Written by Roger Arthur
~~oo~~
How much do our hydrocarbon emissions affect atmospheric CO2 concentrations? Look no further than at what happened during Lockdown. To recap.
1. Impact of Human Emissions on CO2 in the Atmosphere
We know that CO2 in the atmosphere can contribute to a greenhouse effect and a rise in global temperature. But the dramatic reduction in Hydrocarbon emissions, during lockdown, did not cause a perceptible change in that concentration.
As the link below shows, human CO2 emissions dropped by an unprecedented amount in the first few months of lockdown, while the atmospheric concentration continued virtually unchanged. Looking back in time, we see further clues.
Annual Fossil Carbon production fell due to the Great Recession, from 1.2 Giga Tonnes in 1929 to 0.9 Giga Tonnes in 1932, but over the same period global temperature increased by 0.1 deg C. Also between 2002 and 2013, fossil fuel emissions accelerated, but the rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations didn’t.
Hydrocarbon use also accelerated between 1970 and 1990, while arctic air temperature fell, showing that solar radiation had more impact on that temperature, than did Hydrocarbon emissions.
2. So what causes Global Warming?
Well the sun heats the earth and the rate of cooling at night, is limited mostly (95%) by water vapour in the atmosphere, that being the main cause of the greenhouse effect. That increase in temperature raises the atmospheric concentration of H2O – and CO2 from natural sources – which lags global temperature variations.
In fact, global temperature rose by around 0.3 degrees C, between 1977 and 2020 (resulting in a year-on-year rise in CO2 concentration) compared with flawed IPCC model predictions of a 0.9 degree C rise average. Those are the models being used to justify the expenditure of up to £100,000 per UK household, neglecting the evidence that human CO2 emissions are not a significant contributor to atmospheric concentrations, or to global temperature rise.
Indeed it seems that water vapour is responsible for around 95% of the greenhouse effect, compared with about 1.5% or less, for CO2. So how do human-related CO2 emissions compare with natural emissions?
Well according to the Daily Telegraph March 16, one of the largest CO2 contributors is Fungi, mainly due to the decomposition of woody material. That would appear to be much greater than the total attributed to human activity.
That is not to mention the tremendous amounts of CO2 contributed by 1500 active volcanoes; the hundreds of coal-seam fires; the trillions of tons of organic matter that decompose; the rotting of billions of animal and fish corpses and other natural sources. These natural CO2 emissions seem to far outweigh human ”contributions”.
So are we really expected to believe that, the greenhouse effect of that relatively tiny amount of CO2 is keeping so much excess heat from radiating out into space?
3. Net Zero Targets – based on Date, not Data (not following the science)
The UK has already cut its hydrocarbon emissions by more than most other G7 countries – to around 43% of 1990 levels – with a ‘cleaner’ electricity mix based on gas instead of coal, plus renewables.
Since 2004, our industrial electricity costs have increased by more than 160% and they are becoming increasingly uncompetitive. The Electric Vehicle (EV) roll out programme over the next 9 years, will only make that worse.
EV charger ratings are typically 3.5kW or more and with 20 million EVs, the peak evening charger load could be 70,000MW, which alone exceeds the current maximum demand (MD) on the National Grid. That assumes only one EV per household and that all 33m vehicles will not be replaced by EVs. To that must be added the load of electrically driven heat pumps, which replace gas-fired boilers.
Notwithstanding all that, it has been estimated that an EV would need to be driven around 50,000 miles before it breaks even with the CO2 foot print of an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE), when the average car mileage in the UK is only around 10,000 miles. Where is that covered by the government’s cost/benefit analysis?
Also since the capacity of fossil-fuelled power stations currently totals over 50% of the UK generation mix, EV charging will cause CO2 emissions for some time yet, while an emerging shortage of materials needed for EV production, looms ever larger.
So you might well ask why is the government going to spend £2 or £3 trillion to reduce human CO2 emissions, causing more fuel poverty – while driving more energy-intensive companies abroad, to the likes of China and India – where they will emit more CO2 than before? It doesn’t look like a good bang for the buck, does it?
Did you vote for your household to fork out £100,000 towards a zero-carbon target, when the whole concept (not to mention the climate change models) is so flawed? Why not ask your MP to justify the assumptions made in perpetuating this flawed policy – when the UK only emits around 1% of global human CO2 emissions?
