From the UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH and the department of of crazy hockey sticks comes this laughable press release.
Climate outlook may be worse than feared, global study suggests
Such a rise would have a devastating impact on life on Earth. It would place billions of people at risk from extreme temperatures, flooding, regional drought, and food shortages.
The study calculated the likely effect of increasing atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases above pre-industrialisation amounts. It finds that if emissions continue to grow at current rates, with no significant action taken by society, then by 2100 global land temperatures will have increased by 7.9C, compared with 1750.
This finding lies at the very uppermost range of temperature rise as calculated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It also breaches the United Nations’ safe limit of 2C, beyond which the UN says dangerous climate change can be expected.
Research at the University of Edinburgh first created a simple algorithm to determine the key factors shaping climate change and then estimated their likely impact on the world’s land and ocean temperatures. The method is more direct and straightforward than that used by the IPCC, which uses sophisticated, but more opaque, computer models.
The study was based on historical temperatures and emissions data. It accounted for atmospheric pollution effects that have been cooling Earth by reflecting sunlight into space, and for the slow response time of the ocean.
Its findings, published in Earth and Environmental Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, may also help resolve debate over temporary slow-downs in temperature rise.
Professor Roy Thompson, of the University of Edinburgh’s School of GeoSciences, who carried out the study, said: “Estimates vary over the impacts of climate change. But what is now clear is that society needs to take firm, speedy action to minimise climate damage.”
###
Not related to this item, but this really takes the cake.
http://calgaryherald.com/entertainment/celebrity/that-awkward-moment-when-you-have-to-explain-a-chinook-to-leo-dicaprio
read that this morning and just laughed!! What a dope!
Nice to see he spends some time off that yacht (rumoured to be owned by an oil baron, shhhh) from which he lectures the little people about how fragile the oceans are. How are those supermodels going to keep warm at night? Oh, yeah, right, global warming…
Worse than being a dope. He is a bald faced liar. There isn’t a local Calgarian who would EVER say what he claimed they said.
Except Alberta’s current Premier. She is full-on commited to the agenda.
To be involved with the climate pimp industry you must be an expert at all the nefarious arts of the criminality: Lying – Cheating – Stealing – being wicked, evil, sinful, iniquitous, egregious, heinous, atrocious, vile, foul, abominable, odious, depraved, monstrous, fiendish, diabolical, unspeakable, despicable; villainous, criminal, corrupt, illegal, unlawful; dastardly. Kinda like the 50000 Climate pimps in Paris………
If chinooks were a new thing, they would probably not carry a name from a very old Native American language. Which, by the way, translates to “snow-eater”.
Hey Leo, can you say “chinook”? I knew you could. (Mr Rogers voice)
So why put that daft comment in here then, Joey?
Was it your intention to entirely derail the comment thread?
This thread ought to have been a discussion about why
Thompson has written this tripe, because he absolutely
does not believe it himself, going by previous remarks he
has made in the literature, Come on Roy, who did pay you
to tell us this garbage, or don’t you now read this blog ?
What did they do to get that 8 degree C rise in global temperature? Did they feed all the failed the climate models Viagra?
Viagra?? I thought that was Enzyte…Now all the girls want to sit in Climate Changes Lap
But, you should ask them first. And remember, no means no.
Not all girls are impressed by the size of a graph’s y-axis.
Some girls are perfectly happy staying home and playing with their hockeysticks.
Basically IPCC et al assume different RF for various CO2 concentrations. For instance RCP 8.5 means an additional 8.5 W/m^2 of trapped RF. This is 8.5 w/m^2 that no longer makes it to ToA and raises the LTT by xx.x C. This assumes that the oceans and water cycle don’t absorb that heat through evaporation, clouds, increased albedo, etc. In words shift the 8.5 W/M^2 (2.5%) from radiation to reflection.
Compared to 1750 pre-industrial baseline
RCP GTC GT CO ppmv 280.0 multiple
2.6 270 991 127.9 407.9 100%
4.5 780 2,863 369.6 649.6 159%
6.0 1,060 3,890 502.2 782.2 192%
8.5 1,685 6,184 798.3 1,078.3 264%
I’ll see your 4 degrees and raise you another 8 degrees. How does such garbage get into print.
We really should stop re-posting horseshit like this and giving it legs.
Hi Goldrider, Don’t agree. I see your point, but years from now when they try to bury it (“What? We never said THAT!”), as they have done with the ’70s ice age scare, here it will be for posterity.
Is this something to do with thinking about a half dozen impossible things before lunch or something? Seems to be a quota…
The new ‘simple method’ seems to consist of plugging the number 7.9 into the blank space at the end of the “Sentence of Claim”. The IQ of Edinburgh just dropped 7.9 points.
