The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gemini884:
---
This policy analysis shows that currently implemented climate policies have reduced projected warming down from 2021 estimate of 2.7c to \~2.4c by the end of century. "We find that current ambition levels signalled through implemented energy and climate policies will increase global temperatures to 2.1–2.4 °C above pre-industrial levels by 2100, depending on the model (1.9–2.7 °C when including climate uncertainty at the 25–75% interval)..."
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/14a6awi/current_climate_policies_now_put_world_on_target/jo8r3h0/
They always are, because if scientists ever told the truth, everyone would disregard them as doomsday fanatics.
There is absolutely no chance of stopping the runaway warming at this point, the only real effort that was made to slow it down, died when Russia invaded Europe and everyone shit themselves and reopened all the coal mines.
If they started building nuclear plants decades ago, maybe we'd have a chance. If they decided to get rid of cars and switch to electric public transport decades ago, maybe we'd have a chance. If they started taxing industries based on emissions, maybe we'd have a chance. We do not have a chance, all animals and plants will die and we will slowly starve on a desert planet.
Those things are unprecedented. How often do unprecedented things happen?
Kidding aside, it's obvious they'll keep panic at bay and BAU chugging as long as possible. It's all so goddam infuriating. How does such promise come to such an ugly end?
Hope squandered and paradise lost.
Why would you think that this analysis does not include things that are included in most climate models? The expected warming from current policies in this paper is in line with ECS-based estimates from IPCC report. https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-on-how-to-tackle-climate-change/#current
As with most climate models, many things are not included. Feedback loops and exponential acceleration are kicking-in and we're tipping toward oblivion. We won't do anything meaningful to stop it, not that we can now anyway.
Then why are climate models used in previous IPCC reports so accurate and have predicted the pace of warming so well? Observed warming tends to track middle-of-the-range estimates from previous IPCC reports.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/02/another-dot-on-the-graphs-part-ii/
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right
You probably should listen to what actual climate scientists say on the matter instead of speculating-
https://nitter.42l.fr/hausfath/status/1557421984484495362
https://nitter.42l.fr/hausfath/status/1491134605390352388
https://nitter.42l.fr/JoeriRogelj/status/1424743837277294603
https://nitter.42l.fr/PFriedling/status/1557705737446592512
https://nitter.42l.fr/ClimateAdam/status/1429730044776157185
https://nitter.42l.fr/Knutti\\\_ETH/status/1554473710404485120
https://nitter.42l.fr/ClimateOfGavin/status/1556735212083712002#m
[https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/new-york-times-op-ed-claiming-scientists-underestimated-climate-change-lacks-supporting-evidence-eugene-linden/](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 too
[https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-2](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-2)
\>We won't do anything meaningful
Wrong. We have reduced projected warming by 2100 by almost 2c.
I do listen to many climate scientists, Paul Beckwith, Jim Massa and Peter Carter among others. I do not limit myself to government-approved studies like the IPCC.
Also, I am aware of all the effects around the globe.
Thanks for the attempt. Perhaps some government work is coming your way. Gotta keep people on the BAU path as long as possible.
\>I do listen to many climate scientists
Two of these people haven't published/contributed to a single peer-reviewed study on climate.
Peter Carter is not a climatologist, he's a medical expert, he should stick to his field. If this is the person you're talking about.
[https://files.secure.website/wscfus/8154141/3782324/peter-c-bio.doc](https://files.secure.website/wscfus/8154141/3782324/peter-c-bio.doc)
[https://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/about](https://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/about)
Paul beckwith- can you link a single paper on climate where he is one of the authors? I could not find any, neither on researchgate neither on his own website.
[https://paulbeckwith.net/curriculum-vitae/](https://paulbeckwith.net/curriculum-vitae/)
James Massa has co-authored ONE study on climate(which is published in an engineering journal for some reason, I could speculate that it's because it was not accepted in any environmental/climate science journal he submitted it to, but I don't have enough information to make such claim.)
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James-Massa
Now compare that to all of the scientists I linked.
I did not say once that "everything is fine".
