Climate Change/Global Warming

The rhetoric and propaganda around climate change used to advance political objectives, such as limiting reliable, low-cost energy, especially in desperately poor countries, and justifying reckless ideologically driven spending (for wind & solar producing unreliable energy which collapses daily), cause many to question the mere existence of man-induced climate change.

The hypocrisy of the global warming messengers, such as Al Gore further discredits this message. As Gore told us all to consume less energy to save the planet, he consumed 20 times the electricity of the average American household in his Tennessee mansion and an equally gluttonous amount of natural gas. Then there is his second mansion.

In this environment, skepticism towards the concept of global warming is an intelligent response. An even more intelligent response, however, is to separate these messengers from the facts and to follow the data. Perhaps the data that follows.

Fast Facts

• The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon in which certain gases (greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere trap heat from the sun and help keep the planet’s temperature within a range suitable for life. 
• Given the warming impact of naturally occurring greenhouse gases (GHGs), it is reasonable to expect a similar influence from man-made GHGs.
• Climate models serve as valuable tools for providing approximations of how diverse atmospheric assumptions impact temperature changes, although they aren’t precise predictors of absolute temperature shifts.
• Methane emissions are rising much faster than CO2.
• The adverse consequences of climate change are poised to outweigh the benefits of elevated temperatures.
• Effectively managing the impacts of a warmer atmosphere, guided by data-centric cost-benefit analyses, is vital to minimizing suffering and avoiding economic disruption.

Fast Facts

The impact of elevated levels of carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) on atmospheric temperatures is a physical process substantiated by mathematical models that align with empirical observations. When concentrations of GHGs increase within a controlled volume lacking counteractive mechanisms, the result is an increase in air temperature. Counteractive measures include elements like soot emitted by coal-burning power plants, which mitigate the warming effect of CO₂ by blocking sunlight. A cooling effect absent from coal plants constructed since the widespread adoption of scrubber technology.

Greenhouse gases play a pivotal role in maintaining the Earth’s surface temperature at a level conducive to supporting plant life. In their absence, the average surface temperature would plummet from around 60 degrees Fahrenheit to approximately 0 degrees Fahrenheit.

Given the warming effect of naturally occurring greenhouse gases, it follows a logical and rational course of thought that additional GHGs produced by human activities would also contribute to increased atmospheric temperatures.

However, what lacks reasonability are catastrophic climate scenarios, which exaggerate the negative impacts of a warming planet to justify actions that impoverish the world, while accelerating material consumption, and environmental destruction, to virtue signal green.  Greenwashing and Germany provide detailed examples of this disastrous trend which has replaced meaningful carbon reduction actions.

Greenhouse Effect

The warming of our Earth’s surface and lowest layer of the atmosphere caused by atmospheric gases (like CO₂) that trap some of the Sun’s energy, is commonly referred to as the greenhouse effect.  Some credit Swedish physicist and physical chemist Svante Arrhenius for the origins of the term with the publication of the first plausible climate model that explained how gases in Earth’s atmosphere trap heat, back in 1896.  Others credit French mathematician and physicist Joseph Fourier for first arguing this point in 1824. 

The Britannica online encyclopedia does a nice job of explaining the greenhouse effect. “The atmosphere allows most of the visible light from the Sun to pass through and reach Earth’s surface. As Earth’s surface is heated by sunlight, it radiates part of this energy back toward space as infrared radiation. This radiation, unlike visible light, tends to be absorbed by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, raising its temperature. The heated atmosphere, in turn, radiates infrared radiation back toward Earth’s surface. (Despite its name, the greenhouse effect is different from the warming in a greenhouse, where panes of glass transmit visible sunlight but hold heat inside the building by trapping warmed air.)“

A simplified energy balance of the Earth’s atmosphere reveals numerous physical processes that must be accounted for to predict atmospheric temperature changes due to increases in greenhouse gas emissions.

Climate Modeling

Scientists use climate models, which represent the processes affecting temperatures with mathematical equations to try to understand the impact of man on Earth’s environment. Accurately modeling all the heat transfer paths affecting ground ambient temperatures is a daunting task due to an incomplete understanding of multiple processes driving heat transfer and computing hardware limitations.   

Assessing the value of climate modeling is highly subjective given the significant modeling unknowns and prediction errors. My personal bias towards valuing analytical models, even with large uncertainties, is based on a career built on computer modeling. As a member of and later the engineering lead of a thermal and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis group, I saw the value of initially crude models for pointing out cause-effect relationships.  For climate modeling that could be comparing the relative effect of increasing atmospheric methane levels versus carbon dioxide on ambient temperatures.    

Apocalyptic projections for the impacts of global warming on man may be due to climate researchers ignoring the accuracy of the models used to make such predictions.  Results from models proven to be wildly off were used as part of the data set to estimate the magnitude of global warming impacts on society.

Global Warming vs. Climate Change

Global Warming refers to the increasing average air temperatures near the surface of the Earth over the past one to two centuries due to human activities. Natural processes also contribute to these higher temperatures.  Climate change refers to long-term changes in average weather patterns due to both natural processes and human activity.

Global Warming Potential Values

While carbon dioxide (CO₂) is the best-known atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG), it is merely one of multiple responsible for global warming. To estimate the net warming effect of different GHGs, global warming potential (GWP) values are assigned based on their expected heating effect relative to CO₂ for the same mass. Values are assigned for 20 and 100-year time periods to account for differences in the speed at which molecules fall from the atmosphere or disassociate into their benign constituents. 

Water vapor (H2O) is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere.  While water vapor existed on Earth well before the presence of humans, human-induced warming of the atmosphere contributes to an elevation in atmospheric water vapor levels. Higher temperatures lead to increased moisture retention in warmer air compared to cooler air and heightened atmospheric temperatures drive more evaporation, consequently, introducing more moisture into the atmosphere.  

Atmospheric moisture, occurring as clouds, can warm or cool the planet. Clouds can block light and heat from the Sun, making Earth’s temperature cooler. or trap heat reaching the earth from radiating back to space.

How Clean is Natural Gas (methane)?

While electric utilities promote natural gas as a cleaner fuel option due to its approximately 50% lower CO₂ emissions compared to coal, there is the warming impact of methane, a significantly more potent greenhouse gas, once it is released into the atmosphere. Methane leakage, which occurs from the moment of extraction to consumption, is inevitable. Regrettably, accurately measuring the extent of this unintended methane release presents a challenging task.

Greenhouse Gas Monitoring

Real-time measurements of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations began In 1958 when scientists from the Scripps Institution for Oceanography first began measuring CO₂ from the top of the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii. In 1972 the US National Oceanography and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Global Monitoring Laboratory was established with a charter that included acquiring and making available accurate, long-term records of atmospheric gases, aerosol particles, clouds, and anything related to global warming.   As concerns over climate change increased, atmospheric measurements of additional greenhouse gases, methane, nitrous oxide, and sulfur hexafluoride, were added to their charter. 

The fluctuating line is a result of the seasonal shifts in vegetation growth. Despite the global expenditure of trillions of dollars on unreliable renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, atmospheric measurements reveal a continuing upward trajectory for CO₂ levels.   

Since regular direct measurements of greenhouse gases have occurred for less than 100 years, ice cores samples are analyzed to estimate atmospheric concentrations up to 800,000 years ago.    

Measurements of atmospheric gas level of ice core samples taken from the Antarctica ice sheet show the dramatic impact of human activity on atmospheric CO₂ levels,

With 243 coal power plants permitted or under construction in China, there is little danger of this upward trend in CO₂ emissions changing soon.

The rise in carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentration is small compared to methane (CH₄).  Unlike CO₂, which offers the benefit of increased plant growth, there is no advantage to increased atmospheric methane levels (outside of areas of the planet that benefit from increased atmospheric warming).  

Nitrous oxides (N₂O), commonly referred to as laughing gas when used to calm anxious dental patients, received little attention in the media before 2019 when Dutch farmers protested their parliament’s efforts to limit nitrogen emissions. This would affect the farmer’s ability to raise food by limiting fertilizer use and livestock, reducing their ability to export food at a time of high prices and food shortages.  

The Dutch are the 2nd largest food exporter in the world, after the US, making any reductions in their production an issue for anyone concerned about food scarcity or prices.  

Fortunately, atmospheric N₂O levels are more than 1000 times lower than for CO₂ and are increasing at a smaller rate.  

Sources of Primary Greenhouse Gases

Carbon Dioxide (CO₂), the most abundant man-made greenhouse gas, is also generated by natural phenomena, like volcanic activity and forest fires.  

Man has a much bigger impact on methane emissions compared to carbon dioxide, directly and through feedback mechanisms. Increasing and wealthier populations that add more meat to the diet, increased natural gas use to replace coal and backup unreliable renewables (wind and solar), permafrost meltdowns, and hydroelectric development in parts of Africa, make it likely that methane emissions will continue to grow much faster than carbon dioxide for the foreseeable future.

While the Dutch Parliament is forcing farmers off their land, in the name of limiting nitrous oxide emissions, they produce more CO₂ than almost any other Western European country due to a mere pittance of nuclear power. Their biggest problem is their lack of virtually carbon-free nuclear, with a single operating reactor. Increasing their two planned nuclear reactors to three would dwarf reductions in greenhouse gases from limiting farming practices if that was their government’s primary concern. 

A positive or negative feedback system occurs when a process generates an outcome that increases or decreases the initial process, respectively. Global warming feedback systems are overwhelmingly positive, with higher temperatures increasing the rate of increase. This leads some to theorize the possibility of doomsday climate scenarios with runway atmospheric temperatures occurring over mere decades rather than centuries. Permafrost melt is often mentioned as the biggest risk among the positive feedback mechanisms. 

While positive feedback may initially speed up the rate of temperature change, the resulting increased cloud cover could provide a cooling effect to offset the warming, making the doomsday scenario of runaway atmospheric temperatures less probable.  

More than 50% of US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are generated by transportation and electricity generation.  Eliminating GHG emissions in electricity generation and ground transportation, therefore, arguably offers the most practical solution for dramatically reducing US greenhouse gases. If our electrical power was low carbon, like Norway, electrifying our transportation network would likely make sense from an environmental perspective.  

Since the US generates 60% of its electricity from fossil fuels, electric vehicles are just another expensive way to virtue signal green while overloading the electrical grid and avoiding one of the greenest actions possible. Incentivizing the use of the most efficient hybrid cars, such as the Toyota Prius. The latest version gets 50 MPG, uses a minimal amount of rare earth metals, relative to its fuel economy, and does not impact the electrical grid. Unlike the electric Tesla Cyber truck, a monument to waste at an estimated 6,000 lbs.  

Subsidizing the production of energy-gluttonous vehicles (when powered by electricity) promises disastrous consequences for government coffers and the environment.

Climate Change Impacts

Upon seeing this chart my initial thought was, “Thank goodness for manmade climate change since it stopped us from heading into an ice age.”  My second thought was, “Mission accomplished so let’s slow it down.”

Satellite-era sea level measurements with their high accuracy have validated an accelerating increase in sea level rise globally.  Local changes may, however, significantly differ.

Climate Change Winners

Large swathes of Russia and Canada, which were previously more or less uninhabitable because of their cold winters, will now be economically viable. I doubt if many people regularly dealing with -40 F mid-winter temperatures would complain if it only reaches -30 F. The monetary benefit of reduced heating loads is accompanied by longer growing seasons and more vegetation growth due to higher atmospheric CO₂ levels. While Russia and Canada are the two biggest beneficiaries of this effect, dozens of other countries will probably enjoy the same benefits. This includes the Baltic countries, much of Eastern Europe, and parts of Western Europe.  

Climate Change Losers

Modern civilization and its infrastructure developed assuming existing sea levels, which are rising, glaciers for water storage, which are shrinking, and hydrological patterns, which are changing (partly) due to higher atmospheric and ocean temperatures. While these climate-related factors are never static, the rate of change is increasing due to man-made global warming.   

Accommodating Change

History books tell of the collapse of civilizations, such as the Mayans in Central and South America, in response to naturally occurring changes in climate (multiple droughts). Ignored in this narrative are the 7 million living descendants of the Mayans who developed elaborate irrigation systems, captured rainwaters, and moved to wetter areas to survive waves of drought.   

Like the Mayans, we too will adapt to the consequences of a hotter planet, which is already set in the atmosphere.  

The developing world will not be satisfied with solar panels and batteries to light their 8 W LED light bulb, after observing the energy-gluttonous lifestyle of the poorest Westerner. Fossil fuel consumption is therefore set to explode in Africa and South America unless lower-cost nuclear or hydropower is available. 

Benefits from fossil fuel use overwhelm any possible adverse effects from higher atmospheric temperatures for the poorest citizens of the energy-deprived developing world. Natural gas-based fertilizers will continue driving agricultural outputs with genetic breeding to accommodate rising temperatures. Expanded irrigation to offset changing precipitation patterns, and modern farming methods to improve yields in regions most affected by rising temperatures can offset higher temperatures.

Some growing regions will also be abandoned in favor of more productive locations for a warmer planet.   

The hundreds of coal power plants planned for India and China will bring reliable air conditioning (AC) to millions suffering through deadly heat waves. A few degrees F outside ambient temperature rise is trivial compared to the benefits of the 30 degrees F temperature reduction in an air-conditioned Calcutta home at 6 PM when the unreliable solar power the West promotes stops generating power for a growing middle class.  

Water storage to make up for the loss of glaciers and snowmelt will mean more dams, reservoirs, and perhaps groundwater recharge systems.

While ocean heating could lead to more intense hurricanes in the future and additional damage to coastal areas, the technology to predict events in time to take cover, which requires reliable 24/7 power provided by fossil fuels, hydro, or nuclear power, has reduced deaths by orders of magnitude. 

Wealthier countries will adapt to rising sea levels with seawalls while residents of poor countries may need to relocate to higher ground.  

The biggest risk to adapting to a changing climate is a world economy destroyed by idiotic policies that reduce the wealth available to pay for needed accommodations.