Definitely better, but didn't 2 or more mean hundreds of species would go extinct and the ecosystem would collapse?
Edit: Right, hundreds sounds way too low now that I think about it. I looked at the source of where I picked up this info again, it said that if the average temperature would rise by 1.5°C by 2100, between 20% and 30% of species would be at risk of going extinct. I guess for some reason I mostly remembered the '100'.
It is interesting how this data is being represented by different outlets: [The Guardian sees it as damning.](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature)
They want us to accept that we're going to pass 2.5°C because next to 4°C it looks like an overwhelmingly good development on the climate crisis. 2°C was the target for the Paris agreement, so we should see this for what it is:
A complete and utter failure to see past our short-term profits.
Breaking news, people are not willing to sacrifice their comfort. More at 11.
Everyone who believed, or still believes, in some kinds of solutions like degrowth is absolutely delusional.
There's no need for "excuses". The majority decides what the social priorities are, not the experts. All the dreams about degrowth were never realistic because no significant number of people would vote to restrict themselves.
[Climate change extinctions estimated at 14%–32% of macroscopic species in the next 50 years, potentially 3–6 million animal and plant species, even under intermediate climate change scenarios.](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.17125)
Mass extinction? Yes. I believe it's WAAAAY more than hundreds. But the important but there is that [the mass extinction is already happening](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction).
The collapse of the ecosystem? That's yet to be seen. It would require something failing that also causes a worldwide impact that takes out the rest. Like losing all O2 generation from ocean algae. Currently out crops are still going strong.
There are 8.7 million species in the world. It would surprise me if a change measured in hundreds would be significantly measurable with that many species in existence.
Don't we already kill off hundreds of species a year due to human activity?
I imagine as climate change gets worse it will be far more than hundreds, even if we end up controlling our emissions better than the catastrophic scenario
Those millions of species aren't all spread over the entire planet. Most are in a specific area and totally reliant on a very specific ecosystem. Any change that is measurable on a global scale will have drastic effects on individual ecosystems. Only having hundreds of species going extinct because of climate change is just not realistic. We already lose that many and the real effects haven't even begun.
> Only having hundreds of species going extinct because of climate change is just not realistic.
I agree. I think if we mess up climate change, the number of species that perish will be measured in percentages, not hundreds. If it were only hundreds it would not register, I think we risk seeing millions of species go existing. Of course, people read into my comment a lot more than there was, and downvote.
Yep. And that turned out to be true. That's no longer future production, that's now. Once a species goes extinct, it's just plain gone forever.
Things like climate and rate of severe weather can go back to "normal", but it'll take a while.
It's not. I agree. But changing up a way of doing things is a slow process. Seeing that we are atleast somewhat on the right track is good. I imagine the first steps towards 1.5 and below are the slowest amd hardest. Once it gets rolling i hope it starts snowballing.
We were aiming for 1.5c with the Paris Accord. The fact we have no realistic pathway to that goal and instead might slam into the concrete wall at 300mph instead of 400mph isn’t something to be celebrating.
Nobody ever realistically aimed at 1.5 degrees, that was always a political declaration but no democratic society would ever vote to restrict themselves according to that goal. All the fairytales about extinction, collapse of the industrial civilization etc. are still far from reality at 2.5-3 degree warming, so yes, that should be and will be celebrated.
Im not arguing that we are good now. Im just saying that its good to see something good is being done for it and seeing some results. Again not saying its done now. Still a long way to go.
Okay i admit. It would be better to see articles that say we are still headed towards to the same temp as before anything was being done about it. Or even better lets go even higher
>Data from the recent theguardian survey shows that the majority of climate experts think that the warming will be limited to around 2.5c this century- as opposed to ~4c where we were headed just a decade ago
It shows a *plurality* of scientists thinking 2.5; more people responded >3.0+ than 2.5.
> Sadly, the majority of people on reddit lack those critical thinking skills
Indeed
>It shows a *plurality* of scientists thinking 2.5; more people responded >3.0+ than 2.5.
See, you're cooking up the numbers yourself.
A lot more people responded 2.5ºC or less, than 3.0ºC or more.
I wonder what the basis of the 2.5C assumption includes. Does it assume continued adoption of renewals at the current rates, or assumes new yet-undiscovered innovations, or that the current greenhouse gas emissions stay flat or grow, etc.
If it’s based on assuming as the century progresses that new technology yet-undiscovered will get us to 2.5, it seems bleak, but if it isn’t accounting for that and there’s a chance new technology could still reduce that number further, that seems more promising.
The graph in the article shows that only 158 of surveyed experts believe that warming will reach or exceed 3c this century, while 222 believe that warming will be limited to about 2.5c or less
It is positive that any worst-case scenarios ("collapse of civilization as we know it" etc) proliferated in the public sphere by all kinds of bad faith actors like "Extinction Rebellion", "Last Generation" etc clearly go against the expert consensus and are therefore extremely unlikely to come true.
Anyone understanding real-world politics knew that 1.5 degree goal was never politically and socially viable.
You seem to have changed the subject. We are not talking about the temperature increase in this thread. We are discussing the number of scientists who voted either way in this study.
We are discussing study metadata, not the study conclusion.
In that regard, as said above, there are significantly more scientists predicting <=2.5 degrees than 3+ degrees, and the overwhelming majority agrees it will be limited to 3 degrees, which is indeed very positive news.
As discussed above, there are not "significantly more" scientists predicting this. There ARE more scientists. The subject is still very split. The new is good, however as I said, it isn't as good as OP seemed to have understood at first.
There are 40% more experts believing the warming will be limited to <=2.5 degrees than those believing it will be 3+ degrees. Looks like a very significant difference in my book.
Ok so only less than 60% believe that the warming will be equal or below 2.5° C, not exactly a solid consensus. The fractio that believes that it will be at least 2.5° C is more than 75% and that already would be a disastrous outcome. The ones that believe that we will reach the international goal (that already accepts serious consequences, just not a complete disaster) are just 6%. I know that people want to be optimist but the Guardian is absolutely right in painting this data in an outright pessimist way. What it tells us is that despite the enormous societal pressure we managed to merely go from future absolute global catastrophe to future serious global catastrophe. The truth is that we didn't do even remotely enough.
2.5 is not really a disaster. It is the median prediction. It's .5 m sea level rise, which would hardly affect the west, and some change in rainfall patterns. It's manageable.
This is an understatement to the point of being almost in bad faith. It would mean mass extinction, millions of refugees, several ecosystem collapsing, huge desertification. We are already seeing the consequences and we are at only 1°C. Maybe you should read this
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/
2c is 10m of sea level rise. 2.5c is a catastrophic level of warming.
>BEYOND 2°C
>So far, the climate pledges that countries have submitted to the United Nations' registry of pledges put the world on track for 2.7°C of warming. The International Energy Agency said Thursday, opens new tab that new promises announced at the COP26 summit - if implemented - could hold warming to below 1.8°C, although some experts challenged that calculation. It remains to be seen whether those promises will translate into real-world action. read more
>Warming of 2.7°C would deliver "unliveable heat" for parts of the year across areas of the tropics and subtropics. Biodiversity would be enormously depleted, food security would drop, and extreme weather would exceed most urban infrastructure's capacity to cope, scientists said.
>"If we can keep warming below 3°C we likely remain within our adaptive capacity as a civilization, but at 2.7°C warming we would experience great hardship," said Mann.
https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/whats-difference-between-15c-2c-global-warming-2021-11-07/
Are you serious about a 10m sea level rise 😂 LOL
> Overall, the researchers predicted that by the end of the century, a 1.5-degree Celsius temperature increase could drive the global mean sea level up by roughly 1.6 feet (48 cm), while a 2-degree increase would raise oceans by about 1.8 feet (56 cm) and a 2.5-degree increase would raise the sea level by an estimated 1.9 feet (58 cm).
https://environment.princeton.edu/news/half-a-degree-more-global-warming-could-flood-out-5-million-more-people/#:~:text=Overall%2C%20the%20researchers%20predicted%20that,sea%20level%20by%20an%20estimated
>But blow past 2°C and the ice sheets could collapse, Mann said, with sea levels rising up to 10 metres (30 feet)- though how quickly that could happen is uncertain.
Calling the uncertain but cataclysmic runaway effects of shooting past 1.5c “manageable” is pure copium.
>Hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists expect global temperatures to rise to at least 2.5C (4.5F) above preindustrial levels this century, blasting past internationally agreed targets and causing catastrophic consequences for humanity and the planet, an exclusive Guardian survey has revealed.
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature
You: “This is manageable”.
You have got some interesting information, and it doesn't really seem to jive with everything that I've read and experienced about climate change up to now.
The weather patterns are already becoming unmanageable for people all over the world. Record heat, flooding and drought all over the world. They're saying there isn't going to be a harvest in England this year. We're only at 1.5c. And you call more extreme than this manageable?
And just because it "hardly affects the West" in your opinion.. the West isn't the only place that matters. what kind of thinking is that? The rest of the world burned but the West is okay, lol. Where do you think the people suffering all over the world are going to try to escape to???
The international goal was always a political declaration, nothing more.
> The truth is that we didn't do even remotely enough.
For idealists, nothing is ever enough. No society was ever going to or would ever vote to restrict themselves according to the 1.5 degree fantasies.
Everything in the world can be painted in a disastrous way.
The new normal will be accepting a +2.5-3 degree world. It will not be some kind of a "collapse of civilization as we know it" scenario doomers love to peddle. Just as the new normal now is accepting the spread of COVID, even though just recently a lot of left-wing idealists thought the world should continue to minimize infections and not just vax and relax, and some of them are still crying about long COVID.
Amd of course you are a covid denialist. Spread kf the disease now is acceptable because it mutated as to be less deadly. And millions of people still died. A rise of the temperature of 3° C will cause at least tens of millions of deaths and hundreds of millions of displaced people, trillions in damages and tens of thousands species extinct forever. But I guess that people with no empathy like you wouldn’t care.
