by Iain Aitken
As explained in my new eBook, Climate Change: A Curious Crisis, the climate change ‘debate’ has long-since become a Manichaean, deeply polarized, ‘you are either with us or against us’ war of words in which both sides accuse the other of being closed-minded and refusing to accept the ‘facts’.
Instead of a respectful exchange of views and the seeking of mutual understanding and common ground we tend to find sarcasm and ridicule and ad hominem attacks, as mutually intolerant, entrenched positions have arisen based on different interpretations of the science and evidence and different perceptions of risk. What should have been a mutually cooperative, disinterested, value-free search for the truth (basically, ‘science’) has morphed into a combative, biased, value-laden promotion of positions and ‘point scoring’ over opponents (basically, ‘politics’). Lest they yield any dialectical ground to their opponents, ‘doomsters’ are deeply reluctant to admit (perhaps even to themselves) that climate change might actually be predominantly natural and benign – and ‘deniers’ are deeply reluctant to admit (perhaps even to themselves) that climate change might actually be predominantly man-made and dangerous.
So what is the doomsters’ story? One of the most prominent and vocal doomsters is António Guterres, the UN Secretary General, who, in August 2021, described the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report as ‘a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable: greenhouse‑gas emissions from fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk’. And in response to the news that July 2023 was likely to be the warmest July since records began he stated, ‘The era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived.’ So what is all this ‘irrefutable evidence’ of the climate crisis that has so convinced Guterres and his fellow doomsters? Let’s examine a few representative examples:
(1) We know, based on the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, that increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (e.g. by burning fossil fuels) will cause global warming to occur.
(2) We know, based on ice core data (and more recently direct atmospheric measurements), that in post-industrialization times the carbon dioxide level in our atmosphere has already risen by about 50% to a level that is unprecedented in more than 14 million years – and the rise rate is accelerating.
(3) We know, based on the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, that the post-industrialization global warming cannot be explained by natural phenomena.
(4) We know, based on all the leading temperature datasets, that in post-industrialization times about 1.2ºC of global warming has already occurred, a level of warming that is unprecedented in at least the last 2,000 years (and probably the last 125,000 years) – and the rise rate is accelerating.
(5) We know, according to the World Meteorological Organisation, that the last 8 years have been the hottest years since records began and each decade since the 1980s has been hotter than the previous one.
(6) We know, based on global tide gauge and satellite altimetry data, that in post-industrialization times the global mean sea level has already risen by about 9 inches as a result of global warming – and the rise rate is accelerating.
(7) We know, based on satellite observations, that Arctic sea ice has already declined by 50% and is declining at a rate of about 12% per decade as a result of global warming – and the decline rate is accelerating.
(8) We know, based on observations and attribution studies, that extreme weather around the world has already become more frequent and intense and, based on the world’s largest study of climate-related mortality, that that is already causing almost 10% (5 million) of global deaths each year.
(9) We know, based on the Paris Climate Accord, that warming must be limited to 1.5ºC to avoid the most dangerous climate change impacts – and that based on the current warming trends that critical threshold may be crossed by 2030.
(10) We know that by the end of this century there could be up to 6ºC of warming (i.e. exceeding the 1.5ºC critical threshold by 4.5ºC) potentially resulting in catastrophic climate change.
The adverse climate change impacts noted above are just representative – many more could have been added, such as ocean acidification, coral reef loss, biodiversity loss and species extinctions – and that’s even before the consideration of potential ‘tipping points’ into irreversible climate change impacts. The climate crisis narrative (i.e. the cause and effect storyline) based on such evidence is simple and certain and compelling: our escalating burning of fossil fuels has caused a huge and unprecedented and accelerating rise in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere which have in turn caused a huge and unprecedented and accelerating rise in global surface temperatures which has in turn already caused huge and unprecedented and accelerating climate change impacts on the planet and mankind – and very soon it’s going to get catastrophically worse, unless we stop climate change by stopping burning fossil fuels. In this narrative climate change is a new and terrifying man-made phenomenon, an existential threat that has arisen as an insidious ‘by product’ of rampant industrialization and capitalism and that it can, and must, be stopped by urgent global decarbonization.
So how many of the above ten statements are actually true? I would argue that all of them are true – at least exactly as worded – and assuming we accept as beyond reasonable dispute the ‘scientific consensus on climate change’, Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, climate models, analyses and conclusions of the IPCC, the ‘internationally accepted authority on climate change’. Trusting the IPCC and believing such evidence and the frightening story it apparently tells is entirely rational and reasonable; in fact, why would any rational, reasonable person doubt it? On the face of it this evidence alone makes an irrefutable case in support of the existence of a climate crisis and it’s surely not at all hard to understand why so many people accept it – and think that those who do not accept it (the so-called ‘climate deniers’) are deluded, badly-informed, badly-intentioned, scientifically-illiterate, irresponsible fools (or are perhaps covertly in the pay of Big Oil).
But what if we don’t just accept as ‘beyond reasonable dispute’ the IPCC’s ‘scientific consensus on climate change’, its Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, climate models, analyses and conclusions, but instead consider criticisms of them by ‘denier’ scientists? In that case we find that the ‘simple and certain’ climate crisis narrative unravels and becomes decidedly complex and uncertain. I deconstruct the ten statements above and set out some of the key complexities and uncertainties in my eBook, in which I conclude that we simply don’t know (with a confidence level sufficient to inform climate policy)
- whether carbon dioxide is the main (let alone sole) controller of the Earth’s climate system
- whether rising carbon dioxide levels are on balance good or bad for the planet and mankind
- whether the post-industrialization global warming has been abnormal (even over the last 2,000 years)
- how much of the post-industrialization global warming has been human-caused
- whether global warming is currently accelerating
- whether our warming climate system is on balance good or bad for the planet and mankind
- how much of the post-industrialization sea level rise has been human-caused
- whether the sea level rise is currently accelerating
- whether global decarbonization would materially reduce future sea level rises – and whether global decarbonization is anyway the most cost-effective policy for addressing future sea level rise
- whether the recent Arctic sea ice loss has been abnormal
- how much of the recent Arctic sea ice loss has been human-caused
- whether the Arctic sea ice loss is currently accelerating
- whether recent extreme weather events have been abnormal
- whether recent extreme weather events have been human-caused
- whether extreme weather events will become significantly more frequent and intense as a result of global warming
- whether exceeding 1.5ºC of warming would be ‘dangerous’
- whether achieving net zero by 2050 (in order to limit warming to 1.5ºC) is technically feasible (never mind geopolitically realistic)
- whether achieving net zero by 2050 would materially improve the climate in this century
- how much further global warming there will be this century and whether it might lead to ‘catastrophic’ climate change.
All of this can be summarized in one word: doubt. Doubts about the reliability of the science, doubts about the reliability of the climate models, doubts about the scientific integrity and policy-neutrality of the IPCC, doubts about the scale of future warming, doubts about the scale of the climate change risks (i.e. doubts about the scale of the possible adverse impacts and the probability of their occurring), doubts about the wisdom of the 1.5ºC warming ‘threshold’ – and doubts about the wisdom, not of decarbonization, but of precipitate and precipitous decarbonization (as epitomized by ‘net zero by 2050’ policies) that may do more socioeconomic harm than good largely as a result of the vast transitional costs and societal impacts of such fast and radical decarbonization and the current lack of affordable and reliable carbon-neutral alternatives to fossil fuels. Basically, the ‘irrefutable evidence’ that there is a climate crisis is not, perhaps, so irrefutable. So when António Guterres asks, ‘Can anybody still deny we are facing a dramatic emergency?’, the answer is, yes, many people can – and for very good reasons.
The fundamental problem with the climate crisis narrative is that it is simplistic and gives us only one side of the story. It largely expunges all the scientific complexities, unknowns and uncertainties, all the benefits of global warming and higher carbon dioxide levels, all the serious difficulties, costs, impacts and risks of rapidly eliminating fossil fuels – as well as expunging the option of simply adapting to living in a warmer world as an alternative (to net zero) policy response. It is as though man-made climate change had been put on trial in the court of public opinion on a charge of crimes against the planet and humanity (with a presumption of guilt) – but with only the prosecution case presented to the jury. It has apparently been found guilty, not on the basis of certainty, not on the basis of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, not even on the basis of ‘on the balance of probabilities’ but simply on the basis of the possibility that it could be guilty, if not now, then in the future.
The ‘deniers’ (more accurately described as ‘doubters’) think that the uncertainties in the science are very high, that the possible worst case climate change outcomes are extremely unlikely to occur and that the socioeconomic risks of trying to eradicate the possibility of such outcomes are unacceptably high. The ‘doomsters’ (more accurately described as ‘believers’) think that the uncertainties in the science are very low and that however unlikely the worst case outcomes might be they are nevertheless possible and are so very bad that the very high socioeconomic risks of trying to eradicate the possibility of such outcomes are almost irrelevant. Both positions are rational and reasonable and worthy of intelligent debate – there is no ‘correct’ position. There does, however, appear to be a politically correct position and that, of course, is the position of the ‘doomsters’. To put it another way, the statements, ‘Climate change is probably not a very serious problem but net zero by 2050 probably is’ and ‘Climate change is possibly a very serious problem and net zero by 2050 possibly isn’t’ are not incompatible. Furthermore both sides agree that human activity, in particular our burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to a warming, changing climate – the debate is about how much we are contributing and how dangerous that warming actually is. On which basis there appears to be more uniting the two sides than dividing them.
Whether the IPCC’s theory and climate models are reliable (at least reliable enough to be fit to inform climate policy) is just a matter of opinion. Whether carbon dioxide is the ‘control knob’ of global warming is just a matter of opinion. How emissions will evolve this century is just a matter of opinion. Whether natural climate variability can partially (or even largely) explain the post-industrialization global warming is just a matter of opinion. Whether climate sensitivity is relatively low or high is just a matter of opinion. How much global warming there will be this century is just a matter of opinion. How much global warming is ‘dangerous’ is just a matter of opinion. Whether renewables technology will evolve quickly to deliver affordable and reliable carbon-neutral alternatives to fossil fuels is just a matter of opinion. Whether climate policy should be predicated on plausible/likely outcomes or worst case possible outcomes is just a matter of opinion. There is no ‘right’ answer to the climate change problem.
