Iain Aitken
In this essay I propose that there are many things about climate change that the general public, journalists, academics, environmentalists and politicians may think they ‘know’ to certainly be true that are actually, at the least, highly equivocal (or demonstrably false) and that once these misconceptions are corrected perceptions of the issue are (or, at least, should be) transformed. Note that throughout I use the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) definition of ‘climate change’: ‘a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer)’. By ‘global warming’ I mean a rise in the Global Average Surface Temperature of the Earth.
Although the exact terminology and language may vary, we are repeatedly told that the essential ‘facts’ about climate change are that:
a) Global warming is happening, at rate that is unprecedented and accelerating
b) It has been caused by our carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels
c) It has already caused an alarming and accelerating rise in sea levels
d) It has already caused an alarming and accelerating increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events
e) It has already caused alarming and accelerating global species extinctions
f) We are experiencing a climate change crisis that will soon be catastrophic (potentially even causing a mass extinction event) if we don’t stop climate change
g) We can stop climate change by urgently switching to renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, so eradicating our emissions
h) The science behind the above points is settled and beyond reasonable dispute.
My assertion is not that these ‘facts’ are ‘fake news’ (deliberately reported falsehoods) or ‘myths’ (implying that there is no truth whatsoever in them) but that they are fundamental misconceptions based on misunderstandings of what the science and evidence actually tell us. These misconceptions appear to have assumed the mantle of ‘collective beliefs’ (or ‘memes’) that through extensive repetition in the media are mistakenly taken to be indisputable truths, despite the ready availability of science and evidence to disprove (or, at the least, seriously question) them. Few people will have heard the opinions of scientists (including many of the world’s most eminent climate scientists) who doubt this ‘man-made climate change crisis’ narrative because their voices have largely been silenced (typically by branding them ‘climate change deniers’ or even ‘science deniers’). In the current climate of hostility to even considering alternative viewpoints there is apparently only one politically correct position to take, the ‘right’ position of accepting that the alarmist narrative is beyond dispute.
It’s hardly surprising that these misconceptions have arisen because for most people (whether they be the general public, politicians or, indeed, journalists) their exposure to the climate change issue is predominantly through the media. Furthermore when the media concerned is mainstream (such as the BBC), and so ‘trusted’, people reasonably believe that they are being told the ‘whole truth’ by unbiased journalists who must have understood and critically investigated the science and evidence. Sadly such understanding and critical analysis is rarely to be found, journalists typically simply taking on trust what the ‘scientific authorities’ tell them (as gleaned from Press Releases and ‘executive summary’ documents from which all the complexities and profound uncertainties, unknowns and ambiguities have largely been expunged). This often superficial understanding is then communicated to the target audience using unscientific, emotional, hyperbolic language (such as ‘climate emergency’ and ‘climate change crisis’) and quoting extreme outlier predictions that are virtually impossible to occur in order to create an impression of urgency and danger; rhetoric appealing to the emotions coupled with alarming images (like ice calving, hurricanes and wildfires or computer-generated drowning cities) are always likely to sway public opinion far more powerfully than rhetoric appealing to logic coupled with complicated science, graphs and data. In this way highly improbable risks in the far future come to be perceived as existential crises today. In fact if you want to convince the general public (and journalists and politicians) that ‘we are experiencing a man-made climate change crisis’ then, because few will understand the fundamental differences between man-made climate change and global warming, let alone the differences between man-made climate change and natural climate variability, you typically need only convince them that ‘global warming is happening’ (which nobody denies). So one temperature graph showing warming (there are thousands available on Google Images) is all it may take to apparently ‘prove’ your case. Yet evidence that global warming is happening is not evidence that man-made global warming is happening and not evidence that climate change is happening (let alone evidence that man-made climate change is happening) because the global warming may just result from natural climate variability. Natural climate variability is variability in the mean state of the climate on all temporal scales (beyond that of individual weather events) resulting from natural processes.
This confusion was epitomized in ‘Climate Change – The Facts’, Sir David Attenborough’s BBC documentary (that appeared on British TV 18th April 2019) that was a catalogue of scientific misconceptions, spanning claims of man-made climate change causing escalating heatwaves, droughts, storms, floods, ice melt at the Antarctic, sea level rise, species extinctions and widespread coral death. Sample criticisms of the programme can be found here and here and here. It included the claim (also being made by such extremist groups as Extinction Rebellion) that globally we must achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 and not exceed a further half a degree Centigrade of global warming if we are to avoid a climate catastrophe and possible mass extinction event – a claim that, to put it as charitably as possible, is not at all supported by the science, as is evident to anyone with even the most basic understanding of climate science or anyone who has actually read the IPCC SR15 report that ostensibly formed the basis of this claim. Furthermore to achieve this goal would, according to the IPCC, ‘require unprecedented changes in our lifestyle, energy and transport systems’, effectively a global social and economic revolution.
The essential problem for those who are prepared to open their minds to alternative viewpoints is that to understand the flaws in the alarmist narrative’s simplistic certainties requires that you delve quite deeply into the science, statistics, politics and economics of climate change – and that is time-consuming, hard work that requires quite a high degree of scientific literacy. However if you do make the effort a very different (far less alarming) picture appears:
1) Global warming and climate change are both unequivocally happening (the latter being reflected in, for example, glacier retreat and sea level rise) but so far both at a rate that is well within the bounds of natural climate variability (and not unprecedented)
2) There are substantial uncertainties about the extent to which human activity (principally in the form of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions and global cooling from aerosol and soot emissions) has contributed to the observed post-industrial global warming and climate change, not least because of the extreme difficulty of separating man-made climate change from the ‘background noise’ of natural climate variability. Nevertheless on the balance of probabilities human activity was responsible for half or more of the global warming observed between 1950 and 2010 (a period of escalating carbon dioxide emissions)
3) Sea levels are rising at a rate of about 7-8 inches per century, a rate that has remained steady despite our escalating carbon dioxide emissions, i.e. the cause is probably predominantly natural. We could globally cease all carbon dioxide emissions overnight and sea levels would continue to rise, an inevitability to which we must adapt
4) There is no remotely compelling scientific evidence that extreme weather events have increased in frequency or intensity in post-industrial times (although the reporting of such events certainly has)
5) There is no remotely compelling scientific evidence that climate change (man-made or otherwise) has resulted in widespread species extinctions (most extinctions have been attributed to habitat loss, over-exploitation, pollution or invasive species)
6) If you remove the (entirely natural) El Niño warming of 2015-16 there has been little statistically significant global warming this century
7) Recently (essentially this century) global warming has been slowing down (while our carbon dioxide emissions have continued to escalate), this illustrating the fact that there is no direct (or linear) correlation between global surface temperatures and carbon dioxide emissions
8) It is impossible to control the Earth’s average surface temperature (on the timescales of decades to centuries) just by controlling our carbon dioxide emissions
9) It is impossible to stop climate change happening – climate change is inherently complex, unpredictable and uncontrollable
10) It is impossible to specify a threshold for global warming beyond which the climatic effects become net-harmful (the 20C goal of the Paris Climate Accord is essentially politically arbitrary)
11) Carbon dioxide is an incombustible, colourless, odourless and tasteless gas that is a very effective plant nutrient. Thanks to our carbon dioxide emissions increasing concentrations in the atmosphere there has been a greening of the Earth that is already equivalent in size to twice the area of the USA and could fundamentally change the Earth’s carbon cycle by adding such a vast carbon sink. Furthermore, as the ‘fuel’ of photosynthesis and the creation of oxygen, it is absolutely essential to the existence of complex life on Earth (which includes us). Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has stated that the idea that carbon dioxide is a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin ‘will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world’
12) Carbon dioxide concentrations in our atmosphere today are about 46% higher than their (280ppm) pre-industrial level (largely because of our emissions) but about four times lower than their average level and at least 10 times lower than their highest level in the history of the Earth (based on paleoclimatology estimates)
13) The global average surface temperature today is about 10C higher than its pre-industrial level but about 60C lower than its average level and at least 130C lower than its highest level in the history of the Earth (based on paleoclimatology estimates)
14) Climate change computer models are proving very unreliable guides to future climate change (in particular they are substantially overestimating warming) – yet it is the most extreme ‘predictions’ of these models that are driving global climate and energy policies
15) The future costs and impacts of decarbonization may well exceed the future costs and impacts of man-made global warming, i.e. even if future man-made global warming becomes net-harmful it may not be cost-effective to mitigate it with decarbonization
16) Based on observational estimates of climate sensitivity (simplistically how much warming you get when you double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) on the balance of probabilities further man-made global warming this century is unlikely to exceed 1.50C and its climatic effects might actually be net-beneficial for humans and the environment for many regions of the world [Here I am assuming climate sensitivity not exceeding 20C (based on the best empirical evidence) and ‘business as usual’ emissions trajectories leading to carbon dioxide concentrations not exceeding 700ppm by 2100. Note that by ‘business as usual’ I mean a reasonable extrapolation of economic, population and energy mix trends. This is not to be conflated with recent trends which have roughly tracked the IPCC scenario RCP8.5 (its most extreme emissions scenario, which is virtually impossible to occur)]
17) Climate disruption (e.g. the failure of the Gulf Stream) before the end of this century resulting from man-made global warming is not absolutely impossible but is extremely unlikely
18) A ‘mass extinction event’ before the end of this century resulting from man-made global warming is a virtual impossibility; however a global economic recession/depression resulting from climate policies designed to limit future warming to a half degree Centigrade (and so ostensibly avert such a catastrophe) is a virtual certainty
19) Intermittent wind and solar power is not the solution to any potential future climate change problem (certainly with any foreseeable development of battery technology to ‘plug the intermittency gap’)
20) Climate change science is currently immature, highly disputable and not remotely ‘settled’. This is precisely why many very different interpretations of the science have arisen
Based on the above points the politically correct vogue for councils/counties/countries to declare a ‘climate change emergency’ is clearly profoundly scientifically misconceived (in fact it is hard to avoid the word ‘delusional’) based on any reasonable definition of the word ‘emergency’. It might well make good political sense (to attract the ‘green vote’) but it makes no real scientific or economic sense. For example, the only statistically significant change in Britain’s climate for hundreds of years has been that it has warmed slightly – yet the UK Parliament has now declared a ‘climate change emergency’. Basically it is hard to see how climate change that so far has probably been net-beneficial for humans and the environment, that has lifted us out of the misery of the Little Ice Age that preceded it, with its droughts, crop failures, famines and epidemics, and has been accompanied by the Industrial Revolution’s soaring wealth and life expectancy (according to the World Bank’s World Development Indicators 2014) could reasonably, in the round, be described as an ‘emergency’; indeed quite the opposite.
Despite all of the above, if nevertheless the radical global decarbonization route is to be followed it cannot succeed without global concerted action, in particular from major emitters like China (30% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, and rising – and funding about $36 billion of coal projects globally according to the IEEFA). Decarbonization unilateralism by small emitters is worse than pointless. For example even if Britain (1.1% of global emissions) somehow totally decarbonized its economy (with technologies not yet viable, like Carbon Capture and Sequestration), as is being recommended by its Committee on Climate Change, the future reduction in global warming would still be undetectably and unmeasurably small (estimated to be of the order of a hundredth of a degree Centigrade by 2100) and so basically just extremely economically, socially and environmentally damaging ‘virtue signalling’. The only basis on which this could possibly be described as even vaguely rational or responsible would be if major emitters, like China, followed Britain’s lead – and there is, to say the least, a negligible chance of that.
Of course these 20 conjectures are a great deal more complicated, qualified and uncertain than the 8 simple, absolute and certain ‘facts’ at the start of this essay. Given a choice between the complex uncertainties of my conjectures and the simple certainties of the ‘facts’ many would prefer the latter. So can we reduce all this complexity to a relatively simple ‘alternative climate change narrative’, at the very real risk of being as trite as the original set of ‘facts’? If forced to make such a gross simplification my suggestion would be:
a) Global warming is happening, albeit at a rate that is unexceptional and not accelerating
b) It has been caused by both human activity and natural activity (i.e. it has not just been caused by our carbon dioxide emissions)
c) It has caused a rise in sea levels, albeit at a rate that is unexceptional and not accelerating
d) It has not caused an increase in the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events
e) It has not caused accelerating global species extinctions
f) We are not experiencing a ‘climate change crisis’ or a ‘climate change emergency’ (indeed arguably quite the opposite) but climate disruption in the far future, although very unlikely, is not impossible
g) We cannot stop climate change but we can reduce climate change risks (albeit at an economic, social and environmental cost that may be prohibitive) by gradually transitioning to lower carbon-intensity energy sources (like natural gas), so reducing our emissions
h) The science behind the above points is immature and subject to dispute. There is almost total scientific consensus that global warming and climate change are happening and that we are contributing to them – but profound disagreements about the extent of our contribution, whether it will lead to ‘dangerous’ climate change and whether urgent global decarbonization is the correct policy response.
