Climate Change

Trump Did Not 'Suppress' the New National Climate Science Special Report

It says "human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming."

|

BestThermometerBigRightsizedMeryll
Meryll

Despite the fears of some climate activists, the Trump administration did not suppress any of the conclusions in the National Climate Assessment program's new Climate Science Special Report. The new report essentially bolsters the climate change consensus that the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere derived chiefly from burning fossil fuels is warming the planet at a relatively rapid rate.

The new report is being issued just as the latest United Nations climate change conference gets ready to start up next week.

So what does the report find?

(1) Global annually averaged surface air temperature has increased by about 1.8°F (1.0°C) over the last 115 years (1901–2016).

(2) Based on extensive evidence…it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century [emphasis in report]. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.

(3) Global average sea level has risen by about 7–8 inches since 1900, with almost half (about 3 inches) of that rise occurring since 1993. Human-caused climate change has made a substantial contribution to this rise since 1900, contributing to a rate of rise that is greater than during any preceding century in at least 2,800 years.

(4) Relative to the year 2000, global mean sea level is very likely to rise by 0.3–0.6 feet (9–18 cm) by 2030, 0.5–1.2 feet (15–38 cm) by 2050, and 1.0–4.3 feet (30–130 cm) by 2100.

(4) Annual average temperature over the contiguous United States has increased by 1.8°F (1.0°C) for the period 1901–2016; over the next few decades (2021–2050), annual average temperatures are expected to rise by about 2.5°F for the United States, relative to the recent past (average from 1976–2005)….

(5) The frequency of cold waves has decreased since the early 1900s, and the frequency of heat waves has increased since the mid-1960s (the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s remains the peak period for extreme heat in the United States).

Over at The Wall Street Journal, physicist Steven Koonin, who served as undersecretary of energy for science in the Obama years, describes the new report as "deceptive." He acknowledges that "much is right in the report" but thinks its tone is misleading in some important areas. Specifically, he notes that the recent rate of sea level rise is just as fast as during various periods in the 20th century, and that heat waves are no more frequent than they were in 1900.

Koonin suggests:

These deficiencies in the new climate report are typical of many others that set the report's tone. Consider the different perception that results from "sea level is rising no more rapidly than it did in 1940" instead of "sea level rise has accelerated in recent decades," or from "heat waves are no more common now than they were in 1900" versus "heat waves have become more frequent since 1960." Both statements in each pair are true, but each alone fails to tell the full story.

Koonin wants to remedy what he thinks are deficiencies in the way climate science is assessed by "convening a 'Red/Blue' adversarial review to stress-test the entire report."

Given the thorough politicization of climate science, I doubt that the results of such a review would satisfy either alarmists or deniers.*

Watch this space next week for a more detailed analysis of the report.

*The epithets that global warming partisans use to denounce their opponents.

NEXT: Watch a Livestream of Nick Gillespie and Katherine Mangu-Ward Debating Capitalism's Merits Against Jacobin magazine Tonight at 7:30 ET!

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. Given the thorough politicization of climate science, I doubt that the results of such a review would satisfy either alarmists or deniers.

    Sometimes Ron, I think a lot of people don’t want to be satisfied.

    1. It is the collectivists that do not want to be satisfied!

      We have ALL collectively been butt-fucked 234,452,722,444,312,927 ways to Sunday, on 299,128,020,120,592 issues, by Government Almighty (which knows SOOOO much better than us as individualistic peons), and it is STILL not quite enough!

      STOP that non-licensed exhaling of carbon dioxide, ye peons!!!!

      1. Suck it in , SQRLSY, Ron’s physicist informant was British Petroleum’s Chief Scientist , and is toeing the highly political Paarty Line laid down by the Heartland Institute on behalf of the leading lights of the Oil Patch:

        http://tinyurl.com/y8cshkf3

  2. I don’t think too many people are true climate change deniers. “Are you aware of the term ‘Ice Age’? Are we living in one now? Congratulations, you believe in climate change.”

