General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsUN Gets with Global Warming: Finally!
A UN report on climate change is expected to call for a trebling of the planet's use of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power.
The report is also expected to argue that the trend of increased carbon emissions can only be reversed if a "massive shift" in energy use is made.
It will argue that if significant action isn't taken by 2030, global temperatures could rise by more than 2 degrees C.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27007486
--------------------------------------------
What took them so long? We're already set for a 2 degree rise, at least. If we stopped today, it would still rise 2 degrees, at least. The Arctic ocean is already about 4 degrees warmer, that is why the ice is already melting. Better late than never, eh?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
deathrind
(1,786 posts)It is going to be closer 5 if not more.. we are just along for the ride now...
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Every burning plant creates waste heat that is carried into the air and water.
But I'm sure that doesn't add to the problem, eh? <sarc>
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)That would actually assume worse than business as usual type conditions.....but that's pretty unlikely. More than likely, realistically speaking, we'll see some action and we may not even end up doubling at all if things go really well in regards to energy solutions towards the end of the century. 
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
What took them so long? We're already set for a 2 degree rise, at least. If we stopped today, it would still rise 2 degrees, at least. The Arctic ocean is already about 4 degrees warmer, that is why the ice is already melting. Better late than never, eh?
Depends on how much Co2 gets emitted over the next 100 years: If we end up doubling it by about, say, one and a half times, there would indeed be a good chance of us reaching 4*C. But here's the thing: to reach 2*C with only half a doubling, it would require a climate sensitivity of about 4*C per full doubling. Right now, our best estimates are telling us that even with moderate feedbacks, we probably wouldn't see any more than 3*C per doubling, and that DOES include methane, btw.....the most likely figure appears to be between 2.25-2.5*C per doubling. If we stopped in another 15 years at around ~420 ppm(roughly half a doubling), it'd be likely around 1.2-1.5*C. We might get closer to 2*C later on if unexpectedly really strong feedbacks occur in that scenario, but that's highly unlikely.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)We already are set for more than 2 degrees with what is now in the air. Probably 4 is what's coming.
So as we add to it, as we will, we are looking at 8 by 2100, probably sooner. That will be of course above and below the equator at the tropic zones. The poles will be somewhere around 10 degrees warmer. The Arctic ocean inflow from the gulf stream is already half way to that.
8 will be very deadly and create wild swings to the extremes of climate change.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
So as we add to it, as we will, we are looking at 8 by 2100, probably sooner. That will be of course above and below the equator at the tropic zones. The poles will be somewhere around 10 degrees warmer. The Arctic ocean inflow from the gulf stream is already half way to that.
What formulas are you using for this guesstimation, though? I mean, how much Co2 you think will go in the air by 2100, which climate sensitivity figures you use, etc.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)If you look closely at the models as they go into the possibilities, you will see even worse. You just need to look harder.
What has kept the science from being given to the People are naysayers who can't imagine the mess we've created. Already we have seen over 1 degree Celsius rise, and that comes from CO2 deposited at 370 ppm.
We are now over 400 ppm, and this year may see one of the sharpest rises globally as the ocean releases heat it has stored in deeper water.
Global Warming deniers are why the science has been so conservative and so politically correct. They are like lawyers for the tobacco companies, and have been caught taking money from Big Oil and Big Coal.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
If you look closely at the models as they go into the possibilities, you will see even worse. You just need to look harder.
I've been looking at just about every plausible model available to common folk on the 'net, amigo. None of them supports an 8*C rise by 2100 or earlier, even with highly pessimistic scenarios like the IPCC's A1FI; in fact, A1FI goes to only about 5*C at most, and this includes all of the possible feedbacks that aren't on the edges of feasibility. RCP 8.5 averages out at about 4.
What has kept the science from being given to the People are naysayers who can't imagine the mess we've created. Already we have seen over 1 degree Celsius rise, and that comes from CO2 deposited at 370 ppm.
No, not quite. We're at about roughly .65-7*C right now according to the most accurate estimates(okay, technically the Arctic probably already is at that level but I'm referring to the planet as a whole).
We are now over 400 ppm, and this year may see one of the sharpest rises globally as the ocean releases heat it has stored in deeper water.
Maybe another spike begins this year, or maybe not. It depends. In all likelihood, it'll probably just catch us up to where we would be if it weren't for the 15+ year slowdown in overall atmospheric warming.
My question remains, however: How did you arrive at 8*C by >2100 and what algorithms did you use?
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)So far the Global Warming deniers are batting zero. Not a single one of their protestations has shown truth. They should be ignored. I think they just want attention. And more money from Big Energy.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)By the way. I asked you for ACTUAL numbers, R.E.; I already supplied you with figures supporting my theory, as you requested, and I think it's only fair for you to reciprocate, in this case. I don't even care if you have to pull them from Guy McPherson's site or some place nobody's heard of.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)The temp was 8 degrees warmer give or take, so says the science.
