Oooppps! Climate Change Misconceptions

By Edward Rouse Pryor

Updated recent scientific calculations show that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are not powerful enough to cause the global warming atmospheric climate scientists have been witnessing and worrying about. 

As well, solar scientists recently have disco

• Language: English
• Publisher: Edward Rouse Pryor
• Release date: May 9, 2023
• ISBN: 9781734163230

Book preview

Chapter 1

The Climate Change

Rational Supposition

During the late 20

th

century, space scientist (and planet Venus atmosphere specialist) James Hansen cautioned the congress and the public that the human use of fossil fuels, with the resultant emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, may be causing the earth to warm.

At that time, the notion that human-induced increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases were causing the global warming we were witnessing was acknowledged to be a possibility by many influential members of the scientific community. But it was only speculation—a considered possibility—with just a mildly suggestive basis. So, in 1979, at the urging of a group of very prominent scientists (Jasons), the important question "Is the human use of fossil fuels causing the earth to warm?" was formally posed to the National Science Foundation and the National Research Council by the president of the United States, Jimmy Carter.

A week-long cursory assessment by a blue-ribbon scientific committee appointed by the NRC and headed by prestigious Professor Jule Charney of M.I.T., tentatively proposed that it was a "rational supposition" that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide since pre-industrial times could cause a 3° ±1.5°C rise in global surface temperature—a consequential figure; but that tentative premise needed considerable scientific exploration before it could be confirmed.

So, with the concurrence of the president, funding of up to two billion dollars per year for research on the root-cause of global warming was provided by congress to find an answer.

Soon, this human-use-of-fossil-fuels-with-resultant-emission-of-greenhouse-gases premise became the basis for hundreds, and then thousands of intriguing scientific investigations, covering nearly all aspects of global environment. If the supposition was true, the continued use of fossil fuels—with its concomitant projected slow rise in global temperature and sea level could do a lot of damage… "Hmmm, this has all sorts of scientific implications that need to be fleshed-out and examined." The scientific community enthusiastically embraced this well-funded possibility of environmental damage and human concern as the basis for wide-ranging detailed scientific research—nearly all based on an If-it-is-true that the global warming we were witnessing was being caused by human-induced (anthropogenic) greenhouse gas emissions. Most of the research was on the effects of projected global warming—assuming it was human-induced greenhouse gas emissions that were causing the globe to warm—rather than on the fundamental question: Is the human use of fossil fuels causing the earth to warm?

The study by the above mentioned Charney Panel primarily used the findings of two climate research groups, Hansen’s, and the Weatherall-Manabe group¹ and was quite all-encompassing in assessing not only the general circulation models, but the less complex radiative-convective and heat-balance models. All known positive and negative feedback mechanisms were considered. The multiple ocean layers and their interface with the atmosphere was also discussed. Overall it was a powerful assessment considering the short time provided for its completion—and a testament to the incredible capability of the panel.

Upon retrospect, however, the one shortcoming that stands out about the panel’s approach was that they simply accepted the validity of the various inputs to, as well as the modeling technique of, the several computer models considered. Of course they had to do this considering their time constraints. It is this arena, however, which led to future problems in this discussion—most notably scientists accepting the confidence level of a computer model result as the level of certainty of the premise being studied. Unfortunately, if any of the input assumptions to the computer model are deficient, the computation result will also be deficient.

During the decade of the 1980’s, climate research proceeded with lots of enthusiasm but very little focus. Nearly all climate scientists were looking at the effects of global warming rather than the basic cause of global warming, and no one was overseeing or objecting to this alternate direction of research. Accordingly, during the 1980’s, no conclusive answer materialized to the key question: Is the human use of fossil fuels causing the earth to warm?

In 1990, the recently formed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated in their first assessment report that they would provide a definitive scientific answer by the end of the decade to the question: Is the human use of fossil fuels causing the earth to warm?

But by 1997, after having spent more than thirty billion dollars over nearly two decades of research, the US government sponsored climate research community was deadlocked on the answer to that simple but fundamental question. One group, the high camp, calculated that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide since pre-industrial days (called climate sensitivity) would indeed cause a consequential rise in global temperature of about 3°C (5.4°F), which would warrant a YES answer—"human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are causing consequential global warming". However, other scientists, the low camp, showed much lower temperature rises for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide, centered around about 0.5°C, which would warrant a NO answer—"the human use of fossil fuels is not causing a consequential rise in global surface temperature".

The inner-core of mainstream atmospheric climate scientists felt that it had to be human-caused greenhouse gas emissions that were causing global warming, mainly because there was no other possible cause they could see for the warming the earth was currently experiencing. Solar scientists had ruled-out changes in solar irradiance (heat radiation) because they were found not to be powerful enough to cause the amount of global warming we were witnessing. And there was no other viable potential cause (than greenhouse gas emissions) that had a sufficient level of scientific understanding to put forward.

So, without any other evident potential cause, and with the quiet acquiescence of inner-core expert climate scientists, the peripheral climate scientific community continued to use the 3°C rise as the underpinning basis for their calculations and projections of the mostly ominous consequences of future warming. The 3°C rise figure gave them a quantified premise to work with—and without that quantification, they could not properly evaluate this topic.

As well, both atmospheric carbon dioxide content and global temperature were rising—making it look as if one was causing the other. But scientifically, the big climate change If remained. Influential scientists recognized that two things happening at the same time does not necessarily mean one is causing the other—and the premise that global warming was caused by greenhouse gas emissions had not been scientifically confirmed.

The IPCC summarizers, in their third assessment report of January, 2001, did not meet their self-imposed end-of-the-century deadline, and stated that they were about 66 percent sure anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were causing global warming—hardly an overwhelming scientific confirmation—and certainly not the decisive answer hoped for by an expectant climate-change interested community. But the press, picking-up on some of the off-hand remarks by one of the respected British inner-core introducers of the IPCC third assessment report at an environmental conference in Shanghai, China, headlined: "Human impact on climate beyond doubt" (despite the fact that the IPCC report had been only 66 percent sure).

That did it. Both environmentalists and journalists latched-onto this positive news headline. Slowly but surely, and still with only unconfirmed supposition evidence