Australian scientists take 6 degrees of global warming off the table, say it is close

[ScienceRocks]

Australian scientists take 6 degrees of global warming off the table, say it is closer to 2

Posted on May 28, 2013 by Anthony Watts

From the University of Melbourne
Australian scientists take 6 degrees of global warming off the table, say it is closer to 2 | Watts Up With That?

Australian scientists have narrowed the predicted range of global warming through groundbreaking new research.

Scientists from the University of Melbourne and Victoria University have generated what they say are more reliable projections of global warming estimates at 2100.

The paper, led by Dr Roger Bodman from Victoria University with Professors David Karoly and Peter Rayner from the University of Melbourne and published in Nature Climate Change today, found that exceeding 6 degrees warming was now unlikely while exceeding 2 degrees is very likely for business-as-usual emissions.



This was achieved through a new method combining observations of carbon dioxide and global temperature variations with simple climate model simulations to project future global warming.

Dr Bodman said while continuing to narrow the range even further was possible, significant uncertainty in warming predictions would always remain due to the complexity of climate change drivers. “This study ultimately shows why waiting for certainty will fail as a strategy,” he said. “Some uncertainty will always remain, meaning that we need to manage the risks of warming with the knowledge we have.”

 

[ScienceRocks]

I've always thought it would be around 1.5c by 2100 myself.

 

[SSDD]

I've always thought it would be around 1.5c by 2100 myself.

How might 1.5 degrees over the next 100 years be separated from natural variability considering the wide swings of temperature, often in a short period of time, here on planet earth?

 

[ScienceRocks]

1. Normal solar flex cycles create .01-.015c of warming/cooling. The peak was in the 1950's and a smaller peak is in the late 1990's.
2. Nao is a short term pattern of 30-40 years that looks like a "SINE graph".
3. The ENSO is the same over 1-2 years.

None of these explains the .4c of warming within the past 40 years. 2. Maybe explains(with volcano rebound) the shape of the graph between 1975-2000 and the charge of the (slope/shape)shape between 2005-2013 could be explained slightly by the cooling nao(and of course cold string of ENSO and solar flex).

None of this explains the warming within the long term since 1900. 1960-1980 was a cold "-nao" and some will explain that Europes/US aerosols might play a part in the appearance of the temperature graph(no warming). Same things could be said about china and India output of dirty smog into the atmosphere today.

 

[skookerasbil]

Nothing more than a wild guess.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Nothing more than a wild guess.

lol,

We just didn't understand the complexity of the system fully. Science is improved through discovery of new "idea's", "data" and integrating this in new theories.

We didn't understand how the oceans work fully during the 1990's when global warmers said some of the stuff they did. Doesn't mean we should throughout all the science...as that would be stupid.

 

[SSDD]

1. Normal solar flex cycles create .01-.015c of warming/cooling. The peak was in the 1950's and a smaller peak is in the late 1990's.
2. Nao is a short term pattern of 30-40 years that looks like a "SINE graph".
3. The ENSO is the same over 1-2 years.

None of these explains the .4c of warming within the past 40 years. 2. Maybe explains(with volcano rebound) the shape of the graph between 1975-2000 and the charge of the (slope/shape)shape between 2005-2013 could be explained slightly by the cooling nao(and of course cold string of ENSO and solar flex).

None of this explains the warming within the long term since 1900. 1960-1980 was a cold "-nao" and some will explain that Europes/US aerosols might play a part in the appearance of the temperature graph(no warming). Same things could be said about china and India output of dirty smog into the atmosphere today.

Atmospheric CO2 doesn't explain it either. If you believe it does, show me one piece of observed, emprical evidence that supports the claim. Youhave a very small list of possible causes for the temperature change over the past century or so...are you claiming that short list represents the only possible causes?

 

[SSDD]

We just didn't understand the complexity of the system fully. Science is improved through discovery of new "idea's", "data" and integrating this in new theories.

Didn't? Are you kidding? Are you claiming that we now understand the system fully? Fully? Really? Are you claiming that we have a full grasp of the energy system of the earth and its atmosphere and fully understand what causes changes? Is that your claim?

We didn't understand how the oceans work fully during the 1990's when global warmers said some of the stuff they did. Doesn't mean we should throughout all the science...as that would be stupid.

And we don't understand how the oceans work fully in 1013. We barely know more today than we did in the 1990's. If you are under the impression that we have anything like a complete grasp of the energy system here on earth, you have made a terrible mistake. At this point, we really don't know enough to know how much we don't know.

 

[skookerasbil]

Nothing more than a wild guess.

lol,

We just didn't understand the complexity of the system fully. Science is improved through discovery of new "idea's", "data" and integrating this in new theories.

We didn't understand how the oceans work fully during the 1990's when global warmers said some of the stuff they did. Doesn't mean we should throughout all the science...as that would be stupid.

The operative word is "fully" s0n. And thats the whole point......we're only still understanding. Because......its complex!!! Moving understanding to "certainty" with the models isnt at all science.......its a Hail Mary Pass!!!

The models are wrong | Behind The Black

 

[SSDD]

Nothing more than a wild guess.

lol,

We just didn't understand the complexity of the system fully. Science is improved through discovery of new "idea's", "data" and integrating this in new theories.

We didn't understand how the oceans work fully during the 1990's when global warmers said some of the stuff they did. Doesn't mean we should throughout all the science...as that would be stupid.

The operative word is "fully" s0n. And thats the whole point......we're only still understanding. Because......its complex!!! Moving understanding to "certainty" with the models isnt at all science.......its a Hail Mary Pass!!!

The models are wrong | Behind The Black

When you have the high priests of the cult claiming that heat is sinking to the bottom of the ocean and hiding out from them, the amount of heat, by the way, that the so called greenhouse effect is supposed to generate, the idea that they actually understand the flow of energy through the system is laughable.