Global warming more moderate than worst-case models, empirical data suggest -- ScienceDaily A new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records suggests global warming is not progressing as fast as it would under the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). "Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now," said Patrick T. Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment. "But this could change." The Duke-led study shows that natural variability in surface temperatures -- caused by interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and other natural factors -- can account for observed changes in the recent rates of warming from decade to decade. The researchers say these "climate wiggles" can slow or speed the rate of warming from decade to decade, and accentuate or offset the effects of increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. If not properly explained and accounted for, they may skew the reliability of climate models and lead to over-interpretation of short-term temperature trends. The research, published today in the peer-reviewed journal Scientific Reports, uses empirical data, rather than the more commonly used climate models, to estimate decade-to-decade variability. "At any given time, we could start warming at a faster rate if greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere increase without any offsetting changes in aerosol concentrations or natural variability," said Wenhong Li, assistant professor of climate at Duke, who conducted the study with Brown. The team examined whether climate models, such as those used by the IPCC, accurately account for natural chaotic variability that can occur in the rate of global warming as a result of interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and other natural factors. To test how accurate climate models are at accounting for variations in the rate of warming, Brown and Li, along with colleagues from San Jose State University and the USDA, created a new statistical model based on reconstructed empirical records of surface temperatures over the last 1,000 years. "By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the 'big picture' right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles," Brown said. "Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013." Further comparative analysis of the models revealed another intriguing insight. "Statistically, it's pretty unlikely that an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century, would occur if the underlying human-caused warming was progressing at a rate as fast as the most severe IPCC projections," Brown said. "Hiatus periods of 11 years or longer are more likely to occur under a middle-of-the-road scenario." Under the IPCC's middle-of-the-road scenario, there was a 70 percent likelihood that at least one hiatus lasting 11 years or longer would occur between 1993 and 2050, Brown said. "That matches up well with what we're seeing." There's no guarantee, however, that this rate of warming will remain steady in coming years, Li stressed. "Our analysis clearly shows that we shouldn't expect the observed rates of warming to be constant. They can and do change." Eugene C. Cordero of San Jose State University and Steven A. Mauget of the USDA Agricultural Research Service in Lubbock, Texas, co-authored the new study with Brown and Li. Journal Reference: Patrick T. Brown, Wenhong Li, Eugene C. Cordero and Steven A. Mauget. Comparing the Model-Simulated Global Warming Signal to Observations Using Empirical Estimates of Unforced Noise. Scientific Reports, April 21, 2015 DOI: 10.1038/srep09957 Share This Page: Looks like I don't have to feel guilty when I go buy a new SUV and opt for the biggest engine they offer.
It's funny with you being all smug as shit when our state is going through an absurd drought with record low snowpack
I turned the hose on to water the plants on the deck today and water came out. All good over here in gods country.
Its funny that weather =/= climate when it snows in May, but it does when there's a drought out west.
Interesting article writing, because ""Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now," said Patrick T. Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment" seems to be the headline to me. Or "Reality tracks with scientific modeling" works, too.
lol remember Al Gore up there telling us that the earth would be free of polar ice by 2015? Fucking penguins and polar bears are partying it up right now
can we all just agree global warming is a thing but just differ on whether we should do something about it or not. if you don't care... that I can handle.
I'm fully on board with the notion of global warming, global cooling, and global not doing much of anything.
Soulfly is right about our lack of snowpack in the PNW. The effects of our mild winter were downright terrifying. I had to fly down to Park City just to get a weekend of skiing in.
Wait do you really think that I believe the notion of climate change or even man made climate change has been "debunked"? do I have to go on the record or something? Christ.
when it comes to stuff published in scientific journals, i don't read it and go with my gut instinct 10 times out of 10
And if you do read it and disagree, you just discount them as being completely wrong because you say so.
You realize that each notch is 20 years right? And that the graph clearly goes beyond 2000..... Must be nice to be this ignorant in life.
Gonna be interesting to see how long it takes for something like the florida keys disappearing. (Probably not in our lifetimes) I'd imagine it'll take something like that before much is actually done to slow it down.
and by then, it's already too late...that's the point behind trying to do something now even though it's not "worst case scenario."
So what's middle of the road scenario? Because I'm wholly uninterested in taking an axe to the global economy unless it means my favorite Italian restaurant in Manhattan is going to be under water before I die.
Chatch is one of those that thinks that running the world on renewable energy will somehow collapse economies.
I think most, if not all, conservatives would LOVE to see the world run on renewable energy. Problem is there's no evidence that there's a cost effective, plausible and sustainable way to make that happen. And until there's some evidence of that, its probably a bad idea for the government to place onerous regulations on American companies, especially when they won't apply to their global competitors. Its also the price the left plays for LYING THEIR FUCKING ASSES OFF about what was going to happen by the year 2000, 2010, 2015 if we didn't make radical changes.
Just to be clear, I don't blame liberals specifically for being hilariously wrong about the consequences of global warming. I blame them for pretending they were smarter than everyone else when all they did was parrot back the bullshit their political leaders spewed to try and demonize the evil oil companies and win elections.