Since the mid-to-late 20th century, global warming has been recognized as a problem that needs to be addressed by humans, but the NIPCC has recently offered a new perspective, criticizing the IPCC’s climate model reliability, CO2 sensitivity, and the impact of solar activity. The NIPCC argues that global warming is actually stabilizing the climate and having a positive impact on biodiversity. This view is an important argument for rethinking how we respond to climate change.
Since the mid-to-late 20th century, people have been heavily influenced by education and media to believe that global warming is a problem that humans need to solve. As a result, many people have become aware of the seriousness of global warming and have become alarmed about it. However, the overuse of the term “global warming” has led to the clichéd and meaningless use of the term, and many people who are not experiencing a clear increase in temperature have become skeptical of global warming.
This skepticism is not just among the public, but also among scientists. In particular, there is an organization called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) that publishes reports that summarize the skepticism of scientists. The NIPCC offers a different perspective on climate change than that of mainstream scientists, and tries to present a more balanced view. Let’s take a look at the NIPCC’s new perspective.
The NIPCC’s view consists of seven simple points. First, they criticize the reliability of the IPCC’s computer climate models. The NIPCC claims that the models violate a number of rules and procedures that are essential for predicting a future climate as complex as the current one. They also argue that because climate models are unproven and unreliable, policy discussions about stopping global warming are pointless.
Second, the NIPCC argues that the sensitivity of global climate to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration is much lower than the IPCC believes, citing various feedbacks that reduce the sensitivity of global temperature to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration. As an example, they cite what scientists have discovered about the link between cloud formation in the tropics and ocean surface temperatures. The idea is that there is a thermostatic effect, which automatically dumps excess heat into space. It also cites aerosols as a feedback factor, arguing that the IPCC underestimates the cooling effect of aerosols, saying that several studies have shown that the radiative effect of aerosols is greater than or comparable to the effect of temperature increases due to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations since the industrial revolution.
Third, the NIPCC revisits the actual observations. They argue that temperature data from the 20th century shows no anomalies or evidence that human activity is affecting the climate, which contrasts with the IPCC’s claims. They cite methodological errors in the hockey stick diagram, which is evidence for the existence of the Medieval Warm Period, and more recent satellite temperature measurements, which are much more accurate than methods based on measuring temperatures at the Earth’s surface, and argue that while the climate has been different every year for the past 29 years, the trend shows no increase at all.
Fourth, many scientists argue that changes in solar activity, rather than greenhouse gases, are the main cause of climate change. They explain why small changes in solar activity can produce large climate changes by the relationship between the sun, cosmic rays, and reflections from clouds. To explain the mechanism by which solar activity affects climate, when the Sun’s magnetic field becomes more active, the Earth’s barriers to block it become more active. This makes it harder for cosmic rays to penetrate the Earth’s atmosphere, which in turn inhibits the formation of cloud condensation. As a result, the amount of clouds decreases and their reflectivity decreases, allowing more solar radiation to be absorbed by the Earth’s surface, resulting in global warming.
Fifth, the NIPCC argues that fears that global warming will cause more severe weather are misplaced. While the IPCC says that global warming will cause droughts, floods, hurricanes, and storms, many experts disagree, and there is a significant amount of evidence to the contrary, namely that global warming is actually stabilizing the climate. Evidence suggests that droughts are not actually becoming more frequent or severe in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere as a result of global warming, and that floods have been more frequent and severe during the Little Ice Age than during the recent warming period. It also presents evidence that hurricanes have not increased in intensity or frequency in the tropics globally after 20th century warming, and that storms have not increased significantly in intensity or frequency.
Sixth, the NIPCC points to the positive biological effects of higher CO2 concentrations and warmer temperatures. Increased CO2 concentrations stimulate plant growth and make them more resistant to drought and pests. This will benefit many plants, farmers, and herders, and is necessary for the growing population of our increasingly advanced human civilization. The NIPCC also argues that this is an obviously good thing, which is why it is not mentioned in many global warming discussions.
Seventh, the NIPCC presents actual evidence that refutes the IPCC’s claim that global warming from increasing CO2 concentrations will cause the extinction of many terrestrial and aquatic species. The evidence suggests that ecosystem diversity will increase in warmer, higher CO2 environments. For example, if temperatures rise due to higher concentrations of CO2, plants will not need to migrate to warmer places and will adapt to living in warmer places. Plant habitats may also expand toward the poles, with warmer periods throughout the year and less freezing. Animals may also expand into areas near the poles that were previously inaccessible because they were too cold.
So far, we’ve discussed some of the reasons why the NIPCC has taken a contrarian stance on various activities of the IPCC, which represents the conventional wisdom on global warming. It’s clear that many of the IPCC’s arguments are logical and valid, given the fact that the majority of scientists still recognize the seriousness of global warming and insist that it must be stopped, and that many policies are being implemented to that end. However, the IPCC should not unconditionally reject the NIPCC’s opinions, but should consider the validity of the various sources of evidence and find ways to pursue human development without accelerating climate change at this time.
This discussion is not just a debate among scientists, but can lead to a change in perception in society as a whole. Therefore, it is important that we consider the different views of both the NIPCC and IPCC to understand and respond to climate change with a balanced perspective. Climate change is not just an academic issue, it is an important issue that is directly related to our daily lives.
The discussion of climate change also has important economic and political implications. Policies to combat global warming often entail huge economic costs, which strongly influence political decisions in different countries. Therefore, it is necessary to have an accurate understanding of climate change and a rational response to it.
In conclusion, by synthesizing the various views and evidence on global warming, we should seek a more rational and effective response. In this way, we can protect the global environment and leave a better place for future generations to live.
