Dr. David Legates at his weather station in 2005.
Generally, I conclude most of my climate change presentations with the phrase, “It’s not about the climate; it never was.” Here, I would like to start with that statement. In this brief article, I will discuss why carbon dioxide isn’t the dangerous gas it is made out to be, why climate change is not an ‘existential’ threat to the planet, and why the Green New Deal is not a solution to climate change.
Let me begin with a series of questions.
Is our climate changing? The answer is clearly “YES” because climate has always changed. We often define ‘climate’ as ‘average weather’ and averages are not supposed to change. If they do, the cause must be unnatural. Treating the climate as a statistical average further implies that it should be static; in fact, the Earth’s climate is dynamic, variable, and ever-changing.
Is global warming real; or, more specifically, has the surface air temperature risen about 0.6°C (1.08˚F) since the late 1800s? The answer also is “YES,” and on that there is little debate.
Do humans affect the Earth’s climate? Again, the answer is “YES” with little debate. We can point to the urban heat island—for example, the Washington metropolitan area is warmer than the surrounding countryside due to the urban city and this has been widely studied. Because of impervious surfaces and the increased water demand of urbanized areas, floods and drought frequencies and intensities also are affected.
Does carbon dioxide absorb energy? Yes, certainly. The Earth’s surface is warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere—by about 30°C (54˚F). But remember, the most important greenhouse gas is not carbon dioxide; it is water vapor. Water cycles fast through the atmosphere, absorbing energy as it evaporates and releasing that energy as it condenses. The current amount of water in the global atmosphere will fall as precipitation in just the next ten days. Its mobility and efficiency in absorbing heat energy makes water fundamental in explaining the climate of the Earth.
If the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles, what will the effect be on global air temperature? This is where the debate begins.
We seek to determine something called the equilibrium climate sensitivity—that is, the eventual rise in air temperature due to a doubling of carbon dioxide. Over the last twenty years, our estimates of the equilibrium climate sensitivity have decreased substantially, based on measurements of the climate system.
In the early 2000s, estimates were that a doubling of carbon dioxide would result in between a 3 and 6°C (5.4 and 10.8˚F) warming. Since 2010, however, most estimates have placed the equilibrium climate sensitivity at less than 3°C (5.4˚F), and over the last five years, several independent assessments have placed the sensitivity at about 1˚C (1.8˚F).
This implies that the effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide has much less impact than the models suggest—their sensitivity has remained above 3°C (5.4˚F) over the last two decades—which helps to explain why their estimates of warming are much higher.
How do we know that carbon dioxide is a minor player in climate change? Both theory and models tell us that the biggest effect of carbon dioxide on air temperatures should lie in the upper tropical troposphere. The troposphere is the layer of the atmosphere where all weather resides. Over the last forty years, the warming of this layer has been small, whereas the models indicate the warming should have been much greater. This further underscores that climate models grossly overstate the climate warming.
Moreover, theory also indicates that daily maximum air temperatures should rise if carbon dioxide is the main driver of climate change. In fact, daily maxima have not changed substantially over the last eighty years, and before that, maximum air temperatures were much higher during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s.
Minimum daily air temperatures have increased, but that is associated with the warming of urban areas. Averaging these two extremes to get a daily average and then reporting that “this year is the warmest in recorded history” is highly misleading since most stations have a short record length and the warming is not due to carbon dioxide.
Will this warming necessarily lead to more climate extremes—floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, sea level rise, etc.? I can write in great detail showing the data and explaining why these events are not increasing in frequency or intensity and why, under a warmer world, the physics indicate that they should not. Changing land use and increased demand for water are more significant than carbon dioxide in changing the impact of climate on our lives. Coverage of extreme weather gives the false impression that violent weather is becoming more frequent and intense when the data say otherwise.
Is a warmer climate and more carbon dioxide a net benefit to life on the planet? The answer to this question is a resounding “YES.” More people die from exposure to cold than heat. A longer growing season is more beneficial to feeding a growing population. Further, since carbon dioxide is plant food, under higher carbon dioxide concentrations, virtually all plants grow faster and are more efficient in using water.
So, what is the climatic benefit of spending trillions of dollars and fundamentally changing our economy and way of life? The Green New Deal is not about ‘stabilizing’ the Earth’s climate. Carbon dioxide is a small player in climate change.
The United Nations has become the modern-day Robin Hood—creating wealth redistribution on a global scale. Industrialization has made developed nations ‘rich’, and by using fossil fuels, they are supposedly destroying our climate, for which the developed world must pay. Rich nations, therefore, must give much of their wealth to the poorer nations. Climate change has become the cause célèbre to move nations to action.
