Global temp to increase 9°F (5°C) by 2100, with catastrophic results

The earth’s average temperature is set to increase 9°F (5°C) by 2100.

And if we get to that point — not the point where the 9°F (5°C) increase has arrived, but the point where that increase is inevitable, in the pipeline — it’s truly over. As I’ve been detailing, we’re looking at population and social collapse. By that I mean, human population count will collapse, and human society will collapse.

And they’ll collapse a lot earlier than 9°F (5°C). If we get to 5.6°F (3°C), there’s no stopping the rest of the increase, since we will have lost control of the process. The process will end when human numbers and human industrial activity are so low that no further increase is possible. At that point, what’s in the pipeline plays out — which as almost all data suggests, is somewhere around the headline global warming number of 9°F (5°C), perhaps one or two degrees (C) higher.

For reference, we’re probably staring at an inevitable 2.5°C increase right now. Still time, but not much.

Here’s the report From Agence France-Presse via Raw Story (my emphasis and paragraphing; h/t Twitter friend MiroCollas for the link):

Levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) are rising annually by around three percent, placing Earth on track for warming that could breach five degrees Celsius (9.0 degrees Fahrhenheit) by 2100, a new study published on Sunday said. The figure — among the most alarming of the latest forecasts by climate scientists — is at least double the 2C (3.6F) target set by UN members struggling for a global deal on climate change. …

“We are on track for the highest emissions projections, which point to a rise in temperature of between 4C (7.2F) and 6C (10.8F) by the end of the century,” said Corinne le Quere, a carbon specialist at the University of East Anglia, eastern England. “The estimate is based on growth trends that seem likely to last,” she said in a phone interview, pointing to the mounting consumption of coal by emerging giants.

Other research has warned of potentially catastrophic impacts from a temperature rise of this kind.

The source is research published in the journal Nature Climate Change by the Global Carbon Project consortium. About that report, the article states: “The temperature projections by the Global Carbon Project are at the top end of forecasts published by scientists ahead of the UNFCCC talks taking place in Doha, Qatar.”

The article places blame on emerging countries, but even absent their single-minded selfishness, it will take a monumental (and monumentally disruptive) effort by first-world nations as well (including and especially the U.S.) to stop this.

Climate via Shutterstock

After all, what’s blocking the U.S. is David Koch, Rex Tillerson, and their ilk. Not small potatoes on the local front. Think they’re going to give up all the profit from all that “drill baby drill” propaganda? (Think Obama’s going to deny approval of the Keystone Sludge Pipe?)

This is the first of two climate posts I’ll do. The second contains a block-buster number — it will take more than $1,000 trillion to hold the damage to what’s already in the pipeline. That’s if we start today. Every day we delay, the number in the pipeline goes up, and so does the cost of holding at that point, since the need for speed also increases.

Remember, what’s in the pipeline is what counts — since what’s in the pipeline is what’s inevitable. As I’ve said many times, including in the third paragraph above, when James Hansen’s 3°C (5.6°F) “mass extinction” number is in the pipeline, it’s over.

We’re facing some interesting choices, folks. In fact, this one choice pretty well moots most of the other deadlines the nation faces. Total collapse of the middle class by a political class owned entirely by money? I think the climate will take that worry of everyone’s mind sometime in the next five years (see my personal climate model for the timing).

Unless we get cracking. To do that, though, we have to get truly serious, hug the monster, and act. My start is here — The Climate Criminals project: A five-pronged approach to climate solution. More soon, including some action opportunities.


To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius

Gaius Publius is a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States.

Share This Post

38 Responses to “Global temp to increase 9°F (5°C) by 2100, with catastrophic results”

  1. cole3244 says:


  2. cole3244 says:

    we can only hope.

  3. craigbhill says:

    You had me (laughing) at embicelic. Only the idiot unconsciously points fingers at himself in broad daylight.

  4. craigbhill says:

    There is a point when the imminent threat of death inspires action to stop your killers.

  5. craigbhill says:

    ANY obstructionist to quelling the planet’s fever must be removed.

  6. craigbhill says:

    The forecasts for the need to de-industrialize includes methane release.

    As for the Kochs, who are out to make sure you and your children die, it’s time to lock and load, gun nuts! And don’t stop with the Kochs! EVERY obstructionist to save Life as we know it MUST be removed, so the burning of fossil fuels ends almost immediately. Just sayin’!!!

  7. cptwayne says:

    A newly publish peer reviewed paper indicates that CFC’s have caused nearly all of the global warming since the 1970’s, not CO2, which has had an insignificant effect.
    The majority of the CFC’s have deminished greatly by the year 2000. Hence, cooling has now recommenced and will continue for decades to come, it is predicted. The effects of CO2 is an embicelic claim at best.

