From the Cliff Mass Weather Blog
Cliff Mass
Again and again I am asked:
Do I Believe in Human-Caused Climate Change/GlobalWarning?
A very strange question. Scientists rarely, if ever, use the term believe.
We never use the term ” believe ” when we apply Newton’s laws of dynamics, the first law of thermodynamics, or any of the basic principles of atmospheric physics. I have attended hundreds of scientific meetings and not once did a scientist use the term belief in describing human-caused global warming.
Science is not religion…at least it shouldn’t be. Conclusions should be based on accepted scientific principles and data, not beliefs.
Religon
It appears that global warming has become like a religion to some people, replacing more traditional beliefs. Apparently, a way to fill their lives with meaning and purpose.
As in many religions, there is the prediction of a catastrophic “end time”, with total destruction, if people don’t follow the approved “way”.
Self-appointed prophets describe the proper path that will lead to life (some shown below),
I made a decision 15 years ago to stand up against those who distort the science.
Those who mislead the population. Those who spread unnecessary fear. Those who benefit financially from the exaggeration and lies.
And woe to a person who stands against the apocalyptic climate vision. They are cast out and rejected. Worse than wrong. Evil
I should know…..and have felt the wrath of name-calling and being cast out (by the Seattle Times and KNKX) for remaining with the science.
So what are my views on climate/change and global warming? Quite honestly, I am pretty much in the mainstream.
I should note that I have published several dozen papers on climate issues, from modeling to data-driven studies. I studied climate science under leaders of the field at the University of Washington, and worked on climate research at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) under one of the leading climate scientists in the world (Stephen Schneider, see below), with whom I published several climate papers. I have had many NSF research grants on climate subjects.
Climatologist Stephen Schneider and I at NCAR
So what is my view, based on decades of research and study of the climate?
The planet is slowly warming, and increasing greenhouse gases due to humans are a major contributor
A planetary warming of about 1 C over the past 50 years due to such gases (see plot below)
Most of that warming (about 2F) is due to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions.
A modest, steady warming of the planet.
What about extremes?
The warming is causing fewer cold waves, which is saving lives. But there are worsening heat waves. Since far more people die from cold than heat, fewer people are dying from extreme temperatures as the planet warms. That will be true for a while.
The science and data indicate that hurricanes have not become more frequent as the planet has warmed (see below), but the strongest hurricanes may get more powerful by the end of the century.
Interestingly, even with global warming, deaths from extreme weather have declined substantially (by 90% or more), even with increasingly populated areas (see below).
This is due to greatly improved ability to adapt to climate extremes (e.g., air conditioning) and profoundly improved weather forecasting.
The scientific evidence and demonstrated societal impacts are clear: human-caused global warming is a modest problem. It is not an existential threat to humanity.
As a weather/climate scientist, my views are well within the mainstream.
But unlike some, I am willing to take on the exaggerations of the “believers” and media that are happy to misinform folks to get more clicks or to secure funding from climate activists (like a certain local newspaper in Seattle).
This blog gives me a tool to give my readers the truth.
I have paid a substantial personal price by taking on the “believers” (e.g., KNKX, Seattle Times, name-calling by commenters on this blog, name-callers on some amateur YouTube sites), but the price paid by society, panicked by exaggeration and falsehood, is worse.
Do I believe in global warming? I believe in ice ages. Use your brain.
The planet is slowly warming, and increasing greenhouse gases due to humans are a major contributor
I agree the planet is slowly warming over all.
I disagree there is such a thing as a greehouse gas.
I disagree CO2 is anything more than a bit player in all of this.
The hottest temperature ever recorded in California is 134°F, set on July 10, 1913, more than a century ago.
Is the earth in a cooling cycle?
A Request to Dr. Cliff Mass and his staff at the University of Washington:
Climate activists say that American leadership in reaching Net Zero by 2050 is crucial for convincing other nations, especially India and China, to quickly reduce their own carbon emissions.
As these climate activists state the problem, the world as a whole will not reach Net Zero unless American leadership shows the way.
Suppose we assume for purposes of discussion that the United States reaches Net Zero carbon emissions by 2050; and that most of the world’s other nations, including India and China, follow suit and reach Net Zero by 2075.
What is needed for purposes of an honest and informed debate concerning US energy policy is a set of climate model runs which embody mainstream climate science’s current thinking about the impacts of CO2 on the earth’s climate system, and which predict:
1 — The concentration of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere in the years 2075, 2100, 2125, and 2150 if the United States reaches Net Zero by 2050 and the entire world reaches Net Zero by 2075.
2 — The earth’s global mean temperature in the years 2075, 2100, 2125, and 2150 if the United States reaches Net Zero by 2050 and the world reaches Net Zero by 2075.
The University of Washington does extensive climate research using its access to mainstream climate modeling codes.
The UW climate modeling staff could produce the necessary pair of climate model runs for each of the years 2075, 2100, 2125, and 2150 for a total of eight runs performed in this modeling exercise.
Furthermore, and just as important, the UW staff could document the assumptions and the uncertainties associated with each of those eight model runs in ways which would serve to greatly increase the transparency of today’s mainstream climate science thinking.
How about it, Dr. Mass? Are you game for this proposal?
A book I highly recommend that Cliff reads: “Unstoppable Global Warming (Every 1500 Years)” by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery. He most likely won’t, though, because it would threaten his Manmade Global Warming Belief. Yes, he believes in manmade warming. There is very little evidence for it, other than some highly circumstantial evidence. But, he has built his career on it, so there you have it. Science-for-hire. Science Prostitution, in other words.
This is the fundamental definition that is always missing.
What is the optimum climate in specific metrics that are measurable and testable by anyone?
Without that definition, we cannot know if we have departed the optimum or are approaching it.
Or is it assumed that 1850 was the optimum climate? Many people would disagree with that assumption.
“but the strongest hurricanes may get more powerful by the end of the century.”
What is the science argument for that? I’ve heard the counter-argument: less temperature differential means weaker storms because temperature differences cause air masses to move. I am absolutely not a meteorologist but my understanding is that spinning earth is responsible for East-West winds and temperature- (or related pressure-) differences are responsible for North-South winds.
Temperature is a measurement of molecular motion, so higher temperature would mean more movement for each molecule, but for every molecule moving in one direction, there should be one moving the opposite direction because there are unimaginable numbers of molecules. I’m missing a concept.
So, have you, can you winnow this all down to a half dozen key points?
Care to share?