Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumCurrent climate commitments would increase global temperature around 3° C
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/current-climate-commitments-would-increase-global-temperature-around-3-degrees27 Oct 2015
[font face=Serif][font size=5]Current climate commitments would increase global temperature around 3° C[/font]
[font size=4]155 countries representing around 90% of global emissions have submitted their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) on climate policy to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in preparation of the new climate negotiations to be held in December in Paris.[/font]
[font size=3]JRC's assessment of these initial proposals concludes that, if aggregated and fully implemented, unconditional INDCs (without international climate financial support or international cooperation mechanisms) could set global emissions growth at around 17% above 2010 level by 2030. Under EU's scenario to reach the global goal set by all Parties under the UNFCCC, i.e. limit global temperature increase to below 2ºC, global emissions would peak in 2020 and decline afterwards to 10% below 2010 levels by 2030.
When considering unconditional and conditional (with international climate financial support and other forms of international cooperation) INDCs combined, JRC finds that global emissions could peak shortly before 2030 at 12% above 2010 level. Assuming countries would keep on their efforts after 2030, these could limit the long term temperature increase to around 3° C.
This analysis was presented in the form of a policy brief as background information at the October preparatory meeting INDC Forum in Rabat.[/font][/font]
[font face=Serif][font size=5]Current climate commitments would increase global temperature around 3° C[/font]
[font size=4]155 countries representing around 90% of global emissions have submitted their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) on climate policy to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in preparation of the new climate negotiations to be held in December in Paris.[/font]
[font size=3]JRC's assessment of these initial proposals concludes that, if aggregated and fully implemented, unconditional INDCs (without international climate financial support or international cooperation mechanisms) could set global emissions growth at around 17% above 2010 level by 2030. Under EU's scenario to reach the global goal set by all Parties under the UNFCCC, i.e. limit global temperature increase to below 2ºC, global emissions would peak in 2020 and decline afterwards to 10% below 2010 levels by 2030.
[font size=1]World emissions (GtCO2e, total excluding sinks) and percent change in emission intensity per unit of GDP
© EU, 2015[/font]
When considering unconditional and conditional (with international climate financial support and other forms of international cooperation) INDCs combined, JRC finds that global emissions could peak shortly before 2030 at 12% above 2010 level. Assuming countries would keep on their efforts after 2030, these could limit the long term temperature increase to around 3° C.
This analysis was presented in the form of a policy brief as background information at the October preparatory meeting INDC Forum in Rabat.[/font][/font]
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 618 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Current climate commitments would increase global temperature around 3° C (Original Post)
OKIsItJustMe
Oct 2015
OP
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)1. This is new. It was 2 degrees c
Yikes. We better do something. It does seem over whelming though.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)2. Well, the goal was to limit warming to 2°C (the stated danger point)
This story says that if everybody does what they say they will do (a very big if) then, we might be able to limit warming to 3°C.
Essentially
its too late to limit warming to 2°C, but maybe, just maybe, we can limit it to 3°C
http://ecowatch.com/2014/10/27/2-c-warming-limit-climate-change/
[font face=Serif][font size=5]Why We Cant Ditch the 2 C Warming Goal[/font]
Jonathan Koomey | October 27, 2014 9:42 am
[font size=3]On Oct. 1, David G. Victor and Charles F. Kennel wrote an opinion piece that appeared in the journal Nature, Ditch the 2 C warming goal (1). The provocative title, which accurately conveyed the point of view of the authors, led to several responses, two from Joe Romm at Climate Progress (here and here), one from Stefan Rahmstorf at Real Climate, one from William Hare at Climate Analytics and one from David Roberts at Grist. Victor wrote a long reply to the Romm and Rahmstorf pieces that appeared on Andy Revkins New York Times Dot Earth blog.
For those interested in digging in, I found the longer Victor response to be clearer than the very condensed Nature article. The Roberts response is the easiest read for those who are less technical, while the Romm, Hare and Rahmstorf pieces go into a lot more detail about the problems with the Nature article, which are many and varied.
Im not going to get into a blow-by-blow analysis of the discussion. Instead, Id like to explore some key aspects of the 2 C limit that Victor (and others) seem to misunderstand, because of the importance of this concept to making the case for urgent action on climate.
The 2 C warming limit is more than just a number (or a goal to be agreed on in international negotiations). It embodies a way of thinking about the climate problem that yields real insights (2). The warming limit approach, which can also be described as working forward toward a goal, involves assessing the cost effectiveness of different paths for meeting a normatively-determined target. It has its origins in the realization that stabilizing the climate at a certain temperature (e.g., a warming limit of 2 Celsius degrees above pre-industrial times) implies a particular emissions budget, which represents the total cumulative greenhouse gas emissions compatible with that temperature goal. That budget also implies a set of emissions pathways that are well defined and tightly constrained (particularly now that weve squandered the past two decades by not reducing emissions).
[/font][/font]
Jonathan Koomey | October 27, 2014 9:42 am
[font size=3]On Oct. 1, David G. Victor and Charles F. Kennel wrote an opinion piece that appeared in the journal Nature, Ditch the 2 C warming goal (1). The provocative title, which accurately conveyed the point of view of the authors, led to several responses, two from Joe Romm at Climate Progress (here and here), one from Stefan Rahmstorf at Real Climate, one from William Hare at Climate Analytics and one from David Roberts at Grist. Victor wrote a long reply to the Romm and Rahmstorf pieces that appeared on Andy Revkins New York Times Dot Earth blog.
For those interested in digging in, I found the longer Victor response to be clearer than the very condensed Nature article. The Roberts response is the easiest read for those who are less technical, while the Romm, Hare and Rahmstorf pieces go into a lot more detail about the problems with the Nature article, which are many and varied.
Im not going to get into a blow-by-blow analysis of the discussion. Instead, Id like to explore some key aspects of the 2 C limit that Victor (and others) seem to misunderstand, because of the importance of this concept to making the case for urgent action on climate.
The 2 C warming limit is more than just a number (or a goal to be agreed on in international negotiations). It embodies a way of thinking about the climate problem that yields real insights (2). The warming limit approach, which can also be described as working forward toward a goal, involves assessing the cost effectiveness of different paths for meeting a normatively-determined target. It has its origins in the realization that stabilizing the climate at a certain temperature (e.g., a warming limit of 2 Celsius degrees above pre-industrial times) implies a particular emissions budget, which represents the total cumulative greenhouse gas emissions compatible with that temperature goal. That budget also implies a set of emissions pathways that are well defined and tightly constrained (particularly now that weve squandered the past two decades by not reducing emissions).
[/font][/font]