Climate Change

Man-made Global Warming Likely to Be Moderate, Says Study

Alternatively: model-predicted catastrophic warming is unlikely

|

GlobalWarming
Dreamstime

In his Earth Day proclamation last week, "The Warning to Humanity," California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) declared:

Increasing levels of gases in the atmosphere from human activities, including carbon dioxide released from fossil fuel burning and from deforestation, may alter climate on a global scale. Predictions of global warming are still uncertain–with projected effects ranging from tolerable to very severe–but the potential risks are very great.

Perhaps the governor and the rest of us can take a bit of comfort from a new study published the day before his proclamation by researchers at Duke University. They found that future temperature increases due to man-made warming are tending in the tolerable direction. That study compared climate model outputs with model outputs primed with empirical temperature data from over the past 1,000 years. As the Duke University press release, "Global Warming More Moderate Than Worst-Case Models," notes:

A new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records suggests global warming is not progressing as fast as it would under the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  

"Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now," said Patrick T. Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment. "But this could change."

The Duke-led study shows that natural variability in surface temperatures—caused by interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and other natural factors—can account for observed changes in the recent rates of warming from decade to decade.   

The researchers say these "climate wiggles" can slow or speed the rate of warming from decade to decade, and accentuate or offset the effects of increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. If not properly explained and accounted for, they may skew the reliability of climate models and lead to over-interpretation of short-term temperature trends. …

To test how accurate climate models are at accounting for variations in the rate of warming, Brown and Li, along with colleagues from San Jose State University and the USDA, created a new statistical model based on reconstructed empirical records of surface temperatures over the last 1,000 years.

"By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the 'big picture' right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles," Brown said. "Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013."  

Further comparative analysis of the models revealed another intriguing insight.

"Statistically, it's pretty unlikely that an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century, would occur if the underlying human-caused warming was progressing at a rate as fast as the most severe IPCC projections," Brown said. "Hiatus periods of 11 years or longer are more likely to occur under a middle-of-the-road scenario."

Yes indeed, the science is settled.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

147 responses to “Man-made Global Warming Likely to Be Moderate, Says Study

  1. “Global Warming More Moderate Than Worst-Case Models,”

    Well, wouldn’t that be the case, by definition?

    1. Nothing is ever as bad as its loudest detractors claim, nor as good as its loudest proponents claim.

  2. Heretic

  3. Listened to an EconTalk with Nassim Taleb on GMOs and global warming. He was advocating for the precautionary principle because we understand so little about things like the environment and the risks associated with a worst case scenario are so huge. I found his argument on GMOs unconvincing because he never made a good case that they pose a widespread, systemic risk. But on global warming I think he has a stronger case. I’m not typically persuaded by the precautionary principle but he did a better job than most of arguing for it, at least in this case.

    1. I thought it was a weak episode. I dont think he made a good case for either.

      Meteors seem more likely to wipe us out…and even they failed the last time around (us being life in general).

      1. The only existential threats to mankind are the extremely rare astronomical kind. Big meteor, local supernova, rogue interstellar incursion, alien contact, etc. Life has proven itself to be very resilient to everything the Earth has to offer and mankind is one of the most resilient forms of life.

        1. It doesn’t have to be extinction level to be really really bad, though.

        2. Life? Sure. Human life? We’ll see.

          The insects get their shot next.

          1. Are you suggesting Klendathu was once just like Earth?

            1. Get your stinking feelers off me, you damned dirty bug.

        3. Super caldera, like the one under Yellowstone.

      2. The big meteor wiped out dinosaurs, but it paved the way for homo sapiens, did it not?

        And even IF global warming is real, and even IF it is man-made, why do we assume it’s a detriment — could it not, too, be beneficial for us homo-sapiens?

        1. Yeah, it could, but I think that is the point. It could go any number of ways. Some of those could be good (better for agriculture, for example). But some could be really bad. And if we are entering uncharted territory, so to speak (and I concede that is an if) then there is no good way of knowing which scenario will play out. If the impact was expected to be locally contained that would be OK, but on a global scale, and with only one planet, it might be prudent to err on the side of overabundant caution.

          I’m half playing devil’s advocate here.

          1. The problem I have with the precautionary principle is that it admits there is imperfect (even nonexistent) information but says we must assume the absolute worst case scenario because the threat is so huge. It presupposes the outcome and uses it – instead of actual evidence – to put in place policies. There’s little logical reason to not assume the best case scenario by these same standards.

            1. I’ve read some economists’ reasoning (here at Reason, as a matter of fact) that shows that the “cost” of preventing global warming (i.e. not doing things) is astronomically more detrimental to the world’s people (esp the poor!) than actually dealing with the effects of AGW (such as moving away from the current shorelines, adapting agriculture, etc.) This is why I’m increasingly frustrated at the Lefties’ arguments on the subject of modifying our behavior.

              1. Well, and seriously. We’d be way better off coming up with engineering solutions to the problem. Big umbrella made of solar panels. Beam the power as microwaves to the mines in the asteroid belt. BAM!

            2. I have the same problem with it, but I think there are instances when it’s prudent. For example, if you came across a gun and didn’t know whether or not it was loaded, would you point it at your head and shoot? Would yo do it for $100? A $1000? A $1,000,000? I wouldn’t.

              The qualitative difference, of course, is that you are making a voluntary choice, rather than forcing someone else to pull the trigger (or not). To apply the precautionary principle to global warming pretty much requires some form of coercion. But on the flip side, when it comes to the gun, you assume all the risk (and reward). That’s not the case with global warming.

              1. I presume pointing out that I could check if it was loaded is outside the rules?

    2. I listened to that episode, too. I agree with you that he didn’t make the case that the effect of GMOs would be widespread rather than isolated. The core of his flaw in reasoning may be that he didn’t recognize that we are talking about something going wrong with a particular GMO organism rather than all of them at once.

      1. Exactly. He just sort of asserted that GMOs were drastically different than selective breeding without justifying it. I can certainly envision some type of GM technology that does cross a Rubicon, so to speak, but it isn’t clear to me we are at that point.

    3. As far as climate change, he may be right, but to really have a choice whether to apply the precautionary principle or not we would have to have a realistic, viable plan for cutting back energy consumption. We don’t.

      1. I don’t think that’s the case, at least from a technological perspective. Nuclear is a viable option. Wind and solar could make significant contributions. A carbon tax could, in principle, make these technologies “competitive”, at least in the government distorted market. The problem is that they may not actually be net positive compared to fossil fuels (but the point is, we don’t know). They definitely aren’t politically feasible. Both of those are important considerations in viability, especially the latter.

      2. “viable plan for cutting back energy consumption. We don’t.”

        The answer seems clear enough to me. An economic system that isn’t predicated on economic growth. No capitalist is going to accept that, and neither is a communist. But that’s the import of the global warming issue and I suspect it’s the reason why many go to such lengths to avoid confronting it. If we emit 34 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere this year, and in order to make the economy hum and keep our investors happy, we have to increase that number next year, and increase it again the year after that, what choice do we have but to dismiss the global warming issue?

    4. Where Taleb goes wrong is where all the progressive academics go wrong. He believes that to address a precautionary threat all that needs to happen is that some “top man” needs to wave a magic wand and force reality into a configuration that addresses the threat. If top men aren’t loudly proclaiming a fix, then nothing is being done.

      In the real world, emergent systems such as our society do not work like this. First of all, individuals making individual decisions will most likely do much better than the top men. If your farmland is not producing like it used to, individuals will solve their own problems through the market just fine. In fact it is a very rare situation for the solution proposed by top men to be better than emergent action. Coastal zones getting too dangerous ? Sell the beach house and find a safer spot. Climate change is so slow, it seems tailor made for adaption.

      I happen to believe in the precautionary principle as well. I simply tend to be cautious about existing and proven threats such as corruption, cronyism and the ever growing bureaucracy rather than potential and as yet unseen threats predicted by the eco/religious types. Taleb attacks one threat while utterly ignoring the risk of the “fix”

  4. But we can still burn the Heretics, can’t we?

    1. Only if you use non-GMO wood.. wait.

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/la…..al-people/

      Ok, only if you use clean, safe natural ga…fuck.

      http://keeptapwatersafe.org/gl…..-fracking/

      I give up. Maybe just buy a solar-powered meat grinder and use them for fertilizer?

      1. Certainly can’t dump them in the ocean or drop them on an arctic glacier. Best bet is to bury them alive and then plant a tree over them.

      2. I give up. Maybe just buy a solar-powered meat grinder and use them for fertilizer?

        I’ve seen, more than once, people on HGTV inquire about organic sod. I keep waiting for a host to suggest that they do the floors in unicorn skin too.

      3. Or just focus a giant magnifying glass on them?

    2. The Goracle needs to get all of his minions in hooded robes, parading around the country with torches…, no wait, no torches, that would cause more warming… with fake torches!, and chanting ‘The end is nigh, repent deniers, repent’!

      Only then can we start burning the heretics.

      1. Solar-powered LED torches.

  5. Jesus Bailey, stop posting stuff for which you have not a clue.

    1. ECB: Please clue me in.

      1. EBC: In a friendly way if possible.

        1. He compared you to Jesus. I thought that was pretty nice.

          1. I agree. And Ron, now you can respond with “Nobody fucks with the Jesus!”

            A whole new level of discourse.

        2. Do we have to keep going over this stuff?

          Polar Amplification…not happening
          Tropical Hot Spot in the Troposphere…not happening
          Acceleration of sea level rise…not happening
          Increase in Cyclonic frequency/energy….not happening

          Models deviate from data…is happening (in fact per Trenberth about 8 years ago we are beyond the point at which the models can said to valid.

          In fact, I would offer that none of the models have been validated with very little verification (I am using those V words in a specific technical manner). None of them model clouds very well which effect albedo, etc.

          Doubling sensitivity is under serious attack pressing farther down ward.

          Who knows what the new audit of the surface temp “adjustments” is going to turn up.

          Etc…

          1. “Models deviate from data”

            That’s why we call them models. Map, territory, not.

            1. Argh…most of the IPCC’s conclusions are based on model output, also most of their so-called testable hypothesis.

              Call me when they can get their Navier Stokes equations to converge in the vertical direction.

              1. They’re only models. Concentrate on the evidence instead is my advice. There is enough of it. Observing and measuring, and observing and measuring again. That’s what scientists do. You want a reliable model of the future climate, consult a fortune teller.

    2. EBC: What the fuck are you talking about?

      1. Even EBC doesn’t know.

      1. ??

        1. Hitler?

          1. Hitler seems like a good answer

            1. That, of course, depends on the question.

              1. The final question?

        2. ???

            1. :()^@!”?

  6. “Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,” said Patrick T. Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment. “But this could change.”

    “I want my apocalypse now, please.”

    1. “Okay, thanks for your input. We’ll prepare a middle-of-the-road response, at least for now, but that could change.”

      For scientists, they do a lot of talking without a lot of thinking.

    2. Global warming true believer: I wanted the apocalypse to come, to punish the deniers. But no one told me my iPhone wouldn’t work! It’s not fair!

    3. “Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now.”

      I seem to recall seeing graphs showing that actual warming was either below or right at the bottom bound of the AGW models.

      Which tells me even a “middle-of-the-road” scenario still overstates the risk.

    4. Pansy ass middle-of-the-road predictions! Choose a side and stick with it! No compromises!

      1. Just don’t pick the side that says there isn’t any AGW.

        1. Or the side that says maybe there will be some positive outcomes.

  7. “Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,”

    But, being in the middle of the road sounds really dangerous!

  8. Semi-related: I can no longer eat at Chipotle because of this shit:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04……html?_r=0

    1. Semi-related: I can no longer eat at Chipotle because of this shit:

      Meh. They’re doing it voluntarily. I don’t consider them a dining out staple and my $15 every three or so months isn’t going to sink them or fuel the anti-GMO movement.

      I always took them as catering to an ‘artisanal’ crowd anyway. So long as they aren’t compelling other fast food chains to go GMO-free or label by law…

      1. I’m just worried about the smug anti-GMO idiots who will be patronizing Chipotle now. Like this guy:

        http://www.naturalnews.com/049….._food.html

        BAM! Chipotle goes 100% non-GMO; flatly rejecting the biotech industry and its toxic food ingredients

    2. The burritos will still taste the same, and you’ll still have to buy just as much new underwear. Who cares about some dumb marketing stunt that will be quietly abandoned a few years down the road?

      1. Dark underwear, amirite?

      2. Years? Bet it’s even less than that. We’re one more crash away from many of these kinds of issues going to the wayside as paying too much for largely fictional luxuries becomes a problem.

