Climate change deniers misrepresent new study that finds climate models underestimate warming

Posted on

"Climate change deniers misrepresent new study that finds climate models underestimate warming"

http://www.ondacero.es/nuevaa3tv/img/titanoboa0402.jpgBizarrely, climate science deniers are touting a new study that finds we might return to the rapid global warming of the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) with much lower levels of CO2 than previously thought.

The PETM’s climate would be quite inhospitable to human civilization.  A February Nature article concluded (see “The Garden of Eden had a 40-foot, 1-ton snake plus 90°F average temperatures“):

If our Palaeocene estimates are correct, tropical temperatures at the slightly younger (55.8 Myr ago) Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) could have reached 38-40°C, resulting in widespread equatorial heat-death as recent models and other proxy data have predicted.

A 2006 Nature analysis of deep marine sediments beneath the Arctic found Artic temperatures during the PETM almost beyond imagination-above 23°C (74°F)-temperatures more than 18°F warmer than current climate models had predicted (see “A methane feedback from the past strikes again“). The three dozen authors of the 2006 paper concluded that existing climate models are missing crucial feedbacks that can significantly amplify polar warming “” as opposed to the imaginary negative feedbacks deniers like Lindzen claim while will magically save humanity from catastrophic warming (see Study: Water-vapor feedback is “strong and positive,” so we face “warming of several degrees Celsius”).

Now a new PETM study is out (click here), which deniers like Swift Boat smearer Marc Morano are touting as evidence climate models don’t accurately model the climate — but which rational climate science activists understand is yet more evidence that most climate models underestimate likely future warming.  Here is the Union of Concerned Scientists press release on the study:

Several climate contrarian Web sites are misrepresenting the findings of a peer-reviewed study published in the July 13 issue of the journal Nature Geoscience. The study — by scientists from Rice University, the University of Hawaii and the University of California at Santa Cruz — provides evidence that current climate models are underestimating the amount of warming that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide can cause. In other words, the potential consequences of global warming are likely worse than what scientists are predicting.

The study examined the extent to which increased carbon dioxide levels could explain a 5 to 9 degree Celsius increase the Earth experienced 55.5 million years ago. The authors concluded that current estimates of how much carbon dioxide increases the average Earth temperature only explains 3.5 degrees of warming.

In a commentary published with the study, David Beerling, a paleobiologist at the University of Sheffield in England, writes: “The upshot of the study. is that forecasts of future warming could be severely underestimating the extent of the problem that lies in store for humanity as greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere.

According to Melanie Fitzpatrick, a climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), carbon dioxide-induced warming can lead to changes that exacerbate the problem. For example, increasing CO2 concentrations:
– melt tundra, which then releases methane and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere;
– warm the air, which then can hold more water vapor, another heat-trapping gas; and
– melt white ice, which exposes the ocean and land, which, because they are darker in color, absorb more heat from the sun and reflect less of it back into space.

Scientists are still trying to precisely quantify the effect of such “positive feedback cycles” that took place millions of years ago as well as the ones that are happening today, Fitzpatrick said. The scientific literature, including the new Nature Geoscience study, indicates that positive feedbacks greatly outweigh negative ones and that current climate models are likely underestimating potential temperature increases from overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases.

Precisely.

I would add that the study’s authors themselves note in the conclusion:

Possible causes of the excess warming include increased production and levels of trace greenhouse gases as a consequence of the climatic warming (such as CH4).

Given that some of the fastest warming on the planet is occurring right where the most methane is stored (see here), the methane feedback remains the biggest worry in the entire carbon cycle.

So go ahead, deniers, make my day and direct more people to read this valuable study.

Tags:

« »

38 Responses to Climate change deniers misrepresent new study that finds climate models underestimate warming

  1. dhogaza says:

    Also being misrepresented is this guest post at Real Climate by Kyle Swanson regarding the controversial paper he co-authored last year.

    In fact the misrepresentation of the two papers appear one right after the other over at Watts’ blog.

    I feel sorry for:

    1. The paper’s authors, who unexpectedly and falsely find themselves being touted as having contributed to the overturning of climate science.

    2. Humanity, since such misrepresentations raise more barriers making it harder to do something.

    [JR: Yes, though as I noted, Swanson said some scientifically dubious things -- like predicting no noticeable warming for another decade -- that I thought RC didn't really agree with and would regret.]

  2. Gordon Parish says:

    I thought it seemed obvious even to me that the PETM study indicated not that models were junk, but that they could be underestimating potential warming… the DailyTech article had me confused as to why they thought this affirmed the anti-AGW/denier position… so I googled the actual authors and found that at least one of them seems to reinforce my own initial reaction:

    “There are a few ideas what may have contributed to the additional warming. But I don’t think we fully understand these events of intense and rapid global warming,” says Zeebe.

    If the additional warming in the past was a response to rising carbon dioxide, then also future warming could be much stronger than anticipated. Undoubtedly, the Earth was a different place 55 million years ago and comparison with today’s situation is imperfect. Nevertheless, the work of Zeebe and his co-workers suggests that the future climate could hold some surprises.

    “By continuing to put these huge amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we’re gambling with climate and the outcome is still uncertain,” Zeebe says.

  3. K. Nockles says:

    I read this last night and was wondering if the deniers would bite. I think they stop reading at the part of any study that states the climate models could be wrong about something. But they just keep it up and look the worse for it every time. Anything new on the high temp and burning forests in Alaska Joe?

  4. Brewster says:

    I’ve been hit with this one on a couple of Forums I visit…

    My stock answer has been, “Do we REALLY want to keep pumping CO2 into the air and find out what those ‘unknown feedbacks’ really are?”

  5. From Peru says:

    Why dont`t send to the deniers as a present one of those giant prehistoric snakes (I really mean their actual descendants, 9-meter long, 50 cm thick giant ANACONDAS)so they can have their global warming pets in their hot gardens ?

  6. Mike#22 says:

    (from the Nature Geoscience press release) “They found that, using current estimates of climate sensitivity to increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the carbon release could only explain up to 3.5 °C of the warming.”

    Of course, Hansen and colleagues have already shown that after including slow feedbacks, a climate sensitivity of 6 fits the paleoclimate data.

    I think we need to double the climate research funding immediately. Climate modellers have a mountain of work ahead of them. There are too many feedbacks yet to be researched and modelled–we need good models now.

    What if the slow feedbacks aren’t that slow? What do we really know about how fast the permafrost will melt under the man made CO2 blanket?

  7. dhogaza says:

    Brewster, you might try a response along these lines:

    The authors are saying that climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 might be as high as 5C-6C, not the current IPCC best-estimate of 3C

    And ask them why does this make them happy?

    Leif Svalgaard, poor boy, has tried to make this point over at WUWT but apparently 90% of the posters over there are unable to get the point.

  8. Our children could be living in another Eocene?

    The first time I heard that was from Larry Schweiger the CEO at National Wildlife Federation. “Eocene,” I said,”help me with that.” My paleoclimatology is limited to a couple books, like Stephen Scheider’s now-classic from the nineties, “Laboratory Earth: The Planetary Gamble We Can’t Afford to Lose”, and Wally Broecker’s new book, “Fixing the Climate.”

    “Well”, Larry intoned, “how about a world so hot, so humid and so cloudy, no one ever saw the stars?”

  9. Gail says:

    Thanks for clearing that up for me, JR. I read the first paragraph of the press release yesterday and all I could think was NOOOOOOOO! I couldn’t bring myself to read the rest – the impression I was left with was that CO2 isn’t causing global warming.

    Is it possible that the all important first paragraph could have been phrased to more effectively convey the real import of the study?

  10. Rabid Doomsayer says:

    Gee, I thought I was the doomsayer.

    Climate models are our best available tool, yet inevitably we have to make assumptions on the feedbacks where we do not know all the details. It looks as though those feedbacks have been underestimated.

    Paleo climatology gives us a clue as to what happened in the past. But the world was a very different place back then and the rate of temperature increase was not as great as we are likely to be facing.

    Gets more than a little scary.

  11. Lou Grinzo says:

    RD: “It looks as though those feedbacks have been underestimated.”

