6 ms·

1.5C ? What kind of fictional reality are living in? We are way past 2.4C projection and are actually on track for 2.9*C or so. https://www.theguardian.com/e

by Yizahi 4y ago

1.5*C ? What kind of fictional reality are living in? We are way past 2.4*C projection and are actually on track for 2.9*C or so. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/09/cop26-sets-course-for-disastrous-heating-of-more-than-24c-says-key-report https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/09/cop26-se...

benj111 4y ago
That's what the article says. We aren't doing enough to limit global warming to just 1.5c. we could do more a possibly limit warming to 1.5c but it becomes an ever greater challenge the longer we leave it.
- Sharlin 4y ago
  At some point we have to stop talking about the 1.5° number as if it were anything but a ludicrous pipedream by now. Even ten years ago it was an entirely hypothetical "if the entire global economic system magically turned around overnight then it might be possible". Now it's "if we had a literal time machine and could go back and magically turn around the global economy overnight".
  - GekkePrutser 4y ago
    Indeed, it promotes inaction because the goal is so impossible you might as well not even try. Better to set a goal we can still actually achieve and take the consequences of that level for granted.
    - tejohnso 4y ago
      A goal we can actually achieve results in the collapse of civilization. But that doesn't sell well. Not many want to take that for granted. Any better consequence than that requires very significant changes from BAU and so lots of short term pain. Especially for the wealthy. And so we're back to impossible.
      - GekkePrutser 4y ago
        > A goal we can actually achieve results in the collapse of civilization. I don't think so, that's a bit dramatic. Some areas will be destroyed. Some will be much less livable. Some will be ok. Some will be better off, think Siberia or Canada. Especially in the northern hemisphere that has more land in the higher latitudes. Besides the destruction of viable cities especially on coasts a big problem is the mass migration that this will cause. It's a huge problem for sure. But civilisation-ending? I don't think so.
        tejohnso 4y ago
        > that's a bit dramatic I suppose so. But no more dramatic than the collapse of many previous civilizations. It's not an unheard of occurrence. Especially when faced with sudden loss of habitat. > Some areas will be destroyed...destruction of viable cities...mass migration... So you think that's all going to happen, and then what...somehow the climate system is going to return to a habitable, stable state? We're in the midst of abrupt and irreversible climate change, with tipping points triggering further tipping points. And even if somehow the climate system stabilizes, we'd already be well on the way to collapse of civilization, and we'd have to deal with all of this social upheaval and habitat destruction in a sane, non-destructive manner. I think that history, climate projections, and known human behaviour are all pushing the odds toward civilization collapse, and possibly another extinction in the genus Homo.
    - benj111 4y ago
      When the goal was set it was achievable and we didn't do anything, why would it be different the second time around?
      - GekkePrutser 4y ago
        Because we're really feeling the consequences now. All over the world.
        benj111 4y ago
        Well surely that's more motivation to meet the current target. Except even though we're all feeling the consequences we're still not really doing enough.
anamexis 4y ago
Right, which is why the headline says "no credible pathway"
timr 4y ago
Let's be perfectly clear: the projection you are citing is on the extreme end of a spectrum. Other projections differ. Per the (non-headline) part of the article: > The estimate stands in sharp contrast to optimistic forecasts published last week that suggested heating could be held to 1.9C or 1.8C, thanks to commitments announced at the talks, now in their second week and scheduled to end this weekend. > Those estimates were based on long-term goals set out by countries including India, the world’s third-biggest emitter, which is aiming for net zero emissions by 2070. > By contrast, the sobering assessment of a rise of 2.4C from Climate Action Tracker (CAT), the world’s most respected climate analysis coalition, was based on countries’ short-term goals for the next decade. It's worth pointing out that the "world's most respected climate analysis coalition" bit is some rather blatant editorializing. There's simply no way that's an objective fact (what did they do, survey the entire world?) Even if there were a way to defend such a statement, it's little more than an appeal to authority, to try to get you to believe this estimate, versus other estimates. After the past three years and watching their coverage of Covid (an area of science I know well, and in which I read the primary literature), I give zero credibility to the Guardian as a source of objective information. They routinely play these kinds of rhetorical and selective-reporting games to play up the most extreme angle for any story. It's sad, but we've gotten to the point where you simply cannot trust major news organizations to report on science without ridiculous levels of clickbait spin.
- throwaway5752 4y ago
  We're not going to hit the targets, not even close. The models are trending worse than expected. As someone that has spent some time on this topic in my lifetime, all I can do is thank fate that I'm likely to be dead from natural causes around 2050. Maybe the Guardian is bad (and I disagree with your opinion of them, I think they are generally reliable) but in this case, they are correct.
  - enraged_camel 4y ago
    I've found that Guardian has by far the best environmental news coverage out of basically all mainstream outlets.
- 4y ago
rtkwe 4y ago
1.5° C Was the goal of the Paris Agreement and is important because it's (somewhat arbitrarily somewhat backed by models) the point where we go from bad but not disastrous to we're going to have serious climate impacts. https://www.npr.org/2021/11/08/1052198840/1-5-degrees-warming-climate-change https://www.npr.org/2021/11/08/1052198840/1-5-degrees-warmin...
canadiantim 4y ago
Thank god the world is warming. This means a greener world, with more food for everyone. We are just coming out of an ice age; it would be muuuch more worrying if global temperatures were getting colder. Cold periods climatically tend to be associated with famine and war.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

1.5*C ? What kind of fictional reality are living in? We are way past 2.4*C projection and are actually on track for 2.9*C or so. https://www.theguardian.com/e

by Yizahi 4y ago

benj111 4y ago

That's what the article says. We aren't doing enough to limit global warming to just 1.5c. we could do more a possibly limit warming to 1.5c but it becomes an ever greater challenge the longer we leave it.

Sharlin 4y ago
At some point we have to stop talking about the 1.5° number as if it were anything but a ludicrous pipedream by now. Even ten years ago it was an entirely hypothetical "if the entire global economic system magically turned around overnight then it might be possible". Now it's "if we had a literal time machine and could go back and magically turn around the global economy overnight".
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  Indeed, it promotes inaction because the goal is so impossible you might as well not even try. Better to set a goal we can still actually achieve and take the consequences of that level for granted.
  - tejohnso 4y ago
    A goal we can actually achieve results in the collapse of civilization. But that doesn't sell well. Not many want to take that for granted. Any better consequence than that requires very significant changes from BAU and so lots of short term pain. Especially for the wealthy. And so we're back to impossible.
    - GekkePrutser 4y ago
      > A goal we can actually achieve results in the collapse of civilization. I don't think so, that's a bit dramatic. Some areas will be destroyed. Some will be much less livable. Some will be ok. Some will be better off, think Siberia or Canada. Especially in the northern hemisphere that has more land in the higher latitudes. Besides the destruction of viable cities especially on coasts a big problem is the mass migration that this will cause. It's a huge problem for sure. But civilisation-ending? I don't think so.
      - tejohnso 4y ago
        > that's a bit dramatic I suppose so. But no more dramatic than the collapse of many previous civilizations. It's not an unheard of occurrence. Especially when faced with sudden loss of habitat. > Some areas will be destroyed...destruction of viable cities...mass migration... So you think that's all going to happen, and then what...somehow the climate system is going to return to a habitable, stable state? We're in the midst of abrupt and irreversible climate change, with tipping points triggering further tipping points. And even if somehow the climate system stabilizes, we'd already be well on the way to collapse of civilization, and we'd have to deal with all of this social upheaval and habitat destruction in a sane, non-destructive manner. I think that history, climate projections, and known human behaviour are all pushing the odds toward civilization collapse, and possibly another extinction in the genus Homo.
  - benj111 4y ago
    When the goal was set it was achievable and we didn't do anything, why would it be different the second time around?
    - GekkePrutser 4y ago
      Because we're really feeling the consequences now. All over the world.
      - benj111 4y ago
        Well surely that's more motivation to meet the current target. Except even though we're all feeling the consequences we're still not really doing enough.

anamexis 4y ago

Right, which is why the headline says "no credible pathway"

timr 4y ago

Let's be perfectly clear: the projection you are citing is on the extreme end of a spectrum. Other projections differ. Per the (non-headline) part of the article: > The estimate stands in sharp contrast to optimistic forecasts published last week that suggested heating could be held to 1.9C or 1.8C, thanks to commitments announced at the talks, now in their second week and scheduled to end this weekend. > Those estimates were based on long-term goals set out by countries including India, the world’s third-biggest emitter, which is aiming for net zero emissions by 2070. > By contrast, the sobering assessment of a rise of 2.4C from Climate Action Tracker (CAT), the world’s most respected climate analysis coalition, was based on countries’ short-term goals for the next decade. It's worth pointing out that the "world's most respected climate analysis coalition" bit is some rather blatant editorializing. There's simply no way that's an objective fact (what did they do, survey the entire world?) Even if there were a way to defend such a statement, it's little more than an appeal to authority, to try to get you to believe this estimate, versus other estimates. After the past three years and watching their coverage of Covid (an area of science I know well, and in which I read the primary literature), I give zero credibility to the Guardian as a source of objective information. They routinely play these kinds of rhetorical and selective-reporting games to play up the most extreme angle for any story. It's sad, but we've gotten to the point where you simply cannot trust major news organizations to report on science without ridiculous levels of clickbait spin.

throwaway5752 4y ago
We're not going to hit the targets, not even close. The models are trending worse than expected. As someone that has spent some time on this topic in my lifetime, all I can do is thank fate that I'm likely to be dead from natural causes around 2050. Maybe the Guardian is bad (and I disagree with your opinion of them, I think they are generally reliable) but in this case, they are correct.
- enraged_camel 4y ago
  I've found that Guardian has by far the best environmental news coverage out of basically all mainstream outlets.
4y ago

rtkwe 4y ago

1.5° C Was the goal of the Paris Agreement and is important because it's (somewhat arbitrarily somewhat backed by models) the point where we go from bad but not disastrous to we're going to have serious climate impacts. https://www.npr.org/2021/11/08/1052198840/1-5-degrees-warming-climate-change https://www.npr.org/2021/11/08/1052198840/1-5-degrees-warmin...

canadiantim 4y ago

Thank god the world is warming. This means a greener world, with more food for everyone. We are just coming out of an ice age; it would be muuuch more worrying if global temperatures were getting colder. Cold periods climatically tend to be associated with famine and war.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]