Study: we're going to miss (and overshoot) the 2°C warming target

From the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON and the “We’ll always have Paris” department.

Global temperature targets will be missed within decades unless carbon emissions reversed

New projections by researchers from the Universities of Southampton and Liverpool, and the Australian National University in Canberra, could be the catalyst the world has sought to determine how best to meet its obligations to reduce carbon emissions and better manage global warming as defined by the Paris Agreement.

In their latest paper, published in the February issue of Nature Geoscience, Dr Philip Goodwin from the University of Southampton and Professor Ric Williams from the University of Liverpool have projected that if immediate action isn’t taken, the earth’s global average temperature is likely to rise to 1.5°C above the period before the industrial revolution within the next 17-18 years, and to 2.0°C in 35-41 years respectively if the carbon emission rate remains at its present-day value.

Through their projections, Dr Goodwin and Professor Williams advise that cumulative carbon emissions needed to remain below 195-205 PgC (from the start of 2017) to deliver a likely chance of meeting the 1.5°C warming target while a 2°C warming target requires emissions to remain below 395-455 PgC.

Surface warming projections and ocean heat content anomalies.

“Immediate action is required to develop a carbon-neutral or carbon-negative future or, alternatively, prepare adaptation strategies for the effects of a warmer climate,” said Dr Goodwin, Lecturer in Oceanography and Climate at Southampton. “Our latest research uses a combination of a model and historical data to constrain estimates of how long we have until 1.5°C or 2°C warming occurs. We’ve narrowed the uncertainty in surface warming projections by generating thousands of climate simulations that each closely match observational records for nine key climate metrics, including warming and ocean heat content.”

Professor Williams, Chair in Ocean Sciences at Liverpool, added: “This study is important by providing a narrower window of how much carbon we may emit before reaching 1.5°C or 2°C warming. There is a real need to take action now in developing and adopting the new technologies to move to a more carbon-efficient or carbon-neutral future as we only have a limited window before reaching these warming targets.” This work is particularly timely given the work this year of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to develop a Special Report on the Impacts of global warming of 1.5oC above pre-industrial levels.

Through their previous research published in December 2014, Dr Goodwin and Professor Williams were able to provide a single equation connecting global warming to the amount of carbon emitted, warning of the detrimental effects of the nearly irreversible nature of carbon emissions for global warming. This latest research reinforces their previous conclusions that “the more cumulative carbon emissions are allowed to increase, the more global surface warming will also increase. This policy implication reinforces the need to develop carbon capture techniques to limit the warming for the next generations.”


The paper ‘Pathways to 1.5 and 2 °C warming based on observational and geological constraints’ is published in the February 2018 issue of Nature Geoscience (doi:10.1038/s41561-017-0054-8).

159 thoughts on “Study: we're going to miss (and overshoot) the 2°C warming target

  1. Blah blah blah act now blah blah blah all doomed blah blah blah save our children blah blah blah need to take action now blah blah blah………..

    • Exactly. The marginal return on these studies is less-than-nil at this point. However, if someone is paying, they are producing.

    • James Hansen, the father of CAGW, says we have lots of time. link Climate sensitivity estimates are relentlessly decreasing. link Only these brave souls are standing up and bucking the trend with some real old school CAGW. Three cheers for them I say!
      It’s hard to get published if you aren’t saying something new and novel. I was struggling to see what was new and novel with this paper and it could be that it bucks the trend. Of course, you can’t buck the trend too much.

      … claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. link

      So, they got published and folks noticed. Three cheers for them.

      • They have already admitted that the 2C limit is as made up as the rest of the CAGW scenario. There was never any science behind it.

      • Of course Hansen knows that we have a lot of time, in fact all the time in the world, since it was the feedback analysis he conspired with Schlesinger to produce and that both know to be flawed that provided the theoretical plausibility for a climate sensitivity large enough to justify the formation of the IPCC.

    • Blah blah blah urgently needed funding blah blah blah maintain research n blah blah to ensure blah blah blah blah critical funding allocations blah blah blah blah before Donald Trump destroys the planet.

  2. For once, I can agree with the lunatic alarmists. Yes, we’re going to miss the 2°C warming target, temperatures are going to peak well below the legendary 2°C.

    • They (Gavin Schmidt, et al) will always shift the T baseline goal posts such that GMST anomaly values are consistently “past cooler, present warmer”, leading to their meaningless declarations. It is in their nature to do so, just as it is to a scorpion to sting when pinned. Their paychecks depend on the continuance of the climate hustle. Their nature. Their lies. Their downfall.
      History will judge them accordingly.

    • I agree ntesdorf it has been obvious to blind Freddy that the emission control idea was dead in the water.
      Even the green lunatic favourites like Germany and China are doing badly .. there own team rates their performance
      Germany as part of the EU = insufficient
      China = highly insufficient
      According to the eco lunatics Morocco and The Gambia are the only ones meeting their obligations 🙂

  3. “Dr Goodwin and Professor Williams were able to provide a single equation connecting global warming to the amount of carbon emitted, warning of the detrimental effects of the nearly irreversible nature of carbon emissions for global warming.”

