A version of this blog was published in Bylines Cymru in August 2023
Over the last few weeks, I have become aware of some “climate change” arguments propagating, based around the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. I have to be honest, from the top of my head I couldn’t remember. I had a look and found it was about 0.04% of the atmosphere. Yep, lower than I remembered. But does that matter? No.
However, many climate change denial conspiracists, were using this fact and that Nitrogen (78%) and Oxygen (21%) make up a far higher percentage (and using people’s ignorance of this data) as a “gotcha” insight and so claim CO2 caused Climate Change and the risks thereof, is a “lie” given such obvious data!
There is no substance to these “gotcha claims”. However, I had to take a little time to re-inform myself of why that is the case…..
Nitrogen and Oxygen are not “greenhouse” gases. Simply put their molecular structure is pretty simple and not very capable of absorbing energy at the wavelength of the infrared energy radiated from the surface of the earth after being heated by the sun (typically infrared so about 700~1,000 nanometres). CO2 however is more complex (as is Methane) and so much better at absorbing radiation at these wavelengths….
“As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect”.’
Plenty of on-line articles, papers, etc on this subject, for example:
Atmosphere | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (noaa.gov)
How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming? – You Asked (columbia.edu)
Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide | NOAA Climate.gov
A Graphical History of Atmospheric CO2 Levels Over Time | Earth.Org
Climate explained: why Mars is cold despite an atmosphere of mostly carbon dioxide (phys.org)
As is often the case in science, simple explanations almost always have a more complex foundation; this video by Sabine Hossenfelder really unpacks the phenomenon of greenhouse gases….and I learnt even more by watching it – but still scratching my head over some of it!!!
I took the trouble to satisfy myself that the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere was irrelevant, it is the actual quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere that is the key data set – and that figure has nearly doubled in the last 300 years – and most especially in the last 60 years! Figure 1
Figure 1 CO2 data from ice cores covering the last 800,000 years. From climate.nasa.gov[i]
In fact, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere now is still increasing – fast – and is higher than at any time in human history. Yes, it was higher in the distant past– e.g. when the dinosaurs were around. But hey people….we are NOT dinosaurs. Modern humans and all our ecosystems have evolved around our present climate, we are now Holocene creatures. Any dramatic changes to our climate and ecosystems will cause evolutionary change and extinctions. Sure, life will go on….but not as we know it. We really ought to avoid that!
Most who followed these gotcha tweets, Facebook messages etc (often millions) probably didn’t take the time to “find out” and some probably just sourced further social media commentary to re-enforce the misinformation. I have seen others now asserting these data sets as if their conspiracy theory had been vindicated.
Another twitter warrior also tried to use “but there is a higher percentage of CO2 in the Martian atmosphere than on earth, but Mars is cold”! Oh dear, a quick look and again a clear explanation was found.
Two things to note here…
- #1 Do people really think that that thousands of climate scientist had completely missed the impact of such a low %age of CO2 in earth’s atmosphere for decades (Doh!) or had conspired to hide such an obvious insight from the general public, or worse are working together on some “great global reset” experiment. FFS!
- #2 Secondly, it is clear that social media can quickly propagate a “little knowledge“, in a most dangerous way and misinform and often evangelise millions of people, making them less susceptible to real data, real analysis and real insight. Those irresponsible sources of such social media messages ought to be held to account. They clearly don’t know how science works and rely on the fact that people can be easily influenced by erroneous “plausible” sounding claims based on mispresented data sets and a complete ignorance of the underlying science.
This is a deeply worrying phenomena, at a time when average global temperatures are actually expected to exceed the 1.5C limit for the first time[ii]!
I trust the scientific community to collectively inform me, to be objective, to always try and uncover truths about our how our world works. It’s the least bad system we have developed; it’s not perfect, but it the best we have. It is based on theory, experiment and refinement, peer review, challenge, scrutiny, etc. When ideas/theories are in error or incomplete, it is generally other scientists following the scientific method, publishing papers that are peer reviewed that uncover earlier misunderstanding and so, overall, collectively improve our knowledge. It is NEVER shock jocks, social media personalities or Twitter warriors” or that bloke down the pub who read something about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the daily mail.
