A New Study Predicts an Intolerably Hot World.

Researchers say that unless fossil fuels are kept in the ground, global temperatures could rise more than 11 degrees Fahrenheit by 2300.

Katarzyna Tokarska, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria in Victoria, British Columbia, who led the study said “Our key finding is that if we continue to burn our remaining fossil fuel resources, the Earth will encounter a profound degree of global warming, of 6.4 to 9.5 degrees Celsius [about 11 to 17 degrees Fahrenheit] over 20th-century averages by 2300.”

This study shows the Arctic’s mean temperature could rise about 27 to 36 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century if our trends continue.

Tokarska also said the research, which was published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change, represents “the worst-case scenario.

The results suggest that it would be better to do something now,” she said, “and now is the time to do it.”

Comments

gmiklashek950's picture
gmiklashek950 6 years 34 weeks ago
#1

We, of course, are the problem. Too many humans are producing too much heat. Only we, as individuals, can rectify the problem, by using less fossil fuel and producing fewer greenhouse emissions. We need to limit our future reprodctive activity to one-child families, reduce, reuse, repair, and recycle. Ocean going ships transporting cheaply manufactured goods from far-away labor pools are a huge part of the problem, but we buy this crap from Walmart everyday, and think nothing of it. We are the problem. Maybe the cartoon character Trump is the answer and a nuclear holacaust is needed. Obama's transformation into George W. Bush's surrogate has utterly disheartened me. HRC is an international war criminal, and, yet, we actually consider her for the Presidency. We have gone insane and the rest of the world is going along for the ride. Capitalism in the end becomes a beast that not even Marx and Engles dreamed of. God help us!

Ocean Pete's picture
Ocean Pete 6 years 34 weeks ago
#2

Yesterday Thom said that we had not seen 400ppm CO-2 for several thousand years.... Not so, it is more that 3-million years before the Pleistocene!. Thanks for having Michael Mann on today.

Queenbeethatsme's picture
Queenbeethatsme 6 years 34 weeks ago
#3

Since the leading paleoclimatologists claim no humans have ever lived or survived in a world more than 3.5 degrees above baseline, and 11 degrees is a lot hotter..this does not matter.

It is not survivable, not even in bunkers underground. We don't need conjecture about what the world will be like in ,,2300. it is doubtful we will make it to ,2050.

The Permian extinction event which killed off about 95,% of all life on the planet was just a tad above 4 degrees C above baseline. So it is disingenuous to talk about what it will be like in 2300 When it is doubtful given our trajectory; that we will make it to 2030 as a species..and if any humans fo make it, the finite nature of their genetics means we will probably not even survive as a species.

..and the earth says "THANK YOU FOR PLAYING"

Queenbeethatsme's picture
Queenbeethatsme 6 years 34 weeks ago
#4

Your remedies are like hoover dam having a crack then exploding, and someone says "if only we had used hydraulic paint"

too little, too late. the net result of even 1 child per person is still too many people in the end BUT...even THAT is no longer relevant.

Due to the laws of diminishing returns, the effects we have now are a result of emissions from around 1975. Yes..that kind of lag time.

Given the fact we have yet to experience the net results of the increased emissions from the 1980s to 2000 or China's joining of us in the great consumption wars, and given the fact scientist say the repair model takes about 1000 years to kick in AFTER all Carbon emissions cease and such an act would only bring us back to our critical threshold of 350ppm of CO2....

both math, common sense and a reality check says humans will be long gone and fried in the interim. it's too late. Funny, how we cannot seem to face or accept that.

Thus reminds me of someone dying, who prefaces their end with "next time....". Like there will BE A NEXT TIME...like there will be humans in 2300 and like by then, we will know how to not only stop reproducing but that the excess 6.5 billion humans already here will only replace themselves and no more.

It would be funny, if it was not so dire and pathetic.

Queenbeethatsme's picture
Queenbeethatsme 6 years 34 weeks ago
#5

Obama is acting the way he is acting...and gas is cheap right now..all for the same reasons..his handlers have told him to hold the line..because the end is near and there is nothing anyone can do..so in keeping with the "don't panic" management style, we try to maintain the status quo...because nothing matters anymore and to come clean would make our end more horrible and violent than it is already slated to be.

If the earth is the Titanic, then world leaders are the orchestra..and the least they can do is organize a civilized drowning for most of us.

gooserock's picture
gooserock 6 years 34 weeks ago
#6

I don't see this as an all-or-nothing crisis, which in a way is more cynical and dire than the view that we're going to destroy "earth" or make "humans" extinct. In the Cold War with its threat of momentary nuclear annihilation, all segments of leadership seemed to feel themselves to be at the same risk as the rest of us. There was no multibillion dollar nuke denial industry. But there is denialism with climate change and the simplest explanation is that leadership or ownership feels it has a good future for itself and its interests, so it's wiling to have the rest of us bear the consequences.

