More

Prospects For Reaching CO2 Benchmark And Curbing Global Warming Grow Dimmer

Global Warming Degrees

First Posted: 06/03/11 09:52 AM ET Updated: 08/03/11 06:12 AM ET

United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres is calling for world leaders to aim for an even lower threshold for rising global average temperatures, even as new figures suggest that the prospects for preventing temperatures from rising beyond a key benchmark grew dimmer in 2010.

According to estimates released this week by the International Energy Agency, global emissions of energy-related carbon dioxide in 2010 were the highest ever measured at 30.6 gigatonnes -- a 5 percent jump over the previous record year of 2008.

The increase follows a decline in global emissions in 2009 that accompanied the economic downturn.

The sizable leap in emissions suggests that limiting rising average temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a threshold that many scientists believe is crucial for preventing runaway and irreversible impacts of climate change -- will be an increasingly elusive goal.

As the IEA explained:

For this goal to be achieved, the long-term concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere must be limited to around 450 parts per million of CO2-equivalent, only a 5 percent increase compared to an estimated 430 parts per million in 2000.

The IEA’s 2010 World Energy Outlook set out the 450 Scenario, an energy pathway consistent with achieving this goal, based on the emissions targets countries have agreed to reach by 2020. For this pathway to be achieved, global energy-related emissions in 2020 must not be greater than 32 [gigatonnes].

For all this math to work out, and for temperatures to keep below the 2-degree Celsius threshold, global energy-related emissions would have to rise less over the next decade than they did over just the last year, according to the IEA.

"Our latest estimates are another wake-up call," said Dr. Fatih Birol, a chief economist at the IEA, in a published statement. "The world has edged incredibly close to the level of emissions that should not be reached until 2020 if the 2-degree Celsius target is to be attained. Given the shrinking room for maneuver in 2020, unless bold and decisive decisions are made very soon, it will be extremely challenging to succeed in achieving this global goal."

The Copenhagen Accord reached in 2009 was the first time that countries involved in global climate talks informally agreed to a goal of limiting rising temperatures to no more than 2 degrees Celsius.

That benchmark was reiterated and placed on a timeline for review at talks in Cancun, Mexico, in December. Some nations, particularly those vulnerable to rising seas, believe even that amount of warming could result in catastrophic climatic changes, with attendant floods, food shortages and other impacts, over the next century.

Speaking at a carbon conference in Barcelona on Wednesday, Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, suggested that the 2-degree benchmark might be too high.

"Two degrees is not enough – we should be thinking of 1.5C," she was quoted as saying by the Guardian. "If we are not headed to 1.5 we are in big, big trouble."

The notion that the opportunity to contain an average temperature increase below a 2-degree Celsius threshold may have already passed is not a new one. Several studies suggest that without some sort of collective action, global temperatures are likely to rise well beyond 2 degrees.

On a per capita basis, most emissions continue to come from the developed world. But the fastest growth in new emissions is coming -- and will continue to come -- from furious economic expansion in the developing world, chiefly in China and India. Without some sort of global incentive structure that would encourage developing nations to forego fossil fuels as they expand their economies, there is increasing pessimism that targets like the 2-degrees Celsius benchmark will prove anything beyond symbolic.

The majority of the energy-related CO2 emissions last year -- 44 percent -- came from from coal, while 36 percent arose from from oil and 20 percent from natural gas, according to the IEA.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres is calling for world leaders to aim for an even lower threshold for rising global average temperatures, even as new figures suggest that the prospects...
United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres is calling for world leaders to aim for an even lower threshold for rising global average temperatures, even as new figures suggest that the prospects...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,171
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (25 total)
12:35 PM on 06/17/2011
Governments/power companies around the world should be able to provide and install solar panels (with payments of course (if they don‘t make money change will never happen) globally to industry, business and housing in every region suitable. In my opinion
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
09:20 AM on 06/07/2011
Here's a good reference for understanding the "big picture":

http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126
FreeHat
Really?
10:08 AM on 06/07/2011
The 'big picture' from Jim Hansen again. Have you read his new non-peer reviewed paper where he tries to explain where all the heat is? Temperature observations are not showing anywhere near 3 to 6 degrees Celsius for a doubling of CO2 as stated in your link / his statement from 2008.

