There Is Little Hope Left of Keeping ...

There Is Little Hope Left of Keeping Global Temperature in the 'Safe' Zone

There are 46 comments on the The Atlantic story from Mar 9, 2013, titled There Is Little Hope Left of Keeping Global Temperature in the 'Safe' Zone. In it, The Atlantic reports that:

"The prospects of keeping climate change below that [two-degree goal] are fading away," says Pieter Tans, leader of NOAA's greenhouse-gas measurement team.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Atlantic.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#1 Mar 9, 2013
Extreme weather, which is
"predicted"
by climate scientists to occur more frequently as the atmosphere warms and CO2 levels rise, has already been seen widely in 2013.

The last year of data are still
"preliminary, pending recalibrations"
of reference gases and other quality control checks. The Mauna Loa data are being obtained at an altitude of 3400 m in the northern subtropics, and
"may not be the same"
as the globally averaged CO2 concentration at the surface.

More scientific science fiction they really don't know.
SpaceBlues

United States

#2 Mar 9, 2013
What would serious steps entail?

According to the Meinshausen paper, up to 80 per cent of our known reserve of fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground.

“The carbon budget implied by the 2 C limit,” Jaccard wrote,“means that we cannot be making new investments that expand the carbon polluting infrastructure.

“This means no expansion of oilsands, no new pipelines (like Keystone and Northern Gateway) and no expansion of coal mines and coal ports.

“This does not mean shutting down the oilsands. It does not mean shutting coal mines. These will continue to operate for decades. But you cannot be expanding carbon polluting production and also prevent 2 C or even 4 C temperature increase. The industry knows this, but prefers its ads telling us about the jobs and revenue from expanding the polluting infrastructure.”

But the remedies needed, Rees suggested, might have to be even more draconian than that.

“Even the International Energy Agency and the World Bank have recently conceded that even if present agreed-upon policies were implemented, the world is likely headed to four Celsius degrees warming by the end of the century. This would render much of the most heavily populated parts of the earth uninhabitable ...”

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Pete+M ...
jerry k

Van Wert, OH

#3 Mar 9, 2013
Two degrees from year 2000 then we still have 2 degrees to work with. Yes its become a joke, just set a temperature where you claim everything will go to shit.
litesong

Everett, WA

#4 Mar 9, 2013
fetid feces face flip flopper fiend wrote:
Extreme weather, which is
"predicted"
by climate scientists to occur more frequently as the atmosphere warms and CO2 levels rise, has already been seen widely in 2013.
The only thing "fetid feces face flip flopper fiend" can predict is it will have more fetid feces on its face.
litesong

Everett, WA

#5 Mar 9, 2013
jerry k wrote:
Yes its become a joke, just set a temperature where you claim everything will go to shit.
Another toxic topix AGW denier without science & mathematics degrees or upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa (or no DEE-ploomaa, at all), pops its ugly posts on topix.
SpaceBlues

United States

#6 Mar 9, 2013
jerry k wrote:
Two degrees from year 2000 then we still have 2 degrees to work with. Yes its become a joke, just set a temperature where you claim everything will go to shit.
First, not "degrees" but Celcius (C). The conversion from C is 1.8 into F, i.e. 3.6 and 7.2 F.

Where's the joke???
No warming

Van Wert, OH

#7 Mar 9, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>First, not "degrees" but Celcius (C). The conversion from C is 1.8 into F, i.e. 3.6 and 7.2 F.
Where's the joke???
Are you so damn stupid you cant even comprehend measure. What degree of latitude do you live in dumb ass.
No warming

Van Wert, OH

#8 Mar 9, 2013
Sorry for using the words I did but I've not recently dealt with anyone this darn disabled.
litesong

Everett, WA

#9 Mar 9, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
.........up to 80 per cent of our known reserve of fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground.
Actually, its a matter of slowing the use of fossil fuels dramatically. If everyone had carefully used & reduced fossil fuel use efficiently, used rapid transit, & consistently adopted efficient vehicles decades ago, the Earth would be adjusting to lower levels man-made GHGs now. Further societal demanded technological advancements for fossil fuel reductions could show the way to climate change at a much easier to adjust for rate.

AGW science, integral with environmental science, has never been about the elimination of fossil fuel use. It has been about careful stewardship of what we know to be future limited products, & careful dealing with the bi-products of industrial processes.

But society has NOT performed in the above manner. Now it is faced with greater, & more precipitous measures into the future, to avoid what was easily seen centuries ago. I say easily seen, because as a child I understood the need to reduce use & be efficient.
litesong

Everett, WA

#10 Mar 9, 2013
no education wrote:
Sorry for using the words.......
No, you're not!
No warming

Van Wert, OH

#11 Mar 9, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're not!
Not apologizing for pointing out someones ignorance, just the language I used.
SpaceBlues

United States

#12 Mar 9, 2013
No warming wrote:
Sorry for using the words I did but I've not recently dealt with anyone this darn disabled.
Poor thing. You hate yourself, don't you?
SpaceBlues

United States

#13 Mar 9, 2013
No warming wrote:
<quoted text>
Not apologizing for pointing out someones ignorance, just the language I used.
Because you are incapable of discussing an important matter like AGW.

You are so ignorant that you don't even know there's a factor of 1.8 between C and F.

Where's the joke about 3.6 or 7.2 F rise on the average?
SpaceBlues

United States

#14 Mar 9, 2013
No warming wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you so damn stupid you cant even comprehend measure. What degree of latitude do you live in dumb ass.
haha you are unbelievable in your ignorance.

Yes, I agree you are what you say I'm. LOL.
SpaceBlues

United States

#15 Mar 9, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, its a matter of slowing the use of fossil fuels dramatically. If everyone had carefully used & reduced fossil fuel use efficiently, used rapid transit, & consistently adopted efficient vehicles decades ago, the Earth would be adjusting to lower levels man-made GHGs now. Further societal demanded technological advancements for fossil fuel reductions could show the way to climate change at a much easier to adjust for rate.
AGW science, integral with environmental science, has never been about the elimination of fossil fuel use. It has been about careful stewardship of what we know to be future limited products, & careful dealing with the bi-products of industrial processes.
But society has NOT performed in the above manner. Now it is faced with greater, & more precipitous measures into the future, to avoid what was easily seen centuries ago. I say easily seen, because as a child I understood the need to reduce use & be efficient.
Sure, waste not, want not.
No warming

Van Wert, OH

#16 Mar 9, 2013
Simple issue here, 2 degrees. At the current rate of warming how long do we have. We all know, or should, they are talking celsius.
No warming

Van Wert, OH

#17 Mar 9, 2013
And Space Man if you live in Houston, Tx. your latitude is 29.58 DEGREES N.
SpaceBlues

United States

#18 Mar 9, 2013
No warming wrote:
Simple issue here, 2 degrees. At the current rate of warming how long do we have. We all know, or should, they are talking celsius.
First, there is warming globally and is man-made.

Second, in USA, we use mostly degrees F, which is < as I posted above and you went crazy about > 1.8 times the degrees C.

Third, you don't know because you posted above in anger to me:

"Are you so damn stupid you cant even comprehend measure. What degree of latitude do you live in dumb ass."

So what do you mean by all that?
SpaceBlues

United States

#19 Mar 9, 2013
No warming wrote:
And Space Man if you live in Houston, Tx. your latitude is 29.58 DEGREES N.
WRONG.

What's got to the with degrees C conversion into degrees F???

And where's the joke about 3.6 or 7.2 degrees F warming on the average?
SpaceBlues

United States

#20 Mar 9, 2013
This tread is another example of deniers trying to derail any discussion of the serious problems we face.

Lies, name calling, ignorance,..

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weather Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Petition signed by thousands asks authorities t... 4 hr Clara 1
News Michelle Grossman - About NBC 10 News Story - W... (Mar '08) 15 hr Lou 924
News New dams coming to California? A dozen projects... Aug 16 Solarman 1
News Spring rain caused severe sewage overflows in L... Aug 15 InquiringMind 2
News Get furnace checked or face a fine (Nov '14) Aug 14 weaponX 150
News Recycled wastewater to give Los Angeles County ... (Nov '15) Aug 14 Solarman 13
News About those climate denials: You're wrong Aug 13 Patriot AKA Bozo 1
More from around the web