MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Global Warming Likely to Be 30 to 45 Percent Lower Than Climate Models Project

A new study in the Journal of Climate compares global temperature data trends since 1850 with model outputs.

GlobalWarmingAndrewParfenovDreamstimeAndrew Parfenov/DreamstimeClimate researchers have spent decades trying to pin down the planet's equilibrium climate sensitivity. Also known by the initials ECS, that figure represents how much it would ultimately increase global average temperatures if the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles above the pre-industrial level.

Figuring out the ECS has huge implications for policy. If future warming is at the low end, humanity has more time to adapt and to shift energy production away from the fossil fuels that are loading up the atmosphere with extra carbon dioxide. If at the high end, efforts to adapt and shift energy production to low-carbon sources would need to be speeded up. The current assessment of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that ECS is likely to be in the range of 1.5°C to 4.5°C, extremely unlikely to be less than 1°C, and very unlikely to be greater than 6°C.

But a new study in the Journal of Climate suggests that the IPCC's estimates are much too high. In calculating their rival figures, authors Nicholas Lewis and Judith Curry take into account historical atmospheric and ocean temperature trends since the mid-19th century. Their estimates also draw on new findings since 1990 of how atmospheric ozone and aerosols are likely to affect global temperature trends. (They also address other researchers' concerns about an earlier ECS study that they published in 2015.)

"Our results imply that, for any future emissions scenario, future warming is likely to be substantially lower than the central computer model-simulated level projected by the IPCC, and highly unlikely to exceed that level," Lewis says in a press release from the Global Warming Policy Forum.

How much lower? Their median ECS estimate of 1.66°C (5–95% uncertainty range: 1.15–2.7°C) is derived using globally complete temperature data. The comparable estimate for 31 current generation computer climate simulation models cited by the IPCC is 3.1°C. In other words, the models are running almost two times hotter than the analysis of historical data suggests that future temperatures will be.

In addition, the high-end estimate of Lewis and Curry's uncertainty range is 1.8°C below the IPCC's high-end estimate.

Lewis and Curry's estimates are in line with the similarly low estimates reported by climatologists Thorsten Mauritsen of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology and Robert Pincus of the University of Colorado in the July 2017 issue of Nature Climate Change. Using historical temperature data, those two researchers calculated an ECS of 1.5°C (0.9–3.6°C, 5th–95th percentile).

If these two studies turn out to be right, that will be good news for humanity.

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.

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    This is my shocked font

  • SQRLSY One||

    Did these researchers ever drive in any vehicle powered by fossil fuel? If so, their research is highly suspect!

    Also, they will NOT be getting ANY more funding from Government Almighty!!!

  • Teenage girl||

    What-EVER

  • Mr. Gus||

    So, what's a girl like you doing in a place like this?

  • Christophe||

    Backpage did get shut down recently.

  • Aloysious||

    Hey, baby.
    ...ummmm, asking for a friend. Crusty.

  • plusafdotcom||

    Come here often, cutie?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Is Bailey telling me we're in for Global Cooling now??? Because around here winter went well into April and just about everyone lost his shit. Let's see if we can't make those computer models reality, people!

  • Libertymike||

    Did you see how I stuck up for your stinkin' Steelers this morning regarding Jesse James' catch? How many Massholes would do that?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    People always go to the rules for a reception but completely ignore the more applicable in this case rules for a touchdown.

    However, yes, it was noted, and therefor your name went on the list of those who will be spared.

  • John||

    The rules for the reception take precedence over the rules for a touchdown. You can't have a touchdown until you have a reception.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    You can have a reception with froot sushi cocktails, but I'd watch whose downy you touch.

  • John||

    Speaking of massholes, Mike, what is up with the Patriots and Brady's trainer? I am starting to get the feeling Belicheck is tired of waiting for Brady to retire and with it the chance to win without him thus proving he deserves credit for all of their winning and is trying to run him off. Why else pick a fight with your HOF QB?

  • Libertymike||

    The last week or so, there have been callers to both Boston's big sports talk stations complaining that there has not been enough Bruins or Celtics talk because of the Brady / Belicheck / Gronk / Kraft / Guerrero situations.

    You might have heard that Lamar Jackson paid a visit to Foxborough. I doubt that Belicheck would pick him with the Pats' first round pick which is at 23. But, the fact that the 2016 Heisman winner came and met with the Hoodie, fueled a couple of days of speculation.

    You might have also heard that Gronk held a press conference the other day, AT GILETTE STADIUM, at which he said the reason he was not and would not be attending OTAs was "because I've got dirt biking skills to work on." The press conference was to promote a Monster Energy Motor Cross event.

    All this is happening while both winter teams are in the playoffs and with the Red Sox' historic start.

  • Libertymike||

    So, yeah, you could understand why Belicheck might be seething. He has Brady and Gronk and Kraft working at cross purposes. Don't forget, it was probably Kraft who ordered Bill to trade Jimmy Garopolo.

  • John||

    I think Brady is tired of Bellicheck's shit as well. Belicheck treats everyone like a dog and I can understand where Brady would get tired of being treated like that. I have a real feeling that Brady might be playing somewhere else next year. Brady is one of the few or maybe the only guy in the NFL who could force a trade like the NBA guys can if he wanted to. And it seems like both him and Belicheck have gotten on each other's last nerve.

  • Libertymike||

    Over the weekend, a caller to 98.5 The Sports Hub opined that Brady pushed Kraft to force Belicheck to trade Jimmy G. and that Brady has deliberately angled to leave the Patriots in order to demonstrate that Belicheck can't win without him.

    Yes, I agree with you if I am Brady. How could you (the royal you) argue that you would handle it any differently if you were Brady? Besides, his wife does want him to retire and he does have other interests. It may have come to the point where he is asking himself, why do I have to deal with this shit any longer.

    Kind of reminds me of the lyrics to "Don't You Want Me" - in that, yes, Brady was, metaphorically, working as a waitress at a cocktail bar, but he knew that he would have become the GOAT, with or without Belicheck.

  • John||

    Send Brady to the Jets and let him and Belichick play each other for a couple of years. That would be made for TV entertainment.

  • Libertymike||

    That would be tremendous. Can you imagine Joe Beningo of WFAN, the consummate long suffering Jet fan (have you ever listened to him - I love the guy - he's on during the midday).

    This morning I said that George Atkinson is my favorite NFL Top Ten contributor. Joe Beningo has my favorite line in the programming. One of the episodes is entitled, "Top Ten NFL QB Teases." Former Jet Richard Todd was on the list and Beningo said, "No one was ever better at hitting the open linebacker."

