“I would like you to comment on whether you view the ‘data’ being presented by Bjørn Lomborg as accurate.”—Gene A.
Thank you for the question, Gene. I have read several of Lomborg’s books, from the famous The Skeptical Environmentalist (2001), in which he first presented the hard empirical data that drove him to change his views from a fairly alarmist environmentalist position to what I would call the realist view made famous by one of my mentors, the late Dr. Julian Simon, in his books The Resourceful Earth, The Ultimate Resource 2, and The State of Humanity (of which I was a managing editor), to his Global Crises, Global Solutions (2004), How to Spend $50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place (2006), Solutions for the World’s Biggest Problems (2007), Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming (2007), Smart Solutions to Climate Change (2010), and False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet (2020). I have also read many of his articles over the years.
What I find consistently in Lomborg’s work is exceptional care to ensure that there is hard empirical evidence backing all his data claims. He is an excellent, careful, and honest economist/statistician. That doesn’t mean I always agree with everything he says. He is more accommodating of the standard (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) climate-change scenarios than we at the Cornwall Alliance are. He estimates carbon dioxide emissions’ influence on global average temperature as a bit higher than most scientists connected with the Cornwall Alliance would. Still, the genius of Lomborg’s work is that he consistently shows that even if we take the IPCC’s scenarios as realistic, adaptation (finding ways to adapt to whatever changes there are in future climate) turns out to be far better than mitigation (trying to curb/stop climate change), and he recognizes the enormous benefits, especially in overcoming poverty, from using fossil fuels as majority source of the world’s energy.
Having said all of that, for those interested in a comprehensive review of the science and economics of climate change that more closely reflects the Cornwall Alliance’s views, I strongly recommend Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate, 3rd edition, by Fred Singer, Cornwall Alliance’s Director of Research and Education David Legates, and Cornwall Alliance Contributing Writer Anthony Lupo.
—E. Calvin Beisner
“What does the Bible say about global warming?”—Charlene H.
The Bible does not directly address the global warming effect of anthropogenic emissions of “greenhouse gases” like carbon dioxide. It does, however, teach us several things relevant to whether human-induced global warming is likely to be catastrophic.
First, Genesis 1:31 says that when God saw all that He had made, it was “very good.” Global warming catastrophism depends on the belief that an extremely small change in atmospheric chemistry (raising the concentration of CO2 from about 280 parts per million, or 28 thousandths of 1%, to 560 parts per million, 56 thousandths of 1%) would, because of “positive feedback loops,” cause catastrophic consequences. Is that belief consistent with God’s creation’s being “very good”? Would a good architect design a building such that if you leaned against a wall, the various feedback mechanisms would multiply the stress of your weight until the whole building collapsed? Yet climate-change catastrophism depends on thinking the climate system’s feedback mechanisms would do just that—multiply the initially slight impact (an increase in global average surface temperature of somewhere between about 0.5 and 1.2°C—mainly toward the poles, in winter, and at night, meaning less frequent and less severe cold snaps, which on average kill about 20 times as many people per day as heat waves, but not more frequent or more severe heat waves) of that doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere until it became devastating. No natural systems we’ve studied are dominated by positive feedback—indeed, if they were, they would have collapsed long ago. There’s no reason to think the climate system, created by God’s wise design and sustained by His faithful providence, is any different.
Second, following His judgment of the world with the flood in Noah’s time, God promised Himself, “While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease” (Genesis 8:22). The thrust of this promise is that God would sustain Earth’s climate cycles to ensure that they would always support human (and other) life. This doesn’t mean Earth couldn’t warm and cool cyclically; it does mean He would ensure that it never became so hot or cold as not to sustain life. That’s contrary to the idea that manmade climate change is an “existential threat.”
Third, while one of the biggest fears related to manmade climate change is of rising sea levels, Scripture repeatedly offers reassurance about that. Consider these passages:
- Genesis 9:11: “And I establish My covenant with you, and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.”
- Psalm 33:7: “He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deeps in storehouses.”
- Psalm 104:5–9: “He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever. You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains. At Your rebuke they fled, At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which You established for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass over, So that they will not return to cover the earth.”