  8. craigbhill says:

    It will change so rapidly the best yardstick is “traditional 20th century weather”, which is finished.

  9. craigbhill says:

    100,000 years! Time to wake the bleep up! Try “30 years MAX!”. Maybe 20! And the question really isn’t “open” at all!

  10. craigbhill says:

    Another babbling idiot in denial.

  11. craigbhill says:

    YOU are the one who needs to get up to speed!

  12. craigbhill says:

    Disagree, we had the opportunity in the early ’90s under Bush I and Clinton (both parties are culpable) to increase CAFE standards in fleets of cars produced, and didn’t, lowering their mpg in the process and vastly accelerating global heating. We could have taken that route, intelligently, but profits got in the way and unintelligently, or should i say anti-intelligently, brought us to where we are.

  13. craigbhill says:

    Your idea of “species in the future studying the past” sounds a lot like humans. But they won’t be part of it. That’s what extinction is all about. No more human activity.

  14. craigbhill says:

    Preposterously costly and impractical with dubious results unless accompanied by the end of modern life to avoid burning more fossil fuels.

    It will take nothing less than an end to industrial modern society to stop the enormous production of CO2. Imagine instead living in a campground with few amenities. We do it when we go on vacation and don’t die of it. Conversely, to not go back to that type of living, the non-industrial agricultural age, resembling humanity’s lifestyle up till our great-grandparents, we all die. The author did not mention how: There will be no plant life in +4 degrees centigrade that could support other life, ours included. That also supplies 50% of the world’s oxygen. The oceans are becoming so acidic with the absorption of all the excess co2 we create, they too will reach a point where they die, unable to support any life within their very hot waters. The phyotplankton that would go extinct supplies the other 50% of the oxygen we need. Do the math. Of course, we’d die from the lack of food before we ran out of the air. And the temps would stay way up there for some 10,000 years. A blink of the eye in Earth geologic time, a bad fever for the planet, but curtains for living beings, save some microscopic ones that live at the bottom of the oceans alongside thermal vents. We’d have to rely on them to bring back evolution.

    Way to go, humans! You and your satanic manmade climate change deniers! Had they kept their ignorant traps shut, we may have arrested the problem by now. But PROFITS got in the way of life on Earth. And we all know which is more important: Burning coal and oil or living and breathing? It was a slam-dunk to extinction.

    Oh, and God would be dead too, at our hands. The Ultimate Imaginary Friend and his son go extinct too when the last believer does.

    Now go tell your young people how you’ve killed them while they’re still young, in hopes they kick your ass till you pull together to stop industrial society. The 4 degree scenario is on track for the 2020s. That’s how quickly we need to dismantle our co2-emitting system.

  15. Lamont Kranston says:

    please indicate your source for this information Mr Goddard thank you

  16. Henry Justice says:

    This CO2 warming situation did not happen overnight. If correct, then Earth’s present population will pay for the sins of the past. Space born intervention tactics must be considered, i.e., thermal filtered IR lenses that shadow the mountain tops to bring back the glaciers. I believe this could be achieved in near Earth orbits. Something to think about.

  17. cole3244 says:

    first turn on your spell check, second its a nice post but bs is still bs no matter how it sounds, third get your head out of the sand and join the 21 century and get up to speed its really not that scary or complicated.

  18. Fred Struth says:

    Its already too late. Clive Hamilton and Chris Hedges have astute views on this. Well worth reading.

  19. Fred Struth says:

    Intelligent people tend to value their intelligence and credit themselves with virtues not causally related directly to their intellect, and they apply a similar approach to their view of their own species and any speculative hypothetical analogues. Ernst Mayer said that “intelligence is a fatal mutation” for a species. We are a biological species that does what other biological species do, reproduce through enviromental limits, our genetic legacy and civilisation do what they have evolved to do, increase efficiency and expand our scope, and we can no more counteract our nature than pebbles in an avalanche can vote to become hummingbirds. If and when species in the future evolve who are studying the past their discoveries will have no effect because they too will be another instance of the same disease. The only possible steward of the planet is the planets evolved systems and to believe otherwise is delusional, self-important and hubristic.

  20. Jonathan says:

    You ignorant self-hating maroons deserve to lose sleep over this non-issue. I’m
    pleased to see most of you are. Since population at the core of the problem you fear, I suggest you don’t bother procreating.

  21. Global temperatures have been declining for 16 years. You have no idea what you are talking about.

  22. cole3244 says:

    the earth is doing what is necessary to save itself, eliminate the species that are the most destructive to the majority of species and organisms from surviving naturally, we are the problem and our solar system and beyond will be better off without humans doing what we do, history repeats itself and humans will be but a blip on earths magnificent record when species in the future are studying the past and judge our irrational and selfish approach as stewards of the planet we once inhabited.

