Even if every nation meets its pledge to fight climate change, we’re still fried
By Brian Merchant
28 September 2015 (Motherboard) – If every nation that has so far pledged to cut down on its carbon emissions made good on its promises, the global average temperature would still rise 3.5˚ Celsius by the end of the century. According to a new study from MIT Sloan and Climate Interactive, even with the hard-won commitments from nations around the world, we’re still on track for “catastrophic” levels of planetary heating. If, that is, the governmental targets aren’t stepped up, or paired with other aggressive efforts. In advance of the upcoming climate talks in Paris this year, which many consider the world’s best shot at cementing an agreement to limit global warming, nations have begun submitting what are known in UN-speak as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). These are basically declarations of intent for how a given country aims to reduce or mitigate its carbon emissions—Norway, for instance, is pledging to reduce its carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030. The US is aiming for a 28 percent CO2 reduction by 2025. China, meanwhile, again made waves when it announced it would match the US’s fuel efficiency standards and launch a new cap-and-trade system for reducing pollution as part of its plan. It should speak to the scope of the climate problem that even with all those reduction commitments on the books, we’re headed for what scientists say are civilization-threatening levels of warming. To reach that conclusion, MIT rounded up all such pledges that are on the books, and analyzed the total impact they’d have on temperature rise. [more]
Even if Every Nation Meets Its Pledge to Fight Climate Change, We’re Still Fried
28 September 2015 (Climate Interactive) – Calculations for the Climate Scoreboard are made by taking the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) received to date by the UN and analyzing them with C-ROADS, a scientifically reviewed climate simulator that is designed to aggregate the proposals of countries and country groups to calculate long-term global climate impacts such as carbon dioxide concentration and temperature. C-ROADS was built by Climate Interactive, Ventana Systems, and the MIT Sloan School of Management and is available to download for free. C-ROADS is calibrated to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report results. Above is the summary graph and table that shows calculations behind the Climate Scoreboard as well as other important climate indicators.
From the link – "C-ROADS is based upon and calibrated to the results of models from the IPCC’s AR5."
'nuff said. As usual, they're using the wrong data. AR5 doesn't even reflect the actual measurements now being taken, nor many contributing factors.
So the takeaway from all this is the projection chart is wrong; it will be far hotter then claimed; far sooner; and unsurvivable.
Essentially all of the estimates, modeling, predictions being used today are way off the mark because at each step of the process the data sets still do not match the on-the-ground measurements being taken, and because many feedback inputs are not being included.
It's taking far too long to get the scientists to admit this (imo) or to come forward and tell us that "our estimates are still pretty inaccurate". Every few weeks we're shown something new, with updated estimates, which are always worse for humanity. But they're still not telling us everything and they know it.
It's clear that the process used to disseminate information to the public is insufficient and not up to the job. We need a Climate Information Agency dedicated to releasing accurate, timely information, desperately.
Any discerning individual can swiftly identify the many holes in the projections and predictions being shared with the public. These holes a gigantic, and extremely significant in meaning.
It now appears to me that placating the public and policy makers is the actual intent of these bogus predictions. It is commonplace now to leave out critical information or use data sets that are very dated, and then 'share' the predictions as if they conveyed any real accuracy or meaning. Which they don't, not really, not when you realize how much is being left out and what they're actually based upon.
I think we can handle the truth. I think failing to tell it like it is, is hurting us all far, far more then trying to coddle us. I think this is way overdue.
Thank goodness! Humans are lamentable species, good riddance!