Climate Scientists Predict the Imminent End of the World

The Thinker by Rodin, original photo by Andrew Horne, modified, public domain source Wikimedia,_Rodin.jpg
The Thinker by Rodin, original photo by Andrew Horne, modified, public domain source Wikimedia 

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A study published in AAAS “Science Advances” has attempted to resurrect discredited claims of a dangerously high climate sensitivity, by suggesting that climate sensitivity increases as the world warms.

Climate change may be escalating so fast it could be ‘game over’, scientists warn

New research suggests the Earth’s climate could be more sensitive to greenhouse gases than thought, raising the spectre of an ‘apocalyptic side of bad’ temperature rise of more than 7C within a lifetime.

It is a vision of a future so apocalyptic that it is hard to even imagine.

But, if leading scientists writing in one of the most respected academic journals are right, planet Earth could be on course for global warming of more than seven degrees Celsius within a lifetime.

And that, according to one of the world’s most renowned climatologists, could be “game over” – particularly given the imminent presence of climate change denier Donald Trump in the White House.

In a paper in the journal Science Advances, they said the actual range could be between 4.78C to 7.36C by 2100, based on one set of calculations.

Read more:

The abstract of the study;

Nonlinear climate sensitivity and its implications for future greenhouse warming

Global mean surface temperatures are rising in response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The magnitude of this warming at equilibrium for a given radiative forcing—referred to as specific equilibrium climate sensitivity (S)—is still subject to uncertainties. We estimate global mean temperature variations and S using a 784,000-year-long field reconstruction of sea surface temperatures and a transient paleoclimate model simulation. Our results reveal that S is strongly dependent on the climate background state, with significantly larger values attained during warm phases. Using the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 for future greenhouse radiative forcing, we find that the range of paleo-based estimates of Earth’s future warming by 2100 CE overlaps with the upper range of climate simulations conducted as part of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). Furthermore, we find that within the 21st century, global mean temperatures will very likely exceed maximum levels reconstructed for the last 784,000 years. On the basis of temperature data from eight glacial cycles, our results provide an independent validation of the magnitude of current CMIP5 warming projections.

Read more:

The money quote from the study full text;

… This paleodata-based TCRP is now applied to the RCP8.5 forcing scenario until year 2100 CE, following the equation above for deriving an estimated global mean SAT response. The anthropogenic forcing results in a global mean SAT anomaly of 5.86 K by year 2100 with respect to PI values. The uncertainties in S and the ocean’s heat uptake efficiency as discussed above result in a likely range of 4.78 to 7.36 K for the global mean SAT anomaly. Comparing our paleo-based estimate of future warming to the multimodel ensemble mean projections of the CMIP5 (52), we found that our projection results in a slightly higher global mean SAT anomaly. The current Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)/CMIP5 projection under the RCP8.5 scenario results in a global mean SAT increase of 4.84 K for the year 2100 (with respect to PI values). The corresponding multimodel ensemble values range from 3.42 to 6.40 K. …

Read more: Same as above

My question – if a warmer world is more sensitive to CO2, why was the Cretaceous, which ended 66 million years ago, only 4C warmer than today, despite a CO2 level more than 4x higher than today’s CO2 level? If we apply the conclusions of the paper, temperatures in the warm Cretaceous should have been 14c higher than today’s temperatures – an absurdity which should excuse this paper from further serious consideration.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 10, 2016 5:05 am

…based on ONE set of calculations. GIGO.

J McClure
Reply to  AussieBear
November 10, 2016 11:44 am

Eric Worrall,
Perhaps a topic, not by comments but by dialogue in comments, peer to peer would be a nice muse?
I’m uncertain if Anthony can craft the opportunity but it would be refreshing to see a WUWT post with only invited comments – a dialogue between experts invited to chat.
You used Rodin – think about it.

Reply to  J McClure
November 10, 2016 11:49 am

Reprise for Mr. McClure:
September 4, 2015
By Allan MacRae
Observations and Conclusions:
1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record
2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.
3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.
5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.
6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.
7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.
8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.
9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.
10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.
Allan MacRae, Calgary

J McClure
Reply to  J McClure
November 10, 2016 12:04 pm

“10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.”
Absolutely right, the fubar is, we already know the solution and politics inhibit resolution.
The politics are killing resolution.
Should we rub their nose in their poop?

J McClure
Reply to  J McClure
November 10, 2016 12:07 pm

Perhaps we, world over, need to recommend proper Scientists to advise Trump.
Wonderful game changer, yet who is top of mind?

J McClure
Reply to  J McClure
November 10, 2016 12:21 pm

Who should be an unbiased Science Adviser to the Trump Administration?
Unwinding all the nonsense could take years unless the remarkable soul can crunch the nonsense in a NY minute.

Reply to  J McClure
November 10, 2016 1:07 pm

Mr. McClure – a bit of background reading on the subject, dating back to 2002:
Best, Allan
Post Script:
I suggest John Christy at UAH would be an excellent candidate as Chief Climate Science Advisor.
I seem to recall that Roy Spencer (also at UAH) said he would not do it.
Post Post Script:
We have known since about 1985 that global warming alarmism was scientifically wrong – a false crisis.
We have known with greater certainty since about 2002 that it was a deliberate fraud.

Reply to  J McClure
November 10, 2016 1:19 pm

More for Mr. McClure:
An insight into what really drives global temperature, at least in the short term (multi-decadal).–the-whys/comment-page-1/#comment-2330519
I have personally verified most-all of the above.
For the longer term, see Dan Pangburn’s work. I have not yet found the time to redo Dan’s spreadsheets, but the concept and execution looks credible.
Best, Allan

J McClure
Reply to  J McClure
November 10, 2016 2:33 pm

The first thing I learned was – it’s silly to agree spefics unless the genaralalities are properly defined.
It’s a complete waste of time.
Completely respect your effort yet to what end.
The unproperly generalities are numerous.
What’s the point?

