Climate “Crisis” Defused

A "three legged stool" without legs

The climate “crisis” narrative was a creation of the United Nations, nominally loosely based on the work of the IPCC, but actually based on the IPCC Summary for Policymakers, which is a political rather than a scientific document. The narrative had been broadly accepted by the political leadership of the UN member nations and required various actions on the part of the developed nations, which were accused of causing the “crisis”.

The narrative was promoted to the public by the UN Secretary General using hyperbolic descriptions such as “the earth is on fire” and “the oceans are boiling”. The narrative was also promoted by the political leaders of the developed nations, who added “existential crisis” and “climate emergency” to the lexicon. A global goal of achieving Net Zero CO2 emissions by 2050 became the rallying cry, which was then trumpeted by the “if it bleeds it ledes” media.

The foundation of the narrative relied on three pillars: unvalidated and unverified climate models; high estimates of climate sensitivity to greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO2; and, Representative Concentration Pathways or Shared Socioeconomic Pathways such as RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5.

The climate science community has been aware that the climate models “run hot” for a decade or more, though that became far more obvious when the AR6 models were found to be running even hotter than the already “hot” AR5 model ensemble. Only two members of the model ensemble closely approximate the satellite measured warming in the atmosphere.

Climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations had been estimated to be in the range of ~3 - 5°C with minor variations. However, recent research has reduced those estimates to the range of ~1 - 2°C, which significantly reduces the projected future temperature increases.

Most recently, the IPCC has acknowledged that RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5 are implausible and certainly do not represent a “business as usual” case for potential future warming.

The combination of high climate sensitivity, high concentration pathways and “hot” climate models have been the basis for thousands or even tens of thousands of studies portraying “scary scenarios” for the future climate. The results of these studies have then been trumpeted by the media in an effort to stampede the global population into compliance with programs intended to reduce global CO2 emissions.

That is not to suggest that these “scary scenario” studies will not continue to be produced, as there are likely thousands of them already funded and underway. However, it is likely that their number will decline over time. Polling suggests that public concern regarding climate change remains relatively low and that public acceptance of programs to reduce CO2 emissions is declining as the cost of these programs becomes more obvious and more economically painful.

The US EPA retraction of the 2009 Endangerment Finding, which has formed the basis for much of the climate change legislation and regulation in the US economy, is a reflection of the degree to which the “crisis” narrative has collapsed in the face of recent scientific findings.

That is not to say that interest in the “crisis” narrative has ceased in the climate science community. The World Health Organization has recently called for the declaration of a global health emergency, though signs of adverse impacts of climate change on global health remain obscure and questionable.

Professor Michael Mann has also asserted that the elimination of RCP8.5 would delay the projected climate crisis by approximately 50 years, from 2100 to 2150.
Does a climate “crisis” which might occur 75 years in the future remain a “crisis” if it might not occur until 125 years in the future, or at all?

Originally published here.