Trump’s pick for energy secretary thinks climate change is good, actually
Chris Wright, a Big Oil CEO picked by Trump to lead the Department of Energy, says the planet could stand to be a little warmer.
Dec. 9, 2024, 4:00 PM CST
By Ja’han Jones
Over the years, the arguments against taking meaningful action against climate change have evolved from raising doubts about the science to claiming that rising temperatures might not be caused by human activity. Now President-elect Donald Trump is pushing it in an entirely new direction: Climate change is good, actually.
Trump, who has mused that rising sea levels might lead to more beachfront property, announced recently that his pick for energy secretary is Chris Wright, a Big Oil CEO who has downplayed the risks of rising global temperatures and argued that climate change might actually be good for the world.
[…]
Per the WSJ:
A fracking executive, Wright acknowledges that burning fossil fuels is contributing to rising temperatures. But he also says climate change makes the planet greener by increasing plant growth, boosts agricultural productivity and likely reduces the number of temperature-related deaths annually. “It’s probably almost as many positive changes as there are negative changes,” he told conservative media nonprofit PragerU last year, referring to climate change. “Is it a crisis, is it the world’s greatest challenge, or a big threat to the next generation? No.”
[…]
MSLSDMSNDCMSNBC
That is as far as I read Mr. Jones’ ignorant screed. If anything beyond the WSJ quote is worth reading, hopefully someone will let me know in the comments.
For starters, Chris Wright is not a “Big Oil” CEO.
Big Oil is a name sometimes used to describe the world’s six or seven largest publicly traded and investor-owned oil and gas companies, also known as supermajors.[5][6][7][8] The term, particularly in the United States, emphasizes their economic power and influence on politics. Big Oil is often associated with the fossil fuels lobby and also used to refer to the industry as a whole in a pejorative or derogatory manner.[9]
[…]
Chris Wright is the CEO of Liberty Energy, an oilfield services company. While fairly large, with a current market cap of ~$3.1 billion, Liberty doesn’t even rank in the top ten companies in their industrial sector. Liberty is primarily involved in unconventional well completion services (AKA frac’ing). They are also involved in Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) delivery and logistics.
Integrated Alternative Fuel and Power Solutions for Remote Applications
The oilfield is undergoing a generational technology shift in fuel use from diesel to clean-burning natural gas, with Liberty at the forefront of this change. Liberty Power Innovations (LPI) bolsters Liberty’s technology transition by vertically integrating fueling and power services with compressed natural gas (CNG) supply, and well-site fueling and logistics.
LPI’s on-site fuel distribution service reliably distributes natural gas to pumps and gensets in concert with all sources of natural gas fuel supply.
One would think that MSNBC would be applauding a future Secretary of Energy who is currently at the forefront of an actual “shift in fuel use from diesel to clean-burning natural gas.” But, that would require an IQ greater than Peter Dinklage’s shoe size.
Regarding future Secretary Wright’s views on climate change, Robert Rapier summed them up quite well in this Forbes article:
Chris Wright’s Stance: Not a Climate Change Skeptic
Unlike traditional skeptics, Wright acknowledges that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas contributing to atmospheric warming.
As Forbes columnist Christopher Helman noted in a profile piece on Wright, “He has stated publicly for years his belief that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that is no doubt making the atmosphere warmer than it otherwise would be.”
This acceptance separates him from outright climate change deniers. Wright’s positions focus more on the economic and practical implications of addressing climate change rather than disputing its existence.
Economic and Practical Perspectives
Wright’s approach mirrors a school of thought that challenges the economic feasibility of extreme climate measures. This group may argue that measures like carbon taxes and green energy subsidies disproportionately burden economies and lower-income populations without guaranteed benefits.
Another perspective emphasizes human adaptability, arguing that societies have historically overcome environmental challenges and can adapt to future changes without drastic interventions. This is coupled with the belief that media coverage overstates the immediacy and severity of climate issues to create sensationalist narratives, leading to public misunderstandings.
