“Another study has “substantially lower[ed]” the U.N.’s forecasts of potential temperature increases, the authors of the study concluding that climate change is “not as bad as we thought.” The findings follow another study published in January that “all but rules out” both “very high climate sensitivities” as well as the lower end predictions of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
“The new study, conducted by climatologist Judith Curry and mathematician Nick Lewis and published in the American Meteorological Society’s “Journal of Climate” on April 23, downgrades the predicted global temperature increases by 30-45% compared to the forecasts of the IPCC.”
“The downgraded forecasts of Curry and Lewis were published a few months after a study headed up by the University of Exeter’s Peter Cox, which concluded that the most dire of the U.N.’s climate change models were almost certainly too high.”
“neither Judith Curry, the Global Warming Policy Foundation nor Nic Lewis have a sterling reputation when it comes to climate science. All have shown a strong predilection to cherry pick results in favour of low sensitivity/low impact projections. That is evidenced again in the report for which you provide the URL.” https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/21/curry-computer-predictions-of-climate-alarm-are-flawed/
More specifically, in Table 1 Curry reports the climate sensitivity estimates of the IPCC AR4, the IPCC AR5, and the CMIP5 model ensemble, along with just two recent estimates. Nic Lewis is an author of both of those estimates, with Judith Curry being his coauthor in the first, and higher estimate. The two climate sensitivity (best) estimates are, respectively, 1.64 oC and 1.54 oC per doubling of CO2. Both estimates are by the energy balance method. I should note that by “best estimate”, Curry means the modal value. Given the use of estimates of ECS in estimating likely damages from global warming, it is more appropriate to report the mean value. Given the assymetry in the uncertainty ranges, the mean value is likely to be higher than the modal value.
For comparison, using the same method but less controversial assumptions, Otto et al (2013) found a most likely (ie, modal) estimate of 1.9 oC with a 5-95% confidence range of 0.9-5.0 oC. That is warmer than the effective IPCC estimate of the modal value as determined by Rogelj et al (2014) (See supplementary data, tables 1 & 2, case f).
Further, when we look outside the strict confines of energy balance based estimiates of ECS, the range of values becomes much larger. Bodman and Jones (2016) report estimates of mean values for the ECS of 2.0, 3.2, 1.8, and 2.6 oC per
Actually, no. If you look them up, they are highly accomplished in their field. Their study was published in the American Meteorological Society’s “Journal of Climate”. The same with Peter Cox, who did the other study.
The rich are usually old people who have a lifetime of ties: business, family, friends, who aren’t going anywhere. 2.5% of millionaires emigrate every year but only .3% over taxes.
It is the young college grads “who have annual cross-state migration rates four times as high as millionaires (12 percent versus 2.5 percent).
“But if red states want to attract highly skilled workers, they need to invest in public goods – such as infrastructure, schools, and health care – that make a place appealing to young people looking to start families”
Actually there is one time when folks move a lot, at retirement time. In particular with todays mobile societies, children may be spread out all over the country and/or the world. (More true with highly educated children than with less) But in addtion to taxes there is climate. Why suffer thru New England winters when Florida has low taxes and no winter. As an example both I and my sister moved away from MI where we grew up, and when my dad retired they moved south to Tx. My dad said moving south may have given him a couple more years of life. Plus if your rich enough to have a private plane, then moving is not the hassle it is otherwise, since it is easy to make one day in and out visits to see people, or send the plane to bring family to you.
“The Rev. Patrick Conroy, the House chaplain for the last several years, delivered a prayer on the legislative floor urging lawmakers debating the Republican tax plan that benefits should “balanced and shared by all Americans.”
The comments were apparently not well received, and Conroy now finds himself out of a job.”
“As best as I can tell, Conroy is the first House chaplain in American history to be asked to resign.”
Drew– how much of youth migration from one state to another is from a red state to a blue state?
I know here in Massachusetts we have large scale immigration of such young people who come here for school and remain because of many things. For example, medical doctors in Mass are about the worse paid of doctors in any state because they like the “quality” of life here.
Chicago area college grad population is growing 1% per year for a while — Minnesota I believe holding even — every other state around here losing.
Wisconsin governor (Paul Ryan’s evil nephew) gutted University of Wisconsin’s budget while eroding the tenure system causing an out bleed of profs. Freed up money though to subsidize 10,000 more manufacturing jobs in a state that already has 475,000. Typical Republican effort to reduce a fairly cosmopolitan state to more like South Carolina.
” . . . when they changed the name from “Global Warming!” (TM) to “Climate Change!” (TM). Why do you think they did that?”
Because a prediction of anthropogenic climate change is that some regions of the planet will warm more quickly than others at a specific point in the process. But the science says that global warming is what’s been happening, and that it will continue to happen–to catastrophic levels–unless humans dramatically constrain their generation of greenhouse gases.
There is no science to show that overall, the planet isn’t warming. Even your link doesn’t suggest that. The only scientific question is the rate of warming.
For those who are genuinely interested in the difference between global warming and climate change (and not simply engaged in juvenile denialist word play), here’s an explainer:
Well, well, well…
“Another study has “substantially lower[ed]” the U.N.’s forecasts of potential temperature increases, the authors of the study concluding that climate change is “not as bad as we thought.” The findings follow another study published in January that “all but rules out” both “very high climate sensitivities” as well as the lower end predictions of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
“The new study, conducted by climatologist Judith Curry and mathematician Nick Lewis and published in the American Meteorological Society’s “Journal of Climate” on April 23, downgrades the predicted global temperature increases by 30-45% compared to the forecasts of the IPCC.”