In summary, believing that we are experiencing a climate crisis and so we must eradicate fossil fuels as fast as possible is rational and reasonable – as is doubting that we are experiencing a climate crisis and so we must be very circumspect about how deeply and how quickly we eradicate fossil fuels (because the radical decarbonization ‘cure’ may be worse than the climate change ‘disease’). That simple claim may horrify ‘deniers’ and ‘doomsters’ alike, who both tend to a belief that they have the monopoly on rationality and reasonableness – which is why accepting this would be an excellent first step to reducing the current polarization of attitudes to the issue. To approach the truth about climate change you really do need to hear both sides of the story – and they are both good stories. At the very least, given all these doubts, if a climate crisis really exists then it is a very curious one.
At least 8/10 wrong, but on number 7:
Arctic warming is normal during each centennial solar minimum, driven by negative North Atlantic Oscillation conditions. Climate circulation models predict increasingly positive NAO conditions with rising CO2 forcing, that would cool the Arctic, and cool the AMO.
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html
A crisis is anything you want to define as such. There is not an objective definition of a crisis.
“A crisis is any event or period that will lead to an unstable and dangerous situation affecting an individual, group, or all of society.”
With such a definition nearly anything can be made into a crisis.
“(2) We know, based on ice core data, that in post-industrialization times the carbon dioxide level in our atmosphere has already risen to a level that is unprecedented in more than 14 million years”
And we know that the place where it has been measured (Antarctica) should be 12 ºC warmer if the Pleistocene CO2-temperature relationship was kept. Yet Antarctica has warmed by 0.0 ºC. Such growing disparity casts serious doubts about the reality of the relationship. If it doesn’t hold today why should it be a causal relationship in the past?
“(7) We know, based on satellite observations, that Arctic sea ice is declining at a rate of about 12% per decade”
The per decade rate means nothing if it turns out that for the past 1.7 decades the decline rate has been 0%.
Well done Doctor . . .
I only hope it does not fall on deaf ears
Excellent synopsis of the ongoing debate.
I’ve purchased your book. I can’t think of a better quote to start your book with than this one by Bertrand Russell
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”
Silliness as usual.
The IPCC is not a science organization and anyone who gives it that credit is either a liar or ignorant. It is a tiny group of scientists, handpicked by GOVERNMENTS, all of whose “assessments” are EDITED and APPROVED SOLELY by those GOVERNMENTS. Each chapter of WG1 is written by between 10 to 50 “scientists” who are particularly UNDISTINGUISHED with little background, and many of whom work DIRECTLY for activist organizations. The “models” they use are poorly written COMPUTER PROGRAMS coded by grad students and physics flunkies that have never predicted a single important result correctly at ANY time scale, and all of which are packed FULL of “parameters” aka “fudge factors” so they can do their “hindcasts” (otherwise known as curve fitting).
No scientist of repute puts ANY weight whatsoever in their “assessments” (a fancy name for the biased guesses of the small hand-picked club).
And there is no “consensus”, never has been, and anyone who claims there is is either lying or ignorant. There has NEVER been a SINGLE survey showing any such overwhelming consensus. Indeed there are an overwhelming number of scientists documented in writing who disagree with all of the outlandish claims of the Marxist consensus purveyors. And those scientists are not “deniers”, but in reality they are affirmers of science.
Furthermore, there are no “climate deniers”. No sane person has ever denied that climate exists. This is a typical Marxist derogatory code phrase which actual means “anyone who disagrees with the Marxist totalitarian dogma”. Disagreement and denial are two different things. Of course, one of the central goals of the Marxist totalitarians is to redefine all of our language so that it can mean whatever they want it to mean.
And there is no denying that!
“And there is no “consensus”, never has been, and anyone who claims there is is either lying or ignorant.”
Consensus comes from latin, con- “together” and -sense “interpretation”. It means a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people.
So yes, there is a consensus even if there is no unanimity of opinion. Most scientists agree with the IPCC, even when they are properly polled. It is just not 97%, but about two thirds.
A different matter is that in science consensuses always turn out to be wrong. Science advances by destroying previous consensuses, so they have no value. Only evidence has value in science.
There’s now a lot of talk on Einstein’s general relativity being wrong. I wouldn’t be surprised.
https://phys.org/news/2023-09-einstein-wrong-theory-gravity.html
I believe it as about 72% for the general public, 90% for scientists in general, 95% for earth scientists, and close to 99% for “expert” (publishing) climatologists. I can give a number of references for the latter. I’d be interested to see where that “about two-thirds” comes from and the exact phrasing of what the consensus is about.
ganon
Please provide the link for the 99% for publishing climatologists.
Cerescokid:
Sure, no problem:
“Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming”. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184 (2019). doi:10.1177/0270467619886266
“Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature”. Environmental Research Letters. 16 (11): 114005 (2021). doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966
[98.7%] “Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years later”. Environmental Research Letters. 16 (10): 104030 (2021). doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans
““It is really case closed. There is nobody of significance in the scientific community who doubts human-caused climate change,” said the lead author, Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at Cornell University.
The general public does not yet understand how certain experts are, nor is it reflected in political debate. This is especially true in the US, where fossil fuel companies have funded a disinformation campaign that falsely suggests the science is not yet settled, similar to the campaign by tobacco industries to cast doubt on the link between smoking and cancer.”
ganon
The problem with the Lynas paper and the Cook paper and the Guardian article is that they played a little slight of hand by using a much larger sample size (90,000 for Lynas) while the number evaluated was under 3,000 and of that 2600 took no position. Thus, they did a little inverse logic in coming up with the 99%. Using studies really doesn’t tell us much. My experience after having read thousands of papers is that the vast, vast majority take no position in their papers on this question.
The more complex and relevant question might be what percent of all publishing climate scientists believe that more than half of the warming pre 1900 is from CO2. A word search of abstracts doesn’t tease out that answer.
I had assumed you were thinking of those studies. Much like everything else in climate science, if you look under the hood and dig a little deeper, either the claim is false or there is much greater complexity to the issue.
cerescokid,
You asked for ’em. I gave ’em. You’re free to complain all you want.
Two surveys of published climate scientists (Verheggen et al, Bray von Storch et al) came up with the identical percentage–66% of published climate scientists believe half or more of current warming is anthropogenic in nature.
cerescokid,
Don’t like the 99% of publishing climatologists that believe in ACC, so deflect to % human attribution to AGW. Fine by me – here’s some more fish for the sea lion:
A new statistical approach to climate change detection and attribution A Ribes et. al.,Climate Dynamics volume 48, pages367–386 (2017).
” we find that most of the observed warming over this period (+0.65 K) is attributable to anthropogenic forcings (+0.67 ±
0.12 K, 90 % confidence range), with a very limited contribution from natural forcings (−0.01±0.02 K).”
[103% +/- 20% (includes negative human forcings: areosols and land use)]
Constraining human contributions to observed warming since the pre-industrial period, N. Gillett et al.
Nature Climate Change volume 11, pages 207–212 (2021)
“Anthropogenic forcings caused 0.9 to 1.3 °C [1.1 +/- 0.2 C] of warming in global mean near-surface air temperature in 2010–2019 relative to 1850–1900, compared with an observed warming of 1.1 °C.”
[100% +/- 18% (includes negative forcings)]
Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance, Markus Huber and Reto Knutti, nature geoscience (2011).
“We find that since the mid-twentieth century, greenhouse gases contributed 0.85 ◦C of warming (5–95% uncertainty [range]: 0.6–1.1 ◦C, about half of which was offset by the cooling effects of aerosols, with a total observed change in global temperature of about 0.56 ◦C.”
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/
https://climatefeedback.org/scientists-reactions-us-house-science-committee-hearing-climate-science/ [First figure: ~110 +/-30 %)]
thomaswfuller2,
“Two surveys of published climate scientists (Verheggen et al, Bray von Storch et al) came up with the identical percentage–66% of published climate scientists believe half or more of current warming is anthropogenic in nature.”
Despite the incomplete referencing, I was able to find both information on both:
Verheggen, et al. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 16, 8963–8971
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es501998e
“90% of those surveyed with more than 10 peer-reviewed papers related to climate (just under half of survey respondents) explicitly agreed that greenhouse gases were the main cause of global warming.” And that was 9 years ago
Bray & von Storch (2008), from Bray’s 2010 review:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1462901110000420
“Question 21, “How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?” Answers: 34.6% very much convinced (7), 48.9% being convinced to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not convinced at all (1)”.
I.e., only 1.35% were not convinced while 83.7 were convinced, with the remaining 15% only lightly convinced (unsure). And this was 15 years ago.
All of this is reviewed in detail at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change#cite_note-BvS2010-26
But being wiki, I prefer to go back and check the original literature.
My only response is, you must have worked very hard at cherry-picking, and then incomplete references hoping to hide it.
Cheers
ganon
Two of your links in the first comment didn’t work. I only could read the guardian article and the Lynas and Cook studies referenced.
Another headline in the Guardian could have been “Only 432 scientists out of 90,000 agreed that humans were causing warming with specific attribution.”
cerescokid,
Sorry about that (however, it is not that hard to find them from the titles):
Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467619886266
Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966
Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years later
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774
“Another headline in the Guardian could have been “Only 432 scientists out of 90,000 agreed that humans were causing warming with specific attribution.”
You, and anyone else, are free to say whatever you want about the papers/articles (and I’m free to not respond to such comments); I prefer to read the source material.
There’s no question that IPCC’s product is vetted by a political body—50/50 science and political consensus, it’s part of the construct of the IPCC charter.
Is the following a sound foundation for science? Too many apparently think so, or there would be a lot less debate:
“IPCC was neither a strictly scientific nor a strictly political body but a unique hybrid. The political representatives, by virtue of the consensus rule, would hold veto power over every word of the summaries that were the essential product for policy-makers. But the scientists, represented by the lead authors of their reports, would also hold an effective veto by virtue of their prestige and unimpeachable expertise. Once a consensus was forged among all parties, it would not be questioned by any well-constituted and representative political or scientific body.
…Often, as in IPCC, decisions among the dozens or hundreds of elite leaders are made by a negotiated consensus in a spirit of equality, of mutual accommodation, and of commitment to the community process—all of which are seldom celebrated, but essential, components of the republican political culture (Weart, 1998, 61). Note also that majority voting is normally important in this political culture, but in many cases consensus is even more important.
…In negotiating pronouncements on climate, scientists did not so much borrow procedures from modern democracy as collect on a loan they had made centuries earlier.
The international organization of climate studies helped fulfill some of the hopes of those who, in the aftermath of World War II, had worked to build an open and cooperative world order. If IPCC was the outstanding example, in other areas, ranging from disease control to fisheries, panels of scientists were becoming a new voice in world affairs (Miller, 2001, esp. 212–13). Independent of nationalities, they wielded increasing power by claiming dominion over views about the actual state of the world— shaping perceptions of reality itself. Such a transnational scientific influence on policy matched dreams held by liberals since the eighteenth century. It awoke corresponding suspicions in the enemies of liberalism.”
http://journal-iostudies.org/sites/default/files/2020-01/JIOSfinal_5_0.pdf
Typo: “…or there would be a lot MORE debate”
I’m referring to the notion that climate science is settled. Those who believe that the science is settled are arguing that the 50% governing political body within the IPCC are unimpeachable; they’re party to the official anointment of settled science, after all.
