'Hence, 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. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible.'
Please stop berating 'settled' science as though it's the fault of the scientists themselves. There is no such thing, and any self-respecting scientist knows it. This study illustrates precisely what science does: continually revise its data and conclusions.
And if anyone is genuinely interested in learning about the study, here is a fairly comprehensive guest post about the study and its implications by one of its key authors:
It's possible. All ideas should be welcome.
ReplyDeleteIt would be a good idea to read the entire study carefully:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html?foxtrotcallback=true
Here from the abstract:
'Hence, 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. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible.'
Please stop berating 'settled' science as though it's the fault of the scientists themselves. There is no such thing, and any self-respecting scientist knows it. This study illustrates precisely what science does: continually revise its data and conclusions.
And if anyone is genuinely interested in learning about the study, here is a fairly comprehensive guest post about the study and its implications by one of its key authors:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-the-one-point-five-warming-limit-is-not-yet-a-geophysical-impossibility