The number about less than 1 degree Celsius already is wrong, but then some have always been way conservative. The Arctic ocean is already 4 degrees higher in most spots.
Big Oil is laughing all the way to the bank using conservative numbers and outright denials.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Last time earth was at 500ppm
The temp was 8 degrees warmer give or take, so says the science.
Here's the thing, though.....even if that may be close to true(though 8*C @ 500 ppm sounds a bit dubious, TBH. Can you at least *try* provide a link?), paleoclimate is *not*, for the most part, going to be a terribly reliable indicator of what we can expect with modern warming, at least in terms of temperature sensitivity. The IPCC has it right on this one. And the 5th Assessment even takes long-term equilibrium into account with this, going all the way to 3000(which may see unnecessary to most but I honestly think that was a smart idea).
The number about less than 1 degree Celsius already is wrong, but then some have always been way conservative.
No it's not wrong Bobby. Here, take a look for yourself:
Honestly, get a clue. I've already backed up my thesis with *actual* evidence and all you have offered is hearsay and bluster so far.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)I remember a time when you were in complete denial. Now you are at least admitting there will be change. It must be because you have been reading more than denial screeds?
What the deniers are doing is forgetting where the real changes in climates are occurring..... the biggest changes are not near the equator where the temperatures are fairly constant being within a certain close range during the year..... the real climate changes are occurring at the poles where the temperatures can range from -40 to 90+ in one year. If it wasn't changing, the ice would not be melting. Takes a lot of sustained heat to melt ice.
So while we have global warming, the greatest changes in climate are above the tropic zones and even greater in the higher latitudes. At the equator - the largest part of the earth in one climate zone - the numbers are fairly constant and cloud the numbers you use to deny changes. The changing numbers are so small in mass at the poles, therefore have little effect on the global numbers. But the greatest climate changes are at the poles.
Your response?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
I remember a time when you were in complete denial.
Here's the thing, though: I was never in denial in the first place, R.E.; you must either be misremembering or you have a rather different definition of "denial" than most others do.
So while we have global warming, the greatest changes in climate are above the tropic zones and even greater in the higher latitudes. At the equator - the largest part of the earth in one climate zone - the numbers are fairly constant and cloud the numbers you use to deny changes. The changing numbers are so small in mass at the poles, therefore have little effect on the global numbers. But the greatest climate changes are at the poles.
And? The science does indeed say that. But you basically implied that the average of *the whole planet* would be as high as +8*C above pre-industrial levels at just 500 ppm; even the most pessimistic plausible estimate doesn't go that far, maybe just under half that, assuming a major feedback occurs(~3.75-4*C).
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Very good, Joe. You do see that the numbers you are using are fudged to make a denier case of showing little change.
Now if you can just admit that it isn't the global average that is going to change to 8 degrees plus, but the edges, or margins off the equator are where the real changes will occur, you will have proven that you are indeed, not a denier.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
Very good, Joe. You do see that the numbers you are using are fudged to make a denier case of showing little change.
I'm sorry, Bobby, but that's simply not true. The IPCC doesn't engage in that kind of trickery. If there's any numbers fudging going on from non-denial sources, it's from guys like Waddell, McPherson, et al.
Now if you can just admit that it isn't the global average that is going to change to 8 degrees plus, but the edges, or margins off the equator are where the real changes will occur, you will have proven that you are indeed, not a denier.
But that's not what you implied originally. For goodness sakes, pal, I've already pointed out that the science does indeed tell us that the greatest temperature changes will occur nearest the Poles.....what more could you want?
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Maybe simple is the best way for you to grok this situation?
Using a gallon of water as an icon for the global temperature, we read that the natural temperature of that gallon of water is 10 degrees celsius.
Now we add a dollop of ice to that gallon. The ice, let's say is 0 degrees celsius. When added to the gallon and that ice melts, the temperature of the gallon moves from 10 degrees to 9 degrees. Not much change there, eh?
But the temperature of the ice changes from 0 degrees to 9 degrees. That is a big change.
Once the ice is melted, as it is doing, the gallon of water will then rapidly increase in temperature, going past its 10 degree natural state, because there is nothing but heat being added since the ice is no longer acting as a cooling mechanism.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)About 60% of the world's end-use energy is from fossil fuels that are used in applications that can't be readily or rapidly be substituted by electricity (transportation, space heating, industrial uses).
The world's need for energy to sustain economic output is simply too crucial to permit the abandonment of fossil fuels in the short term. That means that low-carbon electricity will be added to fossil-fuel electricity for some period of time, rather than displacing it. Once the gradual abandonment of fossil-fuel electricity becomes both economically and politically practical on a global scale (say by 2040), we could be burning twice the amount fossil fuels we do today.
It's time to come to terms with the idea that annual CO2 emissions could double before we do anything significant about slowing their growth. Our desperate desire to maintain the world's economy, capital infrastructure and standards of living mandate the consumption of ever-increasing amounts of energy, much of which will inevitably come from fossil fuels over the short and medium term.
Despite the best efforts of the renewable power industry, 500 pm CO2 seems entirely probable by 2050 - even without counting other GHGs, let alone methane feedbacks. CO2e levels of 600 ppm are likely when other GHGs are included (current CO2e is about 510 ppmv). Additional methane feedbacks could easily add another 100 ppmv equivalent by then, given that the short-term global warming potential of methane is about 100.
When all is said and done, we could be blowing over 700 ppmv of CO2e within 35 years.
700 ppmv implies an equilibrium temperature of +7.5C...
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
When all is said and done, we could be blowing over 700 ppmv of CO2e within 35 years.
I find this to be implausible, TBH. And before you blurt "hopee-um!" or some other wackadoodle buzzword, realize that we are still only at 400 ppm. to get to 700 ppm by 2049.....would require the average to go up to an additional 8.1 ppm per year by then; as it is, it's only about ~2.5 per year these days, and that's with fossil fuel production & consumption almost at full steam. Anything beyond 4 is definitely impossible(which is a good thing, kinda, but it doesn't help much, either),
700 ppmv implies an equilibrium temperature of +7.5C...
According to who, exactly? Guy McPherson? David Wasdell, the psychologist *masquerading* as a supposed climate scientist? That would require climate sensitivity to be as high as 6*C per single doubling. Our most reliable estimates go no higher than 3*C even with moderate feedbacks, *including* methane. Otherwise, the best estimates are about 2 to 2.5*C per doubling.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)The breakdown of my 700 ppmv number is: 500 ppmv of CO2 (compared to 400 today); 100 ppmv of other GHGs including methane and nitrous oxide (about the same as today's estimate); 100 of methane that has been released in new feedback processes like hydrate destabilization, and permafrost melting with increased methanogenic bacterial action.
A sensitivity of 3C per doubling is assumed: 700/280*3=7.5
It's pretty straight-forward assumptions and arithmetic. Not rocket surgery.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
A sensitivity of 3C per doubling is assumed: 700/280*3=7.5
It's pretty straight-forward assumptions and arithmetic. Not rocket surgery.
Oh, it's assumptions, alright. But not exactly factually based, that's for sure. In fact, I just did the math myself and assuming 3*C is indeed the true climate sensitivity, with 700 ppm(because 560 is a single doubling, and 140 is a fourth of that, ergo, 700 ppm is 1.25 doublings).....you get 3.75*C, which is exactly half of your proposed number.
And even playing along with your little trick attempt to sidestep my criticism of your poorly-thought out attempts, you get 2.75*C with 500 ppm. And I'll grant you maybe another 1.25*C for that other stuff, assuming a *major* feedback does occur(as unlikely as that is). But 7.5*C is clearly dead wrong no matter how you try to slice it.
You could at least be honest and admit that this is only a hypothesis and not actually factual. Because it isn't. At least I have the actual hard facts on my side. And you have.....just a bunch of conjecture & bad math.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 13, 2014, 01:18 PM - Edit history (2)
Yes, my result should have been between +3.5C and +4C, accounting for some uncertainty in the short-term equilibrium sensitivity.
To follow this train of thought a bit further:
If the CO2e trend were to continue to 2050 as it did from 1990 to 2013, we would end up with about 650 ppmv CO2e, even without methane feedbacks, which as you rightly point out, would result in an average global temperature rise of about +3.5C. (650 ppmv results from a second-order polynomial fit that correlates to observed data at 99.9%)
A lot depends on the Arctic methane feedback rates. For example, if feedback-related methane emissions in 2020 were to amount to just 2% of the current global consumption of natural gas, and the methane outgassing were to increase by 5% per year from then to 2050, we would end up with a CO2e concentration of about 800 ppmv. That translates to about +5C.
The difference in impact between +3.5 and +5 by 2050 is enormous - especially when we're already seeing weather changes at +0.8C that were predicted to happen only around +2C. We can always hope we haven't triggered the methane feedbacks, but I suspect that Semiletov and Shakhova may be correct, and they're already underway.
Also, if the paleo temperature and CO2 record is correct, the long-term equilibrium could easily be greater than 3C per doubling. Hansen says 6, but let's say it comes in at 5C per doubling. That would mean a level of 800 ppmv CO2e by 2050 would lock in a long-term rise of +7C.
Due to Arctic amplification, the temperature rise at the poles will be twice that at the equator. A polar rise of +12C would be devastating for methane outgassing, which is of course part of the long-term equilibrium picture.
You're optimistic, I'm pessimistic. We'll just have to wait and see what the Arctic has in store for us.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)A war of nations united for peace, against corporations united for capital profits. There being much profiteering in war making there is ample capital available for the purchasing of laws meant to protect the profiteering.
In a just economical and environmentally balanced global future, profiteering would not have the power it does to create harmful scenarios. It would not be allowed to bribe its way out of the mess it has made.
Good to see the UN fighting back. It is a global problem, it requires a global response.
