I would like to address common myths and misconceptions about Climate Change.
Mythconception #1: “Climate Change used to be called ‘Global Warming’ but the Earth hasn’t been warming, so it’s called ‘Climate Change’ now.”
Global warming is a term describing the overall impacts of atmospheric and oceanic temperatures as a result of greenhouse gases on Earth. As time progressed and evidence poured in, one of the now solidly known results of a warming Earth is climate change.
Mythconception #2: “Climate Change and Global Warming is the same thing.”
Global warming begets climate change, i.e., climate change is a result of global warming. Both are happening simultaneously and are effects of increased greenhouse gas entrapment.
Mythconception #3: “The Earth’s climate has always been changing, therefore, no big deal.”
While it’s true Earth has experienced major climatic changes in its geological history, geologists (myself included) warn that it is a big deal. Past climate events have led to catastrophic extinctions around the world. Humans weren’t yet present for most of these major changes, particularly the “Great Dying,” Earth’s most massive extinction event 251 million years ago, which was brought about by enormous floods of lava in what is now Siberia. So, what about volcanoes today?
Mythconception #4: “Volcanoes like Mount Pinatubo produced more CO2 in a single eruption than humans since the dawn of Man.”
This topic is of great interest to me because I acquired my geology degree from the University of Hilo, which is cradled between the most massive and active volcanoes in the world. To address this outrageous idea that Mount Pinatubo produced more CO2 than all humans since the “dawn of Man” would be my pleasure.
Mount Pinatubo is an active stratovolcano in the Philippines. On June 15, 1991, after days of comparatively mild explosions from the summit, Mount Pinatubo released an enormous blast of ash more than 22 miles into the sky. The eruption resulted in 0.05 billion metric tons of CO2 injected into the atmosphere at one time. This may seem like a lot of CO2 until one recognizes that in 2015 humans produced roughly 40 billion metric tons of CO2. That’s a four with ten zeros! In other words, it would take 800 Pinatubo-sized eruptions to equal the amount of anthropogenic (human-originating) CO2 released in 2015 alone. The total CO2 emissions from all volcanoes on the planet release a relatively miniscule 0.6 billion metric tons annually. In 2015, CO2 output by humans surpassed the total CO2 emissions produced by all the volcanoes on the entire planet in the year’s first 5 ½ days.
Mythconception #5: “Earth has had 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 before. Our current 410 ppm isn’t significant, i.e., humans can’t cause climate change.”
As I explained in my article “Devil’s Advocate…410” water vapor makes up the largest percentage of the world’s greenhouse gases, but it’s the CO2 influx which increases the amount of water vapor able to be held in the atmosphere, and therefore the driving force behind global warming and, subsequently, climate change.
To illustrate this, imagine one cubic meter full of pure water (one metric ton). Now, consider the fact that one metric ton of pure CO2 (at room temperature) would take on the volume of 12½ large tanker trucks. Multiply that by estimated human CO2 emissions in 2015, 40 billion. That’s about 500 billion large tanker trucks of CO2 in one year. Human CO2 emissions are significant.
Mythconception #6: “Climate change won’t affect us.”
It already is. In 2018, Harmony broke the all-time Minnesota record for greatest rainfall in a single year. Harmony received 60.2 inches from January to December; nearly double the average. Caledonia and Mabel were second and third respectively in rainfall amounts. This was 3.6 inches more than the last record holder, Waseca (2016) which, in turn, was nearly 3.2 inches more than the record holder prior (St. Francis, 1991). In 27 years the record rainfall amount has been smashed by 6.6 inches. As cold as it may seem at times in our immediate region, the world has experienced 18 of its 19 warmest years since 2000. We are witnessing climate change and more extreme weather conditions more often as a result of global warming.
Cheers!
Sources:
Global Warming: https://climate.nasa.gov/resources/global-warming/
Volcanoes CO2: https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html?fbclid=IwAR2UIy5pdRMJbUqbNIzi0Nsz0fx6epGHXP6naO9PPIvBUesLDySGKHqQg-I
Pinatubo Eruption: https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs113-97/
Permian Extinction: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/permian-extinction/
Human CO2 Output: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities
Hottest years: https://www.sciencealert.com/the-planet-s-hottest-five-years-on-record-are-the-last-five-years?fbclid=IwAR3RTgQJvJrxvzHhPSirGAEpiYMmWDtdWHfWe5zvtTUn2ZLNsXNiN_ZAVrI
Harmony Rain: http://www.startribune.com/new-minnesota-state-precipitation-record-in-2018/504100692/
Waseca Rain: http://www.startribune.com/new-minnesota-state-precipitation-record-in-2018/504100692/
Sara Snipes says
Thank you for your well-informed article! I always enjoy others who support research and try to help others understand the mechanisms and processes behind it.
