No government has quantified or can quantify what the reduction in global temperature will be if they implement their "decarbonization" policies (btw, decarbonization is a scaremongering and manipulative term, for CO2 is not coal but an invisible gas).
Threadπ½
Threadπ½
Indeed, no government has quantified the effect of their net-zero policies because climate model simulations of medium-term temperatures (not to mention long-term ones) are based on extremely immature science, essentially pre-scientific.
Supporting economic policies at the expense of the taxpayer when the results are unknown and unquantifiable because they are based on such inaccurate pre-science is a serious mistake.
CO2 is not a pollutant, but a fertilizer, the most essential building block of life on earth.
The main difference between inorganic and organic compounds is the presence of carbon in the latter. Carbon is the basis of life and the source of C in life is the CO2. CO2 is primarily fixed from the atmosphere by plants through photosynthesis. O2 also comes from photosynthesis.
About 95% of human body mass is carbon, oxygen and hydrogen (approx. 20%, 65% and 10% respectively) which come from atmospheric CO2 and O2, and from water. Less than 1% of the mass of living things comes from the earth. The rest comes from the atmosphere.
There is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide is the major contributor to the current slight warming. There are many other factors that are not being considered in the climate models (or are considered in a very simplistic way).
Solar cycles, changes in the earth's orbit, alterations in the deep ocean temperature due to tectonic movements, changes in ocean currents, evolution of cloud cover, specific heat capacity of CO2 vs. the specific heat capacity of N2, O2 and H2O. Climate models are pre-scientific.
There have been geological epochs with atmospheric CO2 levels several times higher than today. The planet's vegetation cover was much more extensive then. In greenhouses, CO2 is injected up to three times the current atmospheric concentration to increase production.
CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere that has increased from 0.032% when it was first measured around sixty years ago to 0.042% today. That is 0.01% increase in 60 years, 0.00016% each year.
If man were the cause of all this increase in CO2 (man's emissions are only 3% of total) and if we managed to cause a 2x increase in CO2 to reach 0.08%, something that would take more than 100y, that incremental CO2 would only reduce the radiation from the earth to space by 1%.
But the effect of CO2 on the planet is not as simple as this reduction of infra-red radiation into space (heat emission).
The earth always seeks an equilibrium temperature, where the incoming solar irradiance is equal to the outgoing terrestrial radiation. Assuming that the solar energy received by the earth is constant, the only way for the temperature to increase is if the emissivity is reduced.
It is essential that we understand precisely how CO2 affects emissivity. Otherwise, our climate models simulations will always be dramatically incorrect.
Currently, the role of CO2 in the emissivity is not properly quantified in the climate models. Because these models do not include many factors and include others in a very simplistic way. For example, the effect of CO2 as a promoter of photosynthesis.
Photosynthesis is an endothermic (heat-trapping) reaction. It uses photons from the sun to create plant and phytoplankton life, the basis of the food chain for the whole biosphere.
The higher the CO2, the higher the plant production. The higher the vegetation cover, the cooler the environment.
Thus, as CO2 is an energy-harvesting facilitator, it plays a role in cooling the earth, not just a theoretical role in warming it.
On the other hand, CO2 has many times less specific heat capacity than atmospheric H2O. Water makes up between 0.1% and 4% of the atmosphere (depending on local conditions), compared to 0.04% for CO2.
CO2 has also a lower specific heat capacity than N2 or O2, which make up 95-99% of the atmosphere.
This means that all else being equal in terms of temperature (stable incoming solar irradiance, no changes in earth orbit, no changes in oceans, etc.), a biosphere as a whole with a higher CO2 should retain less thermal energy.
As a final note, regarding demography, since CO2 is not a pollutant and is not the cause of climate change but the basis of life, the discussion on increasing population should not be framed or conflated with climate, but with recycling of industrial and urban waste.
My sources for some of these claims:
William Harper, Princeton
Judith Curry
Javier VinΓ³s
John Clause, Nobel Physics 2022
Patrick Moore, Greenpeace founder
Jordan Peterson
Rodney W. Nichols
Ian Plimer
JΓΈrgen Peder Steffensen
Andy May
William Harper, Princeton
Judith Curry
Javier VinΓ³s
John Clause, Nobel Physics 2022
Patrick Moore, Greenpeace founder
Jordan Peterson
Rodney W. Nichols
Ian Plimer
JΓΈrgen Peder Steffensen
Andy May
You can find the BIO of many of them in the association they have created: CO2 COALITION (although some of the list are not in that coalition and are important scientists as well).
co2coalition.org
co2coalition.org
Loading suggestions...