More CO2 Please

Dennis Avery, is a writer at Townhall often focused on environmental issues.  His biography states that he documented the long, natural Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle with co-author S. Fred Singer in Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years. 2007.  He has a new book coming out that details why most ancient cultures collapsed in “little ice ages.” That subject is related to in a post by him earlier this week.

When Too Little CO2 Nearly Doomed Humanity    (excerpts from article)

During the last Ice Age, however, too little CO2 in the air almost eradicated mankind. That’s when the much-colder water in the oceans sucked most of the CO2 from the air. There were only about 180 parts per million in the atmosphere, compared to today’s 400 ppm.

The Ice Age’s combined horrors—intense cold, permanent drought, and CO2 starvation—killed most of the plants on earth. Only a few trees survived, in the mildest climates.Much of the planet’s grass turned to tundra, which is much less nourishing to the herbivores we depended on for food and fur. Cambridge University’s recent studies say that, worldwide, only about 100,00 humans were left alive when the current Interglacial warming mercifully began.        . . .

There’s little danger to humans of too much CO2 in the air they breathe. The EPA says 1000 ppm is the safe limit for lifetime human exposure. The CO2 alarm in nuclear submarines is set at 8,000 ppm, and space shuttles often get to 5,000 ppm.

If there’s little danger of humans having too much CO2 in their air, and a real danger to civilization from having too little, what’s the ideal level of atmospheric CO2? The answer? There’s a broad safe range—with far more risk of too little than too much. With no plants, there’d be no people or animals, let alone civilization.     . . .

Both sides of the debate calculate that a full redoubling of CO2, by itself, will produce only about 1 degree C of additional warming. Another redoubling would have far less impact than that.

One degree C of warming was obviously not enough to frighten the public. It would be hardly noticed within our constant temperature variations. So, the computerized models cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made another assumption—that a hotter world would hold more moisture in its atmosphere. Since water vapor is the most effective greenhouse gas, the climate modelers claimed the earth might heat by 5 or even ten degrees C. One scientist (who supposedly advises Pope Francis) recently claimed 12 degrees C of overheating! The awkward truth is that NASA has monitored moisture in the atmosphere since 1980 and water vapor hasn’t increased despite the higher levels of CO2 and our “unprecedented” temperatures.

Wow, who-da-thunk-it (not the Gore-loks)

Avery in an April post at Townhall reported:

New Euro-studies Confirm Sun Dominates Earth’s Climate   (excerpt)

Last year, the world’s top particle physics research facility, CERN, turned the global warming debate upside down. CERN found, in the first-ever laboratory analysis of cloud chemistry, that solar variations—not CO2 molecules—were the biggest factor in the earth’s recent warmings! To be fair, climate modelers always admitted that clouds were the biggest unsolved mystery in climate change.

CERN’s CLOUD experiment findings are now being used to model predictions for the next 100 years—and the model shows a solar sunspot minimum will soon lower earth’s temperatures by half a degree C. The long cold minimum is expected to hit about 2040, and such minimums have historically lasted about 60 years. Equally important, the solar minimum will come on the heels of the current 20-year “hiatus” in earth’s warming, which has defied the climate modelers.

Together, the two events could mean no trend increase in earth’s thermometer readings from 1998 until after 2100! That’s a century of non-warming, and neither occurrence is connected to CO2 changes. This finding demotes CO2 to a supporting role, contributing no more than one degree C warming for a redoubling of atmospheric CO2. . .

And in February (all three Avery articles are recommended in their entirety including erudite comments to each post).

The Left Ignores Newest Climate Science     (excerpts)

Now, CERN has just informed its community of researchers that its CLOUD Experiment suggests “estimates of high climate sensitivity [to CO2 changes] may have to be revised downwards.” That’s from lead author Ken Carslaw, quoted in the CERN Courier (Dec., 2016).   . . .

Now, CERN has just informed its community of researchers that its CLOUD Experiment suggests “estimates of high climate sensitivity [to CO2 changes] may have to be revised downwards.” That’s from lead author Ken Carslaw, quoted in the CERN Courier (Dec., 2016).   . . .

Statistician Bjorn Lomborg just estimated we’d have to spend $100 trillion on renewables to cut global warming by merely 0.3 degree in 2100–assuming the CO2 models are correct. Can President Trump’s doubts about man-made warming save us from Lomborg’s pattern of terrifying waste?

Statistician Bjorn Lomborg just estimated we’d have to spend $100 trillion on renewables to cut global warming by merely 0.3 degree in 2100–assuming the CO2 models are correct. Can President Trump’s doubts about man-made warming save us from Lomborg’s pattern of terrifying waste?

Economist Stephen Moore is on point as to the hypocrisy in the left’s reactions to Trump’s decision to pull out of the brewing economic disaster the Paris Climate “Accord” that  Obama inflicted on America.

Climate Change Hypocrites 

Even more amazing and under-reported is that the United States — even though we did not make a pledge to reduce our greenhouse gases in accord with the (ed. note: Kyoto) treaty — has reduced its carbon emissions more than some of the European signatories.

Contrary to the flood of insults directed at the Trump administration, the U.S. is not the bad actor on the world stage when it comes to environmental protection. We are the world leader in environmental stewardship, and our energy use, as a share of the economy, continues to shrink.

An even more preposterous claim is that China — the largest polluter by far — and India are moving away from fossil fuels and transitioning to wind and solar power.

No, they are not. Here is what The Wall Street Journal reported in a November story about China and India “doubling down” on fossil fuel use: “China’s government said it would raise coal power capacity by as much as 20 percent by 2020, . . .

The press is also having a field day with the story that Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SolarCity, has resigned from a Trump economic advisory council out of protest. But Musk, according to the Los Angeles Times, has received almost $5 billion in government subsidies. SolarCity and Tesla are likely out of business without all the taxpayer-funded green handouts. Why doesn’t the press report that Musk has a multibillion-dollar personal stake in global warming? . . .

Sadly, President Barack Obama negotiated a treaty that accommodated the economic interests of our rivals and put America last. Trump’s gutsy decision puts America on the path to becoming the global energy superpower in the decades to come and puts American workers first.


R Mall

This entry was posted in ENERGY & CLIMATE, UNCATEGORIZED. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *