Comments on: Defining climate change terms

By: .

Fri, 10 Dec 2010 00:33:38 +0000

The IEA also looked at what it might take to hit a two-degree target; the answer, says the agency’s chief economist, Fatih Birol, is “too good to be believed”. Every signatory of the Copenhagen accord would have to hit the top of its range of commitments. That would provide a worldwide rate of decarbonisation (reduction in carbon emitted per unit of GDP) twice as large in the decade to come as in the one just past: 2.8% a year, not 1.4%. Mr Birol notes that the highest annual rate on record is 2.5%, in the wake of the first oil shock. But for the two-degree scenario 2.8% is just the beginning; from 2020 to 2035 the rate of decarbonisation needs to double again, to 5.5%. Though they are unwilling to say it in public, the sheer improbability of such success has led many climate scientists, campaigners and policymakers to conclude that, in the words of Bob Watson, once the head of the IPCC and now the chief scientist at Britain’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, “Two degrees is a wishful dream.”

By: The Economist doesn’t understand climate change

The Economist doesn’t understand climate change — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 06:05:54 +0000

[...] The Economist certainly has not recognized this – nor have they recognized the danger of catastrophic or runaway climate change if humanity keeps burning coal, oil, and gas heedlessly. Because of that, they still think that it [...]

By: Keepin’ Carbon Underground

Keepin’ Carbon Underground — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 04:59:27 +0000

[...] Since the Industrial Revolution, humanity has been burning those fuels at ever-increasing rates – rapidly returning that carbon to the atmosphere. As a result, we’re on track to heat up the planet by more than 5°C by 2100. That is far beyond the 2°C threshold of warming that scientists and policy-makers have widely accepted as ‘dangerous‘. [...]

By: This is your adjustment time

This is your adjustment time — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:07:09 +0000

[...] all over the world. Also, there is a strong case that subjecting future generations to the risk of catastrophic or runaway climate change is morally unacceptable. Moral philosopher Henry Shue equates doing so to forcing someone to play [...]

By: Restraint in fossil fuel production

Restraint in fossil fuel production — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:44:05 +0000

[...] temperature increase of over 2°C, which there is a growing international consensus would be ‘dangerous‘, most of the world’s remaining coal, oil, and gas will need to be left [...]

By: What’s possible?

What’s possible? — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:28:09 +0000

[...] And yet, both of these intertwined changes seem to be necessary if we are to avoid dangerous or catastrophic climate change. [...]

By: Obama interviewed on climate

Obama interviewed on climate — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:40:56 +0000

[...] his top priority probably shows that he doesn’t take the moral implications of the risk of catastrophic or runaway climate change sufficiently [...]

By: Reforming the IPCC

Reforming the IPCC — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:00:51 +0000

[...] now, and they don’t match with the outcomes you say you want to achieve (like avoiding over 2°C of temperature increase)”. They could also very legitimately say: “If you want to avoid handing a transformed [...]

By: Training drillers and miners

Training drillers and miners — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 12:59:54 +0000

[...] To avoid ‘dangerous’ or ‘catastrophic’ climate change, most of the world’s remaining fossil fuels need to be left [...]

By: .

Wed, 05 May 2010 14:25:36 +0000

Global Warming: Future Temperatures Could Exceed Livable Limits, Researchers Find

ScienceDaily (May 4, 2010) — Reasonable worst-case scenarios for global warming could lead to deadly temperatures for humans in coming centuries, according to research findings from Purdue University and the University of New South Wales, Australia.

…

While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change central estimates of business-as-usual warming by 2100 are seven degrees Fahrenheit, eventual warming of 25 degrees is feasible, he said.

“We found that a warming of 12 degrees Fahrenheit would cause some areas of the world to surpass the wet-bulb temperature limit, and a 21-degree warming would put half of the world’s population in an uninhabitable environment,” Huber said. “When it comes to evaluating the risk of carbon emissions, such worst-case scenarios need to be taken into account. It’s the difference between a game of roulette and playing Russian roulette with a pistol. Sometimes the stakes are too high, even if there is only a small chance of losing.”

Steven Sherwood, the professor at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, Australia, who is the paper’s lead author, said prolonged wet-bulb temperatures above 95 degrees would be intolerable after a matter of hours.

“The wet-bulb limit is basically the point at which one would overheat even if they were naked in the shade, soaking wet and standing in front of a large fan,” Sherwood said. “Although we are very unlikely to reach such temperatures this century, they could happen in the next.”