Global temperatures in 90 years to be 10.8F above pre-industrial levels

[stellarfun]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/world-on-track-for-nearly-11-degree-temperature-rise-energy-expert-says/2011/11/28/gIQAi0lM6N_story.html?hpid=z4

Various scenarios and consequences described here.

http://www.iea.org/weo/

[Cold Miser]

Lucky for me I decided to forego the purchase of that ski resort.

. . . In all seriousness between this, overpopulation, never ending religious disputes, and other global issues facing us we have pretty much sealed our fate.

[tacoman25]

So we've warmed 1.4F in the past 150 years, and this guy expects a 9F rise over the next 90 years. That's one hell of a hockey stick!

[dabize]

Guess he's part of the conspiracy.............

[superjames1992]

Sounds like a worst-case scenario to me. It could happen, but I doubt it. Nevertheless, I do believe we will see several degrees Celsius of warming by 2100.

[stellarfun]

From the IEA report:

"Non-OECD countries account for 90% of population growth, 70% of the increase in

economic output and 90% of energy demand growth over the period from 2010 to 2035.

....

"China consolidates its position as the world’s largest energy consumer: in 2035 it consumes

nearly 70% more energy than the United States, the second-largest consumer, even though,

by then, per-capita energy consumption in China is still less than half the level in the United

States. The rates of growth in energy consumption in India, Indonesia, Brazil and the Middle

East are even faster than in China.

.....

"In the New Policies Scenario, the world is on a trajectory that results in a level of emissions

consistent with a long-term average temperature increase of more than 3.5°C. Without these

new policies, we are on an even more dangerous track, for a temperature increase of 6°C or more."

As I read the IEA report, a 2C increase is pretty much locked in at this point, an additional

1.5C increase would still occur if remedial steps to slow the increase of greenhouse gases

are put in place. Without remedial steps, then an increase of 6C or more.

"Energy efficiency improves in the New Policies Scenario at a rate twice as high as that seen

over the last two-and-a-half decades, stimulated by tighter standards across all sectors and a

partial phase-out of subsidies to fossil fuels"

[WeatherRusty]

So we've warmed 1.4F in the past 150 years, and this guy expects a 9F rise over the next 90 years. That's one hell of a hockey stick!

That kind of warming would be expected from two doublings of CO2, or going from a pre-industrial concentration of 280ppm to 1120ppm. How likely is that to happen by mid to late century? The other way to get an equivalent forcing is by the release of methane from the thawing arctic tundra at a very fast rate.

Can the oceans absorb the amount of thermal energy necessary to raise global temps by 5-6C in less than a century?

Will the continued loss of arctic sea ice somehow push the climate beyond a tipping point where ocean and atmospheric circulations are for the foreseeable future altered to the point of self sustaining sea ice loss? The northern hemisphere would then lose it's refrigerator.

[tacoman25]

From the IEA report:

"Non-OECD countries account for 90% of population growth, 70% of the increase in

economic output and 90% of energy demand growth over the period from 2010 to 2035.

....

"China consolidates its position as the world’s largest energy consumer: in 2035 it consumes

nearly 70% more energy than the United States, the second-largest consumer, even though,

by then, per-capita energy consumption in China is still less than half the level in the United

States. The rates of growth in energy consumption in India, Indonesia, Brazil and the Middle

East are even faster than in China.

.....

"In the New Policies Scenario, the world is on a trajectory that results in a level of emissions

consistent with a long-term average temperature increase of more than 3.5°C. Without these

new policies, we are on an even more dangerous track, for a temperature increase of 6°C or more."

As I read the IEA report, a 2C increase is pretty much locked in at this point, an additional

1.5C increase would still occur if remedial steps to slow the increase of greenhouse gases

are put in place. Without remedial steps, then an increase of 6C or more.

