Australian scientists take 6 degrees of global warming off the table, say it is closer to 2 degrees

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

0 0 votes
Article Rating
85 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rex
May 28, 2013 11:33 am

I thought Victoria University was in New Zealand ?

May 28, 2013 11:36 am

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.

Rob Dawg
May 28, 2013 11:40 am

Our data, methods and conclusions were all wrong but our recommendations are more supported than ever.

May 28, 2013 11:41 am

Rex it’s an ANZA paper 🙂

Rob Dawg
May 28, 2013 11:46 am

“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.

knr
May 28, 2013 11:50 am

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’

Henry Galt
May 28, 2013 11:50 am

If 6 was 9

Gary Pearse
May 28, 2013 11:52 am

Debunking 6 degrees? where have these guys been sealed away. Were already chipping away at their 2 degrees.

Editor
May 28, 2013 11:53 am

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

wws
May 28, 2013 11:54 am

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.

May 28, 2013 11:56 am

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

Adam
May 28, 2013 11:57 am

The numbers are tiny and the impact on humanity will be even less. These people are haggling over pennies for a million dollar purchase.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
May 28, 2013 11:57 am

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

May 28, 2013 12:00 pm

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.

HaroldW
May 28, 2013 12:02 pm

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”

Bruce Cobb
May 28, 2013 12:03 pm

Too bad their “new method” is based on old, flawed assumptions and bad data. Oh well, you can’t have everything.

milodonharlani
May 28, 2013 12:12 pm

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.

milodonharlani
May 28, 2013 12:13 pm

Make that seemingly.

Eric H.
May 28, 2013 12:13 pm

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!

Auto
May 28, 2013 12:13 pm

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

Auto Phil
May 28, 2013 12:22 pm

Is it 2 degrees from the current value?

AndyL
May 28, 2013 12:26 pm

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”

Gerry O'Connor
May 28, 2013 12:29 pm

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 …

John West
May 28, 2013 12:29 pm

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.

Matt
May 28, 2013 12:32 pm

I think you will find that it is Melbourne Uni in Victoria. There is no Victoria Uni in Australia.

Robert Wykoff
May 28, 2013 12:42 pm

Was it my imagination, or have we not heard endless pleas to stop all civilization in order to not exceed 2 degrees. More than 2 degrees is supposedly catastrophic. Well, it looks like we only hit that 2 degrees (according to fake models), so apparently nothing further needs to be done.

Admad
May 28, 2013 12:54 pm

And so the unwinding of the Warmista position continues, now that the bubble is well and truly blown. So when do we get our rebate?

TomRude
May 28, 2013 1:07 pm

Groundbreaking indeed: “Uncertainty in temperature projections reduced using carbon cycle and climate observations”… No, really, observations? 😉

May 28, 2013 1:08 pm

Expect more rumblings about not only how carbon dioxide is more harmful than previously estimated so the revised projections make no difference, but how a CO2 molecule emitted from a developed country is orders of magnitude more harmful than one emitted from a developing country.

May 28, 2013 1:08 pm

QUOTE 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./QUOTE
Maybe I’m not a super smart Scientist or even smart …….. but 63% Uncertainty + 37% Uncertainty = 100% Uncertainty, so…….. they just don’t know nothing about anything, just saying

May 28, 2013 1:15 pm

The logic of this is extraordinary.
1.
6 degrees of warming. We are all going to fry. We have to destroy your standard of living as fast as possible, reduce you to a cold/hot but uniformly dark subsistence level (but not ourselves apparently).
2.
Oops. The 6 degrees is OTT. Not much warming evident anywhere. The “angry summer” didn’t fly for long. It’s actually 2 degrees.
3.
Bad news – especially for the gravy train.
4.
But hang on – 2 degrees is a new aspirational standard. It’s within reach. So we need to destroy your standard of living even faster 🙂
Interesting coincidence here?
The Australian May 29:
“THE Clean Energy Finance Corporation is planning to write up to $800 million in green loans before the election, defying the Coalition’s call for the agency not to sign contracts before September 14 because Tony Abbott has vowed to scrap it.
The CEFC has revealed it is in “active discussions” with 50 projects seeking $2 billion and that an additional 119 project proponents have presented proposals that are seeking finance worth $3.3bn. The figures are contained in an email from the CEFC to the opposition pleading its case not to be scrapped if the Coalition wins the election.”
http://goo.gl/BZEgP

Brad
May 28, 2013 1:22 pm

Uncertainty also does not discuss changes to primary drivers, such as solar output, which means the uncertainties may be much larger than discussed.

