Support NeoGAF

[BackLogJoe]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/31/health/climate-change-two-degrees-studies/index.html

By the end of the century, the global temperature is likely to rise more than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

This rise in temperature is the ominous conclusion reached by two different studies using entirely different methods published in the journal Nature Climate Change on Monday.
One study used statistical analysis to show that there is a 95% chance that Earth will warm more than 2 degrees at century's end, and a 1% chance that it's below 1.5 C.
"The likely range of global temperature increase is 2.0-4.9 [degrees Celsius] and our median forecast is 3.2 C," said Adrian Raftery, author of the first study. "Our model is based on data which already show the effect of existing emission mitigation policies. Achieving the goal of less than 1.5 C warming will require carbon intensity to decline much faster than in the recent past."

The second study analyzed past emissions of greenhouse gases and the burning of fossil fuels to show that even if humans suddenly stopped burning fossil fuels now, Earth will continue to heat up about two more degrees by 2100. It also concluded that if emissions continue for 15 more years, which is more likely than a sudden stop, Earth's global temperature could rise as much as 3 degrees.
"Even if we would stop burning fossil fuels today, then the Earth would continue to warm slowly," said Thorsten Mauritsen, author of the second study. "It is this committed warming that we estimate."
Taken together, the similar results present a grim reality.

In the past I have posted studies based on extrapolations of data and there seems to be a lot of disagreement on how far humanity will let things go before we act. One of the common replies to my past environmental posts is that we are already changing from fossil fuels to renewable and that humanity isnt stupid enough to not change when its faced with having no other option. I firmly believe that fossil fuel corporations have hidden the truth from people and that the time to have switched over to renewable has passed us by and that the time that humanity was faced with having no other option has also passed. The second study in this article suggests that even if we cease fossil fuel burning right now, totally, that the two degrees change will still happen.

I think the proper course of action is still renewable, but we need to be researching what happens after. We need to have plans in place for humanity after climate change. We need to leave fossil fuels behind, and prepare how to mitigate harsh weather. Maybe if we can prepare humanity for dealing with harsh weather AND we turn the page on fossil fuels, then we can cope with the weather for a few seasons and hopefully cooling can take place. There is a sliver of hope in the end of the article, but it seems like for the best possible outcome, we need to have everyone on board. Our own government isnt even on board with climate change.

Man, motherfuck trump.

 

[Rogan]

I heard Mars could be great.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I think the rest of the world will just be able to limit it to two degrees. US won't help, but will end up much poorer than they would have been as they fall behind when the rest of the world moves to a more sustainable regime

 

[Plum]

You don't die by turning your thermostat up two degrees lol. Even if this were real we'd be fine. Ya'll need to calm down.

Spoiler

Is it time to panic?

 

[Platy]

I think the course of action is changing how you explain it.

Saying 2 degrees for anyone who does not know anything it means nothing. "there is a bigger change in temperature between morning and night" they will say

 

[maniac-kun]

The Paris agreement starts the counting from 1750 which adds I think 0,3°C. And we already are close to 1.5 °C in 2016.

 

[GodofWine]

Has anyone ever explained to the 'people' in the white house that these numbers are in CELSIUS?? Maybe if we convert it to F, they'll be like "OH, OH MY".

Actually, In the US in general, it should be said in Fahrenheit, like say HEY people instead of it being 86 Degrees , it'll be 92.

 

[WaterAstro]

2 degrees is safe. 3 degrees is more likely because the damage that is being done is further increases the rate of warming. Natural coolers or carbon scrubbers, like the glaciers, sea life, and tree life, will end up being destroyed simply because of the rise in temperature.

Glaciers are particularly alarming because they reflect a lot of the heat. The more glaciers melt, the faster they will melt because the waters around them absorb heat better than ice.

 

[benicillin]

We just have to science ourselves out of this predicament.

 

[WaterAstro]

We just have to science ourselves out of this predicament.

We have the science and the technology, but fossil fuel lobbyists are putting any scientific advancements to a complete stop at the government level in America.

 

[funkystudent]

 

[Mihos]

We just have to science ourselves out of this predicament.

We need to stop making more people. The population has doubled just since I have been here.

 

[JimiNutz]

Bring it.
Most of the world is too cold for my linking anyway. Let us all burn.

 

[Tagyhag]

I forgot, was it 5 degrees difference and we all die?

I feel sorry for our grandchildren.

 

[maniac-kun]

Also the models ignore certain stuff and the changes in reality at this time tend to happen faster than the models currently predict.

 

[Pagusas]

Exact same thought I just had.


