MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Climate Models Run Too Hot: Settled Science Again

A Nature Geoscience study finds that humanity has more time to avert dangerous man-made warming.

GlobalWarmingHotColdPetarVeinovicDreamstimePetar Veinovic/DreamstimeClimate computer model projections of future man-made warming due to human emissions of carbon dioxide are running too hot, says a fascinating new study in Nature Geoscience. Consequently, researchers reckon that humanity has more time to prevent dangerous future climate change than had been suggested earlier by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

This is really good news. This new article shows that climate science is not yet "settled science."

Of course, this is just one article among many thousands addressing aspects of man-made climate change. While its authors are members in good standing in the climate science establishment, they could be wrong. In fact, on the same day as the Nature Geoscience study was published, the United Kingdom's Met Office issued a report that says this: "After a period during the early 2000's when the rise in global mean temperature slowed...the long-term rate of global warming has now returned to the level seen in the second half of the 20th century."

The Met Office attributes the temperature slowdown in the early 21st century to natural climate variations. Specifically, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation had flipped to its cool phase, thus masking ongoing man-made global warming between 1999 and 2014. If true, this would suggest that the climate models are right after all about the long-term temperature trends and that the carbon budget is smaller than the new study calculates.

So what did the Nature Geoscience researchers do? They began by calculating what the global carbon budget should be in order to keep future temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average. Why that level? Because the signatories to the Paris Agreement on climate change committed to "holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels."

The researchers next pointed out that the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report, from 2013, estimated that cumulative carbon dioxide emissions since 1870 would have to remain less than 2,260 gigatons of carbon dioxide to stay below the 1.5 C threshold. But as of 2014, cumulative emissions stood at just over 2,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide. Since humanity is currently emitting about 36 gigatons of carbon dioxide annually, that implies that humanity would blow through the remaining IPCC carbon budget around 2021.

Here's where it gets interesting. The average global temperature now stands at about 0.9 C above the pre-industrial baseline, which implies that global temperature would have to increase by 0.6 C between now and 2021 if the IPCC carbon budget calculations were right. This is highly implausible since such an increase would be about 10 times faster than than what has actually heretofore been observed.

"Taking an average across ESMs [Earth systems models] suggests that our cumulative emissions to date would correspond to about 0.3 C more than best estimates of human-caused warming so far," lead author Richard Millar concludes at CarbonBrief. In the London Times another author of the paper—Myles Allen, a professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford—said, "We haven't seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven't seen that in the observations."

In other words, climate computer models projected the global average temperature should be about 1.2 C above the pre-industrial baseline for the 2,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide already emitted. Instead, global average temperature is only 0.9 C higher.

Running the models forward from a 2015 baseline yields a carbon budget of around 880 gigatons of additional carbon dioxide before passing through the 1.5 C threshold. That amounts to about 20 years of emissions.

Glen Peters, a senior researcher at the Center for International Climate Research in Norway, draws out some additional implications from the study. "The updated 1.5 C is more like what we expected at 2 C, and thus the updated 2 C carbon budget is probably more like we expected for 2.5 C," he notes. "Given the emissions pledges submitted to Parri Agreement are somewhat around 2.5 C to 3 C across most studies, then the new carbon budgets would imply that 2 C is roughly consistent with the current emission pledges."

But why reuse the models that have already been shown to be off by 30 percent in their projections? Again, the difference between 0.9 C above the preindustrial baseline and the 1.5 C threshold is 0.6 C. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, global average temperature is rising at 0.17 C per decade, suggesting that the 1.5 C temperature threshold might not be passed for 30 years. The satellite temperature measurements find that the globe is warming at the rate of 0.13 C per decade, implying that the 1.5 C threshold might not be passed for 45 years or so.

These rough temperature increase calculations imply an even larger carbon budget. That might mean that humanity could burn significantly more carbon dioxide-emitting fossil fuels without necessarily crossing the 2 C above preindustrial average temperature threshold set out in the Paris Agreement.

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.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Actually, this admission shows that it IS settled science; we have decades worth of failed (and indeed fatal flawed) predictions. They ALWAYS skew the same way. We have decades of uncovered fraud; 'adjusted' data, v=concealed data, emails showing conspiracy to defraud the public. The science is f*cking SETTLED: Climate Science is as fraudulent as phrenology.

  • damikesc||

    No joke. Every single model, no matter what data you enter, ALWAYS has temperature going up.

    It's not a model. It's advocacy.

  • Hateful Reactionary||

    This is what happens when you try to use science to justify your innate prejudice, namely that wealth is bad and sinful and we must be punished for accumulating too much of it.

    If Marx had been right and communism increased wealth, you better believe you would see none of this global warming nonsense as there would be no need for the slavers to demonize accumulation.

  • Johnimo||

    I "hate" to say it, but I think you're correct. Yours is, perhaps, the most unusual post I've seen in a long, long time. Thanks for sharing your unique observation. However, it raises a whole host of questions. For one, if communism increased wealth, wouldn't these idiots be demanding that we go to a system that reduced wealth and resource utilization .... like .... capitalism? To save the Earth you know. LOL

    I'm certain you're familiar with the rules of logic. If you assume something that's not true ("If the earth is a cube") then any conclusion is as logical as any other ("then the oceans are made of honey"). Thanks for getting my mind exercising on this wet, cold night in Montana.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    That's because CO2 is increasing and CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Of course the temperature is going to go up. That is undeniable. It's more a question of how much the temperature will go up, and that is where the models get wildly inaccurate.

  • L.G. Balzac||

    Oh, now it all makes sense. All I needed was to have an expert explain the science to me!
    Since you're on the subject, what's the saturation level for CO2 in our atmosphere?

  • damikesc||

    I'm certainly glad that the environment is so easily understood as this.

    Would increased CO2 not also dramatically increase plant life, which tends to use CO2 to survive? My faith that they are factoring in basic stuff like this is nil.

  • DarrenM||

    Would increased CO2 not also dramatically increase plant life

    That depends on how many parking lots we'll need.

  • Johnimo||

    DarnM, your humor is outstanding!

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The problem being that, so far as we can deduce from various methods of extracting prehistoric data (and that is a BIG "so far as") increases in temperature happen before increases in CO2. IF (big IF) that data is correct, then the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is open to question.

    Really, there may BE man caused global warming. But the advocates of that position have used up any benefit of the doubt to which they may have been entitled. They have been caught cooking the books too many times, and their political allies have pushed too many 'solutions' that don't pan out...if they are intended to reduce CO2. They DO pan out if what they are intended to do is increase government control. And, coincidently, that is what the political advocates of the Global Warming narrative wanted before they jumped on the bandwagon.

  • swampwiz||

    It really doesn't matter whether climate change is due to anthropoclastic causes; the only thing that matters is what needs to be done now to ensure a habitable planet.

  • Remnant Psyche||

    And coincidentally, the "answers" provided by government are the same as their answers to everything else: more state regulatory power and more taxpayer money to pass out around the world. And they promise us for our investment we'll get a fraction of a degree difference by 2100 , when virtually nobody will be alive to be called out for being wrong or to do the calling out.

    Seems legit.

    Say, why would the Democrats waste a supermajority in the House and the Senate to push through Obamacare when they could have pushed through planet-saving legislation instead? Who needs insurance on a dead planet?

  • Johnimo||

    Because they care so very much about every little girl.

  • JFree||

    increases in temperature happen before increases in CO2.

    That isn't what the prehistoric data actually says. That data cannot possibly imply a causal connection in either direction - because the 'slices' of data for prehistoric stuff are 1000's of years - not the daily/annual measurements of now.

    The current increases in CO2 (and accompanying declines in O2) have one main cause - humans combusting hydrocarbons. That is simply the chemical outcome of that combustion - eg natgas - CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H2O

    Temperatures HAVE increased from pre-industrial levels. If you are right, then CO2 levels will only accelerate from here (unaccompanied by declines in O2) solely due to that temperature increase (ie oceans simply release more gas into atmosphere) - beyond what is obvious human emission. That hasn't happened yet - but it obviously still could.

    That latter doesn't 'make things better'. It just says - things could well get a LOT worse and there's nothing we'll be able to do about that second acceleration. I do completely agree with you that the 'models' are designed to fearmonger us into doing something.

  • p3orion||

    "CO2 is increasing and CO2 is a greenhouse gas."

    So is water vapor, which is not only present in concentrations several orders of magnitude greater, but also is a much more potent greenhouse gas.

  • p3orion||

    Of course every model shows a temperature rise. If a model doesn't, it's thrown aside as flawed.

  • ThomasD||

    That is an insult to phrenology.

    No joke. Daniel N. Robinson has presented on this extensively. Although seriously flawed, and ultimately wrong, phrenology actually was based upon the best science of it's day and the scientific process was greatly improved by careful consideration of the errors made.

    In contrast the AGW crew have been almost entirely self promoting hucksters and frauds from the word go.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    Didn't you hear? The alt-right is bringing phrenology back.

  • ThomasD||

    Well, the initial supposition of phrenology was that brain structure directly correlates with brain function, which should correlate with observable behavior.

    So, in that sense, fMRI is the new phrenology.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    What? Where?

    OK, RETROphrenology; but only out of respect to the late Sir Terry Pratchett.

  • Delius||

    Temperatures have only risen 0.9 instead of 1.2 -- so to you, that means climate science is "fraudulent". Got it.

  • damikesc||

    "Scientists" were off on an easily measured number by 25%.

    As said elsewhere, if 2.0 is horrible, .3 is nothing to sneeze at.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Climate Science has made a huge number of predictions about temperature rise. To date, none that I know of have been accurate. At the same time, Climate Science researchers have been caught, repeatedly, faking data.

    It isn't JUST this revelation that cases me to assert that Climate Science is a fraud.

  • Tony||

    You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

  • swampwiz||

    THIS

  • Remnant Psyche||

    > triumphantly agreeing with Tony on anything

  • Johnimo||

    I think he gets the general picture just about right, Tony. Whether or not he knows "what the fuck" he's talking about is a different question. But we'll all try to check in with you before we post. Thanks for caring.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    The actual "rise" is smaller than the margin of error in the models.

    There may be global warming (outside of normal fluctuations), but if so nobody has proved it, and they certainly haven't proved that man caused it or that there is anything that could be done about it if it was indeed man causing it.

  • Hank Phillips||

    True dat. When I enrolled in college there was underwater basketweaving in the course catalog. Eventually it got elbowed aside by Art Appreciation and Climate Psience.

  • Mickey Rat||

    I suppose it is nice to have an study, but I am pretty sure the models being biased towards warming has been pointed out for going on fifteen to twenty years at least.

  • damikesc||

    But only by heretics and "deniers". Because noting that funding is benefitted by higher temperatures is wrong or something.

    Activists have a lot to apologize for.

  • Hateful Reactionary||

    It would be cosmic climate justice if the Left gets through their imprison-people-who-lie-about-science laws through just in time for their unscientific fraud to be exposed.

  • Microaggressor||

    I'm looking forward to Reason having pieces in the next few decades along the lines of
    "Remember these toolbags who wanted to jail climate deniers? Pepperidge Farm remembers."
    Friends don't let friends join religious cults

    But that will only happen after mainstream acceptance of the Faith can no longer be maintained.
    They will work day and night to memory hole this, and I challenge people like Ron to keep the memory alive.

  • Longtobefree||

    Closer to fifty years.