George says
“Snow is code so dere cain’t be no global warmin.” Glug glug glug
Thomas E.H. says
@ Aaron Bishop
//This was 3.6 inches more than the last record holder, Waseca (2016) which, in turn, was nearly 3.2 inches more than the record holder prior (St. Francis, 1991). In 27 years the record rainfall amount has been smashed by 6.6 inches.//
I believe this should be 6.8 inches? Or nearly so? Otherwise I thoroughly enjoyed reading your mythconception rebuttals. I was tickled to see you went into detail about the Pinatubo eruption. I wonder if Hawkeye is around to read it.
Aaron Bishop says
I believe you are correct! I have fat fingers. Thanks for reading.
Cheers!
Kim Wentworth says
Nice article, a couple of responses. myth 1) in the mid 70’s the common thought was that we would be frozen solid by now. There was NEVER a thought of warming. There was a cover story in Newsweek on this. Myth 2: isn’t warming or cooling a result of a changing, living planet? Myth 3: if we were not around for most of the past changes, how do we accurately gauge our present influence? Myth 4: without co2 our planet would be dead. Does our planet have a built in capability of handling co2? Myth 5: your illustration here seems a little simplistic or maybe it’s just me. Myth 6: two numbers you used to keep in mind, 19 and 27. You can’t possibly think that a blink in time can be used to measure global warming or climate change. Enjoyed the read and I understand WE owe it to our future to make sure there is something for them. Just don’t go all Al Gore on the topic or you lose points faster than a shrinking glacier.
Aaron Bishop says
Greetings Kim,
Thank you for your response. I would be very glad to address the points you have brought up.
1. The person who made “Global Warming” into a common phrase in the scientific community (and then later more widely) was Wallace Broecker. It is a coincidence that the man died yesterday (Feb 19, 2019). It was his 1975 scientific article “Climate Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?” which got the ball rolling by the late ‘70s. There wasn’t much access to his article by academics at the time (no internet) and, so, the word wasn’t spread as quickly as it otherwise could have been. By 1977, ExxonMobil (back then just “Exxon”) knew and recognized the science behind the use of burning petroleum products in massive quantities. In fact, their employed scientists did some of the original research on the topic. It’s been confirmed by some of the notes by their senior scientist James Black that Exxon knew of the effects by at least 1977. I speculate that large companies, which understandably would prefer the public to believe something contradictory to a damaging truth, have the means and motive to alter the narrative.
However, in 1965, ten years before the Newsweek article was published, Charles Keeling (a researcher focusing on CO2 levels detected at Mauna Loa Observatory) had noticed a steady rise in CO2. The consequences of increased CO2 prior to the mid ‘70s was merely known as the “Greenhouse Effect” which was indeed taught in the early ‘70s in high school science classes. As I described in my “Devil’s Advocate… 410” article, it’s the minute changes in CO2 which greatly affects the increase of water vapor, the real trigger for global warming. However, another phenomenon was happening during this time. Aerosols. Another natural effect by volcanic activity, aerosols cool the planet. Humans began using aerosols as well, en masse and constantly starting in the 1930s. It was thanks to the great work by F. Sherwood Rowlind and Mario Molina who discovered the negative affects of aerosols (particularly Chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs) on our Ozone layer (our protective shield from high intensity solar bombardment). Because of their work in 1974, and the U.S. led fight against aerosols, we are seeing the Ozone begin to repair itself. I find this to be another affirmation that human activity plays a significant role on the surface of our planet.
Regarding the Newsweek article of 1975, the author, Peter Gwynne, had focused on regional temperatures in the northern hemisphere. Aerosols were still heavily used and are now known to have masked partial warming trends. So, yes, it was cold in the northern hemisphere in the early 1970s, but not globally. The Newsweek article really was a tremendous setback. Suffice it to say, one popular article from 1975 is in no way superior to all of the data from independent sources since then.
2. Warming and cooling is indeed the result of a changing, living planet. However, it is the rate of change and the mechanisms behind it (which resemble very closely extinction level events in the past) that are so alarming.
3. We gauge our present influence by discovering past influences that caused similar climatic changes in Earth’s history. When we rule out the causes of those past events as a potential cause for what we see today, we are left with fewer and fewer factors. We are left with human-caused atmospheric meddling.
4. Yes, we would be dead, as we do need CO2 in order for the present biosphere to support human life. However, too much of a good thing (like oxygen or water) can lead to terminal ramifications if taken in too much too quickly. To be clear, that’s an analogy of the biosphere as a whole, not the conditions of human health.
Yes, the planet does have a built-in mechanism for handling CO2. This is a really good question, and one not brought up often. Just as there is a water cycle on Earth, there is the carbon dioxide cycle as well (usually just called the “Carbon Cycle”). The CO2 cycle has sources and sinks of CO2 that would have a balancing affect in the short-term, and a rhythmic undulation over the long-term.
One of the main sources of long-term sequestration is burial. This is carbon that is very slowly taken out of the short-term carbon cycle (plant matter to animal matter by consumption and animal matter to the air by respiration and decay, and back to plant matter by way of photosynthesis) enters the long-term carbon cycle (burial within soil/rock to air by weathering).
