Yah, the magazine--the very prestigious one.
...The Economist reports on some new cutting-edge climate research published in a peer-reviewed article in Science that challenges some core green doom warnings. In particular, the study suggests that the probable sensitivity of the earth’s climate to increases in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is far lower than the assumptions traditionally used by the (already discredited) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Not only that, the authors find that the existence of a so-called “fat tail” — the notion that extreme temperature changes in response to increases in atmospheric CO2 are likely — is illusory.
Other than that, AGW's just fine, thanks.
HT: Vox
From you link:
ReplyDeleteit is worth bearing in mind that this is only one study, and, like all such, it has its flaws. The computer model used is of only middling sophistication, Dr Schmittner admits. That may be one reason for the narrow range of his team’s results. And although the study’s geographical coverage is the most comprehensive so far for work of this type, there are still blank areas—notably in Australia
So are you vouching for this article, then? If so, great news! You finally admit that global warming IS happening, that man IS responsible and it IS withing the range to cause disastrous effects within 100 years. Just a bit less than the majority of other research suggests. Welcome aboard!
ReplyDeleteI have NEVER disputed that there is (some) global warming, nor--for that matter--that there was (some) global cooling.
ReplyDeleteI have ALWAYS disputed the "man-caused" phrase, in both cases.
And now we learn that CO2 is prolly another ciper: nada, zip, zero, in effect.
Surprise!