Justin Mungal
Let’s face it, climate change is not just a debate, but a fierce fight for survival. Those who reject 97% of scientists’ claims that human-driven carbon emissions are causing significant and catastrophic global warming are not merely “on the fence,” but rather vehemently opposed to what they categorize as conspiracy theory. Any evidence that has more than a zero percent chance of speculation is utterly rejected by the group. It is time to move the debate from scientific claim to scientific fact, where no ounce of speculation can be contorted into an “alternative fact.”
The journalists at Futurism have created “Five Graphics to Start a Conversation About Climate Change.” The first set of images depict what the majority of people believe, and that is that combined atmospheric temperatures are exponentially rising at alarming rates. 
While, this should be convincing enough, I no longer find it useful as climate change deniers claim that it represents normal fluctuations and that the correlation of rising CO2 emissions with these temperatures does not imply causation. This shred of speculation between correlation and causation collapses the debate into a stalemate, and so I believe that we must move the discussion into the realm of absolutely non-contentious facts.
The second set of images simply shows the rising rates of C02 emissions due to cement, gas, oil, and coal and its corresponding partitioning into the atmosphere and oceans.
This graphic is powerful because there is absolutely zero speculation and thus no room for debate. Correlation and the (high) likelihood of causation are left off the table, and what remains is an impressive graphical representation of the massive amounts of human generated CO2 and its absorption into land, air and water.
The third graphic simply explains the science of how CO2 in the ocean can acidify its waters.
Again, there is no speculation of causation, it is merely a statement of scientific fact around the chemistry of water and CO2. Effectively, this builds upon the second graphic, to raise the question of what impact our CO2 emissions can have on earth’s oceans. The question is answered in the third graphic by the description of a chemical reaction summed up in the equation Dissolved C02 + Water à Carbonic Acid. Again, there is no ambiguity or speculation – just solid scientific fact.
The fourth graphic shows how long C02 stays in the atmosphere after its initial pulse.
Seventy percent of pulsed C02 remains after one hundred years and forty percent remains after one thousand years. Again, the graphic is not intended to show speculative correlation or causation, but rather clearly and accurately represents the fact of C02’s lifetime in the atmosphere. Essentially, once CO2 is pulsed, it stays in the atmosphere for a very long time. Coupled with graphics two and three, we see a picture of the massive amounts of C02 being emitted threatening the pH balance of our oceans for a long time.
The fifth graphic depicts projections of what earth’s climate might look like in the years 2081-2100.
https://futurism.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/5-climate-future-ipcc.jpg
The projections depict a boiling world of monsoon rains and ocean covered lands. I could imagine that such a world would be barely, if at all, inhabitable by humans. However, even I as a climate change believer, find this image difficult to digest. I know that scientists find it difficult to predict the weather for a given week, so how accurate can hundred year projections be? I do not deny that such predictions are possible considering our current global warming trends, but forecasting that far into the future seems spurious and, given the rash skepticism of the opposing side, non-provocative.
For the majority of us who believe in the work of climate scientists, graphics one and five are panic inducing. We believe that the rising global temperatures are abnormal and humanly caused. Moreover, the idea that the earth may not be humanly inhabitable for long if we continue on our current trajectory is not farfetched. These two images capture that scientific consensus frighteningly well. However, the purpose of this article, and I believe the necessary debate, is with those who reject such claims for the improbable claim that the overwhelming evidence of correlation does not imply causation. That is why I am far fonder of graphics two, three, and four in terms of moving the debate forward. They clearly and simply depict measurements and chemical reactions. They cannot be negated as they do not contain any speculation over causation, are repeatable, and provable. Thus, they can be starting points for serious debate over the current state of climate affairs and the ominous threats they imply.
What I would do to improve the graphics is include more visualizations like graphics two, three, and four. Those engaged in the fight of their lives – the debate of climate change – need more ammo that cannot be misconstrued and discarded as circumstantial. To spend more time creating images like graphics one and five are futile, as we know that the counterargument is to negate them as speculation and propaganda. Unfortunately, we do not have time for visualizations whose validity is debatable – time is of the essence.
References:
<https://futurism.com/five-graphics-start-conversation-climate-change/>