I’m not sure how quid pro quo works for science; consensus is enlightenment? To give up something so a formal body can put together an “official” consensus position under the umbrella of settled science. The “I” in IPCC stands for Intergovernmental, there’s no mention of science in the name. Intergovernmental precludes that science is co-opted. Science, truth, doesn’t care where it happens.
I only read the Working Group Technical Reports, not the summaries or synthesis reports. I find the WG1 “The Physical Science Basis”, to be a fairly comprehensive as to review of the science (a little short on paleoclimatology), very well referenced, excellent error and confidence analysis, and willing to discuss shortcomings and needed work. Also, a bit of a bear to work through, 2200+ pages (sans technical summary) – I’m still working on it,tend to use it more as a “look up” reference.
Yes, “confidence” is the operative word, it’s also a relative word regarding faith in models; et al.
Perhaps biases of assessors should be better vetted, maybe there would be less crisis in confidence.
Professor David Shearman, an IPCC assessor for the Third and Fourth Assessment Report, published the book: ‘The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy’.
He states “…we argue that authoritarianism is the natural state of humanity’. He proposes the formation of an ‘elite warrior leadership’ to ‘battle for the future of the earth” [p.xvi]. In Chapter 9 he says “we might begin the process of constructing such real universities to train the ecowarriors to do battle against the enemies of life. We must accomplish this education with the same dedication used to train its warriors. As in Sparta, these natural elites will be especially trained from childhood to meet the challenging problems of our times.” [p. 134]
Professor Shearman argues that overpopulation and industrialization are causing an ecological disaster and that democracy isn’t up to the challenge, an authoritarian government must be imposed to save us from ourselves. He asks “…are you prepared to change your lifestyle now? Are you prepared to see society and its governance change if this is a necessary solution?” [preface. p. xiv] “It is not impossible that from the green movement and aspects of the new age movement a religious alternative to Christianity and Islam will emerge.”
There’s antecedence to the before philosophy, i.e., the thinking is borrowed from the core philosophy behind National Socialism; a collectivist based ideology.
There’s great concern that contemporary radical thinking has become less marginalized in global cultures; how does this affect science, and many other disciplines? Today it demonstrably, incrementally reveals itself, it’s somewhat less of a question.
I’m not saying there’s many IPCC assessors sharing similar extreme views as those described, though it would be irresponsible to not have deep concerns about ideological imbalance within an authoritative UN styled body projecting strong influence over world governance, how people should live.
Metaphorically, as a matter of common sense, stacking a jury with hangmen will never lead to a hung jury. So what guardrails have been used to protect humanity from ideologically driven science, faith? A useful one would have been for governments to not get in the business as science arbiters, to fund intellectual diversity. That train left the station decades ago.
An example: In an effort to prove that ocean acidification is happening and a harmful thing, produced by CO2 becoming carbonic acid, climate and marine scientists looked at deep ocean mollusks. They determined that carbonic acid would theoretically end up in the deepest parts of the ocean, and not be diluted, precipitated, or evaporated. They then found mollusks in fishing dregs they dated back a few hundred years. But the complexity of dredging up samples from thousands of feet down, presented a problem. So they developed a theory that allowed them to extrapolate differences in shell structure to similar species of mollusks easily found inshore. Their conclusion from that comparison was that these mollusks had developed new ways of shell construction based on carbonic acid levels, which correlated closely with millennial increases in CO2 and warming. Based on that, the common wisdom among climate activists is that CO2 is increasing the acidity of the oceans and endangering marine life. Taxpayers funded this study.
A NASA study found the sea ice around Antarctica was melting rapidly. But another NASA study found that the vertical buildup of ice inland was increasing, and projected that the total ice mass of Antarctica would be back to where it was in 10-20 years. Guess which study got all the attention in climate conferences? I tried to get in touch with the authors of both studies repeatedly, but they are well insulated by others. So the two studies were never reconciled.
Brian wrote:
A NASA study found the sea ice around Antarctica was melting rapidly. But another NASA study found that the vertical buildup of ice inland was increasing, and projected that the total ice mass of Antarctica would be back to where it was in 10-20 years.
Ice core records clearly show that the ice accumulation on the ice where the ice core records were obtained is the most in the warmest times when sea ice must be a minimum and ice accumulations are the least in coldest times when sea ice must be a maximum.
The new NASA study just verified what anyone studying ice core records should have already known.
Of course, the warmest times (but still below freezing) have the most precipitation – as snow. Keep in mind that Ice shelves are localized to glacier snouts and prevent evaporation, however, sea ice is considered to include areas that have down to only 15% ice coverage – they can provide evaporation to warmer air, and the vapor pressure above 0 C water is still 0.006 bar.
Iain …
Thank you for your piece.
> What should have been a mutually cooperative, disinterested, value-free search for the truth (basically, ‘science’) has morphed into a combative, biased, value-laden promotion of positions and ‘point scoring’ over opponents (basically, ‘politics’).
This has not been manifest with climate change only. Nuclear power, pesticides/herbicides, vaccines/pharmaceuticals, GMO, fertilizers, plastics, insulation, waste disposal … I could go on. So, I agree with your statement above that it is ‘basically politics’, or maybe to be more precise not so much the science as the social/cultural milieu in which the science is produced.
While it might make for some interesting moments, I’m not sure affirming each side’s reasonableness and rationality is the answer. For example, once you take a stand by calling something a crisis, it doesn’t leave much room for compromise. Maybe it’s just better to let science take its due course, as I believe it is self-correcting … eventually.
This was written:
“All of this can be summarized in one word: doubt. Doubts about the reliability of the science”
Actual science always questions, always doubts, what they have put forward is nothing like “actual science”!
What they have put forward is based on how much wealth and power they can gain and how much of the obscene subsidies they can capture.
That was very interesting but does not explain in scientific terms how nature keeps a relatively constant average surface temperature.
I have done that on Truth social since I left this blog.
Nature controls the rise and fall of the average surface temperature of the sun.
Nature raises and lowers the height of the oceans controlling the rise and fall of the average surface temperature of the earth.
Extra Heat is stored in the Atmosphere of the earth.
Lack of heat is stored in the Ice Blocks.
As the surface of the earth radiates heat to the Black Sky, Nature removes it from the water vapor in the atmosphere, the beginning of a little Ice Age, Weather.
When the ice blocks are gone, each little Ice Age loses slightly more heat than the earth retains, Nature takes water from the oceans and builds the new Ice Blocks.
This new ICE AGE will take about 130,000-years.
Wrong on all counts
Right now, nature is replacing the water vaper in the upper atmosphere. The sun warming may last 2 to 4 thousand years.
A black body doesn’t have a rate of warming, or a rate of cooling.
–
A black body has only a steady temperature, at which temperature the black body emits EM energy.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Test
Test
Iain –
> The ‘deniers’ (more accurately described as ‘doubters’) think that the uncertainties in the science are very high, that the possible worst case climate change outcomes are extremely unlikely to occur and that the socioeconomic risks of trying to eradicate the possibility of such outcomes are unacceptably high. The ‘doomsters’ (more accurately described as ‘believers’) think that the uncertainties in the science are very low and that however unlikely the worst case outcomes might be they are nevertheless possible and are so very bad that the very high socioeconomic risks of trying to eradicate the possibility of such outcomes are almost irrelevant.
Hmmm. Some of those you call “believers” “believe” that existential harm proceeding along the current trajectory is certain. Some “believe” that there’s a chance of existential harm, and as a matter of low probability/high damage risk, mitigation is the better pathway. Some “believers” have doubts and some don’t.
Some of those you call “doubters” “believe” that there is zero risk of existential hard proceeding along the current pathway. Some believe that there will not be harm at all, but benefit. Some “believe” there may be some harm, but the probability of significant harm is nil,, and they “believe” that it is certain that mitigation will cause existential harm. Some “believe” that the probability of significant harm along the current pathway is very small, and the probability of significant harm from mitigation is high.
I think that there are doubters and believers on both sides. Maybe you should consider a different taxonomy.
My own “belief” is that in complex risk management problems that get politicized – like pretty much any politicized context where conditional probability comes into play, really – what stands out is the influence of ideological predisposition on how people reason about the science. It’s much less likely to occur, even sometimes where conditional probabilities come into play, for that kind of polarized reasoning to take place of the issue doesn’t trigger identity-defensive and identity-aggressive reasoning. With climate change, like with issues like covid, it mostly books down to in-group and put-group patterns and biases like the fundamental attribution error.
As Dan Kahan used to say, with climate change its not about what you know but who you are.
Well said, Joshua.
Just curious, so how do you see ideologies being ‘modified’? In a recent post, you spoke about the scientific method as a possible means.
Bill –
Yes, I think for people who are truly committed, the scientific method is a means. But it’s hard.
I think that good faith engagement with “viewpoint diversity” is a means, when people are committed to the good faith part.
One key part is for people to confirm that they understand their interlocutor’s argument. A way to check for that is to see if you can explicate their argument in a way that they’d agree is accurate. I think this goes back to basic principles of “getting to yes” engagement, where you try to focus on identifying shared “interests” rather than holding on to “positions.” It goes back to basics of communication like “I statements” and “active listening” and the like. .
Stakeholder dialog lays out methodology as does participatory democracy.. Those processes don’t necessarily involve modifying ideology but that can be a result
In the end, it requires people who are committed to good faith exchange.
I think, also, studying cognitive biases like motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, etc., and identity-protective and identity-defensive behaviors can help. They can help reinforce an understanding and “meta-cognitive” approach.
Communicating online is almost a guarantee for failure. Especially given the kind of people who tend to gravitate to communicating online.
Joshua …
I don’t disagree with what you said. If I can crudely summarize it as ‘finding common ground’, I would even say it is a necessary first step. Yet rarely is it the only step needed.
Once we have a clearer understanding of another’s position, and we have identified ‘common agreements’, what’s left is to expose perceived contradicts on either side. Perceived contradictions in ideology, for me, are mostly in reference to how elements in their structure are ranked. I’m not talking so much about preferences, but actual contradictions in the beliefs, mores, traditions, philosophies, etc, which make up ideology.
For an extreme example: an ideology may say that victims are not subject to moral judgements (based on their own morality) in their actions against oppressors, with whom they judge as immoral.