Latitude
May 28, 2013 1:38 pm

so, Dr Bodman says the biggest uncertainty is climate sensitivity..and that’s not understood
…and even if it was……..”significant uncertainty will remain”
But……….“This study ultimately shows why waiting for certainty will fail as a strategy,”
Isn’t that why we have thoroxine?

James Evans
May 28, 2013 1:39 pm

Warming will be less than we thought, and therefore:
“Our results reconfirm the need for urgent and substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions”.
“This study ultimately shows why waiting for certainty will fail as a strategy. Some uncertainty will always remain, meaning that we need to manage the risks of warming with the knowledge we have.”
I think the time is over for us to assume that these are well-meaning scientists who have got a little over zealous. These are political activists.

Jean Parisot
May 28, 2013 1:40 pm

I wonder if we are going to start seeing a lot of climate types make tenure, then dialing back the global warming hype.

RockyRoad
May 28, 2013 1:45 pm

How are they going to get a 2-degree rise when we haven’t seen any statistically-significant temperature increase in over 16 years? Start fudging adjusting temperatures upwards again?
We’ve recently seen the argument that CO2 is a GHG, but temperature is unhinged from that component which keeps going up and up without impacting temperature.
One must conclude that CO2 is only a third-order forcing that’s pretty much insignificant in the climate equation. It’s time to call the warriors against carbon home from the battlefield and declare a truce.

Manfred
May 28, 2013 1:49 pm

Rex says: May 28, 2013 at 11:33 am
I thought Victoria University was in New Zealand ?
‘Vic’ as it is colloquially known is in Wellington, NZ. Victoria University of Technology in Melbourne has now adopted the name “Victoria University”
Perhaps this recent Bodman et al. paper is a new ‘student centered teaching strategy’?

Ben
May 28, 2013 2:03 pm

They have written this paper before…
2011. Bodman, Roger, David Karoly, and Peter Rayner. “Probabilistic future global-mean temperature changes from a simple Earth System Model.” Carbon 2: 2.
http://conference2011.wcrp-climate.org/posters/C32/C32_Bodman_W127A.pdf

Dr K.A. Rodgers
May 28, 2013 2:04 pm

Matt says: “There is no Victoria Uni in Australia.”
See: http://www.vu.edu.au/
That’s where you will find Bodman. His webpage starts: “Roger Bodman joined VU in early 2012, after completing a PhD in climate science.’

Editor
May 28, 2013 2:13 pm

This appears to be the new Bodma, Karoly and Rayner (paywalled, of course) paper. You’ll love the title. It’s “Uncertainty in temperature projections reduced using carbon cycle and climate observations”. Imagine that, using global temperature observations to reduce uncertainty!!!
Link to abstract:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1903.html
Abstract reads:
“The future behaviour of the carbon cycle is a major contributor to uncertainty in temperature projections for the twenty-first century. Using a simplified climate model, we show that, for a given emission scenario, it is the second most important contributor to this uncertainty after climate sensitivity, followed by aerosol impacts. Historical measurements of carbon dioxide concentrations have been used along with global temperature observations to help reduce this uncertainty. This results in an increased probability of exceeding a 2 °C global–mean temperature increase by 2100 while reducing the probability of surpassing a 6 °C threshold for non-mitigation scenarios such as the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios A1B and A1FI scenarios, as compared with projections from the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate sensitivity, the response of the carbon cycle and aerosol effects remain highly uncertain but historical observations of temperature and carbon dioxide imply a trade–off between them so that temperature projections are more certain than they would be considering each factor in isolation. 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.”

William Astley
May 28, 2013 2:13 pm

The warmists can change, if they truly try.
The secret is baby steps.

A reduction in predicted (or as the warmists prefer ‘forecasted’) warming from 3C to 2C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would be a good start. The correct answer is 0.5C.
It will be interesting to watch the creative efforts to explain global cooling. The warmists are running out of time to back track.
Possible explanations for global cooling:
1) Someone turned off the furnace?
2) Left the door open?
3) Mysterious change in planetary cloud cover?
Perhaps the IPCC can help us to address global cooling in AR-6.

Doug Proctor
May 28, 2013 2:21 pm

From the abstract: “This results in an increased probability of exceeding a 2 °C global–mean temperature increase by 2100 …”
Good point AndyL May 28, 2013 at 12:26 pm !
2C by 2100, we already have risen by (?) 0.7 – 0.85C, so we have another 1.15 – 1.30C to rise in 87 years, which means we are rising by 1.32 – 1.49C/century.
Is this not in the range of non-CO2 processes? We are outside of the unique solution of CO2?
So CAGW exists at any rate of warming and any end temperature. Interesting.

michael hart
May 28, 2013 2:26 pm

“ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science”

So did they decide it was a “Centre of Excellence” when they were forecasting 2 degrees, or when they were forecasting 6 degrees? They can’t have it both ways.

X Anomaly
May 28, 2013 2:27 pm

David “Anti-milk Supreme Master” Karoly.

lol

DesertYote
May 28, 2013 2:32 pm

Yet another paper writen by a brain washed puppy and his Marxist handelers.

Richard M
May 28, 2013 3:10 pm

Instead of escaping the sinking ship the rats continue to try and plug the holes with more manufactured claims that are not even close to supportable.

Melbourne Resident
May 28, 2013 3:17 pm

For all those who don’t know anything about Melbourne Victoria Australia – Victoria University exists and was originally what would have been called a technical college. It was useful once – 20 years ago I studied waste management and air quality there in two very useful short courses. Unfortunately they should have stuck to science and technology, not the current rubbish. Mr Bodman will one day be embarrassed about the naivety of his paper as I would be on papers I published in my dim and distant youth. We all grow up eventually. Karoly should be removed from his tenure for this rubbish. I continue to chip away at the local establishment through various professional bodies I am active in – but it takes time. max Planck was correct when he said about the failure of scientists to admit that they are mistaken and change their minds :
“Science advances one funeral at a time”

May 28, 2013 3:27 pm

Dr K.A. Rodgers says:
May 28, 2013 at 2:04 pm
Matt says: “There is no Victoria Uni in Australia.”
See: http://www.vu.edu.au/
That’s where you will find Bodman. His webpage starts: “Roger Bodman joined VU in early 2012, after completing a PhD in climate science.’
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
He got a what?!?! A PhD in Climate Science? What did he study??? I see many Universities now offering PhD degrees in Climate “Science”. But guess what? It doesn’t mean you have a background in physical sciences:
“The PhD of Science in Climate Sciences programme is part of the Graduate School of Climate Sciences of the University of Bern. It consists mainly of the PhD thesis, involving three to four years of full-time research work in a project within one of the research units of the faculty members. Depending on the specialisation (biology, chemistry, geology, geography, physics, statistics, economics, history, law), the research work includes text analysis, simulations, calculations, field work or lab work”
As for the University of Melbourne – Victoria … it is like the IPCC. They have already decided the outcome and they are looking for people to find ways to confirm what they have already decided. They need clones of the Australian and German sponsors to enhance their beliefs. Perhaps there is scope for original thinking but maybe I am reading it wrong:
From http://www.sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/content/pages/phd-scholarships-climate-change-and-energy-system-transitions
PhD scholarships on climate change and energy system transitions
Six PhD scholarships between: AUD$24,567 and up to approx. $30,000pa plus travel stipends, fee waivers
Application deadline for first round: 31 March 2013
Australian-German College of Climate & Energy Transitions:
The University of Melbourne, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, The University of Potsdam, Humboldt University of Berlin, and Technical University of Berlin.
Applications are invited for PhD scholarships at The University of Melbourne, Australia, as part of the newly established Australian-German College of Climate and Energy Transitions. The PhD topics can be freely chosen by the successful candidates within the scope of the College and available supervisors. Own topic proposals are encouraged. Potential supervisors are world-class experts in their fields.
Successful applicants will have the opportunity to spend 6 months fully-funded at a partner institution in Berlin/Potsdam.
A selection of PhD topics (full list available: http://www.climate-energy-college.net/phd-topics):
• Investigation of integration options for renewable energy into existing energy infrastructure. (Cluster: Energy Systems)
• Future changes in extreme events (Cluster: Climate Systems)
• Global and regional technology transition dynamics to stay within 2°C compatible emission budgets (Clusters: Energy Systems & Mitigation Strategies)
• Transient and Equilibrium responses to anthropogenic emissions: ice, ocean and atmosphere (Cluster: Climate Systems)
• Economic consequences of linking the European Carbon Trading Scheme with the Australian scheme (Clusters: Energy Systems & Mitigation Strategies)
• Climate change impact on infrastructure and global trade (Cluster: Climate Impacts)
• Synthesising integrated assessment knowledge by developing water, food, and socio- economic impact emulators – towards an efficient global impact model (Cluster: Climate Impacts)
• Impacts of climate change on global bioenergy potentials (Clusters: Climate Impacts & Energy Systems)
You will be required to upload a cover letter, brief statement of research interests, CV, academic transcripts and details of two referees as part of your online application.