- Jeremiah 5:22: “‘Do you not fear Me?’ declares the LORD. ‘Do you not tremble in My presence? For I have placed the sand as a boundary for the sea, An eternal decree, so it cannot cross over it. Though the waves toss, yet they cannot prevail; Though they roar, yet they cannot cross over it.’”
That last verse appears in a context (5:1–25) in which God teaches that if people properly feared Him, they wouldn’t not need to fear natural disasters. This suggests that much of the fear of natural disasters today stems not from solid scientific evidence but from lack of the fear of God. It’s not that sea level cannot rise; it’s that God ensures that it won’t rise sufficiently to threaten human existence.
For further study on this subject, we recommend Cornwall Alliance board member and senior fellow Dr. Roy Spencer’s book Global Warming Skepticism for Busy People and our online paper A Renewed Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Examination of the Theology, Science, and Economics of Global Warming, particularly the first section, on theological, worldview, and ethical considerations.
—E. Calvin Beisner
“Any thoughts on this pic?”—Sam R. via Facebook
Clearly, there’s been enough warming in that location to significantly reduce the size of that glacier. But one must not infer from the shrinkage of glaciers in some places that they’re shrinking everywhere. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jWOnCKfEYc.
Something to keep in mind: Climate realists (like me) have never denied that global average surface temperature has risen, long term (with ups and downs over the period) since about 1850, and we’ve never denied that, probably since about the 1960s, CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to that rise. What we’ve argued is that the consequences are not a crisis, a catastrophe, an existential threat.
One part of our case is something that pretty much every climate scientist recognizes but that catastrophists tend not to discuss much: that the physics of GHG-driven warming demand that warming ranges from very slight to nonexistent at the equator to very significant at the poles (and that it happens more in winter than in summer and at night than in the daytime). In other words, the Arctic and Antarctic will warm more—much more—than the tropics. That’s what the measurements show.
The result of this, of course is that cold temperatures (higher latitudes, in winter, at night) rise considerably more than hot temperatures, so we have less frequent and less severe cold snaps (which on average kill 10 times as many people per day as heat waves) but not more frequent or more severe heat waves.
Also, the geographic range over which plants can grow well expands to areas previously too cold, and the growing season lengthens. That’s all to the good for people and animals, all of which depend on food from plants. So, yes, did that glacier shrink? Certainly. That’s not evidence of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
—E. Calvin Beisner
When modeling the impact of CO2 on radiation flux do models take into account reduced incoming infrared from the sun as well as outgoing infrared from the earth? —Todd C.
Dear Todd, thank you for your question. Actually, the models are very sophisticated with respect to radiation because radiative transfer is well understood. Thus, the models do take into account these issues but they are lacking in others. Early on, the models were called “radiative-convective models.”
You can learn more about climate modeling from S. Fred Singer, David R. Legates, and Anthony R. Lupo’s Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate and Gregory Wrightstone’s Inconvenient Facts: The science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know, both available from the Cornwall Alliance’s online store.
—David R. Legates
How do you view the droughts in Europe? A leading Minister in my city Adelaide, South Australia, says it proves climate change.
—Barry M.
Dear Barry, thank you for your question. Like floods, droughts occur for a number of reasons. In northern Delaware, for example, we are seeing more droughts, but they are not caused by a changing climate; rather, due to changing land use. More people and more water-intensive activities using a limited resource mean that in times of diminished supply, the small amount of water does not go as far as it did before. Over the last 72 years, Western Europe has grown from 305M to 420M—a growth of more than one-third.
You can learn more about long-term weather trends and whether they are driven by manmade climate change and getting worse from Joe Bastardi’s The Weaponization of Weather in the Phony Climate Wars and Ole Humlum’s The State of the Climate 2021, both of which are available from the Cornwall Alliance’s online store.
—David R. Legates
In a recent flyer dated Aug 2022 you present a graph showing the Heat Wave Index since 1895 which shows the 1930s as ‘the’ worst decade. However, the EPA source of this data also shows Heat Wave Characteristics in the United States by Decade, 1961–2021. Their data shows heat waves as a growing concern. In an attempt to better understand the heat wave index graph you presented I extracted and then evaluated various ‘trendlines’ for shorter periods and clearly, there are no reasons to think the data will soon become exponential. However, as I stared at the results, I found myself lacking an understanding of what the ‘Heat Wave Index’ really means. I could read the definition and did some research, but really have no clear idea what this data is really telling us. Could you help clarify?