Now all this is highly controversial and iconoclastic because it subverts the politically correct orthodoxy on climate change, those alarming ‘facts’ that we are not supposed to question. Many would doubtless disagree with this alternative, more circumspect and far less alarming narrative, perhaps saying ‘well that’s not what the IPCC say.’ The IPCC is typically described as, ‘The internationally accepted authority on climate change’ and is viewed with reverence, not to say awe, by most academics, politicians, environmentalists and journalists, who regard it as virtually infallible and omniscient in all climate change matters. In fact many of my 20 points are directly derived from IPCC reports. Actually I suspect that the IPCC would privately agree with most of these 20 points (but would never publically admit it for fear of reducing the fear). Furthermore the IPCC, in keeping with its remit from the UN to support the UNFCCC (the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is the main international treaty on climate change), focuses almost exclusively on man-made climate change at the expense of important aspects of natural climate change and is arguably predisposed to a ‘presumption of guilt’ of carbon dioxide emissions. Basically to ignore the opinions of the IPCC would be as foolish as to believe that they are beyond reasonable dispute.
To really understand the climate change issue we must accept that it is far more complicated and nuanced and uncertain than the simplistic way it is typically reported in the media. We must open our minds to the wide range of expert opinions about the issue, give them deep thought, apply common sense, make careful judgements, and above all be wary of any simplistic all-purpose solutions, such as urgent global decarbonization. Unfortunately few people have available to them the time, inclination and perseverance to do that. As Dr. Richard Lindzen has said, ‘Most arguments about global warming boil down to science versus authority. For much of the public authority will generally win since they do not wish to deal with the science.’ The apparent overwhelming message from the authorities (as mediated by the media) is that we are experiencing a man-made climate change crisis that can only be fixed through urgent and radical global decarbonization and it is perfectly understandable (although regrettable) that the vast majority of the general public and journalists and politicians simply choose to believe this. Why do all that hard, time-consuming work when you can just believe. The simplistic certainties of the alarmist media narrative may be based on profound scientific misconceptions (as the authorities are well aware) but the attitude of the authorities appears to be that because a ‘climate change crisis’ in the distant future is not impossible this possible end justifies the dubious means – after all, even this alarmist narrative has failed to get the nations of the world to act decisively. If the authorities communicated the climate change issue honestly, in all its complexity and uncertainty, it would give governments even more reason to avoid or delay decarbonization. So the behavior of the scientific authorities is perfectly understandable, although regrettable, because it risks radical climate change policies being implemented that may be the cause of deep global regret in the future. And of course the behavior of the media is also perfectly understandable (although regrettable) because bad news sells; it is hard to monetize a ‘no climate change crisis’ story.
When people say that they believe in the climate change crisis because they ‘believe in science’ what they may actually be saying is that because they don’t really understand the science they choose to believe in the alarmist narrative promoted by the authorities and abetted by the media. Few people choose the ‘road less travelled’ of opening their minds to the competing arguments in the climate change debate, embracing complexity, uncertainty, doubt and social opprobrium when they can simply choose to believe what they think the authorities and other ‘right thinking’ people believe. On the one hand you have an apparently scientifically-straightforward, very easy to understand, very certain, very alarming problem (‘our carbon dioxide emissions are causing a climate change crisis’) with an ostensibly very simple solution (‘decarbonize’) and on the other hand you have a scientifically-challenging, very hard to understand, complex, nuanced and uncertain problem that may or may not be alarming and which has no simple solution. To put it another way, on the one hand you have an imminent existential planetary crisis that can only be solved by the radical and urgent transformation of global society and on the other hand you have a possible distant future problem with no obvious ‘correct’ policy response today. It’s not hard to see why certain people, in particular young, idealistic and impressionable people, may be more attracted to the former idea and want to break out the banners and ‘save the planet’ through a world revolution.
Within the climate science community the divide is essentially between those (epitomized by the IPCC) who predominantly put their faith in climate models (i.e. virtual world projections of what might happen in the future) and those who predominantly put their faith in empirical scientific evidence (i.e. real world observations of what has actually happened). The former group tend to focus on the possible high risks of future climate change and urge rapid global decarbonization just in case whilst the latter group tend to focus on the probable low risks of future climate change (and high costs and impacts of decarbonization) and urge circumspection. It might be said that the latter group is looking at the issue in the manner of a businessman, assessing the balance of probabilities, costs, benefits and risks (they are essentially gambling and saying that urgent decarbonization is probably a bad bet) whilst the former group is simply saying that there is a huge potential risk and therefore something (radical global decarbonization) must be done, almost irrespective of the probabilities, costs and adverse impacts. As Obersteiner et al put it in Managing Climate Risk, the key unresolved question is whether global decarbonization ‘will fundamentally reshape our common future on a global scale to our advantage, or quickly produce losses that can throw mankind into economic, social, and environmental bankruptcy.’ Climate scientists who question the dominant man-made climate change crisis narrative are not saying that there is a clear scientific verdict of ‘Innocent’ – instead they are simply saying that our guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt (or even on the balance of probabilities). Perhaps here we need the Scottish legal system’s verdict of ‘Not Proven’.
The fundamental problem with the climate change problem is that it is a ‘wicked’ problem: it is impossible to predict our climate future, determine whether it is benign or alarming and know how best to respond because there are simply too many variables, too many unknowns and too many uncertainties. However we choose to respond is a vast gamble with humanity’s future; however we choose to respond may result in deep regrets.
95% of greenhouse gasses are water vapor (H2O)
4% of greenhouse gasses are CO2
96.6% of CO2 is naturally caused
3.4% of CO2 is generated by humans
Will someone please tell us how the 3.4% overwhelms the 96.6%?
Stop splitting unicorn farts.
It’s not a matter of overwhelming anything. While humans are a relatively insignificant source of CO2 on an annual basis, we take carbon out of geologic sequestration and put back into the active carbon cycle. Little by little, we have increased the total “pool” of carbon in the active cycle. There is a cumulative effect. While the atmospheric “residency time” of individual CO2 molecules is on the order of 5-7 years, it will take the Earth time to move that carbon back into geologic sequestration… Anywhere from 30 to 500 years, depending on whether it’s a simple exponential decay or e-folding time function. No one really knows for sure.
We aren’t moving H2O out of geologic sequestration and our other GHG emissions are either minuscule and/or have very short “lifespans.”
Ogalalla? It may only be a drop in the ocean but it does come out of kilo-years of sequestration, no?
Straw men from skeptics are as inane as the ones from alarmists.
25% of the current CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is due to burning fossil fuels.
The total reservoir/flux has nothing to do with it.
It could be as high as 25%. It could also be half of that. The total flux, which is poorly quantified, is important… But it doesn’t negate the human contribution, as many fellow skeptics assert. The degree to which the anthropogenic CO2 matters is mostly dependent on how sensitive the oceans are to temperature changes.
Anthropogenic CO2 emissions didn’t prevent the mid-20th century cooling, which was so significant, that it caused a hiatus, possibly even a decline, in atmospheric CO2, so pronounced that it shows up in the DE08 ice core.
MacFarling-Meure, C., D. Etheridge, C. Trudinger, P. Steele, R. Langenfelds, T. van Ommen, A. Smith, and J. Elkins (2006), Law Dome CO2, CH4 and N2O ice core records extended to 2000 years BP, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L14810, doi:10.1029/2006GL026152.
Fossil fuel emissions are about 3% of the total *annual* source of CO2 to the atmosphere. Our annual contribution is actually large enough to account for twice the annual rise in atmospheric CO2.
The difference between CO2 from fossil fuel emissions and those of the biopshere, soil and ocean respiration, is that we are taking carbon out of geologic sequestration and moving it into the active carbon cycle. It has a cumulative effect. We are increasing the total pool of CO2 in the cycle. While individual CO2 molecules have a relatively short atmospheric residence time (5-7 years), it will take much longer for the total pool to shrink back to where is was in 1850 after the net emissions stop, probably 50 to 500 years. No one really knows.
We have a pretty good handle on how much CO2 we are adding to the cycle. Even though we don’t have a really good handle on the total inventory of natural sources and sinks, the math is the same. It’s a relatively simple mass balance calculation. We know that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 tracks our cumulative emissions. We don’t know how much of this rise is due to warming from the depths of the Little Ice Age and how much is due to fossil fuel combustion. If the natural sources and sinks are highly variable, our cumulative contribution is probably about 50%. If they’re very stable, our contribution could be 100%.
From 1780-1960, atmospheric CO2 was rising faster than our emissions…
After 1960, both our emissions and the atmospheric CO2 accelerated. The Law Dome DE08 ice core has adequate resolution to tell us that this did not happen during the Medieval Warm Period. To some extent the rise in atmospheric CO2, coincident with our accelerated fossil fuel emissions is unprecedented. Greenland ice cores and plant stomata indicate that 300-350 ppm was common during the Early to Mid-Holocene and that 400 ppm spikes were even possible. Most Antarctic ice cores can’t resolve CO2 shifts with durations less than 100 years. So we can’t say that the modern level is unprecedented over the past 10,000 years, much less 800,000 years. However, we can clearly conclude that human activities are at least partially the cause of the rise since 1850 and most, if not all, of the rise since 1960.
Dave,
I was responding to Walter, not you, since your comment had not posted when I made mine.
I agree that 25% is not a chiseled in stone number, and may be at best only roughly accurate.
Based on an even rougher estimate of a baseline number somewhere near 300ppm, which is based on the graphs showing the last 4 interglacials were likely not much higher than, but somewhere approaching, 300ppm.
I think the total flux largely cancels out over time, based on these last four interglacials having a value of max CO2 that is at least roughly similar.
Except for land use changes, I am hard pressed to find a reason to buy into arguments that recent increases are due to non-FF sources.
And I also agree completely that no one knows about CO2 residence time, or more saliently, how long CO2 levels would remain elevated if all FF emissions were to completely stop.
I have been highly dubious of claims of long residence for the entire past 30 years.
And only one of my reasons is the more or less steady increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, even as emissions have increased over the years.
If it turns out that all the CO2 we have added to the air will go away in as little as 50 years, that would be rather alarming, given what is likely to happen during the next interglacial, and the amount that is needed to prevent plants from dying of CO2 starvation.
I see no reason to think of warming as bad, or as CO2 as anything but highly desirable and the more the better.
It is amazing really, but not surprising: Warmistas are exactly wrong about pretty much every single thing they say.
AFAICT
The problem with almost all of the Antarctic ice cores is resolution. Only Law Dome DE08 comes close to decadal resolution. Most can’t resolve CO2 shifts with durations of less than 100 years. Vostok and the other long record length ice cores have 500 to 1,000 year resolutions.
If you filter DE08 to the same resolution as Vostok, the modern CO2 rise vanishes.
The reasons for these misconceptions are because Democrats weaponized climate to promote renewable energies, and incidentally destroy the careers of more conservative-minded scientists. Most people understand climate as a set of memes and slogans used to promote policies to
drive up the price of energy, I mean ‘save the planet‘. The problem isn’t that everyone’s ignorant on climate. The problem is many people ‘know‘ too much pseudoscience, metaphor, slogan and memes; but hardly any science. My explanation conveniently explains why the left never explain how the climate works. Especially not how their beloved greenhouse effect works. Because it’s a bad idea to confuse your captive audience (Democrats, journalists, politicians) with facts when your bluster already does achieves your ends.I apologise for making this a left-right thing; but it wasn’t me who did that.
It is pretty clear it is a left right thing at this point, and maybe from the get go.
It is hard to find anything to refute that view.
