Posted on 09/19/2017 1:07:03 AM PDT by iowamark
The worst impacts of climate change can still be avoided, senior scientists have said after revising their previous predictions.
The world has warmed more slowly than had been forecast by computer models, which were “on the hot side” and overstated the impact of emissions, a new study has found. Its projections suggest that the world has a better chance than previously claimed of meeting the goal set by the Paris agreement on climate change to limit warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
The study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, makes clear that rapid reductions in emissions will still be required but suggests that the world has more time to make the changes.
Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London and one of the study’s authors, admitted that his past prediction had been wrong.
He stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.” He told The Times yesterday: “When the facts change, I change my mind, as [John Maynard] Keynes said. It’s still likely to be very difficult to achieve these kind of changes quickly enough but we are in a better place than I thought.”
The latest study found that a group of computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had predicted a more rapid temperature increase than had taken place. Global average temperature has risen by about 0.9C since pre-industrial times but there was a slowdown in the rate of warming for 15 years before 2014.
Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and another author, said: “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.” He added that the group of about a dozen computer models, produced by government institutes and universities around the world, had been assembled a decade ago “so it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations”. Too many of the models used “were on the hot side”, meaning they forecast too much warming.
According to the models, keeping the average temperature increase below 1.5C would mean that the world could emit only about 70 billion tonnes of carbon after 2015. At the present rate of emissions, this “carbon budget” would be used up in three to five years. Under the new assessment, the world can emit another 240 billion tonnes and still have a reasonable chance of keeping the temperature increase below 1.5C.
“That’s about 20 years of emissions before temperatures are likely to cross 1.5C,” Professor Allen said. “It’s the difference between being not doable and being just doable.”
Professor Grubb said that the fresh assessment was good news for island states in the Pacific, such as the Marshall Islands and Tuvalu, which could be inundated by rising seas if the average temperature rose by more than 1.5C.
Other factors pointed to more optimism on climate change, including China reducing its growth in emissions much faster than predicted and the cost of offshore wind farms falling steeply in Britain. Professor Grubb called on governments to commit themselves to steeper cuts in emissions than they had pledged under the Paris agreement to keep warming below 1.5C. He added: “We’re in the midst of an energy revolution and it’s happening faster than we thought, which makes it much more credible for governments to tighten the offer they put on the table at Paris.”
The Met Office acknowledged yesterday a 15-year slowdown in the rise in average temperature but said that this pause had ended in 2014, the first of three record warm years. The slowing had been caused by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a pattern of warm and cool phases in Pacific sea-surface temperature, it said.
Normal climate is defined by taking a very narrow snapshot in time of average temp, highs and lows, from the last 150 years out of a couple of billion years, and they fit it to a model by leaving out the previous 1.9999999999 billion years of temp data that they can’t obtain. It’s really quite simple. Sarc
Bookmark to send to my lefty son.
Some of the “experts” like to quote science, but they have applied the real scientific principles very selectively, avoiding or simply ignoring a vast body of known interrelations in nature, that over time have held up to scrutiny.
Not that any theory or postulate is ever immune to further scientific inquiry, and may in fact be set upon its head by new data collected, but the data collection so far in “climate change” has been highly weighted in favor of one outcome, with the total denial of other equally or even much more important data.
Nobody, it seems, wants to study the very real effects of water vapor on the climate, and yet, it is vastly more important than the minuscule amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which in fact is plant food, not a pollutant. As a further programming note, carbon dioxide simply does not have the characteristics necessary to be any kind of agent for heat retention in the atmosphere.
This is impossible. It goes against the consensus, which is infallible and which must be believed.
Her site is a great resource. There is a new article today about NASA GISS climate models.
“The worst impacts of climate change can still be avoided”
NO THEY CAN’T!
We can’t AVOID anything having to do with the climate, other than build a fire, buy an air conditioner, or move to a nicer climate.
“Climate change” is REAL! It’s called “weather”.
“MAN”, as in HU MAN, has NOTHING to do with it and can do NOTHING about it.
“Occasionally you read these “we were wrong” articles. But then they go on to say they weren’t wrong about the conclusions, just the niggling supporting details needed to draw it.”
“Warministas” are equal believers but commies been using the same thought process for 100 years. Still trying to get their head & ass wired together.
Stupidity.
Weather, and climate, are the mechanism by with the Earth redistributes heat and rids itself of the immense amount of heat that the Sun is blasting on to the Earth. Every day the Sun roasts the surface of the Earth, and every night the Earth radiates most of the heat energy away into space.
If this didn’t happen, the Earth would become overheated and unable to support life.
If humans were to add a small amount of heat to that given by the Sun, the mechanism would handle it with no problem, and there would be no net effect on weather/climate.
The major driver of temperature change is the Sun. “Climate change” fanatics ignore that.
Read The Neglected Sun: Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe
by Fritz Vahrenholt.
More lies and BS.
Butbutbut........even if the data is completely wrong, we still have to do something! Because it was never about climate, it is about redistribution of wealth! It’s only fair! /s
it’s not the first time the manmade global warming alarmists have revised their predictions.
funny how the Met Office chose, at the same time, to admit, in a roundabout way, that there’s been a lengthy slowdown in the temperature record, which wasn’t predicted either.