"Energy efficiency improves in the New Policies Scenario at a rate twice as high as that seen

over the last two-and-a-half decades, stimulated by tighter standards across all sectors and a

partial phase-out of subsidies to fossil fuels"

Only if positive feedbacks come into play like they assume.

[tacoman25]

That kind of warming would be expected from two doublings of CO2, or going from a pre-industrial concentration of 280ppm to 1120ppm. How likely is that to happen by mid to late century? The other way to get an equivalent forcing is by the release of methane from the thawing arctic tundra at a very fast rate.

Can the oceans absorb the amount of thermal energy necessary to raise global temps by 5-6C in less than a century?

Will the continued loss of arctic sea ice somehow push the climate beyond a tipping point where ocean and atmospheric circulations are for the foreseeable future altered to the point of self sustaining sea ice loss? The northern hemisphere would then lose it's refrigerator.

I don't see this happening unless the tilt of the earth somehow changes and the Arctic sees a lot more sunlight Oct-Mar.

Facts are, to this point, we have added an additional 70% of CO2 to the atmosphere and have seen 1.4F warming in 150 years. These extreme forecasts are expecting the rate of warming to accelerate faster than CO2 output this century, far faster than anything seen so far.

[WeatherRusty]

I don't see this happening unless the tilt of the earth somehow changes and the Arctic sees a lot more sunlight Oct-Mar.

Facts are, to this point, we have added an additional 70% of CO2 to the atmosphere and have seen 1.4F warming in 150 years. These extreme forecasts are expecting the rate of warming to accelerate faster than CO2 output this century, far faster than anything seen so far.

39%

280ppm to 390ppm

110/280=39%

[PottercountyWXobserver]

I don't see this happening unless the tilt of the earth somehow changes and the Arctic sees a lot more sunlight Oct-Mar.

Facts are, to this point, we have added an additional 70% of CO2 to the atmosphere and have seen 1.4F warming in 150 years. These extreme forecasts are expecting the rate of warming to accelerate faster than CO2 output this century, far faster than anything seen so far.

It is possible but is it likely?? I think this scenario only plays out if the CO2 rapidly increases and if methane from the permafrost is released quite a bit. I think this is the worst case scenario being played out. Me personally, I would expect 2-4F futher increase by 2100 if current CO2 emissions aren't drastically cut. It all depends on how countries like China, India, US and other major producers of CO2 handle their emissions. Who knows what would happen if the arctic sea ice completely melted during the summer months, it could really affect temperatures especially during the transition months like November maybe even into December.

[Mello]

Lucky for me I decided to forego the purchase of that ski resort.

. . . In all seriousness between this, overpopulation, never ending religious disputes, and other global issues facing us we have pretty much sealed our fate.

Wake me when one of these predictions on overpopulation, AGW, peak oil, etc. is actually correct.

[WeatherRusty]

Wake me when one of these predictions on overpopulation, AGW, peak oil, etc. is actually correct.

So you think the population can continue to grow without bounds, exasperating global pollution, running down non-renewable resources such as petroleum and dangerously playing with a major climate determining factor? This can take place without serious disruption to the environment, in defiance of all major ecological rules that nature has established in maintaining a balanced natural order?

[dabize]

It is possible but is it likely?? I think this scenario only plays out if the CO2 rapidly increases and if methane from the permafrost is released quite a bit. I think this is the worst case scenario being played out. Me personally, I would expect 2-4F futher increase by 2100 if current CO2 emissions aren't drastically cut. It all depends on how countries like China, India, US and other major producers of CO2 handle their emissions. Who knows what would happen if the arctic sea ice completely melted during the summer months, it could really affect temperatures especially during the transition months like November maybe even into December.

Have a look at this - it is happening now.

The feedback from melting permafrost is almost certainly UNDERstated

[Jaguars]

i expect a 40 degree increase

[WeatherRusty]

Have a look at this - it is happening now.