Here's the link to the paper (hint: it's all in the sea now)
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110415_EnergyImbalancePaper.pdf
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
10:46 AM on 06/07/2011
Which temperature observations are you referring to?

We have not reached doubled CO2, so what is your reason for saying observations do not support the conclusions from 2008?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robco1
03:53 PM on 06/07/2011
Right out of the playbook. Here's the 1998 version from API:

* Developing opportunities to maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours with Congress, the media and other key audiences.

* Monitoring and serving as and early warning system for scientific developments with the potential to impact on the climate science debate, pro and con.

* Responding to claims from the scientific alarmists and media.

* Providing grants for advocacy on climate science, as deemed appropriate.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Science_Communications_Plan_%281998%29

The tactic? Attack the legitimate scientists working in the field that is giving your industrial client a hard time with all those facts, and find the ethically-challenged and fringe outliers with credentials you can use to create the illusion of a scientific controversy.

Here's the same tactics outlined by the tobacco industry's PR firm as they planned to export them to the fossil fuel industry back in '94: http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024233595-3602.html
06:47 PM on 06/11/2011
"Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3 deg-C for doubled CO2"

Ha. Ho. Ha. Very funny. James Hansen is a very funny guy, thank you for the link.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
07:09 PM on 06/11/2011
You have a strange sense of humor.

What is your point?
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
12:44 AM on 06/07/2011
Hey Huffpo. Do you think you will get around to fixing your posting code, eventually?
08:19 PM on 06/06/2011
We're all gonna die! Someday.

Let's all join together and agree that one day a week we will not exhale. I pick today. I will hold my breath from this point on and I know that in my on small way I will help save...

THUD!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Inconceivable!
11:17 PM on 06/06/2011
Pssst...CO2 from respiration has nothing to do with global warming.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
07:24 PM on 06/11/2011
Yet another science denier who somehow cannot understand that breathing does not increase atmospheric CO2.

Yawn.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robco1
06:20 PM on 06/06/2011
To the deniers-- peddle your nonsense after you can explain this:

The PR firm's memo outlining how they plan to take the astroturf attack on science model they developed for big tobacco and sell it to big oil and coal, then export the model to Europe: http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024233595-3602.html

The 1998 API memo showing how big oil's trade association sells the very same model to its stakeholders: http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=4466&Method=Full&PageCall=&Title=API%20Plans%20Major%20Disinformation%20Campaign%20%28April%2C%201998%29&Cache=False

The 2002 memo from Frank Luntz showing how he sells it to the GOP: http://www.ewg.org/project/luntz-memo-environment

George Monbiot's discovery of how PR uses online operatives to spread their memes and disrupt honest discourse: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/12/13/reclaim-the-cyber-commons/

And the recent revelation that software bots are being deployed for the same purpose: http://www.desmogblog.com/are-climate-deniers-and-front-groups-polluting-online-conversation-denier-bots
08:21 PM on 06/06/2011
Scares come and go. Funny how predictable they are, and, like the weather, cyclical. They blow ashore, swirl around, and move off to be replaced by another.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
11:42 PM on 06/06/2011
Try and make sense please. Do you have a relevant comment on Robco1's excellent insight into the denier industry?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robco1
11:50 AM on 06/07/2011
Scares come and go, but PR is eternal? You didn't answer the question. Why is it that we have so much evidence that denial is part of a PR strategy?

"I first came across online astroturfing in 2002, when the investigators Andy Rowell and Jonathan Matthews looked into a series of comments made by two people calling themselves Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek. They had launched ferocious attacks, across several internet forums, against a scientist whose research suggested that Mexican corn had been widely contaminated by GM pollen.

