In his recent article “Four Reasons Alarmists Are Wrong on Climate Change,” Cornwall Alliance Research Associate for Developing Countries Vijay Jayaraj distinguished what, following widespread usage, he called climate-change alarmists, deniers, and skeptics. The “alarmists” generally think that human emissions of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) are driving global warming so rapid and eventually of such great magnitude as to be dangerous or even catastrophic and that the appropriate response is to curtail drastically such emissions. The “deniers,” he wrote, “categorically deny the warming trend,” not simply the view that carbon dioxide is a major cause of acknowledged warming. And the skeptics “disagree on the magnitude and cause of warming, but not on whether it’s happening; and they also disagree about the consequences of warming and how mankind should respond.”
A friendly reader wrote to us in response,
It’s interesting you talk of ‘deniers’ vs. ‘skeptics’ on the basis of whether they think there’s any warming or not. I think the difference is different, in that real skeptics question the fundamental underlying basis of earth’s underlying global temperature is driven by the atmosphere’s composition or not, i.e. does the level of CO2 actually have any CAUSATION. The evidence and new thinking emerging is that CO2 does not have any driving cause whatsoever.
You may be aware of the recent work published by Ned Nikolov et al (@NikolovScience), who show that the planetary temperature of a number of the planets in our solar system, including Earth, is determined purely by the combination of atmospheric pressure and solar insolation. They don’t raise this as a new hypothesis, but as an understanding of real observed data. As such, the argument would class them as ‘deniers’. I would not agree, but see it as genuine scientific discovery.
Obviously such new thinking is meeting stiff opposition, but that’s ‘consensus’ for you, which tries to shut down ‘inconvenient’ enquiry and is the real ‘denial’.
We appreciate the distinction. Vijay Jayaraj adopted, with some modification, the terminology most common in the media and, to a lesser but still significant extent, scientific literature when discussing different views on anthropogenic global warming. The term skeptic related to AGW does have considerable elasticity, though, all the way from
- those who generally grant the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s view that over the last 60 years or so anthropogenic CO2 emissions have been the primary driver of global warming, but who question the IPCC’s (and warming alarmists’ generally) preference of mitigation over adaptation as response, like Bjørn Lomborg, through
- those who generally grant that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have played a significant or even majority role in recent warming but who think the magnitude of the warming is not dangerous, or at least not potentially catastrophic, like Patrick Michaels and, more recently, Judith Curry, through
- those who grant that anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably contribute something to warming but think they likely fall well below majority cause of recent warming or even contribute so little as to be undetectable, like Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, and John Christy, to
- those who, like our correspondent and for a variety of reasons, think anthropogenic CO2, or CO2 in general, or even any “greenhouse” gas, plays no part in determining global temperature, like some of the folks associated with the organization Principia Scientific.
I’m familiar with the pressure/insolation hypothesis about planetary temperature. If “denier” is defined as one who denies that CO2 and other “greenhouse” gases play any role in determining planetary temperature, those who hold the “pressure/insolation” hypothesis would indeed be classified as “deniers” and so would overlap with some “skeptics.”
I find the hypothesis interesting and plausible, but thus far I’m not persuaded that it’s the full explanation. I’m inclined to think the causes are multiple and include insolation (obviously), pressure, the physics of radiative heat transfer (and hence the role of infrared-absorbing, misnamed “greenhouse,” gases), changes in albedo (including extent of snow and ice cover, and cloud cover, the latter perhaps affected in part by the rate of influx of galactic cosmic rays, which in turn is affected by changes in solar magnetic wind and our solar system’s position relative to other parts of the galaxy), and probably some other factors. But I doubt that it’s possible for now—and perhaps, in principle, ever—to determine the precise proportional contributions of these. The climate system—of which global average surface temperature (insofar as there even is such a thing as average temperature, let alone whether we’re capable of measuring global average temperature with any significant degree [pardon the pun] of accuracy) is but one among many elements—is a coupled non-linear chaotic fluid dynamic system and therefore (I think) in principle unpredictable except in the very broadest terms (not only because we lack sufficient data but also because prediction would require solving the Navier-Stokes equations—a matter on which, not being a mathematician, I’m trusting in the judgment of people like Christopher Essex).
Nonetheless, I’m seeing references to the insolation/pressure hypothesis increasingly frequently, and it will be interesting to watch how it fares over time.