I am not rendering a specific opinion with that example, just pointing out that a ‘scientific method’ in reference to ideology sometimes is not so much about facts in question, or their interpretation, as it may be about the ranking of those facts in weaving an ideology, or an ideological position.
Using the above example, Hamas killed what are perceived by some as innocents. The Israelis responded with actions that some perceive have killed innocents. In the ideological debate of morality, many elements are used by both sides. The only common ground is the use of morality in their respective ideologies. Yet, a ‘scientific method’ might point out the contradictions of the ranking of moral acts within each/or one of the contesting ideologies, thus moving the discussion past the apparent moral hurdle.
Example: If killing a child is wrong under any circumstance, held as one of the highest moral sanctions, then it can not be used to morally justify any act of violence that results in a child’s death. Another reason would be needed to justify such an act of violence (if indeed it can be). Once that’s agreed (the apparent contradiction), then the discussion can move forward to resolve differences.
Bill –
OK. You asked for it.
There’s much common ground here (don’t tell anyone, we can’t let it get out).
I’ve decided to not try to parse a moral hierarchy in the current flare up of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. How does one really gain a purchase on the moral scale? And perhaps more importantly, what is the utility on doing so? How does doing so help resolve the problem?
I once taught a course entitled “Freedom Fighter or Terorist: Cross-national and Cross-ethnic Perspectives on Criminality and Justice – or something one that – don’t remember the exact title. Anyway, we ooked at issues like the ME and the conflict between Japan and Korea, and even the OJ Simpson trial to examine how we bring identity into evaluating morality
So here’s the kicker: I don’t think it’s ideological differences that really are the driver. It’s identity orientation. I’d guess that your “values” and my values are largely very similar. But we bring our identity orientation as a filter when we examine value-associated issues. That creates a kind of mirage. What looks like value differences (as manifest in different views in that issue) aren’t really value differences. We both agree that killing children is abominable. We both agree that oppression (particularly when based on identity) abominable. We share those values.
I look at it like this: there is a spectrum of viable views in many of these issues. There’s no clear-cut answer. There’s uncertainty and context. What we know as that as you get out towards the extremes at either end of the spectrum, the viability of an “answer” usually diminishes. But the tension between the extreme ends is important, because each end of the spectrum represents an important consideration.
I’ll take rasing a kid an an example. They need nurturing as well as discipline. Some parents lean toward disciplinarian and others towards nuturing. Either without the other leads to an unhealthy child. And the parents (usually) know that. It’s a shared understanding. But at some point you might choose one side or the other. The disciplining parent thinks the nurturing parent is doing it wrong. And visa-versa. Why? Because they feel insecure about being able to successfully navigate the tension. It’s incredibly hard to do. Mistakes are inevitable. There’s much uncertainty.
So what happens is that the nurturer resents or blames the disciplinarian because he/she exposes a nerve, an insecurity. And visa-versa.
There’s a necessary tension in dealing with low probability high damage risk. We both want to find a balance. We need both poles of the tension to be part of the solution. But we resent each other for representing the side of the spectrum that differs from our own
We share values but the conflict takes a shape where it looks like we have different values and we hate each other on that basis. And the driver there’s is an underlying identity orientation, not different values.
So in answer to your earlier question, I think, part of the way to deal with the the influence of ideology on reasoning is to loosen our ties to a fixed identity orientation. To identify less with “positions” and to seek out shared “interests.”. But there’s so much out there, screaming at us, tighten our grip on identity orientation for fear that if we loosen it we’ll be annihilated.
In scientific matters that could lean towards loosing your hold on the correctness of your scientific conclusion. To allow more space for uncertainty. To use the scientific method while also respecting how difficult it is to use. And to respect how much we are prone to filtering the scientific method through our ideology, or perhaps a brand of ideology, being an identification with one scientific conclusion versus another.
Bill –
Long, rambling response in moderation. I’ll give it some time to see if it surfaces. If not I’ll break it into chunks and try again.
Here goes:
Bill –
OK. You asked for it.
There’s much common ground here (don’t tell anyone, we can’t let it get out).
I’ve decided to not try to parse a moral hierarchy in the current flare up of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. How does one really gain a purchase on the moral scale? And perhaps more importantly, what is the utility on doing so? How does doing so help resolve the problem?
At least your gravity is a constant, Josh, I respect your consistency.
Trunks –
Please go away. I’m trying to have a convo (although the bizarro filter is making it almost impossible).
Joshua …
Thanks for your response.
If you don’t mind returning to the ME example …
So, if they agree on the immorality of killing children, their own and others’, under any circumstances … then I say they should move on and leave behind any moral justifications for their war, as the contradictions in their own moral code, which we assume is integral to their respective ideologies, renders that discussion … non-productive (even counter-productive) … as it relates to a possible solution from either point of view, let alone acceptable to both.
This now leaves them with, I believe, a somewhat clearer path. If the war/violence can’t be morally justified, what can each side say is the justification? Again, as you pointed out earlier, this medium/commenting online is not the best for doing this. But here we are.
To be brief, at this point, whatever reason is put forth I believe we can lump it under the heading ‘perceived necessity’. Societies go to war, kill innocents, sacrifice their own innocents, inflict tremendous damage on both sides because they perceive it is necessary.
Yep, you can drive a tractor-trailer through what I just wrote. But before we do that, you mentioned above something about extremes. I interpreted that as the need to keep the discussion away from extremes if any progress is to be made towards solutions.
If one, or both sides, has an apparent ‘extreme’ woven into their position (ideology) then it would behoove us/them to identify it and how it affects the other side, and their own spectrum of available choices.
In the ME, the call for the complete annihilation of the other side, would seem to fit an apparent extreme cited above. It would also give us some insight into the ideology and the structures that compose it. And it would establish a ‘fact’ for the party that confronts such an ideology to use in their perception of what is necessary.
Can we use this sketch for other examples? I think we can. If … if you can convince the party(s) with extremism in their ideology (viewpoint), to remove/modify that extremism then we may have narrowed that opening from a tractor-trailer to a sub-compact.
If they can’t be convinced of removing extremism from their ideology (viewpoint) then we can predict with some certainty where the road leads. And to be clear, no morality can justify it either way. In fact, it would seem that extremism predisposes immorality. And necessity will rule the day.
Bill –
I had some trouble following your comment. With the denizens that are so focused on taking potshots at me, and more significantly the unworkability of the moderation filter, if you’re interested in continuing maybe we could do it here. I don’t think Mark would mind:
https://markbofill.wordpress.com/2023/10/15/10-15-23/#comment-2256
> I had some trouble following your comment.
LOL!!! You’re not the only one! I’m not sure I follow them.
Thank you for the invitation to the other venue. I’ll decline only because I’m comfortable here and I don’t have enough time available to keep track of another blog, etc.
Hey, maybe Judith will consider hosting a Climate Etc bbq? Obviously we’d all have to check our weapons at the door, but how much fun would that be!
It might help both of us if I summarized some points:
– Demetris brought up how ideology influences not only our viewpoints, but tends to provide a reinforcement for them, which many times we may not be aware. This ‘reification’ tendency via ideology can have a negative impact on science, as it tends to work against the flow of new ideas, etc.
– You brought up ‘motivated reasoning’, which to me is an interesting, distilled version of Demetris’ point.
– Ideology, for me, is the structure composed of our beliefs, mores, traditions, philosophies, etc. Demetris mentioned how he became aware of his own contradictions (my word) in his ideology with regard to his science. His ideology then changed, when presented with ‘new facts’ from science, and, I assume, the subsequent revelation of his past ideological interpretations/influence.
– Similar to Demetris, my own ideology has changed over time as I’ve encountered contradictions in its structure, which often took the form of inaccurate applications of elements and/or rank/priority.
– The example I tried to offer for a mis-placed ranking was using the unlimited violence presently in the ME, where I took the position that either side could not justify morally (any innocent death negates the moral argument), but could do so through an argument of necessity.
– Going off your comments on motivated reasoning and conflict resolution (my term), once the discussion moves from justifications via morality to justifications of ‘perceived necessity’, I believe that moves the resolution process forward.
– Identifying extremism in any conflict resolution process would seem paramount. If an ideology has extremist viewpoints, those elements would need to be ameliorated to find common ground between two opposing ‘perceived necessities’.
– I believe this is applicable to climate science as Demetris, Iain, Andy West, Judith and others have posted.
This is as far as I’ve gone. It’s mostly common sense, but we know how ephemeral that can be. Sorry for the loose definitions and use of terms. As you said, we have to adapt to the venue.
Test
The only problem with this argument is that Climate Change is NOT Caused by CO2.
In fact, there are 35 scientific studies that show there is no consistent correlation or direct causal relationship between the two parameters. Nowhere in the government climate change reports is there a clear equation showing a causal relationship. Climate records show that when the earth’s temperature increases, it typically causes increases in CO2 hundreds to thousands of years later. Exactly the opposite relationship of what the fake news/politicians spew. For details see: “Why CO2 is Not the Control Knob of Global Temperature.” Or, see Climate Change and Real Science: https://factcheckedorg.files.wordpress.com/2023/03/climate-change-and-real-science.r2.pdf
(T₂ – T₁) = k•ln([CO₂]₂/[CO₂]₁)
Can you give a causal equation for [CO₂] as a function of T?
I would submit that we are already IN a Climate Crisis, as evidenced by the 2023 El Nino, which is already the strongest El Nino known in the last 123 years, and it is still strengthening.
Historically, earlier warm periods, such as the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and the Medieval Warm Period were all eras where there were very few VEI4 or larger volcanic eruptions, so that their atmospheres were essentially free of the dimming SO2 aerosol pollution from their eruptions.
As a result, there was nothing to dim the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface, and temperatures soared. Those were eras characterized by global droughts, floods, stormy weather, heat waves, starvation, and the consequent demise of some earlier cultures.
Globally, Industrial SO2 aerosol levels began climbing after about 1960, and peaked at 136 million tons in 1979. Because of acid rain and health concerns, global mandates to reduce reduce industrial SO2 aerosol emissions were instituted, and by 1980, temperatures began warming up because of the cleaner air. By 2019 (latest data that I am aware of), they had fallen to 72 million tons, and are probably about 64 million tons by now.
Since global temperatures ALWAYS rise when the air is cleaner, the 64 million ton decrease in SO2 aerosol levels HAS to have been the cause of all of our modern (since 1980) warming.
Currently, SO2 aerosols are falling even more due to continued Clean Air and Net Zero efforts, and the cleaner the air, the hotter it will get! To avoid even more warming, ALL Clean Air and Net Zero activities need to be halted ASAP.