  • TLBD||

    Belichick has 1 or MAYBE 2 years left. McDaniels didn't turn down a head coaching job to stay OC for much longer.

    Regardless, Brady and Belichick are fine. Brady isn't going anywhere, and he has 2 or 3 good years left in him. Long enough to train up his replacement.

    Gronk is a doofus, like he always has been, but he is good, so we put up with him.

  • John||

    McDaniels is such a skeezeball. He so deserves the job of following Belichick without Tom Brady. The paybacks are going to be hell for the first few years.

  • Libertymike||

    Nothing to see hear, move along?

    Yeah, given Brady's track record and all, the house money says he is back.

    But, wouldn't you just love the local sports media, i.e., WEEI and 98.5, and the rags like the Globe and the Herald, plus the national media, having a "Brady decides to retire on eve of training camp" story?

    Its so amusing........the drama, the histrionics, of the whole thing at a time when Patriot Nation knows that a significant majority of football fans, nationwide, think Brady is the GOAT. That argument has been sealed. If anyone were to argue the merits of Montana or Manning or Breeze or Unitas or Otto Graham over Brady, I submit that I would do as good a job as anybody else making the case, but knowing that Brady has the better argument.

    Year by year, a consensus has emerged that the Hoodie is the GOAT. His support as the GOAT of head coaches does not appear to be as strong as TB's is for the QB GOAT. The Overton Window of credible arguments that could be made in behalf of Shula, Noll, Lombardi, Landry, and Brown over the Hoodie, is closing and fast.

    I don't think the rest of the country appreciates what a great man we lost last week in Gil Santos.

  • Libertymike||

    Oops, forget Bill Walsh.

    Gil Santos had some of the best play-by-play pipes of any broadcaster I have ever heard.

    You Tampa H know that Gene Deckerhoff, radio play-by-play voice of the Seminoles and the BUCS (not our BUCS) has some awesome pipes.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Seminoles and the BUCS (not our BUCS)

    That actually is me.

  • TLBD||

    Well, I like the Patriots winning... so I'm not too keen on the drama. :)

    But it seems that our sports media has taken its cues from the MSM. I can't really believe much of anything they write anymore. They hate certain groups and have an audience that will pay them to spew hate about certain groups. Local stations live off the drama. Most of it is bullshit now-a-days. I get it to a certain extent, but its just not for me.

    Either way, the argument for coaches is different than QBs. I also doubt BB cares much what other people think about him. If he thinks he is the greatest coach ever, I think that is enough for him.

  • Cyto||

    but he knew that he would have become the GOAT, with or without Belicheck.

    That's just a silly notion. If he had instead been drafted by the Browns he would have been out of the league in a few years, having never had a winning season. Or he could have gone to Miami and lead them to mediocrity for a decade.

    Some franchises are better than others, and not all opportunities are the same.

  • General_Tso||

    I take most of it as hype. Media people that hate Belichick's utter disdain for having to get up and answer their questions regarding Brady's body language or cryptic social media comments.

    The sports talk in the Boston area has been sliding downhill steadily for the last couple of years.

    Gronk has now said he will be here and playing for the Pats for this season anyway. Weeks and weeks of speculation that didn't mean a thing.

  • TLBD||

    You mean Jesse James drop?

    Rules are rules. I thought it was a catch but as soon as I saw the replay I said "nah, getting overturned".

    I may be in the minority, but I like the rule as it is.

    The solution is to hold on to the damn ball, then you don't have to worry about it.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Where are you? I'm in Wisconsin, my first above freezing dawn, was April 19th.

    We were promised (threatened with) global warming. Where's my global warming! I want my global warming!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Uh, it's widely known that I'm in rural Western Pennsylvania. Get with the program, cheesehead.

  • Mr. Gus||

    Ah, West Virginia with a worse dental plan.

  • plusafdotcom||

    "rural Western Pennsylvania..."

    Ah, but you repeat yourself...

  • Devastator||

    How the fuck did you get that out of this article? He flat out said 30-45 percent lower than the current projected -increase-. Did you skip your 5th+ grades of math?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Some of us are more adept than others at reading between the lines, it appears.

  • Sevo||

    "How the fuck did you get that out of this article? He flat out said 30-45 percent lower than the current projected -increase-. Did you skip your 5th+ grades of math?"

    Did you miss 3rd-grade-classification?
    WTF are you posting about. Please include a quote, dimbulb.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    It's been snowing pretty much all day in Denver.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Denver doesn't count. Everyone knows that.

  • Rhywun||

    But we still get to spend trillions of dollars to "fix" it, right?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    This requires a grassroots movement. Everyone in northern climates need to start leaving their windows open while the heaters on.

  • Devastator||

    Yeah it's nice of the 3rd world to spend everyone's cash for them. Right? We all know those leaders are completely honest. Whether we have global warming or not, the climate is always changing and the organisms on earth have always adapted. If you are stupid enough to settle at sea level then be prepared to deal with the consequences.

  • Rich||

    If these two studies turn out to be right, that will be good news for humanity.

    What are polar bears, chopped liver?

  • Tray Wilshire||

    Sometimes.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    And then you die from vitamin A poisoning.

  • Tray Wilshire||

    "You're mentally weak" - Derek Jeter

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    And you're towel.

  • Mr. Gus||

    *your

  • Rat on a train||

    You're the worst character ever.

  • General_Tso||

    In China, yes

  • Devastator||

    The Chinese are going to eat all the bears anyway or use them for medicine, when brown bears are killed off they'll go for polar bears.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    What are black bears, chopped liver?

  • Conchfritters||

    They're overgrown raccoons.

  • Rossami||

    By all measured data, polar bears are doing great, continuing to bounce back in population and aggregate health from their near-extinction by overhunting. In fact, the Nunatsiavut wildlife manager (one of the people who oversee the indigenous hunts of polar bears) recently told CBC Radio's Labrador Morning "There are lots of signs of bears. Lots of bears and a continuation of what we've seen over the last three or four years." and that "our polar bear population is very, very healthy".

    People seem to forget that polar bears evolved some 200,000 years ago - the species has already survived climate swings more severe than even the IPCC's worst-case scenario.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Rossami, none of that fits the progressive narrative.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Tangentially: I never understood why some environmental groups haven't ever praised the US's dedication, even if misguided, efforts such as protecting endangered species. Or cleaner rivers. Cleaner air, etc, etc.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Actually I do understand. Ignore my question...