    This is from so long ago I lost the citation:
    Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public's attention.
    There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.
    "This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit," he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."
    Wrong then (1969), wrong now (2017)

  • Microaggressor||

    Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington
    We can only dream.

  • p3orion||

    Wow, he was really swimming against the tide there. In the late '60s and early '70s, the coming threat of global cooling was the big climate issue.

  • Longtobefree||

    I love this reply!
    Raising oceans -- swimming -- -- beautiful.

  • Ron Bailey||

    MR: Yes indeed. See this and this and this. That's just going back four years of my reporting.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Equivocation I'll grant, prevarication between truth and lies fits the picture, but reporting is something entirely different from what just happened here.

  • Bob Meyer||

    There are three things that have convinced me that CO2 is not a problem

    1 - Last time that I looked (about four years ago) NOAA had revised the US temperature records ten times since 2000. Every single revision, without exception, made the present warmer and the past cooler. If this isn't a case of confirmation bias then there has never been one.

    2 - Geologists are the group of scientists least likely to accept the CO2-will-kill-us-in-the-near-future theory. They don't look at that last hundred years but at the last hundred million years. They insist that increases in CO2 do not precede increases in temperature, they lag temperature increases by hundred to thousands of years. If an effect could precede its cause then picking eight straight winners at Belmont should be easy.

    3 - Satellite temperature records tend to track weather balloon records (sometime weather balloon data is used to check or calibrate satellite data so this isn't surprising). Land temperatures track neither, yet the whole theory is based on increases in air temperatures which, if the theory is correct, should be tracked by land temperatures.

  • Hateful Reactionary||

    Everyone who does um "indoor horticulture" knows that CO2 increases green growth, and that's clearly fucked with everyone's models. There's so much kelp in the ocean right now, just chowing down on that carbon. I hope we overgrow, overgreen, and over-cool. A second oxygen extinction event would teach everyone to bitch about carbon.

  • ||

    I hope we overgrow, overgreen, and over-cool. A second oxygen extinction event would teach everyone to bitch about carbon.

    Just to be clear, this actually can't happen. Prior to the oxygen catastrophe, the atmosphere was phenomenally rich with methane (which oxidizes to CO2). Well beyond what we could possibly hope to achieve in any passive sense. A long-term (by pretty much any planetary definition) effect of the oxygen catastrophe was the rather permanent mineral fixation of carbon and, ever since/progressively, the atmosphere has been much closer to 'CO2 starved' from a biological perspective than 'CO2 saturated'.

    It was, early on, a simple exercise to refute of some of the more catastrophic of climate alarmists (read: James Hansen's) more idiotic assertions about feedback loops and runaway greenhouse effects. If we set out with the goal of burning fossil fuels to convert Earth to Venus, it's highly likely we would run out of fossil fuels first.

  • Hateful Reactionary||

    Not even if we dig deep and everyone burns coal at home, and we all do are part to chip in and fight carbon starvation?

    Seriously though, there's not enough carbon to Venusize us? Fascinating, and something you would never know from their alarmism, in which a Venusian endpoint is inevitably mentioned.

    Thanks for your thoughtful post.

  • Hateful Reactionary||

    We need to get up to 1500 ppm for optimal greening, trust me.

  • Microaggressor||

    Plant food has been declared a "pollutant" by Those Who Affirm Science. Repent, denier.

  • Hateful Reactionary||

    You'll take my Earth Juice Rainbow mix out of my cold dead hands!

  • Johnimo||

    You can have my Dodge minivan when you pry the car keys from my cold, dead hands. I need it for x-country skiing in the winter time. Fuck all of you! LOLH

  • p3orion||

    If you drive a Dodge minivan, then on many levels you already ARE cold and dead.

  • ||

    Seriously though, there's not enough carbon to Venusize us? Fascinating, and something you would never know from their alarmism, in which a Venusian endpoint is inevitably mentioned.

    There aren't enough *fossil fuels* by about an order of magnitude. We're at 400 ppm. Conservative estimates (peak oil!) put the lower end of fossil fuels at 1000 to 1500 ppm. Liberal estimates put it at 5,000 ppm. 5,000 ppm is about the point where it becomes toxic to most of humanity. 8,000 ppm is where it starts to become toxic to most land-based plant life. To Venusize the planet requires some specific and relatively unknown/deliberate feed-forward mechanisms.

    Veering on a relatively hard tangent; If you burned through the fossil fuels and used solar or nuclear or something to start liberating mineral carbon (limestone and marble/calcite and dolomite), you could probably get back to where the Earth used to be, but without significant mass loss (water) or exchange (oxygen fixation), you're going to be hard pressed to truly Venusize it. But at that point, you're just pointing out that there's enough energy in the solar system to eliminate humanity and/or vaporize Earth, which we already knew.

  • Hateful Reactionary||

    Very informative! Thanks

  • BYODB||

    I was under the impression the 'lethal' concentration of CO2 is between 30,000 - 40,000 rather than 5,000. Are you mixing measurements here?

  • ||

    You're right. Also, it looks like a may well have lost a decimal point but the key is 'order of magnitude'. It's a bit hard to do anything except play fast and loose as the 'known truths' are shaky and fixed assumptions can change overnight. As AGW scientists are discovering, even if you use really, really good maths it is ultimately speculation.

    Technically, for *current* crops of C4 synthesizers (corn) we are currently or are nearly saturated but for C3 crops (wheat and rice), saturation doesn't end until 1,200 ppm and toxicity (yield reductions) begin at around 0.8-1% (8,000ppm) and return to generating a deficit at around 1.2+% (assuming normal precipitation and you've planted it in an optimal climate zone).

    There's a considerable gap or variability between 'starts to become toxic', 'lethal', and 'world-ending'. The point being the oil will be well spent before hitting 8,000 ppm (maybe even 800 ppm) and 80,000 ppm is where it becomes an ELE or intolerable/poisonous/corrosive to all life.

  • ||

    saturation doesn't end until 1,200 ppm

    Grr... increased production doesn't end (and saturation begin) out until 1,200 ppm.

    I need more coffee.

  • BYODB||

    No worries, I saw the 'starts to become toxic' and I figured that might be the key phrase in certain circumstances. I do know, however, that 5000PPM CO2 is not remotely lethal to a human so I was confused. ^_^

  • Episteme||

    So, investing in widespread marijuana cultivation will hoover up all the excess CO2 and save the planet? Why aren't the libertarians leading with that?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    While its authors are members in good standing in the climate science establishment...

    For now.

  • Hateful Reactionary||

    Expect either "Scientists say their paper is misinterpreted" or "Flawed study immediately disproven". Right quick.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    They're going to need to retract it themselves.

  • ThomasD||

    Auto da fe incoming.

  • John||

    In other words, climate computer models projected the global average temperature should be about 1.2 C above the pre-industrial baseline for the 2,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide already emitted. Instead, global average temperature is only 0.9 C higher.

    It is possible that the models are overestimating the effect of CO2. it is also possible that they are just wrong. The models predicted 1.2. We got 0.9. Bailey just assumes that CO2 is responsible for the 0.9 and the models are overestimating the effect. Maybe. But since the models are wrong, it is also possible that C02 is not responsible for any of the rise or maybe half of it or all of it or anything in between. Since the model got it wrong, we don't know. Bailey assumption that CO2 is responsible for the rise that occurred is nothing but an exercise in confirmation bias and wishful thinking.

  • Hateful Reactionary||

    Carbon, like THC in NIH/NIDA/ONDCP funded studies, is inherently harmful because that's concluded before the outset. Scientists know who butters their bread, and you had best believe they are going to keep predicting carbon-induced doom.

  • John||

    Before the birth of the AGW cult, climate science was a backwater field. No one ever won a Nobel Prize or got famous studying hurricanes or ice cores from the Antarctic. As a result, the best minds in science went into chemistry and physics and computers and such not climate science. The field was a backwater filled with fair to middling minds grinding away at low-paying jobs on college campuses and for government agencies. Then along comes the AGW cult and suddenly climate scientists are testifying before Congress and getting high-paying jobs in the NGO industrial complex and getting fast-tracked to tenure. If the cult ever goes away and people stop believing this stuff, climate science goes back to being a backwater science. You damn well better believe they are going to keep predicting doom. Doom is their meal ticket and the best meal ticket they are ever going to get.

  • Hateful Reactionary||

    Goddam right, man. Did all those tree-huggers from high school suddenly get good at atmospheric physics or computational modeling? Of course they fucking didn't.

  • Microaggressor||

    But if you're a Denier, the only explanation is that you're funded by Big Oil to spread doubt to protect their bottom line. Financial incentives aren't a factor when you're working for the Greater Good, you see.

  • p3orion||

    "Before the birth of the AGW cult, climate science was a backwater field. No one ever won a Nobel Prize or got famous studying hurricanes or ice cores from the Antarctic."

    Al Gore didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize (or his Grammy or Oscar) for his global warming schtick. He won it as a consolation prize for losing the presidency to George W. Bush, from people who thought that was a bad thing.

  • Ron Bailey||

    J: With regard to the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide on temperature you may this article on Svante Arrhenius' research of interest.

  • ||

    Ron: I recommend Prof. Heaton's lecture on Optics and Celestial Mechanics.

  • John||

    And the entire thing depends upon having a reliable understanding the direct effects of CO2 on radiation, of how the gas was dissolved in seawater and other physical phenomena. And the failure of these predictions shows we do not yet have that. The only reason why these results don't call the entire theory into question is that too many people's livelihoods and belief systems are dependent on the theory being true.

  • damikesc||

    We also shouldn't ask for such things as margin of errors in the instruments. Because one must be blind to assume instruments from years ago are as accurate as they are now.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Thermometer reading a century ago was much like it was when I took physics. Water freezes and boils at the same temperatures at places that do not rise or sink appreciably. Old newspapers publish daily temperatures, but when was the last time you saw a verifiable graph of those?

  • Juice||

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so it must be responsible for some warming. It could be all or half or more or less, but it can't be none.

  • John||

    It absolutely could be zero. C02 may have second-order effects like increasing cloud cover that cancels out whatever warming effect it has.

  • ThomasD||

    Could also be a chaotic system. One that oscillates between the geologically observed limits in a manner that will forever defy reliable detailed prediction.

  • ||

    C02 may have second-order effects

    Technically, since the CO2 itself doesn't generate warmth, the Greenhouse Effect is a second order effect. Also technically, ignoring the fact that CO2 doesn't itself generate heat is anti-science.

  • Juice||

    It absolutely could be zero. C02 may have second-order effects

    Ok, but that wouldn't be a case of CO2 not being responsible for any warming. That would be negative feedbacks being responsible for canceling out the warming effect of CO2.

  • John||

    Yes it would be. If C02 has multiple effects on the climate that when taken together result in no effect on the overall temperature, then it would not have any contribution to the observed warming.

  • Juice||

    Oh, you're saying that CO2 itself would directly cause the negative feedbacks? Eh, I guess it's a possibility. How do you think this might happen?

    CO2 certainly absorbs IR radiation, hangs on to it for a bit and then transmits it to its surroundings. So it's a definite that it causes heat to be retained that way.

    For it to also cause cooling that entirely cancels this out, what do you suppose would have to happen?

    I don't want to discount it as a 100% impossibility, but it's pretty implausible.

    At its current concentration, CO2 is greenhouse gas with a fairly weak effect. And due to Beer's Law you would have to increase its concentration pretty dramatically to have any substantial warming of the Earth's surface. But it's not zero and it's highly unlikely that it directly cancels out its own greenhouse effect.