The strengthening 2023 El Nino suggests that we are, or are past, a tipping point, so that we may need some geoengineering to recover.
See https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.19.3.1996 for proof of the above
burlhenry,
“Those were eras characterized by global droughts, floods, stormy weather, heat waves, starvation, and the consequent demise of some earlier cultures.”
Your statement is the opposite of how historians or contemporaries described these eras.
For the Holocene Optimum (with temperatures said to be 2 -3 degrees above nowaday) “start of culture”, “neolithic revolution from hunter and gatherer to farmer”,
for the Roman Optimum “bringing wine to Britannia”, “ice-free Alpine passes”, “happiest and most flourishing time of mankind”,
for the Medieval WarmPeriod “Grain could be grown as far north as Norway. The Vikings settled Green(!)land, because pasture farming and agriculture were possible there at the time. Wine grew in England and even southern Scotland. The population of Europe exploded. Culture and society flourished.”
quotations from German Wikipedia and from Wolfgang Behringer “Kulturgeschichte des Klimas” https://www.buecher.de/shop/buecher/kulturgeschichte-des-klimas/behringer-wolfgang/products_products/detail/prod_id/29741679/
here the introduction https://bilder.buecher.de/zusatz/20/20757/20757353_lese_1.pdf
and here a review https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/groenland-war-mal-gruen-100.html
with this conclusion:
“History shows that humanity fared better in warmer times. A calming book that avoids any climate hysteria, objectifies the debate and takes a sobering look into the past.”
Michael Harrig:
I was unable to read any of your references since they were not in English.
To begin with, as I mentioned earlier, all of the earlier warm periods were due to a low incidence of VEI4 and larger volcanic eruptions (only 31 during the 300 year MWP, for example. As such, they were world-wide events.
An article that I googled “Climate Explained. What was the Medieval Warm Period”, contained the following
“The warm conditions of this period brought many benefits to Earth’s plant and animal life, but in some other parts of the world, people’s lives were instead made worse by intense droughts. Parts of western America and the great Mayan cities of Central America were hit by Mega droughts, and Andean civilizations wilted in the face of an emptied Lake Titicaca”
And disastrous flooding and storms occurred in Australia.
Rising temperatures that lead to an El Nino always cause wide-spread climate disasters.
Read the Wikipedia article “The 2014-2016 El Nino”. It is a compilation of the many world-wide climate-related disasters that occurred during those years.
Since the 2023 El Nino has already exceeded the temperatures of the 2014-16 El Nino, what do YOU think will happen?
Iain – .
Hmmm. Some of those you call “believers” “believe” that existential harm proceeding along the current trajectory is certain. Some “believe” that there’s a chance of existential harm, and as a matter of low probability/high damage risk, mitigation is the better pathway. Some “believers” have doubts and some don’t.
Some of those you call “doubters” “believe” that there is zero risk of existential hard proceeding along the current pathway. Some believe that there will not be harm at all, but benefit. Some “believe” there may be some harm, but the probability of significant harm is nil,, and they “believe” that it is certain that mitigation will cause existential harm. Some “believe” that the probability of significant harm along the current pathway is very small, and the probability of significant harm from mitigation is high.
I think that there are doubters and believers on both sides. Maybe you should consider a different taxonomy.
My own “belief” is that in complex risk management problems that get politicized – like pretty much any politicized context where conditional probability comes into play, really – what stands out is the influence of ideological predisposition on how people reason about the science. It’s much less likely to occur, even sometimes where conditional probabilities come into play, for that kind of polarized reasoning to take place of the issue doesn’t trigger identity-defensive and identity-aggressive reasoning. With climate change, like with issues like covid, it mostly books down to in-group and put-group patterns and biases like the fundamental attribution error.
As Dan Kahan used to say, with climate change its not about what you know but who you are.
Wow Josh, What a nuanced comment that says absolutely nothing. Mammals evolved when CO2 was several thousands of PPM. Mammals evolved in a vastly warmer world. CO2 is in general very good for plants and ecosystem productivity. The last 1 million years we have been on the verge of CO2 starvation. By burning so much fossil carbon we have given life on earth a blessing. The only way you can argue otherwise is from the big lie that the climate of 1880 was “ideal” and “change is bad.” These are reactionary dogmas.
What is Sealioning?
Sealioning refers to the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter. These questions are phrased in a way that may come off as an effort to learn and engage with the subject at hand, but are really intended to erode the goodwill of the person to whom they are replying, to get them to appear impatient or to lash out, and therefore come off as unreasonable.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/sealioning-internet-trolling
See this David. Might be enlightening.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/sealioning-internet-trolling
Looks like the “climate change” crowd is really hurting coal. (Not!)
Billionaire Gautam Adani’s coal-power unit said its profit jumped almost ten-fold in the second quarter as an increase in electricity demand boosted sales. Its shares jumped.
The company’s net income soared to 65.9 billion rupees ($792 million) from just about 7 billion rupees a year earlier, Adani Power Ltd. said in an exchange filing Thursday. Fuel costs on each unit of power sold declined, aiding earnings. Its shares rose as much as 7.7% in Mumbai, before paring gains.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-02/adani-s-coal-power-arm-posts-847-jump-in-profit-on-high-demand
jim2,
Would it surprise you to find out that the end of democracy in the US could be blamed on the Green New Deal? It seems to me that looking how the whole renewable energy issue has pitted the right against the left here in the US these German researchers might have a point.
“Researchers in Germany have found that there is “no evidence” to support the notion that renewable energy generation fosters peace through prosperity.
…
They also found that deploying renewables does not necessarily lead to a country or region’s economic development. “The hypothesis based on the capitalist peace rationale needs to be rejected: as per the statistical test, renewables do not seem to induce development and therefore lower the level and likelihood of conflict,” the paper stated.”
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/11/02/new-research-suggests-renewables-may-not-necessarily-foster-democracy-peace/
I would think *extensive* deployment of unreliable energy sources would make a country very much less likely to progress in any way.
Thank you Joshua – Good points. From a philosophical point of view the underlying problem here (as with so many complex issues, not least the Middle East) is perhaps belief itself.
Iain –
>…the underlying problem here (as with so many complex issues, not least the Middle East) is perhaps belief itself.
Indeed.
Joshua, perhaps you underestimate the power of observation. Look at what astronomy has been able to do without experiments.
If Climate Science had more testable concepts, like physics and chemistry where experiments can be run and duplicated by other groups, perhaps belief would play a less prominent role.
Jim2
Climate Science HAS a testable concept. See my DOI below your last post.
So Burl, you submit that you have one Earth to use as a control, and one Earth to modify as the experiment? Is that it?
Jim2:
The premise to be tested is that if atmospheric SO2 aerosols are increased, average anomalous global temperatures will decrease, and if they are decreased, average anomalous global temperatures global will increase.
This premise has already been tested and verified hundreds of times. Every time there is a VEI4 or larger volcanic eruption. temperatures first decrease, with their maximum cooling, on average, occurring 16 months after the date of the eruption, as their aerosols circulate around the globe.
When they eventually settle out, in ~18-24 months, temperatures rise to pre-eruption levels, or a bit higher, because of the cleaner, less polluted air.
This easily seen in plots of average, anomalous temperatures, such as those produced by WoodforTrees .org.
jim –
> If Climate Science had more testable concepts, like physics and chemistry where experiments can be run and duplicated by other groups, perhaps belief would play a less prominent role
Perhaps. Of course the degree to which people see climate science as testable is influenced by beliefs.
But going back to my point, there are people who are certain on both sides; they see their beliefs as tested and proven by the evidence.
Yes, if there were a oner B to experiment on it might reduce the polarization. But I think it’s more of an issue of how people deal with uncertainty, particularly if identity-orientation is triggered.
oner B = planet B
Of course physicists have beliefs concerning physics. But when a testable hypothesis comes along, and it is verified by experiment, then that experiment is replicated and verified by others, the holdouts eventually change their beliefs.
Climate science ain’t anything close to that.
jim –
This is about risk analysis in the face of uncertainty.
Wishing there were less uncertainty isn’t of much help, imo.
You’re an expert sea lioner, Josh. I’m making an observation about climate science as you well know. Climate science is mostly belief one way or another, not based on experimental evidence.
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.19.3.1996
So your solution is to burn more sulfur rich coal and diesel and hope that the negative radiative forcing of particulates will cancel the increasing radiative forcing of GHGs (regardless of other consequences)? Well you are in luck, China may already be doing that, but it will take a lot more, and more, and more, because of the orders of magnitude shorter atmospheric residence time of particulates vs. CO2.
https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-1649-2020 (figure 10.)
ganon1950;
You have entirely missed the crux of what I am saying.
I have simply pointed out that the cause of all of our warming since 1980 has been due to the decrease in industrial SO2 aerosol emissions due to global mandates to reduce those emissions, and the more recent Net Zero activities, as shown by the satellite images.
Global temperatures ALWAYS rise whenever SO2 aerosol levels decrease, so all of our modern (since 1980) warming HAS to have been due to their removal, and NOT due to increased levels of CO2 in our atmosphere.
At this point, so much SO2 aerosol pollution has been removed that temperatures are rising simply because of the cleaner, more transparent air, which increases the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface.
At this point, halting ALL Clean Air and Net Zero activities ASAP to prevent further cleansing of the air (there are still about 60 million tons of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere), could be helpful, but some geoengineering will probably still be required to reign in temperatures.
“I have simply pointed out that the cause of all of our warming since 1980 has been due to the decrease in industrial SO2 aerosol emissions due to global mandates to reduce those emissions … ”
No, I’m not missing your point, it is just not true. In 1980 aerosol cooling (relative 1750) was -0.54 C, in 2017 it was -0.68 C. GHG heating in 1980 was +1.67 C, +2.16 C in 2017.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/
The cause of ALL our warming since 1960 is not a decrease in aerosols, since they have actually increased (despite global mandates). Most of our warming has come from increased GHGs, while it partially offset by aerosol cooling. Further, it is biased and silly to say warming is caused by less aerosols, when what you mean there is less cooling. But in this case there are more aerosols, creating more cooling – just not keeping up with the warming.
For more details, see: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019MS001978
“
Gannon1950:
What you are missing is the FACT that whenever atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels decrease, temperatures increase. And vice-versa.
This is observable in any plot of average anomalous temperatures.
All that you have is an UNPROVEN hypothesis that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause temperatures to increase.
After the ramp-up of industrial SO2 aerosols into the atmosphere from the 1960’s to 136 million tons in 1979, because of Clean
Air mandates, they began decreasing in 1980, falling to 72 million tons in 2019.
