Climate accord loopholes could spell 4.2-degree rise in temperature and end of coral reefs by 2100

Sep 29, 2010
Climate accord loopholes could spell 4.2-degree rise in temperature and end of coral reefs by 2100

A global temperature increase of up to 4.2 C and the end of coral reefs could become reality by 2100 if national targets are not revised in the Copenhagen Accord, the international pledge which was agreed at last year's Copenhagen's COP15 climate change conference.

Just ahead of the next United Nations , which starts on 4 October in Tianjin, China, a new report published today, Wednesday, 29 September, in IOP Publishing's Environmental Research Letters describes how, due to lack of global action to date, only a small chance remains for keeping the global down to 2 C as set as a target in the Accord.

Looking at individual countries' agreed targets for emission levels, the report shows that many developed countries such as the USA and the European Union have set their aims very low, aiming at reaching emission levels just a few percent lower than 1990 levels by 2020. Only Japan and Norway are aiming to drastically reduce their emission to 25% and 30 to 40% below 1990 levels respectively.

Presenting their results in Environmental Research Letters, a group of international researchers from seven European research centres, has also found that even if nations would agree to a 50% reduction of emission levels by 2050 - a target that strong international agreements would greatly facilitate - there would still only be a less than 50% chance to keep global warming below 2 C.

Rising global temperature levels would not be the only consequence of failing to raise the ambition level of future global emission reductions. Increasing , a direct result of growing atmospheric CO2 levels, could lead to a rapid decline of and the marine ecosystem in the 21st century.

As the researchers write, urgent action is necessary, "It is clear from this analysis that higher ambitions for 2020 are necessary to keep the options for 2 C and 1.5 C open without relying on potentially infeasible reduction rates after 2020.

"In addition, the absence of a mid-century emission goal - towards which Parties as a whole can work and which serve as a yardstick of whether interim reductions by 2020 and 2030 are on the right track - is a critical deficit in the overall ambition level of the Copenhagen Accord."

Professor Dan Kammen, Editor-in-Chief Environmental Research Letters said, "The researchers provide an important lens on the ecological impacts and both social and ecological costs of inaction on climate protection."

Explore further: Implications for the fate of green fertilizers

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Germany calls for binding climate deal in 2010

Nov 19, 2009

(AP) -- German Chancellor Angela Merkel called Thursday for all countries to fix binding climate change targets next year at the latest, acknowledging that no such deal is likely at global talks in Copenhagen next month.

Draft Copenhagen deal targets maximum 2 C warming

Dec 11, 2009

The first official draft blueprint for a deal at the UN climate talks sees targets of limiting global warming to 1.5 or 2.0 degrees Celsius (2.7 or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), according to a document seen by ...

Climate scientists underwhelmed by Copenhagen Accord

Dec 20, 2009

Top climate scientists said Saturday that the eleventh-hour political deal hammered out at UN talks in Copenhagen falls perilously short of what is needed to stave off catastrophic global warming.

China to surpass U.S. emissions levels

Nov 07, 2006

The International Energy Agency says China will surpass the United States in carbon dioxide emissions by 2009, about a decade ahead of previous predictions.

Recommended for you

Implications for the fate of green fertilizers

2 hours ago

The use of green fertilizers is a practice that has been around since humans first began growing food, but researchers are warning that modern techniques for the creation of these fertilizers could have implications ...

Ditching coal a massive step to climate goal: experts

3 hours ago

Phasing out coal as an electricity source by 2050 would bring the world 0.5 degrees Celsius closer to the UN's targeted cap for climate warming, an analysis said on the eve of Tuesday's UN climate summit.

Monitoring heavy metals using mussels

6 hours ago

A research team in Malaysia has concluded that caged mussels are useful for monitoring heavy metal contamination in coastal waters in the Strait of Johore. Initial results indicate more pollution in the eastern ...

Climate change report identifies 'the most vulnerable'

7 hours ago

Extreme weather events leave populations with not enough food both in the short- and the long-term. A new report by the Environmental Change Institute (ECI) at the School of Geography and the Environment ...

User comments : 15

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

snwboardn
3 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2010
Can anybody give an accurate measurement and a source as to how much CO2 saturation has occurred say over 5-10 years? I would assume that we would be keeping strict records of this since GW has been a hot topic since at least 2004.
Quantum_Conundrum
2 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2010
News flash people, cutting emissions by 50% by 2050 is so far beyond the realm of possibility it's a joke.

African and Asian nations are just now getting started with their coal and oil use, and a guy who supposedly makes a dollar a day certainly can't afford to buy a solar panel or wind turbine.