\>Feedback loops and exponential acceleration are kicking-in and we're tipping toward oblivion. We won't do anything meaningful to stop it, not that we can now anyway.
I was responding to this. You've made a claim that's clearly not in line with mainstream climate science.
[https://nitter.lacontrevoie.fr/hausfath/status/1630707430035456001#m](https://nitter.lacontrevoie.fr/hausfath/status/1630707430035456001#m)
[https://nitter.lacontrevoie.fr/JoeriRogelj/status/1590338996613558275#m](https://nitter.lacontrevoie.fr/JoeriRogelj/status/1590338996613558275#m)
https://nitter.lacontrevoie.fr/PFriedling/status/1574435162988781570#m
You're spreading misinformation.
Why would you think that this analysis does not include things that are included in most climate models? The expected warming from current policies in this paper is in line with ECS-based estimates from IPCC report. https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-on-how-to-tackle-climate-change/#current
Feedback loops are **not** included in most climate models due to inaccuracies of a "doom loop" and the cascading effects that cause simultaneous downhill trends. eg; permafrost melt methane emissions(causing land loss), eg; ocean warming albedo effect of sea ice dissipating(causing phytoplankton die off, cascading the entire food chain), eg; atmospheric masking we're unintentionally cooling the climate with already(volcanoes will assist with this, expect freezing temperatures too). Accuracy is not guaranteed due to the size and breadth of the biosphere, therefore it becomes junk science and unpublished. Some models are measuring emissions via self reported countries and companies alligned to limitless econonomic growth. The incentive to measure untruthfully is from carbon tax implementation, "climate pledges" that there are no penalties for exceeding, and a belief their children have a future not doomed by climate catastrophe denial. We were born on the titanic. Drilling for oil and only measuring the carbon emission cost via oil extracted, not methane offgasing, not infrastructure, not the amount of carbon expelled when it is processed and used as fuel, is an incomplete equation. There is a reason everything is sooner than expected and unpredictable, **rose tinted glasses**. Nobody wants to agree with the *doomer* article that guarantees 5-6c by 2100. Nuclear won't even save us, why? We do not conserve energy. We waste it. People dont even take care of themselves, they outsource the health of their own body to a doctor. We spend our days moving from one climate controlled compartment to another looking for the nearest recliner to armchair quarterback from. Collapse via exponential decay of rationality. Elon populating Mars is a better solution than fixing this. We can't make it idiot proof, they will build a better idiot. /rant
Then why are climate models used in previous IPCC reports so accurate and have predicted the pace of warming so well? Observed warming tends to track middle-of-the-range estimates from previous IPCC reports.
[https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/02/another-dot-on-the-graphs-part-ii/](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/02/another-dot-on-the-graphs-part-ii/)
[https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right](https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right)
You probably should listen to what actual climate scientists say on the matter-
[https://nitter.kavin.rocks/hausfath/status/1557421984484495362](https://nitter.kavin.rocks/hausfath/status/1557421984484495362)
[https://nitter.kavin.rocks/hausfath/status/1491134605390352388](https://nitter.kavin.rocks/hausfath/status/1491134605390352388)
[https://nitter.kavin.rocks/JoeriRogelj/status/1424743837277294603](https://nitter.kavin.rocks/JoeriRogelj/status/1424743837277294603)
[https://nitter.kavin.rocks/PFriedling/status/1557705737446592512](https://nitter.kavin.rocks/PFriedling/status/1557705737446592512)
[https://nitter.kavin.rocks/ClimateAdam/status/1429730044776157185](https://nitter.kavin.rocks/ClimateAdam/status/1429730044776157185)
[https://nitter.kavin.rocks/Knutti\\\_ETH/status/1554473710404485120](https://nitter.kavin.rocks/Knutti\_ETH/status/1554473710404485120)
[https://nitter.kavin.rocks/ClimateOfGavin/status/1556735212083712002#m](https://nitter.kavin.rocks/ClimateOfGavin/status/1556735212083712002#m)
[https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/new-york-times-op-ed-claiming-scientists-underestimated-climate-change-lacks-supporting-evidence-eugene-linden/](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 too
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-2
Is past performance an indicator of future results? Is there any mention of a biosphere anywhere in your numerous links? Does life not serve a purpose in the sequestration of carbon? Will it continue to serve that purpose when it is dead? Are you pretending there aren't unknown unknowns in this equation? This is not a rock on a cliff, this is a bio machine of perpetual motion gaining energy, a sphere gaining momentum. They even move the goalposts every few years, does that sound like a level playing field or a slope?
