My Perspective on Climate Crisis

Climate change is like a slow-moving, runaway train we thought we could stay in front of or stop, but we haven’t noticed it has crested a hill and is now accelerating faster and faster toward the inevitable.
“A great deal has been written on the influence of the absorption of the atmosphere upon the climate1(p237).” That quote is from Svante Arrhenius’ seminal paper published over 128 years ago where he presented the first mathematical model describing carbon dioxide’s (CO2) influence in the atmosphere and began the discourse on the effect that burning coal would have on the climate.
Caveat: This is less of a blog and more of a white paper. Because you should always be wary of authoritative misinformation when an individual claims expertise based solely on their credentials, you should evaluate my background before proceeding. My background is in environmental chemistry, landscape ecology, and water quality modeling, but I lack experience with climate change research per se. Accordingly, I have included references to support the statements I make and I encourage you to check them out.  Let me also be upfront: I want to get you interested in my Cli-Fi novels. My goal, however, is not profit (a fantasy for indie authors), but to generate conversation through my writing. 
I wonder what he would think of all the material, written and otherwise, generated now on this subject. In his paper, Arrhenius credited Joseph Fourier for the analogy that the atmosphere was like the “glass of a hot house” that would become the “Greenhouse Effect.”  Sadly, Arrhenius failed to credit Eunice Newton Foote’s pioneering work presented in 1856 that showed it was chiefly CO2 and water in the atmosphere that trapped the outgoing infrared heat2,3. 

The point being is that scientists have been studying the effects of atmospheric CO2 for a very long time. We understand the process (i.e., burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric CO2) and the mechanism (i.e., asymmetrical stretching of CO2 molecules allows for absorption and emission of infrared radiation) to explain CO2’s greenhouse effect. With a bit of chemistry and using simple accounting tools to track emissions (i.e., mass balance models), it is almost impossible not to see the potential for increasing atmospheric CO2 to lead to an energy imbalance and global warming. It takes a bit more chemistry to understand how increased atmospheric CO2 could lead to ocean acidification, (i.e., the pH-dependent change in the form of chemicals like carbonate that make them less available to organisms), which in my humble opinion is a greater threat to the environment. What is complicated is climate sensitivity (i.e., how much warming will result from our greenhouse gas emissions) and how warming leads to the sweeping changes encompassed by ‘climate change’.  

Yes, there are other processes that can lead to increased atmospheric CO2 (e.g., wildfires, volcanoes, changes in either the land or ocean carbon sink, etc.) and other mechanisms that can lead to climate change (e.g., changes in solar output or Earth’s orbit, volcanic activity, etc.).  The potential for these other processes and mechanisms to influence the current climate are being assessed. When multiple processes and mechanisms happen at same time, their effects can add up to increased warming or cancel each other out. But we must acknowledge the evidence that atmospheric CO2 has been rising (Keeling Curve) and that most lines of evidence point to it having a profound influence on today’s climate.

The evidence that a runaway greenhouse effect from increased atmospheric CO2 has begun to change Earth’s climate has been presented many times in many different mediums ranging from government reports to academic papers to articles in popular business magazines4-7. One of the first reports that early predictions were accurate, and the Earth was warming due to increased atmospheric CO2 came in 1938 from G.S. Callendar4. His analysis of data from 147 weather stations indicated a rise in average global temperatures, which he attributed to the combustion of fuels releasing 150,000 million tons of CO2 by then. According to a 2021 survey by Lynas et al.8, 88,125 climate-focused articles were published between 2012 and 2020 in peer-reviewed journals indexed in the Web of Science database. A review of 3,000 randomly selected articles from the set by the study’s authors, looking for keywords expressing skepticism toward human-caused climate change, revealed that more than 99% supported the human attribution of current climate change8. Collectively, you would think the sheer number of all these articles would be impossible to dismiss.

Yet, some claim these assessments are all inaccurate and the warnings alarmist, particularly those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)(for web-based articles or books, see The CATO Institute, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, The Heartland Institute). Conversely, others feel the IPCC is overly conservative in its forecasts9-12.

