Global CO2 emissions rising faster than worst-case scenarios

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/global-co2-emissions-outpacing-worst-case-scenarios/2011/11/04/gIQA74r1mM_blog.html

Global CO2 emissions rising faster than worst-case scenarios

Posted by Brad Plumer at 03:49 PM ET, 11/04/2011

One of the small consolations of the Great Recessions was that global greenhouse-gas emissions had dipped slightly, giving the world a few years’ breathing room to figure out how to tackle global warming. But the Copenhagen climate talks fizzled, the world didn’t take advantage of the lull, and the grace period’s now over. According to http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html">new data from the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Lab, global carbon-dioxide emissions just saw their biggest one-year rise, a 6 percent jump in 2010.

The striking thing is that emissions are now rising faster than the worst-case scenarios envisioned by the IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/sres-en.pdf">in its 2007 report. What would this mean for global warming? The chart on the right, from http://globalchange.mit.edu/pubs/abstract.php?publication_id=990">a 2009 study by MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Climate Change, lays out the possibilities. If emissions keep growing at their current pace, then the average prediction from MIT’s modeling is that the world could heat up 5.2°C by 2100. But that’s just the average. There’s a 9 percent chance that global surface temperatures could rise more than 7°C — truly uncharted territory. And as we keep adding carbon-dioxide into the air, the odds that we’ll be able to dodge a drastic rise in temperatures become very, very low.

What would that big of a temperature leap do to the planet? Earlier this year, Climate Progress’s Joe Romm put together an http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/28/330109/science-of-global-warming-impacts/">excellent post going through the scientific literature on likely impacts from the IPCC’s worst-case emissions scenario. We’d be facing much higher land temperatures — as much as a 5.5°C (10°F) rise in parts of the United States — plus a six-foot sea-level rise by 2100, along with large species loss, many more extreme weather events, and a big hit to the world’s food supply. Arctic temperatures could rise as much as 11°C (20°F), which would, among other things, speed up the melting of Greenland’s ice sheet.

In any case, you can pick through the Energy Department’s emissions data http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html">here. About 41 percent of the carbon increase last year came from China, with 12 percent of the leap coming from the slowly recovering U.S. economy (overall U.S. emissions, however, are still lower than they were before the financial crisis).

…

[Gregorian]

1. POPULATION.

There are no arguments. It's time to talk about stabilizing this patient. There is only one way to slow down co2 emissions in a fast way. Predictions are an increase in fossil fuel use by a huge percentage in the next several decades.

[GliderGuider]

2. Global economic depression

I agree completely with the need for rapid stabilization, but I think that the situation will stabilize much faster if material production and consumption collapse first. When that happens, population numbers will follow global GDP down the drain almost immediately (look at the experience of the Soviet Union). CO2 emissions will also fall, as shown by the data from 2009 and the early 1980s.

And there's no need to wait around or even to agitate for policy changes. The framework for economic collapse is already in place and the process is already under way.

[Gregorian]

3. I love these exchanges. A little disturbing, but enjoyable.

As for CO2 concentrations, I'm afraid we're talking thousands of years, not hundreds. At least that was something I recently read from a 2009 article. But in the time frame of galaxies what you said is true. Just another biological system yo-yoing along. I just wonder if there's another emerald planet out there. I hope this wasn't the only one. HIghly likely there's another.

[wtmusic]

4. What method do you propose for your final solution? nt