Unlike some people here I am fortunate not to have relatives who are climate deniers or Trump supporters. Unfortunately, I am cursed with an inability to ignore absolute garbage in articles or posts on climate change. Even more unfortunately, climate science is complex, and it can be difficult to come up with a reply that is both short and graphic enough to capture the attention of people who appear to think in slogans, and accurate enough to be compelling. I have gathered common misconceptions, along with short replies plus a more extended explanations in the hope that some of these may be useful to others who are faced with climate denial. Please feel to use them, add to them, improve them, and if necessary, correct them. If people find this useful I will try to extend it in the future to diversions, such as concerns over economics and liberal agendas. These diversions generally cannot be answered until there is agreement that anthropogenic climate change is real.
Misconception:
#1: It is all a hoax/fraud.
#2: The data is all fraudulent.
Reply #1: The original AGW calculations were done in 1896 (not 1996) by a scientist who did not expect CO2 concentrations would rise to levels that would significantly affect global temperatures for centuries. As such, there is no element of fraud or hoax in the initial development of the theory of AGW. Svante Arrhenius was a physical chemist who received the Nobel prize in 1903 for his work on electrochemistry. His paper on AGW was a minor portion of his work.
Commentary: Arrhenius made numerical estimates of the sensitivity of the climate to changes in what at the time was called carbonic acid, and is now called carbon dioxide (CO2). Current measurements are amazingly close to his values. He also correctly predicted that the temperature at the poles would be more sensitive to changes in CO2 than the rest of the planet.
Reply#2: Frauds and hoaxes wither when exposed.
Commentary: Not only has it not withered, global warming has been confirmed by people who receive no financial benefit from their views:
Biologists who document the changes in ecosystems, the death of corals and flying foxes, and the extinction and population crashes of insects.
Glaciologists, and tourists, who have seen with their eyes the losses of glaciers.
Farmers and ordinary gardeners who are seeing the changes in the growing season, and the changes in rainfall and incidence of insect pests.
Meteorologists who are reporting temperatures and weather they have not seen before.
Note that there were eight investigations of the purloined emails from the climate research unit, and what they found was that the thief fraudulently released statements without context to make them appear to indicate misbehavior that did not in fact exist.
Misconception:
#1The climate has always changed (and therefore the current change is (may be) natural.
#2 CO2 wasn't responsible for earlier warming periods, and therefore it can't be responsible for warming now.
Reply #1: None of the physical factors responsible for past changes in the climate are changing in a way to account for the current change.
Commentary: There is a sub-text here that if the climate changed in the past it is okay. This is similar to saying that we die eventually, so there is no reason to be concerned about things which might harm us.
Reply #2: And it is still changing, but we are adding to it.
Commentary: There are many things which have affected the climate in the past, and will continue to affect it in the future. The factors that are rapidly changing now are the ones man is changing: CO2 concentrations are up by over 40% since the 19th century, and this has led to decreased reflectivity (albedo) at the north pole as the sea ice melts.
Reply #3: Forget Smokey the Bear? There is evidence that there were forest fires before there were people, so by this logic people can’t be responsible for forest fires now.
Misconception: There is only a 95% probability that global warming is real.
Reply: There is 100% probability that AGW is real, and greater than a 95% probability that the global warming that has been seen is due AGW and is not just a normal and temporary variation in temperature.
Commentary: Unless the laws of physics are no longer valid, our actions must influence the climate. Probabilities don’t enter the question until it is rephrased to ask whether the current amount of change is due to AGW or natural variation. The climate system is complex, so while the direction of the change is known, the precise amount of change, and the time it takes to get there is still uncertain. However, one can do both model calculations and straight statistics on measured temperatures. The statistics clearly show a temperature trend, yet none of the models are able to reproduce the trend without including the effect of the CO2 that man has added to the atmosphere (greater than 95% probability several years ago). This is already pretty long odds, especially given that we know the physics is valid.
Misconception: CO2 is just a trace gas and cannot cause warming.
