Many of the “truths”
about climate change
are merely assumed,
which means they
may be wrong !
CO2 does acts as
a greenhouse gas
in a laboratory.
That suggests it should
act as a greenhouse gas
in the atmosphere.
How much warming
CO2 actually causes
in the atmosphere,
is unknown.
How much a warmer
atmosphere will heat
Earth's surface,
is also unknown.
We do know
CO2 increased
from 1940 to 1975
with no global warming
( surface temperature data )
We also know
CO2 increased
a lot from 2003
to mid-2015 with
virtually no warming
( UAH satellite temperature data )
All of the global
warming since 1975
could be 100% natural,
or
100% from man made CO2,
or
somewhere between.
We only know
the correct answer
is from 0% to 100%
of warming since
1975 is manmade.
That’s not precise,
but it is accurate.
The UN's IPCC
guesses "most"
warming is
man made.
One could attribute
ALL the warming
since 1950 to CO2,
as a worst case
estimate.
That would show
CO2 to be a mild,
and harmless
greenhouse gas.
Which is what the
lab experiments
suggest ( infrared
spectroscopy ).
More CO2 in the
air, if it acted as
a greenhouse gas
would cause
mild, harmless
global warming,
mainly where
the humidity
was low -- in the
high latitudes
( colder areas,
(not the tropics).
That's because
the primary
greenhouse gas,
water vapor,
has a
global warming
effect that
overlaps
the assumed
effect of CO2.
Warming of the
higher latitudes,
especially the Arctic,
has happened in the
Northern Hemisphere.
Of course
that's good news
for the few people
who live there.
The Southern
Hemisphere
has been different.
Antarctica has not had
warming, except for
local warming near
underseas volcanoes
-- not a pattern of warming
that CO2 could cause.
More important:
Was the global warming
since 1975 good news
or bad news?
I say good news.
Warming was
mainly in
the higher,
colder latitudes,
mainly in the six
coldest months
of the year, and
mainly at night.
So,
are warmer
winter nights
in Alaska
bad news ?
I’ve never been
in Alaska,
but I’d guess
good news.
Concerning “Renewables”:
There would be
A LOT MORE
CO2 emissions
while wind turbines
and solar panels are
being manufactured,
and installed,
along with the
mining of minerals
for electric vehicle
batteries.
But in time
they would have
lower CO2
emissions
when generating
electricity, than
fossil fuels.
Based on real science,
however, more CO2
in the atmosphere
accelerates
plant growth,
allowing our planet
to support more life.
So more CO2
in the atmosphere
is good news
for our planet
— ask any modern
greenhouse owner.
The climate history
of our planet
clearly shows
that more life
is supported with
higher CO2 levels,
and a warmer climate
in the higher latitudes.
So if you are
pro-science,
and pro-life,
then more CO2
in the atmosphere,
from burning
fossil fuels
with modern
pollution controls
is good news.
But without those
pollution controls,
the cost of real
air pollution is worse
than the benefit
of adding CO2 to
our CO2-starved
atmosphere.
Air pollution in Chinese
and indian cities is proof
that burning fossil fuels
releases real air pollution
-- it's just that CO2
is NOT pollution !
The “existential threat”
from CO2 is the attack
on inexpensive reliable
sources of energy
( nuclear power, coal
natural gas and oil )
based on a prediction
of a coming climate crisis.
A crisis that has
been "coming"
for over 60 years,
but never shows up.
Anti-science leftists
demand the political
power to destroy
the fossil fuel energy
foundation of our
free market economy.
The leftists,
and other
anti-science
dingbats
( I repeat myself )
must be
stopped.
This free, no-ad,
climate science blog,
is my contribution !