Climate Change Not As Threatening To Earth As Previously Thought, New Research Suggests

Submitted by: trimble 2 months ago in News & Politics Science


The researchers also condemned the "overreaction" to the US's withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord.

An excerpt from The Telegraph: New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.

An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook.

Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

There are 62 comments:
Male 194
Meanwhile, in the Caribbean....
0
Reply
Male 41,551
abetterworld Never in all history have more than one storm appeared in the Atlantic ocean! Nope not once!

And the 12 years of ZERO strong storms striking the US? Just ignore that...
0
Reply
Male 194
5cats It's all about frequency and intensity.  We shall see.

https://www.wunderground.com/education/webster.asp
0
Reply
Male 41,551
abetterworld Yes, exactly. 2 big storms in 12 years = LOW frequency, LOW intensity.
The exact opposite of AGW claims made ~13 years ago after 4x major storms struck the US in 1 year.

If you want to wait and see until 2100, but keep spending money on useless (even counter-productive!) projects paid for by the poor? Then I'll have to disagree :/
0
Reply
Male 4,114
The term "New Research" consistently leads to the most cancerous articles.
0
Reply
Male 5,413
The cynicism here is off the charts. For the past few years, the American right-wing has been saying, "Oh, it's impossible to meet any of these targets! If we reduce emissions to ZERO, we might reduce the warming by a tenth of a degree! Why bother? We're all supposed to go back to the Stone Age for a tenth of degree?!"

So here a study has been published in which one group of climate scientists makes the case that it's not impossible to reduce global warming significantly if a serious effort is made. They clearly state in the paper that the effort will not be easy; in fact, in the paper's preface, they call the emissions reductions that would be required "historically unprecedented."

And what does the far-right do? They immediately jump on the paper and write up trash articles claiming that global warming isn't as bad as everyone thought and that the scientists must have been lying all along.

Un-fucking-believable.
0
Reply
Male 8,175
squrlz4ever Kudos.  I present you with this:

1
Reply
Male 5,413
normalfreak2 Thank you. That's a cute image and it makes me happy.

I hope my indignation in my original post wasn't over the top, but I've been following the attacks on AGW science for almost 20 years and it is appalling. These people won't stop lying until the last chunk of coal has been extracted from the ground and the money's in their bank accounts; fuck the Earth.

I'd also like to point out something here. Three days ago, the Daily Mail issued an apology for an article it published earlier this year that claimed American climate scientists were manipulating data. After a condemnation by IPSO (the Independent Press Standards Organization), the Mail admitted that the article was "unverified" and "misleading." Those are the Mail's own words; most impartial observers would describe the article as a pack of lies.

For example, the article claimed that NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) had "failed to archive its data" and, therefore, that the "claims can never be verified," implying that fudged data had been erased to hide evidence of dishonesty. But as the Mail begrudgingly admits in its apology, that data was archived and was available then, is available now, and has always been publicly available.

That's just one example of the article's lies.

5Cats submitted that original article and it was featured here on IAB back in February. The article stank to high heaven; I didn't believe it, nor did a number of other IAB'ers.

Will we be seeing a post from 5Cats noting that the article he was crowing about was a piece of disinformation?

I wouldn't hold my breath.
0
Reply
Male 8,175
squrlz4ever Will we be seeing a post from 5Cats noting that the article he was crowing about was a piece of disinformation?

When have you ever seen 5cats apologize for lying or following scientific proofs?  He came close to admitting he was wrong like once in the 9 years I've been coming to this website.
0
Reply
Female 8,169
Lets wait for the review before we get excited. The reason I say that is that so far the trend has been towards 'worst case'- and we've now got large scale Methane releases. This does seem to be saying we MUST stick to Paris and other ambitious mitigation and emissions are expected to be in steep decline by 2030. 
0
Reply
Male 1,838
Interesting. For some reason when I clicked on the original Nature Study a moment ago, I was allowed read-only access to the original study. Here are some of the more salient tidbits:

The scenarios and simulations on which these carbon budgets were based, howe ver, were designed to assess futures in the absence of CO2 mitigation, not the very ambitious mitigation scenarios and correspondingly small l amounts of additional warming above present that are here of interest. Furthermore, many mitigation scenarios begin reductions in 2010 and are already inconsistent with present-day emissions, complicating the comparison with pledges for 2030.
      tl;dr - most models don't take into account all of the mitigation nations have promised to do in the future, and some don't take into account the mitigation nations have done between 2010-2017. This study purports to take those into account.

