Again and again I am asked:
Do I Believe in Human-Caused Climate Change/GlobalWarning?
A very strange question. Scientists rarely, if ever, use the term believe.
We never use the term " believe " when we apply Newton's laws of dynamics, the first law of thermodynamics, or any of the basic principles of atmospheric physics. I have attended hundreds of scientific meetings and not once did a scientist use the term belief in describing human-caused global warming.
Science is not religion...at least it shouldn't be. Conclusions should be based on accepted scientific principles and data, not beliefs.
Religon
It appears that global warming has become like a religion to some people, replacing more traditional beliefs. Apparently, a way to fill their lives with meaning and purpose.
As in many religions, there is the prediction of a catastrophic "end time", with total destruction, if people don't follow the approved "way".
Self-appointed prophets describe the proper path that will lead to life (some shown below),
I made a decision 15 years ago to stand up against those who distort the science.
Those who mislead the population. Those who spread unnecessary fear. Those who benefit financially from the exaggeration and lies.
And woe to a person who stands against the apocalyptic climate vision. They are cast out and rejected. Worse than wrong. Evil
I should know.....and have felt the wrath of name-calling and being cast out (by the Seattle Times and KNKX) for remaining with the science.
So what are my views on climate/change and global warming?
Quite honestly, I am pretty much in the mainstream.I should note that I have published several dozen papers on climate issues, from modeling to data-driven studies. I studied climate science under leaders of the field at the University of Washington, and worked on climate research at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) under one of the leading climate scientists in the world (Stephen Schneider, see below), with whom I published several climate papers. I have had many NSF research grants on climate subjects.
The planet is slowly warming, and increasing greenhouse gases due to humans are a major contributor
A planetary warming of about 1 C over the past 50 years due to such gases (see plot below)
A modest, steady warming of the planet.
What about extremes?
The warming is causing fewer cold waves, which is saving lives. But there are worsening heat waves. Since far more people die from cold than heat, fewer people are dying from extreme temperatures as the planet warms. That will be true for a while.
The science and data indicate that hurricanes have not become more frequent as the planet has warmed (see below), but the strongest hurricanes may get more powerful by the end of the century.
Interestingly, even with global warming, deaths from extreme weather have declined substantially (by 90% or more), even with increasingly populated areas (see below).
This is due to greatly improved ability to adapt to climate extremes (e.g., air conditioning) and profoundly improved weather forecasting.
The scientific evidence and demonstrated societal impacts are clear: human-caused global warming is a modest problem. It is not an existential threat to humanity.
But unlike some, I am willing to take on the exaggerations of the "believers" and media that are happy to misinform folks to get more clicks or to secure funding from climate activists (like a certain local newspaper in Seattle).
This blog gives me a tool to give my readers the truth.
I have paid a substantial personal price by taking on the "believers" (e.g., KNKX, Seattle Times, name-calling by commenters on this blog, name-callers on some amateur YouTube sites), but the price paid by society, panicked by exaggeration and falsehood, is worse.
I have been reading your blog for many, many years. Have always appreciated your moderate approach to global warming, sticking to the science and the facts as opposed to the hype and hysteria. I'm sorry you've taken a hit for it personally but want to encourage you to stay strong and don't give in to the hate! Keep up the great work. You are a valuable part of the Northwest weather community!
ReplyDeleteExcellent post. I do have one question regarding the science - a sincere one. How does one differentiate the "human impact" factor(s) from other factors like solar cycles, the general warming trend since the LIttle Ice Age, and geothermal input to the Pacific and other places where the earth's crust changes (volcanism, "ring of fire" etc). Surely, all of these thermal things blend together. Ancillary questions, then: You've shared how the various WEATHER models vary - the European Model being one of the better ones. In respect to forecasting "end of century" warming (at 70 years from 2200) - there must be similar differences in range (it's hard to use the word "accuracy' where it comes to "what's yet to be"). How big are the deltas regarding the best models, and "do they ever swing the other way (toward cooling) or always simply "warmer"? That's a lot to ponder - respond to anything! I'm WAY more interesting in the method and types of science being undertaken than "belief." (Again, hat tip re this post.)
ReplyDeleteGlad you brought this up. I tend to agree, and see it a lot on YouTube with channels that have popped up in the last year that may be using false information, AI to assemble stuff to scare folks, and yesterday ran into many channels that are talking about how bad our food chain is, with companies not regulating salt, using BPA lined cans etc, but never mentioning any real sources for the info they spout.