The other main source of CO2 sequestration is water. The Earth’s oceans absorb excess CO2 from the atmosphere. However, when humans release or combust hundreds of millions of years worth of CO2 sequestration from the soil/rock in a matter of decades, we see unprecedented CO2 imbalance of the carbon cycle and the regular sinks (oceans/vegetation/soil/rock) simply cannot keep up. As a result, the oceans will absorb more than their “fair share” which results in ocean acidification. I wrote about ocean acidification in “Devil’s Advocate… 410”. Naturally, there is a problem with the oceans getting warm too quickly for organisms to cope. I alluded to this in “Devil’s Advocate… The 6th Mass Extinction”.
5. I agree with you. I am severely limited in how much and how detailed I can get in these articles with a 700 word limit. Plus I want my articles to be digestible. I’d love to go into more detail, and I did a bit more with my article “Devil’s Advocate…410”. If you would like me to expound, I will.
6. Breaking records in shorter time intervals is important to note. Breaking rainfall records in particular corresponds to more moisture in the atmosphere, predicted by climate change models, since more CO2 allows more water vapor to be held in the atmosphere. As our climate moves to greater extremes, I felt this is something people in Fillmore County can relate to, which is why I included it in the article.
Ultimately, the main number trend to look at is the CO2 at 410 parts per million. One could argue that the others are just the effects of that one number rising. Looking at pre-human CO2 counts and comparing them to not only today’s numbers but (more importantly) the rate of increase is how we can measure the probable trends of global warming and climate change. This is why I dedicated an entire article to that number in late August of 2018. The more we can make accurate predictions about global warming and climate change, the better chances we have at mitigating the effects.
7. Al Gore. Was he wrong on some things? Yes. Was he right on others? Yes. Was his delivery great? Debatable. But he got the conversation jump-started. People can certainly poke holes at him, but just by mentioning Gore in relation to climate change means his message was, to a large degree, successful. To yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre when smoke is smelled and/or seen is still an okay thing to do. Yes, there may be a scramble or confusion or disgruntlement for the loss of seeing a good movie, but in the end, we have to choose to get out or suffer the consequences. So, with that in mind, I’ll continue to stick to the facts, the figures, the updated models, and relay that information so it is digestible to as many readers as possible.
I really do appreciate your comments about my article. I take your questions and this topic quite seriously.
Cheers
Kim Wentworth says
Thanks for the reply, greatly appreaciate that. There is so much back and forth. Question for you: Your thoughts on statements from the creator of the weather channel? His name slips me but if you will….
Aaron Bishop says
Greetings Kim,
Thank you again for your inquiry. The late John Coleman was a successful TV weatherman throughout his lifetime. His well-known 2014 comments concerning climate change were refuted by The Weather Channel two days after he made his remarks. He did not have a meteorology degree. He, of course, is well within his rights to carry an opinion, but to make easily refutable statements so publicly once again was a set-back for the independent scientists of virtually all nationalities, ethnicities, religions, and backgrounds. I emphasize the diversity because if there are two things that are universal in this world, it’s mathematics and science.
When something so widely studied and cross-checked over decades by tens of thousands of scientists from overlapping disciplines is criticized by someone who does not have the background knowledge to the same degree and is showcased or brought to the forefront, it is both ridiculous and disheartening as it gives the misinformation the spotlight.
Facts bore people, and a popular figure telling lies is far more likely to be believed than an unfamiliar figure telling truths, in my opinion.
If you’d like me to focus on any particular claim of his, feel free to let me know which, and I’d be more than happy to look into it.
Cheers!
Aaron Bishop says
Kim Wentworth,
I forgot to include in my reply to you the quick URL links to the previous articles I referred to. I don’t really go back to look at comments there (as it’s been a while), so if there’s something in those articles you’re interested in commenting on, I would be more than happy to carry on that conversation here.
Extinction: http://fillmorecountyjournal.com/devils-advocatethe-6th-mass-extinction/
410: http://fillmorecountyjournal.com/devils-advocate410/
Cheers!
Anonymous says
Thanks, Aaron, for your research. Every global warming denier should read your article. Herb
Aaron Bishop says
Thanks, Herb. I am not sure if deniers will suddenly believe by any means. But those who may think it’s not such a big deal or that we humans aren’t significant will hopefully consider the evidence carefully.
Cheers!
Dee Graham says
Aaron, thanks for researching and writing this article. I am going to send the pdf and the URL to every elected official and every local news paper where I live.
Aaron Bishop says
I appreciate that, Dee! Thank you for reading the article.
Cheers!
Tom says
Thanks for exchanging ‘mythconceptions’ with facts. So many Denier sites keep pumping out the lies.
Aaron Bishop says
Thank you for reading. I appreciate your comments. It is true. Fighting the fictions that masquerade as fact could be a 24/7 employments opportunity.
Cheers!