Dangerous climate change is likely, concludes new research

Climate
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

A new study has revealed sensitive regions of the world are still at risk from the dangerous and potentially irreversible effects of climate change; even if we meet the target of not increasing global temperature above 1.5°C over the next 100 years.

The research, led by The Open University in collaboration with the University of Sheffield, reviewed the targets set in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement and concluded that regions of the world, such as the Arctic and South-East Asian monsoon region, could be damaged irreversibly as they are particularly sensitive to changes to global temperatures.

The international team of researchers developed a three-dimensional climate-carbon cycle , and simulated the different climate futures.

Dr. Philip Holden, Lecturer in Earth Systems Science at The Open University and lead researcher of the study, said: "The regional uncertainties associated with the Paris Climate Agreement have not been explored before. This is because, until now, researchers have used either very simple models or models that were too complex to investigate the range of possibilities."

On a more optimistic note, the research also concludes that meeting the target set by the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement of limiting the increase in global average temperatures to well below 2°C does not depend on future generations to remove vast amounts of carbon from the Earth's atmosphere.

Instead, governments can achieve the goals through emission reductions, but only if they act now to promote a range of policies to fully support the existing pace of technological change, as described in a related paper in Nature Climate Change.

New study "Our models show that it is possible to meet the 2015 Paris Agreement, but only if governments take decisive and urgent action through strengthening policies to encourage rapid divestment from fossil fuels," continued Dr. Holden.

Professor Richard Wilkinson, from the University of Sheffield's School of Mathematics and Statistics (SoMaS) and contributing author, said: "By accounting for climate-carbon cycle uncertainties we have been able to show that there is an approximate 50 per cent probability that we can limit peak post-industrial peak global warming to less than 1.6 degrees Celsius.

"This has been made possible by using Gaussian process emulation to find plausible trajectories at a fraction of the computational cost."

The study is published in Nature Climate Change.


Explore further

Improved emission metric shows new path to innovative climate change policy

More information: P. B. Holden et al. Climate–carbon cycle uncertainties and the Paris Agreement, Nature Climate Change (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41558-018-0197-7
Journal information: Nature Climate Change

Citation: Dangerous climate change is likely, concludes new research (2018, June 26) retrieved 25 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-06-dangerous-climate.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
997 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jun 26, 2018
Meanwhile, in the real world no one has experienced the "dangerous climate change" alarmists have been predicting for the last 30 years. They stubbornly stick to their computer model predictions despite their demonstrated inaccuracy. The technical summary from IPCC AR5 (2013) graphed measured temperatures against model predictions here:

https://www.ipcc....S-14.jpg

By 2012, the models all overstated warming. Between the big El Niños of 1998 and 2016, global warming stopped, and global temperatures have dropped more than 0.6° C since 2016.

https://www.nsstc..._bar.png

This invalidates the theory that CO2, which has steadily increased since 1998, is the primary driver of warming. It also means the models are even further off than they were in 2012 and they continue to diverge from reality.

Jun 26, 2018
Your first graph even with your cherry picked date shows that temperatures were within the range of ipcc projections. If you look at the last 12 years that you conveniently omit, average temperatures trend towards the upper quartile of ipcc projections.

Your second graph shows a long term rising trend in temperatures, but much lower than the many sources of average surface temperature which is of course why you picked the lower troposphere. If you read the May UAH article to match the graph, you will find it says: Global climate trend since Dec. 1 1978: +0.13 C per decade. And those raw figures are known to not allow for the orbital decal of the satellite and various other anomalies. If you want accurate adjusted figures you should look at the RSS v4 series.

Jun 26, 2018
@aksdad, and all other denialists:

Please, show evidence of the global collusion that you imply. Show me a wealthy climatologist paid off by... whom? Show me some alternative explanation for the rise in temperatures that is better-supported than anthropocentric carbon. Show me some evidence you even know what grant money is or how it works. Show me a single -- one SINGLE FUCKING SCIENTIST -- that studies climatology and has a reputable paper in opposition to global warming caused by human activity.

Until then, I will continue to regard you as morons at best, shills more likely.

Jun 26, 2018
Well, my work here is already done. Thank you TV and PTTG for standing up to the denier asshole. Full of shit and everytime it opens it's mouth?
A loid fart resounds across the land!

Guess I can go sit under what shade is left of our dying trees. Sipping a tepid beer while I watch the asphalt on the turn-in melt. No problem, Mate!

