Are we on the verge of a climate crisis? Or are we in the midst of an intellectual crisis? The switching of terminology and obfuscation from the climate alarmists suggests the latter.
Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is a greenhouse gas, second in importance to H₂O. If there were none in the atmosphere, it would contribute nothing to the greenhouse effect. If there were 50 CO₂ molecules per million atmospheric molecules (50 ppmv) the greenhouse effect from CO₂ would be 21 W/m² (see graph below). The next 50 ppmv to 100 ppm adds only 6 W/m², and the next 100 (to 200 ppm) adds only 4 W/m².
Presently we have about 400 ppmv, and those molecules contribute 30 watts per square meter (W/m²) to the greenhouse effect. Doubling present CO₂ to 800 ppmv — adding 400 ppmv — will add only 3 W/m². That is, an increase of the next 400 ppmv will increase CO₂’s contribution to the greenhouse effect by 3 W/m², a mere one seventh of the effect of the first 50 ppmv.
The Intellectual Dodges of the Climate Alarmists: Howard Hayden peels back the layers insulating alarmists from the facts... Share on XAnother basis for comparison is that the present greenhouse effect from all GHGs combined is 159 W/m² If the CO₂ concentration doubles from 400 ppmv to 800 ppmv (as might occur by 2100), it would only add 3 W/m², a mere 2 percent increase.
The effect of that doubling would be to raise the temperature about 1°C (1.8°F).
From “global warming”…
The minimal “global warming” due to our production of CO₂ from burning fuels is called “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW). However, climate alarmists (not limited to politicians the press) have avoided discussion of the science by alluding to “global warming” (GW) as if it were the same as AGW.
…to “climate change”
The term “climate” implies (at least) 30-year averages, and “global climate” involves those averages averaged over the globe. “Climate change” (CC) became a further protective shell, and somehow included every weather event (warming, cooling, more rain, less rain, …), no matter how local or how brief. Eustatic (world-wide average) sea rise of the thickness of a nickel per year has been regarded both as a result of “climate change,” but as devastating to coastal communities.
“Climate change” is now regarded as the universal cause of every natural disaster, either real or imagined.
The Swamping of Science with Stupidity
“Carbon” became synonymous with CO₂ and the far less abundant CH4; “carbon dioxide emissions” became “emissions” and “carbon pollution.”
Now, stupidities like “climate crisis,” “climate disaster,” “climate apocalypse,” “climate legislation,” “climate laws,” “climate-friendly,” “climate action,” “climate agreement,” “climate denier,” “climate doomsday,” “climate goals,” “climate-wrecking gas,” and “carbon bomb” go unchallenged in the press.
They all serve to protect the writers from having to make a scientific case.
There is no more persuasive technique for the public than the case the “everybody” knows (understands, believes, does …) it.
As Steve Milloy (www.junkscience.com) is wont to say, “I’m more worried about the intellectual climate.”
The Intellectual Dodges of the Climate Alarmists: Howard Hayden peels back the layers insulating alarmists from the facts... Share on XClimate-Based Policy Will Have Devastating Consequences
If it were merely a matter of people’s beliefs, there would be no problem. However, when the world’s governments and various pressure groups take it upon themselves to inflict their beliefs on society, the results can be as bad as if they were done through pure malice.
For one example [1], the EPA is proposing a rule by which every power plant in the US must capture 90% of the CO₂ it produces by 2035 or shut down.
In the state of Colorado [2], “Gov. Jared Polis signed into law Thursday a package of bills that includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 100% come 2050, a program to automate and streamline local solar energy permitting, encourage geothermal heating and cooling and a tax credit package to incentivize more electric vehicles.”
Energy drives everything.
Eighty-five percent of our energy comes from combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas, and these governmental entities intend to reduce that fraction to zero, and not one of them can make a case that CO₂ is harmful. Nor do they have a plan for the enormous amount of storage required for their renewable energy dreams to become a reality.
References
[1] “EPA Releases Landmark Greenhouse Gas Standards for Power Plants,” Van Ness Feldman, https://www.vnf.com/epa-releases-landmark-greenhouse-gas-standards-for-power-plants [2] Nick Coaltrain, “Governor signs large package of green energy bills: New greenhouse gas emission goals, tax credits, solar and geothermal programs fill out package,” Denver Post, 5/11/2023.Published with permission of Prof. Howard Hayden, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Connecticut. Professor Hayden is editor of The Energy Advocate, a monthly newsletter on energy and technology, and author of Energy: A Textbook, A Primer on Renewable Energy, and A Primer on CO2 and Climate, among others.