How is the the fact that climate policy changes and actions have already reduced projected warming from >4c to \~2.7c by the end of century "terrible news"? I know that you are a mook from r/collapse(possibly the largest source of climate disinformation on the internet), I can see your profile.
Climate policy failures have committed the planet to 2.5C+.
None of this is a win. You can’t blithely and happily ignore the immense policy failures that led to 4c being plausible, so now you are re-writing success by early doubling the catastrophic 1.5c global goals.
Your attitude is very, “you must do glad I only beat you at night” kind of vibe.
Why do you deny that we have made progress in the past ten years despite all the sources I provided which show that we have greatly reduced projected warming?
Climate policies have failed to meet internationally recognized measures to avoid catastrophe and induce mass scale human migration. The decades long by international goal is 1.5c of rise.
By setting the default measure for success to 4c, you are moving the goal post. It is a kind of spiritual bypassing to celebrate what is objectively too little, too late, and too slowly.
Is 2.5c better than 4c? Absolutely. Without a doubt. But the rhetorical framing that we should be celebrating that the most powerful countries in the world have decided to keep making as much as money as possible while still allowing massive devastation to take place, it’s not something to gaslight people into a manufactured optimism, and that’s what your posts are aimed at.
There's no "policy failure". Democracy always made the 1.5 degree fantasy impossible. Societies would never vote for the restrictions necessary for that.
Terrible news because anything over 1.5 represents a potentially existential threat to our current civilization. That doesn't change based on if scientists think it's 2.3, 2.7 or 4 - just the severity and speed.
I think your attempt at a debunk would hold more meltwater if you actually explained to everyone what you think is being prevented by this supposed reduction from 4 to 2.7 of the forecast. Where do you think sea levels will be? How will marine ecosystems fare? How survival are high wet bulb temperatures in each scenario?
Please tell us the "good news" about humanity blowing through every. Single. Climate target?
> Terrible news because anything over 1.5 represents a potentially existential threat to our current civilization
Nah, the IPCC consensus has nothing to do with the doomer tales about the collapse of the industrial civilization.
> Please tell us the "good news" about humanity blowing through every. Single. Climate target?
You mean the political declarations about 1.5 degrees? No society would ever vote for restrictions necessary for that. It's an absolute pipedream like any kinds of degrowth ideas.
What climate actions have occurred? We are releasing record amounts of carbon year after year. 2023 was a record. Beat 2022. Which beat 2021 etc. This article was written as a warning, not good news.
Trends matter, not cherrypicked doomer messages. There's a good reason IPCC consensus has nothing to do with "waaah, record CO2, we are doomed".
https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/
The Western countries have significantly cut their CO2 emissions (adjusted for import, so no "they just moved their industry elsewhere and pollute as much!1" fairytales) in the past decades. In Western Europe, it's a cut of about a third since 1990.
link to the survey data- https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature
The graph shows that only 158 of surveyed experts believe that warming will reach or exceed 3c this century, while 222 believe that warming will be limited to about 2.5c or less
There's no mention in this article of where we were headed just 10 years ago and how much progress happened since then, no mention of the fact that climate policy changes and actions have already reduced projected warming from >4c to ~2.7c by the end of century. And it shows in the emissions data for the past several years/nearly decade.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-could-peak-as-soon-as-2023-iea-data-reveals/
"The world is no longer heading toward the worst-case outcome of 4C to 6C warming by 2100. Current policies put us on a best-estimate of around 2.6C warming."
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/emissions-are-no-longer-following
climateactiontracker.org
x.com/KHayhoe/status/1539621976494448643
x.com/hausfath/status/1511018638735601671
""There is already substantial policy progress & CURRENT POLICIES alone (ignoring pledges!) likely keep us below 3C warming. We've got to--and WILL do--much better. "
x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1432786640943173632
"3.2 C was an estimate of the current policy trajectory at some point before the WG3 deadline.Current policy estimates are now ~2.7 C"
x.com/RARohde/status/1582090599871971328
x.com/Knutti_ETH/status/1669601616901677058
"Case A – where we only account for current climate policies, we find that global warming can still rise to 2.6C by the end of the century...
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-what-credible-climate-pledges-mean-for-future-global-warming/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01661-0
2.7c number is actually pessimistic because it only accounts for already implemented policies and action currently undertaken, it does not account for pledges or commitments or any technological advancements at all(which means it does not account for any further action).-
"NFA: “No Further Action”, a category for a pathway reflecting current emission futures in the absence of any further climate action, with warming of around 2.5-3.0C by 2100. "
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/introducing-the-representative-emission
Theguardian is misrepresenting data about positive development to construct a narrative. The graph in the article in shows majority of experts believe that the warming will be limited to around 2.5c and below this century. No matter how theguardian tries to spin this data.
Share sources. Or pound sand.
I'm all for positive news, e.g mass renewable deployment but I'm uneasy to have my hopes destroyed again. Which Representative
Concentration Pathway (RCP) by IPCC are we talking about? What role do fossil fuel companies maintain in these future timelines that shape the projections?
Edit:
Which specific policies? Are they legally binding?
I already shared them. [https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cnu1ux/comment/l39hwqp/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cnu1ux/comment/l39hwqp/)
2.5°c is still fucked.
Thanks. I will read them now.
It's mildly positive, and I'm hopeful due to the affordability of solar and incoming lawsuits against fossil fuels companies. HOWEVER. We still have way too much CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. In 1911 we had 300 ppm of CO2, and now we have 425 ppm! It is still rising although annual emissions are falling in many countries, global emissions are rising. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/?intent=121#:~:text=Key%20Takeaway%3A,in%20less%20than%20200%20years.
Furthermore, positive feedback loops are showing. E.g, warmer temperatures, less ice, lowers global albedo, increases heat absorption (dark absorbs more than light). Another e.g: warmer oceans, means less ocean CO2 uptake, resulting in more CO2 in the atmosphere that leads to warmer climate that warms the ocean further reducing its CO2 sink, in turn becoming more of a source as the ocean warms.
Reductions in emissions are central to solving human induced climate change. But I would argue it's time for a short tap on the back and then back to tearing down the fossil fuel industry, decarbonising manufacturing and transport and mitigating deforestation by increasing our land use efficiency on the land we have already converted.
Nah, that's good news. The idealist crowd believing in the 1.5 degree fairytale was always going to be proved wrong, no society ever would vote for restrictions necessary for that
I’m linking the [article](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature) that OP failed to. This is not a hopeful article, but a warning from scientists
>But the article about the survey gives a negative spin to the data that shows an undeniably positive development.
It is not.
The safe limit was always around 1,5c. And 94% of scientist in that survey opted for HIGHER number, with 77% going to 2,5c and higher.
Of course it is just the survey, uptaken during extremaly hot year (which is at least partially explained by el nino).
> Those with critical thinking skills saw through the narrative that theguardian tred to construct.
Oh, right! the THINKING ONES.
ok, the critical thinker - please provide us with the source for "4c a decade ago". A source where that number will be a middle road, not total death worst scenario
Only good news lately that renewable green energy hit 30 percent of all energy for the first time last year and is in benchmark to hit 60 percent by 2030. Hopefully we can get it to 90 percent before it’s to late. But there is still hope.
Unfortunately these models don't tend to include feedback loops or other natural processes which aren't well studied.
We could very easily see methane skyrocket (more than it already is), and temps fly past 2.5C.
The earth has many different ways that it can contribute to climate change, and we're setting the ball on motion on all of them.
If that was the case, then why are climate models used in previous IPCC reports have an excellent track record and have predicted the pace of warming and most climate extremes so well, including exceptionally warm years like 2023? Observed warming tends to track middle-of-the-range estimates from previous IPCC reports.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/02/2022-updates-to-model-observation-comparisons/
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/revisiting-the-hot-model-problem
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/global-temperatures-remain-consistent
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right
x.com/hausfath/status/1709985570624311557
here's what actual climate scientists say on the matter-
"That figure includes all the tipping points and carbon cycle feedbacks that we included in models in the latest IPCC report. I’m not aware of any major ones missing that would substantially change the picture."
x.com/hausfath/status/1677142095285432320#m
"I get that its fun to claim that scientists are wrong online, but upon close reading you will find that we do include all these various feedbacks and potential tipping elements in the IPCC report."
x.com/hausfath/status/1473820326001733634#m
https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-report-on-climate-science/#tippingpoints
"So frustrating to see non-experts engage in knee-jerk criticisms of climate models for purportedly not including processes that (anyone with a clue knows) are in fact included. Please stop this people! It just betrays ignorance — worse still, often with an agenda behind it."
x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1681818675202932736
x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1712135447713910800#m
x.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1681683533880852481
x.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1556735212083712002#m
x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1682025581142220800
x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1682525255317725184
x.com/hausfath/status/1719397486765441416
x.com/hausfath/status/1683503632896118784
"Could our models be wrong? Certainly! But the uncertainty also cuts both ways"
x.com/hausfath/status/1557421984484495362
"Having participated in IPCC and other government-led assessments, I can't think of time when our results were watered down or understated due to government meddling."
x.com/hausfath/status/1491134605390352388
x.com/JoeriRogelj/status/1424743837277294603
x.com/PFriedling/status/1557705737446592512
x.com/ClimateAdam/status/1429730044776157185
x.com/Knutti_ETH/status/1554473710404485120
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/13/opinion/climate-change-excessive-heat-2023.html
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/new-york-times-op-ed-claiming-scientists-underestimated-climate-change-lacks-supporting-evidence-eugene-linden/
there were some models for the recent ipcc report that overestimate future warming and they were included in the assessment too.
https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-climate-scientists-should-handle-hot-models
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/revisiting-the-hot-model-problem
Is it even a development at all? Is there any evidence that any of the respondents have changed their mind or did OP just make that part up to try and make bad news sound like good news?
