The Crisis Report - 89

Let’s be CLEAR about what “Mainstream” Climate Science actually says. (Part One of Two)

From Comments on Global Warming Acceleration, Sulfur Emissions, Observations — (16 May 2024) James Hansen, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato.

Because, it’s the Science that our governments and leaders are using when they think about Climate Change and how to respond to it.

Right now, the Moderates in Climate Science are aggressively pushing a “narrative”. The “Mainstream Media” has picked it up and is repeating it to the public.

Opinion | The Climate Peril We Overlook

We often focus on doomsday scenarios, but we shouldn't let them distract us from other consequences of climate change… - www.nytimes.com 09/14/2024

“Our planet has just endured its hottest summer on record, with 2024 on track likewise to become the hottest year since recordkeeping began.

We see the impact of this heating in thousands of ways: The city of Phoenix this year endured 100 days of 100 degrees or hotter; some 1,300 Hajj pilgrims in Saudi Arabia reportedly died in the heat; Arctic ice is shrinking and far below average; and in some places monkeys and bats have tumbled out of trees from the heat.

We tend to focus on the cataclysmic risks of climate change — polar ice caps melting, seas rising dramatically, our planet becoming uninhabitable — and those are real.”

Yet always remember that climate is complicated.

A dozen years ago, scientists worried that the earth might heat by 4 degrees Celsius by the year 2100, compared with the pre-industrial period, while it now seems more likely that the increase may be around 2.5 degrees or less (which is still deadly and utterly intolerable).

My take is that we should embrace the nuance. We don’t need to hype the risks or conjure nightmares, for we now have abundant evidence that even at current levels of warming we are doing great damage to our species (not to mention to the monkeys and bats falling down on us).

“I’ve written my share of apocalyptic pieces about climate, from “methane burps” to the acidification of seas dissolving some plankton that are the basis of the food chain. These are legitimate concerns.”

Doomsday scenarios haven’t brought us to our senses, and we shouldn’t let them distract us from the immediate challenge: If we let warming continue, more people will be victimized by crime, children will learn less, and more of us will slip off ladders.

That’s from Nicholas Kristof. Here’s Eugene Robinson weighing in on the matter.

Opinion | Extreme heat should inspire urgency, not doom

On climate change, both denialism and fatalism are mere postures, not serious points of view.

www.washingtonpost.com

On climate change, as we swelter through this heat wave, both denialism and fatalism are mere postures, not serious points of view. With evidence of human-induced global warming all around us, hopeful realism is our only choice.

GOT THAT?

Denialism and fatalism are both “not serious points of view”. You can safely IGNORE what they say. Or require extraordinary proof from them for any claims they make.

Climate Change is “serious” since, “evidence of human-induced global warming (is) all around us”.

BUT.

“hopeful realism is our only choice.”

What “exactly” does that MEAN?

How would you define “hopeful realism”?

Right now, it sounds like nothing more than this.

WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THIS?

After all, this Climate Scientist admits that they “fear” telling people the “unvarnished” truth.

Opinion: I'm a climate scientist. If you knew what I know, you'd be terrified too | CNN

Climate scientist Bill McGuire writes on his conundrum: what's happening to our planet scares the hell out of him-but… - amp.cnn.com

“No matter how well informed you are, you are surely not alarmed enough.” — David Wallace Wells

“I would put it even more strongly.”

“What’s happening to our world scares the hell out of me, but if I shout the brutal, unvarnished truth from the rooftops, will this really galvanize you and others into fighting for the planet and your children’s futures?”

“Or will it leave you frozen like a rabbit in headlights, convinced that all is lost?”

“It is an absolutely critical question.”

“With politicians and corporations unable or unwilling to take action rapidly enough to stymie emissions as the science demands, all we as climate scientists are left with is to seek to rouse the public to try and force through — via the ballot box and consumer choices — the enormous changes required to curb global heating.”

“Would telling it like it is do the trick, or would the burden of truth be too much to bear?”