The Green New Deal is not about stopping climate change. Climate always changes and always will. The United States has cut back on greenhouse gas emissions by about 13% since 2005 to virtually no effect on the Earth’s climate. The net effect of reducing the United States’ carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050 would be negligible.
Even reduction by 100% would have little effect on the climate, but the policies proposed by the Green New Deal would make Karl Marx proud. But realize this; any draconian changes such as these would necessarily change our fundamental way of life. And that, not addressing the ills of climate change, is what the Green New Deal is all about.
This article first appeared in Townhall.com and reproduces, with minor modifications, Dr. Legates’s oral testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Congressional Western Caucus’s “Green New Deal” legislative forum Wednesday, February 27, 2019.
Aurora says
Dr. Legates,
Would you share the sources of your data? It would be helpful for those of us sharing your thoughts to be able to cite your sources.
Thank you.
David R. Legates says
What questions specifically interest you? I have lots of material and the sources are numerous.
connie frist says
“It was never about the climate”.. It’s about control… Societal Control.
As in: Money. Power. & Societal Control.
KAREN says
Exactly, Connie!!
Harold Doiron says
David, This is a great article for general public understanding regarding undisputed facts of climate change and specifically where we climate realists differ with climate alarmists who are enamored with the output of their un-validated climate simulation models. The more recent publications for lower estimates of earth surface temperature sensitivity to atmospheric Greenhouse Gases you mentioned are based on analysis of readily available data, not un-validated models. For the request from your first Commenter, I recommend Lewis and Curry (2018) as a good reference. The data-focused independent assessment by our The Right Climate Stuff research team that I have presented in several technical conferences, obtains the same values for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity and Transient Climate Response.
David R. Legates says
Thanks Hal!
louis wachsmuth says
Try telling the people that last night suffered a half mile wide tornado that extreme events are not increasing. For the last four months, all I have been hearing on the news is : “record rainfall, record snow, record heat (down under). Also, other scientific studies have demonstrated that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may have a negative effect on a plant’s ability to gain nutrients. and, so what’s the story about the warm artic changing the jet stream?
Manisnotbiggerthennature says
Louis wachsmuth, is that first time a tornado has been a half mile wide? You say record, record. What caused the old records to be set? evil suv’s?
Carbon dioxide… you mean… plant food!?
The one thing none of you” true believers” in the religion of MMCC can never answer is why is the polar ice on mars shrinking…..? Evil alien suv’s I bet.
louis wachsmuth says
Bad news for CornwallThe Energy 202: OIL GIANT MAKES BUSINESS CASE FOR TAKING CLIMATE CHANGE SERIOUSLY; By Steven Mufson. March 5 2019 THE LIGHTBULB
The chief economist of one of the world’s biggest oil companies is urging other companies to take climate change seriously — and sooner rather than later. That’s the warning from BP’s Spencer Dale, who made the rounds in Washington last week explaining the business case for finding a solution for the warming planet. “All the climate arguments are real, urgent and important,” Dale said in an interview with The Washington Post. Despite working for one of the world’s biggest producers of fossil fuels, Dale said the longer the world waits to address rising emissions, the more “draconian” the changes in the global economy will have to be.The provocative economist spent more than a decade working for the Bank of England before joining the oil giant. At the end of February, Dale led the publication of BP’s annual energy outlook, which is widely anticipated among energy industry followers. At the center of the report’s most likely scenario for the future is the tension between the pressing need to slash carbon emissions and the growing demand for energy as the global population grows and seeks better livelihoods. (much longer article)
:
Jeff says
It’s very telling that you call on emotion and “news” reporting. This article helps express the creativity that media go through to present some facts and not others. 4 of 5 of our local stations call their weather report EXTREME. Much of the point made here is; statistics can be manipulated to predetermined outcomes.
David R. Legates says
Louis, with all due concern for those hit by a tornado, the National Weather Service has shown that tornado frequencies have been declining. Please see: https://www.weather.gov/images/pbz/svrclimo/2016/TORFrequencyByYear.PNG When one investigates the stronger tornadoes (whose record is not affected by the advent of weather radar), the same trend emerges over a longer time period. Please see: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/sotc/national/2008/dec/ann-F3-F5tornadoes08.png.
Steve says
You are listening to too much alarmism and propaganda. Become a realist. https://principia-scientific.org/the-inner-sanctums-of-climate-change-propaganda/
Steve Hawkins says
Seriously? 2018 was the first year on record without a violent tornado in the US. Now 1 tornado outbreak and its back to climate change! Do you really not know that both hurricanes and tornados have decreased in frequency and severity since 1950. Do facts even matter to alarmists?
TCMAGA says
So, climate change is basically localized to concentrated urban areas. The land of liberals and Dem voting clusters. How about they focus on cleaning their own house.