Rowell and Matthews found that one of the messages Mary Murphy had sent came from a domain owned by the Bivings Group, a PR company specialising in internet lobbying. An article on the Bivings website explained that %u201Cthere are some campaigns where it would be undesirable or even disastrous to let the audience know that your organization is directly involved %u2026 Message boards, chat rooms, and listservs are a great way to anonymously monitor what is being said. Once you are plugged into this world, it is possible to make postings to these outlets that present your position as an uninvolved third party." http://www.monbiot.com/2010/12/13/reclaim-the-cyber-commons/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ramon Noches
Retired Air Force
05:19 PM on 06/06/2011
Very scary and very old information most of us have heard articulated for years. Scientist have warned about such things and for years politicians have not only ignored, but refuted the idea that global warming exists; how sad. Even our former President, George H. Bush had a serious scientific report changed by an unqualified lawyer to fit his view. It downplayed the idea of global warming. The president's argument focused on the economic effect actions to prevent CO2 emissions could have on several major industries. The problem with this approach, it seemed oblivious to an issue about which we cannot be wrong. Even more disturbing our best scientists do not know when or if we have reached the %u201Cpoint of no return,%u201D where no human effort can reverse the process.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
03:38 PM on 06/06/2011
givemtheirwish: "Now that AGW is a bust..."

Yawn.

National Academy of Sciences, 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------

What is Known about Climate Change

Science has made enormous progress toward understanding climate change. As a result, there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that Earth is warming. Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels.

Global warming is closely associated with other climate changes and impacts, including rising sea levels, increases in intense rainfall events, decreases in snow cover and sea ice, more frequent and intense heat waves, increases in wildfires, longer growing seasons, and ocean acidification. Individually and collectively, these changes pose risks for a wide range of human and environmental systems. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science-Report-Brief-final.pdf
03:36 PM on 06/06/2011
(Continued from above)...
But consequences of this erroneous belief in warming linger. Since the IPCC climate models use imaginary warming from this added carbon dioxide in their computers they are just stuffing garbage into their computers. And if you put garbage into your computer you also get garbage out. GIGO as they call it. The computer predictions of dangerous global warming ahead are thus nothing more than GIGO but they are nevertheless force-fed to gullible governments to make them pass laws to stop warming. These emission control initiatives are hugely expensive - in the trillions, not billions of dollars - and will have no effect whatsoever on climate but a huge effect on your pocketbook. You will be taxed to fight an imaginary warming, forced to put up with unreliable and expensive power sources, and made to drive your car on alcohol brewed from grain, all for no rational reason whatsoever.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
04:25 PM on 06/06/2011
ArnoArraK: "Ferenc Miskolczi has determined that the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere remained constant for 61 years while the amount of carbon dioxide increased by 21.6 per cent."

No, he hasn't.

http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/04/22/the-mystery-of-tau-miskolczi/

ArnoArrak: "No absorption­, no greenhouse effect, case closed. "

There is IR absorption, and there is a greenhouse effect. That is basic physics.

Case closed.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
11:04 AM on 06/07/2011
My post has shown up 3 times without the content in it... I'll try again, splitting up the post this time:

----------------------------------------

ArnoArrak: "Ferenc Miskolczi has determined that the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere remained constant for 61 years..."

Wrong.

http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/04/22/the-mystery-of-tau-miskolczi/

[ This is filler to get this post past the spam-bot, which now thinks I've repeatedly posted the above content. Which I have, but as yet again my posts keep getting posted without the content. ]
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
11:05 AM on 06/07/2011
ArnoArrak: "No absorption­, no greenhouse effect, case closed."

Of course there is IR absorption in the atmosphere, and of course there is a greenhouse effect. This is basic physics and scientific fact.

Case closed.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
04:31 PM on 06/06/2011
My post was posted without the content in it - weird. I'll try again:

----------------------------------------

ArnoArrak: "Ferenc Miskolczi has determined that the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere remained constant for 61 years while the amount of carbon dioxide increased by 21.6 per cent."

http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/04/22/the-mystery-of-tau-miskolczi/

ArnoArrak: "No absorption­, no greenhouse effect, case closed."

Of course there is IR absorption in the atmosphere, and of course there is a greenhouse effect. This is basic physics that has been empirically demonstrated.

Case closed.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
11:41 PM on 06/06/2011
Worth repeating, even though I couldn't read it.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
10:48 AM on 06/07/2011
testing...
03:34 PM on 06/06/2011
What is wrong with this quote: "...limiting rising average temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a threshold that many scientists believe is crucial for preventing runaway and irreversible impacts of climate change -- will be an increasingly elusive goal. As the IEA explained: For this goal to be achieved, the long-term concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere must be limited to around 450 parts per million of CO2-equivalent, only a 5 percent increase compared to an estimated 430 parts per million in 2000." What is wrong is that any amount of CO2 increase has no influence on climate. You can mitigate all you like but it is just tilting at windmills: you can not change global temperature one whit. That is because Ferenc Miskolczi has determined that the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere remained constant for 61 years while the amount of carbon dioxide increased by 21.6 per cent. This means that the greenhouse absorption signature of this added carbon dioxide is simply missing. But IPCC climate models that forecast dangerous warming ahead rely on the IR absorption of this added carbon dioxide to warm the world because absorption of IR is what generates greenhouse warming. Miskolczi verified the absence of this IR absorption by using the NOAA database of weather balloon observations that goes back to 1948 and calculated the optical thickness of the atmosphere during these years. No absorption, no greenhouse effect, case closed.
photo
blackwind
Relax, nothing is under control
04:15 PM on 06/06/2011
" What is wrong is that any amount of CO2 increase has no influence on climate."
The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide is well know, and easily proven. If you understood it at a high school level you'd know that it is stupid to think CO2 couldn't trap heat, you'd know it must trap heat. It's impossible for it to not trap heat.
This is why you are called deniers, and not sceptics.

BTW if you are interested, this pretty well explains that bogus crap about more carbon dioxide having no further effect (although you don't seem to believe it has any effect to start with)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean land-ocean temperature 1880 to present
04:51 PM on 06/06/2011
The only thing Misckolczi has ever proved about the greenhouse effect is that he doesn't understand it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean land-ocean temperature 1880 to present
03:16 PM on 06/06/2011
1. Take a sculpted bust. http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/cleon/cleon.html
2. Label it "AGW." http://www.reedyoung.org/politics/global_warming/bust.jpg

There, now "AGW is a bust" has become a true statement, from a certain point of view.

The Anthropogenic Climate Change Theory, however, is still sound science and every climatologist accused in connection to "climate gate" is still innocent.
http://www.thescienceisstillsettled.com/climategate/all-innocent
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
givemtheirwish
Science is the belief in ignorance of "experts"
10:03 AM on 06/06/2011
Now that AGW is a bust I wonder what the next snake-oil scheme will be.
Loved the www.noteviljustwrong.com interviews at the "Age of Stupid" premier in NYC.
As soon as Phelim McAleer asks the folks difficult questions the Warming Censorship Squad swoops in and removes him even though he has full press accreditation. More N@Z! tactics by the Deniers (Deniers that AGW is a complete bust).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-cvK9vxA6M
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Inconceivable!
10:10 AM on 06/06/2011
Yes, endlessly repeating "AGW is a bust" without ever addressing the science is highly convincing.

Are you trying to hypnotize people, or what? "You are getting sleeeepy...very very sleeeepy...AGW is a bust....."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
givemtheirwish
Science is the belief in ignorance of "experts"
11:30 AM on 06/06/2011
As the whole AGW movement has been totally discredited there's little point in getting into in depth discussion on this as it's a bust.
The Deniers (that AGW was a fraud) harp on about Climategate was investigated by the "authorities"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
givemtheirwish
Science is the belief in ignorance of "experts"
11:33 AM on 06/06/2011
needless to say the moderator cut-off 75% of my reply. So suffice to say it's still a bust (AGW).
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robco1
04:03 PM on 06/07/2011
Well, it is pretty easy to see what your snake-oil scheme is:

"Using the assigned social media accounts we can automate the posting of content that is relevant to the persona. In this case there are specific social media strategy website RSS feeds we can subscribe to and then repost content on twitter with the appropriate hashtags."
http://www.desmogblog.com/are-climate-deniers-and-front-groups-polluting-online-conversation-denier-bots
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tc71087
04:15 PM on 06/05/2011
As a young American, I cannot accept defeat. Keep fighting for climate change advocacy in government!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
givemtheirwish
Science is the belief in ignorance of "experts"
10:05 AM on 06/06/2011
It's a bust. Uncle Spooky Dude and his acolytes will dream up a new scheme for the impressionable to get behind shortly.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
11:44 PM on 06/06/2011
All conspiracy theory, all the time from this poster.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tc71087
09:32 PM on 06/09/2011
Is "Uncle Spooky Dude" a racist reference for President Obama? Because judging by your photo you don't view people of color kindly.
Secondly, look who is talking about impressionable schemes. You are probably a birther who thinks Obama is the antiChrist.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
09:56 AM on 06/05/2011
Speaking of cars, electric motors have a much better power curve than an internal combustion engine.

They have a lot if torque at any speed.

http://www.wrightspeed.com/X1.html

And here's one kid's ride in a Tesla Roadster:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nxF0-HQB5I
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dangerous Dan
Because I can!
12:11 AM on 06/06/2011
Ooh! Electric cars! Do you know how ecologicly destructive it is to build and maintain an electric car? Plastic and aluminium body - plastic - a hydrocarbon polymer; Aluminium smelting the ore is a big energy user. The batteries- more plastic, for the shells. Gallons of hazardous chemicals in every cell. Rare earth minerals mined and refined at pounds to the ton. Recharged from the same oil and coal fired generator grids, reducing the traditional off-peak hours by overnight charging. Susseptable to irreversable damage from my F-150.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
08:27 AM on 06/06/2011
Ooh. Internal combustion engines.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
B Wood
09:21 AM on 06/06/2011
You mean your F-150 that spews out 25,000 lbs of CO2 and 500 lbs of CO annually? At least the power grid can develop alternatives.

If is one thing to discuss how we transport ourselves around, but don't make silly threats with your dime a dozen F-150.
RTIII
Poster of over 0.0135% of all HufPost comments
09:31 AM on 06/05/2011
Perhaps the BEST reason to "do something about global climage change" is because YOU, personally, benefit from virtually EVERY aspect of doing so.

You SAVE MONEY when you act in the ways that help fight against global climate change (aka global warming).

OUR ECONOMY IMPROVES when we act in ways that help fight against global climate change.

OUR BALANCE OF TRADE improves when we act in ways that help fight global climate change.

OUR AIR QUALITY IMPROVES when we act in ways that fight global climate change.

WE BECOME MORE INDEPENDENT when we act to fight global climate change.

THERE ARE NO DOWN-SIDES TO FIGHTING GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
08:22 PM on 06/05/2011
There is one. Loss of fear and stewpid, and therefore, control.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
givemtheirwish
Science is the belief in ignorance of "experts"
10:07 AM on 06/06/2011
That's fantastic - can you explain how all of these wonderful events will occur???
p.s. AGW is a bust.
RTIII
Poster of over 0.0135% of all HufPost comments
01:44 PM on 06/06/2011
"That's fantastic - can you explain how all of these wonderful events will occur???"

Of Course!

And, I have no idea what you meant by: "p.s. AGW is a bust."
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
11:45 PM on 06/06/2011
"AGW is a bust. "

No it isn't, no matter how many times you repeat that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Matt Norman
06:09 AM on 06/05/2011
Just picked-up a brand new F-150 with a 6.2 liter engine. It gets 12 miles per gallon, but man is it nice. Thank God my company pays for the fuel.
RTIII
Poster of over 0.0135% of all HufPost comments
09:37 AM on 06/05/2011
My 55 year old Karmann Ghia, seats two - same as your machine, but does it in oh so much more style - and gets us where we want to go with 43 miles per gallon.

My 43 year old "Bubble Double" - VW double-cab pickup truck, with TON AND A QUARTER PAYLOAD capacity - and seats 6 - gets 27 mpg with its original engine, or 22 miles per gallon with its '68 Porsche 912 engine, CRUISING at 80 mph.

How come all the progress in a half century?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
08:22 PM on 06/05/2011
Stewpidity.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
givemtheirwish
Science is the belief in ignorance of "experts"
10:08 AM on 06/06/2011
Nice!
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
11:46 PM on 06/06/2011
The hottest places in Hades are being upgraded to coal fired heat for you who cheer while the world heats up.