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.
They also condemned the “overreaction” to the US’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, announced by Donald Trump in June, saying it is unlikely to make a significant difference.
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.
The discrepancy means nations could continue emitting carbon dioxide at the current rate for another 20 years before the target was breached, instead of the three to five predicted by the previous model.
“When you are talking about a budget of 1.5 degrees, then a 0.3 degree difference is a big deal”, said Professor Myles Allen, of Oxford University and one of the authors of the new study.
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.
The goal was yesterday described as “very ambitious” but “physically possible”.
Another reason the climate outlook is less bleak than previously thought is stabilising emissions, particularly in China.
And here is the original press release.
HT | Pablo an ex Pat
Now they can say, see we fixed the problem, oh yippy!
They will have a problem taking the credit if
A) Human CO2 emissions continue to rise
B) Natural emissions continue to rise
C) Both A and B happen in tandem
They will have to explain how rising CO2 is not warming the planet.
SteveT
No they won’t. They’ll just yell “Look over there!” and hare off on some other wild goose chase…
Uncle Gus is right – how many times have they changed their story, so far? Does that seem to bother any of their marching brooms?
well if US being in or out will not make a significant difference Trump was very wise to pull out, stop dumping massive contributions into the UNFCCCP slush fund and ruining the US economy and losing jobs.
In fact if US dropping out does not make a difference, I guess just about everyone else can say the same.
They have just admitted the whole damn thing is pointless.
All this depends on the debatable temperature data of the warmers and their models. The planet is not in thermodynamic equilibrium. There cannot be a measure of its average temperature, to say little of the decimal places now being cited. It`s the Sun stupid.
So…the _models_ are worse than we thought?
(Apologies for the duplicate comment on the David Middleton post – I think this comment fits here better)
My earlier post is about the same article.
Yes, David, your post was first and I read it first.
However, I prefer the more measured tone of Henry’s description, without the derogatory “idoitic”, “anyone with an IQ”, and inclusion of Carlin’s f-bombs.
Difference of style, not of subject matter.
This post is just a quoted passage from the Telegraph article. My post is a sarcastic shredding of the comments from the paper’s authors that appeared in the Telegraph article… 😉
Actually the links place a number 2 in David’s post, so it is possible that this article was posted first.
They may have been simultaneous. Both are listed as “51 mins ago September 19, 2017.” It’s not the first time Charles and I have posted the same article at nearly the same time… “Great minds…” 😉
My posts are generally scheduled the previous evening and tend to be on the hour, sometimes the half hour.
How did we hit it on the minute? Do we have some sort of ESPN connection? LOL!
Notice….every time something doesn’t go their way…they move the goal posts again….
Waiting on Hillary for president now…..then they will ramp it up
The models (for want of a better word) have been developed because of that nasty gas CO2.
The CO2 horsesh*t has to stop.
If only members of governments would read these sort of studies and compare them to the CAGW propaganda, there might be a little progress in the matter.
Does this mean hurricanes are just… hurricanes?
Nah…..Haven’t you noticed? Hurricanes are wind driven mud storms.
Often it takes a simple solution to correct a problem that is blamed on man-made Gorebull warming. Bringing back the wolves brought back many other species-
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=yellowstone+park+wolves
..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…..
So… the mid-19th-Century average is what we should be aiming for? That would be around the middle of the Little Ice Age?
Perhaps the IPCC has investments in skiing…?
According too the IPCC, roughly half of the recent warming is due to CO2. The rest is natural. So if recent warming amounts to 1C, then roughly 0.5C is thought due to CO2. The models say it should be 1.3C. Sounds like the discrepancy is 0.8C, not 0.3C. Seems even the climate cabal’s reports of error are erroneous.
A very worthwhile point and compelling evidence we are dealing with incompetence coupled with lies that there is anything untoward gong on with the climate.
Exactly right.
Because climate sensitivity is very low.
The press release is still rather supportive of the Paris Accord and drastic reductions in CO2. It doesn’t really explain how they got it wrong. It also does not explain what the 0.9 to 1.0 degree is from. Are those the (corrected, er bastardized) terrestrial records or the satellite records? If we used their numbers with satellite temps could we just ignore this whole made up disaster? Can we just interpret this as ass-covering so that they don’t lose all credibility in another 5 years?
yes…..yes……yes
I went to this article from Drudge, expecting something entirely different after reading Telegraph’s headline. Should have known better.
And if a simpler analysis yields better results, perhaps I could get a nice grant for the calculations I wrote on the back of this napkin here?
There, fixed it.
This is just a case of changing the goal posts. They know very well that the dire predictions wont happen so to save face they will keep pushing the goal posts out further and further.
– Disaster is coming
– Wait, its not as bad as we thought
Repeat ad infinitum
He’s obfuscating. What he’s trying to say is it wasn’t as bad as we didn’t think it never was.
Perhaps the big deal is that the story is being carried in the mainstream media. Some time early this morning I heard a promo for an interview on the CBC radio with someone who points out that the planet is greening and many species are thriving and spreading.
I have been hoping that some time soon the mainstream media would start backing down from their CAGW propaganda position.
One of the easiest experiments to run…is a limiting experiment
…when you can add only one ingredient and get a marked response..you usually have it
Adding nothing but CO2 and getting this sort of response….pretty much nails CO2 was limiting
Cleverly threaded. To fall into the back of his own colleagues (model makers) so that the political aims (reorganization of the society and the energy sector to the goldgrass billionaires Gore & Co.) still seem to be achievable and thus the public can be aroused again. But in vain ( German, schwäbisch: Scheißebächle) . The mistake of the models is in the long term greater than 0.3 degrees C. And even with the previous, supposedly wrong modellings of the models, one no longer lures a dog behind the stove. Since it is clear that more CO2 is a benefit for all. Therefore a paper for the toilet as a replacement for toilet paper. Where is the original work? All that is to be read is the press release or have I overlooked something?
Climatism is screwed…
Griff’s Global Warming alarmist propaganda has utterly failed!
“Published in the journal Nature Geoscience, it suggests that if polluting peaks and then declines to below current levels before 2030…”
When is “pollution” not pollution. When it is CO2 (aka-plant food).
In many ways, climate science seems to follow along the same line of thinking that Dr. Benjamin Spock did as he wrote his child rearing books. After many years of pushing his original book, he rewrote his book and then went out and pushed it. When asked about why, he said something to the affect that his original book had some errors in it, but his new book has it all correct now. Climate science seems to be walking that same trail – their original scare tactics had errors in it, but the new scare tactics have it right. Well, at least until the next set of scare tactics come out. But the bottom line when it comes to “modeling” is that you can only model what you know, and they appear to actually know next to nothing about weather and climate. You can, however, simulate nearly anything as long as you know something about it and keep it as simple as possible. That is why things like Dr. Evan’s “model” or the one proposed by Lord Monckton tend to work better when it comes to prediction.
But one thing is clear, when you create a model, you do so by defining the characteristics of the model purposefully, or it can’t produce what you expect it to. Thus the IPCC models were always intended to show a relationship between CO2 and temperature, regardless of whether there was an actual relationship or not. The model had no choice.
So now it is admitted that the Climate Models that they have used to ‘prove’ the theory of catastrophic man-made climate change are wrong. Not just a little bit wrong but out by anything from 30% to 50% wrong. The spin put on this is that it is a good thing because it means we have a chance to meet the goal of 1.5 degrees (whatever that means) but only if we double down on our efforts to reduce CO2 emissions.
What it really means is that the alarmists have admitted fallibility. They have actually admitted that they are wrong, and wrong big-time too. The models, which do not forget we were told that these models ran on computers so expensive and modern that they could never make any mistake, we are now told that they are trash, but nevertheless everything else we have ever been told is still all true and it’s still bad but, for once, it’s not ‘worse than we thought’. Their man made warming theory pretty much rested on their models though, because it was the output from these that ‘proved’ the theory that CO2 is boiling the planet. So, with the models gone, the theory has gone too. It only takes one thing to disprove a theory and this is that one thing.
Once the spin has been countered this should be the start of the end of the Climate Change scam. I read the story first in The Times and was heartened to see that pretty much everyone who commented on it said the same thing; that the theory is now disproved and dead because they have admitted being wrong, so therefore why should we not assume that everything else ‘they’ said is wrong too?
100% wrong. What would it mean, 50% wrong?
Probably this will lessen depression and/or hysteria among some believers and calm their comments.
And the children that can’t sleep at night … in the interest of their kids’ mental health, will at least one of the parents let them know that their bubble compatriots (and what was essentially their religion) was very wrong.
Or would that be even worse for the minds of the coddled little wonders of nature? Seems that those psychologists turned climate scientists may want (or need) to get involved. it would be for the children
but I’ll miss the fun we have here. Surely the control freaks will come at us with something new before they end this one.
The 1.5 degrees above what they sort of think the temperature was in 1850 that cannot be measured that closely due to absent records for most of the world 1.5 degrees that they arbitrarily decided on?
I think this is about as silly as arguing over whether Adam had a navel on being several layers of assumptions deep.
Cargo cult science alert
Just like good old regressive sensitivity study results tracking observational data, lag of 5 years, this is another arctic will be ice free in 40 years
The only reason this study exists is because no one longer trusts noaa n giss temp n are letting their results be guided by obs data, to remain relevant n have something to point to, to ecplain the lack of warming in the sat data sets
And what if the warming is not due to increasing levels of atmospheric CO2? What if causation is being inverted on its head? What if it’s the warming that’s pushing CO2 molecules out of the oceans (Henry’s Law)?
What if Svensmark is correct?
Increased concentration of CO2 in the air is roughly compatible with rough estimates of a consumption of fossil fuels. Not much of evidence, but not to be dismissed outright.
The real question is : Is more CO2 beneficial or harmful? Observations support the first – so far.
At the Paris climate summit in 2015, Professor Grubb said: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”
He considers models “evidence” – actually, “all the evidence”. It is time to formulate rules of evidence for climatology. Science already had rules of evidence, but climatology is not a science.
And Prof Grubb proposes what, exactly, as a substitute for democracy?
I was told the science was settled years ago. Somebody was lying. It was politicians, so that’s OK.
“An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook.”
But aren’t we over 400 ppm faster than the models projected, and isn’t that supposed to be the only thing that is driving global temperature? Isn’t this simply an admission (finally) that the theory, and models derived from it, are wrong?
The article should read something like this: “Umm…sorry! It really is looking like we were wrong and the skeptics were right all along. Sorry about all that name calling, and the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on a non-issue, and for terrifying the entire population of the planet with a continuous stream of doom and gloom stories for the last few decades, and for further suppressing development in the poorest areas of the world, causing hundreds of thousands of completely unnecessary deaths. We feel really bad about about that last one. But…hey….no hard feelings! Right? Well…carry on.”
Now they need to come clean about temperature record adjustments, affects of significantly reducing the number of weather stations and properly assessing UHI contributions to temperature rise.
It’s global fraud on an unprecedented scale. Now can we please take a look at who profited the most by this trillion dollar crime and prosecute them? Nah, didn’t think so…
Shukman (bbc “science editor”) was on the radio at lunchtime. Barely mentioned the important scientific point (significant error/overestimate), but spent the entire report talking about the other (renewables advocacy) study “conclusions”. At the very end he said “and after all, well, it’s only an error of 0.3 degrees, which really is very small”.
Hang on – wasn’t the twentienth century warming of just over 0.6 degrees supposed to be very large – in fact unprecedented, dangerous and worthy of panic and immediate action?
Hmmm. . .
Now this is: “An Inconvenient Truth” for the chicken-littles.
“The discrepancy means nations could continue emitting carbon dioxide at the current rate for another 20 years before the target was breached, instead of the three to five predicted by the previous model.”
Left unclear is why the new model is any more likely to be correct than the old one.
Harold Camping had a new model every few years, too.
““When you are talking about a budget of 1.5 degrees, then a 0.3 degree difference is a big deal”, said Professor Myles Allen, ”
So when you are talking about an error in forecasting of 0.3 degrees in such a short time, that is a Big Deal too. When it is off by say, 1-1.5 degrees, that will be an even bigger deal. That will mean we will be able to emit at our present rate for another few score years and ten, I suppose.
At some point the disconnect between CO2 emissions and temperature will have to be admitted. When that Great Day comes, the Big Deal will be the wastes of trillions of dollars on preventing something that was never going to happen. The health and wealth of nations will have suffered, but hey, it was all in a good (possible) cause.
And where did this 1.5 degrees come from? Thin air. Once it was clear that 2 degrees was never going to be met by the end of the 21st century, it was changed at the Paris conflab to “1.5 degrees” without a breath of explanation. It would have to be without one, as there isn’t one. Someone just made it up and passed the message on, same as with the ‘2 degree limit’.
I don’t care much about that second degree anyway. I do know that deliberately impoverishing billions around the world is murder in the First Degree.
So what happens when we reach that arbitrary 1.5 Deg C above pre-industrial level temperature? Nothing will happen.
Major Meteor,
“So what happens when we reach that arbitrary 1.5 Deg C above pre-industrial level temperature?”
It will be nothing bad,since it was that level about 8,000 years ago. The Sahara was Green too.
Hear that beeping sound? That’s the sound of Warmists backing up the Truth Truck.
Yes, clean air is better than smog, etc. But CO2 may not be any more detrimental than hairspray. Read this new look at the Ozone Hole and realize that Global Warming may have another process than car exhaust.
https://www.harrytodd.org
I was just looking at the plot in WUWT Paleo section,1,205 Years – M.L. Khandekar et al. 2005, K.J. Kreutz et al. 1997, Keith Briffa and Timothy J, Osborn 2002, and wonder why a correlation analysis of this data is not available as it should show a poor relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide in the last 1,000 years.