“A major psychological study, published by the scientific journal Lancet Planetary Health in 2021, found that most 16–25 year olds in 10 countries across the globe were moderately to extremely worried about climate change, but more than half felt overwhelmed and powerless to act. It would seem reasonable to argue, on this basis, that painting an even worse picture wouldn’t help.”

“Does it mean we shouldn’t provide people with the full facts if they are too scary?”

The INSANITY of this just leaps out at me.

Doesn’t Mr. McGuire realize that the REASON “politicians and corporations” are “unwilling to take action rapidly enough to stymie emissions”. Is that CLIMATE SCIENCE has been telling them they don’t have to?

Or, is he trying to imply that politicians and corporations are getting the “unvarnished truth” from the scientists. While these same scientists are LYING to the rest of us. Because “the burden of truth be too much to bear” for our “average” minds.

Should Climate Scientists be the ones who decide that if we, “the public” knew how bad things really are, we all might do something crazy like stop working. Or maybe try to overthrow our governments. Their FEAR is that all social unity could collapse if enough people think it’s the “End of the World”.

WTF is going on here?

WHAT “EXACTLY” IS MAINSTREAM CLIMATE SCIENCE SAYING.

And should you believe them?

Mr. Kristof reported it pretty clearly. If you asked Zeke Hausfather, Hannah Ritchie, Gavin Schmidt, or any Moderate Climate Scientist. They would ALL probably give you this same answer.

A dozen years ago, scientists worried that the earth might heat by 4 degrees Celsius by the year 2100, compared with the pre-industrial period, while it now seems more likely that the increase may be around 2.5 degrees or less (which is still deadly and utterly intolerable).

If you disagree with that, you are disagreeing with the current mainstream paradigm in Climate Science.

Disagreeing with the mainstream viewpoint makes you a “fringe thinker”. It doesn’t necessarily make you wrong.

Particularly when the majority of climate scientists think that warming is going to be at least +3℃ or higher.

52% think it will be in the +3.0°C to +3.5°C range.

As noted by Kuhn in his book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, paradigms “shift”. What Science used to believe was true can change, sometimes very quickly. Viewing events with an anthropologist’s eye I think we are on the verge of a paradigm shift in Climate Science.

However, I want you to understand that I am an “Alarmist”. That makes what I am saying “FRINGE” at this time.

I am in good company. James Hansen is also a “Climate Alarmist”. In fact he is the “Champion of Climate Alarmism” going all the way back to 1979 and the Woods Hole Climate Conference. His career spans the entire history of modern climate science, right up to the present day.

This graph is from one of his recent papers. I am going to discuss two periods on it, the 70’s and 2014.

Despite his being one of the “founding fathers” of modern Climate Science AND Head of GISS until 2013, James Hansen is regarded as “fringe” by mainstream climate science. His “Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions” program at Columbia University is only supported by donors and proceeds from Hansen’s books.

You almost never see him mentioned in “mainstream” news sources like WAPO or the NYT. You almost never see him interviewed by ANYONE. Much less CNN, MSNBC, or FOX.

In contrast, Michael Mann, a “Climate Moderate” who has equated Climate Alarmism with “Doomism” and suggested that “doomism” is a form of “mental illness”. Well, here’s just a partial list of how much media coverage he got in 2023.

2023 Selected Commentaries

By Michael E. Mann and Susan Joy Hassol for the Los Angeles Times - michaelmann.net

Typical of Mann’s writings are these two articles.

Climate Doomism Disregards the Science (Sept. 14, 2023) — By Michael E. Mann for APS News

Stop the doom. We failed to prevent climate change — but we will decide how bad it’ll get. (Sept. 27, 2023) — By Michael E. Mann for USA Today

He also found time to write this book.

Our Fragile Moment: How Lessons From Earth’s Past Can Help Us Survive The Climate Crisis.

“The renowned US scientist’s new book examines 4bn years of climate history to conclude we are in a ‘fragile moment’ but ‘there is still time to act’”. -The Guardian Sept 2023

Mann is not an “outlier” in Climate Science. His positions are the “mainstream” and echoed by many other voices in both Climate Science and Climate Activism. Voices like Zeke Hausfather at Berkeley Earth, Gavin Schmidt at GISS, Hannah Ritchie at “Our World in Data”, and Christiana Figueres. The Costa Rican diplomat who led the effort to get the Paris climate accord approved in 2015 and who has stated.

