We're on pace to warm the planet by 4 degrees by 2100.

[Direckshun]

Brutal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-is-terrified/

We’re on pace for 4°C of global warming. Here’s why that terrifies the World Bank.
Posted by Brad Plumer
on November 19, 2012 at 11:28 am

Over the years at the U.N. climate talks, the goal has been to keep future global warming below 2°C. But as those talks have faltered, emissions have kept rising, and that 2°C goal is now looking increasingly out of reach. Lately, the conversation has shifted toward how to deal with 3°C of warming. Or 4°C. Or potentially more.

And that topic has made a lot of people awfully nervous. Case in point: The World Bank just commissioned an analysis (pdf) by scientists at the Potsdam Institute looking at the consequences of a 4°C rise in global temperatures above pre-industrial levels by 2100. And the report appears to have unnerved many bank officials. “The latest predictions on climate change should shock us into action,” wrote World Bank President Jim Yong Kim in an op-ed after the report was released Monday.

So what exactly has got the World Bank so worried? Partly it’s the prospect that a 4°C world could prove difficult—perhaps impossible—for many poorer countries to adapt to. Let’s take a closer look at the report:

1) The world is currently on pace for around 3°C to 4°C of global warming by the end of the century. In recent years, a number of nations have promised to cut their carbon emissions. The United States and Europe are even on pace to meet their goals. But those modest efforts can only do so much, especially as emissions in China and India keep rising. Even if all current pledges get carried out, the report notes, ”the world [is] on a trajectory for a global mean warming of well over 3°C.” And current climate models still suggest a 20 percent chance of 4°C warming in this emissions scenario.

2) The direct consequences of a 4°C rise in global temperatures could be stark. Four degrees may not sound like much. But, the report points out, the world was only about 4°C to 7°C cooler, on average, during the last ice age, when large parts of Europe and the United States was covered by glaciers. Warming the planet up in the opposite direction could bring similarly drastic changes, such as three feet or more of sea-level rise by 2100, more severe heat waves, and regional extinction of coral reef ecosystems.

3) Climate change would likely hit poorer countries hardest. The World Bank focuses on poverty reduction, so its climate report spends most of its time looking at how developing countries could struggle in a warmer world. For instance, a growing number of studies suggest that agricultural production could take a big hit under 3°C or 4°C of warming. Countries like Bangladesh, Egypt, Vietnam, and parts of Africa would also see large tracts of farmland made unusable by rising seas. “It seems clear,” the report concludes, “that climate change in a 4°C world could seriously undermine poverty alleviation in many regions.”

4) Yet the effects of 4°C warming haven’t been fully assessed — they could, potentially, be more drastic than expected. Perhaps the most notable bit of the World Bank report is its discussion of the limits of current climate forecasts. Many models, it notes, make predictions in a fairly linear fashion, expecting the impacts of 4°C of warming to be roughly twice as severe as those from 2°C of warming. But this could prove to be wrong. Different effects could combine together in unexpected ways:

For example, nonlinear temperature effects on crops are likely to be extremely relevant as the world warms to 2°C and above. However, most of our current crop models do not yet fully account for this effect, or for the potential increased ranges of variability (for example, extreme temperatures, new invading pests and diseases, abrupt shifts in critical climate factors that have large impacts on yields and/or quality of grains).

What’s more, the report points out that there are large gaps in our understanding of what 4°C of warming might bring: “For instance,” it notes, “there has not been a study published in the scientific literature on the full ecological, human, and economic consequences of a collapse of coral reef ecosystems.”

5) Some countries might not be able to adapt to a 4°C world. At the moment, the World Bank helps many poorer countries build the necessary infrastructure to adapt to a warmer world. That includes dams and seawalls, crop research, freshwater management, and so forth. But, as a recent internal review found, most of these World Bank efforts are focused on relatively small increases in temperature.

This new World Bank report is less sure how to prepare for a 4°C world. “[G]iven that uncertainty remains about the full nature and scale of impacts, there is also no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world is possible.” That’s why, the report concludes, “The projected 4°C warming simply must not be allowed to occur — the heat must be turned down. Only early, cooperative, international actions can make that happen.”

So what sorts of actions might that entail? The International Energy Agency recently offered its own set of ideas for curbing greenhouse-gas emissions and keeping future warming below 2°C. That included everything from boosting renewable energy to redesigning the world’s transportation system. But so far, nations have only made small progress on most of these steps.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by patteeu

It sounds like we already gave at the office. I'll be anxiously observing the dastardly culprits in India and China waiting for their globe saving reforms.

Well, wait. We're improving our carbon footprint, but we're still the worst polluters in the world, whether you look at it on a gross basis or a per capita basis. It's not like we can go around to the rest of the world talking about how freaking awesome we are in terms of pollution emissions. We're getting BETTER, which is key, but that's because we truly SUCKED before.

This one is carbon emissions per capita:




This one is just carbon emissions:

[FishingRod]

How have the models compared to what has actually happened so far? I honestly don’t know.
Obviously what we do has an effect on our surrounding environment but, for all our successes in curtailing our negative affects there are many cautionary tales of our attempted cures exacerbating the problem instead of fixing it. Ethanol is a great example of good intentions bringing bad results. I mean it looked good on Paper for Brazil to go to biofuels until you look at the big picture of destroying the rain forest, the addition of millions of tons of fertilizer, pesticides and so forth. This really should be a topic where the big picture of Polluting the planet, climate change and energy production are looked at together and not as separate issues.

[LOCOChief]

Originally Posted by go bowe

no children who might produce grandchildren?

it's a caring about future generations kinda thing...

A 4 degree change, I think over the course of the next 80 years they'll acclimate.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Well, wait. We're improving our carbon footprint, but we're still the worst polluters in the world, whether you look at it on a gross basis or a per capita basis. It's not like we can go around to the rest of the world talking about how freaking awesome we are in terms of pollution emissions. We're getting BETTER, which is key, but that's because we truly SUCKED before.

If you're implying that we should impoverish Americans so that people in developing countries can achieve the (revised-downward) American dream, I'm not interested.

[Xanathol]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Hooray republicans creating their own math and science reality yet again. How did that work out for you with the un-skewed polls thing?

At some point do you ever start to think mainstream science might have it right, and you are a random collection of bloggers, propagandists and paid shill scientists running the same playbook the tobacco lobby ran for 40 years, often with even the same scientists might have a wrong? Does that ever creep in your mind?

Because Forbes is just some random blogger site?....

Did it ever enter your feeble, crippled mind to notice that all the global warming propagandist have no answer for their so called plight other than to give them money, be it Al Gore's carbon credits, an auto industry's failed attempt at a battery powered car, or a researcher sticking gauges near exhaust vents looking for their next grant? Of course you didn't, because that would take some common sense or God forbid, looking at data & thinking for yourself.

[SNR]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Well, wait. We're improving our carbon footprint, but we're still the worst polluters in the world, whether you look at it on a gross basis or a per capita basis. It's not like we can go around to the rest of the world talking about how freaking awesome we are in terms of pollution emissions. We're getting BETTER, which is key, but that's because we truly SUCKED before.

This country is a shitmassive first world nation that isn't neatly divided into mega cities and rural areas. There are small, medium, and large-sized cities scattered all over the place in the middle of megalopolises or in the middle of nowhere.

Stuff that the average American can do (like not drive) simply won't happen. Ever. It's going to be damn near impossible to get Americans of all lifestyles and urban/rural environments to be able to use public transportation effectively. Not to mention the cost of building that kind of stuff.

American shouldn't be reasonably expected to reduce our carbon output to that of European countries for a LONG LONG time. It's in no way practical for how the country is able to feasibly operate.

In the meantime, nobody has really remarked about deforestation leading to dramatically higher levels of carbon in the atmosphere. I don't have the stats handy, but that's gotta be one of the leading causes I assume.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by SNR

This country is a shitmassive first world nation that isn't neatly divided into mega cities and rural areas. There are small, medium, and large-sized cities scattered all over the place in the middle of megalopolises or in the middle of nowhere.

Stuff that the average American can do (like not drive) simply won't happen. Ever. It's going to be damn near impossible to get Americans of all lifestyles and urban/rural environments to be able to use public transportation effectively. Not to mention the cost of building that kind of stuff.

American shouldn't be reasonably expected to reduce our carbon output to that of European countries for a LONG LONG time. It's in no way practical for how the country is able to feasibly operate.

In the meantime, nobody has really remarked about deforestation leading to dramatically higher levels of carbon in the atmosphere. I don't have the stats handy, but that's gotta be one of the leading causes I assume.

So would you be in favor of US aid being sent to foreign countries to prevent deforestation as a partial offset of the harm done by US disproportionate emissions if such aid were successful in stopping deforestation?

[BucEyedPea]

America has done a better job keeping her environment clean than any of the socialist shit holes.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by Xanathol

Because Forbes is just some random blogger site?....

Did it ever enter your feeble, crippled mind to notice that all the global warming propagandist have no answer for their so called plight other than to give them money, be it Al Gore's carbon credits, an auto industry's failed attempt at a battery powered car, or a researcher sticking gauges near exhaust vents looking for their next grant? Of course you didn't, because that would take some common sense or God forbid, looking at data & thinking for yourself.

Breaking news... it costs money to solve problems. Need to get to work? Buy a car and gas. Food spoiling? Buy a fridge and pay your electric bill.

[BucEyedPea]

A warmer climate benefits mankind more than a cooler climate. Longer growing seasons and less fuel to heat homes. I'll take it.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

America has done a better job keeping her environment clean than any of the socialist shit holes.

Yeah EPA, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Drinking Water Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, Endagered Species Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, US Park Service, publicly owned utilities, etc, etc.

Before these we had raw blood flowing into the Missouri River, the Cuyahoga River caught on fire, Eagles going extinct, Love Canal, Valley of the Drums, and Times Beach, and loss of forests and streams to acid rain.

Still have many many environmental problems, but progress that has been made has been through government regulation and federal agencies. I hope those aren't too much big government for you.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

A warmer climate benefits mankind more than a cooler climate. Longer growing seasons and less fuel to heat homes. I'll take it.

Precipitation is affected too, so it is very doubtful that agricultural yield will be enhanced and in all likelihood it will suffer greatly. Savings of heating costs are likely to be offset by increased air conditioning costs.

[munkey]

Originally Posted by redsurfer11

Some Like it Hot.

But you don't know how hot till you try

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Yeah EPA, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Drinking Water Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, Endagered Species Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, US Park Service, publicly owned utilities, etc, etc.

Before these we had raw blood flowing into the Missouri River, the Cuyahoga River caught on fire, Eagles going extinct, Love Canal, Valley of the Drums, and Times Beach, and loss of forests and streams to acid rain.

Still have many many environmental problems, but progress that has been made has been through government regulation and federal agencies. I hope those aren't too much big government for you.

There's more information about some of those incidents, that have been debated here before....extensively at times. That is that some of them were caused by municipalities. I know this was the case with Cuyahoga River and Love Canal. This ties right into those anti-private property socialist shit holes as they were also govts doing the dirtying.

Furthermore, I never said that govt had no role in protecting rights of the people to free from harm such as pollution. It just depends how it's done, such as common law strict liability.Places that don't have natural rights including property rights, in therefore don't have the same kind of legal system suffer from more pollution. What they suffer from is the tragedy of the commons—probably the model you have in mind.

[BucEyedPea]

Cuyahog revisted
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detai...hoga-revisited

In some cases Cuyahoga water was too polluted even for industrial use. In 1936, a paper manufacturer on Kingsbury Run, a tributary of the Cuyahoga, sued the city of Cleveland to stop it from dumping raw sewage into the stream.

The city responded by saying that it had used the stream as a sewer since 1860 and that therefore it had a “prescriptive right” to use it that way. The Ohio court agreed with the city. It stated that when part of a stream “being wholly within a municipal corporation, so that none but its residents are thereby affected, is generally devoted to the purposes of an open sewer for more than 21 years . . . it becomes charged with a servitude authorizing its like use by other riparian owners” (City of Cleveland v. Standard Bag & Paper Co.).

It had set fire before too.