ReplyDeleteAs a late diagnosed autistic person, I'm prone to not believe everything I see/hear, and can smell BS from a mile away in many cases.
The same is true for climate change and as I put in Friday's post, glad the 80's, 90's are largely behind us now (except for today and tomorrow where mid 80's, at best for tomorrow). Thankfully, it's decent at night so sleep is good.
Fall is one of my favorite seasons, by the way.,.
“I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness...”
ReplyDeleteCarl Sagan - The Demon-Haunted World
Remember, I am student of Carl Sagan and wrote a paper with him. He would agree with me.
DeleteHi, Cliff, have you ever written in this blog about working with Sagan?
DeleteThat must have been a truly great experience.
Thanks again for your work.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNo.... I should.....but here is a picture: https://a.atmos.washington.edu/~cliff/SaganandCliff.jpg
DeleteThat's amazing you worked with Sagan, Cliff! Keep up the great work and don't let the crystal clutching trolls pull you down!
Delete“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
Delete—Carl Sagan, astronomer and writer (1934-1996)
Will you snip this like my others?
Fantastic photo - thanks for posting it. Thanks for everything, in fact!
DeleteThank you for your courage, Cliff. And thank you for your service to our community, our nation, and for keeping a cool head with this very hot potato.
ReplyDeleteCliff, do you think there may be non-linear effects that could become existential?
ReplyDeleteNo....linearities are included in our models.
DeleteDo you mean exponential?
DeleteThat's a function w exponents, i.e. 2nd order & above.
A linear equation w slope 2 has a repetitive doubling.
This is a very reasonable and well informed take. I think some people, disingenuously, read your critiques of media coverage of climate change as denialism, or politically motivated.
ReplyDeleteThe media is pushing narratives of cause and effect with climate change and weather phenomenon. As you are aware Cliff, with extremely complex natural phenomenon like weather (like wildfire), this is extremely simplistic and misleading.
I am a wildfire planner. The causes of severe wildfires are extremely complex, and honestly quite poorly understood. It drives me crazy when many headlines are saying "climate change = bad wildfires." Yes climate change is a factor, but one of many, and drawing neat lines of cause and effect in things like wildfire is just plain wrong. I also think these narratives are counter productive: there are things we can do here and now to reduce severe wildfires with measurable benefits, but by blaming climate change it allows us to wipe our hands clean and not take these actions.
Excellent obeservation!
DeleteVery good observation and post.
DeleteBeing that you are a wildfire planner, I would be interested in hearing your take on the effect many years of active fire suppression have had with respect to the intensity of wildfires occurring in recent decades.
DeleteThank you Cliff for sticking to the science. I would add that there are actually two religious sects of global warming: the one you describe certainly, but there is also the “it’s all a hoax” crowd. I believe that part of what makes the alarmist sect so extreme is the willful, ignorant denialism of the of the other sect. We saw the same hyper polarization with covid as well. We are living in a strange time of extreme dualism fed by the politicization of everything.
ReplyDeleteThis is basically it.
DeleteSome of the recent blog posts have probably been a reaction to this which created an impression of bias.
Cliff focuses on refuting global warming exaggeration and rarely spends any time refuting erroneous claims on the other side.
I feel the blog would be more convincing and valuable if he focused on errors of both sides of the narrative and really being up front about the certainty of the findings.
Adam's comment captures my frustration with Cliff. I welcome his calm voice with respect to climate change, even if I feel he is often too sanguine.
DeleteHowever, I find his coddling of outright denialism (including his aversion to that term) vexing. Just look at the replies to this very post and Cliff's failure to engage.
SYoung.... I try to be fact based and show the data. Failure to engage? Engagement is what this blog is all about!..cliff
DeleteI appreciate the reply, Cliff. To clarify my comment regarding engagement, I was referring to the many comments that outright deny climate change and/or anthropogenic causes.
DeleteYou rarely, if ever, correct these comments. It gives the appearance of sympathy to those posters.
Why aren't you equally fervent in correcting these folks as you are the Seattle Times? I wish you called out erroneous thinking on both sides.
The reason should be clear. The Seattle Times is the main newspaper in the Northwest, read by hundreds of thousands. Not the same as a odd comment on some blog.
DeleteAmen!
ReplyDeleteI still have a problem with attribution of the measured temperature being largely due to carbon dioxide concentration. Water vapor affects temperature. Aerosol concentrations do as well. There must be countless natural ways that atmospheric temperatures can be affected. How are all of these effects ruled out?
ReplyDeleteExactly! To blame an increase in global temperature on one particular gas Is nonsensical. Water vapor Is absolutely a contributor. And if the oceans are truly the thermostat of the planet, what about underwater Volcanic activity?? Why is that not talked about?
DeleteExcellent post. Agree 100%. It appears that public perception is changing, but far to slowly. Where is Dr. Richard Feynman when we really need him!!!
ReplyDeleteThanks so much, Cliff. I can't tell you how much I appreciate, and utilize in my life, your steady, well-researched, and cogent writings.
ReplyDeleteSo your scientific conclusion is that it presents a "modest problem." What is the concern? Is it that the accumulation of ghg is warming the earth and that will change weather? Do you think doing nothing to mitigate it now means the problem will grow into a larger problem? At what point (or increase in avg temp) would the problem become a big one that we should actively address? And if we do nothing now, is it possible that once it becomes a big problem there will be little we can do to mitigate it?
ReplyDeleteIt's not a "modest problem" it's a non-problem.
DeleteExcellent summary of your stance. I have lesser but similar conversations and a considerable amount of people have a hard time grasping that science is not perfect, that new information can arise, we could be wrong and that's ok. Appreciate your honesty and transparency. Keep on keeping on.
ReplyDeleteTime is like a gelatin. The creator spent millions of years watching africa and the america's separate a few inches annually. (They fit together like a puzzle) in a few thousand years humans industrialized planet like a virus. What is this supposed to be? Relatively speaking of course we should expect some climate change. The planet is ravaged. John Denver sang about the Shenandoah river I googled it the other day, it's polluted with mercury from Dow Corning factories.
ReplyDeleteI certainly respect Cliff's educational background and work experience. I've been reading him for quite some time, but I've also been reading global warming research since the 1980s, and Al Gore's first hearings on the subject. It would make me happier to see heir warnings definitively disproved, but I'm seeing them come true at an increasing pace. But does where we stand depend on where we sit? I live in Denver, where warming and desertification hits us in the face constantly. Four of the hottest years came in the last decade, and last winter's mountain snow harvest was the weakest in history. Denver feels like Albuquerque now. The Southwest is reacting excessively most to the changes, while Western Washington is probably the region affected least, IMHO. Your breezes come off a cold, deep ocean, and your summer sun doesn't broil you from overhead.
ReplyDeleteWhen I relocate there in a few years, it will be partially as a climate refugee. So Seattle is the last place I'd look for climate warming signals. I hope Cliff is spending some time following the larger warning responses in the Arctic, and the inferno that was Europe this summer, and visualizing the amplifications that arise from that. If you just look at Washington weather, that's tunnel vision into a quite atypical landscape and situation.
Cliff's outlook also can't help but be influenced by confrontations with the liberal establishment that runs public radio and universities, either. PNW progressives can be very militant and relentless. You're either with them or an enemy, and they've probably written him off long ago. From what I'm reading here, these reporters are trying to place every adverse local weather event into a context of AGW, where it may or may not fit. Some storms and droughts are data, and much of them are noise. To pick those claims apart with valid data is what a good scientist would do. It's "Professorial." But in a polarized non-academic environment, it can look like climate denial.
For now, I'll visit here for a fine analysis of the weather in a particular place, not the big picyure.
Stating you will be a climate refugee (even if partially) from Denver is the type of hyperbole that Cliff speaks up against.
DeleteMr. Wheatridger, your post might be a little more believable if you actually listed most, if not all, of what Mr. Gore correctly forecast. Words without data is simply opinion. Looking forward to your response.
DeleteWheatridger, you would be infinitely more believable, should you actually provide data to back up your comments. What specific "warnings" are you seeing come true? Please provide data and source.
DeleteI think there is considerable variation in how we use the term "believe". If the preponderance of the evidence suggests, as they say in law, but does not absolutely prove, a certain conclusion, I would probably say I believe it. For example, I could say that I believe that mountain goats are not native to the Olympic Mountains. Someone did introduce some. But I admit to the possibility that they in fact are native. I might also say, for example, that I believe we will get rain here in September, because it is a likely outcome, but I admit that there is a small chance that we will not. I am willing to say I believe there is probably life, even intelligent life, elsewhere in the universe, just because it seems likely, but at the same time I admit having no direct evidence.
ReplyDeleteBelieve is religion.
ReplyDeleteThink is opinion.
Know is science.
Here is what I know.
You know different?