  • ||

    CO2 certainly absorbs IR radiation, hangs on to it for a bit and then transmits it to its surroundings. So it's a definite that it causes heat to be retained that way.
    ...
    I don't want to discount it as a 100% impossibility, but it's pretty implausible.

    It's not an *if*. In other situations, this is known. This is used to explain the disparity between Mars, Earth, and Venus with regard to temperature and CO2. "If" the IR (and other radiation) absorption causes mass ejection, you can effectively and directly lose heat. This is (believed to be) why Venus, despite it's higher gravity has less water than Mars.

  • ||

    And even this is exceedingly simplistic and direct. If you start talking 'global' and 'warming' more generally, it's easy to factor in/out things like albedo and carbon and water fixation.

    "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." Attributed to von Neumann by Enrico Fermi, as quoted by Freeman Dyson

  • RafalCOM||

    So when a model shows 1.2 and observed is "only" 0.9 it means that a model is wrong to the point that CO2 is not responsible? I thought this site is called "reason.com" and you suppose to use your brain a bit. 0.9 is still a lot to the point that climate is changing rapidly, glaciers are disappearing rapidly and parts of middle east soon will be uninhabitable.
    If this study is right and models overestimated slightly it just gives us a bit of a breathing room and hope something can be done with a bit less drastic measures. It still does not change a serious problem, just makes it a bit more manageable.

  • Johnimo||

    Well, let's just take a popular vote: Does anyone want to give up his car? Does anyone want a cold house? Do you want to quit eating fresh veggies trucked in from the southern tier? How 'bout flying ... wanna' quit flying on the airlines? Want to deny the third world all the goodies we have? No, no, no, no, and no!

    Enjoy your life. It's going to get warmer. It's likely the CO2 and some other things. Don't worry. Be happy.

  • commentguy||

    Who exactly is proposing banning heating or planes? I honestly don't recall ever hearing this from anyone. The key to coping with AGW is to improve the efficiency of existing technologies (e.g. insulating your house), and to find methods of generating electricity that don't result in CO2 emissions (whether by trapping CO2 produced, or by being like nuclear, solar etc. that only have CO2 as a startup cost and not in proportion to the amount of power generated).

    These are not radical suggestions!

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    you suppose to use your brain a bit

    If yous says so.

  • Untermensch den 2||

    For the following, I am setting aside all questions about AGW mechanisms to focus on the following statement, assuming all else is accurate:

    In other words, climate computer models projected the global average temperature should be about 1.2 C above the pre-industrial baseline for the 2,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide already emitted. Instead, global average temperature is only 0.9 C higher.

    Is this valid reasoning? It doesn't seem to account for any lag time. I.e., you pump X amount of CO₂ into the atmosphere and it doesn't immediately reach peak temperature increase, but rather takes some number of years to reach its peak.

    I'm sure there are things I don't know here, but couldn't it be the case that if we stopped emitting CO₂ entirely today (e.g., some mad Russian scientist invents a virus that kills all of humanity) global temperatures might still reach 1.2° C higher than the baseline at some point down the road?

  • Ron Bailey||

    U: Yes, the researchers do report that they take transient climate response into account.

  • Untermensch den 2||

    Thanks for that answer. The link is a bit technical for me to parse, but could you clarify how long they assume it would take for climate to "catch up"?

  • John||

    No. It is not valid reasoning. It is confirmation bias and tautology. The models predicted one thing and we got another. That should call into question all of the underlying assumptions about those models. Instead, Bailey and the people pushing this continue with the assumption that CO2 equals warming and that they are just wrong about the amount of warming it causes.

  • Ron Bailey||

    J: See my reply to you above.

  • damikesc||

    But it still, fundamentally, relies on the same models that have sucked for decades.

    At this point, NOTHING can "disprove" AGW theory to "climate scientists". I've Muslim imams who would question the existence of Allah more openly than an AGW "scientist" would question whether AGW is real.

  • L.G. Balzac||

    "I've Muslim imams who would question the existence of Allah more openly than an AGW "scientist" would question whether AGW is real."
    -
    oooh! good one.

  • John||

    And see my reply to you. If it were true that we have worked out the problems with Arrenius' original calculations, the models wouldn't be so wrong in the first place.

  • ||

    Not to mention that it's trivially easy to ascertain that Arrhenius' original socio-political stance was that humanity should burn fossil fuels for the sake of CO2 and/or to avert global winters/solar minima. Which should give you pause as not only did he fail to accurately predict the industrial revolution, his recommendation isn't "Burn CO2, produce more food, travel around the world, heat your homes, *and* avert a solar winter." it's just "Burn more CO2 (if only) to avert solar winters/minima."

  • RafalCOM||

    "The models predicted one thing and we got another."

    Hmm... let me see....
    The models predicted warming, just maybe a bit less (based on a single paper).
    What another thing do you think we got? Color me puzzled....

  • Greg F||

    You are puzzled because you have not a clue as to what you're talking about.

  • RafalCOM||

    Is it all you have to say?
    Why did you even bother replying?

  • Greg F||

    Is it all you have to say?

    No. So lets go back to a previous statement of yours.

    So when a model shows 1.2 and observed is "only" 0.9 ...

    See this. If you will notice the difference grows over time. We call that the rate of change. That is the metric that is important. The rate of change predicted by the models is not even close to reality.

    The models predicted warming ...

    Well gee. There are only 3 possibilities. Warming, cooling, and staying the same. Since it was already warming picking warming was not really all that hard. That was until we entered the pause where it stayed the same for more than 18 years. Additionally, predicting warming without quantifying it isn't much of a prediction. I could predict the temperature tomorrow is going to be warmer, cooler, or the same as today. It's not much of a prediction as I have 1 chance in 3 of being right. In fact, it's not likely to be the same very often so if I limit myself to warming or cooling I have pretty close to 1 chance in 2 of being correct.

  • Ariki||

    It has long astounded me how the simple scientific logic you have outlaid so well in you post is not understood by our academic "betters".

    A theory that cannot be falsified is a religion not a science.
    What would it take to falsify "Climate Change" given that ANY change has been predicted by the theory?

    Country = Drought = Climate Change = Bad human = Tax!
    Country = Flood = Climate Change = Bad human = Tax!
    Country = Many Hurricanes = Climate Change = Bad human = Tax!
    Country = No Hurricanes = Climate Change = Bad human = Tax!

    Science is really easy when you can never be wrong!

  • RafalCOM||

    Maybe I do not know but this guy did in 1975:

    https://goo.gl/ZuKUYs

    Plus you should definitely read this:
    "shuman-induced warming progresses, the question must be asked:'Are we on track to reduce net emissions to zero to stabilizeclimate well below 2◦C as agreed in Paris'? Regular updates ofhuman-induced warming based on a standard and transparentmethodology would allow countries to adapt commitments to theemerging climate response. Our analysis suggests that 'pursuingefforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5◦C' is not chasinga geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require a significantstrengthening of the NDCs at the first opp ortunity in 2020 tohedge against the risks of a higher-than-expected climate responseand/or economic, technical or political imp ediments to sustainedreduct ions at historically unprecedented34rates after 2030."

    https://goo.gl/NMQyM3

  • Greg F||

    Maybe I do not know but this guy did in 1975:

    When the data doesn't fit the prediction fix the data!

    From your second link:

    Assuming emissions peak and decline to below current levels by 2030, and continue thereafteron a much steeper decline, which would be historically unprecedented but consistent with a standard ambitious mitigation scenario (RCP2.6)

    Do you realize how silly achieving RCP2.6 is? Do you even know what RCP2.6 is?

  • ||

    2,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide already emitted

    Is this valid reasoning? It doesn't seem to account for any lag time. I.e., you pump X amount of CO₂ into the atmosphere and it doesn't immediately reach peak temperature increase, but rather takes some number of years to reach its peak.

    This assumes a simplistic additive or cumulative system. That if you just put the carbon there and wait, you'll just see the effect. Being more clear or deliberate; in the last 100 yrs. we've 'pumped' 2,000 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere but the biosphere cycles 750 gigatons every year. If we stopped emitting tomorrow, the sum contribution wouldn't have been brought down, but the total amount would've been fixed and released by the biosphere within a decade.

    There is a transience or lag, but it can easily and readily be masked or entirely overcome by other (presumably) known internal variables.

  • Untermensch den 2||

    Thanks. So this more or less answers my question to Ron above. It seems like within a decade you'd find your peak point and start dropping.

  • ||

    It seems like within a decade you'd find your peak point and start dropping.

    Peak CO2, yes. Peak temperature no. It only translates or correlates to peak temperature if you assume CO2 is the sole or predominant driver of surface temperatures (on the given times scale), which it isn't or is known not to be.

  • Don't look at me.||

    The solution will be simple, reduce the target to 1c instead of 1.5c.
    1 is better than 1.5, right? Well then ,it's settled.

  • Microaggressor||

    the long-term rate of global warming has now returned to the level seen in the second half of the 20th century.

    Based on how many data points?

  • chemjeff||

    Which underlying assumption do you believe to be in error?

  • damikesc||

    ALL of them.

    When your assumptions produce results that are "wrong" based on your models, NONE of it is valid.

  • chemjeff||

    Really?

    So you don't believe carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas?

  • Longtobefree||

    I believe that carbon dioxide is a critical part of the environment, and is necessary for plant life. Plant life is necessary for human life and food animal life, therefore further necessary for human life.
    I think that 'greenhouse gas' is a manufactured pejorative used for political purposes, and meaningless in the real world. (those gasses do not occur just inside a greenhouse, do they?)
    I think if the projection from any model is wrong when the projected result is not borne out by the observed actual result, the model is wrong.

  • chemjeff||

    Sorry, but I am tired of people imputing evil motives to the scientists trying to get it right in understanding reality. Blame the politicians all you want for using science to push some agenda. Blame the scientists who morph into political advocates, like Michael Mann. But for heaven's sake, to claim that some graduate student flunky in some lab is committing acts of fraud and perpetuating a hoax by refining a climate science model is just absurd and insulting.

    For years and years, reputable scientists put forth flawed theories of the atom because that was their best understanding of what reality was. Were they perpetuating a "fraud" and a "hoax" by putting forth a flawed model?

  • chemjeff||

    If you don't want to engage in a discussion with me, then try not responding to my comments.

  • chemjeff||

    Yeah I did. And then you responded to my question with some bitchy tirade.

    Look, let's just cut to the chase. You are asking, in a passive-aggressive manner, "what will it take for you to SEE THE LIGHT and realize that climate science is a fraud????"

  • damikesc||

    Sorry, but I am tired of people imputing evil motives to the scientists trying to get it right in understanding reality.

    But accusing scientists of being bought by "Big Oil" if they disagreed with AGW for years was cool, huh? Fuck those fascists. They want to bankrupt the world for nothing.

  • Hateful Reactionary||

    You are right on with your anger. The Left proposes massive rapings of the economy and that's "policy" and excused. Fuck that, it's theft, writ large, and this global warming fraud is nothing more than theft on the grandest scale.

    Ever notice how the more money politicians waste, the less anger there is? Give a million to a friend, and you will go to prison. Give a billion to a company or a hundred billion to a union or tax carbon offsets to the tune of trillions? Policy, and praised.

