We are at a critical juncture in history. Our choices now will have far reaching consequences at home and abroad. We must choose wisely. Can anyone predict with certainty how Russia will respond to our actions? No. Therefore we must focus on strengthening America so we can weather any storm that arises.
While bolstering America is a multipronged effort, the purpose of this letter is to focus on energy policy and request your assistance. Let’s please dispense with the talking points and recognize that America is in a precarious position. We import more energy than we export, have massive debt, spiraling inflation and fiscal responsibility at the Federal level is nonexistent. The supply chain is fragile at best and most industries are besieged with worker shortages. While much needs to be done, one strategy to strengthen our foundation is shift immediately to energy independence. Our exports should exceed imports, we should import only from trusted allies and produce most of the energy we consume.
The Biden administration energy policy is driven by the belief that fossil fuel emissions are the cause of our warming planet. Energy policy is therefore geared to reduce fossil fuel production and increase renewable energy. While the environment is an essential pillar of any energy policy it is critical to understand that renewables such as wind and solar are currently unreliable and unable to meet US energy demand. Until a solution for long term storage of energy is invented to overcome the variable nature of weather and there is a substantial overhaul and expansion of the grid, we must rely on fossil fuels and nuclear to satisfy demand unless we want to collapse our economy.
Even though renewables cannot possibly supply US demand, through executive order and regulatory action, the administration has hampered investment and impacted US oil and gas production. The willingness to invest is negatively impacted by this regulatory atmosphere, as is the market, as are prices. Consumer price increases are the result.
Inexplicably this administration tightened the regulatory screws on US oil and gas while simultaneously requesting OPEC to increase supply to moderate “prices at the pump”. When Russian imports were cut, the administration sought alternate supply from Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela without a corresponding policy change at home.
The President and his appointees don’t like nuclear energy either. If climate change is an existential threat, why is the Biden administration closing low emission nuclear plants, revoking extension permits and denying permits for new builds? When nuclear plants are shuttered, they are typically replaced with gas generation plants with higher emissions. The consumer also pays more, a classic lose, lose scenario that makes zero sense.
Recently Congress has shown willingness to override bureaucrats and regulators. We ask that members set aside concerns of special interests, ignore the endless rhetoric, and consider only America’s present and future. Please examine the efforts of this administration to undermine domestic energy supply and undo them. Prohibit future regulatory actions without Congressional approval. Honestly evaluate the shortcomings of renewables and incentivize technological advancement. Construct an energy policy based on national security, economics, climate and environmental concerns.
High energy costs and dependence on foreign oil and gas will lead to increased economic instability that weakens America and her allies. A stable economy with affordable energy is essential, especially now. Please act.
Please feel free to visit BayBuddha Travels for articles on a wide range of subjects.
To be effective participants in our democracy, a dedication to reality is essential. Said dedication is difficult amid the relentless political theater and complexity of the issues we face. But try we must. Energy policy, Russian aggression, and the West’s ability to respond are inextricably linked. To understand, let’s begin with what we know to be true, raise questions and finally, determine if we can draw any conclusions.
FACTS
Readily available, affordable energy is the backbone of a society. Energy is to society as oxygen is to humans. Every industry, business and citizen rely on energy to function. Every product brought to market requires energy to produce. A sound energy policy is essential for economic and national security.
If energy prices increase, the price of goods and service will also increase, i.e., inflation. Steep inflation has and will continue to jeopardize our economy.
Many factors impact energy prices. Supply and demand are key as are the games nations play with supply to manipulate pricing and/or advance agendas such as climate change. Regulatory policy and uncertainty also impact prices.
Biden administration energy policy is driven by the belief that fossil fuel emissions are the cause of our warming planet. Energy policy is therefore geared to reduce fossil fuel production and increase renewable energy. Biden attacked the fossil fuel industry immediately. For example, he revoked the permit for the Keystone pipeline on day one, temporarily suspended the issuance of oil and gas permits on federal lands and waters and most recently, during the Russia/Ukraine crisis, FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) modified approval requirements to include climate considerations for interstate natural gas facilities and pipelines. The new guidelines will ensure such projects are far more difficult if not impossible to permit.
While the environment is an essential pillar of any energy policy it is critical to understand that renewables such as wind and solar are currently unreliable and unable to meet US energy demand. Until a solution for long term storage of energy is invented to overcome the variable nature of weather and/or nuclear energy is increased dramatically, we are stuck with fossil fuels if we wish to satisfy current demand. Please review the charts in this article that outline energy consumption by source.
