From the “linear thinking doesn’t follow reality” department, comes this stunning revelation that sounds pretty much just like every other press release about climate we’ve ever read. Plus, they’ve got a map!
A new study puts temperature increases caused by CO2 emissions on the map
Concordia research findings can be used to show the impact of human activity on local climate
Montreal, Jan. 20, 2016 — Earth’s temperature has increased by 1°C over the past century, and most of this warming has been caused by carbon dioxide emissions. But what does that mean locally?
A new study published in Nature Climate Change pinpoints the temperature increases caused by CO¬2 [sic] emissions in different regions around the world.
Using simulation results from 12 global climate models, Damon Matthews, a professor in Concordia’s Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, along with post-doctoral researcher Martin Leduc, produced a map that shows how the climate changes in response to cumulative carbon emissions around the world.

They found that temperature increases in most parts of the world respond linearly to cumulative emissions.
“This provides a simple and powerful link between total global emissions of carbon dioxide and local climate warming,” says Matthews. “This approach can be used to show how much human emissions are to blame for local changes.”
Leduc and Matthews, along with co-author Ramo?n [sic] de Eli?a [sic] from Ouranos, a Montreal-based consortium on regional climatology, analyzed the results of simulations in which CO2 emissions caused the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase by 1 per cent each year until it reached four times the levels recorded prior to the Industrial Revolution.
Globally, the researchers saw an average temperature increase of 1.7 ±0.4°C per trillion tonnes of carbon in CO2 emissions (TtC), which is consistent with reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
But the scientists went beyond these globally averaged temperature rises, to calculate climate change at a local scale.
At a glance, here are the average increases per trillion tonnes of carbon that we emit, separated geographically:
Western North America 2.4 ± 0.6°C
Central North America 2.3 ± 0.4°C
Eastern North America 2.4 ± 0.5°C
Alaska 3.6 ± 1.4°C
Greenland and Northern Canada 3.1 ± 0.9°C
North Asia 3.1 ± 0.9°C
Southeast Asia 1.5 ± 0.3°C
Central America 1.8 ± 0.4°C
Eastern Africa 1.9 ± 0.4°C
“As these numbers show, equatorial regions warm the slowest, while the Arctic warms the fastest. Of course, this is what we’ve already seen happen — rapid changes in the Arctic are outpacing the rest of the planet,” says Matthews.
There are also marked differences between land and ocean, with the temperature increase for the oceans averaging 1.4 ± 0.3°C TtC, compared to 2.2 ± 0.5°C for land areas.
“To date, humans have emitted almost 600 billion tonnes of carbon,” says Matthews. “This means that land areas on average have already warmed by 1.3°C because of these emissions. At current emission rates, we will have emitted enough CO¬2 [sic] to warm land areas by 2°C within 3 decades.”
###
Related links:
Cited study http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2913.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Egad!! Another Mercator climate heat map that sets the whole top of the world on fire. Someone inflated Greenland again and wiped Antarctica all over the windshield like a bug. Curious to see what it would look like as a Dymaxion.
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r103/HocusLocus_photos/MatthewsHeatMapDymaxion.png
Much better! Looks refreshingly cooler (on pix-average) un-distrorted. Reference image,
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r103/HocusLocus_photos/DymaxionTopo.png
h/t to perl and Geo::Dymaxion
Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
Please note this important information from comment below But, since the middle of 2005 (that would be slightly over 10 years), the arctic sea ice area anomaly has been oscillating steadily at right around -1.0 million sq kilometers. So, whatever 70 year cycle or natural change or polar bear shitte piles caused it to “change” from its 1979-1990 average of +1.0 Mkm^2 to -1.0 Mkm^2, the effect has NOT done ANYTHING to further melt arctic sea ice since 2005. In fact for almost all of the past 18 months, arctic sea ice area has been hovering right at the -2 std deviation levels all the time. Not increasing to be sure, but not decreasing either.True facts presented in comments of “Gosh a new model based study puts temperature increases caused by CO2 emissions on the map, Wattsup with that 2016/01/20 Have all the money gone to find a model supporting CO2-believers beliefs….. ?????
Dear Norah,
Not expecting a reply, just want you to know that I have kept you and your mother in my prayers for this past year and a half (or so). I hope that, even if all is not happy, all is peaceful and that she is doing okay.
Take care — and remember to do nice things for Norah! (she is very special),
Janice
P.S. I must say, again!, that your dad would be SO PROUD (and, likely IS (smile)) of you for continuing the excellence-in-science tradition of your family.
Leduc and Matthews, along with co-author Ramo?n [sic] de Eli?a [sic] from Ouranos, a Montreal-based consortium on regional climatology, analyzed the results of simulations in which CO2 emissions caused the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase by 1 per cent each year until it reached four times the levels recorded prior to the Industrial Revolution.
But with all the “hoopla” regarding CatieCatie and others that have taken over more than half of this tread,
Have any of you seen the the name:
“Ouranos” in the article ( Say it really quick).
Well! That thread kept me up way past my bedtime… as for CC.. “Methinks the lady doth profess too much!” Thanks to all contributors for your erudition, my education and the entertainment!
Re: willhaas 1/21/16 @ur momisugly 2:05 pm said
The climate has been stable enough for life to evolve.
Yes. And just unstable enough for man to invent shelter and clothing. And slightly more unstable enough for life to evolve the robustness necessary to survive. And more unstable enough for animals to develop seasonal migration and the skill to hunt under the ice. And further unstable enough for grazing animals to grow large enough to migrate between continents, and in turn their predators large enough to pursue and overwhelm them. And finally more unstable enough to cause a mass extinction.
And then stable enough for life to evolve shedding its migration habits, and losing its robustness, and in this stable period to become too vulnerable to survive when the inevitable instability returns.
We can’t live outside. Either we evolved into that situation, the climate changed, or we aren’t from here. I lean towards that we aren’t from here ( or at least some of us aren’t). We all have to live in some sort of pod. In the future we will have to leave. The planet as a whole is a very dangerous place. We are too reliant on natural forces. We are reliant that a super volcano doesn’t blow. We are reliant that an asteroid doesn’t cause widespread death. We are too reliant on quasi stable climate patterns. The sooner we can get off this rock, the better.
rishrac,
You must have a safer place in mind!?
The inside of an asteroid… a large one. Moveable, stable, energy efficient and unlimited growth instead of the current no growth because we are going to run out of resources or we are hurting mother earth… this solar system could support trillions.
rishrac on January 23, 2016 at 6:08 am
A viable population being established off-Earth is a fun and wise idea. There would be more than enough pioneer / frontiersman spirit types to volunteer and bravely go.
One concept would be permanent space colonies fabricated with the luxuriousness of cruise ships and accompanied by support stations.
John
Re: rishrac 1/23/16 @ur momisugly 5:03pm:
Once we park on the asteroid, how do we get inside? Perhaps you have in mind a half-asteroid?
So the thiefs of sane mind say:
– CO2 is guilty of warming global.
– we global calculate warming on the map of CO2 distribution.
– giving clear evidence whodunnit on our false pretending.
kindergarten. How deep can one sink.
Hans
So the thiefs of sane mind say:
– CO2 drives temperatures. Global.
– we global calculate temperatures on our map of CO2 distribution.
– thus we have global evidence and proof of whodunnit on temperatures. Based on our false pretensions.
Twisted whishwash thinking. kindergarten.
How deep can one sink.
When I was applying to do a PhD in Malaysia, the head of department (a climatologist) told me that the value to the country would be unremarkable because one degree Celsius would hardly be noticed.
So I suppose that the 1.5 degrees Celsius predicted in this paper might be noticed enough to warrant a 2-inch news item decades from now.