Reply: Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is like covering your window with paint. It doesn’t matter how thick the window is, it only takes a little paint to block the light.
Explanation: CO2 absorbs a band of heat radiation, while paint blocks some portion (colors) of visible radiation (light). It doesn't matter if the glass is 3/16 inch thick, or is a 4 inch thick block, it is the absorptivity and amount of pigment in the painted layer that determines how much light is blocked. Furthermore, a given amount of pigment will block nearly as much light if it is dispersed evenly through-out the glass as it will if it is deposited in a single layer. Although CO2 is a trace gas, constituting only 400 parts per million by volume, or 0.06% by weight, there is a lot air between the surface of the earth and outer space. Atmospheric pressure is determined by the weight of a vertical column of air extending from the surface of the earth to outer space. At an atmospheric pressure of 14.7 pounds per square-inch, or over a ton per square foot, the weight of CO2 works out to over a pound per square foot. This is more than enough to make a difference.
More numbers: The amount of paint pigment covering a surface appears to be about 0.002 pounds per square foot (source: ingredients list on a can of a paint in my garage times estimated density of the paint, divided by the recommended coverage). There is 500 times as much CO2 absorbing heat radiation than there is pigment in a layer of paint covering an equal area. One can note further that the weight of one pane of window glass is about 150 pounds per square foot, so the pigment is on the order of 15 parts per million (ppm) of the weight of the painted glass, while CO2 is 400 ppm (by volume - 600 ppm by weight) of the atmosphere.
Misconception: CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas compared to water vapor and therefore cannot make much difference.
Reply: It is easiest to show that this is incorrect by considering a simple analogy. Consider the analogy to heat losses from a house. A window (CO2 in our analogy) is a poor insulator compared to the insulated walls and ceiling (water vapor in our analogy) of a house, but an open window on a cold winter day will make your house cold.
Explanation: Heat, like water or electricity takes the easiest path. Opening a window means that the heat doesn't have to leak through the walls, it can pour out the open window instead. Visible light covers a range of wavelengths which we see as different colors. Similarly, heat radiation from the earth to space covers a range of infrared wavelengths of light. The wavelengths that are absorbed by water vapor are not the same as those absorbed by CO2. Water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas because it covers a much wider range of wavelengths than CO2, and thus can be thought of as analogous to the insulated surfaces of a house, while CO2 is analogous to a window that has been mostly open, and is now being shut.
Further notes:
1) The ironical aspect of the fact that water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 is that if there was no water vapor it would be analogous to house with windows but no walls or roof. Opening or closing a window would make little difference to the heat loss.
2) The maximum amount of water vapor air can hold (100% relative humidity) is determined by temperature. The average global relative humidity depends on the locations and temperatures of the oceans, and the winds over the oceans. The location of the oceans have not changed in the last century. Water vapor therefore amplifies changes in temperature that are caused by changes in other factors such as CO2. It does not act as the instigator or driver of the changes.
Misconception: “The Earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a Flood. I do believe that God’s word is infallible, unchanging, perfect.”
Reply #1: How do we know that God isn't thinking about ending it?
Commentary: In the story of the three wise men who studied the heavens and seen the portent of the birth of Jesus, it is said that they did not return to King Herod to tell him where Jesus lay. They feared Herod planned to kill him as he feared Jesus would usurp his rule. The wise men of our time who have studied our earth and the skies have determined that continued CO2 emissions could destroy the environment, and wreak havoc upon the world. The kings of industry have heard them and fear the loss of their power. They have sown fear among their followers and declaimed that only they can provide prosperity.
Reply #2: As long as some people survive, God has kept his promise.
Commentary: God has permitted war, plague, earthquake, drought, flood, fire and pests. Just because we may survive global climate change doesn't mean that it will be pleasant.
Misconception:
#1: “All this angst for a 1.4 °F rise over 100 years?”
#2: “Daily temperatures vary by 30 to 60 degrees each day. Dahhhhhhhhhh. Raising the temperature by 3-4 F. degrees by 2100 is a non-event.”