In February 2022 the NRC (Nuclear Energy Commission) rescinded extension permits for two functioning nuclear plants in Florida and Pennsylvania. In January 2022, the NRC rejected the application to build a reactor in Idaho. Shuttered nuclear plants typically are converted to gas-fired plants which have higher emissions. Rescinding permits that were issued under a previous administration is a sure fire way to dampen investment at time when we need nuclear energy to reduce imports. For more information please read this article.
Germany provides a clear example of a climate based energy policy that neglected to properly balance environmental, economic and national security concerns and ignored the reality of renewables. “Germany embarked on Energiewende in 2010 with the goal of eventually making Germany independent of fossil fuels. The idea was to phase out oil, coal, and natural gas to allow for drastic reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. Since 2009, Germany has spent over a hundred billion euros on solar and wind energy, but carbon dioxide emissions did not decline over that period. Source. Germany also began a process to shutter their nuclear power plants with the remaining two plants scheduled for closure at the end of this year. How has this worked out for Germany? “Currently, Russia provides Germany with 55 percent of the natural gas, 50 percent of the coal, and 35 percent of the oil consumed by its inhabitants.” Source. Germany supported Nord Stream 2, a pipeline that would transport Russian gas to Germany. Nord Stream 2 will be a significant economic boon to Russia, filling its coffers to rape and pillage Ukraine, threatening Europe’s stability. Germany has since halted the process to certify the pipeline but has declined to enact any Russian sanctions that jeopardize its energy supply. .
Unlike demand, US energy output has not rebounded to prepandamic levels. This imbalance pushes costs up. It is difficult to discern the cause. Some say it is a result of Biden administration policies intended to restrict supply. Some say it is a lack of investment due to the regulatory atmosphere created by Biden policies. The Biden administration blames OPEC, Russia, big oil and more recently, the conflict in Ukraine. Still others blame Covid.
The United States achieved “energy independence” for the first time in 2019. This means that our net exports exceeded imports. It does not mean that we produced all the energy we consumed. We continue to import energy. Becoming a net exporter was fueled in part by regulatory changes and the hydraulic fracking boom. Prior to the end of the Trump administration our imports exceeded exports due to the havoc lockdowns wreaked on supply and demand. We continue to import more than we export under Biden.
Soon after Biden took office Russia began amassing troops on the Ukrainian border. This article from April 2021 states that troop movement to the border had started “weeks” prior to publication.
Putin has repeatedly stated over the years that there will be significant consequences if Ukraine joined NATO. Biden and Harris have repeatedly used language supporting Ukraine’s addition to NATO.
While implementing steps to restrict fossil fuel production at home, in May 2021, Biden waived sanctions on the company building Nord Stream 2. Also in May 2021, U.S. imports of oil and refined petroleum products from Russia increased 23 percent to 844,000 barrels a day from the prior month, according to the Energy Information Administration. In August 2021 Biden requested OPEC and Russia increase the supply of oil and gas production to offset higher energy prices in the US.
While US imports from Russia increased to their highest historical level in 2021, It is important to note that the US has been importing oil from Russia for years. Russian exports currently represent roughly 7% of total US 2021 consumption. We import oil from many countries. Top exporters to the US are Canada, Russia and Mexico. For a detailed dive into the data, click here. For more information consider this US Chamber of Commerce article, this article from Oil Price.com or summary from Institute For Energy Research.
“Russia’s sales of oil and natural gas far exceeded initial forecasts for 2021 as a result of skyrocketing prices, accounting for 36% of the country’s total budget.” Russia’s energy exports are a significant source of funds and finance Russia’s brutal attack. Source.
Almost a year after signs of impending Russian aggression began, there is finally a bipartisan push to cut energy imports from Russia. However, the way some suggest it be done is counterproductive. Elizabeth Warren stated “I think that means it should all be on the table including banning the import of Russian oil, not just here in the United States but among all of the nations. We can protect ourselves, we can support ourselves, we can keep our economy going without fossil fuels.”
QUESTIONS
Why have so many NATO countries financed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
Why didn’t the US and NATO turn off Russia’s money machine and seek alternate means of energy supply in 2014 after Russia invaded Crimea? Or if not then, as soon as the troop build up began on the Ukrainian border? Considering Russia’s history, Russian aggression in Ukraine had a high probability. Why was it ignored for so many months?
