Sir David Attenborough’s Witness Statement Was Brilliant, But It Has One Crucial Flaw
Portrait of a legend: Sir David Attenborough. image via: attenboroughfilm.com
The man who inspired millions of faux nature videos with the up-close shots and a deliberate, cadenced British accent, just released his latest and greatest film yet. Recently debuted on Netflix, David Attenburough’s A Life on Our Planet is his videographic take on climate change and our changing Earth. You’re surely familiar with his other work, from his 1970s epics of Life on Earth (which set the bar for all nature documentaries to follow) to his 2000’s magnum opus Blue Planet and Planet Earth.
In 1985 he was knighted for his contributions to natural conservation and television programming. Safe to say, the man is an expert at producing nature videos and has traveled extensively over the globe to document the countless facets of our planet. His voice carries considerable weight when it comes to observations of the natural world and how it has changed. So when he makes a film that serves, in his words “as his witness statement” on the changes taking place on our planet, people should have a listen, open their eyes, and open their hearts.
To better understand Sir Attenborough’s views of our changing planet, you have to appreciate his lens through which he sees it. Not just a camera lens either. At the core of his perspective of Mother Nature are the virtues of wilderness, or wildness (which sounds more exotic when spoken with an English accent). Wilderness is generally defined as a vast expanse of continuous natural environment free from human impacts, development, and resource/wildlife extraction. In other words, wilderness is pure Planet Earth. A setting disentangled from human interactions. Anyone who has spent any time “way out there”, out yonder, out in the wilderness, knows the profound impact and feelings it imparts. The intoxicating essence of the wild is experiencing the awesome fullness of nature while feeling incredibly immersed in something much grander and powerful than yourself.
Sir David Attenborough knows the feeling well. In fact, exploring the wilderness, capturing it on film, and showing the world what’s “way out there” is what motivated Attenborough to pursue that work for 6 decades (and counting, what a legend!). He felt compelled to act when he realized the planet was changing more rapidly and wilderness was disappearing alarmingly fast. A Life on Our Planet showcases Attenborough’s life’s work and offers a simple solution: re-wild the planet.
And what a brilliantly simple solution it is. To make more wilderness would intrinsically reduce the negative human impacts upon the world’s most fragile places. For example, re-wilding would reduce destructive impacts such as deforestation; over-fishing; polluting waterways; unmitigated development which damages watersheds and rivers; mono-crop agriculture which damages soils and fertile lands; and the impacts of the livestock agro-industry.
Attenburough’s “rebuilding the wilderness” solution is a brilliant, all-inclusive solution to our modern way of living that has removed wilderness and much biodiversity. In his new Netflix special, he highlights the data of remaining worldwide wilderness, from 66% in 1937, to 64% in 1954, to 62% in 1960, 55% in 1978, 46% in 1997, all the way down to 35% in 2020. Along with the remaining wilderness percentages, he displays the world’s population, from 2.3 billion in 1937, 2.7B in 1954, to 3.0B in 1960, 4.3B in 1978, 5.9B in 1997, up to 7.8B in 2020.
When one digests those figures, it paints a picture of a human race that has unwisely handled population growth. Throughout the film it becomes clear that unmitigated development and over-extraction of resources is stressing the planet. However, in the film there’s another metric charted along with population and remaining wilderness: CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The increase in carbon dioxide (and other combustion by-products) due to our modern industrialization is, in theory, attributing to the loss of biodiversity and wilderness by increasing global average temperatures and altering the planet.
Attenborough pleads his case that reducing our carbon footprint will reverse the increase of global temperatures, and thus help restore the wilderness that is affected by climate change. This is where the film is acutely flawed.
I am aware that the topics of climate change, global warming, and Earth changes are polarizing and emotional to discuss. I am happy that they are! It means that people are passionate about our planet and intend to make it a better place. Some may disagree on the methods, but we all want clean air, clean water, and thriving wildlife biospheres. I feel there are few nobler causes and I have worked in the environmental realm for 16 years and counting because of that.
However, I invite the reader to keep an open mind for this, as existing beliefs can prevent new perspectives from being seen. No mater what you prefer to call it (global warming, climate change, Earth changes, etc.), there is truly one question at the heart of this issue: how much of this change is caused by humans? To what degree, what percentage, are humans accountable for the global weather, environmental, and biodiversity changes taking place now?
