When will global warming hit the landmark 1.5 ºC limit?

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01702-w

by Brajeshwar • 3 years ago

65 108 3 years ago

nature.com

sillywalk• 3 years ago

Faster than expected.

gibsonf12• 3 years ago

Or never

vkou• 3 years ago

We're currently at 1.2C, and almost every new year, we emit more carbon than we have in any other year in human history.

waboremo• 3 years ago

What's the purpose of denying recorded averages[1]? It's a given 1.5 will happen, as none of the drastic measures have been acted on and most goals have not been hit.

[1] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...

beardyw• 3 years ago

Reminds me of Stephen Leacock's A B and C. C is on his deathbed.

"A," whispered C, "I think I'm going fast." "How fast do you think you'll go, old man?" murmured A.

Whole thing here https://www.online-literature.com/stephen-leacock/literary-l...

oezi8• 3 years ago

We have the power to change it. It is estimated to cost between 2-6% of global GDP each year until 2050 to prevent exceeding 1.5 C.

Costly, but not insanely so. We spend more on quite a lot of things.

Smoosh• 3 years ago

"Gradually and then suddenly."

jeffbee2• 3 years ago

It's not a "limit" of course. It's like asking when, if I put the car in gear and stand on the gas, will I go crashing through the back wall of the garage? You can figure it out but it doesn't really matter.

Recent research suggests that if we stop emitting CO2 right now, the earth could continue warming to a peak of +10ºC over centuries. https://theclimatebrink.substack.com/p/warming-in-the-pipeli...

willtheperson• 3 years ago

A bit pessimistic though right? Carbon capture through both natural and engineered methods is a thing that could have more investment/incentive if that were the case which counters the idea that just because CO2 hangs around a long time doesn't mean there's nothing to be done about it.

Obviously, it'd be great to limit the production of more CO2 going forward but I don't believe that everyone will collectively just give up.

yieldcrv2• 3 years ago

Not to be defeatist but the solutions have byproducts that are just as counterproductive to our goals

piyh• 3 years ago

It's a hell of a carbon loan to take out against future generations.

c0nfused2• 3 years ago

We need to stop burning fossil fuels. Full stop.

Hitting the 2100 target 70 years early should be a wake up call to us all.

I see little evidence we will even attempt to cut our output and less that we will pay money to solve this issue before we have global disaster.

sho_hn2• 3 years ago

If you're curious about this, the recent IPCC report publications on mitigation have great meta-analysis on the component of carbon capture and as someone who also had put some mental stock in this (don't we all wish we could engineer our way out of this one easily?), I found it sobering. And then consider that many people found the reports too soft on CC.

whatever2305222• 3 years ago

I can not understand how carbon capture can be proposed as a solution for reducing the atmospheric CO2 levels. At best, it can be used at high-intensity production sites to reduce the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere.

We are currently pumping every day 35 billion tons of carbon into an atmosphere that already has umpteen billions of tons of carbon that needs to be removed. We are never going to have machinery or technology that can remove carbon at the necessary scale. And not only is the volume an impossibility, the energy requirements are, too: it will require more energy to remove the carbon than it provided in the first place.

Best I can figure is we need to use fast-growing solar-powered organics. Replace corn with hemp, or grow algae, something like that, and sequester the mature product at an active subduction zone. Return it back into the deep earth.

bryanlarsen• 3 years ago

It's the speed of warming that makes our current climate change so harmful. 5 degrees of warming over decades is much more harmful than the 10 degrees of warming over millennia that your link predicts. Over millennia species and ecosystems can evolve.

Not to dismiss your paper, but a lot of people hearing your comment or reading the link will think "If going to zero won't help, let's not bother going to zero".

LatteLazy2• 3 years ago

It's important thet we know when to stop pretending we will try and prevent 1.5C and move on to pretending we will try and stop 2.0C...

hikawaii• 3 years ago

We are trying!

Cars get ever more fuel efficient, there's more investment in public transit than ever, Britain is interested in nuclearizing again, carbon offsets are widely purchased and many of our most energy hungry companies are finding ways to go to less or zero emissions.

Continuous carastrophization and disrespect for things people actually are working quite hard at doing, with implicit blame for "those other guys" to boot is how you make people try less.

Large efforts to transform the economy are quite difficult and take a long time. Transitioning away from fossil fuels entirely may be the single most complex international effort ever attempted.

You can say that all the bad guys at oil companies want more cars and more profits - but the reason they are so profitable is that energy consumption is directly related to quality of life, and until 10 or 20 years ago - fossil fuels were the way to get it.

LatteLazy2• 3 years ago

We've spent 40 years congratulating ourselves on having done nothing, and it's not worked so far, but anyone who points that out is engaged in catastrophization...

Gigachad• 3 years ago

Cars got more efficient, so everyone went and bought larger cars.

Carbon offsets are largely a scam which could have a worse than useless effect when people believe they are actually real.

mym19902• 3 years ago

Its just like hitting snooze on an alarm clock for 2 hours straight. One deludes themselves that they will have the willpower in 5 minutes, and the end result is getting a terrible sleep AND missing class/work.

tromp• 3 years ago

And when we hit 1.5C, will we already be on an irreversible course to 2C?

ke88y• 3 years ago

We are already on an irreversible course to 2C.

wfhBrian• 3 years ago

Apple TV's "Extrapolations" is an interesting dramatization of this. Highly recommended.

andybee• 3 years ago

I don't think we need more "dramatizations" on this topic but rather realistic and pragmatic analysis and solutions. Frankly, while facing this just watching a show to pat yourself on the back as being part of the solution, isn't really appealing.

ConfusedDog• 3 years ago

FTC could try to raise interest rates again see if that would lower the global temperature.

yieldcrv2• 3 years ago

FRB, or just “Fed”

wonderwonder3• 3 years ago

It's all so tiresome. When German leaders went online to celebrate turning off their last nuclear plant and instead turned on more coal I learned it was all theater by woke fools. They are not fools because they are woke but just because they are foolish. The dutch seizing farms in the name of global warming. Where are they going to get food from? Ukraine? China? Giving power to foreign possibly enemy nations like they did with Russia. It's all political theater that will weaken the west and do nothing to accomplish it's goals.

Africa and Asia are going to want the same standard of living as the west so carbon use is only going to go up. You don't intentionally cripple industries in your country in the face of global competition.

anononaut• 3 years ago

It's like shouting in the darkness, isn't it? Don't become discouraged, though.

londons_explore3• 3 years ago

I see only two solutions:

* A global carbon tax/cap/trading/limit system, with sanctions for any country that does not comply.

* A realistic risk that a global compulsory carbon cap/tax/trading system will be implemented, and that any carbon emissions tracking will be backdated - such that any extra emissions today might disadvantage your country in the future.

With neither of the above two, it is in every countries best interests to emit as much carbon as possible and use free/cheap carbon based energy to produce goods/food/whatever, while doing only a few highly visible environmental moves.

oezi8• 3 years ago

We are fast approaching the point where renewables are cheaper than fossils. Why would anybody invest in them anymore?

mym19902• 3 years ago

Investment isn't about how cheap something is, it is about how much of a return one can get on an item.

EricE• 3 years ago

If that was actually true we would need to talk about it.

It’s not, so here we are. Solar and wind do nothing for base load generation - except distract people from talking rationally about energy. I don’t know where people think all the power to charge electric cars is going to come from. And what transmission lines are going to carry the miracle of power either.

revelio9• 3 years ago

Renewables aren't cheaper than fossil fuels if you consider the cost of grid outages. This is an externality that is normally not considered when arguing they're cheaper.

londons_explore3• 3 years ago

Only for the 'easy' things... A gas furnace works out far cheaper per unit of heat than a heat pump... A plane is far cheaper to fly with jet fuel than batteries. Steel is far cheaper to make (not recycle) with coal and a blast furnace than direct reduction. Cement is far cheaper to make with gas than electricity...

mywittyname• 3 years ago

Ohio passed a law that allows one of counties, townships, and cities to ban "green" developments. I'm not sure if other states have passed similar laws, but I wouldn't be surprised. This makes it trivial to stop any new solar or wind development (ofc, natural gas and coal are not impacted by this law). This has made it so that major solar developers have stopped even considering the state for new developments.

So it's completely possible that people are going to be willing to pay a price premium to ensure the demise of civilization and perhaps humanity.

aksss3• 3 years ago

You are very misinformed if you believe this is true for planet-scale energy demand. Dial back the hope and faith and engage the critical thinking.

Lutger3• 3 years ago

You are misinformed. Dutch don't seize farms because of global warming, in fact they haven't seized any farms so far. The problem in the Netherlands is about nitrogen depositions. Furthermore, we currently export more than two thirds of our agricultural output, and import two thirds as well.

