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.

[BucEyedPea]

The Lessons of Love Canal
http://archive.mises.org/1830/the-le...he-love-canal/

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cdcox

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.

Summers are short up North. Not all scientists agree with your claims on the rest. In fact, trees, something environmentalist love to see grow more. I don't recall reading about many trees when glaciers covered us.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Summers are short up North. Not all scientists agree with your claims on the rest. In fact, trees, something environmentalist love to see grow more. I don't recall reading about many trees when glaciers covered us.

You are all over the place. I make a point about reciprocation (essential for the better agricultural production) and you bring up

1. short summers
2. some undocumented claims about some scientists without going into their methods (if you want to play that game, I'm more than willing)
3. Trees
4. Glaciers covering us.

Let's focus on precipitation and food crops. Most climate models show shifting patterns of precipitation: longer and more frequent droughts combined with more severe storms. Crops don't do well under these conditions. Do you want to produce references to scholarly articles that dispute this aspect of crop production?

After that we can look at the fact grain crops don't produce as much grain when they grow fast (lower yield). And weeds and pests thrive under warmer conditions. But let's deal with precipitation first.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cdcox

You are all over the place. I make a point about reciprocation (essential for the better agricultural production) and you bring up

Huh! I thought you said precipitation.

Let's focus on precipitation and food crops. Most climate models show shifting patterns of precipitation: longer and more frequent droughts combined with more severe storms. Crops don't do well under these conditions. Do you want to produce references to scholarly articles that dispute this aspect of crop production?

No I don't. I simply looked this up before under climate science showing the warming and cooling periods in Europe where people did better, had more food and suffered less than during a cooling period. I don't remember the source. I did see studies on Oregon Petition institute which your side claims is malarky.

After that we can look at the fact grain crops don't produce as much grain when they grow fast (lower yield). And weeds and pests thrive under warmer conditions. But let's deal with precipitation first.

Uhm, I said trees grow more. That's on the OPI pages somewhere with diagrams.

I take it you didn't read those economic reports on what happened as to who caused what.

[SNR]

Originally Posted by cdcox

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?

No, because I've never seen any proof that foreign aid does shit to help those countries restore their economies so farming peoples aren't forced to cut down trees to find new land

[BucEyedPea]

Deforestation is another govt made thing these days, as this policy study shows.

In Brazil, government policies are encouraging deforestation of the rain-forest through subsidies and tax credits. The biggest effect is that owners of land reaping the rewards of ownership without paying the costs, and thus are encouraged to act irresponsibly. A study by the World Resources Institute (by no means a group committed to private property) concludes that cattle ranching and settlements by small farmers are the major factors behind deforestation. Both of those activities are heavily subsidized by the government. Author Robert Repetto says that the subsidies encourage the livestock industry to cut down trees to promote pastureland and encourage settlers to turn forests into farmland. (In addition, the government subsidizes the forest products industry.) "By supplying virtually free money, the federal government invited investors to acquire and clear large tracts of forested lands," says Repetto.

Foundation for Economic Education

[Phobia]

By 2100 I will have ascended far enough up the political ladder to have some stroke. I will use some of those devices teedubya talks about to order up massive glaciers to cool the planet. I got this.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

No I don't. I simply looked this up before under climate science showing the warming and cooling periods in Europe where people did better, had more food and suffered less than during a cooling period. I don't remember the source. I did see studies on Oregon Petition institute which your side claims is malarky.

Stay with me here. The climate that we would call "normal" during our life time is near ideal for crops. If it gets colder, such as was recorded for the little ice age period in medieval Europe (I assume that is what your are talking abut when you mention cooling periods), people are going to do worse. That time period included the "year without a summer". That is a pretty strong indication that crops will not do well that year. Now, if things get warmer than the ideal conditions it doesn't mean things are going to get better.

For example I just baked a pumpkin pie. I baked it at 350 F. The pie baked better at 350 F than it would have at 300 F. Does that mean I should bake it at 400F?

It just make no sense to compare conditions when it is colder than normal to conditions when it is hotter than normal.

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Uhm, I said trees grow more. That's on the OPI pages somewhere with diagrams.

I take it you didn't read those economic reports on what happened as to who caused what.

You did not say "trees" in your initial post about the "benefits" of climate change:

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

You mentioned a longer growing season and that it would benefit mankind. That points to food crops.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

2100 will come and go, and nothing unusual will be detected. Rinse and repeat the scare tactics, give me your money and all will be well.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by SNR

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.

I'd like to see any support for this.

Not that I disagree with it, but I'm holding off agreeing before I see more information.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cdcox

You did not say "trees" in your initial post about the "benefits" of climate change:

You're using a straw man argument here. My initial post was #40 which said nothing about anything growing "fast."

Let's retrace the sequence:

Post #40

Me: Longer growing seasons and less fuel to heat homes.

Post #47

Me:In fact, trees, something environmentalist love to see grow more. I don't recall reading about many trees when glaciers covered us.

Post #48

You: After that we can look at the fact grain crops don't produce as much grain when they grow fast (lower yield). And weeds and pests thrive under warmer conditions. But let's deal with precipitation first.

You mentioned a longer growing season and that it would benefit mankind. That points to food crops.

Here's where you're using a strawman argument (a logical fallacy)—I didn't say crops would "grow fast," but that the "growing season was longer." You added in the word "fast." If the growing season is longer, they'd have more time to grow.

You are essentially using strawman arguments. Ya' know erecting another argument I did not make, in order to refute it because a different argument is easier to refute than the one made. I said trees grow more. I said nothing about fast anywhere. Yet, you're asking me to stay with you? You just want to reframe the argument to claim you countered it.

[BucEyedPea]

cdcox,
FYI you are correct about that warming period being in medieval times. I thought it was, but hadn't read it in a long time and wasn't sure. I don't remember details over time, but the general idea. So I took it out because I didn't have time to check it. I also had seen the counter argument from your side on it before too.

[BucEyedPea]

Oh and cdox, another benefit is that we can all go swimming at the North Pole. Developers and erect resorts and Santa can wear swimming trunks.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by SNR

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.

deforestation: 1.5 Pg of carbon/year

fossil fuels: 6 to 8 Pg of carbon/year

So 1/4 or less.

http://globecarboncycle.unh.edu/Carb...Background.pdf

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cdcox

deforestation: 1.5 Pg of carbon/year

fossil fuels: 6 to 8 Pg of carbon/year

So 1/4 or less.

http://globecarboncycle.unh.edu/Carb...Background.pdf

You realize that America has more trees now than in the middlish of the 19th century, right?
Don't tell me I am wrong because this is something I have actually studied getting literature from forest societies.

I also noticed you never engage me on the economic policy aspects of environmentalism and ignore the role by municipal govt's in destroying some of it. IMO, this is the area you're weakest on.