Critical assessment to the science of climate change

This is a personal assessment of the question of the imminent danger of climate change and the indicted responsibles, human beings and animals in general. This post was curated using AI.

Concerns about the models on climate change

The general narrative about “climate change” is well resumed here:

The strongest claim made by climatologists regarding climate change is that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are the primary drivers of the observed increase in global temperatures. This claim is supported by extensive scientific research and consensus within the scientific community.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is a leading international body for assessing climate change, has stated that it is highly likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature since the mid-20th century is due to human influence. This human influence primarily stems from the emission of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), into the atmosphere.

While there is a strong correlation between rising global temperatures and increasing levels of CO2 emissions, it is important to note that causality works both ways. The burning of fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere, contributing to the greenhouse effect and global warming. On the other hand, rising temperatures can also lead to feedback mechanisms that release additional CO2 into the atmosphere, such as the melting of permafrost or the reduced capacity of oceans to absorb CO2.

Are humans still captive of some myths? Despite advancements in knowledge and information, certain myths or misconceptions may persist among individuals or society as a whole.

Therefore, the relationship between temperature and CO2 emissions is intertwined and complex. While the link between human activities, including CO2 emissions, and global warming is well-established, the specific details of the interactions and feedback between temperature and emissions require ongoing scientific investigation and modeling.

At least, this is the AI response to my question. And by the way, it is really scary that AI keeps repeating the same doctrine without admitting any contradiction [6].

Implications of no sufficient knowledge in transdisciplinary science

Climate change is a pressing global issue that demands thorough examination and analysis. In this post, we delve into the methods used and conclusions drawn regarding the attribution of the alarming temperature increase to human and animal activities. While the consensus among the scientific community overwhelmingly supports the role of human-induced factors in climate change, it is crucial to critically assess the arguments presented. Through a careful evaluation of the evidence, we aim to identify any weak points in the reasoning that may challenge the notion of human and animal responsibility for the observed temperature rise. By engaging in this analysis, we strive to foster a nuanced understanding of the complex dynamics driving climate change and encourage an informed dialogue on the topic.

• Hence, although not in exhaustive way, I attempted to look deeper into the problem, consulting technical literature. For example, Larson and Person [1], are two well-known authors in the field of climatology. What do they assert about this particular and crucial issue? According to the results of the paper, there is evidence that temperature, carbon dioxide, and methane all Granger cause each other in both directions. This means that both temperature and carbon dioxide can influence each other’s levels. Therefore, it is not a simple one-way relationship where temperature increases CO2 emissions or vice versa, but rather a complex feedback system between the two variables. Hence, there is no conclusion about causal directivity. The crucial point should be to demonstrate that the increase in CO2 implies a rise in temperature. Otherwise, what is stated is a general discussion about their relationship, which they naturally have.

• (Kivimäki & Kumpula): The paper uses statistical analysis to examine the relationship between global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration at the monthly time step, covering the time interval 1980-2019, in which reliable instrumental measurements are available. The authors attempt to interpret the mechanism by involving biochemical reactions, as at higher temperatures soil respiration, and hence CO2 emission, are increasing [2]. The paper’s authors argue that the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature may belong to the category of “hen-or-egg” problems, where it is not always clear which of two interrelated events is the cause and which the effect. However, they examine the relationship between global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration at the monthly time step, covering the time interval 1980-2019, in which reliable instrumental measurements are available. They found that while both causality directions exist, the results of their study support the hypothesis that the dominant direction is T → CO2. They suggest that changes in CO2 follow changes in T by about six months on a monthly scale or about one year on an annual scale. They attempt to interpret this mechanism by involving biochemical reactions, as at higher temperatures soil respiration, and hence CO2 emission, are increasing. However, at least it seems to me, attributing the dominant direction of causality based solely on one study or a single mechanism, such as soil respiration, may oversimplify the complexity of climate dynamics.

• (Stips, Macias, Coughlan, et al.): This paper investigates the causal relationship between global radiative forcing and global mean surface temperature anomalies (GMTA) since 1850. The paper confirms that total greenhouse gases, especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of recent warming. The paper also shows that the causality contribution from natural forcings (solar irradiance and volcanic forcing) to the long-term trend is not significant. The paper provides a spatially explicit analysis that reveals that the anthropogenic forcing fingerprint is significantly regionally varying in both hemispheres. On paleoclimate time scales, the cause-effect direction is reversed: temperature changes cause subsequent CO2/CH4 changes. The paper uses a newly developed technique based on the information flow concept to investigate the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature. However, this method is not free of critics: It’s important to note that this technique is a statistical approach and cannot establish causality with certainty. However, it provides insights into the potential causal relationships and helps researchers better understand the interactions between global radiative forcing and global mean surface temperature anomalies in the context of climate change [5].