    We can stop the competition and give out the trophy–we’ve found the understatement of the year.

    Forgive my lame attempt at humor, RD, but I agree with you 100%. and I’ve come to the conclusion recently that regarding the feedbacks CO2-induced warming could trigger, we’re playing Russian roulette, one click per year. And it’s not a gun with one bullet in 1,000 or 100 chambers. It might be less than 10.

    Atmospheric methane is rising, we just had one heck of a hot June, including a scary concentration of warming in Siberia (where a big part of the 1.5 TRILLION tons of “nolongerfrost” carbon resides), and, as best I can tell, no one knows just how much methane is coming out of the Arctic. That rising methane could be the first yearly shockwave of the permafrost bomb going off, or it could be just another run-up in the atmospheric level, which we’ve happen several times in just the last 20 years.

    We need to throw everything we can at answering this one question ASAP: Where is that methane coming from? If the answer is the melting permafrost, then we have an Irwin Allen-scale problem. If it’s nothing more than methane from rice paddies and landfills and cow farts, then we can go back to “only” needing a long, determined effort to avoid hell and high water.

  12. Leland Palmer says:

    There were at least two other apparently runaway global warming events apparently bigger than the PETM. One was the Permian/Triassic mass extinction event, and the other was a really huge event that apparently transformed the snowball earth state of the earth’s climate into a tropical one, back in the Precambrian.

    Judging by the isotope signatures in the rocks, these two events were apparently bigger than the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum. Both may have been due to massive release of oceanic methane hydrates, perhaps following preliminary methane release from bogs and melting permafrost, and probable CO2 release from volcanic activity.

    We could be in for an event at least as big as the Permian/Triassic mass extinction event, which killed something like 95 percent of all species on earth. Certainly, we are adding CO2 to the air thousands of times faster than natural processes, and so may soon see the mother of all methane catastrophes. On the other hand, if we bring CO2 concentrations down as fast as they went up, the climate system might just see it all as a blip or momentary spike, and go back to regulating itself.

    Carbon negative energy schemes combining biomass fuel with carbon sequestration have the potential to allow us to quickly reduce greenhouse gas concentrations.

    http://www.killerinourmidst.com has a very detailed scenario of the Permian/Triassic mass extinction methane catastrophe scenario, including diagrams and charts. I find it utterly convincing, sad to say.

  13. Charles says:

    What is hilarious to me about the deniers claims in this case is that the deniers always tell us how bad the climate models are and now they trump this study–which is a climate model of the PETM!

    This can only be the result of one of two things. It is either a deeply worrying ignorance of the science or, as many have claimed, outright attempts at misrepresentation.

  14. Leif says:

    At what point do the deniers of the science of global warming, or as I prefer to call it, global climatic disruption, become something other than reasonable debate and change to crimes against humanity?
    After all the GOP were quick to label anyone with a alternative view of the invasion of Iraq as “traitors” as I recall. The number of people currently being killed or displaced yearly by extreme weather events is in the many thousands, perhaps soon to be in the millions. Surely as bad as any two bit third world dictator. Admittedly some of the evidence is circumstantial but the same can be said for many a murder trial.

  15. caerbannog says:


    There were at least two other apparently runaway global warming events apparently bigger than the PETM. One was the Permian/Triassic mass extinction event, and the other was a really huge event that apparently transformed the snowball earth state of the earth’s climate into a tropical one, back in the Precambrian.

    Yes… the Permian period was a nasty time — Our planet went from “snowball Earth” to “rotten-egg Earth” during that period, with the oceans burping out enough hydrogen sulfide to gag everything in sight. Ever wonder why, of all the toxic gases, hydrogen sulfide smells the worst? It’s probably because we have a 250-million-year evolutionary history of being fumigated by the stuff. Univ of Washington paleontologist Peter Ward has a very nice book out entitled “Under a Green Sky” which gives hydrogen sulfide its due in previous global-warming-induced mass-extinction events (like the Permian/Triassic event). I’d definitely recommend folks to get their hands on a copy and read it.

  16. Mike#22 says:

    Atmospheric CH4 plots from all around the world; some current through last month. Check out the data from Mauna Loa.

    http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/cgi-bin/wdcgg/download.cgi?para=CH4

  17. Michael says:

    All you’ve got is models and very little evidence.
    Soon your cult will collapse.

    [JR: Funny stuff, but you have me mistaken for a rock band!]

  18. Mike#22 says:

    Michael, Hear, Hear!

    Don’t forget to warn Boeing and Airbus next time they flight test a jumbo.

    “All you’ve got is models and very little evidence.
    Soon your airplane will collapse.”

  19. dhogaza says:

    Don’t forget to warn Boeing and Airbus next time they flight test a jumbo.

    Or DOD. Don’t these clowns understand what we’ve depended on since signing the Test Ban Treaty?

    Or how it was shown that Little Boy would work, and didn’t need to be tested?

    Or how it was shown that a similar design for a plutonium bomb would NOT work, so was never tested?

    Or how it was shown that Teller’s first idea for a hydrogen bomb wouldn’t work?

    Or how it was shown that the design for the first Mike shot *would* work?

    Would they care to guess where modern physics-based, time-stepped models using monte-carlo methods and the technique of using averages of many runs to figure stuff out was developed? (hint, it’s related to my other questions).

  20. Leland Palmer says:

    Joe’s Cult of Doom, we call it.

    Soon, your children will be ours…(evil laugh). :)

  21. Gail says:

    I for one welcome our Cult of Doom overlords.

  22. radyo dinle says:

    At what point do the deniers of the science of global warming, or as I prefer to call it, global climatic disruption, become something other than reasonable debate and change to crimes against humanity?
    After all the GOP were quick to label anyone with a alternative view of the invasion of Iraq as “traitors” as I recall. The number of people currently being killed or displaced yearly by extreme weather events is in the many thousands, perhaps soon to be in the millions. Surely as bad as any two bit third world dictator. Admittedly some of the evidence is circumstantial but the same can be said for many a murder trial.

  23. Gail says:

    radyo dinle, how about “climaticide”. Has a nice ring to it.

  24. Leland Palmer says:

    At what point do the deniers of the science of global warming, or as I prefer to call it, global climatic disruption, become something other than reasonable debate and change to crimes against humanity?

    I was thinking the same thing, watching the Senate hearings. The Republican paid delayers and deniers are threatening our lives, and the future of the biosphere itself.

    Hansen says that some of the CEOs of the energy companies might be guilty of crimes against humanity. Watching the Senate hearings, I was thinking that some of the Senators were verging on committing crimes against humanity, even though they are just hired underlings for the corporations, and the super rich families that constitute the hard core of our American financial elites.

    Should these Senators be tried in the Hague for crimes against humanity?

    Of course, we have a long history of coddling people that are arguably guilty of crimes against humanity, especially if they are part of the Rockefeller dominated Council on Foreign Relations / Trilateral Commission / Bilderberg Group power elite. Henry Kissinger comes to mind, as a hard core member of this group, and as someone likely guilty of crimes against humanity.

    But, with apparently runaway global warming, our power elites have outdone themselves, this time.

    Deliberately melt the Arctic so we can drill for oil under our current polar icecap, ignoring the ice/albedo feedback, and the melting pemafrost feedback, risking a methane catastrophe? What hubris. Delay any effective action, out of greed for this 10 trillion dollars worth of oil, and many more trillions worth of natural gas?

    If they are after the methane in the methane hydrates, wouldn’t it make more sense to keep them stable by fighting global warming, rather than have them bubble to the surface and enter the atmosphere uncontrollably?

    This is hubris that might kill us all, and likely will. And future generations, if any, will likely look at those incredible Senate hearings, and wonder why we did not arrest Inhofe for example, and try him for crimes against humanity.

  25. Gail says:

    Leland Palmer, there will be no walls high enough to shield the elite from climaticide.

    http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2009/07/high-and-mighty-will-fall-hard.html

    The likes of Forbes, Trump, Mars and Whitman are on the same boat with the rest of us.

  26. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi Gail-

    Unfortunately the rich are more mobile than the poor. They can just move north (or very far south) and be happy as little clams, even while the majority of humanity dies.

    Or so some of them appear to think.

    But, in the long run, we are all in the same boat, whether our Wall Street and other power elites want to admit it or not.

    If we ignite a methane catastrophe, the people who are callously adding up the winners and losers from global warming will be very sorry, IMO.

    But by then it would be too late, of course.

  27. Hey,

    we should celebrate James Lovelock – thats what he predicted!

  28. Leland Palmer says:

    Here’s the abstract from Nature:

    Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming

    Richard E. Zeebe1, James C. Zachos2 & Gerald R. Dickens3

    Top of page

    The Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 Myr ago) represents a possible analogue for the future and thus may provide insight into climate system sensitivity and feedbacks (1, 2). The key feature of this event is the release of a large mass of 13C-depleted carbon into the carbon reservoirs at the Earth’s surface, although the source remains an open issue (3, 4). Concurrently, global surface temperatures rose by 5–9 °C within a few thousand years (5, 6, 7, 8, 9). Here we use published palaeorecords of deep-sea carbonate dissolution (10, 11, 12, 13, 14) and stable carbon isotope composition (10, 15, 16, 17) along with a carbon cycle model to constrain the initial carbon pulse to a magnitude of 3,000 Pg C or less, with an isotopic composition lighter than -50permil. As a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by less than about 70% compared with pre-event levels. At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration1, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records. We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once these processes have been identified, their potential effect on future climate change needs to be taken into account.

    There were large amounts of C13 depleted carbon entering the atmosphere, they say.

    They say that the source of that C13 depleted carbon is unknown, but one source that would fit the description is about three or four trillion tons of C13 depleted methane from the methane hydrates.

    CO2 forcing alone is not sufficient to explain the temperature deviations, they say.

    They are implying methane forcing, of course, and just using scientifically cautious terminology, I think. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, although it oxidizes into CO2 currently with a halflife of about 12 years, I think, being oxidized by the hydroxyl radical.

    This all makes a consistent scenario, isotope ratios and all, with a mild to moderate methane catastrophe, sad to say. The webbook at killerinourmidst.com, also seems to make a consistent scenario for a more severe methane catastrophe, the Permain/Triassic mass extinction.

    Oh, and production of hydrogen sulfide reduces hydroxyl radical concentrations in the atmosphere, and increases methane residence time in the atmosphere, another part of the methane catastrophe by methane hydrate release scenario.

    Morano is calling this good news for the deniers?

    Is he really that ignorant, or does he just want to confuse as many people as possible?

  29. Gail says:

    Oh boy, Leland Palmer, I have stumbled across the motherlode, the holy grail of climaticide, the sacred secret lair of our Cult of Doom overlords:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/19/755099/-Contemplating-Human-Extinction-(updated)

    The comments! The links! (Start with the very first by
    A Siegel, “OMFG Climate Models Might be Wrong!!!” an astute and even funny post about the study you referred to).
    I’m going to be wallowing in this for countless hours. Maybe days. Maybe the rest of eternity, since there is only 5 4 3 2 1 years left…

    I am so glad I had a nice picnic with my family today, under the speckled shade of pockmarked trees, where we enjoyed almost the very last of the fish ceviche, and gazpacho, and cheese from France transported at great carbon cost, and listened to beautiful music. Cherish the moments.

  30. Gail says:

    Oh and BTW Leland Palmer, where are you?

    I still would love to host a gigantic or even small summer barbeque for us faithful to the overlords of DOOM, later this summer srsly?

    I can promise ya’ll delectable ribs and salads! Much better than that fuquetagd with his crummy greasy chicken!

  31. Casey Chapple says:

    There is a “preaching to the choir” problem here. Anybody seeking an evenhanded presentation of the issues gets only one side here. For instance, in this entry, the author refers to “climate science deniers” who “are touting a new study that finds we might return to the rapid global warming of the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) with much lower levels of CO2 than previously thought.” But nowhere does the author provide names or links to those “deniers” preventing the reader from judging for him/herself whether or not the author is accurately reporting their remarks. Even the Union of Concerned Scientists neglects to reveal their sources for their accusations of denialism.

