IPCC got it tragically wrong.

[wtmusic]

"The worst news possible about the IPCC comes in the form of a new report. Does this one claim that the IPCC made some newly discovered trivial mistake? No. Unlike the plethora of barely there (or wholly imagined) “-gates” we’ve all read so much about in recent weeks that say nothing about the underlying science or the overall IPCC process, this one suggests a true nightmare scenario…"

Even if all man-made greenhouse gas emissions were stopped tomorrow and carbon-dioxide levels stabilized at today’s concentration, by the end of this century the global average temperature would increase by about 4.3 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 2.4 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels, which is significantly above the level which scientists and policy makers agree is a threshold for dangerous climate change.

Of course, greenhouse gas emissions will not stop tomorrow, so the actual temperature increase will likely be significantly larger, resulting in potentially catastrophic impacts to society unless other steps are taken to reduce the Earth’s temperature.

Furthermore, while the oceans have slowed the amount of warming we would otherwise have seen for the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the ocean’s thermal inertia will also slow the cooling we experience once we finally reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. This means that the temperature rise we see this century will be largely irreversible for the next thousand years.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions alone is unlikely to mitigate the risks of dangerous climate change. Society should significantly expand research into geoengineering solutions that remove and sequester greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere. Geoengineering solutions must be in addition to, not replace, dramatic emission reductions if society is to avoid the most dangerous impacts from climate change.

http://www.grinzo.com/energy/index.php/2010/03/20/ipcc-got-it-tragically-wrong/

The full paper is at: http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/23_1/23-1_greene.pdf

[joshcryer]

1. Yeah, stopping before 2.0C was always improbable.

Stopping before 3.0C is almost as unlikely unless major major actions are taken here and now. No bullshit arguing about what needs to be done, every technology we have needs to be thrown at it.

It won't.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. (Sadly) No real surprise here

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/1769.pd

How Much More Global Warming and Sea Level Rise?

Gerald A. Meehl,* Warren M. Washington, William D. Collins,
Julie M. Arblaster, Aixue Hu, Lawrence E. Buja,
Warren G. Strand, Haiyan Teng

Two global coupled climate models show that even if the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere had been stabilized in the year 2000, we are already committed to further global warming of about another half degree and an additional 320% sea level rise caused by thermal expansion by the end of the 21st century. Projected weakening of the meridional overturning circulation in the North Atlantic Ocean does not lead to a net cooling in Europe.
At any given point in time, even if concentrations are stabilized, there is a commitment to future climate changes that will be greater than those we have already observed.

...

1769 | www.sciencemag.org | SCIENCE VOL 307 | 18 MARCH 2005

[Birthmark]

3. That may not be true.

"Even if all man-made greenhouse gas emissions were stopped tomorrow and carbon-dioxide levels stabilized at today’s concentration, by the end of this century the global average temperature would increase by about 4.3 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 2.4 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels..."

Recently posted at RealClimate:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/climate-change-commitments/

"However, constant concentrations of CO2 imply a change in emissions – specifically an immediate cut of around 60 to 70% globally and continued further cuts over time. Matthews and Weaver make the point that this is a little arbitrary and that the true impact of climate inertia would be seen only with emissions cut to zero. That is, if we define the commitment as the consequence only of past emissions, then you should set future emissions to zero before you calculate it. This is a valid point, and the consequence of that is seen in the lower lines in the figure.

CO2 concentrations would start to fall immediately since the ocean and terrestrial biosphere would continue to absorb more carbon than they release as long as the CO2 level in the atmosphere is higher than pre-industrial levels (approximately). And subsequent temperatures (depending slightly on the model you are using) would either be flat or slightly decreasing. With this definition then, there is no climate change commitment because of climate inertia. Instead, the reason for the likely continuation of the warming is that we can’t get to zero emissions any time soon because of societal, economic or technological inertia. "

[NickB79]

10. Does this take into consideration positive feedback like methane release from permafrost?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bigmack]

5. IF ONLY

Homo ignoramians were ACTUALLY homo SAPIENS.....then maybe we, and more importantly, our children and grandchildren wouldn't be locked into this climate mess...... But, alas, not to be..... Ms Bigmack

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. So here's the thing...

Are you homo sapiens?

Are you a mutant? Or, are other members of your species capable of being persuaded (as you were?)

[Bigmack]

8. I am a mutant, AND

I was NOT "persuaded" - I analyzed the science of the issue and formed my KNOWLEDGE of the issue from the overwhelming evidence presented by James Hansen and the VAST majority of the other climate scientists. Thank you. Ms Bigmack

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. So, you were persuaded by science, as I was

I like to think that I am not a mutant, and that anything I can comprehend can be comprehended by other (if not all) members of my species.

[XemaSab]

7. .