        1. I’m assuming that Chipotle is on the trailing edge of ill-informed food-purity trends, and they will abandon this thing after the broadly-accepted scientific conclusions about GMOs actually penetrate the Millennial consciousness.

          You appear to be assuming the zombie apocalypse, which I agree will also cause Chipotle to abandon this thing, among many other things.

          1. If there is a zombie apocalypse, real-world zombies will demand non-GMO brains.

    3. Really? It’s that, and not the fact that Chipotle is disgusting?

      1. It’s the fact that my wife loves Noodles & Co., and Chipotle is right next door and slightly less bad.

      2. I really don’t understand this. Chipotle is great. I’m having a hard time imagining how it could really better. Unless you just don’t like burritos to begin with.

        1. It’s not great, but it’s not disgusting, either. It’s fast-food. Better than Taco Bell, inferior to most everything else Mexican or even “Mexican.”

          1. I don’t think you can call it inferior to everything else Mexican because it isn’t Mexican. That’s like saying pizza is inferior to everything else Italian. It evolved into something separate.

            I love me a good, authentic Mexican burrito, but for a an American version, Chipotle is the best I’ve had.

            1. What? Are you insane? Are there police to take away people with dangerous views like this?

            2. The best you’ve had? Really? You’ve never had FreeBirds? Or Qdoba? Or Illegal Pete’s? Actually, the only restaurant in this category worse than Chipotle is Baja Fresh.

              1. I’ve had Qdoba and don’t care for it. I’ve also had Moe’s. I put Chipotle far above both.

        2. Chipotle is great.

          For a very narrow definition of ‘great’ yes.

          They are fast food and their most redeeming quality is cold beer.

          They have great food… for a liquor store.

        3. My town probably has 10 Mom and Pop taquerias that would make Chiptole commit culnary seppuku in great shame.

          Chipotle isn’t bad, it is merely so-so, and overpriced for increasingly small items.

          1. If they had any shame, they wouldn’t be doing what they do.

        4. It depends on where you live. I have cheaper and far more delicious options.
          It looks like Swiss does too in the ‘burbs of Illinois.

          I’ve eaten there exactly once, about 3 months ago.

          I stood in a long line full of unattractive people, got a small portion of inedible food, and paid a lot of money for it.

          Zero stars.

    4. I’m still amazed their stock price is almost $650.

      1. And I hate myself for not buying a little when it was just below $100/share. 🙁

  9. “Perhaps the governor and the rest of us can take a bit of comfort from a new study published the day before his proclamation by researchers at Duke University.”

    I take comfort from the evidence that global warming is an attempt at a political power grab justified by the fake science of grant snaffling quacks.

    1. As long as they continue to have amazing carnitas, I don’t really care.

    2. “grant snaffling quacks”

      They are at Lollapalooza this year, right?

    3. I take comfort from the evidence that global warming is an attempt at a political power grab justified by the fake science of grant snaffling quacks.

      This comforts you?

      1. Yes, because people are catching on to the scam.

    4. “Proclamation”
      That’s science, right?

  10. colleagues from San Jose State University and the USDA

    All else aside, why does the USDA have climate change researchers?

    Ooohhhh right. Funding.

    1. Because the climate has no effect on the food supply? 😉

  11. So, a middle of the road scenario is most likely, even though reality ended up being way down on the bottom of the road compared to past models. “This model gets it mostly right. I swear! Ignore all our past failings!”

    1. Richard Feynman observed that it took a long time to correct the mass of the electron from the original wrong value to the tight value because very good physicists respected the original methods and suspected their own measurements to contain the error. So it took 5 or 6 jumps. If we are beginning the walkback on climate models to more realistic scenarios, it may still be in bites like this. It takes a Galilean ego to make the whole jump at once, and, frankly we don’t need that all the time in science. Eventually the young scientists will all talk to each other, agree that they believe they are right and make a shift. They are slow to move not because of consensus, but because of the humility that they may be wrong.

      1. They are slow to move not because of consensus, but because of the humility that they may be wrong.

        I think it’s less to do with humility and straight up attrition. Despite all the indoctrination, I don’t know anyone under the age of about 10-11 that gives two honest shits about AGW.

        Some of these kids are bound to be bitter about their time being forced to eat local low-carbon kale, get a job in a climate-y science field, and ‘nudge’ things back/further in a more sensible direction.

        1. Brett,

          You make good points and I agree with most, but i’m not sure pure intellectual humility explains the social behavior you describe. Not being able to peer inside each mind, I sometimes struggle to distinguish truly humble scientists from rational but cautious careerists afraid to rock the boat (much). Both types usually ease out onto the ledge, not leap. I suspect the latter type outnumbers the former.

        2. Kale is so last year. Everyone knows it’s local low carbon collards now.

      2. A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
        …Max Planck

        Old fallacies are debunked in the same way.

      3. +1 Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution

  12. OT: Glenn Greenwald continues to whine about Charlie Hebdo.

    He claims that opposing giving them an award doesn’t mean you oppose free speech.

    My favorite is his approval of Francine Prose’s idiotic assertion that Charlie Hebdo’s work doesn’t have the ‘importance’ that should warrant an award. I’m sorry, they criticized fundamentalist Islam and were subsequently murdered by fundamentalist Islamists. It strikes me that this implies their work was pretty on-the-nose, doesn’t it?

    Mark Steyn’s always talking about how when he was dragged before the Canadian Human Rights tribunal, all these people who said ‘Oh yeah, we totally support free speech!’ suddenly decided his speech was a little too icky and therefore they were going to take a rain check. It’s amazing what spineless oafs people like Greenwald show themselves to be when it comes to criticizing someone other then the US government or Israel.

    1. Islam: so powerless in Europe criticizing or mocking it results in organized death squads attempting to murder you.

      Greenwald is a mendacious dickhead.

    2. He’s not spineless oaf, he’s consistent with his principles: US evil, Israel evil, Capitalism evil, opposition to those good. If some journalists gotta get shot to keep others opposing evil instead of supporting it (there is no difference between drawing Mohammed and Adam Lanza, after all), sucks but eggs, omelets, etc.

      He’s sub-Chomsky, and Chomsky was Khmer Rouge genocide-denier.

  13. “…researchers at Duke University.”

    Who cares what researchers at Duke have to say, somebody got raped there, didn’t they?

    /Progtard

    1. They’re rapey, like UVA, UVA is rapey. I think the only non-rapey U is Oberlin. And that’s actually a College, so it doesn’t count., So all Universities are rapey.

    2. Global warming supports rape culture!

      Given the whole globe, I’m sure I can find or make data to make a graph that goes up and to the right somewhere.

      1. Look at what global warming caused in Baltimore last night, deniers!

      2. If you’re trying to out-hyperbole the hyperbolic, you’ve already lost here. If you’re just riffing off last month’s “global warming will force women into prostitution” schtick, well, carry on.

  14. So, the rioters pretty much shut down the city last night, all of the schools and universities are closed today. Not sure what else is closed. Apparently they trashed around 115 cars last night and burnt down at least 10 structures.

    Isn’t there somewhere we can send all of these uncivilized people? How about Detroit? I hear there’s lot of areas there for resettlement.

  15. What we need is passionate speechifying by ALGORE:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jxi-OlkmxZ4

    In ten minutes you will learn all you need to know.

  16. “Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,” said Patrick T. Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment. “But this could change.”

    Examples of useless sentances.

    1. ‘Data-driven decision making’ at it’s finest.

  17. They found that future temperature increases due to man-made warming are tending in the tolerable direction.

    RAPE APOLOGISTS!

    No, wait, that’s not right. CLIMATE DENIERS!

  18. How close to unstoppable warming will they take us before scientists are “ALLOWED” to be more than 97% certain, so we can end this costly debate to save the planet? It’s been 34 years of climate action failure so give deniers what they want, or do you “believers” hate conservatives that much?

    1. ^ This sure is some stupid bullshit.

      First of all, scientists are not ‘97% certain’ of anything since things like climate sensitivity are still entirely up in the air. No one actually knows with any certainty what impact a given amount of carbon dioxide has on climate, so the claim that there is ‘97% certainty’ about anything is green propaganda.

      Secondly, all of the arguments about how to ‘stop global warming’ and ‘save the planet’ would do immense harm to the global economy with virtually no evidence that it would have any salutary effect on the environment. We could spend enormous sums of money on wind and solar power and implement huge carbon taxes and there’s no evidence it would have any real on climate 150-200 years from now. It’s all guesswork, and I for one don’t think we should cripple the global economy based on guesswork.

