World To Warm Six Degrees!

World on track for 6C warming without carbon cuts, study shows Current rates of decarbonisation are well short of the 5% a year needed to avoid worst effects of climate change.

World on track for 6C warming without carbon cuts, study shows | Environment | guardian.co.uk

You can see the 6C trend very clearly below. We should reach six degrees is slightly over infinity years.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to World To Warm Six Degrees!

  1. Scott says:

    Get it right, it’s actually a very large negative number of years. But that’s just a “projection” of yours anyway, right? :-P

    -Scott

  2. Andy DC says:

    Multiple record early season snowstorms in places with 140+ years of records are totally consistent with a rapidly warming planet. Right! Also consistent with lack of Arctic sea ice. Sure!

  3. Mike Odin says:

    Staten island New york received 6 inches of snow last night.

    http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/08/first-the-superstorm-now-a-snowstorm-and-powers-out-again-in-parts-of-northeast/?hpt=hp_t1

    ht tp://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/08/first-the-superstorm-now-a-snowstorm-and-powers-out-again-in-parts-of-northeast/?hpt=hp_t1

  4. gator69 says:

    From PwC’s website…

    “PwC Low Carbon Economy Index 2012
    PwC Low Carbon Economy Index 2012 Too late for two degrees?
    Too late for two degrees?

    The annual PwC Low Carbon Economy Index centres on one core statistic: the rate of change of global carbon intensity. This year we estimated that the required improvement in global carbon intensity to meet a 2ºC warming target has risen to 5.1% a year, from now to 2050.

    We have passed a critical threshold – not once since 1950 has the world achieved that rate of decarbonisation in a single year, but the task now confronting us is to achieve it for 39 consecutive years.

    The 2011 rate of improvement in carbon intensity was 0.8%. Even doubling our rate of decarbonisation, would still lead to emissions consistent with six degrees of warming. To give ourselves a more than 50% chance of avoiding two degrees will require a six-fold improvement in our rate of decarbonisation…

    Business leaders have been asking for clarity in political ambition on climate change. Now one thing is clear: businesses, governments and communities across the world need to plan for a warming world – not just 2ºC, but 4ºC and, at our current rates, 6ºC.”

    Very scientifical. ;)

  5. Ray says:

    It’s strange that despite the increase in CO2 levels, global temperatures are currently below the levels projected by the vast majority of climate models included in the IPCC AR4 “commitment scenario”, which was based on the assumption of ZERO increase in greenhouse gasses since the year 2000.

  6. kirkmyers says:

    First, the IPCC is not talking about “carbon” cuts. It’s talking about reducing CO2, a harmless plant nutrient on which all plant and animal life depends.

    Second, the planet stopped warming 16 years ago, even as CO2 levels rose, an inconvenient fact that falsifies the AGW hypothesis. (And where is the predicted tropospheric hot spot in the tropics?)

    Third, there’s no experimental evidence to support the theory that increases in atmospheric CO2 will warm the planet to any measurable degree. (Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi’s research shows that water vapor levels decline in response to rising CO2 levels, in effect causing the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect to remain equilibrium.) The AGW scare is the product of scenarios invented by scientists using tweaked climate models that are incapable of modeling the earth’s atmosphere, particularly the impact of clouds and precipitation. And most of the models either ignore or downplay the impact of the sun, the one mighty climate changer.

    Fourth, increases in CO2 would be a boon to agriculture, promoting plant growth and raising crop yields. More CO2 and a warmer earth would be good for mankind.

    • David Appell says:

      No, the planet did not stop warming 16 years ago, as the ocean makes readily apparent:

      http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

      Why do you think all the ice continues to melt?

      • The missing heat sank to the bottom of the ocean! It weighs the same as a duck.

      • tckev says:

        Because it is politically expedient to highlight it at this time whilst ignoring all the other times that the ice melted (as recorded in historical documents). Natural cycles seem to be a particular blind-spot of yours. Please could you apply more study to this short-fall in your education as you will find it very rewarding.

      • David Appell says:

        Ice melted before in the 4.6 B yr history of the Earth? Who knew?

        In fact, that’s helped scientists figure out why climate changes, and that one of those reasons is an increase in greenhouse gases.

      • robert barclay says:

        The planet may be warming, personally thats not the experience I’m having but one thing is certain the ocean is not being heated by the atmosphere. The ocean accepts radiation from the sun and only radiation physical heat is blocked by surface tension. You can test this for yourself by applying a source of heat such as a heat gun to a surface of water. Despite the heat gun putting out 450degsC the water stays stone cold. The heat in the atmosphere can melt ice, melt glaciers but it can not build up inthe ocean. This world simply doesn’t work like that. The ocean accepts energy from the sun’srays nothing else.

      • Ray says:

        Isn’t it the case that the temperature projections in the various IPCC AR4 scenarios are for mean surface temperatures, not ocean heat content?
        If so, you have to compare them with surface temperature anomalies, and the fact that there has been an increase in ocean heat content doesn’t alter the fact that the IPCC model projections are too high.