The world is probably going to be producing double or triple the CO2 by 2050 or so, even if the U.S. and Europe could cut it's emissions by 50%.

4.2C is 7.56F, which is probably catastrophic for all of coastal U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Phillipines, Sumatra, India, China, and Japan, due to tropical cyclones. This would mean your average category 1 hurricane might be replaced by a cat 4 or 5, and a storm that would normally be a category 3 to 5 hurricane might be a hypercane.

Quantum_Conundrum
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2010
However, I consider this a gigantic over-estimate of any temperature rise that is occuring.

The average temperature would be rising by 0.084F per year, or 0.25F every 3 years.

A temperature increase at that rate would be so high that every person on the planet could track it indisputably over just a few years using a cheap thermometer they bought from Wal Mart, and the all time record high for every day of the year and every location would be broken within a few years, and especially the "record high over night lows" should be broken every year or two for every day on the calendar.

This rate of heating is simply not happening anywhere other than the alarmists computer models.
Arkaleus
3 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2010
And now we see the role of government shift from being one of planning and organization to one of parasitic taxation of everyone's "climate liability." You and I will be billed, fined, and regulated by the governments of our "free" societies because of shifts in the climate. And you wonder why so many crooks and shadowy groups are so interested in co-opting the green movement to power - It not only guarantees access to wealth stolen from the people but insures your power over the means of production will be maintained by a continual crisis which cannot be mended or averted.

I really feel bad for the simple minds of western people. They are not equipped to confront gamesmanship of this subtlety. Those who do will be easily dismissed as paranoids or "deniers", so sad. The simple will actually protect the usurpers and enforce their own slavery!
GSwift7
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2010
"only a small chance remains"

..for cap and trade to get passed in the US. That is bad news for companies like Enron, JP Morgan, Exon, Mobil, Chevron, General Electric, Ford, Cherolet, Chrysler, etc. who have spent hundreds of millions on lobbying for cap and trade and invested billions in green technology in hopes of cashing in on carbon credit sales later. Also bad news for the people already heavily invested in the Chicago Carbon Exchange, hoping to cash in on lucrative futures trading.

Good news for single parents like me, who already have enough trouble making a living.

I just hope we can hold off the cap and trade legislation long enough for the truth to come out. Articles like this one will become more frequent and more alarming every time a milestone is approaching in the battle over cap and trade here in the US.
3432682
3 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2010
Global warming advocates are power-hungry lunatics.

1. There has been 0.6 degrees F increase in temperature in 150 years.
2. Temperatures are flat or falling since 1998
3. IPCC predictions - none have come true; not temperature, CO2, ocean rise, humidity increase at high altitude. Their models are clearly wrong, highly exaggerated.
4. Positive feedback effect of increasing water vapor and thus increasing greenhouse effect has not come true.
5. We're cooler now than 90% of the last 10,000 years; cooler than Medieval Warming Period, Roman Warming Period, etc.
6. Even if there were warming, we can adapt cheaper and easier than by crippling fossil fuel energy, 90%+ of our energy supply.
7. It is clear that the UN IPCC research has been highly secretive, political, biased, and deceptive. Until they demonstrate honesty, and success of the models' predictions, we should not listen to them.

joefarah
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2010
Temperature could decrease by 4.2 degrees by the end of the century. I give it equal odds to increasing, though perhaps a bit higher because we have been in a global cooling stretch for some years now.

Give up GW people, you're not getting any more money, and your best chance at power (i.e. Copenhagen) has come and gone - for good.
Kev_C
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2010
It never ceases to amaze me how stupid some people are when it comes to hearing the truth.
Try checking out the scientific consistency of the facts. Then check out your own sceptical arguments. They are bouncing from one end of the scale to the other faster than a tennis final between Federer and Nadal. No consistency in your arguments means there is serious dubiety in your data. Period of flat temperature rise? Well try to take a consistent temperature trend over 30 years as is the standard practice. 10 years is hardly significant and the trend is actually rising.
Take the sea ice issue.
The ice is covering a similar region as in previous years but come summer and it clears through the sea passages which means no blockages to sea transport. One minor detail that all the denialists forget. The sea ice volume is a 3 dimensional measurement not 2 dimensional. So area does not indicate volume. Sorry boys and girls but the volume of sea ice is falling faster than you can sneeze.
Parsec
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2010
However, I consider this a gigantic over-estimate of any temperature rise that is occuring.

The average temperature would be rising by 0.084F per year, or 0.25F every 3 years.

