Thanks, good essay. I did not realize that you were equating productivity with "decarbonization." I find the term "decarbonization" a bit misleading, since it literally means removing carbon or fossil fuels, implying a decrease in fossil fuel use, which hasn't happened. It also is very unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.
That said, using less energy or fossil fuels is a big component of productivity increases, probably as big as using fewer employees. Coming from a farm family in Kansas, I remember the 1980s when farm consolidation peaked due to higher prices for fossil fuels, that was when most of my extended family moved to town and sold their farms.
I would prefer to say "increasing energy productivity" rather than "decarbonization," it is really what you mean, I think.
The full technical term is "decarbonization of the global economy" expressed as a decrease in the ratio of CO2/GDP. If we have a particular emissions target (say, minus 80%) we can then calculate how much the energy intensity of the economy and the carbon intensity of energy must change to hit that target. Doing the math, it becomes readily apparent that targets cannot be hit without retiring fossil fuels and expanding carbon free - Hello nuclear!
Nuclear is a good choice for electricity production, I agree. But electricity is only about 18% of delivered energy, so replacing all electricity production with nuclear is very unlikely to reduce fossil fuel consumption considering how rapidly energy consumption is increasing.
You have often written "There are plenty of excellent reasons why accelerating the century-long trend in global decarbonization makes sense."
Yet, I don't remember your explaining the statement. Here you say reducing extreme weather is not a reason. Additional CO2 and warming are currently net beneficial, and air and water pollution are lower than in the past, our lifespan is longer today, productivity is very high and going higher. How does decarbonizing make any sense? Especially since fossil fuels are so cheap relative to other energy sources.
I should note that according to ourworldindata.org, fossil fuel use has increased steadily over the past century and is still increasing, on pace with the increase in energy consumption. It is not and has not decreased over the past century.
Hi Andy, Have you had a chance to read The Climate Fix? That book provides the answer to your question, and if not, perhaps just check out Chapter 9, available to you here in PDF:
As a concrete example -- phasing out coal makes a lot of sense independent of climate change. Doing so, no matter what it is replaced with increases decarbonization, see the case of the UK or, even better, the US where economic growth has remained strong.
I did read that book some time ago and I remember you writing that in the book. I do not remember you explaining why we should reduce carbon emissions. I wrote about my frustration at the time:
"I find Pielke Jr.’s book The Climate Fix a little frustrating. He often says, in various ways:
“Make no mistake: carbon dioxide matters a great deal.” Pielke Jr., Roger. The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell You About Global Warming (p. 18).
The book destroys the connection between CO2 and climate extremes, the iconic “2°C limit” on warming as well as any positive effect of reducing CO2 emissions. He also shows that there is no evidence that a “tipping point” temperature exists. At least in this book, he never really explains why CO2 emissions need to be reduced or why current global warming is a bad thing."
I keep thinking about the IPCC graphs you posted here showing the long-term trends in various measures and a couple individual model runs. Those pictures are worth a thousand words of explanation about internal variability. It is both surprising and not surprising that we don’t see graphs of that kind more often in the media.
Yesterday a friend sent me an article about the insurance industry suffering big losses because of climate change. I had just read your post referencing the Lloyd’s executive stating that so far they cannot attribute any of these losses to warming. He sent me back the IPCC 2023 ar6 synthesis report summary for policy makers. His comment was scanning the headline for each section it seems unambiguous that climate change is causing and exacerbating all of these issues. Is there a significant difference between the reports of the working groups and the executive summary? Can you please elaborate and explain if so. I find it very frustrating that even my thoughtful friends will so often respond with an article stating everyone knows this or it is common knowledge (conventional wisdom) that severe events are becoming more common because of climate change. I have enjoyed reading your work just recently became a paying subscriber after reading for several months. Thanks
The IPCC Synthesis Report (as its name suggests) relies 100% on the underlying working group reports. If there is an inconsistency between the SYN and WG1, then the SYN got things wrong. Similarly with the SYN SPM and the SYN.
Yes, there are multiple instances where the SYN departs from the WG1. This is a quality control issue. I rely directly on WG1 rather than the filtered SPMs or SYN.
One example of how a major error got into the SYN:
The narrow model variability of ocean heat content (OHC) is intriguing.
