A tailor-made "worse than we thought" story for #COP21 climate conference

From the UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH and the department of of crazy hockey sticks comes this laughable press release.

Range of Predictions of Global Average Temperature Increase over Pre-Industrial Levels, 2000-2100
Range of Predictions of Global Average Temperature Increase over Pre-Industrial Levels, 2000-2100

Climate outlook may be worse than feared, global study suggests

As world leaders hold climate talks in Paris, research shows that land surface temperatures may rise by an average of almost 8C by 2100, if significant efforts are not made to counteract climate change.

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.”

###

0 0 votes
Article Rating
150 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joey
December 10, 2015 9:47 am
lance
Reply to  Joey
December 10, 2015 11:05 am

read that this morning and just laughed!! What a dope!

CaligulaJones
Reply to  lance
December 10, 2015 11:13 am

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…

Joey
Reply to  lance
December 10, 2015 11:20 am

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.

sysiphus /
Reply to  lance
December 10, 2015 11:31 am

Except Alberta’s current Premier. She is full-on commited to the agenda.

TG
Reply to  lance
December 10, 2015 12:36 pm

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………

Menicholas
Reply to  lance
December 10, 2015 9:38 pm

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”.

TRM
Reply to  Joey
December 11, 2015 10:00 am

Hey Leo, can you say “chinook”? I knew you could. (Mr Rogers voice)

Wun Hung Lo
Reply to  Joey
December 11, 2015 10:40 pm

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 ?

FJ Shepherd
December 10, 2015 9:49 am

What did they do to get that 8 degree C rise in global temperature? Did they feed all the failed the climate models Viagra?

Bryan A
Reply to  FJ Shepherd
December 10, 2015 10:33 am

Viagra?? I thought that was Enzyte…Now all the girls want to sit in Climate Changes Lap

Reply to  Bryan A
December 10, 2015 2:46 pm

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.

Reply to  FJ Shepherd
December 10, 2015 10:42 am

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%

David S
December 10, 2015 9:53 am

I’ll see your 4 degrees and raise you another 8 degrees. How does such garbage get into print.

Goldrider
Reply to  David S
December 10, 2015 10:51 am

We really should stop re-posting horseshit like this and giving it legs.

Reply to  Goldrider
December 10, 2015 5:57 pm

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.

CaligulaJones
Reply to  David S
December 10, 2015 11:15 am

Is this something to do with thinking about a half dozen impossible things before lunch or something? Seems to be a quota…

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
December 10, 2015 9:56 am

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.

Trebla
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
December 10, 2015 12:07 pm

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.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
December 10, 2015 1:58 pm

Edinburgh failed the Turin Test.

Robdel
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
December 10, 2015 8:25 pm

Are you referring to the shroud?

ddh
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
December 11, 2015 6:46 am

You’re supposed to read the Edinburgh extrapolation and say “Jesus! Are they pulling the wool over our eyes?”

Mark
December 10, 2015 9:57 am

“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. 😉

Toto
Reply to  Mark
December 10, 2015 11:59 am

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.

Toto
Reply to  Toto
December 10, 2015 12:12 pm
December 10, 2015 9:57 am

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.

DD More
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 10, 2015 12:12 pm

CO2Evil, for sure idiots who have forgotten the past.
From the remember bank. On speleothems.comment image?w=720
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.

Bill Everett
December 10, 2015 9:57 am

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.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bill Everett
December 10, 2015 10:38 am

Yeah…I still like this graph of what your thermometer indicatescomment image

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Bryan A
December 10, 2015 5:15 pm

Why did you truncate at -40? There is a real absolute zero which is −273.15° Celsius, −459.67° Fahrenheit.

Jtom
Reply to  Bryan A
December 11, 2015 8:40 am

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.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
December 11, 2015 10:20 am

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 indicatedcomment image

December 10, 2015 9:58 am

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.

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
December 10, 2015 10:04 am

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.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 10, 2015 10:20 am

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.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 10, 2015 10:41 am

co2isnotevil
No just until the Plate that Antarctica is on moves into the sunlight.
michael

Bryan A
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 10, 2015 10:41 am

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

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 10, 2015 2:11 pm

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!!!

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 10, 2015 2:14 pm

Bryan A, great minds …
We should put together a grant proposal.

Justin
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 10, 2015 5:00 pm

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”.

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
December 10, 2015 10:48 am

IPCC AR5’s RCP 8.5 W/m^2 worst, worst, worst, worst case scenario takes until year 2500 to melt the ice caps.

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
December 10, 2015 11:37 am

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.

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
December 10, 2015 11:43 am

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.

Rob Morrow
December 10, 2015 9:58 am

“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.

Peter Sable
December 10, 2015 10:01 am

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.

Reply to  Peter Sable
December 10, 2015 10:13 am

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.

jclarke341
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 10, 2015 1:36 pm

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.

Reply to  jclarke341
December 10, 2015 2:32 pm

The earth IS flat.
Those images from space are based on reconstructions and biased to look like other planets.

December 10, 2015 10:03 am

This has become laughable. It is children drawing pretend graphs on paper and running, shrieking down the hall waving them for attention.

Russell
Reply to  Pat Ch
December 10, 2015 10:28 am

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

Russell
Reply to  Russell
December 10, 2015 10:38 am

Sorry start at the 29 minute mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvKdYUCUca8

Marcus
December 10, 2015 10:03 am

Even to a doofus like me, that’s a mighty huge Margin of Error !!!

December 10, 2015 10:10 am

I have an opinion. The government must act decisively against excessive use of vehicles, and companies that use substantial energy.

Reply to  ridwanris
December 10, 2015 12:00 pm

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?

Paul Blase
Reply to  ridwanris
December 10, 2015 2:08 pm

Ok, now define “excessive” and “substantial”.

QV
December 10, 2015 10:11 am

“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.

MarkW
Reply to  QV
December 10, 2015 10:23 am

Apparently Han Solo is telling the world that unless we do something drastic, the entire human race is going to go extinct.

CaligulaJones
Reply to  MarkW
December 10, 2015 11:17 am

As a scientist, Harrison Ford is a good carpenter.

Robdel
Reply to  MarkW
December 10, 2015 8:29 pm

He should know. After all his experiences as Indiana Jones.

Reply to  QV
December 10, 2015 11:04 am

Simple algorithm. Simple scientists. Simple climate. Simply stupid.

Smart Rock
Reply to  Curious George
December 10, 2015 2:42 pm

Not an algorithm. It’s an Al-Gore-ithm.
Sorry, couldn’t help it.

HelmutU
December 10, 2015 10:13 am

It is unbelievable, the people,who call themselvwe scientists, writing such a nonsense.

Walt D.
December 10, 2015 10:14 am

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..

Cam_S
December 10, 2015 10:15 am

“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.

Reply to  Cam_S
December 11, 2015 10:17 am

And not a dime spent on preparation, but billions spent on “research”

December 10, 2015 10:15 am

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.

Reply to  gymnosperm
December 10, 2015 10:25 am

gymnosperm,
Call their bluff! Offer them a ‘Long Bets’ wager (do a search; it’s tax deductible).

Reply to  dbstealey
December 10, 2015 9:58 pm

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.

bit chilly
December 10, 2015 10:17 am

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 🙂

Jimmy
December 10, 2015 10:17 am

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.

FJ Shepherd
Reply to  Jimmy
December 10, 2015 10:39 am

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.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Jimmy
December 10, 2015 11:01 am

Wait. You mean people PAY for that crap?

December 10, 2015 10:18 am

Roy Thompson apparently needs money.

Robert of Texas
December 10, 2015 10:19 am

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 :-\ )

Resourceguy
December 10, 2015 10:22 am

I’ll see your hockey stick and raise you one shillelagh.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Resourceguy
December 10, 2015 11:09 am

Well said.

Latitude
December 10, 2015 10:27 am

If the normal temperature of the surface of this planet was 8 C warmer….
No one would notice….

Latitude
Reply to  Latitude
December 10, 2015 10:37 am

if that was the normal temp….Miami would have been built in Ocala
and no one would have noticed

Bryan A
December 10, 2015 10:30 am

“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”

Reply to  Bryan A
December 10, 2015 11:22 am

“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.

Bryan A
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
December 10, 2015 12:16 pm

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

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
December 10, 2015 1:42 pm

“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.

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
December 10, 2015 5:06 pm

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.

Stephen Skinner
December 10, 2015 10:30 am

What is “…climate damage.”?
Is this what climate change will be called?

Kevin R.
December 10, 2015 10:31 am

Computers seem to be black boxes filled with magic. They’ve got a magic algorithm inside that you can’t see. I’ll bet their simpler more direct algorithm would look pretty stupid if we saw it on a blackboard.

H.R.
Reply to  Kevin R.
December 10, 2015 1:36 pm
Resourceguy
December 10, 2015 10:35 am

I get it. When you can’t pass calculus 2, you go into climate model crafting and timely predicting.

MCourtney
December 10, 2015 10:49 am

So they get a range of Double the warming of the last century to Eight Times the warming of the last century.
That’s a huge range.
They don’t really know what they’re guessing, do they?

December 10, 2015 10:51 am

340 +/- W/m^2 hit ToA (100%), 102.0 +/- W/m^2, (30%) are reflected, 238 +/- W/m^2 (70%) are absorbed and to maintain the balance the absorbed must upwell radiation though an atmospheric downhill (1st law hotter to colder) energy potential powered by the delta T back to ToA.
Along comes the CO2 GHE blanket and traps 2 +/- W/m^2 (0.6%) in the perpetual GHE loop. Only 236 W/m^2 (69.4%) now leaves ToA leaving 2 W/m^2. In order to resume the 238 +/- W/m^2 (70%) ToA and the great balance the delta T and upwelling downhill potential must increase.
If you blanket/insulate your house and maintain the furnace output the inside temperature must increase. A higher dT is needed to push the heat through the blanket. Well, duh! Sweat, turn down the furnace, open a window. Opening the window diverts some of the heat past the walls, reducing the heat flow through the insulation so the temperature doesn’t have to go up.
There is another way.
2 W/m^2 is 6.82 Btu/h / m^2. Evaporating water into dry air (check moist air psychometric properties) absorbs 1,000 +/- Btu/lb of water at a constant temperature. So an almost negligible/immeasurable/undetectable increase in ocean evaporation, resulting cloud cover, and reflecting albedo can absorb the 2 +/- W/m^2 of CO2 RF, reflect it back through ToA, and all without an increase in temperature.
340 +/- W/m^2 still hit ToA, 104.0 +/- W/m^2, (30.6%) are now reflected, 236.0 +/- W/m^2 (69.4 %) are now absorbed and upwell radiation though the atmospheric downhill energy potential is powered by an unchanged delta T back to ToA.
Presto, more CO2 and yet no increased delta T, i.e. the pause/stasis/lull/hiatus.
And I successfully ‘splained it without billions of dollars in computer hardware & software and high powered manpower that doesn’t.

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
December 10, 2015 5:14 pm

” and high powered manpower”
This must be a typo. Didn’t you mean “and high paid manpower”?

mwhite
December 10, 2015 10:53 am

“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.”
So if the global temperature was to decrease ??? A lot of time effort and money wasted.

December 10, 2015 10:53 am

“If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit from the year 2025 to 2050, according to these projections. This rise in temperature is not expected to be uniform around the globe but to be greater in the higher latitudes, reaching as much as 20 degrees, and lower at the Equator. ”
And that’s according to the New York Times, June 24, 1988.
So, here we are in 2015, with only 10 years left to see this 3 degree rise.
in spite of the failure of temperatures to rise at anything above the recorded pre-1945 trend – now we are witnessing the rebirth of an identical set of predictions. In fact at a lesser rate according to RSS/UAH.
So, what have scientist learned from this debacle?
They have learned that Hansen and Gore have become extremely successful.
And so now we find that imitators are making identical predictions to those manufactured in 1988.
It’s like deja-vu, all over again!!!
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html?pagewanted=all

mpcraig
December 10, 2015 10:56 am

“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.”

I’ll wager five Canadian dollars that those words appeared somewhere, perhaps in a different order, in either the request for funding for this study or the submission of the research proposal or both.

seaice1
Reply to  mpcraig
December 11, 2015 4:17 am

As the late great Eric Morecambe said (refering to his bad piano playing) “I am playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order.”

rabbit
December 10, 2015 11:01 am

Forecasting the global temperature in the year 2100 is a wonderful thing. You get credit for your work without fear of being proved wrong.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  rabbit
December 10, 2015 11:15 am

It’s not a prediction, it’s a “projection”. Problem solved. Heads they win, tails we lose.
Again.

Hugs
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 10, 2015 12:40 pm

We need an insurance. For our nuclear power plants may bump into dangerous climate change enthusiasts trying to convert them into solar.

hunter
December 10, 2015 11:02 am

Is it any more disgusting than what our President and his fellow fanatics claim?

December 10, 2015 11:05 am

Let’s take them at their word!
Based on their own “science”, if COP21 succeeds in 100% of its stated commits, instead of 8 degrees we will get 7.83 degrees. They’re waving the red flag to distract our attention from the fact that we’re slowing the train down by throwing a bunny rabbit in front of it.
(Don’t worry, the bunny rabbit will be fine, at some point it will become obvious that the train doesn’t exist)

December 10, 2015 11:19 am

The “simple algorithm” is probably a variant of one used in the early days of computers. A group of programmers had to create an program to solve a problem. There was a deadline, and a test case, solved manually some years ago. The computer was to replicate the test case: read input on punched cards, and print a known output.
The problem in those early days was that the computer was mostly down, and they could not get enough machine time to debug the algorithm. And the deadline loomed. To meet it, they created a simple algorithm: Read punch cards, and print out a hardcoded output. They passed the test with flying colors.

December 10, 2015 11:27 am

We have entered the phase of the con where tricks are no longer needed.
Fascinating. Reminds me a tad of the phase of the home debacle where breathing qualified you for a loan.

Reply to  knutesea
December 10, 2015 2:39 pm

On that basis the loans companies would have refused loans to dead people and inanimate objects.
Now, that would suggest some degree of discrimination – so I’m sure that the govt. would have stepped in and insured all loans issued to the non-living community.
Inclusion – that’s what we need to see. The dead can play an essential role by participating in home ownership.

December 10, 2015 11:27 am

He’s looking for a big, fat grant. However, his idiocy is so transparent that he shot his own study down with hyperbole. Even the true believers won’t believe this twaddle.

Bruce Cobb
December 10, 2015 11:30 am

Whew! Good thing they “explained” the 18.75-year Pause thingy. It was – drumroll……..
Aerosols!
Which one is that now, #66? Hard to keep track.

Kenneth Parrott
December 10, 2015 11:32 am

I like how it shows absolutely no variation in temperature for the last 200 years. Who knew!

Jane Davies
December 10, 2015 11:45 am

I liken these people with the flat earth society…how many centuries did it take to prove they were wrong?
I’m thinking they cannot be serious and they are just putting this so called theory out there to see if anyone will pick it up and run with it.

Toto
Reply to  Jane Davies
December 10, 2015 12:59 pm

Speaking of the flat earth … I’m told that people believed that if you sailed to the edge of it you would fall off. And now they say that the climate has been flat up to recently, and that if we continue we will get to the tipping point where it will be the end of the earth.

Jane Davies
Reply to  Toto
December 10, 2015 1:08 pm

Yep.. what goes around comes around, no pun intended!

mpcraig
Reply to  Jane Davies
December 10, 2015 1:23 pm

I’m starting up the Flat Universe Society. First meeting has free scotch. I expect we will prove the theory by the end of the meeting.

Jane Davies
Reply to  mpcraig
December 10, 2015 2:11 pm

Might take more than one meeting and a fair few bottles of firewater methinks!!

rufus
December 10, 2015 11:50 am

As soon as the IPCC Assessment reports have been published, and one of these conferences are due, it is open season for all climate scientists who want to make a splash. Just make sure the numbers are higher than ever before, and you are the hero of the day. Where is
I just don’t get it.
There are large numbers of seemingly intelligent people involved in these processes, so how can they tolerate this charade time and time again. I mean – reasonable people at least want a clean and reasonable process, fueled bu facts, not by convenient fiction?
Is this how far the (moral cause) corruption has come? Or have the gurus of climate science mesmerized this crowd to the extent that people will accept just about anything without even a question?
These conferences will be food for students of the psychology of masses for years to come.

