MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Global Temperature Increases Are Lower and Slower, Says New Study

"We calculated that value as 1.1 C (almost 2° Fahrenheit), while climate models estimate that value as 2.3 C (about 4.1° F)"

BestTheremometerBigSizedMeryllDreamstimeMeryll/DreamstimeA new study using more than 38 years satellite and weather balloon temperature data hypothesizes that global temperatures are going up more slowly than projected by most climate models.

And right on time, these results were challenged by other researchers who defend the scientific climate consensus as embodied in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports.

The new study done by University of Alabama in Huntsville climatologists John Christy and Richard McNider published in the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science argues consensus models may not have accurately captured how storms in the tropics expel excess heat back into space and/or that they have failed to account for how heat is absorbed by the world's oceans.

Christy and McNider took into account the effects of volcanic eruptions (cooling) and El Nino (heating) and La Nina (cooling) perturbations on global temperatures during the past 38 years.

What they found was warming in the lower troposphere where the bulk of our planet's atmosphere is located at a rate of about 0.096 degrees Celsius per decade. This trend implies that global temperatures will be about 1.1 (± 0.26) degrees Celsius warmer at the time carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels and land use changes doubles in the atmosphere. This is about half of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) estimate of 2.31 (± 0.20) degrees Celsius warmer for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

TempTrendsChristyMcNiderChristy/McNider

"From our observations we calculated that value as 1.1 C (almost 2° Fahrenheit), while climate models estimate that value as 2.3 C (about 4.1° F)," Christy said in a press release. "Again, this indicates the real atmosphere is less sensitive to CO2 than what has been forecast by climate models. This suggests the climate models need to be retooled to better reflect conditions in the actual climate, while policies based on previous climate model output and predictions might need to be reconsidered."

John Abraham, a professor of thermal and fluid sciences at the University of St. Thomas School of Engineering in Minnesota, asserted in The Daily Mail that Christy and McNider have "manipulated the raw measurements to decrease warming by about 38 percent."

If by manipulate, Abraham means that Christy and McNider have tried to take into account the effects of volcanic eruptions sending cooling sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere and the large swings in global average temperatures caused by the natural El Nino and La Nina phenomenon, then yes. They have done nothing underhanded or wrong.

It is hard not conclude that Abraham is being disingenous when he accuses Christy and McNider of data manipulation. Abraham must know the surface temperature datasets relied upon by IPCC are also "manipulated," using homogenization procedures to take into account weather station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, and urban heat island biases.

If the amount of warming expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide is much lower than most climate models project that implies that catastrophic climate outcomes are less likely and that humanity will have extra time to adjust to whatever warming eventually results from the increase in the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

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.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Aside from this specific issue, over history, has the climate shown any indication of much stability? I mean, doesn't it tend to warm/cool over periods of time, rather than stay constantly stable? Historical accounts seem to suggest variability, though that's obviously disputed.

  • ||

    It's almost as if the issue merits further study before jumping to grandtastic conclusions. But I'm told that such an attitude is anti-science.

  • Tony||

    The answer to the question posed can be found with one Google search. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean it's not known.

  • ||

    And we start again from square one.

    Why do I even bother talking to you? I've forgotten.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Science is a process, not a conclusion. But when politics and money are involved, all bets are off.

  • ||

    Science is a process, not a conclusion.

    ^ 100% this.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Science is real, love is love.

  • ||

  • Tony||

    The average global temperature does not stay the same always, but it is also significantly warmer than at any point in the past several hundred thousand years at least.

    There has been variability, and temperature has tracked with greenhouse gas concentrations. The difference now is the extreme rapidity of the changes in both, the extreme warmth, and the fact that humans did it.

  • ||

    it is also significantly warmer than at any point in the past several hundred thousand years at least.

    Again showing your ignorance. The number you want is about 120,000 years. See - I did that for you.