Knowing Putin’s “red line” regarding NATO expansion, how much did Biden’s NATO/Ukraine rhetoric enflame the situation? Were those overtures serious suggestions to Ukraine to join NATO or did they have another purpose? Did Biden and Harris consider Ukraine’s entrance into NATO worth the potential for war? If so, why? This opinion piece offers an interesting perspective.
The timeline above raises serious questions. Let’s recap. On Biden’s first day in office, he took steps to hamper US energy markets at a time when the country was reeling from Covid and the disastrous results of the lockdowns. Russia amassed troops on Ukraine’s border shortly thereafter. While Russian troops were in place, Biden increased oil imports from Russia and either ignored or removed Nord Stream 2 sanctions which aided Russia economically and increased their economic control over Europe. Biden then requested OPEC and Russia to increase supply to lower gas prices. Meanwhile Biden and others in the administration repeatedly suggested Ukraine join NATO, knowing this was Russia’s “redline”. Days before Russia’s invasion, FERC made it more difficult to build infrastructure to transport natural gas and the NRC rescinded extension permits for two nuclear reactors. This is strikingly bizarre behavior for an American president. Whose side is he on? Were Biden’s actions an invitation to Russia, is he mentally incapable of evaluating the consequences of his actions, or is he hamstrung by the ideology of his masters? Who are his masters?
How did Biden’s and his son’s financial arrangement with Ukraine impact this situation? How did the false and relentless Trump Russia collusion narrative impact our relationship with Russia? How does the Ukraine “phone call” and subsequent Trump impeachment play into this? Lee Smith’s “Ukraine’s Deadly Gamble” referenced above attempts to address these questions as well.
Undermining the fossil fuel industry under the guise of climate policy without a viable alternative actively in place seems foolhardy in the extreme. Now that we are confronted with the clear consequences of this policy, why hasn’t the administration changed course and taken steps to increase energy production at home?
Why is the Biden Administration also undermining the nuclear industry? It is incomprehensible. Nuclear is the only way to reduce emissions and satisfy our energy needs.
While unplugging Russia’s money machine seems to make sense, imagine what will happen to energy prices and overall inflation if we eliminate 7% of our energy supply overnight. Has Biden’s energy policy restricted our ability to react to Putin effectively and therefore compromised our national security? We import more energy than we export, have massive debt, spiraling inflation and fiscal responsibility at the Federal level is nonexistent. This WSJ editorial explains why cutting our Russian imports could largely be a symbolic gesture and have no meaningful impact on Russia.
Does the anticapitalistic “degrowth” movement inform Biden’s energy policy? Would this explain Biden’s attempt to reduce fossil fuels and nuclear without an alternate means of supply?
CONCLUSIONS
We can easily conclude that Russia’s actions are horrific. The people of Ukraine will suffer greatly. We can also conclude that Biden’s and Europe’s feckless energy policies have helped finance this carnage and hampered our ability to respond in the most effective manner. We know that countries like Germany are so dependent on Russian oil and gas they are incapable of meaningful sanctions without tanking their economies. We know many months elapsed with no discernible strategy from Biden or Europe to thwart this invasion or improve our leverage.
In addition to the complexities inherent in the energy industry, there are far too many unanswered questions for us to fully understand how we came to this juncture in history. We will not learn the truth from talking heads or politicians. Their rhetoric is political theater and feels like manipulation, the goal of which is unclear but instinctively troubling. Collectively we must demand answers and seek true motive.
Russia is not the only aggressor. Ukraine is the classic shiny object to deflect attention. Elizabeth Warren clearly demonstrated she would use this situation to advance a drastic climate agenda and it appears many in the administration share her view. Biden attempts to sweep consequences of his administration’s policies under the Ukrainian rug. These are the manipulative strategies of weak leaders. It is high time we view this latest assault on our economic and national security as an act of aggression against the American people. Equally important, we must ask why.
And finally, we can conclude that our current leaders, whoever they may be, are woefully inadequate to navigate the difficult times ahead. Can we trust them to do now what they have neglected to do for the last year? No. Will they dramatically change course to strengthen America at home and abroad with sound fiscal and energy policies that balance environmental, economic and national security with available and evolving technology? No. Their goals are not our own. They have put America on dangerously shaky ground.
SHAKY GROUND SUMMARY
Below is a summary of destabilizing factors addressed in this and previous articles in the America on Shaky Ground series.