Lastly, some challenge the notion that proposed solutions will be effective or equitable. They argue that the costs and disruptions associated with transitioning to renewable energy or implementing climate policies might outweigh the benefits, particularly when the scale of global emissions reductions needed seems daunting and the efforts of developed nations might be offset by rising emissions in developing economies.
[…]
Conclusion
Chris Wright’s views highlight the tension between environmental goals and economic considerations. While critics may label him a skeptic, his acknowledgment of carbon dioxide’s role in global warming distinguishes him from outright deniers.
The debate over his nomination reflects broader societal challenges in achieving a sustainable and equitable path to addressing climate change. As the global community continues to grapple with these issues, the importance of nuanced and balanced policymaking cannot be overstated.
Here is a link to the actual PragerU interview of Chris Wright. Nothing he said was wrong or even controversial. Definitely worth watching. His positions on energy and climate change are very similar to those of Steve Koonin, Michael Shellenberger and Bjorn Lomborg.
Regarding climate change having been good so far…
“Climate change makes the planet greener by increasing plant growth”
Credits: Boston University/R. Myneni” (NASA)
“Boosts agricultural productivity”
“Likely reduces the number of temperature-related deaths annually”
“Bettering Human Lives”
Liberty Energy Inc. Releases 2024 Bettering Human Lives Report
DENVER–(BUSINESS WIRE)– Liberty Energy Inc. (NYSE: LBRT; “Liberty” or the “Company”) proudly announced today the release of our 2024 Bettering Human Lives report, highlighting the central role that energy plays in human lives.
“A thriving energy system enables a thriving society and a future of opportunity. Unfortunately, politics is increasingly dominating the trajectory of American energy with growing consequences. The costs of getting energy wrong include reduced living standards, fewer job opportunities, reduced national security, and reduced environmental quality,” commented Chris Wright, Chief Executive Officer. “Bettering Human Lives seeks to inform readers and drive thoughtful dialogue surrounding the tradeoffs at the nexus of energy, climate, poverty, and prosperity. The comprehensive report is filled with real-world case studies and segmented into six sections: Energy, Energy and the Modern World, Energy Poverty, Climate Change, Climate Economics, and an in-depth section on Liberty Energy.”
“Liberty strives to be a force for disruptive change in the energy industry with our culture of excellence, technological advancements, and our quest to advance energy production. We strongly support all energy sources that improve our energy system and better lives,” continued Mr. Wright. “Earlier this year, we announced the launch of the Bettering Human Lives Foundation specifically to address this most urgent energy access issue, furthering our ambition to deliver the secure, affordable, reliable energy vital to human success. Liberty has provided $1 million of initial funding to kickstart the BHL Foundation’s efforts to provide better access to clean cooking fuels in Africa. We hope that many more will join us in this endeavor to improve the health, longevity, and expand opportunities for those currently living in energy poverty.”
Key Takeaways from the 2024 Bettering Human Lives Report:
- Energy is essential to life and the world needs more of it!
- The modern world today is powered by and made of hydrocarbons.
- Hydrocarbons are essential to improving the wealth, health, and life opportunities for the less energized seven billion people who aspire to be among the world’s lucky one billion.
- Hydrocarbons supply more than 80% of global energy and thousands of critical materials and products.
- The American Shale Revolution transformed energy markets, energy security, and geopolitics.
- Global demand for oil, natural gas, and coal are all at record levels and rising — no energy transition has begun.
- Modern alternatives, like solar and wind, provide only a part of electricity demand and do not replace the most critical uses of hydrocarbons. Energy-dense, reliable nuclear could be more impactful.
- Making energy more expensive or unreliable compromises people, national security, and the environment.
- Climate change is a global challenge but is far from the world’s greatest threat to human life.
- Zero Energy Poverty by 2050 is a superior goal compared to Net Zero emissions by 2050.
“Our mission is to better human lives. Human happiness comes through relationships, love, and a strong life purpose. Preconditions for these ultimate ends are food, shelter, health, education, and longevity,” continued Mr. Wright. “None of these are possible without energy, and the quality of each depends on the degree of access to affordable, reliable, and secure energy.”
