Global Warming Revision: Fuel for Creationists

This is really going to stir things up. At EurekAlert, the online news service of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), we read: Climate sensitivity to CO2 more limited than extreme projections. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

A new study suggests that the rate of global warming from doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide may be less than the most dire estimates of some previous studies – and, in fact, may be less severe than projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in 2007.

We’ve seen before that there exists a strange axis of evolution deniers and climate change deniers. See Discovery Institute Praises Global Warming Deniers. We described their interpretation of events like this:

If the legitimate views of global warming skeptics had been suppressed, this means that all science dissent is similarly worthy, and therefore the irrational science-denial of creationists is somehow now respectable.

This reaction to the possibility of major revision in any science is what we call the “vindication of all kooks” doctrine. The Discoveroids showed the same reaction to the possibility that neutrinos may have exceeded the speed of light (see Discovery Institute “fellow” David Klinghoffer’s Another One Bites the Dust?). So we know what’s coming.

Moving along in the EurekAlert article:

Authors of the study, which was funded by the National Science Foundation and published online this week in the journal Science, say that global warming is real and that increases in atmospheric CO2 will have multiple serious impacts. However, the most Draconian projections of temperature increases from the doubling of CO2 are unlikely.

You know the creationists will be going wild over this. Let’s read on:

“Many previous climate sensitivity studies have looked at the past only from 1850 through today, and not fully integrated paleoclimate date, especially on a global scale,” said Andreas Schmittner, an Oregon State University researcher and lead author on the Science article. “When you reconstruct sea and land surface temperatures from the peak of the last Ice Age 21,000 years ago – which is referred to as the Last Glacial Maximum – and compare it with climate model simulations of that period, you get a much different picture.

If these paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future, as predicted by our model, the results imply less probability of extreme climatic change than previously thought,” Schmittner added.

Here’s the published paper in Science: Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum, but without a subscription, all you can read is the abstract.

We’re skipping most of the EurekAlert article, knowing that you’ll want to read it for yourself. Here’s the conclusion:

Schmittner said continued unabated fossil fuel use could lead to similar warming of the sea surface as reconstruction shows happened between the Last Glacial Maximum and today.

“Hence, drastic changes over land can be expected,” he said. “However, our study implies that we still have time to prevent that from happening, if we make a concerted effort to change course soon.”

What does it mean? We’re not sure, but we’re certain of one thing — we’ll be hearing from the creationists about this. Soon.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

2 responses to “Global Warming Revision: Fuel for Creationists

  1. If it weren’t for all the hot air generated by Creationists, we might not have a Global Warming problem.

  2. Ceteris Paribus

    The authors are merely offering a refined climate change model
    estimating a median rise of 2.3K vs an existing median estimate of 3K.

    That’s actually a good confirmation of Thomas Kuhn’s (The Structure
    of Scientific Revolutions
    ) description of science from 50 years ago.
    As time goes by, scientific understanding of natural systems inevitably
    will be improved, refined, and when necessary, discarded in favor of a
    better scientific paradigm.

    Ask a creation “scientist” to find a reference to that idea in their
    scriptures of revealed, absolute truths.