Jun 26, 2018
@aksdad, and all other denialists:

Please, show evidence of the global collusion that you imply. Show me a wealthy climatologist paid off by... whom? Show me some alternative explanation for the rise in temperatures that is better-supported than anthropocentric carbon. Show me some evidence you even know what grant money is or how it works. Show me a single -- one SINGLE FUCKING SCIENTIST -- that studies climatology and has a reputable paper in opposition to global warming caused by human activity.

Until then, I will continue to regard you as morons at best, shills more likely.

What good would showing you any of this do, when you don't have a brain to comprehend any of it.
Here's a sample anyway--
https://wattsupwi...weather/

Jun 26, 2018
With all the excess CO2 in the atmosphere how can there be a shortage of the stuff?

CO2 shortage: Why it really matters for the UK's food and drink supply
https://www.bbc.c...44613652

We'd all be healthier without fizzy pop anyway, ban it.

Jun 26, 2018
"...reviewed the targets set in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement and concluded that regions of the world, such as the Arctic and South-East Asian monsoon region, could be damaged irreversibly as they are particularly sensitive to changes to global temperatures."

The South-East Asian monsoon region is already subjected to hot atmospheric temperatures and have been since having been connected to the land mass that was Gondwana many moons ago. In that region, not much has changed, so why even attempt to conflate the Arctic region with monsoon-battered hot climates such as South-East Asian nations?

And what about the news of the active volcano under Pine Island in the West Antarctic that is causing the melting of the ice sheet and warming the waters? It is possible that the Arctic is also subjected to active volcanoes but isn't talked about. There is a volcano under New Hampshire and parts of Massachusetts and Vermont that is causing some slight earthquakes. And there's Yellowstone.

Jun 26, 2018
The only way that Southeast Asian temperatures could be affected is if the temps actually got colder where it would actually snow in Manila and ice in the streets of Jakarta. Otherwise, the heat is normal and nothing to worry about.

Jun 26, 2018
Yeah, I figured you were kinked.

Another rightwingnut fascist racist religionist "warrior for jebus" climate denier.

Didja notice, the most prestigious science journal on the planet started getting so many articles on climate change they started a new journal? Yes really. It's called "Nature Climate Change." They're not short of articles to publish and the new journal is doing very well and making lots of money.

Deny that, asshole.


Jun 27, 2018
You can smell bigots, you know? And they stink. Just like all corruption. Bring it, @Bigot_Egg_Unit. I got your number and you know it.

Jun 27, 2018
And what about the news of the active volcano under Pine Island in the West Antarctic that is causing the melting of the ice sheet and warming the waters?


What about it? It's been there thousands of years and doesn't explain the recent rapid increase in ice melting across most of the region.

Jun 27, 2018
An inkling of things to come came a few years ago when temps of 166 degree heat equivalency was felt in some places in southern Iran. The actual temperature was about 129degF dry bulb. Concievably this could become progressively hotter and more dangerous to life. Good place to take #Peebrain to when it gets reallly reallly whorrific Build a gold golf course there and he will come on his own

Jun 28, 2018
And what about the news of the active volcano under Pine Island in the West Antarctic that is causing the melting of the ice sheet and warming the waters?


What about it? It's been there thousands of years and doesn't explain the recent rapid increase in ice melting across most of the region.


says TheVogon

More like millions of years, not thousands.

That rapid increase in ice melting could mean that hot magma is welling up into one or more volcanos under the ice sheet, which would raise the temperature of the water above it, which in turn would cause the ice sheet to melt quicker. Perhaps you would like to join an expedition to Antarctica to determine what is causing the ice melt. You could bring some seismic equipment and a wetsuit for your dive under the ice to check for methane bubbles.


Jun 28, 2018
There are plenty of scientists looking at Ice Melt and we know its to primarily due to rising global temperatures. Volcanoes certainly may contribute, but it would take an eruption to melt significant quantities of ice.

Jun 28, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 29, 2018
Given that none of the predictions, or temperature models, have proven true, it's hard to take seriously. Arctic ice to disappear by 2000, then 2013, then 2015, streets on New York under water by now, by 2000, the UK would be a small group of impoverished islands, etc

Jun 29, 2018
Given that none of the predictions, or temperature models, have proven true, it's hard to take seriously. Arctic ice to disappear by 2000, then 2013, then 2015, streets on New York under water by now, by 2000, the UK would be a small group of impoverished islands, etc
Do you have any evidence to support these claims? Just askin'.

Note that you have made claims about what geophysicists predict. You will need to present evidence that they-- not your partisans-- actually claim any of these things. If you cannot then you're just another lying climate crank.

