Slashdot Mirror


Earth Will Likely Be Much Warmer In 2100 Than We Anticipated, Scientists Warn (vice.com)

According to a new analysis of the most realistic climate models to date, global temperature rise by 2100 could be 15 percent higher than the highest projections from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). What this means is that cuts in greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) will have to be even greater than expected to meet the Paris climate target of keeping global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius. Motherboard reports: The world is a long way from making sufficient emission reductions to meet the Paris climate targets to begin with -- nevermind cutting out another 15 percent. But there's some good news, too. Both rich and poor countries have begun to move away from coal and oil, the two biggest CO2 sources, according to many energy analysts. Patrick Brown is a researcher at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Pasadena, California, a co-author of the study published Wednesday in Nature. "Our results imply 15 percent less cumulative emissions than previously calculated [are needed] in order to stay below 2 degrees Celsius," he told me. Brown and co-authors focused on finding out what future warming might be, using only the climate models that best replicate observations over the last 15-20 years. On a business-as-usual emissions trajectory, they found that the mean global temperature rise would be 4.8 degrees Celsius by 2100, compared to the IPCC estimate of 4.3 degrees Celsius. The latter estimate is considered catastrophic for our planet, and would lead to sea level rise of over 30 feet, potentially putting the homes of 600 million people underwater.

3 of 379 comments (clear)

  1. Re:LOL by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Global warming is real, but a 30 foot sea level rise by 2100 is not. The article's source was this article, but note right off the bat: "It would be a steady climb, with sea levels taking centuries to rise this far." Not by 2100. Sea level rises in response to climate forcing take time, they don't happen the instant that the atmosphere gets hotter. And it's a curve that accelerates with time (most of the rise is backloaded). It can take much of a millennium for sea levels to adjust to new atmospheric conditions.

    For 2100, you're only looking at somewhere around 2m, give or take (up from previous ~1m estimates, which have been shown to underestimate accelerating rates of land ice loss). That said, the important thing is not the "2m higher on a typical day" aspect, but the "2m higher on top of storm surges" aspect.

    --
    Pinkypants -- my favorite!
  2. Re: uh oh by sg_oneill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just look at all the accurate claims about what would happen by today. I've been hearing this crap since the 70s. They always make extreme claims that will happen just far enough over the horizon to be unassailable, but require immediate action...but the threat never materializes.

    I am comparing actual data to their dire predictions made 20 years ago and calling them on their shit. And, I will be the denier

    What predictions? That there will be increased temperature and more erratic weather? Check, that happened.
    That there would be meltoffs in the north and south poles? Check, that happened.
    That there would be increases in methane output from permafrost? Check that happened.
    That Cyclone and Tornado activity would increase? Check that happened.

    A few years ago we had a run of straight 40c+ days lasting nearly a month in my home town. Thats never happened before. Over on the east coast of australia , every goddamn year we've had flooding events for nearly a decade now, and its running havock on the economy.

    Its easy to put your fingers in your ears and try and nitpick predictions from 20 years ago at a time when modelling was in its infancy, whilst pretending the evidence in front of your very own eyes does not count somehow.

    But that doesn't make you "scientific" or "skeptical". It makes you a gullible fools who falls for manipulative conspiracy theories.

    --
    Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
  3. Re: uh oh by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    lol. Wait, so if you have more storms, but by some fluke none of them actually hit land, then you actually have fewer storms?

    Hilarious!