In 1988 I selected a new car, a Ford Crown Victoria, a V8 gas guzzler. I really liked that car and I drove it for fourteen years. But by the time I needed a new vehicle my perspective had changed and I purchased a four cylinder Toyota RAV4.
I was slow to realize the threat of global warming to planet earth. I have no clear memory of anything specifically that impacted my thinking. I was probably like many people at that time, absorbing new information due to the efforts of Vice President Al Gore and others.
In 2015 we installed solar panels on the roof of the new house we built in Mexico. It seemed like the obvious right thing to do. I roughly estimate that my carbon footprint in Mexico is less than ten percent of what it was in Calgary, Alberta. I get some satisfaction from being a tiny part of the solution to a big problem.
I have some awareness of the work of Extinction Rebellion and I have watched YouTube clips of Greta Thunberg.
In 2019 the Ajijic Book Club selected Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out? by Bill McKibben. My thinking has evolved somewhat from what was captured in my book report. My perspective will probably continue to change but this essay will document my thoughts at this particular point in time.
When I noticed that Lawrence Krauss had published a book about climate science, The Physics of Climate Change, I immediately bought it. I summarized the key concepts in my book report. I learned a lot.
I noticed Unsettled WHAT CLIMATE SCIENCE TELLS US, WHAT IT DOESN’T, AND WHY IT MATTERS by Steven E. Koonin soon after I finished reading The Physics of Climate Change. From the provocative title, Unsettled, I knew that this book would be different and perhaps worth reading. I read and also summarized this book.
Now I am faced with no easy challenge. These two books have different purposes and focus on different aspects of a very big topic. Both books seem to be serious efforts by serious people and worthy of careful consideration. But their books come to conclusions that contradict each other. They cannot both be right. I want to look more closely at their conclusions and make my own judgement as to which is the most credible.
Krauss looks at CO2 levels in the context of the past 800,000 years. Krauss identifies 300 ppm as the previous highest level of CO2 during this time. He identifies the 2018 level at 407 ppm and rising. This seems truly alarming.
Koonin looks at CO2 levels in the context of the past 550,000,000 years and concludes that…
Only once in the geological past—the Permian period, 300 million years ago—have atmospheric CO2 levels been as low as they are today. today. Plant and animal life flourished abundantly during times when CO2 levels were five or ten times higher than today’s.
Koonin adds that…
But those were different plants and animals. So while carbon dioxide, in and of itself, is not particularly a concern for the planet, what is a concern is that, because life today has evolved to be well-suited to a low level of CO2 (anatomically modern humans appeared only some 200,000 years ago...
These two men of science present very different pictures of what the science says and how we should look at climate change. What am I to make of this? This bears digging deeper.
The first obvious difference between Krauss and Koonin is the vastly different time scales they use when discussing CO2 levels. Which time scale is most relevant? It does seem to me that Koonin is being technically correct but misleading.
Krauss presents data based on examining ice core data. Koonin presents data based on values determined from the isotopic ratio in carbonate sediments and fossilized soils. Why different methods, I wondered. I went back to Koonin’s book to see what he says about ice core data but cannot find anything in his text, only one reference in his footnotes, which I looked at. One sentence in the referenced article jumped out at me, “Ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica are mainstays of modern climate science.” Is this true?
I decided to look a bit more at Koonin’s chosen method. In Wikipedia I found Proxy (climate) which lists ten methods beginning with ice cores. Wikipedia has the following statement, “A 2014 study was able to use the carbon-13 isotope ratios to estimate the CO2 amounts of the past 400 million years, the findings hint at a higher climate sensitivity to CO2 concentrations.”
At this point in writing this essay I have not looked at what anyone has said about either of these two books. I am trying to do a little bit of my own research and a little bit of my own thinking. And I am trying to be aware of my own biases and to manage them as best I can. This is not easy but I am doing my best. I am examining an issue of which I have only a little bit of knowledge.
What I would highly value is for Krauss and Koonin to review and comment on each others’ books. I would also welcome civil discussion of these books. But climate change is viewed through highly polarized perspectives filled with heated emotion.
It seems to me that Figure 2.6 in The Physics of Climate Change is key. It seems to me that either the climate science behind it is settled or unsettled. Koonin has raised many interesting uncertainties, some which I find quite troubling, but he has not specifically addressed what might be the most important data.
I try to hold all my opinions lightly but that may not be wise in this case. Either climate change is an existential risk or it isn’t. I continue to believe that it is. For me to change my mind, I need to be convinced that, specifically, the climate science behind Figure 2.6 is unsettled.
Next, I began to look at what others were saying about these two books.
The Physics of Climate Change was published only a few months ago and I was not able to find any good reviews or discussion. I had a look at the comments on Amazon but soon stopped reading them as they mostly reflected the extreme polarization rampant today. Unsettled WHAT CLIMATE SCIENCE TELLS US, WHAT IT DOESN’T, AND WHY IT MATTERS was published in May, 2021. Again, the comments on Amazon are mostly opinions about the book rather than good discussion of content.
I did find several articles about Unsettled.
Let’s Work For Science With Integrity: Steve Koonin’s New Book “Unsettled”
It is not the global climate system that’s broken, it’s the alleged “climate consensus” that is. That in a nutshell is a central message of physicist Steve Koonin’s new book… he has written a brave and convincing book on the weak case of an impending human-induced climate apocalypse.
CLIMATE SCIENCE IS 'UNSETTLED,' SAYS OBAMA SCIENCE DIRECTOR
Of the multiple books and documentaries poking holes in the apocalyptic climate alarm narrative released in the past year, Unsettled may be the most critical of all, because of who its author is.
Gaia, False Gods, and Public Policy
I’ve no credentials to judge the accuracy of Koonin’s assertions. I do like his against-the-grain boldness, and I certainly agree with his argument that the science — not media and activist spin on the science, but the actual data from the many authoritative reports he cites — should govern decision-making about public policy and climate change.
Climate Change works better in practice than in theory
So while I very much appreciate the analysis of the faults in scientific circles, the prejudices in the news media and among politicians, Unsettled is unsatisfying. Yes, the book is tight, well-constructed and thorough. Yes, Koonin is telling the truth, as far as his charts let him. But there’s more to it than Koonin’s stats and charts. He does not succeed in making me feel there’s no need to worry, that Man’s contribution has had minimal effect, and nothing much is going to change regardless of what we do. The science might be unsettled, but the willful damage is real.
Dissecting ‘Unsettled,’ a Skeptical Physicist’s Book About Climate Science
Five statements author Steven Koonin makes that do not comport with the evidence.
There is much more that I would like to say about these two books and about climate change. But I do not want to spend more time on this issue now. I intend to follow this issue into the future, and I hope to live for thirty more years.
I was not convinced by Unsettled but there is one more point I would like to make. Although he does not emphasize adaptation, he builds a good case for it as a strategy. Intuitively, it seems to me that allocating more resources towards adapting to climate change may be the best path forward.
I am interested in further good faith discussion about climate change in the public domain on the letter.wiki platform.
Lastly, I would like to draw attention to an RSA report co-authored by someone I have come to admire, Jonathan Rowson.
The Seven Dimensions of Climate Change: Introducing a new way to think, talk, and act
From time to time, I intend on furthering my understanding of climate change. I will look for good information and I will try to remain open to a variety of viewpoints. Two websites of interest to me are Climate change on Wikipedia and Climate change: science and solutions by The Royal Society.