The possibly maybe eventual seizing of a couple of large and polluting meat farm / factories close by natural reserves won't have any effect on our ability to feed ourselves, at all. The problem is mostly about unsustainable ways to produce ungodly amounts of meat and milk, not 'farms' in general.

Woke has nothing to do with it.

nostromo• 3 years ago

Dutch don't seize farms because of global warming

This isn't true. A major goal of nitrogen cutting programs (started by the UN Environment Program) is to reduce climate change. You can read about it here:

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/four-reasons-why...

toomuchtodo2• 3 years ago

Portugal, Spain, France, Sweden, Finland, the UK, and other parts of Europe are running on renewables or low carbon nuclear for a substantial amount of time. As oezi mentioned in a sibling comment, the cost of renewables is rapidly approaching a point where they are cheaper than fossil fuels. The solutions are clear, we just need to lean into them harder (and make it painful for those who choose to continue fossil BAU despite the cost reversal).

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/renewables-supplied-8... (Renewables supplied 88% of Portugal's electricity consumption in January)

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65557469 (Wind is main source of UK electricity for first time)

https://english.elpais.com/spain/2023-05-19/the-nine-hours-i... (The nine hours in which Spain made the 100% renewable dream a reality)

https://yle.fi/a/74-20032375 (Finnish nuclear plant throttles production as electricity price plunges) (My note: Estonia and Finland just signed an MOU to build an additional 1GW interconnector, "EstLink3", to import more clean energy from Finland but it won't be done until early 2030s)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35965186 (HN: Renewables supplied 65% of new US utility-scale generating capacity in Q1 2023)

https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/renewables-cheapest-form... (Renewables: Cheapest form of power)

https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost... (Lazard 2023 Levelized Cost Of Energy+)

https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/Tesla-Master-Plan-Part-3.pdf (Tesla Master Plan Part 3: Sustainable Energy for All of Earth)

https://app.electricitymaps.com/map?wind=false&solar=false (Live global electrical generation mix data)

mensetmanusman2• 3 years ago

Reminds me of the movie '12 monkeys', where the groups determined to save the world ended up destroying it.

Would be funny in a way if GreenPeace's actual accomplishment was delaying nuclear until it was too late.

aksss3• 3 years ago

Isn’t that precisely the course correction we find ourselves having to make now? Decades of anti-nuclear sentiment calcified into regulatory opposition that needs to be unwound. Yeah, real funny. If there’s a lesson here we should all take to heart, it’s this: beware of letting bandwagon sentimental movements dictate policy.

cycomanic• 3 years ago

Nuclear is not a solution that will save us. In fact it is counterproductive to build nuclear. I know it hurts the sensibilities of many of the technerds here on HN, but renewables are already several factors cheaper than nuclear and are still on an exponential cost reduction curve.

So if you build a nuclear power plant you have less CO2 reduction than if you use the money for renewables. And no we don't need nuclear for baseload (hint renewables are baseload) and nuclear costs are not dominated by regulation any more than other power sources (Nuclear had >50 years, of development and government subsidies, that's 30 more than solar. And they still did not get onto an exponential cost reduction rate).

ragebol2• 3 years ago

The dutch seizing farms in the name of global warming.

1. Seizing farms is not happening here, only a few farms have been sold by the owning farmers to the government.

2. The aim is to reduce nitrogen emissions, which have been accumulating in the ground.

The Netherlands is a net exporter, apparently, so we could stand to loose some food production.

But yes, Dutch farms are very efficient per area. We should export that expertise, and I think we actually do that too

leesalminen3• 3 years ago

The Netherlands is a net exporter, apparently, so we could stand to loose some food production.

The countries importing that food will now have to import from somewhere else. It doesn’t seem to be solving any climate problem, just shifting it elsewhere.

aksss3• 3 years ago

Seizing farms is not happening here, only a few farms have been sold by the owning farmers to the government.

That’s some rather disingenuous spin. Look, I’m not at all interested in the merits of the buyouts (maybe they’re entirely justified, I don’t care) but don’t misrepresent what’s going on there - buyouts are being taken under duress, “voluntary” today with statements that they will become mandatory if enough volun-told people don’t step up. Again, I literally don’t care about the propriety of the motivations - not my circus, not my monkeys. In the US we have something called eminent domain that amounts to the same thing: “move and take this bag of cash that we deem to be the market value, or we’ll come with brickbats and make you move.” Sometimes it’s abused, sometimes it’s justified, but it is what it is - the government taking (seizing) property. The fact that there’s some compensation makes it mostly equitable at least. As far as I understand the offers from the Dutch (funded by EU?) are above market. What can never be quantified and captured adequately in a buy-out price, of course, is the legacy of multi-generational ownership, sentiment, and the cost of occupational rehabilitation. Given the variable factors that would go into such things, it’s probably a fool’s errand to even try to calculate such things anyway.

j-pb• 3 years ago

Your are misinformed/wrong.

Germany only had 5% nuclear, those have been replaced by renewables not by coal[1].

Those reactors were at the end of their lifespans anyways. Would nuclear have been great if we never stopped investing in the technology? Maybe, but as it stands now it's much cheaper and way way faster to install renewables than to install nuclear. (Nuclear power plants have lead times in decades and cost overruns in the billions.)

As for your farming claim. Netherlands is reducing milk and meat production, products that have been artificially propped up EU wide by subsidiaries. Meat and diary are one of the biggest contributors of greenhouse gasses and the major driving force behind deforestation (more than 80% in terms of area).

Nobody is going to starve without meat or diary, in fact you are much less likely to have certain diseases on a vegan diet. As for vitamin deficiencies, almost everybody is B12 and D deficient, including omnivores, so you should take vitamin supplements anyways. In fact most cows are B12 deficient too (not enough grass feed), so we inject them with vitamin boosters, so you might as well cut out the middleman.

1: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...

kingTug• 3 years ago

How do you define "woke?"

wonderwonder3• 3 years ago

Pretty much sums up my views (SFW): https://twitter.com/TheRabbitHole84/status/16596123941702328...

timeon• 3 years ago

Not sleepy.

teekert• 3 years ago

Cheap abundant clean energy will make a change. Some say it's about to happen, I think we need to do more research. Maybe some of that super intelligence will help us.

matsemann4• 3 years ago

You're concern trolling, and what you're doing is a great disservice to those trying to make a change. Lets attack a few misguided attempts, spread some FUD and remove the focus from things that matter, all while brewing hopelessness.

wonderwonder3• 3 years ago

Friend, I'm expressing myself on a thread that maybe a couple hundred people will read. If I set back climate reform then it was doomed to begin with. I have no idea what "concern trolling" is. I think nuclear is required to offset climate change. I think western countries shutting down farms is immoral and idiotic. I think expecting western countries to willingly handicap themselves in hopes it will make a difference while upcoming nations including China go full speed is dumb. If that's concern trolling then sure, I'm that.

_hypx• 3 years ago

We're nearly at the point where geoengineering is necessary. People will oppose this like nuclear power, but there's not many alternatives left. Even if we do have a solution to stop climate change, it is simply not going to happen in time.

newZWhoDis• 3 years ago

I no longer believe they’re fools, hanlon’s razor is/was a mistake.

They’re malicious.

flandish• 3 years ago

It really sends home the concept behind the phrase, “ain’t no war but class war.”

This “ruling” class just does the theater to keep us in the, sometimes actual, dark.

melling• 3 years ago

I don’t think attitudes towards addressing climate change have changed much. This was 8 years ago.

https://youtu.be/3E0a_60PMR8

luis_cho4• 3 years ago

Does anyone here knows what is the temperature value that we are comparing to?

I cannot find that anywhere.

c0nfused2• 3 years ago

It is 1850-1900 average per the article

luis_cho4• 3 years ago

Ok but what is the value? Is there hard value like "15.4 degree celcius"?

sho_hn2• 3 years ago

Reflecting the long-term warming trend since pre-industrial times, observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) for the decade 2006–2015 was 0.87°C (likely between 0.75°C and 0.99°C) higher than the average over the 1850–1900 period (very high confidence). Estimated anthropogenic global warming matches the level of observed warming to within ±20% (likely range). Estimated anthropogenic global warming is currently increasing at 0.2°C (likely between 0.1°C and 0.3°C) per decade due to past and ongoing emissions (high confidence).

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/

revelio9• 3 years ago

There are two ways to interpret your question:

1. If you mean what 1.5 degrees is above, it's an anomaly, which is defined as the difference from an average computed over a somewhat arbitrary time window. I think this one is defined as 1850-1900, which is defined as "pre industrial" times. Britain and America might disagree about that classification, but this is how it's done.

