From the UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH and the department of of crazy hockey sticks comes this laughable press release.
Climate outlook may be worse than feared, global study suggests
Such a rise would have a devastating impact on life on Earth. It would place billions of people at risk from extreme temperatures, flooding, regional drought, and food shortages.
The study calculated the likely effect of increasing atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases above pre-industrialisation amounts. It finds that if emissions continue to grow at current rates, with no significant action taken by society, then by 2100 global land temperatures will have increased by 7.9C, compared with 1750.
This finding lies at the very uppermost range of temperature rise as calculated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It also breaches the United Nations’ safe limit of 2C, beyond which the UN says dangerous climate change can be expected.
Research at the University of Edinburgh first created a simple algorithm to determine the key factors shaping climate change and then estimated their likely impact on the world’s land and ocean temperatures. The method is more direct and straightforward than that used by the IPCC, which uses sophisticated, but more opaque, computer models.
The study was based on historical temperatures and emissions data. It accounted for atmospheric pollution effects that have been cooling Earth by reflecting sunlight into space, and for the slow response time of the ocean.
Its findings, published in Earth and Environmental Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, may also help resolve debate over temporary slow-downs in temperature rise.
Professor Roy Thompson, of the University of Edinburgh’s School of GeoSciences, who carried out the study, said: “Estimates vary over the impacts of climate change. But what is now clear is that society needs to take firm, speedy action to minimise climate damage.”
###
What is “…climate damage.”?
Is this what climate change will be called?
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.
You mean like this, Kevin?
http://img.scoop.it/vHrxfKwbod_N7_sDlEyUYTl72eJkfbmt4t8yenImKBVvK0kTmF0xjctABnaLJIm9
I get it. When you can’t pass calculus 2, you go into climate model crafting and timely predicting.
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?
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.
” and high powered manpower”
This must be a typo. Didn’t you mean “and high paid manpower”?
“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.
“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
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.
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.”
Forecasting the global temperature in the year 2100 is a wonderful thing. You get credit for your work without fear of being proved wrong.
It’s not a prediction, it’s a “projection”. Problem solved. Heads they win, tails we lose.
Again.
We need an insurance. For our nuclear power plants may bump into dangerous climate change enthusiasts trying to convert them into solar.
Is it any more disgusting than what our President and his fellow fanatics claim?
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I like how it shows absolutely no variation in temperature for the last 200 years. Who knew!
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.
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.
Yep.. what goes around comes around, no pun intended!
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.
Might take more than one meeting and a fair few bottles of firewater methinks!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Groupthink!
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.
Trumbo
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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….