Lawrence D. LaPlue

Thomas Jefferson submits the final draft of his Declaration of Independence to Continental Congress.

Welcoming lawmakers and political leaders from across the world, Pope Leo emphasised that the vision of a flourishing life is often distorted in today’s world. Speaking to the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the International Catholic Legislators Network (ICLN), the Pope stressed that the future of human flourishing is dependent on which 'love' with which we choose to organise our society – “the love of self or the love of God and neighbor.” He argued we all already know the answer.

Okay, I'll answer both of those questions. My position has been made crystal clear many times and it is rather simple. The planet has warmed by about 1.2°C since 1850, although we don’t actually know the precise number because of poor data quality in the early part of the instrumental temperature record. 🌡️📈 Given that—all else being equal—adding more carbon dioxide (CO₂) to the air should cause warming, I think at least some of it has been anthropogenic (i.e., man-made). But, that does 𝑵𝑶𝑻 mean we are going to bake to death or that there will be serious negative impacts because of it. The radiation flux into Earth’s atmosphere is 239.7 ± 3.3 W/m² of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) averaged over the course of a year (e.g., Stephens et al., 2012). This means that to maintain a constant temperature, Earth must emit 239.7 W/m² back to space. 🔗nature.com/articles/ngeo1580 / open-access: researchgate.net/publication… Global warming theory states that the direct radiative forcing (a perturbation that causes the Earth’s energy balance to change) from doubling atmospheric CO₂ levels (RF 2×CO₂) is 3.7 ± 0.4 W/m² (IPCC TAR, 2007). That is, the rate of emission of longwave radiation to space is reduced by 3.7 W/m². Wijngaarden & Happer (2023) estimated that the direct temperature change resulting from this is <1°C. 🔗ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/… 🔗arxiv.org/pdf/2303.00808 However, amplifying (or dampening) feedbacks that kick in as a response to a change in forcing mean that the real-world value—the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—is higher (lower) than the 1°C figure. Three unknowns remain: 1️⃣ Exactly how much warming has been man-made (since, say, 1950). 2️⃣ What the exact value of ECS is. 3️⃣ Is global warming a net benefit or drawback to civilization? • If ECS is <3°C, the climate system is largely insensitive to greenhouse gases (GHGs), and impacts are exaggerated. • If ECS is ≥3°C, the climate system is very sensitive to GHGs, and warming could be a concern. The IPCC’s “best estimate” of ECS is 3.0°C ± 1.5°C. 🔗ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downl… (pp. 44-45) However, some studies (e.g., Abbott & Marohasy, 2017; Lewis & Curry, 2018) have estimated ECS to be much lower; that is, <2°C. 🔗sciencedirect.com/science/ar… 🔗journals.ametsoc.org/view/jo… The jury on ECS is still out. 🤷‍♂️ Also, to reliably detect an anthropogenic influence on the global climate system, Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) must be known to the nearest 0.1 W/m² (e.g., Von Schuckmann et al., 2016; Gebbie, 2021). 🔗nature.com/articles/nclimate… / open-access here: nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/51… 🔗annualreviews.org/content/jo… However, Stephens et al. (2012) estimates the EEI to be 0.6 ± 0.4 W/m², which is eight times larger than the anthropogenic detection limits. And, the natural top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux has a 6.6 W/m² margin of error, some 66 times larger than detection limits. This uncertainty remains in new estimates, such as Loeb et al. (2021), which estimates EEI to be 1.12 ± 0.48 W/m². 🔗agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.… This means that most global warming observed since 1950 could be natural and scientists would never know for certain, OR it could be largely anthropogenic. The only robust “evidence” for significant anthropogenic warming are global climate models (GCMs) simulated with different forcings. Most GCMs produce too much warming with known physics from global warming theory, so scientists artificially tune (i.e., force) their GCMs to agree with the surface temperature record and present that as evidence. 🔗agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.… That is laughable. Regardless of mankind’s contribution to temperature change, the state of human welfare is expected to improve by every measurable metric by 2100 because of our ability to adapt and use technology to become resilient to any adversities nature throws at us. Claims that we are facing an “existential crisis” due to global warming are, at best, a premature declaration, and at worst, outright fraudulent. So, TL;DR, 1⃣ I accept (and never have denied) that humans have contributed to global warming. I think it is very much debatable as to how much, but it could be most of it. 2⃣ Claims that we are going to face severe negative impacts because of it is the weakest part of alarmists' entire argument. The most consequential impact is the slow creep of sea level rise (SLR), but even that is a very manageable problem.

Some data worth pondering as the conversation shifts to "reciprocal" tariffs.

Unbelievable satellite imagery of a massive dust storm (haboob) roaring across New Mexico and northern Mexico. This dust storm, generated by severe thunderstorms, is over 200 miles in length!