Reply #1: A mere 6°F fever is dangerous, so why should we be surprised that a planetary fever might be hazardous to our current ecosystem (which includes us)?
Commentary: A change of under one degree can make an area ice free. An area that becomes ice free is suddenly open to invasions of insects and other pests that cannot stand freezing temperatures. Changes in the timing of seasons upsets predator-prey relations. Rising temperatures affect weather patterns (climates) and thus plant and animal communities. The current increase in oceanic temperatures is already damaging coral reefs, and the fish communities that depend on them. In short, the ecosystem, just like our bodies, depends upon the climate behaving in a fairly constant manner. Unlike our bodies, the ecosystem can adapt, but it takes a lot longer than a few centuries.
Reply #2: And yet a 2 degree (F) has resulted in an almost ice free Arctic ocean during the summer.
Commentary: Both the average and the range are important. Changing the average has resulted in permafrost melting for the first time in millennia. It affects migratory birds, because it changes the timing of when and where frost occurs. It is starting to affect crop yields, which are strongly dependent on the number of days above about 104 degrees (F), as at this temperature photosynthesis starts to shut down. It is a factor in the death of coral reefs. It is not just temperature, it is temperature plus when and how long that matters.
Misconception: CO2 lags temperature rise.
Reply: It’s peaches and cream, not peaches or cream.
Explanation: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is naturally present in both the ocean and the atmosphere. The amount (solubility) of CO2 in the oceans decreases when water temperatures increase. If the atmosphere and oceans warm because of increased solar radiation (insolation) or decreased solar reflectivity (albedo), then CO2 will be driven out of the ocean, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations will increase (CO2 lagging temperature). If instead atmospheric CO2 concentrations increases because volcanic activity, or as in the current case combustion of carbon compounds (fossil fuels) then temperatures will increase (CO2 leads temperature). It is not an either/or situation.
Misconception: Man cannot affect the climate
Reply: Give me a lever long enough, and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world - attributed to Archimedes.
Commentary: The metaphorical lever is CO2, which redirects a portion of the immense flow of heat from earth to space back down to the earth. Given enough time the lowly cyanobacteria raised atmospheric oxygen levels from essentially to today’s 20%. We should not be surprised that given enough time man has increased CO2 levels from 280 parts per million (ppm) to over 400 ppm, and that this change is affecting temperatures.
Misconception: Stop breathing - you are producing CO2
Reply:#1 It’s called recycling.
Commentary: It is not the breathing that is the problem, it’s the using fossil fuels to grow and transport food.
Reply #2: Breathing is like being the water spout in a fountain.
Commentary: The basin is analogous to the atmosphere, the fountain is analogous to the exhalations of plants and animals, and the return of water via gravity is the analogue of plants absorbing CO2. Absent spill outside the basin, nothing changes unless you add water. We are adding CO2 that was not part of the carbon cycle because it was locked away in underground deposits in the form of coal, oil, or natural gas.
Misconception: You cannot predict the future.
Reply: And yet you set your alarm at night with the expectation that the sun will rise in the morning, and so on.
Commentary: This is sophistry. All predictions are conditional. If I die during the night I won’t see the morning, but if I am healthy I am going to set the alarm. If the laws of physics are repealed tomorrow then … wait, 13 billion years isn’t good enough for you?
Misconception: They had to change the name to climate change (because we were wrong?).
Reply: It’s still AGW, but we have realized that just focusing on warming does not capture the entirety of its effects.
Misconception: Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are negligible compared to natural CO2 flows.
Reply#1: History before 1600 is fake because there was no CO2 in the atmosphere?
Commentary: The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 140 years is close to 1 part per million (ppm) per year. If anthropogenic CO2 hasn’t made a difference, then we can extrapolate the rate of increase backwards to determine that there was no CO2 in the atmosphere before 1600 (280 ppm in 1880 minus 1 ppm per year equals the year 1600).
