Daily Wire article misunderstands study on carbon budget

This story at The Daily Wire describes a new study that evaluates the remaining amount of greenhouse gas that we can emit before global temperature rises to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial times. The study suggests that we may have a little more room in the so-called “carbon budget” than previously estimated.

Scientists who reviewed the Daily Wire article found that it greatly misinterpreted the study by saying that it showed that climate projections have overestimated warming. This is incorrect. The study does not conclude that climate models are overly sensitive to warming, or that future warming will be less than projected. Instead, it investigates a discrepancy between the total amount of greenhouse gas emitted since the Industrial Revolution in the models and in the real world. This difference in estimated past emissions affects the study’s calculation of the remaining “carbon budget” for future emissions.

Read the Climate Feedback story - “Daily Wire article misunderstands study on carbon budget (along with Fox News, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, Breitbart…).”

Why 2 degrees Celsius more warming limit so important

If you read or listen to almost any article about climate change, it’s likely the story refers in some way to the “2 degrees Celsius limit.” The story often mentions greatly increased risks if the climate exceeds 2 degrees C and even “catastrophic” impacts to our world if we warm more than the target.

Recently a series of scientific papers have come out and stated that we have a 5 percent chance of limiting warming to 2 degrees C, and only one chance in a hundred of keeping man-made global warming to 1.5 degrees C, the aspirational goal of the 2015 Paris United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conference. Additionally, recent research shows that we may have already locked in 1.5 degrees C of warming even if we magically reduced our carbon footprint to zero today.

And there’s an additional wrinkle: What is the correct baseline we should use? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) frequently references temperature increases relative to the second half of the 19th century, but the Paris Agreement states the temperature increases should be measured from “preindustrial” levels, or before 1850. Scientists have shown such a baseline effectively pushes us another 0.2 degrees C closer to the upper limits.

That’s a lot of numbers and data – so much that it could make even the most climate-literate head spin. How did the climate, and climate policy community, come to agree that 2 degrees C is the safe limit? What does it mean? And if we can’t meet that target, should we even try and limit climate change?

Read the story by David Titley on Yale Climate Connections - “Why 2 degrees Celsius more warming limit so important.”

Capitalism has brought many benefits, but at a measureable cost

Capitalism deserves much praise and is responsible for many wonderful things, but those benefits have come at a price, among them, a seriously damaged atmosphere.

The quartet of Alexander Jung, Horand Knaup, Samiha Shafy and Bernhard Zand have discussed both the value and disadvantages of capitalism in an article on Spiegel Online International.

In their story headed: “The Warming World: Is Capitalism Destroying Our Planet?” they say humans are full of contradictions, including the urge to destroy things they love. Like our planet.

Climate change is unequivocally real and yet conspiracies rage

Peter Ellereton.

Climate change is real and human finger prints are unequivocally all over it.

The devastation it will bring to humanity and the changes it will make to conditions in which humans prosper are equally unequivocal.

The efforts of all those working to explain the science that in turn explains climate change are to be applauded and consequently supported when and wherever possible.

However, their task is not an easy one for almost at every turn they are greeted by a conspiracy theory.

Now, a lecturer in critical thinking at the University of Queensland, Peter Ellerton, tackles the idea of conspiracies in an article on The Conversation headed: “The ironclad logic of conspiracy theories and how to break it”.