UN meeting/NYC Climate Week - perfect timing for the President. he should spread the message at the UN. he’s been vindicated once again.
bring on the Red Team/Blue Team debate on the issue, which Scott Pruitt has spoken about fairly regularly.
12 Sept: Reuters: Transcript of Reuters interview with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt
REUTERS: There have been reports about the EPA launching what has been called a red team-blue team review of climate change science. Can you tell us more about this? Will this lead to a re-evaluation of the 2009 endangerment finding that carbon dioxide endangers human health?
PRUITT: I’m thinking about it.... What do we know? What don’t we know? Does it pose an existential threat, what can be done about it? etc… There are lots of questions that have not been asked and answered. Who better to do that than a group of scientists? Red team scientists and blue team scientists getting together and having a robust discussion about that for all the world to see...
Some of the blue team scientists – they say oh we are not going to participate in that. Why not? Why don’t you want to participate? It’s like the New York Yankees according to them. It’s like the New York Yankees playing a Little League team. If you’re going to win and if you’re so certain about it, come and do your deal. They shouldn’t be scared of the debate and discussion. That’s what science is all about. That’s what scientific debate is about. Let’s get red team scientists in. Let’s get blue team scientists in. Let’s let them question one another. That would be exciting to see. ..
REUTERS: But how would this be brought to the public? Would you put it on television?
PRUITT: “I think so. I think so. I mean, I don’t know yet, but you want this to be open to the world. You want this to be on full display. I think the American people would be very interested in consuming that. I think they deserve it.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-pruitt-text-idUSKBN19X01Z
Well, you don't say! LOL, literally LOL. Anyone with a modicum of common sense and any scientific, engineering, or computer modeling training knew the models were and are wrong.
...makes clear that rapid reductions in emissions will still be required but suggests that the world has more time to make the changes...
Really? Could these people sound any more like a slimy used car salesman? I mean seriously, even the trashiest writers of B-grade screenplays don't create characters this obvious. So, your scare tactics didn't work, you deadlines passed, your predictions have been revealed as excrement... "But wait! There's still time to act!" SMH... Laughable.
“All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”
And there you have it, the real motives revealed. This isn't about climate, it is about politics and power.
The latest study found that a group of computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had predicted a more rapid temperature increase than had taken place.
Because of two important factors:
One, the models were intentionally manipulated to produce the results desired. That is easily fixed - stop letting criminals with an agenda control the models.
Two, the models were, are, and forever will-be useless at predicting climate. There, I said it. The whole endeavor is pointless. Computer models will never accurately predict climate even 10 years out. Sure, someone could run a model 50 or 100 times with slightly variable inputs, save all the results, and in 10 years say "See, my model works, it predicted the climate today!" - after having selected the run that most closely matched reality. That's the gotcha though - today they don't know which one of those 50 or 100 runs is the right one. The could pick one, but there's only a chance, a few percentage points chance, they are going to be right in 5 or 10 years. You want to predict 100, 200 years out??? Ha! You're insane, you have no idea, none whatsoever, what will happen.
If computer models are worthless at predicting climate even a few years out, is there anything they are useful for? Yes. Computer models are useful at helping us understand how climate works. We build a model, run it against conditions past and present...see how well it works (or doesn't). Go back tweak the model to include new factors, new variables...lather, rinse, repeat. The models are useful at helping us learn how climate works and reacts. But due to the complexity of the system, and the presence of so many random variables they do not and can not ever predict with any decent level of certainty what will happen.
Damn it, the science is settled! They use over 100 climate models, no two agree. And none agree with reality, but there’s no room for argument because we have to save the planet.
If the AGW science itself is taken at face value any reductions in CO2 emissions now will not have much climate impact for 50, 100, 200 years.
That’s because the AGW science is not merely predicated on assumptions about the heat-retention of C02 in the atmosphere, but its “shelf life” in the atmosphere - very, very, very long. That is why C02 accumulates so much, it stays there a long time.
So when politicians claim that if people make massive reductions in C02 now THEY will see big reductions in “global warming”. No they won’t, not according to the AGW science.
So, it's no longer too late. You can still make a difference!
While that is true, it doesn't matter if they actually have "good" data to feed in. The models are ridiculously simple. The weather systems of the earth are extraordinarily complex interrelated systems with feedback mechanisms. We simply do not know or understand all of the variables that affect the system. We also have zero control over the biggest variables in the equations, i.e., the huge ball of atomic fire that rises every day and is the primary driver of all weather on this, and every other planet in the solar system. We also can do little to nothing about water vapor, which is a much larger contributor as a "greenhouse gas" than is CO2
I agree there are just too many variables to simply jump to a particular conclusion. The weather is tricky enough, let alone long-term climate behavior. Do we really know for sure what a little extra CO2 will do? Not likely. There could be hundreds of unexpected results. Real science is a slow trial-by-error process that liberals are trying to turn into a magic crystal ball. And the ball must tell them exactly what they want to hear or it’s not science to them—it’s “denial”. They’re the ones in denial.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.