At issue is what caused our modern warming, from 1980. It HAS to have been due the 64 million ton decrease in SO2 aerosol emissions.
Sorry, misread/typo – that 1.67 C GHG heating in 1980 should have been 1.17 C.
“At this point, so much SO2 aerosol pollution has been removed that temperatures are rising simply because of the cleaner, more transparent air, which increases the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface.”
Uh huh, sure. That’s why the Earth’s surface had been slowly getting cooler since some 6-8 ka ago, until about 150 years ago, when we started putting a lot of SO2 (and CO2) into the atmosphere. Thanks, I understand now.
burl,
No, you have entirely missed the FACT that aerosols cause cooling, the absence of them does not cause warming; it is something else that causes the warming.
“All that you have is an UNPROVEN hypothesis that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause temperatures to increase.”
Of course it is unproven. Science doesn’t prove anything. Try to learn the difference between inductive and deductive logic. It is more like sufficient evidence is given until it is accepted beyond a reasonable doubt. You are free to be unreasonable and illogical if you like.
Ganon1950;
You say that “aerosols cause cooling, the absence of them does not cause warming. Something else is causing the warming”
Let me put it in a way that your simple mind might be able to understand.
Assume a sunny day. A large cloud appears and temporarily blocks the sun, causing temperatures to drop. It drifts away, and temperatures rise, because of the ABSENCE of the cloud.
In the same way SO2 aerosols, WHEN PRESENT, decrease the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface, causing cooling. And when they are removed, temperatures naturally RISE.
This has been proven HUNDREDS of times, from the behavior of volcanic SO2 aerosols. Just look at a plot of average anomalous global temperatures. Whenever there is a VEI4 or larger eruption, there will be a temporary decrease in temperatures, and when their aerosols settle out, they are absent, and temperatures rise.
Burl,
Since you have reverted to insults, let me help your simple mind. Whether it be clouds or aerosols, it is the presence of the sunlight that causes warming. If the clouds/aerosols are gone, it is the sunlight that is causing the warming. Tell me how something that doesn’t exist (the missing cloud/aerosol) causes warming. No wonder you are so confused.
Ganon1950:
You are correct that sunshine causes all of Earth’s warming.
But if you place a dimming layer in the atmosphere between the sun and the Earth’s surface, the intensity of the sun’s radiation striking the Earth’s surface will be diminished.
And if that layer is removed, the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface will increase.
I find it incredible that you still cannot understand this simple fact! But you do have a lot of company.
Google the NASA article: Atmospheric SO2 Aerosols: What they are, and why they are so important. It should be helpful.
“I find it incredible that you still cannot understand this simple fact! But you do have a lot of company.”
Oh, I understand the pretzel you are trying to twist.
I find it incredible that you still think something that is non-existent causes warming. When it does exist, it causes cooling or diminishes warming. But when it goes away it, it does not cause warming, it is nothing and does nothing.
Enough D-K semantics for one day. But at least I understand the mindset that has so much trouble with causality. Thanks for that.
Ganon1950 :
For the record, I have NEVER said that SO2 aerosols cause any warming.
It is their ABSENCE that increases the intensity of the solar energy striking the Earth’s surface.
Here is another DOI for you to digest
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.16.1.1035
burl,
I don’t really care about your semantic logical inversion. My real objection is to your original claim that SO2 is decreasing, therefore it is responsible for ALL the warming that is observed. Trouble is, atmospheric loading is increasing, albeit slower since the 1970s; reference already given: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019MS001978
(figure 1d & f). When, in fact, the SO2 is (slightly) mitigating the warming that has been occurring, but it certainly is not causing it. If you can’t understand that, I can’t help further.
Burl,
For the record, what you said was:
“I have simply pointed out that the cause of all of our warming since 1980 has been due to the decrease in industrial SO2 aerosol emissions due to global mandates to reduce those emissions.”
It’s a false statement, no matter how much you want to nitpick about it, you said the cause of all warming since 1980 has been due to the change in concentration of SO2 (decreasing). I.e., you attribute the warming to reduction in SO2. Except that it didn’t decrease. You were wrong about it decreasing, and you were wrong about that nonexistent decrease being the cause of all warming since 1980.
I understand it impossible for some people to admit that they are wrong, but it does not change the fact that you are in this case.
Fini
Ganon1950:
???
I provided NASA/GMAO satellite Chem Map images showing the decrease in atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels between 1980 and 2023, which you now claim did not happen!
Here it is, again https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.19.3.1996
Fine, you gave a reference to CEDS which shows a moderate decline in SO2 concentration since 1970. I gave you a reference that shows a comparable, moderate increase in sulfate loading (the sulfur species that is actually responsible for aerosols).
I still disagree with your statement, “the cause of ALL of our warming since 1980 has been due to the decrease in industrial SO2 aerosol emissions”. I also referenced an article that showed the total aerosol forcing since 2002 has increased (decrease of aerosol concentration – in line with your claim) by 0.16 W/m^2. This is not nearly enough to explain ALL the warming.
Ganon1950:
You maintain that the 63 million ton decrease in SO2 aerosol emissions was not enough to account for all of the warming that occurred between 1980 and 2019, which was 0.695 Deg. C (Hadcrut5, unrounded)
The amount of decrease in Industrial SO2 aerosol emissions between 1980 and 2019 was 63 million tons, according to the Community Environmental Data System of the University of Maryland (CEDS).
At one time I had attempted to determine how much of a temperature increase would result for 1 million ton decrease in global SO2 aerosol emissions. I came up with .02 Deg. C of warming for each 1 million ton of decrease. This was for years w/o a temporary La Nina or El Nino.
According to Hadcrut5, anomalous average Jan-Dec land-ocean global temperatures for 1980 were 0.2 Deg. C, and 0.9 Deg. C. for 2019, a difference of 0.7 Deg. C.
There was no La Nina or El Nino in 1980, but there was one in 2019, so its temp increase of 0.1 Deg C. between start and end needs to be subtracted from 0.9 Deg. C, which equals 0.8 Deg. C.
So, 63 x .02 = an expected temperature rise of 1.2 deg C, versus an actual rise of 0.8 Deg. C.
If NASA/GISS is used, the 2019 temp (minus 0.1 Deg C.) is 1.0 Deg C.
Because of the close agreement, as a “rule of thumb”, a one million ton decrease in global SO2 aerosol emissions will cause a temperature increase of .02 Deg. C.
Between 1980 and 2019 SO2 aerosol levels fell by 63 million tons.
You maintained that those aerosols could not have been responsible for ALL of the warming that occurred. between those years, which was 0.7 Deg. C. But 63 x .02 = 1.26 Deg. C , which is MORE than sufficient!
Thank you for challenging me! That is useful information.
“You maintain that the 63 million ton decrease in SO2 aerosol emissions was not enough to account for all of the warming that occurred between 1980 and 2019, which was 0.695 Deg. C”
Yes, that is what I maintain. It has to do with the lifetime of SO2 in the troposphere of about 10 days, and the ensuing H2SO4 aerosol has a lifetime of only a few days. You can compare that to the ~40 billion tons of CO2 that is added to the atmosphere each and accumulates with a lifetime of several hundred years.
Ganon1950:
If, as you say, the lifetime of SO2 in the atmosphere is only about 10 days, please explain how the Chem maps show the atmosphere suffused with SO2 aerosols, but declining over the years, due to Clean Air Efforts.
Or how the SO2 aerosols from a volcanic eruption remain in the stratosphere for an average of 16 months before settling out.
What you say is true for an isolated instance of SO2 aerosol emissions, but most emitters are in near continuous operation, so that those that settle out are immediately replaced, with the result that they are always present in the atmosphere.
“If, as you say, the lifetime of SO2 in the atmosphere is only about 10 days, please explain how the Chem maps show the atmosphere suffused with SO2 aerosols, but declining over the years, due to Clean Air Efforts.”
Because hemispheric atmospheric mixing times are only a few weeks and the Chem maps show hot spots, not a uniform mixing, because the SO2/H2SO4 washes out before it becomes “well mixed”. Also, your two pictures are two single days (quite possibly cherry-picked) at different times of the year, and unknown precipitation patterns – SO2 concentrations are known to be quite variable due to the short lifetimes and precipitation levels at the source.
“Or how the SO2 aerosols from a volcanic eruption remain in the stratosphere for an average of 16 months before settling out.”
That is only for explosive eruptions that penetrate the stratosphere where there is very little or no precipitation to wash it out. I also quite specifically said lifetime in the TROPOSPHERE, where there is weather (precipitation) to wash out, and where most anthropogenic generation occurs. It is also irrelevant to anthropogenic SO2 that is affected by clean air acts, which is your supposed attribution source. So much for that deflection.
“What you say is true for an isolated instance of SO2 aerosol emissions, but most emitters are in near continuous operation, so that those that settle out are immediately replaced, with the result that they are always present in the atmosphere.”
Yes, they are always in the atmosphere, but at much lower concentration than would be found from the integrated emissions. As I already said, the radiative forcing is known for both radiative and cloud interactions, and the decrease in (negative) forcing over the years is not nearly enough to explain the observed warming, particularly not ALL of it.
Ganon1950:
What a lot of nonsense!
You say the chem maps show hot spots, not a uniform mixing because the SO2/H2SO4 washes out before it becomes “well mixed”.
Your conclusion is wrong. The “Hot spots” are where the industrial SO2 aerosols are being introduced into the troposphere, and, in the image provided, they are drifting eastward, over desert areas where there is no rainfall to wash them out, and are accumulating in the dry arctic regions.
For the previous year, industrial SO2 aerosol emissions totaled 136 million tons, which would be the amount shown in the image.
For 1980, emissions fell to 135 million tons, and Hadcrut5 Jan- Dec temps increased from 0.2 Deg C. to 0.25 Deg. C.
From my previous analysis, I would have expected a rise to 0.22 Deg C, Right on!
And, no, the images were not cherry-picked. The first image was for the start of the modern warming period, and the other one was close to when I wrote the article.
More recent images, showing decreasing SO2 aerosols in tandem with rising temperatures are shown here :
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.19.2.1660
“the decrease in (negative) forcing over the years is not nearly enough to explain the warming, particularly ALL of it”
In my previous post I showed that the decrease was more than enough to explain ALL of it.
Burl,
You should keep in mind that more than 90% of atmospheric aerosols are natural (mostly sea salt and dust), and that the remaining 10% are not all sulfates. Biomass burning, a common method of clearing land and consuming farm waste, yields smoke that’s comprised mainly of organic carbon and black carbon. Automobiles, incinerators, smelters, and power plants are also prolific producers of nitrates, black carbon, and other particles, in addition to SO2. Deforestation, overgrazing, drought, and excessive irrigation can alter the land surface, increasing the rate at which dust aerosols enter the atmosphere.
It is, at best, extremely naive and simplistic to try to blame a fractional reduction in SO2 (<30%) for ALL of the observed global warming. I understand you are trying to defend your "paper", but c'est la vie …
Burl,
I stand by what I have already said. Calling it a bunch of nonsense doesn’t change my mind.
Ciao
Nuclear power is gaining ground.
Sweden will explore building out its nuclear power capacity via a new government inquiry as the Nordic nation looks for ways to meet its growing energy needs.
The inquiry’s focus will center on speeding up the assessments of permits, as well as looking at fee adjustments for applications, according to a presentation by the center-right government on Thursday. It will also analyze the process for nuclear waste management and regulations for emergency and planning zones.
“Nuclear power has a central and decisive role in our climate transition,” Minister for climate and environment Romina Pourmokhtari said at a press conference in Stockholm. “We therefore need to initiate a substantial expansion of nuclear power during this term.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-02/sweden-launches-new-inquiry-into-building-out-nuclear-power
Test
Climate change, forever confused with weather change.
Here is the latest snippet from Australia.
No activist promoter of climate change seems inclined to address the pause and the cause.
…..
The UAH satellite anomaly temperature over Australia for October 2023 just came in today.
The “pause” without warming now goes back 11 to years and 3 months before now.
The high value in October caused a low value to drop off at the beginning to keep the best fit line horizontal or dipping down (cooling).
The last 5 high values form a peak that is looking like ending soon.
Where the baseline will settle out in future months is anyone’s guess.
Some say that the peak was caused by the eruption of Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai, but data are still being assessed.
Geoff S
https://www.geoffstuff.com/uahnov2023.jpg
Well, since you are talking about regional monthly data, which is subject to decadal ocean oscillations, perhaps we should also look at global average surface temperature by month:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/ (upper figure).
Since 1880, looks like a 2.0 C rise in January, AND 1.8 C rise in July. Guess I like to look at the big picture over a long period, instead of isolating something regional for 11 years.
So what do you see as a dire consequence of this warming?
I don’t see much of an issue to be concerned since sea level is not rising at an alarming rate.
Rob,
I see a whole bunch of possible “dire” consequences. Some more dire than others. See:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn7950,
table 1, where they are keyed to temperature rise.
Ones that worry me most are AMOC and Boreal permafrost collapse. All in green are a worry, since there is high confidence that they will happen if the target temperature rise is reached. Of course, since they haven’t happened yet, you are free to ignore them.
The climate has always been changing and always will. Humanity will adapt. Humanity needs to release CO2 to progress.
Rob,
What, no comment on the consequences that you asked for?
Yes, Climate change has always happened. This is the first time humanity has had a significant effect on it.
Can you predict the effects of taking a large portion of the slow carbon cycle and injecting it into the slow carbon cycle?
Climatologists are doing their best to figure it out; you are doing your best to ignore it.
“Humanity will adapt.”
Perhpas, how about other animal species?
“Humanity needs to release CO2 to progress.”
That’s personal opinion. Humanity didn’t need to release excessive CO2 to advance for the last 6 thousand years. I would posit that humanity needs to learn to release less carbon to advance, while you want to remain “where we are.”
“This is the first time humanity has had a significant effect on it.”
You are drawing conclusions with inadequate reliable evidence.
“Perhpas, how about other animal species?””
Humans have been wiping out other animal species as we expanded for centuries.
“I would posit that humanity needs to learn to release less carbon to advance, while you want to remain “where we are.””
You are wrong about my position and what can actually be done. CO2 growth worldwide is inevitable since so much of the world needs electricity and transportation.
“You are drawing conclusions with inadequate reliable evidence.”
You have no evidence at all to show that I am wrong.
“Humans have been wiping out other animal species as we expanded for centuries”.
And you think that is an excuse to accelerate human caused extinctions?
“CO2 growth worldwide is inevitable since so much of the world needs electricity and transportation.”
CO2 emissions are not necessary for electricity generation or transportation. Indeed, 40% of US electricity generation is already from non-GHG sources. CO2 growth is not inevitable, in fact, its decline is inevitable, because it is a non-renewable resource.
Thanks for your thoughts, you make yourself clear.
Ganon,
why I’m sceptical about the “significant effect”, especially concerning CO2, is:
– coming out from the LIA FIRST the temperatures started rising long before significant industrial emissions (WorldWar2)
– the nearly 20 years lasting Hiatus around millenium, not predicted by any models, happened despite ongoing anthropogenic emissions
– during corona lockdowns world economy nearly stopped. With it there was a massive decline of aCO2. Nevertheless, the athmoCO2 rised at same speed as before
– Antarctica hasn’t been warming for the last 70 years despite rising CO2
All this contradicts the simplifying “evil manmade CO2”-narrative.
– the official global mean temperature 2017 was said to be 14,8°C. The generally accepted comfortable global mean temperature is said to be 15°C. Now – 150 years aCO2, more than 40 years climate hysteria and we are STILL beyond the normal temperature?
Historians state for the Roman Optimum a temperature up to 2 or 3 degrees higher than nowaday temperature. And they had a real good living…
Why should I be scared?
They also told me to be scared during Corona! I’m 60 with slight asthmatic problems. Nevertheless I nearly never wore a mask, and – of course – I’m NOT vaccined… and, I don’t visit a doctor… when I get sick, I rest as long as necessary and let the body heal…
michael haarig,
Being skeptical is a good thing, but you shouldn’t confuse regional climate change (often due to internal system oscillations, ocean current changes) with global change/temperature increase. Also, the presence of other (smaller) forcings, e.g., Solar irradiance (Milankovitch orbital cycles, 11-year cycle intensities – Maunder minima.) do not negate the existence or intensity of GHG forcings.
ganon1950,
I get amused by the reluctance of commenters to discuss these “pauses” wherever and whenever they are. How can the omnipresent ever-increasing atmospheric CO2 (ML style) allow such pauses unless its alleged ever-increasing heating is offset by some other factor, natural or due to people?
What might that offset factor
be?
Geoff S
Decadal ocean oscillations.
ganon1950,
Then why is any factor like CO2 needed to explain surface temperature variation? Nobody seems to have published that decadal ocean oscillations cannot both heat and cool. Why can they not explain the lot? Geoff S
Sherroo1,
Because decadal oscillations are just that, internal oscillations that do not change the system heat content (although they may hide it in some unmeasured parts of the ocean). Something (an external forcing) is needed to explain the continual rise in global surface average temperature over the last 50 years, even if it has a small “wiggly” oscillation superimposed on it.
The wind turbine push in the US has hit a wall. Too expensive for the manufactures/installers. So what is the jack-boot, lefty, free-market bucking response? Well, throw more money at it, of course.
4. What can be done?
The industry has been lobbying for additional tax breaks and contract amendments to make up for the ballooning costs, with limited success.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-03/why-is-there-a-crisis-in-wind-power
Yeah, sure. All you have to do is look at annual growth in wind power generation.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/electricity-generation-from-wind.php
The essentially free money of the last 15 years has enabled a bunch of careless spending. Get back to me in a couple of years on this topic.
I’m nor reluctant to discuss it. What pauses? I don’t see any significant since 1970, and even less when known ocean corrections are made.
New paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-01061-4 (figure 1 & 2a)
Wait until they find out that OPERATION COVIDIUS lockdowns caused an increase in regional temperatures and that the phasing out of fossil fuels and the alleged transition to EVs will cause even more anthropogenic global warming!
Earth’s atmosphere is very thin and, therefore, doesn’t have any essential greenhouse effect on the Earth’s average surface temperature.
–
When it is acknowledged Earth’s atmosphere is very thin – it will become obvious, Earth doesn’t have any significant greenhouse warming effect.
***
Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse effect is only some
+0,4 oC.
–
Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse effect was very mistakenly estimated as being
+33 oC
which is very much wrong !
–
The +1,5 oC rise is due to orbital forcing, the additional CO2 cannot be considered as warming Earth’s surface by +1,5 oC, because the entire atmosphere warms surface only by some
+0,4 oC !
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I think you fail to understand how slow orbital cycles are.
https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/
And current changes in solar irradiance can not explain the current warming.
https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/
Perhaps you should study and understand the generally accepted physics (although no so much by people participating here) before you try so hard to disprove it.
Thank you, ganon1950, for your response.
“I think you fail to understand how slow orbital cycles are.”
–
Ganon, I know the orbital cycles are slow. Only our Earth is now in a culmination phase of the current orbital warming curve.
–
Milankovitch cycle, read as it should be read – when it is read correctly, when it is read the inverse way, because currently when our planet is near Perihelion (the closest to the sun point) at January 4,
At that exactly time Earth’s Southern Hemisphere is in Solstice, and the Earth’s Southern End of axis is tilted towards sun.
–
In our era we are witnessing an exceptional coincidence phenomenon – Earth is accumulating solar energy at its fastest way in millennials.
–
For more, ganon, please visit my site LINK:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, we’ve already had this discussion, and I’ve already been to your page. You are wrong, but keep repeating yourself. Precession effects on north and south hemispheres cancel to first order, and paleoclimatic data says that the Northern Hemisphere dominates slightly because of land distribution in the mid-latitudes. Also, currently the eccentricity is small such that global precession effects are small. They are not sufficient to explain the current warming, even they were in the direction of warming rather than cooling.
ganon1950,
“Perhaps you should study and understand the generally accepted physics (although no so much by people participating here) before you try so hard to disprove it.”
–
Please, ganon, do you follow “the generally accepted physics “?
Do you agree with the generally accepted physics averaging solar flux over the entire earth’s surface?
Do you, ganon, believe, that without greenhouse effect earth’s surface temperature would have been 255K or -18 C?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
“Please, ganon, do you follow “the generally accepted physics“?
Do you agree with the generally accepted physics averaging solar flux over the entire earth’s surface?”
No, I do not. I believe that insolation averaging should, at a minimum, be divided into latitudinal bands and include diurnal cycles. And for climate modelling it should be divided longitudinally as well – with as much resolution as is practical with available computing power.
“Do you, ganon, believe, that without greenhouse effect earth’s surface temperature would have been 255K or -18 C?”
No I don’t “believe ” – I accept it as an approximation with a number of assumptions/approximations: e.g., Treating the planet as a disc with normal incidence irradiance, what the albedo is as a function of position on the surface and real incidence angle at that point, etc.
ganon1950,
Me: “Do you, ganon, believe, that without greenhouse effect earth’s surface temperature would have been 255K or -18 C?”
You: “No I don’t “believe ” – I accept it as an approximation with a number of assumptions/approximations: e.g., Treating the planet as a disc with normal incidence irradiance, what the albedo is as a function of position on the surface and real incidence angle at that point, etc.”
–
ganon, you should accept the 255K or -18 C to emit
240 W/m^2 then ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
“ganon, you should accept the 255K or -18 C to emit
240 W/m^2 then ?”
No, I shouldn’t accept that. As already indicated, I only accept the 255 as an approximation – I do not know what it really is. Also, I have not done the calculation and I don’t know what the actual emissivity is, so I don’t know the emittance, and thus I should not accept any number that is put before me, without further specifications.
ganon1950,
“Christos, we’ve already had this discussion, and I’ve already been to your page. You are wrong, but keep repeating yourself.”
–
I am not wrong.
Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse effect was very mistakenly estimated as being
+33 oC
which is very much wrong !
–
The +1,5 oC rise is due to orbital forcing, the additional CO2 cannot be considered as warming Earth’s surface by +1,5 oC, because the entire atmosphere warms surface only by some
+0,4 oC !
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
You have already said that, and you are entitled to your opinion. Repeating it does not make it any more convincing, or that I have to accept it, and I don’t.
Christos,
“ganon, you should accept the 255K or -18 C to emit
240 W/m^2 then ?”
ganon,
“No, I shouldn’t accept that. As already indicated, I only accept the 255 as an approximation – I do not know what it really is. Also, I have not done the calculation and I don’t know what the actual emissivity is, so I don’t know the emittance, and thus I should not accept any number that is put before me, without further specifications.”
–
ganon, by accepting the 255K as an approximation, you accept the 255K or -18 C to emit 240 W/m^2 .
Because the generally accepted physics say so. They have averaged the incident on Earth solar flux over the entire planet surface and came out with the 240 W/m^2.
Then, they derived the 255K or -18 C as the earth’s without-atmosphere uniform surface temperature.
Also they call it the earth’s effective temperature (Te =255K).
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Thank you, I’m aware of how that rather crude approximation was calculated. It rather much depends on the assumption of albedo. If you use the current average albedo of (about) 0.3, you get the 255 K, if you use the albedo of the moon ~0.1 (rock, no water), you get about 274 K, if you assume starting with current conditions with mostly liquid oceans (255k), and then oceans freeze over and albedo rises to about 0.6, then the result is about 220K.[1] But it is all hypothetical – there has been an atmosphere since at least 3.8 billion years, and it has always contained CO2. For the last 0.0 billion years it has varied anywhere from ~100 ppmv to ~8000 ppmv, driven largely by oscillations of the of slow carbon cycle and variations in tectonic activity with continental drift. [2]
[1] https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/825/what-would-be-the-temperature-of-earth-if-there-was-no-atmosphere
[2] Paleoclimatology: From Snowball Earth to the Anthropocene, Colin P. Summerhayes (2020), CHapter 10
Shell’s finance chief said on Thursday the firm had exited a power purchase agreement (PPA) for the planned SouthCoast windfarm off the coast of Massachusetts, agreeing to pay a penalty rather than face rising costs for building the project.
Energy firms from BP (BP.L) to Orsted (ORSTED.CO) have announced hefty writedowns in recent days for their U.S. windfarm projects in the face of high inflation.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/shell-exits-us-southcoast-wind-farm-contract-agrees-pay-penalty-2023-11-02/
The project, formerly known as Mayflower, was planned to have capacity of 2.4 GW.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/04/shell-pulls-out-of-us-offshore-wind-farm-contract/
Saying, “We know” and then qualifying it with, “based on theory”, is contradictory. “We know” implies proven irrefutable evidence within the scale (global) it is applied. Whereas “based on theory”, should belie doubt still deserving of other considerations.
The statements comparing sides do more to illustrate the polarization point issue made than the explanation. Strong anthropogenic statements and weak, other causation, questions. Using the term “eradicate fossil fuels” is also a “button-pushing” statement and is not only impossible but also implausible if you understand they are a natural part of the Earth. They will still be necessary.
Fear is the intended motivation and the proponents of politicized anthropogenics manipulate that fear… Can some one explain what “catastrophic” means in the climate context? Fear drives the metamorphosis and I contend, not for the better.
“Saying, “We know” and then qualifying it with, “based on theory”, is contradictory”
One should understand the difference between hypotheses (new or still being tested) and theories (still subject to testing) in the context of the scientific method. Just as science does not provide proofs, its “final” products are well tested theories. In this context, consensus is important, but never definitive. “We know” is an (intentionally?) falsifiable construct of “doubters” (deniers) that they falsely apply to science so that they can deny the absolute “truth” that never existed. A scientist would say something to the effect of “based on well tested and currently accepted theories, we have [modifier – low to extremely high] confidence [often with specific numbers] that … “. Yet, the same doubters often seem to believe that their counter theories must be absolutely true and are definitive proof that what they doubt is false.
You illustrate the authors points well.
ESG is a financial minefield. I has the potential to disrupt the economy, and not in a good way.
Bankers servicing one of the world’s biggest ESG debt markets are now actively seeking legal protections to guard against the potential greenwashing allegations that may be ahead.
In the handful of years they’ve existed, sustainability-linked loans have mushroomed into a $1.5 trillion market. SLLs let borrowers and lenders say that a loan is tied to some environmental or social metric. But the documentation to back those claims generally isn’t available to the public, nor is the market regulated. Lawyers advising SLL bankers say the reputational risks associated with mislabeling such products are now too big to ignore.
While people argue over “climate change,” is it a problem, and whether to mitigate or adapt; the elephant in the room is the failure of the current approach, which is “green energy.” Here is one aspect of the failure, there are others. And this is already an expensive failure, getting more so with every day that passes.
Things look very different in the US and India, where penetration is struggling to break north of 10%, and in Japan, where it’s on life support at 3%. Honda Motor Co. said last week it was dropping plans to build a sub-$30,000 EV with General Motors Co., while GM and Ford Motor Co. and have pushed back targets for boosting sales of battery vehicles. Even Elon Musk has been talking down the prospects that Tesla Inc.’s Cybertruck will ramp up volumes any time soon.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-11-04/the-global-auto-industry-is-split-between-electric-vehicles-and-gas-power-lojzt2om
The answer my friend,
is (not) blowin’ in the wind …
As the German government scrambles to prop up Siemens Energy AG, another major European wind firm faces its own moment of truth after warning of billions of euros in writedowns.
Orsted A/S, which raised the alarm in the sector this summer with possible impairments of as much as 16 billion Danish kroner ($2.3 billion) to its US portfolio and a 46% share price loss this year, publishes earnings on Wednesday. It’s also under pressure to make a decision on a UK project before the end of December after other firms stalled on the country’s wind industry amid surging costs and rising interest rates.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-30/as-wind-industry-struggles-investors-brace-for-orsted-losses
Iain
I enjoyed your book and found it to be a great summation of the climate debate.
I hold the media partly responsible for the oversimplification of the issue. By and large they push the establishment narrative without the requisite objectivity and search for the truth. They also avoid the deeper complexities that are inherent in every aspect of climate.
I imagine that based on their consumption of climate news, the majority of the public would be surprised to find no upward trend in hurricanes, droughts, insured catastrophe losses and flood damage as % of GDP.
https://climatlas.com/tropical/global_major_freq.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F9XN1iVXEAAg-aM?format=png&name=900×900
https://i0.wp.com/electroverse.info/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/image-77.png?ssl=1
https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/ScreenShot2021-10-19at5.25.48PM.png?w=1336&ssl=1
These facts don’t get the play. Nor do the complexities and uncertainties and debates between scientists about causes of the current warming. When ratings and clicks are paramount, who cares about the facts.
Neither does the IPCC’s own description of climate science. It describes climate science as: non-linear, coupled, and chaotic. Anyone who thinks about this even for a short time has to come away with the conclusion that climate science cannot be simple or settled.
I think the author is too much of a fence sitter on the science issues. We know the IPCC is a political organization dedicated to proving only human caused warming, it simply does not look at the other natural causes seriously, particularly the sun, and the role if water vapour-clouds in moderating long and short-wave radiation. The fact that climate models based on AGW theory with high ECS 3-5C, do not match modern observations, and they do not hindcast well either, so they are invalid.
I too have written an eBook titled `Climate Science- A sceptical Review’. that should be available on Amazon in several weeks time. I am more definitive about the truth of the AGW consensus, its time is up, because despite the uncertainties there are enough facts available now to show CO2 does not control temperature. It may have a minor effect, but that is not measurable amongst the larger hydrological effects of water vapour and clouds.
The business of more dangerous natural disasters related to weather or climate, and even catastrophic predictions, are pure alarmist hype and fantasy. There is no creditable evidence for this nonsense, it is the stuff of politics pure and simple. This of course is the whole point of climate alarmism- to get us to trust UN/EU globalist politicians, so we give them power to enact policies to suit their transnational agenda. No Thanks, I’de rather stick with independent nation states for the present, with the ability to provide adequate reliable and cheap baseload power for consumers and industry. Renewables have their place as limited secondary backup only.
bobclose
I hope you will alert us to the publication of your new book. I look forward to reading it.
And speaking of publications, a new report was published today entitled “State of the Cryosphere”. Another scaremongering piece that is fixated on CO2. Not to be satisfied with just being wrong as the 1983 EPA prediction of up to 12 feet SLR by 2100 seems to be, (given that it is lethargically moving past 4 inches), they appear to want to be spectacularly wrong by saying we could have 67 feet of SLR if CO2 is not crushed.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QOqYHI0ezrmMCUrmCDV03rF-1aIYE6VB/view
Some of the report deals with the threat from Antarctica, specifically the WAIS. A review of the literature on the instability of the WAIS indicates contemporary research is focused on these following conditions, dynamics and factors: AMO, IPO, PDO, AAO, SAM, El Niño, ABW, ASL, current speed, thermocline, Thermohaline, west wind, east wind, heat flux, bathymetry, topography, Ekman transport, geothermal activity, UCDW, ACC, glacier speed, basal melting, basal slipperiness, subglacial hydrology, coastal Polynya buoyancy, bedrock uplift and sea ice changes.
The only correlation not under investigation appears to be the losing records of the New York Jets.
The report should satisfy the one all important constituency though, the GretaGroupies. I’m sure they will positively salivate over it. Another week. Another fix.
The Eemian peaked at about 20 – 30 feet higher than we are now. No reason to think the Holocene shouldn’t be (eventually) much different, perhaps more when/if the excess CO2 warming reaches equilibrium.