J McClure
Reply to  J McClure
November 10, 2016 3:19 pm

Rodin thinker
Hawking should be in this theater in a moments notice if there was a reason!
Give him One!

Reply to  J McClure
November 10, 2016 5:07 pm

Mr. McClure you wrote:
“The first thing I learned was – it’s silly to agree spefics unless the genaralalities are properly defined.”
Suggest you read all the references before commenting further.

J McClure
Reply to  AussieBear
November 10, 2016 12:30 pm

As I’ve previously stated, DOE is the muse.
They crunched more data in an attempt AR5 than anyone on Earth. They can unwind the nonsense with insight in seconds.

J McClure
Reply to  J McClure
November 10, 2016 12:47 pm

So, all you science junkies, what is the best way to ensure best solution for those with nothing and preserve the last bastion Republic?

J McClure
Reply to  J McClure
November 10, 2016 12:54 pm

The Idea, The notion, The Belief, The Mechanism. <– odd

Reply to  J McClure
November 10, 2016 8:27 pm

You have waaay too much free time. Understandable, at the end of 8 years of Obamanomics, but still …

Reply to  AussieBear
November 10, 2016 2:42 pm

How about FICO – Faith In, Confirmation Out ?

J McClure
Reply to  Hivemind
November 10, 2016 2:47 pm

Pleases be more specific!

J McClure
Reply to  Hivemind
November 10, 2016 2:51 pm

So I’m guessing you have a lot of debt you created and are pissed you now have to pay interest on your foolishness?

November 10, 2016 5:08 am

Transparent apocalyptic anti-scientific fear mongering clap trap. That this faux study was published is an indictment of the peer review process.

Reply to  hunter
November 10, 2016 5:55 am

Are there any published scientific journals that do not have their heads up the global-warming-by-man butt?

A C Osborn
Reply to  higley7
November 10, 2016 6:42 am

“writing in one of the most respected academic journals ”
Not respected any more after that load of rubbish gets printed by them.

Reply to  higley7
November 10, 2016 6:56 am

There’s a veritable epidemic of proctocraniosis in academia and socialist science.

Reply to  higley7
November 10, 2016 7:32 am

Respected journal my AAAS !
The variability of the period of study was dominated by glaciation/deglaciation transitions where we know CO2 is a response to temperatre changes and lags behind it by several hundred years.
What they are doing is trying to pretend that they can reverse the causation and apply the same “sensitivity” ratio.
They study the dog wagging it’s tail and then infer how much the tail can wag the dog.
Anti-science BS.
“Science Advances” my AAAS !

Reply to  hunter
November 10, 2016 6:13 am

It actually is not an indictment of the process, no more than a corrupt cop is an indictment of the policing process, or a rotten tomato is an indictment of the eating process.

Tom O
Reply to  Michael Palmer
November 10, 2016 6:22 am

A poor comparison, MP, as journals are not the same thing as precincts, nor are peer reviewers the same thing as poor cops. It IS an indictment of the system since the system is the one that decides the reviewers to use and choose the ones that will give the result they want. The system is dishonest, not the reviewers, who happen also to be dishonest. For your comparison to work, you have to say the precinct doesn’t look for good cops at all, just corrupt cops.

Reply to  Michael Palmer
November 10, 2016 8:01 am

This is not a corrupt single cop. This is a large portion of entire police force on the organized take. Think of Serpico.

Reply to  hunter
November 10, 2016 1:50 pm

“our results provide an independent validation of the magnitude of current CMIP5 warming projections”
It looks like they may be trying to validate the models – of course using more models.
I would suggest that the Library of Congress move Science Advances to the gossip section, right next to the National Enquirer.

Ross King
Reply to  Bob Shapiro
November 10, 2016 2:10 pm

Bob Shapiro; Libr’y of Congress…
Tks .. you made my day!

R.S. Brown
November 10, 2016 5:16 am

This “news” came out just in time to inflame the “warming” zealots to action going into
Election Day 2016.
The AAAS certainly tried to do their part to arouse the Americans that didn’t go to
Marrakesh for the COP meeting.

Paul Westhaver
November 10, 2016 5:23 am

I suppose that the climate would be sensitive to an extra galactic gamma ray burst, or a planetoid collision with earth, or a Yellowstone volcano and they each have a 1:1 billion chance of happening within the next 100 years. So… better start laying ground work to prove that climate science can take credit for it. …yawn.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
November 10, 2016 3:13 pm

“an extra galactic gamma ray burst, or a planetoid collision with earth, or a Yellowstone volcano and they each have a 1:1 billion chance of happening within the next 100 years”
Major impacts happen every few million years and Yellowstone caldera collapses once or twice per million years, so you underestimate frequency by a factor of more than 1000.
We don’t have good data on gamma ray burst frequencies.

Reply to  tty
November 10, 2016 4:10 pm

“You underestimate frequency by a factor of more than 1000.”
And yet, those would justify trillions in precaution against a sensitivity above the claimed lower limit of 0.4C per W/m^2, and which has a zero probability of ever occurring, will not bother to consider anywhere near as much precaution, if any, against events that have a non zero chance of occurring (another ice age, a super volcano, extinction level impact, ET invasion, etc).

November 10, 2016 5:27 am

Yet we can’t get sea levels high enough to float a canoe where the ancients and medievals could park entire fleets. These days you’ve still got quite a trudge to Ephesus, Ostia, Deal, the Claudian Invasion landing…even the Pass at Thermopylae.
By the by, was it “climate scientists” moonlighting at the Huffington Post who gave such a resounding victory to Hillary?

Climate Dissident
Reply to  mosomoso
November 10, 2016 5:33 am

I was thinking the same: they must be using the same models as they use to model a warming earth.

Reply to  Climate Dissident
November 10, 2016 6:19 am

I notice that the results are given to 2 decimal places. Wow! That must be a REALLY precise study! I can’t read my thermometer to one decimal place.

November 10, 2016 5:28 am

Don’t be too hard on him, it’s really hard to think clearly when you have just crapped your pants.
Hey, the “scientific” polling community, with the best and brightest political “scientists,” all the data in the world and the biggest and best computer models, utterly failed to predict an election even one day in advance. What secret sauce are these climate “scientists” using that guarantees their predictions to 2100?
Coupled, non-linear semi-chaotic systems are a bitch, regardless of the time scale or method of operation.

Ross King
Reply to  markopanama
November 11, 2016 1:07 pm

Markopanama …. best quote today!

November 10, 2016 5:29 am

Well that’s it then. Nothing more to do but live for the moment and party. Who’s going to tell the kiddies they can stay up late and don’t have to eat their greens?

November 10, 2016 5:30 am

Now the crazy terror campaign begins. All the wilder claims about GW will be resurrected and presented to the media so the public pressurises governments and NGO’s to maintain the mad pursuit of AGW.

November 10, 2016 5:31 am

Another climate study that disregards the negative feedback from increased humidity. This is what you get when you think the response is exponential and cannot see the clouds appear at their appointed times and conditions to keep the climate stable.

November 10, 2016 5:31 am

Of course, the utter stupidity of this claim that a “climate denier” will have a large influence on future carbon emissions is a claim that is absurd and stupid. Molten salt nuclear reactors are more carbon free than either solar or wind and economically and functionally so far superior to solar/wind and all forms of fossil fuels, that they will prevail, and it won’t be long in coming. More gross ignorance of energy technologies from the climate alarmists. They foolishly think that their efforts are required to
bring forth a low carbon energy world. What arrogant morons.

November 10, 2016 5:39 am

I wonder if this article was in the pipeline to be published before the election or if it is a result of the election.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  SMC
November 10, 2016 6:01 am

There is a considerable lag time between when a scientific paper is submitted to a journal and when it is published. This isn’t like a newspaper article that can be published the day after it was written. This had to be in the ‘pipeline’ for 6-12 months, so no way is it in reaction to the election results.
I notice that they used the RCP8.5 worst-case scenario from the CMIP5 suite. That is the least likely of scenarios to happen. And then the Guardian chooses the upper bound of the uncertainty to emphasize how scary this is all supposed to be. Hmm … I wonder why they never choose to use the lower bound of the best-case scenario to emphasize that things won’t be that bad. 😉

Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
November 11, 2016 1:30 am

Publishing an “Everything is Going to be Fine” report doesn’t give a fix to outrage addicts. 😉

Svend Ferdinandsen
Reply to  SMC
November 10, 2016 7:56 am

Maybe i was planned to the Marocco meeting.

Mark from the Midwest
November 10, 2016 5:48 am

The panic has set in. Take a look at any of the enviro-loon web sites from the last 48 hours. The fear mongering will grow exponentially. My only hope is that it becomes so crazy that they all become severely marginalized.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
November 10, 2016 6:19 am

Of course the panic has set in. And with good reason. Myron Ebell has been appointed as head of Trump’s transition team for the EPA. All these boyos are looking at the end of a multi-billion dollar climate research machine that’s been going on for nigh on 30 years. This will probably ensure that the next IPCC AR will be thin gruel indeed.

David L. Fair
Reply to  cgh
November 10, 2016 10:40 am

The IPCC has already indicated AR6 will simply accept AR5 WG1 conclusions. They know recent work has blown up their high sensitivity numbers.

November 10, 2016 5:51 am

I predict imminent end of climate scientists

Reply to  chaamjamal
November 10, 2016 12:57 pm


Reply to  chaamjamal
November 11, 2016 1:33 am

The sooner the better. Then the discipline can start the long, slow, painful journey back to legitimacy.

Adam Gallon
November 10, 2016 6:02 am

It’s our old friend RCP8.5 again.

Jimmy Haigh
November 10, 2016 6:07 am

In a sane world these charlatans would be walking around with sandwich boards and selling pencils from a.cup.

Jenn Runion
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
November 10, 2016 7:38 am

Would those only be organic free trade pencils from sustainable resources? That sanwich board better be 100% recycled too as well as the ink.

Rhoda R
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
November 10, 2016 3:19 pm

No, in a sane world they would be standing trial for fraud and theft by fraud.

November 10, 2016 6:07 am

On the basis of temperature data from eight glacial cycles, our results provide an independent validation of the magnitude of current CMIP5 warming projections.

Every interglacial is different and we don’t know why. I fail to see how comparing a model to something we don’t understand proves anything. link

Keith J
November 10, 2016 6:09 am

Hyper sensitivity to polyatomic gases is straight from young earth creationist dogma. With a dash of agnostic myrth.
All fossil carbon was in the atmosphere prior to the oxygen catastrophe. Life forms like stromatalites changed that and turned the oceans blue. Since these life forms still exist, there is no return function.

November 10, 2016 6:12 am

My question – if a warmer world is more sensitive to CO2, why was the Cretaceous, which ended 66 million years ago, only 4C warmer than today, despite a CO2 level more than 4x higher than today’s CO2 level? The answer is simple, none of that CO2 came from burning COAL!

November 10, 2016 6:13 am

Unrealistic RCP8.5 scenario: check
Unrealistic positive feedback: check
Loony theory that climate is sensitive to white house occupant: check
Climate apocalypse headline: check
This message was approved by the loony green left (LGL)

Reply to  sciguy54
November 10, 2016 7:52 am

Jumping the shark: check.

Reply to  sciguy54
November 11, 2016 12:40 am

Loony theory that climate is sensitive to white house occupant: check

Oh this IS stunning. Really that there are people thinking that Hillary is the only hope to prevent a looming CAGW really really makes depressed outside the United States as well.
Maybe Trump should do some hard work on PR and forbid shopping bags in DC? And driving. Please forbid^H^Htax to death driving car in DC as well. Hit where it hurts the hardest.