The Bettering Human Lives report is available for download at www.libertyenergy.com. Requests for the printed report can be made at Liberty’s website, or please contact BHL@libertyenergy.com.
About Liberty
Liberty is a leading North American energy services firm that offers one of the most innovative suites of completion services and technologies to onshore oil and natural gas exploration and production companies. Liberty was founded in 2011 with a relentless focus on developing and delivering next-generation technology for the sustainable development of unconventional energy resources in partnership with our customers. Liberty is headquartered in Denver, Colorado. For more information about Liberty, please visit www.libertyenergy.com. For more information about the Bettering Human Lives Foundation, please visit www.betteringhumanlives.org.
“Climate Change is Good”
(Borrowed from The Pilgrims and the Little Ice Age.)
Who else remembers the 1970’s?
Observed temperatures were consistent with models of natural forcing mechanisms up until about 1975.
Even if anthropogenic CO2 emissions are actually the cause of all of the warming since 1975, we’d still be in “The Ice Age Cometh” mode if not for fossil fuels.
Giving Thanks for Fossil Fuels
From 1800 to 1900, per capita energy consumption, primarily from biomass, remained relatively flat; as did the average life expectancy. From 1900 to 1978, per capita energy consumption roughly tripled with the rapid growth in fossil fuel production (coal, oil & gas). This was accompanied by a doubling of average life expectancy. While I can’t say that fossil fuels caused the increase in life expectancy, I can unequivocally state that everything that enabled the increase in life expectancy wouldn’t have existed or happened without fossil fuels, particularly petroleum.
Our modern society would not exist without fossil fuels and it would collapse in a heartbeat if fossil fuels were made unavailable and/or unaffordable. One of the coolest things about being a petroleum geologist, is that I can give thanks for fossil fuels and say “you’re welcome” in the same sentence.
Frac On!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’ve been telling people that CO2 is on net, a positive thing for the planet for years.
Cold bad.
Global warming saves lives.
How are you able to post an image? I can no longer find such an option.
See attached image.
Only works for certain people, I don’t get the image button.
Language language language we have to stop letting the other side put words in our mouth. We don’t claim CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas stop saying we do. We don’t deny global warming, we are glad it is warmer than the Little Ice Age. We do not deny that climate changes, it has always changed and always will. Our problem is with the idea of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. It is CAGW that the other side uses to scare the crap out of people. But they don’t use those words, they need to be able to claim we deny the obvious like denying CO2 as a greenhouse gas or that the globe is warming or that the climate changes. They know exactly what they are doing and they are perfectly happy being dishonest. We are being lazy to not call them on it.
Control the language, control the ideas. — K.Marx
It is easier to control the language when you can silence opposing points of view.
Could you provide a reference to K. Marx saying or writing this, direct quote or paraphrased? Anything. I’ve seen this attributed to him, but never any proof.
I am not admirer of K. Marx or his ideas, I am anti-communist, I just dislike fake quotes.
Here something similar is attributed to Saul Alinsky
https://patriotmusic.com/control-the-language-control-the-masses/
“He who controls the language controls the masses”.
–Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
Rules for Radicals was published in 1971. Orwell described the dynamic in 1947 and developed it in his 1948 work, “1984.”
What does any of this have to do with K. Marx?
Nothing. It simply pre-dates your Alinsky reference.
We should also stop using the term “fossil fuel”. It’s hydrocarbon fuel.
Coal is indisputably a fossil fuel, but natural gas and oil are likely geologically sourced, not produced simply (or solely) from decayed prehistoric biological material. The universe is filled with hydrocarbons, and the Earth acquired vast quantities of hydrocarbons from the primordial material that formed the crust.
