Climate Change: Catastrophe or Hoax?
I read a lot or articles about climate change, but make no claim to be an expert. I dislike the polarization of sources and lack of sensible debate. The BBC and Guardian believe there is a catastrophe, and will not, as a matter of policy, allow any debate about this. Some mainstream more right of centre publications (the Telegraph and The Times) are firewall protected, which also stifles debate in the UK. If you don't agree with the 'consensus', you are a denier, a skeptic. If you are a so-called denier or skeptic, you are no-platformed from conferences. Only having one public narrative leads to group-think which is dangerous.
A recent study by researchers at Brown University found a quarter of posts about climate change on Twitter were written by bots. The finding showed 25% of tweets on climate change were likely posted by bots, mostly tweets centred on denials of global warming. There is a lot of fake news around. Sometimes, I see Facebook friends unwittingly sharing fake news. I will share ideas from various sources, and believe they are all genuine and factually accurate. Fake news is a major problem.
The media is very focused on current temperature trends and rising CO2 levels. The Earth has been around for a few billion years, so it seems as sensible starting point is long term history.
Changes in the Earth's movements (see Milankovitch cycles) over thousands of years are complicated. They affect the tilt of the Earth's axis, and where it points (i.e. the North star slowly changes over time). The elliptical orbit moves around the sun rotates, and also moves up and down. And, around 780,000 years ago there was a reversal of the Earth's magnetic field. There are a lot of long term cycles outside the control of man.
Google is generally pro the concept of global warming, so any details about previous times being warmer than now should be reliable. There was a time called the Medieval Warm Period around years 900 to 1300 CE which ice cores suggest were "1°C warmer than modern temperatures". A basic search suggests this was caused by "increased solar activity, decreased volcanic activity, and changes to ocean circulation, which promote warming." this suggests that in some instances, what we record as record temperatures could well have been higher a few hundred years ago.
This period was followed by the Little Ice Age. The Guardian seems a reliable source for this,relating it to high volcanic activity and reduced solar energy. People worry about increasing temperatures, but these colder times and frozen rivers caused widespread crop failure and famine. Warmer temperatures generally increase crop yields. This lasted from the early 1300's to the mid 1800's. It is interesting how widely used graphs that show increasing temperatures usually start around 1840.
The Guardian article notes a near absence of sunspots between 1645 and 1715. This is about to happen soon as we enter the next (Maunder) Grand Solar Minimum. The last Maunder minimum was extremely cold. NASA argues that there is no impending Mini Ice Age as increasing CO2 levels offsets by 6 to 1. There are people who don't agree with NASA and think we are due some very harsh winters. And some argue (possibly backed by the fossil fuel industry) that warming is no bad thing if it means we avoid a mini ice age and potentially increase crop yields. Is some warming better than the alternative?
While all the talk now is of global warming, in the mid 1970's and earlier, the major concern in the press was global cooling and a new ice age. This was due to a small drop in average temperatures since 1940. I remember the Time and Newsweek covers in the mid 1970's discussing cooling. From the late 1970's, this conversation changed to warming as temperatures started rising again.
So we arrive in 2020. Here is NASA's graph of rising temperatures over the last 40 years, after a dip in the previous 20 years.
Looking at the graph above, I could not call the current rising trend a hoax. Looking at the last 800,000 years shows some ups and and bigger downs.
NASA says that the speed of previous warming episodes were caused by small increases in how much sunlight reached Earth’s surface and then amplified by large releases of carbon dioxide from the oceans as they warmed. They argue that current warming is overwhelmingly due to the increase in heat-trapping gases that humans are adding to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. And, over the last five decades, natural factors (solar forcing and volcanoes), would actually have led to a slight cooling of Earth’s surface temperature.
Rather than quote scientists who disagree with NASA, I leave you with an excellent recent article in Forbes by Michael Shellenberger, a man who deeply cares about climate change. He makes some great points:
Extinction Rebellion (XR) make wild statements like:
"Around 2030 we will be in a position to set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control that will lead to the end of our civilization as we know it.” (Thank you, Greta)
In September 2019, a group of British psychologists said children are increasingly suffering from anxiety from the frightening discourse around climate change.