Because there is no doubt at this point that things are changing. Attenburough’s data on wilderness remaining shows that. The answer I’m putting forth: less than you might think.
The greenhouse gas (GHG) theory sits at the center of the anthropologic climate change discourse. That theory, however, has been refuted by distinguished climatologists, scientists, researchers, and physicists as having some majorly wrong assumptions and errors in its framework (1, 2, 3). For instance, there was a 1909 experiment which tested the reason why greenhouses are warm (4). Two enclosures were built: one made of glass and one made of rock salt. Glass is semi-resistive to IR (infrared) radiation passing through it, and the rock salt used let IR radiation transmit freely. Both enclosures were put under the same solar input and they both warmed to the same internal temperature.
This demonstrated that the warming wasn’t due to the “trapped” IR radiation, as greenhouse theories postulate. If that were the case, then the glass enclosure would have gotten warmer. Rather, this experiment demonstrated that the enclosure itself is the reason for the warming, having absorbed and retained the heat of the solar input without natural convective cooling taking place. The term “greenhouse gas effect” is a misnomer entirely.
Built on top of the foundation of the GHG theory are all the climate models that world organizations (IPCC, et al) use to predict future outputs of weather, temperature and climate. Those climate models have been wrong all the time, not just some of the time (5, 6). In my estimation, the issue with the failing models is an assumption that we know everything about the climate and how it works. Mainstream climatology is one of the few industries where you can keep failing and still receive trillions in funding.
It’s like the Paris St. Germain for scientists. Or perhaps if you’re not a soccer fan, climatology has been quantitative easing for Universities and their niche academia. The most famous of all the misses was Al Gore’s statements that we would have iceless Artic summers by 2014. Last I checked there was still a good bit of ice left (6). The Antarctic ice actually extended to a recorded maximum in 2014. The Artic ice extent has stabilized in the last decade, albeit at around 70% of its 1980 extent (when satellite observations were first started).
Predictions are really, really tough when you don’t fully understand all the variables involved. This is especially true with something like planetary weather systems. Even the IPCC concludes in it’s reports "aerosols and their interactions with clouds have offset a substantial portion of global mean forcing from...greenhouse gases. They...contribute the largest uncertainty (8)". Along with concluding that "quantification of cloud and convective effects in models, and of aerosol–cloud interactions, continues to be a challenge (8)".
One of the most prolific and ancient symbols of weather, clouds, are not completely understood by modern science. If cloud interactions are not fully accounted for in the models, might there be some other missing factors too?
Arctic ice data since 1979. via: NASA Goddard Earth Science Research Laboratory (7)
Antarctic ice data since 1979. via: NASA Goddard Earth Science Research Laboratory (7)
There’s a good bit of emerging climate research on the effects of space weather on our planet. Space weather is the energetic environment made up of the Sun’s output and the influx of interstellar radiation - that’s radiation originating beyond the heliosphere (aka the Sun’s “atmosphere”).
What this new researching is saying is that galactic and solar energy have a hand in Earth’s weather. Long term climate cycles, like the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation, El Nino-Southern Oscillation and the Pacific decadal oscillation, have correlations with the solar output and it’s rhythms (19, 20).
Clouds and weather have been shown to be affected by cosmic rays (10, 11). Now up for grabs, the band name Cosmic Ray Clouds. The Sun’s output directly correlates to cosmic ray influx: more solar output equals less cosmic rays for Earth and vice versa. It’s been documented that tropical cyclones and hurricanes can increase in intensity with increased solar output (12, 13, 14). Large earthquakes are being regularly predicted by atmospheric electrical signals and solar output indicators (15).
This frontier of scientific research is demonstrating that our Sun’s output and magnetic field, along with galactic input, affects our planet from the magnetosphere, to the ionosphere, to the atmosphere, down to our crust and perhaps much deeper. As it relates to the climate change models, however, none of these extra-terrestrial findings are taken into consideration.
We are starting to explore an exciting frontier of knowledge. Space weather offers a deeper understanding of our planet and holds answers to ancient questions about our world. These ancient questions have been at the heart of myths throughout the ages. The tales of Atlas, Maui, Marduk, Huracan, and Thor still swirl in our collective memories as our ancestors needed reasons for the natural world.
What’s unconducive to the search for truth is when myths, or theories, become scientific dogma. Modern climatology is in danger of crossing that line. When telescopes and mathematics changed the way ancient scientists looked at the sky, our ancestors stopped looking for Apollo’s chariot leading the Sun.
In science, theories are supposed to be fluid, only acting as placeholders for the best current explanation of observations. These emergent findings of space weather should help guide us to answer that nagging fundamental question of just how much humans effect our changing planet.
New observations and evidence should steer us away from theories that are biased in our collective, subconscious guilt. Make no mistake, we do carry a collective guilt of being “bad humans” through our actions of polluting, unsustainable resource extraction, and trashing our home planet. Letting that guilt influence important scientific theories is more myth-making than science though.
Graph displaying average global temperature anomaly, sunspot counts, CO2 concentration over time. I added the yellow arrows displaying magnitude trends and green dashes to highlight the time lag due to ocean thermal absorption. Original graph via: Leland McInnes at Wikipedia Commons (17).
Sunspot counts over the last 400 years, since sunspots were officially tracked. via: Robert A. Rhode, Wikipedia Commons, “Sunspot Numbers.png”
2,000+ years of global temperature anomaly data and their sources. Data was normalized to make 1960 the baseline year. Blue and red lines are the original graph from Dr. Roy Spencer. The green line I added from data on Dr. Spencer’s site to bring the graph to the present day. via: Dr. Roy Spencer (18).
Taking a look at the data from the last few hundred years regarding CO2 emissions and average global temperatures, whilst now considering the Sun, a new perspective may be seen.
We just examined how the solar output can affect Earth’s weather, and this is a causation to climate models that might not have been considered before. For in the last 170 years, but especially from years 1950-2000, we witnessed large solar outputs during consecutive solar cycles, a feat that hasn’t been witnessed since sunspots were first tracked in the early 1600s.
This could be called a Grand Solar Maximum. (If there’s a Grand Solar Minimum, as observed during the mid-1600s, there should be a Grand Solar Maximum. By the way, there was a “Little Ice Age” peaking at that Grand Minimum time and lasting until the early-1800s).
Within 10 years of the start of the Grand Solar Maximum, the average global temperatures increased as well. It seems reasonable that the Sun has a hand in the recent warming being observed on the planet. A warming which has shown signs of slowing down, correlated to declining solar output of the last 20 years.
Meanwhile, CO2 concentrations continue to rise, much to the enjoyment of plants and chlorophyll worldwide.
Anyone who has lived long enough to remember when the weather was different can surely feel that changes to our climate are taking place. Anyone who has traveled enough over the last few decades can attest to the sprawl, developments, and population growth across the globe. Sir Attenborough knows.
Ask an old fisherman how the fishing used to be. Ask an indigenous elder what the lands used to look, sound like. Anyone with an internet connection can know of the massive deforestation occurring around the world. Why is a brown bear on the California flag but you won’t find any brown bears in California?
The Earth’s wildernesses are being eradicated. Fishing stocks are being depleted. The land is being paved over and the natural watersheds are altered. Our air, soil, and freshwaters are being polluted. The deforestation, poaching, and over harvesting of wildlife is reducing our planet’s biodiversity and biospheres. Penises worldwide are shrinking (16).
This is all directly human caused.
While the destruction may have happened slowly, over many generations, its cumulative effect is truly heartbreaking. These are all areas in which we humans have control over. You and I, as the consumer of so many products, have great influence in these realms.
To halt CO2 concentrations is a much more complex and convoluted proposition, given that it’s still uncertain if CO2 is a cause or effect of Earth changes.
Sir David Attenborough makes the wonderous, and visually astounding plea to help restore the wilderness of the planet. A wilderness that he has seen firsthand being destroyed. A Life on Our Planet was my favorite climate change documentary made so far. It was eye-candy, brain-food, and heart-medicine all in one film. Truly a wonderful film worth watching. The solution the movie suggested, to re-wild the planet, is remarkably simple yet deeply profound. Attenborough is at his narrative best for the purpose of trying to passionately save the wild for the future generations.
(Use your best inner-Attenborough voice: graceful British cadence and full of glory). The small yet glaring flaw in the film should be treated like a wave on the vast ocean; something to navigate as you let it flow past; but nothing that should stop your journey of experiencing this wonderous planet and gift of Life.