GreenHouse Effect theory says with it Earth’s Global Mean Surface Temperature would be 288 K or 15 C, while without it GMST would be 255 K or -18 C, a difference of 33 C (not K) and Earth would become a -18 C ball of ice.
That is simply wrong.
There is no consensus that 288 K is the GMST & 255 K is the result of a 30% albedo also no consensus. GMST was 15 C in Arrhenius’ 1896 paper (walked back in 1906) and no GHE means no 30% albedo. Without GreenHouse Gas water vapor there is no GHE and Earth would become much like the Moon, barren, 400 K lit side, 100 K dark.
The GHE energy balance graphic found in TFK_bams09 and a plethora of clones does not in fact balance and violates both 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
The kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules render “extra” surface energy upwelling as a calculated 396 W/m^2 black body impossible. 396 fills the denominator of the emissivity ratio:63/396=0.16.
The GHE is failed science and Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming a fear mongering political and social power grab.
Nick Schroeder, BSME CU ‘78
Why do I stick to my guns? Because I am widely banned, censored & cancelled & that would not happen were are really wrong.
Your best blog ever Cliff. The psychology behind why people feel a need to believe or not believe in what is scientifically observed and recorded must be fascinating.
ReplyDelete(...scientifically observed and recorded ...)
DeleteWhere?
See my comments at WUWT.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor those interested in a deep dive into perspectives on climate change like Cliff’s I recommend “Climate Change the Facts published by the Institute of Public Affairs in Australia. Editions come out every 2-3 years and are a compendium of technical articles on the various aspects of climate change. For an entertaining introduction of the 2025 edition consider viewing the video of Prof. Pilner, professor emeritus University of Melbourne, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPJV4fPZ_oc&t=25s.
ReplyDeleteThank you Cliff for standing up against the fear-mongers. Keep up the great work!.
ReplyDeleteHear! Hear! Kudos to you for speaking the truth.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Cliff, for your reasoned scientific approach to this issue. I would love to hear more from you about related climate issues such as melting ice caps and glaciers. Is sea-level rise something that the science indicates could be a problem for low-lying coastal areas of the world? How about fires in our lovely Pacific NW? Does the data show that forest fires are becoming more common and destructive over the last 50 years and are there trends in the data? Thanks again!
ReplyDeleteI remember your debate with Charles Mudede, gosh 15 years ago. I remember at some point he said it was okay to exaggerate the truth and sound the alarm bells if it brought people to action.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with that theory, it's short sighted. If you ring the alarm bell for false reasons, then people will react to the false alarm bell and not the actual problem at hand.
Dr. Cliff, I appreciate your efforts to emphasize and explain which conclusions can be backed by data and the currently-understood science, and which are just leaping to fashionable conclusions. I don't want to be an alarmist, but given that the trends of human-caused climate change don't seem likely to change very quickly, what can the science tell us about the future risks? Will the "modest, steady" warming of the planet always be modest and steady, or will it reach a point where air conditioning and declining death rates won't be able to keep up with the rate of warming, and all of its secondary effects? And if science predicts that it can't, then what do you think should be the role of scientists and science communicators in trying to affect policy decisions?
ReplyDeleteDr. Cliff, thank you for you blog. I am wondering what are your views on the reports of the IPCC? They are evidence based yet communicate a more dire situation.
ReplyDeleteIPCC is generally reasonable and far more nuanced and moderate than many climate advocates.
DeleteHi Dr Mass, I always appreciate your posts where you go after unsupported assertions. I do notice that you focus on only one side of the issue. However, what I want to talk about here are the factors that make global warming an existential threat. I was trained as a systems engineer and that is where I think your approach to the issue breaks down. I don't have space for a system description here but the system is vastly more complicated than you seem to think it is. The system includes humanity, our inbred behaviors and our resulting political systems and the earths biosphere. The feedback loops are almost all positive. For example, as temperature warms up more people use A/C which requires more power. . Instead of reducing power consumption we are increasing our use with the AI build out. These factors have resulted in a more or less steadily increasing CO2 and methane concentration. through this year. to date This is in spite of all the progress in wind and solar. The secondary effects kick in such as rising sea levels and people start fighting over food and living areas. Climate induced war is the existential threat. In one of your previous discussions on this topic you seemed to think humanity a rational species and we would do what is necessary to stop CO2 pollution. That was incorrect.due to the issue known as the tragedy of the commons, look it up it is happening in front of you. Existential is about our civilization surviving not necessarily extinction.. Enough from me. .
ReplyDelete