The Crisis Report - 41

When it comes to climate change, your perspective is shaped by your knowledge.

It appears that sea surface temperatures in 2024 are unlikely to revert below those of 2023, unlike typical La Niña conditions. This suggests that the new Global Mean Temperature (GMT) is approximately +1.7°C. Since December 2022, the GMT has surged by about +0.5°C.

Here’s his message:

Amidst this heat wave, both denial and fatalism are merely postures, not serious perspectives. With evidence of human-induced global warming evident all around, our only viable option is hopeful realism.

Got that?

Deniers and pessimists are both "not serious viewpoints". You can safely disregard their claims or demand extraordinary evidence for any assertions they make.

Climate change is serious, as "evidence of human-induced global warming is pervasive."

However...

What does “hopeful realism” really mean?

How would you define it?

Mr. Robinson elaborates:

A relentless heat dome has settled over the Midwest and Northeast, continuously scorching half the nation.

The first named storm of the hurricane season has made landfall in Mexico, bringing heavy rains and flooding to Texas.

Florida is grappling with recovery from record-breaking rains that caused widespread flooding.

New Mexico and California are combating massive wildfires—all occurring in June, well before summer officially begins.

> This highlights numerous climate disasters that Americans might have experienced or seen reported.

While no single weather event, including this extreme heat, can be directly attributed to climate change, one could argue that no individual case of lung cancer is definitively linked to smoking. Still, the percentage of U.S. adults who smoke has dramatically decreased from 45% in 1954 to just 12% today. Anyone claiming no connection would be viewed as a dangerous outlier.

This is a compelling analogy.

It essentially states that, while you can't pinpoint lung cancer to smoking, public awareness of the correlation has led to a significant decrease in smoking rates. Those denying climate change are equated to those who dismiss the link between smoking and cancer. Mr. Robinson suggests that failing to recognize climate change makes one a "dangerous crank".

Mr. Robinson then addresses Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Florida’s governor recently trivialized the “rain bomb” that dumped up to two feet of rain on parts of his state, claiming it was nothing unusual. Like many Republicans, he seeks political gain by pretending climate change is non-existent. In May, he enacted legislation banning offshore wind turbines, which provide renewable energy, while loosening regulations on fossil fuel pipelines.

“We don’t want our energy policy dictated by climate ideology,” DeSantis stated. Yet, paradoxically, he is doing just that.

Only a blind ideology, coupled with personal ambition, could lead a public figure to ignore the relationship between fossil fuels and climate change.

> One of our major political parties is shamefully choosing to posture on an issue that is already altering our way of life.

I completely agree with this assessment. Ron DeSantis is misleading the public, as are many Republicans, particularly regarding climate change, a trend that began in the 2000 election.

The troubling aspect of our democracy is that these politicians seem to face no electoral backlash for their dishonesty; DeSantis was elected by a majority of Floridians.

So, how do we interpret this next segment?

People are aware of the situation.

According to Gallup, 62% of U.S. adults are concerned about climate change, with 61% acknowledging that it is primarily driven by human activity.

Research from the Pew Research Center indicates that 67% of Americans believe the country should focus on developing alternative energy sources like wind and solar, while only 32% support increasing oil, coal, and natural gas production.

If this holds true, who is supporting Republican candidates?

These figures suggest that roughly 33% to 38% of the population is either unaware, indifferent, or in denial about the fundamental realities of climate change.

This represents a significant societal failure. On a matter that is literally about life and death, we have allowed polarization and deceit to taint the debate on solutions.

Climate change and the climate crisis are not the primary concerns influencing voter behavior. Thus, regardless of public anxiety reflected in polls, the political implications are negligible.

Only about 8% of voters consider climate change the “most important” issue, and all of them align with progressive or Democratic ideologies.

We are not united on climate change.

Now, here’s an infuriating point. Mr. Robinson seems oblivious to the fact that only 8% prioritize the climate crisis. He starts building up President Biden as a leader on climate issues.

> Mr. Robinson claims:

President Biden is executing a dual strategy.

The United States is producing more fossil fuels, including crude oil, than ever before—contrary to claims by Donald Trump about his administration being more oil-friendly.

Simultaneously, Biden's Inflation Reduction Act represents the largest investment in clean energy transition and aims for carbon neutrality by 2050—a goal that more than two-thirds of Americans support, according to Pew.

> While appealing to “green” voters by showcasing his financial commitments to sustainable projects.

This portrayal does not excite me about Biden. I empathize with the constraints he faces, but he appears to be a typical “two-faced” politician. He’s the “let’s make a deal” type who sells out allies to secure agreements, promising to make amends later.

He’s adept at securing funding and forging deals, yet often leaves behind resentment. Despite Mr. Robinson’s praise, Biden has not been a proactive advocate for green policies.

> Mr. Robinson goes on…

What is causing this heat? Why was it hotter in Burlington, Vermont, on Wednesday (94 degrees) than in Miami (89 degrees)?

That’s where uncertainty and the jet stream come into play.

Michael E. Mann, director of the Center for Science, Sustainability, and the Media at the University of Pennsylvania, is the climate scientist that deniers love to vilify.

> Deniers despise him, thus lending him credibility.

He was the lead author of a 1998 paper that produced the well-known “hockey stick” graph, illustrating the sharp rise in Earth’s temperatures since the Industrial Revolution, a period during which fossil fuel combustion escalated dramatically, releasing vast quantities of heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

> Here are his credentials and why he is regarded as a credible source.

Mann is meticulous and cautious in his analyses. While some on social media reacted to the surge in sea surface temperatures with alarmist predictions, Mann attributed this phenomenon to a rare and temporary combination of factors—not an indication of a runaway climate crisis.

In 2023, the GMT rose to +1.95°C by September but fell to +1.7°C by December.

The year 2024 commenced at +1.7°C and has maintained this level for over nine months now. Mann attributes this warming to a “rare and transient combination of factors.”

Mr. Robinson misinterprets Mann's assertion. When he describes a “rare and transient combination of factors,” it does not mean solely natural phenomena. He refers to a transient event caused by the “termination shock” in the climate system due to changes in diesel fuel sulfur content.

Mann isn't lying, but his wording is misleading. He doesn’t clarify the cause of the 2023 warming, instead suggesting it was an isolated event that will soon pass.

> Not a “headlong rush toward the end of the world.”

Mann stated this week that global temperatures are rising at rates predicted by climate scientists decades ago. However, he added that these extreme weather events highlight significant uncertainties, and “uncertainty isn’t our ally.”

Mr. Robinson, that’s another misleading statement. The “models” Mann mentions are alarmist projections, not the moderate ones. While it’s true that “global temperatures are rising at rates predicted decades ago,” it’s crucial to note that these are the models used by alarmists, not the more conservative predictions.

Mann avoids attributing credit for these forecasts to James Hansen, implying that “nothing alarming” has transpired and that “global temperatures are rising at rates predicted by climate scientists,” suggesting that the rate of warming hasn't escalated and that climate science has a firm grasp of the situation.

This is a masterclass in manipulation.

Mann continued:

He explained that the polar jet stream, which flows from west to east around the globe, is driven by the temperature contrast between cold northern air and warmer southern air. Scientists did not anticipate the Arctic to warm significantly faster than temperate regions. Some areas in Alaska and Canada experienced temperatures 7 degrees higher last summer than the average summer temperatures of the 1990s.

THIS IS WHERE THINGS GO ASTRAY.

Mr. Robinson refers to “Arctic Amplification,” but it’s evident he doesn’t grasp its meaning or implications. When Mann references a NOAA report stating, "The warmest Arctic summer on record is evidence of accelerating climate change," he fails to scrutinize it, simply accepting Mann’s interpretation.

Since NOAA is considered the most compromised of climate agencies, its statements can often be confusing and downplay warming. The NOAA’s declaration regarding Arctic Amplification states:

“The average surface air temperature in the Arctic this past year was the sixth warmest since 1900 at 20 degrees Fahrenheit (-7 Celsius).”

> Since 2023 began with a GMT of just +1.2°C over baseline and spiked in late March, the “average” temperature for the year being only the sixth warmest since 1900 is misleading.

“The summer Arctic average temperature was the warmest on record at 43 degrees Fahrenheit (6.4 Celsius).”

> While the average for the year may be misleading, the summer of 2023 was indeed the warmest on record. Was it the sixth warmest or the warmest?

“Data shows that since 1940, annual average temperatures have risen by 0.45 degrees Fahrenheit (0.25 degrees Celsius) per decade, while average summer temperatures have increased by 0.31 degrees Fahrenheit (0.17 degrees Celsius) per decade.”

Whoa, this is a flat-out misrepresentation. It states that temperatures in the Arctic have risen by +4°C since 1940, which is accurate; however, that increase occurred since 1979, at a rate of about +1.0°C per decade.

The Arctic is warming significantly faster than the rest of the planet.

The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe since 1979.

Communications Earth & Environment, volume 3, Article number: 168 (Aug 2022)

This study utilized various observational datasets covering the Arctic region, revealing that over the last 43 years, the Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe, a higher ratio than generally reported.

We compared this observed Arctic amplification ratio with predictions from state-of-the-art climate models and found that the observed four-fold warming ratio from 1979 to 2021 is an extremely rare occurrence in climate simulations.

Our findings suggest that the recent four-fold Arctic warming ratio is either an extremely unlikely event or that climate models systematically underestimate amplification.

When Michael Mann states, “What climate scientists didn’t anticipate was that the Arctic would warm much faster than more temperate latitudes,” he is also misleading.

Arctic Amplification was predicted in the initial General Climate Models back in 1974/1975. It has always been known that warming would be intensified in the Arctic; the question was simply the extent.

NASA/GISS conducted a major study on this back in 1998.

Latitudinal temperature gradients and climate change, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 103, No. D6, Pages 5943–5971, March 27, 1998

The study concluded that:

“Doubled CO2 equilibrium simulations from various atmosphere-mixed layer ocean models show differing degrees of high-latitude climate warming amplification; in the GFDL model, the temperature response at high latitudes is 3–4 times that at the equator, while in the GISS model, it is close to a factor of 2.”

Got that?

There were two models in 1998: One Alarmist and one Moderate.

“In the GFDL (ALARMIST) model, the temperature response at high latitudes is 3–4 times that at the equator.”

“While in the GISS (MODERATE) model, it is close to a factor of 2.”

When Michael Mann mentions that “global temperatures are rising at the rates predicted by climate scientists decades ago,” he refers to those alarmist models. The ones utilized in the IPCC assessments are based on the more conservative GISS figures.

When Mann claims that “climate scientists didn’t anticipate that the Arctic would warm much faster than temperate latitudes,” he is incorrect. Alarmist climate scientists were indeed accurate in their predictions.

Mr. Robinson does not challenge Dr. Mann on any of these points, allowing uninformed readers to accept everything Mann states as fact.

Mann further explains:

Some regions in Alaska and Canada were 7 degrees warmer last summer than average summer temperatures from the 1990s.

This data illustrates the rate of warming since 1979 and the cumulative increase. Parts of Siberia have warmed by +7°C since 1979, and this warming trend is not temporary.

> Another “true lie.” Mann presents it as if it occurred “just last summer” and is a fleeting occurrence. The High Arctic has increased by +4°C on average since 1979.

This warming leads to a reduced temperature contrast between the Arctic and moderate air masses, disrupting the jet stream. Typically, the jet stream flows in a wavy pattern, but it now forms larger loops dipping far south more often than in the past.

This diagram illustrates the latitudinal temperature gradient from the equator to the poles. When climate scientists discuss the “temperature contrast” between the Arctic and the equator, this is what they are referencing.

When heat accumulates at the North Pole, the gradient becomes shallower, decreasing the temperature differential between the North Pole and the Equator. In 1998, moderate predictions suggested the North Pole would warm “less than 2X” the average, while alarmists predicted 4X. The alarmists were correct.

> This is Michael Mann's explanation for the current heat wave: An "abnormally" warm winter in the Arctic has "temporarily" disrupted the jet stream, resulting in larger loops that dip "far to the south."

“Such patterns tend to become locked in place,” Mann stated. “Some of the most extreme weather outbreaks in the U.S. and Europe are attributed to this phenomenon,” which includes the heat dome currently hovering over us.

> Yet again, this is masterful spin. Mann has explained nothing, been misleading, and outright lied about several points. Mr. Robinson challenges him on none of these claims.

Due to the rapid warming in polar regions, ice caps and glaciers are melting faster than anticipated, leading to a rate of sea-level rise that exceeds expectations.

> This is unsurprising. If Arctic amplification is 4X when you predicted 2X, then ice caps and glaciers will naturally melt “faster than expected”.

Mann asserted, “We are witnessing the warming of the planet that was predicted,” but he added that “some impacts of that warming are exceeding what the models predicted.”

> This is another way to downplay the urgency of the crisis. By stating that “some impacts” have exceeded “what the models predicted,” he acknowledges that the models have flaws but only regarding “some” outcomes.

Mr. Robinson is aware that unexpected phenomena are occurring within the climate system. He accepts Mann's assertion that increased “uncertainty” exists in forecasts.

Mr. Robinson states:

“In other words, the path to a warmer world is bumpier than scientists anticipated. We now face uncertainty regarding what lies ahead.”

Mann believes “we’ve sort of moved beyond denial,” despite the GOP’s performative rhetoric, as people can now observe climate change in action. Yet, he expresses a different concern.

> Now that many people recognize climate change is occurring, a significant number are not accepting the moderate perspective Mann promotes. He refers to these individuals as “Doomers.”

“Doomism poses a significant threat to action,” he explained, noting that “malicious actors are amplifying the belief that it’s too late to effect change, pointing to these extreme weather events as evidence.”

Doomers are now perceived as worse than deniers, as they disagree with Mann regarding the necessary actions to tackle the crisis. Mann is once again misleading in framing “doomism” as synonymous with “do nothingism.”

He stated, “The idea that we’re in a runaway feedback loop—that’s simply not happening. I want to communicate the urgency, but I also want to emphasize our agency.”

This aligns with the current moderate messaging from figures like Hannah Ritchie, Michael Mann, David Wallace Wells, Zeke Hausfather, Christiana Figueres, and others, all advocating the notion that “it’s not too late.”

Human activity has increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations by 50%. The more fossil fuels we consume, the worse climate change will become. However, there remains an opportunity to transition to clean energy, and we should view the challenges ahead not just as obligations but as opportunities.

Robinson concludes:

“I’ve been following the fight against climate change since the first U.N. Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. I agree with Mann: We haven’t lost this battle—not yet, not by a long shot. Remember how Stephen Schneider, a legendary climate science pioneer, dismissed fatalism: ‘The truth is bad enough.’”

Sir, “the TRUTH is far more dire than you realize.” And as long as you continue to allow individuals like Michael Mann to mislead you, you contribute to the issue.

Eugene Robinson is read by millions. He is a “trusted voice,” and by endorsing Michael Mann, he lends credibility to his claims. As a result, millions will accept what Mann says and feel reassured that the situation is not dire and that solutions to climate change are still attainable.

I may only reach a few thousand. I lack the respect and accolades that come with established authority. I am a “fringe” voice.

I am the “BAD ACTOR” that Michael Mann cautions against listening to.

I believe the situation is far worse than he is willing to admit. I predict that events will unfold as depicted by the RED arrow in Hansen’s graph.

I anticipate that conditions will deteriorate significantly and rapidly.

In two years, Michael Mann will either be discredited, or I will be proven incorrect. That’s how imminent the “Crisis” is now.

This is my analysis.

This is what I perceive.

This is my “Crisis Report”.

• rc 062324