…Message for all Americans…
Two facts are of vital importance for all Americans to understand as we enter 2021.
- Scientists have established that the five most abundant greenhouse gasses will not significantly increase temperatures if they double from current levels.
- Even if greenhouse gasses were threats, it’s impossible to eliminate fossil fuels using any currently available technology.
Here is the evidence:
- For effect on temperatures by five GHG:
This important paper on climate change is titled, Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases.
Here is the curve establishing that a doubling of CO2 will have only a slight effect on temperature rise. There is no threat when temperatures don’t rise dramatically with a doubling of CO2.
This explanation of the curve for CO2 is equally applicable to the curve for CH4.
“The sawtooth curve shows the actual heat loss through the Earth’s atmosphere for each frequency, where the percentages of CO2 are 0 ppm, (in green), 400 ppm (in black) and 800 ppm (in red). The sawtooth curve is known as the Schwarzschild curve. (The heat loss for all other compounds are for conditions as they exist today.)”
Of particular importance are the circled, red and black, CO2 curves.
These two curves, highlighted by the circle, are virtually the same, indicating that heat loss is nearly unchanged after doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm.
The paper by Happer and Wijngaarden establishing these conclusions is available at https://bit.ly/3mpTNwh
This saturation effect is thoroughly explained by both The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and Dr. Wojick
Here is a link to Dr. Wojick’s explanation of the Happer – Wijngaarden paper:
Here is SEPP comment re saturation:
“The earth is cooled by outgoing infrared radiation, which has a longer wavelength than visible light. Greenhouse gases interfere with infrared radiation by absorbing and re-emitting photons at particularly wavelengths. Expressed simply, as the concentration of a specific greenhouse gas, CO2, increases, its effectiveness diminishes. In other words, as the amount of CO2 increases, its ability to further increase temperatures decreases.”
Here are links to two SEPP articles which include additional commentary on the Happer – Wijngaarden paper:
October 31, 2020: https://bit.ly/2KLoD4w
November 7, 2020: https://bit.ly/37iPE7b
What does this mean for fossil fuels and global warming or Climate Change?
Dr. Wojick’s conclusion best describes the importance of the Happer – Wijngaarden paper.
“In plain language, this means that from now on our emissions from burning fossil fuels could have little or no further impact on global warming. There would be no climate emergency. No threat at all. We could emit as much CO2 as we like; with no effect.”
For completeness, here is the curve for Methane, CH4:
As the title of the Happer – Wijngaarden paper infers, there is no existential climate threat from greenhouse gasses.
2. For why it’s impossible to eliminate fossil fuels:
Germany has demonstrated how difficult it is to eliminate fossil fuels. It has spent billions of dollars trying to do so, yet, since 1990 Germany has only reduced its CO2 emissions by 31%. One-third of those reductions were unrelated to Germany’s Energiewende program to cut CO2 emissions, and were due to the reunification of Germany with the closing of East Germany’s inefficient industries.
Germany has essentially admitted it cannot eliminate fossil fuels when it established a new program to create a hydrogen economy, i.e., 50% hydrogen for Europe a Manifesto.
But producing hydrogen by electrolysis, splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen, requires a huge amount of electricity. And this electricity must be green, i.e, generated by renewables. The 50% hydrogen for Europe Manifesto, admits it’s impossible for Europe to generate enough electricity from renewables to produce the needed hydrogen, saying the hydrogen must come from outside of Europe.
There are other problems with using hydrogen. It requires new pipelines because existing pipelines will experience cracks from embrittlement when the pipeline contains more than 20% hydrogen. Transporting hydrogen, other than by pipeline, requires liquefaction which consumes more than 30% of its energy content, and is expensive.
Germany’s experience signals it’s impossible to eliminate fossil fuels, but other highly problematic programs have also been put forward as essential if fossil fuels are to be eliminated.
For example, here a few other virtually impossible programs that must be achieved worldwide if fossil fuels are to be eliminated:
All electricity must be generated by renewables, such as wind and solar. (Wind and solar are intermittent and require huge amounts of storage. It’s doubtful enough storage can be built to permit relying solely on wind and solar. The required amount of storage is also astronomically expensive and, when using batteries, will vastly increase the need for batteries. The amount of electricity required for all the necessary applications, e.g., hydrogen, BEVs, and the various grids around the world, defies imagination.)
Reengineering all housing stock to provide insulation that prevents most heat loss. (Technically doubtful and astronomically costly.)
All transportation, including airplanes, must either use electricity or hydrogen. (Generating enough green electricity to (1) eliminate using coal and natural gas, (2) produce huge quantities of green hydrogen, and (3) also sufficient electricity to charge the batteries of over one-billion BEVs, is virtually impossible. For example, If the 250 million light vehicle in the US were BEVs, it would require using approximately 5 times the electricity generated by the US in 2019.)
All heating and air-conditioning must come from heat pumps or the use of hydrogen. (Not feasible in many areas and very costly.)
Construction of buildings must use renewable materials such as engineered wood. (Using concrete is dependent on unproven carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) because producing cement automatically releases CO2. Producing cement, glass, steel, and other construction materials also requires the use of hydrogen rather than natural gas. Many construction materials, such as PVC pipe, require electricity for their production, adding to the amount of electricity that must be generated by renewables.)
Note that all these objectives must be achieved worldwide by 2050: Only thirty years from now.
China and India, for example, produce 35% of the world’s CO2 emissions, and must switch to hydrogen for industrial, heavy transportation and other required uses. They must also exclusively use battery-powered light vehicles. The reality is, neither China or India has demonstrated they are willing to close all their coal-fired power plants … and, in fact, are continuing to build them.
Mining all the materials required to achieve the necessary amounts of wind, and solar generation, and the batteries for millions of BEVs over the next thirty years, is also an insurmountable task.
None of this takes into consideration the plight of a billion people who don’t have access to electricity and who will be denied access with efforts to cut CO2 emissions.
Singly, or in combination, the list of “must have” programs, wind energy etc., defies any semblance of achievability.
It’s important to remember that over 85% of all energy currently comes from fossil fuels. Replacing them with renewables or hydrogen, or whatever other idea is put forward, such as solar from space, is impossible.
Climate activists will continue to put forth futuristic ideas, but these must be seen as merely efforts to confuse and obscure the fact that it’s impossible to eliminate fossil fuels.
Two facts are clear:
- Scientists have established that greenhouse gasses will not dramatically increase temperatures if they double from current levels.
- Even if greenhouse gasses were to be a threat, it’s impossible to eliminate fossil fuels using any currently available technologies.
. . .