24 Mar The Complexity of Climate Change: A Commentary
Reading Time: 5 minutesBy Stephen E. Fauer
Complex scientific issues are now part of the national dialogue. Conversations about energy and climate change, formerly the domain of college campuses and arcane government offices, are now mainstream. Consequently, it is common for the topic to come up among family and friends, leading to fear and speculation about things that, to be candid, they likely do not understand. In fact, some of these topics are beyond the full comprehension of even the most learned of scientists.
And the political climate has only added to our alarm. I, personally, find it unsettling that politicians tout solutions which, if enacted, will change life as we know it. The good intentions of these politicians often have serious unintended — and sometimes intended — consequences.
This commentary offers my personal perspective on energy and climate change that will hopefully shed some light on and dispel some of the fear surrounding this very complex issue.
Climate Change vs. Global Warming: What’s the difference?
Climate change and global warming are two different concepts that are often conflated. Climate describes the nature of weather and weather patterns (temperature, precipitation, and wind) over a large geographic region. Climate change is a relatively new concept that describes changes to weather and weather patterns purported to be due to increases in greenhouse gases. Global warming describes a gradual increase in worldwide ambient temperatures, also commonly associated with an increase in greenhouse gases.
Greenhouse gases are so named because of their ability to absorb infrared radiation, which causes temperatures to increase. There are three principle greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor. Contrary to popular belief, the greenhouse gas with the greatest impact on earth’s temperature is not carbon dioxide, it’s water vapor. And methane is far more potent than carbon dioxide because of its greater ability to absorb infrared radiation. However, with carbon dioxide’s higher natural concentration in the atmosphere, its overall impact on ambient temperature is believed to be greater than methane. The following table illustrates the relative abundance of these greenhouse gases:
| Atmospheric Gas | Atmospheric Abundance | Notes |
| Nitrogen | 78% | Inert. The most abundant gas of all. |
| Oxygen | 21% | Necessary for almost all life on earth. |
| Argon | 0.93% | Inert |
| Carbon Dioxide | 0.04% | Has increased slightly due to industrialization. This gas is the absolute and only basis for chlorophyll-based plant growth. Plant growth becomes more vigorous as this concentration increases. |
| Methane | 0.00017% | Levels have increased ever so slightly, and scientists are not fully certain why. |
| Water Vapor | 0.2 – 4.0% | Highly variable due to temperature and climate trends. Artic and desserts are have little; tropics tend to be very high. |
So, What Causes Climate Change?
Society and politicians have jumped on the carbon dioxide band wagon. And, frankly, I don’t know how people can be so certain because, aside from greenhouse gases, there are three other important and well-documented drivers of climate change that are largely ignored. The first is the natural wobble of the earth that changes by 20 to 60 inches every 6-14 years. The next is something called precession — a change in the orientation of the earth’s rotational axis (as with the spin of a gyroscope). It takes the earth 26,000 years to complete one precessional cycle. And the last (and possibly the most important variable) is the sun. Solar variability is constant, enormous, and poorly understood. My point? Increased Carbon dioxide may certainly play a roll. But, in my opinion, scientists cannot (and reputable scientists do not) discount these other poorly understood variables that may — alone or in concert — have the greatest impact of all.
Climate predictions: can they be believed?
This is a dicey question. But it is one that deserves an answer. In my opinion, climate predictions are not credible, and here’s why:
First, climate predictions are based upon scientific models. Each model consists of many variables. In general, more variables mean less reliability. An easily understood representation of model variability is when meteorologists forecast a hurricane’s path. We see scores of potential storm paths, each predicated upon a different forecast model. Meteorologists don’t know where a hurricane will make landfall until it makes landfall. Think about it: hurricanes happen in real time. Meteorologists use every tool at their disposal to monitor and gauge a hurricane’s progress, yet they never know what it will do. The same applies to winter snowstorms. Meteorologists never know total snowfall amounts until the storm occurs; their predictions are commonly inaccurate.
Now, climate “experts” claim to predict what earth’s climate will be like in 100 years. For me, the best indicator of the accuracy of such predictions is their past accuracy. Within the past year, a series of articles and news stories have revealed that not even one climate prediction made in the past 50 years has come to pass. Not one.
Is science ever settled?
In reference to climate change, you often hear or read that “the science is settled.” As a scientist, nothing irritates me more than that statement because it is a lie intended to manipulate an ignorant audience. Science is never settled. It only requires one scientist to be right to alter the path of scientific doctrine. Here are two glaring examples:
In 1915, a geologist named Alfred Wegener first proposed the theory of continental drift, today known as plate tectonics. He was derided and scorned for his theory. It wasn’t until the 1950s, after Wegener had been dead for over 20 years, that modern science began to support his theory. Today, plate tectonics is widely accepted and taught. That is, until a new theory is identified and proven to dispel plate tectonics.
And in 1968, doctors first suggested that coronary disease was related to the ingestion of too much cholesterol. Consequently, the Food and Drug Administration created dietary guidelines that became medical dogma for decades. This was best illustrated by the food pyramid that we all learned in school. That is, until it was shown that the very combination of foods that the FDA was promoting was causing heart disease in some people.
Although cliché, it is a fact that “we don’t know what we don’t know.” Until we all reach a state of omniscience, it is irresponsible and disingenuous for anyone to state, “the science is settled.”
A Word About Cars and Gas Mileage
In October 1973, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) instituted an oil embargo against those countries allied with Israel. This caused a spike in gasoline prices and long lines at the gas pumps. In 1975, the U.S. government enacted Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards that, along with increased gasoline taxes, were designed to curb Americans’ gas consumption. CAFÉ Standards were designed to improve the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks produced for sale in the United States.
Since then, the standards have gradually become more rigorous. 1979 model cars were required to reach a fleet average of at least 17.2 miles per gallon, while 2016 models were required to achieve over 35 mpg. But today, the rationale for CAFÉ standards has changed. No longer chiefly concerned with fuel shortages and oil imports, regulators push for eco-friendly cars to reduce pollution and fight global warming.
But there is a downside to smaller, more efficient fleets of cars: a higher risk of deadly traffic accidents. Lighter cars are more fuel efficient but less protective of their occupants during a high-impact collision. According to Mark R. Jacobsen, an economist at the University of California, San Diego, “Each one mpg increase in CAFÉ standards causes an additional 149 fatalities per year.” In other words, the increase in fuel-efficiency requirements that began in 1978 translated into 2,533 more road deaths in 2016.
I use the above illustration simply to show that there are myriad unintended consequences that we cannot possibly predict, even though we may have the best of intentions on implementation.
Inconclusive Conclusions
This article is intended merely to provide food for thought. I do not suggest that my opinions are fully and empirically correct, but I do propose that we all need to be careful about what we believe. Regrettably, there are almost always ulterior motives that underlie what we hear and read. In today’s world, we must be our own truth detectors. I think a bit of skepticism is a good thing.
If you enjoyed this article, please let me know. And if you have questions about a particular environmental topic, please feel free to send me an email at sfauer@askesa.com.