“Unsettled?” by Steven E Koonin

Nearly a year and a half ago, I ordered four books about climate change, aiming to fill gaps in my knowledge. I chose one that was very simple and straightforward, which I hoped would give me a good foundation; one that went into greater detail but seemed like it was pretty neutral (just the science and facts); one that I haven't read yet but I'm assuming takes a pretty hard turn towards insisting anthropogenic climate change is unquestionable and we must take drastic steps to combat it (because it consists of a bunch of essays collected by Greta Thunberg); and one that swings in the other direction--without espousing outright climate change denial, it definitely sows seeds of doubt about the current conventional wisdom: Unsettled?

I think I pretty much detested my way through reading it. In fact, I wrote this exact thing in my notes: "I'm on page 3 and I already hate this book." I didn't note why, though. Glancing back at that page now, I can guess it's because this is one of the pages Koonin uses to try to prove he has the necessary expertise to be its author. (He is a scientist, and I am sure he is very intelligent, and he has worked both in the US government and for British Petroleum as an advisor regarding the climate . . . but I find it hard to get past the fact that he is a physicist, not a climate scientist.) Even a dig at Trump on page 6 (a quote from John Lewis: "When you see something that is not right, not just, not fair, you have a moral obligation to say something, do something") is not enough to convince me to put my faith in Koonin. I mean, I feel like that quote was included just to try to get me to let my guard down. It seemed like a too-obvious signal that the author isn't one of those under Trump's sway. 

I think the loathing began with the blurb. "When it comes to climate change, the media, politicians, and other prominent voices have declared that 'the science is settled.'" Is that true? (Not that the science is settled, but that prominent voices are claiming so.) I don't recall anyone referring to climate science as "settled science." I am inclined to view this statement as a straw man. Not to mention it's not surprising if the media are getting it wrong. The media are always getting it wrong, or at least they rarely get it exactly right, no matter what "it" is. The media are reporting about climate change in black and white when the truth is more nuanced? When you're limited to a few column inches rather than a 700 page report, oversimplification is kind of a given. "The climate is changing, but the why and how aren't as clear as you've probably been led to believe." There's just something presumptuous and insulting about this statement. "Despite a dramatic rise in greenhouse gas emissions, global temperatures actually decreased from 1940 to 1970." Is this really true? I don't want to have to fact-check this whole book, but it's starting to feel like I may need to. "Unsettled is a reality check buoyed by hope"--sounds like it's pandering to climate change deniers--"offering the truth about climate science that you aren't getting elsewhere," which sounds like a red flag to me, as it is any time one person claims to be the sole bearer of the truth.

My overall impression of this book is that Koonin doesn't see the forest for the trees being cut down. I would summarize his position like this: past climate data is inadequate in scope and quality, and it doesn't show strong patterns. Climate predictions for the future are not reliable: how the climate is responding to our influence, and the impact our influence will have, are core questions that remain unanswered. We don't know for sure what will happen if we stay on our current course. If we take action to try to mitigate climate change, we don't really know what the result will be (if any). So why bother doing anything? We might as well just keep doing what we're doing, and learn to adapt to changes. 

To me, Koonin's logic seems circular. It's like he's saying our only really precise data is very recent, so we can't use it to predict what will happen with the climate in the future. But he also says we can't just extrapolate current trends--we also have to take past data into account. To put it more succinctly, it's like he's saying: We can't rely on past data. But look at the past data.

Here are just a few of the specifics that bothered me. 

• Koonin states that "heat waves are now no more common than they were in 1900... the warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past 50 years..." This shows either deliberate obfuscation or clear misunderstanding of climate change. The current definition of climate change is that global average temperatures are increasing. 

• A graph on page 39 clearly shows a dramatic increase in global ocean heat content since 1990. Koonin first tries to argue this away by saying we've only been thoroughly measuring ocean surface temperatures for the past 50 years, with deeper levels only measured since 2000 (hinting that the dramatic rise since 1990 is just the continuation of a trend that isn't seen on the graph because data from prior years is insufficient). Then he claims that the ocean has seen similar rises in temperature in the past, prior to human influence (and prior to the more thorough measurements that are being taken now). Which is it? Insufficient data from prior years not allowing for formation of a graph that doesn't make it look like ocean temperatures are rising precipitously? Or the data from prior years is sufficient, and we can see that the current rise mimics past rises prior to human influence? It seems to me like the data is sufficient when it fits Koonin's worldview, and it's insufficient when it doesn't. 

• On page 68, Koonin states what I've been thinking: yes, hundreds of millions of years ago the atmospheric CO2 levels were far higher than they are now--but there were no humans back then, and humans are not adapted to such high levels. He even admits that at current rates of increase, atmospheric CO2 will rise to levels high enough to cause drowsiness in humans . . . but not for "some 250 years." Right, no one alive today will be around for that. But does that absolve us of all responsibility? It won't affect us personally, so we don't have to care?

• On the same page, we learn that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for so long that reducing emissions "would only slow the increase in concentration but not prevent it." Isn't slowing the increase better than nothing?? Koonin gives the impression that there's no point in even trying.

• In the same vein, on page 165 we see that it should take 200 years for sea levels to rise enough that Honolulu is inundated. According to Koonin, because of this time scale, we should calm down and not worry. Whereas my thinking is: shouldn't we try to make changes with the aim of preventing this from happening? Or make changes to help us cope with the eventuality? 

My opinion: the recent rise in CO2 (and methane) in our atmosphere is undeniable, and its rapid rise is unequivocally caused by humans. (Koonin doesn't deny this either.) I guess I'm on board with the uncertainty of climate predictions. But I'm totally not on board with the idea that we shouldn't bother trying to course-correct. The bottom line is that our carbon emissions (pollution!) do have an effect on the climate, and that effect is not good. So we should be reducing carbon (and methane) emissions. Even if it turns out not to make any difference--we have to try. We have to do better.

Instead of reading this book, I think it would be much more helpful to explore Information is Beautiful.