Much Ado About The Climate

Start wrHubris, originating from the Greek language, signifies a perilous level of overconfidence. Based on my investigation, the concept of hubris aptly characterizes our present approach to the challenge of climate change.

Consider the following convictions held by many:
Firstly, the Earth is undergoing catastrophic warming due to specific human actions.
Secondly, advanced computers empower us to forecast the climate's state in 20, 40, or even 100 years.
Lastly, it is believed that by solely discontinuing one practice—burning fossil fuels—we can indefinitely stave off climatic alterations.

However, each of these assumptions, collectively forming the foundation of our hubristic stance regarding shifting climate, proves to be either erroneous or so far off-base as to render them impractical. Indeed, it holds true that the planet is warming and human activities contribute to this warming influence. But beyond that, paraphrasing a line from the iconic movie "The Princess Bride," it's fair to say, "The science does not convey what you believe it does."

For instance, governmental reports unambiguously state that heatwaves in the US are not more frequent now than they were in 1900. Hurricane activity remains unchanged compared to a century ago. Global flood incidents have not escalated in over seventy years. The shrinking rate of Greenland's ice sheet today mirrors that of 80 years ago. Why then are these reassuring facts not as widely recognized?

The media overwhelmingly dictates public climate information, and from a media standpoint, fear sells. "Things aren't that dire" doesn't have the same impact. Regrettably, few individuals, including climate news journalists, delve into the actual scientific research. I've done so. And what the hard data from US government and UN Climate reports conveys is that the situation is less dire than assumed.

Moreover, the public seems oblivious to the tenuous foundation underlying predictions of catastrophic climate change: computer models. Projecting the future climate proves to be an immensely intricate task. While human actions do exert an influence, the climate's complexity cannot be overstated. Anyone claiming climate models to be purely a matter of physics either misunderstands them or intentionally obfuscates. I can attest to this—I authored one of the initial textbooks on computer modeling.

Though modelers base their assumptions on fundamental physical laws and climate observations, substantial judgment comes into play. Given that different modelers adopt different assumptions, outcomes diverge significantly across models.

Let's consider a basic yet pivotal assumption modelers must make—the impact of clouds on climate. Natural fluctuations in cloud height and coverage wield an influence comparable to human effects on sunlight and heat distribution. But how could we conceivably predict global cloud coverage, say, in a decade, let alone half a century? The truth is, we can't. Nonetheless, crafting climate models mandates assumptions. This foundation appears frail when used to underpin a transformation of the global economy.

Interestingly, refining models proves to be increasingly intricate. As our understanding of the climate system deepens, so does our awareness of its intricacies.

Instead of acknowledging this complexity, the media, politicians, and a substantial faction of the climate science community attribute every severe storm, flood, and major fire to "climate change." While past weather events aren't contested, the narrative suggests that "climate change" exacerbates everything. Even if this were accurate, shouldn't the relevant question be: how much worse? Moreover, the term "worse" lacks scientific precision. And how could we ameliorate the situation? For alarmists, the solution is simple: eliminate fossil fuels.

Yet, this proposition is not just impractical—given that over 80% of global energy derives from fossil fuels—it is also scientifically implausible. Carbon dioxide (CO2) doesn't dissipate from the atmosphere swiftly like smog; it lingers for an extended period. Roughly 60% of emitted CO2 today will persist in the atmosphere two decades from now, with 30-55% remaining after a century, and 15-30% present after a millennium. Essentially, excess carbon dioxide requires centuries to dissipate from the atmosphere.

Partial reductions in CO2 emissions would merely decelerate the rise of human-induced impacts, not thwart or reverse them. CO2 is not a dial we can conveniently adjust to rectify the issue. We lack that capability. Believing otherwise is, in essence, hubris. Hubris leads to misguided choices. A touch of humility and a dose of knowledge would yield superior decisions.

iting...