Jun 29, 2018
Given that none of the predictions, or temperature models, have proven true, it's hard to take seriously. Arctic ice to disappear by 2000, then 2013, then 2015, streets on New York under water by now, by 2000, the UK would be a small group of impoverished islands, etc

I think you'll find that most models have done quite well. Temperature models, in particular, have done well. It's something of a myth to claim otherwise. The Arctic ice melt is going faster than the physics based models indicated. The one you mention was an extrapolation of data, not physics based. Sea level rise is at the high end of what models projected, so it's hard to claim they've failed. And your comment on streets of New York being underwater by now is well known to be made up by anti-science people. Making that claim indicates you really have no idea what the science actually says.

Jun 29, 2018
I will note that some anti-science people (John Christy, in particular) have doctored the data to "prove" that the temperature models have failed. But if you use the actual projections and actual temperature data, the models do quite well.

For the New York flooding example, Hansen was asked in 1988 what he would expect if CO2 doubled in 40 years (2028 - not "now"). He said he expected the West highway to be underwater. But CO2 levels won't double by 2028, so no one would expect the West highway to flood based on Hansen's answer. That you didn't know that suggests that either you made up your claims or somebody lied to you about the claims. Either way, perhaps you should try to learn about what the science actually says before commenting further.

Jun 29, 2018
Given that none of the predictions, or temperature models, have proven true, it's hard to take seriously. Arctic ice to disappear by 2000, then 2013, then 2015, streets on New York under water by now, by 2000, the UK would be a small group of impoverished islands, etc


The predictions you're referring to are:
1. Arctic summer sea ice to be gone by 2100 (this will happen several decades earlier than predicted)

2. No clue where the hell you got that New York one from. But I will point out that parts of New York have actually been declared uninhabitable due to climate change induced storm surges and people are already being evacuated from certain areas.

3. By 2000, the UK would be a small group of impoverished islands? Pretty sure that's a Wyndham novel. You do know the difference between science and a novel, right? Novels are made up, just like most of what you say.

Jun 29, 2018
leetennant -

Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen stated "a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.

Both Dr. Hansen and Peter Wadhams, the head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at the University of Cambridge, believe "that the Arctic is likely to become ice-free...as early as 2015." Al Gore predicted 2007, then 2008, then 2009, then 2013.

I checked Arctic ice today. It's well within two standard deviations of normal.

"[In New York City by 2008] The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. " James Hansen testimony before Congress in June 1988



"By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people." ~Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology

Jun 29, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 29, 2018
"[In New York City by 2008] The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. " James Hansen testimony before Congress in June 1988

This wasn't said in Congress, this was said in an interview with a reporter. And it was by 2028 in response to conditions that will never occur (https://www.skept...hway.htm ). That you repeat this nonsense indicates you don't really care about what the science really says.

Jun 29, 2018
Bah, another lying climate denier. Nothing to see here. Boring.

Jun 29, 2018
That means that carbon tax and renewables aren't effective in reverting of this trend, which looks merely independent on human activity.

The increase in CO2 levels is well documented as being almost entirely due to human activity. The lack of a carbon tax and the still early adoption of renewables says that you can't claim that these aren't effective in reverting the increase in CO2 levels.
It may not lead to increase of global temperatures though due to saturation effect of CO2 within stratopause.

Due to pressure and Doppler broadening, there is no such thing as saturation of CO2. Regardless, the greenhouse gas effect occurs in the troposphere and the stratopause has little to do with it.

Jun 29, 2018
I checked Arctic ice today. It's well within two standard deviations of normal.


I would say just within two standard deviations rather that well within.

https://nsidc.org...e-graph/

which puts it in the lower 2.5% for this time of year. This is not reassuring.

https://mathbitsn...res.html

Jun 29, 2018
The point is that the Arctic is a long way from being ice free by 2015. There have been many wild extreme predictions over the past few decades that just haven't come true. Can you see why they aren't taken seriously any more?

Jun 29, 2018
The prediction is ice free in summer by 2100. For the 50th f'ing time.

Jun 29, 2018
The point is that the Arctic is a long way from being ice free by 2015. There have been many wild extreme predictions over the past few decades that just haven't come true. Can you see why they aren't taken seriously any more?

As far as I know, there was only one study (I'm not sure it was even peer reviewed) that claimed the Arctic would be ice free by 2015. It wasn't accepted by any scientists that I'm aware of - especially scientists that studied that Arctic - and was only famous because a politician repeated it. This is hardly condemning of climate science in general especially considering all the successes.

Jul 01, 2018
As far as I know, there was only one study (I'm not sure it was even peer reviewed) that claimed the Arctic would be ice free by 2015. It wasn't accepted by any scientists that I'm aware of - especially scientists that studied that Arctic - and was only famous because a politician repeated it. This is hardly condemning of climate science in general especially considering all the successes.


