Three Years Left To Limit Warming To 1.5C, Leading Scientists Warn 65
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: The Earth could be doomed to breach the symbolic 1.5C warming limit in as little as three years at current levels of carbon dioxide emissions. That's the stark warning from more than 60 of the world's leading climate scientists in the most up-to-date assessment of the state of global warming. [...] At the beginning of 2020, scientists estimated that humanity could only emit 500 billion more tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) -- the most important planet-warming gas -- for a 50% chance of keeping warming to 1.5C. But by the start of 2025 this so-called "carbon budget" had shrunk to 130 billion tonnes, according to the new study.
That reduction is largely due to continued record emissions of CO2 and other planet-warming greenhouse gases like methane, but also improvements in the scientific estimates. If global CO2 emissions stay at their current highs of about 40 billion tonnes a year, 130 billion tonnes gives the world roughly three years until that carbon budget is exhausted. This could commit the world to breaching the target set by the Paris agreement, the researchers say, though the planet would probably not pass 1.5C of human-caused warming until a few years later.
Last year was the first on record when global average air temperatures were more than 1.5C above those of the late 1800s. A single 12-month period isn't considered a breach of the Paris agreement, however, with the record heat of 2024 given an extra boost by natural weather patterns. But human-caused warming was by far the main reason for last year's high temperatures, reaching 1.36C above pre-industrial levels, the researchers estimate. This current rate of warming is about 0.27C per decade -- much faster than anything in the geological record. And if emissions stay high, the planet is on track to reach 1.5C of warming on that metric around the year 2030. After this point, long-term warming could, in theory, be brought back down by sucking large quantities of CO2 back out of the atmosphere. But the authors urge caution on relying on these ambitious technologies serving as a get-out-of-jail card. "For larger exceedance [of 1.5C], it becomes less likely that removals [of CO2] will perfectly reverse the warming caused by today's emissions," warned Joeri Rogelj, professor of climate science and policy at Imperial College London.
"Reductions in emissions over the next decade can critically change the rate of warming," he added. "Every fraction of warming that we can avoid will result in less harm and less suffering of particularly poor and vulnerable populations and less challenges for our societies to live the lives that we desire."
That reduction is largely due to continued record emissions of CO2 and other planet-warming greenhouse gases like methane, but also improvements in the scientific estimates. If global CO2 emissions stay at their current highs of about 40 billion tonnes a year, 130 billion tonnes gives the world roughly three years until that carbon budget is exhausted. This could commit the world to breaching the target set by the Paris agreement, the researchers say, though the planet would probably not pass 1.5C of human-caused warming until a few years later.
Last year was the first on record when global average air temperatures were more than 1.5C above those of the late 1800s. A single 12-month period isn't considered a breach of the Paris agreement, however, with the record heat of 2024 given an extra boost by natural weather patterns. But human-caused warming was by far the main reason for last year's high temperatures, reaching 1.36C above pre-industrial levels, the researchers estimate. This current rate of warming is about 0.27C per decade -- much faster than anything in the geological record. And if emissions stay high, the planet is on track to reach 1.5C of warming on that metric around the year 2030. After this point, long-term warming could, in theory, be brought back down by sucking large quantities of CO2 back out of the atmosphere. But the authors urge caution on relying on these ambitious technologies serving as a get-out-of-jail card. "For larger exceedance [of 1.5C], it becomes less likely that removals [of CO2] will perfectly reverse the warming caused by today's emissions," warned Joeri Rogelj, professor of climate science and policy at Imperial College London.
"Reductions in emissions over the next decade can critically change the rate of warming," he added. "Every fraction of warming that we can avoid will result in less harm and less suffering of particularly poor and vulnerable populations and less challenges for our societies to live the lives that we desire."
the right time (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
I wasn't aware that China and India were Republicans
Re:the right time (Score:4, Informative)
China and India aren't responsible for the accumulated anthropogenic CO2, which is actually causing the warming.
That CO2 is 2/3 from trumpistanian, 1/3 a mix from mostly Western Europe with bits thrown in from Japan and the former Soviet Bloc, although today the last item has been reduced to practically zero.
If China and India would continue to output at their peak rates, they'll begin to catch up with the currently accumulated CO2 in about 50 years. There is also the part that a lot of what China and India output is actually output on behalf of consumers from the richest world anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
All western countries combined were never as populous as China or India today, and they have a solid history of waste management that's severely lacking in Asia.
Dear god, how is it that you attempted to use two points to make your case and you not only succeeded in failing to show any connection between the points and your argument but also managed to get the critical point wrong. Clearly you know nothing about the industrialisation of the west if you think our waste management was never as bad as it is in Asia.
