If a new study, published in the journal, Nature, is accurate, climate change may be far worse than scientists originally feared, causing global temperatures to rise by more than 4 degrees Celsius, or 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit, by 2100.
The research is based on the impact of clouds which act to reflect sunlight back into space, reducing temperatures. The findings suggest that fewer clouds will form, therefore allowing more sunlight to reach the earth’s surface.
The study was covered by the Guardian of London this week, and Professor Steven Sherwood, at the University of New South Wales, in Australia, who led the new work, said: “This study breaks new ground twice: first by identifying what is controlling the cloud changes and second by strongly discounting the lowest estimates of future global warming in favour of the higher and more damaging estimates.”
“4C would likely be catastrophic rather than simply dangerous,” Professor Sherwood told the Guardian. “For example, it would make life difficult, if not impossible, in much of the tropics, and would guarantee the eventual melting of the Greenland ice sheet and some of the Antarctic ice sheet”, “with sea levels rising by many metres as a result,” the paper reported.
The way clouds impact global warming has long been the biggest mystery surrounding future climate change.
Hideo Shiogama and Tomoo Ogura, at Japan’s National Institute for Environmental Studies, said “the explanation of how fewer clouds form as the world warms was ‘convincing,’ and agreed this indicated future climate would be greater than expected. But they said more challenges lay ahead to narrow down further the projections of future temperatures.”
“Climate sceptics like to criticise climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect,” said Professor Sherwood. “But what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by the models which predict less warming, not those that predict more.”
He added: “Sceptics may also point to the ‘hiatus’ of temperatures since the end of the 20th century, but there is increasing evidence that this inaptly named hiatus is not seen in other measures of the climate system, and is almost certainly temporary.”
The Guardian reports, “Global average air temperatures have increased relatively slowly since a high point in 1998 caused by the ocean phenomenon El Niño, but observations show that heat is continuing to be trapped in increasing amounts by greenhouse gases, with over 90% disappearing into the oceans. Furthermore, a study in November suggested the ‘pause’ may be largely an illusion resulting from the lack of temperature readings from polar regions, where warming is greatest.”
“Sherwood accepts his team’s work on the role of clouds cannot definitively rule out that future temperature rises will lie at the lower end of projections,” the paper reports.
“But,” he said, for that to be the case, “one would need to invoke some new dimension to the problem involving a major missing ingredient for which we currently have no evidence. Such a thing is not out of the question but requires a lot of faith.”
He added: “Rises in global average temperatures of [at least 4C by 2100] will have profound impacts on the world and the economies of many countries if we don’t urgently start to curb our emissions.”
Earlier this year, a report suggested that the biggest threats of global warming, which could occur within decades if not sooner, as those we “aren’t ready for.”
“The most challenging changes are the abrupt ones,” said James White, a professor of geological sciences at the University of Colorado in Boulder and chair of the report committee.
Many of these changes, according to Tony Barnosky, a professor in the Department of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, are “things that people in this room will be around to see.”
“The planet is going to be warmer than most species living on Earth today have seen it, including humans,” said Professor Barnosky. “The pace of change is orders of magnitude higher than what species have experienced in the last tens of millions of years.”
“If you think about gradual change, you can see where the road is and where you’re going,” the professor added. “With abrupt changes and effects, the road suddenly drops out from under you.”
Last year another major study found, “The latest carbon dioxide emissions continue to track the high end of emission scenarios, making it even less likely global warming will stay below 2 °C. A shift to a 2 °C pathway requires immediate significant and sustained global mitigation, with a probable reliance on net negative emissions in the longer term.”
As Time Magazine noted, “It’s not a good sign for the international effort to stop global warming that most of the news so far generated out of the U.N. climate summit being held this week in Doha has not been made by the diplomats and delegates actually involved in the negotiations. Instead, the scientists on the sidelines are generating the headlines.”
Global emissions of carbon dioxide hit a record high in 2011, the study found, with an increase of about 3 percent over the previous year.
The result is that scientists who were hoping that global warming could be limited to about 2 degrees Celsius now believe that is increasingly unlikely.
The report found that the increase in emissions has already boosted temperatures by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (the 2 degrees Celsius), “considered the maximum amount of warming that the planet might be able to endure without serious consequences.”
