File this under "Shocking True Facts."  From Gizmag.com:

According to a recent study funded by the National Science Foundation's Paleoclimate Program, climate change may be far less sensitive to carbon dioxide fluctuations than previously predicted.

The most notable predictions of CO2-based climate change came from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report in 2007. The report suggested that should the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere double from pre-Industrial standards (pre-1850), it could result in a global 2 to 4.5 degree Celsius (3.6 - 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature increase worldwide. The mean level in this finding was 3 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit). This, of course, would be catastrophic, leading to the melting of polar ice, as well as significant sea temperature increases and global flooding due to rising ocean levels.

It appears that that these dire numbers might not be accurate according to a the lead author of the new report, Oregon State University researcher Andreas Schmittner.

Are you sitting down?  Here's the kicker.  Have smelling salts handy:

"Many previous climate sensitivity studies have looked at the past only from 1850 through today, and not fully integrated paleoclimate date, especially on a global scale," said Schmittner. "When you reconstruct sea and land surface temperatures from the peak of the last Ice Age 21,000 years ago - which is referred to as the Last Glacial Maximum - and compare it with climate model simulations of that period, you get a much different picture.

"If these paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future, as predicted by our model, the results imply less probability of extreme climatic change than previously thought," Schmittner added.

Don't hold your breath for an apology from Al Gore.  Or for media coverage of this new analysis.  Or for anything other than a robotic repetition of what we've already heard, over and over and over again.  The world is headed for a deep freeze, and a fast boil, and drought, and floods, and everything else bad, and your facts and data are unhelpful.

Over to you, Mr. Delingpole....

Comments:


CitizenOfTheRepublic
Joined
Sep '10
CitizenOfTheRepublic

things that may me say, "duh."

AGW-freakoutishism has always been driven by greed. the greed of the grant-writers and rent-seekers.  

oops...forgot the biggest promoters of all in the original:  watermelons of any and all shades of red inside.

Edited on December 21, 2011 at 6:35pm
Roberto
Joined
Mar '11
Roberto

I feel I may swoon. My goodness Mr. Long what are you saying? That the range of global warming is uncertain?! The potential consequences even if correct may have been exaggerated?!

Impossible, I simply cannot believe it. The science is settled.  

~Paules
Joined
Jun '10
~Paules

The more cynical among us believe that global warming is an excuse to tax the air we breath.  Color me ultra-cynical. 

The King Prawn
Joined
Dec '10
The King Prawn

 My only question is what's the next idea statists will use to demonstrate categorically, scientifically, and incontrovertibly that they should be running my life instead of me?

Mark Wilson
Joined
May '10
Mark Wilson

The excellent blog Climate Skeptic by Warren Meyer has been talking about CO2 sensitivity, which is intimately linked to the feedback issue for a long time.  He self-produced an entertaining and informative video that goes into some depth on it.  It's the best overview of the climate change issue I've ever seen.

Crow's Nest
Joined
Mar '11
Crow's Nest

My only question is what's the next idea statists will use to demonstrate categorically, scientifically, and incontrovertibly that they should be running my life instead of me?

Astroids.

The King Prawn
Joined
Dec '10
The King Prawn

Crow's Nest: My only question is what's the next idea statists will use to demonstrate categorically, scientifically, and incontrovertibly that they should be running my life instead of me?

Astroids. · Dec 21 at 9:37am

I can only imagine what combating those will cost.

jetstream
Joined
Dec '10
jetstream

Does this mean that it's ok to exhale?

HVTs
Joined
Oct '10
HVTs

What are the odds one of the Republican candidates will seize on this and make the point that we should be erring on the side of energy independence, not on the side of agenda-driven science and economically untenable “green jobs”?  So many candidates have been hedging their bets and being...ah, political…about it, is anyone left who can credibly say "told you so"?


Joined
May '10
Matthew Bartle

Come to think of it, I don't even own smelling salts!

Pretty sure I've never seen such a think in real life.

Rob, are you sure this isn't something that only exists in movies??

Jeff
Joined
Apr '11
Jeff Younger

I'm shocked. Shocked!

Next they'll make scientists publish their statistical methodology. If climatologists can't have secret science, how can they have rewarding leftist careers?

Sad.


Joined
May '11
Larry3435
The King Prawn:  My only question is what's the next idea statists will use to demonstrate categorically, scientifically, and incontrovertibly that they should be running my life instead of me? · Dec 21 at 9:35am

Income inequality.  Aren't you paying attention?  Global warming is sooooo 2007.

Give Me Liberty
Joined
Apr '11
Give Me Liberty

The King Prawn

Crow's Nest: My only question is what's the next idea statists will use to demonstrate categorically, scientifically, and incontrovertibly that they should be running my life instead of me?

Astroids. · Dec 21 at 9:37am

I can only imagine what combating those will cost. · Dec 21 at 9:38am

The trick will be blaming the danger on Western Civilization and the American way of life.

Accept for Romney and Gingrich when most on the right read this their first thought is "Well duhhh!"

Mark Wilson
Joined
May '10
Mark Wilson

The King Prawn

Crow's Nest: My only question is what's the next idea statists will use to demonstrate categorically, scientifically, and incontrovertibly that they should be running my life instead of me?

Astroids. · Dec 21 at 9:37am

I can only imagine what combating those will cost. · Dec 21 at 9:38am

No joke.

In all seriousness, I think somebody ought to be researching this.  It has a serious advantage over global warming in that it only requires that we develop new technology, not gut our entire economy.

Ottoman Umpire
Joined
May '10
Ottoman Umpire

CitizenOfTheRepublic: oops...forgot the biggest promoters of all in the original:  watermelons of any and all shades of red inside. · Dec 21 at 9:21am

"Watermelons."  Love it.  First time I've seen the fruit used that way.  

David Williamson
Joined
Mar '11
David Williamson

Mr Delingpole should write a book about this -- oh, he already has.

In his recent podcast for Ricochet he and his guest suggested that the IPCC meetings at exotic locations will continue for some time, as otherwise the participants would have to pay for their own vacations and would have nothing to talk about.

So we can expect temperatures to continue to drop for the next 20 or 30 years, as they would even if we went back to living in caves.

Paul A. Rahe

In his inaugural address, President Obama pledged to “roll back the specter of a warming planet” and “restore science to its rightful place,” implying — graceless as always — that the administration of George W. Bush had suppressed scientific truth in the interests of ideology. Now he has an even greater opportunity than he did when the Climategate scandal broke to show us that he is as good as his word. Alternatively, of course, President Obama could hunker down, embrace “the specter of a warming planet,” and disgrace himself by telling us what anyone who pays the slightest attention to developments knows to be untrue, as he has did so often in the health care debates.

Pat in Obamaland
Joined
May '10
Pat in Obamaland

Come on, Rob!  Don't you know that global warming is settled science? New facts can't change that!

Give Me Liberty
Joined
Apr '11
Give Me Liberty
Paul A. Rahe: Now he has an even greater opportunity than he did when the Climategate scandal broke to show us that he is as good as his word. · Dec 21 at 10:32am

Obama! A man of his word...guffaw!  Thanks Paul, that is one of the funniest things I have heard in weeks...sniff, wheeew! 

flownover
Joined
Aug '10
flownover
Paul A. Rahe: In his inaugural address, President Obama pledged to “roll back the specter of a warming planet” 

I was hoping he would "roll away the stone"and ascend back to Columbia. 


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In