Sophisticated simulations predict future warming

May 22, 2012, CORDIS

The chances of our planet being hit by a global warming of 3 degrees Celsius by 2050 is as likely as it being hit by an increase of 1.4 degrees, new research shows. Presented in the journal Nature Geoscience, the British study ran close to 10 000 climate simulations on home computers via a sophisticated climate model to get the results, which suggest that failure to stop emissions will force Earth to cross the two-degree barrier before this century ends.

If the model is correct in its prediction, that is if the warming of temperatures is up to three degrees (above the 1961-1900 average) within the next 38 years, it will be the fastest rate of warming ever.

'It's only by running such a large number of simulations - with model versions deliberately chosen to display a range of behaviour - that you can get a handle on the uncertainty present in a complex system such as our ,' said lead author Dr Dan Rowlands from the Department of Physics at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. 'Our work was only possible because thousands of people donated their home to run these simulations.'

For his part, Professor Myles Allen of Oxford's School of Geography and Environment, as well as the Department of Physics, said: 'Most forecasts of global warming are based on the range of results that different groups around the world happen to contribute to a model comparison. These groups don't set out to explore the full range of uncertainty, which is why studies like ours are needed.'

Researchers the world over have been quantifying and making every effort to shed light on the consequence of climate uncertainties for future projections, said Ben Booth of the Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom and one of the authors of the paper.

'Perhaps the most ambitious effort to date, this work illustrates how the movement is making an important contribution to this field,' said Dr Booth.

Such ensembles are an innovative tool for researchers to investigate what could happen in the future. They can also 'provide an exciting new resource for the climate adaptation and impact communities,' said co-author Professor Dave Frame of Victoria University of Wellington, Visiting Fellow of Oxford University's Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment.

Explore further: Exactly how sensitive is our climate? It may not matter...

Related Stories

Exactly how sensitive is our climate? It may not matter...

October 26, 2007

Scientists from Oxford University have suggested that climate researchers and policy makers ought to worry less about working out exactly how sensitive Earth's climate will be to a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Save 'trillionth tonne' warn Oxford scientists

April 30, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Emitting carbon dioxide slower will not prevent dangerous climate change unless it involves phasing out carbon dioxide emissions altogether, before we reach an upper limit of one trillion tonnes of carbon, ...

What could 4 degree warming mean for the world?

September 28, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- A leading climate scientist has presented new research findings on the increasing potential for a 4 degrees Celsius rise in global temperatures if the current high emissions of greenhouse gases continue.

Russian heat wave 'had both manmade and natural causes'

February 22, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- The heat wave that struck western Russia in summer 2010, causing 55,000 deaths, was caused by a combination of manmade and natural factors. However, the frequency of occurrence of such heat waves has increased ...

Recommended for you

Scientists find missing piece in glacier melt predictions

October 15, 2018

Stanford scientists have revealed the presence of water stored within a glacier in Greenland, where the rapidly changing ice sheet is a major contributor to the sea-level rise North America will experience in the next 100 ...

30 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Lurker2358
3.1 / 5 (10) May 22, 2012
within the next 38 years, it will be the fastest rate of warming ever.


Albedo feedback in the temperate zones is a real problem in Spring and Fall, as CO2 causes fall snows to be delayed, and spring snows to end early and melt early.

I figure Albedo feedback alone could contribute more than 1.5C worth of average global warming over the next 90 years.

This doesn't count the thermal blanketing from the man-made CO2, nor does it count second order positive feedback from Methane and CO2 released from the permafrost.

Melting day anomalies above 60N in N. America have been growing at a rate of plus 16 per decade, so figure that for another 38 years, and you have like an extra 61 melting days per year by 2050 as compared to 2012, which is two thirds of an entire season, or two entire extra months PER YEAR, for a cumulative gain of 1186 melting days for the 38 year period, with 61 extras per year thereafter...