When I was younger, I used to be very confused by the amazing number of completely disparate subjects on which people on either side of the political aisle agreed with each other, and disagreed with the other side on. Subjects completely unrelated to each other. And yet one could surmise with high success how a given person would answer a wide assemblage of questions, IOW what their view is on that subject, simply by finding out which party they might tend to vote for.
I still do not know exactly why it is people on the left and on the right are so different in how they view the world, but I have decided it does not matter why.
One important thing to always keep in mind: People on the right tend to see these differences of viewpoint as just that, a difference of opinion, whereas people on the left are far more likely to see themselves as correct and people who disagree as evil bastards.
Some additions:
When the glaciers disappear the rivers will run dry.
Thermal expansion causes world-wide sea level rise.
Methane is 86 times more potent than CO2 at trapping heat.
The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps are melting.
steve case
When the glaciers disappear the rivers will run dry. (No. Absolutely false. The same water mass will fall – if not more as humidity increases as the earth warms. It is the enviro-extremists who oppose building dams to slow water runoff and retain that same water for use over the dry periods!)
Thermal expansion causes world-wide sea level rise. (Partially. Can you measure any actual sea temperature increase in the average mass of thousands of meters of sea water UNDER an atmosphere that is actually itself only 0.32 degrees warmer than 1970?)
Methane is 86 times more potent than CO2 at trapping heat. (So what. You are fearing an event that is imaginary at this point. )
The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps are melting. (No, the Antarctic ice cap is growing heavier, larger. Greenland Ice Cap can only be argued to be “melting” based on the “assumed” movement of granite and compressed mass under the ever-higher ice cap based on the re-calibration (and un-duplicated!) GRACE satellite measurements. Which failed, by the way, so we have no updates nor corrections, nor comparisions.
RACookPE1978 May 6, 2019 at 10:09 am
Thanks for filling in the details, I appreciate it (-:
The idea that glaciers are required for a water supply is as dumb as it gets.
Many have made the point but for any who have not heard the truth, here it is: Glaciers store precipitation as ice, and when they are growing, water is being sequestered away in an unusable form.
Snowfields provide a water sup[ply as the melt off every year, but they are hardly required for rivers to have water in them…the ground does just fine at holding and releasing water over time.
Melting glaciers, on the other hand, do provide water to rivers.
And having no glacier at all is best, as it frees up land that might be productive, and allows all of the precip that falls to become available for plants, animals, and people.
There is no logical argument to back up the claim that large frozen wastelands becoming somewhat less frigidly frozen is a looming disaster.
steve case you should learn some earth history and stop assuming that the climate of the last few hundred years is some kind of long-term stable situation that “we” are in the process of irreversibly disrupting. It would be educational, but might take more mental effort than parroting propaganda one-liners. Perhaps you’re not up to it.
Smart Rock May 6, 2019 at 1:18 pm
????????????
Hmmm I should have made my post more clear, the title of this thread is:
“Climate Change Misconceived”
I added four more misconceptions
This is why they put such effort into controlling the media; establishing colleges for environmental journalists, bullying journalists who present a balanced view. Indisputable truths become so when no one dare challenge them. They want to stop any kind of debate or intellectual challenge. That’s certainly what’s been done in UK. USA not so much. Real climate science is a casualty of a left culture war against energy and capitalism. The first casualty of war is …
Mark Pawelek,
Great comment, I might add that one to my quiver if I may?
“The essential problem for those who are prepared to open their minds to alternative viewpoints is that to understand the flaws in the alarmist narrative’s simplistic certainties requires that you delve quite deeply into the science, statistics, politics and economics of climate change – and that is time-consuming, hard work that requires quite a high degree of scientific literacy.”
Not really, no. It doesn’t take much effort on the layman’s part to see that once you begin to dig into the “science” of CAGW/climate change/chaos/extreme weather, you soon find that it is sadly lacking. And the minute you do start digging, if your BS meter doesn’t start jumping into the red zone, then there is something wrong with it. Just look at how they behave. The lies, the misdirection, and any number of “creative” ways they have of presenting their case becomes laughably transparent.
” For example, the only statistically significant change in Britain’s climate for hundreds of years has been that it has warmed slightly “…. although when I checked it has recently seen a cooling trend.
But either way ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT.
“Nevertheless on the balance of probabilities human activity was responsible for half or more of the global warming observed between 1950 and 2010….”
I wonder about that statement. If we don’t know what the temperature would have been without human activity, and we don’t know all the factors that contributed to the warming, or how those factors interact (“complex chaotic system,” etc.), isn’t this an article of faith?
Agree completely.
It is nothing but a pure conjecture to state anything about the amount, if any, of recent warming that is due to any particular cause, CO2 or otherwise.
The amounts of recent variation are indistinguishable from the variations known to have occurred before fossil fuel added enough CO2 to be significant.
Therefore it is just handwaving and taking a guess to give any such attribution.
It is opinion, and not at all scientific.
That is why they need polls to even take a stab at it.
Ironically, there IS a climate crisis and it IS truly serious–but it has nothing to do with the narrative we are fighting, described admirably in this article.
Poison-based agriculture, and annual cropping (wheat, etc.) have been devastating the natural world since Adam and Eve at Gobekli Tepe 14 000 years ago. Most plants are perennials. Just 5000 years ago, the Sahara was a thriving grassland–perfect for human crops. We destroyed it.
Today we are destroying the Sea of Azov, which was one of the largest lakes in the world a few decades ago. Cotton farming has drawn down the water table to the point the sea has almost disappeared. Summertime temperatures have risen from the 90s to 140 F. Now THAT is climate change, and it is real and serious.
Annual cropping, leaving the soil bare also reduces the ability to hold water, resulting in floods and droughts. America’s Midwest is so flooded that ranchers may have lost a million calves. Store food, people, food you will eat. It will be a much higher return than banks or stocks.
Sonic Bloom (TM) Permaculture and Restoration agriculture heal all these things–at a profit instead of the enormous loss advocated by the ignorant “greens.”
[??? .mod]
I think you have mixed up the Aral Sea with the Sea of Azov.
Azov is not a lake at all, it is an extension of the Black Sea.
Sea water is useless for irrigation, and in any case a body of water connected to the ocean cannot be “drawn down” by removing water from it.
As for the rest of this mush, very little of it is even remotely factual.
There has never been a measured air temp of 140° anywhere on Earth.
The hottest ever recorded is a little over 134.
The Sahara was a desert already 5k years ago, and people had nothing to do with it.
??? is right.
I applaud Iain Aitken’s worthy if belabored effort on behalf of global lukewarmism.
However, I would like to add these critical comments to his main points.
First, and most importantly:
“to understand the flaws in the alarmist narrative’s simplistic certainties requires that you delve quite deeply into the science, statistics, politics and economics of climate change.”
No you don’t. The basic facts of climate science are easy to understand: temperature, sea level, rain, drought, storm, and wind. They all go up and down. There is more or less of them from time to time and we all understand time as well.
“1) Global warming and climate change are both unequivocally happening”
No, Look at your own points #6 & 7
“Nevertheless on the balance of probabilities human activity was responsible for half or more of the global warming observed between 1950 and 2010 (a period of escalating carbon dioxide emissions)”
I am aware of no evidence to support this claim. BTW, where does “half or more” come from?
“3) Sea levels are rising at a rate of about 7-8 inches per century”
Trivial, it goes up and down, much higher in MWP and variously in ancient times
“5) There is no remotely compelling scientific evidence that climate change (man-made or otherwise) has resulted in widespread species extinctions”
The “extinctions” scare is related to lack of understanding or bible-based rejection of Darwinian science. Extinctions happen all the time and are a natural aspect of evolution, as are the creation of new species. The idea that any one species of plant or animal is sacred and must be preserved is non-scientific nonsense.
“Here I am assuming climate sensitivity not exceeding 20C (based on the best empirical evidence)”
I am not aware of any evidence that indicates that “climate sensitivity” to variations of CO2 is anything other than zero! Using this term as a basis of anything assumes the correctness of the assumption that CO2 has any measurable controlling effect on global temperature.
Author’s summary points:
“a) Global warming is happening, albeit at a rate that is unexceptional and not accelerating
b) It has been caused by both human activity and natural activity (i.e. it has not just been caused by our carbon dioxide emissions)
c) It has caused a rise in sea levels, albeit at a rate that is unexceptional and not accelerating”
Here is the reality: for a) Not obvious, certainly trivial if so, not clear if we add uncertainties of UHI, Soviet era vs post-Soviet era data reliability, stability (no change) of continental lower 48 US measures, 100 years and counting
For b) no evidence
For c) no evidence of human involvement in trivial changes
“To really understand the climate change issue we must accept that it is far more complicated and nuanced”
No, it is not that complicated. Promoters of CAGW want you to believe that it is oh so complicated that only the high priests of “climate science” can interpret it for you. They are professional obfuscators and deserve some kind of noble prize for that.
“competing arguments in the climate change debate,”
No, they refuse to debate. They insist that the debate is over with, and the media buys it.
I don’t think we fight the world-wide delusion of CAGW or its meaningless partner, “Climate Change,” with elaborate lukewarm essays like this. When the emperor passed by, the boy didn’t say, “Oh, that’s a very thin coat he is wearing!’
Ronald G. Havelock, Ph.D.
Bravo!
Measured, balanced, and eminently understandable. Thank you for your work.
Now……how do we get this into the mainstream without inviting the shrill and the uninformed and the downright unpleasant to have a field day.
So Mass Hysteria when orchestrated by bureaucracies creates a state of panic.
Especially amongst bureaucrats..
It takes a special kind of gullibility,in this age of persuasion, to be able to ignore;
1) WRITTEN HISTORY
2) Photosynthesis
3) Limitations of growth
4) Past periods of mass hysteria(See #1)
5) Inadequacy of information.(Insufficient data)
6)The methodologies of science and measuring techniques
AKA The scientific method and error ranges..
We have an international panic,or attempt to create panic over a claimed Signal,which is less than the error range of the claimed data.
Reality is always so much weirder fiction.
Most people on most days give as much thought to fretting about the weather, or climate, or global warming, as it deserves, which is none.
But a small number of people are obsessed with the subject, and a somewhat unknowable number are actively profiting from the whole charade.
The problems are in the amount of damage those few in the last two groups are able to cause, how much money is being diverted to “solve” a non-problem, the generations of children being completely mis-educated on matters of science, the actual problems that are going begging for dollars and attention, and perhaps greatest of all, the damage being done to the institution of scientific endeavor.
You say;
“Nevertheless on the balance of probabilities human activity was responsible for half or more of the global warming observed between 1950 and 2010 (a period of escalating carbon dioxide emissions)”
Where is the evidence for this. If you take the actual temperatures (that is the pre-adjusted ones published before 2000) Then there was global cooling from mid forties to to mid 70’s.
There is a Phil Jones graph from earlier, more honest times, that showed the rate of warming 1850 to 1880, 1910 to 1940 and 1975 to 2005 to be the same.
So where is the evidence that 50% plus of warming since 1950 is caused by humans.
Please justify this statement.
“Please justify this statement.”
They can’t justify the statment that humans are causing half or more of the present warming. It’s just a guess.
They want to forget about the variations in past climate not caused by CO2 and they want us to forget about it, too, because it strikes at the heart of the CAGW claims of unprecedented warmth and “hottest year evah!”.
It’s no warmer now than when Mother Nature warmed us up in the 1930’s, according to numerous sources, and if that’s the case then there is no reason to assume today’s current warming is caused by anything other than Mother Nature. The same magnitude of warming and the same maximum temperature equates to the same source. Until evidence to the contrary is produced.
Right? Right.
Right!
If I had been given the appropriate super power many years ago I would have used it to warm the climate of the northern quarter of the globe while leaving the rest at about the same.
I seems that that is exactly what has happened so blame me if you like.
I stopped warming about 20 years ago because it seemed to be alarming so many people.
Many seem to have no fear of implementing drastic and dangerous changes to society while showing panic at a minor climatic change.
Go figure.
Iain, good job.
I like this article because it summarizes the arguments and counter-arguments in a way that is accessible. And covers most of the major conflicts between teh two sides. This means I might be able to have my friends/family who are bought-in to the media and green-driven positions read this and gain some insight, at least in so far as to develop some desire to question the simplistic science they have been told for 20 years. I think the comments are useful also for further explanation of some of the short-comings of the article, for those who might want to delve a little deeper.
