In the scary global warming video category, here is one more, just released today on Youtube, to announce ‘Six Degrees Could Change the World‘, an upcoming show on National Geographic Channel:
You mean, 6 degrees, that’s all it will, would take, to wipe out the planet? This is probably one of the scariest numbers I have heard about global warming. From a non scientist, average citizen perspective.
La Marguerite 
The film does not say whether they’re talking about 6F (which is 3.75C), or 6C (which is 9.75F). The difference is significant.
The recent IPCC report looked at studies of what would happen if our greenhouse gas emissions went up or down on 2000 levels by 2050. Remember that the reduction they modelled was a gradual one from today; so if for example it says, “-40%” in practice that means “-1% per year from 2010 to 2050”, so that quite a lot of stuff is released in the meantime. The levels and conclusions were,
-85% to -50%, 2.0-2.4C
-60% to -30%, 2.4-2.8C
-30% to +5%, 2.8-3.2C
+10 to +60%, 3.2-4.0C
+25% to 85%, 4.0-4.9C
+90% to 140%, 4.9-6.1C
Most of the developed world has hit practical limits on how much they can emit, though the developing world is giving it a go. So if nothing is done, it’s not clear what the most likely emissions rise is. However, we’ve used about half of all our fossil fuels, and the second half will be harder to extract than the first, so it’s unlikely we’ll achieve a +100% (ie, doubling) scenario, which is the only one giving us 6C.
On the other hand, there’s the fact that a good chunk of our emissions are absorbed by nature, by the seas and forests. However, with rising temperature some of these absorbers may decline, and there’s some evidence that’s happening. The IPCC summary table I took the figures from notes that these figures assume the carbon absorbers keep working as they do today. If they don’t, then more of the carbon will stay in the atmosphere, so that we could have a stronger temperature rise with less carbon.
My own instinct is that due to political inertia and diplomatic silliness, combined with economic troubles as fossil fuels become more expensive, it’s likely the West’s emissions will decline slightly, while the developing world’s increase, though simple lack of fossil fuels will limit this. So I think the +10-60% by 2050 scenario is the most likely.
The IPCC recommends a global reduction of 50-85% by 2050. As I’ve noted before, a personal household reduction of 65-75% is possible for most Westerners by tomorrow. Our personal household emissions are about half the whole, so leaves government and business to manage another the other half by 2050.
The “6 degrees” scenario is a bit like showing pictures of people who’ve been hit by a train. However, we’re standing on the tracks, and not tied to them, and can hear the train coming. Nothing except ourselves prevents us from getting off before it hits us.
Agree, Kyle. I am getting more and more restless. Did you see the latest on the Hawaii Conference. Sounds like a remake of Bali!
Well, we shouldn’t expect anything until 2010.
The theory was that they’d set the Kyoto targets for 2010, then as the date approached, review it to see how everyone was going and if new targets needed to be set. Remember Kyoto was back in 1990, and we didn’t know a tenth then of what we do now about the climate’s response to greenhouse gases.
So these are the reviews. It’s simply that in the meantime we’ve learned a lot more, and found in our reviews that
a) Kyoto wasn’t ambitious enough, and
2) hardly anybody is meeting the Kyoto targets anyway
So naturally we turn around and expect these reviews to be the actual negotiations. And of course they’re not. They’re reviews.
A very bold leader could talk to a couple of buddy countries, then just rock up and slap a piece of paper on the table, and say, “us and these other half dozen countries are going to do this. You in or out?” Unfortunately in our countries we elect the least offensive person; that means the one who’s the least interesting and with the least initiative.
The good news is I feel, any of the most likely to succeed U. S. presidential candidates has it in him (her) to be that kind of leader.
OUCH!
La M,
i think that means 6 degrees F as in the mark Lynas book.
[…] from fellow bloggers, time to watch heavy duty videos like The Story of Stuff. Time to stare at scary facts. Time for it all to sink in, down into my core. It was not one single thing that did it, but […]
What about National geographic’s “Six Degrees Could Change The World” viral vids on youtube? check them out. they’re by a fictitious news source in the future, cnc news, and depict new york city under water, socal out of water, and dallas overtaken by dust storms. this link is prob. the easiest, it’ll take u to “cnc news”‘s channel, and u can see the 3 vids from there. http://youtube.com/user/CNCNewsTV
Thanks Brian for the great link!
nobody answered yet. is it SIX degress F or C?
I checked. It is six degrees Celsius.