Why the AGW Science is Irrelevant

An atmosphere....proximity to the sun. What in the atmosphere keeps the planet warm?

 

http://www.amnh.org/ology/features/stufftodo_climate/make_terrarium/greenhouse.php The answer....greenhouse gasses.

 

The gases in the atmosphere - all of them.

 

Oxygen and nitrogen are not greenhouse gasses.

 

Most importantly, it has a thick enough atmosphere. The Combined Gas Law explains why the earth's surface is not as cold as the surface of the moon (which is on average the same distance from the sun). The dry adiabatic lapse rate is nearly 10C/km, which implies that if the earth's surface atmospheric pressure were half of the current value, it probably WOULD be a frozen ball of ice. And in fact, hundreds of millions of years ago, the earth WAS a frozen ball of ice.

Greenhouse gases, of which water vapor is by far the most important, also have some effect. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and to the extent that it absorbs outbound radiation in wavelengths that other gases don't, it increases the earth's surface temperature. The physics of radiative heat transfer predict that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (we have not yet managed to increase it by 50% over pre-industrial levels) will increase surface temperature by a little over 1C. This is not enough to worry about. Any predicted effect in excess of that amount is speculative, and not supported by the preponderance of empirical evidence. Claims of "CO2 tipping points" and "runaway greenhouse effects" are just false, and contrary to the known facts of paleoclimatology, which show a distinct ceiling on global temperature roughly 10C above the current level.

 

But they are more important than the greenhouse gases, because through the operation of the Combined Gas Law, they are what make the earth's surface much warmer than the surface of the moon. The earth's surface is quite a bit warmer than the surface of Mars, even though Mars's atmosphere is almost all CO2, because the earth's nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere is so much thicker than Mars's CO2 atmosphere. Remember, Mars's CO2 pressure at the surface is about 15x earth's at sea level. Contrariwise, the earth's surface is much, MUCH cooler than the surface of Venus, because Venus's surface pressure is about 90x the earth's.

 

Agree, totally irrelevant. Won't impact me or you at all and our species is meaningless.

 

And to your point in the first paragraph and to approach the absurd - the atmosphere on Mars is 95% CO2. But Mars is very cold - how can that be ??

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/despite-high-levels-of-co2-mars-is-cold/

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed - those who propose to increase the price of energy resulting in the deaths of many in the third world countries of the world truly are not interested in the welfare of the human race.

 

Without greenhouse gasses the earths average temperature would be -18 C or 0 degrees F. And an increase of 10C would be disastrous for mankind. So you admit an increase in greenhouse gasses warm the planet?

 

The price of energy must include profits for those who invest it. Nothing wrong high prices. The problem is low prices.

 

That sounds about right. The moon's surface averages about -75C, so the greenhouse gases contribute just over 30C and the nitrogen-oxygen pressure contributes nearly 60C, or almost twice as much as the greenhouse gases.

Not if it was gradual. Certainly all the ice would melt, and sea level would increase by about 100m. But balancing that, vast areas of North America and Asia that are currently too cold to support many people would be quite balmy. And rainfall would be plentiful pretty much everywhere.

Certainly: that's the 97% consensus of climate scientists. The controversy is only about how much. And that's where the consensus does not support AGW screamers.

 

Nonsense. Whether any given investor profits or not is a matter of his skill and luck. Granted, a sustainable energy industry will include positive average profits for those who produce energy, but that's about all we can say for sure.

Simple question: is it better for society if 50lb of potatoes cost the same as a day's typical wages, or an hour's typical wages? We know which is better for the potato farmer....

Nonsense, prosperity can be defined as a situation where prices are low relative to wages.

 

Energy is a commodity. Those who produce it and distribute it have only one motive: make as much money as they can. Those who can't afford energy can start their own company and make money - that is prosperity.

 

Ok lets get a little more specific

You would probably agree that a gradual 100 degree increase would be bad
And maybe a 90 degree increase also bad
And a 80 degree?
So if 10 degree is not bad
And 80 degree increase is bad
where is the clear line of badness between 10 and 80?

Given that we might find a way to adapt to a gradual 10 degree increase
How about the other plants and animals around us?

 

I don't think man will adapt very well to a 10 degree rise in global average temperature. As a species we will have to contend with even larger mass migration, desertification, and the survivability of a very hot climate. Not to mention the increase in tropical diseases, and agricultural pest.