The Social, Economic, and Civilizational Impact of the Climate Change Urgency Amid Uncertain Scientific Arguments

Climate change urgency, driven by the potential consequences of rising global temperatures, has sparked considerable debate and concern across the globe. While scientists have put forth arguments linking human activity to the observed changes, it is important to acknowledge the ongoing uncertainties and limitations in our understanding of this complex phenomenon. In light of these uncertainties, it is essential to examine the potential social, economic, and civilizational impacts that could arise if scientists encounter a precipitous loss of confidence in their arguments. This post explores the multifaceted ramifications of climate change urgency in a scenario where scientific arguments become more fragile, aiming to shed light on the possible consequences that could be faced by societies, economies, and civilizations in the absence of robust scientific consensus. By considering the potential implications, we can better grasp the significance of scientific argumentation in shaping policies and actions to mitigate and adapt to the challenges posed by climate change.

One of the concerns that emerges in the absence of strong scientific arguments is the potential for excessive restrictions imposed on citizens. As policymakers strive to address the urgency of climate change, there is a possibility that stringent regulations and limitations may be imposed on individuals and communities. Citizens may face restrictions on various aspects of their lives, including their travel options, energy consumption, and even dietary choices. Such restrictions, if not carefully balanced, could potentially infringe upon personal freedoms and impact societal dynamics.

Additionally, the emergence of uncertain scientific arguments could lead to the implementation of increased CO2 fees and a new branch of CO2 finances. Governments and regulatory bodies might introduce higher taxes or fees on carbon emissions, aiming to curb greenhouse gas emissions. While the intention behind such measures is to encourage sustainable practices, the economic implications should be carefully considered. Increased fees on CO2 emissions could impact businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, and lead to potential job losses and economic instability.

Another concern is the potential reevaluation of land ownership and usage. With climate change becoming an urgent issue, arguments may arise suggesting that certain lands should be treated as common resources and managed by the state or international organizations to ensure responsible land use and conservation. This could lead to changes in land ownership rights and affect individuals’ ability to possess and utilize land for various purposes, including agriculture, housing, and development. Such shifts in land ownership dynamics could have far-reaching social and economic consequences, impacting livelihoods and traditional practices.

Furthermore, the uncertainties surrounding scientific arguments might undermine public trust in climate change initiatives and policies. A lack of confidence in the scientific basis could result in skepticism and resistance from certain segments of society, hindering collective action and impeding progress in addressing the climate crisis. Building consensus and fostering trust among the public becomes even more crucial in the absence of indisputable scientific evidence.

It is essential to recognize these concerns and engage in open and inclusive discussions that involve scientists, policymakers, citizens, and various stakeholders. By promoting transparency, robust scientific research, and an understanding of the potential consequences, societies can navigate the challenges of climate change urgency (if really there is one at all!) in a manner that ensures a balanced and sustainable future for all.

In conclusion: should we head to a New Renaissance?

As you, reader, may have noticed, the actual view of this science is dangerous. And we humans, we can think otherwise, be faithful to us, humans. I remember Vladimir Vernadsky, a prominent Soviet and Ukrainian scientist who made significant contributions to several scientific disciplines, including biogeochemistry, geochemistry, and the concept of the biosphere. His ideas about the biosphere and the interconnectedness of life on Earth have had a lasting impact on ecological and environmental thinking. It’s worth noting that Vernadsky’s work laid the foundation for understanding the Earth as a complex system and the influence of human activities on global processes. And this leads to our actual point of view that coincides with the one advocated by Vladimir Vernadsky’s concept of the biosphere, emphasizing the integral role of humans as part of the Earth’s interconnected systems, rather than viewing them as separate or intruding entities, kind of mammals in excess on Earth, preferably under strict birth control or extinction. He recognized that human activities are intertwined with natural processes and that humans have the capacity to significantly influence the environment. Vernadsky’s perspective highlighted the importance of understanding human interactions within the biosphere and promoting sustainable practices that harmonize with natural systems rather than seeking to eradicate or exclude humans from the equation. His ideas laid the groundwork for recognizing the interdependence of human society and the natural world, which is relevant to discussions on climate change and environmental stewardship today. We need a human revolution. And as I was kindly helped with AI tools to write this text, why shouldn’t we humans, leveraged by the AI revolution, embark on a truly new direction worth living?

REFERENCES:

[1] Larsson, R., & Persson, E. (2018). What is the link between temperature, carbon dioxide and methane? A multivariate Granger causality analysis based on ice core data from Dome C in Antarctica. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 131(1-2), 457-468.

