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.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Read the references I gave you.

C'mon, give me a paragraph outlining how it can work. If you've already put it on ChiefsPlanet you can link to a specific post where you've spelled it all out. I've been more than generous with my time writing out my thoughts. Surely you can articulate your position on this.

[Psyko Tek]

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.

truth
you will pull my car away from my cold dead hands

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Psyko Tek

truth
you will pull my car away from my cold dead hands

Yes... Because climate change regulation means the government taking your car away from you.....

Come on dummy.....

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cdcox

C'mon, give me a paragraph outlining how it can work. If you've already put it on ChiefsPlanet you can link to a specific post where you've spelled it all out. I've been more than generous with my time writing out my thoughts. Surely you can articulate your position on this.

I gave you my example already as well. It'd be a long drawn out bit of work to cover numerous examples, especially when it has already been done here as I stated. I am not going to re-do it and put in the time all over again. Nope sorry, not when I have to multi-task other things away from my desk.

[cdcox]

OK BEP I found an article on Mises:

http://mises.org/daily/2120

He suggests applying the homestead provision to air pollution. This shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of air pollution. The most extreme environmentalist would be happy to invoke this clause because air pollution problems such as acid rain and photochemical smog (which causes increased hospital admissions) are regional problems and climate change is global problem. So the homestead provision would not allow any one to increase their air pollution any where, because there is always someone who was there first. In truth, I don't see any value of the homestead provision as applied to air pollution.

A bigger problem with his article is that he advocates exactly the kind of one-to-one connection between polluter and effected individual that formed the basis of my objection to strict liability. To reiterate, my objection:

So it is a documented fact that that hospital admissions and emergency room visits for respiratory problems increase on days when air pollution is worse.

Contributors to air pollution number in the millions, if you consider individual automobiles.

Are you suggesting that we get rid of all regulations and if I incur a hospital bill for an air pollution related incident that I should file millions of lawsuits for fractions of a penny for each individual that contributed to the problem?

And borrowing a quote from the linked article:

Air pollution, however, of gases or particles that are invisible or undetectable by the senses should not constitute aggression per se, because being insensible they do not interfere with the owner's possession or use. They take on the status of invisible radio waves or radiation, unless they are proven to be harmful, and until this proof and the causal connection from aggressor to victim can be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since all of us contribute to the air pollution situation, and some people will be admitted to the hospital for respiratory problems even on the best air quality days, how is one to make a connection between aggressor and victim and demonstrate that the pollution was the cause of that individual's illness?

Under such an onerous test of liability enforcement, any kind of limitation on air pollution would be removed. I'll stick with the Clean Air Act, which recognizes the need to control air pollution broadly across corporate and individual activities.

This is my problems with libertarians. They are so wrapped up in their dogma that they've lost their critical thinking skills in how their no regulation policies will play out in the real world.

To recap, you indicated that I didn't understand strict liability, but would not explain why. You would not provide any direct links or writing supporting your position, then when I researched it for myself, it turns out that my objection was exactly the position of the strict liability camp.

[suzzer99]

Case in point why libertarians desperately need to believe global warming is a hoax. And so they do! Humans are impressive like that.

[cdcox]

It goes beyond global warming to air pollution types that are impossible to deny such as photochemical smog.

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by cdcox

To recap, you indicated that I didn't understand strict liability, but would not explain why. You would not provide any direct links or writing supporting your position, then when I researched it for myself, it turns out that my objection was exactly the position of the strict liability camp.

This is pretty much an average conversation with BEP.

[Fish]

If you’re 27 or younger, you’ve never experienced a colder-than-average month (EDIT: Title misleading)
By Philip Bump

This image sums up 2012, temperature-wise.



Nowhere on the surface of the planet have we seen any record cold temperatures over the course of the year so far. Every land surface in the world saw warmer-than-average temperatures except Alaska and the eastern tip of Russia. The continental United States has been blanketed with record warmth — and the seas just off the East Coast have been much warmer than average, for which Sandy sends her thanks.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration summarizes October 2012:

The average temperature across land and ocean surfaces during October was 14.63°C (58.23°F). This is 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average and ties with 2008 as the fifth warmest October on record. The record warmest October occurred in 2003 and the record coldest October occurred in 1912. This is the 332nd consecutive month with an above-average temperature.

Emphasis added. If you were born in or after April 1985, if you are right now 27 years old or younger, you have never lived through a month that was colder than average. That’s beyond astonishing.

(EDIT: Misleading)

The year has also been remarkably dry, particularly in the United States.



And as Weather Underground’s Jeff Masters notes, that means drought — which can be far more damaging than a superstorm.

[S]hockingly, Sandy is probably not even the deadliest or most expensive weather disaster this year in the United States — Sandy’s damages of perhaps $50 billion will likely be overshadowed by the huge costs of the great drought of 2012. While it will be several months before the costs of America’s worst drought since 1954 are known, the 2012 drought is expected to cut America’s GDP by 0.5 – 1 percentage points, said Deutsche Bank Securities this week. …

While Sandy’s death toll of 113 in the U.S. is the second highest death toll from a U.S. hurricane since 1972, it is likely to be exceeded by the death toll from the heat waves that accompanied this year’s drought. The heat waves associated with the U.S. droughts of 1980 and 1988 had death tolls of 10,000 and 7,500 respectively, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, and the heat wave associated with the $12 billion 2011 Texas drought killed 95 Americans.

There’s not much else to say. At this point, we’re just doctors taking a fading pulse. Or, I suppose, tracking a rising fever.

[Direckshun]

REALLY good read.

Rep.

[FishingRod]

"Emphasis added. If you were born in or after April 1985, if you are right now 27 years old or younger, you have never lived through a month that was colder than average. That’s beyond astonishing."

It is also a stupid thing to say. Just check the weather around the country the winter before last.

[tiptap]

Originally Posted by FishingRod

"Emphasis added. If you were born in or after April 1985, if you are right now 27 years old or younger, you have never lived through a month that was colder than average. That’s beyond astonishing."

It is also a stupid thing to say. Just check the weather around the country the winter before last.

US is what 2% of the world's area. So it isn't surprising that the average over an area that small could have fluctuations that could go colder over that area. But the whole of the world average temperature. Include the other 98% and you get the truth of the article.

[tiptap]

I spent about half a year going with month after month detailing the COUNT of record average lows and highs divided among the 48 lower states. And the distribution showed twice to four times the number of record highs as lows over the last two decades. Quite indicative of a movement of the mean temperatures up. That is if you understand statistics. Shall we do this by Bayesian statistics?

[Fish]

Originally Posted by FishingRod

"Emphasis added. If you were born in or after April 1985, if you are right now 27 years old or younger, you have never lived through a month that was colder than average. That’s beyond astonishing."

It is also a stupid thing to say. Just check the weather around the country the winter before last.

Would you care to expand on that?

Here's what I found on 2010 from NOAA:

Originally Posted by NOAA 2010 Climate Report

Extreme warmth continued in much of the Northeast during the spring, contributing to the region’s warmest March–May on record. The regional temperature average was more than 3.0°C above the LTA.

Eight northeastern states experienced their warmest spring on record, as did Michigan. Cool anomalies were present in several western states and in Florida.
Nationally, it was the 19th warmest spring on record.

Warmer-than-average conditions prevailed throughout much of the contiguous U.S. during the summer. Induced by a combination of a persistently
strong Bermuda High that extended abnormally westward and a strengthening La Niña episode, the Southeast had its warmest summer on record.

Demonstrative of this irregularity, there were several other climate regions that were abnormally warm: Central (3rd warmest), Northeast (4th warmest), and the South (7th warmest). It was the warmest summer in 116-years of record keeping for every state in the Southeast climate region. A total of 12 states were record warm, while only two (Montana and Oregon) experienced an average temperature that was below the LTA. Overall, it was the fourth warmest summer on record for the contiguous U.S., with an average temperature of 1.0°C above the LTA.

Abnormal warmth continued into the fall season. While spatial temperature averages were variable across climate divisions, nearly every state averaged
a temperature that was above the LTA. Rhode Island (6th warmest), Delaware (7th), and New Jersey (11th) each experienced the warmest anomalies, while
Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Montana, and Washington were the only states with average temperatures near the LTA.

Source: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/c...tes-lo-rez.pdf

Do you have information that refutes that? Why is that a stupid thing to say?

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by tiptap

US is what 2% of the world's area. So it isn't surprising that the average over an area that small could have fluctuations that could go colder over that area. But the whole of the world average temperature. Include the other 98% and you get the truth of the article.

What isn't surprising is the claim was written in an alarmist context.