The chronology of the Climate Change / Global Warming debate

By R. G. McKellar

Early Science.

The Swedish chemist Arrhenius published a significant advance toward the mathematical treatment of global climate in a paper published in 1896. Until that time the dynamics of a rotating planet with the familiar passing of daylight into night had defied scientists. Aarhenius devised a simplified model with the surface area of the Earth converted to a flat disc receiving solar energy at the rate of one-quarter of the incoming flux at the equator (at the equinox). All temperatures were treated as global averages—-a very difficult thing to do when most stations recording temperature were in the northern hemisphere & on land. The method employed an Ideal Atmosphere, which unfortunately did not include water vapour. Water vapour, by its volume, is the most important Greenhouse gas, and by its phase changes solid>liquid>gas>liquid>solid>gas, heat is extracted or released into the atmosphere.

Currently, all computer models use Arrhenius’ basic maths. Aarhenius arrived at the conclusion that there would be a welcome 3-4 degrees C of European warming in the 20^th century—-a very high estimate ( versus ~1degreeC later observed), and much like that coming out of climate models from various universities and meteorological offices to this day. Interestingly, Aarhenius in a 1906 paper did acknowledge the importance of water vapour, but that was subsequently over-looked .

Political Climate Science.

The United Kingdom seems to have taken the first step in the political direction, though of course there were numerous climate/greenhouse gas papers along the way, particularly during the 1970s; but their political efforts began in the 1980s. The Thatcher Conservative government (1982-1990) had in its early days to contend with recurring strikes by the coal miners union led by Arthur Scargill. The government was determined to weaken the unions by aggressively moving electricity generation from coal burning to nuclear to achieve this aim. Aarhenius’ theory was dug up , and carbon dioxide from burning coal was made the villain ( the public was very aware of climate change since the anomalously warm and dry year 1976, so this approach was acceptable). Margaret Thatcher brought “Climate Change” as a topic to the 1984 G7 summit. Nigel Lawson (father of cookbook author Nigella) who was Chancellor of the Exchequer (Treasurer) and was involved in the diversion, later talked about it on video. A significant outcome was that research grants for climate study flowed to the universities, and soon after a flood of papers supporting the danger of Greenhouse gas carbon dioxide was published (many in the journal Nature). The British Met office came on board in support and has continued to this day as a major source of climate models based on Aarhenius maths.

Margaret Thatcher seems to have believed the emerging scientific papers, and pushed at the World Economic Forum for a body to examine the issue of climate change as a function of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide—-which certainly was increasing rapidly from emissions coming from an industrialized world. The UN did follow up and set up committees to investigate, and in 1988 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had been established. Initial management was drawn from activist bodies like the Sierra Club, and from that point forward only similar people were employed exclusively—-most were non-technical, & never anyone who might challenge the underlying belief.

US government involvement.

In 1988, Senator Al Gore (Democratic Party, & later VP to President Bill Clinton 1993-2001) set up a Senatorial Committee to investigate Global Warming connected to carbon dioxide emission. His activities went nowhere under the replacement administration of Republican President George Bush (2001-2009) when he was out of office.

In 2004, Al Gore, likely with the assistance/ghost writing of others, produced an inflammatory book “Inconvenient Truths” offering catastrophic theories of warming & sea level rise related to CO2 emission. The book went nowhere. However, when the same material was presented as a full-length movie under the same title in 2006 it became a sensation among the general populace—-and particularly among Democrats. It became the standard position of the political Left, and their driving philosophy for electoral success—they would be the Party which would combat carbon dioxide emission, and fix the warming world—-and tax payers would bear the costs. It all had a religious feel—a crusade for the people.

In 2009 President Barak Obama replaced George Bush and the Al Gore theories on Life on Earth were given teeth. Under Obama, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took on extra-congressional power and classified carbon dioxide as a Pollutant. That gave government agencies answering to the President (Democratic Party) the fig-leaf legitimacy to impose regulation against industrial emitters, and the oil and gas and coal industries. Emitters became enemies of the State. Obama went further in 2015 by decreeing that the IPCC /Al Gore position on climate change was “Settled Science”, even though Gore’s extravagant predictions failed to materialize. That was the end of the argument, and it was something like the papal inquisition’s grip on science in the 15^th century. It was a political master stroke as it gagged (on pain of job loss) scientists across the many US Federal agencies. It had the same effect for Universities and other bodies which drew Federal government funding.

The Biden administration (2021—-) continues to work in the same way as that of Obama—-elimination of oil and gas drilling on Federal lands, suppression of exploration licensing rounds, the curtailment of all pipeline and gas liquefaction plant building, and continuing harassment of industry for any accidental release of Greenhouse gas. Animal husbandry is under threat on the basis of methane emission—-the list is endless. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 made available $369 billion for expansion of subsidized wind and solar electric generation, and the promotion of subsidized electric cars (re-estimated by Goldman Sachs in 2023 as costing in excess of $1.2 trillion over 10 years). Janet Yellen (USA Secretary of the Treasury) estimated in July 2024 that $4.5 trillion would need to be spent annually to fully control climate. Electric unreliability (and economic weakness) and consumer costs grew rapidly across the nation.