    Fuck them, all of these lying statists. Fuck Al Gore, fuck Solyndra, fuck carbon taxes, fuck jay inslee, fuck Robert Redford, fuck Robert Kennedy jr and his worst-of-all-radio-voices, fuck Kyoto and Paris, and fuck Barack Obama.

    THIS WAS AN OBVIOUS FRAUD TO ME AT AGE 8 IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN 1995 AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE FROM THE GET-GO.

  • Hateful Reactionary||

    tax carbon *output

  • L.G. Balzac||

    "fuck jay inslee"
    You must live in WA state

  • swampwiz||

    "Rapings"? In an era of the robot worker, we could use a little inefficiency; why not kill 2 birds with 1 stone by devoting resources to keeping the CO2 level low?

  • dirty dave||

    " Fuck Al Gore, fuck Solyndra, fuck carbon taxes, fuck jay inslee, fuck Robert Redford, fuck Robert Kennedy jr and his worst-of-all-radio-voices, fuck Kyoto and Paris, and fuck Barack Obama."

    OK. As long as I don't have to fuck Hillary.

  • chemjeff||

    Of course not. Scientific results should stand on their own merits, or lack thereof. Tribalists on the left wanting to discredit scientific results because "big oil", or tribalists on the right wanting to discredit scientific results because "globalist hoax", are both wrong.

    Here is a news flash: If the left-tribalists commit a logical fallacy, it does not mean that right-tribalists also have to commit the same logical fallacy.

  • Ariki||

    I don't think it's a "Globalist Hoax". However....

    When the solution to their abysmal prediction rate is to double down on ever more catastrophic predictions, I wonder.....

    When their response to valid sceptical criticism is personal attacks and lawsuits, I wonder.....

    When they constantly shift the goal posts to justify their mistakes, I wonder.....

    When they claim the science is settled but ask for billions more to study it, I wonder.....

    But, to be fair, "Nobel cause corruption, Group think and a culture of anti-personal responsibility would explain most of it. Oh and greed....... Large amounts of free money tend to do that.

  • Sevo||

    "But accusing scientists of being bought by "Big Oil" if they disagreed with AGW for years was cool, huh? Fuck those fascists. They want to bankrupt the world for nothing."

    "San Francisco, Oakland sue major oil companies over rising seas"
    [...]
    "The cities of San Francisco and Oakland are suing some of the world's largest oil companies over climate change, joining an emerging legal effort to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for the damages wrought by rising seas."
    http://www.sfchronicle.com/bay.....215044.php

  • Chuckles_the_Snarky_Piggy||

    "the lawsuits in San Francisco and Oakland argue that the oil producers constitute a public nuisance."

    We get the message, Silicon Valley.

    "Thank you oil producers for pioneering the technology that made available the cheapest energy in the world, turned the US a superpower, took us into space, and made the information age a reality. Now go fuck yourselves. We want to live on the edge of the earth and for you to pay us to fight the ocean."

    Maybe they should sue the ocean for oppressing them. It already covers 2/3 of the earth. This is fucking "Ocean Supremecy".

  • p3orion||

    [F]or heaven's sake, to claim that some graduate student flunky in some lab is committing acts of fraud and perpetuating a hoax by refining a climate science model is just absurd and insulting."

    Look up the phrase "useful idiot."

  • chemjeff||

    Well well, we have the usual suspects using the results of climate scientists running around claiming that climate science is a fraud and a hoax.

    Isn't that like right-wingers complaining about leftwing media bias, and then relying on a NY Times article on Hillary's deleted emails?

    Climate science is not a fraud nor a hoax. Climate science is SCIENCE. It's an iterative process to try to understand reality. Reality in this case is very complicated and it takes many iterations to get it right. Some iterations drift further away from the correct solution, some iterations drift closer. It's wrong to say that it is "settled" but it's also wrong to say that it's all fake.

    Perhaps your efforts might better be served making a claim based on, say, reason? For instance, "while we don't really know why the planet is warming, even if it is due to human behavior, it is not a sufficient justification for more statism and more government coercion"?

  • chemjeff||

    The people who want to turn science into a political weapon. This includes people on the left, for sure, but it also includes people on the right, who want to urge people to ignore science if it doesn't fit within their happy narrative.

  • chemjeff||

    So, what about the science do you believe is wrong?

  • damikesc||

    The people who want to turn science into a political weapon. This includes people on the left, for sure, but it also includes people on the right, who want to urge people to ignore science if it doesn't fit within their happy narrative.

    The "narrative" of the right is that AGW has never been proven, the models do not work at all, and it has never predicted anything accurately.

    When does "narrative" become reality?

    And, mind you, the Right doesn't want the government to do anything. Quite the opposite. We want it to do NOTHING.

  • chemjeff||

    "The "narrative" of the right is that AGW has never been proven, the models do not work at all, and it has never predicted anything accurately."

    Oh no, it goes far beyond that. The narrative of the right is that not only are the AGW models wrong, but the scientists involved are a part of some vast conspiracy to enslave the people in a global program of poverty and misery in order to "save the planet" but is really about lining their own pockets. These jet-setting scientists are just a part of the globalist elite that Trump and his minions warn us all about. Isn't that right?

    The right has become explicitly anti-science at this point, because scientists are (in their minds) part of Team Blue, and the right has turned into complete reactionaries on the matter.

  • damikesc||

    They like the power, but the scientists want the money. And the pro-AGW side has funding that DWARFS the side of reality.

    It's not the Right claiming that a man can become a woman because of feelings and self-mutilation.

  • chemjeff||

    Thank you for confirming the right-wing narrative that goes far beyond questioning the science, but goes directly into casting aspersions against the motives of the scientists themselves. So yeah, you can take your narrative and shove it up your ass. It goes right up there with all of the other absurd conspiracy theories out there.

    I have no problems with legitimate criticism of scientific results. But to claim that it is a fraud and that the scientists themselves are deliberately perpetuating a hoax for personal gain, goes way too far. And that is why your tribe keeps losing the AGW debate. It's not that people actually WANT the state to be regulating the CO2 out of every breath that they take. It's that they don't believe the pointy-headed nerds are evil scientists bent on global destruction.

  • chemjeff||

    You haven't offered any specific criticism! All you have said is, "what will it take for you to WAKE UP and see that climate science is a fraud???"

    What specific underlying assumption of climate science do you think is wrong?

  • chemjeff||

    Yes you did, in your passive-aggressive way. Just cut the bullshit already.

    "What woule be required for you to question the underlying assumptions? How much inacccuracy, and for how long?" means exactly what I said - "how many more LIES from the AGW CULTISTS will you tolerate before realizing that it's all a hoax????"

  • chemjeff||

    Oh good you finally revealed yourself. We both know that what you really believe is that climate science is a fraud and a hoax, *just as I wrote above*. And your whole "just asking questions" schtick is just a passive-aggressive pretense. Once more: do you have any SPECIFIC CRITICISMS of the underlying premises behind climate science? No, you don't. Because that is not your real purpose, to discuss the nuances. It is to insinuate that the whole thing is built on a cathedral of lies. That is the message that you wish to get across and it is bullshit, and I am calling you out on your bullshit. I know exactly why I am no longer wanted at Ace's place. Because I refuse to go along with your reactionary lunacy over there. I left of my own accord and I am now happy that I am gone. It is no longer the place that I joined in 2010.

  • chemjeff||

    And I ask once again.

    What is your SPECIFIC CRITICISM of the underlying assumptions of climate science?

  • chemjeff||

    Knock it off. This is exactly what you meant. You offer zero specific criticisms, you only want people to start questioning the "underlying assumptions" but you don't offer any specifics. You aren't as obnoxious about it as John or damikesc are but you're starting from the same place. You don't HAVE any specific criticisms because you think it's all a fraud.

  • chemjeff||

    Fuck off. Take your "just questioning things" schtick elsewhere.

  • damikesc||

    You haven't offered any specific criticism! All you have said is, "what will it take for you to WAKE UP and see that climate science is a fraud???"

    What specific underlying assumption of climate science do you think is wrong?

    Reading back, that quote was from you. Verbatim.

  • RafalCOM||

    He said "legitimate" if you missed it.

    And please read this article and post here a legitimate criticism:

    https://goo.gl/NMQyM3

  • Greg F||

    And please read this article and post here a legitimate criticism:

    I addressed this above.

    From your link:

    Assuming emissions peak and decline to below current levels by 2030, and continue thereafteron a much steeper decline, which would be historically unprecedented but consistent with a standard ambitious mitigationscenario (RCP2.6)

    When they say "historically unprecedented" they could have easily said 'would be a pipe dream'. Scenario RCP2.6 is not going to happen.

  • damikesc||

    Thank you for confirming the right-wing narrative that goes far beyond questioning the science, but goes directly into casting aspersions against the motives of the scientists themselves.

    Gee, when your side spent years decrying any critic as "bought by Big Oil", demanding we go back to polite debate team rules is a bit much.

    So yeah, you can take your narrative and shove it up your ass. It goes right up there with all of the other absurd conspiracy theories out there.

    Yes, scientists seeking grant money from the Feds fabricate results to get the money is so much more implausible than "Well, these scientists are wrong. A lot. And have not predicted anything accurately ever. Woops"

    But to claim that it is a fraud and that the scientists themselves are deliberately perpetuating a hoax for personal gain, goes way too far.

    Funny, with any other aspect of federal spending, the concept of graft and fraud being motivators is assumed...but in this ONE area, it is impossible to fathom?

    And that is why your tribe keeps losing the AGW debate. It's not that people actually WANT the state to be regulating the CO2 out of every breath that they take. It's that they don't believe the pointy-headed nerds are evil scientists bent on global destruction.

    It's cute that you feel that a group that has never predicted anything ever and whose models are notoriously terrible are "scientists".

  • chemjeff||

    "Gee, when your side spent years decrying any critic as "bought by Big Oil", demanding we go back to polite debate team rules is a bit much."

    "My side"? I am on the pro-science side. I don't agree with those who want to discount a study because of "Big Oil" or because of "Globalist Hoax". I made that clear above. Perhaps that is part of your problem, the dualist Team Red/Team Blue thinking.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Well, it takes tu to quoque...

  • Headache||

    Remind us about the e-mail scandal?

  • Ariki||

    So are you saying a scientist who laboured in relative obscurity in a poorly funded and ignored field for many many years, gaining no real traction or recognition of their work, would suffer no personality changes when:

    Global media companies start to call you,
    World leaders start to comment on your work,
    Documentaries are made about the subject featuring you,
    Billions of dollars suddenly become available for research in your field,
    International junkets to exotic locations are common and funded,
    Your peers start to see you as someone that matters,
    Your university offers you better and better positions,
    The public starts to see you as some form of "world saviour",
    Girls start to notice and flirt with you......

    Yeah..... no chance of a change in motive there at all........

    People are people, power in any form is an intoxicating thing.

  • Chuckles_the_Snarky_Piggy||

    "The narrative of the right is that not only are the AGW models wrong, but the scientists involved are a part of some vast conspiracy to enslave the people in a global program of poverty and misery in order to "save the planet" but is really about lining their own pockets. These jet-setting scientists are just a part of the globalist elite "

    LOLz. It is so much more pathetic than that. The scientists who promote AGW theory know there is an audience for the crap they are peddling and want their 15 minutes of fame. If they happen to pocket some loose change, they call it a win-win.