[2] Kivimäki, E., & Kumpula, T. (2021). Atmospheric Temperature and CO2: Hen-or-Egg Causality? Atmosphere, 12(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12020157

[3] https://towardsdatascience.com/time-series-analysis-and-climate-change-7bb4371021e

[4] Stips, A., Macias, D., Coughlan, C. et al. On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature. Sci Rep 6, 21691 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep21691

[5] Critics of the method:

The method based on the information flow concept, like any statistical technique used to investigate causal relationships, can raise several doubts and concerns when interpreting its results. Here are some potential concerns that researchers and users of this method should be aware of:

1. Correlation vs. Causation: Establishing a statistical relationship between two variables does not necessarily imply causation. Even if the information flow analysis suggests a causal direction between global radiative forcing and global mean surface temperature anomalies, it does not prove a direct cause-and-effect relationship. Other factors and variables may be influencing the observed relationship.
2. Directionality: The information flow concept assumes a unidirectional or directional flow of information from one variable to another. However, in complex systems like climate dynamics, there can be feedback loops and bidirectional relationships that are not adequately captured by simple directional analysis. It’s important to consider the possibility of feedback mechanisms and indirect effects that may impact the observed causal relationships.
3. Data Limitations: The quality, reliability, and availability of data used for the analysis can affect the results. Data gaps, measurement errors, or uncertainties in the collected data may introduce biases or limitations in the conclusions drawn from the analysis. Researchers need to ensure the accuracy and representativeness of the data to minimize potential biases.
4. Model Assumptions: The information flow analysis relies on certain assumptions and models to estimate the information transfer between variables. These assumptions may simplify or overlook certain aspects of the underlying system dynamics. Researchers should carefully evaluate the appropriateness of the chosen assumptions and models for the specific analysis and consider potential limitations associated with them.
5. External Factors: The analysis may not account for all relevant external factors or confounding variables that can influence the relationship between radiative forcing and temperature anomalies. The climate is influenced by a wide range of natural and anthropogenic factors, and omitting or inadequately addressing these factors in the analysis can lead to incomplete or misleading conclusions.
6. Time Lag: The information flow analysis may not capture the time delays or lags between the cause and effect in the system. There can be a temporal mismatch between the radiative forcing and temperature anomalies, and the analysis may not capture the full extent of these delays. This can affect the interpretation of the causal relationship and the timing of its effects.
7. Contextual Understanding: While the information flow analysis provides insights into the statistical relationship between variables, it may lack the contextual understanding and domain knowledge necessary to fully explain the underlying mechanisms. It is important to complement the statistical analysis with a comprehensive understanding of the physical processes and dynamics governing climate change to avoid misinterpretation or oversimplification of the results.

To mitigate these concerns, it is crucial to adopt a cautious and comprehensive approach when interpreting the results obtained from the method based on the information flow concept. Researchers should consider these limitations, conduct robust sensitivity analyses, and corroborate the findings with other evidence and complementary methods to ensure a more accurate understanding of the causal relationships under investigation.

[6] And to my great surprise, during the period of writing and questioning AI tools, I surprisingly found AI sympathetic to me…

Humanity began a new climatic era. Should we worry too much?

Perhaps it would be healthier to consider climate change as a chance for economic advancement rather than just a threat to predict frigid winters and extremely hot summers (although some scientists are skeptical of this). Why not continue to assert that “a different era of climate has arrived”? For instance, Bangladesh has traditionally been cited as one of the nations that will be most negatively impacted by climate change [1], but as of right now, it is the example of a nation that will be most positively impacted [2].

One indication that the weather has always varied is the discovery of DNA from a pine forest two kilometers beneath the ice in southern Greenland. The DNA is among the oldest, having been estimated to be between 450,000 and 800,000 years old. Greenland’s plant life ended 450,000 years ago, and ice has been covering the area ever since. Sea levels were 5 to 6 meters higher, and the temperature was 5 °C warmer than it is now [3].

The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which transports warm waters in the Atlantic Ocean, has recently been the topic of debate. It will be anticipated that Europe will experience harsher winters if this circulation weakens. A first scientific paper was published utilizing indirect (“proxies”) data rather than primary data that was gathered based on the isotopic composition of specific species and old rocks [4]. A recent peer-reviewed paper using new data cast doubt on this experiment and came to the opposite conclusion, stating that all was fine with the Golf circulation [5]. The Golf stream transports warm water from the Gulf of Mexico to the Atlantic Ocean, resulting in mild winters and cool summers in places like Florida and up to western Europe.

There is insufficient data to reliably anticipate the Earth’s climate, despite the possibility of a hazardous climate change. For instance, people who study the topic of optimizing still do not fully comprehend the functioning processes of a tiny Hall Thruste that is expected to drive passengers and machines to Mars. How can anyone assert to know how the Earth’s heat engine functions?

Image generated by the DEEP DREAM GENERATOR.

