Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on May 3, 2018

Bookmark and Share

Climate change is ‘not as bad as we thought’ say scientists

Climate change is ‘not as bad as we thought’ say scientists thumbnail

CLIMATE change is likely to be markedly less severe than forecast, a study claimed yesterday.

It predicted that the impact could be up to 45 per cent less intense than is widely accepted.

But the study emerged as other scientists said winter waves pounding the Scottish and Irish coasts have grown grow by up to 5ft 6in (1.7metres) over the past 70 years.

Rising sea levels and more intense storms are in line with global warming forecasts.

The study questioning the future intensity of climate change was carried out by American climatologist Judith Curry and UK mathematician Nick Lewis.

It is based on analysing the warming effect of greenhouse gases and other drivers of climate change, from the mid 19th century until 2016.

It forecast that future warming will be between 30 per cent and 45 per cent lower than suggested by simulations carried out by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel one Climate Change.

climate changeGETTY

Rising sea levels and more intense storms are in line with global warming forecasts

The study in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate predicts temperature rises of 1.66C compared to one IPCC forecast of 3.1C and 1.33C compared to another IPCC study predicting 1.9C.

The 2015 Paris climate agreement sought to limit climate change to 2C above pre-industrial levels and no more than 1.5C if possible.

Mr Lewis, said: “Our results imply that, for any future emissions scenario, future warming is likely to be substantially lower than the central computer model-simulated level projected by the IPCC, and highly unlikely to exceed that level.”

Governments around the world base their preparation for tackling climate change on the IPCC models.

Actions include subsidising green energy which has led to higher electricity bills.

Future global warmingGETTY

Future global warming is likely to be much lower than predicted

However, a separate study by Plymouth University and French colleagues says that average winter wave heights along the Atlantic coast of Western Europe have been rising for almost seven decades.

The coastlines of Scotland and Ireland have seen the largest increases, with the average height of winter waves more than 2ft 4in (0.7metres) higher than in 1948.

And wave heights in winter storms are about 5ft 6in (1.7m) higher than 780 years ago, says the study which is to be published in the American Geophysical Union’s journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Dr Bruno Castelle of France’s National Centre for Scientific Research said: “The height of waves during winter storms is the primary factor affecting dune and cliff erosion, explaining up to 80 per cent of the shoreline variability along exposed sandy coasts.”

“So any increases in wave heights, and greater frequency of extreme storms, are going to have a major impact on thousands of communities along the Atlantic coastlines of Western Europe.

“This work and our other recent studies have shown both are on the rise, meaning there is a real need to ensure the Atlantic coasts of Europe are protected against present and future storm threats.”

The same scientists also showed that the winter storms of 2013-14 were the most powerful to hit the Atlantic coast of western Europe since records began in 1948.

The UK suffered its wettest ever winter during that period with widespread flooding as 12 major storms battered the country.

40 Comments on "Climate change is ‘not as bad as we thought’ say scientists"

  1. Boat on Thu, 3rd May 2018 7:06 pm 

    Lots of conflicting studies but at least mm will have a new one to repeatedly post. Or will he. No suggestion of a near term crash. Does he date post a link with a less dangerous view? Pins and needles folks, await with baited breath, break out the popcorn, what will he say and do.

  2. coffeeguyzz on Thu, 3rd May 2018 7:08 pm 

    Good for the Journal of Climate to publish this piece.

    If Curry and Lewis have erred, their shortcomings will be highlighted, debated, and – hopefully for the betterment of science – either found to be accurate or wanting.

    The past decade has been overwhelmed with medieval levels of emotional acrimony surrounding this global warming topic.

    Right or wrong, reproducible or not, completely transparent data analysis should be accessible to the brightest minds of the day so both policy makers and the wider public are able to make informed decisions.

  3. Davy on Thu, 3rd May 2018 7:37 pm 

    Well, if that were our only problem. It is more like climate change is one problem too many. I am less a doomer these days but no less a doomer. Maybe we have more time but it won’t be easy and from the many things I have seen our kids are screwed.

