What would it take to limit climate change to 1.5°C?

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/about/news/150521-15-scenarios.html

[font face=Serif]21 May 2015

[font size=5]What would it take to limit climate change to 1.5°C?[/font]

[font size=4]A new study analyzes the required climate policy actions and targets in order to limit future global temperature rise to less than 1.5°C by 2100. This level is supported by more than 100 countries worldwide, including those most vulnerable to climate change, as a safer goal than the currently agreed international aim of 2°C.[/font]

[font size=3]Limiting temperature rise by 2100 to less than 1.5°C is feasible, at least from a purely technological standpoint, according to the study published in the journal Nature Climate Change by researchers at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), and others. The new study examines scenarios for the energy, economy, and environment that are consistent with limiting climate change to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, and compares them to scenarios for limiting climate change to 2°C.

“Actions for returning global warming to below 1.5°C by 2100 are in many ways similar to those limiting warming to below 2°C,” says IIASA researcher Joeri Rogelj, one of the lead authors of the study. “However, the more ambitious 1.5°C goal leaves no space to further delay global mitigation action and emission reductions need to scale up swiftly in the next decades.”

The authors note, however, that the economic, political, and technological requirements to meet even the 2°C target are substantial. In the run-up to climate negotiations in December 2015, such information is important for policymakers considering long-term goals and steps to achieve these goals.

…[/font][/font]

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n6/full/nclimate2572.html

[F4lconF16]

1. It's not happening.

There is a reason Shell ia planning for 4° rises.

https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/the-awful-truth-about-climate-change-no-one-wants-to-admit/

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. Origins of 4°C

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/11/18/Climate-change-report-warns-dramatically-warmer-world-this-century

[font face=Serif]November 18, 2012

[font size=5]Climate Change Report Warns of Dramatically Warmer World This Century[/font]

[font size=3]STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• New World Bank-commissioned report warns the world is on track to a “4°C world” marked by extreme heat-waves and life-threatening sea level rise.
• Adverse effects of global warming are “tilted against many of the world's poorest regions” and likely to undermine development efforts and goals.
• Bank eyes increased support for adaptation, mitigation, inclusive green growth and climate-smart development.

"Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided," (pdf) (eBook version) warns we’re on track for a 4°C warmer world marked by extreme heat-waves, declining global food stocks, loss of ecosystems and biodiversity, and life-threatening sea level rise.

…[/font][/font]

[rock]

2. Only a Socialistic solution will work

Now what would it take?

[F4lconF16]

7. Revolution and international solidarity.

Reform is a patently laughable idea.

[rock]

8. I believe you're saying what I'm saying

It's hopeless, isn't it?

[truebluegreen]

3. Going back in time.

That is all.

ETA: limiting to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels? We are halfway there already, and accelerating.

[pscot]

4. 1980

Re-elect Carter and leave the solar panels on the Whitehouse roof.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. Given that we haven’t mastered that sort of time travel yet…

we’re going to need a different plan.

[truebluegreen]

9. My point was that more than a 1.5C or 2C increase

is baked in the cake at this point. My understanding is that to stop it would require more than lowering/reversing our rate of emissions, but also capturing some of the CO2 we have already pumped out. Under the circumstances, time travel seems the most likely solution.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. Right. I understand…

[font face=Serif][font size=3]…

Overshooting the limit—and declining to 2100
In contrast to many scenarios examined in recent research, which set 2°C as the absolute limit and do not allow temperature to overshoot the target, the current set of scenarios looks at a long term goal, and what would need to happen to get temperature back down to that level by 2100.

…[/font][/font]

[hunter]

10. This civilization and the earth we inherited is screwed.

I'm committed to building lifeboats for our fellow humans and other endangered lifeforms, and moving beyond the economic system that destroyed this world.

We ought to be paying people to stay home, use effective birth control, plant gardens, and read books.

What we now call "economic productivity" is a direct measure of the damage we are doing to earth's natural environment and our own human spirit.

[The2ndWheel]

12. I think part of the problem is that we think the year 2100 will exist

Or that 2015 does exist. If we don't do X by 2050, or Y by 2030, or whatever, as though time actually somehow gets re-set in some way every January 1st. Start of another year! Like it somehow matters how many times we go around the sun. Like the way that we choose to chop up whatever it is that we call time into segments that only exist in our minds has any bearing on what and when something might happen in the non-abstract world.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. I agree to an extent

A lot of the goals seem to be based around limiting the damage that occurs before 2100…

If we get to 2100, and the temperature has only risen 1.99°C, but is still going up, then, that is not exactly a victory.

On the other hand, if we get to 2100, and the temperature has risen 2.1°C, but is now dropping…