    We're pretty far from "warmest it's ever been," actually.

    temperature has tracked with greenhouse gas concentrations

    Actually, no it hasn't. In fact, CO2 concentrations tend to follow, rather than precede, warm periods. But you would have to have spent a minute or two looking at actual data to have known that, so I'll give you a pass.

    the extreme rapidity of the changes in both

    By "both," of course, you mean CO2 and not GMT, which hasn't risen terribly significantly in a couple of decades despite the dramatic increase in CO2.

    the fact that humans did it.

    By which we mean "fact," more than really fact.

    Do you remember a couple of weeks back when you wound up having to admit that I understand this science 100% better than you do?

    Of course you don't. You wouldn't remember your own name if it didn't appear on the screen after you hit "submit."

  • Tony||

    All of this is debunked bullshit, but you clearly have no intention of figuring that out. Get new talking points at least.

  • ||

    All of this is debunked bullshit

    Oh, I know. It takes about an hour to get you the point where you will be forced to acknowledge that you don't actually have a source for that declaration, that you have no idea what I'm talking about, and that you know nothing whatsoever about any of this.

    I don't have the time or patience today.

    I just remind our readers at home that you don't care to understand any of this because you don't care about science, and you don't care about the planet - you only care about scoring cheap points against your political enemies.

    If you did care, you wouldn't be so, so fucking ignorant and proud of it.

  • Juice||

    Again showing your ignorance. The number you want is about 120,000 years. See - I did that for you.

    Try 800 - 1000 years. It was warmer in the Medieval Warm Period (despite what Michael Mann has said, they aren't growing grapes in Greenland today). And it was probably a bit warmer, or close to now, in Roman times (about 800 - 1000 years prior).

    Someone was talking about propaganda and the papers touting highest temperatures in 120k years by comparing current thermometer readings with proxy data are propaganda.

  • ||

    Try 800 - 1000 years. It was warmer in the Medieval Warm Period (despite what Michael Mann has said, they aren't growing grapes in Greenland today). And it was probably a bit warmer, or close to now, in Roman times (about 800 - 1000 years prior).

    Perhaps. This doesn't tell us necessarily about the globe, but the 120,000 figure is one that even Tony should accept if he weren't such a pig-ignorant knee-jerk partisan, since even the CAGW crowd accepts such undeniable facts.

    Not Tony, though.

  • Entelechy||

    Make that Circle = Square- the whacko " growing grapes in greenland' factoid belongs not to Michael Mann, but his libel suit opponent- Mark Steyn.

    While grapes never grew in Greenland , The Economist has reported that the island's climate has thawed enough in the last several decades to support the return of barley fields and beer, and archaeologists have found that the Vikings grew grapes in Denmark centuries before the erstwhile MWP began.

    https://tinyurl.com/ycz45k48

    Cue more invective from the same PR playbook:

    https://tinyurl.com/y8cshkf3

  • ALWAYS RIGHT||

    How much coastal land has been submerged from rising oceans. Or, what is the measurable consequence of global warming?

    I bet that there is a larger correlation between global warming and population growth than global warming and greenhouse gas concentrations.

  • Gozer the Gozarian||

    We should be tracking global warming and deforestation. That's what these climate researchers aren't talking about.

    Trees are a fucking biofilter and fantastic carbon reservoir. But you won't see any of these cloud junkies hugging a tree, will ya'? Hells, no, that would kill their government-supplied funding.

  • Ron Bailey||

    PL: Yes, climate has been historically variable. For example, during the coldest period of the Little Ice Age between 1645 and 1715 researchers think that average winter temperatures in Europe and North America were as much as 2°C lower than at present. The Medieval Warm Period was slightly warmer in most regions than now.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Not to mention the greater variations over the epochs. Seems like we know very little about climate on a long-term scale, though we're learning more all the time.

  • ||

    What will be interesting to see is if Lovelace was correct about feedback loops ultimately controlling the global temperature. It's always sounded pretty plausible to me, and his assertion that now that humans are involved all of the feedback loops will simply stop operating, or start operating in some sort of reverse order, conversely always struck me as kind of silly.

