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.

I did some denialist style research into the relevance of the second world war to current climate debate and found some shocking results.

http://i42.tinypic.com/8wml3p.jpg

See global warming makes nazis stronger! We better ignore it or they might win ww2 and change history!

Just BTW, there is an awful lot of 'may', 'might', 'could' in the whole climate change/global warming speculation. Perhaps climate science  could be renamed climate speculation.

muso wrote on May 13^th, 2012 at 8:49am:

Yeah, join in. I've been laughing for a while.

muso wrote on May 13^th, 2012 at 9:08am:



What? Are you mocking 'the science'??

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(12)00329-6

muso wrote on May 14^th, 2012 at 10:33am:







Funny guy.

Climate denialist? Are there people who deny the climate now? 

Climate denialist? Are there people who deny the climate now? 

i love ostriches

at the wild life park in gunnedah they have a big stupid looking one

i kind of want to go to africa just so i can ride one

muso wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 7:48am:



Actually, we aren't. We are talking about man made global climate change (for the worse, always for the worse).
If it was really all that simple, then there would be a demonstrable  correlation between CO2 levels and temperature changes. But there isn't. Because it's not that simple.

Or to put it simply - why doesn't temperature rise in parallel with increased atmospheric CO2? What stops the direct colleration (ie the very basic atmospheric science) to operate?

muso wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 7:48am:



Actually, we aren't. We are talking about man made global climate change (for the worse, always for the worse).
If it was really all that simple, then there would be a demonstrable  correlation between CO2 levels and temperature changes. But there isn't. Because it's not that simple.
There are other factors outside our control. We don't quite know how or why they do what they do (a bit like the ostrich and his bush, in this regard).

Was there a little ice age a few hundred years ago, or wasn't there? A warm period before that? is there certainty about the causes of their starts and ends? How do those causes operate now?

Or to put it simply - why doesn't temperature rise in parallel with increased atmospheric CO2? What stops the direct colleration (ie the very basic atmospheric science) to operate?

Soren wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 1:33pm:


i dont know where you get your information from (probably right wing blogs), but there IS A CLEAR correlation between co2 and temperature.  And the last decade has proved that.

Your whole premise is based on false data.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 3:13pm:


Do you mean like gravity, Muso?

muso wrote on May 18^th, 2012 at 8:51am:



If it's all sorted down pat, why aren't the climate doom predictions accurate?

Example: Flannery was doom mongering about running out urban water supplies  a few years ago. SInce then the dams are overflowing.

ANd if the doom mongering is not meant for such particulars, why bother making the predictions?

Soren wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 12:05pm:

They cant even get right if water vapour and clouds are a negative or positive feedback. Climate scientists are babies in comparison to the theories that have empirical data coming out the wazoo. Climate science has very little to none.

Tim Flannery is not a climate scientist. If he said things to the newspapers (I don't know and don't really care if he did) , that's for him to answer.

Tim Flannery is not a climate scientist. If he said things to the newspapers (I don't know and don't really care if he did) , that's for him to answer.

muso wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 2:34pm:


Flannery was verballed, quoted out of context by politically motivated deniers like the IPA and Andrew Bolt

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:26pm:


And where did you read that?

Less runnoff, you try digging down the dirt with a glaring sun in summer on the soil. How far down are you going to get before the soil is cool and this idiot thinks a 0.4 degree warming over a centry is making it warmer in the soil. So a sun with upwards of 40 degrees cannot penetrate the soil very far but 0.4 degrees over a centry can. Just laughable. I point out as well that soil absorbes moister better if it does not have compaction, not because it has been warmed from 0.4degrees extra over a century. We get most of our runnoff from harder rain than the soil can take up due to compaction. We can get it from slow and long running rains, but we dont get those type of rains very often except the north.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 5:30pm:


Can anybody translate?