Is the “Climate Apocalypse” upon us? — Part Three

Should We Brace Ourselves for the “End of Days”?

Whose perspective should I heed?

What Facts Should Guide My Interpretation?

Should I adopt an “optimistic” viewpoint or lean towards a “doomsday” perspective at this moment?

This illustration depicts the current temperature levels of the oceans.

30°C equals 86°F, while 35°C corresponds to 95°F. The waters near the equator are experiencing significant increases in temperature.

This map indicates how much hotter the oceans are than usual at present.

Notice the substantial heat buildup even in regions not near the equator. The waters off California, which seemed cool in the previous map, are actually around 2°C warmer than the average from 1971 to 2000.

Have you ever heated water in a pot?

If so, you understand the substantial energy required to increase the temperature of water. Can you fathom the energy required to heat the global oceans to such an extent?

The oceans were significantly cooler just fifty years ago. Since 1970, they have absorbed about 437 zettajoules of thermal energy.

I do.

This translates to approximately 99 Hiroshima-class bombs worth of energy per square mile of ocean.

This equates to approximately 13 billion 731 million Hiroshima bombs worth of energy.

This has been added to the oceans in merely the past 50 years.

We estimate that the energy released by the Chicxulub impact event, which led to the extinction of the dinosaurs, was around 10 billion Hiroshima equivalents. In just 50 years, we've forced nearly 14 billion Hiroshima equivalents into the oceans.

About 500 million of that total was added in 2023 alone.

Now, if you aren’t well-versed in climate science, paleontology, ecology, meteorology, or science in general, you might wonder,

How concerned should I be about this?

Especially when individuals like Hannah Ritchie, author of “Not the End of the World,” express optimism about the future.

“My view on +1.5°C has not changed much since 2015. Without a significant, unexpected technological breakthrough, we will surpass this target.”

> Yeah, like THIS YEAR, Hannah.

Most climate scientists I know concur: they genuinely wish to limit warming to +1.5°C, but very few (around 5%) believe it will happen.

> What a “half-truth” of “true lying.” Do you know what the scientists who authored the IPCC report genuinely believe? Seventy-five percent think it will reach +2.5°C or higher. Almost 55% believe it will be +3°C or higher.

“Nonetheless, they continue to fight for it; they understand that every +0.1°C matters and is worth the effort.”

> Finally, something true.

“However, my outlook on +2°C has shifted. I am now cautiously optimistic that we can approach it.”

It is more likely that we will exceed 2°C, albeit perhaps not by a significant margin. There is still a feasible chance—if we truly rise to the challenge—that we can remain below it.

Hannah Ritchie’s publication has garnered attention from the NYT, the Guardian, and has been praised by Margaret Atwood as:

“An inspiring data mine that provides us not only with practical guidance but also with the most essential ingredient of all: hope.”

Recently, Bill Gates also weighed in.

“In my latest podcast episode, I spoke with author and researcher Hannah Ritchie about why there are more reasons for hope than one might think.” — Bill Gates, 02/01/2024

Hannah Ritchie has become a favored voice among climate moderates. She asserts that if we all work “really hard” on the issue, everything will be fine. She claims that our biggest challenge now is “the doomers.”

> “Doomers are worse than deniers.” — Hannah Ritchie

Clearly, Hannah Ritchie does not view the 14 billion Hiroshima figure as catastrophic. However, she consistently emphasizes that “climate change is real and serious” in interviews, including one with the Guardian.

“It is appropriate to state that climate change is a significant problem with a substantial impact. We need to convey a sense of urgency because a lot is at stake. However, there’s often a message suggesting that we can’t do anything about it: it’s too late, we’re doomed, so just enjoy life. That’s a very harmful message—because it’s untrue, and it doesn’t drive action.”

“Moreover, doomsday forecasts are a boon for climate deniers, who exploit poor predictions to claim: ‘Look, you can’t trust scientists; they’ve been wrong before, so why listen to them now?’”

Now, here’s what you must know about Hannah. She is not a climate scientist; she doesn’t even qualify as any type of “scientist.” She studied environmental sciences and now works as a researcher for OurWorldinData.org. At just 30 years old, she lacks substantial knowledge regarding the history of climate science.

Hannah Ritchie has spent her entire brief life in a world where there has only been one version of climate science—the moderate version. That is the only one she considers “valid.”

She is a fervent advocate for the moderate “climate orthodoxy” and regards any deviation from it as “denial” or “doomism.” She identifies herself as a “techno-optimist,” although she often claims that techno-optimism is, in fact, “techno-realism.”

How do the techno-optimists/moderates perceive the current situation?

NASA/GISS, NOAA, and climate moderates like Berkeley Earth are uncertain about whether anything significant is occurring at present.

According to the Global Temperature Report for 2023 from Berkeley Earth, dated January 12, 2024:

“2023 was a highly unusual year in several respects, including record warmth in most ocean basins and significant deviations from historical trends.”

The warmth in 2023 far surpassed expectations and was notably stronger than typical for this early in an El Niño phase.

“Some studies have recently suggested that the pace of global warming may be accelerating.”

“However, given historical variability in surface temperatures, it remains premature to conclude whether the rate of surface warming has indeed increased.”

— Berkeley Earth 2024

They continue to suggest that the current extreme warming might merely be a “natural variation.” They require ten more years of record heat before they are willing to assert that “something is wrong.”

Thus,

The last nine years have all been the hottest we have ever recorded. As illustrated, temperatures sharply increased between 2014 and 2015, leading up to the 2016 El Niño year.

If you wish to believe the optimists...

The moderates claim that this recent streak of nine consecutive years of record-breaking ocean heat is “serious” but does not indicate a climate apocalypse or the collapse of civilization.

