Is the Climate Change obsession turning into the greatest scientific blunder in human history?

A few terms come to mind when describing the so-called impending disaster that awaits humanity “if something is not done” about climate change.

One of those terms is Consensus. Consensus means a general agreement, not an absolute agreement. In other words, having consensus in science does not mean that those who agree with something hold the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

A second term is Climate Change itself. Climate Change is the change in global or regional climate patterns. It is not necessarily associated to warming or cooling. Such a change is subject to both regional and global elements.

The third term we see and hear about a lot when discussing changes in climate is IPCC. The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations, dedicated to providing the world with a political, not a scientific view, on climate change-related issues. The important word here is POLITICAL.

The IPCC is a political entity, not a scientific one. It was created in 1988 to lobby governments in the advancement of environmental policies created at the heart of the United Nations. On its website, it describes itself as “an organization of governments”, not scientists. It continues: “Through its assessments, the IPCC identifies the strength of scientific agreement in different areas.”

As described before, the IPCC is an entity that seeks agreement, not scientific discovery. More alarming than that, the IPCC “does not conduct its own research”. Instead, the IPCC uses volunteer work to evaluate climate change research.

On its website, the organization explains that “author teams use calibrated uncertainty language to express a level of confidence in findings based on the strength of the scientific and technical evidence and the level of agreement in the scientific, technical and socio-economic literature”.

Since it is important to clarify what some relevant terms mean, let’s throw one more of those terms into the hat. This term is global cooling. Global cooling was a name given to an apparent climate trend that scientists envisioned to be taking place back in the 1970s. This supposed trend was also divulged with some kind of consensus by the scientific community.

Fortunately, the scientific community was wrong back then. We know that because we are not living in igloos or freezing our rear ends until we turn into ice Mexican paletas.

Before we finish checking off our understanding of important terms in the climate change debate, let’s add the last one. It is global warming. Global warming is a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere generally attributed to the greenhouse effect. This effect is caused by greenhouse gases that include CO2, water vapor, methane, chlorofluorocarbons, ozone, hydrofluorocarbons and others.

Two relevant questions to ask here are:

  1. Which is the most abundant greenhouse gas out there?
  2. Which greenhouse gas causes the most atmospheric warming?

The answers to those questions are relevant because we can determine which gases present the greatest threat to humanity.

After conducting a quick search online, I have to say it was difficult to find the answer to these questions because tons of links only address the fact that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased over the years. But I found the answers anyways.

It turns out that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas when it comes to warming because it is the one that controls the Earth’s temperature. According to NASA, water vapor, not CO2, is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. Its effect accounts for about 60% of the warming effect.

So what is the role of CO2 in all this?

Scientists explain that CO2 causes the rise in atmospheric temperatures, which in turn causes more water vapor to accumulate in the atmosphere. There is a kind of a feedback loop, they say, where mainly CO2 provides the conditions to feed more water vapor into the atmosphere. This extra water vapor increases atmospheric temperature.

In contrast, according to NOAA, “water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere… Changes in its concentration are also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization.

The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.”

So, on one side, we have the mainstream media, left-wing politicians and a political entity known as the IPCC warning of impending climate disaster and on the other side, both NASA and NOAA explain that water vapor is the most abundant gas in the atmosphere, the one responsible for atmospheric warming and that the process in which CO2 allegedly contributes to such warming is poorly understood, to say the least.

That means that the scientific consensus – if there is really such a thing – is based on two false premises which are the base for the alarmist speeches we hear every day on mainstream media channels.

In fact, there is another scenario we never hear about on mainstream media, but that NOAA explains clearly on its website: “As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation”. This means less, not more warming.

In sum, there is no way to know if rising levels of water vapor in the atmosphere will result in more warming or more cooling. Scientifically speaking, the planet, as a living system will deal with any imbalances in its own way, and no one, not even the brightest scientists, knows what that way is. The only thing that can be concluded is that water vapor is a temperature amplifier, but that amplification could be both warming or cooling.

Time-lapse in climate change

It is important to understand that when it comes to climate, conclusions about trends need to be representative of analyses carried out during long periods of time. Long term observation and analysis is the only way to validate data and trends that will shape the future of climate.