Part 1–Division and distrust caused by the prohibition of gathering.
Part 2–Division and distrust caused by categorizing women and men into victims and oppressors.
Part 3–Division and distrust caused by racial segregation via victim/oppressor ideology.
Part 4 – Destabilize the populace by undermining the constitutional right of self-defense.
Part 5 – Propagation of false narratives designed to destabilize the populace and consolidate power.
Part 6 – Destabilize US economic and national security with unsound energy policies.
3.10.25 – Minor grammatical corrections.
Please feel free to visit BayBuddha Travels for articles on a wide range of subjects.
Strong coffee and a nap first may be required to get through this one…
Have you ever had to convince anyone of anything? If so, you have discovered that presentation is key to success. Should you just lay out the facts or should certain things be emphasized, glossed over or omitted all together?
Another rule in presentation is to keep it simple. Pretty hard to do with climate prediction, a subject that is complex, scientific and poorly understood. And simplicity becomes even more necessary with a nation that feeds on sound bites. What does this have to do with the climate wars you ask.
Greenhouse Gases, created by Jay Lehr, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst for International Climate Science Coalition
Let’s demonstrate with water vapor. A quick review – of the greenhouse gases 95% is water vapor, 3.6% is carbon dioxide and the remaining 1.4% includes nitrous oxide, methane and other trace gases. Of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, only a small portion is from manmade sources. I believe everyone agrees to these scientific facts. Regardless, how the various factions present the quantity and properties of the greenhouse gases is vastly different, so much so that one might conclude one side or the other is being economical with the truth.
Do a google search for pie charts of greenhouse gases. Here is a screen shot of my search. Of 420 pie charts guess how many included water vapor? Two charts. That’s it. Most are geared towards emissions, not the big picture of what natural and manmade gases exist in the atmosphere. My initial thought was, that’s weird, how is it treated in a couple of my reference books:
The Thinking Person’s Guide to Climate Change by Robert Henson – Mr. Henson falls into the Prepper category. He does mention water vapor as a greenhouse gas but leaves out the fact that water vapor is 95% of the total. Mr. Henson states “water vapor isn’t a very strong greenhouse gas but it makes up for this weakness in sheer abundance” and water vapor only acts as a feedback not a driver of climate. The positive feedback loop theory suggests the atmosphere can accommodate more water vapor when the air is warmer. Therefore when temperatures increase as a result of increased levels of CO2, water vapor will also increase. More water vapor means more warming thereby amplifying the effects of CO2.
The Mythology of Global Warming by Bruce Bunker – Dr. Bunker falls into the Debater category. The percentage of each greenhouse gas is outlined as is the methodology used to calculate the ability of each gas molecule to absorb infrared radiation. In other words, how much does each greenhouse gas contribute to the greenhouse effect. Dr. Bunker states that “a single water molecule absorbs over twice the heat of molecules of either carbon dioxide or methane which are nearly identical in their ability to absorb infrared radiation”. Hmmm, that’s the opposite of what Mr. Henson said. Since there are so many more water vapor molecules than carbon dioxide or methane molecules, the impact of water vapor on global warming far outweighs the impact of carbon dioxide or methane. “On a percentage basis atmospheric carbon dioxide absorbs less than 0.74% of the heat absorbed by atmospheric water, while methane absorbs less than 0.004%.” Dr. Bunker does not mention the potential feedback loop of water vapor.
If Dr. Bunker has outlined the properties of water vapor correctly, one would think it belongs in any conversation of global warming. In case the Prepper book above was an anomaly, I hit google. Articles are organized from Debater through various levels of Prepper.