Jimmy Haigh.
May 28, 2013 3:29 pm

Bob Tisdale says:
May 28, 2013 at 2:13 pm
“… Imagine that, using global temperature observations to reduce uncertainty!!! ”
Yup. Pretty radical, eh?

May 28, 2013 3:37 pm

Imbelievable, as Salvatori used to say.

Greg Goodman
May 28, 2013 3:37 pm

No wanted to be the first break rank but since the Met. Office revised there ’10 year’ forecast, no one wants to be the last idiot still advancing something they all new was wrong several years ago.
This is starting to cave in quicker than I expected. I think we’ve reached ‘tipping point’.

handjive
May 28, 2013 3:45 pm

* “Mark the 27th May 2013 in your calender, ladies and gentlemen.
Because today is the day when climate change officially changed from being a science to being a religion.
A science potentially is open to challenge by new data, a religious belief is impervious to any evidence.
Through a sleight of hand Professor Karoly and colleagues and dramatically shifted the goal posts by saying they expect absolutely no warming – none whatsoever – until 2030.
After which temperatures will – for mysterious reasons – suddenly increase by 3 degrees over 50 years.”
.
* Comment from Sean Lamb @ theconversation
https://theconversation.com/uncertainty-no-excuse-for-procrastinating-on-climate-change-14634

Neo
May 28, 2013 3:54 pm

This Spring has been so cool that my Dawn Redwoods are confused such that most of the “leaves” just haven’t come in yet this year with about half of the tree still bare.
They call these things “living fossils” so I can only assume that the past was warmer than this year.

tim
May 28, 2013 4:06 pm

I love this bit
“Professor Karoly said the study reinforced the importance of strong action on climate change.”
no matter what, it is always proof that stronger controls are necessary 🙂

May 28, 2013 4:06 pm

I find quite curious the name of the algorithm they used: «The Monte Carlo Metropolis–Hastings (MCMH-MAGICC) algorithm». Does this means that Climate Modelling is nothing but a set of lottery outputs obtained from magical data?

Editor
May 28, 2013 4:07 pm

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.

If they aren’t addressing any of the “uncertainty” that comes from failure to account any of extensive evidence for some substantial mechanism of solar forcing beyond the very slight an insubstantial variance in solar irradiance then they can’t claim to have eliminated the major sources of uncertainty.
This is in the same class as Nic Lewis’ lowering of the range of climate sensitivities that are likely given the combination measured temperatures and of the IPCC’s estimates of climate forcings. Those forcings do not include any enhanced solar effects, which are clearly indicated by the strong discovered correlations between solar-magnetic activity and climate going back many thousands of years. Include any reasonable estimate for those forcings as indicated by those correlations and the implied range of likely climate sensitivities plunges much further still. Same with the present Aussie paper.
Its useful to see how the IPCC analysis way overestimates future warming even on its own flawed terms, but we really need to get away from those flawed terms.

Pedantic old Fart
May 28, 2013 4:16 pm

From the tiny amount of info presented, the message recieved is that since the projected AGW has been REDUCED by >66% for the year 2100, there is even more URGENCY to spend millions to talk about cutting CO2 emissions. Which part of this is GROUND-BREAKING?
It is all in good hands here in Australia. We have a coal fired power station that has funding to research CO2 biological sequestration. They have built a pilot plant that runs flue gas through glass vats full of algae and water. They say that the algae produced from their CO2 can be harvested for feed for livestock. This was shown on national television.
Nobody asked how much(%) of the flue gas was absorbed.
Nobody seemed to notice, visible in the background, thousands of hectares of trees and grass already doing the same job for free. Ground-breaking or Heart-breaking?