Bill Illis
November 10, 2016 6:27 am

Like all simulations from the alarmists using the ice ages as a model, they purposely under-estimate how much Albedo increased as a result of all that ice. So, then one gets to ascribe all the temperature changes in the ice ages to the drop in CO2.
So, if the ice age temperature changes were driven by CO2, then increased CO2 in the future will cause large increases in temperature over the next century.
The ice-sheet Albedo forcing at the LGM in this study is only -1.0 W/m2; ridiculously low. Nobody has ever used an estimate this low. I mean nobody, not even James Hansen. An objective number would around -11.0 W/m2. Then all the estimates would change by up to 11 times smaller.

Reply to  Bill Illis
November 10, 2016 7:39 am

” So, then one gets to ascribe all the temperature changes in the ice ages to the drop in CO2.”
So now CO2 is cause of glaciation ? WFT?
This is horse-shit. How do they get absurd junk like this published in the first place.
Respected journal my AAAS !

Reply to  Bill Illis
November 10, 2016 1:43 pm

Great summation Bill:
Also in their imagination run wild paleo reconstructions:
Where their own reconstructed paleo data over three quarter’s of a million years is scatter plotted, These authors then extend the tight scatter plots to rapidly rising future sensitivity plots where the paleo record never reached.
Another alarmist circle fantasy satisfaction paper.
Models fulfilling confirmation bias.
Research that originated and conducted within researcher assumptions and expectations.
Validation by fakery.
More waste of research funds yielding junk science.

Ross King
Reply to  ATheoK
November 10, 2016 2:00 pm

Where’s Griff on this?
Griff: We need our daily laugh … pls. oblige

Dave Fair
Reply to  ATheoK
November 10, 2016 3:41 pm

It was tough on me over the last few years learning that “leading scientist” often meant liar in the climate “sciences.”

Reply to  ATheoK
November 10, 2016 7:53 pm

We are all with you there Dave.

Tom O
November 10, 2016 6:27 am

As best I can figure, the climate system is drawing its current “heat” from the stored heat in the ocean and the stored heat in the mantle, as it is not coming from the Sun, which has slipped into a quiet mode. Therefore the system is using up its stored energy at a prodigious rate as it maintains the climate. As the stored energy diminishes, the planet will slide back into an ice age until the sun decides to output greater energy. We can only hope that it will bottom in a “mini ice age,” and not the real thing.

Tom Halla
November 10, 2016 6:48 am

So if one uses RCP 8.5 and cuts and pastes a Mann hockey stick onto the assumption, and mix in unicorn farts. . . Computer games again.

November 10, 2016 7:05 am

Watermelons are pitiable creatures.

November 10, 2016 7:05 am

What are all these self-proclaimed scientists going to do when the US cuts climate research/spending by $22 BILLION annually on January 20th?

Ross King
Reply to  J
November 10, 2016 10:43 am

Wear bill-boards and sell pencils from cups [see above].
An honest job … for a change.

Ari S
Reply to  J
November 14, 2016 1:01 am

Hmm – the $22B is a substantial amplification of reality. Be skeptical, but cite facts also. R&D portion of fed budget for this is $2.65B approx. (2014), not $22B (I did find this $22B number, but its inclusive of many other things including green energy tech, tax credits and the like – not for R&D). Also, love this site and these boards, and their endless ad-hominem attack – very professional, although not of the quality of though of say the Federalist Papers. Keep up the good work and be really proud of your endless search for rational sounding reasoning for the hobnoshery of purported good skepticism which starts from the premise of nothing to see here, and obtains many good sounding arguments for why things look better while closing eyes. But to tell the truth, I’d rather have some rational skepticism arguments which don’t end in the conclusion that the reason one is right is because one is more skeptical, nastier, and all other belief is conspiracy. Actually, as a hardened skeptic I’d rather we do amplify more things which are real sounding. I really liked one where people were denying Ocean acidification based on a study of a freshwater lake – it was really cool way to get people who wouldn’t know the difference between sea water and freshwater (and the fact that a lake has inputs that dominate chemistry) to disbelieve all thinking on ocean acidification. Who cares anyhow. Or consider the case of Dr. Muller. Of course we probably need to have Koch ask for a refund since the answer didn’t work so well for our mutual skepticism.

November 10, 2016 7:06 am

I think with the coming huge reductions in grant money being doled out to these people, Anthony will have to dig further to find “studies” like these.
I’m looking forward to a thorough housecleaning throughout the government, but it’s going to be very hard. Civil servant laws preclude large scale purges. Maybe the only way will be for department reorganizations where you can RIF people by requiring a lower headcount after the changes.
The real issue on this front though is the leadership. If you take the politics out and return climate science to science, maybe it will be enough.

Reply to  rbabcock
November 10, 2016 2:01 pm

Civil servant worker bees can still be useful. Just reassign them to departments where their skills can be useful, perhaps in Alaska or Guam.
The senior executive staff (SAS) can be fired, summarily; If evidence of actual fabrication or data misuse can be proven, their retirements can be denied.
Budgets for specific areas of operation can be reduced or just plain cut. Employees RIFed, (Reduction in Force), are eligible to apply elsewhere in the Federal Government.
The critical action absolutely required for a true reduction in ranks is elimination of work. So long as the expectation for specific work exists, labor forces will expand.
e.g. eliminate all climate explicit work, all CO2 attribution and modeling. If the work does not directly support weather tracking and prediction, it’s toast.
That results in people whose entire daily work schedule and deliverables are gone. Sit and twiddle thumbs time until reassigned, RIFed or voluntarily finds another job. Most will be reassigned.

November 10, 2016 7:11 am

For the millionth time —->>>>
“Climate Scientists Predict the Imminent End of the World”

November 10, 2016 7:17 am

…over reach world perhaps

Jenn Runion
November 10, 2016 7:33 am

Wait, there is a bright side to this..
If the game is over, then there is nothing left to do. This is what we’ve been waiting for!! Game Over Man! And now back to our regularly scheduled program. No point to funneling billions of dollars into a week long party at an exotic location, no more renewable subsidies, and no more models that are only as good as the bias directing them. Game Over. We are off the hook from the guilt because we already lost. And once lost can never be found. So go ahead Greenwar and make your last dying words about how we can still “save” the planet, because it won’t do you much good. We know what Game Over means…it means ot is time to save ourselves.
See? This is a good thing. 🙂

Jenn Runion
Reply to  Jenn Runion
November 10, 2016 7:36 am

Whats lost can never be found…stupid autocorrect…

Reply to  Jenn Runion
November 10, 2016 7:41 am

Can’t wait January, hopefully Trump will defund all there unscientific AAAS-holes.

Smart Rock
November 10, 2016 7:39 am

It’s not only worse than we thought, it’s worse than we thought the last time we said it was worse than we thought.
This time it’ really, really REALLY worse than we thought. It’s so much more worse than we thought that we can’t think how much worse than we thought we could possibly think it could be.
You heard it first here: the journal AAAS “Science Advances” is being renamed “Science Retreats” in keeping with its editorial policy.

November 10, 2016 7:42 am

Anybody found out who is this most renowned climatologist?

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
November 10, 2016 8:51 am

Every academic is “renowned”, just as every company and product is “leading”.
Now the lefty academics need to lose the “ren”. With Trump, they’ve been owned.

November 10, 2016 8:11 am

Excellent news. So the Paris accord really is totally irrelevant and can be shredded and recycled to earth friendly toilet paper. I’ll go ahead with my purchase of stocks in sun screen and beer coolers.

November 10, 2016 8:12 am

On a side note, the protests today are very darkly hilarious. Take the rioting in Oakland, for example: “Hey, some people in other states voted in a way we don’t like! Let’s all go out and burn down our own houses! That’ll show ’em!!!”

Reply to  wws
November 10, 2016 8:23 am

Perhaps voting stations should not only require voter ID, but also voter IQ.

Reply to  Tim
November 11, 2016 1:53 am

And voter pulse rate (no voting from beyond the grave). And voter proof of residency (no voting on a bus). And voter proof of citizenship (no voting as a resident foreigner, legal or otherwise).
If they did, I expect Mrs. Clinton’s popular vote count would have been significantly behind Trump’s.

Reply to  wws
November 10, 2016 10:28 am

Any evidence that any of the protesters / rioters actually voted?

Reply to  wws
November 10, 2016 10:38 am

Remember back when Obama was first elected they were predicting riots by all those ‘racists’ who didn’t vote for him. It didn’t happen. The political right is far more respectful of law than the political left and generally doesn’t throw a temper tantrum when they don’t get their way. Like so much of the rhetoric that comes from the political left, those claims were a classic manifestation of psychological projection as demonstrated by riots by the left arising because they didn’t get their way this time.

David L. Fair
Reply to  wws
November 10, 2016 10:54 am

wws, it has been darkly hilarious (hiLLarious?) for some time. We knew that the liberal MSM had it completely reversed when they predicted violent protests of a Trump loss. It is the entitled left that riots when things don’t go their way. Stay tuned for more incitement by our “thought leaders.”

Reply to  David L. Fair
November 10, 2016 2:57 pm

When you want to know what a liberal is up to, just check what he’s accusing a conservative of.
Liberals assumed that conservatives would riot when they lose, because they know that is what they would do.

November 10, 2016 8:28 am

If they show a climate model that has been correlated, so when you input the known climate factors from the past ( CO2 levels, solar activity, etc) and the predictions match the temperatures we have seen, and the predictions for the future from this correlated model are this 7 C warming by 2100 then there might be some credibility to those claims. They talk about the “possibility” of this happening, not knowing because of the unknowns, well, thats why you correlate your models to past known data so your model temperature predictions match real temperatures by adjusting the unknowns like feedbacks. If you make those adjustments and match the past, then you have some case to say this is what might happen in the future.
In the engineering field I work in the first thing anybody wants to know before they consider looking at my data is, “is the model correlated, to tests or real operations?” If the answer is no, and then I were to show them plots of my model’s predictions against real measured data like these climate models, I would get the tongue lashing of a lifetime and then get fired for incompetence. But these climate models are not created to make accurate predictions, they are made to drum up money for more climate studies by creating fear. If they correlated their models so they predicted the flat temperature response of the last 20 years then they would show very little warming for the next 50 years and it would be “game over” for the climate change money train.

November 10, 2016 8:49 am

It is the scammers pumping out fraudulent and dangerous lies like this that really do need to be locked up. Now.

November 10, 2016 9:28 am

The simplest of sums shows that their lower and upper end scenarios (4.78 and 7.36) when divided by 84 (years to 2100) produce annual (linear) expectations of 0.057 and 0.088 deg C increase in temperature per year. Such values would surely be noticed in a very few years. If this does not happen the linear requirement to reach their expectations will increase gradually to ridiculous amounts. At some time their guesses will have to be abandoned.
Is this too simple?

David L. Fair
Reply to  Robin
November 10, 2016 11:04 am

Robin, this has boggled my mind for years. Yes; it really is that simple!
As the predicted warming trends for the 21st Century did not appear, it was simple for anyone to recalculate what the trends would have to be to reach their unchanging “target” future temperatures. Their failure to update models with actual temperatures through 2005 was an attempt to justify high outyear projections.

November 10, 2016 9:30 am

“In parallel investigations, we cherry-picked a different segment of the paleo record in which CO2 level and temperature were inversely correlated, and obtained a CO2 sensitivity of minus 7 degrees per CO2 doubling.
So on balance our advice to president Trump is to do nothing about CO2 (except enjoy the tomatoes).

Bruce Cobb
November 10, 2016 9:32 am

Well, they are correct in one sense; it’s “game over” for the climatists. There’s a new sheriff in town, and he’s got them quaking in their boots, going hog wild in desperation. It’s a beautiful thing.

November 10, 2016 9:44 am

This paleodata-based TCRP is now applied to the RCP8.5 forcing scenario
Why oh why do they keep using that stupidly ridiculous and impossible scenario?
It’s a rethorical question, I don’t mean to be answered. I know the answer pretty well.

Pop Piasa
November 10, 2016 10:09 am

Another spectre of “unprecedented harm” imagined by those who don’t care to learn from the past because they are trying to convince us of “Humanity’s growing stress on fragile Gaia”.
A scientific apostasy which stems from mortal vanity.

Reply to  Pop Piasa
November 11, 2016 2:03 am

The political left conveniently forgets history all the time, and wants you to forget it, too.

November 10, 2016 10:24 am

So much BS it boggles the mind. But then again, this seems to be the purpose. If this was thought through clearly, CAGW would not be an issue.
The claim that the sensitivity increases with temperature is trivially falsified with both theory and data. The T^4 relationship between temperature and emissions coupled with the immutable fact that in LTE, emissions == total input forcing should make it obvious that the sensitivity MUST decrease with temperature.
Starting from 0K, the planet is an ideal BB and the first W/m^2 of input increases the temperature from 0K to 65K for a sensitivity of 65K per W/m^2 (no GHG effect, no water, no ‘feedback’). The next W/m^2 of forcing increases the temperature by 11K for a sensitivity of 11C per W/m^2. Each additional W/m^2 of forcing has a smaller effect than the average of all forcing and that effect diminishes as 1/T^4. All that happens as GHG’s and clouds come in to affect at higher temperatures is that the ratio between planet emissions and surface emissions decreases (i.e. the effective ’emissivity’ decreases).
Anyone who thinks that feedback can effect on the T^4 relationship between emissions and temperature needs some remedial math and physics training. All that is possible is to vary an effective emissivity or the scale factor between surface emissions and emissions by the planet. This is a linear relationship to emissions and not big enough to override the 1/T^3 dependence of the sensitivity on input. The temperature relationship of the effective emissivity would need to decrease at a rate greater than T^4 in order for the sensitivity to increase as the temperature increases.

Bill Yarber
November 10, 2016 10:45 am

People who aren’t aware of, haven’t studied or refuse to accept the geologic and written history of CO2, temperature and human civilization say the stupidest BS! They should be forced to take Geology, History and control theory all over again! But it’s obvious that their profit motivation is high!

November 10, 2016 11:01 am

Friedrich and Timmermann (U.o. Hawaii) churn our this kind of paper all the time. Axel Timmermann was the Lead Author of the IPCC’s AR5 WG1, Chapter 5 (Information from Paleoclimate Archives).

Ross King
November 10, 2016 11:04 am

It is increasingly obvious to all except the wagon-circling Alarmists, current Global Warming is but a chronologically microcosmic part of one Paleo-climatic cycle of successive ice-sheet advances and retreats, involving huge swings in atmospheric CO2 and temperature, and energy fluxes which absolutely dwarf anthropogenic warming.
I’m sure our ‘egg-heads’ here can identify a no. of points on various paleoclimatic cycles where sensitivity was (theoretically, as now) increasing to the cataclysmic ‘tipping-point’ …. at which time extinguishing all life. But we’re still here, tagging-along with — in the driving-seat — natural forces determining climate changes and trends, hugely greater than any impact Anthropogenic Warming can make. Gaia is far more robust a system than the Alarmists claim, and their theories FAIL.

November 10, 2016 11:24 am

I’ve always thought climate sensitivity was non-linear but in the other direction via negative feedbacks. Physics tends to indicate that positive feedback leads to destruction. I.e., we wouldn’t be here right now.

Reply to  mpcraig
November 10, 2016 12:46 pm

“I’ve always thought climate sensitivity was non-linear but in the other direction via negative feedbacks.”
The concept of feedback, per Bode, is not applicable to the climate system, where the bogus model developed by Hansen and Schlesinger considers both the stimulus and the implicit power supply to be the Sun. In this case, the maximum power that can be delivered to a load can never exceed the input power from the Sun. Consider an amplifier where the input and power supply are connected to the same thing. Will any amount feedback, positive or negative, allow the maximum power that the amplifier can deliver to exceed the input power?
What can happen is that joules that were prevented from being delivered to the load in the past can be delivered to the load in the present (for example, temporarily storing them in a capacitor), but like progressivism/socialism, you eventually run out other joules. GHG’s kind of work this way by preventing joules from escaping and returning some of them to the surface in the future, although not without letting some eventually escape out the other side of the atmosphere and into space (about half each direction based on geometric considerations). Because the source of excess joules is the past, a steady stream of them arrives, but only to the extent that they were prevented from leaving in the first place. There is no ‘amplification’ involved, it’s just the sum of joules originating from various times in the past.
What you consider to be negative feedback is the T^4 dependence of temperature on joules/sec (power) and since joules must be conserved, it takes more of them to increase T by a constant amount as T gets larger. This is not negative feedback, but the natural consequence of the physical laws underlying radiation physics.

Ross King
Reply to  mpcraig
November 10, 2016 2:08 pm

Exactly!!! In paleoclimatic record, how many “Tipping-Points” has Gaia survived without self-destructing??
The current hypothesis by the Alarmist/Charlatan Camp is that “the ultimate Tipping-Point and the Cataclysmic End is Nigh”. Empirical evidence *absolutely* disproves this hypothesis.

November 10, 2016 11:57 am

And Mars should be hot as Venus.

CD in Wisconsin
November 10, 2016 12:57 pm

Did anybody else notice the caption underneath the photo in the Independent news piece…….
“If the Earth’s temperature rises seven degrees Celsius, it could trigger the kind of runaway global warming that may have turned Venus from a habitable planet into a 460C version of hell…..”
I didn’t know that Venus was a habitable planet at one time. Huh, was there any life on the planet at the time of its habitability? If so, what did the Venusian life look like? Were they like us?
Inquiring minds want to know.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
November 10, 2016 2:59 pm

According to current theory, Venus never cooled down enough for liquid water to form.

Bill Illis
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
November 10, 2016 5:52 pm

When the Sun is up for 116 days as on Venus, the surface is baked out to about 500C on the very first day. As in, the water is turned into water vapour by 7:00 am on our relative time on the very first day 4.5 billion years ago and everything in the surface rocks which can be baked into a gaseous volatile is turned into a gaseous volatile by 8:00 am our relative time on the very first day 4.5 billion years ago.
And this process does not really stop for the next 4.5 billion years.
Result, extremely thick atmosphere which only allows enough energy to escape back to space so that the equilibrium surface temperature is 500C.

November 10, 2016 12:59 pm

Great! Let’s party like there’s no tomorrow! Yay! 🙂

November 10, 2016 1:12 pm

It has gone up 12C here today at Gamecock’s palace.

Stephen Singer
November 10, 2016 1:39 pm

There they go again using the discredited RCP 8.5 for their prediction. Will they ever learn?

November 10, 2016 2:23 pm

Ross King
November 10, 2016 3:10 pm

“Great! Let’s party like there’s no tomorrow! Yay! :” [see above]
This is a win-win proposition …. open the bottles!
Win Alt.1: If the ‘Tipping-Point’ is tomorrow, and the World is incinerated the day after, we win .. we go out with a ‘bang’.  Eat, drink & be merry ‘cos tomorrow we die!!
Win Alt.2: The ‘Tipping-Point’ / cataclysmic consequence hypothesis (as fervently promoted by the colluding Alarmist pseudo-science cabal, and cheer-led by the opportunistic pols., money-grasping entrepreneurs drooling at the public trough, the sensationalist media, and Snake-Oil-Sales(wo)men) is WRONG.  This is much the more plausible ‘cos Gaia has survived innumerable such ‘tipping-points’ [tho’ they didn’t know it at the time] and survived.  Otherwise why does Gaia survive, and us with it?  Eat, drink & be merry, ‘cos tomorrow we live!
In other words, there’s buggah-all we can do about it, so ‘Don’t worry, be happy!’
Added to which, on the paleo-climatic time scale, the Anthropocene is but a microcosmic slice. Ice-sheet cycles of advancing & retreating over tens of thousands of years over geological time reduce antropogenicity to a blink in time. The energy fluxes involved render any quantum of anthropogenic warming to infinitesimal.  The CO2 & atmospheric variations far exceed anything we are microscopically contemplating in our ‘millisecond’s worth’ of existence on graphs determined by hugely inertial paleoclimatic swings, not anthropogenic. This all ‘big-pendulum’ cyclicity.
Ladies & Gentlemen … my case rests.  Global Warming Alarmism is a self-serving scam
for self-serving gravy-trainers.

Johna Till Johnson
November 10, 2016 3:12 pm

“My question – if a warmer world is more sensitive to CO2, why was the Cretaceous, which ended 66 million years ago, only 4C warmer than today, despite a CO2 level more than 4x higher than today’s CO2 level?
Be-be-because positive feedback loop! Yeah, that’s the ticket! More C02-> hotter temperatures -> more CO2 –> apocalypse.
Oh ok. Then how did the C02 level get DOWN from its high point 66 million years ago?
I’m just a lowly engineer, but I spotted that one several years ago. Amazingly, none of the AGW folks can give a coherent answer.

Ross King
Reply to  Johna Till Johnson
November 10, 2016 3:36 pm

I say that you hit the nail on the head!
The fact that the apocalypses (supposedly irreversible post-‘tipping-points’ — ever so narrowly & precisely defined by the High Priests of Charlatanism) never occurred in paleo-climatic record despite innumerable ‘run-ins’ is surely an Incontrovertible, Inconvenient Truth that DEMOLISHES AGW/catastrophist theory.
( Johna: From one ‘lowly Engineer’ (CAP ‘E’ puhlease — stand proud Engineer!) to another lowly(?) *E*ngineer! what the rest of the World doesn’t know is that we Engineers likely have the broad grasp of scientific principles — albeit in an ‘Applied’ context — than most other professions … including “Climate Scientists” whatever that means Seems to me that any Tom, dick or Harry can hang-out their shingle saying: “Climate Scientist” whereas us poor Engineers go through living hell to get our professional qualifications, AND have to conform to litigation requiring us to be affiliated with a relevant pre-qualified Professional Group. I’ve yet to hear of an International Association of Qualified Climate Professions with Rules as rigorous as those governing ours.)
No wonder these Charlatans run-riot, without constraint, with slack-science …
Don’t get me going with supposedly the Platinum Standard of “Peer Review”…… we’ve all been ‘had’ and it’s hi-time the pendulum swung back *hard*

November 10, 2016 3:31 pm

Eric: Here is a map of the continents during the Cretaceous Period. Ocean circulation and meridional transport of heat were dramatically different. Let’s not draw any meaningless conclusions about climate sensitivity from the temperature during the Cretaceous.

Bill Illis
Reply to  Frank
November 10, 2016 4:59 pm

Think of what the Earth’s Albedo was in this scenario.
ALL that ocean, which has a much lower Albedo than the land surface. Especially the shallow inland seas which have even lower Albedo than the normal deep ocean.
No glaciers, which have a much higher Albedo than any other change which can happen on the planet.
No land-mass at the poles (technically, Antarctica was a little higher north at this time than usually shown. The spreading oceanic ridge between Australia and Antarctica (where they started splitting apart about 50 Mya) puts Antarctica about 2,000 kms farther north than shown here).
If you actually run the numbers on what the global Albedo was, it is around 25.2% versus today’s 29.83%. That alone makes the Earth about 4.1C warmer.

