Dear A.M. Costa Rica readers:
On the article by James Brodell, editor emeritus “Costa Rica embraces role of carbon dioxide lab” which can be found clicking here. The number indicates the paragraph of his letter to which I am making reference.
You should state the source(s) relative to your statement that “more and more evidence is accumulating that the last 26,000 years of warming comes from more complex factors than CO2 emissions.”
Who accused NASA and NOAA of “issuing distorted and incomplete records” and what evidence did the accuser(s) have?
As per both Gallup and PEW polls, 97 % of scientists believe that human actions are the main cause of climate change as opposed to your statement that “a much lower percentage think that human activity is a major cause.” However, the statistic is not worthy of dispute, because it is what the public (not scientists) thinks that will determine the action that may be taken.
Your 6th to 10th paragraphs contain interesting information about the situation in Costa Rica and the Costa Rican plan to attain carbon neutrality.
However, it would have been more informative had you listed the percentage of energy produced in Costa Rica from renewable resources which, according to ICE was 98.5% in 2018, including hydro 74.8%, geothermal 11.9%, wind 11.1%, biomass 0.7%, and solar 0.03% Also, in addition to the UN emphasis on human-caused global warming , it would have been appropriate to mention the report by 13 U.S. agencies “Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) by the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) that was released last month. Incidentally, you can find the history of the “carbon neutrality” goal in Costa Rica in my publication “Land Use Change in Costa Rica Updated to Year 2016” .
For your information, the statistics stated by the Trump Administration in his speech about the Paris Accords that you quoted were taken from a report prepared by the NERA Economic Consulting firm. Yale professor Kenneth Gillingham said the NERA model tends to result in higher costs than other economic models. The study assumes certain hypothetical regulations, but Gillingham said that "one could easily model other actions with much lower costs," and it also ignores the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, like avoiding the negative effects of climate change. In a response, NERA said that the Trump Administration selectively used results of the study that mischaracterized its purpose and analysis. ("NERA Economic Consulting's Study of US Emissions Reduction Policies: Statement of Facts," www.nera.com.)
You stated that “With Trump’s support, the United States is now a net exporter of petroleum …” The Trump Administration has reduced or eliminated many environmental regulations to favor the fossil fuel industry, but he had nothing to do with the U.S. becoming a net exporter of petroleum. The increase in energy production in recent years has been driven by economics as it relates to both world demand and new technology for extraction. The Permian oil and gas fields in west Texas, which has been known for many years, accounts for most of the increase in production during recent years (Jan. 14, 2019 issue of TIME). Also, the surge in natural gas production in recent years came about due to rising world market demand and new drilling and fracking technology. Incidentally, there are various environmental concerns about “fracking,” including an increase in underground water pollution and the increase in earthquakes.
You stated that computer models that seek to predict the state of the world have “failed.” I suggest that the word “failed” is misleading, with respect to “computer models.” Are you referring to the fact that all global climate change models do not agree as to the amount of temperature change predicted to take place at a particular time? This may be characterized as disagreement, but it is not “failure.”
You state that Gore predicted a big increase in hurricanes due to warming seas, but that the number is actually down. With respect to any change relative to hurricanes, the strength and movement of the hurricanes are more important than the number of hurricanes. I draw your attention to Harvey, Maria, and Florence during 2018, and the devastation in Texas, Puerto Rico, and Southeastern U.S. Also, please cite the source of your statement that “polar bears are thriving.”
You state that Gore has made millions for his climate change position. I do not think that Gore’s motives or the amount of funds made by his films is relevant to the subject of your letter. However, for the sake of balanced journalism, why do you not mention two other films that were released in late 2018: “Living in the Future’s Past” with Jeff Bridges as the main actor, and “Fahrenheit 11/9” (the latest Michael Moore movie).
|
A.M. Costa Rica archive photo
You refer to Judith Curry as a major critic of climate change. Her website provides a useful tool for reviewing climate change research, and is accessed by both scientists who you term as “alarmists” and those who challenge global warming concepts who you term as “highly credible climate scientists.” However, for a balanced view, I suggest that you should also list the www. ClimateFeedback.org.
You state that Christopher Monckton has a thriving business speaking against climate change orthodoxy. I agree with you that it is a “thriving business.” However, you failed to point out that Monckton is a much disputed character in England. He has degrees in literature and journalism, but claimed that he was a scientific advisor to Margaret Thatcher. The Environmental Minister under Thatcher stated that Monckton’s position was more appropriately described as “a bag carrier.” Currently, he is involved with the Heartland Institute for organizing conferences for global change deniers.
You state that “Recent academic studies show that computer modeling of climate change are simplistic” without listing your sources. Coupled atmosphere-land-ocean-sea ice climate models are not “simplistic.” Such climate change models are implemented on super-computers to solve complex equations for mass energy transfer and radiant exchange. Basically, an imbalance of incoming and outgoing electromagnetic radiation indicates a change in temperature. The scientific concepts embedded in a model and the interactions of the components are based on the results of many research efforts that were directed at understanding specific elements of climate change. These complex models help test theories and solutions as well as to help understand the EARTH as a system.
Your statements imply that the Hebrew University research that you cite as reported in Science Daily casts a shadow of doubt on the entire effort of climate change modeling. This could not be further from the truth. Actually, this research was one of the many research efforts designed to study attributes of “climate,” which, together with other research, improves our knowledge and enables better climate change modeling.
Climatologists are well aware of the cooling effects of aerosols, especially with respect to volcanic eruptions. Actually, the research effort that you attribute to Hebrew University was conducted by a team. In addition to researchers associated with Hebrew University, the team included researchers from the Univ. of MD, the Calif. Inst. of Technology, and scientists from various Chinese Institutions. Also, the overall research program administered by Hebrew University is conducted in collaboration with Johns Hopkins University and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.
Rather than citing the Science Daily website that gave a summary of the research, it would have been more appropriate to cite the original article in Science (Daniel Rosenfeld et al, 2019, “Aerosol-driven droplet concentrations dominate coverage and water of oceanic low level clouds.” Science, 17 Jan 2019; eaav0566 DOI: 10.1126)
Incidentally, the effects of “air pollution” have also been studied with respect to the effects on human health. Although “air pollution” is not the main subject of your letter, it should be noted that many of the recommendations for reducing the emission of greenhouse gases with respect to climate change would also reduce air pollution as it relates to human health. Therefore, when cost-benefit studies are conducted, it would be desirable to factor in both environmental and human health benefits.
Armond T. Joyce, Ph.D.
Environmental Science & Forestry,
Llorente de Tibas
-------
Editor's note: The views or opinions expressed by the author are the sole and exclusive responsibility of the sender and do not necessarily represent the opinion of A.M. Costa Rica. Therefore, the newspaper does not accept liability for reader's opinion letter content.
|