Bruce Cobb
May 28, 2013 5:03 pm

“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.”
Waiting for certainty? Is he insane? No one’s waiting for certainty. Some actual science would be nice, for a start. Show us the human fingerprint on climate, don’t just assume it’s there. And then, how big of a fingerprint is it really? Especially since you can’t even find it. Oh, and don’t get me started on the dumb Precautionary Principle being espoused. It precludes itself.

Rob MW
May 28, 2013 5:27 pm

“This was achieved through a new method combining observations of carbon dioxide…………”
Yup I was observing carbon dioxide the other day until the nurse came and gave me my special medicine and put me back to bed./sarc
David Karoly’s involvement with this paper reminds me of the boxer who won every fight by at least 100 yards.

Editor
May 28, 2013 5:33 pm

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

Another press release at http://www.vu.edu.au/news-events/news/research-narrows-global-warming-range links to http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1903.html
I haven’t checked, but I assume it’s paywalled.
They do have some notes on methodology at http://theconversation.com/uncertainty-no-excuse-for-procrastinating-on-climate-change-14634 :

Our recent study has re-visited these results and tested an approach to reduce the range of uncertainty for future global warming. We wanted to calibrate the key climate and carbon cycle parameters in a simple climate model using historical data as a basis for future projections. We used observations of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for the last 50 years to constrain the representation of the carbon cycle in the model. We also took the more common approach of using global atmospheric and ocean temperature variations to constrain the response of the climate system.
This led to a narrower range of projected temperature changes for a given set of greenhouse gas emissions. As a consequence, we have higher confidence in the projections. In other words, using both climate and carbon dioxide observations reduces the uncertainties in projections of global warming.

Bill Illis
May 28, 2013 5:50 pm

The 95% confidence interval under the A1B scenario (the track we are on, ignore the other panels) is 1.58C to 7.18C (of global warming versus the usual starting point we refer to for climate sensitivity).
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images/nclimate1903-f1.jpg
So, far from reducing the uncertainity, they just increased it to ridiculous levels. I don’t know what the point was in publishing this type of huge range. How can there be a consensus with those numbers.

atarsinc
May 28, 2013 6:37 pm

milodonharlani says:
May 28, 2013 at 12:12 pm
“Only two degrees of warming by 2100 instead of six…” Where did you get that? It’s certainly not in the post.
The authors say, “…exceeding 2 degrees is very likely….” WUWY. JP

Bill H
May 28, 2013 6:38 pm

I equate this to a Doctor telling you, you might be sick or you might not… but take this medicine despite the side effects that will kill you…
The STUPID… It Burns!

atarsinc
May 28, 2013 6:41 pm

Robert Wykoff says:
May 28, 2013 at 12:42 pm
“…endless pleas to stop all civilization…” Do you expect to be taken seriously when you make statements like that? JP

atarsinc
May 28, 2013 6:45 pm

Colin Sanders says:
May 28, 2013 at 1:08 pm
“Maybe I’m not a super smart Scientist or even smart…”
Well, at least you’re right about something. JP

Fred Love
May 28, 2013 7:47 pm

Karoly could remove some uncertainty surrounding his 2012 fiasco, when he co-authored a paper claiming that current temps are the highest in more than 1000 yrs (by a precise 0.09 deg over a momentary MMW). Eviscerated by Steve McIntyre, the paper was withdrawn, with an ongoing promise for re-submission http://newsroom.melbourne.edu/studio/ep-149 Perhaps Karoly could check his dustbin, and update his uni’s website.

Tancred
May 28, 2013 8:39 pm

I suspect as the “models” get tweaked further and further, the forecast “number” will steadily approach zero, along with public funds to pay for these “studies”. The only question is whether future generations will regard “climate science” as just another charlatan fraud like astrology, phrenology, and economics.

DaveA
May 28, 2013 8:56 pm

Victoria Uni, Melbourne, used to be closer to what the Americans would call a community college. Then some genius in government decided to make Australians smarter by renaming such places as universities.