Bob in Castlemaine
November 10, 2016 5:05 pm

To me the big unexplained mystery with this model based hypothesis is that given the vast range of combinations of atmospheric composition, geomorphic and tectonic change, sea level variation and the wide range of surface and ocean temperatures that have existed over aeons of planetary evolution, somehow no evidence exists that any of these endless combinations has led to a feedback induced point of instability or “tipping point”. That’s not to suggest that climate sensitivity doesn’t vary, clearly it will, but this experience does strongly indicate that in general the interaction of feedbacks tends toward the restoration of equilibrium.

November 10, 2016 6:48 pm

So I was right all along, and we are doomed after all. That’s comforting to know.

November 10, 2016 7:58 pm

Mayan Science

November 10, 2016 9:46 pm

These studies really, really need to start with a line “We have yet to detect a hint of any trace of CO2 force feedbacks on water vapour as reported by the United Nations WMO and UN IPCC and 300 billion dollars has been spent in this pursuit to date.”

Kelvin Duncan
November 10, 2016 10:29 pm

It used to be said that it took a bad physicist to draw a straight line through three points, a bad chemist to draw a straight line through two points, but a brilliant climate scientist to draw a straight line through one point.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
November 11, 2016 1:51 am

The Thinker is a symbol of the sceptic. Not the grifter.

michael hammer
November 11, 2016 2:11 am

The only sort of feedback claimed for amplifying CO2 is through the rise in temperature. Higher temperature causes water vapour levels to rise which causes further warming and so on. That means whether the initial rise is due to CO2 or something else is completely irrelevant, it is the rise in temperature which causes the feedback. The claim is that the +ve feedback co-efficient rises as the temperature rises to the point that less than 1C direct impact translates to more than 7C total. That’s extremely close to a +ve feedback coefficient >1 which means runaway temperature rise without end – the Venus scenario.
But we know that world has been far warmer in the past than the measly 1C direct impact predicted from doubling CO2 to 560 ppm and we are nowhere near the 560 ppm level as yet) so, as so many others have pointed out, why didn’t the world run away to Venus situation long ago. Forget about whether CO2 was high or low at the time, the warmer temperature should have been enough to result in runaway.
This research fails even the most basic common sense test.
Another point (somewhat off topic) which really bugs me is when “scientists” claim a sudden new “discontinuous” effect to explain an unexpected change. In this case, the rise in CO2 apparently slowed down over the last 15 years and a recent post suggested its because the plants had been taking up more of the CO2 as shown by the global greening. Don’t these people understand the first thing about feedback systems. If the rising CO2 was triggering faster plant growth (which I very strongly suspect is true) then that would have been happening on a continuous basis right since he time CO2 had started to rise and it would have been reducing the rate of CO2 though all that time, it would not have suddenly and mysteriously only started in the early 21st century. If one looks for a cause of a sudden change in slope of CO2 vs time it HAS to be something that changed at about the same time and plant growth does not fit. On the other hand temperature does, the pause is well documented and talked about and dates from very much the same time. But that suggests the rise in CO2 is driven – at least in part – by temperature, as the temperature rise slows so does the rate of rise of CO2. How inconvenient, yet another piece of evidence suggesting the rise in CO2 is a result of the rise of temperature not the other way round (look at the remarkable fit between dCO2/dtime and temperature). But such a finding would call into question whether man is even responsible for most of the rise in CO2 a completely unacceptable idea even to contemplate by warmists so another reason has to be found even if it is utterly implausible.

November 11, 2016 8:12 am

CMIP5 global temp mean projections (based on ECS=3C~4.5C) already exceed reality (UAH6.0) by over 2 standard deviations for 20 years, which is more than sufficient disparity and duration to disconfirm the CAGW ho-x with high confidence.
In 5~7 years, the disparity will VERY likely exceed 3+ standard deviations for 25+ years,which is the realm of absurdity.
Trump needs to appoint a good Science Advisor and shutdown this silly disconfirmed CAGW ho-x once and for all..
We’re wasting $100’s of billions/yr on compliance costs of stupid CO2 regulations, wind/solar subsidies, CAGW research grants, insanely expensive/inefficient grid-level wind/solar plants, etc.
“Elections have consequences”, as Obama said….it works both ways…

November 11, 2016 1:26 pm

CMIP5 based climate models have been invalidated so anything based on CMIP5 is at the very least, suspect. In their first report, the IPCC published a wide range of possible values for the climate sensitivity of CO2 In their last report the IPCC published the exact same values. So after more than two decades of effort the IPCC has learned nothing that would allow them to decrease their range of guesses one iota. The IPCC is refusing to acknowledge the work of many estimated that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is much lower than the ranges of guesses made by the IPCC for fear of losing their funding.
The last interglacial period was warmer than this one with higher sea levels and more ice cap melting to include a greater amount of so called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere yet that interglacial period ended with the start of the last ice age and life continued to evolve.
There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is plenty of scientific reasoning to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is really zero. If CO2 really effected then one would expect that the increase over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measurable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened.

November 13, 2016 9:16 am

You mean… it’s worse… (gasp) — than we thought??!!

November 14, 2016 6:15 pm

Based on simply a review of the abstract, this paper is a thoroughgoing embarrassment to contemporary science, and a disgrace to the peer-reviewed journal that chose to publish such utter drivel. Beyond this, it is an eloquent testimonial to the rabbit-hole thinking that engulfs the minds of people who are drunk on the potentialities of pure theory unconstrained by any reference to the reality of hard data from the Earth system.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights