Hopes that the world’s huge carbon emissions might not drive temperatures up to dangerous levels have been dashed by new research. The work shows that temperature rises measured over recent decades do not fully reflect the global warming already in the pipeline and that the ultimate heating of the planet could be even worse than feared. How much global temperatures rise for a certain level of carbon emissions is called climate sensitivity and is seen as the single most important measure of climate change. Computer models have long indicated a high level of sensitivity, up to 4.5C for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. However in recent years estimates of climate sensitivity based on historical temperature records from the past century or so have suggested the response might be no more than 3C. This would mean the planet could be kept safe with lower cuts in emissions, which are easier to achieve. But the new work, using both models and paleoclimate data from warming periods in the Earth’s past, shows that the historical temperature measurements do not reveal the slow heating of the planet’s oceans that takes place for decades or centuries after CO2 has been added to the atmosphere. “The hope was that climate sensitivity was lower and the Earth is not going to warm as much,” said Cristian Proistosescu, at Harvard University in the US, who led the new research. “There was this wave of optimism.” The new research, published in the journal Science Advances, has ended that. “The worrisome part is that all the models show there is an amplification of the amount of warming in the future,” he said. The situation might be even worse, as Proistosescu’s work shows climate sensitivity could be as high as 6C. Prof Bill Collins, at the University of Reading, UK, and not part of the new research, said: “Some have suggested that we might be lucky and avoid dangerous climate change without taking determined action if the climate is not very sensitive to CO2 emissions. This work provides new evidence that that chance is remote.” He said greater long term warming had implications for melting of the world’s ice sheets and the rise of sea levels that already threatens many coastal cities. Bad news for climate contrarians – 'the best data we have' just got hotter | John Abraham The reason the historical temperature measurements indicated a lower climate sensitivity than models or paleoclimate data is because the Earth has a fast and a slow response to increases in carbon emissions, Proistosescu said. Land, mostly in the northern hemisphere heats up quickly. But there is also a slow response, he said: “This is mostly associated with warming over the oceans. They are big and full of cold water, especially at depth, and take a long time to heat up.” Furthermore, when the slow warming does kick in, it is likely to reduce the cloud cover that shades the Southern ocean and the eastern tropical Pacific, amplifying the heating. The new research shows the 4.5C upper limit for climate sensitivity is real and means projections for global temperature rises cannot be reduced. The global temperature is likely to be 2.6C to 4.8C higher by the end of the century if emissions are not cut, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or 0.3C to 1.7C if sharp emissions cuts begin in the next few years. The world may already be seeing the increasing rises in temperature, said Prof Piers Forster at the University of Leeds, UK: “It may already be happening – the rapid increase in temperatures since 2014 could be partly due to the eastern Pacific catching up.” Reconciling all the estimates of climate sensitivity has also shown that climate models are not flawed. “Historical observations give us a lot of insight into how climate changes and are an important test of our climate models,” said Prof Peter Huybers, a colleague of Proistosescu’s at Harvard University. “But there is no perfect analogue for the changes that are coming.”
I think the 1st world could do their best and quickest appreciable impact by curtailing their energy use rather than going alternative (long term). It's incredibly wasteful lifestyles that I've experienced among peers. I have to recycle I kid you not next 2 or 3 garbage bags worth of mail propaganda a year that I never asked for. I know this because I shred it and dump it in a garbage bag until ready to toss. People leaving their HVAC while vacationing. Outside lights at night, running water while soaping up. List goes on and on. It's ridiculous that we consume multiple times the energy of 3rd worlders.
The reality is that conservation can help to a point, but the real long-term requirement is to drive an energy grid support multiple discrete small power sources using a smart-grid for energy. This first step to this is to have many homes and business to start installing solar sources and using net-metering to sell excess power back to the power-companies (when needed). Of course, there are two things needed to drive this change; the first is government incentives to support solar/wind power installation at homes/businesses for "personal" (rather than wholesale) use. With the dropping cost of solar even small incentives will drive significant installation over the coming decade. The second is to establish national rules regarding net-metering (selling power back to the utility) so all utilities must support this.
I think the impact in conservation is much higher than people give it credit, due in part to the "sexiness" of being green and pushing alternative sources that are in vogue. In a related note, I was blown away when I found out how much more efficient the rail system is compared to all other mass transportation systems. I do like the idea of having people install solar as this would solve the issue of the real estate needed to make it viable. I know people shy away from nuclear but it's up there with wind in terms of impact and quite a bit better than solar. The French seem to have a pretty good handle on it, as do we. I get people not being on board with opening more plants, but opposing upgrades and pushing for shut downs is completely the wrong approach if they want to reduce co2 quickly. Not the biggest fan of subsidies but I won't be a hypocrite and skim over the history of subsidies conventional energy sources received to make them mainstream (see Manhattan project leading to nuclear energy for instance). Also, I'd much rather see our money go to industry than defense.
what is dishonest about showing model projections and comparing them to actual temps. the graphs are confirmed all the internet. if you decide to site an IPCC graph... the IPCC recentered the starting dates which had the effect of temporarily hiding the models failures. but... every real scientists understands the projections have missed by a mile. its part of the reason they had to go in an adjust the data. we covered this in the past. http://www.spiegel.de/international...lems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now? Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase. SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts? Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations. SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?
The dishonesty is in the scaling and averaging out the data - it's pretty self evident in the graph I posted
Well done ex. But you and I both know that jerm is not interested in the truth here. It is clear that jerm is a liar. Repeats lies, omits truth. This is true of virtually all of the deniers. It's time they are called out for their igorance and lying. This world has no chance if science is ignored and ideological fundamentalism takes over, as it does with the conservatives all too often.