REFERENCES:

[1] Rabbani M.G., Rahman A.A., Shoef I.J., Khan Z.M. (2015) Climate Change and Food Security in Vulnerable Coastal Zones of Bangladesh. In: Habiba U., Hassan A., Abedin M., Shaw R. (eds) Food Security and Risk Reduction in Bangladesh. Disaster Risk Reduction (Methods, Approaches and Practices). Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55411-0_10

[2] World Economic Forum, “By 2030, Bangladesh will be the 24th largest economy. Here’s how ICT is driving that growth”. Link Here.

[3] Louis Buckley, “DNA reveals a green Greenland Old forests hint that the island has been icy for 450,000 years”, Published online 5 July 2007 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news070702-14. Link Here.

[4] Caesar, L., McCarthy, G.D., Thornalley, D.J.R. et al. Current Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation weakest in last millennium. Nat. Geosci. 14, 118–120 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00699-z. Link Here.

[5] Emma L. Worthington¹, Ben I. Moat², David A. Smeed², Jennifer V. Mecking², Robert Marsh¹, and Gerard D. McCarthy³, “A 30-year reconstruction of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation shows no decline”. Ocean Sci., 17, 285–299, 2021https://doi.org/10.5194/os-17-285-2021. Link Here.

Is Wilhem Oswald’s energism the predecessor ideology of climate change catastrophism?

The German physical chemist Wilhem Ostwald (1853-1932) received the Nobel Prize in 1909 on his research on catalysis but his work to discredit atomism deserves now some interest because it may be taken as a predecessor of the ideology of climate change catastrophism. In my view, climate change catastrophism is the idea that we, humans, due to our nefast actions, we are the only to blame for the climate change now in course in our planet. As we, humans and scientists, don’t have a full knowledge of the planetary and cosmological factors in action over the nature of this planet (isn’t a reasonable hypothesis?), sustaining politically without a doubt that climate change has an antrogenic origin is a «set of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.» Ostwald, together with Ernst Mach are the last major figures in Germany and Austria to sustain arguments against the atomic theory. Ostwald proposed instead as an alternative to atomism, the Energism, with the tenet that all natural processes are consequences of transformation of energy.

Ostwald was a friend of Svante Arrhenius and Jacobus van’t Hoff. Arrehnius, according to some, was the man who foresaw climate change [2].

The Energism sustained that energy was more fundamental than matter, tha molecules, atoms and ions were nothing else than mathematical fictions to explain the energetic processes, “matter is only a convenient term which we use to imbue changing events with permanence”.

To Ostwald, the Energism was a”science of science”, a monistic view of the universe that would bridge tha gap between physics and chemistry, and ultimately, the physical and biological realms. The Energism was a complement to Darwinism, according to him, a theory that was based in physics and chemistry to explain the “universe in a state of flux”.

Ostwald later accepted the atomism, after Jean Baptiste Perrin succeded to determine molecular weight determination of Avogadro’s number through a statistical examination of the Brownian movement in colloids, verifying Albert Einstein’s explanation of this phenomenon and thereby confirming the atomic nature of matter. But with his recognition of the fundamental characteristic of nature manifested in the “discontinuity” in the structure of matter, Ostwald converted the Energism into a social and political dogma.
Moreover, Ostwald converted to the German Monistic movement (a movement founded to popularize Darwinism), a sort of politicization of science, endeavoring to implement the “scientific point of view” to social and political intricacies in Germany, just before WWI. The German Monistic movement, althoug initially anti-Nazi and with the raising of Nazism was dismantle, Nazis took over the ideology to defend their ideology, arguing that the movement were pionner in the political use of biology [3].

Then, he became president of the influential Monistenbund (from 1911 through 1915), advocating the “key principle” of Energism as the “energetic imperative”, in his view of the “energetic imperative” as an outcome of his version of the second law of thermodynamics. The resulting doctrine sustained that humans were obliged to “Do not waste energy, but convert it into a more useful form.” Based on these beliefs, Ostwald launched Energism as a scientific creed embracing altogether the ideals of pacifism, internationalism, and eugenic programs. Exposing the inner contradictions of his political doctrine, Ostwald supported the German war effort in World War I, while condemning the war in general as a “waste of energy,” a plain contradiction of the need for “efficiency” commanded by the “energetic imperative.”

Ironically, the war sealed the end of both of his research in physical chemistry and as well his politicization of science by the persistent activities to elevate Energism to a unitary scientific monism.

REFERENCES:

[1] Holt, N. R. (1970). A Note on Wilhelm Ostwald’s Energism. Isis, 61(3), 386–389. doi:10.1086/350655 

[2] https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/leading-figures/svante-arrhenius-the-man-who-foresaw-climate-change/ Link Here.

[3] Monists & Nazis: A Question of Scientific Responsibility, Niles R. HoltThe Hastings Center ReportVol. 5, No. 2 (Apr., 1975), pp. 37-43 (7 pages)