Is it time to aim for 1.7°C as the new limit for global warming? With the world on the cusp of passing 1.5°C of warming, scientists are turning their attention to defining a new limit for temperature rises – but not everyone agrees that we should.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2488575-is-it-time-to-aim-for-1-7c-as-the-new-limit-for-global-warming/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=echobox&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1752836844-4
by -Mystica-
35 comments
Absolutely nothing is being done to cut emissions. And won’t be because there is a flood of money to fight any initiative toward it. It’s not going to happen, emissions will keep increasing, and the world will keep getting hotter. All for the benefit of a few billionaires.
Let’s aim for 20°C and make ourselves feel much better that we’re going to reach that goal!
It would be incredibly naive to set a limit goal that we’re absolutely not going to stop at. Global emissions are *still rising* and we’re already at 1.5C, how on earth would we stop at 1.7C?
We’re still operating under capitalism. Unless all governments step in to regulate with either a) progressively lower caps on emissions, or b) a high enough carbon tax that emissions are financially disincentivised, there is no mechanism by which the economy will automatically or voluntarily lower aggregate emissions.
I for one could do without hearing years more of empty promises to hit numerical targets that mean little to nothing for the average person. We need to do something different. I don’t have the foggiest idea what, but like, something.
Changing the goal posts can only backfire imo. Skeptics will just see the story change, and in their minds they’ve seen in change before so it’ll all just seem like more bullshit.
For everyone else? Has the narrative framing of 1.5 been helpful at all? Like the dialogue is always, “we’re at risk of exceeding 1.5” or “1.5 is a dangerous threshold to cross” and “we can still achieve 1.5 if only we tried extra super hard you guys”
This narrative has not been successful and imo lulls the passive believers into complacency. They think recycling and taking the bus once a month is going to save us. To achieve 1.5 or 2 this century we’d have to complete uproot the global economic, social, and political order. We aren’t prepared for that, and I think speaking the hard truth will resonate with people more. We aren’t going to make it, so let’s prepare for what’s to come and start doing all we can to stop more warming. We need that panic and anxiety to set in.
For example, in my city we may need to start constructing dykes that cost billions to prevent sea level rise. (Just a hypothetical here). So, if we start working on that adaptation, maybe people will think twice about approving a coal export terminal that works against our adaptation goals. It will be more tangible once the cost of adaptation is more apparent
Ha. It always happens like this. The more scared hoomans get, the more ridiculous they become.
AFAIK 1.5 degrees was chosen as being safe for low-lying islands, but the real target was less than 2 degrees.
https://climate.leeds.ac.uk/1-5c-where-the-target-came-from-and-why-were-losing-sight-of-its-importance/
1.5C. Was the point where we all end. Now is 1.7. In five years it’ll be 1.9C. All you are doing in confusing people.
We passed the mark,deal with it and tell the people extreme measures are now in place. Enforce them.
We already surpase 1.7 since it’s lacking behind.
lol. ROFL, even.
IMO the target shouldn’t be a temperature but just all out decarbonization at maximum speed. There is no safe temperature, only safer temperatures as we decrease our emissions.
2.0 C change is not even doable since the USA abandoned climate science. No problem just move towards the poles or turn down your AC. There is much land in Canada and Alaska available. Kuwait is experiencing low temps of 95F at night. There is much land in Patagonia as well. Pack your belongings and move!!!
There was a reason it’s 1.5.
We literally cooked, fam.
Rather than setting a target that’s not going to be met and the world has no intention of meeting, would it not be better to have a target of ‘reduce emissions as much as possible, while taking proactive action to reduce the harm caused by baked-in warming as much as possible’?
Not the catchiest soundbite, but a more realistic description of what we need to do.
I’m tired of all this chatter about temperatures. How about less talk, more action? Stop trying to move the goalposts and just actually f***ing reduce the emissions. Show us clearly how that’s going to be done, and then make a legally-binding commitment, with strong penalties for those who don’t stick to it.
If you use the actual industrialization starting date of ~1750, we are >2°C above that baseline. Even if we were to stop emitting greenhouse gasses today, we would have a rise in global temperatures for the foreseeable future.
We are living in the new norm and it is only going to get worse. The current US administration has made it clear that they are going to do everything in their power to block any climate initiatives.
A goal of 1.5°C or 2°C is simply wishful thinking…
The only reasonable goal would have been something like 0.1°. Just enough to show that we were demonstrably warming the atmosphere. Anything else is really just kicking the can down the road.
Keep on kickin’ that goal post…
Posted something similar the other day, but whatever.
Based on what our current GHG levels are, 3C of warming seems to already be locked in. That’s not a worst-case scenario (like James Hansen), but the much more conservative IPCC.
*Note: The IPCC suggests that a constant concentration of CO2 alone at 550 ppm would lead to an average increase in Earth’s temperature of ~3°C (5.4°F).*
[https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/](https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/)
At the time that was published in 2023:
*In terms of CO2 equivalents, the atmosphere in 2023 contained 534 ppm, of which 419 is CO2 alone. The rest comes from other gases*
So even if we had shut down everything two years ago, 534 ppm would have been our constant concentration, if we could wave our magic wand and convert all of the GHG into CO2.
That CO2e figure was up to 573 ppm when Leon Simons calculated it in May, which he referred to as “206% of preindustrial CO2.” That’s a 7% increase in CO2e in two years.
One of the other fun facts is that we’re “only” at about 1.5C right now because the entire planet is being looked at, which is ~70% ocean:
*As a reminder, global warming occurs about twice as fast over land as it does over the oceans. The forcing is the same, i.e. increased greenhouse gases, but water has a higher heat capacity and also dissipates some heat via increased evaporation, leading to a slower trend*.
[https://bsky.app/profile/rarohde.bsky.social/post/3lst2tuj34s2u](https://bsky.app/profile/rarohde.bsky.social/post/3lst2tuj34s2u)
According to his graph, the increase in temperature over land areas is already approaching 2.5C.
I wish we’d stop pretending anyone is going to change anything. Make it profitable to change and the money will lead the way. Can’t remember the last time altruism did anything.
We’re not going to stop anything in time. We need to learn to adapt now, however.
1.6 should be the target, no can kicking, but will still require moderate adaptation
1.7 then it will be 2 lol
Goal posts should be defined by specific outcomes, not what feels most achievable right now. 1.5C was chosen because it was broadly considered a “tipping point” for positive feedback loops that could make the current climate change irreversible. That said, we don’t exactly know where the line is – it could be past 1.5C or we could have already passed it, we just don’t have enough information. Either way, setting new limits doesn’t make any sense. There’s nothing special about 1.7C, and due to positive feedback loops, we may not have all that much control on the final temperature change anyway. Our goal should be to halt greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, no matter where we end up. Each 0.1C higher will lead to worse and worse outcomes, so there is never a point where it’s not worth it to cut emissions, whether we meet the goal before 1.7C or well after it.
Now we just need 8 billion people to agree to this.
If they want to waste time debating such things, cool. I hope they enjoy themselves.
Those interested in anything which will have results can ignore them.
😂
We should just round up to 2.0
What are the most realistic scenarios of climate change?
Ive got doomer tunnel vision, and if feels like I keep hearing that was are going to be 4 c by like 2050, and that by 2100 it’ll be like 6c plus.
Other times, I hear that we’ll just be at 2.5c by 2100, and that things are being overhyped.
I just want to know the most realistic expectations to have.
If we move the goal posts once, what’s stopping us from doing it again?
A limit is meaningless if you change it.
Who cares, put the limit at 430° if you want bro
Oh we can’t meet that goal so let’s set it higher so we have something to meet. FFS we’re a stupid species.
Sure, let’s just keep moving the goalpost and see if that helps. 🤦♂️
It’s time to start building underground. Nobody (at least Americans) gonna lift a finger to slow global warming. Now, where did I put that uncrustable?
No, we need to use the passed limit as an emergency call to address climate change.
Comments are closed.