A new study suggests climate scientists may have underestimated the effect of greenhouse gases, with global temperatures now predicted to rise by between 1.4 and 3 degrees Celsius by 2050.

The study was published in the journal Nature Geoscience by a team of international scientists who ran 10,000 computer simulations of climate models in an attempt to explore the range of global warming predictions made by climate scientists.

The researchers found that while their results matched the predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at the lower end, they were higher than earlier predictions at the higher end.

One of the certainties about predicting climate change is uncertainty, which is why climate change professor David Frame and 26 of his colleagues from around the world have tried to narrow things down.

"We set out to look at how a large range of climate models could try to span a range of uncertainties to try to get a better handle on the sort of range of plausible climates we might see in the next half century and beyond," said Professor Frame, who works at the Victoria University of Wellington.

"Generally people build a model and they spend a lot of resources on doing so and they try to make it as good as they can. But when everybody tries for their best-shot model, it doesn't necessarily mean that you systematically explore all the possible uncertainties."

When it comes to climate change, there many variables including cloud cover, ocean temperatures and land temperatures. So Professor Frame and his colleagues took one of the world's best-known climate models and tweaked some of the parameters.

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 26^th, 2012 at 9:24pm:


Could you please point us in the direction of this proof you refer to?  A link would be useful.



corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 26^th, 2012 at 9:24pm:

First time I've heard that.  I'd like to know more about Stalin's connection to climate change please.

And still we wonder if we have past the point on no return.
... of course we have.


Prepare for the worst, and hope for the best.

7. Conclusions
The primary exposure to BTEX is from breathing air contaminated by motor vehicle emissions, industrial use and cigarette smoke. The levels in drinking water are usually very low and intake from drinking and food sources is usually minor in comparison. However, contamination from fuel spillage and industrial activities can result in localised high concentrations in surface and groundwater. In those instances, activated carbon filtration is an effective treatment option to reduce BTEX concentrations to acceptable levels.
Use of BTEX in fraccing fluids is currently out of favour due to the availability of safer alternatives. Nevertheless, if BTEX were used in fraccing fluids, it is unlikely to significantly contribute to contamination of drinking water from groundwater sources. Groundwater in the vicinity of natural oil, gas and coal deposits may however contain elevated levels of naturally‐occurring BTEX compounds. The local geomorphology and possibility of creating hydraulic connections between coal seam and nearby groundwater must be taken into account prior to using hydraulic
fracturing.

GoddyofOz wrote on Mar 26^th, 2012 at 9:12pm:


I've been saying that for years. The trouble is that it hasn't been possible to factor in some of the circumpolar effects until recently. It has been an open secret among climatologists for years that the IPCC reports are considerably  understated.

GoddyofOz wrote on Mar 26^th, 2012 at 9:12pm:


I've been saying that for years. The trouble is that it hasn't been possible to factor in some of the circumpolar effects until recently. It has been an open secret among climatologists for years that the IPCC reports are considerably  understated.