High chance that current atmospheric greenhouse gases commit to warmings greater than 1.5C over land: study

July 27, 2016
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Current levels of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations already commit the planet to air temperatures over many land regions being eventually warmed by greater than 1.5°C, according to new research published today (27 July 2016) in the journal Scientific Reports.

The results of the new study have implications for international discussions of what constitutes safe global thresholds, such as 1.5°C or 2°C of since pre-industrial times. The expected extra warming over land will influence how we need to design some cities. It could also impact on the responses of trees and plants, and including crops.

The research was carried out by scientists from the UK's Centre for Ecology & Hydrology and the University of Exeter, UK.

The research team found two main reasons behind the result.

First, even if it was possible to keep carbon dioxide concentrations fixed at their current 400 parts-per-million concentration levels, then the planet would continue to warm towards new equilibrium higher temperatures. At present, the is out of equilibrium, with the oceans drawing down very large amounts of heat from the atmosphere. However this will decline as the planet is bought towards a stable climatic state.

Second, warming rates over land are far higher than those when averaged globally which include temperatures over the oceans. This is a feature observed in meteorological measurements and reproduced across a large suite of climate models.

Lead author Dr Chris Huntingford from the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology said, "It would certainly be inappropriate to create any additional fear over climate change. However, what this paper does is re-iterate that the oceans are currently acting as a very strong sink of heat. Even if carbon dioxide was somehow stabilised at current levels, additional warming will occur as we move towards an equilibrium climate state. Furthermore, both data and computer models all indicate enhanced temperatures over land, compared to global mean warming that includes temperatures over the oceans."

Co-author Dr Lina Mercado, Senior Lecturer in Physical Geography at the University of Exeter, said, "Our findings suggest that we are committed to land temperatures in excess of 1.5°C across many regions at present-day levels of greenhouses gases. It is therefore imperative to understand its consequences for our health, infrastructure and ecosystem services upon which we all rely."

Dr Chris Huntingford added, "Central to our methodology is analysis of predictions made by a large number of independent climate research centres from around the world. Although many simulations exist for climate stabilisation, these tend to be at future higher . We were able to scale these back to see the warming levels we are already committed to, even if present-day concentrations increased no further. Such computer models capture how the ocean heat sink would be slowly lost as a stable climate is approached, implying that temperatures would continue to increase temporarily even if greenhouse concentrations were fixed at current levels."

Explore further: Stabilization of ozone hole and changing wind patterns has driven regional cooling phase in Antarctic Peninsula

More information: Huntingford, C. and Mercado, L. M. High chance that current atmospheric greenhouse concentrations commit to warmings greater than 1.5 °C over land. Scientific Reports 6, 30294; DOI: 10.1038/srep30294

Related Stories

Will warming records keep tumbling?

January 20, 2016

US scientists on Wednesday confirmed that 2015 was the hottest year in the hottest decade on record, and by the widest margin yet. Will the records keep tumbling?

Heat still on despite warming slowdown

April 23, 2015

The recent slowdown in the rise of global average air temperatures will make no difference to how much the planet will warm by 2100, a new study has found.

Historical records miss a fifth of global warming: NASA

July 22, 2016

A new NASA-led study finds that almost one-fifth of the global warming that has occurred in the past 150 years has been missed by historical records due to quirks in how global temperatures were recorded. The study explains ...

Recommended for you

Heavy nitrogen molecules reveal planetary-scale tug-of-war

November 17, 2017

Nature whispers its stories in a faint molecular language, and Rice University scientist Laurence Yeung and colleagues can finally tell one of those stories this week, thanks to a one-of-a-kind instrument that allowed them ...

22 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
1.6 / 5 (16) Jul 27, 2016
We are cooked.
geokstr
1.9 / 5 (14) Jul 27, 2016
When all the AGW proponents, including the celebs, politicians, scientists, crony breeze and sunshine capitalists, environmental groups and pathological comment section bullies, demonstrate that they're serious enough about it to make major downgrades in the own profligate lifestyles, I and many others may begin to believe them, like giving up:
1) private jets
2) yachts
3) all motorized anything and everything
4) air conditioning and heating
5) mansions
6) the ten thousand products made with fossil fuels
7) outdoor grilling
7) food whose source flatulated
8) their freedoms and treasure as they expect the little people to do.

gkam
2 / 5 (16) Jul 27, 2016
The silly comment by geokstr is not only trite, but laughable. Yeah, I had to give up my yachts and bizjets, the mansions, and even A/C, which I do not have.

My motorized stuff runs on the sun. How about yours? Still polluting OUR air?

I am not surprised at your interest in the flatulence of others, but not in public, please.

Our house and car run on our PV panels, in which we invested doing the right thing.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 27, 2016
The silly comment by geokstr is not only trite, but laughable. Yeah, I had to give up my yachts and bizjets, the mansions, and even A/C, which I do not have


But what about the,,,

Once again, this thread is not about me,


Every thread is about you Cher. You can't rest until you make it so, eh?

My motorized stuff runs on the sun. How about yours? Still polluting OUR air?

I am not surprised at your interest in the flatulence of others, but not in public, please.

Our house and car run on our PV panels, in which we invested doing the right thing.


Oh, I see. You were just fooling around, eh?
gkam
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 27, 2016
Has anybody noticed all of Ira's posts are about me?

Does he dream of me, too?

And he follows me around, awarding me ones immediately, no matter the post. I figured this was the way you play that game, so I do it to him now, too.
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (11) Jul 27, 2016
And he follows me around, awarding me ones immediately, no matter the post.
Non I do not do that. I got the app-bot thing Really-Skippy suggested to me for that. It does it all by it self as long as my computer is on.

I figured this was the way you play that game, so I do it to him now, too.
You ever hear me whine about the karma points? Non, don't matter to me if I get all ones, all threes or all fives either.

But at least I am doing a service because the time you spend "do it him now, too" is time you don't spend spamming the place with this sort of stuffs,,,,,,

https://www.youtu...AlI2IIvI
Windchaser
3 / 5 (18) Jul 27, 2016
When all the AGW proponents, including the celebs, politicians, scientists, crony breeze and sunshine capitalists, environmental groups and pathological comment section bullies, demonstrate that they're serious enough about it to make major downgrades in the own profligate lifestyles, I and many others may begin to believe them, like giving up...


I want everyone to be held to the same standard, for everyone to have to pay the costs that come from emitting carbon. So let's enact a carbon tax.

You seem to want other people to be held to a different standard: they have to cut back, but you don't. Can you see the problem with that? You give me no guarantee that if I cut back, then you will too.

Equal treatment for everyone.
marcush
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 27, 2016
Here, here Windchaser!
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (13) Jul 27, 2016
Equal treatment for everyone.

Here, here Windchaser!
seconded

.

.

demonstrate that they're serious enough about it to make major downgrades
@geokstr
like you would live without A/C and your interwebz?
that is a joke, right? you were being sarcastic?

and i don't understand your argument #7 & 8

#7 - the flatulent animals already exist, therefore the best action you can take is to insure they are killed for meat products, IMHO
i'm doing my best to whittle down the numbers, but i am only one man

#8- treasure is subjective
AND
there is no one expecting anyone else to give up their rights (excepting the idiots who are currently attacking the 2nd amendment in the US, but that is not tied to AGW... just to stupidity)

.

as for #3 - not all motors are bad... some of them are incredibly efficient
(EV's come to mind)

and whether you like it or not, they're also the most efficient means for transferring bulk goods
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 27, 2016
You seem to want other people to be held to a different standard: they have to cut back, but you don't. Can you see the problem with that? You give me no guarantee that if I cut back, then you will too.

With a Carbon tax, do you see electricity and food prices going up or down?
Will the poor have more or less food on their tables?
Do you see the wealthy cutting back on jaunts in their expensive yachts and private planes?
Hint: Has False "Profit" Al's rides in fossil fuel guzzling SUVs and private planes decreased since he started preaching about CO2?
http://qz.com/690...l-award/

http://www.dailym...eal.html

Can you see the problem with that?

Finally ---"If YOU cutback"
That's says it all.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 27, 2016
anti, there will always be the selfish jerks who care nothing for other people, and wonder why the rest of us do. I try to explain Humanity, but it gets lost in somewhere behind their eyes.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 27, 2016
"Finally ---"If YOU cutback" That's says it all."
-----------------------------------------
No, what says it all is "I already did cut back, and provide the power for my house and car".

When are you going to get rid of your polluting Diesel? When are you going to stop fouling our air? Clean up.
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2016
There won't be any cutback until there is a forcefull cutback, with clowns as politicians and corrupted bureaucRats the madness will continue without any concern or any consciouss till the earth is ravaged rendered bone dry and scorched, becoming a second Venus
Phys1
4 / 5 (4) Jul 28, 2016
@antigoracle
Will the poor have more or less food on their tables?

So you are actually trying to help "the poor" with your denial rants.
That is very noble of you.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 28, 2016
@antigoracle
Will the poor have more or less food on their tables?

So you are actually trying to help "the poor" with your denial rants.
That is very noble of you.

So you are actually trying to help yourself to the "Retard of the year" award with your retarded rants.
That is very "wise" of you.
It is beyond amusing to listen to these Chicken Little retards scream "the sky is falling, there will be no tomorrow" and yet continue to burn fossil fuels because they believe the heretics must suffer. All the while they turn a blind eye to the likes of their False "Profit" Al, who burns 24 times the electricity of the average home, drives around in SUVs and flies the globe in private jets.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jul 28, 2016
like you would live without A/C and your interwebz?

And note that the majority of his points do not apply to scientists (the ones who actually show us that the earth is warming). Scientists ARE part of the 'little people'.

The average scientist most likely earns less than antigoracle does (assuming he has a job)
Windchaser
2 / 5 (12) Jul 28, 2016
[With a Carbon tax, do you see electricity and food prices going up or down?
Will the poor have more or less food on their tables?


With a carbon tax, the poor will be *better* off. Because manmade climate change is going to be more expensive than switching to alternatives.

We could be "penny wise and pound foolish". We could avoid the costs of switching away from fossil fuels for now, and face much greater costs down the road from climate change. But this would not be economically smart in the long run. It'd hurt poor and middle class alike.

Do you see the wealthy cutting back on jaunts in their expensive yachts and private planes?


The rich will still have money to spend on luxuries, as they do now. But at least they'll be paying for the damage from their emitted carbon, rather than just offloading those costs on the rest of us.
Phys1
4 / 5 (4) Jul 28, 2016
@antigoracle
Will the poor have more or less food on their tables?

So you are actually trying to help "the poor" with your denial rants.
That is very noble of you.

So you are actually trying to help yourself to the "Retard of the year" award with your retarded rants.
That is very "wise" of you.
It is beyond amusing to listen to these Chicken Little retards scream "the sky is falling, there will be no tomorrow" and yet continue to burn fossil fuels because they believe the heretics must suffer. All the while they turn a blind eye to the likes of their False "Profit" Al, who burns 24 times the electricity of the average home, drives around in SUVs and flies the globe in private jets.

Evasion. You did not answer my question.
Are you really driven by the urge to help the poor?
I ask because I suspect that you are a hypocrite, on top of being an idiot.
Phys1
4 / 5 (4) Jul 28, 2016
I say

So you are actually trying to help "the poor" with your denial rants.
That is very noble of you.

and the you go
So you are actually trying to help yourself to the "Retard of the year" award with your retarded rants.
That is very "wise" of you.

This kind of echoing other peoples lines shows that you lack personality.
You are empty inside and project your feelings of inferiority onto others.
You have no opinion, not even a motive.
You are like Pinocchio, who wants to be a real boy.
Go ahead, copy my lines, change them a little and use them as your own.
jonnyrox
Jul 28, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
BackBurner
2.3 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2016
"With a carbon tax, the poor will be *better* off."

Of course. Because poor people would rather pay more for food and energy now, and maybe starve or freeze, than have a speculative disaster of unknown proportion occur at some unknown time in the future.

Sure. All poor people want that. It makes perfect sense.

Idiot.
howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2016
Well... I'm going to take the pessimists point of view, based on current observations projected out and predict a 6.3C global average land temp rise by 2100. Because CO2 is cumulative in it's effect and exponential in it's growth, a linear projection into the future is simpleton thinking.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.