Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday December 08 2017, @08:05AM   Printer-friendly
from the invest-in-sunblock dept.

A new study in Nature [Ed-Abstract only for non-subscribers, but see below.] predicts that climate warming will be 15% greater than previous high estimates have predicted. This new study suggests that humans need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions more than previously expected and more than the Paris Agreement calls for. This study was based on analyzing the earth's "energy budget" (absorption and re-emission of radiation) and inputting that into a number of different climate models.

Also covered in more detail in Phys.org and in the Guardian.

The researchers focused on comparing model projections and observations of the spatial and seasonal patterns of how energy flows from Earth to space. Interestingly, the models that best simulate the recent past of these energy exchanges between the planet and its surroundings tend to project greater-than-average warming in the future.

"Our results suggest that it doesn't make sense to dismiss the most-severe global warming projections based on the fact that climate models are imperfect in their simulation of the current climate," Brown said. "On the contrary, if anything, we are showing that model shortcomings can be used to dismiss the least-severe projections."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @08:08PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @08:08PM (#607770)

    Even if you do not know the history of Earth's climate beyond the last century, some of your opponents do.
    Life thrived upon the warmer planet Earth. And if your ilk is so far dumber than an Europolemur as to not survive, then good riddance.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday December 10 2017, @05:20AM (1 child)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday December 10 2017, @05:20AM (#607909) Journal

    Life isn't what's at issue here, you complete and utter moron: it's civilization. Nothing says our civilization can survive the scale of the changes that are likely to happen, and since we've used up all the easily-accessible fossil fuels already, we probably won't ever be able to progress past the Iron Age if it all goes to hell and we have to start over.

    You really don't seem to understand the situation here, do you?

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 10 2017, @07:25AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 10 2017, @07:25AM (#607926) Journal

      Nothing says our civilization can survive the scale of the changes that are likely to happen

      But it is the smart bet.

      since we've used up all the easily-accessible fossil fuels already, we probably won't ever be able to progress past the Iron Age if it all goes to hell and we have to start over

      Or we could make biofuels and solar cells to progress past the Iron Age. The Sun didn't stop shining just because we used up a bunch of convenient fossil fuels.