  • Gozer the Gozarian||

    ^This!

    The earth is a big horking radiator. It is the only planet with a liquid-cooled engine. Saying that we know how that system works is a very arrogant statement.

    If these fuckers could actually predict future climate trends, they'd all be making an absurd amount of money in the stock market like the other quants. Yet they aren't, so, yeah...

  • Devastator||

    They can't predict the weather out past a week or barely 2 weeks, let alone what will happen a century from now. Personally I'm all for renewable resources and obsoleting fossil fuels, but for a totally different reason than global warming zealots. Energy independence and the fact they can be improved in efficiency and promise much more energy in the future, especially various nuclear technologies.

  • Sevo||

    Devastator|12.4.17 @ 11:12PM|#
    "They can't predict the weather out past a week or barely 2 weeks, let alone what will happen a century from now."

    This is a red herring.
    I can't predict the next 5 or 10 throws of a die, but I can tell you, on average, the tosses will center of three.
    If you are to gripe about AGW, do your homework and don't embarrass yourself.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    This is probably my favorite post you've ever made. And you didn't even call anyone an asshole.

  • Sevo||

    But Devastator looks like he's an asshole.
    (hint: I give an asshole one or two opportunities to suggest there is some sort of error. By the third post, we're dealing with an asshole. See Tony, for instance)

  • SRVolunteer||

    on average, the tosses will give you 3.5

  • ThomasD||

    Yet no single roll of a die will yield a result of 3.5.

    Or consider that the limits of a die roll are fixed. What are the corresponding limits of global temperature? Something between absolute zero (near) and the surface temp of a red giant.

    Not exactly a telling analogy after all.

  • Kefka||

    Weather is not the same thing as climate.

  • Pro Libertate||

    The AGW debate is one thing, but I find the global history of the climate to be fascinating. Catastrophic events explain some major changes, but not all. There's so much we don't know, in all of science.

  • Devastator||

    Yep a lot of civilizations went down the shitter because their local weather patterns became antithetical to what they needed to maintain a concentrated population. Fascinating stuff with lots of "what if" scenarios. I always wondered what would have happened if some civilization like the Maya at their peak had kept it up and discovered the scientific method first and when the Europeans got here they faced machine guns and all they had was single shot rifles.

  • Sevo||

    Devastator|12.4.17 @ 11:15PM|#
    "Yep a lot of civilizations went down the shitter because their local weather patterns became antithetical to what they needed to maintain a concentrated population. Fascinating stuff with lots of "what if" scenarios. I always wondered what would have happened if some civilization like the Maya at their peak had kept it up and discovered the scientific method first and when the Europeans got here they faced machine guns and all they had was single shot rifles."

    Pretty sure Devastor's post is bullshit. Got a cite on your claim of "local weather patterns"?

  • Greg F||

    Pretty sure Devastor's post is bullshit.

    We don't really know what caused the collapse of the Maya civilization but is likely far more complex
    than a change in the weather.

  • ||

    I always wondered what would have happened if some civilization like the Maya at their peak had kept it up and discovered the scientific method first and when the Europeans got here they faced machine guns and all they had was single shot rifles.

    Assuming the technology developed to that level absent the influences that drove the Europeans to advance it to that level... considering the heavy machine guns would be fixed, I suspect the lighter, more mobile, further reaching arms of the Europeans would still win.

    Much of what I say above is driven by the fact that much of advanced 'European' metallurgy was developed in direct response to taming, domestication, and breeding of draft animals which didn't exactly exist in pre-Columbian America until they were brought there by the Europeans.

    Also, your notions of the 'discovery of the scientific method' belie a false understanding of both the method and it's significance regarding specific or general cultural advancement.

    When railroading time comes you can railroad—but not before. R.A. Heinlein

  • BYODB||

    That's one of the problems, in that we have very few 'snapshots' of global temperatures but many, many snapshots of todays temperatures. No one, and I mean no one, can cite what 'historical' global temperatures are.