    The question is whether it’s truly due to human influence. The measuring tools have gotten so much better of late that it’s hard to say whether the observed changes are as drastic as claimed.

    1. If you don’t care about the subject maybe you should just refrain from talking about it? If you do care about the subject, you would presumably know that the term “climate change” is referring to a specific modern phenomenon and not the phenomenon in general.

      1. I don’t believe that, Dumbshit (the modern usage), The English language is corrupt enough, already. We don’t need Tony and his Alarmist girlfriends corrupting it even more. Climate change says just that. It doesn’t imply what you want it to imply.

        1. So give the thing we’re actually talking about another name, if that will make you less confused.

          1. No, it’s you trying to cover all bases with the most nebulous term possible because “global warming” is so much bullshit at this point.

            You want an unfalsifiable “science”. The only falsifiable thing in existence is faith.

      2. If the general term “climate change” now means what the specific term “anthropogenic climate change” was intended to mean, what term is now used to the general case?

        Should all the scholarly articles on the subject that used those terms different from your revised reversed meanings be re-written?

        Lastly, there are meaty aspects to debate on this subject – it seems odd for you to focus your attention on an issue whose resolution would ultimately have no operational value. What is your intent on that focus?

        1. I’m not the one struggling to understand what the subject of conversation is.

          1. Which is the inherent deception in the use of the terms “climate warming”, no, “climate change” to imply that people who challenge any part of “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” deny that climate changes.

            It is the alarmists who pervert science by implying that natural forcing stopped in the past century (despite always changing for hundreds of millions of years) and climate change is now dominated almost entirely by industrial activity in the form of CO2 emissions.

    2. The measuring tools have gotten so much better of late that it’s hard to say whether the observed changes are as drastic as claimed.

      What will often tell you a lot about where any particular individual is coming from is to suggest that we wait about five years so that we have a solid thirty years of good data to draw on (which is what the people who were originally pushing for the study in the first place – people like myself back in the early ’90s – were pushing for – a 30-year study).

      The people who have the most invested in the alarmist narrative are the ones who are most resistant to further study. An interesting correlation, that.

      1. Citation needed for your last sentence.

        1. You are one of the exact people I had in mind, actually.

          1. How am I resistant to further study?

            1. Dare I suggest that the trends over the last 20 years haven’t been terribly conclusive and that prior to spending trillions and outlawing certain power sources, we could stand to let the 30-year studies run their course until they are complete, given that the actually observed warming trends so far have been far slower than the catastrophic predictions?

              1. Oh they’ve been conclusive, just not the way that Tony wants.

              2. If by slower you mean faster, you’d be almost in the ballpark of knowing what the fuck you’re talking about.

                Always bringing your poor welfare children oil companies into it. I get that they can’t make it on their own if they are forced to account for the environmental damage they cause, but the welfare queening gets just a bit thick in these parts.

                1. Stop it with the newspeak, Tony. There is no doubt that temps have risen significantly slower than predicted even though the planet followed the “business as usual” CO2 growth path.

                2. Tony|11.3.17 @ 10:00PM|#
                  “If by slower you mean faster, you’d be almost in the ballpark of knowing what the fuck you’re talking about.”
                  No, for the idiots in the audience “slower” does not mean “faster”

                  “Always bringing your poor welfare children oil companies into it. I get that they can’t make it on their own if they are forced to account for the environmental damage they cause, but the welfare queening gets just a bit thick in these parts.”
                  Always dragging strawmen into your posts simply provides evidence that you’re a fucking lefty ignoramus.

                  1. Hey Sevo, when is musk going to have to raise cash again? At this rate I give him 6 months.

                    1. “Hey Sevo, when is musk going to have to raise cash again? At this rate I give him 6 months.”

