From the UK met office and the “decarbonize now” brigade:
Early climate ‘payback’ with higher emission reductions
Climate scientists at the Met Office Hadley Centre have shown that the early mitigation needed to limit eventual warming below potentially dangerous levels has a climate ‘payback’ much earlier than previously thought.
Lead scientist Andrew Ciavarella explains: “Our study has shown that efforts to reduce global temperature rise in the long term — through aggressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions — can halve the risk of heat extremes within two decades.”
The study — published in the journal Nature Climate Change — investigates how quickly benefits of mitigation could be realised through any reduction in the occurrence of extreme seasonal temperatures over land.
The team focussed on model results from future scenarios of a rapidly-warming world: one without any action to reduce emissions; and one where emissions are reduced enough to keep long-term global warming below 2 °C above pre-industrial times.
Ciavarella and the team discovered that it takes less than 20 years in many regions for the risk of extreme seasonal temperatures (one-in-ten-year extreme heat events) to halve following the start of aggressive emissions reductions.
Andrew Ciavarella added: “We show that the global exposure to climate risk is reduced markedly and rapidly with substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. It had been thought previously that most of the benefits of mitigation would have been hidden by natural climate variability until later in the century.”
Prof Peter Stott — a fellow author on the paper — is the Acting Director of the Met Office Hadley Centre and part of the Mathematics department at the University of Exeter. He said: “It is necessary to reduce greenhouse emissions rapidly to help avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change but it had been thought that most of the benefits of this early mitigation would be felt only much later in the century.
“This new research shows that many people alive today could see substantial benefits of efforts to reduce emissions thanks to a greatly reduced risk of heat waves in as little as two decades.”
The paper — Early benefits of mitigation in risk of regional climate extremes — is published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
###
Obviously, headlines matter more than the science, because the paper hasn’t been published yet according to the URL for the paper given in the press release.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3259
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Meanwhile, in the real world…
I wonder why this ‘modelling’ has just hit the press. My best guess is that the Warmies need a quick hit to counter the swelling tide of scepticism. And 20 years fits in with the usual time span for no snow, no Reek, no rain etc.
I dunno about no ‘reek’. I can definitely smell the reek of BS…
Hold temperatures to 2 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures. I hear that all the time. But wasn’t “pre-industrial temperatures” basically the same as little ice age temperatures? Why would you want to hold temperatures to as close to ice age temperatures as you possible could? Making sure we are ready for the next real ice age? Am I missing something or just not masochistic enough to appreciate the colder temperatures these “climate stewards” want? Are they all obese and bothered by hot flashes?
Ah yes, the (British) “Met. Office”: the very people who claim that carbonated-oxygen is a problem. Well, they will eventually shut up when they learn that CO2 is not a problem and that CO2 is in fact the solution.
They seem to be under the control of the World Banking Organisation, the United Nations, the European (taxation) Union and a government which is still tied to the Great Global Warming Gravy Train.
As for their new computer (costing us £67 million) I very much doubt that it could forecast the weather for 1952.
If ‘climate change’ can CAUSE any number of terrible things – and requires funding to know that…then any improvement in the disaster scenario as told by the warmists brigade, will be seen as proof positive that it was money well spent, and NOT to back away from doing more (and yes, more funding required for that too).
Tiny changes now = keeping the temp increased suppressed = money well spent.
Natural variation = temperatures don’t rise = warmists STILL cease the credit = say money was well spent
Natural variation = temperatures rise slightly = we haven’t done enough = send more money
Climate Change. Natural they win. Cooling they win. A sincerely held fantasy of having your baby, and a-borting it, too.
More BS from the usual suspects – no validation of the models + unsupported assertions from sinecured alarmists.
Stott is a bluidy disgrace – as a mathematician he must know that a model is simply a hypothesis until it’s validated – maybe he’s just such a crap mathematician that he needs to change job to head up Hadley and orchestrate scaremongering to monster up more funds?
This is not science.
Doesn’t a hypothesis merely evolve to a theory, until refuted?
As a layman, I don’t believe anything is ever a fact. Not that you mentioned the term ‘fact’.
“The team focussed on model results”
I like em in Bikini’s, with big bombalini’s and a thong.
Nor is that sexist, thank you very much. I didn’t express a gender, nor sexual orientation within that statement.
PS, my spellchecker wanted to correct bombalini’s to ‘Lamborghini’s’. Personally, I would prefer it as Lamborghini, as one in the hand is worth many bombalini’s in the passenger seat. And yes, I intentionally avoided any reference to ‘Bush’…….No, not the family.
We need to get you married.
MarkW-
“We need to get you married”
What do you have against women? Er…um… genderless, disoriented, bombalini owners? :=)
bombalini bearers?
Early? According to Prince Charles we have three months left to save the planet: — “Jul 8, 2009 – Just 96 months to save world, says Prince Charles”
I, for one, am taking “On The Beach” precautions so I’ll have our family’s pills all ready to go.
Why now even release that paper since some folks would only try to find things wrong with it.
Because science.
I imagine the motive is political, John, being aimed at the British government as it enters into negotiations with the EU over the terms of Brexit. A guest-poster (Oldbrew) on Tallbloke’s blog reported a few days ago that a leaked record of a secret meeting of EU policy-makers says they are insisting that “Britain must uphold climate standards to secure EU trade deal”. (See: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/03/30/brexit-leak-britain-must-uphold-climate-standards-to-secure-eu-trade-deal/ ) I think the Met Office may be intending the announcement as a sweetener to help persuade the British side to accept the EU’s terms so that the Met Office’s and the EU’s established business of plundering the British economy and disrupting its energy-infrastructure in the name of saving the planet from the abominable climatic ravages of natural plant-food will be able to continue as usual after Brexit.
I hope, though, that the British negotiating team will not fall for any such fanatical green nonsense on this occasion and will give the EU’s outrageous demands the short shrift that they deserve.
“Ciavarella and the team discovered that it takes less than 20 years in many regions for the risk of extreme seasonal temperatures ”
But .. but,, residence time? 100 years? 😉
How convenient…
“OK, It will only cost half as much, just don’t sack us!!!!”
I think we have a big enough list to have a section on the Trump Effect. There’ve been several of these downsizing, quicky-cheapy, bargaining offers put on the table. Elon Musk’s even advised that Tesla’s could be run just fine on fossil fuel generated electricity.
BTW, what do you expect when taxpayers have bought these totally failed forecasters a £100M computer to do something with?
This is simply not research. It is trivial and banal.
Produce a “model” that shows bad things happen, then make those bad things happen sooner. Wow, the sooner one is worse.
What exactly did they think their “research” was going to show? That having bad things happen sooner ws better? Utter, utter nonsense.
This is preparing the ground for the possibility that the pause may reappear or lengthen or that it might get colder. They will then claim the credit for this by claiming that the efforts to decarbonise and move to renewables are working and that this proves they were right all along and so they can continue their privileged positions and continue to get grant money and rewards and honours.
This is like lamenting the benefits of going insane early in your life – the rest of your life passes in joy.
Scientists seem myopic in their thought process … CO2 is the evil of the planet.
In their zeal to focus on one substance, in UK promoting diesel over petrol driven vehicles. Well, golly gosh, we now have a report via Sky News that Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, is concerned at the “dangerous” levels of nitrous oxide emitted from … diesel vehicles. The problem becoming evident throughout UK major cities
Maybe the scientists should look up from their “models” and start looking at the REAL world