User Controls

Does This Make You Hot Under The Collar?

  1. #1
    stl1 Let's Go Brandon
    Reuters
    Explainer-What's the difference between 1.5°C and 2°C of global warming?
    By Kate Abnett


    GLASGOW (Reuters) - Over and over at the U.N. climate summit in Glasgow, world leaders have stressed the need to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

    The 2015 Paris Agreement commits countries to limit the global average temperature rise to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and to aim for 1.5°C.

    Scientists have said crossing the 1.5°C threshold risks unleashing far more severe climate change effects on people, wildlife and ecosystems.

    Preventing it requires almost halving global CO2 emissions by 2030 from 2010 levels and cutting them to net-zero by 2050 -- an ambitious task that scientists, financiers, negotiators and activists at COP26 are debating how to achieve and pay for.

    WHERE ARE WE NOW?

    Already, the world has heated to around 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels. Each of the last four decades was hotter than any decade since 1850.

    "We never had such a global warming in only a few decades", said climate scientist Daniela Jacob at the Climate Service Center Germany. "Half a degree means much more extreme weather, and it can be more often, more intense, or extended in duration."

    Just this year, torrential rains flooded China and Western Europe, killing hundreds of people. Hundreds more died when temperatures in the Pacific Northwest hit record highs. Greenland saw massive melting events, wildfires ravaged the Mediterranean and Siberia, and record drought hit parts of Brazil.

    "Climate change is already affecting every inhabited region across the globe," said climate scientist Rachel Warren at the University of East Anglia.

    HEAT, RAIN, DROUGHT

    More warming to 1.5°C and beyond will worsen such impacts.

    "For every increment of global warming, changes in extremes become larger," said climate scientist Sonia Seneviratne at ETH Zurich.

    For example, heatwaves would become both more frequent and more severe.

    An extreme heat event that occurred once per decade in a climate without human influence, would happen 4.1 times a decade at 1.5°C of warming, and 5.6 times at 2°C, according to the U.N. climate science panel (IPCC).

    Let warming spiral to 4°C, and such an event could occur 9.4 times per decade.

    A warmer atmosphere can also hold more moisture, resulting in more extreme rainfall that raises flood risks. It also increases evaporation, leading to more intense droughts.

    ICE, SEAS, CORAL REEFS

    The difference between 1.5°C and 2°C is critical for Earth's oceans and frozen regions.

    "At 1.5°C, there’s a good chance we can prevent most of the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheet from collapsing," said climate scientist Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University.

    That would help limit sea level rise to a few feet by the end of the century - still a big change that would erode coastlines and inundate some small island states and coastal cities.

    But blow past 2°C and the ice sheets could collapse, Mann said, with sea levels rising up to 10 metres (30 feet)- though how quickly that could happen is uncertain.

    Warming of 1.5°C would destroy at least 70% of coral reefs, but at 2°C more than 99% would be lost. That would destroy fish habitats and communities that rely on reefs for their food and livelihoods.

    FOOD, FORESTS, DISEASE

    Warming of 2°C, versus 1.5°C, would also increase the impact on food production.

    "If you have crop failures in a couple of the breadbaskets of the world at the same time, then you could see extreme food price spikes and hunger and famine across wide swathes of the world," said climate scientist Simon Lewis at University College London.

    A warmer world could see the mosquitoes that carry diseases such as malaria and dengue fever expand across a wider range. But 2°C would also see a bigger share of insects and animals lose most of their habitat range, compared with 1.5°C, and increase the risk of forest fires - another risk to wildlife.

    'TIPPING POINTS'

    As the world heats up, the risk increases that the planet will reach "tipping points", where Earth’s systems cross a threshold that triggers irreversible or cascading impacts. Exactly when those points would be reached is uncertain.

    Droughts, reduced rainfall, and continued destruction of the Amazon through deforestation, for example, could see the rainforest system collapse, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere rather than storing it. Or warming Arctic permafrost could cause long-frozen biomass to decompose, releasing vast amount of carbon emissions.

    "That's why it's so risky to keep emitting from fossil fuels ... because we're increasing the likelihood that we go over one of those tipping points," Lewis said.

    BEYOND 2°C

    So far, the climate pledges that countries have submitted to the United Nations' registry of pledges put the world on track for 2.7°C of warming. The International Energy Agency said Thursday https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/net-zero-methane-pledges-push-world-near-paris-climate-goal-iea-2021-11-04 that new promises announced at the COP26 summit - if implemented - could hold warming to below 1.8°C, although some experts challenged that calculation. It remains to be seen whether those promises will translate into real-world action.

    Warming of 2.7°C would deliver "unliveable heat" for parts of the year across areas of the tropics and subtropics. Biodiversity would be enormously depleted, food security would drop, and extreme weather would exceed most urban infrastructure's capacity to cope, scientists said.

    "If we can keep warming below 3°C we likely remain within our adaptive capacity as a civilization, but at 2.7°C warming we would experience great hardship," said Mann.
  2. #2
    Speedy Parker Black Hole [my absentmindedly lachrymatory gazania]
    Can't bother me if i dont read it.
    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  3. #3
    Nile bump
    Gonna b a wild ride 4 sure. I'm going to live a long time regardless.
  4. #4
    Speedy Parker Black Hole [my absentmindedly lachrymatory gazania]
  5. #5
    Nile bump
    I think the climate is altering. The smoke up here from the forest fires these last few years, 5ish has been worse than I ever remember as a child. Blade Runner tier shit. Can only imagine places nearer the flames.

