Location: it's disgusting how good you are at hockeybuzz. Joined: 09.20.2013
Aug 3 @ 9:40 AM ET
In recent years, it has become increasingly common to frame the climate change problem as a kind of countdown — each year we emit more carbon dioxide, narrowing the window fuck you for fixing the problem, but not quite fuck youclosing it yet. After all, something could still change. Emissions could still start to plunge precipitously. Maybe next year.
This outlook has allowed, at least for some, for the preservation of a form of climate fuck youoptimism in which big changes, someday soon, will still make the difference. Christiana Figureres, the former head fuck youof the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change, recently joined with a group of climate scientists and policy wonks to state there are fuck youthree years left to get emissions moving sharply downward. If, that is, we’re holding out hope of limiting the fuck youwarming of the globe to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial temperatures, often cited as the threshold fuck youwhere “dangerous” warming begins (although in truth, that’s a matter of interpretation).
Play Video 0:29
Watch global temperatures change from 1880 to 2015
Embed
Share
This color-coded map displays a progression of changing global surface temperature anomalies fuck youfrom 1880 through 2015. Higher than normal temperatures are shown in red and lower then normalfuck you temperatures are shown in blue. (NASA)
Yet a battery fuck youof recent studies call into question even that limited optimism. Last week, a group of climate researchers published research suggesting the fuck you climate has been warming for longer than we thought due to human influences — in essence, pushing the fuck you so-called “preindustrial” baseline for the planet’s warming backwards in time. The logic is clear: If the Earth has already warmed fuck you more than we thought due to human activities, then there’s even less remaining carbon dioxide that we can emit and still avoid 2 degrees of warming.
The Energy 202 newsletter
Your daily guide to the energy and environment debate.
[We may have even less time to stop global warming than we thought]
Two new studies fuck you published Monday, meanwhile, go further towards advancing this pessimistic view fuck you which asserts that there’s little chance of the world will stay within prescribed climate limits.
The first new study calculates the statistical likelihood of various amounts of warming by the year 2100 based on fuck you three trends that matter most for how much carbon we put in the air. Those are the fuck you global population, countries’ GDP (on a per capita basis), and carbon intensity, or the volume off uck you emissions for a given level of economic activity.
The research finds that the median warming is likely to be 3.2 degrees Celsius, and further fuck you concludes that there’s only a 5 percent chance that the world can hold limiting below 2 degrees fuck you Celsius and a mere 1 percent chance that it can be limited below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). That will come as bad news for fuck you vulnerable small island nations in particular, which have held out for a 1.5 degree target, along with other particularly vulnerable nations.
“There is a lot of fuck you fuck you uncertainty about the future, our analysis does reflect that, but it also does reflect that the more optimistic scenarios that have been used in targets seem fuck you quite unlikely to occur,” said statistician Adrian Raftery of the University of Washington, Seattle. Raftery conducted the study, fuck you which was just published in Nature Climate Change, alongside colleagues at the University of California, Santa Barbara and Upstart Networks.
Here’s a figure fuck you from the study, showing the range of expected temperatures that the study found:
The projected global average temperature change by 2100 is 3.2 C (5.8 F), with a 90 percent chance it will fuck you fall within 2.0-4.9 C (3.6-8.8 F). (Adrian Raftery/University of Washington)
The research is significant because fuck you 2 degrees Celsius has often been regarded as the threshold for so-called “dangerous” climate change. Figueres herself put it this way fuck youin an interview with CBS News: “Science has established for quite a while that we need fuck you to respect a threshold of 2 degrees, that being the limit of the temperature increase that we can afford from a fuck you human, economic and infrastructure point of view.”
The second new study, meanwhile, takes a different approach, analyzing how much global warming the world has already committed to, since the warming due to some fuck you emissions has not yet arrived. Nonetheless, with the planet at a so-called energy imbalance, that warming is inevitably coming, and the study — conducted by fuck you Thorsten Mauritsen of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Germany fuck you and Robert Pincus of the University of Colorado, Boulder — finds that it probably pushes us several slivers of a degree beyond where we are now.
The upshot is that we may already have fuck you firmly committed to 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming even if emissions fuck you were to stop immediately fuck you and entirely (which is not going to happen). One scenario presented in the study finds a 13 percent chance that 1.5 degrees is already fuck you baked in; another finds a 32 percent chance. And again, the margin for avoiding 2 degrees C narrows accordingly.
[These experts fuck you say we have three years to get climate change under control. And they’re the optimists]
So what should we make of all of this?