  23. Fred Struth says:

    Faith is the negation of rationality; denial, a vice not a virtue, believing despite evidence.

    AGW is not a problem; it is nature’s solution or at least one of them. We are the problem.
    Stopping all combustion of fossil fuels immediately is a delusional fantasy and even if it were possible critical natural positive feedback thresholds have already been passed anyway. If not AGW it would be resource depletion and invasive species and dozens of other anthropogenic vectors. As George Carlin said it’s ‘arrogant meddling that got us in this trouble in the first place. Leave nature alone.’ What makes you think that the human species should be saved? Do you presuppose it is somehow special, simply because you happen to be born a human rather than say a tree or a school of fish or something? Its species narcissism and narrow self interest. Do you really presume to believe that you know better than the regulatory mechanisms of the planet that have evolved through billions of years?
    The human species is not part of the natural world via limits imposed by being part of an intimately connected network of life and that is the problem. This is not a new perspective, as Alfred Russel Wallace wrote in 1869

    “I thought of the long ages of the past, during which the successive generations of this little creature had run their course — year by year being born, and living and dying amid these dark and gloomy woods, with no intelligent eye to gaze upon their loveliness; to all appearance such a wanton waste of beauty. Such ideas excite a feeling of melancholy. It seems sad that on the one hand such exquisite creatures should live out their lives and exhibit their charms only in these wild inhospitable regions, doomed for ages yet to come to hopeless barbarism; while, on the other hand, should civilized man ever reach these distant lands, and bring moral, intellectual, and physical light into the recesses of these virgin forests, we may be sure that he will so disturb the nicely-balanced relations of organic and inorganic nature as to cause the disappearance, and finally the extinction, of these very beings whose wonderful structure and beauty he alone is fitted to appreciate and enjoy. This consideration must surely tell us that all living things were not made for man. Many of them have no relation to him. The cycle of their existence has gone on independently of his, and is disturbed or broken by every advance in man’s intellectual development; and their happiness and enjoyments, their loves and hates, their struggles for existence, their vigorous life and early death, would seem to be immediately related to their own well-being and perpetuation alone, limited only by the equal well-being and perpetuation of the numberless other organisms with which each is more or less intimately connected.”

    Human civilisation is a biological disease which the planet, not us, will bring under control or eradicate.

  24. PDX-cycler says:


  25. mememine says:

    Climate Blame Was Reefer Madness and a Tragic Exaggeration.

    None of you remaining fear mongers would still be shooting your mouths off like this if there were real legal consequences in a civilized society for issuing these CO2 death threats to billions of helpless children. You can’t have a little climate crisis.

    REAL planet lovers are happy, not disappointed that any climate crisis for our children was exaggerated by the scientists who only said it “could” be, not “will” be a crisis. Not one IPCC warning is without maybes.

  26. Papa Bear says:

    Humans: the lemmings of the future…

  27. Hue-Man says:

    I’m not a sky is falling enthusiast BUT the unforeseen secondary effects of climate change were driven home for me this weekend on CBC Radio’s science show, Quirks & Quarks. It’s widely believed that the deforestation caused by the mountain pine beetle in British Columbia was a by-product of climate change – the formerly frigid winters that killed off the beetle have been replaced by milder shorter winters. Result: more adult beetles survive to have more baby beetles, etc. who all devour pine trees.

    “But a new study, by Dr. Holly Maness, a Post-doctoral scholar in the Earth Sciences Department at the University of California Berkeley, who did her research at the University of Toronto, has found that the
    pine beetle is so widespread it is actually contributing to climate change now. Trees sweat in order to cool themselves, just like humans. But the 170,000 square kilometres of dead and dying trees in B.C. no longer contribute this form of water into the atmosphere. Instead, the solar energy required to make trees sweat is now heating the surface soil. On average, the result is an increase in temperature of 1 degree C for the infested area, and as high as 3 to 4 degrees in areas where the concentration of dead trees is highest.” plus links to her paper and an article in Science. (BTW, 170,000 km2 is almost exactly the size of Florida.)

    The acidification of sea water leading to dissolving calcium in coral reefs and shellfish is another example of these secondary effects. What others are we going to discover to our dismay?

  28. BeccaM says:

    I know that book, and the sound (and scientifically proven) theories behind it.

    We’re acting just like any other biological species in what’s been an overly hospitable environment: We breed uncontrollably. We exploit every available resource and ecological niche. We overuse everything. The resources run out and the biosphere is increasingly made unfriendly for our form of life. We crash and die back.

