Is it dangerous to talk about global warming?

Of course not if it is used in a general meaning. But if it is used by science in a one-sided, undifferentiated and meaningless buzzword, then one should question whether the term global warming causes more damage than being helpful in a discussion. In a world where much-touted climate change is a top priority, clear and unambiguous scientific language is essential.

While science’s use of the word climate is fraught with inconsistencies (see e.g. previous posts), the word ‘warming’ is self-explanatory. You can easily understand it in a very general way, but you can also associate it with temperature measurements and statistical surveys. This is rarely the case in the general climate debate, but rather serves as a combat term in the debate and man-made climate change. The reason is the too one-sided and narrow assignment, with a claim to exclusivity. As an example may serve the following explanation:

 Global warming — Refers to the recent and ongoing rise in global average temperature near Earth’s surface. It is caused mostly by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Global warming is causing climate patterns to change. (source: miami.edu )

There are three issues in particular that should be addressed: warming, global and greenhouse gases.

Earth’s warming over the last 150 years can’t be seriously disputed by anyone, but the last 100,000 years have been significantly colder, with an accelerated warming period from 1918–1939 and a sharp cooling period from 1940–1975. Just talking about ‘warming’ is quickly misleading. This is especially true when reference is made to ‘global warming’. To underline this, the global temperature anomalies from the day before yesterday — September 16, 2022 — have been inserted above. These indicate a very marked difference in air and sea temperatures between the northern and southern hemispheres. This has existed for many months. The reason is that the El Nino that was expected last year has not materialized and is still sone time off. Conclusion: A global perspective hides an important point of discussion.

It becomes unacceptable and dangerous when the warming is attributed without restrictions to the ‘greenhouse gases’, whereby an assignment to man-made climate change is to be made, as expressed by the BBC, for example:

Global warming: The steady rise in global average temperature in recent decades, which experts believe is largely caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

This irresponsibly chokes off potential other causes of atmospheric and ocean warming, easily leads to asking the wrong question. That’s what happened to a team of researchers led by Neil Stenhouse, et al., for the American Meteorological Society (AGU) to report in 2014: “Meteorologists’ Views About Global Warming.” The authors tested four hypotheses
— 1) perceived conflict about global warming will be negatively associated, and
__2) climate expertise,
__3) liberal political ideology, and
__4) perceived scientific consensus will be positively associated — with a) higher personal certainty that global warming is happening, b) viewing the global warming observed over the past 150 years as mostly human caused, and c) perception of global warming as harmful.

The four hypotheses used in the 12-page paper already suffer from the question. So the Hypothesis II reads as follows:

H2: As compared with professionals with a more conservative political orientation, professionals with a more liberal political orientation will have higher levels of personal certainty that global warming is happening, will be more likely to be view it is as mostly human caused, and will be more likely to view it as harmful rather than beneficial.

Of the 7,197 AGU members invited to participate, of which about 20% completed at least one portion of the questionnaire. None seemed to have questioned the questionnaire, as the authors report nothing in this respect. There is no indication that any of the four hypothesis concerning human-caused climate change refers to anything else than extra release of CO2, one should not wonder that the authors findings conclude that (extract)

…..the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists: 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming………(and) results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change-

NOTE. For the overall result of the Neil Stenhouse, Analysis, see the image.

It sounds convincing, but it’s a disaster. How can a science make it so easy for itself. Because the extra CO2 for the warming of the atmosphere is easy to explain, it doesn’t have to be the only reason by far. To find out there are many historical events since the beginning of industrialization. The above-mentioned temperature deviations on a global scale, 1918–1939 and 1940–1975 (see: HERE), are particularly suitable.

For those who find that too far in the past, serious consideration should be given to the reasons for the temperature discrepancy, as illustrated in the opening image above. Greenhouse gases are distributed evenly throughout the atmosphere. Temperature anomalies should also appear comparatively intensively. This is contradicted by the very differences between the northern and southern hemispheres of the last 2–3 years. The narrow discussion with reference to “global warming” may prove to be a big flop for science, for the well-being of civilization, could end in disaster