Guest post by David Middleton
Eureka! Gorebal Warming is now not worse than previously thought…
By Henry Bodkin
18 SEPTEMBER 2017 • 7:15PM
Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.
An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook.
Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement.
[…]
According to the models used to draw up the agreement, the world ought now to be 1.3 degrees above the mid-19th-Century average, whereas the most recent observations suggest it is actually between 0.9 to 1 degree above.
[…]
Published in the journal Nature Geoscience, it suggests that if polluting peaks and then declines to below current levels before 2030 and then continue to drop more sharply, there is a 66 per cent chance of global average temperatures staying below 1.5 degrees.
[…]
While they understate the abject failure of the models and idiotically inflate the nonexistent role of “affordable renewable energy” in the failure of the models, it’s a start… About like an alcoholic recognizing that he might have a problem.
Although… This does make me wonder if they might have been sandbagging us. Spending 30 years telling us it’s “worse than previously thought” and that “we have only (fill in the blank) years to save the planet”… To now telling us that, if we only give them more money for climate science and greenschist, we can now save the planet.
Of course… Anyone with an IQ that can’t be counted on two hands already knows that climate change has never been. nor will ever be, “threatening to planet”… (Warning: Lots of F-bombs)…
Limiting global warming to 1.5 °C may still be possible
Analysis suggests that researchers have underestimated how much carbon humanity can emit before reaching this level of warming.
Jeff Tollefson
18 September 2017
A team of climate scientists has delivered a rare bit of good news: it could be easier than previously thought to limit global warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, as called for in the 2015 Paris climate agreement. But even if the team is right — and some researchers are already questioning the conclusions — heroic efforts to curb greenhouse-gas emissions will still be necessary to limit warming.
Published on 18 September in Nature Geoscience1, the analysis focuses in part on the fact that global climate models used in the 2013 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tend to overestimate the extent of warming that has already occurred. After adjusting for that discrepancy and running further models, the authors of the latest study found that the amount of carbon that humanity can emit from 2015 onward while holding temperatures below 1.5 °C is nearly three times greater than estimated by the IPCC — or even larger if there is aggressive action on greenhouse gases beyond carbon dioxide.
[…]
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
We should be grateful that warmers are at last admitting that they got it wrong. This represents a victory for science. We should now look forward to seeing the whole warmer edifice crumble, allowing our money to be spent on something sensible and worthwhile.
Though I expect the BBC will still be banging on about the hockey stick in 10 years time.
I too am perplexed by the statement:
“All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”
Incompatible? This seems completely incoherent? There must be referred to some implied mechanism. Democracy doesn’t produce anything other than a result of an election.
Does the statement infer that being able to enforce the onerous restrictions policy makers would like to impose to supposedly achieve a 1.5 °C world average temperature increase are not compatible with getting an agreed decision from a democratic plebiscite?
rocketscientist,
To me, it infers a strong desire/intention to establish a sciency/technocratic Big Brother sort of global Government, that supersedes “self rule”/”rule by consent of the governed” and such . . like Europe, basically ; )
What ? We are not all going to die ?
I am kind of disappointed.
I view this ‘statement’ as the being like the very first steps a toddler makes. It’s the very first step in the very, very long walk-back from the ‘catastrophic’ predictions hithertofore made.
I’m not so sure this is any realistion or serious change of position – surely it’s just a slippery way to convince us that if we go all out for renewables and global eco-facism/governance we can still be ‘saved’. The CAGW movement is in danger of preventing implementation of their goals, by being too doom-laden – why would we bother trying to reduce that risk of CAGW if we are already committed to disaster – call me cynical!
What we need is Climateberg trials. I want to see each and every one of these lying fr@uds on trial. If they can bring evidence which would pass even basic scientific muster to support their preposterous positions over the last few decades then they walk. Otherwise it’s climate Spandau prison. And models are not evidence.
Writing “(Warning: Lots of F-bombs)” is disrespectable to George Carlin’s memory.
It’s just a warning to those who may be offended by colorful metaphors.
In the history of the planet Earth the climate has never stopped changing and yet that seems to be the goal of these misguided alarmists. I would just suggest they don’t play God with my only planet – I still need it for a few things in the remaining years of my life.