One cannot create alarmism on climate based on readings that go from a few years to, say, a decade. In climate terms, that is too little time. Even if climate appeared to cool or warm over 10 years, that does not necessarily mean that global climate is cooling or warming.

Another detail that is important to understand is that most if not all global warming impending disaster scenarios being parroted by mainstream media are based on the premise that CO2 emitted by human activity is the main cause of global warming. In other words, all public statements, political and otherwise, assume that CO2 emissions cause global warming.

Computer models that predict impending global climate disasters are set so that all calculations come up with different levels of disastrous conditions, not to produce results that evaluate the influence of CO2 on global climate.

It is not surprising to learn that all computer models end up producing scenarios where the planet may warm a number of degrees due to the rise in CO2 emissions because computers are programmed to do just that.

There will never be a computer model or a result of a computer analysis that will show anything different because they cannot do so due to their programming.

Back in the 70s scientists reached a 65% consensus that the planet would go through a significant cooling period. Today, the media says that there is a 93% consensus that the planet is going through a period of global warming. The question is, what exactly do scientists agree about?

They agree on the premise that CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere will cause climate disasters and that humans are responsible for such an increase.

Unfortunately, as explained before, CO2 does not directly cause atmospheric warming and the effects that CO2 has on temperature are not well understood. But there is an important point that needs to be addressed.

CO2’s ability to increase water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere is not everlasting or constant. In other words, there is a certain concentration of CO2 at which the gas no longer increases water vapor concentration in the atmosphere.

Doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will not double the amount of water vapor. In fact, CO2’s strongest effect on atmospheric warming takes place at 20ppm. After that, its effect is exponentially reduced. (See graph below)

Archibald, D. (2007) Climate Outlook to 2030, Energy and Environment, Vol 18, No 5. [UPDATE Added, 4 April 2018]

As shown in the graph, CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere is around 400ppm today, and the result of that increase has been a steep decline in CO2’s effect on atmospheric warming. While at 20ppm it is expected that global temperatures rise 2.5 C, at 380ppm, the effect is of only 0.1 C.

Climate warming due to the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere, as a result of the industrial revolution or whichever other reason, has ended. What we may be experiencing now are the lagging effects of the warming accumulated up until the time when CO2 concentration reached 20, 40 or 60 ppm.

Why are climate models showing an impending disaster?

Conclusions reached by “experts” taking into account climate model results is what is called “lab warming”, which is not the same as planetary warming. It is scientifically impossible to simulate future warming or cooling in a laboratory environment because experiments never take into account important elements such as ocean currents or cloud cover height.

In fact, climate models are set to assume that cloud cover means automatic warming, even though this is not scientifically true. On its paper, Climate Outlook for 2030, Energy and Environment, Archibald, D. concludes that “if adding more CO2 to the sky mattered, we would see it in ice cores and thermometers. We don’t. Ergo, carbon’s effect is probably minor.”

Lagging effects of CO2 concentrations in atmospheric warming

Planetary warming and cooling are indeed existing natural phenomena, however, they do not take place immediately after levels of water vapor or CO2 increase in the atmosphere. There is a natural lag that succeeds such increases.

The Earth’s atmosphere does not get warmer or cooler by 0.1 C or 2.5 C immediately after CO2 is injected into the atmosphere. According to

Climate lag is defined as a delay that can occur in a change of some aspect of climate due to the influence of a factor (s) that is slow-acting. An example of climate lag is the full effect of the release of a particular amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”

In other words, the full effect of carbon dioxide in the warming of the atmosphere will not be apparent right away.

Climate lag is an important concept in climate modeling, and in forming policies to deal with climate change. The climate change that is apparent at a certain point in time may not be an accurate indication of the eventual change. Basing an emissions’ reduction strategy on current data may not completely address the problem.”

As pointed out by Alan Marshall on his website, accumulation of energy, a.k.a atmospheric warming, causes imbalances and those imbalances lag for years before their effects are seen or felt. This means that atmospheric warming balances back to normal over time. He says: “As the planet heats up it radiates more heat out to space until eventually, the energy out equals the energy in and the planet is back in equilibrium.”

Another aspect that so-called climate scientists have omitted or barely mentioned is the role of the sun in planetary weather. It is negligent, to say the least, to leave out the sun, a major player in planetary warming, out of climate science, climate modeling and global warming and cooling.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists:

“The Sun is the source of most of the energy that drives the biological and physical processes in the world around us—in oceans and on land it fuels plant growth that forms the base of the food chain, and in the atmosphere, it warms air which drives our weather.”

It is not clear how long the lagging effect of solar activity may be over Earth’s climate, but in terms of climate science, meaningful, representative measurements are counted in tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of years.

“Over the time-scale of millions of years, the change in solar intensity is a critical factor influencing climate,” explains the UCSUSA. “The evidence collected shows that the sun noticeably affects our climate over millions of years”.

None of the scientists whose opinion on atmospheric warming or cooling has seen the light of day claimed that only one factor is responsible for that warming or cooling. It is a group of factors that changes the climate on a planetary level.

So why is the United Nations and the IPCC going to extreme ends to the point that they want the world to eat less and to spend less?

In a recent version of their climate report, the IPCC warns that humanity must stop eating meat if we want to save the planet. Left-wing extremists such as the Democratic candidates for president in the United States, all want to halt development, farming, industrial production, the use of steel and glass in buildings and to retrofit old buildings, even if this means the collapse of the economy.

“The climatic crisis has reached such dimension and speed that it is no longer enough to only look at one sector to try to deal with the warming within manageable limits”, warns the hysterical report.

“It will not be enough to reduce or suppress greenhouse gases from the energy sector”, which according to most scientists are behind climate change. “Deep transformations are needed in other sectors such as world food production and soil management, and also in diets”, continues the alarmist assessment.

“There is no solution to reduce the gases of a single sector”, explains the IPCC. This political body is now calling for the adoption of extraordinary measures to “save us all from disaster”.

The IPCC report warned that unprecedented greenhouse gas reductions were needed in very little time to fulfill the Paris Agreement. Now, the IPCC’s monothematic analysis of the use of land on the planet highlights the importance of the food sector in this fight and the need to take quick action:

“Acting now can avoid or reduce risks and losses and generate benefits for society. Rapid climate adaptation and mitigation actions, aligned with sustainable land management and sustainable development (…), could reduce the risk for millions of people exposed to extreme weather events, desertification, land degradation, and food insecurity”.

The report also beats the drums about the growing world population and changes in diets and consumption since the middle of the last century have led to unprecedented rates of land and water use.

The report states that 23% of all greenhouse gases expelled by man come from agriculture, forestry and land use. But if the emissions associated with world food production are added, that quota can reach up to 37%. “Emissions from agricultural production are expected to increase, driven by population and income growth and changes in consumption patterns”.

No one is against protecting the environment. No one is against protecting the forests and rivers and oceans, except perhaps politicians, who bring about policies that benefit their donors, but if you had not read the scientific context provided before, these last few paragraphs would seem like the world was ending tomorrow.

What is exactly necessary, according to the UN, the IPCC, politicians and extreme left socialists, to save the planet?

“It is necessary to change the food production model if we want to combat the climate crisis. On this occasion, the alert is not only addressed to the industry, but also to consumers: Diet changes can have large-scale environmental benefits that are not only attainable by the producers.”

In practice, this means that they want you to stop living and traveling while they fly around in private jets, live in their gigantic CO2 emitting mansions with uninterrupted central cooling and heating systems while enjoying the best beef cuts their cash can buy them. It is you who cannot enjoy this, but they can, because they say so.

Can we trust these experts and politicians with the future of our planet? Can we trust scientists that still believe that fat is bad for your health? That’s right. So-called experts at the IPCC believe that fat from animal sources is bad for your health.

“Food in the west is rich in meat and fat, something that is negative for both the environment and health. The first thing we should do is reduce the consumption of animal products. Opting for a vegetarian or vegan diet is an option.”

Other points contained in the report reach levels of micromanagement and centralized planning that entities like the UN have been pushing for over decades. They want to tell you how to design menus for your meals, what food to buy in the supermarket, how much food of each kind to eat and so on.

If we could summarize the IPCC’s intentions, we could safely conclude that they want to remake society from the top down.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like

The TB pandemic that nobody sees, but that kills millions a year

  31.8 million people will have died by 2030 if tuberculosis is…

Singapore goes full 1984

In uncertain times, Singapore leaves no room for doubt about its commitment…