2. If you mean what 1.5 degrees is below, the answer is nothing. A 1.5 degree limit is a goal designed to motivate politicians. It's not justified by any particular research. It is discussed in this interview in Der Spiegel with an IPCC climatologist [1]:

SPIEGEL: Why then have you, as one of the creators of the two-degree target, imposed such a magical limit to which all countries must slavishly adhere?

Schellnhuber: Politicians like to have clear targets, and a simple number is easier to handle than a complex temperature range. Besides, it was important to introduce a quantitative orientation in the first place, which the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change managed to elegantly wangle its way out of. And let's be honest: Even if we aim for the two-degree target, we'll end up somewhat higher. Whenever there's a speed limit, most drivers tend to go a little faster.

[...]

And of course the world won't end if temperatures go up by 2.01 degrees, let alone end suddenly. From today's scientific perspective, we could possibly live with a warming of two to three degrees

[1] https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/german-climatolog...

luis_cho4• 3 years ago

It's not the goal but the value itself (1).

It's strange that we don't a value but a definition of a value.

I totally understand that we need a target to motivate politicians (sad but true).

mensetmanusman2• 3 years ago

"The year 2022 was the sixth warmest year since global records began in 1880 at 0.86°C (1.55°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F)."

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/g....

luis_cho4• 3 years ago

Thanks, raising 1,5 degrees on a average of 13,9 it's really a lot.

In my opinion the only way to slow down involves changing this growth oriented economy. I hope the EU conference "Beyond growth" is a start of a new movement.

egberts12• 3 years ago

Let us ignore the 14,200 new temperature reading weather stations installed within United States since 1975.

Have fun doing a running means, medians, and average year-over-year as your N-sample increases without regard to urban versus rural settings.

This eliminating of cluster bias because of this hyper-focusing of added but coalesced sampling has got to be nothing but challenging.

sega_sai• 3 years ago

Do you think that the average temperature is calculated by averaging across weather stations ?

egberts12• 3 years ago

You can see bias of new samples in numerous white papers pumped out by graduates and Ph.D. across universities and colleges.

gred3• 3 years ago

Are there any environmentalist schools of thought which accept human nature for what it is, make pessimistic (realistic?) assumptions about the (un)likelihood of global coordination on this topic, and use that as a starting point for research, modeling and recommendations? So much of what makes its way into politics and mainstream media on this topic seems to be naive pipe dreams, mindless posturing, or political opportunism. The scientists seem to often make the same mistake.

karmakurtisaani• 3 years ago

I suppose many of the institutions responsible for national security are making worst-case analyses all over the world. Of course that research wouldn't be public.

As for the "naive pipe dreams" as you put it, I suppose being more pessimistic will soon lead you being labelled as a doomer and ignored. There is some material though, like Uninhabitable Earth by David Wallace-Wells. It's a depressing read.

gred3• 3 years ago

Thanks for the reference. I watched some of his Joe Rogan episode to get a sense of his thesis, and it sounds like he's hoping for either litigation or a popular opinion shift to open the door to government intervention (taxes or policy) which significantly alters the incentives around emissions. He seems to mix realism (acknowledging that there are probably deeper desires at play, not just societal or governmental conventions) and wishful thinking (government policy as climate deus ex machina, countries imposing their climate agendas on other countries via war within 30 years). I suppose I belong to what he calls the "invent our way out of it" school of thought... also possibly very naive!

revelio9• 3 years ago

The people who are attracted to geo-engineering are probably the closest fit for what you want. You can argue that geo-engineering still requires global coordination.

The types you ask for are quite rare. If you accept human nature for what it is, you have to admit the possibility that claims are being exaggerated for political opportunism, fame, grant money, clicks ... and due to the huge cost of all proposed solutions, you'd want to double check. But if you ever double check any of this stuff you're doomed because environmental research is so riven with fraud. You end up a skeptic and be immediately excluded from politics, media, and academia. That's why you can't find many of that school of thought.

gred3• 3 years ago

Thanks! As mentioned in a sibling response, I think I'm in the "invent our way out of it" camp, but even here there are the both top-down approaches (e.g. geo-engineering) and the bottom-up approaches (residential solar, commercial solutions which do not rely on government subsidy), and I hope that we can find successful bottom-up approaches... mainly because bottom-up approaches conserve individual agency while top-down approaches are more likely to be used as political and civil cudgels against the majority of the population.

jules-jules• 3 years ago

This might be interesting for you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CVe8-eKSK8

When will global warming hit the landmark 1.5 ºC limit?

Related Stories