Simon Conway-Smith says
The point Ned Nikolov makes is that the underlying planetary temperature is entirely controlled by the adiabatic pressure/isolation process and not by any atmospheric composition. I don’t believe he claims it’s the full explanation (of climate), just an important underlying piece. It’s clear that the rotation and orbital wobble causes the daily and seasonal energy input levels to change, which drives huge heat flows around the globe, and then you have the oceanic and other cycles, and also cosmic rays that come into play (I attended the GWPF talk by Prof Henrik Svensmark & his son Jacob Svensmark recently), which only scratches the surface. The critical point is that the hypothesis that atmospheric composition affects temperature due to a GHE is an unphysical concept, and isn’t demonstrated by already observed data from several planets. If there are physical processes defined as part of God’s creation, they must apply everywhere, across space and time, and not have suddenly changed after the Industrial Revolution as the supporters of the CO2/warming fraternity claim.
It’s been a learning exercise chatting with Ned, and no doubt I (i.e. we all) have much more to learn from someone who is trying to seek the correct understanding of God’s creation, but you make a very important point, that it is interesting and plausible, so we should welcome his input. Yes, question and test but not just dismiss. What is disappointing is the level of vicious opposition, even vitriol, he’s received because of it, which is undeserved. Like all scientific understanding, we only progress if we allow our minds to be open, take on new ideas, test them, and see if they maintain integrity, or get replaced with something even better or more refined. The notion of “the science is settled” (i.e. consensus and appeals to authority), whatever the flavour, is a big red flag, and should be rejected in all its forms.
Personally, my main interest in this whole subject is of course that borne out of Christian love, and what I see is the appallingly destructive policies enacted in the name of ‘global warming’, for example, the hundreds of thousands of Germans who have had their electricity cut off because the introduction of renewables has driven up prices so much, unnecessarily, deliberately, and so cruelly. I also see the active and deliberate prevention by the World Bank of funding for new coal and gas fired electricity generation projects in countries where thousands, maybe millions are suffering respiratory illness and death from internal combustion of low-grade and sooty fuels. This, the putting of gaia before man, is not Christian love, but inhumane, and evil. The rejection of God’s creation, i.e. the part that is fossil fuels, is a direct rejection (denial?) of God’s authority and of his “good” gift to us.
(the ‘friendly reader)
E. Calvin Beisner says
Thanks, Simon! I’m not prepared to say, with Nikolov, that the notion that atmospheric composition plays ANY role in determining planetary temperature is “an unphysical concept,” because I find it persuasive that the infrared-absorbing behavior of certain molecules (especially water vapor, but also CO2, methane, etc.) does affect the planet’s energy balance (the equilibrium between incoming shortwave radiation from the sun and outgoing longwave [infrared] radiation from the planet’s surface). I’ve seen arguments from various people that this violates principles of thermodynamics, but I’ve not found them persuasive and have found responses to them (by other physicists) persuasive instead. But certainly one can affirm simultaneously that both pressure and composition affect temperature—the two aren’t mutually exclusive.
John Bontius says
in the Arctic ships will no longer be allowed to use soot producing fuels. Probably the main reason for ice dissapearing in the arctic and climate change in the northern hemisphere. Do you have any articles on this phenonemin.
E. Calvin Beisner says
Cornwall Alliance has not published on this topic before, but you can read about it at these (and other) sites:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01556-7
http://www.rcinet.ca/eye-on-the-arctic/2016/04/20/ban-use-of-heavy-fuel-oil-in-the-arctic-by-ships-environmental-groups/
https://worldpolicy.org/2017/10/25/its-time-to-phase-out-heavy-fuel-oil-in-the-arctic/
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06042018/arctic-ocean-ships-heavy-fuel-oil-spills-climate-change-emissions-marine-shipping-imo-ban
One thing to keep in mind is that the warming effect of black-carbon soot (a solid compound) deposits on ice is quite different from the warming effect of carbon dioxide (a colorless gas) in the atmosphere. Soot warms the surface on which it falls by absorbing incoming shortwave radiation from the sun, while carbon dioxide, according to greenhouse theory, warms the whole atmosphere (especially the tropical mid-troposphere, in what’s referred to as a “tropical hot spot,” though that theoretical phenomenon has not been empirically verified; see https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/ef-data-research-report-second-editionfinal041717-1.pdf). INDIRECTLY, though, soot falling on arctic ice (both land and sea) could warm the rest of the atmosphere, too, by reducing the earth’s albedo, i.e., reducing the amount of longwave radiation reflected back from earth’s surface toward space.
Dan Pangburn says
The observation that CO2 is a ghg (greenhouse gas) is a shallow penetration of the science and means only that it has an absorb/emit band within the wavelength range of significant earth surface thermal radiation. Delving deeper, Quantum Mechanics calculations using Hitran demonstrate that, at low altitude, radiation absorbed by CO2 is essentially all immediately redirected to water vapor. CO2 does not now, never has, and never will have a significant effect on climate. http://energyredirect3.blogspot.com