Global warming! Who the culprit is? GH. Gases or C. Scientist?

Hi readers! You must now be familiar with what these greenhouse gases (GHG) are? How they have been and are being inducing global warming?

This is what I promised for the current blog. But I gave it a second thought and made some changes because some of the readers are a bit confused. So, let’s read this blog and you will be much clearer especially about the role of Climate(C) Scientists which to me is more important in “global warming “than the Climate itself and that’s what the title is indicating.

“Global warming is a long-term heating of Earth’s climate system observed since the pre-industrial period (between 1850 and 1900) due to human activities, primarily fossil fuel burning, which increases heat-trapping greenhouse gases level in Earth’s atmosphere”

This is what IPCC says.

Now keep this in mind and think about the catchy phrases that you must have been sick of hearing of e.g.,

extreme weather, drought, and food insecurity are on the rise globally,
un precedented extinction of plants and animals is being reported globally,
Ocean’s temperature and level is rising,

In all these scenarios, the main culprit is said to be climate change and rise in surface temperature

Some of the scientists are agitating that fossil fuel burning is increasing CO₂in the environment and is inducing global warming nevertheless, funding for oil and gas development is abundantly available but who cares? When money is involved, sky is the limit.

Isn’t it contradictory?

Let us first see what is climate change?

It is a significant, long-term changes in the global climate comprising sun, earth, and oceans; winds, rain, and snow; forests, deserts and savannas, and everything that people do. But global climate system is more than all of this and includes how the rising temperature of the Pacific typhoon hit, brought more rain, and cause more damage along with shifting global ocean currents that melt Antarctica ice which slowly makes sea level rise.

The advocates for climate actions are using harsh and catastrophic language during discussion thinking that this way, the people will wake up quickly and will take measure to control this so-called menace but it is being questioned by the researchers, activist, and mental health expert who are concerned about the:

surging anxiety and
rising doomism among the public, which is against the hope, while the
hope: is becoming a rare commodity during the debate on global warming and climate change issues.

Contrary to what researchers and mental health experts are worried for,

Greta Thunberg: a 19-years Swedish environmental activist got fame when she told a room full of world leaders in 2019.

· I don’t want your hope, I want you to panic,

· I want you to feel the fear I do every day, and want you to act,

· I want you to behave like our house is on fire because it is,

IPCC in her latest report of April 2022 also said,

“humanity was failing to keep the planet on a trajectory that would avoid worst consequences of climate change. One of the report’s authors warned that it was “now or never” to act.

After reading all this, you must and I also, be asking ourselves a question:

Why is this controversy?

So, let’s answer this question first for your understanding, so that you can made the right decisions.

Patrick J. Michaels: a Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of environmental sciences in his booklet published in1998 and titled: “Global Deception”: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat” described the narrative of the physicist Svante Arrhenius about “doubling the natural CO₂ by burning fossil fuels and its greenhouse effect may raise earth’s surface temperature by an average of 5.2°C” which, US meteorologist J.B. Kincer already argued in 1933, that such a change may have been anthropogenic but, soon after that publication, temperatures began to decline (Oh No!).

Simultaneously, Climate Computer Models (GCMs) were run for the first time to model number of atmospheric processes and estimated a warming of approximately 4.0°C for doubling of CO₂. By 1990, five more such GCMs predicted the same warming thus, facilitating the first “consensus” document on global warming for the UN first IPCC report published in 1990. The key sentence in this report said,

“When the latest atmospheric models are run with the present concentrations of greenhouse gases, their simulation of climate is generally realistic on large scales” (really?)

But subsequent calculations made by these models predicted that the earth’s mean surface temperature should have risen between 1.3 and 2.3°C. Figure-1 however, indicated surface warming since the late 19th century has been about 0.6 °C.

(Figure 1. Observed Global Surface Warming, 1900-1996)

[Source: J.T. Houghton et al., Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1996)].

Figure 2 shows the complete 18 years of global satellite temperature data. The bold line indicates the statistically significant negative (cooling) trend.

[(Figure 2. Global Satellite Temperatures, 1979-1997). The coefficient of the temperature trend line is statistically significant at the p = 0.05 level. Source: R.W. Spencer and J.R. Christy, “Precise Monitoring of Global Temperature Trends from Satellites,” Science, 247, pp. 1558-1562].