But worse, I also don't see the climate change acceptance factions from scientists to activists or culture leaders behaving as though it is a crisis at all. The organizing, messaging, informing, is all of the kinds we do for issues, not crises. Racial integration is an issue; laws and courts mandated it 2/3 of a century ago and since then we've made significant progress. --"Significant" in the scientific meaning, which is that it's measurable, not that it's anywhere near a solution. If we make as much and as rapid "progress" against climate change by responding to it as an issue, as we've made against the issue of segregation, that same interval of 2/3 century from now we'll be lucky to have cut our emissions in half.

elinor roosevelt 6 years 34 weeks ago
#7

I believe that this worst case scenario this scientist talks about is happening now and if we don't get a handle on this by stop investing and using fossil fuels the ways we have up until now it will be the end of life on earth. I believe humanity won't be able to withstand all the effects before 2300 ! I think in less than 100 yrs. Remember the scientists were being conservative with their data in the recent past and are now saying how fast we are warming. Not only the warming but the affects from the ocean warming. The storms around the world are becoming biggger and often news says "worst storm" in 100 yrs. It is a scary time in the world now. My life at 66 has maybe 30 yrs. left and however long I live I will fight for people to become aware of fossil fuels and their harm to earth and all life on it. We are the cause and we must stop drilling as much as we do and stop digging for coal and using it. We absolutely must recycle, live simply, and advocate for electric cars and an end to gas powered ones. Stop fracking as it is worst for the atmosphere than drilling for oil. I really love your commentary Thom and am glad to have been turned on to you. Keep up the good work you do. I read every article I get from you and have learned alot from your info. Thank you for this forum. I also am a proponent for solar energy and wind to keep our electrical demand going. Every home, gov't buildings, colleges, businesses, you name it. Use clean energy for life to go on and not abuse our planet's atmosphere.

2950-10K's picture
2950-10K 6 years 34 weeks ago
#8

The oil barons have been aware of the science behind global warming for decades and they made their choice long ago. That choice being: screw the planet, short sighted massive wealth means more than the catastrophic misery it will cause everyone else down the road. That choice, in my opinion, is premeditated violence that should be prosecuted.

This kind of impulsive/avaristic behavior is exactly what I mean when I constantly harp about the out of control few needing to be put in check by good government. Allowing irrational and out of control individuals like the Kochs to impose a Fascist system on all of us using nothing more than massive amounts of wealth could have been avoided. Tax laws, the kind that limit wealth in a sensible manner, would have stopped these guys and others like them. Tax laws would nullify the impact of citizens united. These guys imposed their arbitrary power over the will of the people, "us"...and we let them do this by not taking to the streets in extreme protest.

Words alone no longer work. I'm all for civil disobedience, that's how progressive change occurs ...what do we have left to loose, looks like not even the planet? Those we elect must be forced to follow the will of the vast majority, not the will of 50 billionaires. With Bernie one of the very few left speaking truth to power, it's time to rally in support of social, economic, and environmental truth. Screw the corpse media, and screw the Teapublican/Fascist Party, time to rally all good citizens.

Take down Fox Fascist propaganda with cyber attacks. Publicize the names of the oil barons responsible for the death of our planet. Let it be known how much we spend on the military industrial spy complex, and the fact that guys like Trump, Romney, and large corporations contribute zero to that amount most years. Demand the war crimes trials proceed. Wage war on the Fascists in all manner ..... It's 1775 again. We can foment change without violence this time.

rds7777's picture
rds7777 6 years 34 weeks ago
#9

I know Thom is vegetarian, maybe vegan, but why is the effect of animal agriculture never (?) or at least very rarely mentioned in these discussions and blogs on global warming? Animal agriculture has a larger impact on global warming than the fossil fuel industry and it is virtually ignored in the vast majority of these discussions. Decreasing meat and dairy consumption is the single most important activity anyone can do to decrease our impact on climate change. A simple google search will give you the information needed to support this fact.

humanitys team's picture
humanitys team 6 years 34 weeks ago
#10

Right on my friend no violence required .....this time ....it never was required just a small group of people engaging in conversation that could change the world .Its the only thing that can.

evolutionrevolution.net

Thom's Blog Is On the Move

Hello All

Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.

Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.

From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"With the ever-growing influence of corporate CEOs and their right-wing allies in all aspects of American life, Hartmann’s work is more relevant than ever. Throughout his career, Hartmann has spoken compellingly about the value of people-centered democracy and the challenges that millions of ordinary Americans face today as a result of a dogma dedicated to putting profit above all else. This collection is a rousing call for Americans to work together and put people first again."
Richard Trumka, President, AFL-CIO
From Screwed:
"Hartmann speaks with the straight talking clarity and brilliance of a modern day Tom Paine as he exposes the intentional and systematic destruction of America’s middle class by an alliance of political con artists and outlines a program to restore it. This is Hartmann at his best. Essential reading for those interested in restoring the institution that made America the envy of the world."
David C. Korten, author of The Great Turning and When Corporations Rule the World
From Cracking the Code:
"No one communicates more thoughtfully or effectively on the radio airwaves than Thom Hartmann. He gets inside the arguments and helps people to think them through—to understand how to respond when they’re talking about public issues with coworkers, neighbors, and friends. This book explores some of the key perspectives behind his approach, teaching us not just how to find the facts, but to talk about what they mean in a way that people will hear."
Paul Loeb, author of Soul of a Citizen