Editors Note: These ten questions below were compiled by Chris Martz and posted on his Twitter (X) feed. As we’ve noted routinely at Climate Realism, the media is so incompetent at even basic science, they’d never be able to answer these fundamental climate questions. If they were able to, we’d see balanced and accurate articles about climate issues rather than the usual doom-laden scare stories about a nonexistent “climate crisis” that we see nearly every day.
Guest Twitter repost by Chris Martz
Here are 10 fundamental questions that climate alarmists 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.
Several of those questions are polemically loaded, but yeah !
I’d like to corner the nightly news bimbo and ask her how much
methane and nitrous oxide are going to run up global temperature?
Just ask the news reader what the concentration oc CO2, methane and nitrous oxide are in the atmosphere.
Is this a repeat?
It’s the welcome mat for Mosher and Nick et al as Mosher was feeling a bit left out recently what with Musk and Twitter etc
Yes, because it is deserving of repeating. If you ask these questions over and over again without response from warmunists, then people will soon realize that they are dealing with nincompoops.
Umm, this was already posted on 10/24 as – Hey, cut&paste isn’t working for me. See the link above in the “related” section.
Maybe I can edit this after posting. Nope. Ancient browser? I don’t want to try this on my laptop – I’d like to stay not logged in there to see the ads from time to time.
Ric: this? https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/10/24/chris-martz-asks-climate-fundamentalists-ten-fundamental-questions/
Yep, thanks. Comments on the subject matter would be best posted over there to keep them in one place.
The same questions were in a very good and very similar article here six days ago, at the link below.
Chris Martz Asks Climate Fundamentalists Ten Fundamental Questions – Watts Up With That?
This article would have been more interesting:
Electric Vehicle Battery Size Should be Cut by One Third Due to Acute Lithium Shortage, Say U.K.’s Top Engineers – The Daily Sceptic
This article would have been useful before the election. I’m recommending it on my blog every day of the week before the election:
Decision 2024: Concise Comparison of Democrat vs. Republican Climate and Energy Platforms, by Edward A. Reid, Jr.
Decision 2024 – ORIGINAL CONTENT
Oops.
It happened several times at a science variety blog I administrate, which I had to fix.
They were 10 good questions
I’m recommending it on my blog every day of the week before the election
Just out of interest, how many follow your blog and recommendations?
Since late January 2023 my blog had over 260,000 page views and my similar old blog had over 100,000 page views, for a total of 360,000. The past 24 hours were unusually busy with over 2,400 page views. Every morning I recommend at least 12 conservative articles on climate and energy. Usually including a few from WUWT.
That’s my free public service to refute climate scaremongering and Nut Zero nonsense.
I do not publicize leftist articles that say CO2 is dangerous, or conservative articles that say CO2 does nothing.
Adding manmade CO2 makes winters warmer and makes plants grow larger. More CO2 in the air would be more good news. We do not have too much CO2. We have too much leftist climate scaremongering.
Honest Climate Science and Energy
One question only: The value of the climate sensitivity of CO2, including feedbacks. My best value 0,8°C.
Any “climate sensitivity of CO2” is pure conjecture, since any such assertion of ANY “climate sensitivity” is based on the foundational assumption “all other things held equal.”
Which they have never been, are not, and will never be.
Or worse, incorporate imaginary positive, amplifying feedbacks that directly contradict the Earth’s climate history.
Without feedbacks 0.72°C (3.9 W/m² up) – with: max 12.4% more from more water vapour – then 0.8°C) according to David Coe & al. 3.5 and 3.6. https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/article/10.11648/j.ijaos.20210502.12
Calculated from radiative absorption data without any consideration of the actions of the other 99% or so of the atmosphere.
Pure non-science.
CO2 x 2 alone measures +0.7 to +0.8 degrees C. with lab spectroscopy. There is some evidence of a positive water vapor feedback from 1980 to 2000, but not from 2000 to 2020, which means no one knows the long term effect of CO2 x 2. The global average annual absolute water vapor measurements are not very accurate.
Greenhouse warming most affects colder nations mainly in the colder months of the year and mainly at night. It is good news. Greenhouse warming does NOT affect most of Antarctica because of a permanent temperature inversion.
