Of course, this still kinda means doom in the Cult of Climastrology
(UK Express) CLIMATE change is likely to be markedly less severe than forecast, a study claimed yesterday.
It predicted that the impact could be up to 45 per cent less intense than is widely accepted.
But the study emerged as other scientists said winter waves pounding the Scottish and Irish coasts have grown grow by up to 5ft 6in (1.7metres) over the past 70 years.
Rising sea levels and more intense storms are in line with global warming forecasts.
The study questioning the future intensity of climate change was carried out by American climatologist Judith Curry and UK mathematician Nick Lewis.
It is based on analysing the warming effect of greenhouse gases and other drivers of climate change, from the mid 19th century until 2016.
It forecast that future warming will be between 30 per cent and 45 per cent lower than suggested by simulations carried out by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel one Climate Change.
The study in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate predicts temperature rises of 1.66C compared to one IPCC forecast of 3.1C and 1.33C compared to another IPCC study predicting 1.9C.
Mr Lewis, said: “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.â€
Well, that’s a hell of a thing. And the UK Express attempts to spike this by yammering on about higher wave heights and sea levels, which are still not proof of anthropogenic causation. Especially when sea rise is exactly average for the Holocene, which means it is a lot lower than it should be for a Holocene warm period.
I guess the science isn’t so settled.
You can see a bunch more at Judith Curry’s blog.
William Teach: And the UK Express attempts to spike this by yammering on about higher wave heights and sea levels, which are still not proof of anthropogenic causation
Heh. You do realize that you just approvingly cited a study which finds anthropogenic causation of global warming (but with a lower sensitivity)?
Yep, another study that says basically, “We don’t really know.”
BTW, have you kiddiez figured out the other ways according the basic physics of heat flow that the earth can gain or lose heat besides radiatively?
Friction. A significant source of heat in most of the planets is the swirling mass of molten stuff at our core.
Fire. Burning stuff makes things warmer. (the whole point of burning things).
Professor Hale: A significant source of heat in most of the planets is the swirling mass of molten stuff at our core.
Only about 47 terawatts comes from the Earth’s interior, while 173,000 terawatts come from solar radiation.
Professor Hale: Friction.
The heat in the Earth’s interior is primarily primordial and radiogenic.
Ahem.
And Professor Curry is a “skeptic”, to boot. Even she says greenhouse gases are causing warming. That likely raises the consensus to 99.9%.
Well we all know how proficient you are with percentages, ya nignorant angry little black dumbfvck.
99.99%
Greenhouse gasses, by definition, cause warming. Any scientist that says otherwise is a hack. The authors never endorse or deny AGW so this does not fit in with your made up 97%, 99% or whatever other ridiculous number you can dream up.
What the authors show and state is that current models, that all of this doom and gloom is based on, are flawed. That the models put way too much weight on the forcing effects of CO2. That the actual effects of CO2 on climate is about half of what the climate models calculate. So even with a doubling of CO2, no matter the source, the effects on the temps will be miniscule.
o0Nighthawk0o: Greenhouse gasses, by definition, cause warming. Any scientist that says otherwise is a hack.
Glad we’re in agreement. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases are warming the Earth’s surface. The question then is how much.
o0Nighthawk0o: What the authors show and state is that current models, that all of this doom and gloom is based on, are flawed.
Well, what they attempt to show. They’ve made the claim before, and the claim didn’t hold up upon closer inspection. Their new paper addresses some of those criticisms, so we’ll see what deeper analysis finds.
This change in position by so-called “skeptics” was predictable and predicted. First, they denied it was warming, but were overwhelmed by the evidence. Next, they denied that greenhouse gases were causing the rapid warming, but are again being overwhelmed by evidence. The last rampart for “skeptics” will be that global warming benefits humankind or that slowing warming will be too much of a hardship.
This is a common pattern in scientific endeavors. There are still “skeptics” who deny that the HIV causes AIDS, or that insist that immunizations cause autism, or that abortion causes breast cancer, despite evidence to the contrary.
Nignorant angry little black fella seems to have a problem with that word: evidence
Jeffery: This change in position by so-called “skeptics†was predictable and predicted.
What’s interesting is that climate skeptics will promote various contradictory claims. The same happens with evolution skeptics.
And the kiddiez seem to have a problem with that word: fact.
There may have been, and maybe still are, a few fringe skeptics that denied warming and/or greenhouse gasses causing it. But the vast, vast majority of us have always agreed that the Earth’s climate is warming and that greenhouse gasses contribute to it. What we are skeptical of is causation.
And that “last rampart” you speak of we have also been saying for years that the benefits of the slight warming we have seen would be of more benefit than harm. And evidence has shown that this is true. Crop yields are higher, the Earth is greening, extreme weather events are decreasing. All in contradiction to what the doom and gloomers predicted.
o0Nighthawk0o: But the vast, vast majority of us have always agreed that the Earth’s climate is warming and that greenhouse gasses contribute to it. What we are skeptical of is causation.
You are contradicting yourself. If greenhouse gases cause warming of the surface (which you grant), and humans emit greenhouse gases (which is certainly the case), then human emissions *cause* warming of the surface.
Except you cannot prove CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere like the one we enjoy on earth.
Actually the rise in CO2 follows the rise in temps. Proven fact.
[…] Pirates Cove has the reveal […]