World headed for 2.7 Celsius warming: analysis

October 1, 2015
While exceeding the UN goal of limiting overall warming to 2 Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-Industrial Revolution lev
While exceeding the UN goal of limiting overall warming to 2 Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-Industrial Revolution levels, the number was an improvement on the 3.1 C forecast issued in September by Climate Action Tracker (CAT)

Earth is on track for average warming of 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, higher than the UN target, said an analysis Thursday of country pledges for curbing climate-altering greenhouse gas emissions.

While exceeding the UN goal of limiting overall warming to 2 Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-Industrial Revolution levels, the number was an improvement on the 3.1 C forecast issued in September by Climate Action Tracker (CAT), a tool developed by a quartet of research bodies.

Thursday was the informal deadline for countries to submit , known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions or INDCs, which will form the backbone of a universal rescue pact to be inked in Paris in December.

Some 140 countries representing nearly 80 percent of have submitted their plans so far, including major polluters China, the United States and the 28-member European Union.

"The INDCs still produce... global warming well above the 2 C limit set by the global community," said a CAT statement.

"This reflects the less than sufficient climate targets submitted by many governments", though still a "significant improvement" of 0.4 C from the last estimate.

The latest forecast includes estimated numbers for India, the world's fourth-largest polluter—extrapolated from public statements as the country has not yet filed a formal contribution.

To get on the path to 2 C, annual would have to be 11-13 billion tonnes lower in 2025 than pledged, said the CAT, and 15-17 billion tonnes lower in 2030.

Based on pledges to date, emissions would be 52-54 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent (GtCO2e) in 2025 and 53-55 (GtCO2e) in 2030—more than today's estimated 48 GtCO2e per year.

It was "not very likely" that submissions by countries which have not yet filed their pledges would get us to 2 C, Bill Hare of Climate Analytics, a CAT contributor, told AFP.

Explore further: Carbon cut pledges 'still not enough to cap warming to 2 degrees'

Related Stories

Brazil pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions

September 27, 2015

Brazil on Sunday became the first major developing country to pledge an absolute reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for an envisioned global pact against climate change.

US, China, EU carbon pledges better not enough: report

December 8, 2014

New plans by the United States, China, and European Union to curb carbon emissions would yield global warming of about three degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit), a better-than-predicted but still unsafe level, a report ...

Indonesia pledges 29 percent emissions cut by 2030

September 25, 2015

Indonesia has pledged to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 29 percent by 2030 through stepping up protection of forests and boosting the renewable energy sector, but observers criticised the plan as lacking in detail.

Recommended for you

57 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Scottish Sceptic
1.7 / 5 (22) Oct 01, 2015
No the world is not heading for 2.7C warming. The world is currently at the end of 18 years without warming and unless I've lost all touch with mathematical reality that means we are not heading for anyu warming at all.

Instead, some academics who completely failed to forecast the pause and now are part of a subject that regularly changes global temperature data to fabricate warming where there is none to make the data fit their bizarre ideas now tells us that "this time the wolf really is coming".

yer ... and Elvis is alive.
aksdad
1.8 / 5 (16) Oct 01, 2015
2.7 C? Not according to the observed trend. Here's what the current trend looks like from satellite measurements:

http://www.cru.ue...erature/]http://www.cru.ue...erature/[/url]

Here's the historical trend over the last 160 years, showing about 1 C warming over that time.
http://www.cru.ue...erature/]http://www.cru.ue...erature/[/url]

How do they come up with another 1.7 C in the next 85 years despite no warming in the last 17 years? Computer models. And here's the IPCC AR5 report showing that all the models overstate warming compared to measurements:

http://www.climat...g1-4.jpg

Why do they overstate warming? Because they're wrong. They don't understand all the variables that affect warming so their predictions are worthless.
aksdad
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 01, 2015
Sorry the links came across strange. Here they are again.

Recent global (non) warming trend:
http://nsstc.uah....raph.jpg

160 years of global temperatures, about 1 C increase:
http://www.cru.ue...RUT4.png

Climate models all overstate warming from IPCC AR5:
http://www.climat...g1-4.jpg
gkam
2.6 / 5 (18) Oct 01, 2015
aks, look at the thermometer outside. Keep looking at it.

