The Green New Deal Is Totally Insane!

One of the greatest priorities for American progressives is the so-called “Green New Deal.” In case you are one of the very few who has not heard of it, the Green New Deal is a scheme for reducing CO₂ emissions into the atmosphere. Progressives believe since CO₂ is a greenhouse gas that absorbs heat radiation, man-produced atmospheric carbon dioxide is responsible for the observed global warming. Nevertheless, the Green New Deal is totally insane in several respects.

Leftists ascribe all sorts of damages to Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) that have other explanations. Some of their mistaken notions will be examined in the next section. After that, we will look at evidence the Green New Deal would virtually destroy the U.S. economy with no measurable effect on global temperatures. In the section after that, we will discover a much more dismaying consequence of reducing man-made emissions of CO₂. Should governments successfully reduce or eliminate human-produced CO2, they could cause a massive die-off of plant life over the entire planet. Finally, the insanity of the Green New Deal is confirmed by a series of four or five (depending on how you count them) physical facts about atmospheric carbon dioxide. These are not complicated facts to understand. In fact, a freshman physics student could easily comprehend them. What they demonstrate is atmospheric carbon dioxide cannot possibly be responsible for the observed global warming.

Some False Ideas about Anthropogenic Global Warming

Let us start with some common misconceptions by Leftists. American progressives and European dirigistes like to pretend their opinions are formed consistent with science. And of course, if progressive beliefs conform to science, the antithetical beliefs of their opposition must be anti-science. Therefore, the American and European Left have been at pains to claim the vast majority of scientists believe along with them that man is the cause of global warming.

Yet this is far from the actual case. I have written any number of times about highly reputable scientists, mostly physical scientists, who actively disbelieve in man-caused global warming. You can find the contrary evidence in the following posts:

• The Great Global Warming Scam
• Global Warming Data
• Anti-AGW Global Warming Scholarly References
• What Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming?

So what about those scientists who say they believe in AGW? The first thing to say about them is their number is somewhat exaggerated. Yet another point to make is the following: Suppose you are a physical scientist dependent on grant money from the government. How anxious, then, would you be to contradict a government-sanctioned belief in AGW. In a letter published by the Wall Street Journal in January 2012, 16 scientists noted:

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever [Nobel Prize winner in physics and an AGW opponent]. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

…. Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

No Need to Panic About Global Warming / WSJ

The signatories to this letter are the following:

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Numerous other misconceptions about global warming were debunked by, of all people, one of the Obama administration’s top scientists, Steven E. Koonin. In 2009 Dr. Koonin was appointed the U.S. Department of Energy’s Under Secretary for Science. In his 2021 book Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters, Dr. Koonin makes the following points:

• According to a 2017 U.S. government Climate Science Report, the warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past fifty years.
• A 2014 National Climate Assessment states, “Humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century.“ I have written about this before with supporting evidence in my post Are Hurricanes Becoming Worse Because of Global Warming?
• According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), “since the middle of the twentieth century, the number of significant tornadoes hasn’t changed much at all, but the strongest storms have become less frequent.“
• The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today. Since the atmospheric CO₂ concentration has been rising almost linearly in time, there seems to be no correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and sea-level rises.
• There have been no increases in droughts over the past 50 years. According to NOAA’s figures, the past fifty years have been slightly wetter than average.
• Finally, the IPCC asserted in 2020 that global warming has not created famine. Instead, “in the fifty years from 1961 to 2011, global yields of wheat, rice, and maize … each more than doubled.” This actually makes a great deal of sense. As the world becomes slightly warmer with somewhat more rainfall, growing seasons would become more bountiful.

The Green New Deal Would Destroy the Economy without a Measurable Decrease in Global Warming

Yet another sign of insanity among Green New Deal proponents is their refusal to recognize that its exorbitant cost could destroy the economy for a very little decrease in warming. The major reason for the plan’s lack of effectiveness is atmospheric carbon dioxide has essentially nothing to do with global warming in the first place. (See the last section below.) However, even accepting the assumptions made by AGW proponents, the Green New Deal would just not work.

Even if the United States could totally eliminate carbon dioxide emissions, it would not make a difference in the rise of global temperatures. Let us assume the same sensitivity of global temperatures to increases in carbon dioxide concentrations as the U.N.’s IPCC does in its modeling. Then, if the U.S. completely ceased CO₂ emissions, the world’s average temperatures would be only 0.137 degrees Celsius cooler by 2100. Even if every country in the world followed suit, by 2100 the world’s average temperature would be only 0.278 degrees Celsius cooler.

Yet, the cost to the U.S. economy to accomplish even this much would be devastating. It is somewhat difficult to accurately assess how much the Green New Deal would cost since Democrats are constantly revising it. Among its major provisions so far are the following:

• Obtain 100 percent of the nation’s electricity from “clean, renewable, and zero-emission” energy sources.
• To the extent it is technologically feasible, eliminate all greenhouse gas emissions from all sources.
• Make massive government investments in clean-energy and renewable-energy manufacturing.
• Make state-of-the-art changes to every new and existing residential and industrial building.

The Heritage Foundation estimates that just the first of the goals in this list could easily cost $5 trillion, or about 24 percent of today’s GDP. Moreover, the Heritage Foundation estimates an average annual loss of 1.2 million jobs through the year 2040. They also estimate the average family of four would lose almost $8,000 in income every year, or a total of more than $165,000 through the year 2040. Noting these costs for so little gain, any rational person could only conclude the Green New Deal is totally insane.

If Successful, the Green New Deal Would Threaten All Plant Life on Earth

There is a much more terrifying aspect of an operating Green New Deal than the mere destruction of our national economy. If successfully implemented it would deprive plants of CO2. Through photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is food for plants. Should the federal government succeed in greatly decreasing carbon dioxide emissions, they could starve plants to death. Should that happen, even carnivores would die off.