The latest research suggests that number may triple by the end of the 21st Century.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Related articles across the web
The other side of the story:
“A 2007 prediction that summer in the North Pole could be “ice-free by 2013” that was cited by former Vice President Al Gore in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech has proven to be off… ”
“Satellite photos of the Arctic taken by NASA in August 2012 and August 2013 show a 60 percent increase in the polar ice sheet, more than half the size of Europe, despite “realistic” predictions by climate scientists six years ago that the North Pole would be completely melted by now.”
So are we to believe the ‘alarmists’ who make a living off of climate change?
Thanks.
Who funded the “research” by Nature mag? How come hundreds of climate scientists have called this a hoax? The VG should now explore reporting other facts on this hoax with scientific review.
this is not the other side of the story, it’s cherrypicked data at best. first of all, al gore is not a climate scientist so it’s irrelevant what he predicted. in terms of the 60 percent increase in the polar ice sheet, that data is misleading. what happened is that in august 2012, the ice sheet had moved to an extreme low figure that was probably more reflective of weather for the past year rather than the climate. so the ice rebounded and showed an increase of the record low.
let’s use another example to illustrate the math here, let’s say the murder rate dropped each year and suddenly plunged from 10 murders in 2011 to 1 murder in 2012. in 2013, the number increased to 6. so are we seeing resumption of murders at previous high levels in 2013 or is 2013’s number just an adjustment off a low level that was not really reflective of the climate for the area?
that’s essentially what happened with the ice in the arctic.
also the extent of the ice is one measure, but not necessarily the best measure. there is also volume, and while ice apparently reformed at the surface, the volume of the ice was down – way down.
Someone want to turn my link into an image: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
And, unlike Gore, you are a climatologist?
BTW, same question to GrowthIssue… are you a climatologist?
The headline was ironic: GLOBAL ALARMISTS TRAPPED IN ANTARCTIC ICE! When, as members of the IPCC [ Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change], they received their Nobel Prize they expected the Arctic ice cap to have melted by now! The expedition leader is Chris Turney, Professor of Climate Change at U of South Wales. Icesat [satellite] data beginning in 1992 do show an increase in the mass or at least the area of the ice cap to a record 19.48 million square kilometers.
The data in the alarmist study by Prof Sherwood covered in the Guardian do not agree with the known data as determined by groups at LBNL at UC Berkeley or those from the IPCC. All his numbers are greatly exaggerated.
For example, the second last Paragraph says that carbon emissions have already boosted temperatures 2 degrees Celsius [3.6F]. However the data show an increase of only about 0.83 C [1.5 F] since the preindustrial values. To check this, Google “IPCC Global Temperatures”. The recently released 2013 5th Assessment Report of the IPCC expects that the doubling of atmospheric CO2 values from preindustrial values near 285 ppm will produce a warming to 1.8 C [3.2 F] – much reduced from earlier estimates. [Present values are near 400ppm.]
The rise of “at least 4 degrees C by 2100” predicted by the above Sherwood study appears to be much larger than most climate scientists predict.
Another point is that carbon global warming is not global. CO2 and other carbon gases mainly cause warming in cold, dry places. You can see that in the Global Temperature plots. Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, raising global temperatures about 55 F, scientists estimate, and making the globe livable. Sherwood’s comments about the tropics becoming unlivable seems an exaggeration!
One further point is that at the increasing rate we are using fossil fuels, their production, and that of CO2, is likely to decline in about 50 years. See http://www.energywatchgroup.org.
Borowitz Report Headline. Misquote of Al Gore totally destroys climate science.
“World’s top climate scientists told to ‘cover up’ the fact that the Earth’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years
Leaked United Nations report reveals the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html#ixzz2pA37hbNm
can you address the facts of this story rather than dipping into conspiracy theories? how is the data here wrong? do you have direct evidence that these researchers fabricated their research?
Growth, try very hard not to delude yourself. Look at the numbers. The Earth’s average air temps have been going up steadily. It’s true that air temps have gone up more slowly than was predicted. That seems to be explained by a much faster increase in ocean temperatures. Take a look at this graph from NOAA.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009.gif
Does that not clearly refute your “15 years” contention?
DON SHOR: Is this software set up such that posters can no longer show images? For the NOAA graph URL in my post above, I wrote it with img in angle brackets before and after with a front slash /, but the image does not appear.
At the moment. They are updating the edit tools, and I will be able to adjust those links shortly. Once i get it all figured out, David or I will prepare an FAQ. Meanwhile, the links work.
you didn’t read this article did you?
You can’t make this up if you tried:
Global Warming Alarmists Stuck In Antarctic Sea Ice
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17277-global-warming-alarmists-stuck-in-antarctic-sea-ice
“Despite hysterical fear-mongering by the United Nations and self-styled “climate experts,” sea-ice cover in the Southern Hemisphere hit a new record in September of 2013 for the second year in a row, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The latest data show Antarctic sea ice is more than two standard deviations above normal, climate researchers reported.”
I understand that a piece of sea ice broke off, and drifted into the path of the ship. Unconclusive either way.
Here is the actual Nature article: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html Inasmuch as present trends don’t match up to the predicted trends, and it appears to be mostly a review of multiple climate models, it will be interesting to see if other climate scientists arrive at similar conclusions. What we have here is a Vanguard article about a Guardian article about a Nature article, focusing on the more extreme and quotable conclusions. A better journailistic approach might have been to ask a local climate scientist (we have several here at UCD) to comment on the Sherwood team’s analysis. The Guardian isn’t a science journal.
The Nature article is behind a paywall, so all you can do is see the abstract.
“A better journailistic approach might have been to ask a local climate scientist (we have several here at UCD) to comment on the Sherwood team’s analysis. The Guardian isn’t a science journal.”
Thanks. This is a New Year’s Day article. It’s a good idea to talk to a local climate scientist and I may follow up and do so.
Isn’t Nature available for free at a local library?
This is the key sentence in the abstract: “The mixing inferred from observations appears to be sufficiently strong to imply a climate sensitivity of more than 3 degrees for a doubling of carbon dioxide.” Sorry, I’m not going to pay $32 for the whole article to see the basis of the team’s observations (of clouds? of models?). The rest of what has been reported here and elsewhere is the team’s extrapolations of the results of that conclusion. The useful part of what they did is they provided other researchers with a starting point in observing cloud behavior and modeling it.
One of the more interesting things I read about in 2013 regarding climate change is the idea of geo-engineering, where scientists could effectively add components to our atmosphere to cool the planet. The Economist reviewed two books on the topic in November. Here is a bit from the review:
“While environmentalists wring their hands about the effects of industrial civilisation, a number of “geo-engineers” are advocating seizing control of the climate, tinkering with Earth’s atmosphere or its surface in an attempt to slow the planet’s heating. It sounds like some impossible technocratic fever-dream from the 1950s. But two books argue that it is not. Among the ideas about planetary cooling are artificially brightening ocean clouds to increase the amount of sunlight they reflect into space and building machines that suck greenhouse gases directly from the air. Most are poorly understood, expensive or both. But one idea looks so cheap and technologically convenient that, as far as anyone can tell, there is nothing to stop it being started almost immediately. This would be to use fleets of aircraft to slightly dim the Sun, mimicking the after-effects of volcanic eruptions by filling the upper atmosphere with a fine haze of sulphate particles. … To say that geo-engineering is controversial is an understatement. Mr Keith points out that shrouding the sky would be an uneven, imperfect fix. It could certainly reduce average global temperatures. But it would do nothing to stop other consequences of greenhouse-gas emissions, such as making the oceans more acidic.”
http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21590347-controversy-over-manipulating-climate-change-stopping-scorcher
Rifkin: One of the more interesting things I read about in 2013 regarding climate change is the idea of geo-engineering, where scientists could effectively add components to our atmosphere to cool the planet.
Geo-engineering could refer to any process of substantial human intervention that could change the condition of the planet. Anthropogenic greenhouse warming is an example of geo-engineering. A conscious effort to reduce CO2 & GHG emissions is also geo-engineering. Another commonly discussed idea of related geo-engineering is iron fertilization.
WDF1, the idea is active and intentional geo-engineering, as opposed to incidental. Of course, if you read that review in The Economist, there appear to be very good reasons NOT to try those active approaches and to simply stick with the mainline idea: Stop pouring so much CO2 and methane into our atmosphere. My interest in geo-engineering is simply to point out that the idea of intentionally polluting the atmosphere with sulfates is one I had never heard of or read about before.
Another approach I have been acquainted for some years is carbon sequestration. I am sure many people are looking into it still. My understanding is that there is no feasible way of pulling it off, yet. However, I would not be surprised to learn that in the next 15-20 years humans will be able to burn coal or oil or gasoline or diesel and capture most of the CO2 effluent and somehow sequester it. The key to such a development is the proper incentives: That is, we need to make it a lot more expensive to release greenhouse gases.
Rifkin: PS, thanks for posting the article link, by the way.
One way that predictive climate modeling with computers is tested is by seeing how well it works to “predict” past conditions. In other words, say, you would start with conditions in 1900, and then see if it would predict what happened from 1900 to 2013. As time passes, with a bigger database of climate info, climate modelling becomes more refined.
“Global warming? No, actually we’re cooling, claim scientists
A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling. ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html
Ah, yes, the UK Telegraph. Always my first choice for climate change information. Oh, yes: be sure to check out the Update at the bottom of the article you linked.
One thing we do know is that most of the dire doom and gloom scenarios that have been put forward by the climate alarmists have never come to pass. From the global freezing warnings of the 1070’s to Gore’s melting of the ice caps by 2013 that have all ended up being nothing more than hogwash. Yet there are always a multitude of gullible followers to drink the koolaid.
G.I.: From the global freezing warnings of the 1970′s…
In the 1970’s there was less consensus about global warming, but peer-reviewed science literature was still pointing toward warming more than cooling. (source)
In 1949 doctors in all branches of medicine preferred Camels. (source
Sorry wdf1, I lived through the 1970’s and all the talk was of global cooling, you can’t change history and the facts. Here’s a link of a Time magazine cover titled “The Big Freeze” and make sure to look at the bottom of the article where it lists headlines and has links to many different publications about global cooling during the 1970’s.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html
The question is not where the “talk” was but rather where the bulk of the research was. Show us the peer reviewed articles that support your position.
The other point is that the 1970s were 40 years ago. Weather forecasting, computer modeling, the access to data are vastly improved over 40 years ago. Think about comparing your phone to your 1970s desktop computer. So even if the consensus in the 1970s was global cooling, it’s irrelevant to current scientific consensus.
If forecasting is so vastly superior today then why did the Nobel winning climate alarmist Al Gore, who I’m sure was up to date on all the latest scientific consensus, get it so wrong predicting the solar ice caps would be melted by now?
Because he’s not a scientist? Can you cite any peer review studies that reached similar conclusions?
And science is much more politicized today than it was then.
correction….1970’s
How many peer reviewed articles were published on global cooling between 1970 and 1979, how many on global warming?
I agree. There has been a lot of discussion in the months leading up to the release of the latest IPCC report, and an interesting presentation was made by Matt Collins of the Hadley Center Leeds Office. He is a mainstream climate scientist. This slide summarized the present consensus, as he and others see it, about the catastrophic predictions we’re all familar with:
–
Here’s a link to the same image: http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/climatecatastrophe_2013.jpg
There is a draft circulating, possibly closer to finalized, of the IPCC update. The research David has reported on here is definitely an outlier as to likely temperature increases.
“The research David has reported on here is definitely an outlier as to likely temperature increases.”
The research here takes into account the feedback cycle of diminished cloud cover on the heating of the earth, that seems like a large omission from previous research.
From Kurgman this morning, “Republicans are being driven to identify in all ways with their tribe — and the tribal belief system is dominated by anti-science fundamentalists. For some time now it has been impossible to be a good Republicans while believing in the reality of climate change; now it’s impossible to be a good Republican while believing in evolution.”
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/tribalism-biology-and-macroeconomics/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto&_r=0
And Democrats have to follow Al Gore to remain accepted in their tribe.
It is impossible to be a good Democrat without believing in the principles of industrialized man being bad and that everyone should all be able to live on sunlight, hemp, wild tubers and sustainable rodents.
But the most prevalent way to stay connected to the Democrat tribe is to demonstrate intolerance for others’ beliefs outside the narrow and narrowing leftist worldview.
“It is impossible to be a good Democrat without believing in the principles of industrialized man being bad and that everyone should all be able to live on sunlight, hemp, wild tubers and sustainable rodents.”
LOL, thanks for the laugh Frankly. If they lived in Antartica they could keep their supply of fresh rodent kill on ice if they just follow the facts and not Al Gore’s prophecies.
Every time you guys cite Gore, it’s because you lack the capacity to refute the science and have to go after the messenger rather than the science. I’m amazed that you don’t think more about the world your grandchildren will inherit.
My gandchildren will be just fine unless the fake catastrophe alarmist poilicies of the left brings down the economy.
Like!
Truth.
My problem is with the rhetoric about catastrophic climate change because climate change is not a catastrophic process it is a uniformitarian process or at worst a punctuated process. Super storm Sandy was catastrophic, Katrina was catastrophic. What happened in the Philippines was catastrophic. The build up of heat trapping gasses since the discovery of fire through the oxidation of reduced carbon is gradual. It is a uniform and accelerating process. Claiming global warming is catastrophic is hysteric because it seeks to alarm people about a uniformitarian and potentially serious process that is hardly perceptible on an everyday basis of observation. Its like shouting fire in a crowded theatre because people are smoking. Only rarely will such smoking actually result in a theatre fire, a catastrophic event, but over time it will lead to cancer the cumulative result of a uniform process.
Why are only rapidly occurring events catastrophic and are you failing to learn the lesson of the frog in boiling water?
By definition, you need to go back to Lyell’s work on uniformitarianism versus catastrophism in the 19th century.
Agree completely.
It is politicized science.
It is politics corrupting science.
And scientists are not only complicit in it, they are more often participating in it.
John Roberts voted to approve the Obamacare insurance mandate for the primary reason that as a steward of the institution he had to consider a big picture of credibility. He had to protect the court’s reputation and remain above the extreme political fray. The institution of science would be well advised to do the same. They should tread very lightly on this topic…. sticking to only the science and the fact, and steering clear of predictions that support one ideology over another.
There are clear aspirations by current Democrats for moving the country away from free enterprise industrialization to one where enterprise is constrained and controlled by government. Global climate change has become one of the primary tools to assist the left in achieving this transformation. Science can either pick a side or stay neutral. If they pick a side, they join the ideological war.
“It is politicized science. It is politics corrupting science.”
I’d like to see examples from peer reviewed publications that demonstrates this.
Also can you explain to me the flaws in the research published in “Nature” that you dispute.
You are too narrow in your demands.
Here is an example of my point:
http://www.climatescienceandpolicy.eu/about/
This is just the tip of the growing Antarctica ice berg.
By the way. There is nothing noble in the aspirations of the left related to their use of the theories of global warming in politics … it is just a transformation from a system where wealth is earned by enterprise and free markets, to one where wealth is derived from political connections.
that’s quite a remarkable statement. so everyone on the left is bent on destroying enterprise and free markets. the concern about the environment and climate change is simply a ruise to destroy industry and has nothing to do with the future or concerns about the viability of future enterprises and food production. that’s just nuts.
Certainly not all, but their existence is undeniable. We even see them clearly here in our little hamlet as those that would reject any and all economic development while clearly preventing our move toward adequate revenue and budget stability. The problem is that there is no distinction from the two. Al Gore is the same as is the real science of climate change. Science has done little if anything to distance themselves from the political, social and economic debate related to their theories. They have done little to address the ramifications to the human condition resulting from a myopic pursuit of ONLY political policy remedies to climate change.
Ultimately, I think science is irreparably damaged from their clear collusion with politics on this science topic. I think they will continue to find themselves boxed into a corner of having to explain why the climate keeps changing in ways they have not predicted from their models. And in the end they will look more and more like political pawns and less and less like respected professionals.
“Science” is not a monolithic body of views. I urge you to spend some time reading the discussions that are going into the update to the IPCC report, and the ongoing debate among climate scientists about the flattening of the heating curve in recent years. It is precisely the analysis of how results vary from the range predicted by models that is of interest.
Perceptions are reality.
Your once lauded profession of science has a major negative perception problem. How many people do you think are going to dig through IPCC reports… especially after email-gate… to gain some understanding of diversity of opinion.
The peer review process is fraught with peer pressure and bias. And because of the connection to government funding, there is also a money trail and funding risk mitigation.
Maybe that is the source of the problem. In other science disciplines we have more scientists employed in the private sector. For climate science, almost all of them are government employees.
I don’t know how many people are going to do it, I’m just suggesting that you do so.
I have a generally have a pretty good sense of where the current debate is in the scientific community. However, I have not kept up with the IPCC reports… I will catch up.
But getting back to my point.
I think you would understand it better if science came out to demand regulatory reforms and education reforms and significant government investment in greater industrialization to combat the negative human condition caused by global poverty.
What do you mean by “science” when you say things like this? You want climate change scientists advocating for regulatory reforms? I’m guessing most would support having more and better science taught in the classroom. And I suspect most would, like me, support more federal dollars being spent on basic research, as in more funding to the National Science Foundation.
I want scientists and science as a whole to distance themselves from politics. To be neutral. To even go so far as to neutralize any political advantage their theories might foment. Certainly I would speak out against Al Gore and others making political hay and wealth from the politicization of scientific theory. Evolution is another area I would suggest science steers clear from. Just the facts man.
For example, related to theories of intelligent design, you should say something like “As a scientist I primarily deal only with a world of observable or measurable facts. Since much of the theories of intelligent design are based on circumstantial evidence, estimation and conjecture, they are not yet substantiated on a scientific basis and therefor I cannot support those theories. However, science is never fully knowing and I am open to all other reasonable theories as being welcome to debate.”
Politics and science are a dangerous mixture. What is going on today in terms of the collaboration and collusion between science and the political left is right out of an Ayn Rand novel.
The actual correct answer to any question about the ‘theory’ of intelligent design is that is is not a theory, therefore it has no place in a science discussion or — especially — in a science curriculum.
The overwhelming majority of climate scientists are completely politically inactive. There are thousands of them, and you’ve probably heard of less than a handful. They should not speak out for or against Al Gore or other politicians debating policies that might arise from climate science — unless their particular area of expertise is in question. The supposed collusion between science and politics is largely a figment of the imagination of the right.
Frankly: For example, related to theories of intelligent design, you should say something like, etc.
That’s fine. But when efforts to include ID in public school textbooks occur, then relevant scientists have a professional and civic duty to step in an push back. At this time, it is inappropriate to say that ID is a credible scientific concept. Note Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. It has also happened with earlier forms of creationism.
Frankly: In other science disciplines we have more scientists employed in the private sector. For climate science, almost all of them are government employees.
Interestingly, in exploring for fossil fuel reserves, it helps to know what past climates were like on Earth in different places to know if conditions were favorable for appropriate fossil accumulation and to help predict where those reserves might be. It also helps to know what was driving those climate trends. So petroleum exploration outfits have an interest in following longterm climate changes and processes.
Much research funded and done by private companies is often proprietary. Here’s one example. Taxpayer funded research, on the other hand, has an obligation to be made available to the public.
It is proprietary, though there is considerable sharing of information as well. One thing my father was very proud of from his years at Scripps was getting the oil industry to share their seismological data, and getting the various oceanographic institutions (which can be even worse about these things) to share both research vessels and results. Funding mechanisms to Scripps and other institutions to support geophysical research were also developed and formalized, something rather new at the time. The US Navy had always been a big supporter of geophysical research as well, and they did that with no strings attached (Revelle insisted on that). http://socialarchive.iath.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=scripps-industrial-associates-cr.xml
Quote from a Heritage Foundation report from this year:
When considering both costs and benefits, a carbon policy with restrictions similar in size and scope to those in the Waxman–Markey legislation (an 80 percent cut in CO2 emissions by 2050),[3] which the House of Representatives passed in 2009, would lead to:
– An aggregate income loss to the U.S. of $207.8 trillion by 2100;
– An aggregate income loss worldwide of $109.6 trillion by 2100;
– A one-year worldwide loss of $3.5 trillion in 2100, equivalent to 4.75 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP); and
– Adverse impacts, on net, in every year of implementation.
These same results would hold for a carbon tax, and the results are even worse if more countries adopt the carbon-restricting policies.
The key point here is that the global warming activists and alarmists are demanding policies that will actually do nothing to halt climate change while destroying economic opportunity for millions of people in this country and around the globe.
Even scientists confirm that there is little if anything that can be done to halt climate change based on their models.
So, we are left with adaption.
However, there is really little being done at a policy level to spur innovation and production to create new products that help us with adaption.
What the left wants is reductions in the use of fossil fuels… even though adequate alternatives don’t yet exist and will not for decades based on the lack of scientific breakthroughs for greener energy.
Maybe instead of having such a large population of climate scientists (whom by the way are almost 100% government employees and registered Dems), we need more product engineers and industrial scientists.
Quote from article:
http://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2013/10/05/on_climate_change_economics_trumps_science.html
The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has again prompted questions about how climate science should relate to climate policy. The IPCC’s findings have changed little since its 2007 report, but Rajendra Pachauri, the organization’s chairman, seems to be upset with the relative calm with which the world has greeted the new report. He plans a public-relations campaign in hopes that it will stoke more alarm.
The IPCC is in fact a major contributor to the overreach by climate scientists to be a political and economic policy catalyst and force.