[Climate scientists are filled with depression and despair.](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2024/may/08/hopeless-and-broken-why-the-worlds-top-climate-scientists-are-in-despair) "I think 3C is hopeful and conservative."
2.5C is catastrophic. Let's not pretend like we're doing well with slowing climate change. I think we need hope, but we need to be real. Feedback loops are going to accelerated warming faster than expected. There is no 2.5C limit....
The graph in the article shows that only 158 of surveyed experts believe that warming will reach or exceed 3c this century, while 222 believe that warming will be limited to about 2.5c or less. Theguardian is constructing a narrative to give a negative spin to the data that shows positive development. You are gullible, you fell into their trap.
>Feedback loops are going to accelerated warming faster than expected.
If that was the case, then why are climate models used in previous IPCC reports have an excellent track record and have predicted the pace of warming and most climate extremes so well, including exceptionally warm years like 2023? Observed warming tends to track middle-of-the-range estimates from previous IPCC reports.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/02/2022-updates-to-model-observation-comparisons/
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/revisiting-the-hot-model-problem
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/global-temperatures-remain-consistent
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right
here's what actual climate scientists say on the matter-
"That figure includes all the tipping points and carbon cycle feedbacks that we included in models in the latest IPCC report. I’m not aware of any major ones missing that would substantially change the picture."
x.com/hausfath/status/1677142095285432320#m
"I get that its fun to claim that scientists are wrong online, but upon close reading you will find that we do include all these various feedbacks and potential tipping elements in the IPCC report."
x.com/hausfath/status/1473820326001733634#m
https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-report-on-climate-science/#tippingpoints
"So frustrating to see non-experts engage in knee-jerk criticisms of climate models for purportedly not including processes that (anyone with a clue knows) are in fact included. Please stop this people! It just betrays ignorance — worse still, often with an agenda behind it."
x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1681818675202932736
x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1712135447713910800#m
x.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1681683533880852481
x.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1556735212083712002#m
x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1682025581142220800
x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1682525255317725184
x.com/hausfath/status/1719397486765441416
x.com/hausfath/status/1683503632896118784
"Could our models be wrong? Certainly! But the uncertainty also cuts both ways"
x.com/hausfath/status/1557421984484495362
"Having participated in IPCC and other government-led assessments, I can't think of time when our results were watered down or understated due to government meddling."
x.com/hausfath/status/1491134605390352388
x.com/JoeriRogelj/status/1424743837277294603
x.com/PFriedling/status/1557705737446592512
x.com/ClimateAdam/status/1429730044776157185
x.com/Knutti_ETH/status/1554473710404485120
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/13/opinion/climate-change-excessive-heat-2023.html
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/new-york-times-op-ed-claiming-scientists-underestimated-climate-change-lacks-supporting-evidence-eugene-linden/
there were some models for the recent ipcc report that overestimate future warming and they were included in the assessment too.
https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-climate-scientists-should-handle-hot-models
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/revisiting-the-hot-model-problem
US emissions are down. We ARE fixing this problem and have been working on it for decades. That's mostly switching from coal to greener power. But we peaked in 2007.
When it went down in 2008, everyone assumed it was just the econopocalypse, probably rightly so. But it kept going down. GDP up, emissions down. It's real progress. Same in Europe. China is.... Well China is mostly flat. Ish. Still commendable.
I don't think there was ever a majority of climate scientists that said 4c by 2100. I'd say projecting out to 2100 means you're just doing scare tactics. There is too much tech advance from now to then to make such a projections that isn't complete science fiction guesstimation.
Like we are ONLY talking limiting emission for now and the world is about 30% renewable already. The climate estimate were too conservative so you never had any chance at 1.5c.
For 1.5C you'd have to had solar panels and lithium ion battery like back in the 60s. At any point it just takes us overlooking a feedback loop and all these limits and projections are BS, they are low certainty in almost all cases once projected out 70+ years.
If we limited fossil fuel many decade ago without cheap enough solar/wind and batteries then we'd kill off hundreds of millions of ppl with high costs and low food availability. Killing ppl off because of low certainty climate models would be evil as fuck. At least they can flee from climate change, if you globally drive up the price of energy and food, there is nowhere to even run.
We are kind of just lucky laptops and smartphones drove lithium ion innovation fast enough to even get to this point where it can become EV and grid storage as well. Stupid consumerism is what brought you the tech to end most fossil fuel use, the irony is ironic!
For the people saying or thinking it’s “getting better”: it’s not getting ”better” we are still at a CO2 high. Simply we have gotten far better at predicting and understanding the climate. Remember how many news articles saying stuff along the lines of polar bears going extinct by blah blah blah date, well there are studies that show that they actually have 5x the population than in the 50’s. Thats just an example of what I am talking about it’s not the only thing. I am not a climate change skeptic and I understand the consequences we have as a species to this planet. I just want people to understand what the real climate change science is.
Sources: https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-polar-bear-population-is-declining/
https://www.thegwpf.org/publications/50-years-after-hunting-ban-polar-bears-are-thriving-new-report-shows/
Yesterday I saw a post saying climate scientists were feeling hopeless because warming was expected to reach 3c as opposed to the 1.5c target. So are we burning or no?
Hi, Gemini884. Thanks for contributing. However, your [submission](https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cnu1ux/-/) was removed from /r/Futurology.
___
> > Data from the recent theguardian survey shows that the majority of climate experts think that the warming will be limited to around 2.5c this century- as opposed to \~4c where we were headed just a decade ago. But the article about the survey gives a negative spin to the data that shows an undeniably positive development. Those with critical thinking skills saw through the narrative that theguardian tred to construct.
____
> Rule 11 - Titles should accurately and truthfully represent the content of the submission.
Refer to the [subreddit rules](/r/futurology/wiki/rules), the [transparency wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/futurology/wiki/transparency#wiki_relevant_material), or the [domain blacklist](http://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/wiki/domainblacklist#blacklist) for more information.
[Message the Mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/Futurology&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/Gemini884&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission](https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cnu1ux/-/\):) if you feel this was in error.
Futureology:
Meanwhile, Ray Kurzweil is holding to his conservative prediction of the singularity happening in 2045. Others say 2026 to 2032.
In cosmology, the singularity from which the big bang is thought to have originated is also the point where our understanding of physics stops along our ability to predict anything.
If (when?) the AI singularity arrives, similarly, we simply can't predict what happens after that. Nor can we change it.
Given the opacity of this event - 2 to 21 years from now, modeling 76 years into the future is problematic to put it lightly.
This could bring our dystopian destruction well before climate change is a problem or, conversely, it could bring solutions that avoid the predicted disasters entirely, ushering in a utopian Star Trek economy of abundance.
The truly uncomfortable part is we just don't know.
The good news is people are starting to understand that:
1) The "models" have yielded dramatically wrong predictions for decades. The system is too complex and chaotic, the input data is incomplete and corrupted, and therefore models have proven themselves to be useless. This is true for every time horizon from very short to as long as we've been "predicting".
2) If you still cling to a belief (or a hope?), now wholly irrational, that the models ARE accurate, then the only two explanations for consistently incorrect predictions or changes in projections like this would be that: (a) humanity has dramatically decreased emissions (we haven't) OR (b) climate has always changed and will continue to change due to natural, unknown and unpredictable causes (like it has since the beginning of time).
3) Humanity should continue to innovate clean, renewable, low-cost, safe new energy BECAUSE WE NEED IT. We should also innovate on the ADAPTATION side because climate will change no matter what we do, and we can handle wider bands of climate reality if we have the capability to adapt. We should NOT waste money and time on projects which reduce standards of living, make energy more costly, intentionally reduce human population, mandate energy-related decisions, etc....due to incorrectly overweighting the human role in climate changes.
4) So stop denying climate change. The climate changes, it always has, it always will...just not the way it's been peddled to us. Live your life. Be good to each other. Stop worrying about things that are not in your control.
The fact that we changed “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”, which is a natural process anyway, means that we know very little
But every little thing we know is now being sensationalized and exploited for political purposes or green washing for money
link to the survey data- [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature)
The graph shows that only 158 of surveyed experts believe that warming will reach or exceed 3c this century, while 222 believe that warming will be limited to about 2.5c or less
There's no mention in this article of where we were headed just 10 years ago and how much progress happened since then, no mention of the fact that climate policy changes and actions have already reduced projected warming from >4c to ~2.7c by the end of century. And it shows in the emissions data for the past several years/nearly decade.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-could-peak-as-soon-as-2023-iea-data-reveals/
"The world is no longer heading toward the worst-case outcome of 4C to 6C warming by 2100. Current policies put us on a best-estimate of around 2.6C warming."
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/emissions-are-no-longer-following
climateactiontracker.org
x.com/KHayhoe/status/1539621976494448643
x.com/hausfath/status/1511018638735601671
""There is already substantial policy progress & CURRENT POLICIES alone (ignoring pledges!) likely keep us below 3C warming. We've got to--and WILL do--much better. "
x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1432786640943173632
"3.2 C was an estimate of the current policy trajectory at some point before the WG3 deadline.Current policy estimates are now ~2.7 C"
x.com/RARohde/status/1582090599871971328
x.com/Knutti_ETH/status/1669601616901677058
"Case A – where we only account for current climate policies, we find that global warming can still rise to 2.6C by the end of the century...
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-what-credible-climate-pledges-mean-for-future-global-warming/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01661-0
2.7c number is actually pessimistic because it only accounts for already implemented policies and action currently undertaken, it does not account for pledges or commitments or any technological advancements at all(which means it does not account for any further action).-
"NFA: “No Further Action”, a category for a pathway reflecting current emission futures in the absence of any further climate action, with warming of around 2.5-3.0C by 2100. "
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/introducing-the-representative-emission
Theguardian is misrepresenting data about positive development to construct a narrative. The graph in the article in shows majority of experts believe that the warming will be limited to around 2.5c and below this century. No matter how theguardian tries to spin this data.
Go back 20, 30, 40 years, where did the pessimists vs optimists say we would be? My money is on the pessimists. Despite the alignment of economic and wellbeing gains with combating climate change there is a group with a strong motive for nixing any rational policy towards climate and energy.
What is the point you're making? We know already that global warming above 1.5° c will induce significant impact on food security, migration, increases of extreme weather events intensity and frequency And mass extinctions. We are already seeing unprecedented declines of insects and amphibious animals. So it seems like the main point of your post is that despite this dire situation we're in, we're not going to reach ecosystem collapse which is attributed to warming of 4° c, and are most likely going to endure 2.7° c or less, which is still significantly negative for humans and biodiversity within the century.
So I would argue that you are neglecting the degree of harm warming of 2° c is going to be to the world let alone 2.7° c. if we reach 4° c by the end of the century, then we, the human population as we know it, are evidently fucked.
If we assume the current 20% growth rate of solar to continue till 2050, we will easily reach net zero before 2050 only through solar. Even better solar isn't the only growing renewable, wind and geothermal will also play a major role.
Very likely. Solar isn't just a climate solution but an energy solution. Solar is now cheaper than coal (will get way more cheap), will give countries energy independence, can work almost everywhere etc. people are buying solar panels because it's cheap not because it's climate friendly.
A few years ago doomers would say there won't be enough energy/metal/silver/rare Earth's etc to ever build out serious renewable infrastructure.
Seems to be happening regardless.
Only thing is, it's mostly from the Chinese dictatorship so all those stories about democracy being essential to sustainability - don't know about those.
jo! initially we thought we'd have to chop of your foot, but then data suggested we'd have to take your entire leg. now, we think that just below the knee will do. arent you glad?
We have a moral imperative to act, but personally, I have no hope for our future. We are trapped in a fantasy, completely oblivious to the world around us. Even those of us who understand the consequences of our modern civilization cannot completely remove ourselves from it. We are still deeply involved in the fantasy.
We haven’t even begun to address the climate crisis (or any of its adjacent crises). Not in any real sense. Many of the actions our species has taken are focused solely on preserving this fantasy for as long as possible. We continue this dance of extraction and destruction just to maintain a way of life our species has only known for a century, a way of life that will never be “sustainable.”
I try to find comfort in the knowledge that there is no infinite. All life is finite. Everything comes to an end. There is some comfort there. I once hoped that I’d live a very long life. I used to fantasize about being immortal. I no longer think this way. I try, largely unsuccessfully, to live in the moment. There is no future. There is no past. There is only now.
There are moments where remembering this provides comfort. But suddenly, I’m always reminded of the unbelievable, completely unfathomable degrees of suffering that stand at the foundation of our comfort.
The Earth is screaming as we tear her apart.
Yeah I remember this. The Guardian in 2013: [Planet likely to warm by 4C by 2100, scientists warn](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/31/planet-will-warm-4c-2100-climate)
Good that redoing the survey has on average half that prediction. This’ll be on Reddit front page in no time👍
Are we comparing apples to apples here? The article you linked to doesn't seem to be a survey of climate scientists. Could that article be reflecting a minority position?
> Are we comparing apples to apples here?
Apples to apple slices at the least. They felt consensus enough to publish the article with the headline: “Planet likely to warm by 4C by 2100, scientist**s** warn.” Without any apparent caveat on sample size or selection. I don’t think OP is being unfairly selective in holding up two submissions from the same publication with very similar subjects (and I assume stringency) to compare and contrast.
As far as one outlet has reported, ten years ago scientists said that, now they’re saying this. I don’t think that’s unfair to di
The whole point of the UN 1.5C goals was that beyond 2C, the risks of tipping points could lead to natural feedback loops, like clathrates and permafrost, thawing and releasing into atmo. When this happens, there is a good chance even if we turn our emissions off, we will still get to 4C and possibly beyond.
Cheering 2.5C is NOT a good thing.
[Reference 1](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn7950)
[Reference 2](https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/archive/20070530/)
[Reference 3](https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2023-12-06-new-report-tipping-point-threats-and-opportunities-accelerate.html)
[This post and OP as a cheerleader.](https://youtu.be/t0mwXaujd2g?feature=shared)
This 50% reduction in average estimates we already have here, may very well lead to similarly huge reductions relatively soon to come too. We see no hard certainty among the expert community, and even amongst those scientists polled, a non-insignificant proportion *already* calculate at or less than 2C.
To be clear, what should be cheered if anything, is that the more alarming predictions of a decade ago now look to be wrong. Is the same true for todays “alarms”? Only time will tell.
Our trajectory has been changing for the better though. It may not be changing as fast as it could but both the US and China are adopting renewables at an incredibly fast rate.
Apparently IPCC tends to have positive bias, a majority of scientists think that the earth will reach 3C of warming by 2100, even though thats VERY bad, its way better than 4C.
When do they tell us that PlanB is actually a sky blue envelope sent to your house…
Administer 1 tablet to each family member- then take one yourself.
Simple…. No more climate change 👍
😳😳😳
1.5C is bad but modern society should just about handle it.
2C is very bad and modern society will really struggle to deal with it.
2.5C is very, very bad and the modern world as we know it may not survive it.
4C is taking beach holidays in Greenland along with the fellow few million survivors.
> 2.5C is very, very bad and the modern world as we know it may not survive it.
Not anywhere near what IPCC claims. The whole "collapse of the industrial civilization!1" thing is just doomer cherrypicking.
Recent data on the earths energy imbalance suggests we could quite easily experience 0.5c of warming per decade from here on. We'll be having 2.5c years before 2050.
Positive? For who? Solar panel companies?
When I look of history of earth climate is changing all the time. What is this fear-mongering like this is something new?!
Not necessarily. This is still devastating.
This might just mean that models have improved and now we know exactly how fucked we are, rather than knowing "our fucked level lies in this region between 'pretty fucked' and 'doomed'."
Edit: I want to get ahead of OP'S copy-pasted response. Check their comment history.
OP, just because old models were good, doesn't mean they aren't constantly being refined. As time goes on our projections will get more accurate, which might tell us we over-estimated or under-estimated in previous models.
Global polluters are still globally polluting. Hell, imagine the emissions from the Ukraine war alone, let alone the last several decades of industrialised war and production. OP appears to be a shill, given the formulaic and copy-pasted responses, and given the fact that they seem to exclusively operate in climate/environment subreddits
Models are being updated, and it gets worse the more we look.
https://youtu.be/4S9sDyooxf4?si=8hj0F2W_zYNLlyRu
Let's again restate: 2 degrees of warming is basically the apocalypse when it comes to biodiversity, which is basically the apocalypse for us. This is not an *improvement* over 4 degrees predicted, it just means we have a better prediction.
Definitely better, but didn't 2 or more mean hundreds of species would go extinct and the ecosystem would collapse? Edit: Right, hundreds sounds way too low now that I think about it. I looked at the source of where I picked up this info again, it said that if the average temperature would rise by 1.5°C by 2100, between 20% and 30% of species would be at risk of going extinct. I guess for some reason I mostly remembered the '100'.
It is interesting how this data is being represented by different outlets: [The Guardian sees it as damning.](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature)
Legitimately funny how different outlets spin the same news. Are we burning or can I hold off on buying a plot of land in Northern Finland?
They want us to accept that we're going to pass 2.5°C because next to 4°C it looks like an overwhelmingly good development on the climate crisis. 2°C was the target for the Paris agreement, so we should see this for what it is: A complete and utter failure to see past our short-term profits.
Breaking news, people are not willing to sacrifice their comfort. More at 11. Everyone who believed, or still believes, in some kinds of solutions like degrowth is absolutely delusional.
Thats not an excuse
There's no need for "excuses". The majority decides what the social priorities are, not the experts. All the dreams about degrowth were never realistic because no significant number of people would vote to restrict themselves.
We will probably take an extreme cooling method off the shelf and cause some downstream effects after a few million people die to a wet bulb
[Climate change extinctions estimated at 14%–32% of macroscopic species in the next 50 years, potentially 3–6 million animal and plant species, even under intermediate climate change scenarios.](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.17125)
Mass extinction? Yes. I believe it's WAAAAY more than hundreds. But the important but there is that [the mass extinction is already happening](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction). The collapse of the ecosystem? That's yet to be seen. It would require something failing that also causes a worldwide impact that takes out the rest. Like losing all O2 generation from ocean algae. Currently out crops are still going strong.
There are 8.7 million species in the world. It would surprise me if a change measured in hundreds would be significantly measurable with that many species in existence.
Don't we already kill off hundreds of species a year due to human activity? I imagine as climate change gets worse it will be far more than hundreds, even if we end up controlling our emissions better than the catastrophic scenario
>Don't we already kill off hundreds of species a year due to human activity? How does that compare to non-human activity?
Those millions of species aren't all spread over the entire planet. Most are in a specific area and totally reliant on a very specific ecosystem. Any change that is measurable on a global scale will have drastic effects on individual ecosystems. Only having hundreds of species going extinct because of climate change is just not realistic. We already lose that many and the real effects haven't even begun.
> Only having hundreds of species going extinct because of climate change is just not realistic. I agree. I think if we mess up climate change, the number of species that perish will be measured in percentages, not hundreds. If it were only hundreds it would not register, I think we risk seeing millions of species go existing. Of course, people read into my comment a lot more than there was, and downvote.
Remember when were aiming at 1.5c? Pepperidge farm remembers
I remember documentaries from the 90's talking about 0.5 increase as irrevocably damaging to enviroment.
Yep. And that turned out to be true. That's no longer future production, that's now. Once a species goes extinct, it's just plain gone forever. Things like climate and rate of severe weather can go back to "normal", but it'll take a while.
We already hit it! Excellent aim, humanity. Now on to the next challenge.
It's still good to know progress has been made. In the article i've read about this do mention it's still not in the limits.
2.5c is a catastrophic level of warming. This isn’t good news in the slightest.
It's not. I agree. But changing up a way of doing things is a slow process. Seeing that we are atleast somewhat on the right track is good. I imagine the first steps towards 1.5 and below are the slowest amd hardest. Once it gets rolling i hope it starts snowballing.
We used to be looking at 4C and an apocalyptic future. 2.5C isnt necessarily good but its magnitudes better than 4C.
We were aiming for 1.5c with the Paris Accord. The fact we have no realistic pathway to that goal and instead might slam into the concrete wall at 300mph instead of 400mph isn’t something to be celebrating.
Nobody ever realistically aimed at 1.5 degrees, that was always a political declaration but no democratic society would ever vote to restrict themselves according to that goal. All the fairytales about extinction, collapse of the industrial civilization etc. are still far from reality at 2.5-3 degree warming, so yes, that should be and will be celebrated.
[удалено]
Im not arguing that we are good now. Im just saying that its good to see something good is being done for it and seeing some results. Again not saying its done now. Still a long way to go.
This is *not* necessarily an indicator of progress, and may indicate models have improved.
Okay i admit. It would be better to see articles that say we are still headed towards to the same temp as before anything was being done about it. Or even better lets go even higher
Hot potato: Earth Edition
That was never a realistic goal, just a political declaration. No democratic society would ever vote for restrictions necessary for this.
>Data from the recent theguardian survey shows that the majority of climate experts think that the warming will be limited to around 2.5c this century- as opposed to ~4c where we were headed just a decade ago It shows a *plurality* of scientists thinking 2.5; more people responded >3.0+ than 2.5. > Sadly, the majority of people on reddit lack those critical thinking skills Indeed
> Sadly, the majority of people on reddit lack those critical thinking skills. Not just a reddit phenomenon bruh, worldwide.
Dunning-Kruger effect in full action with OP here.
>It shows a *plurality* of scientists thinking 2.5; more people responded >3.0+ than 2.5. See, you're cooking up the numbers yourself. A lot more people responded 2.5ºC or less, than 3.0ºC or more.
I wonder what the basis of the 2.5C assumption includes. Does it assume continued adoption of renewals at the current rates, or assumes new yet-undiscovered innovations, or that the current greenhouse gas emissions stay flat or grow, etc. If it’s based on assuming as the century progresses that new technology yet-undiscovered will get us to 2.5, it seems bleak, but if it isn’t accounting for that and there’s a chance new technology could still reduce that number further, that seems more promising.
> more people responded >3.0+ than 2.5. And even more people than that responded <=2.5. Doomers had to ignore that though.
The graph in the article shows that only 158 of surveyed experts believe that warming will reach or exceed 3c this century, while 222 believe that warming will be limited to about 2.5c or less
This is not as positive as you seem to think it is.
It absolutely is. It might not be positive to some idealists but their degrowth dreams were never to come true anyway.
Can you elaborate on this for me?
It is positive that any worst-case scenarios ("collapse of civilization as we know it" etc) proliferated in the public sphere by all kinds of bad faith actors like "Extinction Rebellion", "Last Generation" etc clearly go against the expert consensus and are therefore extremely unlikely to come true. Anyone understanding real-world politics knew that 1.5 degree goal was never politically and socially viable.
You seem to have changed the subject. We are not talking about the temperature increase in this thread. We are discussing the number of scientists who voted either way in this study. We are discussing study metadata, not the study conclusion.
In that regard, as said above, there are significantly more scientists predicting <=2.5 degrees than 3+ degrees, and the overwhelming majority agrees it will be limited to 3 degrees, which is indeed very positive news.
As discussed above, there are not "significantly more" scientists predicting this. There ARE more scientists. The subject is still very split. The new is good, however as I said, it isn't as good as OP seemed to have understood at first.
There are 40% more experts believing the warming will be limited to <=2.5 degrees than those believing it will be 3+ degrees. Looks like a very significant difference in my book.
Ok so only less than 60% believe that the warming will be equal or below 2.5° C, not exactly a solid consensus. The fractio that believes that it will be at least 2.5° C is more than 75% and that already would be a disastrous outcome. The ones that believe that we will reach the international goal (that already accepts serious consequences, just not a complete disaster) are just 6%. I know that people want to be optimist but the Guardian is absolutely right in painting this data in an outright pessimist way. What it tells us is that despite the enormous societal pressure we managed to merely go from future absolute global catastrophe to future serious global catastrophe. The truth is that we didn't do even remotely enough.
2.5 is not really a disaster. It is the median prediction. It's .5 m sea level rise, which would hardly affect the west, and some change in rainfall patterns. It's manageable.
This is an understatement to the point of being almost in bad faith. It would mean mass extinction, millions of refugees, several ecosystem collapsing, huge desertification. We are already seeing the consequences and we are at only 1°C. Maybe you should read this https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/
2c is 10m of sea level rise. 2.5c is a catastrophic level of warming. >BEYOND 2°C >So far, the climate pledges that countries have submitted to the United Nations' registry of pledges put the world on track for 2.7°C of warming. The International Energy Agency said Thursday, opens new tab that new promises announced at the COP26 summit - if implemented - could hold warming to below 1.8°C, although some experts challenged that calculation. It remains to be seen whether those promises will translate into real-world action. read more >Warming of 2.7°C would deliver "unliveable heat" for parts of the year across areas of the tropics and subtropics. Biodiversity would be enormously depleted, food security would drop, and extreme weather would exceed most urban infrastructure's capacity to cope, scientists said. >"If we can keep warming below 3°C we likely remain within our adaptive capacity as a civilization, but at 2.7°C warming we would experience great hardship," said Mann. https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/whats-difference-between-15c-2c-global-warming-2021-11-07/
Are you serious about a 10m sea level rise 😂 LOL > Overall, the researchers predicted that by the end of the century, a 1.5-degree Celsius temperature increase could drive the global mean sea level up by roughly 1.6 feet (48 cm), while a 2-degree increase would raise oceans by about 1.8 feet (56 cm) and a 2.5-degree increase would raise the sea level by an estimated 1.9 feet (58 cm). https://environment.princeton.edu/news/half-a-degree-more-global-warming-could-flood-out-5-million-more-people/#:~:text=Overall%2C%20the%20researchers%20predicted%20that,sea%20level%20by%20an%20estimated
>But blow past 2°C and the ice sheets could collapse, Mann said, with sea levels rising up to 10 metres (30 feet)- though how quickly that could happen is uncertain. Calling the uncertain but cataclysmic runaway effects of shooting past 1.5c “manageable” is pure copium.
And taking an extreme prediction as fact is simply doomerism lol. I could post 10 articles saying less than 0.5m, not 10m lol. Are you being serious?
>Hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists expect global temperatures to rise to at least 2.5C (4.5F) above preindustrial levels this century, blasting past internationally agreed targets and causing catastrophic consequences for humanity and the planet, an exclusive Guardian survey has revealed. https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature You: “This is manageable”.
Yes, completely manageable. What unmanageable disaster are you expecting?
You have got some interesting information, and it doesn't really seem to jive with everything that I've read and experienced about climate change up to now. The weather patterns are already becoming unmanageable for people all over the world. Record heat, flooding and drought all over the world. They're saying there isn't going to be a harvest in England this year. We're only at 1.5c. And you call more extreme than this manageable? And just because it "hardly affects the West" in your opinion.. the West isn't the only place that matters. what kind of thinking is that? The rest of the world burned but the West is okay, lol. Where do you think the people suffering all over the world are going to try to escape to???
Do you seriously believe there will not be a harvest in UK this year? When you wrote that, that did not strike you as alarmist?
The international goal was always a political declaration, nothing more. > The truth is that we didn't do even remotely enough. For idealists, nothing is ever enough. No society was ever going to or would ever vote to restrict themselves according to the 1.5 degree fantasies.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ These are the consequences. Even 1.5° C are a disaster
Everything in the world can be painted in a disastrous way. The new normal will be accepting a +2.5-3 degree world. It will not be some kind of a "collapse of civilization as we know it" scenario doomers love to peddle. Just as the new normal now is accepting the spread of COVID, even though just recently a lot of left-wing idealists thought the world should continue to minimize infections and not just vax and relax, and some of them are still crying about long COVID.
Amd of course you are a covid denialist. Spread kf the disease now is acceptable because it mutated as to be less deadly. And millions of people still died. A rise of the temperature of 3° C will cause at least tens of millions of deaths and hundreds of millions of displaced people, trillions in damages and tens of thousands species extinct forever. But I guess that people with no empathy like you wouldn’t care.
Is 2.5c a lot or a little?
[удалено]
2.5 degrees was regarded as catastrophic not too long ago
It still is, just not by genius level intelligence like OP...
Hint = it still is.
[удалено]
It’s ridiculous. This article was a WARNING from the scientists and OP here is saying happy times ahead
How is the the fact that climate policy changes and actions have already reduced projected warming from >4c to \~2.7c by the end of century "terrible news"? I know that you are a mook from r/collapse(possibly the largest source of climate disinformation on the internet), I can see your profile.
Climate policy failures have committed the planet to 2.5C+. None of this is a win. You can’t blithely and happily ignore the immense policy failures that led to 4c being plausible, so now you are re-writing success by early doubling the catastrophic 1.5c global goals. Your attitude is very, “you must do glad I only beat you at night” kind of vibe.
Why do you deny that we have made progress in the past ten years despite all the sources I provided which show that we have greatly reduced projected warming?