Right now, the universally accepted number for CO₂ atmospheric concentrations is a little more than 400 parts per million by volume. That is, in any given volume of the atmosphere, for every 1,000,000 molecules found, 400 would be CO₂. If you do the math, that means the fraction of the atmosphere that is CO₂ is approximately 0.0004 (0.04%). Carbon dioxide is a true trace gas. It is amazing that plant life can survive at all with such low levels of CO₂.

In fact, almost all plants would thrive with much higher levels of CO₂. As it is, increasing CO₂ levels have been making the planet more green according to satellite measurements. You should not be surprised by this fact, since most types of plants came into being when carbon dioxide levels were much, much higher. This happened around 540 million years ago during the so-called Cambrian Explosion during the Cambrian period of the Paleozoic Era. This was an explosion of life during which not just most plant phyla, but also most animal phyla came into existence. During the Cambrian Explosion, carbon dioxide concentrations were approximately an astronomical 7000 ppm, or 0.007 (0.7%) of the atmosphere. Even back then, CO2 was a trace gas.

Yet average temperatures at the time were only about 22°C (71.6°F), approximately 8°C above our current global average of around 14°C (57.2°F). Clearly, even with CO₂ levels 6,600 ppm above our current 400 ppm, the Earth back then was anything but a fiery hell-hole.

Progressives like to tell us we will create a catastrophe for life on Earth if we continue to emit CO₂ into the atmosphere. Yet, one tale you almost certainly have not heard is that we do have a great deal to fear if atmospheric carbon dioxide is allowed to decrease. Biologists have shown plant life begins to suffer greatly once CO₂ levels fall below 500 ppm, the situation we suffer today. Consider the effects of increasing CO₂ as shown in the plots below, taken from Ehleringer et al. A History of Atmospheric CO2 and Its Effects on Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems. New York. Springer Science+Business Media. 2005.

Yet, seeing is believing. Take a gander at the following video showing time-lapse photography of the growth of two cowpea plants. One is in a chamber with ambient CO₂ (450 ppm) and one in a chamber with elevated CO₂ (1270 ppm).

Should the CO₂ levels ever fall below 150 ppm, massive die-offs of plant life could be expected. As the NoTricksZone post by Pierre Gosselin, at which I found the plots above, put it:  “Do we really want to live on the brink of extinction?” Better to subsidize the burning of fossil fuels to replenish our atmospheric CO₂!

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Cannot Possibly Be Responsible for Observed Global Warming

But here is the really startling fact concerning anthropogenic global warming. It is physically impossible for atmospheric carbon dioxide to be responsible for the observed global warming. A series of facts force us to this conclusion.

1. There is too little atmospheric CO₂ to cause much greenhouse warming. At about 400 parts per million by volume, it is a true trace gas. It would have to have a much greater abundance with much greater specific heat to cause much warming.

2. Carbon dioxide is a comparatively weak greenhouse gas. The greenhouse gas that contributes the most to global warming is water vapor. The American Chemical Society notes that “[o]n average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect.” On the other hand, water vapor limits its impact with a negative feedback effect. Water vapor forms clouds that reflect solar radiation back into space.

3. Carbon dioxide is a molecule, making it one of the largest physical entities displaying quantum mechanical effects. In particular, its internal energy states are quantized, i.e. the molecule only has particular states of energy. The carbon dioxide molecule possesses only three energy transitions between states that can absorb infrared photons, i.e. photons that carry heat. In addition, two of those energy transitions are far into the tail of the Earth’s black body radiation distribution, making the probability they will be excited small. This is shown in the plots below.

4. Once excited to a higher energy state, the molecule can not absorb another photon at the same energy until it emits a photon to decay to the ground state. Depending on the method of decay back to the ground state (collisions with other molecules or spontaneous radiation of a photon), the lifetime of the excited state in terms of its half-life can be anywhere from one microsecond up to 0.45 sec. These lifetimes are very long compared to the amount of time it takes for an unabsorbed photon to reach the top of the troposphere, from where it would most probably be lost to space. Taking the thickness of the troposphere to be 20 km (its thickest extent at the equator), the shortest such time of flight is around 6.67×10^-5 seconds. As long as the CO₂ molecule is excited, it can not delay any other photons at the same wavelength as its excited state; they will all stream past the excited molecule without hinderance. If all three excited states are occupied, then the molecule can not delay any thermal photon from passing it by. 

5. As CO₂ gobbles up photons at the wavelengths it can, it depletes the population of available photons. At very low  CO₂ concentrations, adding more CO₂ simply absorbs more of the appropriate photons, providing significant atmospheric heating. However, as increasingly more CO₂ is added to the atmosphere, more of the photon population at the proper wavelengths is depleted by absorption. This results in decreasing heating from the injection of additional CO₂. The decreasing sensitivity of atmospheric temperature to increasing CO₂ concentrations is depicted in the plot below.

Almost all atmospheric CO₂ molecules are already totally saturated with infrared photons, with most such photons streaming past them to be lost into space.

So, if atmospheric carbon dioxide can not significantly explain the observed global warming, what does? The short answer is we do not know. However, we can give a name to the explanation: the Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations. These are warming-cooling oscillations with a period between 1350-1470 years. We are now in the warming period of that oscillation, which should last until approximately the year 2400. The previous cooling period was the Little Ice Age (~1300 AD – ~1850 AD), and the previous warming period was the Medieval Optimum (~950 AD – ~1250 AD). Since these oscillations greatly precede the Industrial Revolution, they cannot be explained by human emissions of CO₂.

For all the reasons described above, the progressive’s Green New Deal is totally insane. We would be insane to allow progressives to inflict it on us.

Views: 3,707

Sharing is caring!