Climate Change: Separating Fact from Fiction

A Fresh Perspective on the Real Metrics that Matter

Quick note: I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Over the holidays I have been filming some new projects and enjoying time with family so have not been writing as much but will be back in the saddle in the new year. Thank you for your support on my new venture away from academia and into independent scientific reporting. 2024 is going to be BIG, and I hope you continue to join me on this adventure.

In recent years, climate science has continued to evolve with new insights and metrics to better understand and address climate change. However, it is crucial to distinguish between important metrics that can be measured directly and unscientific metrics that are primarily used for propaganda to push the climate crisis narrative.

First off, let's talk about some of the new metrics that have been invented in climate science. There's the Global Climate Risk Index, which ranks countries based on their vulnerability to climate change. Then we have the Climate Vulnerability Monitor, which measures the impact of climate change on human health and the global economy. And let's not forget the Climate Change Performance Index, which ranks countries based on their efforts to combat climate change.

We also have things like the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI), which is the difference between incoming solar radiation and outgoing heat. Scientists estimate it by piecing together clues like satellite observations of sunlight bouncing back and heat escaping, tracking how much the oceans warm up, and observing changes in air movement. While uncertainties remain, scientists claim that the imbalance exists and likely sits around 0.5 W/m^2 (watts per meter squared), meaning Earth is gaining energy and warming.

However, this imbalance is near the uncertainty of the instruments and calculations used. For example, determining the exact error in measurements of incoming solar radiation (TSI), the input of heat into the system, is intricate and involves various factors. Even the most high-precision instruments, like the Total and Spectral Irradiance Sensor (TSIS), have inherent uncertainties around 0.05-0.1% due to calibration techniques and subtle changes in temperature or electronics. Furthermore, analyzing raw data involves intricate algorithms and corrections for atmospheric effects and instrument artifacts, introducing potential biases and uncertainties of around 0.1-0.2%.

Additionally, TSI naturally fluctuates by about 0.1% over an approximately 11-year cycle, and sudden bursts of energy from the Sun, like flares, can temporarily increase TSI by large amounts, making it challenging to isolate long-term trends.

Thus, current estimates suggest the total error on TSI measurements likely falls within the range of 0.2-0.3%, which translates to approximately 0.2-0.3 W/m^2. This may seem small, but it is 40-60% of the entire estimated energy imbalance and it's crucial to consider when analyzing long-term trends and accurately estimating Earth's energy imbalance.

The only two metrics that matter in climate science are human loss of life and economic damage normalized to GDP as these are the direct measurements of the effects of climate change on human civilization.

First of all, let's talk about human loss of life. This metric is a direct and tangible measure of the impact of climate-related events such as extreme weather, rising sea levels, and changing ecosystems. Sure, there are some risks associated with climate change, like increased heat waves and extreme weather events, but these risks are often exaggerated.

In fact, according to a recent study, the number of deaths related to climate change has actually decreased in recent years.