Although not every extreme weather event can be attributed to climate change, some can while others cannot13,14, recent extremes would seem to support the contention that the IPCC forecasts were and remain overly conservative. Air and ocean temperatures soared in 2023 and 2024 breaking many records15-20. These changes have been linked to record low Antarctic sea ice extent, heat waves leading to deaths, extreme storms, poor harvests, and wildfires17,18 21. Impacts from weather extremes are greater when they are ‘compound events’ resulting from multiple hazards or drivers occurring simultaneously or in rapid succession (e.g., heat wave and drought; heat wave and flooding; heat wave, drought, high fuel load and strong winds; or marine heat wave, low oxygen and extreme ocean acidification)22-24.  However, some feel the temperatures observed in 2023 and 2024 were within the natural variation in the historic record and could be predicted by the models25. Others feel the extremes exceeded model predictions and are thus reason to be concerned about model complexity and interpretation 20,26 and, more importantly, the accelerating global heating rate18. 

Trends, Extremes and Causality: A response is considered extreme or, for that matter, human-caused only if its magnitude or frequency (i.e., effect size) surpasses the natural variability of that specific phenomenon. A sufficiently long data set capturing the phenomenon’s full range of natural variability (i.e., signal-to-noise ratio) is therefore needed for that determination. Consequently, claiming a single event, season, or year as evidence for or against a theory requires caution.  Living in Florida I am very familiar with hurricanes from hearing stories about Hurricane Donna from my parents, living through Hurricane Andrew on the east coast, having my house flood during Hurricane Ian, and my family becoming climate refugees while evacuating from Hurricane Irma and more recently Hurricane Milton. However, one cannot escape all the claims regarding climate change and hurricanes. Unfortunately, hurricane intensity and frequency vary greatly due to many factors, including sea surface temperature, the depth of the temperature gradient, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and Saharan dust, to name a few. So, the dataset is very noisy and unfortunately too short, in terms of reliable data, for which to gauge trends and extremes. While researchers are working to lengthen that data set by investigating hurricane-induced overwash deposits (i.e., paleotempestology)1, till that happens we must look to other data sets. Furthermore, establishing connections or causality requires a comprehensive review of all available evidence, not just a single piece. Ultimately, a decision to accept an argument or hold on to a theory should be based on the weight of different types of evidence supporting or refuting it.  
1. Ercolani, C., Muller, J., Collins, J., Savarese, M. Squiccimara, L. (2015) Intense Southwest Florida hurricane landfalls over the past 1000 years, Quaternary Science Reviews, Vol. 126, pp.17-25

Various processes have been offered as candidate causes for these extremes that may have added to the already warming climate, including La Niña switching to El Niño in 2023, the eruption of a submarine volcano injecting large quantities of water vapor (a greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere, or reduced anthropogenic emissions of sulfur due to pollution controls16,17,20,27. More worrisome are two other suggested candidate causes that may represent amplifying feedback loops from the changing climate. One possible cause is reduced low-cloud cover particularly over the ocean reducing the Earth’s albedo28. The second is a reduction in the terrestrial carbon sink due to drought in the Amazon and wildfires in Canada and Southeast Asia that allowed annual mean atmospheric CO2 growth rates to reach a record high29-31.  Some feel the greatest threat lies in one of these many potential amplifying feedback loops (e.g., reduced albedo from ice sheet loss, thawing of permafrost, the release of methane from hydrates; altered ocean carbon sink)32 triggering a tipping point or a tipping cascade, where tipping one threshold increases the likelihood of tipping another33. 

Not surprisingly, calls for action on climate change are becoming increasingly urgent6,18,34,35. Climate change is often characterized as a threat multiplier that will exacerbate existing global socio-economic problems and could lead to breadbasket failures, increased poverty, mass migration, damage to infrastructure, economic losses due to extreme weather, collapse of the insurance sector, and increased international tensions18,33,36. A 2024 economic analysis forecasted monetary losses due to climate change at $38 trillion by 205037. Interestingly, these authors note that projected losses were six times larger than the anticipated costs of mitigation efforts put forward in the Paris Climate Agreement37.

So why have we been so slow in taking effective action to limit CO2 emissions and reduce the potential for climate change? I find answering this question more difficult than grasping the science behind climate change. Some argue there are six different Americas falling along a spectrum of attitudes and beliefs regarding global warming38. At one end of the spectrum are the ‘deniers’ who dismiss the evidence and claim it’s all a hoax. Although it’s hard to believe, they feel this hoax has persisted for 128 years since Arrhenius’s first paper. Another group acknowledges climate change, but they view it as a natural Earth process that cannot be remedied.  At the other end of the spectrum are those that acknowledge human activity as the cause of climate change, which according to polls includes the majority of Americans38,39. Yet, for various reasons, not all feel the urgency to act quickly.  

These views are shaped in part by personal values ranging from altruistic (i.e., benefit to society) to biospheric (i.e., preserving the environment) to hedonic (i.e., pleasure and enjoying life) to egoistic (i.e., wealth and social power)40. One of the most basic motivations to address future climate change should be ‘kin selection’41. Although many struggle with ‘temporal discounting’ — prioritizing instant gratification over future gains even for shelf preservation (e.g., eating a healthy diet, abstaining from alcohol, saving for retirement), most would make any sacrifice for their children. But would the imperative be as strong for grandchildren or great-grandchildren never met or bonded with? Studies suggest that intergenerational discounting leads to a marked decrease in cooperation42. The authors of that study concluded that strong short-term incentives—including punishment, reward, and reputational effects—might be needed to foster international cooperation on climate change42. Others recommend taking a bottom-up approach by changing social norms43,44.

Recently there has been debate regarding the messaging on climate change, with some maintaining that fear appeals attempting to motivate by emphasizing the potential danger backfire and, thus, are counterproductive while others disagree45,46. Having read this far and seen my novel’s description, you might guess my stance (particularly since Nov 2024). One thing most agree on is that fear appeals are more effective when people are also given ways to avoid the negative outcome47. 

As reviewed by the IPCC6, there are many feasible and effective options to reach Net Zero and also adapt to the changing climate that cannot be stopped at this point including those outlined in the 2015 Paris Agreement. However, because of our delay in taking action, recent indications that warming has accelerated and the results from more recent less conservative modeling11, some suggest more radical measures may be necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change11,48,49. One proposed geoengineering approach is a group of large-scale projects that hope to use different methods to reflect more sunlight, in the visible wavelengths, back into space termed ‘solar radiation management’ (SRM)10. Caution is, however, advised when considering SRM due to: potential negative secondary effects, a possible termination shock where temperatures would surge if halted (as it does not reduce CO2), and it does not prevent increasing ocean acidification that could have global consequences (see associated blog post).  

A 2019 opinion piece in The Guardian by Anders Levermann50, a climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, stressed the need for individual action but cautioned that such action alone is insufficient—that governments had to step up. I share this view. Combating climate change successfully requires collaboration among governments, corporations, NGOs, and all stakeholders, including individuals. A UNEP website51 lists ten ways individuals can tackle climate change: saving energy at home and while traveling, adopting a plant-based diet, supporting green finance, and political engagement, among others. Some of these are not easy. I myself have much too large a carbon footprint, including being a committed carnivore, that I struggle to reduce. This is why, as part of global initiatives, we must make it easier for individuals to do the right thing for their own lives, future generations, and the Earth’s future.

References

1. Arrhenius S. On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science. 1896;41251:237-76.

2. Foote E. Circumstances affecting the heat of the sun’s rays. Am J Sci Arts. 1856;2266:382-3.

3. Jackson R. Eunice Foote, John Tyndall and a question of priority. Notes and Records. 2020;741:105-18.

4. Callender G. The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on climate. Royal Meteorological Society Quarterly Journal. 1938;64:223-40.

5. Jones PD, Wigley TM, Wright PB. Global temperature variations between 1861 and 1984. Nature. 1986;3226078:430-4.

6. IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 184 pp., doi: 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.

7. Plummer D. Evaluating the Evidence for Climate Change–and its impacts. Forbes.  January 31, 2025.

8. Lynas M, Houlton BZ, Perry S. Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters. 2021;1611:114005.

9. Brysse K, Oreskes N, O’reilly J, Oppenheimer M. Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama? Global Environmental Change. 2013;231:327-37.

10. Hansen J, Sato M, Hearty P, Ruedy R, Kelley M, Masson-Delmotte V, et al. Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 C global warming could be dangerous. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 2016;166:3761-812.

11. Hansen JE, Sato M, Simons L, Nazarenko LS, Sangha I, Kharecha P, et al. Global warming in the pipeline. Oxford Open Climate Change. 2023;31:kgad008.

12. Oreskes N, Oppenheimer M, Jamieson D. Scientists have been underestimating the pace of climate change. Scientific American. 2019;1908:2019.

13. Seneviratne SI, Zhang, X., Adnan, M., Badi, W., Dereczynski, C., Di Luca, A., et al. 2021. Weather and climate extreme events in a changing climate. In V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, et al. Eds., Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change pp. 1513–1766. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.013.

14. Lane T, King A, Perkins-Kirkpatrick S, Pitman A, Alexander L, Arblaster J, et al. Attribution of extreme events to climate change in the Australian region–A review. Weather and Climate Extremes. 2023;42:100622.

15. Cheng L, Abraham J, Trenberth KE, Reagan J, Zhang H-M, Storto A, et al. Record High Temperatures in the Ocean in 2024. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences. 2025:1-18.

16. Esper J, Torbenson M, Büntgen U. 2023 summer warmth unparalleled over the past 2,000 years. Nature. 2024:1-2.

17. Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Gregg JW, Rockström J, Newsome TM, Law BE, et al. The 2023 state of the climate report: Entering uncharted territory. BioScience. 2023;7312:841-50.

18. Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Gregg JW, Rockström J, Mann ME, Oreskes N, et al. The 2024 state of the climate report: Perilous times on planet Earth. BioScience. 2024;7412:812-24.

19. Huang B, Yin X, Carton JA, Chen L, Graham G, Hogan P, et al. Record high sea surface temperatures in 2023. Geophysical Research Letters. 2024;5114:e2024GL108369.

20. Rantanen M, Laaksonen A. The jump in global temperatures in September 2023 is extremely unlikely due to internal climate variability alone. npj Climate and Atmospheric Science. 2024;71:34.

21. Gilbert E, Holmes C. 2023’s Antarctic sea ice extent is the lowest on record. Weather. 2024;792:46-51.

22. Ridder NN, Pitman AJ, Westra S, Ukkola A, Do HX, Bador M, et al. Global hotspots for the occurrence of compound events. Nature Communications. 2020;111:5956.

23. Zscheischler J, Martius O, Westra S, Bevacqua E, Raymond C, Horton RM, et al. A typology of compound weather and climate events. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. 2020;17:333-47.

24. Burger FA, Terhaar J, Frölicher TL. Compound marine heatwaves and ocean acidity extremes. Nature Communications. 2022;131:4722.

25. Cattiaux J, Ribes A, Cariou E. How Extreme Were Daily Global Temperatures in 2023 and Early 2024? Geophysical Research Letters. 2024;5119:e2024GL110531.

26. Schmidt G. Why 2023’S Heat Anomaly Is Worrying Scientists. Nature. 2024;627.

27. Minobe S, Behrens E, Findell KL, Loeb NG, Meyssignac B, Sutton R. Global and Regional Drivers for Exceptional Climate Extremes in 2023-2024: Beyond the New Normal. Pre-print.

28. Goessling HF, Rackow T, Jung T. Recent global temperature surge intensified by record-low planetary albedo. Science. 2025;3876729:68-73.

29. Ke P, Ciais P, Sitch S, Li W, Bastos A, Liu Z, et al. Low latency carbon budget analysis reveals a large decline of the land carbon sink in 2023. National Science Review. 2024;1112:nwae367.