    Here is the deal. Yes, there are real scientists doing real scientific research on the global climate. Then there are the shit-talkers, i.e., Michael Mann and his ilk who take the data and plug it into climate models and make predictions. These models are NOT science. Science requires a theory to be falsifiable. When the models fail to predict the future or the present based on the past, they don't start over with a different hypothesis, instead, they adjust the data or average the models. Again, not falsifiable = not science.

    Here us what I have to say to dickheads who use the terms "denier" or "anti-science": the scientific method is predicated on skepticism. The burden of proof is on the climate scientists, and they have failed to predict anything other than the planet is getting warmer, which any 8th grader in Earth Science can tell you will happen after an ice age ends.

  • p3orion||

    "...people on the right, who want to urge people to ignore science if it doesn't fit within their happy narrative."

    Science denial occurs on both sides of the political spectrum, Skippy. Liberals are quite happy to ignore or dispute science like:
    - XX and XY chromosomes determining one's sex, not personal opinion
    - GMOs having little effect other than reducing starvation worldwide
    - Gluten being completely innocuous for more than 99% of the population
    - No observable correlation between autism and vaccinations, much less a proven causal relationship
    - That there's even the possibility that something other than discrimination explains fewer women entering technical fields than men, or that anything other than racism explains any difference between outcomes for different races
    - That fracking does not harm groundwater, since it occurs far below water tables
    - That nuclear power is a safe and carbon-free means of producing electricity

    More to the point, which side is more disposed to using force of law to impose their beliefs on those who don't share them?

  • chemjeff||

    Discussing the flaws in the science is far different than screaming FRAUD and HOAX like some people here are doing.

  • chemjeff||

    See the very first comment to this article

  • chemjeff||

    You were the one responding to me.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    And bitchy non sequiturs are kind of your turf. Or is that "yewr"?

  • L.G. Balzac||

    @ Reality - Looks like you sat in something.

  • Juice||

    Climate science is not a fraud nor a hoax. Climate science is SCIENCE.

    People that say shit like this have most likely never actually done science or had to try to repeat someone's experiments only to find that they aren't repeatable because the author fudged (lied). Then they'll say some shit like, well, it worked for us, you must not be doing it right. Ok, tell us exactly what we're doing wrong. Silence. But they got published in JACS or some other high profile journal, so fuck you, who are you to question. You must just suck at this.

  • Juice||

    (fucking character limit)

    Chemistry (my field) literature had lots of this, but it was actually not as rampant as medical research, which is basically half bullshit from what I understand.

    Look, the system and process has a ton of pressure to publish, and not just publish something, but to publish something good, or great, or groundbreaking. This pressure is so high that some people have to make shit up and lie or they don't get they're PhD, or they don't get tenure, or they don't get that next grant.

    I had a professor tell me at a conference that for someone to get their PhD under him, they need to improve a certain number that corresponds to the efficiency and performance of a thermoelectric material, ZT. "The last PhD I graduated synthesized a material with a ZT of 1.6. No one gets their PhD under me until they synthesize a material with a ZT of 1.7. And the next one after that had better get 1.8." Well, after hearing that, I can't trust any paper that comes out of that guy's lab. He put that pressure on his students and you can bet your ass that something is going to get fudged.

  • chemjeff||

    I'm also a chemist, so I know a little bit about trying to repeat experiments.

    I understand there are all sorts of pressures in academia to publish, get funded, etc. And of course there are published papers that are fraudulent. As with all human endeavors, in science, people cheat from time to time. But if some paper is fraudulent, show that it is with specific criticism, don't just insinuate that it MIGHT be because "pressures". That is not fair to all of the non-cheating scientists out there doing legitimate work. Is this specific paper fraudulent? If you believe it is, why?

    And I'm sorry, but I believe that this effort by the right, to NOT ONLY dispute the science of climate change - which can certainly be legitimate - BUT ALSO to impugn the motives of the scientists themselves as corrupt liars and Team Blue tribalists, is not something that I will associate myself with.

  • John||

    No one was calling them corrupt liars until they were caught multiple times lying. Sorry, but climate gate makes your "how dare you" appeals ring very hollow. Mann and multiple others in the field are frauds. Moreover, they have repeatedly run honest people out of the field for the crime of doubting the theory. That is not science, that is politics and power.

  • Chuckles_the_Snarky_Piggy||

    Mann should have been run out of town on his hockey stick, instead he gets the NY Times as a platform to continue to spout lies that fit the NYT agenda. Why would they ask a climate scientist about a hurricane? Hurricanes are weather, so the correct scientist to consult would be meteorologist, right?

    "Hey! Teacher! Leave those kids alone!"

    All in all, Mann and the NYT are just more bricks for AntiFa to throw at those who reject socialism.

  • chemjeff||

    "No one was calling them corrupt liars until they were caught multiple times lying."

    Umm, no. People like Inhofe were calling global warming a "hoax" long before the so-called Climategate scandal.

  • BYODB||

    Chemjeff, you constantly cite what you 'believe' which should be a red flag for you.

    I'm just going to say that if models are consistently wrong than there is something wrong with the field. You can choose to believe people who are empirically wrong, but in that case you're using the correct word here.

    Belief.

  • chemjeff||

    I am neither on Team Red nor on Team Blue on this issue. I am however on Team Science. When one team uses science to give bad recommendations, but the other team undermines science itself, I am going to get more upset at the latter than the former.

  • Ariki||

    Giving recommendations with an unjustifiable level of certainty in those recommendations is what has lead to the undermining of science.

    If I said "Science shows that tomorrow the sun will shine BLUE!" and then when it failed claimed that was right on some technicality, before shifting the goal posts, and making a new more outrageous prediction, would the people who criticise me be undermining science? Or is it me who is undermining science?

  • damikesc||

    I understand there are all sorts of pressures in academia to publish, get funded, etc. And of course there are published papers that are fraudulent. As with all human endeavors, in science, people cheat from time to time. But if some paper is fraudulent, show that it is with specific criticism, don't just insinuate that it MIGHT be because "pressures". That is not fair to all of the non-cheating scientists out there doing legitimate work. Is this specific paper fraudulent? If you believe it is, why?

    And I'm sorry, but I believe that this effort by the right, to NOT ONLY dispute the science of climate change - which can certainly be legitimate - BUT ALSO to impugn the motives of the scientists themselves as corrupt liars and Team Blue tribalists, is not something that I will associate myself with.

    Uh, the Mann emails showed the "scientists" trying to game the peer-review system.

  • chemjeff||

    You know who else tries to game the peer-review system? *Every scientist who has published*. Heck when I try to publish papers, of course I am going to recommend reviewers whom I think will give friendly reviews. Peer review is ONE COMPONENT of the iterative process of science. What keeps the system basically honest is OTHER people publishing their papers correcting or disputing the work of others. Michael Mann trying to get friendly reviewers for his papers is not an earth-shattering revelation of corruption. It is standard practice, and the iterative improvement in science works despite the self-interested desire of authors seeking friends for their work.

  • BYODB||

    Unfortunately, it's been well documented that in recent decades the peer review system has been largely a failure across the board.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Physicists like Teller offered solutions to the non-problem in 1987. But the 0.06% of people with science degrees who adamantly insist The End Is Near and Misanthropomorphic also reject any suggestion that does not begin with governments sending men with guns to initiate the use of force against people. No need to name names. That conceptual blinkering is evidence of tunnel-vision.

  • L.G. Balzac||

    "Climate science is SCIENCE."
    Well, it's currently a scientific assumption. Once it's been repeatedly tested it will be a scientific theory.
    So, today, you are wrong.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Climate science is SCIENCE. It's an iterative process to try to understand reality.

    The Science is Settled! What are you, some kind of SCIENCE DENIER?

    (It *does* work so much better when you capitalize it!)

  • Ron||

    Always remember this. there are no cooling gases. The quantity and type of gas is a moot point without an increased energy input.

  • damikesc||

    At what point do we consider, as was done with phrenology, that this "science" is bullshit top to bottom?

  • Hateful Reactionary||

    Phrenology, like phlogestenic theory of air, makes more accurate predictions than AGW.

  • L.G. Balzac||

    "Phrenology makes more accurate predictions than AGW."
    This thread is loaded with good zingers.

  • damikesc||

    So what did the Nature Geoscience researchers do? They began by calculating what the global carbon budget should be in order to keep future temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average. Why that level? Because the signatories to the Paris Agreement on climate change committed to "holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels."

    Translation: "Man-made 'climate change' is bad...except when we advocate it. Then it's cool"

  • Longtobefree||

    Climate computer model projections of future man-made warming due to human emissions of carbon dioxide are running too hot, says a fascinating new study in Nature Geoscience.

    Sounds like a way of saying WRONG!

  • Kroneborge||

    When people say "the science is settled" it means that the climate is warming, and that man is the primary cause. And that we will have to do something about it to prevent problems.

    It doesn't mean that models can't get more accurate.

  • Ariki||

    THIS^^^^

    I've been trying to point this circular logic out to people for years but they just cant seem to grasp it.
    The models were used to justify the theory as we don't have another earth to test it out on. James Hansen's original model "confirmed" his original catastrophic anthropocentric global warming theory.

    His models were wrong, therefore the theory MUST BE WRONG, But instead we got "Don't worry the next model will be more accurate" Accurate at what? Being based on an incorrect hypothesis?

    IT. DOESN'T. MAKE. SENSE.

    If the models are wrong CAGW IS WRONG.

  • chemjeff||

    I don't think it is settled to say that "man is the primary cause". I think the best that can be said, is that the hypothesis that human activity is causing the planet to warm is, based on available evidence, a plausible one.

  • chemjeff||

    Well, you certainly are emblematic of what Ace's place has become. Maybe if you scream RETARD loud enough it will suddenly become funny.

  • chemjeff||

    Ace, is that you? Please, take your meds.

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    Re: Kroneborge,

    And that we will have to do something about it to prevent problems.


    That's not scientific. That's opinion.

    What is "something"? What is there to "prevent"? Who said there is something to "prevent"? None of that can be concluded from climate models regardless of their accuracy.

  • Roger Knights||

    And who is "we"? If it doesn't include the developing world, then what "we" do will have only a trivial impact. (Except on "our" economy and society.)

  • Sevo||

    Kroneborge|9.21.17 @ 11:40AM|#
    "When people say "the science is settled" it means that the climate is warming, and that man is the primary cause. And that we will have to do something about it to prevent problems.
    It doesn't mean that models can't get more accurate."

    Well, most of the claims that "the science is settled" are accompanied by claims that we must turn over control of massive amounts of the economy to prevent the demise of humankind (or some similar catastrophe)
    So as it is commonly used, it assumes those models ARE accurate.

  • damikesc||

    But the warming is iffy, man being the main culprit is unproven, the future problems are unproven and the solution offered so far are incredibly expensive and don't seem to do much.

  • L.G. Balzac||

    "have to do something"
    That's from Star Trek, right?

  • NoVaNick||

    Climate is far too complex of a system to precisely say how much temperature will increase by X degrees in Y years given Z amount of CO2 (or other emissions). Anyone who claims otherwise is denying science.

  • damikesc||

    I've always asked why we cannot accurately predict temperature next month...but hundreds of years in the future is doable.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    For precisely the same reason that we can predict aggregate data but not necessarily individual data (e.g. Heisenberg, economics, etc).

  • damikesc||

    ...except there is no evidence they can accurately predict weather in the future. They've been failing at predictions from the start.

