You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
Global warming much less serious than thought - new science
2011-11-25
Climate scientists funded by the US government have announced new research in which they have established that the various doomsday global warming scenarios are in fact extremely unlikely to occur, and that the scenarios considered likeliest - and used for planning by the world's governments - are overly pessimistic.
But the science is settled...
The new study improves upon previous results by including data from the remote past, rather than only examining records from recent times.

"Many previous climate sensitivity studies have looked at the past only from 1850 through today, and not fully integrated paleoclimate date, especially on a global scale," says Andreas Schmittner, professor at the College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State uni.

"When you reconstruct sea and land surface temperatures from the peak of the last Ice Age 21,000 years ago -- which is referred to as the Last Glacial Maximum -- and compare it with climate model simulations of that period, you get a much different picture.

"If these paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future, as predicted by our model, the results imply less probability of extreme climatic change than previously thought," Schmittner adds.

The baseline assumption of climate science at the moment is that given a doubling of atmospheric CO2 compared to pre-industrial levels the most probable result is that the Earth would see a surface temperature rise average of 3°C - and that there would be a significant chance of much bigger, perhaps fatal rises.

Schmittner and his colleagues' analysis says that the planet's climate simply can't be this sensitive to CO2 changes, however, or much more extreme events should have occurred at certain points in the past - and they did not. For instance, if the climate were sensitive enough that doubled CO2 could mean catastrophic warming, the low carbon levels seen 21,000 years ago should have resulted in an equally lifeless iceball planet.

"Clearly, that didn't happen," Schmittner says. "Though the Earth then was covered by much more ice and snow than it is today, the ice sheets didn't extend beyond latitudes of about 40 degrees, and the tropics and subtropics were largely ice-free -- except at high altitudes. These high-sensitivity models overestimate cooling."

According to the new improved analysis, the most probable result as and when double CO2 occurs is actually a rise of just 2.3°C - only just above the 2°C limit which international climate efforts are seeking to stay within. Plainly there's no great need to fear a rise above 450 parts per million (ppm) CO2, as people currently do - in fact there's no likely prospect of getting near a 2°C temperature rise for a century or more at present rates of CO2 increase (rising about about 2 ppm/year at the moment from a level of 390-odd). And Schmittner and his colleagues' results show a much tighter grouping of possible futures, too, so the scope for way-out doomsday scenarios is hugely reduced.

The Australian quotes Schmittner as saying: "Now these very large changes (predicted for the coming decades) can be ruled out, and we have some room to breathe and time to figure out solutions to the problem."

The new study is published in top-ranking boffinry journal Science. The research was funded by the US National Science Foundation.
Posted by:Beavis

#9  > It's like keeping people on who rationalized the 'benefits' of slavery well after the turn of the 20th Century.

Look at the timing of Marx's ideas for leeching off peoples work and the end of slavery. Marxism is just a disguised continuation of slavery, as shown by the communist's "work camps"...
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2011-11-25 20:18  

#8  Merry Christmas and a Happy Ending Al, wherever you are.
Posted by: BrerRabbit   2011-11-25 14:13  

#7  That is the theme that stands out in those emails. Again and again it is, "the cause" this and "the cause" that.

A conspiracy of true believers in "the cause" should be of concern, because whatever "the cause" is, is so offensive or repulsive that they cannot be honest in advocating it.

In such cases, "the cause" invariably means hurting, stealing, and killing to the point of genocide. "The cause" is things like the Wannsee Conference.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2011-11-25 13:45  

#6  People that's how science works. There's a theory mit a consensus. Then, some young turks go after it---to make a rep.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2011-11-25 13:10  

#5  ...why worry about salvaging careers in the university? Come on. The universities support and defend the Marxist that push their bankrupt trash long after the Wall fell. It's like keeping people on who rationalized the 'benefits' of slavery well after the turn of the 20th Century. There is no intellectual integrity. They sold out a long time ago.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2011-11-25 12:04  

#4  Someone released another batch of emails between climate change "scientists". Lots of cover-ups, strategy, excommunications of those scientists not willing to support "the cause", etc..

Oh, and don't forget about placing temperature monitoring stations right next to airport runways.

I suspect now what we'll see is a lot of sudden "realizations" that these kind of things are skewing the results, suddenly finding lost historical data, realizations that there are missing effects in the models, etc..

Until the rats have managed to back their sorry a$$es off the stage and scampered back to the sewer where they will try to figure out how to salvage their careers.
Posted by: gorb   2011-11-25 11:54  

#3  A story appeared this a.m. in the local newspaper that cited a $4.5 grant being awarded to a professor at the local university to study the effect of climate change on ants.

Forbes had an article posted on 11/23 which summed it up: “Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.”

Some university professors/researchers and universities buy into the global warming meme (despite it being bad science) because it funnels research money into the university; promotions and rewards are based on this grant money more than anything else (such as community service or teaching). There is considerable pressure to obtain these monies. These federal monies also count more than private sector research dollars in the evaluation of the research capability of the university. Why? I donÂ’t know but that is the scheme of things. All the mandates and requirements of the federal government follow this research money such as OSHA, EPA, diversity hiring and requirements, etc. It is not surprising that tuition rates have increased something like four times or more the rate of inflation. Tuition increased 107% at the local university over the past decade. This or greater numbers is most likely the trend across the country. The university becomes a microcosm or mirror image of the federal government.
Posted by: JohnQC   2011-11-25 11:12  

#2  it's not science - it's religion and grant-whoring
Posted by: Frank G   2011-11-25 10:04  

#1  And the idiots still don't get it that the whold modeling paradigm is fatally flawed for this kind of work regardless of what the precious models show.

The data collection from proxy tree rings to current parking lots, to the various forcings and "calibrations" for solar activity, urban heat islands etc. are at best guesses and at worst deliberate attempts to insure the desired results.

BS, MS & Phd.
Posted by: AlanC   2011-11-25 09:51  

00:00