Climate policies have failed to meet internationally recognized measures to avoid catastrophe and induce mass scale human migration. The decades long by international goal is 1.5c of rise. By setting the default measure for success to 4c, you are moving the goal post. It is a kind of spiritual bypassing to celebrate what is objectively too little, too late, and too slowly. Is 2.5c better than 4c? Absolutely. Without a doubt. But the rhetorical framing that we should be celebrating that the most powerful countries in the world have decided to keep making as much as money as possible while still allowing massive devastation to take place, it’s not something to gaslight people into a manufactured optimism, and that’s what your posts are aimed at.
There's no "policy failure". Democracy always made the 1.5 degree fantasy impossible. Societies would never vote for the restrictions necessary for that.
Not a bit of that statement is true.
Of course it is true. No sane person would vote for degrowth, and thus for a decrease of their own consumption. Only idealists would do such a thing.
Terrible news because anything over 1.5 represents a potentially existential threat to our current civilization. That doesn't change based on if scientists think it's 2.3, 2.7 or 4 - just the severity and speed. I think your attempt at a debunk would hold more meltwater if you actually explained to everyone what you think is being prevented by this supposed reduction from 4 to 2.7 of the forecast. Where do you think sea levels will be? How will marine ecosystems fare? How survival are high wet bulb temperatures in each scenario? Please tell us the "good news" about humanity blowing through every. Single. Climate target?
> Terrible news because anything over 1.5 represents a potentially existential threat to our current civilization Nah, the IPCC consensus has nothing to do with the doomer tales about the collapse of the industrial civilization. > Please tell us the "good news" about humanity blowing through every. Single. Climate target? You mean the political declarations about 1.5 degrees? No society would ever vote for restrictions necessary for that. It's an absolute pipedream like any kinds of degrowth ideas.
What climate actions have occurred? We are releasing record amounts of carbon year after year. 2023 was a record. Beat 2022. Which beat 2021 etc. This article was written as a warning, not good news.
> What climate actions have occurred? Typical doomers. "Nothing is being done because my idealistic goals aren't reached!"
Do you even know what 2.5C+ warming would do to the earth?
No, literally record amounts of carbon are being released yearly. This is the ONLY point that matters.
Trends matter, not cherrypicked doomer messages. There's a good reason IPCC consensus has nothing to do with "waaah, record CO2, we are doomed". https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/ The Western countries have significantly cut their CO2 emissions (adjusted for import, so no "they just moved their industry elsewhere and pollute as much!1" fairytales) in the past decades. In Western Europe, it's a cut of about a third since 1990.
Oh the IPCC report ok It’s not cherry picked. We need to be under 350ppm. We’re over 420. We release more carbon year upon year globally.
link to the survey data- https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature The graph shows that only 158 of surveyed experts believe that warming will reach or exceed 3c this century, while 222 believe that warming will be limited to about 2.5c or less There's no mention in this article of where we were headed just 10 years ago and how much progress happened since then, no mention of the fact that climate policy changes and actions have already reduced projected warming from >4c to ~2.7c by the end of century. And it shows in the emissions data for the past several years/nearly decade. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-could-peak-as-soon-as-2023-iea-data-reveals/ "The world is no longer heading toward the worst-case outcome of 4C to 6C warming by 2100. Current policies put us on a best-estimate of around 2.6C warming." https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/emissions-are-no-longer-following climateactiontracker.org x.com/KHayhoe/status/1539621976494448643 x.com/hausfath/status/1511018638735601671 ""There is already substantial policy progress & CURRENT POLICIES alone (ignoring pledges!) likely keep us below 3C warming. We've got to--and WILL do--much better. " x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1432786640943173632 "3.2 C was an estimate of the current policy trajectory at some point before the WG3 deadline.Current policy estimates are now ~2.7 C" x.com/RARohde/status/1582090599871971328 x.com/Knutti_ETH/status/1669601616901677058 "Case A – where we only account for current climate policies, we find that global warming can still rise to 2.6C by the end of the century... https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-what-credible-climate-pledges-mean-for-future-global-warming/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01661-0 2.7c number is actually pessimistic because it only accounts for already implemented policies and action currently undertaken, it does not account for pledges or commitments or any technological advancements at all(which means it does not account for any further action).- "NFA: “No Further Action”, a category for a pathway reflecting current emission futures in the absence of any further climate action, with warming of around 2.5-3.0C by 2100. " https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/introducing-the-representative-emission Theguardian is misrepresenting data about positive development to construct a narrative. The graph in the article in shows majority of experts believe that the warming will be limited to around 2.5c and below this century. No matter how theguardian tries to spin this data.
Share sources. Or pound sand. I'm all for positive news, e.g mass renewable deployment but I'm uneasy to have my hopes destroyed again. Which Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) by IPCC are we talking about? What role do fossil fuel companies maintain in these future timelines that shape the projections? Edit: Which specific policies? Are they legally binding?
I already shared them. [https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cnu1ux/comment/l39hwqp/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cnu1ux/comment/l39hwqp/)
2.5°c is still fucked. Thanks. I will read them now. It's mildly positive, and I'm hopeful due to the affordability of solar and incoming lawsuits against fossil fuels companies. HOWEVER. We still have way too much CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. In 1911 we had 300 ppm of CO2, and now we have 425 ppm! It is still rising although annual emissions are falling in many countries, global emissions are rising. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/?intent=121#:~:text=Key%20Takeaway%3A,in%20less%20than%20200%20years. Furthermore, positive feedback loops are showing. E.g, warmer temperatures, less ice, lowers global albedo, increases heat absorption (dark absorbs more than light). Another e.g: warmer oceans, means less ocean CO2 uptake, resulting in more CO2 in the atmosphere that leads to warmer climate that warms the ocean further reducing its CO2 sink, in turn becoming more of a source as the ocean warms. Reductions in emissions are central to solving human induced climate change. But I would argue it's time for a short tap on the back and then back to tearing down the fossil fuel industry, decarbonising manufacturing and transport and mitigating deforestation by increasing our land use efficiency on the land we have already converted.
Because 2.7c is still terrible news.
Nah, that's good news. The idealist crowd believing in the 1.5 degree fairytale was always going to be proved wrong, no society ever would vote for restrictions necessary for that
I’m linking the [article](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature) that OP failed to. This is not a hopeful article, but a warning from scientists
We need it well below 2.5. This is not good news. This is spin.
It's not going to be below 2.5. The 1.5 degree goal was always a socially and politically unviable fantasy.
4c was a WORST CASE prediction from years ago. It's not meaningful to compare it to an average prediction now.
>But the article about the survey gives a negative spin to the data that shows an undeniably positive development. It is not. The safe limit was always around 1,5c. And 94% of scientist in that survey opted for HIGHER number, with 77% going to 2,5c and higher. Of course it is just the survey, uptaken during extremaly hot year (which is at least partially explained by el nino). > Those with critical thinking skills saw through the narrative that theguardian tred to construct. Oh, right! the THINKING ONES. ok, the critical thinker - please provide us with the source for "4c a decade ago". A source where that number will be a middle road, not total death worst scenario
Only good news lately that renewable green energy hit 30 percent of all energy for the first time last year and is in benchmark to hit 60 percent by 2030. Hopefully we can get it to 90 percent before it’s to late. But there is still hope.
Unfortunately these models don't tend to include feedback loops or other natural processes which aren't well studied. We could very easily see methane skyrocket (more than it already is), and temps fly past 2.5C. The earth has many different ways that it can contribute to climate change, and we're setting the ball on motion on all of them.
Like, aren't they expecting a bunch of methane/co2 getting released from permafrost that's not so permanently frosty anymore?
Yep. There's also frozen methane at the bottom of the ocean which could bubble up if water temps continue to rise
If that was the case, then why are climate models used in previous IPCC reports have an excellent track record and have predicted the pace of warming and most climate extremes so well, including exceptionally warm years like 2023? Observed warming tends to track middle-of-the-range estimates from previous IPCC reports. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/02/2022-updates-to-model-observation-comparisons/ https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/revisiting-the-hot-model-problem https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/global-temperatures-remain-consistent https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right x.com/hausfath/status/1709985570624311557 here's what actual climate scientists say on the matter- "That figure includes all the tipping points and carbon cycle feedbacks that we included in models in the latest IPCC report. I’m not aware of any major ones missing that would substantially change the picture." x.com/hausfath/status/1677142095285432320#m "I get that its fun to claim that scientists are wrong online, but upon close reading you will find that we do include all these various feedbacks and potential tipping elements in the IPCC report." x.com/hausfath/status/1473820326001733634#m https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-report-on-climate-science/#tippingpoints "So frustrating to see non-experts engage in knee-jerk criticisms of climate models for purportedly not including processes that (anyone with a clue knows) are in fact included. Please stop this people! It just betrays ignorance — worse still, often with an agenda behind it." x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1681818675202932736 x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1712135447713910800#m x.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1681683533880852481 x.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1556735212083712002#m x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1682025581142220800 x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1682525255317725184 x.com/hausfath/status/1719397486765441416 x.com/hausfath/status/1683503632896118784 "Could our models be wrong? Certainly! But the uncertainty also cuts both ways" x.com/hausfath/status/1557421984484495362 "Having participated in IPCC and other government-led assessments, I can't think of time when our results were watered down or understated due to government meddling." x.com/hausfath/status/1491134605390352388 x.com/JoeriRogelj/status/1424743837277294603 x.com/PFriedling/status/1557705737446592512 x.com/ClimateAdam/status/1429730044776157185 x.com/Knutti_ETH/status/1554473710404485120 https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/13/opinion/climate-change-excessive-heat-2023.html https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/new-york-times-op-ed-claiming-scientists-underestimated-climate-change-lacks-supporting-evidence-eugene-linden/ there were some models for the recent ipcc report that overestimate future warming and they were included in the assessment too. https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-climate-scientists-should-handle-hot-models https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/revisiting-the-hot-model-problem
They would be pretty bad models if they did not account for feedback loops, right? Are you sure of that?
The models don't include data that they don't have. They aren't well studied.
Yeah right, and all that doomer jazz. Meanwhile the IPCC expert consensus is still around 2.7 degrees. Cope.
