“The planet could warm up to 3 degrees Celsius by 2050 unless action is taken to cut the world’s greenhouse gas output, according to new research.”
Climatewire continues:
… The planet could warm up to 3 degrees Celsius by 2050 unless action is taken to cut the world’s greenhouse gas output, according to new research.
Climate modeling by researchers at Oxford University suggests that warming of 1.4 to 3 degrees Celsius, relative to conditions between 1960 and 1990, is likely by midcentury if no effort is made to cut heat-trapping emissions.
The upper end of that estimate is roughly 0.8 degrees Celsius warmer than the highest estimate from a suite of climate models developed for the last report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The study, published yesterday in the journal Nature Geoscience, was based on thousands of climate simulations run using a climate model developed by the U.K. Meteorological Office.
Researchers used the model to simulate conditions between 1920 and 2080, subtly altering aspects of the model for each of the thousands of runs — such as how the model accounts for the effects of clouds.
Then the scientists sifted out the simulations that best reproduced the actual conditions from 1920 to the present, based on the assumption that models that did best at recreating the past would be the most accurate at projecting the future climate…
Not even close. By HadCRUT we’re about 1970 + 0.4 ± 0.2 °C. Net warming since 1750 is reckoned to be about 0.75 °C
“….warming of 1.4 to 3 degrees Celsius, relative to conditions between 1960 and 1990…..”.
Relative to 1970 aren’t we already there?
Bad algorithms!
There’s that could word …….again. I like the “Gospel Out” comment
The economy has fewer variables than global climate. I want to see them apply all this “programming genius” to telling me what the stock market will be doing next year! I’d find that far more valuable than an ambiguous article crammed full of conditionals and weasel words.
I seem to remember the UK Met. Office completely stuffing up their winter predictions a few years ago leaving Heathrow Airport totally unprepared for a massive snow season which disrupted air traffic.
I also remember Australia’s BOM leaving Brisbane’s water supply authorities with insufficent warning about potential catastrophic flooding rainfall events which I am sure anyone who watched the news saw.
So much for their track record a few weeks out !
The AGWers hope we believe it is…
Garbage In=Gospel Out!
Predicting the future is not the same as simulating the past. It’s very easy to add “correction factors” or “fudge factors” to a model to make it more closely simulate the past. You can never be sure of what exactly it is that makes the model require a correction factor. If your variables are wrong or certain variables have been excluded, forget about predicting the future.
Sorry Arno, the optical depth of the atmosphere changes constantly along with the altitude. Moreover, the latitudinal extent of the tropical zone changes with seasons and various cyclical events over years and decades. Due to the overlap of H2O and CO2 absorption spectra it is not remotely plausible to state “that the transparency of the atmosphere in infrared where carbon dioxide absorbs has been constant for 61 years“, e.g., percentage cloud cover varies on multiple time scales and clouds too absorb in the same spectra…
Climate models that use the greenhouse effect to predict warming are invalid. First, there is no warming within the last 100 years that is certifiably greenhouse warming. Second, Ferenc Miskolczi showed, using NOAA database of weather balloon observations that goes back to 1948, that the transparency of the atmosphere in infrared where carbon dioxide absorbs has been constant for 61 years. During that time carbon dioxide in air increased by 21.6 percent. This means that addition of all that carbon dioxide had no effect whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. Not only are all models using carbon dioxide greenhouse effect invalid, the sensitivity of atmosphere to doubling of CO2 becomes exactly zero. His paper was peer reviewed and has been available in scientific literature for more than a year. No peer reviewed articles opposing it have appeared in this time, presumably not for lack of trying.
It wasn’t but a week or two ago that alarmists suggested every skpetic get a tattoo on their arm. If I ever publish a skeptical article, I’ll agree to the tattoo if they’ll tattoo this prediction to their arm. I’m pretty sure (“likely” in IPCC-speak) we won’t end up with significant reductions in greenhouse output and that we won’t be seeing anything like +3 degrees C by 2050. We’re pretty much on a linear trend of natural warming of 0.8C per century – so I’ll go with +0.4 +/- 0.2 by 2050 (If we aren’t already suffering from “peak forcing.”)
Is the software validated and verified? If so I’d like to see the paperwork, otherwise these “results” are meaningless.
“Potential global warming”, “could warm” “Suggests that”, “Likely by”
Yep! “the science MAY be settled.”
garbage in = garbage out
In my computer, I’m simulating the effects of dumping a bucket of ice water in their computer.
Makes about as much sense.
It strikes me that the global warming is in the computer model output. I suggest they reduce their computer model output.
Publish the software and the data.