“The downgraded forecasts of Curry and Lewis were published a few months after a study headed up by the University of Exeter’s Peter Cox, which concluded that the most dire of the U.N.’s climate change models were almost certainly too high.”
https://www.dailywire.com/news/29865/new-study-global-warming-not-bad-we-thought-james-barrett
curry and lewis are total hacks. been so for years.
“neither Judith Curry, the Global Warming Policy Foundation nor Nic Lewis have a sterling reputation when it comes to climate science. All have shown a strong predilection to cherry pick results in favour of low sensitivity/low impact projections. That is evidenced again in the report for which you provide the URL.” https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/21/curry-computer-predictions-of-climate-alarm-are-flawed/
More specifically, in Table 1 Curry reports the climate sensitivity estimates of the IPCC AR4, the IPCC AR5, and the CMIP5 model ensemble, along with just two recent estimates. Nic Lewis is an author of both of those estimates, with Judith Curry being his coauthor in the first, and higher estimate. The two climate sensitivity (best) estimates are, respectively, 1.64 oC and 1.54 oC per doubling of CO2. Both estimates are by the energy balance method. I should note that by “best estimate”, Curry means the modal value. Given the use of estimates of ECS in estimating likely damages from global warming, it is more appropriate to report the mean value. Given the assymetry in the uncertainty ranges, the mean value is likely to be higher than the modal value.
For comparison, using the same method but less controversial assumptions, Otto et al (2013) found a most likely (ie, modal) estimate of 1.9 oC with a 5-95% confidence range of 0.9-5.0 oC. That is warmer than the effective IPCC estimate of the modal value as determined by Rogelj et al (2014) (See supplementary data, tables 1 & 2, case f).
Further, when we look outside the strict confines of energy balance based estimiates of ECS, the range of values becomes much larger. Bodman and Jones (2016) report estimates of mean values for the ECS of 2.0, 3.2, 1.8, and 2.6 oC per
“curry and lewis are total hacks.”
Actually, no. If you look them up, they are highly accomplished in their field. Their study was published in the American Meteorological Society’s “Journal of Climate”. The same with Peter Cox, who did the other study.
What Republicans and Democrats Can Learn from “The Myth of Millionaire Tax Flight” Vanessa Williamson April 20, 2018
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/what-republicans-and-democrats-can-learn-myth-millionaire-tax-flight
The rich are usually old people who have a lifetime of ties: business, family, friends, who aren’t going anywhere. 2.5% of millionaires emigrate every year but only .3% over taxes.
It is the young college grads “who have annual cross-state migration rates four times as high as millionaires (12 percent versus 2.5 percent).
“But if red states want to attract highly skilled workers, they need to invest in public goods – such as infrastructure, schools, and health care – that make a place appealing to young people looking to start families”
Actually there is one time when folks move a lot, at retirement time. In particular with todays mobile societies, children may be spread out all over the country and/or the world. (More true with highly educated children than with less) But in addtion to taxes there is climate. Why suffer thru New England winters when Florida has low taxes and no winter. As an example both I and my sister moved away from MI where we grew up, and when my dad retired they moved south to Tx. My dad said moving south may have given him a couple more years of life. Plus if your rich enough to have a private plane, then moving is not the hassle it is otherwise, since it is easy to make one day in and out visits to see people, or send the plane to bring family to you.
Paul Ryan forces out House chaplain, sparks new controversy
By Steve Benen 04/27/18
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/paul-ryan-forces-out-house-chaplain-sparks-new-controversy
“The Rev. Patrick Conroy, the House chaplain for the last several years, delivered a prayer on the legislative floor urging lawmakers debating the Republican tax plan that benefits should “balanced and shared by all Americans.”
The comments were apparently not well received, and Conroy now finds himself out of a job.”
“As best as I can tell, Conroy is the first House chaplain in American history to be asked to resign.”
They belong on WUWT.
As do you.
Emichael,
Your first clue should have been when they changed the name from “Global Warming!” (TM) to “Climate Change!” (TM). Why do you think they did that?
Drew– how much of youth migration from one state to another is from a red state to a blue state?
I know here in Massachusetts we have large scale immigration of such young people who come here for school and remain because of many things. For example, medical doctors in Mass are about the worse paid of doctors in any state because they like the “quality” of life here.
Chicago area college grad population is growing 1% per year for a while — Minnesota I believe holding even — every other state around here losing.
Wisconsin governor (Paul Ryan’s evil nephew) gutted University of Wisconsin’s budget while eroding the tenure system causing an out bleed of profs. Freed up money though to subsidize 10,000 more manufacturing jobs in a state that already has 475,000. Typical Republican effort to reduce a fairly cosmopolitan state to more like South Carolina.
” . . . when they changed the name from “Global Warming!” (TM) to “Climate Change!” (TM). Why do you think they did that?”
Because a prediction of anthropogenic climate change is that some regions of the planet will warm more quickly than others at a specific point in the process. But the science says that global warming is what’s been happening, and that it will continue to happen–to catastrophic levels–unless humans dramatically constrain their generation of greenhouse gases.
There is no science to show that overall, the planet isn’t warming. Even your link doesn’t suggest that. The only scientific question is the rate of warming.
For those who are genuinely interested in the difference between global warming and climate change (and not simply engaged in juvenile denialist word play), here’s an explainer:
https://climate.nasa.gov/resources/global-warming/