“Optimism is a choice. Do you know of any challenge that mankind has had in the history of humankind that was actually successful in its achievement that started out with pessimism, that started out with defeatism?”

Hansen represents the “Minority Report” in Climate Science. The “False Hope” is a form of “Disinformation” faction of Climate Science that thinks.

“The gap between wishful thinking and reality is vast.” — Vaclav Smil

SO. Let’s talk about Mainstream Climate Science.

What does it believe, what can it prove, what’s its “paradigm”?

Modern Climate Science is a product of the 70's.

What, EXACTLY does Mainstream Climate Science believe and HOW is it different from Hansen and the Alarmists?

“What’s the buzz/tell me what’s a happening. What’s the buzz/what’s happening” — Jesus Christ Superstar

If you are a layperson getting your news from social media and mainstream sources this IS a very difficult question to get an answer to. Hell, it’s HARD to even figure out what Mainstream Climate Science’s “Climate Paradigm” actually says about the Climate System and how it works.

Think about it. After decades of social discussion about “global warming”, “climate change”, and now the “climate crisis”. How much do you actually “know” about how the Climate System works?

Ms. Figueres has literally said in interviews, that the Climate System is “so complex” that, “the average person cannot hope to understand it”. Which makes Climate Scientists like medical doctors.

Climate Scientists are treated like medical doctors, in the sense that you are expected to listen to them and believe what they say without question.

Questioning their opinion, or belief in their Climate Paradigm, makes you a heretic.

“Your default position has to be, ‘The models are right.’”

— Dr. Dessler Climate Scientist in an NYT interview in Dec. 2023 about the “unprecedented” warming in 2023.

Asking questions makes you a “Denier” or a “Doomer”.

So, what is it that mainstream Climate Science believes?

The Moderate Climate Science Paradigm.

In a nutshell.

I have written a bunch of articles over the past two years detailing the history of Climate Science. I am tired of rehashing it at this point. If you want to review the details here are the articles to read.

046 - What went wrong. A Climate Paradigm Postmortem, or "How the Fossil Fuel Industry, the Republicans, and the Climate Science Moderates of the 80's stole the rest of your life"

047 - What went wrong. A Climate Paradigm Postmortem. Part Two, Understanding our Current Climate Paradigm. Where it came from and why it gained ascendancy.

051 - Unclothing the Emperor : Understanding “What’s Wrong” with our Climate Paradigm. In order to understand “Why” things are happening “FASTER than Expected”. (11/05/23)

052 - Unclothing the Emperor : Understanding “What’s Wrong” with our “Climate Paradigm”. Part 2 - Acceleration of the Rate of Warming (RoW). (11/07/23)

054 - Unclothing the Emperor : Understanding “What’s Wrong” with our “Climate Paradigm”. Part 3 - Latitudinal Gradient Response and Polar Amplification. (11/17/23

056 - Unclothing the Emperor : Understanding “What’s Wrong” with our “Climate Paradigm” - Part 4. The PERMAFROST — is MELTING, “faster than expected”. (11/28/23)

I encourage you to review the history of Climate Science. It is staggering that we have quite literally bet the “future of civilization” on what boils down to the “opinions and feelings” of a handful of scientists that few have ever even heard of.

The “stupid debate” between Deniers and Real Climate Science got most of the media, and therefore public, attention.

The REAL debate, the important one, has been between the Moderate faction and the Alarmist faction in the field. That debate is still raging, and the newest science coming in, indicates the Moderate Climate Paradigm is about to be discredited.

Climate Science boils down to just 5 key Points.

Everything else is “details”.

CLIMATE SENSITIVITY — How much will the Earth warm up if the atmospheric CO2 level is raised to 560ppm?

LATITUDINAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENT SENSITIVITY — How much will the poles warm up in response to warming in the Tropics?

SPEED — How fast will the warming happen?