Konrad
May 28, 2013 10:23 pm

Ahh. The squealing panic of the warmists gets louder and louder by the day. Desperate attempts to claim that missing heat is hidden in the oceans, aerosols are masking it, feedbacks less than thought or sensitivity over estimated. They are trying everything they can to achieve the “CO2 causes warming, just less than we thought” soft landing. It won’t work, they have gotten not just the magnitude of CO2s effect wrong but the very sign of its effect wrong. Karoly, like all the other AGW fellow travellers is trapped. The time for a career saving back down was years ago. It is far to late now.

JJ
May 28, 2013 11:16 pm

“This study ultimately shows why waiting for certainty will fail as a strategy,” he said.
It sure does. The more we wait, the more certain we become that all of you guys were wrong, and that some of you are crooks.
Waiting is definitely a failing political strategy. Hence the current last ditch effort to get the lock in quick.

sophocles
May 28, 2013 11:54 pm

I’ve got plenty of popcorn.
The armchair has had an oil change and the cushions were upgraded last week.
I’m now waiting for them to discover “it’s the sun” …
The Eddy Minimum is advancing…

Patrick
May 29, 2013 12:10 am

Anything Karoly says should be treated with extreme suspicion, but we can see the back-down from alarm is accelerating. It’s worse than they thought!

A Crooks
May 29, 2013 12:11 am

Professor Akasofu’s predictions back in 2009 still looks right on the money to me.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/20/dr-syun-akasofu-on-ipccs-forecast-accuracy/
If we manage 1 degree it will be a surprise to me.
Further, I think if you look at what Pachauri and the UK Met Office are saying about no warming for 20, 30 years they seem to be falling in with Akasofu too, and his 60 year cycle giving 25-30 years of cooling to come – and relying on the long term Ice Age Trend to give the long term warming.

Chris Schoneveld
May 29, 2013 12:18 am

Anthony,
I noticed you have the habit of calling each paper that challenges the CAGW orthodoxy “groundbraking”.

May 29, 2013 1:37 am

The next step is for Pachauri to claim that they predicted the 30 years of cooling, but they didn’t think that it would be significant. Plus this Earth will eventually be consumed by global warming, so we need to act, now!!!

mogamboguru
May 29, 2013 2:08 am

Quote: ” 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.”
So they fixed the result of their simple climate models first (global warming = fact) and then adjusted their simple climate models to compute the amount of the desired result?
Classy.

steveta_uk
May 29, 2013 2:32 am

The A1B scenario appears to show that from 2000 to now temps are stable to falling.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images/nclimate1903-f1.jpg
The other scenarious don’t appear to show the 21st Century pause, though A2 seems to show a drop from now to around 2030.
Somehow I don’t remember the FAR containing these drops. Is my memory going?

AndyG55
May 29, 2013 2:41 am

Take off another 4, I suspect they will be closer.

Jeff Crowder
May 29, 2013 2:55 am

“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.
Dangerous? I love it when they do that! None of these guys ever talk about the benefits of a warmer climate. I wonder if they feel that by walking back their expectations of the amount of rise by 2100, they’d be hard pressed to get any press…or far worse, be lumped in with the evil deniers?

Chris Wright
May 29, 2013 5:39 am

Anyone who claims to be able to forecast the climate in 2100 is either a fool or a charlatan. Or possibly both.
Chris

Eliza
May 29, 2013 6:25 am

This is what is called the slow back down phase 1 of AGW. Next will be phase 2, 1C next year and then 0C in about 5 years LOL Very neat way to get out of AGW without being noticed haha

Tim Clark
May 29, 2013 7:04 am

{ Professor Karoly said the study reinforced the importance of strong action on climate change. }
Isn’t that special.

May 29, 2013 7:41 am

Glance at the words ..spot the name Karoly at the bottom .. no need to read much more
..spot the link to theconversation.com The Notorious GreenLeft Propaganda site out of Australia.. spot the title “Uncertainty no excuse for procrastinating on climate change” .. so it’s just an excuse to push more alarmism
– @Ben says they have published the same paper before .. isn’t that against normal practice ?

May 29, 2013 10:05 am

If only there was a way that all governments could work together without egotistical people messing it up with power issues.

%d bloggers like this: