High CO₂ Levels Could Lead to Cloud Loss and a Catastrophic Tipping Point

Recently, I came across some fascinating, if not alarming, climate research in a piece by Natalie Wolchover at Quanta Magazine. In Wolchover’s story, we learn how extremely high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide could lead to cloud loss and a catastrophic tipping point in Earth’s climate. Needless to say, these findings have caught the attention of journalists, scientists and activists concerned with climate science. Let’s investigate.

Climate change threatens our clouds.

By studying our planet’s history from about 56 million years ago — a geological period know as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) — and using advanced computer simulations to model climate, climate scientists discovered that when carbon dioxide levels reach 1,200 ppm, low-lying clouds disappear. 

They published the study results in the journal Nature Geoscience in February 2019. Because clouds help cool Earth by reflecting heat toward space, the resulting cloud loss could trigger a catastrophic tipping point, raising temperatures 8°C (14.4°F). That’s in addition to the 4°C (7.2°F) or more of warming that would stem from the high carbon dioxide levels alone.

Read the Medium story by Laura Routh - “High CO₂ Levels Could Lead to Cloud Loss and a Catastrophic Tipping Point.”

Climate Scientist Proposes “Red Teams” to Challenge Established Global Warming Science

97% of climate scientists agree that the radical changes in the Earth’s climate, over the past century, are caused by human industry. So what about the remaining three percent? One of them recently approached a Congressional committee with a proposal. He wants to create “red teams,” which Congress would fund, to investigate what natural phenomenon could be warming the planet, rivaling the claim that human activity is the main driver. The goal would be to produce evidence to counter the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), among other prominent institutions. The IPCC is considered one of the world’s most respected authorities on global warming.

Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth. 

The idea was proposed at a hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. It’s currently majority Republican. The hearing was entitled, “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method.” Several such hearings have taken place recently in House science-related committees, questioning whether climate change exists and if so, how impactful it actually is. This particular hearing focused on the scientific method and how it’s applied to climate change.

Read the Big Think article - “Climate Scientist Proposes “Red Teams” to Challenge Established Global Warming Science.”

Report helps scientists communicate how global warming is worsening natural disasters

Fire fighters monitor a back burn near Mount
 Victoria in the Blue Mountains on October 21,
2013. The intense Australian summer heat
 was made five times more likely by
human-caused global warming.

Climate scientists have done a great job winning the scientific arguments about climate change. To be clear about what I mean, we have done a very good job investigating whether or not the Earth’s climate is changing (it is), what is causing the change (humans), how much will it change in the future, and what will be the impacts.

There are no longer any reputable scientists who disagree with the principle view of that human emissions will cause climate change that will lead to societal and human losses (they already are). So, I use the term “win” here not to indicate it was a battle of “us” versus “them”. Rather, I mean “win” in that we have faithfully followed the scientific method, explored alternative hypotheses, checked and rechecked our work, and have come to a truth that is unassailable. We’ve done our job.

In the past, that is where our job ended. I mean maybe we would help with a press release on a breaking study, do an interview. But only rarely.

Read John Abraham’s story on The Guardian - “Report helps scientists communicate how global warming is worsening natural disasters.”

The ‘Alice in Wonderland’ mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science

Science strives for coherence.

For example, the findings from climate science form a highly coherent body of knowledge that is supported by many independent lines of evidence: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human economic activities are causing the global climate to warm and unless GHG emissions are drastically reduced in the near future, the risks from climate change will continue to grow and major adverse consequences will become unavoidable.

People who oppose this scientific body of knowledge because the implications of cutting GHG emissions—such as regulation or increased taxation—threaten their worldview or livelihood cannot provide an alternative view that is coherent by the standards of conventional scientific thinking.

Instead, we suggest that people who reject the fact that the Earth’s climate is changing due to greenhouse gas emissions (or any other body of well-established scientific knowledge) oppose whatever inconvenient finding they are confronting in piece-meal fashion, rather than systematically, and without considering the implications of this rejection to the rest of the relevant scientific theory and findings.

Hence, claims that the globe “is cooling” can coexist with claims that the “observed warming is natural” and that “the human influence does not matter because warming is good for us.”

Coherence between these mutually contradictory opinions can only be achieved at a highly abstract level, namely that “something must be wrong” with the scientific evidence in order to justify a political position against climate change mitigation.

This high-level coherence accompanied by contradictory subordinate propositions is a known attribute of conspiracist ideation, and conspiracism may be implicated when people reject well-established scientific propositions.

Read the Synthese paper by Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook, and Elisabeth Lloyd - “The ‘Alice inWonderland’ mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: simulating coherence by conspiracism.”

Climate debate stumbles when it becomes politicized

-      by Katherine Hayhoe

A world map illustrating climate vulnerability.

New to Texas Tech, it was my first year as an atmospheric science professor. We’d just moved to Lubbock, the second most conservative town in the United States. A colleague asked me to guest teach his undergraduate geology course while he was out of town.

The packed lecture hall was cavernous and dark. Many of the students were glued to their phones; others were slumped over, dozing. I began with the fundamental components of the climate system; I waded through the geologic climate record and ice core data; and finally, I explained natural cycles and the role of carbon dioxide—both natural and human-produced—in controlling Earth’s climate.

I ended my lecture, as many professors do, with a hopeful invitation for any questions. One hand immediately shot up.

Someone had been listening—and cared enough to ask a question! I thought.

The first student stood up. I looked encouraging. He cleared his throat. And then, in a loud and belligerent tone, he stated:

“You’re a Democrat, aren’t you?”

That was my baptism by fire into what has now become a fact of life across the entire country

Read the Prairie Fire story - “Climate, Politics, and Religion.”

Six graphics to explain climate change

F

ind out how and why the Earth’s climate is changing as climate change prepares to host a summit to discuss global warming.

Check out the BBC story - “Six graphics that explain climate change.”