By the time you "get" it, it will be too late.

Meanwhile, look up the ten hottest years in history and get back to us.
Zzzzzzzz
3.4 / 5 (18) Oct 01, 2015
Just a note to all the (no longer) skeptics who I'm sure will post here - I say no longer since the Associated Press has now recognized that the term Skeptic carries an assumption of value or worth, and recognizes that those formerly known as Climate Change Skeptics have none of the above:
You have ZERO credibility. ZILCH. NADA. Your pseudo science arguments are widely known as worthless. Your links and studies to drivel and lies are well known for what they are.
Your delusions are transparent and patently obvious, to even the most casual observer. The time you waste is your own, as your remarks draw far less attention that the effort to spew them required.
We also realize however that you cannot change your behavior, since your fragile sanity depends desperately on the tiny shreds of validation your futile frantic efforts glean.
aksdad
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2015
gkam, maybe you could look at the links I helpfully provided showing the latest temperature trends compiled by research institutions recognized as the experts by the climate science community? Or just take it on faith that the alarmists know what they're talking about and ignore the actual data.
aksdad
3 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2015
Zzzzzzzz, maybe look at the links I provided to graphs from the experts in the climate science community before you start denying science.
gkam
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 01, 2015
aks, I have not gone there yet, but will do so.

thnx
gkam
2.9 / 5 (15) Oct 01, 2015
aks, am I missing something? They all show temperature increases.
philstacy9
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 01, 2015
"Scientists have discovered a hitherto unknown cooling process which may pose a serious threat to man-made global warming theory."

http://www.breitb...e-talks/
gkam
3 / 5 (18) Oct 01, 2015
phil, I am not going to breitbart for anything. I suggest you use a real source.
Vietvet
3.9 / 5 (14) Oct 01, 2015
Zzzzzzzz, maybe look at the links I provided to graphs from the experts in the climate science community before you start denying science.


Graphs without context don't mean much.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 01, 2015
The world is currently at the end of 18 years without warming and unless I've lost all touch with mathematical reality that means we are not heading for anyu warming at all.

Scot:
Stick to WUWT will you ... your bollocks goes unnoticed there. This is a science site.

"mathematical reality" !!

http://woodfortre.../to:2015

All going up and the 10 hottest years on record included in that period.

This is where you get it ...
RSS:
http://woodfortre...ss/trend
The blue line is as valid as the red - so extrapolate it will you...
Should cross eh? NOT till post 2020!
Your much vaunted "hiatus" was an incremental up-step.
Also what does RSS/UAH measure? ... and which version.
FFS
AGreatWhopper
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2015
Scot:
Stick to WUWT will you ... your bollocks goes unnoticed there. This is a science site.


...that accepts money from anti-AGW groups to not delete the trolls. That isn't strictly a "science site". It was, but the new owners have pimped it out.
denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2015
Notice that there is no paper attached to this article. This is a huge red-flag.

One wonders what model was used to come to the conclusion of temperature raise, and if it is related to CMIP5, which, aside from not including any of the then-known or newly discovered climatic actors, is woefully inaccurate:
http://www.drroys...2013.png

The emotion coming from the AGW side is telling also. There comes a time when one's argument is so weak that it must be rooted in anger; there is no other reason to pursue it.

Regarding the temperature data presented by AGWs, it needs to be known that about 66% is "'adjusted".
http://www.ncdc.n...tml#QUAL

It is only a matter of time before this nonsense plays out.
denglish
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2015
btw, remember the RICO guy? He's in deep doo-doo, and may himself be investigated.

http://wattsupwit...ing-out/

http://wattsupwit...ssolved/

All going up and the 10 hottest years on record included in that period.

According to "pause buster" manipulated data. HADCRUT4 and GISS temp is known to be manipulated.

Let's look at some data before it was "unwieldy".
HADCRUT3:
http://www.woodfo....5/trend

HADSST2:
http://www.woodfo...m:1997.5

philstacy9
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2015
"phil, I am not going to breitbart for anything. I suggest you use a real source."

