A recent article at Forbes, “Four Kinds Of Killer Weather Extremes: An Achilles Heel Problem For Climate Predictors,” is a mixed bag of correct and incorrect claims about climate change and the issue of warming impacts. Forbes is right that available data doesn’t show extreme weather is getting worse, but incorrect on a number of other assertions, like that coral reefs are in danger.
To start, writer Ian Palmer describes the so-called Exxon Knew scandal, citing some of the predictions that models built by ExxonMobil back in the 1980s spat out concerning carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. This narrative about the fuel giant ignores the fact that there were other studies being done internally that showed differently, arguing the opposite. Even within the warming theory presented by certain Exxon scientists, they acknowledged a high degree of uncertainty, concerning their findings. The popular scientific consensus just prior to the 80s was that a mini-ice ace was imminent.
Exxon did not “know” or hide anything, and Palmer makes the point that Exxon’s model outputs “were about global warming, not climate change,” and that predicting the downstream effects of climate change on weather and other systems is “another big step, and is fraught with uncertainties.”
He writes [Emphasis mine] :
If the world were sensitive to 0.2C or 0.5C, or even 1.0C global warming, climate change indicators should show up in long-term data trends.
…
There do exist worldwide consequences of global warming. These direct indicators include Arctic and Antarctic ice melting, glaciers retreating, sea levels rising, corals bleaching, and some biodiversity habitats changing. These have been serious, but not generally associated with human lives lost, destroyed infrastructure, famines, mass migrations, or government collapse.
Each of these direct indicators, on a global basis, have worsened in the last 50 years, and long-term data have proven this. For example, coral bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef has reached an all-time high.”
While it is true that there has been, as should be expected upon exiting a cold period, changes to certain habitats and melting ice, however this is wildly exaggerated in the media. He is also flat wrong that coral reefs are more in danger of bleaching now than if it were colder and with a lower CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. He’s also wrong about the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) being endangered by recent bleaching occurrences, in fact the GBR is thriving.
Regarding coral reefs, it’s important to first note that coral bleaching is not coral death. At the same time as media and Palmer are pushing the line that the Great Barrier Reef has an all-time high for bleaching, data show that, in the aftermath of the bleachings, the living coral cover of the reef set repeated records for the highest levels ever since records began in 1985. It is in the best shape it has been in recent decades. Bleaching is caused by a variety of factors, including cold snaps and chemicals in sunscreen, and cannot be exclusively contributed to warm waters (in which corals thrive) or dissolved CO2. Also, as discussed in a number of Climate Realism posts, corals are doing well globally, regularly adapting to bleaching, with new coral being discovered all the time, sometimes in unexpected locations.
Concerning metling ice at the poles, while ice melt may appear to be alarming, the truth is more complicated, and the overall ice mass of those locations has hardly budged. There is a long-term melting trend, but this predates the industrial revolution and will continue so long as we do not slide back to the temperatures of the little ice age.
It is certainly true that average global sea level is rising, but this effect is not distributed evenly across coastlines, is not outside the natural range and rate of rise since the Earth began to come out of the last glacial period, and Palmer correctly admits that this is not associated with loss of life, despite what the media often asserts. Sea levels have already risen more than 400 feet since the last ice age, and tide gauge data does not indicate that there is any alarming acceleration in the rate of rise. This is covered succinctly in Climate at a Glance: Sea Level Rise, here. There is no reason to believe, again, that seas will cease to rise if humans stopped burning fossil fuels.
Palmer goes on to describe four “killer weather extremes of droughts, wildfires, floodings, and hurricanes.”
This is where his analysis is spot on. Palmer writes:
But the four killer weather extremes have not worsened in the past 50 years. Long-term data such as hurricanes show numbers of worldwide events that, although fluctuating, reveal no long-term trend. The events were reliably recorded and carefully counted.
It’s the same for global tally of droughts, wildfires, and floodings. On a global basis, none of these four killer weather extremes have worsened over the past 40-50 years — even though global temperature has risen by 1.0 C degrees in this period.
Palmer’s statement is accurate, going on to muse that if these disastrous weather types, which really do pose immediate threats to human health, are not increasing, “why should the world be worried about future worsening?”
He hangs on to the idea that the “urgency” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is “still significant” based on the earlier direct indicators of climate change, but says it “is not as dire as often presented by climate modelers, the media, and the press.”
Most surprising, Palmer ends the article by admitting that the oil and gas industry thus cannot be blamed for worsening weather extremes, though he does assert that they “may be culpable for direct indicators of global warming.”
The debate over the degree to which human emissions of carbon dioxide influence even those direct indicators of warming, however, is still ongoing, especially since human activity accounts for just 3.4 percent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today. Many of the alleged solutions to the problem, like ceasing the use of fossil fuels for electricity and transportation, would result in far more dire consequences for civilization, human life, and health than the slow rise of the seas or shifting habitat zones, such as widespread famine, the loss of many modern medicines and medical technologies, and reduced availability of lifesaving electric power.
