As much of America remains frigid, media
headlines shout far and wide that catastrophic man-made climate change is to
blame. But is it true?
What are the basic facts about climate that people need to
know? Four questions can aid in the understanding of this
complicated topic.
First, is the Earth warming?
Second, if it is, what is causing the warming?
Third, assuming that CO2 is causing the Earth to warm, what is the
cost of mitigating its impact?
And fourth, if CO2 has little or no impact on the Earth's
temperature, can anything good come from future increases of CO2?
So is the Earth warming? Yes! The Earth is
warming, and it has been for over 150 years as the world emerges from the
Little Ice Age. Atmospheric CO2 has also been increasing since WWI.
What causes the warming? That is a matter of intense
debate.
In the 1980s, meteorologists observed that the Earth's temperature
was increasing at the same time as atmospheric CO2 concentration was rising.
A group at NASA concluded that CO2 is driving the
warming. They developed a numerical model of the atmosphere that
projected an alarming rise in the Earth's temperature and made public
announcements of an impending disaster. All the alarmist statements
from the 1980s until today are based on numerical models.
But beginning in 1998, the Earth's temperature plateaued
(currently referred to as the "pause") while CO2 levels continued to
spiral upward. This caused a number of scientists outside the
"alarmist" community to undertake an in-depth review of what has become
a serious controversy.
These "skeptics" are convinced that meteorological data
overwhelmingly show that CO2 is not a major factor in the global
temperature. Their belief is based on three primary reasons.
First, the pause has lasted for nearly twenty years, while
atmospheric concentration of CO2 continues to rise. Second, there is
a poor correlation between CO2 and the Earth's temperature, as evidenced by the
current pause and the fact that what correlations exist often show that
temperature changes before CO2 rather than vice versa. And third,
failure of the numerical models, which predict double and triple the warming
seen in real-world observations, suggests that the CO2 terms in the models are
wrong.
Nevertheless, assuming that the alarmists are right and CO2 is
causing global warming, what would be the cost to mitigate warming driven by
CO2?
This brings us to the meeting of the U.N. Framework Convention on
Climate Change in Paris in December 2015, when 194 nations agreed to reduce CO2
emissions by unrealistic amounts.
It was recognized that developing nations would need financial
help to achieve their goals. The conference agreed to establish a
"Green Climate Fund" that would be distributed to developing
nations. The goal was to have $100 billion in this fund by
2020. Of the 194 countries, 46 agreed to be donor nations, which
means there would be almost 150 receiver nations.
At the meeting, the 46 donor nations made an initial pledge of $10
billion, with 90% coming from six countries: England, France, Germany, Japan,
Sweden, and the United States, with the U.S. carrying the heavy load of $3
billion. It was agreed that pledges would be paid in two
years. Yet, two years later, only $3.4 billion has been collected,
with over one fourth of it from the U.S.
In 2017, however, President Trump announced that the U.S. would
pull out of the agreement. If we were to rejoin the Paris agreement,
we would have to pay over $2 billion immediately to satisfy our pledge, and
that would only be the beginning, because the goal is to have $100 billion in
the "Green Climate Fund" by 2020. Without billions of
dollars from the U.S., the Paris Agreement is doomed.
Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates that it will cost the world
$7.4 trillion by 2040, and Bjørn Lomborg estimates that it will cost from $70
to $140 trillion by 2100 if all nations comply with the Paris Agreement.
In addition, there have been billions of dollars spent
domestically on global warming. The Capital Research Center
estimated the United States spent $166 billion on global warming from
1993–2014, and the budgets for 2015–2017 were around $20 billion per year.
What does all this money buy us? Estimates assuming
that CO2's warming effect is large range to as much as a 1.5-degree centigrade
reduction in global average temperature at the end of this
century. But the most credible figure, generously based on the
IPCC's own assumptions of CO2's warming effect, seems to be under 0.2 degrees
centigrade. That is a lot of money for an insignificant result.
Finally, if the skeptics are right, and CO2 is not a major factor
in the Earth's temperature, warming prevented by the Paris agreement would be
even less, though the costs would remain the same.
Meanwhile, can anything good come from expected future increases
of CO2? The answer is a resounding yes!
We have known for years that CO2 enhances plant
growth. Over 1,000 scientific studies on a variety of plants have
documented this growth, but only recently has there been an attempt to put a
monetary value on the increases.
Dr. Craig Idso, in a fascinating investigation, used the results
of these studies to determine the growth rate of 45 plants for the period
1961–2011. These plants produce 95% of the food for the world's
population. He then converted this growth into a dollar
value. For the fifty-year period ending in 2011, growth of plants by
CO2 resulted in an increase of $3.2 trillion for the world's agricultural
community.
Dr. Idso then projected these results forward to 2050, assuming
that CO2 would continue to increase at the current rate. The world
could realize an astounding $9.8-trillion additional bonus!
The great news is that it costs nothing to achieve this
goal. All we have to do is continue using fossil fuels at today's
rate.
In summary, the alarmists' policies will cost trillions of dollars
in a largely ineffectual attempt to mitigate warming, with no proof that
mitigation is necessary and with current attempts proven to be utterly
dismal. The skeptics' solution will result in a return of trillions
of dollars in increased agricultural growth and, more important, will allow
developing countries to continue using abundant, affordable, and reliable
energy sources – namely, fossil fuels – to rise and stay out of poverty and
avoid the high rates of disease and premature death that invariably accompany
it.
Neil L. Frank, Ph.D. (meteorology), a fellow of the
Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, was director of the National
Hurricane Center (1974-1987) and chief meteorologist for KHOU-TV, Houston
(1987-2007). In retirement, he continues studies on hurricanes and
climate change.
