Above: Illustration by RealClimate.org how these effects might influence the Millar analysis by repeating the calculation with alternative temperature data.
Original Image Source:
CONTROVERIAL ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE
Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5° C
Article by Oxford University and other research scientist stating the impossibility of mitigating global warming to 1.5° C was possible after all, spawning much misinterpretation, controversy, minunderstanding and debate.
Excerpt: “…limiting warming to 1.5° C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation.”
ORIGINAL AUTHORS’ CLARIFICATIONS
Clarification on recent press coverage of our ‘1.5 degrees’ paper in Nature Geoscience
Excerpt: “A number of media reports have asserted that our recent study in Nature Geoscience indicates that global temperatures are not rising as fast as predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and hence that action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is no longer urgent. Both assertions are false.”
Excerpt: “…While that is not geophysically impossible, to suggest that this means that measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are now unnecessary is clearly false.” “…We find that, to likely meet the Paris goal, emission reductions would need to begin immediately and reach zero in less than 40 years’ time.”
When media sceptics misrepresent our climate research we must speak out
Excerpt: “Our climate paper underlined that strong action towards the 1.5C Paris goal is perhaps more valid than ever, but reading some of the media coverage you might think the opposite was true.”
NOTABLE RESPONSES AND ANALYSES
Author Interview By Dimitri Lascaris for the Real News Network
Excerpt: "The pledges from the Paris Accord were to reduce emissions a bit from baseline but in order to stop warming, whether that’s at 1.5 degrees, two degrees, three degrees or any other threshold, we still need to get emissions to zero. At the moment the pathways that we discussed in our paper coming out of where we are today in trying to meet these 1.5 degrees, even the pathways that have the smallest emissions reductions in the near term and therefore the most steep ones in the medium to long term because they all need to get to zero by the time these budgets are used, even those pathways would still require a strengthening of the Paris budgets by at least 10% and for us to actually to have a plan to eliminate net emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from the global economy."
Is there really still a chance for staying below 1.5 °C global warming?
Excerpt: “…In summary, both approaches used by Millar compute budgets that do not actually keep global warming to 1.5 °C.”
1.5ºC: Geophysically impossible or not?
Excerpt: So, is it appropriate to say that 1.5ºC is geophysically possible? Perhaps plausible would be a better word. Depending on which temperature dataset we choose, the TEB for 1.5 degrees may already be exceeded. Although it would certainly be useful to know what the underlying climate attractor of the Earth system is, any estimate we produce is subject to error.
Paris climate aim ‘still achievable’
Limiting Global Warming to 1.5 Degrees Celsius May Still Be Possible
Excerpt: “Analysis suggests researchers may have underestimated how much carbon humanity can emit, although critics disagree”
Right-wing media could not be more wrong about the 1.5°C carbon budget paper
Possible good news about climate change leads to confused coverage
Excerpt: “Did warming projections just get blown up? No. No they did not.”