A temperature increase at that rate would be so high that every person on the planet could track it indisputably over just a few years using a cheap thermometer they bought from Wal Mart, and the all time record high for every day of the year and every location would be broken within a few years, and especially the "record high over night lows" should be broken every year or two for every day on the calendar.

This rate of heating is simply not happening anywhere other than the alarmists computer models.

Utterly untrue. Most climate models in fact predict that even in the year 2050, there will be days that are setting records for the lowest in history. Its just that the number of those will be far fewer than the records set for the hottest days.
Parsec
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2010
Global warming advocates are power-hungry lunatics.

1. There has been 0.6 degrees F increase in temperature in 150 years.
2. Temperatures are flat or falling since 1998
3. IPCC predictions - none have come true; not temperature, CO2, ocean rise, humidity increase at high altitude. Their models are clearly wrong, highly exaggerated.
4. Positive feedback effect of increasing water vapor and thus increasing greenhouse effect has not come true.
5. We're cooler now than 90% of the last 10,000 years; cooler than Medieval Warming Period, Roman Warming Period, etc.
6. Even if there were warming, we can adapt cheaper and easier than by crippling fossil fuel energy, 90%+ of our energy supply.
7. It is clear that the UN IPCC research has been highly secretive, political, biased, and deceptive. Until they demonstrate honesty, and success of the models' predictions, we should not listen to them.

The numbers and figures you quote have no basis in reality. Links would help.
Parsec
4 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2010
"only a small chance remains"

..for cap and trade to get passed in the US. That is bad news for companies like Enron, JP Morgan, Exon, Mobil, Chevron, General Electric, Ford, Cherolet, Chrysler, etc. who have spent hundreds of millions on lobbying for cap and trade and invested billions in green technology in hopes of cashing in on carbon credit sales later. Also bad news for the people already heavily invested in the Chicago Carbon Exchange, hoping to cash in on lucrative futures trading.

Good news for single parents like me, who already have enough trouble making a living.

I just hope we can hold off the cap and trade legislation long enough for the truth to come out. Articles like this one will become more frequent and more alarming every time a milestone is approaching in the battle over cap and trade here in the US.

Cap and trade is a horrible nasty idea. A Carbon tax shifting future costs to current consumers is far better,
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Sep 30, 2010
"Cap and trade is a horrible nasty idea. A Carbon tax shifting future costs to current consumers is far better"

Yes, far better than cap and trade, but still not a measure I would support. Far better still would be a focused effort to use existing government funds, which are currently being mis-managed by government beauracracy, to develope more efficient means to sustain ourselves. Find sustainable methods that are economically competitive with existing methods and people will use them without a tax or cap and trade scheme to force them into it. Cap and trade is a method I find especially abhorrent though, since it siphons money from where it is most needed and gives it to people who need it least and will use it in the worst ways.
Quantum_Conundrum
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2010
Utterly untrue. Most climate models in fact predict that even in the year 2050, there will be days that are setting records for the lowest in history. Its just that the number of those will be far fewer than the records set for the hottest days.


I'll believe that whenever I see an ice cube spontaneouslfy form in a pot of boiling water.
Arkaleus
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2010
I don't "disagree" with any scientific observation, nor do I "deny" any fact of nature when it is obvious or self evident. When I consider how to govern my free nation it is IRRELEVANT if the climate is changing or not. It may changing enough to result in discomfort for human interests, but this again is irrelevant to the political action in play.

What is occurring is an insurrection of hostile factions into the governing systems of the western world. They have formulated a public deception that uses climate hysteria to generate political energy. The remedy for the hypothetical threat is to allow totalitarian rule over both the economies of the world and the means of production.

As most literate people realize, what they want is what usurpers have ALWAYS wanted, power, money, and the people in bondage to maintain the arrangement.

They could care less about the climate, good grief! Just look at how they live and what they truly value for themselves!!
GSwift7
1 / 5 (1) Oct 04, 2010
@ Arkaleus:

Yes, good point. I would hardly call Al Gore a responsible steward of the evnironment. When you look at the lists of companies who loby in support of cap and trade, it becomes quickly obvious what the motivation is. It's all about money, and power in the interest of gaining more money. For example, why would all the major investment firms invest millions of dollars to lobby for cap and trade? Why have the number of environmental lobbyists doubled in the past few years? Why are the most expensive and influential professional lobbyists currently in the employ of pro-cap and trade organizations? Big companies don't spend that kind of money for altruistic reasons. There's blood in the water and the sharks are circling.

The amount of money in play here is staggering. Most experts say that CO2 credit trading will eclipse traditional securities markets in terms of total dollars traded.