Posted: Oct 29, 2018 2:37 pm
by Macdoc
If the expectation is for the future rate to be markedly different from the current rate, what's the cause?

You didn't read the paper did you? Just dismissed it as crank. Nor did you read the IPCC 1.5C report where the graph indicates 2034 without taking into account the decadal oscillation which could shift that forward into late 2020.

It has been covered off by other publications

Paris 1.5°C target may be smashed by 2026: A change to a positive ... ... 184929.htm
May 8, 2017 - A change to a positive phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation ... These were both periods that saw rapid increases in global average . ... 184929.htm

"Even if the IPO remains in a negative phase, our research shows we will still likely see global temperatures break through the 1.5°C guardrail by 2031," said lead author Dr Ben Henley.

"If the world is to have any hope of meeting the Paris target, governments will need to pursue policies that not only reduce emissions but remove carbon from the atmosphere.

and the poor coverage of the Arctic by the IPCC publications puts them wrong footed tho the 1.5c Report converges better.

In addition course the rate of emissions has been going up after an encouraging pause so there is no firm ground to project even if all other factors remained the same.

Global carbon dioxide emissions surged to record levels the year after the landmark 2016 Paris climate agreement was signed.

Energy-related emissions climbed 1.4 percent to 32.5 gigatons in 2017, the International Energy Agency reported yesterday in its annual survey of global carbon levels. The increase is the equivalent of adding 170 million cars to the road, the agency said.

The uptick—coming on the heels of the major international climate deal—signals an abrupt end to several years of stagnant emissions growth and raises questions about the world’s commitment to reducing carbon levels.

“It’s not good news,” said Rachel Cleetus, policy director for the climate and energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “It certainly is a sign that we have a great deal of work to do to meet the commitments that countries made in Paris to limit emissions and the harmful effects of climate change.” ... nt-signed/

There is especially no expectation of reversing that with the dumpf at the wheel and the election of a right winger in Brazil does not bode well for controlling emissions.

There is a dismaying rise in nationalism which makes any sort of a Manhattan level effort to curb emissions in a global framework an increasingly distant chance.

The chance of 1.5 C increase as late as the 2040s is now pretty much non-existent barring major volcano activity.


and Hermit ...piss off unless you have something of climate science value to offer. If individuals in the first world offset the way I do then part of the issue would be resolved.