    Only in the case of homo sapiens, it’s going to be billions who die, and an open question whether any hominids will still be around a hundred thousand years from now.

  29. GaiusPublius says:

    “the “solution” to AGW is to stop all combustion of fossil fuels immediately, and I mean ALL”

    Yep. My solution as well:

    The Climate Criminals project: A five-pronged approach to climate solution

    Have faith — Not over yet.


  30. GaiusPublius says:

    Genius slogans, FWB. (Sugg: Put your twitter address in these posts.) And thanks for your help.


  31. hoary_nodens says:

    the “solution” to AGW is to stop all combustion of fossil fuels immediately, and I mean ALL. That will result in complete global economic collapse, war, genocide, you name it – it is the end of industrial western civilization period. Human population would rapidly decline to far below 1 billion.

    Western industrial civilization IS the consumption of fossil fuels, and there are seven billion people on the planet solely because of the energy bonanza provided by fossil fuels.

    And of course continuing on the present course will have the same result of economic collapse, chaos, and mass death due to the climate changing to a state where global ecosystem failure and inability to provide enough food for the teeming billions become the harsh reality.

    I think its going to be uglier than any of us can possible imagine, with the end result being a wasted planet devoid of beauty.

    It is not hard to understand rationally and the facts of physics, thermodynamics, geology, climate science, ecology, etc. overwhelmingly point to this, but very hard to accept emotionally for obvious reasons.

    Read Cattons book Overshoot, its all there, what is playing out is a textbook example of a species in overshoot. Except this time its global and final for us and every other species except maybe the roaches :)

    Denial anger bargaining grief acceptance, what stage are you at?

  32. Shivas says:

    I find that most of what we get is: “it’s really bad, its gonna get worse, it’s terrible, we’re all gonna die!” This kind of sky is falling alarmism loses its effectiveness over time. What I think would be more effective is to take individual ecosystems, such as East Coast low lying areas, or heartland agriculture and start saying what is going to happen to them and what the timeline is and what the ramifications are. Talk about climate migration and climate refugees, talk about loss of growing areas and what species of animals and plants will likely not be able to adapt. This is the kind of stuff that will hit home for people, instead of a fixation on the thermometer and how fast it is rising.

    When people learn for example that parts of Chesapeake Bay are going to be under water they will sell their land while it still has some value and move to higher ground. Low lying real estate will be harder to sell and an outcry will begin. It is only when disaster begins to hit home for people that action takes place. Spell it out for them. You could run a weekly or monthly series. Your Pulitzer Prize awaits.

  33. Drew2u says:

    pft. America doesn’t care about Celsius, that’s /foreign/, and thus can’t affect the USA.
    The weather channel has continually reported “above average” temperatures, but when does a trend of warming temperatures change into a new average?

  34. Jim says:

    I read the Raw Story article yesterday, and unless I misunderstood it, the percentages are being extrapolated on CO2 emissions.

    I’m wondering if a methane peak is in the report. Russian research in a small region of the arctic has shown a large number of large methane eruptions from the sea floor around the perimeter of arctic thaw. The prediction is that by 2016 there will be no more arctic ice. This suggests a huge amount of methane will be released.

    Past temperture peaks have been linked to methane. It stays in the atmosphere only a fraction of the time that CO2 does; estimates yield about 12 yrs. But, methane traps about 20 times the amount of heat. A large methane peak will exponentionally increase global temperatures.

    If the projections did not include arctic methane release, then three degrees celcius is going to come very quickly.

    I don’t think we’re getting out of this. Think of oil use as a drug addiction. The Koch brothers are the dealers and the world the users. Dealers and addicts will do anything to keep getting the fix.

  35. freewayblogger says:

    Recent postings from around LA:

    Initially my theory was that if enough people saw these on the roads, and had the process explained on the web, that freewayblogging (which is, by the way, nothing but fun and adventure) would catch on among the activist left. Now I just do it ‘cuz it’s fun. (And I like the pictures.) Next year it’s going to be all about the Arctic Ice, Permafrost Methane Release and the almost entirely unmentioned Albedo Effect. Hell of a lot of painting, and damn hard to make it clever.

    Man, I miss the days when all I had to paint was “Bush Lied.” and “Impeach.”

  36. Lawyercat says:

    Ordovician extinction, Permian extinction, Anthopocene extinction. News at 11.

  37. caphillprof says:

    I don’t see American governments doing anything until it’s too late.

  38. Indigo says:

    Greed drives the engine of development that exploits the landscape and triggers climate change. Consider the Sahara, the Gobi, even the expanding disaster in North Dakota. Greed is not easily stopped and it shows up at all social levels.

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS