It pays to read it carefully. 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.'
Also, it shows that science, at its best, does precisely what science is supposed to do: revise its data and conclusions.
same story will appear in this link too in a few hours -- http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-can-we-do-about-climate-change/
ReplyDeleteHere is a link to the actual study:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html?foxtrotcallback=true
It pays to read it carefully. 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.'
Also, it shows that science, at its best, does precisely what science is supposed to do: revise its data and conclusions.
And here is a fairly comprehensive guest post about the study and its implications by one of the key authors of the study:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-the-one-point-five-warming-limit-is-not-yet-a-geophysical-impossibility