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.
“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).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-017-0054-8
2C+! This is indeed good news! All is coming up roses! A warmer world and Dow by then at 1,000,000. I wish I could live to see it.
Pip! Pip!
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”.
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.”
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!
Another alarmist article nicely timed to the start of the Davos meetings. So what else is new.
Even if they do miss the 2C target, so freaking what? It’s a made up limit anyway.
We should start with the global warming thumpers and cut them from fuel, and all the benefits that come from it.
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.
xD
2017 will keep getting colder and colder until the target is exceeded.
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
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.
“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.
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.
… Coming to a broken computer model near you.
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!
I like the idea of parallel universes. Can we send them there?
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.
http://i736.photobucket.com/albums/xx10/Oliver25/cloudsvstemp%20tropical.png
And that is yet unadjusted for the rain chill factor..
http://i736.photobucket.com/albums/xx10/Oliver25/rangliste%20prec.png
Anyone still believing clouds had a net cooling effect – or the existence of a GHE?
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?
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.
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?
I have done some quick calculations. My conclusion is as follows.
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.