Person: Oreskes, Naomi
Loading...
Email Address
AA Acceptance Date
Birth Date
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Job Title
Last Name
Oreskes
First Name
Naomi
Name
Oreskes, Naomi
4 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
Publication Well-Estimated Global Surface Warming in Climate Projections Selected for ENSO Phase(Nature Publishing Group, 2014) Risbey, James S.; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Langlais, Clothilde; Monselesan, Didier P.; O’Kane, Terence J.; Oreskes, NaomiThe question of how climate model projections have tracked the actual evolution of global mean surface air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their projections. Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution. Such comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations. We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.Publication The Rising Tide of Plate Tectonics(Nature Publishing Group, 2013) Oreskes, NaomiFifty years after a paper linked sea-floor magnetic stripes and continental drift, Naomi Oreskes explains its legacy as a lesson in achieving scientific consensus.Publication On the definition and identifiability of the alleged “hiatus” in global warming(Nature Publishing Group, 2015) Lewandowsky, Stephan; Risbey, James S.; Oreskes, NaomiRecent public debate and the scientific literature have frequently cited a “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming. Yet, multiple sources of evidence show that climate change continues unabated, raising questions about the status of the “hiatus”. To examine whether the notion of a “hiatus” is justified by the available data, we first document that there are multiple definitions of the “hiatus” in the literature, with its presumed onset spanning a decade. For each of these definitions we compare the associated temperature trend against trends of equivalent length in the entire record of modern global warming. The analysis shows that the “hiatus” trends are encompassed within the overall distribution of observed trends. We next assess the magnitude and significance of all possible trends up to 25 years duration looking backwards from each year over the past 30 years. At every year during the past 30 years, the immediately preceding warming trend was always significant when 17 years (or more) were included in the calculation, alleged “hiatus” periods notwithstanding. If current definitions of the “pause” used in the literature are applied to the historical record, then the climate system “paused” for more than 1/3 of the period during which temperatures rose 0.6 K.Publication Why fossil fuel producer subsidies matter(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2020-02-05) Erickson, Peter; van Asselt, Harro; Koplow, Doug; Lazarus, Michael; Newell, Peter; Oreskes, Naomi; Supran, GeoffreyAround the globe, governments support the fossil fuel economy by providing subsidies that financially benefit consumers and producers of coal, oil, or gas. G20 governments have pledged to remove this support, noting that subsidies can “undermine efforts to deal with climate change” by keeping greenhouse gas emissions higher than they otherwise would be.1 Recently, Jewell et al. used results of integrated assessment models to infer that eliminating subsidies would yield “limited emissions reductions … except in energy-exporting regions.”2 While the article represents an important contribution to the literature, its characterization of the emission reduction benefits of subsidy removal as “small” is potentially misleading. We use a simplified, partial model to reflect how producer subsidies affect the financial incentive and risk calculus for investing in new oil fields resulting in emission reductions from producer subsidy reform could be more material than Jewell et al. suggest..3 We further argue that subsidies – especially those to fossil fuel producers – also lock in institutional and political power, delaying a low-carbon transition.