If I had to guess, I would guess CO2 x 2 would cause about +1degree C. of warming in the next 168 years (CO2 x 2 at a rise rate of +2.5 ppm a year from 420 ppm to 840 ppm). Almost no one would even notice.
“If I had to guess….,”
So despite having absolutely ZERO empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
You make a random “guess”.
Hilarious.. and totally meaningless.
Can yo show us the CO2 warming in the UAH data please.
“and totally meaningless”
Yep.
RG,
One more time, I remind you that CO2 does not cause warming of air. Shown in the graphic (See below) are the plots of temperatures from Death Valley from 1922 to 2001. In 1922 the concentration of CO2 was 303 ppmv ( i.e., 0.59 g/cu. m.) and by 2001 it had increased to 371 ppmv (i.e., 0.73 g/cu. m.), but there was no corresponding increase in the temperature of the dry desert air. On the basis of this empirical temperature data, it is concluded that CO2 does not warming of air.
The hypothetical calculations of the effects of CO2 on air temperature is meaningless and a waste of time. You should be
trying to put an end to greatest scientific being perpetrated by the IPCC and the collaborating scientists.
The graphic is from the late John Daly’s website:
“Still Waiting for Greenhouse” available at:
http://www.John-Daly.com.
Here is a graph from a heat transfer book showing the temperatures and pressures needed to register an emissivity of CO2.
As can be seen emissivity is near zero.
Kirchoff’s law says absorption equals emission for an isolated body in equilibrium. So just how much IR does CO2 absorb from the earth? And how much “feedback” can there be from “back radiation”?
The science, believe it or not, is, er, settled
“”Climate change: How to talk to a denier
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-61844299
Funny stuff.
Yipes!
“He says years of research have shown him that confronting people with hard evidence is not the way to go.”
“On TikTok, she debunks disinformation about climate change, but says she’s given up trying to engage with hardcore conspiracy theorists.”
Several stories about young people changing the minds of parents and a bonus take on Christianity.
I hope the younger generation thinks through the consequences of this worldview.
I wish I shared your optimism
They’re not dumb, just inexperienced.
Modern everyone-goes-to-college lifestyle has delayed their confrontation with reality by at least 4 years.
““He says years of research have shown him that confronting people with hard evidence is not the way to go.””
“Hard evidence”. That’s funny! There is no hard evidence showing CO2 can discernably affect the Earth’s climate or weather. If you can’t discern it, then you can’t claim it exists.
Methinks this person doesn’t know what “hard evidence” looks like.
The guy is a “social psychologist”, whatever the **** that is. !
He doesn’t need “facts” or scientific knowledge for anything..
Everything is just fantasy and baseless hallucinogenic opinion to him.
It’s been my experience that Climate Alarmists won’t talk to “Deniers” because when us deniers ask pointed questions about CO2 and the Earth’s climate, the Climate Alarmists decide that’s the end of the conversation. They do so because they don’t have any answers.
decide that’s the end of the conversation
A few years ago I had someone I was talking to (briefly) in person agree to continue our conversation via email. I started off by proposing that we agree on a few ground rules, such as “what constitutes a valid source”. That was the end of the conversation.
Story tip –
‘Climate’ Policies in a Harris Administration › American Greatness (amgreatness.com)
I heard on the news this morning that Biden has issued 64 Executive Orders related to curbing oil and gas production in Alaska.
That’s the Harris policy, too.
Nobody in Alaska should vote for a Democrat. They are costing you a lot of money in their efforts to destroy the United States.
The decision makers are under the control of the lefty woke world order. Their modus operandi is UN Agenda 21/2030 to control totally the way the people world wide live. Project Fear is the way mis-information is spread. It would not help their dishonest cause if they were to answer the questions truthfully. Pinocchio is the only answer or maybe rhe demise of the human race eventually.
The woke mind virus.
A derivative query::
What is the end game?
How do we know we met the goals? (Assuming the goals are not constantly moving.)
What follows? Once we met the goal, then what? What’s the plan?
An important question is that: since all of life on earth is based upon the energy gathered from the sun’s radiant energy by photosynthesis, and there being six CO2 molecules REQUIRED for that process, how can plant and animal life survive if there is little or no CO2?
Another question arises about how such a crucial for life molecule can be labeled a pollutant?