The PM is burnishing his green credentials at enormous expense to you and your children.
As they say, what do I know about it?
and the answer is Sorry Roger not a lot.
But Julian Flood did an article a short while ago on a similar subject and I put up a couple of points. admittedly a bit late and I feel they are still relevant in the context of your article, so I have taken the liberty of repeating them below.
Apologies if you object.
Briefly you will notice I have been hearing about the wider use of ammonia. and particularly storage in batteries.
I am also interested in SMR`s
And strangely enough I heard some mention of going ahead with carbon capture. today
Have you are anybody any news.?
Roger Turner on May 5, 2021 at 12:56 pm
Julian, you say SMRs have been on the go for some time and indeed their announcement and even assembly of their contractors and other services appear to be in position and some authorisations have been passed..
Is there any reason they are just not getting on and “doing it”?
Is it money? I do hope they are not waiting for the Chinese to back the project, that would be the ultimate sell out
But I do feel Hinckly Point will be the last of the big boys, in this country, even if it doesn’t get finished because the Chinese turn off the money faucet
I believe SMRs are vital, both to the nation, but more so to RR who really need another arm as well as aero engines
Roger Turner on May 5, 2021 at 11:20 am
Don`t get me wrong, I have always been an enthusiast, going back many years for the use of the Sun and windpower, which I always saw as “free”, but as an addition to fossil fuel..and I am terribly disappointed that its introduction is proving so difficult, expensive and controversial politically..
Unfortunately events have moved on and whether we agree with the decision to go “all electric” and generate it in every which way, apart from using fossil fuel, We are “here now” apparently the decision has been taken and we are embarked on a supposedly world wide quest..
I must confess, I am a lifelong `petrolhead` I have a love for the freedom which the internal combustion engine has given me and still gives me at my ripe old age.
So my greatest sadness is that this life-long friend is about to be trashed, thrown on the scrapheap of time, and what is worse nobody seems to understand the lifelong investment that has been made, which is the “CAPITAL”, or part of it which our economy is supposed to run the “company” of GB.
One of the Nation`s greatest assets is just being written off, without a whimper a backward look or a tear, by the WRECKERS.
Ah but I have good news – apparently NOT ALL IS LOST.
Who says?
Elon Musk
But he`s the big white chief of the leading electric car manufacturing firm of TESLA, have you gone mad?
No, nor is he, but he has seen the future of fossil fuel replacement and particularly for the internal combustion engine it isnt electric.
Believe it or not it is Rocket Fuel, similar to that used to power the fastest plane on earth 3rd October 1967 an X15 plane travelled at 4,519 MPH
No silly, your Roller will not be capable of doing that, but that fuel, scaled down in strength for the ordinary engine will be capable of driving it and what`s more it`s clean, just a drop of drinking water from your tail pipe.
What`s this magic stuff called?
It`s Ammonia dear boy
But we already have it, they use it for all sorts of things.
Yes, but it`s messy to produce and expensive, however there`s some small firm in Ontario Canada who have discovered a much simpler cracking process and they are busy getting it on super stream NOW.
Think, you will be able to use all the excess power from those windmill turbines and the electro magnetic sun trappers, channel it to making Ammonia, which is then stored or distributed from tanks (Batteries).
First conversions off the block will be those big ships which guzzle loads of fossil fuels.
Oh and I haven`t mentioned Hydrogen of which they are doing wonderful things.
As you say Roger “water vapour is responsible for around 95% of the greenhouse effect, compared with about 1.5% or less, for CO2.” So water vapour, also known as clouds, is the driver of whatever global warming there is.
The Green policy of “decarbonisation” cannot stop global warming but it will ruin the Western countries that are “decarbonised”. The ruin of the West is the real purpose behind “decarbonisation” .
Ruination indeed Ralph. That is why they won’t listen to any argument against it.
‘Fossil fuels are a diminishing resource’. (No name no —- —–!)
True but they are hardly on the brink of running out. Sun and wind frequently DO cease. And our national grid could fail very soon due to the Global Warming Scam our government has fallen for.
I know who I prefer to listen to.
Man’s influence on CO2 is minor and the effects of this man-produced CO2 on climate even more so. We need CO2 for life as without it we would all be dead. The more CO2 the better the growth of plants and thus the production of food. Perspective is needed in this debate except of course it is not a debate as the PM, along with a few other zealously climatic leaders, have assumed no debate is needed. Science has spoken. Yes, but in fact the jury is out as modellings have all proven to be false. There are thousands of scientists who disagree on various issues within the subject. Taking a zero carbon approach so rigidly will be the ruination of many of us and besides that, it is likely to be impossible. But there we go. Such is the power of group think and unreason.
