The Victimization of Carbon Dioxide: William Happer’s Crusade to Rescue a Molecule’s Good Name

Claim: climate “alarmism” is a hoax, carbon dioxide is good—and the victim of a conspiracy

The climate change denier on President Trump’s Security Council who possesses the most conspicuously solid scientific credentials is one William Happer, who received a PhD in physics at Princeton in 1964, and attained high standing in the physics community for his work on optics and atomic physics—not, however, climate. His contrarian stance on climate change has some fellow physicists scratching their heads, muttering “who got to this guy?”

In fairness, one should note that Happer does not exactly dispute the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide. What he disputes is that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) and the resultant climate change will be as severe as “alarmists” claim . . .  and to the slight extent that CO2 does modify climate, it’s a good thing.  And that good thing, in his view, is under malicious assault. He is prone to such provocative catchphrases as “the demonization of CO2,” “we are in a CO2 famine,” and “if plants could vote, they’d vote for coal.”

Yes! Plants would vote for coal! Or not. Plants were thriving in the Carboniferous Period, which is when they were also dying en masse, piling up in peat which was eventually compressed into what we call fossil fuels today: coal, petroleum, and natural gas. It was also a time of heavy competition between plant species in what we might call the Survival of the Vegetative Fittest—so that for any individual plant or species, the Carboniferous might not have looked quite like Paradise on Earth. It might have seemed, to some light-starved, struggling seedling on the forest floor enshrouded in the gloom shed by a dense canopy of enormous trees, more like a dungeon.

Continue reading “The Victimization of Carbon Dioxide: William Happer’s Crusade to Rescue a Molecule’s Good Name”

Whose Hoax? The Carbon Cycle & Climate Change Denial

If anyone is perpetrating a climate “hoax,” it’s the Deniers. For why, read on.
Countering one of the deniers’ favorite trick questions.

It’s not necessarily a “trick” question in all cases.   Maybe sometimes it’s an “honest” error, if being honest entails burying one’s head in the sand. But in case of willful tricksters, it’s another one of those niggling questions with which they like to trip up the unsuspecting.  Another piece of their hoax to confuse us.

Here’s how the question goes: A carbon dioxide molecule stays in the atmosphere for only five years. So what’s all this doom and gloom forecasting that CO2 will hang around for hundreds of years in the air even if we stop fossil fuel burning?

Yes it’s doom and gloom. But it’s based on facts (the inconvenient kind).

For an explanation, we have the carbon cycle to thank.

Continue reading “Whose Hoax? The Carbon Cycle & Climate Change Denial”

Holy Coal

Who would have known that fossil fuels are a special gift to humanity from the Divine?

Fred Palmer, that’s who. The Heartland Institute’s holy warrior senior fellow has revealed his elegant chain of reasoning: “Because it’s easy to get to, it’s here and more people live better and longer for it,” therefore “fossil fuels [are] part of a divine plan.”.

This is a guy who says that global warming science is “sophistry. It’s an agenda driven by lawyers who make their own facts. . . . ”

I ought to note here that if you are a Deist—which is the most minimal religious belief this side of atheism—of course all Creation is divine by definition. No argument here. But that’s not the sense in which Palmer makes claims about fossil fuels. He means to elevate fossil fuels above other objects of Creation, special gifts to humankind. Which seems to me a bit dismissive of stuff like oxygen (without which, incidentally, coal, oil, and gas would not burn; oh, but oxygen is used by other animals, so it’s not so special).

Continue reading “Holy Coal”

What “Load Following” Means for Renewable Energy in California (hint: it means storage)

Here’s the bottom line of this post, for those who don’t want to wade into the weeds: major reliance on wind and solar electricity generation demands a lot of electrical energy storage—many times what is currently available. For reasons why, we look at “load following” in California in the summer of 2016.

California’s Energy Program

The state of California is pushing ahead rapidly to achieve a goal of 50% renewable electricity power production  by 2030.

This makes sense in California, since its terrain and climate are highly adaptable to both wind and solar generation.  In-state conventional hydroelectric—which in many places currently accounts for the largest fraction of renewable generation— is not included in California’s ambitious program. That also makes good sense, since worsening and recurring droughts make hydroelectric an iffy proposition in the state.

However, the 50% goal will only make sense with abundant energy storage capacity, little of which is currently available. The reason is the intermittency of wind and solar. Solar, obviously, does not generate power at night, and not much in cloudy conditions, and wind power depends on weather.

Continue reading “What “Load Following” Means for Renewable Energy in California (hint: it means storage)”