    • David Appell says:

      It is far, far from clear that increases in CO2 would be “a boon to agriculture.”
      * For one thing, it would also be a boon to weeds and certain pests, the bane of agriculture.
      * For another, more CO2 means more warming which means heat stress on plants.
      * For a third, some crops are probably nitrogen-limited before they are CO2-limited.
      * For a fourth, more plant life changes the albedo of the planet, lowering it overall and leading to more warming.

      Your thinking is extremely simplistic.

  7. In politics if you’re proven wrong by the facts then you have nothing to loose by doubling down.

    • snafu says:

      To quote Sir Winston Churchill:

      “A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen”.

  8. tckev says:

    Coming to an office near you

  9. Shooter says:

    Ah, yet another crock paper based on falsified theories. Carbon is the backbone of all living and non-living things; it makes molecular bonds possible. Do they really think banning carbon, let alone CO2, will do anything? What about animals that breathe out CO2? Will they have to take pills for that?

    This popular delusion has reached the breaking point. They are getting ever so desperate. 6 degrees isn’t even mentioned in the IPCC. I guess they are the ones playing with dice.

  10. tckev says:

    David Appell
    “Ice melted before in the 4.6 B yr history of the Earth? Who knew?”
    Thanks for the humor.
    But no, as Steven has shown on this blog many times, during recent history the ice has melted a few times. The people who recorded these events had no political ax to grind, no well financed job to loose if it wasn’t true, they just reported the facts. And funny enough the trace atmospheric gas, CO2 was different from todays – it was less.

    • David Appell says:

      Because ice melted when there was less CO2 doesn’t mean CO2 has no impact on ice melting….

      • tckev says:

        So it is known why the ice melted before. It’s a known that any melting that happens now is different from why it melted before?

      • David Appell says:

        The big picture about why climate changes is known. CO2 is one of those reasons.

        • Snow is a thing of the past. The 1990 IPCC report showed a large medieval warm period. Climate scientists don’t know jack shit and change their story constantly.

      • gator69 says:

        David “Know Nothing” Appell says:

        “The big picture about why climate changes is known. CO2 is one of those reasons.”

        Bullcrap skippy! Read it and weep. From you unholy bible AR4…

        “2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing”

        When it comes to understanding climate drivers, 13 out of 16 “IDENTIFIED” forcings are listed as ‘low’ to ‘very low’ in 2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing of AR4. That means that over 80% of “IDENTIFIED” forcings are NOT understood.

        Get it skippy? ;lol:

        Please, please, please try and explain how it is possible to say with convicttion that CO2 is THE driver of climate, moron.

        Logic is NOT your strong suit.

      • David Appell says:

        Sometimes I think you stopped reading circa 1988-1990, given your many references to work that is over 2 decades old.

      • David Appell says:

        Funny. 80% of the number of forcings is not 80% of the forcing. The certainty on CO2 is quite high.

        But I’m not interested in debating 19th-century science. Perhaps you’d also like to deny the existence of electrons?

      • gator69 says:

        “Funny. 80% of the number of forcings is not 80% of the forcing. The certainty on CO2 is quite high.”

        Thanks for showing your total lack of cognitive functions once again. If they DO NOT KNOW about 80%, how do they KNOW about that very same 80?

        You are an idiot, and yet STILL useful.

        I am done here.

      • David Appell says:

        Your mathematical ignorance is showing. At best, the forcing of the 80% is zero, which still leaves CO2 and CH4, whose forcings are well known and large. At worst, the forcings of the 80% are higher than thought (since uncertainty cuts both ways), and the situation is even worse.

        • Downwelling CH4 radiation is miniscule. CH4 makes up only 0.000002 mole fraction of the atmosphere and it’s absorptive bands completely overlap with H2O. You have no idea what you are talking about.

      • David Appell says:

        The current radiative forcing of CH4 is well known, at about 0.5 W/m2 +/- 10%, making it the second most significant of the long-lived GHGs.

      • David Appell says:

        The atmospheric lifetime of CH4 is well established, and there is more to the planet than the tropics. Its global radiative forcing is now about 0.5 W/m2, out of a total anthropogenic GHG forcing of about 3 W/m2.

      • David Appell says:

        It’s in the scientific literature — are you aware there is such a thing? (It’s hard to tell.)

        http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html

      • “It’s in the scientific literature…”

        In some papers but disputed by others. Eco-worriers are good at fretting over the speculations of papers that support their fears and ignoring those that reach other conclusions, generally by calling the authors of those inconvenient papers names.

      • tckev says:

        But you have no scientific method to separate the causes of current and historical ice-cap melting.

      • gator69 says:

        Hey Davey! Let’s go with your math. I think you need radical brain surgery stat! I have alot of schooling, and have watched alot of documentaries on biology and the brain. There’s probably about 80% of this procedure with which I am not at all familiar, but I feel like I know about 20% of what I need to know to perform your surgery, for free!

        It’s YOUR math. Ready for anesthesia?

        Fool?

      • Me says:

        It’s well established, toshinmack is a moron…… :lol:

  11. Sparks says:

    David Appell is right, the mathematical… CH4 is which is 000000000000.0000002% is longer lived than 000000000000.00000002%

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s