FEEDBACK’S — How much worse will they make things?

SYSTEM STABILITY — How resistant is the Climate System to change, i.e. how stable is the system?

Here’s what Mainstream Climate Science states about each of these issues.

CLIMATE SENSITIVITY

How much will the Earth warm up if the atmospheric CO2 level is raised to 560ppm?

Our current Climate Sensitivity estimates date back to the 70’s. We bet the FUTURE of humanity on a 1970’s understanding of the Climate System.

The essential problem with “climate sensitivity”. Is that after 130 years we still don’t know what value to assign to it.

In the 70’s the range of answers was HUGE.

This memorandum was written in 1976 for President Carter.

In this memorandum, prepared for then President Carter, the range given for increasing CO2 levels from 280ppm to 560ppm (2XCO2) is “anywhere from +0.5°C to +5°C”. Since burning fossil fuels, like coal and oil, had already increased atmospheric CO2 levels to about 330ppm. This was regarded as an IMPORTANT question.

In 1850 CO2 levels were about 280ppm. By 1977 they were about 330ppm.

If the warming from 2XCO2 was around +0.5°C. Then YEE-HAW let’s “Drill Baby Drill”. That small a level of warming would be about equal to 1990’s global temperatures.

In 1960–1970 the annual increase in the CO2 level was slightly less than about +1 ppm per year. At that rate 2XCO2 wouldn’t be reached for 230 years.

If the warming from 2XCO2 was around +5°C. Then OMG we had to transition off fossil fuels IMMEDIATELY and work to ban their usage globally. That big a level of warming means the end of civilization and possibly even human extinction.

So, what value did we assign to “Climate Sensitivity” at the 1979 Woods Hole Climate Summit that Jules Charney chaired for President Carter?

The Woods Hole Climate Summit is the “birthplace” of modern Climate Science. The Moderate faction in the field and the Alarmist faction split on the question of “Climate Sensitivity”.

The MODERATE faction agreed with the analysis of the Oil Companies. They assigned a range for 2XCO2 of +1.8°C up to +3.0°C.

The ALARMIST faction held that “the physics” was clear and that 2XCO2 should produce +4.5°C to +6.0°C of warming.

Moderates — +1.8°C up to +3.0°C.

Alarmists — +4.5°C to +6.0°C.

Which, when you look back at the range of values expressed in the Press memorandum, is almost the same. The “Summit” did not produce a value for Climate Sensitivity, it produced two.

40 YEARS LATER.

An Assessment of Earth’s Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence — Dec 2020

Now, you would expect after 40 YEARS that we should have “better” values for the “most important” variable in the Climate System. Perhaps, at least, the two factions might have unified around a narrower range of values.

Here’s the best answer as of December 2020.

+2.6–3.9°C — 66%

+2.3–4.5°C — 95%

+2.0–5.7°C — 05%

Which says, that at CO2 levels of 560ppm there is a:

95% chance that the Global Mean Temperature (GMT) will increase at least +2.3°C and possibly as much as +4.5°C.

66% chance that the GMT increase will be between +2.6°C and +3.9°C.

05% chance that the GMT could increase as much as +5.7°C.

Moderates — +2.6°C up to +3.9°C.

Alarmists — +4.5°C up to +5.7°C.

40 years later, and the only real change has been that the Moderate estimates for Climate Sensitivity have been slowly creeping upward in the face of reality. Since we are now at warming of +1.6°C over baseline at a CO2 level of 423ppm it would be ridiculous to argue that 560ppm will only produce +1.8°C of warming.

The +2.6°C estimate represents a belief that the next +140ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere will only result in +1.0°C of warming. Moderate climate models assign a 66% probability that Global Warming could be as low as +2.6°C. They only assign a “less than” 5% chance that warming will be as high as +5.7°C.

So. On the issue of “Climate Sensitivity” the Moderates and the Alarmists disagree by about 100%.

Climate Alarmists think the Climate System is twice as “sensitive” to CO2 as the Climate Moderates. They have since 1979, they STILL do.

That has a lot of implications.