Re: (Score:2)
We still find 17th century plastics in the oceans from the 2 billion Europeans! Oh wait. You're a Chinese troll.
Re: (Score:3)
no it's not, the real lies are all the self-justifications you self-serving greedy rich people keep telling yourselves so you can look in the mirror without seeing how evil you really are
what residence time are you using for CO2 in the a (Score:2)
what residence time are you using for CO2 in the atmosphere? Unless you know what that is you are just bloviating.
Re: the right time (Score:2)
Except that much of the CO2 is back in the ground (Score:1)
You may have heard of the carbon cycle. That graph ignores it.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't aware that China and India were Republicans
Yes, they are, classists, all of them
every country in the world is run by evil powerful rich people
power corrupts, absolute power corrupt absolutely
locked in (Score:5, Informative)
Sadly, a considerable amount of additional warming is already locked in.
"If the large-scale carbon dioxide removal needed to reach net-zero emissions is unfeasible and instead, the remaining hard-to-mitigate emissions approximately balance natural sinks, atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations will remain constant. Such fixed GHG levels will result in continued warming until the climate system reaches a state of radiative balance, which we call “committed warming.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.... [wiley.com]
Re: (Score:3)
> Sadly, a considerable amount of additional warming is already locked in.
Unfortunately, it seems to be more than we think.
The energy imbalance is increasing : https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.... [wiley.com]
Aerosol forcing is reducing due to us reducing pollution. This puts India in an interesting position: clear pollution and heat up, or keep pollution and suffocate.
Finally the CMIP6 set of models seem to be unable to model the last couple of years, being under reality. https://cicero.oslo.no/en/arti... [cicero.oslo.no]
1.5C is over,
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That rain forest road story was debunked. The road was planned long before the conference.
Re: (Score:1)
But that they are creating emissions flying around the world to conferences is still true. That they would reduce emissions by holding those conferences online is still true.
The climate problem has been seized on to make money. And making money requires emissions. So there is lots of discussion of future goals that require no real changes to people's lives. At least not the lives of the people who attend the conferences.
Banning air travel is not acceptable. Even though millions of people will never fly a
Re:Great! (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to disagree with your characterization of climate change as a 'slow catastrophe.' We're already seeing severe impacts TODAY - not in 20 or 50 years. Record-breaking heatwaves, unprecedented wildfires, catastrophic flooding, and coral reef die-offs are happening right now.
More importantly, your timescale misses the crucial point: in geological terms, what we've done in the last 200 years IS like a meteorite impact. We've released carbon that took millions of years to sequester in just two centuries. That's not 'slow' - it's shockingly abrupt.
The rate of CO2 increase is roughly 100 times faster than natural climate variations. We're conducting an uncontrolled experiment with our planet's climate system at breakneck speed. Many tipping points (Arctic ice loss, permafrost thaw, Amazon dieback) are much closer than your timeline suggests.
Yes, we need to stop emissions now, but framing this as something that mainly affects future generations is dangerously misleading. Climate impacts are accelerating, not gradually unfolding.
Waiting another 10 years for nuclear power while continuing to burn coal is a recipe for disaster. We don't have that luxury of time. By then, cascading climate impacts will already be triggering economic collapse and climate-driven conflicts. We're talking 10-15 years until resource wars over water and arable land, mass climate migration that makes current refugee crises look trivial, and supply chain breakdowns that will devastate the global economy.
The solutions exist NOW - renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels in most markets. Every year we delay while waiting for the 'perfect' nuclear solution means more locked-in warming, more irreversible tipping points crossed, and exponentially higher costs later. This isn't about choosing the ideal solution anymore - it's about deploying what works immediately before the window for manageable adaptation closes entirely.
And we don't even have 10-15 years before major disruptions hit. Within the next 5 years, we'll see global crop failures - whether from pests gaining evolutionary advantages in warmer climates, extreme flooding destroying entire harvests, or unprecedented droughts. Most likely all three simultaneously, plus factors we haven't even considered yet.
Weather patterns are becoming chaotic and unpredictable. Agriculture simply cannot adapt to fundamentally different growing conditions every 3 months. Farmers need stability to plan crops, invest in equipment, and maintain soil health. When spring arrives weeks early, followed by late freezes, then drought, then flooding - that's not something you can just 'adapt' to. It's agricultural collapse in real-time.
Our food systems are built on predictability. When that breaks down, everything breaks down. We're not talking about gradual changes farmers can adjust to over decades - we're talking about whiplash between extremes that make farming as we know it impossible.
Re: (Score:3)
You always have and always will see record breaking weather.
