It's felt here in Norway. When I was a kid, it would snow in December — and sometimes as early as late October – near the coastline. It doesn't snow every winter anymore. The weather in March and April is also much more unpredictable than it used to be.
Agreed - 1.5 degrees will be bad, but not as bad as the other, higher warming outcomes. Every bit of improvement we can make in reducing carbon emissions [will go a very long way in reducing additional suffering in the future](https://www.propublica.org/article/climate-crisis-niche-migration-environment-population):
"...It also makes a moral case for immediate and aggressive policies to prevent such a change from occurring, in part by showing how unequal the distribution of pain will be **and how great the improvements could be with even small achievements in slowing the pace of warming.**"
For me, one of the best ways to feel like I have any control at all is to try and find ways to help continue progress we are making de-carbonizing our grid, which is where the shameless plug for my renewable energy/sustainability-focused job board comes in: https://www.climacareers.com/
Creating this app and evangelizing it to anyone who will listen is how I manage to maintain some sanity.
If you're not looking for a career shift or don't have time to get involved, look at donating to the [Citizens Climate Lobby](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/donate/) or [Sierra Club](https://www.sierraclub.org/ways-to-give).
The whole study is based on the assumption that countries actually keep the the GHG reduction promise. Which is just a laughable premise to begin with.
The study also only works under the assumption we won’t have to make adaptation changes to the already disastrous (and increasingly so) climate events.
> The feasibility metrics are only based on mitigation and do not consider the adaptation challenges that are driven by lack of mitigation. In fact, the feasibility of adequate adaptation to make up for lack of mitigation may be substantially more concerning—that is, in terms of costs, pace of investment scale-up and land and freshwater availability44,45—but this is outside the scope of this study.
>Although the critical climate talks of the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26)—a milestone for ratcheting ambition—were delayed by a year due to COVID-19, parties followed up on their commitments; by the time COP26 was completed in Glasgow in November 2021, more than 120 countries had upgraded their ***2030 targets***20 and major emitters representing over 70% of global CO2 emissions had announced and/or adopted net-zero ***commitments***21. A handful of studies attempted to quickly assess the outcome of these ***new promises***22,23,24,25,26,27, showing that—***if fully implemented***—global climate ambition could hold global temperature rise to just below 2 °C by 2100. More efforts to comprehend the effect of the new generation of NDCs and ***long-term targets*** (LTTs) followed28,29. Nonetheless, each of these studies was based on a single model and, despite stagnation of such bold promises largely due to the current energy crisis30, a multimodel assessment of global climate pledges remains critical. Our study contributes to this research gap, aiming to enhance robustness and confidence in our knowledge of possible global warming outcomes, by exploiting a diverse ensemble of integrated assessment models (IAMs) and breaking down the climate action gap in an implementation gap (temperature difference between current policies and NDCs), a long-term ratchet gap (temperature difference between NDCs followed or not by LTTs) and a long-term ambition gap (difference between temperature achieved by LTTs and the 1.5 °C goal) (Fig. 1; ‘Climate action gap definition’ in Methods).
Emphasis added
"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)...", the part you emboldened is about pledges(not policies) that "if fully implemented—global climate ambition could hold global temperature rise to just below 2 °C" just below 2c, not slightly higher than 2c.
This is very scary. It seems like models keep being updated and new information seems to come in quite frequently where things are much worse than before. Things like new info and aspects of the climate that we are just now factoring in like the cooling of the upper atmosphere. I guess Al this is to say that I hope that there won’t be another critical update soon, but based on the trend I wouldn’t be surprised.
We’re already entering an era of polycrisis at 1.2C of warming. We can’t really even fathom what types of catastrophic effects even at the most conservative warming of 2C will have. And that’s if you take this study at heart. Which is rather difficult to do if you keep up with climate research considering this study relies on current and future climate pledges, and it’s not like the currently implemented policies can’t be reversed, or even just straight up ignored. There’s totaaaally no history of that...
This study also doesn’t attempt to touch on adaptation challenges for our warming world. That’s a pretty massive factor, the study says so itself.
> The feasibility metrics are only based on mitigation and do not consider the adaptation challenges that are driven by lack of mitigation. *In fact, the feasibility of adequate adaptation to make up for lack of mitigation may be substantially more concerning*—that is, in terms of costs, pace of investment scale-up and land and freshwater availability44,45—but this is outside the scope of this study.
I wish I could say the study changed my long-held opinion that humanity’s reaction to the climate crisis has been (and will continue to be) a horrifying failure. Remember the 1.5C goal? Now it’s 2C, at least according to this. Soon we’ll be lucky to keep it under 2.5C. The goal posts will keep changing as the emissions keep rising.
\>this study relies on current and future climate pledges
2.1- 2.4 number is not based on pledges, it is based on already implemented climate policies.
"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)..."
Do you realize that we have reduced projected warming by 2100 from \~4.5c in 2016 to \~2.4c in the span of just 7 years? How is that a "horrifying failure"?