I like the “naive” model that was posed here earlier. i.e. the temperature for each of the next 100 years wil be the same as last year’s average temperature. So far, this REALLY REALLY simple model is a way better predictor than any of the IPCC models and therefore much better that Scotty’s model cited here.
Edinburgh failed the Turin Test.
Are you referring to the shroud?
You’re supposed to read the Edinburgh extrapolation and say “Jesus! Are they pulling the wool over our eyes?”
“It accounted for atmospheric pollution effects that have been cooling Earth by reflecting sunlight into space, and for the slow response time of the ocean”
Pause explained. 😉
OMG CAGW!!! We need more pollution NOW!!!
Oddly, this scare article does not have an abstract.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8068068
I’m curious about the acceleration in temperature until 2050, then the deceleration (but still increasing temperature). I wonder what 2200 will look like (on his graph). Maybe at that point the oceans begin to boil off. Now THAT would be climate change.
Sorry, that’s an old one. Maybe this one:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=10061758&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S1755691015000213
An increase of 8C from an average temperature of 287K up to 295K means surface emissions increase from 385 W/m^2 up to 429 W/m^2 for a total increase of 44 W/m^2 which must be replenished by new energy entering the surface, otherwise the surface cools. Note that this represents an equivalent increase in solar energy of about 18%.
What kind of idiot comes up with this crap? Oh yea, the idiots who put political agendas above science.
CO2Evil, for sure idiots who have forgotten the past.
?w=720
From the remember bank. On speleothems.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/26/in-which-i-go-spelunking/
Going for a record? Note the ave line has maybe 1 time that temperatures continued to rise for over 100 years. Think these guys should have hedged their bet with a drop by 2100.
Why does it seem that there is little or no interest in predicting temperature change during this century by noting the pattern of temperature change shown in the temperature charts showing temperature behavior from 1880 until the present. Surely they are a good indicator of how temperature will behave in the current. century. There is nothing in those charts to suggest that there will be a huge upward swoop in temperature by 2100. What they do suggest is that there will only be 40 years of warming in this century and 60 years of pause in warming. I would think this would be prominently featured in climate discussion but it isn’t.
Yeah…I still like this graph of what your thermometer indicates
Why did you truncate at -40? There is a real absolute zero which is −273.15° Celsius, −459.67° Fahrenheit.
Draw a flat line at about 80 and 45 to represent the upper and lower bounds of earth’s average temperature over the last few billion years, and it will hit home just how unremarkable today’s temperatures are.
Walter Sobchak
December 10, 2015 at 5:15 pm
Why did you truncate at -40? There is a real absolute zero which is −273.15° Celsius, −459.67° Fahrenheit.
This is simply the change that occurred over the time period as would be indicated by the typical Alcohol Thermometer which is graduated as indicated
Not related to this item. But I recently received a copy of National Geographic “Rising Seas” and Leonardo Di Caprio is on the back cover advertising Tag Heuer.
Never one to miss an opportunity.
According to the article inside, “no one really knows how long it will take to melt it all (the world’s ice). Probably more than 5,000years, some scientists say.”
Wow, 5,000years. That’s a long time. I had better purchase a very reliable watch.
That’s basically Di Caprio’s message, “sea level rise threatens the planet, so buy this expensive watch”.
Or maybe I have got that mixed up.
It’s more like billions of years when our Sun starts to enter its red giant phase, unless CO2 will somehow un-tilt the Earth’s axis.
I’m pretty sure that we could get CO2 to tilt the earth’s axis.
It depends how much grant money you are willing to offer for someone to “research” the idea.
And then establish a correlation between axial tilt and CO2.
Correlation is all that you need these days. Next step – press release and then watch as the “peer reviewed paper” is turned into “CO2 could drive earth wobble, say scientists”.
Hurrah.
With enough money we could “prove” almost anything.
co2isnotevil
No just until the Plate that Antarctica is on moves into the sunlight.
michael
Then you also have to build a model to simulate the heaviness of the increased CO2 in the Northern Hemisphere and how it would affect the mass/tilt ratio.
Don’t forget to TWEAK it as needed until the past matches and the future produces an enhancement effect for the tilt angle
I was actually starting to think about how CO2 would affect axis tilt. The “Axial Tilt Problem” doncha know. Something about heavier than air, geographic distribution varying with season gyroscopically modifying Earth’s natural nutation leading to a catastrophic rolling over, a veritable “Tipping Point”.
The End Of The World (EOTW)tm and its all our fault. Oh, my gawd, had I only renounced my selfish ways!!!
Bryan A, great minds …
We should put together a grant proposal.
