Will, essentially: If it was on the cover of Time magazine, I am insulated from ever being accused of dissembling, or incompetent journalism, no matter how many times I subsequently repeat as declarative fact what has been proven to have been a mistaken assertion on my part.

.

This is a well prepared report, and there is not enough time for it to include everything. But what should also be noted is that those few decades of recorded cooling last century have been dwarfed by the broader overall warming trend since record keeping became available.

Also notice from the NASA charts, tracking 1880 to the present, that the three decades or so of cooling referenced in the video above is barely discernible amidst the almost skyrocketing trend upward.

Also note, as the report alludes to, that despite the fact that the mechanisms of climate were far from perfectly understood in the late 60s and 70s, almost seven times as many scientific reports still (correctly) predicted global warming rather than cooling, even though the earth had been mildly cooling for a few decades.  That is, during the same period in which Will continues to repeatedly, and falsely, assert that the scientific consensus was for “global cooling,” the predominant consensus among scientists, not magazine covers, was, if anything, for global warming despite the fact that the only observable evidence the past few decades had been slight cooling. 

It may also be helpful to note that while the general scientific consensus for increased warming began to grow considerably even before the start of this decade – greenhouse gases trap heat that would otherwise reradiate back out into space, atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations have risen in historically unparalled fashion (for as far back as we can see, namely over 800,000 year) for such a geologically short time frame  (by at least ten fold, if not a hundred fold), and heat drives climate — and that the observable data has now tended to strongly corroborate this, what is even more certain is that we are in for a period of potentially radical climate change, including potentially higher levels of volatility, and probably more and more extreme weather periods.

That change could even, theoretically, involve sudden and wild cooling (likely,  if such were to occur, with rapid shifting back into radical heating, as would be expected with more atmospheric heat trapping capacity and the likely increase in both shorter term weather volatility and longer term climate volatility that would be expected). Although with slowly, but generally accelerating, temperature increases, the consensus for this is minimal. But as noted here, what is most certain is that the evidence of exactly what the outcome of this wild experiment we are conducting on the earth’s atmosphere and climate is, will come after its cause has long been implemented, not before.

The two important things that seem to be repeatedly missed, are the following:

1) The idea that the “earth is large and so we can’t effect it,” from a scientific perspective, is irrelevant, not to mention ridiculous. (We can blow it up hundreds of times over if we chose, but yet the cumulative incidental effect from the anthropomorphic activities of over 600 billion people in a rapidly changing world by definition can only trivially effect it?)

While the idea of reaching the almost exclusively greenhouse gas level atmosphere of the planet Venus (responsible for its 800 to 1000 degree temperature range — stick your hand in some boiling water at 212 degrees to get an idea of how hot that is, or touch the metal in an oven at 400), is of course unreasonable, as our greenhouse gas concentrations are minimal in comparison — it is important to understand that those minimal levels, as well as our impact upon them,  are significant.

Those minimal concentrations are essentially responsible for life as we know it on this planet; without the greenhouse effect the earth would be largely frozen. We have added over 40 percent to those levels in an extraordinarily short time period. (CO2 has increased about 38 percent since pre industrial times; other major greenhouse gas concentrations have risen more, including a 157% increase in methane, the next most important greenhouse gas). 

And we are still adding to that, at what, from a geologic perspective, is an extremely fast rate. (Levels of CO2 four years ago, lower than they are today, were actually 30 percent higher than at any point in the past 650,000 years – an enormous aberration given the relative stability (within a range) of atmospheric CO2 during that same time frame — and still growing. And concentrations of Methane, the next most important greenhouse gas after CO2, are 130 percent higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years. ) 

2) Climate change, fundamentally, is not a reflection of our empirical observations of global warming and increased weather and climate volatility. Rather, it is a reflection of our general understanding of how greenhouse gases work in the atmosphere, and how climate works. While that understanding is still being developed, the mechanisms that underscore climate change, are, as noted above, fairly consistent: Heat drives climate, and so radically changing the concentration of the heat trapping components of the atmosphere — particularly over what is essentially an almost instaneous time period from a geologic perspective — is likely to result in increasingly volatile and changing climate patterns, with warming by far the most likely general trend given that more and more rerediated heat is being blocked from reentry into space. The data that we have observed tends, so far, to strongly corroborate it. But it is not the data that makes the real case. The data just helps drive it home. It is the basic, and incontrovertible, greenhouse effect, and the basic, incontrovertible and substantial increases to greenhouse gases (as a result of very specific, and well known activities) that essentially make the case.

Much of the discussion on the issue that passes for analysis today glosses over, or ignores that last point, leading to a lot of confusion on the part of the populace with respect to just what we do, and don’t know, and what the basic mechanisms and reasons for concern are. It also tends to make general consensus and assessment far too data driven, when in the time frames that we have to act, the actual data, while important, is secondary to the underlying issue.

There have also been some claims that CO2 can’t be a “pollutant,” because it is vital to life. Many things are vital to life, including many vitamins and minerals, and the sun itself.   But too much of many of them will kill you.

Co2 is not a “pollutant” in the traditional sense. But as the most important greenhouse gas (not because its heat trapping potential is high, it is fairly low in comparison to most other greenhouse gases, but because of the enormous quantities of it), it has the effect of serving to help prevent heat from being reradiated out into space. This has nothing to do with whether we “exhale” it or not, or whether it is “good” for plants.   That exhalation (and plant absorption) is part of the natural carbon cycle. What has happened is that the total net amount of carbon circulating in that cycle is being drastically increased, as carbon that had taken millions and millions of years to accumulate, via plant matter, stored underground, has been rapidly re introduced via the burning of fossil fuels. In essence, we are taking countless millions of years of balance, and throwing its cumulative effect, into the atmosphere all at once.

There are other greenhouse gases (including, as noted, methane, and nitrous oxides, which come from, among other places, tailpipe exhaust) and other processes that effect net greenhouse gas levels — including many that are very interesting, and even somewhat complex. But carbon, and CO2 emissions (and, somewhat interrelated, various CO2 sink destroying and net CO2 emitting agricultural activities), because of the enormous quantities involved, is the most important.