AGW will be far less than predicted (Investor's Business Daily) USofA

Link: https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-doomsdaytemperature-increase-co2/ Please see link above for original text, embedded hotlinks and comments.

The Climate-Change Doomsday Just Got Canceled Investor’s Business Daily January 18, 2018 Environmentalism: A new study published in the prestigious journal Nature finds that all those global warming doomsday scenarios aren't credible. Not that you would ever know based on how little coverage this study is getting.

The study, published on Thursday, finds that if CO2 in the atmosphere doubled, global temperatures would climb at most by 3.4 degrees Celsius. That's far below what the UN has been saying for decades, namely that temperatures would rise as much as 4.5 degrees, and possibly up to 6 degrees.

Basically, the scientists involved in the Nature study found that the planet is less sensitive to changes in CO2 levels than had been previously believed. That means projected temperature increases are too high.

Of course this is just one study, but it supports the contention climate skeptics have been making for years — that the computer models used to predict future warming were exaggerating the impact of CO2, evidenced in part by the fact that the planet hasn't been warming as much as those models say it should.

Why is this important? Because all those horror stories told over the past decades are based on predictions of temperature increases that are much higher than 3.4 degrees.

A 2008 National Geographic series, to cite just one example, contended that scientists are warning that the global average temperature could increase by as much as 6 degrees Celsius over the next century, "which would cause our world to change radically."

Oceans, it said, would become marine wastelands, deserts would expand, catastrophic events would be more common.

The Obama administration's EPA put out a report in 2015 claiming that climate change would triple the number of extremely hot days in the U.S. by 2100, increase air and water pollution, cause $5 trillion in damages for coastal property, and result in tens of thousands of premature deaths.

1

The EPA assumed a global temperature increase of 5 degrees.

The Nature study blows a hole in these and other doomsday scenarios that have been peddled for decades by everyone from Al Gore to Prince Charles.

In other words, it's big news.

And don't be surprised if scientists end up revising peak warming down even further.

That's been the trend up until now, after all. Back in 1977, the National Academy of Sciences said temperatures would shoot up 6 degrees C by 2050 because of CO2 emissions. In 1985, James Hansen claimed that doubling CO2 levels would boost temperatures up to 5 degrees, and other computer models at the time put the upper bound at 5.5 degrees.

As it happens, though, on the same day the Nature study was published, NASA released its latest report on global temperatures, declaring that 2017 was the second hottest year on record, with 2016 the hottest.

Guess which story made front page news?

The New York Times put the NASA story on its main webpage, and ignored the Nature study entirely.

Even if it's true that 17 of the 18 hottest years have occurred since 2001 — which requires one to assume the government's manipulation of past temperature data has been on the up and up — the relevant question isn't what's happening now, but what is likely to happen going forward.

If the scientific evidence is showing that the harm from CO2 emissions will be far less than feared, we should be celebrating.

Surely all those "settled science" folks would agree.

2

Some recent photos from around the world

3

4

For the last 10,000 years approximately, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has been at its lowest levels for most of the last 600 million years and had little correlation with Earth’s average temperature. See graph below.

The above graph was presented by Howard Cork Hayden in a man-made global warming debate at Colorado State University – Pueblo, on December 2, 2017. Emeritus Physics Professor, University of Connecticut, Howard Cork Hayden presented the skeptical case. Director of Education, ESMEI, Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Professor Scott Denning presented the alarmist case. Most significant was that Professor Denning stated that he agreed with all the data presented

by Professor Hayden up to the 1800s. Profesor Denning insisted that all or most of the warming starting in the 1800s up to the date of the debate is due to carbon dioxide released by fossil fuels and other activities of man. He also insisted that this was leading to a man-made global warming crisis. He suggested that the crisis could be solved by significantly cutting back on use of fossil fuels and through creativity, ingenuity and 5

hard work. No specifics on what energy the world will be using and other details of how to change the world from using fossil fuels.

Should nuclear advocates follow Professor Denning and insist on reducing use of fossil fuels to save the world from catastrophic man-made global warming? Many nuclear organizations and individual advocates use the carbon dioxide argument. Some are militant about it, castigating everyone who is skeptical that fossil fuels will cause catastrophic man-made global warming, even with a tipping point. That is not what nuclear needs to do to solve the problems nuclear power is facing.

James Lovelock, world renowned scientist, father the Gaia Theory and former manmade global warming alarmist says in in 2017. He says that the catastrophic man-made global warming alarms were over blown, that the world should focus on saving the environment from local problems.

6