Coal is not an indisputably fossil fuel either. Most, if not all of the famous imprints of “plants” shown to gullible public are nothing more than geometric fractal patterns similar to plant-like structures on frozen glass like these https://www.vecteezy.com/free-photos/frozen-glass
Animal remains found in coal do not require coal itself to be made of animal or plant remains. Embedding of animal remains occurs due to coal deposits formed from constantly outgassing methane around those objects. In locations of active coal formation coal deposits can contain objects that are only a few 100 years old.
All of these resources should be called mineral hydrocarbons. Coal also is not just carbon, it has a lot of aromatics and other long cyclic and chain hydrocarbons.
We are calling them out, but telling people to be afraid has always been more effective than telling them not to be, and it is a sure means to control them. The elite have perfected the technique and know how to make it relentless. Most of us who are not trying to be in control lack that level of persistence since we have other motivations, I suppose.
Oh, yes, CO2 is a GHG, but the effect is no more than 1.3 to 1.5 C per doubling, and supposed runaway feedback models are contradicted by paleo proxies. And the temperature rise is from the Little Ice Age, not some Arcadian paradise.
Most hard greens have other goals than “climate change”.
I fail to see how an increase of 0.5% of greenhouse gases could possibly generate a 4% to 5% increase in the greenhouse effect (estimated to be about 30K)
CO2, a weak GHG with a 0.042% presence, increases temps by 1 C, an effect about 24 times its presence? That is too outrageous to even consider.
The tropics is the 800-lb gorilla of the climate
Almost all evaporation takes place in the tropics, 24/7/365
Water vapor, a strong GHG, at least 62 times more abundant, near the surface, in the tropics, than CO2, plus the rest of the atmosphere, increase the temp from -18 C to + 15 C, or 33 C
“no more than 1.3 to 1.5 C per doubling”
There is no empirical scientific evidence that it causes any warming whatsoever. !!
Frac On! 🤠
Regarding Figure 2. about wheat – 1960-2021
While waiting for installation of new truck tires, I just read the 2024 harvest report of the Washington Association of Wheat Growers. The 2024 crop was in great shape at the time of the publication, although I don’t recall the specifics.
Also, this has been a tough 10 days for wind facilities in the PNW and Europe.
What a delightfully radical departure from our current Department of (no)Energy. Instead of constant threats to our existence, attacks against our ways of life and shouted down as a virus and danger to the Earth we have a charismatic leader who believes in human flourishing and is active in his own private life to extend the benefits of abundant, reliable energy to as many people who desire it.
He’s a “lukewarmer”.
His personal speculation about CO2 and the Earth’s temperatures opens the door for the Climate Alarmists.
Nobody can tell us how much warmth CO2 has added to the atmosphere. The number could be from zero to 4.5C. That’s quite a range of temperatures. Who is to say which number is the correct number?
The only way to judge the current situation is to look at past weather history. It was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. CO2 was not considered a factor during that time period. Yet, today there is much more CO2 in the air than then but it is no warmer than then, so why should we assume CO2 is causing this warming when it didn’t cause the previous, similar warming?
What are you basing your speculation about CO2 on, Chris? What evidence do you use to reach your conclusion that CO2 is perceptibly raising the temperatures?
You are going on “hearsay”, aren’t you, Chris.
Yes.
Referring to figure 5 (that derives from the IPCC AR6 2022) if the increase in well-mixed anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere was the cause of all the warming since 1975 surely the atmospheric temperature anomaly map for the planet 1979 – 2021 would show more uniform warming instead of some areas even a few thousand kms apart showing +/-1C differences over 40 years 🤔.
his acknowledgment of carbon dioxide’s role in global warming distinguishes him from outright deniers.
Who, exactly, are these outright deniers? Yes there are some. There are several that show up in comments here. But the vast majority of skeptics are skeptical of the sensitivity or the predictions of doom or (more likely) both. They always have been. It was Naomi Oreskes who hung the “denier” moniker on us, in part to discredit us by associating us with holocaust deniers. She succeeded, painting all skeptics with the same stink and it has taken us until now to just begin washing the stink off.
It will continue to cling for some time, but its fading. If this was the only dragon Trump had to slay, it would be dead Jan 21st. But he’s got a whole slew of dragons, climate change is probably not even on his top 10 list. Could Iran get the bomb? That’s on the list because the consequences could be disastrous. Precisely because he knows that climate change is not disastrous, it will be lower down his list.
But the end of days for the denier accusation are on the horizon. I used to say the alarmism would collapse of its own weight, but I might not live to see it.
Unless I get hit by a car or something, now I think I’m going to see it.
“It was Naomi Oreskes who hung the “denier” moniker on us …”
Years ago, I read it was Doris Kearns Goodwin, historian, on a radio or TV interview. I no longer find a source for this. 😢
Of course not. The first thing the guilty do is bury the evidence.
I’ve heard other names too, but most often Oreskes, and my earliest recollection of it was definitely tied to her. That said, one of the amazing things about the election was that Trump would say something, and the next day, the MSM, every last one of them, would have the exact same criticism using the exact same words. It was so obvious that the talking points were being centrally coordinated it was laughable. Laughable and terrifying all at the same time.
I would not be surprised if the climate cabal didn’t have similar mechanisms in place. They certainly weren’t doing science so they had plenty of time on their hands.
Can it matter in the least if it was Oreskes or not? Her other crimes are far more than enough to damn her.
As much as the whole AI wave concerns me because the LLM’s can so easily be taught to lie, they have their uses. I posed the question to ChatGPT who provided a rather comprehensive answer.
The short version is that ChatGPT doesn’t know for certain who first coined it, Naomi Oreskes was absolutely the person to popularize it in her book Merchants of Doubt.
Goodwin? Well, her book, “Team of Rivals” was awesome- read it twice. That got me into reading many other biographies of presidents. She should stick to history and stay away from climate politics.
I like to ask what I/we actually “deny” that they can provide solid, uncorrupted, empirical scientific evidence for………
What I deny is that any Climate Alarmist knows how much warmth CO2 adds to the atmosphere. They don’t know this number. The numbers are all over the place and some of them are close to zero. Claiming you see CO2 warming in the climate is delusional.
Climate Alarmist certainly can’t tell us the net effect of CO2 warming after feedbacks are counted in.
There has never been a runaway greenhouse effect on planet Earth even though CO2 has been much higher in Earth’s history. There is certainly no reason to expect to see one today under current conditions.
There is no certainty about how CO2 interacts with Earth’s atmosphere. Some people like certainty in their lives, so they see what they want to see, not what’s really there.
When I get into an argument with an alarmist, the first thing I ask them is how the physics of the GHE works. 9 times out of 10 I get to say, oh dear, that’s not even close.
So before I can have an argument with them, I first have to explain to THEM what THEIR side of the argument actually is.
Of course that doesn’t change the outcome. The outcome is I refute all their claims, they call me a denier, and argument over. Like clockwork.
“climate change is probably not even on his top 10 list”
It probably is because he knows how important it is.
Climate change is seriously involved with Drill baby Drill.
Rather than skeptic, a better term would be pragmatic.
That sounds exactly correct. I’m not sure on what planet that equates to stating that Climate Change ™ is ‘good’, however.
He never literally said “climate change is good”… Although everything he actually said could be summed up as climate change over the past ~200 years has been good for humanity. However, his main points revolved around the benefits af abundant, reliable and affordable energy.
If you are one of those who believe “climate change” includes all floods, droughts, heat waves, then you aren’t going to believe it is good….see the problem with MSM terminology on the general public here ?
How about this…to the extent that “climate change” exists (a very nebulous term that can be used and interpreted in multiple ways), the effects are essentially neutral; good and bad effects (however defined) tend to balance out.
In other words, exactly as it’s always been.
I’m waiting for somebody to demonstrate that CO2 has a negative effect.
There seemed to be a remarkable number of changes on Planet Earth before human beings were a twinkle in some thing’s eye or eyes.
We are still on the planet now because we have survived and survival relies largely upon making ‘right’ choices at ‘right’ times. You don’t get many chances to get stuff right if you keeping choosing wrong.
