Out of mastRresource
By David R. Legate
Science shows us that more carbon dioxide leads to a little warming and that both this low warming and the fertilizing effect of the carbon dioxide are probably advantageous. However, carbon dioxide does not become an existential threat to the planet. (below)
“Mister Legates, I am a big fan of the Cornwall alliance. However, they are just a shock for the climate armist who has an obvious agenda to destroy our economy with its network and its ban on natural gas devices and its electric vehicle data. Anyone who even has a rudimentary understanding of science would clearly know that that is.”
Okay, nobody really sent me this first paragraph. But the core combined views exactly that different people said.
background
Over the years, even before I joined the Cornwall alliance, I received numerous complaints from people who sent me emails, as I think, are well meant, with my position on carbon dioxide as greenhouse gas, as a pollutant and as a single most existential threat to the planet as a whole.
First of all, let me find out for the recording that I do not believe that carbon dioxide, methane and Laldoxide represent existential threats to the planet. They are also not reasonable threats of any kind.
Second, let me also tell me for recording that I don't believe that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. In fact, our atmosphere, if the entire life on Earth has stopped losing the entire oxygen content, and the proportion of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would increase over fifth ninety percent.
So?
Now, according to most renowned scientists, there is no life on Mars or Venus, and the atmospheres of our two closest planets are largely carbon dioxide – that of Mars, about 96 percent carbon dioxide, 2 percent argon and only 3.5 percent nitrogen. Technically speaking, oxygen in our atmosphere is a pollutant that was created by life on earth, especially through plant life. (No, I don't seriously believe that oxygen is a pollutant. You heard about irony, right?)
An obvious controversy
Here is something for which I recently wrote – well, I will not tell you where it comes from to protect the organization. The question was asked: “Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas?” My answer was (trigger alarm for some): Yes, sure. And that's a good thing, because without gases like carbon dioxide that create a greenhouse effect would not exist on planet earth. The surface of the earth is warmer than in the absence of an atmosphere – by about 54 degrees Fahrenheit or 30 degrees Celsius. Without them, most of us would freeze to death!
I received an answer and let myself be said that I have received numerous comments over the years, so I did not pick them up one person, but this answer was essentially:
Thank you for your efforts, but CO2 does nothing that causes the heating of the atmosphere. The “greenhouse effect” of the climate alalist does not exist and the entire anthropogenic greenhouse gas heating story is a lie from the start.
Now I don't agree to everything that said here. I believe that the concept of anthropogenic warming as an existential threat to the planet was a lie from the moment when the first person continued the expression “existential threat” of anthropogenic warming. But I have the problem with the argument that carbon dioxide does not heat the atmosphere and that the so-called “greenhouse effect” does not exist.
Yes, I recognize that the greenhouse effect is a wrong name. A greenhouse mainly warms up because of the lack of latent and reasonable warmth. In particular, the glass in the greenhouse prevents the convection and transport of water vapor procedures that are very important for surface energy remuneration – from moving the energy from the greenhouse.
However, the people who wrote to me about this problem do not refer to the greenhouse effect as a misconception. Rather, they believe that no gas, including carbon dioxide, can ever heat the atmosphere.
These critics provide reasons why they have the feeling of appeasing climate alarmists by admitting that the greenhouse effect exists. So let me briefly discuss some of your reasons and indicate why I think that you are wrongly informed about physics or what I think.
Many of the complaints note that “carbon dioxide is a colorless, tasteless and harmless gas that makes photosynthesis easier so that we can live on this planet.” Well, I fully agree.
Others complain that I should not increase hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, forest fires and other weather -related events due to increasing carbon dioxide. Yes, I often said that.
What is your argument against the greenhouse effect?
Four groups
I tend to put people in four camps and I am sure that you can name trailers for each group.
There are the climate alarms, for which carbon dioxide is a bad gas that adversely influences our climate and whose production has to be stopped at all costs. No solution is too draconian for them, and both geoengineering and carbon sequences are required.
Then there are climate pilists for whom carbon dioxide is a bad gas, but they believe that we can do little about it because we will move with fossil fuels and destroy our current lifestyle. You see the geoengine and carbon sequestration as necessary, but the adaptation to the disasters due to an abundance of carbon dioxide is its primary procedure.
Then there are the climate rooms for whom carbon dioxide is a small climate change player, and a warmer world will actually be a better world. I put myself in this category.
The greenhouse effect is real for all three views. The only difference is the last group – climatic realists, my group – that carbon dioxide probably does not produce out of control that destroys the planet.
Then there are those (looking for a name) for which carbon dioxide does not play a role in the radiation weight of the earth. Expose carbon dioxide or flood the atmosphere with it – the earth of the temperature remains unaffected.
These are those who usually take the roof with my mere mention of the existence of a “greenhouse effect”. They believe that we are victims of a conspiracy to increase carbon dioxide to evil gas status if it actually has no effect on the earth's climate.
THG joke?
According to them, the joke apparently began in 1845, when the physicist James Prescott Joule, for whom the energy unit was named, generated the wrong definition of energy that the field of physics has since spoiled. Other known physicists were in this joke, especially Niels Bohr, Max Planck, Gottfried Liebniz, Johann Bernoulli, Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis, Lord Kelvin and William Rankine, to name just a few.
Even Einstein was in the conspiracy. Somehow they all knew that climate change would be an important scientific problem about 150 years later, and ensured that carbon dioxide was cooked in the unchangeable laws of physics. Lobster….
Some of the arguments presented to me have focused on certain aspects of physics. One person found that a photon of the energy is absorbed by an object (or a gas) to five femtoseconds, which is five times ten to minus fifteenth force to emit this energy. I have no idea where this magical number arises. The argument is that no object, including a gas, can save energy (insure yourself the next time you pick up a blazing cast iron pan and forget the hot pad!), And so the idea is that carbon dioxide heats the atmosphere. However, I am not sure how this person defines the temperature of an object.
Another person noticed that the ideal gas law proves that so -called greenhouse gases cannot heat the atmosphere. The ideal gas law states that the pressure time volume of the number of molecules in the gas corresponds to the ideal gas constant, sometimes the temperature. Therefore, the temperature is only related to a change in the pressure and/or the volume of the gas, and therefore, according to the argument, as long as pressure and volume of the gas remain constant, no gas can change its temperature in any way. The concentration of carbon dioxide is not required in this equation, and therefore carbon dioxide has no influence. And we don't have to know the concentration of carbon dioxide to calculate the adiabatic lap rate.
Another person argued that the air temperatures have had to increase by 30 degrees Celsius by 30 degrees Celsius since then, if the greenhouse effect is of the opinion that the greenhouse effect is warmer by about 30 degrees Celsius and carbon dioxide concentrations that have doubled since the industrial revolution. So see the greenhouse effect must be a fraud! They miss two important facts: First, this water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas and it does not increase with carbon dioxide. Second, the influence of every added carbon dioxide molecule has a decreasing effect with increasing concentrations.
Someone else argued that it was inappropriate to use mathematics to present the complexity of physics, since too much is left out of mathematical equations. They also argue that math is not a science. I don't know what to say, except – good luck to make scientific calculations.
Diploma
As I said, I think most of these people are meant well. This means that they realize that the earth does not become a planet of horror and that carbon dioxide is actually the life -affirming gas it is. But we have to be rooted in truth and stick to what is good. Science shows us that more carbon dioxide leads to a little warming and that both this low warming and the fertilizing effect of the carbon dioxide are probably advantageous. However, carbon dioxide does not become an existential threat to the planet.
Of course, I was referred to as “science poet” and referred to as someone who “denies the foundations of the climate” so often that it is too banal. At least it is refreshing to see that I am also criticized that I adhere to physics.
Maybe one day I will be identified as a scientific lover. I can barely wait for it!
————————–
David R. Legates, Ph, d. (Climatology), director of research and education for Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, is a retired professor of climatology at the University of Delaware and co -editor of climate and energy: The case for realism (Regnery, 2024).
Like this:
Load…
Related
Do you discover more from watts?
Subscribe to the latest posts to your e -mail.
Comments are closed.