Unlike air temperature or sea ice extent, it is not a measurable parameter (measurements of seawater temperature would require extreme precision and complicated spatial averaging). Therefore, there is no way of validating the models by comparing their results with measured reality.
Let's formulate my suspicion in the form of a question: given that OHC is what remains of the planetary balance between input (solar + geothermal) and output (reflection and IR radiation to the outer space), to what extent are the models accumulating computational errors or actual amounts of heat?
Note:
The order of magnitude of the heat flux corresponding to OHC change in the top 2000 meters is 0.91 ± 0.18 W/m2 of the ocean surface (Table 2.7 of IPCC AR6, WG1). To be compared with the average solar irradiation of 342 W/m2 over the whole globe).
As usual, an enjoyable and educational post, but I will admit I had a hard time following the thread. (My math and statistics skills have been substantially eroded.) Three statements stood out to me:
1. “Can our decisions about energy can stop or reduce extreme weather? The answer is no…”
2. “The IPCC explains that the effects of successful mitigation policy would first be detected in carbon dioxide concentrations…”
3. “In plain English this means that the effects of climate mitigation policies on the weather you experience in your lifetime would not be detectable, even if you are born in 2024. This explains why for most variables associated with extreme events the IPCC’s projection of the “time of emergence” of a climate change or climate mitigation signal is so far into the future.”
In No. 1, you seem to be saying that carbon doesn’t matter with respect to extreme weather. If so, then why the urge for rapid decarbonization? Wouldn’t a planned, graduated process (shift from coal to natural gas, then to nuclear) make more sense and be less disruptive to the economy? I agree there are reasons to decarbonize, but must it be "overnight?" Why is it necessary to set arbitrary time limits? They serve no useful purpose other than to inspire divisiveness.
No. 2 says that CO2 concentrations are a key metric of mitigation. This seems like wishful thinking, especially after the discussions in this and other posts about natural variability. CO2 has an atmospheric half-life of 120 years. Give all of the natural variability that can occur, how can we distinguish between natural reductions/additions versus human-induced. That said, wouldn’t the “first” indicator be improved health metrics and reduced disaster losses?
No. 3 argues that mitigation will not be detectable in our lifetime, or perhaps even our grandchildren’s lifetime. You imply that human-induced change is there, we just can’t detect it. Isn’t equally probable that in the grand scheme of things, human-induced change is negligible? Yes, climate change is real, but will it be catastrophic? If we can adapt at the same rate the change is occurring, is it even a problem?
Richard Lindzen (2020) has described the system as two fluids that are on a rotating planet which in turn is differentially heated by the sun. “The oceanic component has circulation systems with time scales ranging from years to millennia, and these systems carry heat to and from the surface. In addition to the oceans, the atmosphere is interacting with a hugely irregular land surface.” From these differentials and irregularities, a reasonable person could easily conclude that climate is affected by a large number of variables, not merely one or two as suggested by “conventional wisdom.”
As you would say, “in plain English,” doesn’t this mean that the earth’s climate system is to complex to model or even predict with certainty, and that energy and resource policies should be focused on sustainability and resilience, rather than mitigation or reversal?
Bohr once described science as “the gradual removal of prejudices.” I sincerely thank you for your contributions to this effort! So far, all five parts have been educational and instructive. Thanks again.
"There are plenty of excellent reasons why accelerating the century-long trend in global decarbonization makes sense. Stopping extreme weather is not among these reasons."
This is not ambiguous. :) It does raise, for me at least, the question of why to focus so much on this one particular reason NOT to reduce CO2 emissions (total "decarbonization," depending on CCS costs might not be necessary to stabilize and possible reduce CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere) instead of the reasons TO reduce and more importantly HOW TO reduce net CO2 emissions.
BTW, I can think of a reason, though I'm not sure it is a very strong one. If people are too focused on extreme weather events and do not see them being reduced as measures are taken to reduce net CO2, they might change their minds about the value of reducing net CO2 emissions.
And another. Since the harm from extreme weather events can be much reduced by adaptation to the extreme weather, people might decide that was enough and not ALSO support reducing net CO2 emissions , ignoring the other cost of CO2 accumulation.
But to prevent people drawing these mistaken conclusions from observations of extreme weather events, it will be necessary go beyond discussing difficulties of detection.
