In my earlier post on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), I provided four sequential questions to ask about global warming, to better think about the issue. I am pleased to have seen these same four questions raised by others since then, although I cannot claim to be their source. This post is an extended update on the subject, including what I have learned since then, through reading IPCC documents, science publications, and several articles on the "other side" of the issue, as well as various web sites. A good site to follow, that covers the science and multiple perspectives, is Watts Up With That.
I begin with an update on the four questions, with my current take on some answers:
1. Is the planet Earth warming?
Yes it is quite clear that there has been some warming, but just how much, and from which starting point remain uncertain. The planet appears to be warming slowly over the past century or more, by way of small increases, separated by level periods, or even occasional declines. The amount of warming depends on who you ask and what year you choose for your baseline, but it seems to be about one degree (either Fahrenheit or Celsius depending on your perspective) at this point. Few people deny this or claim there has been no warming at all. Moreover, the arctic appears to be warming more than the rest of the land, which in turn has warmed somewhat more than the oceans.
As a caution however, a century ago the world was coming out of a cool spell, known as the "little ice age", when the climate was decidedly sub optimal, and there have been previous warm and cold periods. For example, 12,000 years ago we were in an ice age. Indeed, over geological time, the Earth has been much warmer and much colder at various times in the past. The climate has always been changing and there is no such thing as a stable climate. The bigger question is, how much warming will there be in the future? And therein lies the controversy.
2. Are we causing the warming?
Here too, the answer appears to be "yes", human activities are very likely causing some of the temperature rise. My initial guess was a cheat of 50 +/- 40%, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees that we are the cause of at least half of it, thereby allowing that other factors surely play a role. Other respectable sources suggest less than 50%. Few people claim no human cause for the warming, while some claim we are causing almost all of it. For now I'll stick with half and maybe tighten up the uncertainty a bit, say 50 +/-30%. Mind you, this alone says very little about future warming possibilities. In addition to burning fossil fuels and the increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere, there are other factors influencing global temperatures and regional climates: deforestation, solar shifts, ocean currents, urban sprawl, cloud cover, etc. None of the models in use today accurately capture all the influences. Indeed, we do not even understand some of relations.
3. Is the warming bad?
This, of course, is where we shift from "global warming" to "climate change", with all the added confusion and uncertainty that entails. Here too we get into the difficulties and disagreements driving the controversy. Any change to the past climate in some regions will be bad in some ways, for some people or ecosystems, but it is tricky to nail down any of the supposed effects for certain. The IPCC focuses on the assumed negative consequences of rising CO2 levels: melting ice and permafrost, rising sea levels, warmer seasons, shifting biomes, etc. Despite a lot of hype in the media however, even the IPCC does not find much evidence for strong effects on rainfall, drought, storms and other weather extremes.
While most public reports point to the negative effects of increasing CO2 concentration and rising temperatures, fewer point to the clear benefits. Increased CO2 has led to a significant greening of the world: more leaves on trees, faster crop growth, longer growing seasons, etc. Plants need and benefit from CO2 and the more of it in the air, the more they will soak up, thereby storing more "carbon". I will doubtless get blasted by the "consensus" crowd for saying this, but shorter winters and warmer growing seasons should be good news for northern climes such as Canada. In general, one should look for both pros and cons to assess any change, and not look only at the negative effects.
One of the bad effects most often mentioned is sea level rise, but that has been grossly overstated. Sea level has been rising ever since the last ice age ended. The average rate over the past century was something like 1.4 to 1.8 mm per year, depending who you ask. Even if that increased to 3 mm/yr (unlikely), the rise would be only about eight inches by 2100. This would surely cause additional problems for low-lying shores, but it is hardly a global catastrophe, or the end of civilization as we know it, and there is lots of time to adapt.
This points to what is missing in the above question: the projections into the future. Almost all of the supposed negative consequences of climate change arise from uncertain models of the effects of global warming on the planet, ecosystems and human activity. Those models in turn are based on projections of temperature rise 60 or 100 years or more into the future, which come out of other models for the Earth's climate. Given that climate models have not been able to account for changes over even the past twenty years, to rely on them to predict a century ahead seems risky at best. And modelling supposed climate change consequences based on those projections just multiplies the uncertainties.
Given that the worst supposed effects of climate change are not projected to occur for many decades, an unbiased reader can perhaps see why so many people are leery of directing massive public policy changes on the basis of the worst-case published results of these same models.
4. Can we do anything about it?
Here I would like to split the question in two: physical possibility, and political likelihood. First, is it even physically possible for humans to change the climate significantly? The climate has changed - sometimes a lot (e.g. the ice ages) - without human causation for eons, suggesting that there are more important factors beyond our control. However, if 50% of recent warming has indeed been caused by humans, then in principle we have some control over future warming and the resulting climatic changes. According to global warming theory, greatly reducing or eliminating CO2 emissions - primarily from burning fossil fuels - would be the necessary step.
This is a reductionist approach, assuming that humanity has a climate control knob called "CO2 emissions" that we can readily adjust; the Earth's thermostat as it were. Stating it this baldly and simplistically underscores the fact that the "climate change" issue goes well beyond CO2 emissions and the things we can control. Nevertheless, it may, in principle, be possible to exercise some degree of "control" over future warming by drastically changing our use of fossil fuels.
The second part asks whether humanity can work together to achieve this goal, even in part? Is there the global political will and wherewithal to drastically reduce coal, oil and gas usage for our usual purposes of industry, transportation, home heating, etc.? Based on the track record of the past 30 or more years, the answer appears to be, "no, we cannot". How many Kyoto accords, Paris agreements and other major international plans have come and gone with little to show for them? When one major player (the USA) has backed out of Paris, and the other (China) declares it will only begin reducing CO2 in 2030, even as it builds more coal-fired power plants each year, it seems unlikely that major decreases in CO2 are likely to be achieved any time soon, notwithstanding all the talk, planning, and insistence from various quarters.
It is true that there have been small improvements in some jurisdictions, and there are ways to convert some CO2 producers to reduced-emission energy sources. Wind and solar power are touted as the solution, but have their own problems; e.g. the need for large scale energy storage. And changing from coal and oil to natural gas in many situations reduces the net CO2 emissions. Despite the wishful thinking, however, gas, oil, and even coal will be with us for many decades to come, especially since we cannot ethically deny their use by developing countries to get their populations up to developed-world levels of health, education, infrastructure, etc.
Perhaps the most effective short-term initiative would be efficiency: finding better ways to do more with less energy. Along those lines, it should be possible to encourage people to cut down on fossil fuel use via smaller cars, well-insulated houses, working from home, less air travel, fewer gas-guzzling "toys", etc. There are some trends in this direction, and some countries and cities have been able to make small reductions in their CO2 emissions. But wholesale cuts beyond perhaps 20% over the next decade or so seem highly unlikely (barring new pandemics). To reduce CO2 emissions by 50% or more would require severe changes in how we live, work, play and run most of our human activities. Indeed, despite all the virtue signalling, when push comes to shove, "climate change" is not very high on the public's priority list.
Further Discussions:
Based on these four questions and my answers, a fifth question now seems necessary: Should we try to do something about climate change? Some shrill voices insist that we must do everything we possibly can immediately to save the planet. Others claim that the high cost of the demanded changes would be worse than the likely effects of climate change for the realistically foreseeable future. The former voices then call the latter ones "deniers", and in return, the latter may refer to the former people as "alarmists". As usual, prudence and reason suggest a reality somewhere between these extremes.
