(UK) Met Office warns of catastrophic global warming in our lifetimes (4°C rise possible by 2060)

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/28/met-office-study-global-warming

Met Office warns of catastrophic global warming in our lifetimes

• Study says 4C rise in temperature could happen by 2060
• Increase could threaten water supply of half world population

David Adam, environment correspondent
The Guardian, Monday 28 September 2009

Unchecked global warming could bring a severe temperature rise of 4C within many people's lifetimes, according to a new report for the British government that significantly raises the stakes over climate change.

The study, prepared for the Department of Energy and Climate Change by scientists at the Met Office, challenges the assumption that severe warming will be a threat only for future generations, and warns that a catastrophic 4C rise in temperature could happen by 2060 without strong action on emissions.

…

"We've always talked about these very severe impacts only affecting future generations, but people alive today could live to see a 4C rise," said Richard Betts, the head of climate impacts at the Met Office Hadley Centre, who will announce the findings today at a conference at Oxford University. "People will say it's an extreme scenario, and it is an extreme scenario, but it's also a plausible scenario."

…

A 4C average would mask more severe local impacts: the Arctic and western and southern Africa could experience warming up to 10C, the Met Office report warns.

…

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/four-degrees.html

Four degrees and beyond

28 September 2009

If greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise unchecked, it is likely that global warming will exceed four degrees by the end of the century, research by Met Office scientists has revealed.

Our scientists, working on behalf of Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), have found that if current high emissions continue there could be major implications for the world — with higher temperature rises than previously thought.

Dr Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts at the Met Office Hadley Centre, presented the new findings at a special conference this month. 4 degrees and beyond at Oxford University, attended by 130 international scientists and policy specialists, is the first to consider the global consequences of climate change beyond 2 °C.

Dr Betts said: “Four degrees of warming, averaged over the globe, translates into even greater warming in many regions, along with major changes in rainfall. If greenhouse gas emissions are not cut soon, we could see major climate changes within our own lifetimes.”

…

Fig 1. Comparison of surface temperature projections from the high-end emissions scenario, without carbon cycle feedbacks. Temperature increases between 1961-1990 and 2090-2099, averaged over all high-end members.

…

[d_b]

1. hey no prob

I hear 30 mpg vehicles will be the standard by 2050. w00t!!1

[GliderGuider]

2. No problem

All the people who matter will simply drive their algal-biodiesel-fuelled cars to their summer resorts north of the Arctic Circle. I really don't see what the fuss is about. Why should I trouble my beautiful mind with the miseries of those whose laziness has consigned them to the dungheap of evolution?

Just in case:
:sarcasm:

[Nihil]

3. Yet even with these statements ...

> "We've always talked about these very severe impacts only affecting future
> generations, but people alive today could live to see a 4C rise"

> "People will say it's an extreme scenario, and it is an extreme scenario,
> but it's also a plausible scenario."

... you will get the deniers, the BAU-defenders and the simply stupid trolls
along to dilute the warnings that people *are* being given.

:mad:

[hatrack]

6. As in Editorials - an article about the Met study drew only two comments, both trolls

Sad, lonely little trolls with 19 and 76 posts, respectively, IIRC . . .

[wuvuj]

4. I expect to be cremated in around....

...15 years or so...but not in any hurry of course.

So I wonder IF those who will live to experience the coming world wide troubles will have the sense to try to do anything about it?

Or will they depend on the basically incompetent fools who run things?

[GliderGuider]

5. We are already experiencing the world wide troubles

They are already here.

Do we have the sense to do anything about it? Not given the current perceptions of the public.

In order for significant change to happen, we all need to wake up and change how we understand the world. Fortunately, that awakening is already in progress.

[wuvuj]

7. A lot of deadwood...

...needs to be moved...

[GliderGuider]

8. I'm not sure I get your metaphor

???

[kestrel91316]

9. Why do I feel like 4C by 2060 will turn out to be a serious underestimation

of the situation???

[GliderGuider]

10. Oh come on,

We haven't underestimated anything about climate change yet, whey would we suddenly start now?

[Nederland]

13. True

Up until this point, we've been overestimating things.

[Nihil]

22. "We" have certainly been overestimating *some* things ...

The intelligence of the common man.

The will of politicians to act for the future beyond the next election.

The capability of progress/technology/innovation to deploy meaningful solutions.

The desire for humans to improve the world for future generations.

The ability of supposedly civilized people to think beyond personal greed.

:shrug:

[joshcryer]

11. This is why we should do everything in our power to stop CO2 emissions in their tracks.

There is no "oh natural gas is cleaner" rhetoric. It's simple. CO2 must stop soon or we are going to have some serious fucking fucked up planet (for 7 billion humans; the planet won't mind).

[Nederland]

12. The next IPCC report should be interesting

I've seen a great number of fairly pessimistic estimates on temperature rise and sea level rise being posted on this forum. Given that every IPCC report is supposed to represent the consensus science on the issue when it is issued, it will be interesting to see if the IPCC choses to incorporate these higher estimates. That would be a break with the past, given that up until this point the IPCC has lowered estimates on both predicted temperature rise and predicted sea level rise. The report lowered temperature predictions from 2.5 degree per century to 2.0 degrees per century and cut its sea level rise predictions by almost half.

Time will tell.

[joshcryer]

14. The point of these studies is that sea level rise from ice melt wasn't included in AR4.

This is just scientists trying to fill in the rest of the equation. IPCC AR5 will *have* to include these numbers (they don't do any research themselves, they only compile research already done).

IPCC has historically been very conservative with the numbers. But as we can see the numbers get so bad even if you are conservative, it's still very bad.

[Nederland]

15. Conservative?

The 1990 IPCC numbers overestimated actual change by almost 30%. How is that conservative?

[joshcryer]

17. Every report after 1990 has been increasingly conservative.

SAR, TAR, AR4. Indeed, denialists use this fact to "debunk" AGW, but the *reality* is that the data gets clearer, and our understanding of the mechanisms is better.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19981

[kristopher]

19. What you say is correct but...

Do YOU think that it is accurate to characterize current research by such a slim sampling of trends in IPCC conclusions?

Isn't it at least equally probable that 1) the lessons learned in past research, 2) greater accumulation of data, and 3) more resources devoted to research are all working to give the current research greater weight than what was available in all previous reports?

[Nederland]

21. Like I said

I believe the next IPCC report will be interesting. Unlike many here, I place far more faith in what the IPCC concludes is the consensus on issues than the odd report here and there that predicts something far outside the current predictions. I don't pretend to keep track of all the research and know what the current consensus is, I rely on the IPCC to do that for me. If I am in error here, it is because I believe that the EE forum tends to trumpet the most horrific predictions while ignoring other research that soberly confirms the conclusions of past IPCC reports.

To answer your question, yes, it is perfectly possible that in the next report the IPCC may radically change their predictions based upon lessons learned and new research. However, I will wait until it is issued before assuming that is the case.

Time will tell.

[Viking12]

16. False representation!

In other words Bullshit!

AR4 did not "halve' it's prediction of sea level rise from the TAR. The TAR prediction included the possibility of rapid, dynamic changes in the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets into the SPM estimates for sea level change, "Global mean sea level is projected to rise by 0.09 to 0.88 metres between 1990 and 2100, for the full range of SRES scenarios. This is due primarily to thermal expansion and loss of mass from glaciers and ice caps". On the other hand, the AR4 did not include the potential for rapid, dynamic changes in the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets it the contribution of sea level rise from these 2 sources is a wildcard -- when projected contributions from the ice caps are included in the estimates they are higher than TAR.

Likewise, the temperature projection for the 2 reports are not comparable:

TAR2001: "The globally averaged surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8°C (Figure 5d) over the period 1990 to 2100.

AR42007: "Best estimates and likely ranges for global average surface air warming for six SRES emissions marker scenarios are given in this assessment and are shown in Table SPM.3. For example, the best estimate for the low scenario (B1) is 1.8°C (likely range is 1.1°C to 2.9°C), and the best estimate for the high scenario (A1FI) is 4.0°C (likely range is 2.4°C to 6.4°C). Although these projections are broadly consistent with the span quoted in the TAR (1.4°C to 5.8°C), they are not directly comparable (see Figure SPM.5).

[joshcryer]

18. Very interesting, now I see where that misinformation comes from.

I was not aware that TAR included ice cap melt in its assumptions.

[Nederland]

20. I agree, the two reports are not comparable

However, you can look at the empirical data observed since the 1990 report. In that respect, it is clear that the 1990 report overstated both temperature and sea level change. Personally, when I look at the IPCC reports I see estimates that are honing in on the truth. To believe many of the posts on EE, you have to believe that the IPCC is getter worse, not better. I simply don't see that as the case.