30. Gui Y, Wang K, Jin Z, Wang H, Deng H, Li X, et al. The decline in tropical land carbon sink drove high atmospheric CO2 growth rate in 2023. National Science Review. 2024;1112:nwae365.

31. NOAA. Annual Mean Growth Rate for Mauna Loa, Hawai. Global Monitoring Laboratory; 2025 [02/16/2025]; Available from: https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gr.html.

32. Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Lenton TM, Gregg JW, Natali SM, Duffy PB, et al. Many risky feedback loops amplify the need for climate action. One Earth. 2023;62:86-91.

33. Kemp L, Xu C, Depledge J, Ebi KL, Gibbins G, Kohler TA, et al. Climate Endgame: Exploring catastrophic climate change scenarios. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2022;11934:e2108146119.

34. Costello A, Romanello M, Hartinger S, Gordon-Strachan G, Huq S, Gong P, et al. Climate change threatens our health and survival within decades. The Lancet. 2023;40110371:85-7.

35. World Climate Reserach Programme. Kigali Declaration: Climate science for a sustainable future for all. WCRP Open Science Conference, 23-27 October 2023; 2024; Available from: https://www.wcrp-climate.org/conferences/WCRP-OSC-2023/KD/WCRP-Kigali-Declaration-2024-c.pdf.

36. Carleton TA, Hsiang SM. Social and economic impacts of climate. Science. 2016;3536304:aad9837.

37. Kotz M, Levermann A, Wenz L. The economic commitment of climate change. Nature. 2024;6288008:551-7.

38. Leiserowitz A, Roser-Renouf C, Marlon J, Maibach E. Global Warming’s Six Americas: a review and recommendations for climate change communication. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 2021;42:97-103.

39. Pasquini G, Spencer A, Tyson A, Funk C. Why Some Americans Do Not See Urgency on Climate Change. Pew Research Center2023; Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/08/09/why-some-americans-do-not-see-urgency-on-climate-change/.

40. Steg L. Psychology of climate change. Annual Review of Psychology. 2023;741:391-421.

41. Palomo-Vélez G, Buczny J, Van Vugt M. Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behaviors Through Children-Based Appeals: A Kin Selection Perspective. Sustainability. 2020;122:748.

42. Jacquet J, Hagel K, Hauert C, Marotzke J, Röhl T, Milinski M. Intra- and intergenerational discounting in the climate game. Nature Climate Change. 2013;312:1025-8.

43. Jans L. Changing environmental behaviour from the bottom up: The formation of pro-environmental social identities. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2021;73:101531.

44. Gelfand MJ, Gavrilets S, Nunn N. Norm dynamics: Interdisciplinary perspectives on social norm emergence, persistence, and change. Annual Review of Psychology. 2024;751:341-78.

45. Tannenbaum MB, Hepler J, Zimmerman RS, Saul L, Jacobs S, Wilson K, et al. Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories. Psychological Bulletin. 2015;1416:1178.

46. Kok G, Peters G-JY, Kessels LT, Ten Hoor GA, Ruiter RA. Ignoring theory and misinterpreting evidence: The false belief in fear appeals. Health Psychology Review. 2018;122:111-25.

47. Bigsby E, Albarracín D. Self-and response efficacy information in fear appeals: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication. 2022;722:241-63.

48. Tollefson J. Top climate scientists are sceptical that nations will rein in global warming. Nature. 2021;5997883:22-4.

49. Fletcher C, Ripple WJ, Newsome T, Barnard P, Beamer K, Behl A, et al. Earth at risk: An urgent call to end the age of destruction and forge a just and sustainable future. PNAS Nexus. 2024;34.

50. Levermann A. Individuals can’t solve the climate crisis. governments need to step up. The Guardian. 2019 July 10, 2019.51. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 10 ways you can help fight the climate crisis. 2025 [Febuary 21, 2025]; Available from: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/10-ways-you-can-help-fight-climate-crisis.

Share This Post

Related Posts