Minimising the Climate

As a climate denialist you could try blank denial that anything is happening to the climate.  That’s a big ask given the evidence, but some people do attempt it.  Alternatively there is misdirection or misinterpretation, both of which are forms of distraction while remaining on topic but note that it is also possible to distract by simply changing the topic, a ploy which worked on me recently (although perhaps used only unintentionally).  After sending JP a series of graphs about the climate and I got, in return, a comment about how a grooming scandal in the UK isn’t being reported on by the BBC.  I provide a link just in case you were thinking about the wrong sort of grooming:

I do note that in the associated article (from News24) there is, yet again, no mention of muslims being involved.  Scandalous.

Now, if you, as a reader, find yourself triggered here – either by my apparent levity with respect to a horrendous example of organised sexual exploitation of children or my apparent attempt to distract from the fact that the majority of men involved in the horrendous example of organised sexual exploitation of children were muslims (or, more recently, in Newcastle), then you have an example of the effectiveness of distraction.  This article isn’t about that topic, as serious as it is – it’s about the third tool in the climate denialism toolbox … minimisation.

---

First of all, it should be noted that when we talk of minimisation, we are talking about a mindset.  I suspect that minimisation is a gateway, both into climate denialism and, possibly, out as well.  Inherent in the notion of minimisation is an acceptance of climate change, even of anthropogenic climate change, also known as human-induced climate change or anthropogenic global warming, leading to the term AGW – which seems to be a favourite amongst climate denialists – and leads in turn to the more extreme CAGW, or catastrophic AGW, the climate denialist’s strawman friend.

The fundamental argument of the climate minimiser is that, okay, so there might be some climate change happening, but it’s not that much, it’s not that bad, it’s not caused entirely or that much by humans, the consequences aren’t as dire as “everyone” is making out or that the evidence isn’t that good or extensive or reliable or sufficiently long-term.  In supporting that position, the denialist will make use of the same sort of arguments as for blank denial and may also indulge in a little misdirection and misinterpretation.

In my discussion with JP on sea levels, there was a typical example of minimising the extent of climate change.  JP was not denying that sea levels are rising, but instead argued that sea levels weren’t rising that much and that there is no evidence of acceleration (spoiler – the evidence provided by JP indicated that the sea level as measured by Fort Denison is rising at rates consistent with global rates and is accelerating at a rate that is consistent with the global rate).

A variation of this is comparative minimisation – this has all happened before.  The level of atmospheric CO2, has in the past, been as high as or higher than it is now:

We only need to look back about sixteen to twenty-five million years (Miocene or Oligocene) to see a period when CO2 was consistently above 400 ppm (we’re now slightly above 410ppm).  So, sure, it’s happened before.  But back as recently as the mid-Pliocene, we had CO2 levels between 300 and 400ppm, global temperatures were within a couple of degrees or so of where we are today, and sea levels were about 20m higher.  While this does mean that sea level change has happened before, it’s not particularly encouraging:

Note that this image doesn’t take into account tides or storm surge.  (Interestingly, NOAA doesn’t give you the option to plug 10m into their version of the flood map, they only go to 3m.)

I have heard deniers say that the temperature rising by a degree or two won’t be that bad.  After all, there’s not much difference between 28 and 30C (annual average temperature in Djibouti) and surely Canada would appreciate shifting their average up from -5C to -3C?  If it were as simple as that, then sure, there would not be a problem – but it’s not that simple.  The effect of global warming is to decrease the stability of the climate, there is more energy in the system leading to more extreme storms, more extreme high temperatures, possibly more extreme droughts and weakening of the polar vortex allows colder air to move down from the Arctic which counterintuitively leads to instances of extreme cold temperatures.

Then there is minimisation of the influence of humans on the climate.  The primary effort in this area is to blame the sun – which is not overly surprising since the vast majority of energy reaching the Earth is from the sun (hence it’s warmer when the Earth is facing the sun [daily cycle], when the Earth is tilted towards the sun [ie summer] and when the Earth is closer to the sun [annual cycle, northern winter]).

Even if humans have some impact on the climate, these people argue, climate change is largely due to a blend of solar activity and precession of the Earth which are behind the cycle of ice ages and inter-glacial periods:

Some use data such as in the graph above to argue that an ice age in imminent, which is more of a blank denial tactic, but others are more nuanced and argue that CO2 levels and temperature changes are all part of the normal run of things.  That would be fine if the chart adequately showed the current CO2 level, but it doesn’t.  At the extreme right end, the CO2 level leaps up – from an already high point, which is inadequately represented – an additional 90ppm over the period of 60 years (since 1960) to 410ppm.  Given the scale that would be nigh on vertical.

The claim that things are not as dire as “everyone” is saying depends largely on who you define as “everyone”.  The media has much to answer for here, as do some of the more extreme activists.

A recent article in Nature (and commented on by Forbes) indicated some disquiet with the fact that RCP8.5 has been used as “a likely ‘business as usual’ scenario” when it was intended as an “unlikely high-risk future” with some rather unrealistic assumptions, including burning coal at an infeasible rate (ie – we would run out of coal to burn).  The RCP8.5 scenario which has radiative forcing hitting 8.5W/m² before dropping away, has us reaching a 5C anomaly by 2100.

A far more realistic scenario has us reaching 3C.  The argument, therefore, that things are not as bad as they could be, stands but it’s in the same category as having cut off half your grandchild’s leg rather than two thirds.  Neither option is attractive and, if you’re not a psychopath, you’d prefer not to have cut off any part of your grandchild’s leg – unless it were absolutely necessary or inconvenient not to, or you could see a short-term financial or political advantage in carrying out the amputation.

The fundamental tactic with minimisation is looking at an extreme claim in the past and pointing out that it has not come to fruition.  Sea ice is a common example.  The fact that the claim was not a hard one (ie “may be gone by year x” can be interpreted as “will be gone by year x”) or that the claim is an outlier can be easily ignored by the denialist.  The fact that more modest claims are still a possibility (or have in fact come to pass) are also easily ignored.

And then there is minimisation of the evidence, which is usually the claim that the evidence isn’t that good, or isn’t that extensive, or isn’t that reliable, or is insufficiently long-term.  A denialist doesn’t actually need to present evidence that the evidence for climate change is poor in some way, nor do they need to be comprehensive.  Sometimes they can even present raw data that indicates a symptom of climate change (ie sea level rise) and claim that it’s evidence of there not being climate change.

In other cases, they can engage in disinformation as the Union of Concerned Scientists have claimed.  It was particularly sad to see staff at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) being directed to “highlight a lack of evidence that ties humans to climate change” despite there being studies, some from the EPA itself, providing that evidence.

In my discussions with JP, there has been a constant thread of “the models are unreliable” (they don’t seem to be from my look at them), “the temperature record is unreliable” (but get any historical temperature data that can be twisted into supporting the climate denialist position and it’s great!), and “there’s a confirmation bias on the part of the climate scientists” (see Climate Denial and Predatory Journals).  These sorts of claims, if taken at face value, all chip away at the legitimacy of climate related science.  In other words, when successful, these claims reduce our confidence in science, making us more receptive of the sorts of pseudoscience pedalled by climate denialists.