Reply#2: It doesn’t matter how big the flow is in a recirculating pond or fountain, continually adding a small amount of water will eventually make it overflow.
Commentary: CO2 flows from the atmosphere to the ocean, earth, and biosphere and back are huge, but balanced. Injecting CO2 into the atmosphere increases all the flows, and increases the amount of CO2 in each of the aforementioned reservoirs.
Misconception: Many proponents of AGW claim that it will cause both higher and lower temperatures, more or less rain, more or less storms. That is the definition of non falsifiable and so it fails as science.
Reply: -10 and +10 averages to 0. -15 and +20 averages to 2.5 which is warmer on average and has both higher and lower extremes.
Commentary: Range and average are two completely separate measures of a distribution of values.
Misconception: We have always had storms/drought/heat waves …
Reply: A royal flush once is good luck, but a royal flush five times in a row is probably a card shark.
Commentary: If you average one storm a year, and you are suddenly getting five or ten every year, then while you cannot point to any particular storm as being caused by climate change, you can point to the increased number as being due to it.
Misconception: CO2 increases plant growth
Reply: If you are dying from heat or thirst more food won’t make you gain weight.
Commentary: Increasing CO2 helps plant growth only if all other conditions are held within tolerable limits, but the whole problem with CO2 is that it is changing the climate. A man cannot survive with no air no matter how much food and water he has. Everything has to be at least within tolerable limits for health or even survival. The photosynthetic efficiency of plants reaches its peak in the range of about 10 to 20 degrees Celsius (50 to 68 degrees Fahrenheit). Above about 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) photosynthesis shuts down. It has be been shown that crop growth in the U.S. is highly correlated to the number of days in the growing season that are above 40 degrees Celsius. Global warming is expected to increase the number of these days and thus reduce crop productivity.
Misconception: No evidence to what the damage is or that man is causing global warming
Reply#1: Summer temperatures in Australia recently reached a level where flying fox bats were literally falling out of trees dead.
Commentary: The point that a lot of people appear to miss is that the temperature is still going up. Damage has already been reported if people care to look for it, even at this fairly early stage of AGW. Excessive temperatures are bleaching coral and changing reef ecology through out the world. Excessive temperatures are contributing to ecological stress. Permafrost is becoming “impermafrost”, and structures built on it are failing. Storms appear to be getting wetter, with more chance of flooding. There is even evidence that the rate of sea rise is increasing, and there are areas in Florida, Bangladesh, and other places around the world where it is already beginning to be a problem.
Reply#2: The earth doesn’t just warm up on its own, something has to make it warm up.
Commentary: You do have to know some science to assign cause. There is no evidence that solar insolation has increased, and there is no obvious increase in volcanic activity or any of the known non-anthropogenic factors that might increase temperatures. There are good theoretical reasons to believe that atmospheric CO2 increases global temperature, and measurements of CO2 concentrations are linearly related to the amount of CO2 that we are emitting (primarily from energy use).
Misconception: “if you take all 9 planets in our solar system and multiply them by 700 thats its size. Sun vs man...please.”
Reply: Closing the blinds on your dinky little windows can make a major difference on how hot your house gets in the summer; it is redirection not opposition.
Commentary: Greenhouse gases don’t create or destroy heat, they simply redirect some of the heat flowing from earth to space back to the earth.
Misconception: “meteorologist can NOT predict tomorrows weather and we are suppose to believe them about the weather 10 years from now”
Reply: Yet almost everyone knows that summer is warmer than winter, and a meteorologist can probably tell you by how much on average.
Commentary: Weather is what happens on any particular day. Climate is what happens over many days. It is much easier to predict that a particular month will have an average temperature than it is to predict the temperature of a particular day.
Misconception: Science is never "settled".
Reply: And yet apples still fall to the ground.
Commentary: Einstein showed that gravity warps space, but apples still fall. We still don’t have a complete theory of linking relativity, quantum mechanics, and gravity - but apples still fall. We clearly do know a lot, even if we don’t know everything. Science is “settled” on some issues, even if it is not settled for all. The portion of climate science that is settled is that greenhouse gases, such as CO2, make the earth warmer. The portions of the science that are still being studied are: how much warmer, and how fast, and the implications of the warming for the environment and people.