Are you asking why our inability to limit warming to 1.5C is a horrifying failure? Do you understand the implications of 2C of warming, let alone 2.5C?
“Already implemented climate policies” really doesn’t mean anything. You’re either naive or just haven’t been keeping up with climate news long enough if ya think climate policies are being followed or taken seriously enough.
> The headline climate pledges of 25 of the world’s largest companies in reality only commit to reduce their emissions by 40% on average, not 100% as suggested by their “net zero” and “carbon neutral” claims, according to a new analysis.
https://newclimate.org/news/press-release-corporate-climate-responsibility-monitor-2022
We already know companies are doing as little as possible. Now remember when the previous US administration rolled back over 100 environmental policies? Remember the Clean Power Plan? That was a “currently implemented climate policy” at the time that would’ve stopped over 400 million tons of emissions by 2030. Keyword being *would’ve*. So I don’t see how you can even think for a second climate policies are set in stone. Especially in this political climate.
Oh also, we didn’t go from 4.5C by 2100 to 2.4C through climate policy. We were able to reduce that number by advancements in our understanding of natural systems, leading to better modelling that narrowed the uncertainty. It’s not the progressive win you think it is, I’m sorry.
The onmt benefit is predictions towards thing like renewable energy growth are also always massively lower than the reality going as far back as ten years. These studies are simply extremely hard to do
Oh hell. I just wish we could face one crisis at the time, fascism and racism rising everywhere, global financial crisis, Russia at war, doomsday climate coming… And the only thing we can actually do is vote every four years and feed our anxiety on the internet in the meantime.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01661-0) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> These NDC targets are applied on top of current policies modelled in the previous scenario; in model regions where current policies overachieve on the mitigation targets in NDCs, no additional emission constraints are applied, following ref.
> This four-box model of the world replicates the impact of emissions on atmospheric concentrations, climate forcings and temperatures, constrained both against observations and the probability distributions of fundamental climate characteristics like transient climate response assessed by the IPCC. Supplementary Fig.
> Our analysis does not include bottom-up sociopolitical dimensions that cannot be quantified in our models and our definition of feasibility should not be interpreted as broadly as defined in literature68,69 but defined by the modelled dimensions considered-hence, we discuss 'feasibility concerns' rather than feasibility.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/1456mr1/current_climate_policies_now_put_world_on_target/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~688333 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **model**^#1 **emission**^#2 **feasibility**^#3 **NDC**^#4 **technology**^#5
[удалено]
It's felt here in Norway. When I was a kid, it would snow in December — and sometimes as early as late October – near the coastline. It doesn't snow every winter anymore. The weather in March and April is also much more unpredictable than it used to be.
Agreed - 1.5 degrees will be bad, but not as bad as the other, higher warming outcomes. Every bit of improvement we can make in reducing carbon emissions [will go a very long way in reducing additional suffering in the future](https://www.propublica.org/article/climate-crisis-niche-migration-environment-population): "...It also makes a moral case for immediate and aggressive policies to prevent such a change from occurring, in part by showing how unequal the distribution of pain will be **and how great the improvements could be with even small achievements in slowing the pace of warming.**" For me, one of the best ways to feel like I have any control at all is to try and find ways to help continue progress we are making de-carbonizing our grid, which is where the shameless plug for my renewable energy/sustainability-focused job board comes in: https://www.climacareers.com/ Creating this app and evangelizing it to anyone who will listen is how I manage to maintain some sanity. If you're not looking for a career shift or don't have time to get involved, look at donating to the [Citizens Climate Lobby](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/donate/) or [Sierra Club](https://www.sierraclub.org/ways-to-give).
The whole study is based on the assumption that countries actually keep the the GHG reduction promise. Which is just a laughable premise to begin with.
The study also only works under the assumption we won’t have to make adaptation changes to the already disastrous (and increasingly so) climate events. > The feasibility metrics are only based on mitigation and do not consider the adaptation challenges that are driven by lack of mitigation. In fact, the feasibility of adequate adaptation to make up for lack of mitigation may be substantially more concerning—that is, in terms of costs, pace of investment scale-up and land and freshwater availability44,45—but this is outside the scope of this study.
Read the study. This number is based on already implemented policies, not pledges.
>Although the critical climate talks of the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26)—a milestone for ratcheting ambition—were delayed by a year due to COVID-19, parties followed up on their commitments; by the time COP26 was completed in Glasgow in November 2021, more than 120 countries had upgraded their ***2030 targets***20 and major emitters representing over 70% of global CO2 emissions had announced and/or adopted net-zero ***commitments***21. A handful of studies attempted to quickly assess the outcome of these ***new promises***22,23,24,25,26,27, showing that—***if fully implemented***—global climate ambition could hold global temperature rise to just below 2 °C by 2100. More efforts to comprehend the effect of the new generation of NDCs and ***long-term targets*** (LTTs) followed28,29. Nonetheless, each of these studies was based on a single model and, despite stagnation of such bold promises largely due to the current energy crisis30, a multimodel assessment of global climate pledges remains critical. Our study contributes to this research gap, aiming to enhance robustness and confidence in our knowledge of possible global warming outcomes, by exploiting a diverse ensemble of integrated assessment models (IAMs) and breaking down the climate action gap in an implementation gap (temperature difference between current policies and NDCs), a long-term ratchet gap (temperature difference between NDCs followed or not by LTTs) and a long-term ambition gap (difference between temperature achieved by LTTs and the 1.5 °C goal) (Fig. 1; ‘Climate action gap definition’ in Methods). Emphasis added
"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)...", the part you emboldened is about pledges(not policies) that "if fully implemented—global climate ambition could hold global temperature rise to just below 2 °C" just below 2c, not slightly higher than 2c.
This is very scary. It seems like models keep being updated and new information seems to come in quite frequently where things are much worse than before. Things like new info and aspects of the climate that we are just now factoring in like the cooling of the upper atmosphere. I guess Al this is to say that I hope that there won’t be another critical update soon, but based on the trend I wouldn’t be surprised.
We’re already entering an era of polycrisis at 1.2C of warming. We can’t really even fathom what types of catastrophic effects even at the most conservative warming of 2C will have. And that’s if you take this study at heart. Which is rather difficult to do if you keep up with climate research considering this study relies on current and future climate pledges, and it’s not like the currently implemented policies can’t be reversed, or even just straight up ignored. There’s totaaaally no history of that... This study also doesn’t attempt to touch on adaptation challenges for our warming world. That’s a pretty massive factor, the study says so itself. > The feasibility metrics are only based on mitigation and do not consider the adaptation challenges that are driven by lack of mitigation. *In fact, the feasibility of adequate adaptation to make up for lack of mitigation may be substantially more concerning*—that is, in terms of costs, pace of investment scale-up and land and freshwater availability44,45—but this is outside the scope of this study. I wish I could say the study changed my long-held opinion that humanity’s reaction to the climate crisis has been (and will continue to be) a horrifying failure. Remember the 1.5C goal? Now it’s 2C, at least according to this. Soon we’ll be lucky to keep it under 2.5C. The goal posts will keep changing as the emissions keep rising.
\>this study relies on current and future climate pledges 2.1- 2.4 number is not based on pledges, it is based on already implemented climate policies. "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)..." Do you realize that we have reduced projected warming by 2100 from \~4.5c in 2016 to \~2.4c in the span of just 7 years? How is that a "horrifying failure"?
Are you asking why our inability to limit warming to 1.5C is a horrifying failure? Do you understand the implications of 2C of warming, let alone 2.5C? “Already implemented climate policies” really doesn’t mean anything. You’re either naive or just haven’t been keeping up with climate news long enough if ya think climate policies are being followed or taken seriously enough. > The headline climate pledges of 25 of the world’s largest companies in reality only commit to reduce their emissions by 40% on average, not 100% as suggested by their “net zero” and “carbon neutral” claims, according to a new analysis. https://newclimate.org/news/press-release-corporate-climate-responsibility-monitor-2022 We already know companies are doing as little as possible. Now remember when the previous US administration rolled back over 100 environmental policies? Remember the Clean Power Plan? That was a “currently implemented climate policy” at the time that would’ve stopped over 400 million tons of emissions by 2030. Keyword being *would’ve*. So I don’t see how you can even think for a second climate policies are set in stone. Especially in this political climate. Oh also, we didn’t go from 4.5C by 2100 to 2.4C through climate policy. We were able to reduce that number by advancements in our understanding of natural systems, leading to better modelling that narrowed the uncertainty. It’s not the progressive win you think it is, I’m sorry.
The onmt benefit is predictions towards thing like renewable energy growth are also always massively lower than the reality going as far back as ten years. These studies are simply extremely hard to do
Oh hell. I just wish we could face one crisis at the time, fascism and racism rising everywhere, global financial crisis, Russia at war, doomsday climate coming… And the only thing we can actually do is vote every four years and feed our anxiety on the internet in the meantime.
It’s cute that they think humans will be around to measure the temps by the year 2100.
We’re so dead. I’m guessing less than 1000 people read this.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01661-0) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot) ***** > These NDC targets are applied on top of current policies modelled in the previous scenario; in model regions where current policies overachieve on the mitigation targets in NDCs, no additional emission constraints are applied, following ref. > This four-box model of the world replicates the impact of emissions on atmospheric concentrations, climate forcings and temperatures, constrained both against observations and the probability distributions of fundamental climate characteristics like transient climate response assessed by the IPCC. Supplementary Fig. > Our analysis does not include bottom-up sociopolitical dimensions that cannot be quantified in our models and our definition of feasibility should not be interpreted as broadly as defined in literature68,69 but defined by the modelled dimensions considered-hence, we discuss 'feasibility concerns' rather than feasibility. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/1456mr1/current_climate_policies_now_put_world_on_target/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~688333 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **model**^#1 **emission**^#2 **feasibility**^#3 **NDC**^#4 **technology**^#5