It influences EVERYTHING about how you think the Climate System works.

Here’s how it influenced the Moderate modeling of the “second most important” component of the Climate System.

— — — — — — — —

LATITUDINAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENT SENSITIVITY

How much will the poles warm up in response to warming in the Tropics?

When you imagine the “Arctic Ice Cap”, I’ll bet you thought it would be “bigger”. Summer Sea Ice 2019.

Latitudinal temperature gradients and climate change

Journal of Geophysical Research, VOL. 103, NO. D6, pg 5943–5971, March 27, 1998

The first sentence of this paper asks.

“How variable is the latitudinal temperature gradient with climate change?”

Then goes on to tell us that;

“This question is second in importance only to the question of overall climate sensitivity.”

“Our current inability to answer it affects everything from understanding past climate variations, and paleoclimate proxies, to projections of regional effects of future greenhouse warming [Rind, 1995].”

This effect is known as “Arctic Amplification”. It has been predicted since the first General Climate Models in the 70’s that SOME of the extra heat forced into the Climate System would “build up” at the two poles.

This is IMPORTANT.

The regional response in these different models depends on these differences in equator-to-pole gradients, which affects the hydrologic cycle, in general, and storm energetics [Rind, 1987a, 1988].

Meaning, this “kinda” affects EVERYTHING in the Climate System.

They found that.

Doubled CO2 equilibrium simulations from different atmosphere-mixed layer ocean models show different degrees of high-latitude climate warming amplification; in the GFDL model, the temperature response at high latitudes is 3–4 times that at the equator, while in the GISS model, it is only close to a factor of 2 [Rind, 1987a].

Which again shows the Moderate versus Alarmist split.

“in the (Alarmist) GFDL model, the temperature response at high latitudes is 3–4 times that at the equator, while in the (Moderate) GISS model, it is only close to a factor of 2.”

Moderates — Arctic Amplification of close to a factor of 2.

Alarmists — Arctic Amplification of 3x to 4x that of the equator.

Here are Rind’s thoughts from 1998 after using the best climate models of the time to simulate a variety of paleoclimate conditions.

“What do these (climate model) results imply about potential impacts of future climate change? Again, one would have to overlay the climate change itself on any latitudinal temperature gradient change, recognizing that some of the latitudinal gradient effects may be overwhelmed.

The doubled CO2 simulation reported here showed little gradient change on the annual average at most latitudes.

This has been the position of the Moderate faction in Climate Science since 1998. Recently they have been proven to be wrong.

The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe since 1979

In recent decades, the warming in the Arctic has been much faster than in the rest of the world, a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification.

Numerous studies report (based on models) that the Arctic is warming either twice, more than twice, or even three times as fast as the globe on average.

Here we show, by using several observational datasets (REAL collected DATA) which cover the Arctic region.

That during the last 43 years the Arctic has been warming nearly four times faster than the globe, which is a higher ratio than generally reported in literature.

We compared the observed Arctic amplification ratio with the ratio simulated by state-of-the-art climate models, and found that the observed four-fold warming ratio over 1979–2021 is an extremely rare occasion in the climate model simulations.

The observed and simulated amplification ratios are more consistent with each other if calculated over a longer period; however the comparison is obscured by observational uncertainties before 1979.

Our results indicate that the recent four-fold Arctic warming ratio is either an extremely unlikely event, or the climate models systematically tend to underestimate the amplification.

Yah think?

NASA/GISS told everyone in 1998 to use a LOW value for Arctic Amplification and so EVERYONE did. EVERYONE assumes that NASA/GISS knows what they are talking about.

They still do.

So, ALL of our models and forecasts are built on FLAWED THEORIES that UNDERESTIMATE the “second most important aspect” of the Climate System by about 100%.

On the issue of “Latitudinal Temperature Gradient Sensitivity” the Moderates and the Alarmists disagree by about 100%.

Moderates — Arctic Amplification of close to a factor of 2.

Alarmists — Arctic Amplification of 3x to 4x that of the equator.

— — — — — — — —

WHAT'S IT ALL MEAN?