The reason that the amount of warming is still being researched is that the concentration of CO2 is not the only factor that affects the global temperature. This does not mean that they cannot get a pretty good idea of how big a temperature increase to expect from a given increase in CO2. Warming changes the amount of moisture in the air, the ocean currents, and the amount of sea ice, and it also affects the amount of CO2 and methane that are trapped in permafrost. Scientists can calculate the amount of warming or cooling from each of these factors, and they can measure the rate that each of them are changing. This lets them estimate how they will change in the future, and therefore how the temperature will change. Instead of a single value, this research produces a range of sensitivities of the global temperature to CO2. At the bottom end of the range, which is still positive, are values that were proposed by researchers who are often labeled “deniers” such as Judith Curry, and John Christy. Even these researchers understand that CO2 is warming the earth, but they believe that the rate is slower than is believed by others, and that we therefore have more time to deal with it.
Greenhouse gases increase the resistance to heat flow from earth to space. As heat builds up, the temperatures climb, and eventually the heat flow balance is restored at a higher temperature. Heat can quickly flow into the atmosphere, a bit more slowly into the surface layers of the ocean and land, and even more slowly into deeper layers of the ocean and land,. The rate at which it flows into the these more distant and much larger reservoirs for heat is still subject to considerable uncertainty. Based on measurements to date, this can introduce significant variability in atmospheric temperatures over time spans of five to ten years and possibly a bit more, but it does not affect the overall trend.
The biggest uncertainty is in the implications of increased temperatures, both from a climatological and biological perspective. Biology, and ecology, is not as simple as physics, but biologists are already seeing effects from increased temperatures. A major issue for ecosystems is whether and when a given area experiences freezing. Biologists are already noticing changes in growing seasons due to the timing or absence of frost, and changes in the range of many species, including many pests. The effect of global warming on rainfall and storm patterns is less obvious, but there is a growing based on both observation and calculation that these two are changing. There is no question that this type of change will affect ecosystems. In the long run ecosystems will recover if changes are not too extreme - but the long run could literally be thousands of years, which implies the potential for a lot of grief in the interim for many species, including man.
Misconception: Warmer is better - more people die of extreme cold than extreme heat
Reply #1: People aren’t the only living creatures on the earth.
Commentary: One third of Queensland’s spectacled flying foxes died in a December 2018 heat wave. It is easier to adapt to low temperatures (fur, body fat, shelter) than high temperatures - unless you are a human being and have access to an air conditioner. If temperatures keep climbing then even if cold is deadlier than heat right now, at some point heat will become deadlier. This is actually a complicated question even if it is just restricted to people. Studies show that in cities in warm climates more people die of cold than of heat, but that the opposite is true for cities in cold climates. However, as has been seen on the east coast of the United States over the last few years, global warming can result in both brutally cold winters, as well as producing sweltering summers.
Reply #2: If you die from drowning, or drought, it doesn’t matter that you didn’t freeze to death
Commentary: Climate is a lot more than just the extreme temperatures.
Although the following is not really a climate change denial, I couldn't resist adding it.
Misconception/Diversion: “Reducing energy use will make us 3rd world denizens”
Reply#1: So if we increase our energy use will we be like Venezuela (2.5 times our per capita use)? Are Denmark, France, Germany, the U.K., Spain, Italy, Japan, and other such places 3rd world countries (2 to 3 times less than our per capita use)?
Reply #2: Driving a Tesla is so 3rd world. Are we allowed to use LED lights?
Reply#3: Does the power from PV and wind generators know that it is 3rd world power?
Commentary: It is not oil, natural gas, or coal that is important, it is the energy they produce, and what you can do with it that is important. Energy efficiency (replies numbers one and two), and renewable energy (reply #3) allow people to have the benefits of high energy use, without producing greenhouse gases.