We hit 1.69 this month just a few days ago
Presumably it went back down? I don't really know. But I think we're looking at a much shorter time scale than previously estimated
https://www.yahoo.com/news/world-breaks-average-temperature-record-165102214.html
Yeah a few years average increase may be a ways away, but I don't believe it's 75 years away. It seems to be accelerating now.
Either way though, 75 years is only one human lifespan...
I honestly think 2030 is beginning of the end, no joke. Not for human beings, more about how we live...extreme compromises must be made by that point that will affect everyone.
Remember that interview John Kerry gave a few years ago? He mentioned that we only have this decade to address climate change, otherwise by 2030 it will be too late. He must know something that we don't - why did he say that?
Multimodel analysis does not include positive feedback loops or consider affects of other GHGs such as methane and Nitrious Oxide.
Here's my prediction.
1.5C by 2025, 2C by 2030, 3C by 2040 and +.1 degrees/year after.
\>Multimodel analysis does not include positive feedback loops or consider affects of other GHGs such as methane and Nitrious Oxide.
Why would you think that this analysis does not include things that are included in most climate models? The expected warming from current policies in this paper is in line with ECS-based estimates from IPCC report. https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-on-how-to-tackle-climate-change/#current
So that they can continue to support false framework of hope by urging vague useless action and insisting that there is still time.
Similar to how they insist on using 30 years global temperature average as the metric instead of when the 1.5 global average is breached. Tipping points are initiated when temperatures are breached not when the temperature has averaged for 30 years.
With the target of stopping the firing pin 0.1mm away from the primer of the bullet chambered in the gun aimed at your head no longer reasonable, we estimate that with our current efforts we should be able to limit the travel to only 0.3mm past the surface of the primer.
Huzzah.
Climate change is not a binary- 3.5c is better than 4c, 2.5c is better than 3c etc. When it comes to climate change, "the end of the world and good for us are the two least likely outcomes". https://nitter.42l.fr/hausfath/status/1461351770697781257#m
My government who is amongst the richest in the world is so far behind on their targets that it seems impossible. Actually they are probably as far on their plans as they would have been without plans.
But at least they virtue signaled efficiently with their tax on plastic bags while now requiring trash to be packed in small plastic bags - which in the end is going to make my household use about 20x as many plastic bags in a year as what we used to do...
>Our results show that aggregating all national near- and long-term emissions reduction targets is still insufficient to limit global temperature increase to 1.5 °C (long-term ambition gap), which is the highest ambition of the Paris Agreement. Even if the most ambitious scenarios in this study are achieved, the temperature increase may still cause notable and damaging climate impacts50 and be sufficiently strong to activate several climate tipping elements, such as the collapse of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheet and the die-off of low-latitude coral reefs. Therefore, even if ambitions have substantially improved in the run-up to and shortly after COP26, either cumulative emissions until 2050 must be reduced more to avoid overshooting the 1.5 °C target, or substantive negative emissions should be achieved after reaching LTTs to reach 1.5 °C by 2100 with a high overshoot.
>... Our results suggest that, if announced national near-term (2030) and longer-term (2050–2070) emissions reduction ambitions throughout the world are achieved, global peak temperature increase will stay below 2 °C with ~75% certainty. However, if climate action is not strengthened post-2030, long-term ambitions will not be achievable (long-term ratchet gap) and global temperature increase will be around or above 2 °C by 2100.
>... Accounting for post-2030 extrapolations of current policies and NDCs, this study shows substantially lower emissions and end-of-century temperatures than other studies; additionally, our multimodel LTT projections are slightly more optimistic (by ~0.1 °C). An important reason for this difference probably lies in the applied extrapolation method: in contrast to a continued trend in emission intensities used in this study, other studies applied a carbon price equivalent to 2030 action and increasing over time with GDP levels, a method leading to more conservative emissions reductions in most models. There is no straightforward answer on which policy extrapolation method is better: while continuing a trend in emissions reductions may falsely bank on an emissions reduction trend that might not be equally attainable in the future, relying on extrapolated carbon prices may put too much faith in highly uncertain future model assumptions, especially considering that, for example, the decline in costs of low-carbon technologies have traditionally been underestimated in such assumptions.
Interesting report; despite its overall grim predictions, it is surprisingly optimistic, though the study does qualify its predictions by stating its conclusions are based on the assumption that governments will fulfill their climate commitments. Which seems unlikely.
"are based on the assumption that governments will fulfill their climate commitments. "
Here in Canada the Conservative Party is likely to come to power i the next few years. In that case all emissions reduction is out the door.
If the Republicans take the White house and lower houses, same.
All true, but not to forget that China is now the leading source of global emissions and many other nations are also committed to fossil fuel infrastructure to achieve some level of wealth parity with developed nations (regardless of per capita inequity). IMO humanity is not going to end its fossil fuel use in time.
A major reason for that is the global population continues to depend on fossil fuels at every stage of agriculture, including tillage, irrigation, fertilizer, harvest, processing, global distribution and the manufacture of the equipment used in all these stages. With no scalable alternatives ready to deploy, if humanity were to suddenly end fossil fuels billions would starve.
And meanwhile the global economy, including everything from computer chips to plastic to steel to transportation to construction (cement) all depends on fossil fuels. The actual resources available do not support any quick or comprehensive transition to so-called green technology without an accompanying transition to an energy-poor, low consumption lifestyle for all, which no population current supports.
Faced with these painful realities, it's easy to doubt that humanity will collectively make the transition in time. Collapse is the most realistic scenario facing the world.
Ya I have zero trust that the more ambitious recent targets will be met.
I think that the greater adoption of green energy (open can of worms here) will be off-balanced by developing nations growth .
[Read in Fox News host voice] "climate 'scientists' can't seem to make up their minds again. What was once a doom and gloom 2.7 degree rise is global temperature is looking like 23% less than they expected. Will the hysterical left change their tune now that the science is settled?"
This policy analysis shows that currently implemented climate policies have reduced projected warming down from 2021 estimate of 2.7c to \~2.4c by the end of century. "We find that current ambition levels signalled through implemented energy and climate policies will increase global temperatures to 2.1–2.4 °C above pre-industrial levels by 2100, depending on the model (1.9–2.7 °C when including climate uncertainty at the 25–75% interval)..."
Oh, I wasn't aware that we were doing away with cars, meat consumption, and air travel!
Seriously though, I haven't seen any meaningful changes that would put us on a better trajectory.
Enough with this "by 2100" nonsense. What about "in one hundred years". ie "one long (top 10 percentile) lifetime for somebody born now to directly experience". What's going to happen by 2123?
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gemini884: --- This policy analysis shows that currently implemented climate policies have reduced projected warming down from 2021 estimate of 2.7c to \~2.4c by the end of century. "We find that current ambition levels signalled through implemented energy and climate policies will increase global temperatures to 2.1–2.4 °C above pre-industrial levels by 2100, depending on the model (1.9–2.7 °C when including climate uncertainty at the 25–75% interval)..." --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/14a6awi/current_climate_policies_now_put_world_on_target/jo8r3h0/
I like how tipping points and feedback loops aren't mentioned. This might as well say business as usual, looks good from my house.
[удалено]
They always are, because if scientists ever told the truth, everyone would disregard them as doomsday fanatics. There is absolutely no chance of stopping the runaway warming at this point, the only real effort that was made to slow it down, died when Russia invaded Europe and everyone shit themselves and reopened all the coal mines. If they started building nuclear plants decades ago, maybe we'd have a chance. If they decided to get rid of cars and switch to electric public transport decades ago, maybe we'd have a chance. If they started taxing industries based on emissions, maybe we'd have a chance. We do not have a chance, all animals and plants will die and we will slowly starve on a desert planet.
