From EGU
1.5 C vs 2 C global warming: New study shows why half a degree matters
European researchers have found substantially different climate change impacts for a global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C by 2100, the two temperature limits included in the Paris climate agreement. The additional 0.5°C would mean a 10-cm-higher global sea-level rise by 2100, longer heat waves, and would result in virtually all tropical coral reefs being at risk. The research is published today (21 April) inEarth System Dynamics, an open access journal of the European Geosciences Union, and is presented at the EGU General Assembly.
“We found significant differences for all the impacts we considered,” says the study’s lead author Carl Schleussner, a scientific advisor at Climate Analytics in Germany. “We analysed the climate models used in the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)] Fifth Assessment Report, focusing on the projected impacts at 1.5°C and 2°C warming at the regional level. We considered 11 different indicators including extreme weather events, water availability, crop yields, coral reef degradation and sea-level rise.”
The team, with researchers from Germany, Switzerland, Austria and the Netherlands, identified a number of hotspots around the globe where projected climate impacts at 2°C are significantly more severe than at 1.5°C. One of these is the Mediterranean region, which is already suffering from climate change-induced drying. With a global temperature increase of 1.5°C, the availability of fresh water in the region would be about 10% lower than in the late 20th century. In a 2°C world, the researchers project this reduction to double to about 20%.
In tropical regions, the half-a-degree difference in global temperature could have detrimental consequences for crop yields, particularly in Central America and West Africa. On average, local tropical maize and wheat yields would reduce twice as much at 2°C compared to a 1.5°C temperature increase.
Tropical regions would bear the brunt of the impacts of an additional 0.5°C of global warming by the end of the century, with warm spells lasting up to 50% longer in a 2°C world than at 1.5°C. “For heat-related extremes, the additional 0.5°C increase marks the difference between events at the upper limit of present-day natural variability and a new climate regime, particularly in tropical regions,” explains Schleussner.
The additional warming would also affect tropical coral reefs. Limiting warming to 1.5°C would provide a window of opportunity for some tropical coral reefs to adapt to climate change. In contrast, a 2°C temperature increase by 2100 would put virtually all of these ecosystems at risk of severe degradation due to coral bleaching.
On a global scale, the researchers anticipate sea level to rise about 50 cm by 2100 in a 2°C warmer world, 10 cm more than for 1.5°C warming. “Sea level rise will slow down during the 21st century only under a 1.5°C scenario,” explains Schleussner.
Co-author Jacob Schewe, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, says: “Some researchers have argued that there is little difference in climate change impacts between 1.5°C and 2°C. Indeed, it is necessary to account for natural variability, model uncertainties, and other factors that can obscure the picture. We did that in our study, and by focusing on key indicators at the regional level, we clearly show that there are significant differences in impacts between 1.5°C and 2°C.”
William Hare, a senior scientist and CEO at Climate Analytics who also took part in the Earth System Dynamics research, adds: “Our study shows that tropical regions – mostly developing countries that are already highly vulnerable to climate change – face the biggest rise in impacts between 1.5°C and 2°C.”
“Our results add to a growing body of evidence showing that climate risks occur at lower levels than previously thought. It provides scientific evidence to support the call by vulnerable countries, such as the Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States, that a 1.5°C warming limit would substantially reduce the impacts of climate change,” says Hare.
###
One of the major talking points during the negotiations at COP21 in Paris has been whether the international community should aim to limit global temperature rise to the internationally accepted 2C above pre-industrial levels, or a more stringent target of 1.5C.
Aren’t we already close to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial times with all the reports of “hottest ever”?
So perhaps the “scientists” can report how much more catastrophic the climate is today compared to 1880. How many more crops are failing? How much land has been destroyed by rising sea levels?
Those “scientists” should stop making dire predictions about what another 0.5 degrees will do if they can’t demonstrate what a rise of 1 degree has already done.
The world’s average temperature is about 15 degrees, yet people and plants and animals seem to survive quite nicely in average temperatures that range from 6 degrees in Toronto to 27 degrees in Singapore.
Who was it who decided that 14 degrees is the optimum world average temperature (which happens to be the average temperature in London)? Was it the IPCC scientists or the policymakers?
Evidence please, not another model run.
It’s all just made up. Anyone can project anything at this point and be as credible as the next guy.
The Computer Models have all failed, no proof of the real CAGW action of CO2 has been produced, the public is losing interest in the continuing scam, so the Alarmists are redoubling the production of scary propaganda. This is the Age of Stupid upon us now calling spectres from the dark.
Glendower:
“I can call spirits from the vasty deep.”
Hotspur:
“Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?”
Glendower:
“Why, I can teach you, cousin, to command
The devil”
Hotspur:
“And I can teach thee, coz, to shame the devil—
By telling the truth. Tell truth and shame the devil.”
Henry The Fourth, Part I Act 3, scene 1, 52–58
Hold it! Stop the presses!!! I have the answer!!! 10 centimeters equals 3.93701inches.
That’s right! The sea level will rise less than 4 inches if there is that much heat added to the atmosphere!
People, I beg you! Spread the warning before it’s too late!!!
The fact that this prediction fails to take into account that there are many places where the ocean has receded a lot, and that the ocean surface is not the same level from one place to another on the planet doesn’t matter at all, does it? No. It is of no consequence.
It is, indeed, time to panic! Stock up on popcorn and your favorite beverages.
“With a global temperature increase…”
One more time….there is no such thing as the stated “global temperature”. I can’t believe they’re still using that term – in a paper, no less – and getting by with it.
“The additional 0.5°C would mean a 10-cm-higher global sea-level rise by 2100”
That would depend entirely on where the higher temps were happening.
One more time…..A half degree increase in the “global average” won’t melt ice anywhere. It’s not a temperature. It’s a statistic.
Kind of makes me wonder if relaxing the laws against smoking pot was such a good idea….
From the coolest period during the Maunder Minimum in the late 1600s, to the peak temperature in February 2016 during El Nino, I believe the average temperature has ALREADY increased two degrees C. (since the late 1600s).
So there’s no need to worry about +2 degrees C. — it’s already happened.
Almost no one noticed, but the +2 degrees C. was GREAT NEWS — if you read history, anecdotal evidence from that time shows people were VERY unhappy about the cool weather.
That means the first +2 degrees C. of warming was GOOD NEWS … and now smarmy warmunists want us to believe the next +2 degrees C. of warming will not be good news, but will be the end of life on Earth as we know it ?
I suppose they think the +5 degrees C. or more of warming in the past 20,000 years since peak glaciation was bad news?
Not for me, my property in Michigan was under a mile of ice back then.
Couldn’t build a house on that ice. Maybe an ice fishing shanty would work, but I’d need an oil drilling rig to bore through a mile of ice for ice fishing!
Sorry, I just can’t take the warmunists and their silly scaremongering seriously after 19 years of following this “political non-science” fantasy.
Here’s what the warmunists are actually saying:
– The average temperature and CO2 level on June 6, 1750 was perfect (compared with all 4.8 billion years) and that was announced to the general public at the time.
Many people disagreed, saying it was too cold, and their plants were growing too slow, but they were farmers, not government scientists, so what did they know?
Then it happened to be unusually warm during July 1750, and the government issued the first of their 1,261 (so far) global warming is going to end life on Earth as we know it red alerts.
Many people disagreed, but they were not government scientists, so no one cared what they thought.
Free climate blog for non-scientists
No ads – No money for me – a public service
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com