We must define the term “climate change”

I recently read both the letter to the Editor regarding ‘The HOAX of “Climate Change”’ and “Commentary: Now isn’t the time to reduce environmental review of energy permits.” First, we need to define the terms and evaluate consensus science. There’s more manmade CO2 leading to global warming. The temperature rise is measured by satellite: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/msu/time-series/global/lt/ann/12. There’s more moisture in the atmosphere also measured by satellite.

Next, we must define the term “climate change” and evaluate the scientific consensus. As the Commentary article says: “Now is not the time to attempt to green-light energy projects that will contribute to more flooding and more erosion — not when scientists tell us such flooding events will become more and more common.” I get a little nervous when I read “scientists tell us” for some of the same reasons pointed out in HOAX. There’s more moisture in the atmosphere because warmer air can hold more moisture. But the key word is “can”. The actual amount of moisture that winds up in any given location is determined by weather, not temperature.

I do not believe there is a lot of “climate change” resulting from global warming. I have read numerous scientific assessments of higher rainfall, such as the one SW Virginia in August described in “Commentary.” While there are more rainfalls above particular thresholds (e.g., 2 inches in a day), there’s no trend in the maximum amount of rainfall. I have often read the claim that “the top 1% of rainfalls have up to 50% more rainfall in them” (depending on region). I have not found the source for this claim; apparently, it’s in a book from 2008.

Globally while there are fewer hurricanes, the average hurricane is stronger, and that’s causing an increase in the number of major hurricanes. Most of the world’s strongest tornadoes are in the US, and there’s a decrease in strong (EF-3 and up) tornadoes in the US. Why are there stronger hurricanes but not more strong tornadoes? The increase in hurricane strength appears to be directly caused by warmer oceans. However, changes in shear and other weather variables may result in fewer hurricanes over the ocean and fewer tornadic supercells over parts of the US.

What about heat? There’s certainly a case that global warming can result in local heat. The early September heatwave in California showed unprecedented maximum temperatures by a degree F or a few degrees in some cases. September is the hottest month near the California coast, so the timing makes sense and the unprecedented (in 120 years) seems to trace directly back to global warming.

Thus “climate change” is both simple and complex. There are a few relatively straightforward conclusions, like more rainfall, higher temperatures, and stronger hurricanes. But there’s a lot of complexity in weather, making it difficult to achieve higher extremes in rainfall or even higher temperature extremes here in the eastern US, where the hottest temperatures were generally in the 1930s or earlier, spurred by Midwest drought and weather patterns. But even that lack of higher heat here may have a global warming factor: more moisture tends to temper the highest temperatures while also increasing low temperatures.

Finally, we need to think about policy in the context of what we know about “climate change.” I believe there’s a case to be made for a strong economy to help reduce the impact of any future extreme weather. Also, a case for intensive R&D to give the world a better energy future. Indeed we have to invert the old saying and “think locally but act globally.” There are 900 coal plants being built or planned worldwide. The world needs alternatives, but we need a strong economy to fund R&D and maintain resilience. Global weather losses, including fire, flood, drought, and wind, are less than 0.2% of global GDP, thanks to the rise in global GDP despite some rises in those losses.

Scientists tell us many things which we must evaluate. The raw data tells us global warming is not a hoax. The policy must be decided by politicians. We must respect consensus science, but we are not a scientocracy. Certainly, scientists cannot tell us how to trade off between human needs for reasonably priced reliable electricity from the natural gas that would be piped across the mountains and the political impacts of cutting off access to natural gas to set an example but not accomplish much if anything towards reducing CO2.

I believe there’s a lot of middle ground between stopping all fossil fuels for any reason whatsoever (exemplified by Commentary) and ignoring the long-term problem (exemplified by HOAX) created by burning fossil fuels.

Eric Peterson
Front Royal VA