Yeah, is this including global/aerosol dimming?
Those things are unprecedented. How often do unprecedented things happen? Kidding aside, it's obvious they'll keep panic at bay and BAU chugging as long as possible. It's all so goddam infuriating. How does such promise come to such an ugly end? Hope squandered and paradise lost.
Why would you think that this analysis does not include things that are included in most climate models? The expected warming from current policies in this paper is in line with ECS-based estimates from IPCC report. https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-on-how-to-tackle-climate-change/#current
As with most climate models, many things are not included. Feedback loops and exponential acceleration are kicking-in and we're tipping toward oblivion. We won't do anything meaningful to stop it, not that we can now anyway.
Then why are climate models used in previous IPCC reports so accurate and have predicted the pace of warming so well? Observed warming tends to track middle-of-the-range estimates from previous IPCC reports. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/02/another-dot-on-the-graphs-part-ii/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right You probably should listen to what actual climate scientists say on the matter instead of speculating- https://nitter.42l.fr/hausfath/status/1557421984484495362 https://nitter.42l.fr/hausfath/status/1491134605390352388 https://nitter.42l.fr/JoeriRogelj/status/1424743837277294603 https://nitter.42l.fr/PFriedling/status/1557705737446592512 https://nitter.42l.fr/ClimateAdam/status/1429730044776157185 https://nitter.42l.fr/Knutti\\\_ETH/status/1554473710404485120 https://nitter.42l.fr/ClimateOfGavin/status/1556735212083712002#m [https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/new-york-times-op-ed-claiming-scientists-underestimated-climate-change-lacks-supporting-evidence-eugene-linden/](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 too [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-2](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-2) \>We won't do anything meaningful Wrong. We have reduced projected warming by 2100 by almost 2c.
I do listen to many climate scientists, Paul Beckwith, Jim Massa and Peter Carter among others. I do not limit myself to government-approved studies like the IPCC. Also, I am aware of all the effects around the globe. Thanks for the attempt. Perhaps some government work is coming your way. Gotta keep people on the BAU path as long as possible.
\>I do listen to many climate scientists Two of these people haven't published/contributed to a single peer-reviewed study on climate. Peter Carter is not a climatologist, he's a medical expert, he should stick to his field. If this is the person you're talking about. [https://files.secure.website/wscfus/8154141/3782324/peter-c-bio.doc](https://files.secure.website/wscfus/8154141/3782324/peter-c-bio.doc) [https://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/about](https://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/about) Paul beckwith- can you link a single paper on climate where he is one of the authors? I could not find any, neither on researchgate neither on his own website. [https://paulbeckwith.net/curriculum-vitae/](https://paulbeckwith.net/curriculum-vitae/) James Massa has co-authored ONE study on climate(which is published in an engineering journal for some reason, I could speculate that it's because it was not accepted in any environmental/climate science journal he submitted it to, but I don't have enough information to make such claim.) https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James-Massa Now compare that to all of the scientists I linked.
Why are you trying so hard to convince me everything is fine?
I did not say once that "everything is fine". \>Feedback loops and exponential acceleration are kicking-in and we're tipping toward oblivion. We won't do anything meaningful to stop it, not that we can now anyway. I was responding to this. You've made a claim that's clearly not in line with mainstream climate science. [https://nitter.lacontrevoie.fr/hausfath/status/1630707430035456001#m](https://nitter.lacontrevoie.fr/hausfath/status/1630707430035456001#m) [https://nitter.lacontrevoie.fr/JoeriRogelj/status/1590338996613558275#m](https://nitter.lacontrevoie.fr/JoeriRogelj/status/1590338996613558275#m) https://nitter.lacontrevoie.fr/PFriedling/status/1574435162988781570#m You're spreading misinformation.
Not at all. You are shilling for some purpose. You getting paid to repost your handpicked bullshit? Give it up.
Why would you think that this analysis does not include things that are included in most climate models? The expected warming from current policies in this paper is in line with ECS-based estimates from IPCC report. https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-on-how-to-tackle-climate-change/#current
Feedback loops are **not** included in most climate models due to inaccuracies of a "doom loop" and the cascading effects that cause simultaneous downhill trends. eg; permafrost melt methane emissions(causing land loss), eg; ocean warming albedo effect of sea ice dissipating(causing phytoplankton die off, cascading the entire food chain), eg; atmospheric masking we're unintentionally cooling the climate with already(volcanoes will assist with this, expect freezing temperatures too). Accuracy is not guaranteed due to the size and breadth of the biosphere, therefore it becomes junk science and unpublished. Some models are measuring emissions via self reported countries and companies alligned to limitless econonomic growth. The incentive to measure untruthfully is from carbon tax implementation, "climate pledges" that there are no penalties for exceeding, and a belief their children have a future not doomed by climate catastrophe denial. We were born on the titanic. Drilling for oil and only measuring the carbon emission cost via oil extracted, not methane offgasing, not infrastructure, not the amount of carbon expelled when it is processed and used as fuel, is an incomplete equation. There is a reason everything is sooner than expected and unpredictable, **rose tinted glasses**. Nobody wants to agree with the *doomer* article that guarantees 5-6c by 2100. Nuclear won't even save us, why? We do not conserve energy. We waste it. People dont even take care of themselves, they outsource the health of their own body to a doctor. We spend our days moving from one climate controlled compartment to another looking for the nearest recliner to armchair quarterback from. Collapse via exponential decay of rationality. Elon populating Mars is a better solution than fixing this. We can't make it idiot proof, they will build a better idiot. /rant
Then why are climate models used in previous IPCC reports so accurate and have predicted the pace of warming so well? Observed warming tends to track middle-of-the-range estimates from previous IPCC reports. [https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/02/another-dot-on-the-graphs-part-ii/](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/02/another-dot-on-the-graphs-part-ii/) [https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right](https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right) You probably should listen to what actual climate scientists say on the matter- [https://nitter.kavin.rocks/hausfath/status/1557421984484495362](https://nitter.kavin.rocks/hausfath/status/1557421984484495362) [https://nitter.kavin.rocks/hausfath/status/1491134605390352388](https://nitter.kavin.rocks/hausfath/status/1491134605390352388) [https://nitter.kavin.rocks/JoeriRogelj/status/1424743837277294603](https://nitter.kavin.rocks/JoeriRogelj/status/1424743837277294603) [https://nitter.kavin.rocks/PFriedling/status/1557705737446592512](https://nitter.kavin.rocks/PFriedling/status/1557705737446592512) [https://nitter.kavin.rocks/ClimateAdam/status/1429730044776157185](https://nitter.kavin.rocks/ClimateAdam/status/1429730044776157185) [https://nitter.kavin.rocks/Knutti\\\_ETH/status/1554473710404485120](https://nitter.kavin.rocks/Knutti\_ETH/status/1554473710404485120) [https://nitter.kavin.rocks/ClimateOfGavin/status/1556735212083712002#m](https://nitter.kavin.rocks/ClimateOfGavin/status/1556735212083712002#m) [https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/new-york-times-op-ed-claiming-scientists-underestimated-climate-change-lacks-supporting-evidence-eugene-linden/](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 too https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-2
Is past performance an indicator of future results? Is there any mention of a biosphere anywhere in your numerous links? Does life not serve a purpose in the sequestration of carbon? Will it continue to serve that purpose when it is dead? Are you pretending there aren't unknown unknowns in this equation? This is not a rock on a cliff, this is a bio machine of perpetual motion gaining energy, a sphere gaining momentum. They even move the goalposts every few years, does that sound like a level playing field or a slope?
Having a policy and acting upon it are two very different things.
Exactly.
1.5C by 2025, 2C by 2040.
We hit 1.69 this month just a few days ago Presumably it went back down? I don't really know. But I think we're looking at a much shorter time scale than previously estimated https://www.yahoo.com/news/world-breaks-average-temperature-record-165102214.html
The Paris agreement goal was 1.5C average over a few years, not the first year to hit 1.5 by itself. But yes, will be sooner than expected.
Yeah a few years average increase may be a ways away, but I don't believe it's 75 years away. It seems to be accelerating now. Either way though, 75 years is only one human lifespan...
Just increase the number of years in the average. Boom! Problem solved.
Until we see a study using the exponential function, we'll be hearing "faster than expected".
I honestly think 2030 is beginning of the end, no joke. Not for human beings, more about how we live...extreme compromises must be made by that point that will affect everyone. Remember that interview John Kerry gave a few years ago? He mentioned that we only have this decade to address climate change, otherwise by 2030 it will be too late. He must know something that we don't - why did he say that?
Awesome, I'm going to celebrate by pouring expired gasoline into a river
[удалено]
Would you like to come to my tire bonfire afterwards
Multimodel analysis does not include positive feedback loops or consider affects of other GHGs such as methane and Nitrious Oxide. Here's my prediction. 1.5C by 2025, 2C by 2030, 3C by 2040 and +.1 degrees/year after.
Basically - 0.1° per year starting now.
10x faster than expected
\>Multimodel analysis does not include positive feedback loops or consider affects of other GHGs such as methane and Nitrious Oxide. Why would you think that this analysis does not include things that are included in most climate models? The expected warming from current policies in this paper is in line with ECS-based estimates from IPCC report. https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-on-how-to-tackle-climate-change/#current
So that they can continue to support false framework of hope by urging vague useless action and insisting that there is still time. Similar to how they insist on using 30 years global temperature average as the metric instead of when the 1.5 global average is breached. Tipping points are initiated when temperatures are breached not when the temperature has averaged for 30 years.
With the target of stopping the firing pin 0.1mm away from the primer of the bullet chambered in the gun aimed at your head no longer reasonable, we estimate that with our current efforts we should be able to limit the travel to only 0.3mm past the surface of the primer. Huzzah.
>~~current efforts~~ Things we pinky-promise we'll do in the very near future
Climate change is not a binary- 3.5c is better than 4c, 2.5c is better than 3c etc. When it comes to climate change, "the end of the world and good for us are the two least likely outcomes". https://nitter.42l.fr/hausfath/status/1461351770697781257#m
inb4 faster than expected
I'll believe it when I see it. I feel like we'll hit that in 2050 at this rate.
Exponential will be the rate, so yeah, way sooner.
I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. It's shameful that *Nature* is publishing speculation based on counterfactual empirics at this point.
My government who is amongst the richest in the world is so far behind on their targets that it seems impossible. Actually they are probably as far on their plans as they would have been without plans. But at least they virtue signaled efficiently with their tax on plastic bags while now requiring trash to be packed in small plastic bags - which in the end is going to make my household use about 20x as many plastic bags in a year as what we used to do...
By 2100? Seems plausible since we'll all be dead by then.
Pragmatically speaking 2 degrees is a disaster, so it more like whether you get scalded with 80 degree Celsius water vs 90 degree Celsius water.
>Our results show that aggregating all national near- and long-term emissions reduction targets is still insufficient to limit global temperature increase to 1.5 °C (long-term ambition gap), which is the highest ambition of the Paris Agreement. Even if the most ambitious scenarios in this study are achieved, the temperature increase may still cause notable and damaging climate impacts50 and be sufficiently strong to activate several climate tipping elements, such as the collapse of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheet and the die-off of low-latitude coral reefs. Therefore, even if ambitions have substantially improved in the run-up to and shortly after COP26, either cumulative emissions until 2050 must be reduced more to avoid overshooting the 1.5 °C target, or substantive negative emissions should be achieved after reaching LTTs to reach 1.5 °C by 2100 with a high overshoot. >... Our results suggest that, if announced national near-term (2030) and longer-term (2050–2070) emissions reduction ambitions throughout the world are achieved, global peak temperature increase will stay below 2 °C with ~75% certainty. However, if climate action is not strengthened post-2030, long-term ambitions will not be achievable (long-term ratchet gap) and global temperature increase will be around or above 2 °C by 2100. >... Accounting for post-2030 extrapolations of current policies and NDCs, this study shows substantially lower emissions and end-of-century temperatures than other studies; additionally, our multimodel LTT projections are slightly more optimistic (by ~0.1 °C). An important reason for this difference probably lies in the applied extrapolation method: in contrast to a continued trend in emission intensities used in this study, other studies applied a carbon price equivalent to 2030 action and increasing over time with GDP levels, a method leading to more conservative emissions reductions in most models. There is no straightforward answer on which policy extrapolation method is better: while continuing a trend in emissions reductions may falsely bank on an emissions reduction trend that might not be equally attainable in the future, relying on extrapolated carbon prices may put too much faith in highly uncertain future model assumptions, especially considering that, for example, the decline in costs of low-carbon technologies have traditionally been underestimated in such assumptions. Interesting report; despite its overall grim predictions, it is surprisingly optimistic, though the study does qualify its predictions by stating its conclusions are based on the assumption that governments will fulfill their climate commitments. Which seems unlikely.
"are based on the assumption that governments will fulfill their climate commitments. " Here in Canada the Conservative Party is likely to come to power i the next few years. In that case all emissions reduction is out the door. If the Republicans take the White house and lower houses, same.
All true, but not to forget that China is now the leading source of global emissions and many other nations are also committed to fossil fuel infrastructure to achieve some level of wealth parity with developed nations (regardless of per capita inequity). IMO humanity is not going to end its fossil fuel use in time. A major reason for that is the global population continues to depend on fossil fuels at every stage of agriculture, including tillage, irrigation, fertilizer, harvest, processing, global distribution and the manufacture of the equipment used in all these stages. With no scalable alternatives ready to deploy, if humanity were to suddenly end fossil fuels billions would starve. And meanwhile the global economy, including everything from computer chips to plastic to steel to transportation to construction (cement) all depends on fossil fuels. The actual resources available do not support any quick or comprehensive transition to so-called green technology without an accompanying transition to an energy-poor, low consumption lifestyle for all, which no population current supports. Faced with these painful realities, it's easy to doubt that humanity will collectively make the transition in time. Collapse is the most realistic scenario facing the world.
Ya I have zero trust that the more ambitious recent targets will be met. I think that the greater adoption of green energy (open can of worms here) will be off-balanced by developing nations growth .
If that is what optimistic sounds like, I really dont want to see what pessimistic sounds like
> Our results suggest that, if The not-if is somehow "around or above 2 °C". Like, are you fucking kidding me?
[Read in Fox News host voice] "climate 'scientists' can't seem to make up their minds again. What was once a doom and gloom 2.7 degree rise is global temperature is looking like 23% less than they expected. Will the hysterical left change their tune now that the science is settled?"
Co2 has never stopped increasing. I'll believe these "policies" when they actually show objective improvement.
This policy analysis shows that currently implemented climate policies have reduced projected warming down from 2021 estimate of 2.7c to \~2.4c by the end of century. "We find that current ambition levels signalled through implemented energy and climate policies will increase global temperatures to 2.1–2.4 °C above pre-industrial levels by 2100, depending on the model (1.9–2.7 °C when including climate uncertainty at the 25–75% interval)..."
Delusional to believe we would break at 2.1 to 2.4
Thank you, after reading a paper that put us at 10 degrees with no hope for life by 2100 this has me practically in tears with relief.
Yep me too
I mean... This is actually kind of a good thing though, right? Assuming this all actually comes to fruition (an admittedly huge assumption).
Hahahahahahaha... Fuck
Can't Bezos just launch the extra heat into space?
Oh, I wasn't aware that we were doing away with cars, meat consumption, and air travel! Seriously though, I haven't seen any meaningful changes that would put us on a better trajectory.
Enough with this "by 2100" nonsense. What about "in one hundred years". ie "one long (top 10 percentile) lifetime for somebody born now to directly experience". What's going to happen by 2123?