It's like gaining 7 or 8 extra melting seasons during that time...
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (13) May 22, 2012
GIGO regardless of the SW or HW.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (17) May 22, 2012
"The chances of our planet being hit by a global warming of 3 degrees Celsius by 2050 is as likely as it being hit by an increase of 1.4 degrees, new research shows."

Translation: Wild Assed Guess

The reality is that it is barely warmer than 1878 and 1944 and in fact some months in 1878 and 1944 were warmer than now.

Jan 1944 0.240C

Jan 2008 0.053C
Jan 2011 0.194C
Jan 2012 0.217C

Feb 1878 0.364C
Mar 1878 0.322C

Feb 2011 0.259C
Mar 2011 0.322C

Feb 2012 0.194C
Mar 2012 0.305C

January colder than 1944 this year.

February and March colder than 1878 this year.

And summers in the HADCET have only been warming by .009C/decade or .09C per century.

http://sunshineho...-decade/
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (15) May 22, 2012
NotParker: I am astounded that you have picked specific months to compare after all of the explanations that climate and weather are not the same. The truly amazing display of your ignorance is that the statistical approach that is being taken by the researchers in the article is to avoid picking specific date/temperature/humidity... that occur when you assign variable boundary conditions and picking those specifics, is exactly what you are doing. You just don't understand anything about the article. The article shows the need for an ensemble approach.

You have shown, yet again, you have no understanding of science, computing, statistics, or much of anything that has to do with this website.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (18) May 22, 2012
This web site is designed to support politically 'correct' 'science'.
runrig
3.8 / 5 (10) May 22, 2012
NotParker: ... that occur when you assign variable boundary conditions and picking those specifics, is exactly what you are doing. You just don't understand anything about the article. The article shows the need for an ensemble approach.

You have shown, yet again, you have no understanding of science, computing, statistics, or much of anything that has to do with this website.


I concur - I try hard to find a rational explanation for it but NP defies any. This is a science website afterall. He/she just doesn't display any intelligent feedback. Reverting always to the same ignorant arguments that the most basic scientific mind should be able to see through.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (18) May 22, 2012
This web site is designed to support politically 'correct' 'science'.


Omit the words "politically" (if that is even close to possible for you) and "correct" (as science is either good or bad, but not always correct) then your statement is accurate.

The indoctrination of the 'progressives' in universities has been quite successful.
Rubber and so many here can't see the bias. Probably because they have all suckled at the teat of the state for so long they wouldn't know what to do without the State.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (14) May 22, 2012
Apparently too many 'scientists' don't understand capitalism.
Maybe there is hope if this, now, not for profit web site, educates the 'progressives' on capitalism.
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (15) May 22, 2012
NotParker: I am astounded that you have picked specific months to compare


I am comparing anomalies.

For Feb and Mar of 2011 and 2012 the whole world average was colder than Feb/Mar of 1878.

For Jan 2008, 2011 and 2012 the whole world average was colder than Jan 1944 which was the peak of the previous big warming period.

Take a look at summer temperatures for HADCET for 350 years.

Do you see any dangerous warming?

https://sunshineh...2011.png

One summer to the next can be 1C or 2C different.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (15) May 22, 2012

You have shown, yet again, you have no understanding of science, computing, statistics, or much of anything that has to do with this website.


Actually what really annoys you is that I know the data better than you.

Th difference between 2012 and 1944 is microscopic. It only looks large when you graph anomalies.

In 1944, the anomaly for the whole year was 0.121C.

For 2011 the anomaly for the whole year was 0.339C

Do you understand how small a change that is?

.218C

http://www.cru.ue...t3gl.txt

Go take a look at a thermometer.

Microscopic change from 67 years ago.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (14) May 22, 2012
rubberman: I am a brain dead idiot with OCD which manifests itself as a continuous attempt to prove that observed facts are not real.


Yes you are.
R James
3.7 / 5 (6) May 22, 2012
I wonder what the probability is of a 1 degC temperature drop by 2050, based on the uncertainties in the models. Probably exactly the same.
chasehusky
3.9 / 5 (11) May 23, 2012
@NotParker

The saying "put up or shut up" applies to you and your ilk: if you can prove that the study and methods of Rowlands et al. are flawed, you're more than welcome to submit a rebuttal paper to Nat. Geosci.; if you can't, which I imagine is the case, as you seem to lack even a modicum of understanding for the contents of the Nat. Geosci. letter in question, then you should stop prattling on like a moron, as no one here cares for, to use your terms, your "wild assed guesses".
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) May 23, 2012
Apparently too many 'scientists' don't understand capitalism.
Maybe there is hope if this, now, not for profit web site, educates the 'progressives' on capitalism.
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt


Science is about the acquisition of knowledge. Capitalism is about exploiting that knowledge for profit. Hence the reason you see every green iniative as a personal attack on your wallet, 50% of the time it actually is...your problem is that you blame science because you are too blind to see that it is the system that you worship that is responsible for the wrongs that you blame on science. Good luck dealing with your issues.


Capitalists exploit knowledge they believe will be of so much benefit that people will be persuaded to pay them.
When scientists can't persuade they are quite eager and willing to use guns to force people to follow them.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) May 23, 2012
that car insurance must be made a law to have,

How is this persuasion?
No one is forced to buy a cell phone or a 300 HP engine or bottled water. Apparently some do voluntarily purchase these products or no one would make them.
How many of these people resorted to guns to get there point across?

All those who support IPCC and their cap and tax laws and all the laws you apparently want to implement to force people from buying bottled water, 300 hp engines and new cell phones.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (10) May 23, 2012
"I am comparing anomalies."

You're an anomalie.
The article makes no reference to anomalies, why are you?


The article mentions global warming which is traditionally measured by the AGW cult using anomalies.

NotParker
1.7 / 5 (11) May 23, 2012
@NotParker

The saying "put up or shut up" applies to you and your ilk: if you can prove that the study and methods of Rowlands et al. are flawed,


I have already. With a tiny bit of research. Which seems to have driven you crazy.

If their science was sound, they wouldn't need you to tell me to shut up.

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) May 23, 2012
You said scientists,

The claim is that nearly every scientist supports the AGW consensus.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) May 23, 2012
You said scientists,

The claim is that nearly every scientist supports the AGW consensus.


That should tell you something.

Yes, it tells me they are not very good scientists.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) May 23, 2012
You said scientists,

The claim is that nearly every scientist supports the AGW consensus.


That should tell you something.

Yes, it tells me they are not very good scientists.


You are entitled to draw your own conclusions....I don't even want to know how you can rationally justify that one.

We are told that scientists are supposed to be independent and seldom agree, demanding rigorous proof before they accept.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) May 23, 2012
You said scientists,

The claim is that nearly every scientist supports the AGW consensus.


That should tell you something.

Yes, it tells me they are not very good scientists.


You are entitled to draw your own conclusions....I don't even want to know how you can rationally justify that one.

We are told that scientists are supposed to be independent and seldom agree, demanding rigorous proof before they accept.


They are.

The claim is that nearly every scientist supports the AGW consensus. - Rygg

They must be satisfied with the evidence, regardless of the political, economic and societal ramifications, or whether the rest of us believe them.

Not lately. Especially after the fraud. Once they started verifying, they stopped trusting.
R James
3 / 5 (2) May 24, 2012
Such a temperature drop has a probability of essentially zero.

Natural climate variability has a magnitude of about .5'C and temperature's are rising globally by about .3'C per decade.

So in 4 decades, the temp rise will be 1.2'C with a possible range of about 1.7'C to .7'C rise on top of the 0.74'C rise that has already occurred.


"I wonder what the probability is of a 1 degC temperature drop by 2050" - R-James_Tard

You only have to tweak the models slightly, or even add the much neglected possible cloud effects, and the probability of a decrease increases. In fact, looking at long term data (eg thousands of years) I'd put my money on a decrease.
chasehusky
4.4 / 5 (7) May 25, 2012
NotParker:

I have already. With a tiny bit of research. Which seems to have driven you crazy.