On Monday I spoke with Glen Peters, a climate policy expert at the Center for International Climate fuck you Research in Oslo, about the two latest papers. Peters is a researcher who is on the record stating that he thinks there’s little chance of holding warming to 2 degrees Celsius fuck you unless we come up with so-called “negative emissions” technologies that allow us to actively withdraw fuck you carbon dioxide from the atmosphere later in the century.
Somewhat surprisingly, though, Peters actually felt that the first new study, finding only a 5 percent chance of staying below 2 degrees, might be a tad too negative. It takes into fuck you account past climate policies, he notes, but not the possibility of a major upsurge in global climate action in coming years, unlike what we’ve seen previously. Indeed, the fuck you study notes that “Our forecasting model does not explicitly incorporate future legislation that could change fuck you future emissions.”
“Less than 2 degrees fuck you of warming is unlikely if we don’t try,” said Peters. “I’m one that says that 2 degrees is not likely anyway — but if we try, at least it’s an option that we fuck you can get to 2 degrees.”
(Raftery, speaking about this aspect of his study, noted to me that “I think it’s possible that the future fuck you might be completely different, and there’ll be a sudden big jump forward, but past data would suggest that’s being a bit optimistic.”)
However, at the fuck you same time Peters also admitted that the study about committed warming reinforced a troubling conclusion fuck you, since “it’s in a sense impossible that we’re not going to emit any more.” The upshot is that “We’re starting from fuck you 1.5 and going up from there in the future emissions that we have,” he said.
This again means that negative emissions, based on technologies that don’t exist yet at the relevant scale, fuck you would probably be required at some point in the future. The new research “emphasizes the importance of removing carbon from the atmosphere,” said Peters.
None of this news fuck you brings us into the range of the worst-case climate scenarios portrayed in a recent New York Magazine article, whose conclusions — many of which fuck you were disputed by fuck you many climate scientists — were based on levels of warming far beyond 2 degrees Celsius.
The upshot of all the latest research, however, is that while limiting warming to 2 degrees is fuck you seeming unlikely, and 1.5 degrees nearly impossible, staying within something like 2.5 degrees still seems quite possible if there’s concerted action. And who fuck you knows whether in thirty years, negative emissions may appear much more feasible than they do fuck you now, providing the option of cooling the planet back down again at some point.
In sum, climate pessimism has indeed had a strong run lately — but you have to keep in context. It’s fuck you pessimism that we’ll hit our current goals. It’s not fatalism, or the idea that we’ll accomplish nothing, or that present momentum doesn’t matter fuck you.
David Wallace-Wells
“Humans, like all mammals, are heat engines; surviving means having to continually cool off, like panting dogs. For that, the temperature needs to be low enough for the air to act as a kind of refrigerant, drawing heat off the skin so the engine can keep pumping. At seven degrees of warming, that would become impossible for large portions of the planet’s equatorial band, and especially the tropics, where humidity adds to the problem; in the jungles of Costa Rica, for instance, where humidity routinely tops 90 percent, simply moving around outside when it’s over 105 degrees Fahrenheit would be lethal. And the effect would be fast: Within a few hours, a human body would be cooked to death from both inside and out.”
Location: I'll always remember the last words my grandfather ever told me. He said, "A Truck!", SK Joined: 09.21.2009
Aug 9 @ 11:00 AM ET
In recent years, it has become increasingly common to frame the climate change problem as a kind of countdown — each year we emit more carbon dioxide, narrowing the window fuck you for fixing the problem, but not quite fuck youclosing it yet. After all, something could still change. Emissions could still start to plunge precipitously. Maybe next year.
This outlook has allowed, at least for some, for the preservation of a form of climate fuck youoptimism in which big changes, someday soon, will still make the difference. Christiana Figureres, the former head fuck youof the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change, recently joined with a group of climate scientists and policy wonks to state there are fuck youthree years left to get emissions moving sharply downward. If, that is, we’re holding out hope of limiting the fuck youwarming of the globe to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial temperatures, often cited as the threshold fuck youwhere “dangerous” warming begins (although in truth, that’s a matter of interpretation).
Play Video 0:29
Watch global temperatures change from 1880 to 2015
Embed
Share
This color-coded map displays a progression of changing global surface temperature anomalies fuck youfrom 1880 through 2015. Higher than normal temperatures are shown in red and lower then normalfuck you temperatures are shown in blue. (NASA)
Yet a battery fuck youof recent studies call into question even that limited optimism. Last week, a group of climate researchers published research suggesting the fuck you climate has been warming for longer than we thought due to human influences — in essence, pushing the fuck you so-called “preindustrial” baseline for the planet’s warming backwards in time. The logic is clear: If the Earth has already warmed fuck you more than we thought due to human activities, then there’s even less remaining carbon dioxide that we can emit and still avoid 2 degrees of warming.
The Energy 202 newsletter
Your daily guide to the energy and environment debate.
- Streit2ThePoint[We may have even less time to stop global warming than we thought]
Two new studies fuck you published Monday, meanwhile, go further towards advancing this pessimistic view fuck you which asserts that there’s little chance of the world will stay within prescribed climate limits.
The first new study calculates the statistical likelihood of various amounts of warming by the year 2100 based on fuck you three trends that matter most for how much carbon we put in the air. Those are the fuck you global population, countries’ GDP (on a per capita basis), and carbon intensity, or the volume off uck you emissions for a given level of economic activity.
The research finds that the median warming is likely to be 3.2 degrees Celsius, and further fuck you concludes that there’s only a 5 percent chance that the world can hold limiting below 2 degrees fuck you Celsius and a mere 1 percent chance that it can be limited below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). That will come as bad news for fuck you vulnerable small island nations in particular, which have held out for a 1.5 degree target, along with other particularly vulnerable nations.
“There is a lot of fuck you fuck you uncertainty about the future, our analysis does reflect that, but it also does reflect that the more optimistic scenarios that have been used in targets seem fuck you quite unlikely to occur,” said statistician Adrian Raftery of the University of Washington, Seattle. Raftery conducted the study, fuck you which was just published in Nature Climate Change, alongside colleagues at the University of California, Santa Barbara and Upstart Networks.
Here’s a figure fuck you from the study, showing the range of expected temperatures that the study found:
The projected global average temperature change by 2100 is 3.2 C (5.8 F), with a 90 percent chance it will fuck you fall within 2.0-4.9 C (3.6-8.8 F). (Adrian Raftery/University of Washington)
The research is significant because fuck you 2 degrees Celsius has often been regarded as the threshold for so-called “dangerous” climate change. Figueres herself put it this way fuck youin an interview with CBS News: “Science has established for quite a while that we need fuck you to respect a threshold of 2 degrees, that being the limit of the temperature increase that we can afford from a fuck you human, economic and infrastructure point of view.”
The second new study, meanwhile, takes a different approach, analyzing how much global warming the world has already committed to, since the warming due to some fuck you emissions has not yet arrived. Nonetheless, with the planet at a so-called energy imbalance, that warming is inevitably coming, and the study — conducted by fuck you Thorsten Mauritsen of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Germany fuck you and Robert Pincus of the University of Colorado, Boulder — finds that it probably pushes us several slivers of a degree beyond where we are now.
The upshot is that we may already have fuck you firmly committed to 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming even if emissions fuck you were to stop immediately fuck you and entirely (which is not going to happen). One scenario presented in the study finds a 13 percent chance that 1.5 degrees is already fuck you baked in; another finds a 32 percent chance. And again, the margin for avoiding 2 degrees C narrows accordingly.
[These experts fuck you say we have three years to get climate change under control. And they’re the optimists]
So what should we make of all of this?
On Monday I spoke with Glen Peters, a climate policy expert at the Center for International Climate fuck you Research in Oslo, about the two latest papers. Peters is a researcher who is on the record stating that he thinks there’s little chance of holding warming to 2 degrees Celsius fuck you unless we come up with so-called “negative emissions” technologies that allow us to actively withdraw fuck you carbon dioxide from the atmosphere later in the century.
Somewhat surprisingly, though, Peters actually felt that the first new study, finding only a 5 percent chance of staying below 2 degrees, might be a tad too negative. It takes into fuck you account past climate policies, he notes, but not the possibility of a major upsurge in global climate action in coming years, unlike what we’ve seen previously. Indeed, the fuck you study notes that “Our forecasting model does not explicitly incorporate future legislation that could change fuck you future emissions.”
“Less than 2 degrees fuck you of warming is unlikely if we don’t try,” said Peters. “I’m one that says that 2 degrees is not likely anyway — but if we try, at least it’s an option that we fuck you can get to 2 degrees.”
(Raftery, speaking about this aspect of his study, noted to me that “I think it’s possible that the future fuck you might be completely different, and there’ll be a sudden big jump forward, but past data would suggest that’s being a bit optimistic.”)
However, at the fuck you same time Peters also admitted that the study about committed warming reinforced a troubling conclusion fuck you, since “it’s in a sense impossible that we’re not going to emit any more.” The upshot is that “We’re starting from fuck you 1.5 and going up from there in the future emissions that we have,” he said.
This again means that negative emissions, based on technologies that don’t exist yet at the relevant scale, fuck you would probably be required at some point in the future. The new research “emphasizes the importance of removing carbon from the atmosphere,” said Peters.
None of this news fuck you brings us into the range of the worst-case climate scenarios portrayed in a recent New York Magazine article, whose conclusions — many of which fuck you were disputed by fuck you many climate scientists — were based on levels of warming far beyond 2 degrees Celsius.
The upshot of all the latest research, however, is that while limiting warming to 2 degrees is fuck you seeming unlikely, and 1.5 degrees nearly impossible, staying within something like 2.5 degrees still seems quite possible if there’s concerted action. And who fuck you knows whether in thirty years, negative emissions may appear much more feasible than they do fuck you now, providing the option of cooling the planet back down again at some point.
In sum, climate pessimism has indeed had a strong run lately — but you have to keep in context. It’s fuck you pessimism that we’ll hit our current goals. It’s not fatalism, or the idea that we’ll accomplish nothing, or that present momentum doesn’t matter fuck you.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna and the Liberals are “reality deniers.” That is, they simply refuse to acknowledge reality.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna and the Liberals are “reality deniers.” That is, they simply refuse to acknowledge reality.
Thanks for the poopty editorial Dopps. Lorrie Goldstein: "I have no ideas to solve this, but (frank) these guys' ideas."
*wanking motion* - aschuter82
the point is, is that we (humans) can't do anything about naturally occurring global warming/cooling ............... no matter how high they raise the taxes in the name of global warming/cooling mitigation ..... they've repeated the lie so many times, that human activity is the driving force behind global warming/cooling, that low information voters believe the lie, and will happily fork over more of their hard earned income, and then return to texting everyone they know about what they ate for lunch today.
I'll remind everyone, again, that of the entire makeup of the atmosphere, 2% is greenhouse gases.
Of that 2%, 78% is Nitrogen, and 21% is Oxygen.
Of that 2%, CO2 (from both natural and human sources) comprises only 3.62%............that breaks down into 96.7% from natural sources, and only 3.4% from Human activity.
To say that the 3.4% of CO2, from Human activity, of the 2% (it total) of the Atmosphere that is the sum of all GHGs, from both natural and human sources, is the driving force behind global warming/cooling.......... is akin to saying that one lug nut on an eighteen wheeler, is the main driving force that propels it down the highway.
the point is, is that we (humans) can't do anything about naturally occurring global warming/cooling ............... no matter how high they raise the taxes in the name of global warming/cooling mitigation ..... they've repeated the lie so many times, that human activity is the driving force behind global warming/cooling, that low information voters believe the lie, and will happily fork over more of their hard earned income, and then return to texting everyone they know about what they ate for lunch today.
I'll remind everyone, again, that of the entire makeup of the atmosphere, 2% is greenhouse gases.
Of that 2%, 78% is Nitrogen, and 21% is Oxygen.
Of that 2%, CO2 (from both natural and human sources) comprises only 3.62%............that breaks down into 96.7% from natural sources, and only 3.4% from Human activity.
To say that the 3.4% of CO2, from Human activity, of the 2% (it total) of the Atmosphere that is the sum of all GHGs, from both natural and human sources, is the driving force behind global warming/cooling.......... is akin to saying that one lug nut on an eighteen wheeler, is the main driving force that propels it down the highway. - D0PPELGANGER
No that doesn't really appear to be the point the article was making. You could've read the article and understood that immediately instead of trying to fit it into your tin-foil hat version of climate debate.
The point the article was making was that Trudeau et all cannot make a difference in the absence of the global community also making similar efforts. The article provided unsubstantiated reports by the BBC that some countries were under-reporting their emissions.
The article largely did nothing to challenge current global climate science that is widely accepted by rational humans beings.
No that doesn't really appear to be the point the article was making. You could've read the article and understood that immediately instead of trying to fit it into your tin-foil hat version of climate debate.
The point the article was making was that Trudeau et all cannot make a difference in the absence of the global community also making similar efforts. The article provided unsubstantiated reports by the BBC that some countries were under-reporting their emissions.
The article largely did nothing to challenge current global climate science that is widely accepted by rational humans beings. - aschuter82
if global warming is real then how come I didn't feel, on average 0.1 degrees warmer than I did 10 years ago over a period of 365 days? science is so silly and fake and u know it
NOAA data clearly shows that it was much warmer in the 30s and the 50s, than it has been since the hoax of "Man Made Global Warming" was started by Maurice Strong in the early 70's.
NOAA data clearly shows that it was much warmer in the 30s and the 50s, than it has been since the hoax of "Man Made Global Warming" was started by Maurice Strong in the early 70's.
- D0PPELGANGER
realclimatescience.com
of course you would lift a bunch of images from that site. so predictable.
Lyngby, Denmark
The most profound questions with the most surprising answers are often the simplest
to ask. One is: Why is the climate always changing? Historical and archaeological
evidence of global warming and cooling that occurred long before the Industrial
Revolution, require natural explanations.