  4. Boat on Thu, 3rd May 2018 7:40 pm 

    We need data even Trump and Scott Pruitt can get behind. To that effect, the renewables industry now gives more campaign money to Republicans than Dems. It’s a start. Lol

  5. Davy on Thu, 3rd May 2018 7:44 pm 

    “Climate Change Ignores all Borders as Rain Bombs Fall on Kauai and the Middle East Alike”

  6. Boat on Thu, 3rd May 2018 7:55 pm 


    My nephew of 8 months will see the ocean rise of several feet. He will see the effects of oil depletion. His generation will live the pollution we left.
    In our defense tech let us know about 15 years ago. Newspapers were lousy sources of information. Dial up internet was worse.
    Even today the “truth” morfs from study to study. Tech is no fix all, just possible improvement on thousands of small items each at it’s own speed.

  7. makati1 on Thu, 3rd May 2018 8:39 pm 

    “Climate change is ‘not as bad as we thought’ say scientists”

    Perfect example of writing for a paycheck. lol

  8. Steve on Thu, 3rd May 2018 9:03 pm 

    SOMETHING is causing the ice to melt.

  9. Shortend on Thu, 3rd May 2018 9:08 pm 

    Curry and Lewis….enough said…

  10. Sissyfuss on Thu, 3rd May 2018 9:09 pm 

    The Express also carried an article that states Elvis is alive disguised as Bob the singing pastor. Believe it or not.

  11. makati1 on Thu, 3rd May 2018 9:17 pm 

    I believe it, Sissy. It is all about money and selling news/ads.

  12. Boat on Thu, 3rd May 2018 9:38 pm 


    Your right, all about making money. That’s why the US is still #1 in foreign direct investment. The world loves to invest in our country. Apparently they don’t see the crash coming.

  13. Boat on Thu, 3rd May 2018 9:46 pm 


    Every thought you have ever had about the effect of doom by climate change was just reduced by 40 percent. As pentence say 40 hail Mary’s and post 40 percent fewer posts for 40 years. Lol

  14. Cloggie on Thu, 3rd May 2018 9:55 pm 

    The beauty about the future is that you van make any claim about it with impunity. When the future finally arrives, the forecasters are “over all the mountains” or dead.

    In 1912 a man was overheard in a Berlin cafe saying that there would be two terrible world wars, that communists would take over all over Eurasia and that many tens of millions would be killed. Armies would be able to destroy an entire city with a single bomb, delivered by missiles from the other side of the planet. Rockets would be able to bring humans to the moon and back. China would rise to become the new #1, hundreds of millions would spend hours per day, watching entertainment and sports on screens in their homes. People would be able to talk to each other and watch each other from anywhere over the planet from mobile devices and post messages that anybody could read. Information about anything could be retrieved instantaneously. Huge wind mills would be erected in the seas, hundreds of people at the same time would fly non-stop thousands of miles, in Europe and America most people would own vehicles with which they would drive thousands of miles per year.

    It was obvious that this man was a danger to society and had to be locked up.

  15. makati1 on Thu, 3rd May 2018 10:00 pm 

    Boat and any credence you give to one article of dubious source, is a sign of your gullibility/desperation.

    Who gives a damn about how much the Us ‘invests’ anywhere? Most Americans don’t have a clue and wouldn’t give a damn if they did know.

    The Us is crumbling into the 3rd world of debt and stupidity.

  16. dissident on Thu, 3rd May 2018 10:36 pm 

    What utter BS. The Journal of Climate has stained any reputation it had for quality. This “study” is statistical masturbation based on historical data. It literally assumes that no positive feedback amplification will occur after the end date of its “analysis”. There is no basis for any such assumption. We already see that rolling the clock backwards, reduces amplification effects; the weakest signal is the earliest signal.

    In case the above point is too “controversial” for a denier’s cherry picking brain: there were no cryosphere CH4 releases back in 1900 that would matter. The amount of CH4 release by melting permafrost and destabilization of clathrates is accelerating with time. The is just one positive feedback. Another is heat stress of forests, which become net CO2 producers. Then we have the clear progression of the oceans from CO2 sinks to CO2 sources on a global basis. When this hammer lands around 2100 no amount of praying will save us: the CO2 will be cranking up even if humans stop emitting it.

  17. Bloomer on Thu, 3rd May 2018 11:52 pm 

    Statistical masterbation lol good one. Nothing like a climate change debate to give one a woody.

  18. Kat C on Fri, 4th May 2018 4:14 am 

    “Fossil fuel industry funding
    Curry receives ongoing funding from the fossil fuel industry. In an interview with Curry for a October 2010 Scientific American profile[4], Michael Lemonick reports (pers. comm.) that he asked Curry about potential conflicts of interest, and she responded,

    “I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements.””

  19. deadly on Fri, 4th May 2018 6:15 am 

    Climate change is not as bad as we thought.

    Translation: We don’t know what we are talking about, haven’t a clue, and we’ll let you know when we do know what we are talking about, which will be never.

    Climate scientists don’t know if they are afoot or horseback and it shows in spades.

    Don’t know when to quit, don’t dare admit they are wrong.

    Chicken Little chickenshits.

    Stop embarrassing yourselves. No, don’t.


  20. Davy on Fri, 4th May 2018 6:33 am 

    OK deadly, but as a farmer and someone who has watched weather very closely for years, I see very significant changes occurring. I know enough science to know a warming arctic is not good for stability. As a farmer I know lack of stability bad is for farming. Climate scientist have been erroring on their linear projection especially considering longer term viability of the global economy IMO. They do the typical linear projections of habituated growth we see in most long term projection. Yet, many of their forecast have erred on the low side recently. So I see a mixed bag

  21. pointer on Fri, 4th May 2018 6:57 am 

    Anyone with half a brain can debunk the spin.

    Hey, deadly, support your assertions with actual data and analyses that show where those who work in climate science have made their errors. On the other hand, don’t bother, because I don’t want to waste my time debunking things you just make up.

  22. pointer on Fri, 4th May 2018 6:58 am 

    Does anyone here have a link to the actual paper?

  23. deadly on Fri, 4th May 2018 7:11 am 

    Article by then Senator John Kerry in which he claims:

    “The truth is that the threat we face is not an abstract concern for the future. It is already upon us and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now. Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now.”

    New Scientist, December 1, 1960 : (source, see bottom of second column)

    “The Arctic Ocean will be open year-round before the end of the twentieth Century.”

    Tuscaloosa News, May 18, 1972: “Arctic Ocean to be ice free by 2000?” (source)

    “Washington (AP) -Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”

    National Geographic News, December 12, 2007, “Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?” (source)

    “This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”

    Speaks for itself, I don’t have to say a single word.

    None of it happened, climate science produces models that are not accurate, not capable of making an accurate prediction. Unable to predict anything, maybe even a sunrise.

  24. Sissyfuss on Fri, 4th May 2018 7:55 am 

    I give praise to dissidents concise and insightful commentary. I might add that the IPCC is criticized by many climate scientists for its consistently conservative observations of AGW effects due to its ignoring of the results of multiplying numbers of positive feedbacks as well as the final product of its reports must be scrutinized and edited by a multitude of political entities the world over who do their best to keep the more frightening and therefore growth discouraging aspects of said report from frightening the populace. Truth is becoming the enemy of our modern world but only temporarily.

  25. pointer on Fri, 4th May 2018 8:32 am 

    Ah, deadly, just more obfuscation via cherry picking. If you are so certain there is no climate change or arctic ice loss, trot out actual data and show your reasoning for how it supports your assertions. For extra credit, use a number of independent approaches that arrive at the same conclusion.

    Here, let me give you a little example of how it is done. No doubt you are familiar with the Keeling data. From this data, it is clear that the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has been rising in an accelerating manner since Keeling (and his successors) have been making CO2 measurements. Based on this data, I make the assertion that CO2 concentration has been rising at least since 1960.

    Lots of other researchers, in the meantime, have been measuring CO2 concentration in the same or other (indirect) ways. Their data is also available, and correlates with the Keeling data. So this gives extra support to my assertion that CO2 concentration is rising.

    Notice that I don’t just make things up (e.g., “Climate change is not as bad as we thought. Translation: We don’t know what we are talking about…”). I support it with evidence that I or peers cannot easily dismiss. There is always the possibility that the Keeling curve and all the other CO2 data is bunk, but that is highly unlikely, so I and the rest of scientists who reason with data are pretty confident about using this data as a solid foundation.

    This foundation leads to some questions. For instance, why is the CO2 concentration rising? This question, too, can be answered in a scientific way. If you are prone to just making things up, being rigorously scientific is either too much of a pain, or you aren’t able to do it at all, so you just put up a front of bullsh!tting and making yourself seem legitimate by various techniques, such as cherry picking as you have done.

    So now on to Arctic sea ice.

    You can dig up some very reliable data on Arctic sea ice. These days, if you cannot, you just aren’t trying hard enough. It won’t take much time before you recognize a trend that you or others will not be able to easily dismiss. I’m not going to do this work for you. Go do it, if you have the intellectual capacity to do so. Show me your reasoning about what is going on with Arctic ice, but be sure that you support your reasoning with data that is open to examination and refutation by anyone.