The feedback from melting permafrost is almost certainly UNDERstated

The 2007 IPCC synthesis report and referenced climate models did not take the arctic methane release into account. If this phenomena takes serious hold it is game over, with some of the more extreme scenarios much more likely to play out in the decades and centuries ahead.

[donsutherland1]

The 2007 IPCC synthesis report and referenced climate models did not take the arctic methane release into account. If this phenomena takes serious hold it is game over, with some of the more extreme scenarios much more likely to play out in the decades and centuries ahead.

I believe the work that's being done right now will consider the possible release of methane from melting permafrost. Unfortunately, skeptics will likely attack the report detailing possible impacts (currently scheduled to be released in March 2014) in even harsher terms than one has witnessed to date, as the impact of methane is likely to create a number of even worse scenarios than laid out in the 2007 report.

[dabize]

I believe the work that's being done right now will consider the possible release of methane from melting permafrost. Unfortunately, skeptics will likely attack the report detailing possible impacts (currently scheduled to be released in March 2014) in even harsher terms than one has witnessed to date, as the impact of methane is likely to create a number of even worse scenarios than laid out in the 2007 report.

H. L. Mencken once described a preacher who had written in the margin of his sermon:

Argument weak....SHOUT

[TerryM]

Google 'Natalia Shakhova' and 'Igor Semiletov' if you really want a scare.

[Mello]

So you think the population can continue to grow without bounds, exasperating global pollution, running down non-renewable resources such as petroleum and dangerously playing with a major climate determining factor? This can take place without serious disruption to the environment, in defiance of all major ecological rules that nature has established in maintaining a balanced natural order?

I know that as countries modernize, they naturally reduce their population. That's why allowing the rest of the world to modernize, which will require continued heavy use of fossil fuels or nuclear power, is important. More important than the negative consequences of global warming.

Fact is, none of the predictions people have made about how we're doomed have come to pass. There is no evidence of predictive skill by anyone that's wanting to make drastic policy changes.

[stellarfun]

I know that as countries modernize, they naturally reduce their population. That's why allowing the rest of the world to modernize, which will require continued heavy use of fossil fuels or nuclear power, is important. More important than the negative consequences of global warming.

Fact is, none of the predictions people have made about how we're doomed have come to pass. There is no evidence of predictive skill by anyone that's wanting to make drastic policy changes.

What? There is no evidence that modernizing countries naturally reduce population as a result of modernizing. If that were so, the U.S. population would be a lot smaller than what it is.

Fertility rates in industrial countries are lower than in developing countries, and there are industrialized countries with little or no population growth, but those demographics are often a consequence of war, or successive wars. In WWI, over 3 percent of France's total population were killed in military action, that probably represents about 15-20 percent of the male, military age cohort. Those kind of death rates have a material effect on future population numbers. And no sooner was WWI ended, the great flu pandemic killed more than 1 percent of the French population.

[tacoman25]

Have a look at this - it is happening now.

The feedback from melting permafrost is almost certainly UNDERstated

Based on what observational evidence? Shouldn't global temperatures be spiking as all this methane is being released? Where is the accelerated warming? Why is it taking so long to increase?

[LakeEffectKing]

I believe the work that's being done right now will consider the possible release of methane from melting permafrost. Unfortunately, skeptics will likely attack the report detailing possible impacts (currently scheduled to be released in March 2014) in even harsher terms than one has witnessed to date, as the impact of methane is likely to create a number of even worse scenarios than laid out in the 2007 report.

Don,

If good science is done, I'd don't think true skeptics will "attack" 'reports'.....as a matter of fact, as we go forward, if larger temperature predictions are projected via the methane release, CAGW should be an "easier" falsifiable test as we progress over the next few decades with any subsequent increases in progged global temps. Right now (and it is addressed in the emails frequently by the members of the team) I'm interested in the "lack of warming" as well.

[dabize]

What? There is no evidence that modernizing countries naturally reduce population as a result of modernizing. If that were so, the U.S. population would be a lot smaller than what it is.

Fertility rates in industrial countries are lower than in developing countries, and there are industrialized countries with little or no population growth, but those demographics are often a consequence of war, or successive wars. In WWI, over 3 percent of France's total population were killed in military action, that probably represents about 15-20 percent of the male, military age cohort. Those kind of death rates have a material effect on future population numbers. And no sooner was WWI ended, the great flu pandemic killed more than 1 percent of the French population.

But there is a natural balance to this.

in the case of France after 1920 - procreation became a national duty (cue French jokes)........there was even a great call to action embodied in the phrase

"travailler pour la Republique!"

Not sure if it redressed the problem, but it must have been a natural countervailing force.

[skierinvermont]

I don't see this happening unless the tilt of the earth somehow changes and the Arctic sees a lot more sunlight Oct-Mar.

Facts are, to this point, we have added an additional 70% of CO2 to the atmosphere and have seen 1.4F warming in 150 years. These extreme forecasts are expecting the rate of warming to accelerate faster than CO2 output this century, far faster than anything seen so far.

is this 'new' math?

110/290 = 38%

This is what you just don't get. Our emissions today, and the rate CO2 is rising in the atmosphere, is far far greater than just 50 years ago, forget 100 years ago.

[tacoman25]

is this 'new' math?

110/290 = 38%

This is what you just don't get. Our emissions today, and the rate CO2 is rising in the atmosphere, is far far greater than just 50 years ago, forget 100 years ago.

The math was corrected by someone else days ago. Helps to read the whole thread.

What don't I get? The rate of emissions and CO2 has gone up in recent decades, agreed. So far, temperature rise has not accelerated.

[WeatherRusty]

Don,

If good science is done, I'd don't think true skeptics will "attack" 'reports'.....as a matter of fact, as we go forward, if larger temperature predictions are projected via the methane release, CAGW should be an "easier" falsifiable test as we progress over the next few decades with any subsequent increases in progged global temps. Right now (and it is addressed in the emails frequently by the members of the team) I'm interested in the "lack of warming" as well.

What lack of warming? You have zero evidence for a lack of warming. Why do you persist with the party line in the face of incontrovertible proof to the contrary? The warming over the past decade has taken place at a slower rate than previously, but it has warmed nonetheless.

Another party line you parrot is that of the science being poorly conducted. Tell that to the many thousands of research scientists who for over a century have contributed to our understanding of the properties of nature which come together to inform us of how we are affecting the climate system. You have no scientific standing upon which to intellectually dispute this collective knowledge and it's logical ramifications.

The skeptic argument is all rhetoric with no scientific standing, yet you win by seeding doubt and confusion. Congratulations! A world of ignoramuses doesn't deserve to persist for long before natural ecological forces come down with the force of a hammer.

Science has provided for the wonder of modern technological civilization, but it would be a miracle if every action humans have taken produces a positive ecological consequence. The natural world is paying for human prosperity. Our prominence comes at a great price to much of the remainder of the biological world. Just as any other species which grows out of balance with it's surroundings destroys the delicate balance of nature, so are we doing serious harm to our own environment.

One would like to be an optimist and think that since science got us into this mess, science will be able to save us from the negative consequences of the technological success which has allowed our species to grow by more than three times in one century. ( The argument made in an earlier post that with prosperity comes a decline in population is rubbish. "Food" ie. wealth enables a population to grow and advance, both in nature and with humans. Growth occurs until the supporting, failing ecosystem collapses...as in the case of invasive species..of which humans are just one example.)

In the case of global warming, certain very influential parties are preventing the voice of science from being clearly heard. They are not allowing science to save us from ourselves.

[LakeEffectKing]

What lack of warming? You have zero evidence for a lack of warming. Why do you persist with the party line in the face of incontrovertible proof to the contrary? The warming over the past decade has taken place at a slower rate than previously, but it has warmed nonetheless.