2024 didn’t cool down like the Moderates predicted.

Here’s Zeke Hausfather of Berkeley Earth.

2024's unusually persistent warmth

This year is increasingly diverging from past El Nino years. - www.theclimatebrink.com

“What might this mean going forward?”

Unfortunately we still lack a good explanation for what drove the exceptional warmth the world saw in 2023 and 2024.

“We have a lot of potential mediocre explanations (e.g. low sulfur marine fuel regulations, the Hunga Tonga volcanic eruption in 2022, an uptick in the 11 year solar cycle, El Nino behaving weirdly, etc.).”

Notice how he denigrates the change in marine diesel fuels. James Hansen and the Alarmists think that this change was THE REASON for the change in the EEI and the warming since 2020.

“But these have increasingly been modeled, and it is hard to explain the magnitude of the global temperature anomaly the world has experienced even adding all of these estimates together.”

Well Zeke, if your models are using crap values for two of the MOST IMPORTANT aspects of the Climate System. Then you kind of have to expect that they wouldn’t be able to accurately model what’s now happening.

“Many of us hoped that if 2024 returned to a more predictable post-El-Nino regime it would provide evidence that what happened in the second half of 2023 was a blip — some short lived internal variability that drove a spike in global temperatures but did not persist.”

OMG, these are the guys our politicians and corporations LISTEN to when planning our futures. He’s admitting that they DON’T KNOW what’s happening now.

“However, with temperatures remaining elevated into September 2024, its looking increasingly less likely that last year’s elevated temperatures were a mostly transient phenomenon. Rather, some combination of forcings or changes in feedbacks may be driving higher global temperatures going forward.”

MEANING

The Moderate Faction of Climate Science would rather crash our civilization and see half the world’s population die before they will admit that MAYBE they’re wrong about how the Climate System works.

In 1979 we should have listened to the Alarmists.

I close with a thought from Mr. McGuire, Climate Scientist and Alarmist.

As a climate scientist, it is my duty to tell you about what is happening to our world, whether it engenders fear or not.

A failure to do this will mean that the public is left ignorant of the true extent of the climate emergency, which in turn can only hinder engagement and action.

This is already becoming a problem, with many commentators on the right of the political spectrum, along with some climate scientists, denigrating as “doomers” anyone flagging the worst outcomes of global heating.

Such climate “appeasement” is increasingly taking the place of denial and could be an even greater driver of inertia than fear, as it plays down the enormity of the problem — and as an inevitable consequence, the urgency of action.

End Part One of Two.

This is my analysis.

This is what I see.

This is my “Crisis Report”.

• rc 091524

Personal Thoughts:

The SPEED that things are going to get worse now, is so TRAGICALLY bad, that thinking about can bring tears to my eyes.

Billions of human beings are going to die over the next 10 years.

The risk of civilizational collapse is GROWING. How does one “prepare” for that?

Dust Bowl 2.0, here we come. 2025 -2028 is probably going to see the collapse of the Great Plains agricultural zone.

This is not THEORETICAL anymore. This is our NOW.

If you waited this long to start prepping. Well, you waited till the VERY LAST minute.

THE LIFE YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE IS GONE.

How do you deal with the “death of the Future”?

What should you do NOW, with this “knowing”?

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. It’s something I’m getting asked about more and more often. Plus it’s something I have to consider for myself.

I guess it comes down to this.

Things are about to DRASTICALLY change in the world. The “good times” of the 20th century golden age of relative peace and plenty are coming to an end.

It’s NOT the “end of the world”.

The world will go on for another 2.5 billion years before we think the sun swells and engulfs it. To future ages we will be an interesting set of fossils and a layer of weird chemicals in the rock strata.

It is the END of “life as we knew it”.

The life we all thought we were going to have went into the fire in 2023. That future is gone. In its place is a dark smokey cloud that smells like burning, blood, and death.

There is ZERO CERTAINTY now about the future.

All you can know for sure. Is that the rest of your life is going to be about things collapsing, sudden disasters, constant food insecurity, and repeated relocation.

That’s the “unvarnished” truth.