Four Degrees Warming by 2100?
Until now, global warming predictions have varied significantly. A new study in Nature closes the gap in those predictions, favoring the more extreme models. Until now, climatologists did not understand how climate change would affect cloud formation. They now know that atmospheric mixing will “dry out” clouds, making cloud formation increasingly difficult as the planet warms. Fewer clouds globally means warming accelerates. By 2100, expect four degrees of warming.
For a plain language explanation of the new study and its implications, see The Guardian.
Professor Steven Sherwood, at the University of New South Wales, in Australia, who led the new work, said: “This study breaks new ground twice: first by identifying what is controlling the cloud changes and second by strongly discounting the lowest estimates of future global warming in favour of the higher and more damaging estimates.”
“4C would likely be catastrophic rather than simply dangerous,” Sherwood told the Guardian. “For example, it would make life difficult, if not impossible, in much of the tropics, and would guarantee the eventual melting of the Greenland ice sheet and some of the Antarctic ice sheet”, with sea levels rising by many metres as a result.
I enjoy reading commentators. Those on the Guardian piece were especially instructive. I draw your attention to two types of silliness. The first illustrates the real hayseed approach, the rube who hoists his suspenders, laughs, making it all a joke:
Irblgr: And no doubt these are the same scientists that are frozen in a ship in Antarctica, stuck in ice.
This kind of idiotic approach assumes a very small view of what is the planet. While many of you are experiencing absolutely frigid weather–I am–, did you know that this November was globally the warmest November on record? Sorry, local weather is no indication of what is happening globally.
Then there is the cynical dude who has no conception of the path we must experience to see the prediction. He understands little, yet thinks he is quite smart.
Maentwrog: If it wasn’t going to arrive for 87 years, I would [not] care much one way or the other.
He thinks someone will throw a switch in 2100 and Presto! Four Degrees of Warming suddenly appears.
I have very intelligent friends who think this way. They do not understand that these predictions are ones at the end of a long process.
Think. If it will be four degrees by 2100, when will it be two degrees of warming? When will it be one degree of warming? What does two degrees of warming entail? What does one degree of warming entail?
I do not know the answers to these questions…and I have not seen anyone talk much about them. We always want to look at end points, not what happens on our way to them.
What I do know is that many of us are in for one hell of a ride.
Another models-based study that makes extraordinary claims. This is what the models are actually showing (from the AR5 2nd Order Draft): http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/figure-1-5-sod-annotated3.png
To reach +4C by 2100 we will need to have monthly averaged warming of ~1.39C. We have only averaged ~0.06C monthly since 1880.
So this study wants us to believe that the broken models when fixed will actually increase their estimates of warming? this comment explains how a skeptic looks at this paper:
“Stepping back from the trees for a moment to look at the forest…
If we proceed on the assumption that this paper is correct (not that I am, but let’s just suppose for a moment) it is actually a devastating blow to the climate models. If the models closest to reality are in fact incorrect about cloud modelling, and fixing that portion of them forces their results even further from reality, it means that something else is wrong with the models, or perhaps (more likely) several other things.
What this paper (if correct) shows is that the models are even worse than we previously supposed.
This paper joins an ever growing list of peer review literature that has ceased trying to prove the models wrong, and instead tries to explain why they are wrong, with ever increasing contortions to preserve the CAGW memoplex at the same time.”
Anyway, have a Happy New Year, Stormy!
50% more ice formation in Artic is a result of warming ?
“50% more ice formation in Artic [sic] is a result of warming ?”
No, it is a trivial interruption in a long-term trend of ice loss.
“So even this year’s big rebound left the Arctic ice minimum less than half as big as three decades ago. Scientists say the average annual minimum these days is down by about 40%.”
http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-12-26/long-downward-slide-scientists-say-2013-was-year-arctic-ice
[…] Four Degrees Warming by 2100? Angry Bear […]
Alarmist climatologists have been making these exaggerated predictions for decades and even longer. A BIG NAME in the science made this one: Temperatures Have Warmed One Fourth As Fast As Hansen Predicted In 1988 — http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/temperatures-have-warmed-one-fourth-as-fast-as-hansen-predicted-in-1988/ His now infamous chart: http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/screenhunter_1148-dec-31-23-14.gif?w=640&h=436
Exaggerated predictions are not new though:1913 : Father Of Global Warming Predicted That Mann-Made Warming Would Drive People To Temperate Canada — if you missed it that was fro Arrhenius in 1913.