I've already referred you to predictions by Dr. Hansen, Peter Wadhams, and Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen.

As you will recall, a few years ago it was big news that the polar ice would disappear (at that time Antarctic ice had spent 30 years growing). Polar bears were shown on blocks of pack ice (they are thriving since hunting was limited). The point is that alarmist predictions aren't likely to be taken seriously any more.

Jul 01, 2018
Regardless, the greenhouse gas effect occurs in the troposphere and the stratopause has little to do with it.
Correct; in fact, the stratosphere is getting cooler because more re-radiated heat is trapped in the troposphere.

Jul 01, 2018
Regardless, the greenhouse gas effect occurs in the troposphere and the stratopause has little to do with it.
Correct; in fact, the stratosphere is getting cooler because more re-radiated heat is trapped in the troposphere.

The stratosphere getting cooler is exactly what is predicted by the greenhouse models and theory because more CO2 in the troposphere means more infrared radiation radiating up from the ground gets absorbed by the troposphere before it has a chance to reach the stratosphere and that means less infrared radiation reaching the stratosphere (from the ground) which means less warming of the stratosphere hence, just as predicted, the stratosphere cools.
That observed stratosphere cooling is the CO2 warming signature that rules out the possibility that most of the troposphere warming could be caused by mainly other causes (such as slight variation in solar constant etc) other than greenhouse gases.

Jul 01, 2018
All correct, @humy. Heat is never created or destroyed; it is energy, and energy is conserved. If it can't get through the troposphere then it must be staying there. Voila, global warming.

Jul 01, 2018
It's also worth noting that this is dictated by the relative densities of the troposphere and stratosphere. What happens to heat re-radiated from the surface happens much more strongly in the much higher density troposphere.

Jul 01, 2018
I've already referred you to predictions by Dr. Hansen, Peter Wadhams, and Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen.

I've already shown that your claim about Hansen and New York flooding was made up. You give no links to any science claims about Arctic sea ice and since your knowledge of science is known to be suspect, it would be nice to have links to back up your claims. The best you have is some Christian Science Monitor article from 1972 with a statement from a non-scientist. I would agree that it was remarkably prescient of Col. Balchen to identify the problem, but 1972? You don't think there's been any progress in the science since then? He had the general trend correct, but not the end date. Not too bad for 1972.

And, of course, your whole claim is that climate science is a failed science, even though climate models do remarkably well in projecting global temperatures and all the other successes of climate science.

Jul 01, 2018
As you will recall, a few years ago it was big news that the polar ice would disappear (at that time Antarctic ice had spent 30 years growing). Polar bears were shown on blocks of pack ice (they are thriving since hunting was limited). The point is that alarmist predictions aren't likely to be taken seriously any more.

So you're saying that because some polar bear populations are increasing, due to hunting cutbacks, in areas where the Arctic ice is still ok, that more than offsets the losses in areas where the Arctic ice loss is greatest. There are still a lot of unknowns in polar bear populations, but the data suggests that polar bear losses are increasing as Arctic sea ice decreases (https://skeptical...ming.htm ). You seem to be claiming that the science is correct, but humans have done something to mask that temporarily, therefore we can ignore the science. Seems a silly claim to make.

Jul 01, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 01, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 01, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 01, 2018
#climatecrankscantcount.

That is all.

Jul 01, 2018
"we still have no idea how to cope with increasing rate of carbon dioxide emissions, not to say about its decreasing, by decreasing by more than quarter the less"

What? English please.

"But the same hockey stick graph, which initiated whole the alarmist movement for "renewables"

There are plenty of other things you can do to reduce your CO2 contribution if for some reason renewables don't do it for you. But they do reduce other pollution too - not just CO2.

"because it doesn't react to actual production of carbon dioxide"

We have graphs from ice core analysis going back ~800,000 years showing that temperature in general closely tracks CO2 emissions

"It even didn't react to financial crisis in 2008-2012, which delayed the fossil fuel consumption peak by many years."

The long term trend is very clear. CO2 is rising in a time scale of decades and so is global average surface temperature.

Jul 01, 2018
"are by more than thirty times higher, than the actual carbon dioxide production made by fossil fuel burning"

The issue is the steady rise in CO2 in the atmosphere, not where it all came from in the first place. The rise in CO2 can be more than explained by activities of man such as fossil fuel burning and agriculture. It would go up faster but for the fact the oceans absorb quite a lot.

"Scientists ignore this trivial math for decades for not to threat their jobs and grants in climate research and development of "renewable" technologies."

The fossil fuel industries have an annual turn over of many trillions. If there was something wrong with the fundamental science of climate change then there would be way way more money on offer to prove it. But in 30 years no one has found a single credible explanation for the current rapid warming of the planet other than man made green house gas emissions.