July 2024. Investigative journalism by the UK Telegraph newspaper revealed that the extreme organizations “JUST STOP OIL” and “EXTINCTION REBELLION” were partly financed by Hilary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. And some would argue that the Climate Emergency is not a political creation!

Outcomes in 2023.

The IPCC seems to hold a grip on all western democracies which now face weakened economies that diminish defense and social maintenance capability. Outside the grip of the IPCC are Asian giants Russia, China, and India which continue to expand their industry, and emissions of carbon dioxide. They will enjoy faster growth and strength into the future.

The IPCC continues, through the annual COP conferences, to extract cash tribute from industrialized nations for past sins of emission, this to be passed to under-performing nations. A simple Marxist process of “social justice” which sounds like a good idea until you realize it is just financial re-distribution that will achieve nothing in the corrupt societies on the receiving end.

Western media seems to be fully accepting of IPCC positions, and willing to place climate propaganda front and centre every hour of broadcast, and in most news papers. As a result, the populace in general is highly supportive of draconian climate measures, specifically concerning renewable Green electric generation (with its cost & unreliability)and automobile production & utilization, placed on them by their governments. This is a manifestation of a strong drift toward all-powerful central governments which control or own all “essential business” .

Welcome to the socialist future.

The facts.

The temperature history of Earth’s oceans which cover 70% of the Earth’s surface can be determined from oxygen isotope ratios (O18/O16), and this method can be used on ice cores or organic calcium carbonate from fossil shells going back over 500 million years. The last million years within the Pleistocene is the coldest in the last 300 million years (late Carboniferous-Permian glacial period). In this latter million years there are warm interglacial periods occurring at roughly 100,000 year internals, and each interglacial lasts 10K-15K years. We are currently 11,300 years into the current interglacial (the Holocene). Within our interglacial, temperatures run in a saw tooth (or sine curve) pattern with very warm periods at roughly 1000 year intervals ( historically , the Roman, Medieval, and Modern warm periods). These fluctuations are quite independent of man’s activities, and their clockwork like periodicity seems to reflect Earth orbital characteristics. The warm periods with temperatures above a long-term mean last about 300 years (Medieval Warm Period), and we are at least 100 years (relative to a median in the cycle) into the current warm period. As we are moving toward the end of our interglacial, our current warm period may be less strong and shorter than the Medieval event. That is the Earth history of climate change which is essentially a history of Earth’s orbital changes.

The IPCC picture for climate works through computer modeling of a chaotic climate system, and modeled rates of warming are 2-3 times those actually observed later; yet the United Nation’s IPCC serves them up to world governments as fact. Their excess implied warming comes theoretically from a forcing mechanism (Hansen) whereby carbon dioxide in the atmosphere absorbs infra-red radiation emitted by the Earth and directs that wholly back to the Earth surface in a resonating fashion. That notion is absurd as rare CO2 molecules lie in a sea of oxygen and nitrogen molecules that are warmed by kinetic collisions with energized CO2 molecules and heat is transferred to those non-greenhouse molecules. Further, re-radiation from energized heated CO2 molecules occurs in all directions, and not preferentially toward the Earth surface. Because the atmosphere has an adiabatic Temperature Lapse upward to much cooler conditions (> 6.5C/kilometer), energy transport out toward space by convection is assured (it is required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics). The IPCC forcing mechanism is essentially non-existent (max 3.4watts/sq meter per doubling of atmospheric CO2).

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and it does influence atmospheric temperature, but in a very small way—-doubling of its concentration will increase atmospheric temperatures by less than one percent. That has been shown clearly by theoretical calculations in spectrographic physics which exactly match satellite observations of outgoing infra-red radiation (papers by Happer, Wijngaarden, and Coe).

The best records of atmospheric temperature trends are made by the group under John Christy at the University of Alabama at Huntsville (NASA supported). The team uses carefully corrected satellite data that is calibrated to weather balloon sonde data. They see a warming rate of 0.07C/decade prior to 1979; and a rate of 0.13C/decade for 1979-2019. Warming has been at an even lower rate since that time.

The remedy.

The remedy is clearly adaptation in people’s lives—-make life as comfortable as possible and promote all energy sources manage lower costs. The drive to eliminate fossil fuels and electrify “western” nations cannot defeat a situation of slowly rising temperatures, only fractionally caused by atmospheric carbon dioxide. Governments could help by subsidizing air conditioning to manage summer heat at a tiny fraction of the trillions of dollars being diverted to subsidies for electrification. Geoengineering, by introducing upper-atmosphere aerosols to increase the albedo, & thus to diminish solar radiation reaching the surface, is unsatisfactory though possible, as a means to reduce summer heat; but winters would also become colder and that is bad for all life. Humans are benefiting from natural warmer conditions because warmth and higher atmospheric CO2 enhances plant growth and the yield of food crops—-it’s a balance that we must accept.

---

R. G. McKellar, MSc 1966 University of Queensland; Geological Survey of Queensland 1962-1969; West Australian Petroleum 1969-1974; Marathon Oil Company 1974-1994. Oil and Gas exploration and exploitation—- technical studies and management.