This will go down historically as just another woefully missed prediction.
BTW, another irony of the ice trapped Russian ship is that when they needed an in depth weather report for their location the earliest to respond were the skeptical meteorologists, Coleman, Watts, Bastardi and D’Aleo.
No, the irony is that you think weathermen giving weather reports means they are climate scientists.
Nnn,
Take 31 seconds out of your life and learn something.
http://climatecrocks.com/2013/11/25/sea-ice-volume-is-not-recovering/
Or if 31 seconds is too long, take five seconds:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-sea-ice-delusions-mail-on-sunday-telegraph.html
EMichael, stop it! Making me laugh that is. I guess when you can not discuss the science all that’s left is snark, but keep it less comical, please.
Is it just natural or do you work hard to come up with these strange strawman arguments?
“when they needed an in depth weather report”
EMichael, did you have a point?
Perhaps you think climate scientists believing in reduced ice on a Russian tourist ship trapped in the Antarctic ice has full access to all communications? Notice the irony in my description of the scientists.
” skeptical meteorologists”
Do the math.
Oh, I see now, You did not see “(climate/science/global warming/climate change) skeptics” in the description (shortened to skeptical) and made a point on that misunderstanding. Got it!
Sorry, I’m used to commenting with those better informed/at least more familiar with the vernacular.
EMichael, out of curiosity how did you get to equating meteorologists with climate scientists? And how does the math comment relate? Your comments are obscure. Deliberately?
No, they are not obscure. I see no reason to explain them to you, as I find you are an incredible ass who either has a sever mental disorder that leads him to lurk around the blogosphere injecting nonsense into climate change discussions, or you are being paid to do so.
No point in responding to your scurrilous attack on Hansen’s 1988 models and predictions(ever read them, if so why no mention of the Hansen’s Scenario B ?), as a response will be a further link to a meteorologist or a political scientist or a fictitious stevengoddard.
You are a waste of my time. And a waste of a lot of people’s time.
There’s an app that will serve as my response to any further communication to you
http://search.itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZContentLink.woa/wa/link?path=apps%2fskepticalscience
Almost enough to get rid of my flip phone……..
Ah, there’s the EMichael to whom I expect.
Yep, and the CoRev that actually is showed up in the first post in this thread:
“Another models-based study that makes extraordinary claims. This is what the models are actually showing (from the AR5 2nd Order Draft): http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/figure-1-5-sod-annotated3.png”
See, I know that the schmucks at climate audits are ahs. I think you probably do also. But if I try to defend the constant bs you throw out there it is an incredible waste of time and effort for no reason at all.
So the new app can answer you with no effort on my part, and despite the actual truth being presented, albeit with no change in your thoughts, as that is impossible.
So if I take your inane, cherry picked bs comment and graph and access the app, you would get the truth, and I can save a lot of brain cells.
Here is what you would have gotten with your latest piece of BS:
“Earlier this week, I explained why IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think. Given the popularity of the Models are unreliable myth (coming in at #6 on the list of most used climate myths), it’s not surprising that the post met with substantial resistance from climate contrarians, particularly in the comments on its Guardian cross-post. Many of the commenters referenced a blog post published on the same day by blogger Steve McIntyre.
McIntyre is puzzled as to why the depiction of the climate model projections and observational data shifted between the draft and draft final versions (the AR5 report won’t be final until approximately January 2014) of Figure 1.4 in the IPCC AR5 report. The draft and draft final versions are illustrated side-by-side below.
I explained the reason behind the change in my post. It’s due to the fact that, as statistician and blogger Tamino noted 10 months ago when the draft was “leaked,” the draft figure was improperly baselined. ”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-model-accuracy.html
Now, I have more brain cells and your automated comments are being answered by automation.
Win, win.
or pick out the models from the observations
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UrLYVmbijLw/UlJM1k1bi0I/AAAAAAAAAmw/jcgxJRf17fQ/s1600/cmip3vsObserved_realizations.png
EMichael, I see you referenced CMIP3. I hope you realize those were used in AR4, furthermore, Its use was different than what we see in the final version of AR5. Actually the version used in the draft, that I referenced, was used in nearly the same fashion as AR4 used the CMIP3 models outputs.