  • BYODB||

    Look, if your model can't accurately predict things that are contained within your own data set you are wrong or you simply screwed up badly somewhere. End of story.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    ...or your model is simple in comparison to the true underlying mechanism. You can't possibly account for every variable in a system or have a unified model that can explain it. Again, I point to economics as an example. You can describe aggregate behavior of a population as a whole, but that population is ultimately comprised of millions (or billions) of individuals. Short of having a model that accurately describes every facet of every individual in the system, your model is going to fall short.

    For the third time I'll use my example of the molecular test to predict chemotherapy benefit/eligibility, which in the original paper was tested on the data set used to DERIVE the model and exhibited a prediction success rate of only about 70%. Although I'm more critical of this technique than most people in medicine are, I still wouldn't call the model "wrong" or "screwed up somewhere." It's just simple, that's all.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Would I be considered "anti-science" if I ask for evidence that proposed solutions to climate change, e.g. carbon taxes, will actually work?

  • L.G. Balzac||

    "evidence that proposed solutions to climate change, e.g. carbon taxes, will actually work?"
    if the objective is world govt and wealth redistribution, it will work.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Propositions expressed in the future tense are conjecture, speculation, prophesy. One current one says the world ends day after tomorrow. Reality shows us in a century of newsprint and thermometer readings that all global warming predictions proved wrong. Otherwise they'd still call it that instead of "rectifying" Big Brother speeches to insert meaningless "climate change" as replacement hobgoblin.

  • Delius||

    This business of "settled" brings to mind the famous bit where a man offers a woman $1 million to sleep with him, and she agrees. He then offers her $1, and she says, "What do you take me for?" He responds, "We've settled that, now we're just arguing over the price."

    That the models were off by some amount doesn't mean they aren't basically correct. Yay, we only increased 0.9 degrees instead of 1.2! Let's take that as confirmation that we were right all along, and those stupid scientists either don't know what they are talking about or, worse, are IN ON THE WHOLE THING. You know what I'm talking about, wink wink.

    Deniers of climate change are no different that Creationists, or anti-vaxers.

  • BYODB||


    That the models were off by some amount doesn't mean they aren't basically correct.

    Oh really, please tell me more about how when predictions don't come true they're still 'basically' correct.

    If I tell you that you're going to die in a year, but you live another 50 years, would you say I'm still 'basically' correct?

    Saying that it's getting warmer as the planet leaves a mini ice age is rather like predicting that a person is going to die 'eventually'. It's a super safe bet.

  • John||

    Imagine if we applied the "close enough for government work" standard being advocated here to engineering or medicine or other fields. Sure the building collapsed, but the design was basically correct.

    Some people are so stupid they scare me.

  • BYODB||

    I mean they aren't necessarily wrong, but I'm curious what the acceptable margin of error is on a science that is being used as a justification to murder large swaths of people both directly and indirectly over what appears to be a religious devotion to an unproven idea.


    Yeah, the planet is on average getting warmer but how often is an average like that actually useful one wonders. It doesn't describe local phenomena, and as a matter of fact it doesn't even appear to accurate predict macro phenomena so why keep quoting global average temperatures? It's not a useful measure of anything.


    That's before one realizes that something to the tune of ~170PPM of CO2 is necessary for all life on Earth to continue, and we're at 400PPM. It's been at least as high as ~3,000 and life on Earth thrived. There are so many historical examples that indicate that we're near a global minimum of atmospheric CO2 concentrations yet we're saying it's too high which is, in my view, bizarre.

  • Ariki||

    "used as a justification to murder large swaths of people both directly and indirectly over what appears to be a religious devotion to an unproven idea."

    I like your work.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "Imagine if we applied the "close enough for government work" standard being advocated here to engineering or medicine or other fields."

    They are applied to medicine. NCCN guidelines, for example -- which every practicing physician uses to guide treatment decision making -- are mostly approximations based on models that are "wrong". Many of us work to develop, test, and validate revised models that better explain phenomena, stratify patients, etc., which may ultimately change guidelines. Then other scientists will further improve models, and so on and so forth.

    There does not exist a single scientific field that has all the answers. Climate science is no different from the rest.

    The politicians who bastardize climate science by suggesting things are "settled" and by cherry-picking studies on the other hand -- that's a different story.

  • John||

    Fair point. But again, the difference between .9 and 1.2 degrees C is enormous. You wouldn't want anyone practicing medicine on you based on science that has a 33% error rate.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    70% correct rates are fairly standard in medicine. One extremely popular molecular test used to determine whether or not you should receive chemotherapy has a correct rate of between 50%-75% in published literature. This is actually the norm, not the exception.

  • BYODB||

    It's also rather the norm, instead of the exception, for medical research to be junk science. In fact, Ron himself has covered the reproducibility problem in modern science journals.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I would argue that this isn't junk science as much as junk interpretation. There are definitely some habits that need to go away, which include the over-reliance on statistics -- but this is ultimately an interpretation issue, it's not an observation issue. If someone reports a p value based on an assay done in triplicate, a reader has every right to ignore it (and probably should). A science journalist and a politician probably wouldn't know this, which could explain why they have so much confidence in speaking in certain terms.

    I would also argue that the popular molecular test that I referred to above exhibited such a wide range of prediction success rates (which is ultimately a reproducibility problem) because the N was small relative to the number of variables measured. Ironically, they lacked a model. They used observational data in a data-driven manner to basically derive an equation, violating the curse of dimensionality in the process.

    That said, their study -- like the climate studies -- were not useless or misleading. They just need to be interpreted correctly, and public policy should reflect the uncertainty in their findings. Not that I'm trying to throw policy makers under the bus but... I'm totally trying to throw policy makers under the bus.

  • ThomasD||

    Treatment modality selection is a far cry from 'we're gonna give you highly toxic drugs because there is a 66% chance you have cancer.'

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I don't know what you mean. The fact that we currently give "highly toxic drugs" to people who are unlikely to benefit from them, and that the methods we use to predict who is likely to benefit are somewhat poor performers because the models are terribly oversimplistic -- this is perfectly analogous to the subject at hand.

  • ThomasD||

    You do not understand because you do not like being called on your question begging.

    Treatment modalities are only selected AFTER a definitive diagnosis.

    We do not have a definitive diagnosis of AGW, much less any measure of it's severity.

    Severity being a key element of any risk to benefit assessment. Especially as concerns highly toxic antineoplastic.

    So no, your example is NOT remotely analagous.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "Treatment modalities are only selected AFTER a definitive diagnosis."

    Nope. Treatment modalities are suggested after pathologists and oncologists guess what type of cancer it MIGHT be, and who is LIKELY to benefit from those treatments at a high (but much lower than 100% rate). Emphasis on the words "guess", "might", and "likely."

    A great example of this is one recently developed breast cancer adjunct therapy (recommended by consensus groups and part of the NCCN guidelines) that vitally relies on an intact cell cycle, and the requirements that the cancer is ER+/Her2- which has been shown repeatedly to be a very poor indicator of the attributes of the tumor. Based on previously published data, I wouldn't be surprised if only 30-50% of eligible patients would actually benefit from this therapy.

    Why does the ER+/Her2- MODEL for cancer behavior fall short? Because it's incredibly oversimplistic, that's why. But that also doesn't make it useless or uninformative.

  • ThomasD||

    Do you even read what you write? The existence of a hormonal model for the treatment of certain breast cancers DOES NOT prove the existence of breast cancer. The presence of breast cancer is what causes one to consider treatment.

    Today no oncologist would ever give chemotherapy without a definitive diagnosis. Your own examples involves genetic stratification of people with a known diagnosis of breast cancer.

    Or are you saying that we would giver herceptin to someone who didn't actually have cancer even though we can still genetically type their otherwise healthy breast tissues?

    This bootstrapping from "environmental model with some degree of reliability" to "human caused problem we therefore must do something about" is likewise nonsense on stilts.

  • ThomasD||

    It might also be helpful to consider that the only reason we use genetic modelling for the treatment of cancer is that those models have proven to be an improvement in the treatment of people with actual existing cancers.

    Not possible cancers that may or may not be occurring at some time in the future.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I don't know what you mean about possible cancers. I'm talking about people who are diagnosed with cancer. Specifically, I talked about treatment effectiveness frequently being low because the models universally fail to accurately and completely characterize the cancer in a way that can guide treatment recommendations for all cancers. Concordance rates between different gene expression signatures that claim to represent the same breast cancer subtype, for example, are often in the range of 75% or less. If the concordance is that poor, then the treatment recommendations that rely on accurate subtyping are therefore that poor.

    That's not to say that molecular subtyping isn't useful (although some believe that it isn't...). I'm trying to demonstrate that the models are simply not elaborate enough to adequately represent the biological diversity of tumors. I expect the models to continue to improve, just as I expect climate models, economic models, and just about every other kind of model to improve as well.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I already gave you two examples where breast cancer subtype is ESTIMATED based on a number of surrogate markers. Why is subtype important? Because it is a major factor that determines treatment strategy. There is a vast amount of disagreement about what constitutes one subtype vs. the other, and by what method it should be defined (IHC? Gene expression analysis? Morphology?) -- this is a moving target, and unfortunately, some treatment recommendations still live in the early '00s.

    Likewise, Her2 status can be defined in different ways, as we see when you compare US guidelines to many of those used in Europe. A patient who sees one doctor who conducts one series of tests may be recommended for Trastuzumab while the same patient may not be recommended by another doctor who conducts different tests. Also, guidelines changed a couple years ago, so a subset of patients who were eligible then are not eligible now. Clearly this is also a moving target.

    So while you say "definitive diagnosis", it's important to remember that "definitive" is not a synonym for "accurate" in this context. It's perhaps the best we have (although sometimes not, as I described in my previous post), but it's also very imperfect due to the fact that our models are incomplete. The "definitive diagnosis" you refer to might be one type of cancer in one moment and in one place, and another type of cancer in another moment in another place.

  • Ron||

    apply that error rate to sizing of beams in a home. How many people are willing to buy a home if the engineer was off by 33% or would anyone take an airplane flight if the chances of getting where you want to be are only 66% chance of arriving at your destination

  • chemjeff||

    "But again, the difference between .9 and 1.2 degrees C is enormous. You wouldn't want anyone practicing medicine on you based on science that has a 33% error rate."

    That is an argument for using the results cautiously, not for discarding them completely, or worse, claiming that they are fraudulently obtained.

    For example, the estimate of the age of the earth is 4.5 +/- 0.1 billion years. That is only 2% error but it is still 100 million years. Is this a fraudulent number? No. It is the best estimate that we have with the tools available. Same deal here.

    I don't think anyone here is arguing that the predictions of climate science should be used to justify massive government redistribution. Saying that climate scientists agree on a consensus figure for the rate of global warming doesn't mean that this figure constitutes reality, or that climate scientists should be considered infallible gods, or anything of the sort.

  • chemjeff||

    "All models are wrong, but some are more useful than others."

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "Oh really, please tell me more about how when predictions don't come true they're still 'basically' correct."

    F = ma

  • BYODB||

    Cute ^_^

  • flyfishnevada||

    The first two paragraphs kind or put Delius among those listed in the last paragraph, though Creationism doesn't have nearly the mountain of evidence against that modern climate change theory does. The theories are not good, the models are wrong but they're all basically right? Do you even Science, bro? An incorrect model is, by definition, wrong, not basically right. It requires adjustment at the least and possibly abandonment altogether. New theories need to be developed to take into account actual observations rather than making excuses for the old theories and tweaking data to fit the old models. There is no such thing as "settled science" and anyone who claims science is ever settled is an idiot, a zealot or is running for office.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "An incorrect model is, by definition, wrong, not basically right."

