Analysis: Current Climate Commitments Will Double Emissions By 2040, Almost Double GHG Concentrations By 2100
07 December 2009
by Jack Rosebro
| Four greenhouse gas emissions trajectories: (1) business as usual, in gray; (2) current GHG reduction strategy, in red; (3) 450 ppm CO2/2 ºC warming, in black; and (4) 350 ppm CO2/1.5 ºC warming, (dotted line). Click to enlarge. |
The combined effect of the latest national pledges and commitments to reduce or offset greenhouse gas emissions, many of which have been offered in the weeks leading up to the Copenhagen climate summit, would result in global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions climbing to double 1990 levels by 2040, and atmospheric CO2 levels exceeding 650 ppm by 2100, with total GHG concentrations close to 800 ppm CO2e (CO2 equivalent), according to a new assessment offered at the beginning of the COP 15 climate conference today in Copenhagen.
Working with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Ecofys and Climate Analytics developed the Climate Action Tracker, a web-based climate policy assessment system that quantifies the projected GHG emissions of individual countries, as shaped by that country’s proposed GHG reduction strategies. The website also plots projected consequences of the world’s aggregate GHG reduction strategies. Data will be updated as climate talks progress in Copenhagen.
The most widely advocated and accepted emissions reduction strategy that would seek to limit warming to 2 ºC (3.6 ºF) above pre-industrial levels, coupled with a warming limit of 0.2 ºC per decade, is that of “peak and decline”, with the peaking of emissions occurring as early as 2015, followed by a sharp decline to 50% to 85% of 1990 emissions.
However, the most recent analysis by PIK, Ecofys and Climate Analytics estimates that the world’s GHG emissions will peak around 2040 and then decline slowly, if emissions reduction commitments currently on the table in Copenhagen can be achieved.
Such an emissions trajectory would likely be further complicated by additional key modifiers. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated in its most recent Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) that net carbon uptake by the Earth’s ecosystems “is likely to peak before mid-century and then weaken or even reverse, thus amplifying climate change.”In addition, scientific support for the 2ºC (450 ppm CO2) warming limit is weakening, due in part to the acceleration of many indicators of climate change since AR4 was published in 2007. The 2 ºC limit is now thought by many climate scientists to have only a 50% chance of preventing the most catastrophic effects of climate change.
Averaged atmospheric concentrations of CO2, as measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory under the auspices of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth Systems Research Laboratory, now stand at around 387 parts per million of carbon dioxide.
This further boosts the earlier post that China is taking the correct action by focusing on adapting to the effects of AGW rather than trying to mitigate it.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/12/cma-20091206.html
Posted by: Dave R | 07 December 2009 at 10:19 AM
.
Current Climate Commitments Will Double Emissions By 2040, Almost Double GHG Concentrations By 2100
What a relief!!! With "leading scientists®" claiming that CO2 causs the Earth to warm, and the recent Global Cooling® trend, this is a VERY welcome scenario. Bring on stable temperatures with more CO2! Eliminate Climate Change® once an for all!!! CO2 Pollution® may save us yet.
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." - Kevin Trenberth, one of the leading authors of the IPCC report on climate change.
.
Posted by: The Goracle | 07 December 2009 at 10:53 AM
Goracle, I have two questions for you:
1. Are you paid for posting on websites?
2. Do you post under multiple names?
Posted by: Kelly | 07 December 2009 at 11:01 AM
Taking E-mail quotes out of context is the REAL fraud. Let's put the Kevin Trenberth quote back into context;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
BTW the guy who did that Youtube does whole series of videos that make science easy to understand; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&feature=channel
Posted by: ai_vin | 07 December 2009 at 11:29 AM
Keep your heads in the sand or check here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/american-thinker-understanding-climategates-hidden-decline/
Posted by: Dale | 07 December 2009 at 12:38 PM
Goracle is not paid but as I said before : it is as hard for a Republican to accept the idea of man made AWG than for a Muslim to accept the theory of evolution of Species.
It is simply too much to put into question for them so forget it, and just get use to their blind and abrupt denial.
Posted by: Treehugger | 07 December 2009 at 12:51 PM
.
Awesome! Muslim bashing by one of our local Globalwarmists (Treehugger). Religious conflict on the board. Nice!...
While you are at it Treehugger, feel free to bash all of the minority groups that you hate.