https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html “Water Rules the Greenhouse System”. This article presents the relative impacts of greenhouse gases with and without including water vapor in the calculation and begins with this sentence. “Just how much of the “Greenhouse Effect” is caused by human activity? It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account– about 5.53%, if not. This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn’t factored into an analysis of Earth’s greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.” The rest of the article explains how the author came to this conclusion and the chart below depicts the author’s claim graphically. Even though it was written in 2003, I chose this article since it is clearly written.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php#intro “Greenhouse Gases”. The intro explains that greenhouse gases exist in the atmosphere naturally but due to our interference in the carbon cycle via fossil fuel emissions, forest burning and mining we artificially move carbon from its solid state to a gaseous state thereby increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere. This article describes each greenhouse gas and states that water vapor is the most plentiful greenhouse gas. The positive feedback loop is discussed but the article also states that “huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop”. This is one of the few articles I read that also mentions the possibility of a negative feedback loop or the potential cooling associated with additional water vapor in the atmosphere. The theory suggests higher temperatures result in higher water vapor which leads to increased cloud formation. Clouds reflect solar radiation, therefore less radiation actually reaches the earth’s surface and the temperature actually cools rather than warms. The article states that we do not have the ability to accurately measure the quantity of water vapor in the atmosphere. This is huge if true. It seems to me that if scientists can’t measure water vapor accurately, there is no way to prove the feedback loop theories, positive or negative. If this were the only article you read, you would have no idea that water vapor represents 95% of greenhouse gases with twice the infrared radiation absorbance potential on a molecule by molecule basis compared to carbon dioxide (assuming the absorbance information is true of course, sigh…).
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html – This NASA article recognizes water vapor as an important greenhouse gas but only because it creates a positive feedback loop related to CO2 increases. “The heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide.” This treats the positive feedback loop as fact and does not mention any scientific uncertainty regarding feedback loops as in the NOAA article above. Nor does it address the concentration of water vapor in relation to carbon dioxide and their relative ability to absorb infrared radiation.
https://www.eartheclipse.com/climate-change/effects-of-greenhouse-gases-on-climate-change.html “Effects of Greenhouse Gases on Climate” This article describes the greenhouse gases. The first sentence of the section on water vapor states “water vapor doesn’t actually have any effect on temperature so it is not rated with a Global Warming Potential”. Two sentences later the article describes the feedback loop: CO2 increase = temperature rise = water vapor increases = water vapor amplifies temperature increase. Confusing at best.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases “Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Overview of Greenhouse Gases”. There is not one mention of water vapor. I clicked on the Global Warming Potential link and also no mention of water vapor.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/langswitch_lang/in/ and https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/ Since it makes no logical sense to me that water vapor can only raise temps after CO2 raises them first, I tried to find articles to explain this theory. Good luck getting through the first article unless you are a climate scientist. They attempt to explain why water vapor should not be included as a greenhouse gas. One of the theories suggests that water vapor is not in the atmosphere long enough to drive climate. This is my question. Water vapor increases and decreases naturally due to normal weather events. Even though the individual molecules come and go, does water vapor’s overall concentration remain reasonably consistent? I will keep digging into this question.
The goal of this exercise was to determine if presentation tricks were occurring. Yes they most certainly are and not just with water vapor. Hopefully as this process continues we will understand why. Let’s sum up the water vapor issue. The Debaters are the only warriors who clearly outline the quantities of each greenhouse gas and water vapor’s ability to absorb infrared radiation. Presenting in this manner shows that the impacts of manmade carbon dioxide are miniscule compared to the warming properties of water vapor and natural carbon dioxide. The Preppers gloss over the quantity and properties of water vapor and believe water vapor’s primary role involves a positive feedback loop initiated by increases in manmade carbon dioxide. The Debaters believe the feedback loop is bad science, NOAA says the feedback loop is unsettled science and the Preppers says it is fact. Confused yet?
The Preppers rarely include water vapor in a chart depicting the atmospheric composition of greenhouse gases. Is this because a chart without water vapor is far more impactful? Or are they trying to keep it simple? Do the Preppers gloss over water vapor because they believe that even in very small quantities carbon dioxide has a huge impact on warming and including water vapor is a distraction? Or are they neglecting one of the many important factors in climate? Same question in reverse. Many Debaters include water vapor which graphically minimizes carbon dioxide. Do they do this to discount the impact of carbon dioxide? And of course the big question is, whose theories are accurate???
Are these presentation tricks utilized for altruistic or nefarious reasons? I don’t know the answers yet. My guess is this. The Grubbers have ulterior motives so convincing the public is critical to avoid, shall we say, an existential threat to their power and cash, ie nefarious. I reckon the rest of the climate warriors truly want everyone to believe what they believe and are doing whatever is necessary to put the best foot forward.
One would think a neophyte could look up the properties of greenhouse gases with ease. Nope. Not even close. How much heat each greenhouse gas has the potential to absorb is a foundational element of global warming theory. This should be a straightforward measurement with results communicated in a scientific manner. Instead I have found highly contradictory statements and opinions. More research is needed to present the various positions adequately so please bear with me as I take a step back and continue peeling back the layers. Meanwhile the graphic below illustrates the volume of the greenhouse gases. Since water vapor is clearly the predominant greenhouse gas, an understanding of its properties is key.
