Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Science

Earth Will Likely Be Much Warmer In 2100 Than We Anticipated, Scientists Warn (vice.com) 378

According to a new analysis of the most realistic climate models to date, global temperature rise by 2100 could be 15 percent higher than the highest projections from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). What this means is that cuts in greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) will have to be even greater than expected to meet the Paris climate target of keeping global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius. Motherboard reports: The world is a long way from making sufficient emission reductions to meet the Paris climate targets to begin with -- nevermind cutting out another 15 percent. But there's some good news, too. Both rich and poor countries have begun to move away from coal and oil, the two biggest CO2 sources, according to many energy analysts. Patrick Brown is a researcher at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Pasadena, California, a co-author of the study published Wednesday in Nature. "Our results imply 15 percent less cumulative emissions than previously calculated [are needed] in order to stay below 2 degrees Celsius," he told me. Brown and co-authors focused on finding out what future warming might be, using only the climate models that best replicate observations over the last 15-20 years. On a business-as-usual emissions trajectory, they found that the mean global temperature rise would be 4.8 degrees Celsius by 2100, compared to the IPCC estimate of 4.3 degrees Celsius. The latter estimate is considered catastrophic for our planet, and would lead to sea level rise of over 30 feet, potentially putting the homes of 600 million people underwater.

Earth Will Likely Be Much Warmer In 2100 Than We Anticipated, Scientists Warn

Comments Filter:
  • by mentil ( 1748130 ) on Thursday December 07, 2017 @03:58AM (#55693753)

    Once the sea-level rises and fisheries die out, New England and California will be washed away, leaving nothing in the U.S. but flyover country. And Chicago I guess. Of course, the energy moguls responsible for this will be able to easily relocate.

    • That's a typo. It was supposed to be "the geek shall inherit the earth".

      Umm... can I waive it?

    • by HiThere ( 15173 )

      The fisheries won't die out, they'll just switch to "fish" that prefer an acidic environment and that people find disgusting. But there are already people who eat jellyfish, and that looks like a recipe for them...and probably squid and octopus. Things that don't have bones or calcium based shells. Sharks would be right up there, but they reproduce too slowly, so they are already endangered from people eating them.

      As for sea level rises...it depends on how thorough the melt is. If Antarctica goes Chicag

  • You think? (Score:4, Informative)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Thursday December 07, 2017 @04:02AM (#55693771) Journal
    It is likely going to be much higher co2 emissions because massive numbers of new coal plants are still going in. China continues to add 30-50 GW of new coal plants each year just in China. At the same time, they are adding 100+ GW of new coal plants in other nations. Then on top of that, they are exporting their coal which is some of the worst in the world. Then add in trump trying to save coal in America. We will not add more coal here, but we will likely increase export. The only good part is that it is much cleaner than China's, but it will still pollute heavily regardless.
  • So? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Thursday December 07, 2017 @05:19AM (#55693967)

    I doubt that I'll live to see 125 years of age, as far as I care the Statue of Liberty can be flooded by then.

    Yes, I'm done trying to save your planet. I'll just use what I got and screw you. If you insist in ignoring science, you deserve to die. Along with your kids.

    • by zifn4b ( 1040588 )

      Yes, I'm done trying to save your planet. 'll just use what I got and screw you.

      The planet is going to be fine. It's been around for 4.5 billion years. It's had to deal with worse, solar flares, comets and asteroids hitting it all the time, humans are nothing. Essentially we will purge ourselves from this planet and allow nature to go on about its business without us screwing with it.

      • Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Thursday December 07, 2017 @07:48AM (#55694341)

        > Essentially we will purge ourselves from this planet and allow nature to go on about its business without us screwing with it.

        Nature is also responsible for Venus and Mars which may have been habitable in their youth. Like your investment portfolio - "Past performance is no guarantee of future results".

        And in a few billion years the Sun's going to eat this entire rock.

  • Go read the Lazard report. Sure we can make solar cheaper than nuclear, it just can't be on our rooftops. Again, go read the report.

    The most expensive nuclear power is still cheaper than the cheapest residential solar installation. Rooftop solar on commercial and industrial rooftops is the same price as nuclear. The only kind of solar energy source we know of that can provide power through even a portion of the night is solar thermal with storage. The only kind of solar that is cheaper than nuclear is

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Your assessment is it's own contradiction to your assessment.

      If grid scale solar costs the same as nuclear, then we should be building the crap out of that, because as you pointed out nuclear is the cheapest thing out there... and we can get all the benefits for the same costs with even lower risks!

      Roof top solar might be more expensive, but clearly it's economically beneficial for some people in some situations... my house is at a high latitude, and poorly positioned for rooftop solar, and my calculations

      • by HiThere ( 15173 )

        The thing is, there's costs and then there's costs.

        Rooftop solar may well be more expensive per se, but with other approaches every middleman takes a cut, so the cost to the individual may be less even though the costs of the installation are greater.

        OTOH, most rooftop solar systems don't include in their costs sufficient battery power to sustain overnight. So you get a favorably biased system costs, as the utility has to cover for when the sun is down, and it has to swallow the excess when the sun is up.

  • by Hal_Porter ( 817932 ) on Thursday December 07, 2017 @07:04AM (#55694201)

    1) The Science is Settled

    2) "Oh No, things are much worse than we thought". A story based on an outlier which makes apocalyptic predictions

    3) If anyone disputes this go to 1). Also accuse them of being an outlier which makes things seem less apocalyptic.

    By which process the future is both known with perfect accuracy and continuously getting worse unless we adopt some expensive policy. Actually if you read carefully almost no one globally is adopting these policies. The few places that did - Germany for example - found their CO2 emissions rising, and many that ignored them completely like the US found CO2 emissions falling due to a switch from coal to fracked gas.

    And if you look at instrument readings it's clear that the models overstated the amount of warming.

    See for example

    https://imgur.com/a/w5KKQ [imgur.com]

    From this talk

    https://www.thegwpf.org/matt-r... [thegwpf.org]

    Ironically people like Matt Ridley who get denounced as deniers are making predictions which are near the bottom of the range of the model predictions. Meanwhile environmental activists are making predictions which are way above that range.

    • Predictions are close to irrelevant.
      Relevant are observations.

      So far every year the observations are on the upper edges the IPCC has dared to publish.

    • What I don't get is what you get out of your denialism.

      Are you intellectually or emotionally not able to handle a future where climate change causes a lot of stress to our social, political, or economic systems? Is your fantasy world of "everything is fine, you're all wrong" more comforting to you?

      Are you afraid that you'll be forced to change your life as part of a large-scale drive to mitigate these issues?

      Do you have a vested financial interest in continued CO2 emissions?

      Or is it just an ego thing, where

      • Maybe he is concerned that the "solution" to the problem of Climate Change is "carbon credits" and a switch to more expensive sources for energy, all which impact the middle/lower class. Of course, the rich get richer and aren't affected.
  • Trump declared climate change as a Chinese hoax - problem solved! Rather odd given that most of his golf courses will be under water soon.
  • I am not denying human influence on climate change, or even the numbers in TFA, but predictions about what happens 80 years from now are rather funny if you take into account that just one major volcano outbreak (read: mount Fuji, the Vesuvian supervolcano system, Yellowstone, or the unpronouceable Icelandic ones) can turn those numbers upon their heads and throw us into a long nuclear winter. And the probabilty is high for at least one of those popping within our lifetimes.
    • If Yellowstone blows its top, there is not only going to be a lot more dust in the atmosphere to reflect radiation, but a lot less CO2 produced in the USA, where most of the population will be dead.

      • Oh, that is actually an interesting angle of viewing at it.
        However my ex GF lives now in the US, I don't want yellowstone to explode, even if it would solve so many problems.

      • another USA hater.

        news for you, the carbon emissions of the USA don't matter any more, China makes over 2.5 times as much.

        Doesn't matter what the USA does.

        • by ahodgson ( 74077 )

          That's OK, Canada has carbon taxes. Our %1.5 of global emissions may go down to 1.4%. Someday. But we subsidize poor people so they can still buy gas and heat, so probably not.

  • There is going to be more arable land in Greenland!

  • Is not helping, it's just making things worse.
    • Running global warming simulations on supercomputers is not helping, it's just making things worse.
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Thursday December 07, 2017 @09:44AM (#55694857) Journal
    The temp change and sea level rise will be seen as a minor annoyance compared to the vast changes to agriculture that will happen.

    Weeds that were normally killed by the yearly frost, will survive winter. Insects that get killed by frost will survive and invade new niches.

    Lots of agricultural land, never under any threat of any sea level rise, might get rendered unusable for agriculture due the pests that do not start from scratch every year. Very large fluctuations in food supply can happen and it would trigger wars and migration like we have seen before. These are bigger threats than sea level rise. And why we immediately jump to sea level rise? Why is the media playing up the "sea level rise" doomsday a lot more than they deserve to? Any blood red Iowa farmer will tell you forsythia is blooming four weeks early now, croci are breaking ground in December, and daffodils and tulips are emerging in March. He will tell you the bugs that he has never seen before invading his property. But these stories are not getting the media attention.

  • That's what you get when you anticipate predictions mostly based on things we know for sure. Most new things we learn make it worse, not better. Our estimates are not estimates, they're the lowers bounds.

"I have more information in one place than anybody in the world." -- Jerry Pournelle, an absurd notion, apparently about the BIX BBS

Working...