As a land use planning consultant (among other things) I have the privilege of working with all kinds of professionals, from lawyers to engineers to geologists. It is among that last group that I have become familiar with the superb work of Brian Oram who happens to be the founder of the Know Your H2O Water Research Center, which is one terrific resource.
Brian is also a regular reader of this substack and the other day he brought to my attention a wonderful article on the site by Environmental Consultant Amy Lee. It is titled “The History of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the Climate Change Debate” and provides an outstanding overview of CO2 versus the climate. I cannot recommend it enough and, as a teaser, here is some of what got my attention as explanations of what we know from science:
It is generally accepted by scientists that levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased as a result of human activities. From: CO2 burning of fossil fuels, methane which has doubled in the last 100 from natural and human made activities like landfills – and water vapor and let’s not forget the role of deforestation.
A warming period from 1910 to 1945 was real and not human caused. We still don’t know the exact cause. There are multi-decadal climate cycles that can influence climate such as the North Atlantic Oscillation; however, this has not been quantitatively linked to the 1910 to 1945 warming period to create consensus as to why it happened.
Warming trends in data from 1978 to 1997 are most likely not correct due to instrumentation used and unreliable data sets including lacking or different calibration methods amongst instrumentation used. Using this as an argument predicting a future warming trend is therefore not precise.
It is not the warming trend which is in doubt but the amount and significance. The problem with these earlier measurements is that the measurement methods used back then, while not wrong, are such that it is difficult to correlate their results with results from later instrumentation and measuring methods. Both sets of data indicate a clear upward trend but when you graph the later results with the earlier results, it looks like there is a sudden disjuncture between the two sets (the graph line jumps up while maintaining a similar trend).
Another key issue related to measurements is: do we have enough actual data collection points related to atmospheric variables within our global 3-dimension atmosphere and how is the data being corrected to account for the role of the measurement station and surrounding activities on the raw data.Global climate models have been used since 1979 to predict future trends. It is known that older models forecast more warming than occurs in real-world observations. Models utilize a fudge factor that assumes a higher sensitivity of climate conditions to CO2 concentration and then link this to anthropogenic factors.
In many cases, modeled outputs, not objective facts or real world observation, are driving climate policy. It is important to remember that model output is not actual data and does not validate a hypothesis. A model is a mathematical representation of a hypothesis and models do not generate new data. Modeled output can be used to predict both historic and current conditions but that does not mean that the actual modeled variables used as inputs are correct and we can not forget that temperature increases may trigger more “natural CO2 production.”
The challenge here is that historical model sensitivities, instrumentation abilities, and variables selected for study vary from interpretation to interpretation. The goal is always that empirical models fit observable data with new data used to refine the model in order to make it better at making predictions, but when it applies to data, models, and reports that get sometimes overly simplified for policy creation - the reality of the predictions is often lost.There are many benefits to humans in a planet that warms a little including benefits to agriculture. The excess CO2 could be exploited to promote photosynthesis to feed the growing planet, but the potential downside is that opportunistic plants that we classify as weeds may be more agile. The final result may be an increase in overall photosynthesis that may not result in an equivalent level of crop production and this may adversely impact productivity.
The most reliable modern climate models for sea level rise data shows a steady increase of about 7 inches per century, but during the global temperature increase from 1910 to 1945, sea level did not rise at this rate indicating there is likely no correlation between air and sea temperatures on sea level rise, yet sea level rise is the main problem cited in mainstream media for solving the “problem” of and driving policies around climate change. In addition to sea level rise we also have erosion and subsidence.
We need to spend time actually defining and understanding the root causes for problems before providing funding towards hypothetical solutions. These root causes may have multiple variables that include factors we can and can not control and may be related to past practices, such as paving the planet, building on unstable land, historic filling of wetlands, poor land-use practices, and changing land-use.
These are basics but I strongly encourage readers to check out the full story (especially the history portion) and the work of Know Your H2O Water Research Center.
#H2O #Water #ResearchCenter #Climate #CO2 #Models
Thank you Thomas Shepstone and Brian Oram - a very sensible commentary. As for the possibility that weeds may take more advantage of increased CO2 than crops, I'm learning that just as one man's meat is another man's poison, one man's weed is another man's food or medicine. I'm not very enthusiastic about monoculture or herbicides, but really enjoy learning about native plants and small gardening. I wish everyone could have a little garden - it's a buffer against the probability of economic distress and it's good for the soul.