Another party line you parrot is that of the science being poorly conducted. Tell that to the many thousands of research scientists who for over a century have contributed to our understanding of the properties of nature which come together to inform us of how we are affecting the climate system. You have no scientific standing upon which to intellectually dispute this collective knowledge and it's logical ramifications.

The skeptic argument is all rhetoric with no scientific standing, yet you win by seeding doubt and confusion. Congratulations! A world of ignoramuses doesn't deserve to persist for long before natural ecological forces come down with the force of a hammer.

Science has provided for the wonder of modern technological civilization, but it would be a miracle if every action humans have taken produces a positive ecological consequence. The natural world is paying for human prosperity. Our prominence comes at a great price to much of the remainder of the biological world. Just as any other species which grows out of balance with it's surroundings destroys the delicate balance of nature, so are we doing serious harm to our own environment.

One would like to be an optimist and think that since science got us into this mess, science will be able to save us from the negative consequences of the technological success which has allowed our species to grow by more than three times in one century. ( The argument made in an earlier post that with prosperity comes a decline in population is rubbish. "Food" ie. wealth enables a population to grow and advance, both in nature and with humans. Growth occurs until the supporting, failing ecosystem collapses...as in the case of invasive species..of which humans are just one example.)

In the case of global warming, certain very influential parties are preventing the voice of science from being clearly heard. They are not allowing science to save us from ourselves.

Go tell your adorned "real" scientist:

Phil Jones...2010.... ".....for the past 15 years there has been no 'statistically significant' warming."

Spin it all you want, the temperature trends are NOT behaving as exptected (or hoped for) by the team back a decade or so ago.....I suspect oceanic cycles and negative feedbacks are playing a role. But remember, the new meme really has nothing to do with warming now.....it's all about climate disruption and extreme events.....CO2 working it's magic iin other ways beside global temps., as we sit near +.3- +.5 for the better part of the decade....

[WeatherRusty]

Go tell your adorned "real" scientist:

Phil Jones...2010.... ".....for the past 15 years there has been no 'statistically significant' warming."

Spin it all you want, the temperature trends are NOT behaving as exptected (or hoped for) by the team back a decade or so ago.....I suspect oceanic cycles and negative feedbacks are playing a role. But remember, the new meme really has nothing to do with warming now.....it's all about climate disruption and extreme events.....CO2 working it's magic iin other ways beside global temps., as we sit near +.3- +.5 for the better part of the decade....

What? Now you're making stuff up. CO2 does nothing other than act as a greenhouse gas. That means it retards the loss of thermal energy from the surface to space. Nothing more, nothing less.

Just like by the e-mails, you are mis-characterizing the meaning of Phil Jones statement. "Statistically significant" means the measured warming could not at that point in time differentiate a continuing warming trend from random variability. The skeptic's lack of understanding science speak should not be Jones' problem, except as it is spun to the public by disingenuous skeptics. It's disgusting that you get away with it, really!

[LakeEffectKing]

What? Now you're making stuff up. CO2 does nothing other than act as a greenhouse gas. That means it retards the loss of thermal energy from the surface to space. Nothing more, nothing less.

Just like by the e-mails, you are mis-characterizing the meaning of Phil Jones statement. "Statistically significant" means the measured warming could not at that point in time differentiate a continuing warming trend from random variability. The skeptic's lack of understanding science speak should not be Jones' problem, except as it is spun to the public by disingenuous skeptics. It's disgusting that you get away with it, really!

Well, why was there a mention of "missing heat", and the "travesty" of not being able to know where it is? Certainly takes a spin master to NOT see that such statements support my opinion about the last decade or so.

Your reaction is very well predicted via the 7 stages of handling grief. If you were the least bit objective, many red flags would be raised about all facets of the science performed. Confirmation bias is screened out via the Sci Method, which has been trampled on....and the insight gained by the emails is very supportive of that.