Boy, are you naive. Don’t you know that the weather (and climate) were perfect and idyllic until 1979, when satellite records began and started to document the travesty that humans were unleashing on the planet?
Humor – a difficult concept.
— Lt. Saavik
How can that be? I thought weather caused the ’29 crash. It’s caused everything else :<)
Show me some ‘climate change’, please…
Look out the window. Every time the weather changes, climate changes.
Climate is the (current IPCC definition) 30 year average of weather.
Damn silly answer: You will have to do better that that.
The Boosts Agricultural Productivity chart is deceptive
According to current research, the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 50 years has contributed to a modest boost in agricultural production, with studies estimating a global average increase in crop yields of around 10%,
The significant increase in global agricultural productivity over the past 50 years is primarily driven by advancements in technology, including improved seed varieties, genetic modifications, better farming practices, advanced machinery, efficient irrigation systems, and wider access to fertilizers, which allow farmers to produce more food per unit of land with less labor, leading to higher yields and overall output despite a relatively stable amount of farmland available
Should have included this one…
And this one…
As with anything complex, there is no single driving factor.
CO2 is definitely NOT the control knob of the climate (or even temperature, the misused proxy for climate).
“As Forbes columnist Christopher Helman noted in a profile piece on Wright, “He has stated publicly for years his belief that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that is no doubt making the atmosphere warmer than it otherwise would be.””
First, I think Wright will be a terrific Energy Secretary. His views along the lines of Alex Epstein, Bjorn Lomborg, Steve Koonin, etc. will help the formation of better policies.
But I also take note that his “belief” as expressed here that incremental CO2 is “no doubt making the atmosphere warmer than it otherwise would be” arises from the same unsound origins of the climate movement that has taken things to extremes.
There are very good reasons to doubt that the minor incremental static radiative effect of increasing concentrations of CO2 can ever be isolated for reliable attribution of ANY of the reported warming.
The atmosphere modelers know this, as the physics and math of energy conversion in the general circulation is fundamental. This is why I post about the ERA5 “vertical integral of energy conversion.” More here at this very short time-lapse video. Please read the full text description.
https://youtu.be/hDurP-4gVrY
CO2 has a trivial, but non-zero, affect of the specific heat capacity of the atrmosphere.
As CO2 concentration increases, 1 J will cause a miniscule higher temperature per mol (Cp) of air.
The effect is both real and trivial.
I fully agree with your first sentence.
I think the increase in mass over rides the change in Cp so added CO2 requires more energy to maintain same temperature.
Q = Cp * m * dT
‘There are very good reasons to doubt that the minor incremental static radiative effect of increasing concentrations of CO2 can ever be isolated for reliable attribution of ANY of the reported warming.’
Correct. ‘We’ need to stop paying lip service to the well-known, but minor, radiative only effects of ‘doubling’ CO2 from present levels and start emphasizing the preponderance of geological evidence that much larger CO2 fluctuations over the last +/- 65 million years have never driven the Earth’s climate.
“‘We’ need to stop paying lip service to the well-known, but minor, radiative only effects of ‘doubling’ CO2 from present levels…” Agreed. I see this as an important point in the current state of the climate debate.
In my view, skeptics should stop conceding that “some” warming should be expected to result from emissions of CO2, or that emissions “contribute” to the observed warming. No one knows that.
So rather than using the paleo findings, I find it more compelling to use the observations from space (the GOES band 16 visualizations) and the dynamical computations from ERA5 to most directly counter the core misconceptions of the climate movement. These are state-of-the-art scientific products which show that attributing the rising temperature readings to “greenhouse gases” has been unsound all along, even as the incremental static radiative effect is a real thing.
The paleo and current observations, including those that show both ASR and OLR increasing ASR concurrent with lower cloud cover, all contribute to a preponderance of evidence that the alarmist narrative of trapping OLR is completely unscientific. Add in the demonstrable cloud uncertainty of the models that dwarfs their projected GHG forcings, and it’s ‘game over’ for any harmful impacts from fossil fuel emissions – past, present and future. Which reminds me, it’s the time of the year when they run ‘A Christmas Carol’ on a seemingly endless loop.