This is supposed to be a scientifically oriented site, in which case we should be able to understand actual numbers, not just handwaving.
In a limited energy system, such as an Earth at a fixed temperature, there is a maximum potential value for many of the parameters that we see breaking records. Yes, we would see those records being broken repeatedly, though less and less often as the length of the record increased. In any case it would clearly look like an asymptotic approach towards a limit with each new
Re: Great! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You have watched Interstellar too often. Relax. We're not going to die.
Re: (Score:2)
Many tipping points (Arctic ice loss, permafrost thaw, Amazon dieback) are much closer than your timeline suggests.
I gave a timeline? I merely said we have time to act deliberately and implement known working solutions than go all in on what is popular today.
You did, you said we would have enough time to act without disrupting changes. I disagree with that.
Yes, we need to stop emissions now, but framing this as something that mainly affects future generations is dangerously misleading. Climate impacts are accelerating, not gradually unfolding.
Of course the impacts are unfolding today. That means we will have to adapt than just focus on mitigating future warming. If the concern is rising sea levels then we will have to build seawalls, abandon some low lying areas near shores, etc. With wildfires we may have to clear out dried plant matter by mechanical means or with small controlled burns, clear out fire breaks to reduce risks to people and property, etc. Some of that may not be considered "green" to some people but it's better to clear out some trees near homes so people don't die than wait for the inevitable. We can create more wooded area elsewhere to make up for the losses, and then some.
We _could_, but we didn't and we are not doing it today. So when do u think that should be done? How long do u think it takes until newly planted trees reduce CO2? (Answer: first 1-3 years only very little, 3-20 years a bit more, 20-100+ years what we clear up now.)
Waiting another 10 years for nuclear power while continuing to burn coal is a recipe for disaster.
I didn't say anything about nuclear power. But now that you mention it that sounds like an excellent idea. It's not like we need to burn coal in the meantime. We can put up windmills, build some mini- and micro-dams for flood/drought mitigation and hydroelectric power. I'm not a fan of rooftop solar as a solution due to it's high cost but if it makes people feel better then I'm not going to stop them. I'll be opposed to government subsidies for rooftop solar but not any kind of law or regulation to stop people. Just switching from coal to natural gas would help plenty in reducing CO2 emissions, and certainly in reducing air pollution. To make that happen though we need people to stop opposing the construction of pipelines. The longer people hold up these pipelines the longer we keep burning coal to keep the lights and heat on in the cold dark winter.
Dark winters are a very minor problem compared to the unsecure and chaotic weather we are heading to. Industries relying on it would quickly imple
Re: (Score:1)
That's wrong. Renewables are growing by far the fastest, and the relation of renewables used to fossil grew.
Why deal with relative growth when it is absolute growth that sets CO2 emissions? I pointed to the growth in renewable energy being insufficient to keep up with growing demand for energy, meaning the use of fossil fuels is still growing to fill that gap: https://ourworldindata.org/ene... [ourworldindata.org]
An only renewable solution will show big gains in the short term but long term that growth rate will start to hit limits that make the "all the above" solution the better option to lowering CO2 emissions in a few decades.
Re: (Score:2)
> Within the next 5 years, we'll see global crop failures
where does that number come from? I do agree the main question now is "when will crops fail", but I haven't seen it answered anywhere.
Re: (Score:3)
We know what solutions are workable but they will take time to implement. Rome wasn't built in a day.
The problem with this statement is that it is routinely used by others to delay indefinitely any action whatsoever. Rome was not built in a day, true; but construction did begin on a day. They didn't put it off forever, which is what many entrenched interests in the world would prefer we did relative to addressing the climate crisis.
The other problem with it is that it isn't quite true: we *don't* know what solutions will work, except to radically reduce emissions, starting yesterday. Many/most of the propo
Re: (Score:2)
we *don't* know what solutions will work
Yes we do. Renewables and storage work well, they are proven technologies. This year the UK is going to try to run on purely renewable electricity for short periods, not to prove it can be done because we know it can, it's been demonstrated, but to check what upgrades to the local grid are needed.
We know they can scale, because we are scaling them, and because China dwarfs the rest of the world combined for installed capacity. Last year they installed more solar in the first 9 months than the US has in its
Re: (Score:2)
You keep using the word "solution", that works only if there's a problem.
We're in a predicament, that only has outcomes.
And I'm sorry, but if you're not scared yet, you're not looking out the window.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, in four years the story on OAN and Fox will be "let's attack Canada, Greenland and Northern Europe, so that we have more lebensraum", while temperatures climb to 4C above the 20th century averages.
Hey smart guy (Score:2)
Enjoy your remaining years with people telling you: "I told you so!"
Re: (Score:3)
No. Because the facts will not go away, no matter how much people like you desire that. Facts kind of do that.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
So 4 years from now these clowns will finally STFU?
4 years now they will be telling you to limit it to 3 degrees. And you claim humans cant affect the climate and the 2 degrees we already have is just weather.
You anti-science types will keep on lying until your pants are literally on fire.
I used to believe this stuff but then I looked at their track record
No you didn't. Quit bullshitting
You've always been a MAGA.
You misrepresent the craziest shit you can as mainstream and then make excuses.
The track record is very good. You just prefer not to see it so you can keep strawmanning.
Let's get this over with (Score:2)
Let's continue to fight each other. See who is the strongest. Let's keep competing on who can make the most noise.
This is what failure looks like. We should have stayed in our caves.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what failure looks like.
Indeed. Failure on the level of a whole species. That is special. And no, denial will not fix this, no matter how much a lot of completel morons believe that.
Re: Let's get this over with (Score:2)
I don't think you're smart enough to comment on this, dummy. Why don't you stfu?
This is it? This is your reply? Dummy? Stfu?
Q.E.D.
Re: (Score:2)
I just thoroughly disagree with all this doom and gloom.
While I am quite sure that the prediction that we will not make this target is correct... Seriously, how often in history have scientists and/or "scientists" missed the mark on what precisely would happen if X was changed by Y in any given sufficiently complex system?
And I can't imagine many systems more complex than weather.
What I expect will happen is indeed a rising of the sea levels and climate regions will shift. That means change for many people
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, how often in history have scientists and/or "scientists" missed the mark on what precisely would happen if X was changed by Y in any given sufficiently complex system?
You are absolutely right on that, but you have no reason to assume that they overestimate the problem. In fact, recent changes suggest the opposite. The situation is worse than the scientists have predicted.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it though? By what metric in terms of the species?
Yes, it seems we have more extreme natural incidents. Has humanity perished in any wide swath of land?
Again, I am not arguing against the next decades and centuries sucking. I'm just saying life has always sucked. I na way we have gotten used to life not sucking as hard and therefore we became complacent and weak on other areas. More societal illnesses. Back issues, chronic diseases and mental illnesses are everywhere making life miserable to the point wh
Looks like we will test what 2.5C or more does... (Score:2)
Because that is such a good idea.
The meaning of Three Years Left To Limit Warming (Score:2)
is:
3 years left to become a world with net zero CO2 and CO2 equivalent emissions.
3 years to zero Oil, Gas and Coal usage
3 years to zero meat consumption
3 years to zero concrete
When reducing CO2 from fossil carbon usage (that is Oil, Gas and Coal) to net zero only, we may continue with meat and concrete for many many more years.
Realism? Lost on any of above net zero conditions alone.
The Question is more: Do you want to be part of the cause? Do you want to have blood on your hands for billion of deaths? Do yo
Geoengineering now (Score:2)
Let's get realistic, people. Humanity is not going to reduce its carbon emissions to what is necessary to prevent serious consequences. The only realistic option is to do some form of geoengineering. It's the least bad solution - because it's the only one that may actually work.
Re: (Score:2)
What you just said.
Globally speaking warming emissions are still increasing so how does anyone think we're getting to net zero any time soon? Even after we halt the rate of emission increase we still have a truly massive task in front of us to reach net zero and even then we'll still need to wait for the environment to stabilize as even at net zero we'll still have the problem of all the extra CO2 that we put into the environment up until we hit net zero. There's just no way we're going to accomplish all th
Re: Boring (Score:2)
Finally a reason that politicians might act (Score:2)
This sort of thing cannot be allowed to happen, quite outrageous, must be stopped no matter the cost: Flavour of gin and tonic could be impacted by climate change, study finds [theguardian.com].
Nonsense (Score:2)
What utter nonsense. Only totally unrealistic scenarios could still limit global warming to 1.5 degrees. As in: we stop using fossil fuels today and stop eating meat today (both would collapse the economy). In reality we have known about this for a long time, starting really talking about it in 1979 and launched IPCC in 1988. We're now 46 years in the future and apart from some hiccups due to COVID and the odd economic/oil crisis, each and every subsequent year we have increased our emissions and destroyed
So, 3 years now, is it? (Score:1)
It's been "5 years" for a decade or two now. 11 years a decade or two before that.
That doomsday countdown is going slow.
The Arctic was supposed to be ice-free by 2000, which is (*checks calendar*) 25 years ago.
Meanwhile, those trees seem to have lost the ability to inhale that CO2... after hundreds of millions of years.
Sounds like Jesus may be coming soon, too...