Thread: runaway greenhouse effect?

Temperatures could rise by 3C by 2050, models suggest.

Global temperatures could rise by 1.4-3.0C (2.5-5.4F) above levels for late last century by 2050, a computer simulation has suggested.

Almost 10,000 climate simulations were run on volunteers' home computers.

The projections, published in Nature Geoscience, are somewhat higher than those from other models.

The researchers aimed to explore a wider range of possible futures, which they say helps "get a handle" on the uncertainties of the climate system.

People planning for the impacts of climate change need to consider the possibility of warming of up to 3C by 2050, even on a mid-range emission scenario, the researchers say.

The study - run through climateprediction.net with the BBC Climate Change Experiment - ran simulations using a complex atmosphere-ocean climate model.

The representations of physical parameters were varied between runs of the model, reflecting uncertainties about precisely how the climate system works.

And the forecast range was derived from models that accurately reproduced observed temperature changes over the last 50 years.

The low end of their range is similar to that of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 2007 report, but the high end is somewhat above the range their analysis produced.

'Innovative' ensemble

Myles Allen of the School of Geography and Environment and Department of Physics, Oxford University, principal investigator of climateprediction.net, said other climate modelling groups' data did not "set out to explore the full range of uncertainty, which is why studies like ours are needed."

The research was described as "an important step toward estimating uncertainty more comprehensively," by Gabi Hegerl, professor of climate system science at the University of Edinburgh.

The results were also described as "very promising" by Prof Corinne Le Quere, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia.

"Better constrained climate projections are needed to help plan a wide range of adaptation measures, from sea defences to water storage capacity and biodiversity conservation areas," she added.

However, the research was questioned by Julian Hunt, emeritus professor of climate modelling at University College London.

He said: "I have reservations about relying on a model that combines land temperatures - which are clearly rising - with sea temperatures which can be subject to big decadal fluctuations."

He said the higher range of the prediction was looking "increasingly likely", but for three particular reasons:

release of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from seabed and land
"massive changes" in reflection of light at some places on the Earth's surface
reducing air pollution in Asia that will reflect less solar energy back into space.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17488450

if temps rise by 3C, we will be in for a very big shock.

I hope that we learn to cooperate and address this issue, instead of bickering over it.

Originally Posted by cassandrabandra

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17488450

if temps rise by 3C, we will be in for a very big shock.

I hope that we learn to cooperate and address this issue, instead of bickering over it.

More doom and gloom from models that are never right

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_...are-wrong.html

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/201...e-wrong-again/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/2...skeptics-case/

Originally Posted by ptif219

More doom and gloom from models that are never right

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_...are-wrong.html

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/201...e-wrong-again/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/2...skeptics-case/

scientists are generally a better source of information on scientific issues than opinion pieces by scientifically illiterate bloggers.

The problem with the models is that they are all over the place. GIGO.

Originally Posted by cassandrabandra

scientists are generally a better source of information on scientific issues than opinion pieces by scientifically illiterate bloggers.

The pieces use scientific data. When you have nothing you attack the source. Climate models have been wrong so what you are showing is a history or wrong models

Whereas you show a history of blind belief in denialist bloggers.

Originally Posted by Colonel K

Whereas you show a history of blind belief in denialist bloggers.

No I used sources that showed proof that models have been wrong. I see no one showing proof of models that were right.

Originally Posted by ptif219

No I used sources that showed proof that models have been wrong. I see no one showing proof of models that were right.

the models in recent years may not hae been 100% accurate all the time (some have inderstated the impact) but they have generally been able to show the trend.

the model in question is factoring current events, and is therefore showing the likelihood of temperature increases greater than a number of previous models.

note, Julian Hunt identifies a problem with the model, but does not dispute the temp increases as being unlikely - and provides his reasons for saying so.

The information that is factored into models influences their accuracy (or otherwise), and the more information we get, the better the modelling.

Originally Posted by cassandrabandra

the models in recent years may not hae been 100% accurate all the time (some have inderstated the impact) but they have generally been able to show the trend.

the model in question is factoring current events, and is therefore showing the likelihood of temperature increases greater than a number of previous models.

note, Julian Hunt identifies a problem with the model, but does not dispute the temp increases as being unlikely - and provides his reasons for saying so.

The information that is factored into models influences their accuracy (or otherwise), and the more information we get, the better the modelling.

They have not been 100% accurate at all and that is why someone tries to use different weighted averages of them to come up with 3 or 4 likely outcomes.

Originally Posted by cassandrabandra

the models in recent years may not hae been 100% accurate all the time (some have inderstated the impact) but they have generally been able to show the trend.

the model in question is factoring current events, and is therefore showing the likelihood of temperature increases greater than a number of previous models.

note, Julian Hunt identifies a problem with the model, but does not dispute the temp increases as being unlikely - and provides his reasons for saying so.

The information that is factored into models influences their accuracy (or otherwise), and the more information we get, the better the modelling.

History shows it is natural not man

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...emissions.html