If their science was sound, they wouldn't need you to tell me to shut up.


No, you have proved that you are a moron, not that their methodology is flawed.

If you had even an inkling of proficiency in the field that you attack, let alone others that it relies upon, you wouldn't be mindlessly parroting charts. Instead, you would be doing things like: probing the capabilities of perturbed-physics ensembles (e.g., J. M. Murphey et al., Nature 430, 768-772, 2004), questioning the assumption of Rowlands et al. that the variability in the transient and control initial condition ensemble averages is uncorrelated, assaulting how goodness-of-fit is measured between past observations and the modeled transient-control anomalies, arguing that projecting the full 280 model variables onto a set of empirical orthogonal functions is misguided and that more advanced methods should be used, etc.
NotParker
2 / 5 (8) May 25, 2012

Natural climate variability has a magnitude of about .5'C and temperature's are rising globally by about .3'C per decade.


.009C / decade

http://sunshineho...-decade/

2011 was below the 350 year average.
R James
3 / 5 (4) May 26, 2012
Such a temperature drop has a probability of essentially zero.

Natural climate variability has a magnitude of about .5'C and temperature's are rising globally by about .3'C per decade.

So in 4 decades, the temp rise will be 1.2'C with a possible range of about 1.7'C to .7'C rise on top of the 0.74'C rise that has already occurred.


"I wonder what the probability is of a 1 degC temperature drop by 2050" - R-James_Tard

Since when has temperature change been linear? Linear extrapolation of a cyclic system is dangerous, if not meaningless.
NotParker
2 / 5 (8) May 26, 2012
ParkerTard's latest lie is easy to expose.

His .009'C (global) trend is not a global trend but a cherry picked trend from a small subset of England that represents around .0006 percent of the earth's surface.


It is the ONLY thermometer record that goes back that far.

I would gladly graph any other thermometer data from that period.

VD and other AGW cult members hate HADCET because they prefer treemometer data from 1 tree in northern russia and claim that it actual works as a thermometer (it doesn't) and that it is representative of the world.

Trees are not thermometers VD.
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (7) May 26, 2012
His .009'C (global) trend is not a global trend but a cherry picked trend from a small subset of England that represents around .0006 percent of the earth's surface.


If climate disruption is global, then the trend should show up in the ONLY 350 year old thermometer record available.

If it doesn't show up, then climate disruption is regional, not global.

SURFIN85
1 / 5 (3) May 28, 2012

Capitalists exploit knowledge they believe will be of so much benefit that people will be persuaded to pay them.
When scientists can't persuade they are quite eager and willing to use guns to force people to follow them.


Capitalists exploit knowledge all right. Excuse me, but I live in America. People are forced to work. This is a system of coersion. Lets not forget that. Scientists produce knowledge. Capitalists exploit it. Do we benefit from forcing Joe to work for Frank so that Frank can make money off Joe whilst simultaneously exploiting knowledge? Do we benefit if Frank makes money in this lifetime while Frank and Joe's kids have to deal with the costs of Capitalism?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) May 28, 2012
People are forced to work.

What is the alternative, forcing people to work so the govt can take the wealth they earn and give it to those who are more 'needy'.

In nature, if you don't work you don't eat. But what you work for is yours to decide how to distribute.
If you are forced to work for others, and are not allowed to keep what you earn, how hard will you work?
NotParker
1 / 5 (3) May 28, 2012
If the global population is increasing in weight then this should show up in the weight trend of cherry picked subsets such as dieters claims Tard Boy.

"If climate disruption is global, then the trend should show up in the ONLY 350 year old thermometer record available." - ParkerTard

Parker Tard is a congenital liar and clearly suffering from a deep seated mental disease.


I really like the way the ONLY 350 year old thermometer-based temperature record does 2 wonderful things.

1) It demolishes AGW

2) It makes VD seem extra deranged.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.