Pew Center : Up To 11.5 Degrees Additional Warming In the 21st Century

The scientific community has reached a strong consensus regarding the science of global climate change. The world is undoubtedly warming. This warming is largely the result of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities including industrial processes, fossil fuel combustion, and changes in land use, such as deforestation.

Continuation of historical trends of greenhouse gas emissions will result in additional warming over the 21st century. Current projections point to a global increase of 2.0°F to 11.5°F (1.1°C to 6.4°C) by 2100, with warming in the U.S. expected to be even higher. This warming will have real consequences for the United States and the world, for with that warming will also come additional sea-level rise that will gradually inundate coastal areas and increase beach erosion and flooding from coastal storms, changes in precipitation patterns, increased risk of droughts and floods, threats to biodiversity, and a number of potential challenges for public health.

It might warm even more than it already has in the 21st century? Scary thought.



About stevengoddard

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

18 Responses to Pew Center : Up To 11.5 Degrees Additional Warming In the 21st Century

  1. Andy Weiss says:

    Now they are raising the ante. They saying that not only are the polar bears going to fry, us humans are too! There is real desperation in their tone. Anything to stay on the gravy train.

  2. richcar 1225 says:

    Its worse than we thought.

  3. richcar 1225 says:

    If Brian leyland is right about the SOI leading global temps downward by seven months then we will see at least seven more months of drop.

  4. DEEBEE says:

    Steve, whenever you show this kind of graph, it would be good to also show the “expected” trend because of CO2 increase.

  5. Robert says:

    Nice Cherry picking Goddard. Why not start that graph in 2000?
    Wow shocking that the trendline turns positive when you use your own definition (21st century).


  6. Lance says:

    “The scientific community”…all 2 of them reached a concensus…

  7. Robert says:

    PS Goddard, Mosher outed you, now everyone knows its not your real name and that you’re hiding behind a pseudonym. What are you afraid of?

    • suyts says:

      Robert,why do you care if Steve Goddard’s given name is Steve Goddard or not? I know I don’t. Tamino’s isn’t Tamino and Deep dipshit’s real name isn’t Deep. Who cares? And why?

    • richcar 1225 says:

      I do not know who Steve really is but I have a Masters degre in Geophysics from Penn State and I can tell you that the quack science of AGW is falling faster than Lysenokism under Stalin. Believe me when I tell you that there are a lot smarter people than you that are running for the exits. You will catch on next year and move on to some new imagined crisis.

  8. Robert says:

    I’ll give it to you that I did make a mistake regarding the start of the 21st century. I literally did not ever realize that it began in 2001. Why is it I see summaries of the 20th century using 1900 to 1999. Should that in fact be 1901 to 2000?

    I guess the Steve Goddard part not being his real name is more or less to do with Anthony Watts more than Steve. Anthony said he will never allow a pseudonym to write for his website but he let Goddard and repeatedly called out Tamino for using one.

    I’m not a big fan of using fake names on here and although Tamino uses one and Deep Climate uses one it is still not something I very much approve of. In fact I don’t really understand why Tamino doesn’t go under his real name considering his impeccable credentials but either way… Just because I am an AGW proponent does not mean that I agree with hiding ones identity.

    • suyts says:

      Robert, its difficult to take you seriously when you don’t use your full name here. I don’t recall Anthony ever saying specifically he wouldn’t let anyone use a pseudonym and post there, but I suppose it would be believable if you would provide….. Nor is it clear Anthony would know whether Steve Goddard is or isn’t Steve Goddard. How or why would he know?

      lol, Grant’s impeccable…..funny.

      BTW, I use this pseudonym because it’s been one I’ve used online since the 90s on discussion boards and chat rooms. Over at WUWT, they know me as James Sexton. Nice to meet you Robert whomever.

      Other than worrying about labels you wish to attach to people or names you wish to gather while not offering your own or wondering why in 2011 a decadal trend would start at 2001, do you have anything substantive to offer the discussion?

      After hearing about the despicable manner the Robinson children are being treated, I think we can all gather why names are important to you people.

      Now, if you’d be so kind, move along, there’s lots of traffic here and we don’t want people stepping in you. Takes forever to wipe it off of their shoes.

      • Otter says:

        Hi, My psuedonym is Otter and I have a degree in Geology from 1981. Nice to meet you, Mr. Sexton!

        Robert is difficult to take seriously. Anyone pro-AGW is hard to swallow.

    • I know several people named Robert. Which one are you?

    • suyts says:

      Nice to meet you, Otter.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s