    It is Far, Far, Far past time to do away with the GCM supercomputer modeling groups and their multi, multi-million dollar boondoggles. A simple equation as proposed by our Scottish friend here at WUWT, the Lord Christopher Monckton, is suffice, or any of several other similar simple mathematical compositions is all that is necessary for Global CO-2 effect determination.
    Dr. Ben Santer… be gone. Go away you Charlatan-Carnival Barker-Snake oil seller.
    Joel O’Bryan, PhD.

  4. ‘Pathways to 1.5 and 2 °C warming based on observational and geological constraints’
    Where is the “observational” in this paper?
    “Our latest research uses a combination of a model and historical data to constrain estimates…
    So, GIGO as usual.

    • Otto,
      You need a robust, macerator back-flush system in-place with today’s State of Science. So much chunky-ness and lumps in today’s pseudoscience science.

  5. Immediate action is required to develop a carbon-neutral or carbon-negative future or, alternatively, prepare adaptation strategies for the effects of a warmer climate,
    The 1.5 and 2.0 of which they write are of no practical-climate significance. These are political and ought to be ignored.
    However, I do like to be prepared so I am planning to expand the keep-out-the-deer fence and plant a larger garden with more warm loving plants, such as tomatoes. A win-win adaptation strategy many people can buy into. It doesn’t require a remaking of western civilization to a high level of misery.

      • Speaking of deer..many more native white tailed deer than I have ever seen. Yet we have had two significant ice storms this winter. I have to empathize with wild animals when such storms hit..freezing rain is especially hard.
        I can only imagine what wild animals have to say about a warmer and greener world.
        Venison is good eating. Lean too.

    • Oh get lost (jocularly said). If it is ‘superhot’ like today (only -12C in the morning), the yearly average may go slightly up, but the thick clouds that are the main culprit of warming in the winter, just don’t make tomatoes any sweeter. And ffs please come hunt the deers. They’re an invasive species here.

    • The 2.0 degree C above shortly before the Industrial Revolution limit has an actual basis, as having occurred before without major melting of Greenland’s ice sheet. Much more than that causes major melting of Greenland’s ice sheet and major sea level rise. The 1.5 degree C limit on the other hand, is a recent political invention, possibly because if climate sensitivity is as low as some studies in the past several years indicate then business as usual is good enough to keep the temperature rise below 2 degrees C.
      Meanwhile, climate models and most studies indicating higher figures for climate sensitivity credit/blame CO2 increase for warming from causes not mentioned in these studies and climate models. Notably, the CMIP5 models were selected/tuned to hindcast what happened before 2006, mainly what happened from 1975 to 2005. About .2 degree C of that warming was from upswing of multidecadal oscillations, which was not considered by the CMIP5 climate models so increase of CO2 was credited for causing about .2 degree C more warming from 1975 to 2005 than it actually did.

      • Major melting of the Greenland ice sheets.
        Is that defined as the Greenland ice sheets melting in less than 10,000 years, instead of more than 10,000 years?

      • “Much more than that causes major melting of Greenland’s ice sheet and major sea level rise.’
        Not that much. The Holocene climatic optimum was the era from 9000 to 5000BP. We are not yet back to that that level of warmth. The penultimate interglacial period is known as the Eemian. It was much warmer than the world is now. Greenland and the Polar bears survived.
        Besides, higher sea levels can be coped with. Much of the Netherlands was ocean bottom. Of course the people of Bangladesh will be miserable. They are miserable now, but their problems are cultural and political. Destroying industrial civilization in an undoubtedly vain attempt to protect them hurts and does nothing to attack their real problems.

    • I noted this statement of the obvious: This policy implication reinforces the need to develop carbon capture techniques to limit the warming for the next generations.
      I have several cost-efficient ideas. Here’s a list.
      1 – Plant more trees.
      2 – Plant more grasses.
      3 – Plant more flowers.
      4 – Plant more vegetable gardens.
      5 – Plant more grapevines for wine.
      6 – Plant more fruit trees.
      7 – Plant more plants.
      8 – Take the computer and grant money away from these bozos and make them get real jobs, something on the order of digging postholes for the fencing to surround the FEMA camps where the CAGWers, Warmians, and Greenbeans will be living.

      • I like your first 7 suggestions for what those “BOZOs” CAGWers, Warmians, and Greenbeings can do while living in those FEMA camps while dealing with the loss of #8

  6. Goodwin and Williams said,

    “detrimental effects of the nearly irreversible nature of carbon emissions for global warming.

    Go clean out your Mann-diapers boys.
    and Carnival Barker Dudes,
    Mother Nature has you covered. Those effects that you are wetting your knickers over, yeah those… Biology and Mother Nature is loving the extra carbon, and has those covered and then some. Love the extra carbon dioxide.
    And BTW boyz, please answer one simple question… Just one.
    What is Earth’s optimal Temperature for the Biosphere and humanity?
    Was it the GMST of 1880? Or of 2018?

    • Much as I don’t like the cold….
      … the world REALLY needs a steady cooling trend to establish soon.
      This idiotic NONSENSE has to be brought to a halt !!!

      • No, we do not need cooling. We just need to replace this fear of warm with a fear of cold. After all, we have been warned of dire consequences of warming for about 40 years now an nothing has happened. Things should be getting steadily worse but it appears they are getting steadily better.

