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 think you will find that it is Melbourne Uni in Victoria. There is no Victoria Uni in Australia.
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.
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?
Groundbreaking indeed: “Uncertainty in temperature projections reduced using carbon cycle and climate observations”… No, really, observations? 😉
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.
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
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
Uncertainty also does not discuss changes to primary drivers, such as solar output, which means the uncertainties may be much larger than discussed.
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?
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.
I wonder if we are going to start seeing a lot of climate types make tenure, then dialing back the global warming hype.
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
fudgingadjusting 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.
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’?
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
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.’
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.”
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.
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.
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.
David “Anti-milk Supreme Master” Karoly.
lol
Yet another paper writen by a brain washed puppy and his Marxist handelers.
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.
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”
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.
Bob Tisdale says:
May 28, 2013 at 2:13 pm
“… Imagine that, using global temperature observations to reduce uncertainty!!! ”
Yup. Pretty radical, eh?