By the way, to help with Treehugger's ignorance, I am an Independent. I also drive a biodiesel fueled, 50 mpg, VW Rabbit pickup truck. But I don't buy the fear mongering that models (which don't match existing conditions - see Kevin Trenberth's quote) are correct in predicting our doom.
Massive tax increases and loss of freedom are NOT the answer - no matter what the question.
.
Posted by: The Goracle | 07 December 2009 at 01:19 PM
What I am most impressed by is the frugality with which climatistas are conducting themselves in Denmark:
http://xrl.in/3y7i
Apparently creating an abundance of greenhouse gas (along with the literary type) is a good way to mitigate the very same!
Posted by: sulleny | 07 December 2009 at 01:31 PM
Goracle, the fact that I take the inflexible faith of the Muslims as an example to illustrate your Republican imbecile attitude doesn't mean that I bring the conflict at a religious level.
50% of people don't believe in evolution in US and yes it happens that they are essentially republican.
if Republican and Muslims are a minority then then I conclude that non only you have a problem with sciences but also with Statistics.
Posted by: Treehugger | 07 December 2009 at 03:20 PM
Kelly (with a K),
I asked any of Stan(goracle), ejj, sulleny or A the same question and they continually refuse to answer.
A simple denial of this should not be that difficult unless it were true.
There are of course other social or even belief based reasons for the obsesional commitment to this behaviour.
The beleif of climate conspiracy could be fueled by wrong information from paid promotional writers funded by various interest groups OR the beleifs may result from pofessional original data analysis.
As long as the rest of us don't trust or understand the logic, it is hard to see which Saudi sheik or multinational or political interests are being served.
Most differences of opinion have some basis for their truth. Often the basis is left behind in a race to some imaginary finish.
One thing we can be sure of is that there are numerous historical cases of paid propagadists from wealthy interests. This is why in leau of convincing science (and a long well documented history of self interest distortions) the most likely answer is the most disagreeable.
Even sewer rats need to eat.
Posted by: arnold | 07 December 2009 at 04:00 PM
Treehugger,
He probably is refering to an intelectual minority but then I would suggest that there is good and bad in everthing reserve the right to criticise and adopt the best on offer in every area. Dump the worst and place my personal brand.
Many people are closed and dogmatic so find this objectionable. Some cultural belief systems are rightly best maitained entire.
All adds to the colour of the world. As does criticism. 'Different strokes for different folks'
Posted by: arnold | 07 December 2009 at 04:11 PM
Arnold
I can see positive sides in every culture or religion or socio-politics system and respect them up to the point it make people blind and maintain them in a denying attitude. If your religion tells you that that the theory of evolution is wrong despite all the scientific evidences we have then you have to start to sort out in what your religion tells you, the same apply for your politic party when it comes to AWG...
Posted by: Treehugger | 07 December 2009 at 04:45 PM
Goracle - If you are simply opposed to big government, I can live with that, assuming you are consistent. If you supported Bush and his big brother, oh I mean big government approach, then you are not consistent. Either way, that does not mean science is wrong, just that you don't like the solutions.
Personally, I think the left has made a major error focusing its political capital on climate change rather than energy independence. They both get us to the same end.
Posted by: JMartin | 07 December 2009 at 06:08 PM
Treehugger,
So you like to keep an open mind , but not so open your brains fall out?
Yes one gets tired of scraping them off the floor.
Posted by: arnold | 07 December 2009 at 06:22 PM
The Danes are the biggest environmental hypocrites bar none. Every year they herd dolphins into a corral near the shore and slaughter them by the thousands in the most gruesome manner. They are douing this just for the hell of it.
I'll never set foot in their f___ing country again.
Where is Green Peace or the animal rights NGOs when this outrage is taking place?
Posted by: Mannstein | 07 December 2009 at 07:23 PM
Today 141 scientists from all over the world sent a letter to the united Nation Secretary General demanding proof of the CAGW claims:
http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/
Posted by: sulleny | 08 December 2009 at 12:19 PM
I didn't have to read far into that list of 'scientists' to find Tim Ball's name.
Posted by: ai_vin | 08 December 2009 at 01:58 PM
A very impressive international list of scientists who question the AGW orthodoxy. Heretics!!!
Posted by: Reel$$ | 09 December 2009 at 01:48 PM