Climate Change

World Could Still Keep Future Man-Made Warming Below 2 Degrees Celsius

So says the new U.N. analysis of national climate plans from 146 countries

|

BestTemperature
Dreamstime: Meryll

A universal climate treaty is supposed to be negotiated at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris this December. At the center of this process are Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) in which countries make various pledges with regard to how they plan to address their greenhouse gas emissions. For example, the Obama administration pledged earlier this year that the United States would reduce its emissions by 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. The ultimate goal of the treaty is to keep the modeled future average temperature of the globe below an internationally agreed-upon threshold of 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average.

In advance of the Paris conference, nearly 150 countries have submitted their INDCs to the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC has released its Synthesis Report analysis of those INDCs to see if, when summed together, they put humanity on the track toward fulfilling the 2 degree Celsius threshold. The answer is, no. But the always diplomatically optimistic UNFCCC concludes the commitments are a good start.

From UNFCCC press release:

One of the key findings is that the INDCs will bring global average emissions per capita down by as much as 8% in 2025 and 9% in by 2030

"The INDCs have the capability of limiting the forecast temperature rise to around 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, by no means enough but a lot lower than the estimated four, five, or more degrees of warming projected by many prior to the INDCs," said [Christiana] Figueres, [Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC].

The secretariat report does not directly assess implications for temperature change by the end of the century under the INDCs because information on emissions beyond 2030 is required. However, other independent analyses have, based on a range of assumptions, methodologies and data sources, attempted to estimate the impact of the INDCs on temperature leading to a range of average estimates below, at or above 3 degrees C. Importantly all deliver more or less similar emission levels in 2025 and 2030 and all confirm that the INDCs, if fully implemented, are an important advance on previous scenarios. …

As well as the impact on per capita emissions, the report shows that INDCs are expected to slow emissions growth by approximately a third for 2010–2030 compared to the period 1990–2010, delivering emission reductions of around 4Gt by 2030 compared to pre-INDC scenarios.

Interestingly, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) laid out a planetary carbon dioxide budget in its latest science report. In order to have a 66 percent chance of keeping future temperatures below the modeled 2 degree Celsius threshold humanity, roughly speaking, should emit no more than an additional 1,000 billion tons of carbon dioxide.

Given the announced INDCs, the UNFCCC's new Synthesis Report calculates that annual greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise and be 37 to 52 percent higher in 2030 than they were in 2010.  As a result, by 2030 humanity will have emitted an additional 750 billion tons of carbon dioxide, leaving only 250 billion tons in the budget. This implies that much steeper reductions would subsequently be required in order to stay below the modeled 2 degree Celsius threshold.

Update: Activists claim the INDCs are way too little, way too late. In an email from the civil society Fair Shares group, activist Nathan Thanki decried the UNFCCC's characterization of the INDCs as a "down payment" for future climate pledges:

"Rather than 'down-payments' on ambition, we need deep cuts now: rich developed countries must make at least 80% emission cuts at home and help the poor develop cleanly in order meet their fair share of the bill. If not, it will be millions of the poorest families on the front lines of the climate crisis who have to pay the price. But if they did undertake their fair share of climate action, it would herald the end our addiction to polluting energy today, not tomorrow, protect our food systems and help build a safer, cleaner and a fairer world for us all."

For more background on climate activists' demands see my article, "The 'Climate Justice' Fantasy."

Note: I will be issuing daily dispatches from the Paris Climate Conference during the second week of December.

NEXT: Police Unions Freak Out Over Quentin Tarantino's Mild Anti-Police Killings Statement

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.

  1. Ron,
    Your book came out in 2014 and it cites the ‘pause’ (or whatever) in temp rises.
    Recently, the claim is now that there is no ‘pause’. From what I can tell, it looks like the sampling has changed. Comment?

    1. S: Actually my book came on July 21, 2015. In my chapter “Can We Cope with the Heat?” features a section “The Science Is Settled – The Global Temperature Hiatus” in which I report the scientific back and forth over the “missing” heat.

      Since the manuscript was finalized in March (gotta love book publishing), I was not able to include an analysis of subsequent studies in the book. You might be interested in my take on the June NOAA study that declared there was no “hiatus.”

      1. ‘Scuse me and thanks. The book is a good read, BTW.

      2. The ability to adjust the past will eliminate nearly any pause.

        Very clever don’tcha think?

