A controversial new study claims we may breach the 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) climate change increase threshold by the late 2020s — almost two decades earlier than current projections.
The study, published Feb. 5 in the journal Nature Climate Change, claims global surface temperatures had increased by 1.7 C (3 F) above pre-industrial averages by the year 2020.
However, other scientists have questioned the findings, saying that there are major flaws in the work.
I don’t believe anything a sea sponge tells me
The big issue here is where to set the baseline; do we set it based on temperatures in the late 1800s, when there start to be widespread records of thermometer-based temperature readings (what we’ve done in the past) or do we set it at an earlier time, based on when people’s dumping of CO2 from burning fossil fuels had not yet caused warming.
You can argue about the quality of any given proxy, but they do generally paint a similar picture.
You’re a sea sponge, aren’t you? Nice try, sea sponge
We’ve been made. Abort. Abort.
The sponges migrated about a foot and a half.
And op’s out here trying to pretend like they can write their own scientific studies!? What a buncha bs
I don’t think it matters if we believe it or not
Whether or not we’re past the 1.5C point doesn’t really change the prescription.
We need to invest in improving energy infrastructure, immediately. We need to decentralize the automobiles in urban life, immediately. We need to stop pulling fossil fuels out of the earth, immediately. We need to find ways to reduce pointless consumption. We need to continue letting solar do its thing unimpeded by protectionist fossil fuel policy, significantly scale up wind investment, and continue to research other carbon-free fuels to see if they will eventually prove viable (EGH, for example).
The technology to seriously slow, maybe halt, and possibly even reverse the damage already exists, with plenty more actually-promising projects in the pipelines. But the economics may not and the politics definitely do not. Whether we’re at 0.9, 1.4, or 2.7C doesn’t really change that prospectus, in my opinion.
Maybe the politics will exist after Florida gets a couple Katrina-like events.
Camille Parmesan, an ecologist at the University of Texas, Austin and a coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s 6th Assessment Report, noted that the temperature of one part of the ocean is unlikely to represent ocean temperatures elsewhere. “You cannot extrapolate from the Caribbean to the whole of the world’s oceans,” Parmesan told Live Science.
Seems like something easy enough to replicate elsewhere.
There are dozens (are we over 100 yet?) paleoclimate proxies that have made it into the literature at this point. Some tell us about temperature in a single point, others for big regions. This is just one of many.
There’s something of an index of them here
The IPCC keeps rejecting “hot models” that show more warming than CO2 has caused in the past.
Those models keep coming up as accurate often enough that it’s now referred to as the “hot model problem”.
We should only believe objective, peer-reviewed, replicated data as fact. If that is the case here, then yes. If it’s not yet gone through the rigorous scientific process, then no.
deleted by creator