Jul 01, 2018
Luckily the fallacious AGW scare has almost run its course. Nations are electing governments that actually have the peoples best interests at heart and not that of One Word Government movement. Government funding for this climate hoax will be drying up soon.

Jul 01, 2018
"The contemporary fight against global warming is not about protection of life environment at all, but about tax payer's money spent for it."

Well it should be as even the most conservative estimates of the impact of global warming show that the costs of avoiding it are many times lower than doing nothing and living with the consequences. For instance US property markets in places that are forecast to be worst affected by sea level rise are now starting to be impacted.

"the actual carbon dioxide production made by fossil fuel burning"

Just to mention that we are sure where CO2 in the atmosphere comes from to a large degree, because that from burning fossil fuels is a different radio-isotope from that from most natural sources.


Jul 01, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 01, 2018
@R James
leetennant -
...
I checked Arctic ice today. It's well within two standard deviations of normal.

You do know how statistics and standard deviations (SD) work, and what they tell you, don't you?

You don't say where you "checked Arctic Ice today" for statistics but this paper https://onlinelib...JC012768 while www.mdpi.com/2072.../230/pdf indicates an updated expected time frame for an ice-free Arctic sea. Both papers make use of several statistical methodologies to counter possible biases in any one of them.

Depending on what measure you are "checking Arctic ice" for, and which statistical model you are using to obtain your mean and SD values, these papers at least, indicate that most statistics and methods fall either barely within 2 SD or lie outside of that.

In any case, 2 SD is not a statistic to be complacent about.

Jul 01, 2018
Multiple edits on the above because the sh*tty comments editor used here is messing around with posts and randomly deleting stuff.

Jul 01, 2018
@mala I thought you did fine. It's pretty clear there will be an ice-free Arctic every summer by 2043 at the latest, or as early as 2030. I've often thought that predictions earlier were irresponsible. But it's also not clear when the first ice-free summer in the Arctic will be; we came very close to it in the last few years.

Jul 02, 2018
@Da Schneib; so we can expect an ice-free Arctic by 2043? That is good to know. That should mean Washington DC will be flooding by then, no? Maybe some patriots should start looking at how to save the Washington monument. Ok that's right the denier goon squad doesn't believe science, or fact or logic but they are patriots right? (Whispering; Are the goons even human?).

What is not credible is expecting low level Cold fusion and transmutations to create a thermal balance of Earth in a high degree. Wishful thinking of a non-scientist fanboy.

The impact of global warming is going to be so massive that it's result will be every bit as devastating as an asteroid impact causing an an extinction event. Death by heat wave is the biggest killer of all weather. And to think it only gets worst from here, season after season.

"Luckily the fallacious AGW ". You mean the AntiFa?

Jul 02, 2018
Luckily the fallacious AGW scare has almost run its course. Nations are electing governments that actually have the peoples best interests at heart and not that of One Word Government movement. Government funding for this climate hoax will be drying up soon.


Thank god! Democracy has saved the planet. Maybe democracy will abolish gravity next.

Jul 02, 2018
Luckily the fallacious AGW scare has almost run its course. Nations are electing governments that actually have the peoples best interests at heart and not that of One Word Government movement. Government funding for this climate hoax will be drying up soon.


Thank god! Democracy has saved the planet. Maybe democracy will abolish gravity next.

...and using all the taxpayer's money fund the flat-Earth society as well as the climate-hoax society, Moon-landing-hoax society, cold-fusion society and the water-fluoridation-communist-conspiracy society .

https://en.wikipe...troversy

"...From Dr Strangelove and water fluoridisation to climate change, scientific method and facts are not always enough to win over the sceptics ..."

Jul 02, 2018
...and the water-fluoridation-communist-conspiracy society

-just so you know what I am referring to here;

https://en.wikipe...troversy

"...During the 1950s and 1960s, conspiracy theorists claimed that fluoridation was a communist plot to undermine American public health..."

Jul 02, 2018
"...From Dr Strangelove and water fluoridisation to climate change, scientific method and facts are not always enough to win over the sceptics ..."
Sorry, I gave the wrong link for that. That came from;

https://www.thegu...epticism

Jul 02, 2018
Luckily the fallacious AGW scare has almost run its course. Nations are electing governments that actually have the peoples best interests at heart and not that of One Word Government movement. Government funding for this climate hoax will be drying up soon.


Thank god! Democracy has saved the planet. Maybe democracy will abolish gravity next.


Gravity is a communist plot to stop us exercising our God-given right to jump off buildings.

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