We might also want to ask why that when CO2 has been far greater in earth’s past, the vegetation was far greater than it is today when there is far less CO2, and why it is increasing now as CO2 increases
What has happened to the little diagrams some of us were shown in grade school about how our breath contains CO2 that the plants breathed in to strip out the carbon to make food for us, and then breathed out O2 for us to breathe?
I mentioned to Mr. Martz on the X post: Why are we using GMST for anything?
Have to have some metric. I’m not saying GMST is measured correctly or processed correctly or communicated correctly. Just – how else do you benchmark whether or not Earth is gathering or losing energy? What should replace it?
“What should replace it?”
The only legitimate calculations of the temperatures comes from regional, written temperature records, and from satellite measurements from 1979 onwards.
The regional, written temperature records show it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today, but with a lot less CO2 in the air in the past.
What this means is that CO2 is a minor player in determining the temperatures of the Earth.
It was just as warm in the recent past with less CO2 in the air and although CO2 has increased in the air since that time, the temperatures are no warmer now than then, so CO2 has had no disceranble effect on the temperatures.
Global Average Temperatures before 1979, are just made up numbers created to make it appear that the temperatures have been getting hotter and hotter and hotter and today is the hottest time in human history. But it’s all a BIG LIE and the regional, written temperatures demonstrate that it is a BIG LIE.
The bastardized global temperature record is the only thing the Climate Alarmists have to scare people with about CO2 and it is completely made up in a computer out of whole cloth, to promote the Alarmist Climate Change narrative..
If you want the truth about the Earth’s climate, you have to look at the historical record which refutes the computer-generated Hockey Stick global temperature creation.
Without the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick temperature chart lying about the temperatures, the Climate Alarmists wouldn’t have anything to talk about. They NEED that bogus Hockey Stick!
I have some problems including the question “What does the perfect climate look like?”
The earth does not have a climate but for convenience the Köppen climate classification has 30 climate zones and subzones. Within each of these there are areas that do not neatly fit in. Man has shown an incredible ability to adapt to the hottest and coldest, dryest and wettest. Climate alarmists speak as if there is a homogeneous thing called climate while there is not. Anyone who has passed high school Geography should recognize that these alarmists are talking nonsense and there is no ideal climate, only varying weather conditions that are more pleasant at times and worse at others as we move through the four seasons.
+100
When you are dealing with the Global Mean Surface Temperature, all the issues you mention are moot.
Global warming IS the only issue all the hubbub is about and it is only a statistical construct of badly measured and maintained surface data. Everything else concerning its effects is purely speculation.
The Global Mean Surface Temperature is a meaningless construct when one has so many climate zones and variations in each and four seasons. If one were to speak of the mean age of humans, it would tell us nothing about the spread of ages or the spread within each nation, or changes within each group. It is a meaningless number. You are right about speculation among alarmists. This has nothing to do with science which is concerned with real observations and individual and specific measurements and experimentation.
/sarc alert — Michael stop making simple sense of the earth’s various climates. Don’t you know if one is to speak with any, any authority on climate one requires 17 letters after one’s name and must be an ‘expert’ in modelling and simulation.
You also used the S word, seasons. In today’s post-modern world of ‘climate’, the 4 seasons don’t really exist anymore. The world and its inhabitants now undergo a series of never-ending rotating ‘catastrophic weather events’ (really bad things happening) when the temperatures are either extremely cold or hot.
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?
Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) 5.3°C
why? 68% of total solar irradiance heats ( 25% of the planet (tropics 68% of 17.3^11 watts is 11.79^11 watts), that is then spread over 68% of the planet 346.8^6 km2.
This average heat fits atmospheric thermodynamic temperature.
Average heat 340w/m2
Thermodynamic temperature 278.3K (278.3-273=5.3C)
101325 1 bar pressure is made up of 278.3 kelvins times 364.08 Joules of energy(=101325=364.08*278.3).
Earth has natural variablity and therefore cooling (spring) cancels out any warming (fall).
What is the correct atmospheric CO₂ level for life on Earth?
At present we have 9 billion people on earth. This population would not be possible if CO2 had stayed flat.
What exactly makes CO₂ “pollution”?
EPA consideration is political not factual. Therefore CO2 is not pollution. Making the other questions irrelevant.