Here is a list for closed minds to filter out.

https://www.googl...oe=utf-8
philstacy9
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2015
"Do the media influence audience beliefs, or are audiences simply drawn to outlets that
support their pre-existing views?"

http://environmen...e-change
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2015
"phil, I am not going to breitbart for anything. I suggest you use a real source."

Here is a list for closed minds to filter out.

https://www.googl...oe=utf-8

http://www.desmog...ry/15763
denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2015
"phil, I am not going to breitbart for anything. I suggest you use a real source."

Science and politics don't mix. If I had my druthers, we would go to the link provided and point out the issues we have with the content of the article; not outrightly disqualify it based on "politics".

When we do that, we have allowed our politics to influence our thinking, instead of allowing our thinking to influence our politics.

That is bad, and can only lead to close-mindedness.

Here's the paper that sparked the article.

Unravelling new processes at interfaces: photochemical isoprene production at the sea surface:
http://pubs.acs.o....5b02388
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2015
denglish
That is bad, and can only lead to close-mindedness.


What a profound statement coming from the denglish...
leetennant
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2015
I find 2.7 celsius a strangely-low forecast myself. We've already had one degree and CO2 emissions are being maintained at an unacceptably-high level. I find it hard to believe we won't be at 2 degrees between 2030 and 2050 without radical cuts and the INDCs simply aren't radical enough.
Solon
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2015
MASSIVE GLOBAL COOLING process discovered as Paris climate deal looms
http://www.thereg...e_talks/
Jayded
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2015
I find 2.7 celsius a strangely-low forecast myself. We've already had one degree and CO2 emissions are being maintained at an unacceptably-high level. I find it hard to believe we won't be at 2 degrees between 2030 and 2050 without radical cuts and the INDCs simply aren't radical enough.


I would think it was associated to carbon emission vs climate temp increase, thus if our carbon emissions continue to grow at current rates the temp would increase proportionately.
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 01, 2015
MASSIVE GLOBAL COOLING process discovered as Paris climate deal looms
http://www.thereg...e_talks/


Photosensitized production of functionalized and unsaturated organic compounds at the air-sea interface
http://www.nature...rep12741

Right wing rags know their audience is too stupid to realize this is the discovery of a process that has been happening for eons. It's background noise in the history of Earth's climate.
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2015
The claim of this "massive cooling process" seems to be that the models are wrong. The problem with this is that the data doesn't agree with this claim. The output of the models is, essentially, the climate sensitivity to changes in heat in the climate. And the models Are in good agreement with observations. And since observations, by definition, already include this "hitherto unknown cooling process" we can safely conclude that either this cooling process has only a small affect on the climate or that the models are also missing some warming feedback so that counteract the cooling. If you want to ignore the models, you still have thousands of years of empirical data that come to the same conclusions.

I agree that 2.7C seems very conservative, but the study is assuming that countries will decrease their CO2 output by as much as they say they will. I'm not sure I believe that will happen.
Returners
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2015
aks, look at the thermometer outside. Keep looking at it.

By the time you "get" it, it will be too late.

Meanwhile, look up the ten hottest years in history and get back to us.


High rise buildings
Concrete
Asphault
Returners
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2015
I find 2.7 celsius a strangely-low forecast myself. We've already had one degree and CO2 emissions are being maintained at an unacceptably-high level. I find it hard to believe we won't be at 2 degrees between 2030 and 2050 without radical cuts and the INDCs simply aren't radical enough.


Yall are gonna look silly when this multi-century sinusoidal curve starts decreasing again.

Also, there is a strong Maunder minimum calculated to take place in a few decades which is going to offset pretty much all of that, even if 2.7C did somehow happen.

You're literally going to be THANKING the CO2 polluters for providing some protection from the Global Cooling when that happens.

Historically, cold drought/famine have killed more people than hot drought/famine.

Just saying.
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2015
Returnerd
Yall are gonna look silly when this multi-century sinusoidal curve starts decreasing again.


So the current warming trend is just part of a multi century sinusoidal curve. That should be really easy to illustrate with a historical temperature graph. And what is the driver of this multi-century sinusoidal pattern?
denglish
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2015
I would think it was associated to carbon emission vs climate temp increase, thus if our carbon emissions continue to grow at current rates the temp would increase proportionately.

What if carbon emissions are a pittance compared to natural climate actors?

And the models Are in good agreement with observations.

No they aren't.
https://higherrev...lity.png

models are also missing some warming feedback so that counteract the cooling.

CMIP5 does not account for any of the major climate actors. It is no mystery why it is wrong.

I'm not sure I believe that will happen.

Let's hope it doesn't, until suitable replacements are instituted. Humanity's wealth is dependent on fossil fuels.

greenonions
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2015
Returners - my apologies for the typo in your name - I have a cast on my right hand - and am very awkward typing at the moment. I do not endorse the childishness of name calling - and apologize for how that looks - my bad (s is nest to d on keyboard).
OdinsAcolyte
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2015
The latest from NASA does nothing to help with the warmist delusion. Lies help nothing.
I
Adapt or die.
denglish
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2015
Comment posted by a person you have ignored ... show comment

No thanks.
Returners
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2015


Returnerd
Yall are gonna look silly when this multi-century sinusoidal curve starts decreasing again.


So the current warming trend is just part of a multi century sinusoidal curve. That should be really easy to illustrate with a historical temperature graph. And what is the driver of this multi-century sinusoidal pattern?


I didn't claim to know the cause. I just pointed out that hte curve appears to be sinusoidal.
denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2015
Anyone wondering about just how dependent humans (and the earth) are on fossil fuels, will find this interesting:

http://object.cat...a715.pdf

It is very disturbing that we are waging war on humanity's wealth and nature's well-being without viable alternatives in place.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2015
Anyone wondering about just how dependent humans (and the earth) are on fossil fuels, will find this interesting:

http://object.cat...a715.pdf

It is very disturbing that we are waging war on humanity's wealth and nature's well-being without viable alternatives in place.


Eh.

Pretty much the entire medical industry is dependent on oil for plastics for sanitary medical devices.

Nearly all food processing are dependent on oil for plastics for sanitary food packaging and preservation.

Then you have things like fertilizers.
Refrigerated semis and container ships for delivering perishable goods.
Contact lenses
Catheters
Medicine bottles
on and on and on.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2015
You have it, Returners, petroleum is better saved for feedstocks, as we have maintained for a while. Turning it to heat and pollution is a waste of it.
denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2015
on and on and on

Yeah, its mind boggling how much humanity depends on fossil fuels, and how nature is saved from rape by fossil fuels too.

I'm all for a clean planet, and a strong response to dire emergency, but there isn't near enough convincing evidence of AGW to justify shutting humanity down , exposing nature to devastation, and removing ethics from the scientific process.

Then, we get articles like this on a "science site" making claims without even a paper reference. I worry for the world my children are entering.

Comment posted by a person you have ignored ... show comment

No thanks.
denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2015
Remember the RICO guy? Who wanted the US Govt to go after skeptics based on RICO laws? He's getting attention from Congress now, and it looks bad...very bad.

This could be a massive science community scandal, and with any luck, will blow the lid off of the entire AGW scam:

http://wattsupwit...history/
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2015
returners
I didn't claim to know the cause. I just pointed out that hte curve appears to be sinusoidal.
And you conveniently ducked the part about supplying support for your claim that it is part of a multi century sinusoidal curve. So not only do you have no support for your false claim - but also no explanation regarding the cause of your false claim. Climate scientists on the other hand have the data to support the understanding that we are currently in a warming trend - they also have an understanding of the driver of that trend. You have nothing.
denglish
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2015
I didn't claim to know the cause. I just pointed out that hte curve appears to be sinusoidal.

Returners, your honesty is refreshing.

Truth is, no-one knows why the climate changes, and why it is so obviously cyclical.

Proof of this is the huge number of climatic actors that are not included in the climate models. No-one knows how they work, not even the really smart guys!

This is one of the things that makes this all so absurd. We pick on C02 because we kinda understand it, but leave out all of the other things because we don't. Its no wonder that C02 gets picked on so much; aside from a couple of odd aerosols, its the only player in the climate models!

Here's what the CMIP5 model has inside it. Notice they don't touch any of the oceanic oscillations, solar or cosmic oscillations, zero-zip-nada except C02:

http://cmip-pcmdi...sign.pdf

greenonions
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2015
Truth is, no-one knows why the climate changes, and why it is so obviously cyclical.


Do we need any other evidence of the ignorance that we are up against? Denglish says that we do not know why the climate changes - meaning we know nothing about solar radiation, or Milankovich cycles, or vulcanism, or albedo effect, or enso cycles etc. etc. It is all a big mystery to us - we know nothing... fool.
denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2015
Comment posted by a person you have ignored ... show comment

No thanks.

They need to adjust the email notification so that ignored people don't trigger the alert.
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2015
They need to adjust the email notification so that ignored people don't trigger the alert.

Or denglish could just ignore the alerts!!!! Then denglish could put us all on mute - what a nice idea.
denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2015
Comment posted by a person you have ignored ... show comment

No thanks.
Bongstar420
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2015
Sounds better than if it were cooling to that magnitude.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2015
It is interesting that people always want to forecast the end of the world, when God said something different.

"I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. While the Earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."

This is often mis-quoted by Christians and used to say something like, "God said he wasn't going to destroy the Earth again with water, next time he'll use fire..." or something like that...but that isn't what it says. It clearly says that God would never again destroy all life.

Moreover, in the next paragraph he says it's for "perpetual generations".

This produces a problem, in that several of the apocalyptic books in the Bible, both Old and New testament, are corrupted and clearly contradict this covenant.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2015
The Earth and man will be just fine.

The oldest story about God and man, one which is common to all cultures, says so.

Sure, humans can screw things up, but I have an assurance that we can't screw things up that bad.
my2cts
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2015
The Earth and man will be just fine.

The oldest story about God and man, one which is common to all cultures, says so.

Sure, humans can screw things up, but I have an assurance that we can't screw things up that bad.

Your comment is meaningless.
leetennant
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2015
I know that climate change isn't happening because the unicorns told me so
Neanderthal_Genes
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2015
Although future temperatures are predictable to fractions of a degree, past temperatures, even as close as last year, are still unpredictable. The study of climate will be a science when it can predict past temperatures as well as it can predict future temperatures.
Neanderthal_Genes
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2015
Climatology is based on the concept of average temperature. Yet there is no physical basis for it. A kilogram of water at 50 degrees mixed with a kilogram of ice at 0 degrees doesn't come to 25 degrees, but is much lower. A kilogram of steam at 100 degrees mixed with a kilogram of water at 20 degrees does not result in a temperature of 60 degrees, but is much higher.
What exactly does average temperature mean? An air blast at a temperature of 100 degrees is uncomfortable while a water blast at 100 degrees will result in severe scalding even though the temperature is the same. Where's the science?
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2015
Neanderthal genes, you are not basing the temperatures on Absolute zero, so the numbers will not work out.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2015
Neanderthal, 100 degrees C is not twice as hot as 50 degrees C. It is only a very small amount higher in energy.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2015
Climatology is based on the concept of average temperature.

Where's the science?

No, it is based on energy, measured in W/m^2 or in J.
There's the science.
Temp is used as a proxy because we can measure it with a thermometer.
leetennant
5 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2015
Climatology is based on the concept of average temperature.

Where's the science?

No, it is based on energy, measured in W/m^2 or in J.
There's the science.
Temp is used as a proxy because we can measure it with a thermometer.


Exactly. Climate science is based on an increase of energy in the system. Temperatures are used as a kind of a proxy for that because the extra energy will express as an increase in heat.
howhot2
5 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2015
Climatology is based on the concept of average temperature. Yet there is no physical basis for it. A kilogram of water at 50 degrees mixed with a kilogram of ice at 0 degrees doesn't come to 25 degrees,
You must think climatologists are stupid! Duhh. Duhh, Duhh ,,, Lamo deniers all over again.
.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.