    Or, for that matter, what future temperatures will do. A geological timescale is outside the human experience by such a huge order of magnitude that it's hard to say what will happen. Honestly, we'll all probably be dead from disease by the time our 'environmental impacts' come to fruition. (Unless Ron has his way, I suppose ^_^ )

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's one of interesting aspects about trying to comprehend such changes—they're so gradual and not even remotely on a human scale. Africa is racing at a few inches a year towards Europe. Or consider cosmic scales, which are beyond even continental evolution.

  • Hunthjof||

    Are they still trying to use the tree ring method which was shown to be terribly inaccurate.

  • Bob Meyer||

    If you were to calculate the effect of doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and ignore all secondary effects, then you would end up with just about 1.1 degrees C. That means that if Christy and McNider are right, then either there is no secondary heating due to increased moisture in the atmosphere as is postulated by most warmists or else, there is a compensatory cooling effect.

    Christy and McNider's measurements are a bit lower than most which tend to be around 1.6 degrees C (albeit with huge error bars).

    After the hysteria about global warming ending the world, it would be funny if it turned out that all of the secondary effects (positive feedback) was just "hot air".

  • BYODB||

    My understanding is that the positive feedback between water vapor and CO2 is something that is postulated but hasn't actually been observed in the climate. Honestly if we're really scared of greenhouse gases, we'd do well to remember that the vast majority of the surface of this planet is made of the stuff.

    Overall, the larger danger would be a cooling environment so in a sense we might be lucky if it turns out the warmists are correct. At least in that scenario the majority of humanity survives. The outlook for ice ages is much more grim.

  • ||

    Overall, the larger danger would be a cooling environment so in a sense we might be lucky if it turns out the warmists are correct. At least in that scenario the majority of humanity survives. The outlook for ice ages is much more grim.

    ^ Also this.

    This is a major reason why I'm hesitant regarding any of these grand schemes to 'tilt the world into a cooling cycle.'

  • MarkLastname||

    As I understand it, it's suspecyed that there's a negative feedback loop as well: warning may lead to increased cloud coverage, and the atmosphere's increased albedo means less heat gets absorbed, having a cooling effect.

    Cloud formation seems poorly understood and yet likely very relevant to the extent of future warming.

  • ||

    That means that if Christy and McNider are right, then either there is no secondary heating due to increased moisture in the atmosphere as is postulated by most warmists or else, there is a compensatory cooling effect.

    ^ This.

    Mann, et al., narrowed the discussion down to six greenhouse gases, which have become the contents of a sort of mini-Overton Window.

    It may be the case that there are more than six factors that guide the climate.

  • Azathoth!!||

    "For example, during the coldest period of the Little Ice Age between 1645 and 1715 researchers think that average winter temperatures in Europe and North America were as much as 2°C lower than at present."

    Wait--are you saying that the AGW cult WANTS the temp to be the same as it was during the coldest part of the little ice age? Because they're already having conniptions over the warming from that we've already gotten.

    That's crazy--man is DESIGNED for a warmed climate.

  • Azathoth!!||

    warmER

  • Bill||

    Depends what you mean by stability. It has been very stable over a +/- 2 - 3 C
    range for quite a long time.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Again, this indicates the real atmosphere is less sensitive to CO2 than what has been forecast by climate models.

    It's probably all escaping through that hole in the ozone layer.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Well, if we start raising the temperature of space there truly is no escape for us.

  • meta||

    Great idea we could help all the CO2 escape better if we get/put a giant pvc pipe and stick it into space kind of like basements and radon. Sweetness the earf is saved.

  • Devastator||

    That's not how the hole in the ozone works.

  • Tony||

    The funny thing about propaganda is that content is almost immaterial. It doesn't matter that deniers spent years and years completely misunderstanding the concept of "manipulation" and using their ignorance to buttress the world's stupidest conspiracy theory. Now that Sts. Christy and Spencer (apparently the only climate researchers worth listening to) have done something analogous, the silence will no doubt be deafening. It's all tribal in the end. The propagandists might as well have been talking about lollipops and gumballs. Getting idiots to sew doubt in factual reality doesn't require much reference to reality, which makes a certain kind of sense.

  • ||

    Says the guy who doesn't understand even the first thing about climate science, but who comes here at every available opportunity to shriek propaganda at the top of his lungs.

  • Ron Bailey||

    T: First, who said that Christy et al. are the "only" climate researchers worth listening to - why not listen to a range of views instead of knee-jerking? Could I suggest that you actually read the Christy/McNider paper as opposed to tribalistically just assuming Abraham's disingenuous assertions are true? In any case, be careful whom you call a "propagandist."

  • ||

    You'd think that the Reason science correspondent wouldn't SugarFree his links.

    :P

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    Would you? Really?

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    Would you? Really?

  • Ron Bailey||

    MP & EBD: Yes you would. Try this link.

  • ||

    From a reading of their paper, Christy and Spencer are simply trying to propose refinements to the model to possibly explain why there is a discrepancy between the currently-modeled temperature increases and the observed ones. (Actually, the refinements are apparently the same ones they proposed back in '94, but, at the time, they had only 15 years of data to model. Now with 38.5 years of data, they feel more confident in the results of these refinements.)

    This is exactly what scientists are supposed to do. When a model doesn't match observation, you refine the model and try again. The point is, the tribalism comes from both sides. They are now being attacked from some settled-sciencers as being data manipulators.

  • ||

    They are now being attacked from some settled-sciencers as being data manipulators.

    I've noticed this, too.

    If nothing else, I've always seen value in the way these guys present a different way of manipulating the numbers based on different premises, emphasizing that what you find depends so much on what premises you start from.

    The fact that some of the numbers in the dominant models have been manipulated is not really the heart of the issue - the manipulations have generally been plausible and justifiable.

    But they've also revealed what the researchers want to be the case. The UA Huntsville work has shown that a different set of assumptions can lead to a very different interpretation of the data.

  • Longtobefree||

    For the record, I prefer gumballs, at any temperature less than 120 degrees Fahrenheit.

  • MarkLastname||

    IOW, you have no rebuttal, and nothing relevant to say, so you'll just assert that you're right, everyone else is a moron, stick your fingers in your ears and run away screaming.

  • Eidde||

    Hey, Reason's fundraising box is full.

    Time to celebrate

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    This fucking song.

  • Eidde||

    I'm the worst.

    At least I didn't do my Klingon Rickroll.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I blame climate change.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    I knew they must have made the goal because they let Shikha out of her retard cage.

  • Juice||

    According to a quote in the article onWikipedia:

    "Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. The remaining uncertainty is due entirely to feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback";[13] addition of these feedbacks leads to a value of the sensitivity to CO2 doubling of approximately 3 °C ± 1.5 °C, which corresponds to a value of λ of 0.8 K/(W/m2).

    So, it appears (according to this study) that the climate modellers have greatly over-estimated the amount of forcing due to feedbacks. I would think that it's most likely due to greatly under-estimating negative feedbacks. I think this has been borne out in observations, which tend to have lower temperatures and smaller trends than those predicted by the modellers. Finally someone is taking them into (more) proper account.

    And obviously a runaway greenhouse effect will not happen (or at least it won't be caused by CO2) since it would have happened long ago when CO2 levels were much higher.

  • ||

    I would think that it's most likely due to greatly under-estimating negative feedbacks.

    This is exactly the case. Apropos of my reference to Lovelace, above, the assumption, bizarre as it is, is that the natural tendency of things toward equilibrium will be reversed where human emissions are involved. Processes will be triggered which will intensify, rather than mitigate, warming.

    Which is possible, of course, and would be very, very bad, but probably shouldn't be regarded as the "by-default-assumed-most-likely" scenario.

  • Bob Meyer||

    I see you got there first. Sorry I didn't scroll down before I commented.

  • DRM||

    Yep.