YJ says
This whole website is some prime examples of big industries astroturfing and fooling hardcore christians
E. Calvin Beisner says
Your claim is what logicians call the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem circumstantial: I don’t have to refute your argument because you stand to gain from making it. Try that when your oncologist says the blood tests show you have cancer–he or she stands to gain from your medical payments. Rather than resorting to ad hominem, how about if you actually try refuting the arguments? E.g., in Dr. Legates’s letter, show us the factual errors or the errors of logical inference.
KAREN says
YES!! Thank you!
Brenda says
No, facts do not matter to alarmist. Emotion does. Keep the people in a constant state of fear or crisis and you can push any agenda you want.
ndemi says
I tend to concur with the author of this article. He can see beyond what the normal eye sees.
Desinee says
Dr. Legates, this was sent to me based on this. Factual errors:
1. He says the effect of co2 would be seen in daytime max temps. That’s actually not what scientists predicted. They said we would see more dramatic warming in nighttime min temps and polar regions. These are both validated by observations.
2. He says that life is better in warmer climates. Yes, life can flourish in both warmer and cooler conditions. What life can’t flourish in though is a rapidly changing environment. The most recent mass extinction event was the PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum). It occurred approx 60 million years ago and is understood to be a dramatic and rapid spike of 8C over a timeframe of 20000 years. Here is what or current warming rate looks like in comparison to the PETM. Also worth noting, the PETM coincided with a large release of co2 into the atm as well, very similar to what we are driving today:
Ed says
Where did that large release of CO2 come from?
Paul Brown says
Thanks for your article Dr. Legate. A friend who was asking me about these things sent me a link to your article. Climate change is not my area of direct research but I am a professor who has taught environmental chemistry over the last 18 years. As such, I have spent quite a bit of time investigating issues related to climate change/warming since it is one of the topics we cover. In my experience, I largely concur with you that the consequences of climate change are not nearly as catastrophic as most seem to believe. Further, there even may be some pluses as well as some minuses to climate change (though in the current “climate” this idea may seem unacceptable). I confess that if I lived in the Maldives, I would be concerned.
Desinee raises a couple of good points. Regarding her point number one, your comments took me by surprise as well. I don’t have direct data for the CO2 predictions but the example of water vapor as a greenhouse gas suggests an effect of more increase in minimum temperatures rather than maximum (I just think relative humidity effects – humid climate vs desert). This pattern seems to be the trend in actual temperature records. In fact, both heat island effects and greenhouse gas warming I would think (perhaps intuitively) could be related to the relative temperature distributions that are seen. If the sun was driving increasing temperature, for example, I would expect more increase in the daytime highs but that is not where most of the warming occurs. Temperature increases are usually put in terms of an “average” but the records suggest that most of the warming contributing to the average is that it doesn’t get as cold, not so much that it is getting hotter in terms of maxima. Trends would be more concerning if the high temperatures made up the primary increase. Still, it could be helpful to clarify the point of predicting daytime increases due to CO2.
Her point number two is more complicated. I might have questions about it but the main idea raised of “rate of change” being potentially a greater problem than the “final state of change” has generally struck me as a legitimate possiblity. It could be interesting to see your comments on that. In any case, while I think the two points raised are valid, I agree with the substance of your article and thank you for writing it.
All the best,
Paul
Aus says
All sorts of weird climate activities have been done by FAKE Governments’ WEATHER WEAPONS. Everybody should watch “FRANKENSKIES” and “Chemtrails the Secret War” (both on YouTube) to understand our ugly reality. And the bottom lie is,
http://aus911truth.blogspot.com/2014/05/govisco-governments-are-companies.html
Dermod says
For some very strange reason the belief that CO2 in the atmosphere causes temperature changes at Earth’s has become widespread and that these temperature changes affect the various climates on the planet.
There is not the slightest evidence for this and there is an ovewhelming amount of evidence that climates are determined entirely by water, as ice, liquid, vapour or clouds.
Because there is so very little of it (< 1ppm compared with water) the belief that carbon dioxide has any affect compares well with the acceptance by many of homeopathic medication where dilutions with less than 1 atom per cc.(< 1:10^23) are considered effective
Dr Tim Ball - Climatologist says
On Feb 13, 2018: The judge dismissed all charges in the lawsuit brought against Dr Tim Ball by BC Green Party leader Andrew Weaver. It is a great victory for free speech.
‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
“Human Caused Global Warming”, ‘The Biggest Deception in History’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO08Hhjes_0
https://www.technocracy.news/dr-tim-ball-on-climate-lies-wrapped-in-deception-smothered-with-delusion/
http://www.drtimball.com