Climate scientist Judith Curry on the wave of peer-reviewed articles concluding the UN is wrong: A growing body of evidence suggests that the climate is less sensitive to increases in carbon-dioxide emissions than policy makers generally assume—and that the need for reductions in such emissions is less urgent. When the evidence contradicts the theory, doesnt science demand the theory change? Share the facts at Climate Depot: climatedepot/ and at the WSJ (paywall). Continuing to rely on climate-model warming projections based on high, model-derived values of climate sensitivity skews the cost-benefit analyses and estimates of the social cost of carbon. This can bias policy decisions. The implications of the lower values of climate sensitivity in our paper, as well as similar other recent studies, is that human-caused warming near the end of the 21st century should be less than the 2-degrees-Celsius “danger” level for all but the IPCC’s most extreme emission scenario. This slower rate of warming—relative to climate model projections—means there is less urgency to phase out greenhouse gas emissions now, and more time to find ways to decarbonize the economy affordably. It also allows us the flexibility to revise our policies as further information becomes available. Should climate policy adjust to climate fact?
Posted on: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:55:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015