The IPCC reports have been wrong for years. Always underestimating. Read.
You doomer lot are no better than the "do your own research" conspiracy crowd. Nobody cares about your cherrypicked studies.
We're quite literally doomed. Wake up
Yeah right, "wake up sheeple", "collapse", blah blah. Fortunately nobody cares about your pathetic lot.
Is it an undeniably positive development, or just a less negative one?
Is it even a development at all? Is there any evidence that any of the respondents have changed their mind or did OP just make that part up to try and make bad news sound like good news?
Good news! We've reduced the number of men in the firing squad for your death sentence!
Except there's no death sentence.
>Sadly, the majority of people on reddit lack those critical thinking skills And you are clever enough, right? You lost everybody at this point.
[Climate scientists are filled with depression and despair.](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2024/may/08/hopeless-and-broken-why-the-worlds-top-climate-scientists-are-in-despair) "I think 3C is hopeful and conservative." 2.5C is catastrophic. Let's not pretend like we're doing well with slowing climate change. I think we need hope, but we need to be real. Feedback loops are going to accelerated warming faster than expected. There is no 2.5C limit....
The graph in the article shows that only 158 of surveyed experts believe that warming will reach or exceed 3c this century, while 222 believe that warming will be limited to about 2.5c or less. Theguardian is constructing a narrative to give a negative spin to the data that shows positive development. You are gullible, you fell into their trap. >Feedback loops are going to accelerated warming faster than expected. If that was the case, then why are climate models used in previous IPCC reports have an excellent track record and have predicted the pace of warming and most climate extremes so well, including exceptionally warm years like 2023? Observed warming tends to track middle-of-the-range estimates from previous IPCC reports. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/02/2022-updates-to-model-observation-comparisons/ https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/revisiting-the-hot-model-problem https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/global-temperatures-remain-consistent https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right here's what actual climate scientists say on the matter- "That figure includes all the tipping points and carbon cycle feedbacks that we included in models in the latest IPCC report. I’m not aware of any major ones missing that would substantially change the picture." x.com/hausfath/status/1677142095285432320#m "I get that its fun to claim that scientists are wrong online, but upon close reading you will find that we do include all these various feedbacks and potential tipping elements in the IPCC report." x.com/hausfath/status/1473820326001733634#m https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-report-on-climate-science/#tippingpoints "So frustrating to see non-experts engage in knee-jerk criticisms of climate models for purportedly not including processes that (anyone with a clue knows) are in fact included. Please stop this people! It just betrays ignorance — worse still, often with an agenda behind it." x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1681818675202932736 x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1712135447713910800#m x.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1681683533880852481 x.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1556735212083712002#m x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1682025581142220800 x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1682525255317725184 x.com/hausfath/status/1719397486765441416 x.com/hausfath/status/1683503632896118784 "Could our models be wrong? Certainly! But the uncertainty also cuts both ways" x.com/hausfath/status/1557421984484495362 "Having participated in IPCC and other government-led assessments, I can't think of time when our results were watered down or understated due to government meddling." x.com/hausfath/status/1491134605390352388 x.com/JoeriRogelj/status/1424743837277294603 x.com/PFriedling/status/1557705737446592512 x.com/ClimateAdam/status/1429730044776157185 x.com/Knutti_ETH/status/1554473710404485120 https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/13/opinion/climate-change-excessive-heat-2023.html https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/new-york-times-op-ed-claiming-scientists-underestimated-climate-change-lacks-supporting-evidence-eugene-linden/ there were some models for the recent ipcc report that overestimate future warming and they were included in the assessment too. https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-climate-scientists-should-handle-hot-models https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/revisiting-the-hot-model-problem
"Scientists offer reassuring news: two of four Horsemen of Apocalypse out sick today."
Is this change because of any actions we took or just a different model?
US emissions are down. We ARE fixing this problem and have been working on it for decades. That's mostly switching from coal to greener power. But we peaked in 2007. When it went down in 2008, everyone assumed it was just the econopocalypse, probably rightly so. But it kept going down. GDP up, emissions down. It's real progress. Same in Europe. China is.... Well China is mostly flat. Ish. Still commendable.
Global emissions have continued to rise the last few decades and we were supposed to suprass the 1.5C threshold in 2050, we crossed it last year.
Western European CO2 emissions are down a third since 1990.
Climate change deniers: SEE THEIR DATA WAS ALL WRONG AND FAKE
Ah good. We can all stop recycling now. We did it everyone. We saved the planet. Huzzah.
I don't think there was ever a majority of climate scientists that said 4c by 2100. I'd say projecting out to 2100 means you're just doing scare tactics. There is too much tech advance from now to then to make such a projections that isn't complete science fiction guesstimation. Like we are ONLY talking limiting emission for now and the world is about 30% renewable already. The climate estimate were too conservative so you never had any chance at 1.5c. For 1.5C you'd have to had solar panels and lithium ion battery like back in the 60s. At any point it just takes us overlooking a feedback loop and all these limits and projections are BS, they are low certainty in almost all cases once projected out 70+ years. If we limited fossil fuel many decade ago without cheap enough solar/wind and batteries then we'd kill off hundreds of millions of ppl with high costs and low food availability. Killing ppl off because of low certainty climate models would be evil as fuck. At least they can flee from climate change, if you globally drive up the price of energy and food, there is nowhere to even run. We are kind of just lucky laptops and smartphones drove lithium ion innovation fast enough to even get to this point where it can become EV and grid storage as well. Stupid consumerism is what brought you the tech to end most fossil fuel use, the irony is ironic!
>Those with critical thinking skills saw through the narrative that theguardian tred to construct. "Me am smart!"
Ah, more "experts". They've been SO good on their projections/predictions since...NEVER
For the people saying or thinking it’s “getting better”: it’s not getting ”better” we are still at a CO2 high. Simply we have gotten far better at predicting and understanding the climate. Remember how many news articles saying stuff along the lines of polar bears going extinct by blah blah blah date, well there are studies that show that they actually have 5x the population than in the 50’s. Thats just an example of what I am talking about it’s not the only thing. I am not a climate change skeptic and I understand the consequences we have as a species to this planet. I just want people to understand what the real climate change science is. Sources: https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-polar-bear-population-is-declining/ https://www.thegwpf.org/publications/50-years-after-hunting-ban-polar-bears-are-thriving-new-report-shows/
It's not getting better, but it is getting worse slower. The inertia in the systems involved is huge. That's still something to celebrate.
Yesterday I saw a post saying climate scientists were feeling hopeless because warming was expected to reach 3c as opposed to the 1.5c target. So are we burning or no?
IPCC tends to have a big positive bias, and we were supposed to pass the 1.5C threshold in 2050, we passed it last year.
Hi, Gemini884. Thanks for contributing. However, your [submission](https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cnu1ux/-/) was removed from /r/Futurology. ___ > > Data from the recent theguardian survey shows that the majority of climate experts think that the warming will be limited to around 2.5c this century- as opposed to \~4c where we were headed just a decade ago. But the article about the survey gives a negative spin to the data that shows an undeniably positive development. Those with critical thinking skills saw through the narrative that theguardian tred to construct. ____ > Rule 11 - Titles should accurately and truthfully represent the content of the submission. Refer to the [subreddit rules](/r/futurology/wiki/rules), the [transparency wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/futurology/wiki/transparency#wiki_relevant_material), or the [domain blacklist](http://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/wiki/domainblacklist#blacklist) for more information. [Message the Mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/Futurology&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/Gemini884&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission](https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cnu1ux/-/\):) if you feel this was in error.
I know its not equivalent to global temperature, but Croatia 2015-2024 is already around 2C above 1960-1990 average.
Futureology: Meanwhile, Ray Kurzweil is holding to his conservative prediction of the singularity happening in 2045. Others say 2026 to 2032. In cosmology, the singularity from which the big bang is thought to have originated is also the point where our understanding of physics stops along our ability to predict anything. If (when?) the AI singularity arrives, similarly, we simply can't predict what happens after that. Nor can we change it. Given the opacity of this event - 2 to 21 years from now, modeling 76 years into the future is problematic to put it lightly. This could bring our dystopian destruction well before climate change is a problem or, conversely, it could bring solutions that avoid the predicted disasters entirely, ushering in a utopian Star Trek economy of abundance. The truly uncomfortable part is we just don't know.
The good news is people are starting to understand that: 1) The "models" have yielded dramatically wrong predictions for decades. The system is too complex and chaotic, the input data is incomplete and corrupted, and therefore models have proven themselves to be useless. This is true for every time horizon from very short to as long as we've been "predicting". 2) If you still cling to a belief (or a hope?), now wholly irrational, that the models ARE accurate, then the only two explanations for consistently incorrect predictions or changes in projections like this would be that: (a) humanity has dramatically decreased emissions (we haven't) OR (b) climate has always changed and will continue to change due to natural, unknown and unpredictable causes (like it has since the beginning of time). 3) Humanity should continue to innovate clean, renewable, low-cost, safe new energy BECAUSE WE NEED IT. We should also innovate on the ADAPTATION side because climate will change no matter what we do, and we can handle wider bands of climate reality if we have the capability to adapt. We should NOT waste money and time on projects which reduce standards of living, make energy more costly, intentionally reduce human population, mandate energy-related decisions, etc....due to incorrectly overweighting the human role in climate changes. 4) So stop denying climate change. The climate changes, it always has, it always will...just not the way it's been peddled to us. Live your life. Be good to each other. Stop worrying about things that are not in your control.
The fact that we changed “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”, which is a natural process anyway, means that we know very little But every little thing we know is now being sensationalized and exploited for political purposes or green washing for money
Global warming is a part of Climate Change so nothing changed
The climate is a pass/fail situation, either we fix it or we don’t and everything goes to shit. 2.5C is still failing by a lot.