Curious, will plants/crops do BETTER on a warmer earth? Or is the % of bad gasses going to be a problem for them?

 

[Bluenoser]

So basically, everyone stop having children now. Scary- I'm glad I won't be around to see it... although it would be something to see...

I feel bad for the next generation, and the one after that.

We have the science and the technology, but fossil fuel lobbyists are putting any scientific advancements to a complete stop at the government level in America.

I wonder if there's a way to repair the greenhouse effect through science?

 

[LegendofJoe]

We need to invest a few trillion dollars into carbon capturing technology.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

The IPCC starts the counting from 1750. We already are at 1.5 °C in 2016.

There are different starting points/units of measurement (air + sea measurements for example).

When we use the "warm by 2 degrees" scale, we just hit 1C. Not that it really matters, but in the discussion at hand with it's not correct to say we hit 1.5C.

2 degrees is safe. 3 degrees is more likely because the damage that is being done is further increases the rate of warming. Natural coolers or carbon scrubbers, like the glaciers, sea life, and tree life, will end up being destroyed simply because of the rise in temperature.

Glaciers are particularly alarming because they reflect a lot of the heat. The more glaciers melt, the faster they will melt because the waters around them absorb heat better than ice.

No, no it's not. Realistically 1C is "safe" (Narrator: It isn't), 1.5C is "ok this is bad but we can manage", 2C is basically "listen things are really bad but lets not make it much worse than this please"

 

[PeskyToaster]

Two degrees doesn't seem so bad.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Tell me the bad news!

 

[UCBooties]

It's been amazing

Spoiler

alarming

just watching how the way that scientists talk about this has shifted in the past few years.

2010 = "Things are on an unsustainable course, but if we take concerted and well planned action now we can pull back from the brink."

2012 = "Indicators are continuing to worsen. We are approaching a point of no return but drastic measures can be taken to slow and eventually reverse current trends."

2014 = "We have passed several key benchmarks. Global climate change is now a certainty but the worst of its effects may be ameliorated."

2016 = "Permafrost is melting, deep sea methane deposits are venting, we warned you. Try to hold this back from the worst case scenario guys... we fucking warned you..."

2017 = *chugs whiskey, sets desk on fire*

 

[Dynomutt]

Stop farting.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

It's been amazing

Spoiler

alarming

just watching how the way that scientists talk about this has shifted in the past few years.

2010 = "Things are on an unsustainable course, but if we take concerted and well planned action now we can pull back from the brink."

2012 = "Indicators are continuing to worsen. We are approaching a point of no return but drastic measures can be taken to slow and eventually reverse current trends."

2014 = "We have passed several key benchmarks. Global climate change is now a certainty but the worst of its effects may be ameliorated."

2016 = "Permafrost is melting, deep sea methane deposits are venting, we warned you. Try to hold this back from the worst case scenario guys... we fucking warned you..."

2017 = *chugs whiskey, sets desk on fire*

Nearly all the feedback loops are long term, century long processes. Permafrost matters, deep sea clathrates not so much.

The issue has and will always be C02. You cut the CO2, you cut the rate of the feedback loops and the rate of release and length of release.

 

[maniac-kun]

If this stuff is depressing you better not research the East Syberian Arctic Shelf.

 

[Pandy]

 

[13ruce]

When are governments and companies finally going to care more about saving our fucking planet. Greed is gonna kill it

 

[perfectchaos007]

I need to buy land in Finland 🇫🇮

 

[mnannola]

I don't really care what the scientists say, I want to hear from the experts on the matter. What are the politicians saying?

 

[Stinkles]

Switch to farenheit. Problem solved.

 

[Always-honest]

Two degrees doesn't seem so bad.

Ha, well, it is.

 

[Zophar]

Two degrees doesn't seem so bad.

Two degrees is catastrophic.

 

[StoneFox]

Two degrees doesn't seem so bad.

It's equalivent to over ten in the arctic regions since it warms up at a much faster rate there. 2 degrees was the relatively safe threshold.

 

[Dingens]

Are we at the point yet where having children could be considered irresponsible yet?

I mean I'll be dead by 2100, they on the other hand...

 

[Kingpin Rogers]

Good, I'm fed up of being fucking cold in the summer.

 

[sixteen-bit]

Earth warm Jim

 

[ImaLemming]

Two degrees doesn't seem so bad.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Our species was never all that intelligent. Maybe our extinction will pave the way for a smarter one to evolve.

 

[UCBooties]

Nearly all the feedback loops are long term, century long processes. Permafrost matters, deep sea clathrates not so much.

The issue has and will always be C02. You cut the CO2, you cut the rate of the feedback loops and the rate of release and length of release.

It wasn't meant to be comprehensive, I just feel like there has been a marked shift in the urgency with which science news is reported in the past few years.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

this is very misleading reporting by CNN.

We really don't know what will happen. And the IPCC's models are still the best guidelines for predictions as their pure climate models rather than this which attempts to put some sociology spin on it

Its an interesting study but trying to predict the future seems very foolish. Much rather just model the amount of carbon emitted and see the results instead of trying to, in essence, predict politics.

If things continue the way they are then yes we're fucked. But counting on things to continue the way they are for the next 80+ years or even 20+ years seems like a losing bet.

Here's a good Gizmodo piece
http://gizmodo.com/were-not-totally-sure-how-much-the-planet-will-warm-thi-1797391669

The two degrees Celsius warming target—adopted by scientists and politicians alike as a threshold we ought to stay below to avoid catastrophic climate impacts—is very likely to be surpassed this century, according to a study out in Nature Climate Change today. Using statistical models that project trends in socio-economic factors like GDP and population growth forward in time, the University of Washington-led study estimates there is only a five percent change Earth will warm less than two degrees this century.

But when I sent the new paper to climate scientist Michael Mann, one of the co-authors of last week's study on defining the pre-industrial baseline, he was immediately critical of its methods. ”Color me deeply, deeply skeptical," he said, noting that while his study described physical constraints on warming (i.e., how much CO2 we've already emitted), the new study is based purely on socio-economic trends—and assuming that those trends can foretell the future.

”That ignores the fact that political will depends on many factors that cannot be predicted based on past behavior," he said, noting that the recent growth in renewable energy, for instance, has exceeded the projections of many market forecasters.

The question, as Caldeira put it, is how likely are humans to change their historical patterns of energy consumption—and when. ” If we don't change those patterns, then the world is likely to get very hot," he said. ”However, we will change those patterns. The question is whether we will change those patterns before we radically damage our environment effectively forever."

https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/892104906080956420

Hugo, I've commented on the study (https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/892080505461645312 ...). The physical constraints are real. The putative sociological ones are not...

Our species was never all that intelligent. Maybe our extinction will pave the way for a smarter one to evolve.

Can every Global Warming thread not be full of misanthropes? It really contributes nothing

 

[Version 3.0]

We need to invest a few trillion dollars into carbon capturing technology.

Literally the only solution. And not a lot of work being done on it.

Basically, every car needs to be electric, and also have a carbon-sucking engine in it as well. Anything smaller scale than that won't be enough.

 

[cpp_is_king]

I think the course of action is changing how you explain it.

Saying 2 degrees for anyone who does not know anything it means nothing. "there is a bigger change in temperature between morning and night" they will say

Yea we need to change the conversation away from "number of degrees" to something that people can understand, because when people hear 2 degrees they just think "who gives a shit, that's like the fluctuation in my air conditioner at home". Like put it in perspective somehow.

For example, a surface temperature rise from between 4-7 degrees celsius took us out of the last ice age into the modern era. So 2-4 is pretty substantial, being about half the difference between now and the last ice age.

 

[Roronoa Zoro]

Our species was never all that intelligent. Maybe our extinction will pave the way for a smarter one to evolve.

Most intelligent one I know of. Who are you comparing us to that we seem dumb?

 

[dragonelite]

Literally the only solution. And not a lot of work being done on it.

Basically, every car needs to be electric, and also have a carbon-sucking engine in it as well. Anything smaller scale than that won't be enough.

Wouldn't be surprised if some countries are already spending billions expecting a 3~4 degrees rise and what advantages/disadvantages it will give economically.

 

[Neo C.]

I know it's controversial, but we have to geo-engineer the earth on massive scale. Even the Dalai Lama agrees on geo-engineering.

 

[adj_noun]

Earth warm Jim

THE SOIL HE DID THAW

Earth warm Jim

THE ICEBURGS GO AWOL

 

[LegendofJoe]

I know it's controversial, but we have to geo-engineer the earth on massive scale. Even the Dalai Lama agrees on geo-engineering.

Bio-engineering is more effective. The path is to greatly increase the proportion of c4 carbon fixing plant life. Staple crops like rice are a good start. Bill Gates is investing millions in this area already, but a lot more is needed.

 

[Chronoja]

Our species was never all that intelligent. Maybe our extinction will pave the way for a smarter one to evolve.

Our species is incredibly intelligent, our societies however.

 

[cm osi]

today was hotter than yesterday by far than 2 degrees. take that climate change conspirators

 

[hipbabboom]

A two degree difference doesn't put fear in the hearts of the ignorant.