Decarbonization (i.e., a reduction in CO2/GDP) results from two factors and has been underway for more than a century.
1. Energy efficiency and dematerialization
These are both good because they contribute to increasing pc GDP which is necessary for more people to enjoy the benefits that us in the wealthy world often take for granted.
2. Decreasing carbon intensity of energy production
Moving from wood-->coal-->natural gas-->nuclear over hundreds of years has come with a wide range of economic, public health, and (non-climate) environmental benefits (e.g., air pollution)
I still do not like the term decarbonization. I think it is misleading and does not fit your explanation. More accurate would be: "improve energy efficiency."
I also find "decreasing carbon intensity of energy production" misleading and possibly harmful. A case can be made that both wind and solar are more harmful to the environment than any fossil fuel. Immediately semantically putting fossil fuels at the bottom of the list is probably an error, I do not think they are at the bottom of the list. Wood and dung are down there and between them and fossil fuels somewhere are wind and solar. Just my opinion.
Roger, I concur on both points. We should always strive to be more energy efficient and I think the record of mankind has been impressive. Vehicles, homes and other energy intensive inventions continue to be more energy efficient. The industry I am associate with, aviation, has made huge strides in improving fuel efficiency in the past 50 years, two 30% improvements - more efficient engines and light weight aircraft. The Boeing 707 > Boeing 767 > Boeing 787 is an example.
I agree too about the other pollutants and that is what has always surprised me about this whole CO2 thing. CO2 is not a pollutant. Nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, 2.5 micron aerosols, etc are the real gases and substance to worry about there is nary a mention of those. But on that front too, mankind has made strides eliminating those too with catalytic converters, cleaner fuels, etc. In the UK, I saw a graph where they are down by 80%!
While there is still room for improvement, mankind has made great stides and should continue to do so. It seems to me that CO2 is being vilified and is a proxy for the other real pollutants. Why don't the environmentists just come clean, be honest and state that the real fight is the real pollution.
I think the problem (at least in the West) is that air pollution has declined enough that it can be easily ignored. It’s not like the bad air days in China and India where the pollutants hang like a fog. So it doesn’t make a great symbol to rally people around.
That being said research is showing that even low levels of air pollution has wide-ranging insidious effects on our health.
This answer it ambiguous wrt the real issue Assuming that the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere causes planetary physical changes and that some of these changes are harmful, can we reduce the costs by reducing the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere in ways that do not exceed the costs of the harms to be reduced?
Whether your answer is yes or no, the focus on what people "say" about extreme weather event detection, seems a bit misplaced. Of course, what people say is what they say, but the trick ought to be to start with what they say and show what they ought to DO.
Isn't the crux of the argument over whether we need high confidence before spending trillions on a policy to mitigate extreme weather vs being okay with lower confidence before spending trillions on a policy to mitigate extreme weather? If it is the latter then, it seems to me that, the argument becomes spending trillions on a policy that may or may not mitigate extreme weather vs using those trillions to bolster our resistance to the impacts of extreme weather and/or using the trillions to improve people's lives via clean water, accessible heating and cooling, etc... In my opinion, the latter wins every time.
It's worse than that. Based on current knowledge we can't even be certain that spending trillions on a policy to mitigate extreme weather will have the desired effect.
Not sure! I am currently not really optimistic about book writing (or more accurately, finding a major book publisher). I have a book project on the back burner, low heat -- a sequel to The Honest Broker about science in policy and politics. That said, Substack is pretty great.
I'm having a tough time with this one. I get the statistical difficulty of identifying a change given so much variability... that being said, is this just a ploy to be able to say "there's horrific change coming... you just can't see it yet?"
Seems to me that if we cannot ID a statistically significant change... and will not be able to within this century... then what are we so worked up about? I think we can all agree that the earth has modestly warmed since 1850 (and it's generally been warming since the end of the last glaciation), but when you take into account that we started counting at the end of a small ice age... and then filter out potential urban heat island effects... the increase in temps becomes very modest. All this at a time when most things are improving.
Added to this is a COMPLETE DISREGARD for any discussion in the media of those improvements (climate deaths decreasing, more greening of the earth, increased crop production, fewer cold deaths, fewer landfalling hurricanes, decrease in tornados, etc.). If you only hype the negative, you can work people up into a frenzy.