I remember reading many many years ago that it was only by good luck that Planet Earth’s atmosphere gained CO2. I think it was a meteor strike.
It was only because of our CO2 that plant life became possible. It was only because plant life began, that evolution began.
Science Spoken?? No. Only lies are allowed to be heard.
The increase in atmospheric CO2 has been going on for the last 200 years or so due to fossil fuels burning.
A slight fall in CO2 production in a single year is hardly going to make a measurable difference. So there’s not even common sense behind this article. The author is far too simplistic.
The interim plan is to change over to gas fired power stations (Twice as efficient as current power stations ) and heat our homes using electricity/heat pumps.
This reduces our home heating energy consumption by a factor of around five.
EVs use around 20% of the energy that a internal combustion car uses. Clearly the author knows nothing about the charging regime of EVs either.
There is no alternative, regardless of cost, fossil fuels are a diminishing resource that we need to carefully husband. They will become increasingly expensive as they near depletion.
It’s better if these people with zero technical understanding just keep quiet instead of spreading gloom and doom to the gullible.
A bit like the covid deniers and ant-vaxers.
“It’s better if these people with zero technical understanding just keep quiet instead of spreading gloom and doom to the gullible.”
A sentence that applies to Boris and most other politicians who have swallowed the discredited global warming theory. I’m all in favour of ground source heat pumps where practicable (a minority of properties) but would not entertain an air source heat pump which is at its least efficiency when most required. As for the anti-vaxers lets wait and see the final outcome from using vaccines which have not completed a sensible testing regime and are still not formally approved.
All of this is being imposed on us without the application of any common sense or meaningful discussion.
There has to be long term planning about our energy use/sourcing.
It’s going to take many decades to make the inevitable change from fossil fuels.
It’s a technical topic that journalists/politicians have little knowledge about.
Politicians need to take expert advice. The ill educated journalists we have to today need to read upon the topic or keep quiet.
Global warming is a fact. In other countries it is already making people poor.
Here’s just one. I’ve seen this personally
There’s many more.
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/peruvian-glaciers-have-shrunk-by-30-percent-since-2000
“Global warming is a fact.” We will have to disagree on that. Perhaps you should read up on the data manipulation used by Michael Mann in producing the original theory so eagerly seized on by Al Gore in making the political point which kicked all this off. Obviously it suits our politicians to use it for political gain.
Hear Hear Jack Thomas.
Micheal Who?
Read the link I provided.
It would be better if you used the term “Climate \change is a Fact”
Climate is CONSTANTLY changing. It is cyclical.
The evidence… read your history books.
Apparently the Romans grew grapes as far North as York, we cannot today
In the year 1000 Lief Erikson sailed from Greenland and discovered mainland America. Why Greenland? His father, Erik the Red had blotted his copybook in Iceland and had to leave. He settled in Southwest Greenland. It is recorded that they kept livestock. That implies the ability to make hay, at the very least.
By 1200 the settlers had been “frozen out”. It is only in this last few decades that the climate has returned to pre-1000 conditions.
Look on the bright side. We breath out CO2. Plants take IN CO2 and exhale Oxygen The more CO2 in the atmosphere the more plants thrive. A FACT proven by some commercial tomato growers with access to “waste product” CO2 from nearby industrial premises.
No CO2 – No Plants – No Oxygen – No life.
Well done dickatbarn.
Jack T, if the “final outcome” is that Covid-19 vaccines do people harm, will that be made known? Will many GPs dare to make such a diagnosis? Any diagnosis that Covid vaccines harm human health will be deeply unwelcome to NHS bosses. (Back in October last year the UK’s Human Medicines Regulations were altered so that producers of Covid vaccines cannot be sued).
I might as well add a very silly WOKE argument.
Polar bears are WHITE so obviously they must be racist so if global warming threatens them that is a good thing.
Good article Roger but we need to bear in mind that facts mean nothing to Boris and his globalist chums; it is all about control. The scam has been swallowed whole by too many and that number is growing through the lies embedded in education, perhaps better titled “indoctrination”.
Quite right Jack Thomas.