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.”
###
Don’t these jerks (yes I know it’s ad hominem, but it fits) ever tire of crying wolf?
All these intelligent people running around like chimpanzees, I suspect looking for their next banana
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.
Haggis basher on the turps again
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.
“This finding lies…”
Yup, that’s what I think, too.
We had 2 degrees. Then 4 degrees. Now 8 degrees. How long until the next report predicts double figure temperature increases.
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
What is now clear is that certain grant-funded ‘scientists’ will produce graphs to order for COP21………
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.
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.
“Study” is the scientific word for manufactured opinion.
First sentence of the abstract published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh:
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
“…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.
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/
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
It’s taken seriously because the majority of the world have been convinced that they are destroying the earths climate.
May, might, could + dire predictions = weasel-speak textbook.
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