I'm a natural resources professional so I understand environmental challenges. But from what I can tell, "climate change" as we call it, is felt largely as human-induced landscape alteration. For example, wildfires as a result of human mismanagement of forests, large-scale depletion of groundwater reserves for irrigation, more people living in deserts pulling water from dams meant to service 1/4 of the population, and heavy developments pushing around wildlife habitats, etc. Here in the plains people believe that climate is changing because we have an Eastern Red Cedar problem on our range lands. When in actuality, the heavy fire suppression on the prairie (and lack of controlled burns) has led to conditions that let them thrive as an "invasive species."
So if we cannot detect a statistically significant change in weather phenomena... what about climate change is "real?" The modest increase in temperatures?
Climate change is real and has been detected and attributed for a wide range of phenomena - but not hurricanes, floods, drought, tornadoes - the phenomena that climate advocates decided to hitch their wagon to.
Have a look at Ch.1 of The Climate Fix (available as a PDF under THB Pro tab at the top). I argue that climate change is a risk management problem, and is wicked not tame.
Based on previous posts at THB it is clear (to me) that when you attribute a finding or a statement to the IPCC you are referring (exclusively?) to Working Group 1.
While it would probably be tedious to always make this statement explicitly, a disclaimer to this effect (maybe similar to the one you always include re. climate change being real and important) would help make this point.
Here is a link to the energy mix over the past century:
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix
Thanks, and here is a discussion of global decarbonization rates since the 1960s:
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/is-global-climate-policy-working
Thanks, good essay. I did not realize that you were equating productivity with "decarbonization." I find the term "decarbonization" a bit misleading, since it literally means removing carbon or fossil fuels, implying a decrease in fossil fuel use, which hasn't happened. It also is very unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.
That said, using less energy or fossil fuels is a big component of productivity increases, probably as big as using fewer employees. Coming from a farm family in Kansas, I remember the 1980s when farm consolidation peaked due to higher prices for fossil fuels, that was when most of my extended family moved to town and sold their farms.
I would prefer to say "increasing energy productivity" rather than "decarbonization," it is really what you mean, I think.
Yes, I hear you.
The full technical term is "decarbonization of the global economy" expressed as a decrease in the ratio of CO2/GDP. If we have a particular emissions target (say, minus 80%) we can then calculate how much the energy intensity of the economy and the carbon intensity of energy must change to hit that target. Doing the math, it becomes readily apparent that targets cannot be hit without retiring fossil fuels and expanding carbon free - Hello nuclear!
Nuclear is a good choice for electricity production, I agree. But electricity is only about 18% of delivered energy, so replacing all electricity production with nuclear is very unlikely to reduce fossil fuel consumption considering how rapidly energy consumption is increasing.
You have often written "There are plenty of excellent reasons why accelerating the century-long trend in global decarbonization makes sense."
Yet, I don't remember your explaining the statement. Here you say reducing extreme weather is not a reason. Additional CO2 and warming are currently net beneficial, and air and water pollution are lower than in the past, our lifespan is longer today, productivity is very high and going higher. How does decarbonizing make any sense? Especially since fossil fuels are so cheap relative to other energy sources.
I should note that according to ourworldindata.org, fossil fuel use has increased steadily over the past century and is still increasing, on pace with the increase in energy consumption. It is not and has not decreased over the past century.
Hi Andy, Have you had a chance to read The Climate Fix? That book provides the answer to your question, and if not, perhaps just check out Chapter 9, available to you here in PDF:
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-climate-fix-book-club-chapter-53c
As a concrete example -- phasing out coal makes a lot of sense independent of climate change. Doing so, no matter what it is replaced with increases decarbonization, see the case of the UK or, even better, the US where economic growth has remained strong.
I did read that book some time ago and I remember you writing that in the book. I do not remember you explaining why we should reduce carbon emissions. I wrote about my frustration at the time:
"I find Pielke Jr.’s book The Climate Fix a little frustrating. He often says, in various ways:
“Make no mistake: carbon dioxide matters a great deal.” Pielke Jr., Roger. The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell You About Global Warming (p. 18).
The book destroys the connection between CO2 and climate extremes, the iconic “2°C limit” on warming as well as any positive effect of reducing CO2 emissions. He also shows that there is no evidence that a “tipping point” temperature exists. At least in this book, he never really explains why CO2 emissions need to be reduced or why current global warming is a bad thing."
This is from this post from 2017:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2017/12/22/global-warming-and-extreme-weather/
I keep thinking about the IPCC graphs you posted here showing the long-term trends in various measures and a couple individual model runs. Those pictures are worth a thousand words of explanation about internal variability. It is both surprising and not surprising that we don’t see graphs of that kind more often in the media.
A good article about questioning the dire headlines
https://www.aier.org/article/hurricanes-and-other-evil-winds/
Yesterday a friend sent me an article about the insurance industry suffering big losses because of climate change. I had just read your post referencing the Lloyd’s executive stating that so far they cannot attribute any of these losses to warming. He sent me back the IPCC 2023 ar6 synthesis report summary for policy makers. His comment was scanning the headline for each section it seems unambiguous that climate change is causing and exacerbating all of these issues. Is there a significant difference between the reports of the working groups and the executive summary? Can you please elaborate and explain if so. I find it very frustrating that even my thoughtful friends will so often respond with an article stating everyone knows this or it is common knowledge (conventional wisdom) that severe events are becoming more common because of climate change. I have enjoyed reading your work just recently became a paying subscriber after reading for several months. Thanks
The IPCC Synthesis Report (as its name suggests) relies 100% on the underlying working group reports. If there is an inconsistency between the SYN and WG1, then the SYN got things wrong. Similarly with the SYN SPM and the SYN.
Yes, there are multiple instances where the SYN departs from the WG1. This is a quality control issue. I rely directly on WG1 rather than the filtered SPMs or SYN.
One example of how a major error got into the SYN:
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/a-tip-from-an-ipcc-insider
The narrow model variability of ocean heat content (OHC) is intriguing.
Unlike air temperature or sea ice extent, it is not a measurable parameter (measurements of seawater temperature would require extreme precision and complicated spatial averaging). Therefore, there is no way of validating the models by comparing their results with measured reality.
Let's formulate my suspicion in the form of a question: given that OHC is what remains of the planetary balance between input (solar + geothermal) and output (reflection and IR radiation to the outer space), to what extent are the models accumulating computational errors or actual amounts of heat?
Note:
The order of magnitude of the heat flux corresponding to OHC change in the top 2000 meters is 0.91 ± 0.18 W/m2 of the ocean surface (Table 2.7 of IPCC AR6, WG1). To be compared with the average solar irradiation of 342 W/m2 over the whole globe).
I tried sharing this article on Facebook, and it was immediately blocked. I am appealing that decision.
As usual, an enjoyable and educational post, but I will admit I had a hard time following the thread. (My math and statistics skills have been substantially eroded.) Three statements stood out to me:
1. “Can our decisions about energy can stop or reduce extreme weather? The answer is no…”
2. “The IPCC explains that the effects of successful mitigation policy would first be detected in carbon dioxide concentrations…”
3. “In plain English this means that the effects of climate mitigation policies on the weather you experience in your lifetime would not be detectable, even if you are born in 2024. This explains why for most variables associated with extreme events the IPCC’s projection of the “time of emergence” of a climate change or climate mitigation signal is so far into the future.”
In No. 1, you seem to be saying that carbon doesn’t matter with respect to extreme weather. If so, then why the urge for rapid decarbonization? Wouldn’t a planned, graduated process (shift from coal to natural gas, then to nuclear) make more sense and be less disruptive to the economy? I agree there are reasons to decarbonize, but must it be "overnight?" Why is it necessary to set arbitrary time limits? They serve no useful purpose other than to inspire divisiveness.
No. 2 says that CO2 concentrations are a key metric of mitigation. This seems like wishful thinking, especially after the discussions in this and other posts about natural variability. CO2 has an atmospheric half-life of 120 years. Give all of the natural variability that can occur, how can we distinguish between natural reductions/additions versus human-induced. That said, wouldn’t the “first” indicator be improved health metrics and reduced disaster losses?
No. 3 argues that mitigation will not be detectable in our lifetime, or perhaps even our grandchildren’s lifetime. You imply that human-induced change is there, we just can’t detect it. Isn’t equally probable that in the grand scheme of things, human-induced change is negligible? Yes, climate change is real, but will it be catastrophic? If we can adapt at the same rate the change is occurring, is it even a problem?
Richard Lindzen (2020) has described the system as two fluids that are on a rotating planet which in turn is differentially heated by the sun. “The oceanic component has circulation systems with time scales ranging from years to millennia, and these systems carry heat to and from the surface. In addition to the oceans, the atmosphere is interacting with a hugely irregular land surface.” From these differentials and irregularities, a reasonable person could easily conclude that climate is affected by a large number of variables, not merely one or two as suggested by “conventional wisdom.”
As you would say, “in plain English,” doesn’t this mean that the earth’s climate system is to complex to model or even predict with certainty, and that energy and resource policies should be focused on sustainability and resilience, rather than mitigation or reversal?
Bohr once described science as “the gradual removal of prejudices.” I sincerely thank you for your contributions to this effort! So far, all five parts have been educational and instructive. Thanks again.
"There are plenty of excellent reasons why accelerating the century-long trend in global decarbonization makes sense. Stopping extreme weather is not among these reasons."
This is not ambiguous. :) It does raise, for me at least, the question of why to focus so much on this one particular reason NOT to reduce CO2 emissions (total "decarbonization," depending on CCS costs might not be necessary to stabilize and possible reduce CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere) instead of the reasons TO reduce and more importantly HOW TO reduce net CO2 emissions.
BTW, I can think of a reason, though I'm not sure it is a very strong one. If people are too focused on extreme weather events and do not see them being reduced as measures are taken to reduce net CO2, they might change their minds about the value of reducing net CO2 emissions.
And another. Since the harm from extreme weather events can be much reduced by adaptation to the extreme weather, people might decide that was enough and not ALSO support reducing net CO2 emissions , ignoring the other cost of CO2 accumulation.
But to prevent people drawing these mistaken conclusions from observations of extreme weather events, it will be necessary go beyond discussing difficulties of detection.
"I can think of a reason.........". Does that imply that the ends might justify the means?
Roger, you state that decarbonization has other benefits apart from the (non-existant) extreme weather threat.
What would some of those other benefits be if they are not climate related?
This is an important question!
Decarbonization (i.e., a reduction in CO2/GDP) results from two factors and has been underway for more than a century.
1. Energy efficiency and dematerialization
These are both good because they contribute to increasing pc GDP which is necessary for more people to enjoy the benefits that us in the wealthy world often take for granted.
2. Decreasing carbon intensity of energy production
Moving from wood-->coal-->natural gas-->nuclear over hundreds of years has come with a wide range of economic, public health, and (non-climate) environmental benefits (e.g., air pollution)
I still do not like the term decarbonization. I think it is misleading and does not fit your explanation. More accurate would be: "improve energy efficiency."
I also find "decreasing carbon intensity of energy production" misleading and possibly harmful. A case can be made that both wind and solar are more harmful to the environment than any fossil fuel. Immediately semantically putting fossil fuels at the bottom of the list is probably an error, I do not think they are at the bottom of the list. Wood and dung are down there and between them and fossil fuels somewhere are wind and solar. Just my opinion.
"pcGDP" = per capita GDP
(I had just finished a previous article on "wokeness" and I jumped to "politically correct".
Lol )
Roger: This has been a fabulous series. Thx!
Roger, I concur on both points. We should always strive to be more energy efficient and I think the record of mankind has been impressive. Vehicles, homes and other energy intensive inventions continue to be more energy efficient. The industry I am associate with, aviation, has made huge strides in improving fuel efficiency in the past 50 years, two 30% improvements - more efficient engines and light weight aircraft. The Boeing 707 > Boeing 767 > Boeing 787 is an example.
I agree too about the other pollutants and that is what has always surprised me about this whole CO2 thing. CO2 is not a pollutant. Nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, 2.5 micron aerosols, etc are the real gases and substance to worry about there is nary a mention of those. But on that front too, mankind has made strides eliminating those too with catalytic converters, cleaner fuels, etc. In the UK, I saw a graph where they are down by 80%!
While there is still room for improvement, mankind has made great stides and should continue to do so. It seems to me that CO2 is being vilified and is a proxy for the other real pollutants. Why don't the environmentists just come clean, be honest and state that the real fight is the real pollution.
