment and look at the points made.
Nick is suggesting a question to be added to the 10:
we have built a massive population and civilisation in our present climate, CO2 etc. If you want to change that, let’s hear reasons why that will still be OK.
Rephrasing it: Why do you want to destroy everything humanity has built?
lol. even when they DO net-zero themselves, they do it with a bucket of gasoline.
Chris,
I follow your excellent X account. One question I would like answered is, how has the air temperature been consistently and comprehensively measured, at a height equivalent to a Stevenson screen, above our oceans (which form ~70% of our planet) since land surface temperatures began being recorded (badly) from about 1884 when the Stevenson screen was first adopted by the British Meteorological Office.
It seems to me that without this data, any question of reliably assessing the average temperature of the planet at any point in time is rendered null and void.
I am aware, of course, that we have had the advantage of satellites which accurately record temperatures in the troposphere above the oceans since the mid 1970’s however, as climate alarmists are at pains to point out, humans don’t live in the troposphere.
Does anyone know if Argo floats, which have only been active since 2000 but not providing full ocean coverage until 2020 – 2024 I believe, have the facility to record air temperatures at the required height above the ocean surface? I can’t find any reference to it on the Argo website.
They do not. Their temperature sensors are designed to measure the temperature of water being pumped over the temperature sensor.
My first question to liberals is to ask them that if CO2 is catastrophic, what percent of our atmosphere is CO2? I say if it is that bad it must be what, 20, 30, 40%? They don’t have clue. When I tell them it is .04% they are shocked. We go through the process of how low it is, the impact on plant life, etc. At the end of the conversation a light comes on for many of them.
Here is how to really freak them out: One kilogram of air contains 0.000645 kilograms of CO2.
Hardly:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FIkE_VgWUAE0mQg?format=jpg&name=900×900
From this YT video ….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA
“I use ink to demonstrate how CO2 can have a big impact on warming the earth even though it is a very small percent of the atmosphere.”
What a bizarrely ANTI-SCIENCE LOAD OF CRAP !!
But you, having obviously ZERO comprehension of science, wouldn’t realise just how incredible STUPID the analogy is. !
Ten Fundamental Questions {or fewer}
If you want the questions to be read and talked about – change the presentation and the plan.
First get rid of all the extras, such as “Please provide ,,, mole fraction,,, spectrum of IR wavelengths, etc.” A googly number of people have heard the word “mole” in contexts other than chemistry. As part of a substance, not so many.
Address the questions as though a skeptic has met a green activist that implores saving the planet; and the skeptic responds:
Thou must tell me what temperature is best.
Thou must tell me how much saving Earth will cost me.
Thou must explain why China and India are burning more, not less, coal?
Thou must tell me how many people nuclear power has killed?
Once the simple questions are written like this, then offer to schools for posting in science classroom. An image search for “10 commandment posters” will suggest formats. Various media outlets might cover the resulting discourse.
Chris, DW just had a regurgitation of the UN’s latest drivel. I copied your 10 questions and sent it to the author, who is probably a young reporter. I am also sending it to my kids and grandkids. Make people think for themselves instead of blindly accepting crap from “experts”.
I understand that is GLOBAL cost?
Still waiting for the “climate expert” Nick Stokes to weigh in with those serious point by point answers. It’s not after midnight now Nick.
About 2:30pm in Victoria at the moment. 🙂
Probably painting his toenails.
OK
1-2 Nobody is trying to get to a perfect temperature etc. We just say that we have conditions at the moment that allow us to support 8 billion people and an advanced civilisation. Let’s stay that way unless someone can convince all of us that there is something better we should move to.
3. This is just US legalism.
4. Strawman. Who says LIA was better?
5. Another strawman. Who said the IRA was magic?
6-7. We don’t know. But if we put all that CO2 in the air, then what will happen?
8. China and India don’t get a free pass. But they emit much less per capita than we do. We have to start the ball rolling.
9. Nuclear power? Opposition is widespread – not confined to climate, and indeed many climate folk support it. The key problem for me is, what is our solution for nuclear waste? It remains harmful for a very long time.
10. Parasite? Silly rhetoric.
None of these answer the questions.
They are just very low level and VERY PETTY EVASIONS.
You have just admitted you have ZERO ARGUMENTS to put forward as a shill for the AGW scam.
1… “and an advanced civilisation.. Let’s stay that way”
Then why do you support an agenda that has a stated aim of bringing down western civilisation??
Even you must know that enhanced atmospheric CO2 make the planet capable of supporting larger populations.
3… Ok, so its just legal BS.. we all concur. CO2 is NOT a pollutant at any level ever attainable in the atmosphere.
4… LIA was colder.. you have just admitted that warming has made life better.. Well done. 🙂
5… You have just admitted the IRA is a load of BS that will accomplish nothing but the destruction of US society.. the unstated aim.
6,7… Planet will become more fertile and grow more food (no evidence that anything else will happen) Decarbonisation of the economy that runs on carbon-based everything, is complete and utter madness.
“We don’t know.”.. Then FFS sake stop wasting all the money. !!
8… “We have to start the ball rolling.” WTH does that even mean..
… do you want to destroy western economies so China and India can catch up quicker ??
9… Your comment is based on ignorance.
10… Yes, many of your pathetic AGW cohorts do think humans in general are a parasite.
Chris is totally correct..
You are totally incapable of a coherent, rational answer to any of the points.
Answers….
“The EPA considers CO2 to be a pollutant, logically speaking…”
Just one more thing.
The idea of the Earth heating up suggests this keeps happening when the Earth’s energy balance is perturbed. It does not.
The response of surface warming caused by any positive radiative imbalance is re balanced by the warming of the surface this creates, which ends when the additional energy radiated to space by the surface temperature change equals the perturbation to restore thermodynamic equilibrium.
The whole earth system is constantly being rebalanced in a small range of average temperature by the strong and natural feedbacks of the energy loss in the latent heat of additional water vapour evapoartion, which is all lost to space as radiation on condensation, and the smaller Stefan Boltzman direct radiative effect, plus a bit of coud action.
Nature imposes thermal equilibrium on any established body in space. THat energy balance is what controls the surface temperature. Barely changed by a couple of W/m^2 of GHE/AGW. And that control state is convergent towards whatever temperature will deliver that balance in the changing void of space.. So the current radiative change since 1850, by whatever cause it really is, is already rebalanced by the increased loss rate to space in response. THat rate will have to increase further to change the current temperature of the rebalanced system. Obvious or what?