      • Agreed, Rockyredneck, but how many blizzards will be required to convince these eccentric Alarmists that The Cold is pending, that Doom is Looming in the form of long-term Warming Shutdown?
        I could sacrifice a pint of chocolate ice cream to the cause, and do the Mung Bean Dance if that would help, but it seems to me that the Alarmists need to be strongly persuaded to make their own sacrifices of a personal nature.

      • We just need to replace this fear of warm with a fear of cold. I think it was Burke who said that experience is the only school of mankind. They talked themselves into this panic. They will have to talk themselves out of it.

      • Rocky, the anti-CO2 Agenda is doing FAR MORE DAMAGE to the world than any warming or cooling could ever do.
        It needs to be STOPPED somehow… and as soon as possible.

      • Well, it looks like you will be getting your wish thanks to the sun. Though I wonder how they are going to explain the rapid expansion of the glaciers over the next 30-40 years????…

    • from the article: “nearly irreversible”
      That’s a really silly overstatement.
      The Earth has had much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past and it didn’t cause anything one could call irreversible. The temperatures warmed, then the CO2 levels went up, and then it got cooler over time and the CO2 levels went down. CO2 level follows temperature, it doesn’t lead temperature.
      Witness the current 20-year temperature “pause” we have had while CO2 levels continue to climb.
      The Climate God, Hansen, is claiming we might have a temperature “hiatus” in the near future, which might last a decade or more. But not to fear, he says, that doesn’t mean CAGW is not real.
      Hansen is making excuses, just in case it gets cold.

  7. More model studies – none of which have worked in the past. [But these ones are different, aren’t they? No?]
    I was talking with my friend Joe months ago and he related a public debate he had with some “climate scientist”. in which that gentleman only referred to the outputs of his computer models, which were quite different from observations, and never referred to the real world and real world data.
    Joe said something like this: “These people live in a Virtual World – they believe that their models are more credible than actual scientific observations.”
    So let me parse the elements of this model study – just a wild guess:
    1. We start with a model that assumes a sensitivity of climate to increasing CO2 that is many times too high, by many hundreds of percent.
    2. We run the model with accelerating concentrations of atmospheric CO2 that may be highly exaggerated.
    4. We calculate a very-scary warming of our virtual Earth. [We ignore the fact that our model has always “run way too hot” in the past.]
    4. We run around screaming “The end is nigh! We’re all gonna burn! Sooner than we think! [Give us more grant money!]”
    Just an approximation, based on countless thousands of other such model studies.
    A suggestion for these climate modelers:
    a. Ï know you love your models – you spend countless hours with them – they become like your pets, your very best friends.
    b. You secretly talk with them and pretend that they talk back to you. You are very, very close, closer than family! You have secret fantasies about them.
    d. Sorry for being so harsh, but this intervention was badly needed. Stop crying. “Bubbie” was never alive. Never real. Honestly!

    • Dr Richard Feynman described a similar situation.
      A situation where the pseudoscientist(s) fall in love with their models, their careful calculations, their thoughtfully constructed beliefs. Then they bend reality to meet their equations.
      But the Cargo Planes never land…..

    • Doesn’t the definition of insanity include ‘endlessly repeating a behavior and getting the same results, but hoping for a change’? Something like that?

  8. “…or, alternatively, prepare adaptation strategies for the effects of a warmer climate,” said Dr Goodwin,”

    Excellent. I’ll bring the party hats if he supplies the beer.

    • And Mother Nature will supply the extra green hors d’oeuvres from the added CO2 fertilization. Maybe even a good CO2-enhanced pinot or table red wine to compliment the side dressing to the appetizers.

  9. “New projections by researchers… could be the catalyst the world has sought…”
    Yep. Could be. Those old projections just weren’t catalystic enough to do it.

    • As far as i can tell the peak CO2 seems to be 630 ppm because we are gradually running out of fossil fuels, and they will be remplaced gradually by newer technologies, nuclear power, renewables, whatever we can get hold of.

      • That is actually a much more interesting discussion than “what the optimal temp should be”. What is the optimal level of CO2? In the last 300 million years there were 2 periods of low CO2, There was a 30 million year period in the Permian and our current 20 million year stretch with low CO2. In between those 2 bookends there was 250 million years with 1000+ PPM. So most plants and life are fine with around 1000 PPM.
        What should be more of a concern is the low end. 150 PPM was within sight during the last glaciation as we dropped to 170-180. IMHO we should build a nice buffer before the next glaciation starts to prevent an extinction level event.

      • Can anyone remark on the claims that with added co2 plants are now containing more sugars and less nutrients?
        My interpretation is that every time they are proven false (ie. The planet is now greening when they claimed otherwise) they have to attack any positive outcome. Are there any reputable commenters on this supposed research? I know it’s weak but I’m just so tired of having to run down every false claim. It would be nice for someone to provide a few links to some studies that highlight the specific nutrient density from elevated co2 concentrations.
        If no one can or wants to, maybe I’ll do the research and submit an article to Anthony for publication.

      • Nobody believes fossil fuels will last forever. However the 1000 years or so that they will last is plenty enough time to figure out what we will use next.

      • IIRC, the “less nutrients” claim is looking for a lead lining of the silver cloud of increased CO2-fueled growth. The biomass grows faster than the nutrients consumed, so there’s significantly more food that’s slightly less nutritious. Spinning this as a bad thing for humankind ignores the fact that malnutrition is typically caused by too little food or lack of variety in diet; both of which can be ameliorated by increased agricultural yields.

      • Dale , recent studies show that enhanced CO2 also speeds up the bacterial release of nitrogen and phosphorus within the soil, making it more available.
        You just need to be a farmer that knows what they are doing rather than a non-farmer AGW sympathiser.

  10. Global warming is caused by deniers denying, this is undeniable so by denying deniers their right to deny we will have setted science and a clear path to salvation. Halelujah.

    • You mean the ln(ppmco2(year) / ppmco2(preindustrial)) stuff? The log is near linear over a small change.
      Google ln x, it gives you a nice graph where you can see ln x from 1 to base.
      Assuming a big lag in warming, one can claim there is a lot to come (so called committed warming). Also, you get rid of the linearity by assuming a sudden stop in the CO2 ocean sink. I don’t believe a second surface waters would warm so much that they’d change the sink in the long run. For short periods of time, El Niño can pump a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere / prevent it from sinking down.
      It is just that all this is based on assumptions on assumptions and yet another assumption. There is no end to speculation between 1.5C and 4.5C per doubling. And this is the IPCC truth that has lasted for decades. Then there are high-end alarmists and low-end… err… skeptics.
      Just tell me when you’re made up your mind.

    • Logarithmic is why we need not worry. And exponential curve continues to accelerate. It reaches infinity more quickly than any other algebraic function. Logarithms are the inverse function to the exponential function. They continue to decelerate and they reach infinity more slowly than any other function.
      Climate sensitivity, the key parameter of the global warming models, is stated in terms of the doubling of CO2. That is logarithmic. Jim Hansen said the parameter is 3°C, Roy Spenser thinks, more correctly, that it is 1.5°C. The pre-industrial CO2 level was 280ppm. We will run out of fossil fuels long before we get to a second doubling.

      • Anything other than 0 to Log base infinity reaches infinity and can actually pass beyond it (try proof by lemma on the general features), lucky infinity is only a concept 🙂

      • Logartitmic functions increase monotonically and continuously, therefore they must reach infinity. In calculus, the logarithmic function is the integral of 1/x, therefore its derivative is 1/x and the slope of the curve generated by the logarithmic function goes to 1/infinity as the function goes to infinity.

      • Nick: Study calculus. Infinity is not really a destination it is an endless journey in a universe that is neiter infinitely large, nor can it be infinitely small.

  11. So it seems that we are now satisfied that the world is indeed warming, after all, if it was all down to ‘adjustments’ etc, there would be no point in posting such studies or discussing it. So maybe we can now move on to what the cause of the warming is and what are the likely impacts on our environment.
    It may be that countries like Canada, Russia and Northern Europe will benefit, while the southern areas of the USA, Middle East and China will suffer negative effects. That could also have a marked effect on the worlds economy.

    • “we are now satisfied that the world is indeed warming”
      ROFLMAO.. .. you speak for nobody but the cronically brain-washed.
      No,, the world is now starting into a cooling cycle.

      • Thanks, Andy, I love you too. /sarc
        The satellites show how the world is indeed warming. Surface measurements do it also, but the faith in accuracy in not that high in me.

      • Sorry, but Satellite data shows how much Energy is leaving the Earth, ie the rate of Cooling.
        It does not measure how we experience the Surface Temperatures.

      • It’s worth spellchecking before you post Andy. I find it really helpful, my posts would be poorly constructed without such tools.
        What does ‘Roflmao’ mean ? Is it a reference to the late unlamented Mao Tse Tung ? It would also be helpful if you could show some evidence that the globe is indeed cooling. Most sceptics seem to disagree with you. They acknowledge the climate is warming, but debate the rate, cause and impact.
        By the way, I think the word you are looking for is ‘Chronically ‘

      • “my posts would be poorly constructed without such tools.”
        They are poorly constructed even with such tools.

      • Realists acknowledge that there has been some highly beneficial warming out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years. The series of strong solar cycles helped that along quite a bit
        There is NO anthropogenic warming in the whole satellite data.
        El Ninos are an ocean COOLING event.
        The cooling trend is now starting.

    • Gareth, if China were to be a loser, it would not build more and more coal, right. The Paris agreement says China will do that. And it is emitting already now more than the UK per capita. And why not? We in the west have moved all production to China, in one the biggest carbon leak scanms ever.
      Andy comes from Australia. If he thinks there is nothing to worry about warming, what I am to say. It is -8C now out, +4 from the previous report. Local warming, and good for me.

      • Actually that fact caught me out and I had to fact check it.
        You are correct China 7.2 tonnes per capita and UK 7.13 tonnes per capita
        Bot still well behind US and Australia proudly out in front at 16 tonnes and 15 tonnes per capita each.

      • You need a hug, Doug. A hug and a nice, warm sweater from Overstock or some other online merchant that sells cool stuff like that. Or you could borrow one of mine.

    • Gareth
      “IT MAY be that countries like Canada, Russia and Northern Europe will benefit, while the southern areas of the USA, Middle East and China will suffer negative effects. THAT COULD also have a marked effect on the worlds economy.”
      IT MAY or COULD also mean that everyone will suffer horribly, IT MAY or COULD also mean that everyone will benefit greatly.IT MAY or COULD also mean that nothing of consequence will change, IT MAY or COULD also mean that chickens will rapidly evolve into a higher life form and subjugate us all. Thanks for your wonderful insight it’s always welcome, go have another mediocre dutch bear or smoke some more maryjane.

      • Bob Border suggests
        “go have another mediocre dutch bear or smoke some more maryjane.”
        I’m terribly sorry Bob, but I have no idea what you are trying to say. What on earth is a Dutch bear? Is it some form of drug? I think Maryjane is a slang word for cannabis ( apologies if this is wrong) but I am a bit unfamiliar with your slang terms in your underground world of drug abuse. I’m also not sure what it has to do with a discussion on climate science. Is a warming world helpful in the production of Dutch bears ?
        I’m pleased however that you noted my grammar which emphasises that outcomes are possible, but by no means certain.
        P.S. My vice is a good malt, preferably Glenfarchlas or Penderyn. I can recommend it !

      • Gareth, are you actually as clueless as you sound, or are you just paid to make a fool of yourself.
        Quite obviously bear is a miss-spell of beer.

      • Gareth
        “I’m terribly sorry Bob, but I have no idea what you are trying to say. What on earth is a Dutch bear?”
        Excuse my dyslexia it does bite like a bear sometimes, but i have no doubt you know I meant beer as per our previous discussions on the subject that you apparently forgot.
        You never fail to disappoint though acting the fool fits you very well as it makes you seem clever at the very same time hiding your ignorance, as tricks go it’s an oldie but a goody, keep it up you may actually hoodwink someone with it and after all it’s the only card in your deck anyway.

      • I’ve noticed that about Gareth, he’s always trying to change the subject.
        It’s almost as if he doesn’t enjoy talking about his short comings.

      • Bob and his pals are unhappy, apparently due to me having the gall to respond and question the meaning of a possible US idiom.
        I suspect the term ‘A dutch beer” is a common one in the US, but not over this side of the Atlantic. Amstel is the usual Dutch beer we are familiar with, but we generally call beers by their name. Even if it had been called ‘A Dutch beer’ it would have still been somewhat mysterious as in the connection with ‘Maryjane”
        Having said that, it’s important you all try and avoid a focus on silly issues like this ( you will note I did not raise these points, it was Bob in a hapless attempt to insult instead of discuss) ) if you wish to have any constructive discussion on an increase in global temperatures.
        So, now ( I know it’s difficult, but try your best) do you believe the climate across the globe on average is warming? If you doubt this, you are in a interesting minority. Not just amongst mainstream posters, but also amongst sceptics. If you do agree the world is warming, have a go at suggesting what the impacts may be. It’s perfectly possible to do this without being foolish. Go one, try it. You may even enjoy it !

      • Gareth
        You are a jewel, few people can sound so pompous and idiotic at the same time, bravo maestro!
        Already answered your question on warming “Yes we all agree that it has warmed and we are no longer in the LIA thank god!”
        The beer question is from comments you made a few months ago that you clearly don’t remember, but yes of course you made yourself look like a fool than too, so i guess it’s understandable that you have repressed it.
        “If you do agree the world is warming, have a go at suggesting what the impacts may be. It’s perfectly possible to do this without being foolish. Go one, try it. You may even enjoy it !”
        I already did
        “IT MAY or COULD also mean that everyone will suffer horribly, IT MAY or COULD also mean that everyone will benefit greatly.IT MAY or COULD also mean that nothing of consequence will change, IT MAY or COULD also mean that chickens will rapidly evolve into a higher life form and subjugate us all”
        Personally I think the chicken part is the most likely.
        Mark W off course summed up this conversation the best
        “Gareth, we aren’t unhappy, we are just pointing out how big an idiot you are.” Hats off to Mark, he knows how to get to the point of a subject.

    • Well sitting in SW Florida, I am very pleased that the sun finally reappeared yesterday and it felt like SW Florida should after quite a period of almost freezing temperatures. Today though there is heavy cloud cover, not so warm.
      So yes its having a marked effect on southern areas of USA, its too bloody cold!!!

    • Well round here its warming because
      – we are past peak winter
      – the weather pattern has shifted into south westerly airflow
      – I’ve turned the central heating up.
      Prior to all that it was getting colder, though.
      Its been a moderately cold winter – colder than usual I’d say. Snow in December is very unusual for southern UK

      • Well, but is there snow in the mountains of Wales and on the coast of Cornwall? I could really go for a beef pasty and some figgy hobbin right now.

    • The fact that we ridicule such studies now means that we accept that warming is occuring?
      Interesting logic there Gareth, it’s almost as if you aren’t even trying anymore.
      BTW, most of us have always accepted that there has been warming and that CO2 has played a very, very small role in that warming.

      • Be careful Mark, accepting that the climate is warming is seen as extreme heresy by many posters. By the way, I was not responsible for your quote of :
        “The fact that we ridicule such studies now means that we accept that warming is occuring?”
        So maybe it is not my ‘interesting logic’ you need to be discussing.
        I don’t mind getting the usual hell for writing something posters don’t want to hear, but I really can’t take responsibility for others. 🙂

      • Gareth, why do you feel the need to lie?
        Is it because you know you can’t win honestly so you have to try and change the subject?
        BTW, it really is interesting how you decide that people disagree with you because we don’t want to hear what you say, rather than the much more likely reason, that you once again are completely wrong.
        It must be nice to be able to convince yourself that you are incapable of error.