Third temperature reading was measured by weather balloons between 5,000 and 30,000 feet from earth surface which perfectly coincide with 18 years satellite data.. This, independently taken measurement imparted high level of confidence in these observations.

The most remarkable aspects of these studies were that none of the three measurements of lower atmospheric and surface temperature data showed any warming (Figure 3 from IPCC report1995. Surface, Satellite and Weather Balloon Temperature Measurements, 1987 to 1996. Sources data as quoted: R.W. Spencer and J.R. Christy, “Precise Monitoring of Global Temperature Trends from Satellites,” Science, 247, pp. 1558-1562) for which IPCC said in 1995 that,

“when increase in greenhouse gases only are considered, most climate models produce a greater mean warming than has been observed to date, unless a lower climate sensitivity to the greenhouse

effect is used”

Meaning thereby that either it is not going to warm up or something is hiding the warming and here is what is hiding the warming?

The Christians Science Monitor published a report on December 4^th, 2009, titled “Climategate” which reported a controversy about some 1,000 e-mails and files belonging to some climate researchers leaked from University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. This hacking raised questions about the credibility of some climate researcher’s work which validated the criticism from those who says global warming is exaggerated and urged some measures to be taken.

Some of these e-mails depicted an influential group of scientists, who kept preventing disbeliever of their work from gaining access to the raw data they used while some of the researchers manipulated data and tried to block publication of papers that called their work into question. One e-mail suggested to a colleague to destroy e-mails related to work on the 2007 IPCC reports on global warming.

Testifying before Congress, President Obama’s science adviser, told lawmakers that the science behind global warming, although “incomplete,” is sound. But if data has been manipulated in ways not scientifically legitimate, I regard that as a problem and I would denounce it.

And here are some confused views about climate change published in a review written by Professor Mike Hulme on a book titled “The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet” published in 2021 by Michael Mann also known as “The Manichean Mann”.

According to reviewer, Maan’s central argument is that there is a new war a foot which we need to fight. This fight is against the forces of in-action: which he sees between a good spiritual world of light, and an evil, material world of darkness.

For Maan, the source of this evil is fossil fuel industry which is progressing uncontrolled because of vested political interests.

He sees the shadow of Koch brothers (American business family) who developed a new cracking methods of converting heavy crude oil into gasoline and who opposes government spending on climate change. Koch brothers were involved in the first known gathering of climate change disbelievers in 1991: the meeting that shifted the position of Republican Party on climate change. Thus, according to Maan, such disbelievers are sources of evil because they have let loose the fossil fuel industry.

Climageddon: The global warming emergency and how to survive it, a book published by Lawrence Wollersheim in 2017.

Climageddon” has a prophetic message clearer than any other on climate change and its impending power to create the end of the world: destroy all life as we know it on earth. The message is an inconvenient truth: a TRUTH that the world doesn’t want to hear because it prefers denial, but at some point, in time, humanity needs to ask the question to itself, “How do we define intelligence when we are killing ourselves and our host planet and still don’t even give a damn?”

“Why should they do so when they know what the truth is”?

And here comes the latest in climate controversy:

Hot Talk, Cold Science (2022) form the distinguished astrophysicist Dr. S. Fred Singer’s (who died before publishing his masterpiece).

Singer explores the “inaccuracies in historical climate data, the limitations on and failures of climate models, solar variability along with the effects of clouds, ocean currents, and sea levels on global climate, plus factors that could mitigate any human impact on the world climate”.

Singer’s analysis decisively shows that the

Pessimistic, and often alarming, global warming scenarios depicted in the media have no scientific basis.

In fact, he finds that many aspects of increased CO₂ levels as well as any modest warming, would have a highly positive impact on the human race.

Singer questions, “how many proposed “solutions” to the global warming “crisis” proved to have drastic consequences for economically deprived groups and nations?

As alarmist’s agitated to impose draconian government restrictions on entire populations of the world in order to combat “climate change,” this book reveals some startling, stubborn, and contradictory facts, including:

CO₂ has not caused temperatures or sea levels to rise beyond historical rates.
Severe storms have not increased in frequency or intensity since 1970, neither have heat waves nor droughts.
Global change is not harming coral reefs,
Any increases in CO₂ concentrations across huge time spans have not headed toward rising global temperatures, and more importantly
Climate Scientists have hidden their raw temperature data and deleted emails to undermine the peer-review system to crush debate.