We will be well past “peak oil” at that point, and the billions of windmills converting air circulation will have politicians talking about how to survive “peak wind”.
IPCC AR5’s RCP 8.5 W/m^2 worst, worst, worst, worst case scenario takes until year 2500 to melt the ice caps.
I’m sure by the time the atmosphere truly warm by just 2 degrees C the large scale oceanic circulation systems will change their pattern and abruptly stop the warming.
I’d assume that the worst case scenario involves all out thermonuclear conflagration combined with a strike by a >1km asteroid.
Plus 24hr re-runs of Keeping up with the Kardashians.
“The method is more direct and straightforward than that used by the IPCC, which uses sophisticated, but more opaque, computer models.”
No IPCC-style obfuscation here, just pure transparent BS.
and for the slow response time of the ocean.
I laugh every time the CAGWists bring the oceans into the warming picture, because it means we won’t have any problems with the atmosphere if the oceans are truly involved in the distribution and absorption of excess thermal energy from greenhouse gasses.
If the ocean is involved, to get a 1degC increase you have to wait 800 years to absorb the same extra Watts/M^2 the atmosphere has allegedly* absorbed over the course of the last 60 years, because the heat capacity of the ocean is an order of magnitude bigger than the atmosphere.
Go on, calculate it yourself, it’s all easily google-able. You just need the ocean volume, and the heat capacity of salt water. Then the same for the atmosphere. Then look at the W/M^2 in IPCC report and integrate over time. (or just look at the ratio of net heat capacity)
I’m not even counting the heat capacity of ice caps, extra radiation back to space, feedback from clouds, etc etc etc. Just basic heat capacity of Earth’s air and water.
The entire premise of CAGW rests on the idea that it’s hard for the oceans to absorb heat from the atmosphere. So when they fall back to the oceans, it destroys their basic assumptions.
So if the pause is caused by the oceans absorbing thermal energy, then the time constant must be faster than thought, and the ocean will nicely absorb the heat until we run out of fossil fuels. If the pause is not caused by the oceans absorbing thermal energy, then the pause means that “allegedly” part above is probably not true, and again, nothing to worry about.
Either way, no catastrophe.
Peter
* I say allegedly, because the satellite experiments to measure this directly have so far been a complete failure to give useful data.
The relevant capacity of the oceans is far smaller than claimed, as only the temperature of the surface layer changes as the planet warns or cools. The vast majority of the water in the oceans is below the thermocline and its temperature is completely decoupled from the Sun and dependent only on the pressure/density/temperature profile of water. This will not change unless the poles stop freezing and stop providing a source for this cold water.
The other factor that many forget is that the energy stored by surface waters that are warmer than average is completely offset by the energy required to bring the cold water up to the average temperature. Like a capacitor stores energy as a voltage differential, the ocean stores energy as a temperature differential separated by the thermocline which acting as an insulating dielectric, separates the warm surface from the deep cold.
Unless the wind blows. Then it starts to mix. Slowly, but it is mixing. Plus there is natural downwelling and upwelling, but your general point is acknowledged. The idea that the ‘missing heat’ is hiding in the deep oceans is just upsurd for the very reasons you articulate, and reveals the desperation of the warmests.
The earth IS flat.
Those images from space are based on reconstructions and biased to look like other planets.
This has become laughable. It is children drawing pretend graphs on paper and running, shrieking down the hall waving them for attention.
Pat The government has done this before. You want to see how graph manipulation was used back in the 60,s and early 70,s. Even Prof., Judith Curry used this in her first testimony to congress go to the 39th minute of the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvKdYUCUca8
Sorry start at the 29 minute mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvKdYUCUca8
Even to a doofus like me, that’s a mighty huge Margin of Error !!!
I have an opinion. The government must act decisively against excessive use of vehicles, and companies that use substantial energy.
I have an opinion. The government must act decisively against excessive imposition of regulatory meddling in the affairs of its citizens and its tendency to impose excessive burdens on free-market enterprise and industrial production.
I want to see decisive action.
The alternative is continued growth of government controls and government spending until the point where society will be a communist state run enterprise.
The U.K. is currently at 50% government spending as a fraction of GDP.
France is at 60%.
What would satisfy the socialists? 100% state control?
Ok, now define “excessive” and “substantial”.
“This finding lies at the very uppermost range of temperature rise as calculated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
As I recall, the highest IPCC AR5 models, were about 4c, so this is double. I think even the IPCC are talking about 2.7c.
“Research at the University of Edinburgh first created a simple algorithm to determine the key factors shaping climate change and then estimated their likely impact on the world’s land and ocean temperatures. The method is more direct and straightforward than that used by the IPCC, which uses sophisticated, but more opaque, computer models.”
You can design a model to show whatever (alarmist) level of temperature increase you want. I am surprised they restricted it to 8c.
It’s a pity they didn’t put the actual temperature on the graph.
Apparently Han Solo is telling the world that unless we do something drastic, the entire human race is going to go extinct.
As a scientist, Harrison Ford is a good carpenter.
He should know. After all his experiences as Indiana Jones.
Simple algorithm. Simple scientists. Simple climate. Simply stupid.
Not an algorithm. It’s an Al-Gore-ithm.
Sorry, couldn’t help it.
It is unbelievable, the people,who call themselvwe scientists, writing such a nonsense.
Since they are referring to a (broken) climate model and not to reality they can pick any number they want. It does not mean that anything at all will happen in the real world.
Other more respectful and scientific models are actually predicting a long cooling period..
“Such a rise would have a devastating impact on life on Earth. It would place billions of people at risk from extreme temperatures, flooding, regional drought, and food shortages.”
Wow! That’s a lot of global warming doom and gloom.
And not a dime spent on preparation, but billions spent on “research”
3% annual carbon cycle. 4% accumulated ghg’s (if Ferdinand is right). A gas whose primary absorption bands have long since devoured all the available photons=50% saturation. 8 degree temperature rise in 85 years?
I’d put serious money against that happening if there were any chance to collect.
gymnosperm,
Call their bluff! Offer them a ‘Long Bets’ wager (do a search; it’s tax deductible).
Trouble is, they will never go for the high end of the range. Maybe they go for the middle of the range, 4 degrees. That is still very unlikely, but within the range of natural variation. I don’t bet against natural variation.
wonder if that clown and then there’s physics had any input to this. good to know there are a few alarmists nearby i actually have a chance of bumping into .always better challenging people face to face. the tone is always very, very different to that on the internet 🙂
The paper is paywalled (nope, not paying $45 for it), but the abstract is available. The 8 deg rise reported in the press release is specifically for land temperatures. He predicts a 3.6 deg rise for oceans, so the overall global predicted temperature rise would be about 4.7 deg. I’m not going to say that’s correct, but it’s at least not nearly so absurd an amount of warming as the press release makes it sound like.
The press is the undying friend of the climate alarmists. When the press makes a huge mistake like that, the climate alarmist scientist will simply smile and look on, and say nothing.
Wait. You mean people PAY for that crap?
Roy Thompson apparently needs money.
They are sure setting the bar high for all the temperature adjustments they will have to make in the next 80 years… A few tenths of a degree isn’t going to cut it, they will have to double the adjustments planned for every ten years to make this latest goal. (I wish this was sarcasm, but it isn’t :-\ )
I’ll see your hockey stick and raise you one shillelagh.
Well said.
If the normal temperature of the surface of this planet was 8 C warmer….
No one would notice….
if that was the normal temp….Miami would have been built in Ocala
and no one would have noticed
“The study calculated the likely effect of increasing atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases above pre-industrialisation amounts. It finds that if emissions continue to grow at current rates, with no significant action taken by society, then by 2100 global land temperatures will have increased by 7.9C, compared with 1750.
This finding lies at the very uppermost range of temperature rise as calculated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It also breaches the United Nations’ safe limit of 2C, beyond which the UN says dangerous climate change can be expected.”
First, I have to ask, how do they know what the GLOBAL TEMPERATURE even was back in 1750 to be able to claim a 7.9C increase since then.
Then I read the first 3 words of the next paragraph and that explained it
“THIS FINDING LIES”
“First, I have to ask, how do they know what the GLOBAL TEMPERATURE even was back in 1750 to be able to claim a 7.9C increase since then.”
They “know” the 1750 CO2 concentration, they “know” the 1750 to 2011 CO2 increase, they “know” the 1750 to 2011 RF W/m^2 and the resulting °C increase/ppmv. Don’t need to “know” the 1750 °C, only the changes.
Again though, this is assuming that:
A) The proposed warming per measure of CO2 is correct,
B0 That CO2 is the main driver, and
C) That there were NO OTHER mitigating effects from other natural processes in 1750
1750 is also close to the Nadir of the LIA time period
“they “know” the 1750 to 2011 RF W/m^2 and the resulting °C increase/ppmv.”
Isn’t this the basis of the deep oceans ate the heat? They don’t really know.
How would the “know” the CO2 fraction in 1750 measured in ppm? Ice cores need to be dated accurately and trapped CO2 needs to be adjusted for gas migration. Both are based on theoretical models.
Now one was using precision instruments to measure atmospheric gas fractions in 1750. What they have is a guess.