    [JR: This statement is utterly false, as any reader can tell. I provided Morano's name -- but I don't link to his site. It ain't hard to find his piece on this.]

    [snip]

  32. Mike#22 says:

    Leland: “They say that the source of that C13 depleted carbon is unknown, but one source that would fit the description is about three or four trillion tons of C13 depleted methane from the methane hydrates.”

    Sleep well Morano.

  33. Casey Chapple says:

    You got me there, JR. I guess I passed up Mr. Morano because you call him a Swift Boater (which I chose to believe. Is it true?). Even I know they lack credibility. So why would you feel threatened by him? [It should be noted here that JR censored this part of my first post: with regard to the failure to cite or link to "deniers", "This may be intentional. Perhaps the author doesn't care about those of us needing more complete information and wants only to speak to the choir. That's fine, I guess, if that's the case. Consider this, though. Maybe the author is discouraging the seeking out of additional information for propagandistic purposes. That would be very bad. Don't you think so?"] So why all the bluster about what a fool has to say? Why not pick on somebody your own size? That would be interesting and worth studying. But since you don’t, you have posters here reading press releases and moaning and groaning about the stupid deniers. What’s the use of that? You’re not gonna change any minds THAT way.

  34. Mike#22 says:

    (clarification) How do the educated (of the) deniers/delayers sleep at all?

    ?

  35. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi Gail-

    Santa Rosa, California is where I live. Pretty weather today, a little hot but not bad. Barbecue sounds nice. :)

    The Daily Kos piece seems to have slipped a decimal point, somewhere:

    The transition from Paleocene to Eocene was so dramatic due to a large outgassing of methane clathrates. This ‘methane ice’ exists in cold, deep waters all over the globe and humans have recently begun trying to exploit it as a another fossil carbon source. Methane has the same amount of carbon in it as carbon dioxide, but it’s twenty times more powerful in terms of heat retention.

    So here we are, currently kicking out about four gigatons more carbon annually due to fossil fuel usage than the Earth can uptake on its own, that’s double the estimated output of the clathrate outgassing event behind the PETM, and we’ve not yet triggered the conditions that’ll cause major clathrate outgassing.

    He’s got it wrong by a factor of a thousand, I think, thank all the Gods. We’re tossing 4 more gigatons of carbon from fossil fuels per year into the atmosphere than the earth can take up on its own, that’s roughly right, I think. But the PETM dumped something like 4 thousand gigatons (3 or 4 trillion tons) of carbon from the methane hydrates into the atmosphere, I think that’s right. So the current situation doesn’t compare in size to the PETM, at least not yet.

    So, we still have time to turn this thing around, and enjoy our own time, and eat some chicken. If we go to carbon negative technologies, we could even be back to normal in a few decades, if we hit it hard and fast, and convert every coal fired power plant on the planet to a carbon negative biomass plus sequestration power plant, I think. Unless we let it go too far, and the feedback processes get too out of control.

    I’m trying to solve the personal problem of how I can enjoy life while admitting the reality of global warming. It’s such a depressing subject, I just want to curl up and die. But that won’t help the planet.

    Can we fight global warming enthusiastically, productively, joyously, knowing that the end is not in sight, and looks pretty dark?

    It seems possible if we get the technological details right to turn this problem around, and even have a good time doing it.

  36. Gail says:

    We will have to have a virtual barbeque so as not to exacerbate our collective carbon footprints.

    I do think we must figure out a way to take carbon from the atmosphere, there is already too much, never mind we are constantly adding more.

    At least, the US Congress has admitted, by a slim but vital majority, that we must do something about climate change. So don’t curl up and die quite yet!

  37. dhogaza says:

    Morano is calling this good news for the deniers?

    Is he really that ignorant…

    Go read the comments at Watts’ blog and you’ll see that for the most part they really *are* that ignorant, and those that try to set them straight are pretty much shouted down.

    I think they’re fairly representative of the average RWingnut denialist.

    As to whether or not Morano himself is that ignorant … well, I can’t imagine he would *intentionally* post a piece that warns people that things could be roughly twice as bad as thought. He had to believe it shows “CO2 is harmless!” just like the rest of the denialsphere…