The Forbes article is a mix of truth and nonsense, meriting kudos for the facts it tells and disapprobation for its misleading portions. Forbes should get some credit for running an article, a large portion of which presents facts that buck the prevailing narrative that humans are causing catastrophic climate change. Had it followed normal recent mainstream media practice, it would have stifled any discussion of data which make it clear that extreme weather is not getting worse, and stuck to the speculation that climate change is going to get us if we don’t stop using fossil fuels.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Climate or Weather is not becoming more ‘extreme’. What is becoming more extreme is the Alarmist messages and Propaganda pumped out by the Green Loonies as people wake up to their fraud.
“human activity accounts for just 3.4 percent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today”
This is incorrect, or at best misleading. It weakens your argument to use such obviously false data.
We are, according to the link provided, contributing 3.4% of CO2 emissions ANNUALLY, not TODAY. The obvious counter-argument is that this is not all being used up by plants, and therefore obviously it accumulates over long periods.
Using such easily refuted arguments gives others ammunition to knock you down. It is much better not to, because the rest of it is well laid out.
Already a downvote. Obviously no sensible argument, however.
Nature emits around 30 times more CO2 than humans – it’s part of the carbon cycle. Of course, what happens to that CO2 after it’s emitted is a complex story.
Quite possible that figure of 3.4% quoted refers to human emissions and not to the actual amount of human-emitted CO2 in the atmosphere.
Anyway, if CO2 is pollution (as the green cultists claim) then Nature is a far greater polluter than us humans.
Of course, it isn’t pollution. CO2 is’t a greenhouse gas, it’s a green gas. It is literally what makes the planet green.
It is ironic – and probable proof of madness – that the green cultists call themselves green while at the same time demonising the very thing that makes the planet geen.
Chris
I am currently researching the dozens or so scientists in the 1800s that actually measured CO2 in the atmosphere.
If memory serves, IPCC or the Climate Syndicate has claimed that there are no measurements of CO2 prior to the 1950s. Assuming my memory is accurate it raises the questions of how they can claim 1880 was 280 ppm (some put it at 275 ppm)?
The data and scientific publications from the 1800s that I am reviewing put 1880 as the lowest point in that century. One could speculate that cherry picking the data and the creation of yet another hockey stick is plausible.
The significant datum is in 1820, the CO2 measurement was 420 ppm, which is the same as today.
Mauna Loa states their ppm is a dry mole fraction and qualifies it with in the atmosphere with water vapor present it could be 5-10% lower.
Also of interest is the Maun Loa facility is 10 miles as the crow flies from Kilauea volcano. The Mauna Lao research station recently moved due to Kilauea erupting. Mauna Lao also is one of the 5 largest active volcanos on the planet. FWIW volcanos emit CO2 even when not erupting. There is nothing on the Mauna Lao website that addresses local volcanism.
So, the question is, do we have a good read on historical CO2. Multiple methods have been used, but are we getting accurate data.
You say:”… contributing 3.4% of CO2 emissions ANNUALLY, not TODAY.”
A year is made of 365 or 366 todays I am unclear why you think the distinction is important.
Humans emit about 30 giga tons of a total of some 750 giga tons of CO2 moving through the atmosphere. Your counter argument doesn’t account for all the extra food grown to feed people. Nor the increased greening earth.
I don’t think you easily refuted what she wrote at all.
It is difficult to state clearly in this case. What is meant by ‘TODAY’ in this case (and the case I’m referencing) is NOW.
The implication, or indeed actual statement, is that only 3.4% of all the CO2 currently in the atmosphere was released by human activity. It is, however, 3.4% of all emissions, natural and from fossil fuels, each year. It obviously accumulates, and so the increase over a century or so is likely* due to us.
(*it could well be from the oceans, and I believe it probably is, but for the sake of this argument I’m accepting that it may be caused by our actions.)
The entire process is complex, but logic says that as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, more vegetation is also produced to remove some of that additional CO2. How much CO2 is actually added and how much is removed by the additional vegetation is what needs to be measured.
Not just more vegetation, but also increased levels of plankton and other carbonate producing aragonite skeletons.
Animals that don’t care about which form of CO₂ they use in their skeletons.
Pure speculation with an anti-human confirmation bias.
Alarmists choose the starting level of atmospheric CO₂ that fits their desired theme. They’ve lied about human CO₂ contributions for decades.
There is no obvious reason to believe human CO₂ emissions accumulate more than natural ₂ emissions.
OK, human activities emit 3.4% of all emissions of CO2 each year. The other 96.6% comes from oceans, plants, animals, your mulch pile and other sources. The story I am fed is that without mans’ emissions, nature takes care of all of her emissions which would leave CO2 in the air at an unchanged level but cannot remove but half of man’s – hence there is a steady rise instead. Why is that? Man’s emissions are derived from combustion of nature-made coal, gas and oil deposits laid down 100s of millions of years ago. Are the carbon atoms in such deposits coated with teflon or some such that prevents nature from gathering them up when oxidized like it does with the other 96.6%? Didn’t Le Chatelier say that such a thing is not possible? Why is the CO2 level in air increasing? Oceans are warming and warm water cannot hold as much gas (of most any kind) than cold water. Why are oceans warming? Well cloud cover is declining which might be one cause. Why is cloud cover decreasing? Got me. So many questions. So much ignorance. And all we get is one lousy probably wrong explanation, it’s your SUV and mine.
It is cyclical.
Oil, gas and coal companies are not responsible for any significant warming, it is the people that buy and burn the stuff that are responsible for the CO2 production and that includes all the alarmists who are rich because they have used the hydrocarbons and all the alarmists that fly private jets to numerous international meetings to demonstrate their virtuosity.
I think you mean virtuousness.
Oil did not hide anything. Oil sent a report to Carter identifying the possibility that CO2 might be something to look into.
It is reasonable to conclude that the oil, gas, and coal companies helped, inadvertently, to save the whales, the trees, and vast tracts of the natural environment, not to mention increased all human prosperity to a point never experienced in all of history. Funny how the activists always ignore those incredible accomplishments. I think the elite are just miffed because wealth disparity is not as absolute as they might hope. A return to master and serf is what they really want.
Thank you Linnea for the excellent and fair discussion of the Forbes article. You might have an interest in my experience with Forbes:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/07/26/how-appreciating-j-d-vance-got-me-cancelled-at-forbes/?highlight=tilak
I agree with this, and also your points in the linked article, including the last sentence. I submit, however, that it was that last sentence that caused the new woke editors at Forbes to pull you and the article. That’s a shame.
Linnea,
Ian Palmer at Forbes wrote “ These direct indicators include Arctic and Antarctic ice melting, glaciers retreating, sea levels rising, corals bleaching, and some biodiversity habitats changing. These have been serious, but not generally associated with human lives lost, destroyed infrastructure, famines, mass migrations, or government collapse. Each of these direct indicators, on a global basis, have worsened in the last 50 years, and long-term data have proven this. For example, coral bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef has reached an all-time high.””
Look at coral bleaching. Look at the Great Barrier Reef, with very large research budgets, making it a global leader for catastrophe stories.
A Google search of “year of first coral bleaching on great barrier reef” gives 1998.
https://www.aims.gov.au/research-topics/environmental-issues/coral-bleaching/coral-bleaching-events#:~:text=The%20heatwave%20in%201998%20caused,a%20Western%20Australian%20coral%20reef.
AIMS is the official Australian Institute of Marine Science, a Government research group.
Question: From 1998 to now is 26 years. How can coral bleaching be known to worsen, as Palmer writes, “ … in the last 50 years”?
Geoff S
The article contains a core of emotional confirmation bias claims and especially conclusions that contaminate the article.
“The debate over the degree to which human emissions of carbon dioxide influence even those direct indicators of warming, however, is still ongoing…”
I’m not sure Arctic sea ice volume, for example, should be called a direct indicator. But let’s look at the values estimated by the Polar Science Center. The monthly values in thousands of cubic kilometers are plotted here for each month separately. The most recent month posted is September 2024. September is typically the minimum during the annual cycle.
Using the Lowess smoothing function, and specifying f=0.3, the data shows an obvious deceleration of ice loss beginning over 10 years ago. The ice volume is pretty much leveled out now. We’ll see what happens, but it’s a huge stretch to suppose that emissions of CO2 have much or anything at all to do with it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fLVN4jlYQ1d_N5e0oiH9nwJZps_MNVSe/view?usp=drive_link
Those estimated values are posted here.
https://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/PIOMAS.2sst.monthly.Current.v2.1.txt
Orbital mechanics and the wobble in earth’s tilt have something to do with the ice cycles.
It gets worse Ms. Luken. According to tide gauges located on coastlines throughout the world, specific sea level, that is relative sea level corrected for measured land elevation changes, is currently rising at a rate between 1 and 2 millimeters per year. Some of these gauges have been in place since before Abraham Lincoln was present, e.g., The Battery on the tip of Manhattan. USGS scientists have measured sea level changes by observing coastal peat bogs and river sediments. They concluded that global sea level has been rising on average at a rate of between 1 and 2 mm/yr for the past 6,000 years with lots of ups and downs. They picked the 6,000 year interval because that is the period immediately following the rapid sea level rise caused by the earth emerging from the most recent glacial age. Other than NASA’s satellite measured sea level rise acceleration, there is no evidence from actual sea level measurements, taken at actual sea level, of any acceleration whatsoever and there are many critics of NASA’s methodology.
Satellite measurements have significant mechanical error bars of 3 to 4 centimeters.
Any claims by NOAA that they can measure sea level down to a few millimeters is hogwash.
Years ago when I subscribed to Forbes they ran an article about energy that noted we have thousands of years of methane hydrates available. What went wrong at the place I don’t know but I stopped subscribing.
“cannot be exclusively contributed to” …. attributed to?
Seems like some members of Team Catastrophic are “walking it back”. Lets see if their behavior changes after the election (whichever way it goes).
There are FIVE weather extremes; they “forgot” tornadoes (which kill a LOT of people). Tornadoes are WAY DOWN. Here is a comprehensive list of all the strongest tornadoes since 1950.
Scroll down to the chronological list. It looks like data is missing, but it isn’t. There really haven’t been any EF5’s since 2013. EF4’s are way down too, but I don’t know of any single reference I can link.
https://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/f5torns.html