It is important that we keep questioning things. Even things that we now take for granted. For example, that climate change exists. There is nothing wrong with questioning theories and arguments. Why should we? It only makes you smarter. True to the motto: allow controversy, discuss it together!
That is why we are addressing the question:
What does climate change mean? Is this not actually just the earth's natural cycle? What influence do humans actually have?
We have analysed the statements made by climate sceptics. We want to understand the arguments, perhaps question ourselves and allow for controversy. Scepticism has always been important and an essential part of science.
In order to follow a specific line of argument, we refer to one of the YouTube videos: Prof Dr Kirstein, climatologist, talks in an interview about climate change - in the sense that it does not exist (Prof Kirstein in the interview "Facts vs. climate hysteria").
Let's get to the bottom of the matter. His direct statements are formulated as such as quotations and labelled with inverted commas.
Contents
- "The CO2 There is no greenhouse effect."
- "Money flows as soon as the word climate change is mentioned."
- "[Humans] are presented as the scapegoat [for climate change], but in the meantime it is a completely natural process. [...] Science denies the warm and cold periods or ice ages"
- Conclusion
1. "The CO2 There is no greenhouse effect."
Prof Kirstein explains the atmospheric or CO2-The greenhouse effect is a lie.
In order to get to the bottom of this thesis, we need to delve deeper into the topic and would now like to present the results of our research to you briefly, plausibly and hopefully comprehensibly. (Feel free to ask if you don't understand something!)
Composition of the atmosphere
Our atmosphere consists largely of nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), as well as argon (Ar). It also contains carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), water vapour (H2O) and other gases.
These triatomic or polyatomic molecules, i.e. CO2, CH4, H2O (but also completely new substances such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which are produced exclusively by humans) allow the short-wave solar radiation from the sun to pass through. The earth absorbs this energy and emits long-wave heat radiation. This long-wave heat radiation is absorbed by the gases and in turn radiated back in all directions. Accordingly, a large proportion of this heat radiation returns to the earth (counter radiation) (Graphic of the Earth's radiation budget).
The greenhouse gas effect is (super)vital for us and ensures a stable and pleasant average temperature of 15 degrees on earth.
It is precisely this property of gases to allow short-wave radiation to pass through unhindered, but to absorb long-wave radiation, that causes the greenhouse effect: and this is (super)vital for us and all living creatures on earth, because without the greenhouse effect the earth would be a ball of ice with an average temperature of minus 18 degrees.
(Note: However, water vapour (clouds) has the greatest effect. It contributes to the natural greenhouse effect. The problem is that the proportion of water vapour in the atmosphere depends on the temperature. More CO2 leads to rising temperatures, which leads to more water vapour and increases the greenhouse effect).
Counter-example moon: Without an atmosphere, temperature fluctuations of over 250 degrees prevail.
Let's take a look at the moon, which does not have an atmosphere with such (greenhouse) gases like the earth. Solar radiation heats the surface to more than 100 degrees Celsius during the day and drops to around minus 160 degrees at night.
Without the atmosphere, the same would also apply to the earth. The atmosphere and thus the greenhouse effect ensure life-friendly climatic conditions on Earth: instead of an icy minus 18 degrees, we have an average temperature of 15 degrees, i.e. 33 degrees more.
The natural carbon cycle is burdened by human emissions. The CO2-concentration in the atmosphere is higher than ever before.
The greenhouse effect is therefore important per se for our survival on Earth - as long as the CO2 is in a natural cycle. Oceans, soils and vegetation absorb CO2 and release CO2 again. Plants need CO2They release oxygen, which in turn is vital for other living organisms.
This natural cycle is disrupted by additional emissions from humans. There are many reasons for this. They lie in the enormous increase in energy consumption and the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas, as well as in the expansion of industrial production, land use and livestock farming.
Although nature absorbs some of the emissions caused by humans, around half of them remain in the earth's atmosphere and lead to a net increase in CO2-content. This effect is favoured by deforestation, which reduces the natural CO2-buffer significantly. Every year, 42 gigatonnes (billions of tonnes) are released into the atmosphere as a result of human activity (Summary of the sixth IPCC Assessment Report )
As a result, the CO2-concentration in the atmosphere is higher than ever before. This can be seen from the CO2-measurements in ice cores and can be traced back to the last 10,000 years - and can therefore be seen as independent of warm and cold periods. The CO2concentration in the atmosphere has risen from around 250 to over 400 ppm - parts per million - and is now around forty per cent higher than in pre-industrial times (before 1750).
The greenhouse gas effect is further favoured by the fact that, in addition to CO2 emitted other "greenhouse gases". These have varying degrees of climate impact and different lengths of time in the atmosphere, such as methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) and fluorinated greenhouse gases (F-gases).
Interim conclusion
The greenhouse effect plays a (super)vital role on earth. However, additional greenhouse gases introduced by humans unbalance the natural cycles and intensify the warming effect with negative consequences for the environment and humans.
2. "Money flows as soon as the word climate change is mentioned."
It would be desirable to differentiate here: How does he arrive at the statement and which cases does he use to support the thesis? Where exactly does more money flow into climate change than in other sectors? In his opinion, on what grounds are only such scientists supported? Unfortunately, Prof Kirstein does not substantiate his statement. Therefore, there is no data basis.
The fact is that the state's funding catalogue provides funding for research into various topics. This is important and right in science in order to gain knowledge about space, geology and also the human influence on the earth.
His reference to Al Gore, who may earn good money with this topic, does not connect to his thesis that money flows immediately when it comes to climate change. In general, this raises the question of whether people working in this field are just starving and not allowed to earn money?
As we have also experienced ourselves, players in the fields of sustainability or climate change face even greater challenges than in the conventional market - as these topics open up an unpleasant field that calls into question the system of overconsumption and growth paradigms.
Defamation of climate researchers is part of everyday life
Accordingly, here are just two examples of defamation of highly respected climate researchers. During US President Trump's first term in office, scientists have already experienced enormous defamation in parliament in Washington (read more 1, 2).
Discrediting also plays a role within Germany: for example, the critical attitude of Frankfurt's Lord Mayor Peter Feldmann towards the automotive industry led to the disinvitation and cancellation of his speech at the opening of the IAA in 2019 (read more).
In addition, many climate scientists draw private consequences from their research and voluntarily limit their comfort, such as Stefan Rahmstorf from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (e.g. no car, no air travel, etc.). These consequences are hardly being drawn in order to obtain more research funding.
Interim conclusion
[glossary_exclude]Climate change is not entitled to special funding and has no privilege or lobby.
Methods and best practice for sustainability in your mailbox
3. "[Humans] are presented as the scapegoat [for climate change], but in the meantime it is a completely natural process. [...] Science denies the warm and cold periods or ice ages"
This is a rather misleading and absurd assumption: there is probably no climate scientist who would claim that the climate has ever been in a stable state of equilibrium. There are also a number of causes for past climate change. CO2 is only one of several influencing factors and was by no means always the strongest in the past. According to the Federal Environment Agency, there are the following simplified Causes of climate change:
- Changes in geoastrophysical parameters (e.g. solar constant, earth orbital elements),
- changes in the Earth's surface (e.g. continental drift, changes in land use) and
- Changes in the material balance of the atmosphere (e.g. content of greenhouse gases and small, suspended particles, the aerosols) (read more).
In the past, warm and cold periods (which have undoubtedly been confirmed by science) sometimes had a stronger influence on the climate than CO2.
When comparing current global warming with past climate changes, two important distinctions must be made and are explained in the next two paragraphs.
Global climate change must be distinguished from local climate change
Local climate fluctuations are generally much greater and can be caused by changes in atmospheric or oceanic circulation, for example. This is localised and has little or no influence on the global mean temperature. For example, there are currently regions that are cooling against the general trend or where glacier masses are growing. However, what is scientifically meaningful for the "global climate" is not the view of individual stations, but the overall global view. What all temperature reconstructions have in common is the fact that we are currently experiencing the warmest temperatures in at least the last thousand years.
Time scales must be taken into account appropriately
Climate changes over millions of years or many millennia can be considerably greater and also have other causes (e.g. the drift of continents or changing earth orbital cycles) than those over decades and centuries. Moreover, the effects on ecosystems and society depend not only on the intensity of the change, but also very much on the speed, as slower climate change makes adaptation much easier.
The ice ages have undoubtedly brought about the greatest climate changes with a change in the global mean temperature of around 4-6 ºC. In comparison, the previous global warming of more than 3ºC in the 20th century between 1880 and 2023 is smaller, but this change occurred within a few decades, while the change in the ice ages lasted several millennia in each case. Never before has there been such an abrupt rise or fall in temperature as is the case today. Scientifically, this can only be explained by the atmospheric change in greenhouse gases, which is caused by humans (read more).
Interim conclusion:
Science proves that there have always been warm and cold periods on earth due to very different causes (not necessarily due to greenhouse gases). The fact is that there has never been such a drastic rise in temperature in such a short space of time. This is only due to the anthropological influence of humans on the CO2 content of the atmosphere.
Conclusion
The issue of climate change is complex and will continue to occupy us in the coming years. Science shows that climate change exists and that we humans are causing it. Despite this, there are always debates as to whether climate change really exists and therefore simple answers to a complex question. We were able to show in this article: Yes, it really does exist!
There are many ways in which you can get involved in consistent climate protection. Personal consumption and lifestyle can be influenced by CO2 footprint calculator be tested. From this, everyone can deduce for themselves how they can reduce their own impact.
Political demands can be articulated at demonstrations, e.g. by fridaysforfuture. There is also the option of getting involved in associations, NGOs or directly in political parties to campaign for compliance with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement and the 1.5°C target.
Not forgetting companies, which must also be held accountable for sustainable development. Ask producers and service providers or your own company to what extent sustainable business practices are already being pursued. Demand and promote transparency and environmentally friendly offers.
As plant values, we support and promote holistically sustainable business practices and climate-friendly corporate governance. We support public institutions and established companies in the sustainable transformation of their business models and promote the development of a holistically sustainable company. Our approach is to enable our partners to carry out an independent, continuous transformation and to establish sustainable business practices in the long term.
[glossary_exclude]
Are you planning the next steps towards sustainability?
Ask me for a free information meeting.
I am ready with advice and pleasure.
Franziska Kramer
Sustainability strategy and reporting topics
Sources and further articles:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ar4_wg1_full_report-1.pdf
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/
https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/klima-energie/klimawandel/klima-treibhauseffekt#textpart-1
https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/service/uba-fragen/ist-nicht-der-menschliche-beitrag-treibhauseffekt
https://www.quarks.de/umwelt/klimawandel/so-eine-grosse-wirkung-hat-so-wenig-co2/
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/klimaskeptiker.html
2 comments
Comments are closed.