Climate Letter #1978

“Laying the foundations for a new science of climate change.”  This is what it says in the upper right corner of every letter, and this is what Carl’s Climate Letters is all about.  The letters did not start out that way. Back in 2013 they were intended to draw attention to the oncoming dangers posed by the growth of fossil fuel emissions.  Late in life I had finally woken up to the reality and figured it would be a good thing if everyone else did the same, hoping to make it easier for something to be done about it.  In those days there were signs of change happening, but not many, and only in far-off places that were not too visible.  “Deniers” of climate change were everywhere making their voices loud and clear, saying there was nothing to worry about.  Both of these things have changed completely.  Climate disasters now making headlines all over the globe, and deniers, while many still resist knowing the truth or doing anything about it, have all but dropped out of sight.

Some other things have not changed.  One of them, regrettably, is carbon emissions growth, with CO2 and methane both setting new records for atmospheric concentrations, and both at an accelerating pace (visit https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/monthly.html for details).  Climate science has also not changed its approach, which remains tied to an understanding that CO2 is the control knob and humans can stop its level from rising much farther if they just try hard enough.  Years ago the goal was reportedly no more than 350ppm in order to avoid disaster.  Now there is hope that the transient level can be held below 450, which must quickly be followed by a monumental effort to remove CO2 from the atmosphere—using yet unproven technology. Bringing CO2 emissions down quickly may be doable, but it largely depends on our ability to replace “dirty” sources of energy with cleaner stuff while at the same time allowing total energy usage to remain at high levels in order to accommodate the modern norm for living standards.

Meanwhile, climate science finds itself in an awkward position. Like all other sciences it faces the basic challenge of maintaining an acceptable rate of improvement in its knowledge base. Unlike most others it has taken on a responsibility for sending messages to the public about the proximity of danger and what needs to be done in order to assure public safety. The IPCC was set up for that very reason. It has pursued a messaging strategy that employs one common voice, attuned to the provision of critical information that has been established by widespread acceptance and high standards of proof. That’s not easy considering the many complexities and uncertainties involved in this branch of science. Individual scientists could still pursue research projects out on the frontiers, and report results in journals or through the media, if done judiciously without contradicting the IPCC. Every so often a new finding is made that can only be viewed as a high alert to some new level of danger, but lacks the amount of vetting needed to meet traditional standards of proof. The IPCC cannot do much about it, and in any case is reluctant to add even more substance to an already long list of established dangers. There is a growing sense of fear that the public will lose all hope of finding solutions that require a vast amount of cooperation at a global level on the part of widely disparate members.

Within this context, what are the chances that the many claims and unique explanations expressed within Carl’s theory will soon be incorporated into the bedrock of climate science? To start with, the research does not even come from a source recognized as part of any regular frontier of science, nor has it been communicated in any kind of regular way. Not to mention the qualifications of the one person involved in its creation. It contradicts several long standing dogmas held sacred by the IPCC. The conclusions it reaches fall into the “high alert” category because they offer a new explanation for why and how the known dangers of climate change are being amplified, and why we should expect to see the level of amplification accelerate beyond its current state, sooner rather than later. And there is nothing special we can do about it. That kind of message does not inspire hope. It could perhaps help to inspire a deeper sense of regret, and the deep sense of sorrow that goes with it. Maybe those feelings could be put to use in a positive way, through a common aim to do less harm, to other human beings and to the natural world.

Carl