Here’s another hint, never, ever use an SkS source if you wish to retain any credibility. Here are just a few quotes about you SkS and Tamino reference.
“Yesterday, I hoped to incorporate Tamino’s take on figure 1.4 from the SOD of the AR5, but I couldn’t find his post. His discussion is called:Fake skeptic draws fake picture of Global Temperature. Needless to say: whatever the IPCC does in a draft (or even later), one can be certain that Tamino will do something even stooopider! ”
and this
“Needless to say, there is no ‘explanation’ justifying an ridiculous baseline shift so dumb that it will not be applauded by the geniuses at skeptical science where dana1981 writes:” (you’ll recognize the quote)
and finally
“… I can show just why the method Tamino uses to ‘explain away’ the discrepancy between models is just flat out dumb. If he wants to explain it away, he’s going to have to try harder. ‘Cus using different baselines for the observations and models to “shift” the projections down is just a dumb mistake.”
From here: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/taminos-take-on-figure-1-5/
I presume you understand that the Tamino approach was the core of the AR5 adjustments.
BTW can you read graphs? “…scurrilous attack on Hansen’s 1988 models and predictions(ever read them, if so why no mention of the Hansen’s Scenario B ? You seemed to fail to see scenario B on it. The graph actually is a copy of one of Hansen’s original versions with the observation data (red) extended.
Use the app.
Deal with real scientists who take your sound byte drivel and make it into mincemeat. I do not have the time.
EMichael, I see you can’t hang on the SS issue either. Nor could Dale on GW.
I’ll just hang out waiting for you to actually find some scientists to refer, but please before you do refer them read what the have to say. Use some of those saved brain cells in your understanding efforts.
There are many topics which I do not have the ability or knowledge to deal with on an efficient basis. But I can read, and I can deal with you on climate change.
But to do so I have to figure out where the sound byte comes from, then decipher the subject and respond, knowing the response will be ignored totally or with another sound byte. I gave you the app so you can drink in some knowledge from those who certainly have the ability to deal with you.
I’ll tell you what I’ll do. Since you state you are looking “to actually find some scientists”, I will actually follow you to Tamino’s site or Skeptical science or Real Climate so you can post your thoughts and receive the responses they deserve. Just let me know where and I will show up.
BTW, real scientists absolutely destroyed your inane position on climate models. Referring them to you did no good.
So step off or step up. I have wasted enough time with you.
By the way, the Blackboard ain’t it, and Lucia is another numbskull.
EMichael, numb skull??? Couldn’t understand her explanation either? She made it quite clear why the AR5 changed approach was wrong. She even used simple terms — apples to oranges to explain the unnecessary change.
So why was it changed in the final version? The SOD version showed how poorly the models were performing. Tamino, someone totally outside the AR5 community, provided a solution, read Lucia’s explanation again, and in desperation to save face, the working group accepted it. Didn’t get any of that from your referenced SkS article did you?
Your lack of knowledge seems to thin the failing models is/was a new issue. It was known and watched from 2007, AR4. What was new was that the working group in a moment of candor admitted it. BTW, even your dated spaghetti graph shows the recent divergence of models from reality.
As for your request to join you on your selected sites, no thanks. I do not comment any longer at sites that do not allow open commenting. None of yours do so. Furthermore, I would not inject your personality on a reputable skeptical site.
BTW, your app use is not helping your knowledge of the subject, and it is there that your weakness shows most. It fails to allow you to discern propaganda from science. At least two of the sites you chose are similar in temperament, so I recommend for you as a familiar environment. For a view of the skeptical side, I would recommend http://wattsupwiththat.com/ There at least you can comment, until your personality gets in the way,but more importantly you’ll see a slightly more balanced set of articles. If you want a balanced view try: http://judithcurry.com/
No, not them either.
I gave you real scientists.
You give me self promoters, mechanical engineers who make big deals out of minutiae, weathermen and political scientists.
I’ll tell you what. I have seen some of their “work” lambasted by real scientists. Direct me to a peer reviewed paper on climate change any of them have written and I will pay attention.
Course, I made you the same offer awhile ago and you ignored that. So once again you want me to get involved in your mental masturbation. Not interested.
