I signed up to the climate change mantra a long time ago when the science was ‘less certain’ than it is today. As I saw it:
• The long-term trend in global temperatures was upwards
• The rate of increase was alarmingly outstripping any previous trends, suggesting this was more than just the usual cycle
• It was more than likely that human activity (e.g. gas emissions, deforestation) was contributing towards this long-term trend
• Humans therefore had a moral duty to try and repair the damage and prevent further harm
• The cost to the most vulnerable in national and global society would be worse if we didn’t invest in our mutual futures
• If we chose not to act immediately, and in 30 years’ time realised that we should’ve done, it would be too late. Prudence was the name of the game.
Today, if not questioning that commitment, then I’m raising an eyebrow. I couldn’t say whether my sudden wobble is due to my recent trip to Iceland (see later), something I read that has short-circuited my brain, or heat stroke.
Or perhaps said brain is firmly stuck in ‘anti-groupthink’ mode. My mission in life, pompous git that I am, is to try and break the stranglehold of groupthink on political and social discourse. The usual suspects (you know who they are) propagate each other’s biased, one-sided, fact-dubious, uncontextualized, counter-productive, closed-minded pontifications, devoid of critical examination, intellectual rigour or anything thought-provoking. To restore balance and vitality to the discussions, I sometimes take an opposing point of view, if only to provoke a backlash – works like a charm – and mix things up with left-field thoughts. Far more interesting and enlightening – and mischievous – than agreeing with your own echo chamber.
Therefore, because almost everyone is having a meltdown over the climate meltdown, and they’re all saying the same thing – i.e. climate groupthink – my devil’s advocate mindset has kicked in and I want to say something different, even if it’s limited to asking difficult questions. I don’t know whether it’s intellectual curiosity or idle curiosity, but it’s definitely free speech, so get over it.
To set the scene, the recent heatwave was driven by the ‘Azores High’, a large subtropical semi-permanent centre of high atmospheric pressure typically found south of the Azores in the Atlantic Ocean. (The Azores is an archipelago composed of nine volcanic islands about 870 miles west of Lisbon, 930 miles northwest of Morocco, and about 1,200 miles southeast of Newfoundland, per Wikipedia). The High expanded and pushed further north, bringing hotter temperatures to the UK.
In more detail, the Azores High is formed by dry air descending in the subtropics, causing winds to flow clockwise around northern Africa, the eastern coast of the US and western Europe. Westerly winds travelling across the North Atlantic pick up moisture and draw it over Europe, where it falls as rain. The High’s size and intensity shift year-on-year, driving variations in rainfall amounts over Britain and Europe. A few days ago, the High was remarkably slap-bang over Blighty, drawing hot hot hot winds from the south and east.
According to carbonbrief.org a combination of observations, model simulations and palaeoclimatic data for the last 1,200 years has led some scientists to the conclusion that the High has expanded as the planet has warmed, drawing warmer than usual air further north; i.e. climate change is ultimately to blame for our heatwave.
However, carbonbrief.org also reports that Dr Jacob Scheff, an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, questions the findings: “While this study is of considerable interest,” he said, “it does not actually show that the real-world Azores high expansion is unprecedented in the last 1,200 years. Instead, it shows that in one particular climate model, the expansion is unprecedented in the last 1,200 years in most simulations” (my emphases).
As not all models used in the study support this conclusion, Scheff warns that “the title statement [Twentieth-century Azores High expansion unprecedented in the past 1,200 years] is not justified by the study”.
Another academic Dr Justin Mankin, an assistant professor in the department of Geography at the University of Dartmouth said, “The paper is interesting and the authors clearly did a lot of nice analysis [sarcasm?] on the footprint of the Azores high”.
However, he adds that changes in the size and intensity of the High could also have been driven by changes in aerosol levels, rather than changes in greenhouse gases emissions. That the authors did not investigate this factor is “a curious omission” he says.
Abstracting Dr Mankin’s argument to a gin-and-tonic-fuelled level, what if instead of (1) climate change causing changes to the Azores High, the actual situation is (2) changes to the Azores High cause climate change, and something else (e.g. aerosols) cause/caused changes to the Azores High. In other words:
1) Something (e.g. gas emissions) causes Changes to climate causes Changes to the Azores High causes Changes to the weather
or
2) Something (e.g. aerosols) causes Changes to the Azores High causes Changes to weather AND climate.
Note that “weather” refers to short-term changes in the atmosphere, while “climate” describes what the weather is like over a long period of time.
In other words, if 1) is correct, in order to avoid unusual extreme weather becoming usual, we have to tackle the ultimate causes of climate change, which many believe to include greenhouse gas emissions by humans. If 2) is correct, we have to tackle the ultimate causes of changes to the Azores High, which do not include climate change because climate change is an effect or a symptom of changes to the Azores High, not a cause.
If 2) is correct, then how might those clever scientists have got it so wrong? I can hazard a guess. One of their prima facie assumptions was that climate change is caused by gas emissions courtesy of we humans. From that, they deduce that the expansion of the Azores High after about 1850 was prompted by human-driven gas emissions from the industrial revolution (~1760-1830), increasing into the twentieth century.
Ah. But. Um. Ya see. Hang on a sec. The High expansion is also potentially consistent with something else – volcanic activity (yup; I went to Iceland and read the tourist plaques). In addition to “anthropogenically driven warming” as the scientists label it, from 1760 we’ve had lots of volcanic eruptions including (from Wiki again):
• The largest and deadliest eruption in recorded history in 1816 at Mount Tambora (Indonesia) that caused the “Year Without a Summer”
• Krakatoa (Indonesia) in 1883 that caused a five-year volcanic winter
• Novarupta (Alaska) in 1912, the largest eruption of the 20th century
• Mount St Helens (Washington State) in 1980, the deadliest and most economically destructive volcanic eruption in the history of the United States
• Mount Pinatubo (Philippines) in 1991, the second largest eruption of the 20th century and largest stratospheric disturbance since Krakatoa
• Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai: the largest eruption of the 21st century, it commenced in December 2021. Satellites recorded an eruption column of at least 98,000 ft into the atmosphere. Fluctuations in air pressure were recorded all over the world as the pressure wave has fully circled the world several times.
Is the current warming trend also a temporary over-correction from the volcanically enforced winters / non-summers? How did the fluctuations in air pressure after the 2021 eruption impact this summer's weather? So many questions; so little time.
Therefore, wouldn’t it be worth investigating the correlation between volcanic activity (as well as aerosol levels) with the Azores High? Maybe there are even more factors at play that haven’t yet been properly investigated. Maybe we need to reassess the extent of human activity towards climate change.
That’s not to say we should stand down while we undertake any review. Remember the final bullet point above: “If we chose not to act immediately, and in 30 years’ time realised that we should’ve done, it would be too late”. In any event, I can’t see us ever being able to control volcanic activity, so we need to take action even more urgently where we can, i.e. reducing human-induced greenhouse gas emissions by significantly curtailing non-essential flights.
In order to find the best solutions – corrective as well as management – for climate change, we must get all the causal relationships spot on, with no room for complacency or oversights. I mentioned above two scientists who don’t agree with a bunch of others on a matter of detail. Are there other dissenting scientists and other contentious bits of detail? Sometimes scientists need to turn their backs on groupthink and take a collective deep breath, in the process risking the wrath of the BBC, Guardian, and Extinction Rebellion. They’re not important (whatever their egos might tell them), whereas the planet is.
If nothing else it’d be fun to see them froth at the mouth. I know, I know, I’m never going to Heaven with an attitude like that. But one of my other missions in life is to make sure that Heaven on earth isn’t a thing of the past because of climate change.
(updated 8th August 2022)
No comments:
Post a Comment