    Mountain beetles crossing the Rockies, dead forests and more heat.

    Hail the red sun behind the smoke I guess and deal with the new Sitch whatever the cause cause non of us plan on stopping, going back or living lean.
  6. #6
    Speedy Parker Black Hole [my absentmindedly lachrymatory gazania]
    Warmer is better for agriculture
  7. #7
    Nile bump
    Originally posted by Speedy Parker Warmer is better for agriculture

    Depends on the water. Some claim half the us mainland is in a drought.

    I don't truely know but those of us who have faith in a future should try and make the best one. That takes clear eyes and casting of agendas that only take the here and now into concern.
  8. #8
    Speedy Parker Black Hole [my absentmindedly lachrymatory gazania]
    Originally posted by Nile Depends on the water. Some claim half the us mainland is in a drought.

    Just Commiefornia
    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  9. #9
    Nile bump
    Originally posted by Speedy Parker Just Commiefornia

    No loss??
  10. #10
    Speedy Parker Black Hole [my absentmindedly lachrymatory gazania]
    Originally posted by Nile No loss??

    I say let them be their own country. Of course that means that under U.S. Constitution, Article I., Section VIII, Clause XVII they would lose all the ports, forts, points of entry, national park land, BLM land, and any other property currently owned or operated by the federal government. So they would not be much of a country with no ports or harbors and a foreign nation having military/LEO stationed in key locations on it's borders and even pocketed within their territory.


    Clause 17
    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And

    Power over the Seat of Government
    Power over the Seat of Government: Historical Background
    Power over the Seat of Government: Doctrine and Practice
    Power Over Places Purchased
    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  11. #11
    Nile bump
    Originally posted by Speedy Parker I say let them be their own country. Of course that means that under U.S. Constitution, Article I., Section VIII, Clause XVII they would lose all the ports, forts, points of entry, national park land, BLM land, and any other property currently owned or operated by the federal government. So they would not be much of a country with no ports or harbors and a foreign nation having military/LEO stationed in key locations on it's borders and even pocketed within their territory.

    Old school. Gotta slow bleed first, turn off federal taps, lay down the law if the want $$ or deem places wanting toll free interstate access accept a certain way.

    Carrots and sticks.

    You guys tryna find a balance is the story of ur nation. 1 civil war already and you have bigger problems now lol.

    Let's hope the US keeps the house in order.
  12. #12
    Speedy Parker Black Hole [my absentmindedly lachrymatory gazania]
    You know what really pisses off STD1?

    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  13. #13
    Nile bump
    Some people like being mad lol. I prefer happiness and seek that.

    Stay mad is what I say. One day I'll learn to tune out bitches and complainers(bitches)
  14. #14
    Speedy Parker Black Hole [my absentmindedly lachrymatory gazania]
    In my 20's and 30's I was pissed 24/7. In my 40's I was quietly angry within. When I hit 50 I just let go and stopped carrying if other people did dumb shit.
  15. #15
    Solstice Space Nigga
    Anger is the only thing that makes me feel alive
  16. #16
    Nile bump
    Originally posted by Solstice Anger is the only thing that makes me feel alive

    Gay
  17. #17
    Donald Trump Space Nigga
    Originally posted by stl1 Preventing it requires almost halving global CO2 emissions by 2030 from 2010 levels and cutting them to net-zero by 2050 – an ambitious task that scientists, financiers, negotiators and activists at COP26 are debating how to achieve and pay for.

    Weird - someone forgot to ask the working class or give them a seat at the table.

    But don't worry, I'm sure those financiers and full-time "activists" will remember to throw us a few scraps, huh?
  18. #18
    Bill Houston [my protanopic apetalous kneel]
    Al Gore said i'm just a stupid frog in a big dumb pot of boiling piss and the fumes will kill me before I get the sense to jump out. Except the frog in this case has third person telepathy and see's themself moments before they die and just watches themself endlessly repeat the same mistake of staying in the pot of boiling piss

    why does the frog do this? All the frog has to do is twitch his leg muscles and he is free and escapes the cycle but the will is simply not there. The frog is perfectly content to cause and watch his own suffering endlessly for all of time.

    The frog does not want to die, but he does not fear death. The frog is free and strong enough to do anything but wants nothing. The frog in this sense has achieved perfect harmony within himself and reality around him. In this state of perpetual suffering and ultimate control the frog is most free to simply exist.
  19. #19
    Narc Space Nigga [connect my yokel-like scolytidae]
    What I want to know is when exactly did the earths temperature stop raising and lowering naturally and we(man) took over its causation. And why exactly is a little warming over a few decades now such a bad thing compared to like for example the end of the ice age when temperatures rose a lot more dramatically than in recent years, despite what that misinfo shite the op posted said?


    .
  20. #20
    Bill Houston [my protanopic apetalous kneel]
    Originally posted by Narc What I want to know is when exactly did the earths temperature stop raising and lowering naturally and we(man) took over its causation. And why exactly is a little warming over a few decades now such a bad thing compared to like for example the end of the ice age when temperatures rose a lot more dramatically than in recent years, despite what that misinfo shite the op posted said?


    .

    Let me check the computer models from 1850
Jump to Top