The UN and other climate alarmists claim that the climate will warm catastrophically unless immediate action is taken to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels. They claim that the very minor increases in heat generated by human-caused added CO2 will cause the alarming warming. This is highly unlikely because virtually all of the increased heat is generated by increases of atmospheric (CO2) at much lower levels of CO2 than are now being experienced at much higher CO2 levels and because human-caused emissions are a very minor part of total emissions due to the very large natural emissions.
But this is just the beginning of the problems with this aspect of the narrative. Because of the existence of a number of emergent climate phenomena which have the effect of a temperature control system for major portions of the Earth, the alleged added heat generated would presumably only affect some portions of the Earth in a very minor way, many of which would make both humans and other life better off, not worse off. Excluded are tropical oceanic areas and other areas such as the Sierra Nevada in summer under the influence of the emergent cloud/thunderstorm phenomena, subtropical oceanic areas affected by hurricanes/tropical cyclones, and India and various Southeast Asian countries influenced by monsoon phenomena.
So what is left? Primarily colder areas where most humans, plants, and animals would prefer/do better at warmer temperatures. That includes humans, who flock to warmer areas during the colder months (such as Florida and Arizona in the US) and flee cold areas, and who regard warmer temperatures during cold winters further north as a major benefit and not a threat. And if you leave out these areas, the alarmist scare on impacts on temperatures has very little left even assuming that all the other parts of the alarmist narrative are correct. Most warming is likely to be in areas where higher temperatures are likely to be beneficial. And there does not appear to be any statistically significant warming due to higher atmospheric CO2 as a whole.
The Basic Approach Taken by the UN and Other Alarmists Appears to Be Wrong
One of the basic problems with the alarmist narrative is that it assumes that alleged added heat from the added CO2 emissions goes to warming the atmosphere as a whole. But in many of the areas just listed it may largely go to increased radiation into outer space. The alarmists want to pretend that heat once generated must result in higher average temperatures. But this ignores the impact of emergent climate phenomena which carefully control temperatures at various temperature and humidity thresholds in the critical tropical oceanic areas. In order to impact these temperatures, the alleged emissions would have to affect the phenomena themselves so that less of the Sun’s radiation enters the climate system (as a result of more clouds) or that already in is removed (as a result of more or stronger thunderstorms). This may be possible through changes in the emissions of particles into the atmosphere or by changing the density of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere (both of which change the condensation of water vapor into water droplets and the formation of clouds). But the latter is well beyond anything that humans can do, despite the claims of the UN or various politicians. Reducing human-caused CO2 emissions is not only very expensive but may also be useless for reducing “climate change.”
The key idea is that it may be effects that change the actions of emergent phenomena, particularly clouds, that have a major effect on climate, not minor changes in the heat generated by very minor parts of Earth’s atmosphere such as CO2. In other words, the basic UN/IPCC approach may just be wrong. If so, there is little hope for achieving a better understanding of climate until a better approach is adopted that takes account of the effects of emergent phenomena.
While working as a journalist I also pointed out in an Australian daily (as part of a book review, I think) the problem that, at first glance, there is no way industrial emissions could cause the measured increased in atmospheric CO2. The volumes produced are less than the estimation errors in natural flows, and it is know that individual CO2 molecules do not survive longer than 8-10 years in the atmosphere. Also, the actual ratio has been directly measured through the air’s atomic signature and it has been shown that the proportion of industrial carbon is negligible. For my pains I was rudely corrected by a scientist from the Monash University in Melbourne (a reputable school). He did not dispute the above but declared that it had been confirmed by “multiple lines of research” that the industrial carbon was swapped out (?) for natural CO2.. so it had an effect just that it metamorphosed along the way. Say what? I asked for any references and he referred me to a chapter of the IPCC 2007 report. I looked at the report some time later but there was very little there. Does anyone have more insight on this?
I think the last bit should be “there is little hope for achieving a better understanding of climate until…” “these alternative hypotheses are allowed the full unfettered freedom of expression, investigation and experimentation.”
Nice use of “narrative” in the title, Dr. Carlin. Politicians use this word. It often results in the effect of telling a self-serving lie.
When I hear a politician mention a narrative instead of saying what they think plainly, it’s a dead giveaway.