    But that's exactly my point. When you view an incomplete or immature model through the lens that you seem to view it, then you would discard the contributions of a great deal of well established (though incomplete) models, including most of modern medicine, cosmology, and just about all of Austrian economics.

    I can't imagine what you think of Hayek and Friedman, whose models were valuable but woefully incomplete.

    The fact that some of you think that climate science is unique in this way is mind boggling. I assure you that the very same debates are occurring in other fields, like cancer biology.

  • damikesc||

    The fact that some of you think that climate science is unique in this way is mind boggling. I assure you that the very same debates are occurring in other fields, like cancer biology.

    We aren't being asked to bankrupt ourselves due to cancer biology.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Are you sure about that? Overtreatment is a huge problem in medicine in general, and it leads to significant unnecessary costs. And that's only one aspect of the costs associated with poor policy decisions based on incomplete or immature scientific models.

  • damikesc||

    Are you sure about that?

    100% yes.

    Overtreatment is a huge problem in medicine in general, and it leads to significant unnecessary costs.

    As opposed to taxing CARBON? Seriously?

    And that's only one aspect of the costs associated with poor policy decisions based on incomplete or immature scientific models.

    When Big Cancer demands we stop producing energy and stifle growth in the Third World to fight cancer, then it will be comparable.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Let me get this straight. Your stance is that rising health care costs are not a major threat, and the added costs of overtreatment are not significant. Is that right?

  • chemjeff||

    This is a very good point.

    It took scientists centuries to come up with reasonably accurate models of the atom, and of electrons, and of light. And even still, the models are not complete and not 100% correct. And those are in the fields of hardcore physics, not the "squishy" field of climate science.

    The anti-climate-science crowd is demanding a standard of correctness that even hardcore physics would fail.

  • BYODB||

    'hardcore physics' is easily demonstrated to be 'good enough' when, say, an airplane continues to fly or a nuclear plant continues to produce electricity.

    The same can not be said of a science that has no actual end use or proof of concept.

    That's why Climate Science is a soft science like Economics. It attempts to describe things, but the things it's trying to describe are already described more accurately elsewhere. It's a bastard child amalgam of 'real' science with all the 'hard' bits removed. Generally, those are referred to a pseudoscience.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    That's only because these models are in their infancy in comparison to the ones you're talking about. Economics is an excellent analogy here, because although there are valuable scientific models that have elucidated mechanisms and variables that are important in the field of economics (many of these models we, as libertarians, hang our hats on), there's obviously a very long way to go.

    I reject the notion of "soft science" though. Science is science. It's a procedure, not a field unto itself. You apply the tool to answer questions, test hypotheses, and describe observed phenomena. Economics and other social sciences are every bit as eligible for this tool as so-called "hard sciences." I'm a biologist and I readily admit the social sciences (in which I include economics) are simply more complex than my field, which I think is one reason why our models are more well-developed than theirs.

  • L.G. Balzac||

    We can accept it's warmer.
    The model is used to help sell the "why".
    The solution will be used to stretch assholes globally.

  • Greg F||

    That the models were off by some amount doesn't mean they aren't basically correct.

    Another one that doesn't understand what error bars are for. Apparently you would be quite happy if you were sold a car that was claimed to get 60 mpg and only got 20 mpg. According to you it would be "basically correct".

  • Sevo||

    "Deniers of climate change are no different that Creationists, or anti-vaxers."

    Yep, when you have lost the argument, claim your opponents are flat-earthers. That will convince those who agree with you that you're right.
    Hey, did the Russkies cause the hag to lose?

  • flyfishnevada||

    Can we file this under "Duh!"? This has been going on for years...hell, decades. Fraud, conspiracy, flawed models, etc. Anyone with half a brain and an open mind can see that the dire predictions never come to pass. The climate changes and man might have some influence but so do a thousand other natural phenomena. And warming, if the earth is in fact warming, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Humans have survived much worse without our advanced technology. Climate change science isn't science. It's dogma and scare mongering designed to transfer money to the elite and consolidate power.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "The climate changes and man might have some influence but so do a thousand other natural phenomena."

    Guess who agrees with you on that point? The vast majority of scientists.

    Guess who disagrees with you on that point? Democrats.

    So why are scientists being thrown under the bus?

  • flyfishnevada||

    That's BS. Your "vast majority of scientists" and democrats aren't selling the idea that climate change happens with or without us, that man MIGHT have some influence or that nature is just doing what she does. They're selling the idea they know exactly whats going on (they don't), that man is mostly, if not entirely, responsible and that they can fix it if we just give them more money and more power. None of that is true.

    I throw the scientists that work for politicians (most of them do and that's by design) under the bus. They largely aren't scientists at all. They are shills churning out data to support the ideology of those that keep them swimming in grants. Follow the money...

  • BYODB||

    It would appear that scientists that were hired, bought, and paid for by the tobacco lobby were right all along. Sure, their conclusions were absolutely in line with what the people who paid them wanted to hear, but they were doing science so they were basically correct.

    When research comes up with the most beneficial answer to the people who are paying their salaries, especially when their claims rely on hundreds of years to manifest and are more or less improvable, should that be a reason to doubt their claims veracity?

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "It would appear that scientists that were hired, bought, and paid for by the tobacco lobby were right all along. Sure, their conclusions were absolutely in line with what the people who paid them wanted to hear, but they were doing science so they were basically correct."

    There's a lot of evidence to suggest that even the scientists who were hired by the tobacco lobby found that smoking was dangerous, and that this information was suppressed because the freedom to disseminate this information did not exist (as is often the case in the corporate world).

  • BYODB||


    There's a lot of evidence to suggest that even the scientists who were hired by the tobacco lobby Government found that smoking was dangerous a warming environment is beneficial, and that this information was suppressed because the freedom to disseminate this information did not exist (as is often the case in the corporate Government world).

    That was rather my point.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I'm only going to refute your impression with one statement:

    A paper was recently published by prominent scientists (who are government funded) in a Nature journal after undergoing significant peer review, that directly demonstrate the failure of popular models, effectively showing that it is not "settled science."

    Democrats will ignore this paper. Scientists, I assure you, will not. I know you think there's a grand conspiracy among scientists, but this Reason article is pretty solid evidence that there is not.

    My advice to you is don't believe everything Democrats say.

  • BYODB||

    Of course there are dissenters and those who 'question' the narrative within 'science'. The 97% of scientists agree nonsense is itself a total fabrication. They're just not the one's who are being quoted or being granted tenure at most universities and think tanks. They're the one's being shouted down by interest groups or the media as 'deniers', specifically.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Oh the irony of seeing some commenters use scientific evidence to support their view this time, while screaming about conspiracy theories when other studies do not support their political view.

    The fact of the matter is that it isn't settled science, and in fact, most science is not settled science. When Newton's laws were trounced by Einstein, it didn't reveal that Newton was engaging in a conspiracy to falsify data, or that the incompleteness of his model meant the whole thing should be scrapped (indeed, though Newton's law is "wrong", it was a pretty good approximation and its utility over centuries is undisputed).

    Models are ever-changing. Just because evolution, too, is a "wrong" model, it doesn't mean that it should be scrapped, and it certainly doesn't mean that we should embrace alternative models (like creationism) by default. That's simply not how it works.

  • BYODB||


    Models are ever-changing. Just because evolution, too, is a "wrong" model, it doesn't mean that it should be scrapped, and it certainly doesn't mean that we should embrace alternative models (like creationism) by default.


    Good thing absolutely no one except a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of one percent of people think that's at all a good idea then, huh?

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    It's an analogy used with an extreme example to demonstrate the point.

  • BYODB||

    It takes a special sort of group to look at a planet coming out of a mini ice age and think to themselves 'all this warming must be because of us!' in my view.


    It takes an even more special group to look at single data points spread across millennia and think to themselves 'lets extrapolate a trend!'.

  • L.G. Balzac||

    "It takes a special sort of group to look at a planet coming out of a mini ice age and think to themselves 'all this warming must be because of us!' in my view."
    -
    Someone should collect these retorts into a book of antiAGWisms

  • John||

    Just because models are ever changing doesn't mean every model is correct. It could be the case that the model is wrong but getting better or it could be the case that it is just wrong. The data would look the same in either circumstance. And your analogy to Newton shows you don't know much about physics. If you did, you would know that Newton correctly predicts 99% of the natural phenomena it claims to predict. Newton only stopped predicting things successfully when you got to very small objects or objects traveling extremely fast. Otherwise, Newton works great. You can and we did go to the moon relying on Newton.

    When these models make an accurate prediction of any sort, I will believe them. Until that happens, you claiming "we are getting better" and "models always change" is just confirmation bias and bullshit, which I have no time to even hear let alone support making policy decisions based upon said bullshit and confirmation bias.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I agree with your first paragraph, but I don't think you understood my point. 99% is not 100%, and therefore it is "wrong." [I would call it incomplete, but others label any failure of a model as "wrong" -- I've been careful to put "wrong" in quotes in all my posts]

  • John||

    But it is not 100%. The difference between .9 and 1.2 is enormous. Depending on how you look it, they overestimated warming by one-third. That is not even close.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Agreed. I was using it as an example of an imperfect (ahem, "wrong") model that is close, but not completely correct. Yet it's a model that just about everybody accepts as a useful and even groundbreaking model.

    "Wrong" models are not necessarily useless and not inherently damaging. They are simply immature. They aren't a damning demonstration of the scientific method, but in fact confirmation that science in practice works.

    That is, unless they're shitty models. We've had plenty of those too.

    My stance on this issue, politically, is that the lobbyists, politicians, science journalists, and fans of the political party teams are notorious for bastardizing science and drawing conclusions that should not be drawn. Journalists are especially guilty of this -- they like to read Discussion sections and publish these as fact.

  • BYODB||

    I agree with you, but I also agree with John. When you're looking at a number like 2.0 being 'calamitous' than when you're off by a few decimal points it's 'no big deal' it starts to make one think they're driven not by science but by belief.

    I agree it's possible mankind is responsible for some amount of warming, but what percent and how big of a deal that is remains absolutely unsettled in any meaningful way and it will likely continue to be that way since even our baseline ability to measure temperature on Earth isn't that great.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Yup, I'm on board with that. I would say, though, that it's important to take the stance that we need to:
    1) Embrace the scientific method as the technique for answering the question you pose, which means a constructive rather than destructive approach;
    2) Reject politicians' interpretation and dissemination of what they consider to be the conclusions of these studies, because politicians are usually full of shit (I say the same thing about economics as I do climate science).

  • BYODB||

    The thing that the Disastrous Climate Change believers can't accept that is that it will take a few centuries worth of truly accurate data to extrapolate anything on a geological timescale. One thing I'm confident of is that mankind can not drastically alter the environment with only CO2 emissions.

    The rational stance on so-called 'Climate Change' is that it happens, and it's largely beyond our ability to influence in either positive or negative directions.

    Until someone can prove that not only is mankind a significant driver of the climate, but that CO2 in particular is the vehicle for that change, it's largely an academic debate with no place in policy discussions.

  • ||

    I agree it's possible mankind is responsible for some amount of warming, but what percent and how big of a deal that is remains absolutely unsettled in any meaningful way and it will likely continue to be that way since even our baseline ability to measure temperature on Earth isn't that great.

    It's not unreasonable to use other elements of the AGW as proxy if only as proof of a lack of knowledge, thought, or proper frame of reference.

    It's easy to find projections that say things like between 13 million and 2 billion people will be displaced by rising sea levels by 2100. Entirely without regard for carbon, warming, or any actual rise in sea levels and taking the displacement as pure fact, it's plain to see that, easily more 13 million people have moved from New York to LA in any given decade (well beyond any flood sea level could possibly rise) and that since about 1990 2 billion people magically appeared from out of nowhere (let alone predictably moved from point A to point B) and that if we go back 100 yrs. the number is closer to 5B.

    Hilariously, there was an edgy education reform movement in the 90s to eliminate this 'unbelievably large numbers are unbelievably true' phenomenon, 'Innumeracy'.

  • BYODB||

    All one needs to do, in my view, is realize that what's really being discussed politically is how to use niche scientists with unproven theories to kill off humans.

    Know what would render more land inhabitable faster than even the worst Doomsday scenarios outlined in AGW? Limiting our ability to generate and distribute electricity by demanding those sources of energy be 'sustainable' which is a pipe dream at face value.

    No source of energy is 'renewable' in the way it's usually bandied about. There is no perpetual motion machine that will generate electricity in an endless cycle. All resources are finite.

  • BYODB||

    *uninhabitable.

    God, I need a bigger phone or smaller fingers.

  • ThomasD||

    The closest humanity has come to perpetual motion is Marxism. Because gullible fools are always answering it's siren call and once enthralled they never fucking quit.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The data I see and the warez handed out at realclimatescience.com all show falling temperatures. But based on the supposition that CO2ercion might someday be a problem, Edward Teller and two other Livermore scientists worked out inexpensive countermeasures in 1987. "Global Warming and Ice Ages" is not hard to find or understand. The download is titled: 29043613.pdf
    Tony Heller distributes Python code for Mac and PC you can use to graph your own downloads from public NOAA temperature data.

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: Climate Models Run Too Hot: Settled Science Again

    Well of course its a settled science.
    Al Gore, the wunkerkind of global warming, has made a fortune off of carbon credit.
    It must be true if Big Al made a lot of money off global warming.

  • Robbzilla||

    Hey! Don't you dare talk smack about the man who invented the Internet!

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    I look forward to another couple decades of climate-related 'tipping points' and 'points of no return' that we have to basically return to a hunter-gatherer society to avoid if we don't want the earth to turn into Venus. I mean, I for one don't want to wade through pools of molten lead every day just to get to work.

  • damikesc||

    Sincere question:

    What other science that has no predictive value, uses models that do not work, and seems more interested in stifling dissent than in investigating their own claims gets taken seriously?

    AGW is ID with better PR.

  • BYODB||

    Keynesian Economics?

  • Uncle Jay||

    Socialism.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Nuclear winterizing?

  • SRVolunteer||

    This is all very unsettling.

  • mpercy||

    Remember when the earth had a mostly methane atmosphere? And then those darned cyanobacteria farted so much oxygen into the atmosphere that the atmosphere became toxic to the obligate anaerobes and basically wiped them out in a mass extinction event?

  • buybuydandavis||

    A Nature Geoscience study finds that humanity has more time to avert dangerous man-made warming.

    Good news! We had reported that Gaia would have destroyed us all by now. But through the diligent work at the International Institute for Gaiac Oracles, we've discovered that Gaia has given us another chance. A 20 year reprieve!

    If only we can summon the will to provide an international slush fund of hundreds of billions of dollars to unaccountable international apparatchiks, Gaia can be appeased! Contact your Congressman now!

  • JeremyR||

    This is basically what end of the worlders always do.

    When the world isn't destroyed, they backpedal "Oh wait, I was right, just off a little. This time it's really right."

  • Tony||

    Science that confirms my preconceptions is good science, even if it's the same kind of science that refutes my preconceptions.

  • Sevo||

    "Science that confirms my preconceptions is good science, even if it's the same kind of science that refutes my preconceptions."

    We've noticed that about you.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Did you really "I know you are but what am I?" him??

  • Tony||

    It's literally all Sevo has.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Humans have been here for .004% of Earth's history. When has the climate not been changing?

  • Tony||

    OMG you just outsmarted all of the world's experts!!! Someone give this man an honorary PhD.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    Good for you, Bailey. Now if we can just get you to report on some of the recent studies on vaccines.

  • Sevo||

    Why waste time; there is nothing new.
    Vaccines save millions of lives.

  • jdd6y||

    I find it strange that people call using statistical models "science." It's more like investment banking than science. How is any of this reflective of controlled experiments and testing hypothesis with controlled experiements? And if models are as consistently wrong as all these climates ones have been, you toss them. Because the relationships are wrong.

  • Sevo||

    "How is any of this reflective of controlled experiments and testing hypothesis with controlled experiements?"

    How do astrophysicists do controlled experiments? I'd be interested in hearing about that.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Like quantum mechanics?

  • swampwiz||

    So one would presume that the author would tell an individual who has a low income but that came into an unexpected windfall (e.g., an inheritance from a cousin he barely knew) should start living high on the hog since "hey, now you've got more money" rather than do the prudent thing and put that money toward a long-term investment. How W-esque!

  • Sevo||

    "So one would presume that the author would tell an individual who has a low income but that came into an unexpected windfall (e.g., an inheritance from a cousin he barely knew) should start living high on the hog since "hey, now you've got more money" rather than do the prudent thing and put that money toward a long-term investment. How W-esque!"

    I would assume you have no argument so you made up that pile of shit hoping to fool someone.

  • Hank Phillips||

    As always, Bailey relies on hearsay, not graphs. This particular non-article is an example of what pseudoscientists call "balance." Balance is prevarication carefully engineered to fit between the truth and a lie. The key question facing politicized science today is: Why do graphs of raw data from the exact same NOAA thermometer stations invariably show falling temperatures over the past century? Data "adjusted" by government-funded unproductive hands nobody would hire voluntarily invariably shows what looter politicians want to see. THAT faked rising temperature is easily explained. The falling temperature trend shown by undistorted data is easier to blank out than explain.

  • RafalCOM||

    "Why do graphs of raw data from the exact same NOAA thermometer stations invariably show falling temperatures over the past century?"

    Really? I just pasted it in Google and clicked on the first link.

    "The most important bias in the U.S. temperature record occurred with the systematic change in observing times from the afternoon, when it is warm, to morning, when it is cooler. This shift has resulted in a well documented increasing cool bias over the last several decades and is addressed by applying a correction to the data."

    You are welcome to read it in full details and let us know what's incorrect.

    https://goo.gl/N4PxQb

  • Jayburd||

    "HIDE THE DECLINE" - use Mikey's nature trick.

  • Episteme||

    The one unanswered questioned I keep asking is about the definition of temperature change since industrialization since the usual date given is within A half century of that accepted for the end of the Little Ice Age. If the baseline that we're working off involves two such major events colliding, how can we be certain of what th baseline should be? It's like doing a measurement on a rocking raft instead of a stable fixed platform.

  • tommyguns2||

    Can someone please tell me what the global temperature is supposed to be? From most articles I read on global warming, it always says it's getting warmer, and that's a bad thing. That presupposes that the "correct" temperature is less than the present temperature. Therefore there must be consensus in the scientific community what the correct global mean temperature is supposed to be.

    For example, this article says temperature has increased by 0.9 instead of 1.2. So if the temperature was X, it's now X+0.9. If the "correct" temperature is X+1, the measured warming is a good thing.

    I'm guessing that warming gives us a whole bunch of positives and negatives that would have to be weighed against one another to determine if it's "good."

    I find it strange that the article states that temperature rise between 1999 and 2014 slowed. It didn't slow, it stopped. A rate of increase of 0, I suppose, could be called a slowing, but it misleads the reader. A more accurate statement would be that during the period 1999 to 2014, carbon dioxide levels rose 30% and temperature stayed absolutely flat.

    I believe in the greenhouse effect and how increased CO2 levels can trap heat, but there are a myriad other factors at play that clearly make CO2 levels and temperature NOT correlate with one another. But I suppose that doesn't help the politicians who want to use this as a hammer to tell you how to live you life.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Consequently, researchers reckon that humanity has more time to prevent dangerous future climate change than had been suggested earlier by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    Why should "humanity has more time" be the conclusion, as opposed to "none of the climate change theorists has been right about anything so far, so maybe climate change isn't a big danger after all?"

  • Robbzilla||

    So is this the pseudo science equivalent of a doomsday cult leader saying "Well, 2012 came and went without the world ending, and I know why! I forgot to carry the two! The world will actually end in 2024! Now give me your entire paycheck and come live in my compound!" ?

  • JuanQPublic||

    The only people who push the idea of "settled science" are true believers who don't understand science.

    Science isn't sitting on an armchair and having opinions about what "seems" to be true.

  • DrZ||

    So? Promote modern, modular nuclear generation of electricity.

    If (and I mean *IF*) CO2 is really causing atmospheric problems, then nuclear generation is the answer. It has a small footprint compared to solar and wind, it produces no CO2 and it runs 24/7 - no sun needed.

    Electric vehicles make more sense if nuclear generation is used. No hypocrisy involved, no charges from coal-fired plants.

  • Longtobefree||

    Science is never settled. And that is a good thing. Research continues, and new stuff is discovered.

    Suppose it was settled science that blood letting was an effective disease treatment.
    Suppose it was settled science that the earth was flat.
    Suppose it was settled science that you could not exceed the speed of sound.
    Suppose it was settled science that the earth was cooling too rapidly.
    Suppose it was settled science that communism was the best economic system.
    Suppose it was settled science that a server could not be hacked if it was locked in a basement.
    Suppose it was settled science that posts online were factual.

  • Jem Finch||

    C'mon man, the authors of the article literally wrote an article the day before you posted this article saying that the science was settled:

    http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/opinion/view/379

  • Dave Burton||

    Here's a 2014 paper by Ben Santer & many co-authors:

    doi:10.1038/ngeo2098

    They "subtracted out" the effects of ENSO and the Pinatubo (1991) & El Chichón (1982) volcanic aerosols, from measured (satellite) temperature data, to find underlying temperature trends. This graph is from their paper:

    http://sealevel.info/Santer_20.....133pct.png

    Two things stand out:

    A. The models run hot, by even more than Millar et al suggests. CMIP5 computer models (black line), which are tuned assuming that ≥100% of 20th century warming is anthropogenic, show ≈0.65°C warming over the 35-year period. The satellites measured only about half that. And,

    B. The "pause" in warming began around 1993. The measured warming is all in the first 14 years (1979-1993). With ENSO & volcano corrections there's no noticeable warming since then (1994-2013).

    Also, though Santer's graph still shows ≈0.10°C measured warming/decade, that's partly because it starts in 1979, the frigid end of a long NH cooling period, as shown in this graph of U.S. temperatures from a 1999 NASA paper:

    http://sealevel.info/fig1x_199.....ircled.png

    The fact that the models run hot by a factor of 2 suggests the IPCC's climate sensitivity estimates are high by about a factor of 2, and about half of global warming since 1850 was natural.

    That suggests TCR sensitivity

  • Dave Burton||

    I don't know how my last sentence got truncated, but this is what it was supposed to say:

    That suggests TCR sensitivity of under 1.0°C, and ECS sensitivity of perhaps 1.5°C, which is nothing to worry about.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online