I think the problem (at least in the West) is that air pollution has declined enough that it can be easily ignored. It’s not like the bad air days in China and India where the pollutants hang like a fog. So it doesn’t make a great symbol to rally people around.
That being said research is showing that even low levels of air pollution has wide-ranging insidious effects on our health.
"The answer is no"
This answer it ambiguous wrt the real issue Assuming that the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere causes planetary physical changes and that some of these changes are harmful, can we reduce the costs by reducing the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere in ways that do not exceed the costs of the harms to be reduced?
Whether your answer is yes or no, the focus on what people "say" about extreme weather event detection, seems a bit misplaced. Of course, what people say is what they say, but the trick ought to be to start with what they say and show what they ought to DO.
Isn't the crux of the argument over whether we need high confidence before spending trillions on a policy to mitigate extreme weather vs being okay with lower confidence before spending trillions on a policy to mitigate extreme weather? If it is the latter then, it seems to me that, the argument becomes spending trillions on a policy that may or may not mitigate extreme weather vs using those trillions to bolster our resistance to the impacts of extreme weather and/or using the trillions to improve people's lives via clean water, accessible heating and cooling, etc... In my opinion, the latter wins every time.
It's worse than that. Based on current knowledge we can't even be certain that spending trillions on a policy to mitigate extreme weather will have the desired effect.
Roger, have you given any thought as to where this series of posts is going? Maybe a new book?
Not sure! I am currently not really optimistic about book writing (or more accurately, finding a major book publisher). I have a book project on the back burner, low heat -- a sequel to The Honest Broker about science in policy and politics. That said, Substack is pretty great.
By the way, I appreciate all you do here to facilitate real discussion. Much appreciated!
Thank you!
I'm having a tough time with this one. I get the statistical difficulty of identifying a change given so much variability... that being said, is this just a ploy to be able to say "there's horrific change coming... you just can't see it yet?"
Seems to me that if we cannot ID a statistically significant change... and will not be able to within this century... then what are we so worked up about? I think we can all agree that the earth has modestly warmed since 1850 (and it's generally been warming since the end of the last glaciation), but when you take into account that we started counting at the end of a small ice age... and then filter out potential urban heat island effects... the increase in temps becomes very modest. All this at a time when most things are improving.
Added to this is a COMPLETE DISREGARD for any discussion in the media of those improvements (climate deaths decreasing, more greening of the earth, increased crop production, fewer cold deaths, fewer landfalling hurricanes, decrease in tornados, etc.). If you only hype the negative, you can work people up into a frenzy.
I'm a natural resources professional so I understand environmental challenges. But from what I can tell, "climate change" as we call it, is felt largely as human-induced landscape alteration. For example, wildfires as a result of human mismanagement of forests, large-scale depletion of groundwater reserves for irrigation, more people living in deserts pulling water from dams meant to service 1/4 of the population, and heavy developments pushing around wildlife habitats, etc. Here in the plains people believe that climate is changing because we have an Eastern Red Cedar problem on our range lands. When in actuality, the heavy fire suppression on the prairie (and lack of controlled burns) has led to conditions that let them thrive as an "invasive species."
So if we cannot detect a statistically significant change in weather phenomena... what about climate change is "real?" The modest increase in temperatures?
Climate change is real and has been detected and attributed for a wide range of phenomena - but not hurricanes, floods, drought, tornadoes - the phenomena that climate advocates decided to hitch their wagon to.
Have a look at Ch.1 of The Climate Fix (available as a PDF under THB Pro tab at the top). I argue that climate change is a risk management problem, and is wicked not tame.
Based on previous posts at THB it is clear (to me) that when you attribute a finding or a statement to the IPCC you are referring (exclusively?) to Working Group 1.
While it would probably be tedious to always make this statement explicitly, a disclaimer to this effect (maybe similar to the one you always include re. climate change being real and important) would help make this point.
Yes, I try to avoid saying IPCC AR6 WG1 every time ... hopefully when citing the IPCC I have successfully linked to the relevant chapter.
IPCC WG2 has serious quality control problems and WG3 is very good, but mostly captured by a smallish group of experts
Roger, am I correct in saying the synthesis report seems to downplay, or contradict what is said in the WG1 report?
I agree, so too with the Technical Report.