Greenhouse Gases, created by Jay Lehr, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst for International Climate Science Coalition
Note: There is significant disagreement over the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere attributable to manmade activities but all agree that the majority is of natural origins. Many also believe that manmade carbon dioxide exerts a notable impact on warming even though the total percentage is extremely small compared to water vapor. We will be getting into all of this after delving into the properties of water vapor.
We all learned the composition of the atmosphere in grade school but with recent news I thought carbon dioxide and methane had increased so dramatically the earth was going to burn up. So perhaps a refresher is in order:
“The atmosphere is composed of a mix of several different gases in differing amounts. The permanent gases whose percentages do not change from day to day are nitrogen, oxygen and argon. Nitrogen accounts for 78% of the atmosphere, oxygen 21% and argon 0.9%. Gases like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone are trace gases that account for about a tenth of one percent (0.1%) of the atmosphere. Water vapor is unique in that its concentration varies from 0-4% of the atmosphere depending on where you are and what time of the day it is. In the cold, dry artic regions water vapor usually accounts for less than 1% of the atmosphere, while in humid, tropical regions water vapor can account for almost 4% of the atmosphere. Water vapor content is very important in predicting weather.”[1]
What is a greenhouse gas? When energy leaves earth on the way to outer space, it is in the form of infrared radiation (IR radiation). Some atmospheric gases can absorb IR radiation and some cannot. The ones that do are called greenhouse gases. When a greenhouse gas molecule absorbs IR radiation, the molecules vibrate faster and become “hotter”. They cool off when they reemit the IR radiation. There is a process of absorption and reemission until the gas reaches the upper atmosphere and escapes into space. Repeated absorption and reemission of IR radiation slows down the passage of IR radiation through the atmosphere and it is warmer than it would be otherwise.[2]This is commonly called the greenhouse effect. Global warming theory suggests that increased concentrations of greenhouse gases increase the greenhouse effect and therefore warming.
Keep in mind the greenhouse effect is what makes our planet habitable. Without greenhouse gases temporarily trapping warmth, earth would be one big ball of ice.
The primary greenhouse gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. The most plentiful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor at 27,000 ppmv (parts per million by volume), followed by carbon dioxide which is approximately 415 ppmv and methane at 2ppmv. The figure below graphically displays the composition of the atmosphere. Note there is debate on how much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is man-made. We will dig into that in a future blog.
What I either did not know or forgot is:
Carbon dioxide and methane are a miniscule part of the total atmosphere at .04% and .0002% respectively.
Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas by a long shot and has an average concentration over the earth of 2.7%.
There are 70 times more water molecules in near-surface air than carbon dioxide molecules and 14,000 more than methane.[3]
Learning that carbon dioxide and methane concentrations are miniscule compared to water vapor was rather eye opening. Then I discovered that everyone seems to agree that fluctuations in carbon dioxide do have an impact. The climate wars rage over the nature and magnitude of the impact. We are now at the end of consensus. It’s a free for all after this…
Composition of Atmosphere, created by Jay Lehr, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst for International Climate Science Coalition
The following excerpt dragged me hook, line and sinker into climate research. Is the author a Worrier, Prepper or Grubber? Hard to know. “Saturday’s carbon dioxide measurement of 415 parts per million at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory is the highest in at least 800,000 years and probably over 3 million years. Carbon dioxide levels have risen by nearly 50 percent since the Industrial Revolution.”[1]
Whoa. Pull the handbrake. The highest in 800,000 years? Inquiring minds want to know, what jacked up the CO2 800,000 years ago? Clearly it was not fossil fuel emissions being belched into the atmosphere. And what brought it down? Certainly not the Green New Deal. What were the temps then vs now?
What does all of this mean? Well the first thing it means is I know nothing about climate science and have no intention of going back to school. So how do we the people make sense of it? Let’s start with some oversimplified basics followed by the claims being bandied about by the competing factions. Will it be obvious which claims are real, which are guesses and which are designed to influence? Maybe. One thing I can guarantee, the upcoming blogs will create a desire to drink heavily.
Before we get started, let’s talk about me. I am sad that I have been yanked out of Sandhead status. But because the claims of the Preppers are so dire, there is no choice but to give global warming serious consideration. Now that I am engaged, my natural personality puts me squarely in the Debater category. I am skeptical of Preppers with claims of earthly doom in 12 years and have only disdain for Grubbers. Everyone else I am good with. This will shine through but unlike the news media, my primary goal is to inform, not influence. Therefore, the positions of all sides will be presented fairly, and I will be clear when offering opinions or jokes or sarcasm or satire.
The earth’s climate is driven primarily by solar energy. It reminds me of a basic dieting principle – calories in, calories out. It is a similar concept with the earth – energy in, energy out and as with our bodies, balance or the lack thereof plays a role. The earth’s energy cycle begins with solar energy entering our atmosphere which is absorbed or reflected. The energy that is absorbed gets busy doing all sorts of things that drive climate and weather. Then the energy radiates back to outer space in the form of infrared radiation (IR). If incoming and outgoing energy are in balance, the earth’s temperature remains constant.[2]
The photo below is from “The Mythology of Global Warming” by Dr. Bruce Bunker and is a simplified version of the earth’s energy cycle which the author adapted from Primer on Solar Energy, Solar Energy Systems, Argonne National Laboratory. Note the title clearly indicates the book was written by a Debater, but because the energy cycle is not a controversial topic and the author did an excellent job of simplifying the energy cycle, I chose to use only this figure and not present another from a Prepper. Mr. Bunker’s far more detailed (and accurate) explanation of the energy cycle is worth the read.
Why is the energy cycle important to understand? Because it leads to the understanding of the basic premise of global warming…
The Energy Cycle from the Mythology of Global Warming by Dr. Bruce Bunker
I decided to dive into climate change data to determine if an unscientific lay person can tease out the relevant facts from the rhetoric. It’s time for regular people to figure this out rather than blindly listening to the head spinning chatter. The proposed climate change solutions are certain to produce massive unintended consequences. Ditto for ignoring pollution.
Another reason to research is that nagging question of motive. I am always suspicious when issues become highly politicized, especially ones that are scientific, complex and impossible to prove. With extreme polarization, chances are excellent that the movers and shakers on each side have an agenda that has zero to do with the topic. The subject is simply the means of manipulation. Is that happening now? We the people must know the answer to this question.
Since our society incessantly attempts to segregate us into groups, let’s follow suit:
Climate Ignorers– These folks have their heads in the sand which is really just fine. They are probably the happiest people among us since they pay no attention whatsoever to the incessant rhetoric and do not stay up nights wondering how everything got so bizarre. How about Sandheads for this group?
Climate Deniers– Self explanatory. One thing that I do know with certainty is that climate is changing, has always changed and always will. Many put the President in this category. Let’s call these folks the Dummies.
Climate Realists– This group of scientists and possibly fossil fuel executives say the temperature and sea level are rising but debate how much, if any, of this rise is caused by human activities. They do not believe the science is settled and question how much impact the increase in CO2 and methane have on warming. They disagree with the projections of the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) and believe the solutions put forth by the Green New Deal would do very little to lower temperatures but would succeed in devastating the economy. Interestingly some believe a small rise in temperature will have a positive impact on the planet. They would say the opposite if the planet were cooling. Let’s go with the Debaters for this group.
Climate Disciples– These folks listen to the news, accept everything and are scared. It’s striking how so many things are a result of climate change and conversely how everything we do causes climate change. Some are anxiously wringing their hands wondering when to sell their homes before the rising sea scares off potential buyers. This is easy, they are the Worriers.
Climate Alarmists– The alarmists are the scientists, politicians, celebrities and reporters who say if drastic action is not taken, our planet is doomed. Interestingly most democratic presidential candidates fall in this category. Who knows if they really believe it, but like many politicians they realize that fear is a wonderful marketing tool. They are the doomsday criers, the only ones who can save us, in control of the only “real” science and they feed on the Worriers without mercy. The Green New Deal is the ultimate in doomsday preparation. So let’s call these folks the Preppers.
Climate Opportunists– There is much overlap between the climate opportunists and the Preppers and it is hard to determine who is who. We humans are an incentive driven species and the climate industry has opened many doors for those seeking financial gain. Who on the climate stage is a money grubber? In search of fame? Clamoring for power? These people have a date with karma in their future. They are the Grubbers.
So we have the Sandheads, Dummies, Debaters, Worriers, Preppers and Grubbers. Let’s jump in, learn and have some fun.