                      Dunno if you’ve caught it, but his sweetheart, non-union deal for the Nummi plant is getting some heavy pressure and now Pelosi and Feinstein are going to get sucked into it whether they like it or not: Sup with Satan, you better have a LONG spoon.
                      Depending on Trump’s ‘you ain’t getting free money for electrics!’, it could be sooner. Is the guy capable of running a company that isn’t crony?

                    2. Oh, and NAS, read this?:
                      https://www.amazon.com/ Energy-Civilization-History-MIT-Press/ dp/0262035774/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8 =1509769267&sr=8-1 =energy+and+civilization+a+history

                    3. That NUMI plant is just cursed. I think I did see something about labor issues there. SpaceX SEEMS to be real, but it’s a private company and not releasing any financials. Everything else he does is just subsidy farming.

                      Interesting. May have to pick it up just to have a handy reference. What the greentards just don’t get is that energy is life. The more energy we control the better off we are. The more we take ourselves OUT of nature the better off we are.

  3. when you realize there are no cooling gases you will realize it doesn’t matter what gas is in the air those who wish to tax through the suppression of resources will find a way to do so. All gases are warming gases, be thank full or the planet would would be like the Moon otherwise

    1. But what about gas that used to be a solid or liquid deep underground?

      Also I recommend a cursory reading up on the greenhouse effect.

      1. What part of the greenhouse effect did he mis-characterize, You Who Are So Wise In the Ways of Science?

        1. “All gases are warming gases.” The answer is I’m not sure what he’s trying to say. Certainly not all gases are greenhouse gases.

          1. Yeah, that’s not even true. For example, hydrogen is too light to be held by the Earth’s gravity, and escapes into space, taking some heat with it. It is thus a cooling gas.

            1. Isn’t that getting into some fine points, thought? If hydrogen is taking some heat with it, it is in fact trapping heat – it’s the gas itself that isn’t getting trapped, but the gas is not a “cooling gas.”

              I think the point that Ron was getting at (at least the way I read it) is that the greenhouse effect of our atmosphere is what keeps us all from freezing to death. Which is not scientifically controversial.

              1. And of course you can never have too much of a good thing.

                1. How are we doing in CO2 ppm compared to historical trends over the lifetime of the planet?

                  1. Scraping the bottom of the barrel. Go back to the pre-industrial eden levels and we’re close to shutting down plant life on the planet.

                  2. Why is the lifetime of the planet the useful x-axis? I’m personally concerned with the human species.

                    1. Then you want the planet to warm, dumbass. Humans are a sub-tropical species. Global warming expands the temperate zones and makes the planet MORE habitable.

                    2. So let’s just warm the planet indefinitely and unchecked. At least the oil companies that underwrite your stupid horseshit philosophy don’t get dinged. That’s what’s really important here.

            2. For example, hydrogen is too light to be held by the Earth’s gravity, and escapes into space, taking some heat with it. It is thus a cooling gas.

              Ugh, no. That’s not how this works. First you’d have to establish the residence time of hydrogen in the atmosphere. Then you’d have to factor in the probability of recombination — hydrogen happens to really like oxygen and it loves halogens.

      2. What about it? That says nothing about its absorption spectrum.

  4. I used to work in a lab that stress tested electronics. We had a thermal chamber that could go from way below freezing to way above boiling. It cost oodles of money, and for all of that, I would never have made the claim in any of my reports of an accuracy of +/- a degree over the 1 cubic foot of space that was being measured.

    There isn’t the remotest possibility that the measurements they are claiming are anything more than hand waving.

    Greenhous gases are a compelling theory. It’s also hard to believe that land usage patterns wouldn’t affect the climate substantially. Trying to blame it all on the oil companies is a little hard to swallow, since the oil companies have always been the bugaboo of the left regardless of what the problem de jure is.

    1. Well you know best.

      1. Its hard not to laugh when you read the Executive Summary of the climate report.

        (1) These climate heating events and CO2 increases already happened and since it was 3 Million years ago, humans didn’t cause it.
        (2) The report says increasing average temperatures could be come irreversible. Except they reversed after the previous heat events 3 Million years ago.

        Do these people who get taxpayer money even read what they write?

    2. Trying to blame it all on the oil companies is a little hard to swallow, since the oil companies have always been the bugaboo of the left regardless of what the problem de jure is.

      ^ This.

      I have a bunch of friends who are on the global warming train now that it’s a partisan wedge issue. 10-15 years ago, when the science was still pointing to methane as the primary component of warming and the obvious solution was giving up meat (especially beef), and before either major party had taken a strong position on the issue, none of them were interested at all.

      Now that it means getting subsidized solar panels and electric cars and calling Republicans stupid, they’re all really passionate about it.

      1. Doesn’t have anything to do with the validity of the science.

        1. Doesn’t have anything to do with the validity of the science.

          You are correct. It has to do with the validity of their motivations and their willingness to learn something about the science.

          Like you, their willingness to lean about the science is limited to reading mailers from the DNC, because like you their only interest in the issue is “REPUBLICANS ARE DESTROYING THE WORLD. AGAIN!!!

          1. If I want to know about the science I’ll usually go to Wikipedia. But I know, Wikipedia, and now Trump, are part of the Al Gore conspiracy.

            1. If I want to know about the science I’ll usually go to Wikipedia.

              And that explains so, so much.

              1. Yes, it explains an awful lot.

                1. Cheap bullshit. I never said I was a scientist. I just read about it. Where do you get your science?

                  Ooh ooh let me guess, some guy with maybe a master’s degree who still lives in his mom’s basement and has a blog?

                  1. Tony|11.3.17 @ 10:03PM|#
                    “Cheap bullshit.”
                    So you were called on your bullshit? How…….
                    appropriate.

                    “Ooh ooh let me guess, some guy with maybe a master’s degree who still lives in his mom’s basement and has a blog?”
                    Got any evidence of that, or are we to presume your momma hasn’t yet told you to get your ass out of there?

                  2. Reading and understanding are clearly two different things.

            2. Tony|11.3.17 @ 6:09PM|#
              “If I want to know about the science I’ll usually go to Wikipedia.”

              Tony, I’m saving that along with this comment:
              Tony|9.7.17 @ 4:43PM|#
              “I don’t consider taxing and redistribution to be either forced or charity.”

              When anyone wants to know how conversant you are in matters regarding the process of science, they’ll get the first. When they object that no one could possibly be that stupid, I’ll follow with the second.

              1. What the hell then did Tony call it, if not forced out charity? Were new words created for this epic tap dance? It seems to me that we can all agree on words that don’t have any significant meaning.

            3. Tony|11.3.17 @ 6:09PM|#

              If I want to know about the science I’ll usually go to Wikipedia. But I know, Wikipedia, and now Trump, are part of the Al Gore conspiracy.

              I just edited Wikipedia to include your statement that “Wikipedia, and now Trump, are part of the Al Gore conspiracy”.

              Wikipedia is great when you edit stuff and people believe everything they read from one source.

      2. I love doing my part to solve global warming, as well all should.

        Especially when it means getting handouts.

        My problem is: they’re not big enough. Shouldn’t the gov just buy me an electric car and put solar panels on my house for free?

        How am I supposed to do my part to solve global warming, if they won’t pay for my sacrifice to solve global warming?

        I mean, come on, we’re trying to save the world here.

        1. I mean, come on, we’re trying to save the world here.

          Let Al Gore show you how!

  5. Fuck, they got to Trump?

      1. It’s almost like we were all wrong about his being evil with every fiber of his being.

  6. Isn’t the real story here the fact that the globalists are screaming that they’ll be a climate Armageddon at a more bizarre and hysterical level?

  7. over the next few decades (2021?2050), annual average temperatures are expected to rise by about 2.5?F for the United States,

    So that’s 1.38C over 3 decades or .46C/decade. And what are we actually doing globally? Um, about 0.15C/dcd. So warming rates are going to triple real soon now. Honest.

    1. Let’s pretend you know what you’re talking about. So what? I bet Canada and Russia would love to see a warming climate. BTW, there’s been an official warming ever since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. Even the alarmists/scientists admit that’s been the consensus for decades, which sometimes disrupts the narrative. This includes rising water levels.

  8. *The epithets that global warming partisans use to denounce their opponents.

    This supposes an equivalence that ignores an important fact: to an alarmist, all non-alarmists are “deniers”, while there’s a tremendous diversity of opinion among non-alarmists. Thus, scientists like Judith Curry or John Christy can labeled as “deniers” with a straight face despite their contributions to climate science.

    A more useful distinction may be one of religion and science. There are global warming religionists, the fire-and-brimstone alarmists. And there are small anti-warmists churches. However, there are many who do not see climate change and global warming through religious filters at all, but instead as simply a hard science that yields neither easy conclusions nor answers.

    1. “However, there are many who do not see climate change and global warming through religious filters at all, but instead as simply a hard science that yields neither easy conclusions nor answers.”

      Which inquiry, finding ‘climate change’ in some degree, in no way suggests those who find it know the best (political) way to address it.
      If I recall correctly, the Kyoto protocols, stringent as they were and also universally ignored as they were, would have accomplished bupkis in the inferred aim of reversing ‘climate change’ (it was called ‘global warming’ at the time, before the warming failed to deliver, hence the scare quotes).
      Every proposed policy by the catastrophists (if that is pejorative, please suggest an alternative) requires massive changes in world energy use, but in the end, provides scant progress toward a solution even by the standards of the catastrophists. (cont’d)

      1. (cont’d)
        You’ll forgive a skeptic, having watched lefties trying to justify their power grabs for some 60 years and seeing yet one more ‘justification’; Fabianism is a long ways from dead.
        So here is my charge to the catastophists: You claim to know what damage will occur and in what time frame. Which supposes you know what actions should be taken to prevent that damage and WHAT THOSE ACTIONS COST COMPARED TO THE ALTERNATIVE. Note, any claim ignoring the alternative tells the reader you don’t have a clue, just to be real.
        And the alternative had better include some reference to how mankind has reacted to climate issues in the past absent what you propose and how mankind succeeded or failed as a result.
        IOWs, try to be honest, once at least.

  9. The global atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has now passed 400 parts per million (ppm), a level that last occurred about 3 million years ago, when both global average temperature and sea level were significantly higher than today. Continued growth in CO2 emissions over this century and beyond would lead to an atmospheric concentration not experienced in tens to hundreds of millions of years. There is broad consensus that the further and the faster the Earth system is pushed towards warming, the greater the risk of unanticipated changes and impacts, some of which are potentially large and irreversible.
    Climate Change executive summary
    Damn, humans raising Earth’s temperature 3 Million years ago and then again since 1900.

    They are right, raising Earth’s temp and CO2 concentration will never be reversible….until the Earth’s climate adjusts the way it did in the past.

    Looks like a last hurrah for all these bureaucrat “scientists” before they get pink slips with this 2018 budget.

    1. What could possibly motivate you to invest so much energy into denying basic scientific fact? What do you get out of it? Are you just a panty-wetting little girl who can’t handle bad news, or what?

  10. It’s all bupkis. The supposed warming is almost entirely the result of adjustments by people who want to show warming.

    Based on the science, my prediction is that not only will the Earth not warm 2.5 degrees from 2021-2050, but in fact will get cooler. F

  11. “The supposed warming is almost entirely the result of adjustments by people who want to show warming.”

    Like Christy & Spencer? They’re the UAH arch-Coolists who had the decency to publish a retraction when they discovered they’s done the satellite radiometer math wrong, and have since guliessly reported the upward trend that prefaces so many of Ron’s reports on the Climate Wars

    It’s the propaganda that’s all bupkis, and it’s sad to see a smart guy like Steve Koonon parroting it: http://tinyurl.com/y8cshkf3

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.