    • You didn’t mention the Sahel in your list. If the Sahel greens up due to CO2 fertilization, this will attack some of the worst abject poverty on the planet, as there are lots of quasi-nomadic poor people with a few cattle or goats that browse on the meager plants in that dry, unproductive climate zone. To those people, more CO2 means free milk in their baby’s mouths. And in some of these areas, reducing poverty and suffering solves some of the most stubborn abject poverty problems in the world, which are very resistant to Western welfare models of “help’ which unfortunately seem to turn into corruption engines very quickly. Indeed, on a broader scale, if CO2 fertilization helps desert plants survive on less water, as we know it does, maybe ALL the warmer areas will tolerate or even improve, even as the more northern climes improve, too. They improve mostly due to CO2 fertilization, of course. But IF CO2 causally produces warming (something I doubt very much) that warmer climate also produces more arable land in the north, and longer growing seasons and fewer killing frosts in temperate zones. Sounds like a win, win win, to me.
      Here’s a sociology question. Why do alarmists tend toward creating zero sum games before there’s evidence that we’re in one? Gareth? Buehler? Anyone?

      • It would be great if the Sahel greened up, but I suspect it would take more than Co2. Water may be one essential ingredient. I’m not sure why more Co2 would help plants survive with less water, but I’m all ears if you have any theories on that. I think I’ve already referred to the benefits for Northern climates.
        I would try and answer your question, but I’m not entirely sure what you are asking. If you pose it in some other way I’ll do my best, though I can’t really speak for alarmists.

      • The Sahel is greening up.
        I’m really not surprised that you are pretending not to know that.
        The Sahel has water, there’s no place on this planet where rainfall is zero, year in and year out.
        CO2 allows the plants that are there to make more efficient use of the water that is there.
        Even NASA has managed to notice this.

  12. What is their attitude towards the poor of the world and the 1600 coal fired power stations projected ? Stop them now? What political mechanism? UN? Get out of your bloody university and smell the coffee.

    • Its not scary at all.. its highly beneficial for people living up there and totally normal,
      Fishing, travel, commerce etc get some time to actually use the area.. not much time, but some.
      Arctic sea ice is actually still in the top 10% of Holocene extents.
      It is anomalously HIGH.
      The ONLY times it has been higher were leading, during and out of the LIA, then a short period increase then decrease around the late 1970s peak, similar to the extent of the LIA.
      Maybe higher than now for 500-700 years of the last 10,000… the COLDEST period of the current interglacial.

    • I just want to know why the arctic ice cap is getting smaller and smaller and scary?

      Dear Cao Yufei,
      Because it is what ice cap sometimes does? We are living in an interglacial, for goodness.
      If we’d really lose the Arctic September ice, that would just mean hell of a heat loss through the Arctic sea during the winter. The albedo is important at 60N, but not at 80N, where the Sun is gone for half a year, and half a year it is insolating at a low angle. It is clouds, winds and sea currents that make the thing.

    • Caoyufei, its not getting smaller and smaller. It falls well within the range of natural variation, or are you one of those people that refuse to look at the range of natural variation?

    • Suggest updating your ‘bot code to be more interesting. Repetitious posts reduce the marginal impact…

    • Why does Arctic ice get smaller.
      Well, it also gets LARGER and LARGER.
      It advances and retreats on a seasonal basis IF you bothered to look at the satellite imagery covering ALL the seasons.
      It sits on a large body of water called the Arctic Ocean, the smallest and shallowest ocean on the planet. The only available land is at the shoreline.
      It does NOT sit on land, as Antarctic ice/snow does.
      It is surrounded by land masses, e.g., Russia/Siberia, Canada/North America, Greenland.
      Look at a map once in a while.

      • Sara, You may like to look at a map ( WUWT has a great reference area) which shows the Arctic is decreasing in size. This is a separate issue from the seasonal melting and freezing. It is also warmer than average in the winter. However, Summer temperatures don’t seem to be affected. As a result, the reduction in area and volume of ice appears to be due to a lack of refreezing as opposed to excessive summer melting.
        I’d be interested in any theories as to why the winter temps are above average, but summer temps are not.

      • The arctic is getting smaller? Are Canada and Russia getting closer together?
        Yea, I know that you meant arctic ice, but given your recent posts, you have brought such derision upon yourself.
        Regardless, arctic ice has been getting smaller for 30 years. Stopping about 5 or 6 years ago.
        Before that it had been increasing for about 30 years.
        As always, you only wish to talk about the time periods where what you wish to see has been happening.

      • It is definitely warmer in Winter,
        about 10c warmer
        -21c instead of -31c
        Bone chillingly cold instead of mind numbingly cold

    • Scary is totally subjective. The first question after why is it smaller, is what difference does it make. My guess is that the answer is not much. If you want to worry about something worry about the Federal deficit.

    • It is getting smaller because it has warmed since the depth of the Little Ice Age (LIA circa 1650) and it is likely “Scarry” to you because your preferred media source is pushing the belief into your head that you need to “be afraid, be vary afraid” of the unknowns involved.
      If the future weren’t bleak from CAGW, the grant money for studies would dry up.

  13. “Our latest research uses a combination of a model and historical data to constrain estimates of how long we have until 1.5°C or 2°C warming occurs.”
    Done reading….
    The computer model: the modern world’s version of the crystal ball.

  14. “if it was all down to ‘adjustments’ etc, there would be no point in posting such studies or discussing it.”
    Yes there would, without the daily feed of climate doom stories, the public would lose interest.
    This 2004 working paper entitled “The Social Simulation of the Public Perception of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change” Dennis Bray and Simon Shackley, September 2004. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, was quite clear about how to implant global warming in the public psyche and how to deal with unco-operative weather.:
    “We suggest that, in the realm of the public, forces act to maintain or denounce a perceived reality which has already been constructed. That is, an issue introduced by science (or media for that matter) needs continual expression of confirmation if it is to be maintained as an issue.
    “In this paper, we explore under what conditions belief in global warming or climate change, as identified and defined by experience, science and the media, can be maintained in the public’s perception.
    As the science itself is contested, needless to say, so are the potential policy changes. So how then do people make sense or construct a reality of something that they can never experience in its totality (climate) and a reality that has not yet manifest (i.e. climate change)?
    To endorse policy change people must ‘believe’ that global warming will become a reality some time in the future.
    Only the experience of positive temperature anomalies will be registered as indication of change if the issue is framed as global warming.
    Both positive and negative temperature anomalies will be registered in experience as indication of change if the issue is framed as climate change.
    We propose that in those countries where climate change has become the predominant popular term for the phenomenon, unseasonably cold temperatures, for example, are also interpreted to reflect climate change/global warming.”
    It seems to have worked.

  15. “….Our latest research uses a combination of a model and historical data to constrain estimates of how long we have until 1.5°C or 2°C warming occurs…”.
    Ah which historical data??

    • The best, most scientific historical data, directly from the very finest historical data generating models.

  16. In short we had an ‘object’ we achieved it and used ‘models’ .
    And to be fair, although an approach seen are unacceptable in any science worth it’s name , I do understand that in climate ‘science’ is it normal practice . Along with standards unacceptable for undergraduate handing in an essays, having the leaders in your field being third rate , at best , academics, claiming you beyond critical review , trying to reverse the basis of the null hypothesis, , playing the heads you lose tails I win game , and thinking it is fine to act like religious fanatics in attacking ‘deniers ‘ rather than proving them factual wrong.
    Which I think tells us much about the nature of this area, although to again be fair it is approach that certainly keeps the gravy flowing and is a dam sight easier than doing the hard work involved with good scientific practice.

    • The climate science industry is ultimately driven by UN social justice warrior politics. That has proven to be sufficient to drive academic grant-seeking and green industrial self-interest. None of that will change in the near future.

  17. I think I will go for their “adaption” strategy. If it’s minus 30C at the poles and plus 30 C at the equator, and the circumpolar distance is 40,006 kilometers, they it’s (round off a little) 10,000 kilometers pole to equator. A change of 60 C means 167 kilometer per deg C. If I like the climate where I am then I must move 334 kilometers, call it 200 miles, poleward, to adapt to the 2 C increase. Or I can stay where I am and just drink Cabernet Sauvignon instead of Syrah. Considering the Precautionery Principle and everything else I think I will stay put.

    • Except that if any real increase does magically happen, it will be mostly at the poles, tapering to zero increase at the equator
      Highly beneficial, opening up frozen land for agriculture , powered by enhanced atmospheric CO2
      Opening up frozen oceans for fishing and commerce, travel recreation, mining etc
      I also suggest that if you like where you are.. stay there.

    • I suggest a good Beaujolais Villages instead of a cabernet sauvignon. Burgundy isn’t as heavy as the CS. Goes better with smoked cheddar cheese, or a creamy double-cream brie.

  18. The concept of a fixed CO2 budget to “stop climate change”, is the basis for all the emissions schemes, carbon footprints, renewable energy subsidies and a constant expansion of research departments and government agencies. It was promoted by John Schellnhuber, founder of the Potsdam Institute and climate adviser to the Pope to re-invigorate the Kyoto climate agreement which expired in 2012. They tried for a successor at Copenhagen and Cancun, Paris is the latest son of Kyoto.
    The narrative says that there is a finite global budget for carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere, a total amount beyond which the world will heat uncontrollably and human kind will be visited by dreadful climate disasters, including, but not limited to, stronger hurricanes, rising sea levels, droughts, floods and plagues. It is totally dependent on the “correlation equals causation” principle applied to CO2 and the flawed claims of anthropogenic emissions residency in the atmosphere of hundreds of years
    There was much rejoicing about this:
    However, despite their “Paris Commitments”, China is increasing emissions:
    This is a commentary on a report by The Global Carbon Project, which monitors and publishes self-reported national CO2 emissions.
    “Despite a recent policy shift towards greener thinking, the reports site (sic) China as leading the increase, where emissions are projected to grow by approximately 3.5 per cent in 2017. Coal use is up an estimated three per cent, oil use is up five per cent and natural gas use is up nearly 12 per cent.
    ‘Mostly it is the renewed growth in emissions in China, boosted by economic interventions from the Chinese government,’ says Corinne Le Quere, a professor of climate change science and policy at the University of East Anglia and director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.
    The fact that there has been no corresponding “dose response” temperature increase to the continued increases in atmospheric CO2 is quietly ignored.
    These scientists again use the term “carbon” footprint because it is easier to sell. “Cut down your gas emissions” wouldn’t market quite so well.

  19. This is a sad day for me, back before retirement I spent a few years working with the Mechanical Engineering Dept at Soton Uni and they were a great and dedicated bunch.
    To see the Uni drop to this level of Non Science is so depressing.
    But I suppose they welcome the “Grant Money”.

  20. When are these idiots going to figure out that *we* were never in CONTROL of the “target” to begin with?! The earth’s climate has been much hotter than their “two degrees warmer than some arbitrarily selected point in human existence when things were frightfully cold” metric, and life on Earth thrived under those much warmer conditions. If there will be any “climate crisis,” it will come from global COOLING, *not* warming, and our only “option” to deal with that will be the same as out (only real) “option” to deal with a warming climate. It’s called “adaptation.” And the necessary “adaptation” for a warmer climate pales in comparison to what will be necessary to deal with the onset of cold climate, so they’re chasing their tails trying to enforce a non-solution to not only a non-problem, but the WRONG “problem.”

  21. So, they fudged their Models to approximate Real Historical Data, but kept their bloated CO2 equations! Bet they didn’t USE the Historical Data as ACTUAL INPUT to their Models because they wouldn’t have anything to report after the Computers stopped laughing!

  22. We should start with the global warming thumpers and cut them from fuel, and all the benefits that come from it.

  23. With studies being churned out daily from the UK on climate nonsense and delusion, I think we need a new measure of national output just for the the UK. It would be called the Green National Product or GNP and consist entirely of services with zero contribution to any other sector. From an input-output modeling framework that would amount to a sector in another dimension with no interaction in the real economy.

  24. Fine. Just bookmark the article in case the +2°C do not materialize, so has to
    1) have a good laugh at past scaremonger, and,
    2) have some evidence when next generation scaremongers pretend there never was such prediction

  25. It is already more than 2 degrees C.
    warmer than in the late 1600s
    during the coldest portion
    of the Maunder Minimum era.
    And everybody is happy
    it’s not that cold anymore!
    Anu writer who fails to
    mention and discuss that fact,
    is trying to mislead people
    and must be thrown in prison.

  26. “In their latest paper, published in the February issue of Nature Geoscience, Dr Philip Goodwin from the University of Southampton and Professor Ric Williams from the University of Liverpool have projected that if immediate action isn’t taken, the earth’s global average temperature is likely to rise to 1.5°C above the period before the industrial revolution within the next 17-18 years, and to 2.0°C in 35-41 years respectively if the carbon emission rate remains at its present-day value.”
    And the last 4 decades of the best weather/climate/CO2 levels in the last millennium(since the Medieval Warm Period that was this warm) for most life on this greening planet, will be extended for another 4 decades on an even greener planet earth.

  27. Here we demonstrate a novel approach to reduce the uncertainty of climate projections; using theory and geological evidence we generate a very large ensemble (3 × 10^4) of projections that closely match records for nine key climate metrics, which include warming and ocean heat content.

    Reminds me again of my post yesterday about chaos theory and confusion of what models are and what they aren’t. They aren’t reality. You can’t reliably work backwards from a model to determine how the model should work in the first place. Confusion of what models are and what they can do has led to all sorts of crazy theories, like CAGW and parallel universes.

  28. Their temperature record will reach 2 C way before 35 years… How would they keep us going with their agitprop otherwise? My bet is that 2 C will be reached before 2030. That’s the beauty of the Adjustocene!

  29. Temperatures vs. cloud conditions, part 2 – tropic vengeance
    I was ultimately able to single out a sample of tropical stations and run the analysis over these. The outcome was a bit of a surprise, even to me.
    And that is yet unadjusted for the rain chill factor..
    Anyone still believing clouds had a net cooling effect – or the existence of a GHE?

  30. When they talk about a 2 degree target are talking about a rise in the physical temperature or the amount of “adjustments” needed to bring it about?

  31. Gee – you’d almost think with a 3% contribution to a trace gas that we wouldn’t have much control over the Earth’s thermostat.

  32. I know just enough about modeling and climate to be dangerous. Just wondering, is there an upper limit to the dangerous range? In other words is it possible to know enough to not be dangerous?

  33. I have done some quick calculations. My conclusion is as follows.

    The basic difference between IPCC AR5 Chapter 6 Table 6.3 and the new paper is the misleading message that various emissions policy scenarios will prevent warming breaching either 1.5°C or 2°C of warming when the IPCC scenarios are clear that this is the 2100 warming level. The IPCC scenarios imply that before 2100 warming could peak at respectively around 1.75°C or 2.4°C.  My calculations can be validated through assuming (a) a doubling of CO2 gives 3°C of warming, (b) other GHGs are irrelevant, (c) there no significant lag between the rise in CO2 level and rise in global average temperature.

    There are cosmetic differences and that the new paper narrows the scenario range. Please read the details here. I give enough information to validate my results.

Comments are closed.