Go play somewhere else, with someone else.
http://search.itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZContentLink.woa/wa/link?path=apps%2fskepticalscience
Your lack of knowledge is showing again: “I’ll tell you what. I have seen some of their “work” lambasted by real scientists. Direct me to a peer reviewed paper on climate change any of them have written and I will pay attention.” They are all published. Use your app. Learn something
If you are referring to Nucci and Tammy as scientists, they are not well published. IIRC, Nucci and Tamino have published once. I think Nucci was also co-author on the infamous 97% study that was published in a “pay to print” journal.
Here’s the latest from Judy Curry: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1950-2#page-1 There are many, many more.
For Watts we have only one: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD015146/abstract with a 2nd under review.
Where’s the app output? Google or Wiki would have provided this and more, if you really wanted to learn?
Stormy,
Don’t fall for the scare tactics.
There have been periods in human history that were warmer than today, such as the Medieval Warm Period.
The three centuries beginning with the eleventh, during which the climate became distinctly more benign, witnessed a profound revolution which, by the late 1200s had transformed the landscape into an economy filled with merchants, vibrant towns and great fairs. Crop failures became less frequent; new territories were brought under control. With a more clement climate and a more reliable food supply, the population mushroomed.
The historian Charles Van Doren claimed that: “the … three centuries, from about 1000 to about 1300, became one of the most optimistic, prosperous, and progressive periods in European history.” All across Europe, the population went on an unparalleled building spree, erecting at huge cost spectacular cathedrals and public edifices. Ponderous Romanesque churches gave way to soaring Gothic cathedrals. Virtually all the magnificent religious shrines that we visit in awe today were started by the optimistic populations of the eleventh through the thirteenth centuries, although many remained unfinished for centuries.
Throughout the continent, economic activity blossomed. Banking, insurance, and finance developed; a money economy became well entrenched; manufacturing of textiles expanded to levels never seen before. Farmers in medieval England launched a thriving wine industry. Good wines demand warm springs free of frosts, substantial summer warmth and sunshine without too much rain, and sunny days in the fall. Winters cannot dip below zero Fahrenheit for any significant period. The northern limit for grapes during the Middle Ages was about 300 miles above the current commercial wine areas in France and Germany.
The medieval warm period, which started a century earlier in Asia, benefited the rest of the globe as well. From the ninth through the thirteenth centuries, farming spread into northern portions of Russia. In the Far East, Chinese and Japanese farmers migrated north into Manchuria, the Amur Valley and northern Japan. The Vikings founded colonies in Iceland and Greenland, then actually green. Scandinavian seafarers discovered “Vinland” along the East Coast of North America.
During the Northern Sung Dynasty (961 A.D. to 1127), one of the warmest times, real earnings in China reached a level not seen again until late in the twentieth century. The wealth of those centuries gave rise to a great flowering of art, writing, science, and the highest rate of technological advance in Chinese history. Chinese landscape painting with its exquisite detail and color achieved its apotheosis.
Over roughly the same period, the peoples of the Indian subcontinent also prospered. Society was rich enough to create impressive temples, beautiful sculpture, and elaborate carvings. Seafaring empires thrived in Java and Sumatra. In the early twelfth century, the predecessors of the Cambodians, the Khmers, built the magnificent temple of Angkor Wat. In the eleventh century Burmese civilization reached a pinnacle with the construction of thousands of temples in its capital, Pagan.
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/HistoryEcon.html
Sammy and Corev:
Corev: You really do not read….. I have watched your nonsense for quite a while. Let me give you an example, you try to make a linear interpretation in your first comment. If you bothered to read, you would know that no such assumption is warranted. If fact, quite the contrary: “Warming accelerates”? Cloud formation “increasingly difficult”? These are not expressions indicative of a linear line. Oh, by the way, sea rise is accelerating.
Your twisted logic that because the models can be refined that they must be completely wrong is just weird. Climatologists did not know how to handle cloud formation in their models; now, presumably they do. We shall see. There well may be legitimate arguments to the contrary. But one thing is clear, you do not know them.
Please do not bother to respond. I really had hope you could add to the discussion…instead of going off half-cocked. I notice that you spend blog time attacking climatologists…no nuance, just silly, irrational attacks.
Remember the Hamilton blog and Menzie? If you have something substantive to add, I do not mind. But if you simply want to act like a paid shill, then I am not a happy camper.
