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.
You must log in or register to comment.
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
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.
I don’t think it matters if we believe it or not
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.