cancel2 2022
Canceled
Brilliant exposition by Professor Philip Lloyd, Energy Institute, Cape Peninsula University of Technology
Daily we are told that we are wicked to burn fossil fuels. The carbon dioxide which is inevitably emitted accumulates in the atmosphere and the result is “climate change.” If the stories are to believed, disaster awaits us. Crops will wither, rivers will dry up, polar bears will disappear and malaria will become rampant.
It is a very big “IF”. We could waste trillions for nothing. Indeed, Lord Stern has estimated that it would be worth spending a few trillion dollars each year to avoid a possible disaster in 200 years’ time. Because he is associated with the London School of Economics he is believed – by those whose experience of insurance is limited. Those who have experience know that it is not worth insuring against something that might happen in 200 years time – it is infinitely better to make certain your children can cope. With any luck, they will do the same for their children, and our great-great-great grandchildren will be fine individuals more than able to deal with Lord Stern’s little problem.
So I decided to examine the hypothesis from first principles. There are five steps to the hypothesis:
.
1. The carbon dioxide (CO[SUB]2[/SUB]) content of the atmosphere is rising.
2. The rise in CO[SUB]2[/SUB] in the atmosphere is largely paralleled by the increase in fossil fuel combustion. Combustion of fossil fuels results in emission of CO[SUB]2[/SUB], so it is eminently reasonable to link the two increases.
3. CO[SUB]2[/SUB] can scatter infra-red over wavelengths primarily at about 15 µm. Infra-red of that wavelength, which should be carrying energy away from the planet, is scattered back into the lower troposphere, where the added energy input should cause an increase in the temperature.
4. The expected increase in the energy of the lower troposphere may cause long-term changes in the climate and thermosphere, which could be characterized by increasing frequency and/or magnitude of extreme weather events, an increase in sea temperatures, a reduction in ice cover and many other changes.
5. The greatest threat is that sea levels may rise and flood large areas presently densely inhabited.
.
Are these hypotheses sustainable in the scientific sense? Is there a solid logic linking each step in this chain? The increase in CO[SUB]2[/SUB] in the atmosphere is incontrovertible. Many measurements show this. For instance, since 1958 there have been continuous measurements at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii:
Read More: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/08/five-points-about-climate-change/
Daily we are told that we are wicked to burn fossil fuels. The carbon dioxide which is inevitably emitted accumulates in the atmosphere and the result is “climate change.” If the stories are to believed, disaster awaits us. Crops will wither, rivers will dry up, polar bears will disappear and malaria will become rampant.
It is a very big “IF”. We could waste trillions for nothing. Indeed, Lord Stern has estimated that it would be worth spending a few trillion dollars each year to avoid a possible disaster in 200 years’ time. Because he is associated with the London School of Economics he is believed – by those whose experience of insurance is limited. Those who have experience know that it is not worth insuring against something that might happen in 200 years time – it is infinitely better to make certain your children can cope. With any luck, they will do the same for their children, and our great-great-great grandchildren will be fine individuals more than able to deal with Lord Stern’s little problem.
So I decided to examine the hypothesis from first principles. There are five steps to the hypothesis:
.
1. The carbon dioxide (CO[SUB]2[/SUB]) content of the atmosphere is rising.
2. The rise in CO[SUB]2[/SUB] in the atmosphere is largely paralleled by the increase in fossil fuel combustion. Combustion of fossil fuels results in emission of CO[SUB]2[/SUB], so it is eminently reasonable to link the two increases.
3. CO[SUB]2[/SUB] can scatter infra-red over wavelengths primarily at about 15 µm. Infra-red of that wavelength, which should be carrying energy away from the planet, is scattered back into the lower troposphere, where the added energy input should cause an increase in the temperature.
4. The expected increase in the energy of the lower troposphere may cause long-term changes in the climate and thermosphere, which could be characterized by increasing frequency and/or magnitude of extreme weather events, an increase in sea temperatures, a reduction in ice cover and many other changes.
5. The greatest threat is that sea levels may rise and flood large areas presently densely inhabited.
.
Are these hypotheses sustainable in the scientific sense? Is there a solid logic linking each step in this chain? The increase in CO[SUB]2[/SUB] in the atmosphere is incontrovertible. Many measurements show this. For instance, since 1958 there have been continuous measurements at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii:
Read More: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/08/five-points-about-climate-change/