  26. pointer on Fri, 4th May 2018 8:51 am 

    This is, btw, the reason I’d like to read the original paper — to examine and possibly refute the reasoning of Curry and Lewis.

  27. drwater on Fri, 4th May 2018 10:40 am 

    Let’s just do a reality check – almost 1 degree C warming so far with a 46% increase in CO2, not including decadal scale feedbacks. Judith Curry says 1.33 – 1.6 total degrees for a doubling of CO2. A simple look at the math would say 1.33 is obviously wrong, and 1.6 is not impossible, but ignores all paleo research. At least she actually got something published for a change.

  28. drwater on Fri, 4th May 2018 10:51 am 

    Deadly – In September 2012 the Arctic was nearly ice free – down to 3 million square km of ice versus a normal of 6 million square km at that time and 15 million in the winter.

  29. Antius on Fri, 4th May 2018 10:59 am 

    Ironically, pollution control efforts in western countries since the 1970s have substantially worsened the problem of global warming. Flue gas desulphurisation and electrostatic precipitators, have removed sulphur dioxide and particulates from flue gas emissions. The replacement of coal by natural gas and nuclear power, has reduced sulphur emissions even more. Both sulphur dioxide and particulates have a net cooling effect on the planet.

  30. onlooker on Fri, 4th May 2018 12:34 pm 

    Yes Dissident is someone who can speak with authority on this subject. The paleo record, the very high CO2 levels already present, the vast amount of trapped CH4 and the already pronounced effects clearly indicate that our planet is headed towards extreme climate change that will probably lead to a mass extinction event. C’mon we are not all deniers on this site

  31. Dredd on Fri, 4th May 2018 2:20 pm 

    The crew that did this paper are know denialists.

  32. MASTERMIND on Fri, 4th May 2018 4:14 pm 

    The world is finally ready for Marxism as capitalism reaches the tipping point

  33. onlooker on Fri, 4th May 2018 4:29 pm 

    Marxism cannot save civilization at this point, it is now with our vast population simply about the fact that we have exceeded our environmental capacity in a multitude of ways

  34. MASTERMIND on Fri, 4th May 2018 4:45 pm 

    How an unemployment crisis could erupt and turn violent among the world’s urban youth

  35. dissident on Fri, 4th May 2018 5:39 pm 

    Here is the link to this masterpiece:

    Note that they compare a 1869-1882 baseline to 2007-2016. In my post above I point out processes that evolve over periods longer than 13 years. All this study does is analyze variability changes over the last 150 years. But the subset of variability that they consider does not involve any timescale beyond 13 years.

    This is pure rubbish. The oceans are the memory in the ocean-atmosphere system. Dynamical memory in the atmosphere is at best two years. The oceans preserve signals spanning decades and centuries. For example, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) varies between less than 20 yeas and more than a 100 years in its nonlinear frequency change.

    Variability is not a process. It is the resultant of multiple deterministic processes such as composition change leading to radiative transfer changes leading to more weather states accessible on the phase space energy manifold.

    BTW, the IPCC is not some Mecca for climate scientists. It is a political organization that is doing a rather half-assed job of propagating climate crisis awareness to governments and the public. The IPCC 3rd round prediction of 50 cm sea level rise by 2100 base purely on thermal expansion of ocean water is an epic joke. Warming is associated with land ice loss and the associated positive feedback of albedo attenuation. Ignoring this is simply pathological.

  36. Boat on Fri, 4th May 2018 8:37 pm 


    That’s the world investing in the US. We’re very popular and a better place for you foriegners to make an investment. In other words the smart money thinks the opposite of you.

  37. makati1 on Fri, 4th May 2018 9:22 pm 

    Boat… I am an American. Not so intelligent if you constantly forget that FACT.

    I don’t “invest” in the Casino in NYC. I invest in preps, trade goods, land, etc. Things of real value that don’t disappear when the SHTF. I have needed skills, to use and teach. I could care less if the Us died tomorrow. You do.

    As for others investing in the Us. You need to do some RECENT research.

  38. pointer on Sat, 5th May 2018 7:07 am 

    Thank you, dissident.

  39. Bob on Wed, 9th May 2018 2:54 pm 

    The prime minister of Finland says lose the Artic lose the planet. What does that mean.

Leave a Reply

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