Earth to warm more quickly, new climate models show

[sue4e3]

https://phys.org/news/2019-09-earth-quickly-climate.html

By 2100, average temperatures could rise 6.5 to 7.0 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels if carbon emissions continue unabated, separate models from two leading research centres in France showed
Greenhouse gases thrust into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels are warming Earth's surface more quickly than previously understood, according to new climate models set to replace those used in current UN projections, scientists said Tuesday.

By 2100, average temperatures could rise 6.5 to 7.0 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels if carbon emissions continue unabated, separate models from two leading research centres in France showed.

That is up to two degrees higher than the equivalent scenario in the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change's (IPCC) 2014 benchmark 5th Assessment Report.

The new calculations also suggest the Paris Agreement goals of capping global warming at "well below" two degrees, and 1.5C if possible, will be harder to reach, the scientists said.

[democratisphere]

1. There is no way to significantly control this.

Mass extinction will also accelerate at a faster rate.

[Newest Reality]

2. Wish I had a buck

for every article that I have read on climate change that talks about unexpected accelerations in the process and shorter time frames.

The Society for Surprised Scientists must be rather active these days.

[Miguelito Loveless]

3. Scientists have always been conservative

in the dictionary sense of the word. I have spent years reading science forums where some of these folks (climatologists, geophysicists, biologists, geologists, and tons of grad students) weighed in on the papers/studies/research being published. The sotto voce discussion was that the numbers were far, far worse than what was being published. However, as climate deniers had tons of money behind them, and hordes of howler monkeys online to dox them, threaten them, stalk them, and try to ruin them professionally, best to state numbers from the less alarming "we can fix this" end of the results, rather than the "we are totally doomed" end.

If Jonas Salk were alive today and developed the polio vaccine, he would have to go into hiding because of all the death threats, bogus law suits, and political harassment.

When you make $90K a year, it is best not to upset corporations that make $2.5 billion a day. Remember, the courts said years ago that corporations were people. Vicious, vindictive, spiteful, avaricious, people with the resources of gods.

[Newest Reality]

4. Good points!

Thanks!

[defacto7]

5. You speak the truth.

Welcome to DU

[Miguelito Loveless]

9. Thanks.

[progree]

6. "best to state numbers from the less alarming "we can fix this" end"

Exactly, that's what I always thought about the bullshit re: keeping the temperature rise to no more than 1.5 deg C "we have 12 years to fix this".

[caraher]

8. Then there are the IPCC reports

The IPCC's analyses of climate change are science-informed, but are ultimately the result of a political process that tends to result in consensus conclusions driven by the need for all parties to sign off on the language, including nations that are big fossil fuel producers. In that case, warming proceeding "faster than forecast" is less about surprised scientists and more about the kind of conservatism baked into the process.

[progree]

7. Not a problem, only minor sacrifices needed ...

The Kaiser Family Foundation/Washington Post Climate Change Survey, 9/16/19
https://www.kff.org/report-section/the-kaiser-family-foundation-washington-post-climate-change-survey-main-findings-9349/

Few U.S. adults are willing to make personal sacrifices in the form of higher gas or electricity taxes in order to address climate change.

Fewer than four in ten adults (37%) think that reducing the negative effects of global warming and climate change will require major sacrifices from ordinary Americans, while a plurality (48%) think it will require minor sacrifices and 14% say it won’t require much sacrifice at all.

Majorities are willing to support raising taxes on wealthy households (68%) and on companies that burn fossil fuels, even if it may lead to increased electricity and transportation prices (60%), as ways to pay for policies aimed at reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

But when it comes to taxes that are likely to hit consumers’ pocketbooks, support is much lower. About half (51%) oppose a $2 monthly tax on U.S. residential electric bills, and seven in ten (71%) are opposed to such a tax at the $10 a month level. Similarly, majorities oppose increasing the federal gasoline tax by 10 cents or 25 cents per gallon (64% and 74%, respectively). There are partisan divisions, but even majorities of Democrats oppose a $10 monthly electricity tax (60%) and a 25-cent per gallon gasoline tax (63%).