Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Lying With Charts, Global Warming Edition [View all]OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)54. Sadly, the IPCC report was too optimistic
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/global-co2-emissions-outpacing-worst-case-scenarios/2011/11/04/gIQA74r1mM_blog.html
[font face=Times,Times New Roman,Serif][font size=5]Global CO2 emissions rising faster than worst-case scenarios [/font]
Posted by Brad Plumer at 03:49 PM ET, 11/04/2011
[font size=3]One of the small consolations of the Great Recessions was that global greenhouse-gas emissions had dipped slightly, giving the world a few years breathing room to figure out how to tackle global warming. But the Copenhagen climate talks fizzled, the world didnt take advantage of the lull, and the grace periods now over. According to new data from the Department of Energys Oak Ridge National Lab, global carbon-dioxide emissions just saw their biggest one-year rise, a 6 percent jump in 2010.
The striking thing is that emissions are now rising faster than the worst-case scenarios envisioned by the IPCC in its 2007 report. What would this mean for global warming? The chart on the right, from a 2009 study by MITs Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Climate Change, lays out the possibilities. If emissions keep growing at their current pace, then the average prediction from MITs modeling is that the world could heat up 5.2°C by 2100. But thats just the average. Theres a 9 percent chance that global surface temperatures could rise more than 7°C truly uncharted territory. And as we keep adding carbon-dioxide into the air, the odds that well be able to dodge a drastic rise in temperatures become very, very low.
What would that big of a temperature leap do to the planet? Earlier this year, Climate Progresss Joe Romm put together an excellent post going through the scientific literature on likely impacts from the IPCCs worst-case emissions scenario. Wed be facing much higher land temperatures as much as a 5.5°C (10°F) rise in parts of the United States plus a six-foot sea-level rise by 2100, along with large species loss, many more extreme weather events, and a big hit to the worlds food supply. Arctic temperatures could rise as much as 11°C (20°F), which would, among other things, speed up the melting of Greenlands ice sheet.
In any case, you can pick through the Energy Departments emissions data here. About 41 percent of the carbon increase last year came from China, with 12 percent of the leap coming from the slowly recovering U.S. economy (overall U.S. emissions, however, are still lower than they were before the financial crisis).
[/font][/font]
Posted by Brad Plumer at 03:49 PM ET, 11/04/2011
[font size=3]One of the small consolations of the Great Recessions was that global greenhouse-gas emissions had dipped slightly, giving the world a few years breathing room to figure out how to tackle global warming. But the Copenhagen climate talks fizzled, the world didnt take advantage of the lull, and the grace periods now over. According to new data from the Department of Energys Oak Ridge National Lab, global carbon-dioxide emissions just saw their biggest one-year rise, a 6 percent jump in 2010.
The striking thing is that emissions are now rising faster than the worst-case scenarios envisioned by the IPCC in its 2007 report. What would this mean for global warming? The chart on the right, from a 2009 study by MITs Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Climate Change, lays out the possibilities. If emissions keep growing at their current pace, then the average prediction from MITs modeling is that the world could heat up 5.2°C by 2100. But thats just the average. Theres a 9 percent chance that global surface temperatures could rise more than 7°C truly uncharted territory. And as we keep adding carbon-dioxide into the air, the odds that well be able to dodge a drastic rise in temperatures become very, very low.
What would that big of a temperature leap do to the planet? Earlier this year, Climate Progresss Joe Romm put together an excellent post going through the scientific literature on likely impacts from the IPCCs worst-case emissions scenario. Wed be facing much higher land temperatures as much as a 5.5°C (10°F) rise in parts of the United States plus a six-foot sea-level rise by 2100, along with large species loss, many more extreme weather events, and a big hit to the worlds food supply. Arctic temperatures could rise as much as 11°C (20°F), which would, among other things, speed up the melting of Greenlands ice sheet.
In any case, you can pick through the Energy Departments emissions data here. About 41 percent of the carbon increase last year came from China, with 12 percent of the leap coming from the slowly recovering U.S. economy (overall U.S. emissions, however, are still lower than they were before the financial crisis).
[/font][/font]
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
82 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data
OKIsItJustMe
Feb 2012
#14
Riddle me this: why, then, is the arctic ice in severe decline, as is shown in this graph?
XemaSab
Feb 2012
#16
You have not indicated how much warming you believe we will see over the next 100 years.
joshcryer
Feb 2012
#48
I am a firm believer that this is happening and it's gonna be hardcore when it really hits
XemaSab
Feb 2012
#51
Inflection points and non-linear responses are common discussion topics in climate change circles.
GliderGuider
Feb 2012
#26
I used it in relation to particular behviours of the system, not the system overall.
GliderGuider
Feb 2012
#40
The term "massive" is subjective. Obviously I can only make a persuasive argument.
joshcryer
Feb 2012
#49
Given the uncertainties in modeling I think it's fairer to go with the spread.
joshcryer
Feb 2012
#73