Global Warming

…may be happening more slowly than the models predicted.

You don’t say. But those of us who were appropriately skeptical about the models at the time were called “deniers” and worse.

[via Iain Murray]

[Update a few minutes later]

Tim Ball: Climate models can’t even approximate reality. The hubris of these people who think they can model climate with any confidence whatsoever is astounding.

9 thoughts on “Global Warming”

  1. Noted: Study was published in Nature: Geoscience not Nature: Climate Change? Whatever happened to just plain old Nature?

    We have slipped into the agenda-driven woes of politicized science where Lysenkoism rules. Identity science is just as malignant as its political form.

    “Comrade your latest paper is unquestionably ground breaking. The research data has been examined and accepted and your mathematics is not in dispute. However the science commissar says it is counter-revolutionary. Therefore here is a match, I expect you to do your duty….”

  2. Like all doomsday cults – just keep pushing the day of reckoning farther out when the cataclysm fails to materialize in the time previously allotted.

    1. At least now they are picking a horizon long enough away that they avoid accountability for a generation. But if the next President is a Democrat, we can expect them to go back to, “We must act or in three years the world will be destroyed.”

      1. I suspect they may be preparing for what appears to be shaping up as a significant La Nina event that will reestablish the “pause” with a vengeance. Now they can say, “yeah, we said it was less bad in the near term, but just you wait until it really kicks in!”

    1. Sorry – never mind. I don’t feel like jokes right now; was just looking at videos of the Oakland freeway collapses after their earthquake. I hope people are okay in Mexico City.

  3. The previous scenario allowed for the planet to emit a total of 70 billion tonnes of Carbon after 2015, in order to keep temperature rises to just 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

    But the reassessment allows for a “carbon budget” of another 240bn tonnes of emissions before catastrophic damage is done.

    To start with, let’s get some idea of the scale here. One ppm of CO2 is 2.1 Gt of carbon (and 7.8 Gt of CO2). We’re look at roughly 400 ppm measured in 2015.

    So I calculate that under the initial claimed level we end up around 433 ppm after adding 70 Gt and under the original model estimates, a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere results in a 2.5 C increase in temperature (notice we’re already shy of the 3.0 C per CO2 doubling claimed by the IPCC). Under the new estimate, that extra 240 Gt of carbon above the 70 Gt results in 1.5 C happening at around 545 ppm rather than 433 ppm. That’s equivalent to an increase of 1.6 C per doubling of CO2 which is far shy of the IPCC estimate. This is a huge difference, particularly, if we’re not interested in stopping at a mere 1.5 C increase over pre-industrial era. For example, if we stop at 2 C instead, that’s a difference between roughly 500 ppm and 675 ppm! If we stop at 4 C increase, that’s a difference between 860 ppm and 1600 ppm!

    In other words, this difference is huge and growing exponentially as we permit higher temperature rises. So there is a great deal of dishonesty in this article, first by considering only the scenario where one restricts temperature rise to 1.5 C (this results in very little difference in emission quantities between various scenarios and the usual call for urgent action) and then later in hiding the implications of the research that there is a large drop in estimated CO2 temperature forcing which in turn allows for a huge increase in how much CO2 can be emitted for the same effect.

    1. Hmmm, reading the passage again, it appears to be 240 Gt of carbon over present day. That’s still a rise to 514 ppm of CO2 and roughly 1.75 C increase in temperature for a doubling of CO2. At that point, to keep temperature rises below 2 C and 4 C respectively would require CO2 levels of 630 ppm and 1400 ppm respectively.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *