Global climate deal won’t stop dangerous warming – study
LONDON, July 9 (Reuters) – Even if governments strike a pact to curb greenhouse gas emissions next year, they will still exceed levels thought necessary to stand a chance of preventing dangerous global warming, a study by Thomson Reuters Point Carbon showed.
But the study published by Point Carbon analysts on Wednesday suggested the temperature goal is out of reach because the build up of heat-trapping emissions already in the atmosphere means far more drastic action is required than governments are planning.
Unfortunately, both the study and the news release are behind paywalls, so I can’t cite them here. – Anthony
What is interesting though is that just a couple of days ago there was this story from real climate Raymond Pierrehumbert that said the exact opposite:
New research backs up the growing body of evidence that the only way to limit global warming in the long term is a serious cut in carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels.
LONDON, 6 July, 2014 − Once again, US scientists have come to the same conclusion: there really is no alternative. The only way to contain climate change and limit global warming, they say, is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
It won’t really help to concentrate on limiting methane emissions, or even potent greenhouse gases such as hydrofluorcarbons, or nitrous oxide, or the soot and black carbon that also contribute to global warming. Containing all or any of them would make a temporary difference, but the only thing that can work in the long run is a serious cut in carbon dioxide emissions.
Raymond Pierrehumbert, a climatologist at the University of Chicago, combined new research and analysis and a review of the scientific literature. He reports in the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences that although livestock emissions such as methane are – molecule for molecule – potentially more potent as global warming agents than carbon dioxide, there remains no substitute for reducing the burning of fossil fuels.
My personal viewpoint is that none of these people seem to have any real understanding of what they’re doing when it comes to carbon dioxide and what we should do or not do about it.
With such diametrically opposed publication in the space of three days, seemed little more than an educated guess flailing.