    Now, another thing to note is that the whole "3 °C ± 1.5 °C" dates back to 1979's initial report by the National Academy of Sciences, where they took the two existing feedback models (one predicting 2°C per doubling, one predicting 4°C per doubling), declared an error factor of ±0.5°C, and published as 1.5-to-4.5°C.

    That was a perfectly reasonable for-public-consumption estimate in 1979, to be revised later as better data improved the models. And yet the very latest IPCC report, 25 years later (as well as the first, second, and third IPCC reports), used that exact same range. In a normal science, the level of ignorance doesn't hold steady at the initial level of ignorance after 25 years of intense study.

    But, well, the IPCC process is not a scientific consensus. It's the product of an "Intergovernmental Panel" -- a politically-selected committee. It's propagating an old number out of inertia, because panel members can't agree on a better one.

    Of course, there is a massive difference in proper policy response to warming if the sensitivity is 1.1°C/doubling, versus if it's 4.5°C per doubling. If quadrupling atmospheric carbon dioxide only raises temperatures 2.2°C (two doublings at 1.1°C) instead of 9°C (two doublings at 4.5°C), we can take a much more relaxed approach to limiting emissions.

  • Sevo||

    "...If quadrupling atmospheric carbon dioxide only raises temperatures 2.2°C (two doublings at 1.1°C) instead of 9°C (two doublings at 4.5°C), we can take a much more relaxed approach to limiting emissions."

    We might even find that humans respond in market systems and adaptations such that we don't need moonbeam and his (taxpayer-funded-boondoggle) choo-choo!

  • Sevo||

    "And obviously a runaway greenhouse effect will not happen (or at least it won't be caused by CO2) since it would have happened long ago when CO2 levels were much higher."

    Given the pants-wetting and forelock-tugging, THIS is the point that matters.
    Yes, we may see further temperature increases; whether those end up being a positive or a negative for humanity remains to be shown.
    I really don't care about the northern spotted polar bears; many, many species have long gone extinct and I've suffered not a bit as a result. Call me a 'speciesist'. Go ahead.
    But some catastrophic temp delta would have happened long ago if CO^2 were the cause or determinant.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    "So, it appears (according to this study) that the climate modellers have greatly over-estimated the amount of forcing due to feedbacks. I would think that it's most likely due to greatly under-estimating negative feedbacks."

    Don't forget the Federal Funding Forcing Effect.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Undistorted thermometer data shows temperatures have been falling on average over the course of the past century. Remember when the Political State said to ban freon because Prophesy said there would be a Bozone Hole over Antarctica and we'd all fry? The bureaucrat-approved high-pressure replacement coolant wrecks air conditioners, so it definitely feels hotter indoors where people watch documendacities on teevee. Ronald could download the data and plot the graphs with code from Realclimatescience.com if facts mattered.

  • Alcibiades||

    Hydrocarbon industry, fracking, cheaper and cleaner fossil fuels, increased CO2 levels, slightly warmer climate, increased crop yields and a greener earth = friends of humanity

    Greenpeace, "Friends" of the Earth, the Sierra Club, IPCC, assorted neo-luddites etc. = enemies of humanity

  • Morbo||

    It's almost like the science weren't settled, and we still have a lot of learning to do...

  • buybuydandavis||

    Denier!

  • ||

    So basically, since global warming will probably no effect this generation, let's just push the ball down the hill like we are doing pension funds in California. I guess our great great grand kids will really be upset with us.

  • ||

    This really oughta go without saying, but you first need to accurately characterize a problem before deciding you know what needs to be done about it.

  • Sevo||

    "So basically, since global warming will probably no effect this generation, let's just push the ball down the hill like we are doing pension funds in California."

    So we can add "false equivalence" to the logical fallacies by the catastrophists.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I know this, we need to spend trillions fixing the problem, and as long as the money is being spent-- to whatever effect, I'm good.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Well, if we went infinitely into debt, as I have advocated, we could afford anything. Don't know why the government hasn't done that already. If $20 trillion is good, an infinite number of dollars must be so much better.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Because some asshole would just come along and promise infinity plus one.

