Letter to Editor: Cutting emissions isn’t the way



The letter of August 8 (“Crucial conversations”) is a bit extreme on the idea of a “climate crisis” being real and having a fatal effect on our lives.

First of all, climate change has been with us for thousands of years, at least. There is nothing new here, and the contribution of carbon dioxide to this is miniscule, and getting less as CO2 concentrations increase. This is the negative logarithmic relationship of CO2 concentrations to temperature. A visual reference to this is Monckton 2017, Ch 6.1, based on the IPCC formula.

This is one reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming when the concentration of CO2 was approaching 20 times that of today, (many times over millions of years). In fact, our current geologic period has the lowest CO2 levels in the history of the Earth.

(More) people are not dying of heatstroke and dehydration. There were three “recent” periods when the Earth was warmer than today: The Minoan Warm period (1,500 – 1,200 B.C., the Bronze Age), The Roman Warm Period (1250 B.C. – 450A.D., the Iron Age) and the Medieval Warm Period (950 – 1,250 A.D., the High Middle Ages). All of these periods were periods of great human growth.

Droughts are not increasing nor are major weather events like hurricanes or tornados. And sea level, which has been rising for over 15,000 years, is not accelerating. Most recent data puts sea level rise at about 1.04 mm/year, which works out to 104 mm/century, or a little over 4 inches in 100 years.

The point is, there is no “climate crisis” requiring draconian action. Yes, the greenhouse effect is scientifically real, but its effect is miniscule for CO2. The major greenhouse gas is water vapor, which contributes about 90 percent, while CO2 is about 6 percent, and there is no data that increasing CO2 impacts the water vapor effect.

To read about a real climate crisis, dig back into history a bit. Take Chicago in August, 1934. For a reference, see “What a Real Climate Crisis Looks Like” by Tony Heller on The Deplorable Climate Science Blog.

It is possible we will all have to “adapt” to whatever climate change may do to us, be it lobstering in Maine or shoring up coast lines, but cutting fossil fuel emissions by going to electric cars, switching to wind or solar, isn’t the way.

The average American is being pushed by the politicians who want control. A recent global warming petition, the Oregon Petition, was signed by 31,000 scientists (including 9,029 with Ph.D.s) urging the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto, Japan agreement (Dec. 1997) and any other similar proposals. The petition states there’s no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2 is causing or will cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere.

More CO2 benefits the Earth with more plant growth and helps to feed more people worldwide. It has been shown that plant growth was reduced by 8 percent in the period before the Industrial Revolution with its low concentration of only 280 ppm CO2.

Alternative energy sources are not efficient ways to go. Wind and solar machines and batteries are built from nonrenewable materials. Building a single wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of non-recyclable plastic. Solar power requires even more cement, steel and glass, plus other metals. Electric cars require major increases in cobalt and lithium. Plus a single electric car battery weighs about 1,000 pounds and requires moving and digging up more than 500,000 pounds of raw materials somewhere on the planet.

For a readable source, I recommend “Inconvenient Facts” by Gregory Wrightstone, 2017.

Tom Rolfes

Somesville and Cincinnati, Ohio

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.