“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? “
Exemplifies what Steve Case called polemic above. Reduce it to “what is the correct global mean surface temperature for life on Earth?” for less combative conversations.
“and why?” seems an inevitable piece of the response – I can’t imagine someone answering “15.1234567C” then waiting for a follow up question.
“Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) 5.3°C”
Meaningless.
Simply average every 10th latitude temperature from 90 north to 90 (note 85 for each 45 degree longitude) south for every 45 degree longitude. You will get around 5C. If you fail to complete this simple task then your post is meaningless.
Sites to use.
Ventusky – Wind, Rain and Temperature Maps (private company)
earth :: a global map of wind, weather, and ocean conditions (Academic site)
Polar temperatures differ w/ nullschool warmer.
This all does not matter, as I have recently heard of the answer to question #11:
https://phys.org/news/2024-10-professor-optimal-glass-chill-beer.html
you can buy these beer glasses on Temu for $1 a dozen.
I never get involved with discussion about graphs, the green house effect , ice melt or any of the subjective too and fro sword fencing.
My question, put to NASA GISS, CRU, UK MET OFFICE and umpteen advocates of man made climate change is “where can I find the definitive cause and effect observational evidence demonstrating the claim of man made climate change?”
No one has ever answered the question with the words “here is the requisite evidence …”
Science reflects life. If you suspect someone is pulling the wool you ask for evidence, robust evidence, that you can inspect, question and dissect. It is the basis of the scientific method applicable to all physical science.
If a group demands humankind should change in the manner preached re the claim they better be able to demonstrate their case. Indicators of a warming planet are NOT such evidence neither are models and spoof hockey stick temperature representations.
“No one has ever answered the question with the words “here is the requisite evidence …””
That is correct. Nobody has this answer because there is no evidence they can point to. If they had any evidence, you can bet they would be putting it forward. That they don’t put anything forward is the clue that they don’t have anything to put forward.
It’s easy to shut Climate Alarmists up: Just ask them to produce the evidence. They can’t do it, as you noted.
That’s all a person needs to know to be skeptical of human-caused global warming/climate change.
I would like to add a question of my own. How have all of our efforts that we have performed to date, to deal with climate change, affected climate change?
They haven’t.. so.. just like CO2.
Good comparison! 🙂
Another question for the alarmists is how much are they doing individually to combat all these problems. Chances are good that if they were to be candid about their efforts, they would amount to very little.
Climate alarmists and von der Leyen the president of the European Commission are delighted by the floods in Spain and blaming them on climate change. This is a Mediterranean area with winter rainfall and I would not be suprised if one were to look at the records that there have been numerous winter floods going back to 1900 and earlier. I hope one of WUWT contributors will write an article demolishing this alarmism about the Spanish floods.
BBC headline..
“Spain battles deadliest flood disaster IN DECADES as death toll rises to 95.”
So… deadlier ones a few decades ago.
Another quote found….
“A large number of floods have been recorded in Valencia, from 1321 up to recent history, with the 1957 Valencia flood caused by a 3-day cold drop, resulting in significant overflowing of the Túria river and resulting in at least 81 fatalities”
Yes, weather history always puts things in perspective.
The Grauniad today has two articles about the floods.
The first talks about “Spain’s worst flooding in almost 30 years” and quotes a bar owner saying “It had been a long time since this happened and we were scared” BUT then went on to quote Fredi Otto and her apocalyptic approach.
The second was normal Grauniad ‘Deadly storms and extreme heatwaves are two sides of the same coin’ saying researchers from the Barcelona Institute for Global Health “found that climate breakdown was behind more than half the 68,000 heat deaths” in 2022
Is climate change the cause of von der Leyen’s stupidity and ignorance?
11. If there is a natural equilibrium level of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, what do you suppose it might be? Please account for the fact that plant growth is optimized around 800 ppm.
“Question 12: At what level of concentration does atmospheric CO2 become a threat to non-plant life?”
Hm, that is 21 questions although most of them are on repeat. It is fixated on the US and thus not general.
To fix this, the condensed version is:
So actually 5 questions that make sense and are not rhetorical or loaded with prejudice as the remainder of the 21 posted.
My favourite is number 4 in my list. That will provide never-before-seen levels of confusion amongst the believers.