Reply to  rufus
December 10, 2015 12:16 pm

In the leadup to the Internet bubble of 1999/2000 you could get VC money for an idea with no substance.
In the leadup to the housing debacle you could actually get paid to buy a home even if you had no income.
I see parallels between those and this moment. When this goes bust, it will be much bigger.

rufus
Reply to  knutesea
December 10, 2015 12:47 pm

Unfortunately, from a historical perspective, this bubble will not burst, but wither away as quietly as possible.
And when it does, there will be no apologies, no soul searching by the media or academia, and those who were ostracised for actually being RIGHT, who lost careers, lost financially and were branded as enemies of everything that is good in this world, will still be overlooked, just as they always were.
When too many people invest too much in the wrong idea, they don’t want the fall to be too hard.
A case in point is the “Great Dying of the Trees” that we had here in Europe in the early 90’s, where all trees were supposed to die because of suphur pollution by industry (including coal and oil, of course).
The story is incredibly similar to the CAGW story. Skeptical scientists found themselves out of funds and pretty soon out of a job. Only those who abided by the political agenda of the time survived, and thrived.
The alarmists who had ostracised the skeptics of the time were proven wrong in the end, but the scientists who found themselves out of a job because they were RIGHT have never been given restitution for their professional and personal losses, while the alarmists are still sitting comfortably in their chairs.
So from a historical perspective, truth will prevail in the end, but justice on a personal level will unfortunately not.
I could be wrong, though. I hope so.

Reply to  rufus
December 10, 2015 2:16 pm

Unfortunately, from a historical perspective, this bubble will not burst, but wither away as quietly as possible

I appreciate the way you think and what you say makes sense if considering that climate does not change overnight. The long term Milancovich cycles indicate that we are at a cooling shift, not a warming trend.
I can easily see a withering away.
I also think other changes will come into play such as the advent of MSRs built in China and those mixing with a blend of biomass, solar, fading wind. MSRs will be game changers and eventually fill the role that fossils currently fill.
CAGW will be seen as a classic case of groupthink focusing on the wrong threat but they’ll end up with MSRs and a dwindling role for fossils. Of course they’ve renamed it climate change so perhaps they’ll be savvy enough to claim that the cold shift was part of what they were concerned about … blah blah blah.
Sometimes I feel like I am watching off broadway theatre.

RWturner
Reply to  knutesea
December 10, 2015 1:18 pm

I disagree rufus. The Warmists have gone all in and drawn far too much attention to themselves. They, and everyone following them, will end up like this:

QV
Reply to  rufus
December 10, 2015 12:38 pm

Groupthink!

rufus
Reply to  QV
December 10, 2015 1:03 pm

Well, these people spend years beating people over the head with the IPCC reports, but as soon as sombody comes up with any number that is higher and more juicy, they will abandon their “30 000 of the worlds best scientists” of the IPCC and go with the four guys with the highest number.
It scares me, because something is very wrong with these people, and they are in a position to do a lot of harm.

Reply to  QV
December 10, 2015 2:55 pm

Trumbo

rufus
Reply to  QV
December 10, 2015 4:16 pm

waterside4
December 10, 2015 12:29 pm

Please good folks don’t think that poor Scotland has gone off the edge.
I know that a pretend University in Aberdeen has withdrawn a pretend degree from
The Donald (whose ancestors came from the Western Isles) and now this nonsense from Edinburgh which used to be a decent centre of learning – but there are still many sane people up here.
See for instance Mr Montford of Bishop-hill blog and Scottish Sceptic who are still displaying a high degree of sanity among the keepers of the asylum.
So all is not lost – yet.

December 10, 2015 12:30 pm

An example of what begins to happen when everyone starts to believe that the climate you expect is the climate you will get.
http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/06/can-coal-fired-plants-be-re-powered-today-with-stored-energy-from-wind-and-solar/#comment-749882

RWturner
December 10, 2015 1:13 pm

Obviously there needs to be more serious repercussions for fabrication, fraud, and malpractice in science. It would prevent a lot of junk science such as this.
Italian courts had it right the first time, a few year back, when they persecuted state seismologists for declaring there was very little threat from an earthquake, just weeks before a deadly quake. Of course the decision was reversed and further reinforced the diminished competence and responsibility that scientists are obligated to purvey in today’s society.

co2islife
December 10, 2015 1:18 pm

Here is a source of multiple long term instrumental readings. It was done by P. D. Jones, and not one shows a Hockeystick. Does anyone know of an undoctored long-term instrumental data set that shows a Hockeystick? It appears that the only way to get a Hockeystick is to exclude thermometer data and use proxies, which is odd on a biblical scale.
http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/jones1992a.pdf

4 eyes
December 10, 2015 1:47 pm

The good professor must be desperate for some more funding. If he is going to use a simple algorithm to predict the behaviour of the atmosphere over 85 years I’d suggest he turn his attention to some other pursuit.

Robert of Ottawa
December 10, 2015 1:49 pm

OK Are “scientists” not fed up with churning out propaganda on demand? They are paid to say anything, and they take the money and do say whatever is required by their paymasters.
At least with a professional woman, you get honesty.

December 10, 2015 1:53 pm

As I mentioned a few days ago….. it takes some work and study to understand climate…. http://oceansgovernclimate.com/the-long-way-to-understand-climate/. As for COP21, it’s kind of waste of many, since it does not covers some of the most important factors in climate change, meaning the oceans….

F. Ross
December 10, 2015 2:55 pm

Don’t these jerks (yes I know it’s ad hominem, but it fits) ever tire of crying wolf?

BLACK PEARL
December 10, 2015 3:13 pm

All these intelligent people running around like chimpanzees, I suspect looking for their next banana

December 10, 2015 5:41 pm

So the IPCC have been consulting sheep livers and this crowd decided to consult “simpler” rabbit livers instead and have predicted D O O M! Don’t they know there’s a *reason* why the climate models are complex? I have a PhD from the University of Edinburgh; I used to be proud of that. Sob.

jimheath
December 10, 2015 5:46 pm

Haggis basher on the turps again

December 10, 2015 6:03 pm

I can only conclude some have decided the movement is failing because the lie wasn’t big enough, so they’re making it bigger. It sort of makes sense.

December 10, 2015 8:25 pm

“This finding lies…”
Yup, that’s what I think, too.

Brett Brewer
December 10, 2015 10:03 pm

We had 2 degrees. Then 4 degrees. Now 8 degrees. How long until the next report predicts double figure temperature increases.

James Bull
December 10, 2015 10:19 pm

I don’t know how to do it but there must be someone who can plot satellite temp data on top of this to show just how far off they are now let alone 85 years hence.
James Bull

rtj1211
December 11, 2015 12:44 am

What is now clear is that certain grant-funded ‘scientists’ will produce graphs to order for COP21………

knr
December 11, 2015 2:48 am

Has there ever been an easier subject to work in than climate ‘science ‘ you can get away with virtual any old sh*t , little effort and less honesty is required and most of the time you just run a few worthless ‘models ‘
Honestly I think phrenology, the claims that bumps on the head tell you about the persons abilities and personality , has more scientific worth than this area , and that has absolutely none.
Although to be fair , it can be said that it has offered employment and opportunities to many who otherwise would have little to do but hand around street corners, complete with bottles in brown paper bags, wondering what to do all day.

QV
Reply to  knr
December 11, 2015 8:31 am

Large numbers of scientists are employed on “climate change”, when they could be more usefully employed in areas such as the development of new antibiotics to replace those which have been made useless by over use. A problem which I suspect will be more serious for mankind than “climate change” in the future.

Coach Springer
December 11, 2015 4:38 am

“Study” is the scientific word for manufactured opinion.

December 11, 2015 5:16 am

First sentence of the abstract published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh:

Earth has been habitable through most of its history, but the anthropogenically mediated greenhouse effect, if sufficiently strong, can threaten Earth’s long-standing equability.

Edinburgh’s “long-standing equability” includes being covered by a thick sheet of ice during the Devensian period.
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/geologyOfBritain/iceAge/images/Fig2_British_Isles_2.jpg

December 11, 2015 5:23 am

“…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.” Rubbish.
Let me point out to you that continuing emissions for the last 18 years have failed to produce any warming. The Arrhenius greenhouse theory requires that emissions must cause warming. Having produced a false prediction. that theory is thereby invalidated. It gets worse. Attempts are also made to deny reality by using falsified temperature records. One such attempt is a paoer is by Karl et al. They claim warming when actual temperature measured by satellites shows absence of warming. Why don’t you admit that global warming theory by the greenhouse effect is bankrupt and should be discarded.

December 11, 2015 7:11 am

I have a copy of the paper. The scenario used is — as many of us guessed — RCP8.5.
For readers not familiar with the four scenarios used in AR5, 3 assumed mitigation and one assumed breaks in long trends of population growth and technological gains. The result is a horrific world. Population is 12 billion people, the high end of the UN population forecast — because Africa does not experience the fertility drop as have all other peoples.
Equally bad, energy efficiency has stopped improving and we’re back to the 19th century — burning coal as the primary fuel.
Calling this a “business as usual” scenario is misrepresentation. Or outright deceit.
RCP8.5 is the scenario used for almost all of the doomster studies published in the past several years. See a list (with links) here: http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/11/05/visions-of-dark-climate-future-90153/
For a more reasonable “business as usual” scenario see this: http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/12/07/future-of-climate-change-91532/

December 11, 2015 10:03 am

In the Star Trek universe, on 5 April 2063 Zefram Cochrane’s ship, The Phoenix, makes its first warp flight.
RCP8.5 — described as the “business as usual” scenario by most climate scientists — assumes it The Phoenix will be powered by coal. Coal is the major fuel for the second half of the 21st century. Not nuclear. Not fusion. Not antimatter.
So far as I have, the climate science literature provides no analytical foundation for the assumption that RCP8.5 results from continuation of current trends. It obviously requires substantial breaks in several key trends.

December 11, 2015 10:32 am

I am no scientist, but when I see billions and billions being spent on climate studies, grants to renewable energy companies, PR firms and so on and so on, but not a penny spent on preparation It kind of makes just a little bit suspicious.

co2islife
Reply to  Richard Pettit
December 12, 2015 6:31 am

I am no scientist, but when I see billions and billions being spent on climate studies, grants to renewable energy companies, PR firms and so on and so on, but not a penny spent on preparation It kind of makes just a little bit suspicious.

Especially considering that an ice age is teh real threat. Unless we’ve repealed the glacial/inter-glacial cycle, a future ice age is a certainty. Never in the history of the geological record has CO2 resulted in run away warming, not even when it reached 7,000 ppm. BTW, my understanding is that we are over due for the next ice age. That stall in the temperatures to the far right has been a blessing.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif

Reply to  Richard Pettit
December 12, 2015 8:21 am

Richard,
“but when I see billions and billions being spent on climate studies,
Can you give a cite for that? NOAA’s 2015 budget is $5.5 billion. The budget for their entire research division is $462 million.
The entire research budget of the National Science Foundation is $5.8 billion. Geosciences get $1.3billion, climate science gets a piece of that.
I doubt other nations spend as much as the US, probably not even together.

3x2
December 11, 2015 1:28 pm

8C? how about 8/1000ths of a C? How about -8/1000ths of a C?
Seriously, are we really going to continue some stupid global argument over 10ths of a degree up or down on a mass of circa 6×10^24 kg? Both extremes of this argument have completely lost the plot.
I really do wish that I could design a system that could control a mass of 6 × 10^24kg to within a few tenths of a degree over hundreds of years – Nobel prize here I come.
Think about it for a moment … A mass of 6 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 kg held to within tenths of a deg C over hundreds of years. Truly something we should marvel at and investigate but surely not something that should cause such division.
Unless, of course, the division really has nothing much to do with a few tenths of a degree either side of ‘optimal’ and is about something else entirely.

December 12, 2015 10:30 am

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. What a bunch of BS! How can anyone take these morons seriously from now on?

Reply to  fzbw9br
December 12, 2015 10:56 am

It’s taken seriously because the majority of the world have been convinced that they are destroying the earths climate.

Hazel
December 13, 2015 6:57 am

May, might, could + dire predictions = weasel-speak textbook.

December 15, 2015 9:01 am

Roy’s study suggests the impact of climate change may be worse than previously thought – land surface temperatures may rise by an average of 7.9 C by 2100 if significant efforts are not made to counteract climate change. Roy discusses what this means in a short YouTube video in light of the recent Paris Agreement resulting from COP21. https://youtu.be/HTPFvMbnDnE

%d bloggers like this: