skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Climate Sensitivity and Environmental Worries Are Trending Downward
From Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. "Chip" Knappenberger of Cato.
"More
evidence this week that high-end forecasts of coming climate change are
unsupportable and Americans’ worry about environmental threats,
including global warming, is declining. Maybe the general public isn’t
as out of touch with the science as has been advertised?
First up is a new paper
by Bjorn Stevens from Germany’s Max Plank Institute for Meteorology
that finds the magnitude of the cooling effect from anthropogenic
aerosol emissions during the late 19th and 20th
century was less than currently believed, which eliminates the support
for the high-end negative estimates (such as those included in the
latest assessment of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, IPCC). Or, as Stevens puts it “that aerosol radiative forcing is
less negative and more certain than is commonly believed.”
This is important, because climate models rely on the cooling effects
from aerosol emissions to offset a large part of the warming effect
from greenhouse gas emissions. If you think climate models produce too
much warming now, you ought to see how hot they become when they don’t
include aerosol emissions. The IPCC sums up the role of aerosols this
way:
Despite the large uncertainty range, there is a high confidence that aerosols have offset a substantial portion of [greenhouse gas] global mean forcing.
The new Stevens’ result—that the magnitude of the aerosol forcing is
less—means the amount of greenhouse gas-induced warming must also be
less; which means that going forward we should expect less warming from
future greenhouse gas emissions than climate models are projecting.
Researcher Nic Lewis, who has done a lot of good recent work on climate sensitivity, was quick to realize the implications of the Stevens’ results. In a blog post over at Climate Audit,
Lewis takes us through his calculations as to what the new aerosols
cooling estimates mean for observational determinations of the earth’s
climate sensitivity.
What he finds is simply astounding.
Instead of the IPCC’s estimate that the equilibrium climate sensitivity
likely lies between 1.5°C and 4.5°C, Lewis finds the likely range to be
1.2°C to 1.8°C (with a best estimate of 1.45°C). Recall that the
average equilibrium climate sensitivity from the climate models used by
the IPCC to make future projections of climate change and its impacts is
3.2°C—some 120% greater than Lewis’ best estimate. But perhaps even
more important than the best estimate is the estimate of the upper end
of the range, which drops from the IPCC’s 4.5°C down to 1.8°C.
This basically eliminates the possibly of catastrophic climate
change—that is, climate change that proceeds at a rate that exceeds our
ability to keep up. Such a result will also necessarily drive down
estimates of social cost of carbon thereby undermining a key argument
use by federal agencies to support increasingly burdensome regulations
which seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
If this Stevens/Lewis result holds up, it is the death blow to global warming hysteria.
Which brings us to the last results of Gallup’s annual poll
gauging the level of environmental concern among Americans—something
the polling agency has been keeping track of since the late 1980s.
Here’s Gallup’s summary of this year’s results:
Americans’ concern about several major environmental
threats has eased after increasing last year. As in the past, Americans
express the greatest worry about pollution of drinking water, and the
least about global warming or climate change.
And Gallup’s full write-up includes this gem:
Importantly, even as global warming has received greater
attention as an environmental problem from politicians and the media in
recent years, Americans’ worry about it is no higher now than when
Gallup first asked about it in 1989.
Says something about the effectiveness of the climate alarm campaign.
The full set of questions and results are available here. You ought to have a look!"
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.