Sammy: No more red herrings. You really need to get a handle on the facts. Maybe tell us what the global temperature was in the age you mention? If you think that an additional 4 degrees globally–note, I said, Globally–is fine for the equator…well, what can I say? What do you think the temperature range will be around the equator with 4 degrees of global warming? Some informed estimates, please.
Additionally, Cut and paste does not hack it.
Both of you: Start your own blog…quote your own scientists…attract an audience. Simply waiting for someone to post the latest science and then hijacking the discussion with silliness and thoughtless attacks is really not very nice. Do you every comment on anything else? Stop acting like shills.
Stormy, I’m glad you came out to support the contentions in the article. If you note my first comment was to question the probability mathematically and historically of the predictions of this Study. You did not refute that with anything other than opinion and without understanding the basics of your quotes: ” “Warming accelerates”? Cloud formation “increasingly difficult”?”
This Study at least admits that the models did/do not handle clouds well. Dr Roy Spencer, an expert on satellite temperature data, and on the impacts on clouds in the climate did a cursory review of the abstract here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01/initial-comments-on-new-positive-cloud-feedback-paper-in-nature/ He has pointed out the deficiencies in the models re: clouds for many years: http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/ In it he postulates: “Three IPCC climate models, recent NASA Aqua satellite data, and a simple 3-layer climate model are used together to demonstrate that the IPCC climate models are far too sensitive, resulting in their prediction of too much global warming in response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The models’ high sensitivity is probably the result of a confusion between forcing and feedback (cause and effect) when researchers have interpreted cloud and temperature variations in the real climate system. ” From here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/
Note his comment re: sensitivity to GHGs results in calculations of: ” The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) refers to the equilibrium change in global mean near-surface air temperature that would result from a sustained doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) carbon dioxide concentration (ΔTx2). This value is estimated, by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) as likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5 °C with a best estimate of about 3 °C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5 °C. Values substantially higher than 4.5 °C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.[4] This is a change from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), which said it was “likely to be in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 °C”.[5] …” From Wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
So we have this paper proposing an opposite impact on temps (more specifically we should look at the high models as being the most accurate) predictors of temps due to their better handling of clouds Where we have Dr Spencer saying the models are too high because they do not well handle clouds,. Dr Spencer in his review of the abstract of your referenced Study gives Dr Sherwood kudos for trying, but makes this observation: “Well, this certainly makes the debate more interesting. It feels like a poker game where you keep drawing crappy cards, but you keep raising your opponents.” If I haven’t already provided the reference it is here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01/initial-comments-on-new-positive-cloud-feedback-paper-in-nature/
With these conflicting scientific view points we then must rely on the data to at least make some sense of the PROBABILITIES or either being more accurate. That’s what I did with my first comment without giving the boring background. I also pointed out this was another models-based study then showed how badly the models have been performing compared to observations. I could also have shown the multitudes of models-based predictions proven to be wrong. Although I did show how wrong was Hansen’s 1988 predictions.
So when showing that climatologist’s predictions are not correct is: “… attacking climatologists…no nuance, just silly, irrational attacks.”? And as you well know I have already have started my own Climate Blog. You were one of the early people I consulted.
And No! I do not “Remember the Hamilton blog and Menzie?”
I will close with this look at the real data: http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
and this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php RSS trend from 1996.7 to current Trend: -0.001 ±0.197 °C/decade (2σ)
β=-0.000050882 σw=0.0023837 ν=17.062 σc=σw√ν=0.0098460
The first questions the validity of the anthropogenic influence. We have been cooling for nearly 10,000 years. The 2nd questions the validity of the models(see some of my comments to EMichael) and both explain my issue with probability. The 2nd also explains why we see studies like Sherwood’s and Trenberth’s (the heating is hiding in the deep oceans) that try to explain away the current hiatus. All this is official climate data, but is seldom discussed by the alarmist climatologists. That why I do. i do have a fairly thorough understanding of both sides of the facts and am willing to explain them both.
“sea rise is accelerating”. is too far off topic to discuss in this thread.
To conclude, Ole Mom Nature, as seen in the data I provided, has shown how weak the CAGW arguments really are.
CoRev has a blog. Nobody reads it.
It’s crap.
Nope! Haven’t had a blog for years. Thanks for remembering, though.