 

I personally think it is a bad idea to simply assume that we will figure things out no matter what happens to the climate

 

High prices adversely affect people of the low income third world countries. One very important and key factors to development in nations is access to inexpensive electrical energy available 24/7/365. The only source meeting these requirements is fossil fuels. It is immoral to deny these nations and the people living in them fossil fuel fired electrical generation plants. But if you want fewer people on the planet that is a policy which will accomplish the desire.

 

No one has been denied. No matter what sort of fuel is used, providing reliable, unlimited cheep 24/7 everywhere electricity is not inexpensive

And, this objective seems to have little connection with the rate of human reproduction

 

Policies which increase the price of fossil fuels denies maximum utilization by third world countries resulting in loss of life. When the median household income for a country is less than $5000 per year it's immoral for the developing countries to implement these policies which limit the economic development and quality of life in these countries. The rate of human reproduction is closely tied to the standard of living and economic development of a country. Developed countries have a much lower rate. Third world countries have higher rates.

 

Every policy has downsteam impacts.
Riddle me this
Lets say that a country subsidizes electricity production
And the more subsidy, the lower the price of electricity
And the. Lower the price, the more lives saved
Then what is the. Proper subsidy?
Should e.ectricity be free to save maximum lives lives?
Should medicine and healthcare be free to save lives
Should everyone have access to free and clean water.

Countries implement policies as they choose regardless of your view about morality

Yes... how does that relate to immorality of a given energy policy

 

Wind and solar are predicted to be a whopping 4% of total world energy production by 2040.

 

The developed countries implement policies that increase the prices of coal by limiting it's supply on the world market. This adversely affects third world countries by increasing the price of fossil fuels. Lives are lost because of this. That is immoral.

If the developed western world was really interested in saving the lives of those living in third world countries they would provide fossil fueled electric power generation plants to those countries.

References:

"The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" - Alex Epstein - 2014

"Energy Keepers, Energy Killers - The New Civil Rights Battle" - Roy Innis - 2008

 

Electricity is distributed by public utility companies. Fuels are commodities and the lowest price gets the business. That's competition which results in the lowest prices to consumers which results in economic growth via competition.

 

Hummm
THe cost of coal has been falling for many years

http://spendmatters.com/2013/08/19/global-growth-for-coal-production-keeps-prices-on-downward-trend/

the gross production of coal has been rising and has not been restricted in a way that makes it either unavailable or unaffordable

 

In the late 19th Century scientists predicted global temperatures would increase because of the increase in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases from the burning of coal.

Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit (0.85 degrees Celsius) from 1880 to 2012.

Check off one prediction by climatologists that was testable prediction that has come true.

From my perspective it isn't really important because I embrace the American ideology based upon Natural Rights established by Natural Law and there's a much greater issue, at least for Americans, related to the pollution being created.

As John Locke established in the Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 5 (The Natural Right) Of Property:

"Nothing was made by (Nature) for man to spoil or destroy."
http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.txt

No person (or people) have a Right to Pollute (i.e. spoil nature) but it is pragmatically impossible for man to not pollute but there is a limit to how much pollution is allowable under Natural Law. Nature has the means for recycling pollution in almost all cases so the amount of pollution by mankind is limited by the ability of nature to recycle the pollution back into a non-polluting state.

As nations the people of each nation can create pollution up to but not to exceed what nature within the territory of the nation can recycle from it's harmful state back into a non-harmful state. When it comes to CO2 the gas is recycled back into a solid state by plants that use the carbon to grown and release the oxygen back into the atmosphere.

So this becomes real easy to address. The combined output of CO2, a greenhouse gas, in the United States cannot exceed the ability of plants in the United States to recycle the CO2 back into a solid state. Failure to limit the production of a pollutant to that amount that nature can remove is a violation of the Rights of the America people in the future when they have every Right to enjoy the same "non-polluted" environment that we have.

This avoids the AGW political trap because it's based upon natural law and not manmade law while also imposing a rational and measureable limitation upon the pollution caused by the burning of coal and other sources of CO2.

Problem solved (except for Republican concurrence because Republicans oppose Natural Rights and the ideology of Natural Rights that the founders embodied in the creation of the United States).