This is more representative of a possible mitigation pathway from today: many nations are already planning on policy action to reduce emissions over the 2015–2020 period, in anticipation of achieving their NDC commitments in the future....Figure 2c shows the implications of these scenarios for future warming, evaluated with a simple climate model that reproduces the response of the CMIP5 models to radiative forcing under ambitious mitigation scenarios (Supplementary Methods). 
      tl;dr - Specifically, the study takes into consideration all of the policies that nations promised they would implement between 2015-2020. 

we re-estimate carbon budgets, accounting for the present-day climate state and current uncertainty in the climate response, and assuming mitigation efforts are perfectly adapted over time to achieve a warming in 2100 of 1.5◦ C for a range of possible realizations of the climate response.
      tl;dr - Assuming that all the nations keep their promises to reduce carbon emissions by the promised amounts, the Earth will warm by 1.5 degrees Celsius in 83 years, not 5 years or 13 years (depending on which study you're reading) as previously indicated.

For these reasons, the possibility that both Chinese and global emissions are at or near their peak, and could reduce from 2020, seems less far-fetched than it once did. This could allow for the required strengthening of the NDCs in the 2020 review towards an RCP2.6-2017 trajectory or beyond, more readily consistent with a 1.5◦ C goal.
      tl;dr - The authors may be planning a future paper based upon assuming that China is almost at "peak emissions" and in the future will likely reduce their emissions when they slow down their current infrastructure-building efforts. 
1
Reply
Male 41,551
bliznik Fact #1 Skeptics predicted (from the start, it hasn't changed) a rise of 0.9 to 1.3 by 2100, natural causes. This study is claiming humans are raising the Earth's temp by 0.6 to 0.2? And we should spend many trillions on this goal of avoiding that?
We are currently on pace for a rise of 1.1C, not 2.2C (or 4.4C) by anything except 'models' which have all been wrong so far.

Fact #2 China has free range to increase it's CO2 until (iirc) 2040 without limit thanks to Obama's 'agreement'. They PLAN to double their CO2 in the next 10 years, it is a JOKE to think they have 'peaked'. Any calculations based on that is simply fantasy.
0
Reply
Male 1,838
5cats 

#1 - I have no idea who you mean by "skeptics" when you don't cite sources for your "facts." I don't really understand your point for #1 either...any amount of global warming (or global cooling) has planetwide effects. Is that not true anymore? 

#2 - That is what many climate scientists are saying, which is why most climate scientists are debunking this study as ridiculous. The assumptions are a bit too brazen.
0
Reply
Male 41,551
bliznik Here's a good place to start: https://wattsupwiththat.com/

And I'm glad we agree on something :-) You are aware that the Paris Accord is based on... China not raising its CO2. Nor India or a dozen other nations who have NO intentions of lowering it and every intention of doubling it. In my mind it is equally a fantasy, eh?
0
Reply
Male 1,838
5cats Oh yeah, the Paris Accord is purely symbolic. I've said as much many times in the past. 
0
Reply
Male 41,551
bliznik Symbolic, but will cost the world TRILLIONS of dollars...

Are you honestly OK with that? Spending TRILLIONS on shit that will do nothing even remotely like they promise it will do? Breaking the backs of the poor in order to make the rich MORE rich? That is OK with you?
Seriously.
0
Reply
Male 1,838
5cats

It doesn't have to cost trillions. So far the US has only spent a billion, which is very small contribution per-capita as compared to many other nations, and Trump could have cut that contribution to ZERO DOLLARS while still signing the accord if he wanted to.

Not really sure who you mean by rich and who you mean by poor. I've always hated that moniker, even when Sanders uses that language. It's too simplistic.

I'm always for promoting in better technologies and better research methods. It's fine to curtail that investment in favor of higher priority targets, but I'm not in favor of cutting off total investment completely, nor am I in favor of completely turning my back on any cooperation whatsoever. Decrease funding, reallocate funds towards higher priority targets, make symbolic forays that inspire cooperation while not committing resources...but working to completely cut off a branch of science because he doesn't like the results? That's just a childish move.
0
Reply
Male 41,551
bliznik HAHAHAAA! The USA has only spent a Billion?? The world has spent well over 1 trillion per year and that is using 'shady' accounting which hides a lot of the actual costs. (like back-up power plants for example)
The USA spends many billions per year on windfarm subsidies alone. Never mind the rest. 

The Common Tax Payer is who pays for all those subsidies, and the rich are the ones getting them. Who do you think owns all those windfarms? Mom and Pop? Nope, it's big, well connected businesses.

Every time the price of gasoline or electricity goes up? The poorest of the poor pay for it. Through higher rates, higher taxes (on those items) and every expense a company has gets passed down to them.

There are 100 better ways to spend that money that goes straight into the pockets of the rich right now. Blowing it all on projects that are useless at best and cause actual harm at worst is surely a bad idea too.

The private sector has been and always will be the driving force behind invention and innovation. Governments can help, but expecting them to do it all isn't rational...

And Paris would ADD another Trillion per year if implemented, on top of everything else. That is "dead money" it doesn't increase the GDP it actually cuts it down...
0
Reply
Male 1,087
5cats breitbart.com! LOL
2
Reply
Male 4,368
marsii It just a link to the same article.
0
Reply
Male 5,413
trimble No, it's not. It's a link to a toxic piece of disinformation.
1
Reply
Male 1,087
trimble Thought the original post was the Telegraph article.
0
Reply
Male 8,175
Here i'll break it down in laymens terms.  Study finds Earth is still warming, good news is, we can still pollute like crazy for 20 more  years or so then we need to stop thanks to advances in Renewable energies.  IE it's stating we have a bit more time before we have to do anything but it's not arguing the fact that we are having an impact.  IE we should probably taking the Climate Accord Seriously anyways.....  Thanks science for starting renewables because if we didn't we'd be in a mess of trouble already.

So the two primary points again are, we are still polluting at unsustainable levels and we should be funding and investing heavily in renewables.  
2
Reply
Male 4,368
normalfreak2 Well, not the Paris Climate Accord anyway, I believe they are stating that pretty much will have no impact and that the hand wringing over it is an overreaction . I agree with that.
2
Reply
Male 8,175
trimble To use a phrase by prichards114 and expand upon it.

I've got a $10000 credit limit and I thought at my current use I'd be maxed out 5 years but instead I found out because my spending habits changed It'll take 20 years to max out.  But I'm going to max out regardless, but i'm spending less than I was.  The balance is still increasing assholes.
0
Reply
Male 4,368
normalfreak2 And that has what to do with the Paris Climate Accord?
0
Reply
Male 8,175
trimble That the goals were ambitious and based on data that wasn't as bad as they originally thought but still bad?  In either case I fail to see the point you are trying to drive at here.  The problem of AGW needs to be addressed, the climate is changing and it's not sustainable and needs to be addressed.  

The Paris accord is the Moderate response.  Some people on the left think it's not urgent enough.  The paris accord was a non binding agreement that was at best a middle of the road solution to a problem that needs to be addressed.
0
Reply
Male 4,368
normalfreak2 Have you read any of it? it seems to probably exasperate the problem (at great costs).
0
Reply
Male 41,551
Exactly as we've said all along:
- no evidence at all that a small temp increase will 'destroy the world'
- it simply is not warming at the rate AGW predicted
- it is warming at the rate the skeptics predicted
- nothing humans have done have changed anything
-8
Reply
Female 8,169
5cats For Gods sake man- the article is there- at least READ it...
1
Reply
Male 5,413
madduck I think you may be asking too much from a propagandist. He's all about the quick-hit talking points. He throws them around everywhere for maximum exposure; the more eyes that see them, the better. Actually reading things isn't part of the agenda.
0
Reply
Male 1,838
nothing humans have done have changed anything

Actually, the whole point of the study is that this model takes into account more of the carbon-reducing methods people are using, whereas the previous models didn't take those into account. When you take the carbon-reducing methodologies into account, the Earth doesn't warm up as rapidly.
3
Reply
Male 41,551
bliznik Riiiigt and carbon-dioxide, that lethal pollutant, is locked into temperature: it goes up and so does the temp. It goes down and so does the temp ... :p NOT!

CO2 is a trivial 'greenhouse gas' and hasn't been increasing for quite some time now, despite hysteria over 'record temperatures'. 
So which is it? Human-made CO2 is raising the temperature even when it isn't increasing? Or are there other factors involved?
-6
Reply
Male 1,838
5cats 

The study takes into account all CO2 emissions, including mitigation strategies by humans to reduce their CO2 emissions.

No study states that C02 is locked to temperature. Total greenhouse gas emissions affect global temperature--CO2 being one of the most prevalent ones.
1
Reply
Male 41,551
bliznik That is the foundation of AGW: 100% human created CO2 is destroying the world and only humans can stop it. There are NO other causes of warming except human ones. Period.
0
Reply
Male 1,838
5cats 

I don't think the foundation of AGW is that "there are no other causes of warming except human ones." I think the foundation of AGW is that "humans have more control over CO2 that humans generate than they do over CO2 that other entities generate...therefore humans can make the biggest difference by controlling their own CO2 emissions"

For example, I think in CA one year I read that the largest greenhouse gas producer in California was human-bred cows that fart methane. So scientists started to research how to control the number of cows producing methane farts. 
0
Reply
Male 1,087
5cats A+ trolling. Preposterous claims with only a hint of a basis in reality with that assholish confidence in something you know nothing about. Drives anyone with a measurable IQ to attempt to correct you. Magnifique! 

2
Reply
Male 8,175
5cats Uhh the article nor study state any of those things you mentioned above.  Try again dummy.
1
Reply
Male 41,551
normalfreak2 He fuckface, where did I say "the study says"? Learn to fucking read you imbecile...
-5
Reply
Male 5
5cats Everyone look at this stupid motherfucker.
0
Reply
Male 1,838
5cats You wrote "Exactly as we've said all along:" and listed 4 conclusions, which implies that you think the study proves exactly each of those 4 conclusions.
2
Reply
Male 41,551
bliznik (this somehow showed up in reply to a different comment :p reposting it here)

Nope. The study confirms one of those things, but in no way did I say that THIS study is SAYING all 4 things.
WE have said... 'we' ok? Meaning Skeptics. Need I explain more? Ok:

When I say "We said..." I do not refer to 'others' (ie the writers of the study) I refer to a group I belong to: skeptics. Thus the 'others' did not say those 4 things, WE did. 
It is exactly as we said... IT meaning the state of the Earth, not the words of this study.

Any further questions?
-1
Reply
Male 5,413
5cats Since you're busily typing away on your keyboard about global warming tonight, any chance you could address this post, where an article you submitted from the Mail has been retracted?
0
Reply
Male 4,114
Was this research paid for by British Petroleum?
0
Reply
Male 2,164
Pul-eeeese....never, ever site The Telegraph regarding anything associated with actual SCIENCE. Global warming is more readily considered as "climate CHANGE". Sarah Palin likes to spout that not all glaciers are receding, the true  nature of climate change demonstrates that heightened precipitation caused by WARMING may create more snow events in some areas, leading to the numb-skull reports that warming is misinformation.
      It's exactly this type of misinformation that will lead this world straight down the chucklehead road to ruin, while more low lying islands are obliterated, weather pattern are shifted due to loss of sea ice and hurricanes are strengthened by hotter oceans. 
     A more appropriate science article for the Telegraph would be "How many Cherry Picking GOP Monkeys Does It Take To Increase Profit With Less Regulation On The Basis Of Brain Farts By Dipshits On The Web In Mom's Basement In Their Underwear?"
2
Reply
Male 2,717
I need a premium account to read the whole article from the Telegraph?

If I sign up, will there be a link to the actual study?

"An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook."

So, we keep focusing on developing renewables, and cutting emissions.

"Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance..."

Which would be increased if the US would be on board.

"The researchers also condemned the "overreaction" to the US's withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord."

Seems illogical if we are crediting renewables, and pointing out a 1 in 3 chance we won't meet our goal.
1
Reply
Male 1,838
Here you go.

Climate models are ridiculously complex and I don't fully understand the abstract, much less the full study. I'm hoping someone smarter than I am will be able to deconstruct this and figure out what the assumed constants are, the assumed variables, and why those assumptions were made.
0
Reply
Male 2,717
bliznik 
Thank you, and your synopsis is much appreciated.
1
Reply
Male 4,368
jaysingrimm Weird, when I saw that article the forced sign up wasn't there (probably 3 hours or ago). There was much more information and names of those conducting the study with some of their findings. Nothing that surprised me though. I think they credited the article from a site called nature.com. I think.
 
1
Reply
Male 2,717
trimble 
C'est la vie. Thank you for looking into it.
0
Reply
Male 1,891
trimble It wants a  login now.  There is an option to sign up for one free premium article a month.  I guess if you have actual information, you can get away with making people pay for it. 

0
Reply
Male 1,838
insaneai Yup, Nature always needs a login. It's free if you go to your local university and access it from one of their computers tho'. It costs $$$ to archive all these articles.l Maintenance is a b****.
0
Reply
Male 1,891
Male 1,838
insaneai I'm referring to the original source that the article is based upon.
1
Reply
Male 1,891
bliznik Thanks

-1
Reply
Male 1,087
Efforts to slow global warming have given us more time to avoid catastrophe,  in other words. Thanks to people who believe in science, e.g. those working on affordable renewable energy.
-1
Reply
Male 1,838
marsii I don't think it's efforts to slow global warming that have done this so much as newer climate models. Rigorous peer-review and experimentation will reveal how accurate this newest climate model is. Data keeping is complex!
1
Reply
Male 1,087
bliznik I read it as the models predicted more pollution and less renewable energy. But yes, it is complex. Got plenty of my own data to mind. 
0
Reply
Male 1,838
marsii Ah, I've been able to read the original study. I take back my previous statement. You're right, this study specifically takes into account efforts to slow global warming in order to reach this new conclusion.
1
Reply
Male 228
That's literally retarded.  Thats like saying,  I've got a $10000 credit limit but i'm spending less than I was.  The balance is still increasing assholes.
1
Reply
Male 1,838
That's literally figuratively retarded.

FTFY
0
Reply