No, not a hoax. A hoax is a purposeful falsehood – a lie – meant to convince people of something that is not the case. What is going on is “barking up the wrong tree.” The raccoon hound is not trying to deceive the hunters. The raccoon (or squirrel sometimes) has indeed scurried up the tree but has since leapt to another, leaving the confirmation-biased dog, who still smells the scent, barking at an empty, deserted tree.

The recent, catastrophic flooding along the China-Nepal border, the European heatwaves, and sporadic torrential rains, are certainly data points telling us that something is different. Stop here for a moment…

In Root Cause Analysis, the first step of “understanding” is to frame the issue. Good enough: it’s getting hot. The second step is to gather facts – the Ws – when, where, why. And then get specific. Here we are a bit unclear – not differentiating between mega populated cities (and sometimes their surroundings) with other areas of the globe. For instance, our thermometers are local; the remote temperatures are being inferred by outmoded relationships where we no longer track the actual temperatures.

But the latter is not so significant as the third step: “avoid assumptions.” Our assumption that the increased CO2 levels, known to produce more “green housing” are the why. And, also, that the greenhouse effect is the “how”.

It is the confirmation-bias that leads us to attribute each data point to so-called fossil fuel use.

Leave aside, that CO2 is not as green housing as methane, and neither are anywhere near as forcing as water vapor, there is something entirely different that is the why and the how. That is UV radiation and ozone destruction.

In 1998 we had: “stratospheric ozone levels are near their lowest point since measurements began, …(UV) levels are thought to be close to their maximum…” And thanks to the Montreal Accords would decline after a year 2000 maximum.

In 2010: “NASA Scientists… have found that the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching Earth’s surface has increased markedly over the last three decades. Most... in the middle and high latitudes…”

Since 2010 (AI): “…encompassing most of the US, Europe, and central Asia, average surface UV radiation data between 2010 and 2025 broke away from historical baseline models. Instead of continuing a projected downward trend expected from global ozone recovery, surface UV radiation significantly increased during this period.”

How much?

AI re since 2010: “Studies analyzing satellite and atmospheric data… (since 2010)… show that surface UV radiation in mid-latitudes – particularly in the Northern Hemisphere has risen by roughly 0.5% to 1.4% per year.”

The average is about 1% per year with the cumulative rise being about 15%.

How it works.

UV radiation is several times more intense than the warming infra-red radiation. It evaporates moisture from surface litter (leading to forest fire intensity). As opposed to greenhouse warming, which blankets and so reduces nighttime cooling, UV melts ice and permafrost. It has long been known that the melting of the snow on Kilimanjaro in Africa has been going on for decades even though the temperatures there have not risen.

It is true that as a secondary effect, the UV induced evaporation on both land and sea does increase the moisture load of the atmosphere which does contribute to the greenhouse effect and the increased rainfall in some areas and storms. (Think California atmospheric rivers.)

Some limited data suggests that the water loss in reservoirs as well as rivers, lakes, and canals, has doubled during the May-September period. This is after correcting for temperature, humidity and wind. In the sun the rate is about 4 inches per week, some 8,000 gallons daily per acre, with even a cool lake like Tahoe evaporating over 1 half billion gallons per day.

All this evaporation increases the above-mentioned secondary greenhouse effect. And it should be noted that the clear skies thanks to decreased Asian particulate matter and, here in the US, the abandonment of much coal burning, are responsible for some 50% of the warming.

And, too, it is not all global. Europe and other population dense areas have their own local greenhouse effects having little to do with the global situation.

What to do about it is a major planet-wide issue but mis-identifying the problem, barking up the wrong tree about fossil fuels (which are a century scale issue) is not going to have any effect on the current problems we face.

Bob Prener

Grahamsville