What about sea level rise? IPCC estimates sea level could rise two feet (0.6 meters) by 2100. Does that sound apocalyptic or even “unmanageable”?
Based on the above, the use of the word catastrophe seems wholly inappropriate.
There is plenty of middle ground between hoax and Catastrophe.
A recent study by researchers at Brown University found a quarter of posts about climate change on Twitter were written by bots. The finding showed 25% of tweets on climate change were likely posted by bots, mostly tweets centred on denials of global warming. There is a lot of fake news around. Sometimes, I see Facebook friends unwittingly sharing fake news. I will share ideas from various sources, and believe they are all genuine and factually accurate. Fake news is a major problem.
The media is very focused on current temperature trends and rising CO2 levels. The Earth has been around for a few billion years, so it seems as sensible starting point is long term history.
Changes in the Earth's movements (see Milankovitch cycles) over thousands of years are complicated. They affect the tilt of the Earth's axis, and where it points (i.e. the North star slowly changes over time). The elliptical orbit moves around the sun rotates, and also moves up and down. And, around 780,000 years ago there was a reversal of the Earth's magnetic field. There are a lot of long term cycles outside the control of man.
Google is generally pro the concept of global warming, so any details about previous times being warmer than now should be reliable. There was a time called the Medieval Warm Period around years 900 to 1300 CE which ice cores suggest were "1°C warmer than modern temperatures". A basic search suggests this was caused by "increased solar activity, decreased volcanic activity, and changes to ocean circulation, which promote warming." this suggests that in some instances, what we record as record temperatures could well have been higher a few hundred years ago.
This period was followed by the Little Ice Age. The Guardian seems a reliable source for this,relating it to high volcanic activity and reduced solar energy. People worry about increasing temperatures, but these colder times and frozen rivers caused widespread crop failure and famine. Warmer temperatures generally increase crop yields. This lasted from the early 1300's to the mid 1800's. It is interesting how widely used graphs that show increasing temperatures usually start around 1840.
The Guardian article notes a near absence of sunspots between 1645 and 1715. This is about to happen soon as we enter the next (Maunder) Grand Solar Minimum. The last Maunder minimum was extremely cold. NASA argues that there is no impending Mini Ice Age as increasing CO2 levels offsets by 6 to 1. There are people who don't agree with NASA and think we are due some very harsh winters. And some argue (possibly backed by the fossil fuel industry) that warming is no bad thing if it means we avoid a mini ice age and potentially increase crop yields. Is some warming better than the alternative?
While all the talk now is of global warming, in the mid 1970's and earlier, the major concern in the press was global cooling and a new ice age. This was due to a small drop in average temperatures since 1940. I remember the Time and Newsweek covers in the mid 1970's discussing cooling. From the late 1970's, this conversation changed to warming as temperatures started rising again.
So we arrive in 2020. Here is NASA's graph of rising temperatures over the last 40 years, after a dip in the previous 20 years.
Looking at the graph above, I could not call the current rising trend a hoax. Looking at the last 800,000 years shows some ups and and bigger downs.
NASA says that the speed of previous warming episodes were caused by small increases in how much sunlight reached Earth’s surface and then amplified by large releases of carbon dioxide from the oceans as they warmed. They argue that current warming is overwhelmingly due to the increase in heat-trapping gases that humans are adding to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. And, over the last five decades, natural factors (solar forcing and volcanoes), would actually have led to a slight cooling of Earth’s surface temperature.
Rather than quote scientists who disagree with NASA, I leave you with an excellent recent article in Forbes by Michael Shellenberger, a man who deeply cares about climate change. He makes some great points:
Extinction Rebellion (XR) make wild statements like:
"Around 2030 we will be in a position to set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control that will lead to the end of our civilization as we know it.” (Thank you, Greta)
In September 2019, a group of British psychologists said children are increasingly suffering from anxiety from the frightening discourse around climate change.
What about sea level rise? IPCC estimates sea level could rise two feet (0.6 meters) by 2100. Does that sound apocalyptic or even “unmanageable”?
Based on the above, the use of the word catastrophe seems wholly inappropriate.
There is plenty of middle ground between hoax and Catastrophe.
Comments
Post a Comment