Thank you Dave,

For comparison sake, could you post the range of CO2 ppm and associated temperature rises for the 40 IPCC scenarios?

Or perhaps the average of the 40 scenarios?

Greg in MO

Hi Greg,

It would be terrific to do that. However, a major problem with the UN scenarios is that they stop in 2100. I asked Tom Wigley about this, and he indicated that people were unwilling to talk about government policies past 2100.

This is understandable, but has you can see, it is a problem, because the temperature peak happens after 2100. However, you can say roughly that for each Gt of carbon that I am off, the peak of the part of the temperature rise that is associated with future fossil-fuel burning will change by 0.0012 degrees Celsius.

Dave

Hi Greg,

I posted this chart in my post based on Hansen's paper "Implications of "Peak Oil" for Atmospheric CO2 and Climate". It's from the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers (2001).

The first time I was introduced to the concept of peak oil, I was giddy to the point of hysteria. Must admit a bit of giddiness at this moment. I know many on this site beleive peak oil is a bigger threat than global warming, but I can't help but think the 20-100 year time lag between CO2 release and maximum effect is a far less addressable than issues of increasing fossil fuel prices.

As many of you know, recent studies document a rapid acceleration (relative to recent estimates) of the rates of polar melting. Climate response to increased greenhouse gas forcing is not linear. Okay, the tipping points leading to rapid climate change are not currently understood - doesn't mean they are not there. My fingers are crossed.