—Gene A.
Thanks, Gene, for your comment. The 1960s were a time of cooler conditions; therefore, if you start at a time of cooler temperatures and then proceed to a warmer time, you get the impression that heat waves are getting worse. Eliminating the pre-1960s data allows them to suggest that it is related to carbon dioxide. This is akin to the old argument that “we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” since people will ask the question, “Why did temperatures rise if carbon dioxide did not?” and they didn’t have an answer. Thus, the Hockey Stick was born – and here too, a hockey stick is created to suggest carbon dioxide is the cause.
But to directly answer your question, heat waves can be defined in different ways. So, what makes a heat wave? The Heat Wave Index is defined by the EPA1 as “For consistency across the country, [The Heat Wave Index] define[s] a heat wave as a period of two or more consecutive days when the daily minimum apparent temperature (the actual temperature adjusted for humidity) in a particular city exceeds the 85th percentile of historical July and August temperatures (1981–2010) for that city.” Parsing this statistical jargon, we see it requires (1) at least two days. A single day is not a “wave” but if it is sustained over a midnight period, then it can be a heat wave. It also requires (2) “the daily minimum apparent temperature”. Apparent temperature is how it “feels” to an average person and is based here on the Heat Index. The Heat Index is defined by the National Weather Service using both air temperature and atmospheric humidity2. Thus, the same air temperature feels worse when you have high humidity than when humidity is low.
To standardize the index and apply it to different locations, the Heat Wave Index applies the daily minimum air temperature (3) “in a particular city exceeds the 85th percentile of historical July and August temperatures (1981–2010) for that city.” First, what this means is that each city is treated separately – citizens of Phoenix “feel” the impact of heat differently than citizens of Boston. Therefore, a heat wave is defined differently for every city. Moreover, for each city, a heat wave occurs when the heat index falls in the upper 15% of all days within the 30-year period being used to define “normal” climate (i.e., the 30 years from 1981 to 2010) for that period during July and August.
Some issues exist, which may be either useful or contradictory, depending on your viewpoint. From the definition, what may be a heat wave in Boston may not be a heat wave in Phoenix. It also guarantees that 15% of all July and August days from 1981 to 2010 are possible heat wave candidates (remember, it takes two such days in a row to create a heat wave—but that need not mean 48 hours, it might just mean a few hours of one day and a few hours of the next). And it is unlikely that we can get a heat wave in other months because the heat index is usually highest in July and August. As you can see, defining such terms meteorologically so they can be intercompared across the country is a daunting task!
These data are based on cities for which the urban heat island is prominent. The EPA notes (emphasis added),
“As cities develop, vegetation is often lost, and more surfaces are paved or covered with buildings. This type of development can lead to higher temperatures—part of an effect called an “urban heat island.” Compared with surrounding rural areas, built-up areas have higher temperatures, especially at night. Urban growth since 1961 may have contributed to part of the increase in heat waves that Figures 1 and 2 show for certain cities. This indicator does not attempt to adjust for the effects of development in metropolitan areas, because it focuses on the temperatures to which people are actually exposed, regardless of whether the trends reflect a combination of climate change and other factors.”
The last sentence is telling in that while the EPA correctly argues that the warmer conditions resulting from the urban heat island will make it “feel” worse over time, they then purport to suggest that any increase in the Heat Wave Index is an indicator of anthropogenic climate change which, when you read the fine print, it may not be. For example, The Economist3, using these data, wrote “Climate change has made heatwaves more frequent, and more brutal. … Very hot temperatures that were once rare occur more frequently and heat waves that were once impossible come to pass. … Last year’s unprecedented heatwave in the Pacific Northwest would have been ‘virtually impossible’ without climate change.”
To learn more about the controversy about climate change, see Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate, 3rd edition, by S. Fred Singer, Anthony R. Lupo, and myself. We discuss heat waves in particular on pp. 98–99.
I know this has been a long-winded discussion, but I trust it has helped you better understand the Heat Wave Index!
—David R. Legates