Resources (for facts) and References (for empowerment):
1. Hertzberg, M., Siddons, A., Schrueder, A. (2017) Role of Greenhouse Gases in Climate Change. Energy & Environment. DOI: 10.1177/0958305X17706177, http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Role_of_GHE-EaE.pdf
2. Higgs, R. (2019). Higgs 2019 (updated 2021) CO2 bullet points & SOURCES.pdf, Research Gate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334029086_Higgs_2019_updated_2021_CO2_bullet_points_SOURCESpdf
3. Nikolov, N., Zeller, K., (2017) New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model. Environ Pollut Climate Change 1: 112. https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf
4. Wood, R.W. (1909) Note on the theory of the greenhouse. Philos Mag; 17: 219–320
5. Scafetta, N. (2019). ON THE RELIABILITY OF COMPUTER-BASED CLIMATE MODELS. Italian Journal of Engineering Geology and Environment. IJEGE 19 - Volume 01. 49-70. Doi: 10.4408/IJEGE.2019-01.O-05. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334746460_ON_THE_RELIABILITY_OF_COMPUTER-BASED_CLIMATE_MODELS
6. Monckton, C., W.H. Soon, W., Legates, D.R., Briggs W.M., (2015) Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, Science Bulletin,Vol 60, Issue 1: 122-135,ISSN 2095-9273, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-014-0699-2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095927316305448
7. Comiso, J.C., Parkinson, C.L., Markus, T., Cavalieri, D.J., Gersten, R. (2021) Current State of Sea Ice Cover. NASA Goddard Earth Science Research Laboratory. https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/data/current-state-sea-ice-cover
8. Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.) (2013) IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
9. Boucher, O., Randall, D., Artaxo, P., Bretherton, C., Feingold, G., Forster, P., Kerminen, V.-M., Kondo, Y., Liao, H., Lohmann, U., Rasch, P., Satheesh, S.K., Sherwood, S., Stevens, B., Zhang, X.Y. (2013) 2013: Clouds and Aerosols, In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter07_FINAL-1.pdf
10. Erlykin, A., Sloan, T., Wolfendale, A. (2010). Correlations of clouds, cosmic rays and solar irradiation over the Earth. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 72(2), 151-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2009.11.002
11. Okike, O., Umahi, A. (2019). Cosmic ray − global lightning causality. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 189, 35–43. doi: 10.1016/j.jastp.2019.04.002
12. Pérez-Peraza, J., Kavlakov, S., Velasco, V., Gallegos-Cruz, A., Azpra-Romero, E., Delgado-Delgado, O., Villicaña-Cruz, F. (2008) Solar, geomagnetic and cosmic ray intensity changes, preceding the cyclone appearances around Mexico. Advances in Space Research, 42(9), 1601- 1613, November 2008. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2008AdSpR.42.1601P/doi:10.1016/j.asr.2007.12.004
13. Haig J. E., Nott J. (2016) Solar forcing over the last 1500 years and Australian tropical cyclone activity. Geophysical Research Letters, 43(6), 2843-2850 https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL068012
14. Kim, Jung-Hee, Kim, Ki-Beom, Chang, Heon-Young. (2015, December 17). Solar Influence on Tropical Cyclone in Western North Pacific Ocean. https://doi.org/10.5140/JASS.2017.34.4.257
16. Swan, S.H., Colino, S., (2021) Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development, and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race. Schribner. https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/07/27/penises-are-shrinking-because-of-pollution-warns-environmental-scientist
17. McInnes, L. (2021) Temp-sunspot-co2.svg. Wikipedia Commons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg
18. Spencer, R. W., et. al. (2021) https://www.drroyspencer.com/
19. Patterson, T.R., Chang, A.S., Prokoph, A., Roe, H.M., Swindles, G.T., (2013) Influence of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, El Niño-Southern Oscillation and solar forcing on climate and primary productivity changes in the northeast Pacific, Quaternary International, Vol. 310, Pgs 124-139, ISSN 1040-6182, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1040618213000621
20. Troshichev, O., Egorova, L., Janzhura, A. Vovk, V. (2005). Influence of the Disturbed Solar Wind on Atmospheric Processes in Antarctica and El Nino Southern Oscillation. Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, St.Petersburg, Russia. Mem. S.A.It. Vol. 76, 890. http://sait.oats.inaf.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..890T.pdf