The 2015 Paris agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius was thought to be the threshold for averting severe climate change impacts. But new research says even that level is too high to prevent the catastrophic consequences of sea level rise due to melting glaciers. John Yang speaks with Chris Stokes, one of the study’s authors, to learn more.
That isn’t a science source. Incorrect domain.
Do you read the funny pages for economy information?
The paper I linked in critical in understanding why these models are wrong.
Many of these models were tuned and calibrated by looking at the first twitches of climate change during the past 50 or 100 years (only). Mainly they were missing very large and important variables. When people have gone back to the paleorecord, they were able to see what was being omitted from the models.
This is exactly why all the headlines are screaming “faster than expected” “sooner than expected” “worse than expected”.
In short, industrial society was producing enough dust (+ water vapor + clouds) to almost totally cancel the warming effect in the short term. Which made it seem like the climate changes very slowly or not very sensitively. Models that didn’t know about dust and water and clouds were having all their numbers tweaked to “agree with reality”…making it seem like climate change isn’t that strong.
Only if you just keep at it, eventually that warming does kick into drive. So this is a very transitory stage. You cannot base a longer range prediction on these 15 year range narrow effects.
You don’t have better things to do. This is one of the most fundamental things to understand to put your whole life into perspective. Most people are either wasting their lives or they are building on a foundation of shifting sands.
Re-read the part with the asterisk in my previous comment. Like, they don’t come out and attack these 1.5 people directly, they just kind of point out the ridiculousness of the claim. Like…“when they say that stuff, they haven’t even thought it out”. It’s not even that they are wrong, they are just completely wrong. They don’t even have an actual argument, it’s really REAL nonsense. It’s a lot of work to try to dispel crap like that because it’s not even based on anything.
But of course, “reliable sources” is like a good example. If you delve into most of the logical fallacies / classical logic mistakes, what’s really interesting is that most of the fallacies are not actually logically tricky. What they are is social. In nearly all cases, someone lets their mind be confused by the perception of the social status or the value or the position of authority of the speaker of the false statement.
We humans survived by prizing group harmony and downplaying logic and reasoning. Like, we could not survive alone in the wilds, we HAD to protect our membership in the group.
My dude, you ARE in a suicidally stupid group. They are killing themselves and everyone around them. Trust no one.
Perhaps you’d consider writing a paper to detail all this. And then submitting it for peer review, of course. I am not a climate scientist so I will content myself with trusting reliable secondary sources.
https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889?login=false
It’s not reliable.
This is STRAIGHT quoted from your source:
“This data is based on territorial emissions, which do not account for emissions embedded in traded goods. Emissions from international aviation and shipping are not included in any country or region’s emissions.”
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494#d1e1978
You are arguing just relying on this nonsense but I don’t think you have the depth or the context to understand how you’re being willfully misled.
That paper shows how 0.2° of current day GLOBAL warming is JUST from the emissions from ocean going ships!
Like…they are pretty clever in how they can trick people but leave them feeling confident that they haven’t been tricked. It’s “reliable”. But you don’t know what you don’t even know. They are leaving out all these major elements to paint a rosy picture.
Incidentally, there is a really great piece of science about our current conversation about primary versus secondary sources:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022AV000676
The money, time and effort going into (climate) data visualization and other communications is a huge distraction away from deep understanding. They are regurgitating old and obsolete information that has been discredited…instead of pushing knowledge.
Now, consider this:
“The IPCC aerosol scenario has zero aerosol forcing change between 1970 and 2005, which requires low climate sensitivity (near 3 °C for 2 × CO2) to match observed warming.”
Zero! These were highly credited people. Very credible. Highly reliable even.
We are now in a position to completely understand how to view this, we can confidently look at these models and see them as majorly wrong and an extreme downplay of what was happening.
So there are two sets of accounting books going around.
One set has cooked books with major, major accounting errors. Their predictions are not working out to be correct whenever something they didn’t consider changes they get caught out for fudging their math.
One set has been audited and reconciled. They are calling their shots ahead of time and predicting future outcomes and getting their predictions right on the money. Their model is probably not perfectly but it’s not egregiously vapid either.
Do you know what version of the science you’re looking at? Your reliable sources?