“Game over” – True!!
About “A Christmas Carol” – I love the Muppets version with Michael Caine as Scrooge.
The only decent version is the 1951 version with Alistair Simm as Scrooge. Prove me wrong.
““As Forbes columnist Christopher Helman noted in a profile piece on Wright, “He has stated publicly for years his belief that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that is no doubt making the atmosphere warmer than it otherwise would be.””
How much warmer is CO2 making the atmosphere? Anybody? Chris Wright doesn’t know the answer to that question. Nobody knows the answer to that question. Yet here we have people pretending they know the answer.
I wonder what Trump thinks about CO2?
‘I wonder what Trump thinks about CO2?’
Notwithstanding the Left’s passionate belief that their opponents are Nazis and/or buffoons, the evidence is that Trump is a ‘quick study’, which means that he sees ‘CO2’ as one of main weapons being used by the Left to tear down the West. Hopefully, this means he’ll quickly get some good people to bring the long-repressed counterfactuals and questions to the IPCC’s / EPA’s politicized alarmism into the public domain, so that the citizens of even the ‘bluest’ states can readily see that they’re being had.
“How much warmer is CO2 making the atmosphere?”
“Nobody knows the answer to that question.”
Agreed. In other words, no one can reliably establish that the response differs from zero C, by any means presently available to us.
That’s exactly right.
People who claim to see effects from CO2 are blowing smoke. They couldn’t prove their claims if their lives depended on doing so.
“But I also take note that his “belief” as expressed here that incremental CO2 is “no doubt making the atmosphere warmer than it otherwise would be” arises from the same unsound origins of the climate movement that has taken things to extremes.”
Pretty sure that’s Lomborg’s belief too.
“Pretty sure that’s Lomborg’s belief too.”
It seems so. Many contributors and commenters here at WUWT likewise maintain a self-identified “lukewarmer” position, with the qualifier that the resulting warming is harmless and beneficial. Lomborg thinks the expected warming is a problem, but questions the effectiveness and/or priority of “climate” action.
A key point is not only should we not deny “Climate Change, but we should enthusiastically embrace Climate Change. Here are some ways to embrace it. Feel free to add more as well, and note the little digs about previous warm periods:
One degree (F) warming is like moving south 70 miles without having to buy and sell houses, change jobs, and move.
More farmland opens up in the northern states, Siberia, Canada, and maybe even Greenland again.
Wine grapes may even grow in England, again.
The Tropics aren’t warming, only the colder places are.
The world is greening from more CO2.
FEWER major storms.
Seawalls are much cheaper than wind turbines and solar panels, and far more permanent (look at Holland for examples).
No need to buy and take the time to charge expensive EVs.
Delays the approaching end of the present interglacial.
Gives more time to develop efficient alternative energy sources to replace the inevitable end of fossil fuels.
etc.
You need to do a little more research, Tom. Wine grapes are currently growing nicely in Great Britain in 1,030 vinyards, mostly in England.
An item to be added…. no battery fires taking out vehicles, people, buildings, infrastructure, and even firehouses.
Just IMO, a sensible person (like me) neither denies or embraces climate change.
It is similar to denying or embracing the fact it gets warner every day when the Sun comes up in the morning, and has delusional connotation that humans have anything to do with it.
Net Zero by 2050 is a Suicide Pact, CO2 ppm is near its lowest level in 600 million years
.
CO2, 420 ppm (0.042% presence), a weak IR photon absorber, plays almost no role absorbing IR photons compared to water vapor, 17,700 ppm (1.7% presence near the surface, due to dew, fog, mist), a strong IR photon absorber, which absorbs much of IR surface photons via its many absorption windows.
.
At 16 C surface temp, 15-micrometer photons are only 7% of all surface photons, which very much limits the absorption of such photons by CO2, because far more abundant WV also has a 15-mictometer window.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
.
Any IR photons not absorbed by WV lose their energy by collision with hugely abundant air molecules.
Almost all IR surface photons are exterminated about 10 meter from the surface.
.
WV, being light, 18 MW, compared to air, 29 MW, rises until about 2000 m, where cooler temperatures condense it into clouds. WV ppm is greatly decreased from about 17,700 ppm near the surface to about 800 ppm at 5500 meter.
CO2 does not play any meaningful role regarding IR photon absorption, until WV ppm is greatly reduced, which is above the clouds
Any higher-altitude IR photons are colder, have less energy, have longer wavelengths that mostly are beyond the 15-micrometer absorption window of CO2.
Any such IR photons not absorbed by CO2, may:
.
1) lose their energy by collision with hugely abundant air molecules, which are spaced far apart, due to low density, or
2) travel towards outer space, or
3) travel towards earth.
.
In all instances, this IR photon activity above the clouds has a very small impact, compared to IR photon impact at the surface, which, each day, evaporates and lifts huge quantities of WV to about 2000 m, especially in the tropics and sub-tropics.
.
The tropics and sub-tropics are the engine of world’s weather.
Any harm to rainforests, due to clearcutting, extinguishes its flora and fauna
Clearcutting rain forests for ranching and crops 1) decreases the beneficial evaporation of former rain forest areas, and 2) causes more sunlight on clearcut areas, both of which have contributed to increased world temperatures, likely more than CO2 ever will.
Frac On? Frack off!
Frac On? Frack off!
I’ve thought often about compiling a list of meaningless verbiage the AGW climate alarmists use in their endlessly arrogant proposals that humans can control earth’s temperature. They’re never defined, but a partial list would be: combat, fight, address, curb, stop (!!!), mitigate, act, tackle, attack, reduce, negate, …….. What is meant by any of these things? What’s The Goal? What in the hell is “Climate Action”?? Guess virtue signaling requires no definition.
Wow. Now we know the difference between traditional and modern climate skeptics.
It has something to do with the amount of retained solar energy in an atmospheric system.
But then again, that definition has nothing to do with the amount of solar energy stored in the oceans.
Warm, good. Cold, bad. For everything, except drinks and certain foods. Hated cold when I was a kid, walking to school in snow and ice. later, driving to work in blizzards. The climate cultists just are nuts, they need to live a few years in the arctic. Of course, its all political, all about money and power. When the believers get enough of the money they have the power so they move to where its warmer. Think about it.
Global warming benefits northern states like Minnesota
Data for the last 40 years for Minnesota shows the 3 winter months warm about three times as much as the 3 summer months. I remember in the 1950s it was common every February to get 2 weeks of 20 below and highs of 0. We don’t see that anymore. We probably now save more on heating than increased air conditioning costs.
And there is a scientific reason for this. The coldest days are in the nights with clear skies. With no clouds to capture the radiated heat from the surface and send it back by radiation to the surface, it will go to a clear sky where about 20% of the wave lengths are captured by CO2 and radiated back to the surface, warming it more with the increased CO2. And the amount captured by water vapor, which is about 70% of the wavelengths, with the cold dry air is much less so CO2 has a larger effect.
Another item: The amount of warming from CO2 at this level is a log of the change, not proportional. This means for example if an increase causes 1 degree of warming, the next increase of the same amount will also cause 1 degree of warming, not a larger amount.
Not quite… Each doubling of atmospheric CO2 causes the same amount of warming. It’s a logarithmic, diminishing returns,function. If a doubling from 280ppmv to 560ppmv causes 1.5°C of warming, the next doubling from 560ppmv to 1120ppmv would cause an additional 1.5°C of warming. The first doubling will probably occur toward the end of the 21st century. I don’t think atmospheric CO2 will climb much higher than 560ppmv due to technological improvements, particularly in nuclear power.
It does only in computer models of totally dry atmosphere, and, at the same time, computer models with radiative only heat transfer ignoring convection. Therefore, all of this doubling discussion is flawed beyond repair and is absolutely irrelevant to the real world.