From the University of Melbourne
Scientists narrow global warming range
Australian scientists have narrowed the predicted range of global warming through groundbreaking new research.
Scientists from the University of Melbourne and Victoria University have generated what they say are more reliable projections of global warming estimates at 2100.
The paper, led by Dr Roger Bodman from Victoria University with Professors David Karoly and Peter Rayner from the University of Melbourne and published in Nature Climate Change today, found that exceeding 6 degrees warming was now unlikely while exceeding 2 degrees is very likely for business-as-usual emissions.
This was achieved through a new method combining observations of carbon dioxide and global temperature variations with simple climate model simulations to project future global warming.
Dr Bodman said while continuing to narrow the range even further was possible, significant uncertainty in warming predictions would always remain due to the complexity of climate change drivers. “This study ultimately shows why waiting for certainty will fail as a strategy,” he said. “Some uncertainty will always remain, meaning that we need to manage the risks of warming with the knowledge we have.”
The study found 63% of uncertainty in projected warming was due to single sources – such as climate sensitivity, followed by future behaviour of the carbon cycle and the cooling effect of aerosols – while 37% of uncertainty came from the combination of these sources.
“This means that if any single uncertainty is reduced – even the most important, climate sensitivity – significant uncertainty will remain,” Dr Bodman said.
Professor Karoly said the study reinforced the importance of strong action on climate change.
“Our results reconfirm the need for urgent and substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions if the world is to avoid exceeding the global warming target of 2 degrees needed to minimise dangerous climate change,” he said.
Dr Bodman is Postgraduate Research Fellow at Victoria University’s Centre for Strategic Economic Studies. Professor Karoly and Professor Rayner are from the University of Melbourne’s School of Earth Sciences and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate
System Science.
Source: http://newsroom.melbourne.edu/news/scientists-narrow-global-warming-range
Unfortunately, this press release doesn’t give a citation to the paper, a basic failure of reporting. I’ve asked this be corrected – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I thought Victoria University was in New Zealand ?
While I think we can certainly do more to clean up on pollution and our often damaging activities, I take leave to doubt that anything we may do to ‘reduce emmissions’ or cut CO2 will have any impact on the climate change. It is pure arrogance and scientific fiction to believe that we can stop the climate, preserve it as it is or reverse the trend. It is as likely as our being able to stop continental drift, earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. But it suits the politicians and impresses the gullible.
Our data, methods and conclusions were all wrong but our recommendations are more supported than ever.
Rex it’s an ANZA paper 🙂
“As well as pointing out the promise from the formal use of observational constraints in climate projection, this also highlights the need for an holistic view of uncertainty.”
Imagine that climate scientists have discovered that using observational measurements to test models holds “promise.” No wonder they call it a breakthrough.
Never let dbout and poor data
get in the way of scarring ‘claims’ is the lesson here. And of course by 2100 they will not be around to answer for this BE, which is ‘useful’
If 6 was 9
Debunking 6 degrees? where have these guys been sealed away. Were already chipping away at their 2 degrees.
All of these attempts to calculate future warming from past warming seem to suffer from one fatal flaw. They cannot explain how the MWP morphed into the LIA, and consequently cannot explain if this is responsible for coming out of the LIA.
To try and explain 20thC warming is simply impossible until you have explained the MWP and LIA
I think the paper should move the entire range down, not just the amount.
For example, if the previous expected range was 2 degrees to 8 degrees warming, then
the new range should be -4 to 2.
I’d like to bet on the -4. But have to go with the median at -1.
Heck, anyone can predict global temperatures using just two things.
1. UAH Satellite Records
2. Time of observation in years.
If I use T-5, I can predict 5 years of global temperatures quite accurately within the adjustments made in the satellite record. If I want a longer period I can use T-30 and predict climate. Right?Quite simple really./sarc off
The numbers are tiny and the impact on humanity will be even less. These people are haggling over pennies for a million dollar purchase.
Roger W. Bodman, Peter J. Rayner, David J. Karoly. Uncertainty in temperature projections reduced using carbon cycle and climate observations. Nature Climate Change, 2013; DOI: 10.1038/nclimate1903
-courtesy Science Daily
Goes to: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1903.html
We now have identified and taken into account 3 of 121 factors of climate variability which makes you certain we got the temperature range right this time around.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1903.html
Bodman, Roger W., Rayner, Peter J., Karoly, David J.
“Uncertainty in temperature projections reduced using carbon cycle and climate observations”
Too bad their “new method” is based on old, flawed assumptions and bad data. Oh well, you can’t have everything.
Typical. As with other papers seeming undermining the consensus, the authors genuflect toward orthodoxy despite the disconnect.
Only two degrees of warming by 2100 instead of six, but this means action to dismantle industrial society is still urgent.
A good way to have your grant funding & eat it, too.
Make that seemingly.
Groundbreaking! This is starting to look like the ozone hole scare. Now if they can legislate the reduction of CO2 before the climate does something crazy, like cool down, they can claim once again to have saved us all!
Rex says:
May 28, 2013 at 11:33 am
I thought Victoria University was in New Zealand ?
Wikipedia – an absolutely unparalleled source of all things absolutely accurate – gives
Victoria University may refer to:
Victoria University, Australia, Melbourne, Australia
Victoria University of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh
University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Victoria University, Toronto, a federated college of the University of Toronto
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Victoria University (UK), a former federal university in England
Victoria University, Leeds, a former College of the federal Victoria University (UK), now University of Leeds
Victoria University, Liverpool, a former College of the federal Victoria University (UK), now University of Liverpool
Victoria University of Manchester, a former College of the federal Victoria University (UK), now merged into the University of Manchester.
I bet you wished you hadn’t asked . . . .
Auto
Is it 2 degrees from the current value?
I take it they measure warming since the start of the industrial age, which means that about one degree of the warming has happened already.
If we measure temperature increase from now, the headline could be changed to “Five degrees taken off the table, reduced to 1”
There is a Victoria University in Melbourne that has been well known for courses on topics resembling witchcraft, holistic feminist tarot reading and such ….the established orthodoxy in Australia is that rising CO2 levels and global warming are still bound closely together and that the British Met Office doesn’t exist ….don’t expect anything groundbreaking on a global scale anytime soon from our establishment scientists …
Backpedaling continues. Soon it will be “closer to 1 than 2”, and then “well maybe 1 is a bit of a stretch”. Then “OMG temperature drop of a -8 anomaly on its way due to” … (drum roll) … “burning fossil fuels!” “We must take action now, turn over all control of fossil fuel usage to us (the expert ones) now or face the consequences.”
Seriously though, it looks like a race to save credibility to me. If one hasn’t gone too far out on the alarmist limb already, the best thing to do now is get on record as being at least a little bit skeptical as early as you can. This scaremongering campaign may not end as well as previous ones for the prophets of doom. Internet usage is going up and that is going to make it much more difficult to bury ones past prognostications of warming doom.
“David Karoly” sounds familiar.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/gergis-hockey-stick-withdrawn-this-is-what-95-certainty-looks-like-in-climate-science/