If you subscribe to this view, you likely believe everything will be fine and that there’s no need to panic.

This viewpoint is prevalent at present and is based on the moderates’ understanding of the climate system. Most critically, it hinges on how much warming they estimate will result from doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (2XCO2).

Hannah Ritchie has lived her entire life in a world where moderates in climate science triumphed over alarmists in the 1980s and thoroughly discredited them.

In this reality, anyone questioning the moderate climate science orthodoxy and suggesting that their estimates may be “too low” gets labeled as a doomer and risks career devastation.

Consider James Hansen.

The Guardian revisited Hansen in 2018 due to his marginalization in public perception. Deniers have waged a long campaign to convince the public that Hansen was entirely wrong about global warming.

The Guardian concluded:

Thirty years later, deniers continue to misrepresent Hansen’s remarkable predictions regarding global warming.

> Koch paychecks appear to be powerful motivators for deceit.

Or look at Jem Bendell, Guy McPherson, or numerous other alarmists who have been marginalized and pushed to the fringes of public discourse.

Hannah Ritchie doesn’t genuinely grasp climate science. She adopts the moderates' stance as the only legitimate perspective in the field.

Using their data and forecasts, she envisions a future where warming is capped at just over 2°C by 2100, assuming we all “work really hard” and “unite” on this issue.

If you examine the last best estimate of the Earth’s climate sensitivity conducted in 2020, it states:

An Assessment of Earth’s Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence

It indicates that at atmospheric CO2 levels of 560ppm (2XCO2):

“By synthesizing evidence from observed warming, Earth’s distant past, climate models, and advancements in our scientific understanding of the climate, we can now quantify how the world’s surface temperature responds to increasing CO2 levels more accurately than ever before.”

> “Our findings suggest that the equilibrium climate sensitivity range is likely (66%) between +2.6°C and +4.1°C.”

These climate scientists believe Hannah's assertions are misguided unless one considers +2.6°C as “just over 2.0°C.”

For your information: this is the moderate forecast for 2XCO2 presented in this report. The alarmist forecast, included in the report for the first time in 2020 after considerable debate, indicated a greater than 50% chance that global mean temperature could rise as much as +5.7°C.

Hannah is presenting only one side of the narrative. She appears to believe it’s the only perspective. If you wish to embrace her message, you must accept that the moderates are correct in their understanding of how the climate system operates.

You must possess faith to envision Hannah’s “techno-utopia.” You have to believe and disregard the perspectives of the “doomers” and skeptics. You have to be certain that the moderates are right.

Because reality does not.

Since 2020, the energy influx into the climate system each year has tripled.

Currently, around 15 Hiroshimas worth of energy are entering the global oceans every second.

In 2004, the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) was +0.3W/m². By 2024, it has risen to +1.5W/m²—a fivefold increase in just 20 years.

From: Global Warming Acceleration: El Niño Measuring Stick Looks Good. (Nov 14, 2023) by James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy. The green line indicates the moderates' forecast, representing Hannah Ritchie's vision of the future. The alarmist forecast is depicted by the yellow cone.

Last year, the energy absorbed by the oceans amounted to +15 zettajoules.

This marks a substantial increase from what was recorded in 2010 on an annual basis.

Warming has accelerated.

The cause of this warming is a significant and abrupt rise in the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI), which reflects the difference between the energy entering the climate system and the energy dissipating from it each year.

In 2004, this imbalance was approximately +0.3 watts per square meter.

By 2010, it had risen to about +0.5 watts per square meter.

In 2023, it reached about +1.4 watts per square meter.

This is the source of the warming. That’s where the +15 ZJ originated.

In the realm of climate science, this is the primary issue that all serious experts are addressing.

The minimizers argue, “don’t panic; it’s merely an El Niño and natural variation.”

The moderates contend, “it could be a cause for concern, but we need at least ten years of warming before we can definitively conclude.”

The alarmists assert that the albedo effect has “diminished,” and we are on the brink of hitting +1.5°C by 2026 and +2°C by 2035 at the latest.

We will soon discover who is correct.

By the end of 2025, it will be abundantly clear that the moderates were mistaken.

However, for now, Hannah Ritchie is making appearances on MSNBC, CNN, and various talk shows promoting her book. Her message of hope has reached millions and alleviated their “climate anxiety.”

Who cares if it’s a lie?

Because “informing everyone that the world as they know it is ending and that they are destined to perish is not an effective communication strategy, even if it’s true.”

Moving Beyond Doomism: Data-Driven Strategies for Effective Climate Content

If it keeps the “doomed” engaged in their work, allowing Hannah’s “techno-paradise” to be constructed for the survivors.

End of Part Three.

This is my analysis.

This is what I observe.

This is my “Crisis Report.”

— rc 02042024

Personal Notes:

I am being somewhat critical of Hannah here, partly due to her misguided book and partly because of my interactions with her on SubStack. She embodies zealotry, and her mindset is inflexible.

She holds a strong belief in the future of the techno-optimists and is willing to deceive you to realize that future.

Most techno-optimists are inclined to deceive you.

However, to be fair, I believe it’s important for you to hear their message and understand its foundations.

They have faith in the 1979 models of the moderates and oil companies that estimated warming to be between +2°C and +3°C from 2XCO2. Throughout their lives, these models and estimates have been presented as “settled science.”

They perceive alarmists as deluded or opportunistic. They may pay “lip service” to James Hansen as a “father of climate science,” but they dismiss him as a “washed-up has-been” not worthy of attention.

Hannah Ritchie’s voice is ubiquitous right now. She even gets interviewed by Bill Gates, one of the wealthiest individuals globally.

Have you encountered any ‘mainstream’ coverage of Hansen’s recent research?