  • Pro Libertate||

    You know nothing of advanced economics, I see.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    For your information, I got a 'C' in Econ infinity (plus 1)

  • meta||

    Would that asshole be Chuck the duck Norris?

  • GroundTruth||

    It would all be a great example of how science works (observation, hypothesis, testing, peer review, etc.) if it just weren't so politically charged.

    Sigh....

  • Pro Libertate||

    On a smaller scale, you can see the effects of politics and/or funding on any number fields of study. For instance, some have claimed that string theory and its variants get virtually all of the theoretical physics funding. And so on.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Scene: Two dudes walk into a bar. In this alternate universe, Global Warming has never been a "thing" before.

    Bill: Hey, I just heard that the last few years, the average temperature of the entire Globe is 0.1 degree warmer than it was 10 years ago.

    Tom: Uh huh. That's very not interesting. I haven't really noticed.

    Bill: I was thinking about throwing $100 trillion dollars at the problem. I figure I can get that number down to 0.05 degrees per decade and only partly destroy the Global economy and kill millions of 3rd worlders.

    Tom: OK, well, good luck with that. Check, please!

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    We calculated that value as 1.1 C (almost 2° Fahrenheit), while climate models estimate that value as 2.3 C (about 4.1° F)"


    How dare you say the Angry Volcano God is only HALF angry, you blasphemer???

  • Longtobefree||

    OMG!!
    The models that have been demonstrably wrong for decades have been found to be wrong again??
    Whoda thunk it?
    Where did the hockey puck ever go?

  • Entelechy||

    OMG??
    It's Christy & Spencer who have been so demonstrably wrong that they published a retraction a decade ago confessing that they had got the sign wrong on the satellite temperture record- UAH misinterpreted warming as cooling from 1979 until their software errors were pointed out in 1999.

    Ron should have pointed this out , as he was aming the victims.

  • Sevo||

    Entelechy|12.5.17 @ 12:29AM|#
    'OMG??
    It's Christy & Spencer who have been so demonstrably wrong that they published a retraction a decade ago confessing that they had got the sign wrong on the satellite temperture record- UAH misinterpreted warming as cooling from 1979 until their software errors were pointed out in 1999.
    Ron should have pointed this out , as he was aming the victims."

    Oh, goody! A lefty twit pointing out that someone admitted an error 10 years ago! How...
    pathetic.
    Hint: those who chose to do science admit to errors when the data says so.

  • Rich||

    Speaking of hot air: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declared unequivocally on Monday that the GOP tax overhaul is the worst legislation ever considered by Congress.

    Nancy "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it" Pelosi? *That* Nancy Pelosi?

  • Entelechy||

    Are the UAH climatologists backing Judge Moore?
    They certainly qualify as his fellow born again Alabamans-

    https://tinyurl.com/y7mb5989

  • Sevo||

    Uh, what was your point, assuming you had one?

  • Entelechy||

    To put it blunlty, don't be obtuse-- Christy and Spencer are devout Dominionists.
    Their sincere faith has got the better of their objectivity, making them the Go To guys for the Evangelical Oil Patch.

  • Sevo||

    Entelechy|12.5.17 @ 1:10AM|#
    "To put it blunlty, don't be obtuse-- Christy and Spencer are devout Dominionists"
    From an ignoramus; see immediately below.

    "Their sincere faith has got the better of their objectivity, making them the Go To guys for the Evangelical Oil Patch."
    Your stupidity is noted, imbecile.
    Are you new here? Did you read the article? Are you one more idiot who showed up to provide evidence that lefty imbeciles are incapable of reading?

  • Entelechy||

    Actually, I'm a Reason contributer, whom Ron has characterized as a "science critic"

    Do your homework for a change.

  • MarkLastname||

    If you're a science critic, you're clearly not a good one. Dismissing research because of the authors' religion is, how do I put it, retarded.

  • Entelechy||

    It takes a true denier to ignore the existence of belief systems like Dominionism and Creationism that actively seek to displace science from the climate wars/

    As noted in the link above, Spencer has been feted as the "Evangelical Climate Scientist of the Year" in a pay for play ceremony in Vegas, but he and Christy have failed to make more than a handfull of converts outside of their graduate students in decades of preaching to the relatively disinterested scientific majority.

    Is their a lot of socially constructed polemic nonsense and PR flummery among climate activists? Sure, but small cults tend to be even less interesting than a large ones,

  • Sevo||

    Entelechy|12.5.17 @ 8:16AM|#
    "It takes a true denier to ignore the existence of belief systems like Dominionism and Creationism that actively seek to displace science from the climate wars"

    It takes a fucking idiot to drag up strawmen like that.
    What do you contribute to Reason? A dose of idiocy?

  • Sevo||

    Oh, and that link is a pathetic attempt as a spoof on Watt's blog.
    Either you knew that, and somehow thought it might be relevant, or you were dumb enough to think it was Watt's blog.
    Neither says much good.

  • Longtobefree||

    Yep, that's the one.
    Evidently she still hasn't read it, or it would be number one on her hit parade.
    Or maybe this is her admitting they did not consider the ACA, they just passed it?

  • damikesc||

    It's not that I hate science. My issue is how much I hate any attempt to dictate policy based on bad science.

  • damikesc||

    It's not that I hate science. My issue is how much I hate any attempt to dictate policy based on bad science.

  • mpercy||

    Even if warming is part of a natural cycle, it does seem quite likely that man is exacerbating the situation. If nothing else, if we could run our societies without belching pollution into the atmosphere, it'd be the better alternative. I look forward to clean fusion plants (now supposedly only 20 years in the future!).

    However, usually the "solution" is just a cloak hiding the proposer's socialist SJW motives.

    For example, the IPCC report on climate change...It does mention climatey things...but mainly the IPCC report seems to be about poverty and income inequality and funding needed to address it.

    IPCC said climate change had the largest impact on people who are socially and economically marginalized:

    "Climate change will exacerbate poverty in low and lower-middle income countries, including high mountain states, countries at risk from sea-level rise, and countries with indigenous peoples, and create new poverty pockets in upper-middle to high-income countries in which inequality is increasing,"

    But funding needed to offset the impact of climate change is lacking, the report goes on, saying developing countries would need between $70 billion to $100 billion a year to implement needed measures. And efforts to reduce the effects of climate change would only have a marginal effect on reducing poverty unless "structural inequalities are addressed and needs for equity among poor and nonpoor people are met."

  • mpercy||

    It's not about climate change or environmentalism, it really hasn't been for a long time...it's about socialist economic policy--redistribution of wealth. The leaders of the movement readily admit as much.

    (OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War... First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

    Christiana Figueres, leader of the U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history."

  • mpercy||

    It's not about climate change or environmentalism, it really hasn't been for a long time...it's about socialist economic policy--redistribution of wealth. The leaders of the movement readily admit as much.

    Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: "We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

    Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: "No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

    Daphne Muller, green-progressive-liberal writer for Salon: "This moment requires we the people to rethink democracy as a global mechanism for enacting policy for and by the planet."

    David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: "The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope."

  • mpercy||

    It's not about climate change or environmentalism, it really hasn't been for a long time...it's about socialist economic policy--redistribution of wealth. The leaders of the movement readily admit as much.

    Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: "A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources."

    Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: "It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians' — and readers' — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today's world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."

    Researcher Robert Phalen's 2010 testimony to the California Air Resources Board: "It benefits us personally to have the public be afraid, even if these risks are trivial."

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    What do the climate models show happens when we've used up all the fossil fuels?

  • Mitsima||

    Blah blah, blah blah blah. We have ski-jumps in Abu Dhabi & saunas in Siberia. We grow food in deserts and turn swamps into cities. Come what may we'll make the most of it, assuming we don't surrender ourselves to Gaia in which case we should go the way of the dinosaur.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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