    2. It’s been 34 years of climate action failure so give deniers what they want, or do you “believers” hate conservatives that much?

      Given that Svante Arrhenius discovered the greenhouse effect in 1901 and suggested we burn fossil fuels outright (not to produce work via ICEs) in order to stave off a global winter… and was ‘denied’ (by such famous deniers as Knut ?ngstr?m); I’d say your claim of 34 years of failed climate action is really closer to a century.

  19. A very interesting and well received study that adds to our growing knowledge on climate.

    I find it interesting to note a couple of things. One, its good to see climate skeptics embrace a study that hopefully would clearly state for them what the IPCC has done. The IPCC never predicted catastrophe. It framed its findings according to a number of scenarios. Worst case, best case, and middle of the road. This Duke study claims climate is more likely heading toward a middle of the road scenario. That is not a “we have nothing to worry about” outcome. Two, its just another study using MODELS…there is that word again. Skeptics are always selective about the models they embrace…clearly the IPCC used them all and wasn’t selective. The Duke study says one set of models used by the IPCC might be more correct.

    I would also note that one of the authors is trying his best to temper what skeptics think the study says. It doesn’t say warming is not occurring, it doesn’t say there is nothing to be concerned about, it doesn’t say that natural variation is more the cause than humans…one of the authors, Patrick Brown said this:

    “[O]ur study confirms that the warming of the past century could not have happened without human-caused increases in greenhouse gasses. This is because the warming over the past century is much larger than what could have come about due to natural variation.”

    1. They forgot to add “…we think.”

    2. One, its good to see climate skeptics embrace a study that hopefully would clearly state for them what the IPCC has done.

      I didn’t see any breakdown of carbon or dollars expended by the IPCC to carbon or dollars cut/returned?

      Absent that, it seems like a rehashing of a rehashing of a rehashing that says profound things like, “the future’s uncertain and the end is always near.”

      1. Love the Doors!

      2. Some decent data suggesting a recent warming trend, some data supporting an anthropogenic component of that warming. That’s as good as any of this gets right now.

    3. Re: Jackass Ass,

      The IPCC never predicted catastrophe.

      No, it clearly didn’t:

      “The lowest winter temperatures are likely to increase more than average winter temperature in northern Europe. ?The duration of the snow season is very likely to shorten in all of Europe, and snow depth is likely to decrease in at least most of Europe.”
      IPCC Climate Change, 2007

      It doesn’t say warming is not occurring, it doesn’t say there is nothing to be concerned about, it doesn’t say that natural variation is more the cause than humans[…]

      … it doesn’t say we need massive multi-government intervention and the destruction of Capitalism in order to stem the increase in global temperatures. Indeed, it doesn’t.

  20. Gee, where’s Jack the Bleever?
    He was here last week with his pants in a knot since the supposed R candidates ‘didn’t admit AGW as a problem!’
    I asked whether that might be because it’s yet to be shown that it *is* a problem and I guess Jack’s religion wouldn’t let him answer.

    1. You are 2 minutes too late…

  21. Moderate warming – that sound nice. Who could be against global warming now???

  22. “By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the ‘big picture’ right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles,” Brown said. “Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013.”

    IOW — the signal to noise ratio is so low that natural variability could have accounted for pretty much all the warming or cooling going on. Which suggests that the models themselves could be flawed and he’s overconfident about their ability to predict anything.

    1. Actually, one of the authors says the opposite:

      [“O]ur study confirms that the warming of the past century could not have happened without human-caused increases in greenhouse gasses. This is because the warming over the past century is much larger than what could have come about due to natural variation.”

      1. When they can run their model backwards and have it predict the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period and all of the glacial and interglacial episodes for the last million years — and then predict climate for the next 20-30 years with a fair amount of accuracy — then maybe you can say they have a reliable model and they understand the details of the physical processes driving climate.

        Right now, no.

        1. ^^Exactly this. Well said, prolefeed.

        2. and then predict climate for the next 20-30 years with a fair amount of accuracy — then maybe you can say they have a reliable model and they understand the details of the physical processes driving climate.

          Fyuck that. Predict a hurricane or tornado worth anything more than days or minutes of warning and reap the benefits of your model.

