Casual comments on Climate Change

“Climate change” and “Global warming” discussions seem to have three main components: 1). Data collection 2). Computer models and hypothesize built on that data projecting climate and global warmth into the future and 3). The conclusions one makes based on 1). And 2).

To date I come to the following conclusions:

1).  The assertion that America’s contribution to climate change and global warming are primarily driven by “human fossil fuel usage” can  simply, fairly and accurately be described by X*Y=Z where

·         X is the number of the Americans

·         Y is the average fossil fuel per American

·         Z is total human fossil fuel usage in the us.

2).  The amount of fossil fuel used by the average American has FALLEN ~42% in the last 40 years.  The number of Americans has INCREASED 50% in roughly the same period of time.

3).  Therefore the conclusion one is tempted to draw is that the primary problem, both proximate and ultimate, is population growth in the U.S.

Some direct source material is provided in the (somewhat redundant) comments below. written in anticipation of the PBS show on Climate.

Thoughts on Global Warming and/or Climate Change 4/18/2018

I wanted to get my thoughts down on paper before tonight’s (4/18/2018) PBS show partially funded by Woody Ives so I could say these were the considerations that I think are central to the issue before seeing if the show addresses them – so I could then judge how valid the other conclusions the show might make.

First, the terms Global Warming and Climate Change are imprecise at best.  Does the show make progress clarifying what they are talking about?

Certainly, the climate changes. Global Warming may well be occurring.  The learning opportunity for citizens is to tease out by how much; measured how and in what time scale? How well does the show explicate what are the actual causes of climate change; how strong is the linkage between each variable and changes in the climate?  Granted, even just the number of variables impacting the climate is  incomprehensibly large, much less their relative impact.  But how do the scientists rationalize their choice of which variables to include in their projection models in which time frame? I hope the show makes these clear and puts human fossil fuel usage in the relevant context.  

There are three areas of consideration related to the hypothesis of climate change by human use of fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon and then carbon to climate change.  The first is establishing the cause and effect (or, more likely, correlative) relationship between carbon in the atmosphere and atmospheric warming.  The second is the validity of the models projecting future climate.  The third is what to do about the “problem”, if anything.

But for the sake of discussion, let’s grant any and all the assertions of the most adamant proponents of draconian collective action to counteract Global Warming - #1 and #2 abov - that there is a disastrous increase in global temperature and violent changes to the climate.

My take away from the data presented by the proponents of global warming is very different from their take on the same data. They assert that accelerated global warming is caused by human use of fossil fuels.  Without simplifying it, they say the warming of the earth is caused by (not just correlated with)  "human use of fossil fuels" (i.e. the average use of fossil fuels per person times the number of people on the earth).  This strikes me as totally plausible.  But parse the sentence “human use of fossil fuels” and you will see my dispute with the proponent’s conclusions at least as they relate to the U.S.  Fossil fuel usage is not the problem.  Indeed it may be the solution to the problem.  

The problem is the explosive growth in America’s human population. 

·         Total fossil fuel consumption in the U.S. was 14% less in 2015 than in 1970.  (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.COMM.FO.ZS?locations=US). 

·         Total energy consumption per dollar of GDP in the same period fell 44%. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/189759/us-energy-consumption-per-real-dollar-of-gdp-since-1975/).

·         The average person in the U.S. used over 42% less fossil fuels in 2015 than they did in 1970.

                                                       MEANWHILE

·         The population of the U.S.  increased over 50% since 1975.  (http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table).

Its hard for me not to conclude that, if Global warming is a problem, the problem is population growth far more than average fossil fuel usage.   If the show doesn’t address human population growth …. .

Back, briefly to the data the proponents use. 

The first question, to which I am tempted to answer yes, is whether the data collected showing temperature rise of the earth and carbon released from fossil fuel use are in a cause and effect relationship.

However, the only person I know personally with a Ph.D. in environmental science from Harvard discounts the data on global warming, after careful scrutiny. He further is dismissive of the those computer models he has looked at in detail,  projecting that data into the future. I have no standing in the case, but I suspect that those collecting the data have done the work carefully.  I tend to believe them, though they weaken their case with hysteria and by almost indiscriminately extrapolating from local effects to global ones.  Both in establishing the correlation between carbon content in the atmosphere and global warming and in the model based on that work, I find the lack of a careful delineation of ALL the variables potentially effecting global warmth and a measure of the strength of the linkage between them and global warmth over millennial time frames disconcerting – eroding the credibility of their work.  My other friend with some experience in the field, Dick Morely doubted the effect of carbon after it reaches a certain density in the atmosphere contending it begins to precipitate out causing it to level off as a proportion of the atmosphere – in other words, even if the historic data is correct, one can’t do a linear extrapolation from that data after a certain saturation point.

But, none the less I believe that, of course, human use of energy of all kinds increases the temperature of the earth and its plausible that energy use has significant effect.

The second point – the validity of the models to predict the future.

 

The proponents’ of dramatic collective action to counter climate change base their supposition on  computer models of which, in the U.S., there are 113, roughly.  An example is shown at http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/.  The predictions of sea level rise from the UMASS model last year varied by a factor of six within a period of six months.  A number of the models’ predictions vary by an order of magnitude (I am told).   For a model or a hypothesis to be reliable it must be predictive and the work replicable.  That is to say the model, using historic data, should be able to predict from that data (say from a thousand years ago) what the sea level or global temperature is today – with precision.  Then the work should be replicable by a trusted source in the field without any contact by them with the authors.  To my knowledge none of the computer models are proven predictive by that definition. The data on carbon release and warming is correlative rather than a clearly established cause and effect relationship established over a  millennia.  I think that most scientists working in the field would agree that the hypothesis (the computer models) are a work in progress.  I don’t have any confidence in them as a basis for communitarian action purporting to be remediate the problem – particularly because the problem they make primary clearly isn’t the main problem.  Their plans of action are likely to aggravate the  real problem rather than fix it as a consequence.

 

But going back to the premise that we accept the proponents’ data and their description of the problem, what changes would a rational person take in response to that data?  What we do know is that the proximate, and very possibly ultimate problem is human population growth.  Human encroachment is deprecating wildlife habitat and the diversity of life at an exponential rate.  And what is the best known way to deal with population growth? It is to assure people that they and their children will be prosperous.  Not only in all animal species studied, but specifically with humans, if the offspring of a couple can be assured a level of access of resources sufficient to assure their and their offspring’s survival, that couple will not be motivated to have more than enough children than are needed to replace themselves.  We see this in all the developed countries already.  If successful, the population of the world will level off.   This is raised because, unless one is extraordinarily naive, one would notice that the cornerstone of the world’s prosperity is energy – overwhelmingly provided by fossil fuels.  Furthermore, the oil industry has been extraordinarily creative in finding new sources and delivering them efficiently.  Industry as a whole has been successful in improving the efficiency of its use of those resources.  Of course more can be done.  Transportation should be taxed much more heavily, being a prime example.  It looks to me that there are no ethical alternative to controlling human population growth other than trying to reduce it by increasing prosperity.  Period.  I think any communitarian, authoritarian and radical action (like sprinkling aluminum foil in the atmosphere) while vilifying the fossil fuel industry is bizarrely unwise. If average use of fossil fuels has already dropped 42% since 1975, what additional rate of decline do you suppose the nation could sustain without damaging the prosperity of the nation?