One of the challenges of the discussion on climate change is that it is really serious. Totally realistic projections of things such as rising sea level, loss of agricultural productivity, etc. Sometimes it may seem like a disaster movie.
This is a problem in two ways. The first is that people will naturally tend to reject any future outcome they will not believe it will happen.
The second is that, since their predictions are for very negative changes, the whole climate science was marked “alarmist.”
In fact, if you do a web search for “alarmist”, the first results are not basic definitions or the Brasserie Alarmist are all about climate change.
This week, however, we have received a number of indications that brand accusations of all weather science as the alarm simply is not true.
In response to some of the articles that were too pessimistic about our future, climate scientists have intervened to provide a more realistic perspective on our future.
Science vs. NY
During the weekend, New York magazine published an article entitled “The Unababitable Earth.” Its author, David Wallace-Wells, admitted that the figures that often speak in terms of future climates are generally the average of likely outcomes.
Although there is a possibility that things are not as bad as the center, there is also a good chance that they can be a bit worse. The premise of the article was to imagine if all possible outcomes for our planet were “pretty bad”.
The premise was clearly stated, so the article would obviously have a negative outlook. However, Wallace-Wells managed to have a number of things wrong.
For example, scientists recognize that the melting permafrost is likely to release carbon to the atmosphere. But our knowledge of what is still very uncertain.
To the most pessimistic point of view, however, it does not suggest that we are freed from all this, as suggested in “The Uninhabitable Earth”: “All this must be liberated on a date that continues to be moved upwards.”
Article mischaracterized the results of a recent review of temperature records because the warming occurs “more than twice as fast.” (For a more realistic decision, see our coverage).
He said that the minimum or best we can see by sea level rise is four feet by the end of the century (which is higher than the median of the IPCC projections).
The article even implies that warmer weather will promote the kind of genetic changes that have altered the symptoms of the Zika virus (it will not).
The response of climate scientists has been very negative. Michael Mann, a scientist who was often called an alarmist, has published an online review in which he observed some mistakes in fact Wallace-Wells.
However, in more general terms, he said: “The article says that climate change will make the Earth uninhabitable by the end of this century.
Other complaints were made by scientists such as Kevin Trenberth and Andrew Dessler.
It’s all academic
And scientists do not limit their backs to stories in the popular press. Almost a year ago, a researcher at Stanford University published an article that records a temperature record for two million years. It was then analyzed in a way that suggests that the climate sensitivity in carbon dioxide was almost triple