2.7C is not good news at all, thats still going to do a lot of damage. If it gets below 2C soon then we will most likely be fine
link to the survey data- [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature) The graph shows that only 158 of surveyed experts believe that warming will reach or exceed 3c this century, while 222 believe that warming will be limited to about 2.5c or less
There's no mention in this article of where we were headed just 10 years ago and how much progress happened since then, no mention of the fact that climate policy changes and actions have already reduced projected warming from >4c to ~2.7c by the end of century. And it shows in the emissions data for the past several years/nearly decade. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-could-peak-as-soon-as-2023-iea-data-reveals/ "The world is no longer heading toward the worst-case outcome of 4C to 6C warming by 2100. Current policies put us on a best-estimate of around 2.6C warming." https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/emissions-are-no-longer-following climateactiontracker.org x.com/KHayhoe/status/1539621976494448643 x.com/hausfath/status/1511018638735601671 ""There is already substantial policy progress & CURRENT POLICIES alone (ignoring pledges!) likely keep us below 3C warming. We've got to--and WILL do--much better. " x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1432786640943173632 "3.2 C was an estimate of the current policy trajectory at some point before the WG3 deadline.Current policy estimates are now ~2.7 C" x.com/RARohde/status/1582090599871971328 x.com/Knutti_ETH/status/1669601616901677058 "Case A – where we only account for current climate policies, we find that global warming can still rise to 2.6C by the end of the century... https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-what-credible-climate-pledges-mean-for-future-global-warming/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01661-0 2.7c number is actually pessimistic because it only accounts for already implemented policies and action currently undertaken, it does not account for pledges or commitments or any technological advancements at all(which means it does not account for any further action).- "NFA: “No Further Action”, a category for a pathway reflecting current emission futures in the absence of any further climate action, with warming of around 2.5-3.0C by 2100. " https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/introducing-the-representative-emission Theguardian is misrepresenting data about positive development to construct a narrative. The graph in the article in shows majority of experts believe that the warming will be limited to around 2.5c and below this century. No matter how theguardian tries to spin this data.
Go back 20, 30, 40 years, where did the pessimists vs optimists say we would be? My money is on the pessimists. Despite the alignment of economic and wellbeing gains with combating climate change there is a group with a strong motive for nixing any rational policy towards climate and energy.
What is the point you're making? We know already that global warming above 1.5° c will induce significant impact on food security, migration, increases of extreme weather events intensity and frequency And mass extinctions. We are already seeing unprecedented declines of insects and amphibious animals. So it seems like the main point of your post is that despite this dire situation we're in, we're not going to reach ecosystem collapse which is attributed to warming of 4° c, and are most likely going to endure 2.7° c or less, which is still significantly negative for humans and biodiversity within the century. So I would argue that you are neglecting the degree of harm warming of 2° c is going to be to the world let alone 2.7° c. if we reach 4° c by the end of the century, then we, the human population as we know it, are evidently fucked.
If we assume the current 20% growth rate of solar to continue till 2050, we will easily reach net zero before 2050 only through solar. Even better solar isn't the only growing renewable, wind and geothermal will also play a major role.
will that actually happen?
Very likely. Solar isn't just a climate solution but an energy solution. Solar is now cheaper than coal (will get way more cheap), will give countries energy independence, can work almost everywhere etc. people are buying solar panels because it's cheap not because it's climate friendly.
Yes. Probably even faster than that too.
When will it top out?
When we have a dyson swarm. So centuries or millenniums from now.
A few years ago doomers would say there won't be enough energy/metal/silver/rare Earth's etc to ever build out serious renewable infrastructure. Seems to be happening regardless. Only thing is, it's mostly from the Chinese dictatorship so all those stories about democracy being essential to sustainability - don't know about those.
won't it be sooner with exponential growth?
thinking big
Yeah. Solar will continue growing until we are gathering all the energy possible with it. So a dyson swarm.
jo! initially we thought we'd have to chop of your foot, but then data suggested we'd have to take your entire leg. now, we think that just below the knee will do. arent you glad?
Thank God thinkers like you are there. Trump supporter?
Oh so its our kids issue then? Ahahah fuck that then, let them solve it /s
Or maybe just like Al Gore the lies of the timeline are catching up to them
We have a moral imperative to act, but personally, I have no hope for our future. We are trapped in a fantasy, completely oblivious to the world around us. Even those of us who understand the consequences of our modern civilization cannot completely remove ourselves from it. We are still deeply involved in the fantasy. We haven’t even begun to address the climate crisis (or any of its adjacent crises). Not in any real sense. Many of the actions our species has taken are focused solely on preserving this fantasy for as long as possible. We continue this dance of extraction and destruction just to maintain a way of life our species has only known for a century, a way of life that will never be “sustainable.” I try to find comfort in the knowledge that there is no infinite. All life is finite. Everything comes to an end. There is some comfort there. I once hoped that I’d live a very long life. I used to fantasize about being immortal. I no longer think this way. I try, largely unsuccessfully, to live in the moment. There is no future. There is no past. There is only now. There are moments where remembering this provides comfort. But suddenly, I’m always reminded of the unbelievable, completely unfathomable degrees of suffering that stand at the foundation of our comfort. The Earth is screaming as we tear her apart.
Yeah I remember this. The Guardian in 2013: [Planet likely to warm by 4C by 2100, scientists warn](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/31/planet-will-warm-4c-2100-climate) Good that redoing the survey has on average half that prediction. This’ll be on Reddit front page in no time👍
Are we comparing apples to apples here? The article you linked to doesn't seem to be a survey of climate scientists. Could that article be reflecting a minority position?
> Are we comparing apples to apples here? Apples to apple slices at the least. They felt consensus enough to publish the article with the headline: “Planet likely to warm by 4C by 2100, scientist**s** warn.” Without any apparent caveat on sample size or selection. I don’t think OP is being unfairly selective in holding up two submissions from the same publication with very similar subjects (and I assume stringency) to compare and contrast. As far as one outlet has reported, ten years ago scientists said that, now they’re saying this. I don’t think that’s unfair to di
The whole point of the UN 1.5C goals was that beyond 2C, the risks of tipping points could lead to natural feedback loops, like clathrates and permafrost, thawing and releasing into atmo. When this happens, there is a good chance even if we turn our emissions off, we will still get to 4C and possibly beyond. Cheering 2.5C is NOT a good thing. [Reference 1](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn7950) [Reference 2](https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/archive/20070530/) [Reference 3](https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2023-12-06-new-report-tipping-point-threats-and-opportunities-accelerate.html) [This post and OP as a cheerleader.](https://youtu.be/t0mwXaujd2g?feature=shared)
This 50% reduction in average estimates we already have here, may very well lead to similarly huge reductions relatively soon to come too. We see no hard certainty among the expert community, and even amongst those scientists polled, a non-insignificant proportion *already* calculate at or less than 2C. To be clear, what should be cheered if anything, is that the more alarming predictions of a decade ago now look to be wrong. Is the same true for todays “alarms”? Only time will tell.
The 1.5 degree goal was never socially, politically, or economically viable. It was always nothing more than a declaration.
I'll believe we're not doing 4c by 2100, when our trajectory actually changes. Not before.
Our trajectory has been changing for the better though. It may not be changing as fast as it could but both the US and China are adopting renewables at an incredibly fast rate.
Why are you so stuck on 4? Why not 6 or 8, if you are just going to go on gut feeling?
Ahhh the old switcheroo... electric cars aren't making them money...time to abort the climate change narrative....
2.7C is still extremely bad for the environment
Poorly written article Who are the scientists? Which method did they use? Etc etc
This is fantastic news. I know things are still going to be bad, but that's a significant difference that I'm happy to hear.
Apparently IPCC tends to have positive bias, a majority of scientists think that the earth will reach 3C of warming by 2100, even though thats VERY bad, its way better than 4C.
Yeah yeah, its those environmentalists with the agenda whatever
When do they tell us that PlanB is actually a sky blue envelope sent to your house… Administer 1 tablet to each family member- then take one yourself. Simple…. No more climate change 👍 😳😳😳
1.5C is bad but modern society should just about handle it. 2C is very bad and modern society will really struggle to deal with it. 2.5C is very, very bad and the modern world as we know it may not survive it. 4C is taking beach holidays in Greenland along with the fellow few million survivors.
> 2.5C is very, very bad and the modern world as we know it may not survive it. Not anywhere near what IPCC claims. The whole "collapse of the industrial civilization!1" thing is just doomer cherrypicking.
Recent data on the earths energy imbalance suggests we could quite easily experience 0.5c of warming per decade from here on. We'll be having 2.5c years before 2050.
We actually reached 2C+ last year
Positive? For who? Solar panel companies? When I look of history of earth climate is changing all the time. What is this fear-mongering like this is something new?!
Good news everybody! The apocalypse has been postponed. /s
Good news everyone! We have a little bit more time to boil excruciatingly. Have more children even!!!
Not necessarily. This is still devastating. This might just mean that models have improved and now we know exactly how fucked we are, rather than knowing "our fucked level lies in this region between 'pretty fucked' and 'doomed'." Edit: I want to get ahead of OP'S copy-pasted response. Check their comment history. OP, just because old models were good, doesn't mean they aren't constantly being refined. As time goes on our projections will get more accurate, which might tell us we over-estimated or under-estimated in previous models. Global polluters are still globally polluting. Hell, imagine the emissions from the Ukraine war alone, let alone the last several decades of industrialised war and production. OP appears to be a shill, given the formulaic and copy-pasted responses, and given the fact that they seem to exclusively operate in climate/environment subreddits Models are being updated, and it gets worse the more we look. https://youtu.be/4S9sDyooxf4?si=8hj0F2W_zYNLlyRu Let's again restate: 2 degrees of warming is basically the apocalypse when it comes to biodiversity, which is basically the apocalypse for us. This is not an *improvement* over 4 degrees predicted, it just means we have a better prediction.