Part of the answer to this new question would be to seriously study the pros and cons of a warmer climate, realizing the uncertainties and biases inherent in all the models, and leaving aside any prior judgements on the matter. Part of that in turn, is to come up with realistic calculations of the likely rise in CO2 over the next few decades, based on reasonable assumptions. Then a range of approaches to estimating the effect of increased CO2 on the global temperature can be taken. Of course both these approaches have been pursued, but there are other players than the IPCC who come to quite different conclusions. Rather than circling the wagons and calling each other names, scientists should humbly look at ALL arguments and assess all data fairly, and then predict a realistic range of warming into the future, along with a variety of cost-benefit analyses regarding its effects. In this vein, it is telling that previously warm periods, for example, Roman (1 to 300 AD) and medieval (800 to 1200 AD) times, were known as climate "optimums", in the sense that the world seemed better for civilization when it was warmer.
In the meantime, I expect that most people would agree to pursue research and development of ways to mitigate and adapt to likely changes in regional weather patterns and temperatures that realistically might happen over the next say, 20 or 30 years. These analyses could look at further efficiency improvements, reasonable tax and incentive approaches, practical energy storage processes, realistic carbon capture and sequestration options, safe nuclear energy, and probably many other ways to incrementally reduce fossil fuel usage. After all, eventually coal and oil will truly run out and mankind will need to have other large reliable energy sources in hand. Thus, I support a shift away from fossil fuels, but realistically expect that to take several decades at least.
The climate change bandwagon has pushed ahead by referring to sceptics as "deniers", harping up the IPPC reports, getting children and schools riled up, and getting government lip service in line. In 2010-2019 it seemed to be the biggest topic for the United Nations, all Greens, various liberal governments, the news media, Hollywood, many science agencies, etc. Such was the “consensus”. Most of the public attention was thereby focused on the IPCC reports and the climate change warnings that regularly come out stating we have only 12 or 10, or even 5 years left to "save the planet". These groups and opinions wag the finger at the "deniers" and any governments too slow in acting seriously about "climate change" despite the supposed "settled scientific consensus" on the subject. However, one has to look beyond government virtue signalling and media hype to hear the other side of the controversy in order to get a balanced view of things. And there certainly is another side.
A View From the Other Side:
Much less has been published about the over-the-top climate change evangelists, sometimes referred to as “alarmists” for overstating the issues and hyping up the science. Therefore, I would next like to turn the tables and take a closer look at them and how their "sky is falling" message has skewed reasonable discussion on the topic of CO2 emissions, global warming, climate change, and their likely effects. The following are a few of the concerns I have seen raised about the alarmist position, which act to undermine their arguments and the whole climate change crisis story:
1. The IPCC is fundamentally biased in its mandate and approach: to find evidence for anthropogenic global warming and to explore its negative effects. It is assumed that CO2 is the primary cause of recent warming and little effort is spent studying other causes. Meanwhile, all the effects of climate change are assumed to be negative whereas there are clear benefits of increased CO2 and a warmer planet. A balanced (scientific) approach would include evidence, analyses, models and opinions from all sides.
2. The climate change warnings arrive with vague fears for the (mostly distant) future, with unspecified "tipping points", apocalyptic worries, and shrill demands for immediate major changes to global civilization. These come as hyped interpretations of selected modelling reports. Other, more moderate voices are purposely squelched, ignored, or drowned out by alarmist shouting.
3. I have seen credible, persistent and detailed reports of selected or even doctored data used as evidence for AGW and its related effects. Biased assumptions, suspicious "corrections" to past data, and skewed analyses are common. Even choosing the baseline or starting point for statements about CO2 concentration, average global temperature and the supposed effects of AGW are not accepted by everyone. And few ever explain what temperature would be "ideal" for the world. When did we ever have an optimum and stable climate? Can we expect the Earth's climate to remain the same forever according to human wishes?
4. The supposed "consensus" and "settled science" about climate change are simply not true. The oft-mentioned 97% consensus comes from from a highly selective and unrepresentative sample of views. Claims of scientific “consensus” as an argument should be suspicious for any complex subject. For AGW and climate change, it is simply false, yet the claim continues to be made, despite repeated correction.
5. Some alarmists misrepresent or dismiss past climate changes - both positive and negative shifts in global temperature - as well as their effects (both positive and negative). Just think of the infamous "hockey stick" graph that supposedly made global warming seem unprecedented, yet settled science, but which was later shown to include a built-in warming trend, even when presented with random data.
6. The various climate models over the past 20 or 30 years have consistently produced spectacularly failed projections, predicting temperature increases far above those actually measured. Clearly the models assume an unrealistically strong connection between CO2 concentration and radiant heat balance at Earth's surface. If they are wrong over 20 years, how can their 60 to 100 year projections be taken seriously? Yet we are told we absolutely must do everything demanded to prevent their worst-case projected outcomes and thereby "save the planet".
7. The overreaching demands for political and economic upheaval, supposedly essential to prevent climate catastrophe are presented with little supporting analysis to back them up. Surely dire predictions and demands for civilizational reset require solid, generally accepted evidence, and not just pleas to failed models and the precautionary principle. It is telling that those demands look a lot like socialist utopian dreaming.
8. The demands to stop using fossil fuels arrive with wholly unrealistic hopes and expectations (dare I say dreams?) for alternative energy sources in the near term. Any reasonable look at where mankind gets its energy clearly shows fossil fuels will be needed for many decades yet, especially in developing countries. Without low-cost, reliable and massive energy storage technology, wind and solar energy cannot replace fossil fuels in most applications.
9. Alarmists are spreading irrational fear among people, and especially children, via schools, the mainstream and social media, Hollywood, etc. See for example, Al Gore’s movie "An Inconvenient Truth" with its unfounded extreme predictions, or the shrill statements of, "only ten years to save the world" (repeated every decade or so). Most of this is simply unsupported, "the sky is falling" nonsense. Climate change as an existential threat? I have not read anything meaningful pointing to that as a serious possibility. Please stop the fearmongering, then we can talk.
10. Finally, there are the hypocritical agreements, statements and spokespersons who do not walk the talk they insist the rest of us accept. Wealthy people flying personal jets lecture the middle class on turning down thermostats and using public transit. Public figures hype sea level rise, while buying ocean-front properties. If you cannot practise what you preach, stop demanding it of the rest of us.
Aspects like these make it hard to trust the supposed “settled science” that the standard narrative insists on. If there is solid evidence that global warming is caused by us and is truly bad, then explain the science and logic and deal with counter arguments fairly. Don't hide behind a trumped up “consensus”, with all the attendant hype and fear. If there truly is a serious risk to the world and humanity 80 or 100 years from now, then we can plan realistic actions to minimize or mitigate the worst effects. Don't just preach global climate doom and then make unreasonable demands. I note in passing that the people most worried about potential AGW effects 100 years from now, often do not seem at all concerned about the reality of economic doom from ever-increasing public debt that will assuredly weigh down our children and grandchildren.
Finally, there are entirely reasonable things we can do individually and together to reduce our “carbon footprint”: less travel, smaller houses and cars, walk or bike when possible, work from home, improve energy efficiency, reduce waste, live within our means, encourage modest increases in renewable energy (with energy storage tech), help developing nations form stable governments and economies, stop enabling and fighting wars, stop cutting down rainforests and polluting the oceans, grow more plants in and around cities, adopt safe nuclear energy, and so on and on. There is a long list of things people can do to reduce the need for fossil fuels, improve CO2 capture in plants, and minimize our individual and societal impacts on the planet.
In conclusion, the planet Earth is indeed warming somewhat at present, and the climate is changing for various partially understood reasons. There will doubtless be some moderate negative impacts in certain regions, but this is not a human existential crisis. Surely there is a sane middle ground between denier and alarmist that most people can agree on, and accept as a starting point? As time goes on, we will learn more about the climate and be able to do more to adapt to or mitigate the impacts of any changes, however, there is no need to try to do impossible things immediately to address a problem that potentially might get bad in a century or so.
No comments:
Post a Comment