        And then there are the ridiculous error bars. The errors from different measurements doesn’t reduce the error bars. It increases them (in a quadrature way).

        You want to do yourself a favor? Study how to calculate error bars.

        A measurement made in the AM and then repeated in the PM does not reduce the error of the average. They are measurements of different things.

        Error Propagation in Physics – Harvard

      3. NOAA lies and falsifies information. But then it is part of THE GOVERNMENT and there is an agenda.

  2. I would say that, based on current information, the world will indeed not experience more than 2 degrees of AGW, even if “we” do nothing at all.

    Mission accomplished! Howsabout we throw all these folks a huge victory party, and send them home?

    1. Don’t worry, they’ll party either way. Saving the world from annihilation takes hard work- conferences to attend, mountain top resorts to visit, and models to tweak. These people deserve some nice Parisian hospitality.

      1. I thought I missed out on all the models because I’m shorter than average, couldn’t play the guitar and can’t throw a football into a breadbasket at 75 yds. It turns out, it’s really because I chose molecular biology rather than climate science. Dang!

      2. Ah, models to tweak.

        But remember that the important focus – or so the obscurantists and magical popes insist – is on the treaty and that the “goal of the treaty is to keep the modeled future average temperature of the globe below an internationally agreed-upon threshold of 2 degrees.” The point is not the recent or future accuracy of the models. The point is to have a treaty that fits the models.

    2. My greatest fear is they will never admit they were wrong. No warming will happen and they’ll claim it was because of whatever sliver of their policies they were able to enact regardless of their initial claims.

      1. Ha! My college roommate made that very claim 25 years ago.

        Nailed it.

      2. Your greatest fear is guaranteed to happen. They will always have an excuse. Best case scenario is that the alarmists simply fade away… to be replaced by the next generation of alarmists.

    3. I would say that, based on current information, the world will indeed not experience more than 2 degrees of AGW, even if “we” do nothing at all.

      ^^^^^ THIS!

    4. I have no idea what will happen with global temperatures. But it’s going to happen, climate treaty or not.

      1. ^^ THIS ^^ even more

    5. Part of the problem is that AGW is the perfect vehicle for people who believe that nationalism needs to be replaced or complemented by a more global form of government. That is, AGW (in their view) can not be solved by a handful of nations taking action. It needs a some kind of overarching international cooperative body to save the world. And, no, I’m not a one-world government conspiracist, but since 1945, you’ve had people who think that nationalistic governments are a huge problem (partially true) and the solution is another level of government above them (almost entirely false). AGW plays into that interpretation almost perfectly.

    6. Exactly my thoughts. This article is based on a falsehood so there really is no reasonable reply to it.

  3. Huh, unintentional comedy all around:

    Take it ouside, God boy!

    About a dozen members of the Satanic Temple of Seattle, most dressed in hooded black robes and some masked, left Bremerton High School shortly after their arrival at a varsity-football game Thursday night. They came in response to the controversy surrounding coach Joe Kennedy, who was placed on leave this week for praying on the field after games but attended the game in the stands.

    Students swarmed the fence where the Satanists stood outside.The mob climbed the fence, shook it, held up crosses, threw liquid, and chanted “Jesus.” Some yelled at the Satanists to go away.

    1. A friend of the Devil is a friend of mine.

      1. +$20

  4. There is not a chance that any treaty will effect the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere… I mean really, between the developing world trying build their countries and places like Indonesia burning their forests there is nothing the West can do… The West is not the problem. We use energy more efficeintly than these other countries and pollute less per capita…

    1. Oh but the West IS the problem. India, China and Brazil are only polluting so much so that their kids can make us iPhones. And Indonesia wouldn’t be burning forests if capitalism hadn’t made it easier for them to live their indigenous lifestyle free of industrialization. Also frankenfoods. etc

      1. hadn’t made it easier for them

        er harder for them. How is it we put a man on the moon, but can’t get an edit button?

        1. The edit button is a hoax.

        2. The man has been taken off the moon. Thus no edit button.

          1. Programmers and web designers fall in love with and marry their creations.
            Nobody else’s suggestions or complaints are valid or relevant.

            I’ve seen this since manually punching IBM cards in college in 1967. Only some new company will ‘invent’ the edit button and people will flock to their site.

            And then Obama will try to pass a law to prevent the users from ‘defecting.’

            1. So, I guess having a response actually saying which commenter the response is aimed at, is out of the question, too?

    2. That’s the big thing. Whatever the rich western countries do, people will keep burning fossil fuels for energy as long as it is cheap and easy.

      I think I actually had some success in explaining this to someone recently. He was romanticizing ancient technology, I think we were talking about some Roman construction. And I pointed out that the use of resources was much more intensive and unsustainable back then. We may use more resources and energy in total today, but per capita we use a whole lot less. Modern civilization could not exist if we weren’t hugely more efficient than our ancestors.

      1. “And I pointed out that the use of resources was much more intensive and unsustainable back then”

        Not to mention that it also involved a lot of slavery.

        1. …but enough about Warty’s DOOM DUNGEON….

  5. …because, without man, the Earth’s climate has always been exactly as it was in 1970, which was the perfect temperature.

    What are they going to do when they pass all this garbage, destroy whole economies, and the Earth decides not to corporate and gets warmer anyway? Or, what if it decides to cool off a bit? Should when then crank up our muscle cars?

    1. Just like the TARP/Stimulus the problem will be that we didn’t stimulate hard enough, the problem was soooo much worse than we imagined.

      See also Union, Soviet – it’s 5 year plans all the way down and 73 years of famine.

    2. Should when then crank up our muscle cars?

      You should do that now, just in case.

  6. “Howsabout we throw all these folks a huge victory party, and send them home?”

    How about we send them all to the bottom of the Mariana Trench so they can personally investigate the latest dog ate my homework type excuse of heat being trapped in the oceans to explain why none of their warming models have been accurate?

  7. World Could Still Keep Future Man-Made Warming Below 2 Degrees Celsius

    Ugh, do we have to?

    1. Sure, MJG… and that also assumes that Two Degrees is EXACTLY the tipping point… and not 1.8, 1.6, 1.4… etc….nor 2.8, 3.2… etc.

      Science and math illiterates!

  8. These people have already set multiple deadlines that we supposedly couldn’t pass without action or we were all fucked. Deadline passes and they create a new arbitrary and baseless date after which we will be screwed.

    As Sevo pointed out above, the science is settled, but assholes arguing against the pause change the data set they want to use and claim everyone else was using the wrong set. No compelling reason why they have to change the data set or why that is more accurate beyond it validates the cause.

    Science is settled, unless that science suddenly contradicts the narrative than it was wrong all that time.

    1. These people have already set multiple deadlines that we supposedly couldn’t pass without action or we were all fucked. Deadline passes and they create a new arbitrary and baseless date after which we will be screwed.

      That’s what gets me too. We’ve supposedly been at the tipping point for what 10, 15 years now? Either it’s not really a tipping point and there are negative feedback mechanisms that balance out the positive feedback we always hear about, or we’ve past it and it’s either not that bad or we’re doomed and there is nothing to be done.

      I propose we just accept that we are all fucked and get on with life. Then we can all be happily surprised when it’s not as bad as the predictions say.

      1. It’s a doomsday cult. Nothing more. They’re no different than the nut on the corner with a sign that says the world is going to end on Tuesday, and when it doesn’t end he goes home and makes a new sign.

        1. They fit the pattern perfectly. They really do.

          Look around for fringe millenarian/apocalyptic nutters. This is exactly what they do: set a date, and when it passes, do some arm-waving, and set another date. Rinse and repeat until the tithing members of the flock thin out . . .

        2. It’s a doomsday cult. Nothing more.

          I gotta agree with Suthenboy a bit on this one;

          Half doomsday cult, half con men.

          Half of them go home and make up new signs, the other half wait and see what the new signs and say, “Okay, I’m really not supposed to tell you this, but we’ve got 5 more minutes for you to take action or you’ll miss out on the deal of a lifetime!”

          1. Aren’t doomsday cults usually run by con men?

      2. I was just reading this morning about a guy who was saying in 1977 that we only had about 5 years to act before all would be lost.

    2. See, we know the models are right, so the data must be wrong. We had to correct the data to more accurately reflect our perceived reality.

  9. We wouldn’t be having this problem if the environmentalists hadn’t killed nuclear power 50 years ago. Nuclear energy is and always has been the only reliable, steady, and safe form of CO2 free energy. As soon as I hear somebody complain about global warming and say nuclear is bad for the environment, I instantly stop valuing that person’s opinion.

    1. ^ This. So much this.

    2. As soon as I hear somebody complain about global warming and say nuclear is bad for the environment, I instantly stop valuing that person’s opinion.

    3. cbk: You might be interested in my 2009 article “The Cultural Contradictions of Anti-Nuke Environmentalists.”

      From the article:

      Consider that burning coal accounts for 36 percent of current U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. Since 90 percent of the coal burned in the U.S. is used to produce electricity, replacing all coal-fired generating plants with zero-carbon electricity generation plants (say, nuclear reactors) would cut emissions by roughly 2 billion tons.??? Currently, 1,400 coal-fired electricity generation plants supply about 45 percent of the country’s electricity while 104 conventional nuclear power plants produce roughly 20 percent. So to replace all coal plants would take roughly 250 1,000-megawatt nuclear plants, either conventional or fast breeder. (Note also that according to former Vice-President Al Gore, in the 1960s, the Atomic Energy Commission predicted that the United States would have 1,000 nuclear power plants operating by the year 2000.)

  10. According to the statistics from the report I’ve linked below by the EIA, the statistics arm of the U.S. Department of Energy, our decreases in CO2 emission since 2006 are all about “energy intensity”, by which they mean that amount of CO2 given off per BTU of energy.

    Burning enough natural gas to get a Kilowatt Hour of energy gives off approximately 40% less CO2 than coal. And according to the report:

    “There are two basic factors that have contributed to lower carbon intensity (CO2/kilowatthour [kWh]) in the electric power sector: 1) substitution of the less-carbon-intensive natural gas for coal and petroleum, and 2) growth in non-carbon generation, especially renewables such as wind and solar.”

    The report also shows that wind and solar remain a tiny percentage of total energy–so the drop in CO2 emissions (including after the recession was over) is almost entirely attributable to natural gas.

    Another fascinating graph in the report shows carbon intensity as an inflation adjusted function of $1 million in GDP since 1949, and the fact is that we use dramatically less energy to produce GDP than we ever have before. It’s an amazing graph!

    http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/

    1. So I see four things to take from that data:

      1) Our CO2 emissions have decreased dramatically since 2006 and are projected to continue to decrease.

      2) The decreases are almost entirely due to the substitution of natural gas for coal and petroleum, and the spikes in that period are because of spikes in the price of natural gas.

      3) Fracking is the best friend of everyone who cares about global warming, and the opponents of fracking are the worst enemy of people who care about global warming.

      4) Economic growth is not tied to increases in carbon emissions. Our economy grew after the recession, even while CO2 emissions continued to drop, and our carbon intensity per $1 million of GDP has been steadily declining since 1949.

      1. Our economy grew after the recession,

        At a barely perceptible level, once you correct for treating the creation of debt as “productivity” in our GDP.

        1. There is no reason to think that utilities willingly enthusiastically substituting less expensive, less carbon intensive natural gas for coal and petroleum hurts economic growth. To the contrary!

          Regardless of how the economy grew 1) we’re not in recession now and 2) the dramatic drop carbon intensity after 2006 is not attributable to the recession. Carbon intensity continued to drop even as the economy started growing again.

          Last but not least, carbon intensity has been on a downward trajectory per $1 million in GDP since 1949–despite every recession and every recovery in that period.

          A common misunderstanding of people who care about global warming is that carbon emissions and economic growth are a zero-sum game. We should destroy that false notion. I should say, there are plenty of people who disbelieve in global warming because they believe in that false zero-sum game, as well. But to whatever extent we gain opposition to socialist solutions to climate change for people believing that, we lose even more support from people who think the problem is that selfish capitalists aren’t willing to make the sacrifices we all need to make to stop climate change. It’s bullshit. Economic growth in America is not synonymous with increased CO2 emissions.

          1. Who are you arguing with, Ken? I said nothing that could even be distorted into a claim that using natgas hurts growth.

            1. Seemed like you were suggesting that CO2 emissions weren’t really dropping during a period of economic growth because the economic growth itself was barely perceptible.

              1. Nope.

                Just that using our standard measures of economic growth are misleading during a period when the Treasury is issuing a trillion a year in new debt, much of which is monetized by the Fed.

                1. GDP has never been a valid metric of economic prosperity to begin with.

                  The calculation includes government spending.

                  And government spending amounts to nothing more than forced transfer payments that can never net to any value greater than zero.

                  1. I would say that any measure of economic activity that doesn’t account for the government’s consumption of final goods and services is incomplete–certainly to Keynesians and others who want more socialistic government solutions to climate change. But I’ll let you guys argue among yourselves about whether GDP accurately measures personal prosperity. GDP is certainly the standard measure of economic growth, and the standard measurement of prosperity is linked to GDP per capita. And the point is to get it across to swing voters and the general public–who may or may not subscribe to your economic views.

                    There is no reason to believe that CO2 emissions and economic growth are positively correlated, not given the data from Energy Department and not because electricity providers are substituting cheap natural gas made possible by fracking for more expensive coal. We know for a fact, from the Energy Department, that CO2 emission and economic growth are not positively correlated. When our CO2 emissions started to drop circa 2008, climate alarmists said it was because of the recession. That may have been a contributing factor, but it wasn’t the real explanation–because the CO2 declines continued well past the recession. The real explanation was that burning cheap natural gas is 40% less carbon intensive than burning coal.

                    1. Substituting one cheaper, less carbon intensive energy source for another does not slow the economy down–no matter whether GDP is an accurate measure of personal prosperity or not. It’s the second great truth I wish everyone understood about the global warming debate. The first great truth is that our CO2 emissions declined so rapidly since 2006, that we came mighty damn close to hitting our Kyoto Treaty emissions cut obligations–in spite of not signing the treaty and in spite of the government not doing much of anything.

            2. Forget it, he’s rolling.

      2. Re: Ken Shultz,

        4) Economic growth is not tied to increases in carbon emissions.

        This is all well and true but you don’t seem to understand, Ken, that the warmists (and their Marxian enablers) are NOT interested in increasing economic growth. They’re interested in control.

        Please, stop pretending that all of this has to do one iota about the environment. If the watermelons were really concerned about the “environment”, they would be the FIRST ONES to embrace free market capitalism instead of the socialism that dried up Lake Aral.

        1. That’s true about a lot of the activists out there, but it isn’t true of the general public and the swing voters, many of whom genuinely care about the environment.

          Let’s not conflate the enemy with the battlefield. The people you’re talking about are the enemy, and their socialist solutions should be resisted. The general public is the battlefield, and we’re fighting the enemy in order to claim as much of the battlefield as possible.

          Treating the general public, many of whom genuinely care about the environment, like they’re the enemy isn’t going to make us much headway.

  11. If the warming is not man made it is easy to prevent. Do nothing.

    Me? I worry about Chicago under 2 miles of ice.

    1. I worry about Chicago under 2 miles of ice.

      Why?

      Oh, I get it. If Chicago disappears under a glacier, Chicagoans will have to leave and some could wind up in your neighborhood.

      1. some could wind up in your neighborhood

        Yes. And to tell the truth I live in Rockford. The Chicago problem is not that far away.

  12. Could somebody please explain to me how you measure the CO2 being emitted from a whole country?

    1. One doesn’t.

      One estimates it. Basically, there are different methods of estimating emissions from different processes. Some are pretty good (a power plant burns 6,000 tons of coal)… some are shitty – 50,000 tons of newspaper were printed by the Tribune Corporation, we assume x% went to a landfill and emitted y amount of CO2 as it decomposed.

      Add all the estimates together, and voila. You have CO2 emissions. With big error bars.

      1. An example of how the estimation sausage works:

        http://www3.epa.gov/climatecha…..tions.html

  13. We are at a critical global warming tipping point. We have always been at a critical climate change tipping point.

    1. We have always been at a critical climate change tipping point.

      As long as only the tip goes in….

    2. BTW always being at the tipping point is a function of chaotic systems. Lorenz. (did I spell the name right?)

  14. At the center of this process are Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) in which countries make various pledges with regard to how they plan to address their greenhouse gas emissions.

    And obviously those pledges have meaning considering that countries are persons with will and word and …

    … what are you guys laughing at?

    1. Yes, we’ve reached a level of absurdity where an otherwise reasonable person can say with a straight face that countries make pledges… as if the people inside the political borders wouldn’t do whatever they damned pleased simply because they’re INDIVIDUAL BEINGS OF WILL.

  15. Like the commercial says, everyone knows that. Everyone knows whatever comes out of that accord it probably won’t limit warming to two degrees. However, what is important is that it is a start, with nearly every nation recognizing the obvious, and accepting science.

    Sadly, it also leaves today’s Republican Party as basically an outlier on accepting reality. In fact, there was a recent study that underlined that fact. Nine different conservative parties on different countries were analyzed of their stance toward climate, and U.S. GOP stands alone as denying science.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com…..2/abstract

    “Although conservative parties are portrayed as skeptical toward adopting climate measures or even supposed to ignore climate change, this study of nine conservative electoral manifestoes nevertheless finds that most of them support climate measures, even in the form of state interventions in the market economy. Market measures are not as dominating as could be expected, but a clear finding is that available fossil reserves seem to have an influence on conservative climate politics. The U.S. Republican Party is an anomaly in denying anthropogenic climate change.”

    Well, they’re not exactly alone…libertarians stand with them.

    1. Let me know when you get off your ass and start burning some of the heretics deniers at the stake. Sure, it’s a little extra CO2, but then they won’t be around any more to spread their heresy denial.

    2. Jackand Ace|10.30.15 @ 2:29PM|#
      “…However, what is important is that it is a start,…”

      Results? Who cares? We got good intentions, even if those intentions starve millions!
      Jack’s a blithering idiot who has a grasp of the situation somewhat similar to a toddler discussing fusion.
      Hey, Jack? Fuck off, slaver.

    3. “It is a start”

      So was the Kellogg-Briand treaty.

      1. Say wha’?

  16. So, Rand Paul decides to join the ignoramuses in the GOP. Here he suggests climate “alarmism” comes from observing one storm.

    http://politics.concordmonitor…..te-change/

    And of course, he doesn’t understand that science does know man’s contribution to carbon in the atmosphere through isotopic signature. And it’s the carbon causing the warming, or at least science is attempting to tell Rand that.

    1. Jackand Ace|10.30.15 @ 5:21PM|#
      “So, Rand Paul decides to join the ignoramuses in the GOP. Here he suggests climate “alarmism” comes from observing one storm.”
      Like you did last week, Jack (ass)?

  17. I don’t get it, the temperature around the globe has been relatively steady for almost 20 years, so why would we need to take action on a problem that doesn’t exist? See the link at the end of this article, http://bit.ly/1HhUbRU. The graph at the top of that article was developed by Dr. Roy Spencer, who coined the phrase “95% of Climate Models Agree, the Observations Must be Wrong”, 1st shown on http://bit.ly/1twX0Ye. So, please tell me again why we need to adjust our lifestyles, when there’s little chance of the earth ever warming to the extent that the IPCC predicted in their alarmist projections?

    1. The temperature around the globe has not been steady for over 100 years. It is going up, and this year we most certainly will set a new record.

      http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015…..rded.html?

      You select satellite measurements because it only goes back to the 70s, and then you shorten it further to 20 yrs because it gives you an answer you want.

      But fine, if you insist on using satellites, then I suggest you go to REMSS, who has already corrected Spencer once before.

      “Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).
      Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation,”

      http://www.remss.com/research/climate

      1. Jackand Ace|10.30.15 @ 9:52PM|#
        “The temperature around the globe has not been steady for over 100 years. It is going up, and this year we most certainly will set a new record.”

        Yeah, Jack (asshole), we’ll set a new record by some tiny amount we might measure! And therefore Jack (assholes) should run our economy!
        Jack (asshole), fuck off.

  18. There’s an article about Greenland gaining ice faster than ever recorded at Real Science.
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/

    I guess it must be caused by global warming

    1. Global warming is causing something in Greenland, and it is the melting of its ice. There isn’t a better source to get data on ice from than the National Smow and Ice Data Center.

      “The mass of ice in the Greenland Ice Sheet has begun to decline. From 1979 to 2006, summer melt on the ice sheet increased by 30 percent, reaching a new record in 2007. At higher elevations, an increase in winter snow accumulation has partially offset the melt. However, the decline continues to outpace accumulation because warmer temperatures have led to increased melt and faster glacier movement at the island’s edges.”

    2. From this past August.

      “The amount of meltwater draining from the ice sheet in four out of the five years between 2007 and 2012 has been the most substantial of the last 50 years.”

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/re…..102359.htm

      By the way, I would read the article you cite but the link doesn’t point to it.

  19. There will be a nuclear war by 2030 anyway, possibly caused by middle east instability due to the changers cutting into their oil-based economies, in which case we will be enduring a nuclear winter, not warming.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.