The Latest Science on Global Warming

Eric Zuesse

Because of the prejudiced coverage of the global warming issue that’s common in much of the press, I have decided to present highlights from one of the most comprehensive articles that’s now being considered by one of the world’s top scientific journals on the topic: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. This is the latest scientific knowledge on the subject.

The paper is titled: “Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 ◦C global warming is highly dangerous,” by J. Hansen et al. (You can read it there.)

Here is the article’s full team of authors: J. Hansen, M. Sato, P. Hearty, R. Ruedy, M. Kelley, V. Masson-Delmotte, G. Russell, G. Tselioudis, J. Cao, E. Rignot, I. Velicogna, E. Kandiano, K. von Schuckmann, P. Kharecha, A. N. Legrande, M. Bauer, and K.-W. Lo

Here are some highlights (the most easily comprehensible statements) from this research article:


Global CO2 emissions continue to increase as fossil fuels remain the primary energy source. The argument is made that it is economically and morally responsible to continue fossil fuel use for the sake of raising living standards, with expectation that humanity can adapt to climate change and find ways to minimize effects via advanced technologies. We suggest that this viewpoint fails to appreciate the nature of the threat posed by ice sheet instability and sea level rise. If the ocean continues to accumulate heat and increase melting of marine-terminating ice shelves of Antarctica and Greenland, a point will be reached at which it is impossible to avoid large scale ice sheet disintegration with sea level rise of at least several meters. The economic and social cost of losing functionality of all coastal cities is practically incalculable. We suggest that a strategic approach relying on adaptation to such consequences is unacceptable to most of humanity, so it is important to understand this threat as soon as possible.

We examine events late in the last interglacial period warmer than today. …

Our finding of global cooling from ice melt calls into question whether global temperature is the most fundamental metric for global climate in the 21st century. The first order requirement to stabilize climate is to remove Earth’s energy imbalance, which is now about +0.6Wm-2 [Watts per square meter] more energy coming in than going out. If other forcings are unchanged, removing this imbalance requires reducing atmospheric CO2 from 400 to 350 ppm (Hansen et al., 2008, 2013a). …

Humanity faces near certainty of eventual sea level rise of at least Eemian proportions, 5–9m [16-30 feet], if fossil fuel emissions continue on a business-as-usual course, e.g., IPCC scenario A1B that has CO2 700 ppm in 2100 (Fig. S21). It is unlikely that coastal cities or low-lying areas such as Bangladesh, European lowlands, and large portions of the United States eastern coast and northeast China plains (Fig. S22) could be protected against such large sea level rise. Rapid large sea level rise may begin sooner than generally assumed. …

We conclude that the 2 C [3.6 degrees Fahrenheit] global warming “guardrail”, armed in the Copenhagen Accord (2009), does not provide safety, as such warming would likely yield sea level rise of several meters along with numerous other severely disruptive consequences for human society and ecosystems. …

The message that the climate science delivers to policymakers, instead of defining a safe “guardrail”, is that fossil fuel CO2 emissions must be reduced as rapidly as practical [instead of being allowed to rise at all]. Hansen et al. (2013a) conclude that this implies a need for a rising carbon fee or tax [immediately], an approach that has the potential to be near-global, as opposed to national caps or goals for emission reductions. Although a carbon fee is the sine qua non for phasing out emissions [they’re rejecting cap-and-trade], the urgency of slowing emissions also implies other needs including widespread technical cooperation in clean energy technologies (Hansen et al., 2013a).


Here is the opening of a straightforward referee’s review of this paper; it’s by geophysicist D. Archer of the University of Chicago, and dated 27 July 2015: “This is another Hansen masterwork of scholarly synthesis, modeling virtuosity, and insight, with profound implications.” Dr. Archer’s closing sentence is: “I expect this paper will be widely read, but it will make its readers work for it.”


To simplify what the article itself says: Previous estimates of the coastal cities that will be flooded out of existence have been overly optimistic. The situation will likely be worse than has been projected. But measures can be taken that will probably succeed at preventing the outcome from being even worse than that.


What the paper does not cover: This paper does not deal with desertification and increased forest fires and increased deforestation, and with the destruction of (CO2-reducing) trees that will result from that spreading desertification; nor does it deal with refugees surging away from the equator, nor species-extinctions; it doesn’t deal with inland consequences of the global-warming problem. Nor does it deal with marine extinctions resulting from the increasingly acidic oceans. However, the policy-recommendations would reduce those issues, too, if carried out.

Bottom line: While the world dilly-dallies, so that fossil-fuels companies can continue to attract investors for discovering yet more oil, coal and gas (all of which new discoveries will be unburnable — a total waste, because this planet won’t tolerate even the burning of all of the oil, gas, and coal, that’s already been discovered and is now in those companies’ undeveloped reserves), the climatological findings become increasingly pessimistic. In other words: the consensus of climatologists is even bleaker now than it has been. This can be said of the recent findings, without even getting into predictions as to what the precise consequences of it will be.

This is simply the bleak current reality, which might be sinking in too slowly to avert runaway global warming (for example America’s President still obliviously encourages more oil and gas exploration in the arctic), but which nonetheless seems to be sinking in, despite all the sheer corruption, which could end up having terminated life on this planet, as a result of the corruption merely to-date, even if that corruption were to stop immediately and the value of undeveloped fossil-fuel reserves were to plunge immediately to zero, thus forcing governments fully to cost-in fossil-fuels’ harms.

In a separate news report, the head of the present research team writes on behalf of children who are suing the U.S. Government for its being, by its actions, inactions, and corruption, a curse to all their futures. James Hansen says there:

Sensible means exist to rapidly phase down CO2 emissions, to wit, a rising carbon fee collected from fossil fuel companies with funds distributed to the public. Instead, our President proposes ineffectual actions, demonstrably short of what is needed, and persists in approving fossil fuel projects that will slam shut the narrowing window of opportunity to ensure a hospitable climate system. I aim to testify on behalf of young people. Their future hangs in the balance.

When scientists are compelled by circumstances, to recognize that the world is close to, if not already, terminally corrupt, their final resort is to become, themselves, activists, on behalf of future generations, whom our generation is murdering. Perhaps they’re voices in the wilderness. But now they are starting to shout. It’s their last hope. It’s also the last hope of future generations (if there still is, realistically, any hope at all, remaining).


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Brockland A.T.

    No worries. Almost everyone capable of doing so will have long suffocated to the planet’s growing oxygen deficit.

    This has been an issue since at least 2008, but all the news is CO2 centred since that’s probably where the climate remediation money is to be made.

    • The added CO2 is helping plants release more O2. Some lag time is necessary but the rates should balance out before their is any noticeable effect.

  • kimyo

    as you say that your knowledge of climate science is insufficient to establish the validity of the threat of runaway global warming, how is it that you know WHICH scientists are ‘right’ (mann/hansen) and which are ‘wrong’ (curry)?

    ps: can we skip the step wherein you attack my character and call me a conservative nazi? just explain, how is that you KNOW hansen et al are right? or is it more of a gut feeling sort of thing?

    pps: if your answer is consensus, i think the readers understand that you’re talking about religion, not science.

    ppps: You just lived through one of the snowiest periods in NYC’s history

    New York City was only 1.5″ away from breaking the record for its snowiest 30 day period of all time today. Ultimately, we fell barely short, but a close second is equally as impressive as the record which still stands from 1949. Still, this January-February period (including all days in both months) is now officially the snowiest on record at Central Park since snowfall
    observations began.

    Boston Sets Snowiest Winter on Record With 108.6 InchesSnowfalls are now just a thing of the past Monday 20 March 2000According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

    people are starting to suspect that noaa’s numbers are every bit as accurate the bls/employment black-box-goal-seeked nonsense.

    • Army of Addicts

      Some observers believe that global warming will cause some Northern areas to freeze over.

      The main reason people argue that global warming is nonexistent is to protect the capital accumulation mechanism of the planet and all industries that can’t exist without it. Facts don’t really matter in this case. There is no other reason to argue against cleaning up the back yard.

      Explosive energy systems pollute and degrade the ecosystem. It’s common sense. Implosive systems, like the one Tesla was trying to introduce are renewable and do no harm. And we all know he was railroaded by the capitalist in chief at the time, J P Morgan.

      The question remains: Do those running the show care more about a healthy planet or more about capital accumulation and commodification of everything at the expense of others. The answer is evident, we are what we do.

    • cettel

      Your ‘evidence’ in anecdotal, not comprehensive statistical and therefore it is not relevant to the issue at hand, which is both comprehensive and statistical.

  • Few have
    recognized that Phanerozoic temperature estimates prove CO2 up to at
    least six times the current level has had no effect on average global
    temperature. The analysis at shows what to look for and
    discloses what actually does cause climate change (R^2 greater than 0.97 since
    before 1900).

  • Charlie Primero

    When will Zuesse stop promoting this Bankster Climate Change fraud program?

  • MCB

    Zuesse should lead the way and split his time between living in a dumpster and a 100 sq. ft. micro apartment. He’s the perfect example of of a pawn in the NWO Agenda 21. A few more trillion in government spending and a couple hundred thousand EPA MOAR regulations and we will undoubtedly be ever so close on the way to utopia. If crony capitalism can’t fix the problem, then let’s try a little more central economic planning via socialism. We all know that the Scandinavian model of social democracy delivers a very low carbon footprint…..

  • colinjames71

    Or was it… “the hottest month EVAH!!!!” ???

    No, because you can’t trust the AGW propagandists any more than any govt or govt-supported institution. They manipulate the data. They use temp proxies where no data exists, they systematically cool down the past and warm up the present and recent years to create the appearance of global warming. Even if it WAS the hottest month, one month does not a theory confirm. It’s currently record breaking LOW temps in Colorado. Doesn’t mean runaway global cooling. Also, yes, the anti-global warming crowd funded by big energy uses bad science and dirty tricks to get mostly Conservatives to think that fossil fuels are just A-OK. The videos are from an independent organization. They’ve been accused of being funded by Big Oil. This is a lie.

    I hope you take some time to check these out, Eric.

    Also, this by no means is an argument for the status quo. There’s more than enough reasons to stop the extraction and burning off fossil fuels WITHOUT AGW, and imo AGW polarizes the debate and shoves these other very real problems to the background. Pollution of all kinds poisoning the air and water and damaging human/animal/envision health, ocean acidification, geopolitics (war and war and more war and all that). I’m sure revolutionary technologies have been, are being, and will be suppressed which could benefit all mankind. That’s gotta be a better way to fuel our world beyond even the alternative energies currently in use. Below I’d just a tiny sampling of the science which contradicts AGW.

    On the supposed July temps-

    Videos that are essential to understanding what really drives climate.