This blog post aims to promote a balanced understanding of global warming through various perspectives and scientific debates.
Since the mid-to-late 20th century, people have been exposed to a lot of education and media that have led them to believe that global warming is a problem that humans must solve. Due to this education and the influence of the media, many people have become aware of the seriousness of global warming and have become more alert to it. However, due to the excessive use of the term “global warming,” the word has become trite and its meaning has faded. In this situation, many people who do not clearly feel the rise in temperature have become skeptical of global warming.
This skepticism is not only found among the public, but also among scientists. In particular, there is a committee that compiles the skeptical views of scientists and publishes reports, and it is called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The NIPCC offers a different perspective from that of mainstream scientists on climate change, and through this, it attempts to present a more balanced view. Let’s take a look at the new perspective advocated by the NIPCC.
The NIPCC’s views are simply divided into seven points. First, they criticize the reliability of the IPCC’s computer climate models. The NIPCC claims that these models violate the rules and procedures that are essential for predicting the complex future climate, such as the current climate situation. It also claims that policy discussions to prevent global warming are meaningless because climate models are not proven and cannot be trusted.
Second, the NIPCC presents various feedback factors that reduce the sensitivity of global temperature to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, claiming that the sensitivity of the global climate is much lower than the IPCC believes. As an example, they refer to the fact that scientists have revealed a link between cloud formation and sea surface temperature in the tropics. The effect of automatic temperature control is that excess heat is automatically released into space. Aerosols are also considered a feedback factor, and several studies show that the radiative effect of aerosols is greater or similar to the effect of rising temperatures due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations since the Industrial Revolution, and argue that the IPCC underestimates the cooling effect of aerosols.
Third, the NIPCC reviews actual observational data. They argue that the temperature data from the 20th century do not show any evidence of unusual values or human activity influencing the climate, which is contrary to the IPCC’s claims. The methodical errors of the hockey stick diagram, which is evidence of the existence of a medieval warm period, and recent satellite temperature measurements, which are much more accurate than methods based on temperature measurements on the Earth’s surface, are the reason why the climate has been different every year for the past 29 years, but when looking at the trends, no temperature increase can be observed at all.
Fourth, many scientists argue that changes in solar activity are the main cause of climate change, rather than greenhouse gases. They explain why small changes in solar activity can lead to major climate change by the relationship between the sun, cosmic rays, and cloud reflection. To explain the mechanism by which solar activity affects the climate, when the activity of the Sun’s magnetic field becomes active, the Earth’s barrier to prevent it becomes more active. This makes it difficult for spacecraft to penetrate the Earth’s atmosphere, and ultimately hinders the formation of cloud condensation nuclei. As a result, the amount of clouds decreases and the reflectivity also decreases, so more solar radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface, causing global warming.
Fifth, the NIPCC claims that the fear that global warming will cause more severe weather is wrong. The IPCC says that global warming will cause droughts, floods, hurricanes, and storms, but many experts disagree with these predictions, and there is a significant amount of evidence that contradicts the predictions, that global warming will actually make the climate more stable. As for evidence, it is not possible to observe that droughts are actually occurring more frequently or becoming more severe in Africa and Asia due to global warming, and it is suggested that floods occurred more frequently and severely during the Little Ice Age than they do today, when global warming is progressing. It also provides evidence that the intensity and frequency of hurricanes in the tropics has not increased globally since the warming of the 20th century, nor has the intensity and frequency of storms.
Sixth, the NIPCC presents the positive biological effects of higher CO2 concentrations and rising temperatures. It says that higher CO2 concentrations promote plant growth and increase resistance to drought and pests. This will greatly benefit many plants, farmers, and livestock farmers, and furthermore, it is necessary for the population growth that is occurring due to the ever-evolving human civilization, they argue. The NIPCC also claims that this fact is not mentioned in many global warming discussions because it is clearly a positive aspect.
Seventh, the NIPCC presents actual evidence that refutes the IPCC’s claim that global warming caused by rising CO2 concentrations will cause the extinction of many terrestrial and aquatic species. This evidence shows that ecosystem diversity will increase in warmer, higher CO2 environments. For example, if the concentration of CO2 increases and the temperature rises, plants will no longer need to move to warmer places and will adapt to living in warmer places. In addition, the habitat of plants may gradually expand towards the poles, the warm period of the entire season will be longer, and they will not freeze. In addition, animals can also expand their habitat to areas near the poles that were previously too cold to approach.
So far, we have looked at the various reasons why the NIPCC takes a different stance from the IPCC on various activities that can be said to represent the conventional thinking on global warming. Of course, there are still a significant number of scientists who recognize the seriousness of global warming and argue that it should be prevented, and the fact that various policies are implemented for that purpose alone clearly shows that the IPCC’s arguments are logical and have a lot of validity. However, the IPCC should also not unconditionally reject the opinions of the NIPCC, but should consider the validity of various grounds and seek ways to pursue human development without accelerating climate change at this point in time.
Such discussions can lead to changes in the overall perception of society, not just the debate between scientists. Therefore, it is important to understand and respond to climate change from a balanced perspective, taking into account the various views of the NIPCC and the IPCC. Climate change is not just an academic issue, but an important issue directly related to our daily lives.
Meanwhile, discussions on climate change are also important from an economic and political perspective. Policies to prevent global warming often involve huge economic costs, which can have a significant impact on political decisions in each country. Therefore, it is necessary to have a proper understanding of climate change and develop reasonable countermeasures.
In conclusion, we need to seek more reasonable and effective responses by combining various views and evidence on global warming. This will help us protect the global environment and pass on a better living environment to future generations.