I’d also add, it’s rare that a prior scientific theory is completely deposed, its often refined/improved through the availability of more accurate and finer grain data, more accurate experimentation and analysis thereof (often based on more sophisticated experiments and equipment ). It’s what Quantum physics and Relativity did to Newtonian Physics at the beginning of the 20th Century. The latter still works well in 99% of circumstances (including going to the moon in chemical rocket); but we know at the scale of the atom it does not (hence Quantum Theory) and at speeds closer to the speed of light it also fails (hence Relativity).
The reality is that premature scientific claims (remember cold fusion) and sometimes fraudulent science (Piltdown man) also get found out, yes by other scientists reviewing, repeating, re-analysing and applying their knowledge with intellectual honesty and objectivity. It’s never Dave from the pub or that bloke on Facebook, TikTok, etc!
Sadly, our mass media is full of such ignorant and dangerous “gotcha” claims often propagated by ignorant opinion formers. Would the same people offering such insight, get on aeroplane (having never flown) and barge into the cockpit to try and tell the pilots how to fly (noting those pilots have trained for years to secure appropriate qualifications to fly).
We trust and rely on experts to inform us, and depend on other experts, the scientific process, systems, regulations, etc to challenge them. The truth is the more one studies a complex subject, the more one realises how much one does not know.
Too many people with little or no knowledge of a subject (and lacking an obvious appreciation of the details) don’t appear to be aware of how little they know, and yet often appear the most vocal in sharing their opinions.
Bertrand Russell is reputed to have said:
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
This is what we are witnessing as regards climate science (and I would add, this phenomenon and a degree of straw manning and whataboutery, also impacts epidemiology, evolution, and now bizarrely urban design, 20mph speed limits, etc).
I am not sure how patient we can remain of the phenomenon of often amplified and broadcast “Dunning-Kruger effect” ignorance. It’s a real risk and impediment to progress on addressing our climate change obligations.
If people really want to know what’s going on, the most recent IPCC update[iii] for policy makers is good start.
ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf
PS… This video from Prof Kevin Anderson is an essential watch…
These older blogs/article I prepared also worth a look…
This from 2019
..and this from 2022
A short PS and tough choices
In a parallel conversation, the subject of engagement and consensus came up. Now I am all for working with public opinion and seeking support for the changes we clearly need to make. The existential question is how much engagement do we need, how much consensus must we achieve Vs how long can we afford to delay? I am no supporter of authoritarian intervention, but we are facing some very tough choices.
Using an earlier analogy, as a heart surgeon, do I wait for the agreement of the butcher, the baker and candle stick maker before I make my life saving incision on a patient, whose heart condition means his chances of dying increase with every second I wait?
So, should we act? Even if I was 95% sure that my house will not catch fire or I won’t be burgled, I still pay for my insurance to cover me for the residual 5% risk.
I want us all to treat the Climate Emergency the same way, as even if it was only 5% of those best qualified to inform us of the risks and impact of inaction saying so, we would still take out “the insurance policy” and act. The reality is, that it is 95%++ of those experts telling us of the risks and that we should act. It’s like saying there is a 95% chance you house will burn down – do you want insurance?
So, I don’t want to wait for the opinion of the butcher, baker and candle stick maker, etc to align. Yes, I’d much prefer they understood the issues, risks and supported government action. However, I am not sure we have the luxury of time. Cannot those who cling to the clear minority view on this matter, adopt the insurance policy approach. After all, in the very very unlikely event they are right, we have just made our world a cleaner, better place. If 95% of climate scientists are right and we do nothing, then we face a catastrophe, no matter what the butcher, baker or candlestick maker believe?
PS2 ….. nothing would make me happier than some robust peer reviewed evidence from multiple sources that shows that increasing CO2 levels are not changing the climate and that we have nothing to worry about.
[i] Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)
[ii] Global warming set to break key 1.5C limit for first time – BBC News
[iii] ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf
Mark Barry 