    But the reason they don't praise any of that because their end goals were never about conservation, clean air, or any other environmental concern.

    It's always been a religion, dedicated to punishing the original sin of humans living (though they would call it over-consumption).

    Which is also why only through government do they think they can succeed. It's not as if alternate paths don't exist, but only governments have the monopoly of the user of force.

    And only with appropriate force can one truly punish those who most deserve it.

  • colorblindkid||

    More time to build nuclear plants and develop new tech. Too bad the science-hating Luddite environmentalists have waged a fact-free fear-mongering campaign against nuclear energy for 40 years.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yeah, Obama helped Southern Co out with new reactors. The environmentalists lost to cheap energy and the all-of-the-above energy policy of 44.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Another bullshit statement from one of our resident disingenuous idiots.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Obama announced Tuesday over $8 billion in federal support for two new nuclear power plants in Georgia, setting the stage for what could be the first completed reactor in this country in over three decades.

    The money, coming in the form of loan guarantees, is going to build two new reactors at Southern Company's Vogtle plant facility, located some 170 miles east of Atlanta.

    In announcing the grant at an electrical worker's union hall in Maryland, Obama used to occasion to tout the benefits of nuclear power.

    You are wrong yet again.

  • colorblindkid||

    But he also killed Yucca Mountain due to Harry Reid's bullshit lies. Obama was no environmentalist. I'm talking about the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, The Audubon Society, and every other major environmental group who STILL to this day oppose nuclear energy based entirely on bullshit science.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I'm not wrong. I just should have specified which part of your statement was bullshit. Obama most certainly did not support "all of the above" energy policy. He supports leftist bullshit, with maybe a smattering of other shit based on graft and corruption.

    I don't give a shit about him paying lip service to some token nuke project. Most likely he was getting paid for this one.

  • Devastator||

    The only reason I suppose global warming conspiracies is that I that I would love for us to go all electric with nuke reactors. I don't really believe in global warming, but I'm sick of hearing about pollution and fossil fuels. Ruins my news feed.

  • The Last American Hero||

    You think the panic would end then? How cute.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    You know who else is running almost two times hotter than the analysis of historical data suggests?

  • Rich||

    Stormy Daniels?

  • Libertymike||

    With those saggy tits and that weathered face?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Milves are my jam.

  • Libertymike||

    Tall, slim ones, preferably with smaller ta-tas.

    Bodacious ta-tas may be what David Keith desires, but not for me.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Is that an 'Officer and a Gentleman" reference? How old are you?

  • Libertymike||

    Yes, it is and its also a reminder of what a great actor Mr. Keith was / is.

    I be 55.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I like them thiiiiiiiicccccccccccc to use the vernacular.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

  • Devastator||

    They're hardly saggy, they have so much silicon scaffolding they would make for a great place to build a house foundation.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    They're certainly useful for putting.......things between them. Possibly moving those aforementioned things back and forth rhythmically, until certain things pulse and spasm, thereby releasing other things onto her neck. Perhaps a necklace of the pearl variety. Or at least so her previous acting work suggests.

  • Mr. Gus||

    Kenyans?

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Haas F1 Team?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Ocean front real estate down 7% in price due to rising ocean level.

    https://goo.gl/CCpj2L

    (the dirty hippies at the Wall St Journal for you denialists)

  • John||

    The WSJ is outside of its editorial page one of the most liberal newspapers in the country. Is there anything you don't lie about? Anything?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yeah, I saw where they were designated "liberal" because they were pro-science and anti-Creationist. You wingnuts want your Creationism mixed in your news.

  • damikesc||

    Remember --- SCIENCE~!!! has remarkable affinity and faith in scientific models that have never been correct to support a theory with zero predictive value.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It doesn't say what he says it says, and even when he quotes things, half the time he doesn't understand what it means.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Ken, you might want to post .jpgs of pictures of things you want to communicate to PB. He might be illiterate. Not uncommon for progs like him.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You missed it, John, but yesterday, Shrike said I was an idiot because I didn't know that Obama's Iran deal completely prohibits the Iranians from enriching their own uranium forever.

    Not only is Shrike an ignoramus, he's unabashedly so--immune to being embarrassed for having his monumental ignorance exposed--and quick to call other people stupid for knowing things he doesn't know.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Shrike said I was an idiot because I didn't know that Obama's Iran deal completely prohibits the Iranians from enriching their own uranium forever.

    Not forever - 10 years.

    And weapons grade enrichment is prohibited by the treaty.

    I noticed the Dotard embarrassed himself today by calling the NNP deal "insane" in front of the French PM who supports it 100%

    Typical asshole the Dotard. Then he said the French PM had dandruff. I shit you not.

  • John||

    Not forever - 10 years.

    And leaves them with the ability to restart enrichment at any time and with however much HIU they already have enriched on hand. Obama gave them hundreds of billions of dollars and let them back into the international community in return for a promise they wouldn't build a bomb until he was well out of office. That is just some top flight diplomacy there. What a rube.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Obama didn't give them shit, liar.

    Unfreezing their assets is not "giving". You lie like the Dotard.

  • damikesc||

    Explains the airplane full of pallets of cash that was TOTALLY different than ransom...

  • Elias Fakaname||

    PB.......dumbfuck..........you do realize that striking a deal largely enforced by the assurances of the other party (who is historically a bunch of lying, terror sponsoring jackals) is probably not worth the paper its printed on, right? In no way is that agreement a magic document that compels them, like the Lasso of Hestia, to do the bidding of the deal.

    But oh, that's right, OBAMA signed it. So it's fucking sacred right?

    Stupid brain dead asshole. If you don't get at least a 90% discount at the mindreader's, then you're being ripped off.

  • Libertymike||

    He mentioned the dandruff because he would like to "Storm" Madame Macron's Bastille.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Ha! Is that why Melania wouldn't let the fat beast hold her hand?

  • Libertymike||

    Didn't you hear that Trump complimented Madame Macron on her fit body?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Good thing a deal like that magically prevents them from going back on their end. Like how NK has been forced to keep their word on all their agreements over the last 25 years.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Shrike is lying.

    This is what I wrote:

    "Because Obama foolishly let them off the hook isn't an indictment of the NPT. It's an indictment of Obama's naivete, philosophy, and leadership."

    ----Ken Shultz

    This is what Shrike wrote in response:

    "You're an idiot.

    Stopping their nuclear enrichment program cold is not "foolishly letting them off the hook".

    ----Palin's Buttplug

    See for yourself:

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_7236813

    Shrike has no idea what he's talking about half the time, and the other half of the time, he's willfully misrepresenting the truth.

  • Finrod||

    You're underestimating him. Sometimes he manages to have no idea what he's talking about AND is willfully misrepresenting the truth.

  • Devastator||

    hardly. I doubt you've ever read a WSJ if you think that. Unless you're one of those crazies in a cabin claiming you are a sovereign country of 1 acre.

  • John||

    And that article is comical. It cites a research paper that says home values near sea level in Miami are rising more slowly than those above sea level. Wow, people don't want to live on the beach in an area known for hurricanes. That is totally global warming.

    my God you are stupid. Just epically stupid. So stupid you think everyone else is just as dumb.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    "To see them really separate is pretty shocking, because you can infer that this is a pricing signal from climate change."

    Read again, dipshit. It is not hurricanes.

  • John||

    "To see them really separate is pretty shocking, because you can infer that this is a pricing signal from climate change."

    Sure you can infer that if you are retarded. The study was about housing prices in Miami. The reluctance of people to live at sea level in a city known for hurricanes has nothing to do with global warming.

  • Devastator||

    LMFAO are you intimating that the hurricane stops on the beach? Hurricanes effect several miles inland as well, and that's hardly "beach front" real estates. Hurricanes will affect values for the whole area, not just the houses on the beach. Conversely if the sea is rising, and people consider that, then the people looking to buy on the beach would definitely be concerned and lead to lower prices if they believe all the malarkey about global warming.

  • John||

    LMFAO are you intimating that the hurricane stops on the beach?

    No I am saying that being away from the beach is a good thing during one.

    Hurricanes effect several miles inland as well, and that's hardly "beach front" real estates. Hurricanes will affect values for the whole area, not just the houses on the beach.

    Sure they do. But they will affect those at the beach more. The most devastating part of a hurricane is the storm surge. That is what kills people and makes neighborhoods into debris fields. If you are not in the storm surge, even the worst hurricane is likely to at most take off your roof and leave you without power.

    You are just talking out of your ass here. Try again.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Progtards be progtardin'!

  • Tray Wilshire||

    There has also been a vocal, yet currently subdued segment of the population that objects to subsidizing the rebuilding of people who restrict their access to the beach.

  • Cyto||

    I live in the area. Even that notion is not accurate.

    Prices on the water are rising more slowly because they didn't fall as far in the crash. We are still below water, so to speak, with respect to the peak of the bubble. Lots of really nice houses were built away from the water that were only built and bought in order to speculate. So there was a ton of inventory that was only owned by speculators. When the market tanked, the demand dried up and supply was a glut.

    They only make so much waterfront, so that is a self-limiting supply. As the crash has recovered, all those nice properties finally have been bought up, and prices have started rising sharply. On the water the crash was less severe, and the recovery is concomitantly less dramatic.

    Anyone who is writing about housing prices in this area who isn't familiar with that phenomenon ... well, they shouldn't be writing about housing prices in this area. Trying to tie it to climate change is just stupid. We are many, many years away from climate change induced sea level rise affecting housing.

  • Juice||

    Oceanfront property in one location based on buyers perception of what might happen in the future. What a goofy non-sequitur.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Did you read the article?

    Did you even bother to read the sub-headline?

    "Properties on the coast now trade at discounts as flood waters and 'king tides' damp enthusiasm for oceanfront living"

    If people buy pills from spambots claiming that they will make their penises larger, that doesn't mean it's rational--because markets.

    Avoiding properties in Florida that have recently flooded during hurricanes isn't necessarily about global warming either.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Letters shows that single-family homes in Miami-Dade County are rising in value more slowly near sea level than at higher elevations, as buyers weigh the possibilities of more-frequent minor flooding in the short term and the challenge of reselling... ""

    Weigh the possibilities of more frequent minor flooding, which is not the same as rising sea levels in the permanent sense.

    It is NOT due to rising ocean levels. Since there is no claim that they have.

  • Greg F||

    Ocean front real estate down 7% in price due to rising ocean level.


    Science is hard

    The graphs compare the 95% confidence intervals of relative sea level trends. Trends with the narrowest confidence intervals are based on the longest data sets. Trends with the widest confidence intervals are based on only 30-40 years of data. The graphs give an indication of the differing rates of vertical land motion, given that the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7 +/- 0.3 millimeters/year.during the 20th century.


    Sea levels have been going up since the beginning of the interglacial about 12,000 years ago. Irrational reactions in the market not withstanding.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Miami is way out of that pattern.

    One reason is that water levels here are rising especially quickly. The most frequently-used range of estimates puts the likely range between 15-25cm (6-10in) above 1992 levels by 2030, and 79-155cm (31-61in) by 2100. With tides higher than they have been in decades – and far higher than when this swampy, tropical corner of the US began to be drained and built on a century ago – many of south Florida's drainage systems and seawalls are no longer enough. That means not only more flooding, but challenges for the infrastructure that residents depend on every day, from septic tanks to wells. "The consequences of sea level rise are going to occur way before the high tide reaches your doorstep," says William Sweet, an oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    http://www.bbc.com/future/stor.....level-rise

  • Greg F||

    Miami is way out of that pattern.


    Miami is sinking you dumb ass. See the 3rd graph down. The BBC are idiots.

  • Agammamon||

    if Miami is way out of that pattern then its not because of sea level rise, is it?

    Or are you, seriously, claiming that global warming is making the sea level riae faster in some areas than in others?

    Proofread your shit man.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Most sea level change stats ignore how ground sinks when you suck groundwater out of it. If the ocean really is rising, you'd expect consistency in how much rise from one station to another nearby. There's too much inconsistency to put any faith in the measurements.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    I really wish someone would hire an MS-13 cholo to pay you a visit at 1435 Euclid Street and Seth Rich your sorry ass.

  • Mr. Gus||

    So everybody, what would happen if we put a cock ring on a buttplug? Do you think we'd finally get some peace and quiet?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Fucking hate their paywall.

  • ||

    Ocean front real estate down 7% in price due to rising ocean level.

    If I were going to build 100 units in Miami as quickly as possible and wanted to recoup as much of my costs as possible, beach front wouldn't be my starting place with or without global warming.

  • John||

    Figuring out the ECS has huge implications for policy. If future warming is at the low end, humanity has more time to adapt and to shift energy production away from the fossil fuels that are loading up the atmosphere with extra carbon dioxide.

    No Ron, it will further allow us to not give a shit and continue to enjoy a high standard of living thanks to fossil fuels. Please take your environmental religion elsewhere.

  • Jerryskids||

    You ain't right in the head, John.

    If future warming is at the low end, humanity has more time to adapt and to shift energy production away from the fossil fuels that are loading up the atmosphere with extra carbon dioxide.

    Humans tend to be lazy morons who have to be pushed to prefer long-term gains over short-term benefits. If we tell them they have 40 years to fix the problem, they won't worry about it for 39. This is why we have to lie to them and tell them the world is going to end next week, so they'll get off their lazy asses and do something to fix the problem now instead of waiting until the last minute. See, it's not really lying when you're speaking untruths in the service of a greater Truthiness.

    It's like when you take your child to a doctor to get vaccinated and you promise your child he's not going to have to get a shot. When he then gets a shot, he doesn't start angrily crying that Daddy has tricked him and lied to him and that he can never trust Daddy again, he then better appreciates how much Daddy cares about him that Daddy's willing to tell him lies and trick him for his own good.

    In this scenario, government is Daddy and you're a little child who doesn't know what's for your own good, so shut the hell up or Daddy's going to get out the belt.

  • John||

    And if it turns out the various "TOP MEN" were wrong and preventing this "disaster" was unnecessary and does more harm than good, well, it was probably for the best anyway because people consume too much as it is.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Jerry, my folks always told me when a vaccination was coming. But then, I was never a little Pusey who couldn't handle a shot. Probably the same reason I am a real American, and never turned into a purse clutching, pants shitting, SJW. Progtard, AGW fanatic Marxist.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Why does Reason allow Bailey to pursue his obsession with science fiction/ progressive fan fiction in their publication? Would he also allow Bailey to also write his K/S slash (Kirk Spock homosexual porn fiction) here?

  • John||

    If these two studies turn out to be right, that will be good news for humanity.

    They could be wrong because they also overestimate the amount of warming attributed to man-made emissions. Ron assumes these are a best case scenario rather than just the beginning of a long-term correction and debunking of this nonsense.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    You guys should really comment more over at the Volokh Conspiracy. You could meet the love of your life.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Don't cross the streams, man!

  • TLBD||

    Reason doesn't display it very well. I forget that it is there sometimes. Eventually I will get used to it.

    They should keep it next to Hit and Run, imo.

  • John||

    As hard as I am on Reason, they at least manage to be interesting. The Volokh Conspiracy is painfully earnest and boring. How many "the Travel ban is wrong because Trump once said bad things about the sacred Muslims" posts can you have?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    As many as it takes to change your mind, John.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    You have a Trumptastic day Chip.

  • Libertymike||

    Well, it is always nice to see young barristers betroth.

    Although those two met the love of their life, if I were Arthur Kirkland, I wouldn't get my hopes up.

  • John||

    If the internet proves one thing, it is that there is a freak for everyone.

  • Libertymike||

    In other words, a freak for every shreek.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Well, no, he's the exception that proves the rule.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Anyway, the same thing happened on Hit'n'Run once many years ago, and the ultimate result was the Glibbening. Do we really want to go down that sorry road again?

  • John||

    What romance caused the Glibbening?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Sloopy + banjos 4eva. They met because of Hit'n'Run, setting in motion a series of events that led to them naming one of their kids Reason and even being used by this magazine in fundraising materials, which led to them feeling particularly ill-served when Sloopy's mom was mistreated by a cop and KM-W wouldn't cover it.

  • John||

    I didn't realize they actually met on hit and run. yeah, that really is a cautionary tale.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    This in turn was the primary catalyst for the creation of the Other Site and the departure of many more or less valued regulars for it.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    One of their kids is named Reason?

    "Mommy, where does my name come from?"

    "We don't talk about that, sweetheart. Now go and play with your brother, Glibbington."

  • John||

    Yes they are Chipper. And that is seriously fucked up.

  • Libertymike||

    John, I always liked Sloop. He really loved his Buckeyes.

  • John||

    I did too. But I never got the reason thing.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Some parents are just determined to screw their kid over socially and ensure regular bullying with requisite wedgies, atomic wedgies, and the occasional dreaded rear admiral.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Not libertarian enough for me over there. I just know if keep hanging here I'll meet my perfect, super libertarian, Catholic wife.

  • Libertymike||

    A prettier female version of Tom Woods?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    This is BUCS we're talking about. Neither prettier nor female is an absolutely necessary condition.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Prettier, no because I care about the heart of the individual. Female, eh, probably I want kids. If science advances suddenly then this is more open.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I want kids

    Oh my God.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I consider myself the bleeding edge of Generation Z, rather than Millennials. And we're the most conservative generation, ever, ever. We're modern day Jansenists.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    The image of 6'8" tall BUCS and Tom Woods strolling hand-in-hand is enough to warm even the coldest heart.

  • Agammamon||

    Tony! Hey, TONY!

    'Catastrophic', remember?

  • Tony||

    Hey... you! "It's all a hoax" remember?

  • Agammamon||

    Nope. I've never said it was a hoax.

    Only that the CO2 feedback cycle is both not as sensitive as bandied about by activists and not a positive feedback loop so that the results of any anthropogenic activity on the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will not be 'catastrophic'.

    And even the IPCC reports agree with that statement in their lower end predictions.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I think you lost Tony at "nope".

  • John||

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....t-abortion

    Can someone please explain to me why Kevin Williamson thinks everyone owes him a job? He is now whining that the New Yorker doesn't want to publish him. Apparently, the unwillingness to publish anything Williamson pulls out of his ass is the death of journalism or something. Christ what an asshole.

  • Mr. Gus||

    Incidentally, that's exactly why the New Yorker should be publishing him.

  • John||

    Because he is an asshole? yeah, I can see that.

  • El Oso||

    I predict that global warming in the next 100 years will be no greater than in the past 100 years. There, you have my non-expert opinion, for what it is worth...

  • Bob Armstrong||

  • Juice||

    The rate isn't linear (°C per concentration of CO2), it's logarithmic (°C per doubling of concentration of CO2), assuming no feedbacks.

  • damikesc||

    Models wrong?

    Again?

    Color me amazed.

    But, remember, doubting models that have never been correct is STILL "anti-science".

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Doubting models in general is one of the central tenets of science.

    But that's not really the criticism. The criticism is the outright rejection of all science by those who seem to think that the global conspiracy of scientists prevent studies from being conducted or published. Hopefully this study (and the many many studies like it that cast doubt on some of the models) serves as a nail in the coffin to that ridiculous argument.

  • John||

    Yeah because it is not like scientists have not engaged in massive careerist group think in support of something that turned out to be completely false and ruined the careers of anyone who dissented or anything. It is not like that hasn't happened multiple times in multiple fields or anything.

    Let me guess, you love science sexually ?

  • Roger Knights||

    This study (and tt previous Nic Lewis paper) chimed ww results fr oth scientists (eg Otto) and was done in a professionally presented way (thx to Curry) so it needed little editing and was hard to find fault with. Plus, it would have been dangerous to fail to publish such a well-done paper. I.e., it would give credence to claims of a conspiracy to suppress.

    The acceptance of such a paper, which meets a high bar of credibility, doesn't imply that skeptical papers that aren't as outstanding don't have to meet a higher bar than conformist papers. It is not a ridiculous argument to claim that—it's supported by many cases, although all are "anecdotal"—as though using that boo-word to dismiss such necessarily anecdotal claims is absurd.

    BTW, we don't know how many journals passed on this paper before it got accepted, a consideration a critical thinker would have put that into his hopper before claiming that its publication anywhere means it would have been accepted everywhere.

  • Sevo||

    Roger Knights|4.24.18 @ 8:15PM|#
    "This study (and tt previous Nic Lewis paper) chimed ww results fr oth scientists (eg Otto) and was done in a professionally presented way (thx to Curry) so it needed little editing and was hard to find fault with. Plus, it would have been dangerous to fail to publish such a well-done paper. I.e., it would give credence to claims of a conspiracy to suppress."
    So it was published protect the outlets from accusations of political bias? I'm sure you could be more clear if you tried; we're adults here.

    "The acceptance of such a paper, which meets a high bar of credibility, doesn't imply that skeptical papers that aren't as outstanding don't have to meet a higher bar than conformist papers. It is not a ridiculous argument to claim that—it's supported by many cases, although all are "anecdotal"—as though using that boo-word to dismiss such necessarily anecdotal claims is absurd.
    Wanna try that in English?

    "BTW, we don't know how many journals passed on this paper before it got accepted, a consideration a critical thinker would have put that into his hopper before claiming that its publication anywhere means it would have been accepted everywhere."
    Didn't see that claim made; cite?

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Being accepted everywhere isn't a requirement. The point is that the message is not being suppressed, as evidenced by the fact that this paper was published in a very good journal (as well as many other "skeptic" papers, which have been published in some of the most prestigious journals in the field). In other words, it passed peer review. In other, other words, there isn't a "consensus" and it's not "settled science". You don't have to shoot the messenger anymore. Rejoice.

    My suggestion to you is to stop arguing with anti-science democrats with a political axe to grind. Then you won't have to rely on conspiracy theories quite as much.

  • damikesc||

    Doubting models in general is one of the central tenets of science.

    Except...it isn't.

    The "science" of climate science is largely based on models that have never --- literally, not once --- been correct. They have predicted literally nothing.

    Yet the question "Is this actually correct?" is not asked. It's always "Well, we just have to get better models".

    Why do NONE of the scientists use the old method of proving the null hypothesis? If nothing is able to falsify a theory --- and with climate science, none of it can be made false --- then you do not have science. You have a religion.

    For "science", what would it take to show that the entire global warming movement is simply wrong? Everything that disproves it --- such as the whole "The earth hasn't warmed in a while now" --- they simply go back and "reinterpret" their measurements to "produce" warming.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    The "science" of climate science is largely based on models that have never --- literally, not once --- been correct. They have predicted literally nothing.

    Imperfect models don't invalidate the scientific approach or the veracity of the results. It just means we have shitty models. That's it and nothing more. We're in exactly the same boat in cancer research, by the way, but I'm pretty sure if you were diagnosed you'd use every shitty model you could (I gave a lecture just this morning on the shitty-ness of cancer models...and why they're so useful).

    The question becomes: what do we DO with that information? Do we start shaping government policy based on these models? No way, it's too premature IMO. Conversely, we also shouldn't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, declaring all climate science a fraud, and that scientists as a whole are knowingly falsifying data or engaging in other unacceptable behaviors.

    Let's create better models. This paper is a step in the right direction. A baby one, but a step nonetheless.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Imperfect models don't invalidate the scientific approach or the veracity of the results. It just means we have shitty models. That's it and nothing more. We're in exactly the same boat in cancer research...

    Sorry, but your analogy is false. As while we cannot correctly model cancer, the models aren't attempting to prove cancers' existence. We have a century or more of good medics medical science to prove cancer exists.

    For climate change however, the models are the proof of its existence.

    So in cancer's case, lack of model doesn't affect our belief in its existence, but for climate change, it does.

    If you need proof, drop by any very active environmental activist website or HuffPo or any number of similar sites and mention the models have had zero predictive value and nothing more.

    They will call you a denier, because they understand, without faith in the scientific models, they have no proof of their assertions.

  • Conchfritters||

    It's not getting hot in here?? So DON'T take off all your clothes??

    Nelly hardest hit.

  • ||

    If future warming is at the low end, humanity has more time to adapt and to shift energy production away from the fossil fuels that are loading up the atmosphere with extra carbon dioxide.

    If I take a century to put a couple of 2'x2'x2' boxes in a 100' shipping container am I loading it up?

    We're so much closer to CO2 starved than we are to CO2 stuffed it's not even funny.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    If these two studies turn out to be right, that will be good news for humanity.

    Unless of course one doesn't give two shits about humanity and one's goal is to use the impending doom to generate enough fear to increase state control of the energy industry and redistribute wealth from "rich countries" to "poor countries."

  • creech||

    So exactly how do "carbon tax credits" work? A long, turgid letter in today's paper said that a carbon tax would vastly allieviate climate warming and, get this, the vast majority of us would actually get more money back when the tax was re-distributed than we paid in through higher taxes on carbon based fuels. My question is "where then is my incentive to stop using carbon fuels if I'm going to get a check every year that is higher than my expenses?"

  • Christophe||

    Assuming that the model being proposed is "tax everyone by CO2 emission, redistribute equally per person".

    My question is "where then is my incentive to stop using carbon fuels if I'm going to get a check every year that is higher than my expenses?"

    If the tax is $5 a ton of CO2 and your marginal cost to reduce emissions by 1 ton is less than that, you still benefit financially from cutting emissions at the margin, even if you're already a net beneficiary of the transfer payment. It's the marginal benefit/cost that affects your behaviour, not the total or average.

    Unless they do something stupid like make it a non-refundable credit. Then some people will have an incentive to use-up their remaining carbon budget on someone else's behalf (in exchange for payment).

    But anyone saying the government will not immediately spend the money on stuff is definitely smoking something.
    And while the accouting cost will be borne largely by electrical companies, refiners and others who directly burn fuel, the cost still gets passed to the consumer in the end. Pigouvian taxes don't make people better off by simply shuffling money around. Their benefit is reducing the "bad thing" being taxed in the least distortive manner possible (compared to regulatory solutions, quotas, and the like).

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The weight is put on the largest producers. They probably talk about it like that, to hide that it's a tax on the larger companies.

  • Tony||

    Of course we're eagerly awaiting responses to this study by other sources because you always have to be careful when Judith Curry's name is attached to something, what with us being skeptics and all.

    Ron Bailey has the weirdest form of confirmation bias. Only post about research that is most optimistic while plausibly in the realm of credibility. Not sure what that sort of bias has to do with libertarianism. I mean except the obvious.

    Curry could be right and The IPCC wrong in her optimism. But the precautionary principle would not have policymakers take her as the definitive source.

  • Mr. Gus||

    The precautionary principle would have policymakers not do shit, which is exactly the opposite of what you advocate, Past Me.

    Christ, was I always this dumb?

  • Tony||

    No, not at all. Not any more than it would have you remain standing on a train track as a train approaches. It's the status quo after all!

  • Mr. Gus||

    ...the fuck, Past Me? That doesn't relate at all, nor does it make any sense.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The past me schtick is too confusing when you're not using the Red Tony name. I can't decipher this, and so I officially quit Reason. Thanks.

  • Mr. Gus||

    No problem. Breaking addictions is what I do.

  • Sevo||

    "No, not at all. Not any more than it would have you remain standing on a train track as a train approaches."

    Repeat this until you learn it:
    "Assertions are not arguments"
    Given you level of stupidity, give it, oh, ten days of constant repetition. Maybe it'll stick. Maybe.

  • The Last American Hero||

    But if you're right and the train is Lionel scale, and I'm right and the train is HO scale, it's still only a toy train.

  • Greg F||

    Of course we're eagerly awaiting responses to this study ...


    Hey Tony ... I have a suggestion ... why don't you try discussing the science? Oh that's right ... you don't know anything about science which is why we should listen to you.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    But he attends Church of AGW services regularly, and gives other people's money's when the collection plate is passed around.

  • Tony||

    More than anyone else here, which makes it pointless.

  • ||

    Ron Bailey has the weirdest form of confirmation bias. Only post about research that is most optimistic while plausibly in the realm of credibility. Not sure what that sort of bias has to do with libertarianism. I mean except the obvious.

    Either you're trying to call something that's not a bias a bias or our definitions of obvious don't jive. Or both.

  • Tony||

    Well he did reference the IPCC, so credit there. But always with the Spencer and Christie and the Judith Curry. Not exactly a thorough survey of where science is on the subject.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    And where is it, exactly? "Settled"?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Al Gore said it was. Is Al Gore not the king of all science? He invented the internet!

  • Tony||

    Science is never settled you disingenuous leprechaun, but you can't toss out the mainstream consensus in favor of what 2 or 3 outliers say because you simply prefer their ideas. We did graduate kindergarten, yes?

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    but you can't toss out the mainstream consensus in favor of what 2 or 3 outliers

    Yes you can. And you can get funded doing it. Ask me how I know.

    What non-scientists don't seem to grasp is that "consensus" is shorthand. You politico-tards don't understand that democracy doesn't apply.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    He's certainly not apocalyptic. But here's an example of a not optimistic article. He does talk about it.

  • Agammamon||

    You wave about mentioning the IPCC report like its aholy book - that you haven't read.

    The lower end IPCC predictions have never shown am impending catastrophe. That's only evident in the worst case scenario - and the 'catastrophe' there is that everyone in the world will be an order of magnitude richer (due to not diverting GDP now in order to 'combat' global warming) leaving them in a bettet position to deal with the problems of a mildly warmer world.

  • ||

    Do any of these weather, climate change and global warming "experts" ever look at the unbiased/edited data that resides in the government vaults.

    the following site (of many) provide true evidence, with governments data that the "experts" are lying with edited data.

    https://realclimatescience.com

    https://www.iceagenow.info

    both site show the real government data and not the edited and massaged by the 'experts" so there forcasts will match there ?idea!

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    No no NO! We can't listen to scientists, even if they are suggesting that alarmists are wrong. Don't you know that they're only giving the answers the government wants to hear to better position themselves for grants???

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    We can't listen to scientists, even if they are suggesting that alarmists are wrong.


    DENIER! DENIER! Heed not the warnings of the alarmists at your own peril! The end is nigh! The Angry Volcano God wants virgins!

  • Bob Armstrong||

    The entire paradigm that GHGs cause the bottoms of atmospheres to be hotter than their tops profoundly stupid nonscience .

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Wut.

  • Agammamon||

    you mean like atmospheres normally are?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Why would Reason select this particular study -- from Curry and Lewis, authors of modest reputation whose opinions appear to be outliers among those of scientists -- to highlight?

    Other than attempting to attract a few more wingnut pageviews before the end of the month, I mean.

  • Greg F||

    Why would Reason select this particular study -- from Curry and Lewis, authors of modest reputation whose opinions appear to be outliers among those of scientists -- to highlight?


    Might be because they are not outliers as far as observational studies go.

  • Sevo||

    "Why would Reason select this particular study -- from Curry and Lewis, authors of modest reputation whose opinions appear to be outliers among those of scientists -- to highlight?"

    Perhaps to give jackasses like you one more chance to be on record as idiots?

  • Tony||

    It's what the market demands.

  • Longtobefree||

    Really?
    The global climate warming change models are not accurate?
    Please don't tell me the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

  • buybuydandavis||

    " Their median ECS estimate of 1.66°C (5–95% uncertainty range: 1.15–2.7°C) is derived using globally complete temperature data."

    An estimate with a confidence interval! Naturally, it was a reviled "sceptic" who did some actual science.

    " The comparable estimate for 31 current generation computer climate simulation models cited by the IPCC is 3.1°C. In other words, the models are running almost two times hotter than the analysis of historical data suggests that future temperatures will be."

    In other words, the mean estimate of IPCC is *above* the 95% confidence level of this new model.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Coming soon to the mainstream media: the next ice age panic, just as soon as they can figure out an angle for demanding more government to "manage" the "problem".

    -jcr

  • The Last American Hero||

    Cooling is the easy one for big government programs. You don't want people to freeze to death, crops to shrivel up, short growing seasons, starvation, the food riots.

    Easier than warming when it comes to making up needs for intervention.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    But a new study in the Journal of Climate suggests that the IPCC's estimates are much too high.


    DENIERS!

  • SIV||

    I'm not much for boycotts butthis one is cool.

  • SomeDude68||

    Hey, The Little Ice Age ended, the Sun has been extra active for over 100 years, and it's getting warmer. And it's ALL humanity's fault. -- What ultimately and strangely sucks is... this warming/climate thing has devolved into two sides. There are "those that believe" and "those that resist". And the continuous back-and-forth complaining means very little gets done... except for LOTS of PROFIT.

    So I say... NO to global-warming and NO to denying it. There is only ONE side to this developing GLOBAL story... and I am 100% correct... Humanity is screwing up the entire world with OUR pollution.

    Humanity is totally responsible for ALL pollution. No one can unstupidly deny that. -- Every single chemical and object we toss into the world affects the world. Every single chemical and object potentially responsible FOR "climate change" IS POLLUTION.

    Our pollution is 100% THE problem.

    NOT the temperature.

    ~ Our excess CO2 = Pollution
    ~ Our Methane = Pollution
    ~ Our Lead leaching into water tables = Pollution
    ~ Our Radioactive Waste = Pollution
    ~ Our Spilled Oil = Pollution
    ~ Our "you name it" that mucks up the world = OUR Pollution!

    And it ALL affects our habitat, THE Earth, in ONLY a negative way. With an obviously DANGEROUS long-term outcome for US all. The ENTIRE "climate change" / "global warming" thing should turn BACK into a STOP POLLUTION drive. Like it USED to be.

    Problem SOLVED.

  • ace_m82||

    Pretty much the only bits of this that don't occur "naturally" (without human involvement) is the radioactive waste.

    Oil spills, C02 is released, methane is released, lead is already there.

  • SomeDude68||

    RE: "Oil spills, C02 is released, methane is released, lead is already there."

    True... yet Humanity extracts, condenses, even CREATES, more of so many things... and then EXUDES, and EXCRETES, and POOF... more UNNATURAL pollution. More than the HUGE amounts the Earth naturally produces and consumes it the various cycles. And even a LITTLE more POLLUTION adds up. It HAS impact.

    Then there are the things like plastic? Things the Earth does NOT create? And also consider... humans spread localized concentrations of so many elements, all over the planet, and humans bring so much, from miles below the crust's surface, releasing "them" into high levels of the atmosphere where "they" do not usually occur and remain. Same with the water table, etc.

    It's simple; Humans should keep a clean home. And we CAN. We're just lazy and $ome are wealthy enough to BUY (/"usually take advantage of") places to dump (make someone else's future responsible for) their POLLUTION.

    PS: I see the Sun and Saturn/Jupiter as being MORE responsible for the Earth's current temperature, than Humanity. Eh, that's the science of it all.

  • ace_m82||

    More than the HUGE amounts the Earth naturally produces and consumes it the various cycles.

    Well, we don't create lead. And CO2 is a lot lower than it was in dinosaur times. Oil isn't created either, it's been created by living creatures and time. So, if we weren't to release it, then eventually the earth's Carbon would just be fossil fuels, or they'd burn uncontrollably (and that's REALLY pollutant).

    Don't humans fight wildfires? How much "pollution" is contained in those trees/grasses that wouldn't otherwise be?

    humans spread localized concentrations of so many elements, all over the planet, and humans bring so much, from miles below the crust's surface, releasing "them" into high levels of the atmosphere where "they" do not usually occur and remain

    Volcanoes do much the same. See Krakatoa.

    It's simple; Humans should keep a clean home.

    I agree. We should quit the evil concept of "common" land, that leads to the tragedy of the commons and the pollution that results from lack of property rights.

  • Schizoidman_21||

    Generally, Mr. Bailey has made good sense about the climate change controversy and maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but thsi article strikes me as legitimizing climate alarmists to some degree by legitimizing the language and terms they use without a rebuke.

    Right off the bat he talks about how will humanity respond to extra CO2 in the atmosphere regarding policy and lifestyle changes. The only policies he can be talking about are US policies, since we have no power to set polcy outside our borders and what exactly is extra CO2? What's that mean exactly? Humankind indicates a world population responding as one. Sure, that's gonna happen.

    I understand he's using the ICPP data in order to question it but how many time must the ICPP be discredited before we stop referring to them at all? By using it and positioning their data as reliable data baffles me. Is no one else doing climate research but the IPCC?

    Finally, he offers no blow back to the concept that CO2 is what drives up the average global temperature (a misnomer itself) when I know he's seen the same and numerous graphs showing that the temps rise before CO2 levels do. Am I to assume that data is no longer relevant to the discussion? He did mention the new study takes into account ozone and aerosols but that seems pretty vague to me. Do aerosols include water vapor?

    I guess I'm a little disappointed in Mr. Bailey this time, but I'm still a fan of your writing sir!

  • Entelechy||

    I'm dissapointed too, because unlike you, Rod , a grizzled veteran of the climate wars has read a broad enough sample of scientific e literature to know better than to pin his polemic hopes on so partisan a pair of scientific outliers.

    It's a real enough paper, but based on a bushel of cherry picking- Judith Curry is about as neutral as Naomi Oresekes in these matters, and Nick Lewis is part of Lord Lawson's PR dog and pony show, the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

    It is diagnostic that the climate contrarian's latest effort to buffalo the courts has been rejected- and it's easy to see why.

    https://tinyurl.com/y7g3zu4l

  • vek||

    Sounds about right since their models have generally over predicted actual observed warming by around 50%...

    I am going to be one smug bastard in a few decades when I am proven right, and the vast majority of the population is proven wrong, on a wide variety of subjects. The problem is the world will probably be a giant shithole for various reasons, even though it didn't have to be if people were smarter... But at least I'll get to be smug.

  • plusafdotcom||

    Just a brief reminder... I've added a few links and cartoons on my site at http://www.plusaf.com/homepage.....-links.htm

    Read, link, copy, download, enjoy!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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