From the article: “Sadly such understanding and critical analysis is rarely to be found, journalists typically simply taking on trust what the ‘scientific authorities’ tell them”
It seems to me that lately journalists have been adding to the hype, not just spreadying the hype. It’s common now for writers to claim they see CAGW in every weather event and see CAGW doing damage to humans.
The IPCC and most Alarmists don’t make these kinds of wild claims, or not as wild, anyway.
Journalists are assuming to much in their reporting and the facts don’t back up their dire predictions.
We are awash in a sea of climate lies, and distortions and misunderstandings and the journalists are making the problem of understanding the issues worse, not better.
“12) Carbon dioxide concentrations in our atmosphere today are about 46% higher than their (280ppm) pre-industrial level (largely because of our emissions) but about four times lower than their average level…”
Yes, we all know what that mean current levels are one-fourth the historical average, but… please.
“15) The future costs and impacts of decarbonization may well exceed the future costs and impacts of man-made global warming, i.e. even if future man-made global warming becomes net-harmful it may not be cost-effective to mitigate it with decarbonization.”
To me, this is the key point (and the easiest discussion point to argue).
Actions must be justified. Expected benefits must exceed expected costs. Even if there are things that we should be doing, the proposals you hear today are lunacy.
How and why has Climate Science become more superior to Physics and Meteorology? Meteorology is a branch of physics and deals with known physical properties of liquids, gases and solids and their interactions and characteristics on the macro as well as micro scale. Meteorology is also able to measure all those interactions to provide reasonably accurate weather forecasts up to 3 or 4 days out.
Climate science and Climate Scientists are ‘experts’ in modelling averages of collected weather data. Also, rarely is the correct term Climatology or Climatologist used such as it’s parent Meteorology, so we only hear the term Climate Scientists. Is that because it contains the word ‘Scientists’ and sounds more sciency for the general public?
“The fundamental problem with the climate change problem is that it is a ‘wicked’ problem: it is impossible to predict our climate future,…”
Is the general consensus that we are now in a perpetual warm period and if humans weren’t here the various climates would stay as they were during the Little Ice Age? Is it official that the great ice sheets won’t return considering that is what they have done at least 12 times in the last 1,000,000 years.
According to quite a few the Pleistocene Epoch began 2.6 million years ago and ended 11,700 years ago. Are we really that certain it’s ended and what evidence is there?
The planet is dying….
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/05/ipbes-un-biodiversity-report-warns-one-million-species-at-risk/
And because doing something about it will cut into the profits of the wealthiest we get lies and ongoing stupidity on a level that is truly disgusting.
How much of the hundreds of millions of dollars of dark money from the fossil fuels and other highly destructive sectors ends up in the pockets of the psychopaths writing here.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
You’ve won, we are all probably dead in a few decades, are you happy now…
You’ve apparently not only guzzled the Climate Koolade, but are swimming in it. But you’re probably already back under your troll bridge, safe from reality and truth.
Name some of those 1 million species, with a list that big it should be easy-peasy
Tell us how to get some of that $558 million. We haven’t seen a penny!
You shouldn’t really believe anything you read about climate in the Scientastic ‘Merkin comic, they are biased. Personally speaking, I deny for free, I’m not receiving any ‘dark money’ though I’m open to offers. Hell, I’ll even take light money. But whether I get paid or not, I’m still going to deny that a change to the nature of the atmosphere of 0.013% in two centuries is causing a climate breakdown.
Hey Doug,
Look at a picture of a rain forest, and another of a polar region, as ask yourself, where does it appear life is doing better?
Where do you see more biodiversity?
And with CO2 at the base of the food chain of the entire biosphere (outside of some mid-ocean ridges and the like, perhaps), exactly how is it that a warmer world with more food for everything, that is greening up so fast and so completely it can be seen from space…how is it that you can delude yourself that this represents in any way a “planet dying”?
It is a good thing you bedwetting panic mongers and doomsday cultists did not latch onto global cooling as your pet theory…because an ice age really is a very real case of a planet dying, over the frozen solid parts. The boreal forests are the largest forests on Earth, and they get wiped away down to bedrock over the bulk of their extent, every time an interglacial ends.
And have you ever stopped to consider how much life was wiped out when Greenland and Antarctica froze over?
Doug – you are funny. The left is really good at handing out money to anarchists and others to stir the pot. You really don’t understand the way the world works do you?
Climate change is big business. First you push on us those toxic mercury filled compact fluorescent light bulbs, which of course sucked and now that mercury is polluting our land. Then there is the ethanol fantasy which is burning food and driving up food prices as a handout to midwest corn farmers. How did ethanol solve our problem? It didn’t. These are not solutions.
Lots of carbon is front-loaded into the atmosphere by producing toxic solar cells and windmills in China. The rare earth metals in your windmill are from strip mining and puts lots of carbon in the air as lots of diesel is burned. It is not clear if the solar cell or windmill will outproduce the energy used to make it. Then we have to keep coal or natural gas plants fired up because renewables are great for putting harmonics on the grid.
Then let’s talk about lithium mining and what the Chinese are doing to Africa. But feel good about yourself.
Academia likes the money climate research brings in. The only way i will agree to this extremely distructive agenda is if all climate research is ended since it is “settled science” (at this point why keep dropping apples) and we then work on solutions. If this happened, the academics would become very unsure and would tell you they need to study it more. I know the deal very well.
Just remember, the Chinese gave tons of money to Gore. Clinton gave them ballistic missile technology through some shady dealings by Litton. China is making all of our green energy products. Does this sound like a great idea? Who is pushing the cagw agenda? Exon doesn’t give a shit. You want to sequester carbon? They have a device for that. They will make money either way.
The only reasonable alternative is nuclear. And TMI stunted a lot of good research and put us multiple decades behind. In the long run we need nuclear. In the short run these green initiatives are killing the planet, bats, birds and us. Get off the global goring agenda and worry about real problems like hormones in the water.
Big Al May 16, 2019 at 7:31 pm
The trouble is you are using logic and rationality and all said very eloquently. This is not an approach that has worked yet on any ideologue.
I follow the general rule, that if your list contains more than seven items, you have omitted an opportunity to summarize and categorize. Better organized thinking leads to clearer thinking, and properly forming lists aids in evaluating the extent to which your list is exhaustively comprehensive and mutually exclusive. You can more easily see if you’re missing an important point, if something doesn’t fit, or if you’ve repeated yourself
CURRENT CLIMATE TRENDS ARE NOT HISTORICALLY UNUSUAL:
1) Global warming and climate change are both unequivocally happening…
3) Sea levels are rising at a rate of about 7-8 inches per century, a rate that has remained steady…
12) Carbon dioxide concentrations in our atmosphere today are about [ONE FOuRTH] than their average level…
13) The global average surface temperature today is about 1.0C higher than its pre-industrial level…
NOT GUILTY YOUR HONOR:
4) There is no remotely compelling scientific evidence that extreme weather events have increased…
5) There is no remotely compelling scientific evidence that climate change … has resulted in widespread species extinctions…
17) Climate disruption (e.g. the failure of the Gulf Stream)…
18) A ‘mass extinction event’…
SOME REALITY REGARDING ACTIONS:
15) The future costs and impacts of decarbonization may well exceed the future costs and impacts of man-made global warming…
8) It is impossible to control the Earth’s average surface temperature…
9) It is impossible to stop climate change happening…
10) It is impossible to specify a threshold for global warming beyond…
19) Intermittent wind and solar power is not the solution to any potential future climate change problem…
RECOGNIZE UNCERTAINTY:
2) There are substantial uncertainties about the extent to which human activity …
14) Climate change computer models are proving very unreliable guides ..
16) Based on observational estimates of climate sensitivity…
20) Climate change science is currently immature…
BENEFITS TO CO2:
11) Carbon dioxide is … a very effective plant nutrient.
A COUPLE OF STAT NOTES:
6) If you remove the (entirely natural) El Niño warming of 2015-16…
7) Recently (essentially this century) global warming has been slowing down…
Assuming this post is an attempt to support the realist point of view, it is a dismal failure. It totally fails the pub test, as do many similar attempts to counter the alarmist argument. The reason it fails is simple logic.
Here’s my reasoning.
The author waxed lyrical that co2 is beneficial and that the temperature has not changed much and SLR is minimal and has been going on for ages; nothing is unusual…. etc etc……then capitulates when offering conclusions and so on and jumps into bed and totally embraces the alarmist view….how???
In picture 2 the author carries on about co2 then chops his own foot off by stating that “on the balance of probabilities “ 50% of warming has been caused by man!!!! Similar logical problems are generated in conclusion (b)…again assigning 50 warming to mankind, and (c)…. contribution to SLR( totally unsubstantiated and the final invalid claim(g) …use gas to reduce our emissions and reduce temperature.
The pub experts pick the stupidity of this argument and simply say…. well at least we can save half the temperature rise by doing this so let’s go for it!!!!
It’s a pity that authors of this style of article can’t see the failure of their own logic .
This is a most unhelpful post if the idea is to quell the alarmist uprising.
I agree. Look at my post below that definitely quells the alarmist argument.
Hehe, Alan Chee, those are good points about the contradictions inherent in adopting a “conventionally lukewarmer” kind of positon, such as the article writer, Iain Aitken, is trying to do. Although I do appreciate that many of the things Aitken says are true and worthwhile, there is always the risk of handing the “conventionally alarmist” narrative just a bit more credibility than is really deserved. You mention the uncorroborated conclusion that 50% or more of warming was caused by man, and this point was also mentioned by other people in this thread, say Ronald Havelock, asking
“where does [attributing to humans] “half or more” [of temperature rise after 1950] come from?”
To all this concern about the dangers of supporting uncorroborated conclusions, I would add my own little nitpick, and that is the use of the term “consensus”, as in Aitken’s statement that
“There is almost total scientific consensus that global warming and climate change are happening and that we are contributing to them”. Consensus is a political term, which I believe is intended usually in the sense of something that a clear *majority* of people are willing to go along with.
As one scenario to show the difficulties of using the idea of “consensus” for “sciency” things, say we went to a scientific convention, there we might have very little difficulty finding a clear majority of people “in the hall” who would agree to the statement “global warming and climate change are happening and we are contributing to them”. After all, the wording of that statement is mild enough, nothing sensational sounding there? But what does getting people to agree with a mild sounding statement have to do with science? Ask everyone present if they think our warming contribution is serious enough for each them to immediately donate $100 cash to support a relevant study group — why, you would immediately get a whole different answer to the question of “are we contributing enough that it is of urgent interest to practically everyone here” – !
“Humans have long been shaping Earth’s landscape, but now scientists know we can shape our near-space environment as well. A certain type of communications — very low frequency, or VLF, radio communications — have been found to interact with particles in space, affecting how and where they move. At times, these interactions can create a barrier around Earth against natural high energy particle radiation in space. These results, part of a comprehensive paper on human-induced space weather, were recently published in Space Science Reviews.”
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/nasas-van-allen-probes-spot-man-made-barrier-shrouding-earth
published in Space Science Reviews.”
Anthropogenic Space Weather
Abstract
“Anthropogenic effects on the space environment started in the late 19th century and reached their peak in the 1960s when high-altitude nuclear explosions were carried out by the USA and the Soviet Union. These explosions created artificial radiation belts near Earth that resulted in major damages to several satellites. Another, unexpected impact of the high-altitude nuclear tests was the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that can have devastating effects over a large geographic area (as large as the continental United States). Other anthropogenic impacts on the space environment include chemical release experiments, high-frequency wave heating of the ionosphere and the interaction of VLF waves with the radiation belts. This paper reviews the fundamental physical process behind these phenomena and discusses the observations of their impacts.”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11214-017-0357-5
Global Warming is always good news and Global Cooling has always been bad news. Another Ice Age would give us graphic information on this matter. The Roman and Middle Ages Warm Periods were good for man and the Little Ice Age was bad for man. Global Warming releases CO2 for use by plants which is good for everything on Earth.
Good essay, but it would be a better one if every time you had a paragraph that measured more than 1.5 inches top to bottom , you figured out a way to insert a paragraph break.