          Sink that into crop futures and infrastructure and you won’t have to prove your model to anyone. You can upgrade your model on your own time with your own cash made selling water to Californians at market prices.

  23. The researchers say these “climate wiggles” can slow or speed the rate of warming from decade to decade, and accentuate or offset the effects of increases in greenhouse gas concentrations.

    So the models that don’t take this into account are… inaccurate. That is the conclusion, isn’t it?

    If not properly explained and accounted for, they may skew the reliability of climate models and lead to over-interpretation of short-term temperature trends.

    Wasn’t that what the skeptics were saying from the very beginning? That not all variables were accounted for and that the climate models were woefully skewed?

    “At any given time, we could start warming at a faster rate if greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere increase without any offsetting changes in aerosol concentrations or natural variability,” said Wenhong Li, assistant professor of climate at Duke, who conducted the study with Brown.

    The problem is that you have NO clue what those offsetting factors are or how they work. They’re certainly DRAMATIC enough to stem a temperature increase which, going by the models created in the 90s, would have meant RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING??? by now, aren’t they? Either that, or there IS a point after where adding extra CO2 doesn’t produce the expected linear effect, what one would call HYSTERESIS.

  24. Sayeth the great sage mtrueman:

    The answer seems clear enough to me. An economic system that isn’t predicated on economic growth.

    This is the formidable intellect that deigns to speak with us proles. It can’t distinguish macroeconomics (aka statistical voodoo) from economic activity (you and me engaging in commerce) but it thinks it has the answers. We just need a new paradigm! If we just get the right system in place, everything else will work! Sadly, mtrueman is a thinker not a doer, so he just can’t be bothered with the little details like living by example. But he will stick around to keep us all enlightened.

    Fuck off, slaver.

    1. “This is the formidable intellect that deigns to speak with us proles.”

      So a regime of ever increasing emissions is the viable and realistic answer after all. That and the fact that I’m a bad person.

      1. You’re not a bad person, you’re an evil person. Two entirely different leagues.

        But this was just about how you’re an unintelligent person. Maybe if you’re lucky you will also prove that you’re a mendacious person today, too.

        1. Maybe if we’re lucky…

          But you’ve already proven your mendacity. I wasn’t giving you enough credit. If you really believed what you say, you’d have killed yourself by now.

        2. “But this was just about how you’re an unintelligent person. Maybe if you’re lucky you will also prove that you’re a mendacious person today, too.”

          Enough about this global warming stuff. Let’s talk about me.

          1. You have been refuted dozens of times, you have been shown to be a liar dozens of times, and you have been proven an intellectual midget dozens of times.

            There’s no need to rehash it all over again.

            1. “There’s no need to rehash it all over again.”

              Once more with feeling.

              1. Aww, do I get to be a bit player in your persecution play? Do you go around telling all your self-loathing “friends” about how mean the widdle libertarians are to you? They just won’t let you tell lies in peace! It’s a real shame, mtrueman, I hear ya.

          2. Also, I made a substantive point (that macroecon = voodoo) but you ignored it. Clearly, you are not interested in intellectual discussion. As always.

            1. “I made a substantive point…”

              Don’t know what you’re driving at. I figured it was just more of your chaff. In future perhaps I’ll make more of an efforts to appreciate your responding to me. No promises though.

              1. Of course you don’t know what I’m driving at. I nailed your fucking schtick in the first post. You don’t do, you “think”. You have nothing of value to contribute to the world, but doggone it you’re going to tell the rest of us how to lead our lives.

                1. “You have nothing of value to contribute to the world”

                  That’s because I’m evil.

                  1. No, but it is part of what makes you evil.

                    1. There are other parts that make me evil. Do go on. Never undersell your own valuable contributions to this world.

                    2. Are we doing the imagined persecution Olympics now? Don’t worry, you get the gold medal!

                    3. “Are we doing the imagined persecution Olympics now?”

                      I’m not concerned about being persecuted. Go ahead and persecute. It’s mildly amusing. I would like you to flesh out your argument ‘macroecon = voodoo.’ Your brevity is admirable, but it doesn’t really constitute a train of thought, or even rise to the level of a platitude.

  25. Seems like the Church of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change has reached the ‘negoitiation’ portion of their grieving process for their late ‘consensus’.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.