And by a sizable margin they mean maybe 4 degrees Celsius.

Remember that 1.5 degrees Celsius is a nearly end-of-the-world scenario and we're currently about 1.1 degrees.

All that warming that we caused but didn't actually happen? Turns out the ocean saves it up.

cogman10 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Remember that 1.5 degrees Celsius is a nearly end-of-the-world scenario

No, it's not end of the world. 3C is where things start getting bad. 1.5C is the target for the 2015 Paris climate agreement to try and avoid hitting 2C.

We are looking at more severe droughts, flash floods, and rising oceans where we are at, but not the worst of it like mass 40C wet bulb heat domes which wipe out all life underneath them.

▲

jakebol 13 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

This is an incorrect way to frame the impacts of temperature increases. 1.5, 2, 3C makes extreme events like the one you stated significantly more likely in a probabilistic sense. The ability of adapt is in part driven by frequency of extreme events as much as it is adaptability to specific thresholds. We are already experiencing deadly heat bulb events at current warming levels, the impacted areas and frequency of these events will strictly increase.

▲

tjwebbnorfolk 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	tpurves an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Well that's a relief, glad I am a turtle then and so are most of my friends, and that our whole world economy and food system runs on turtles. So we should be fine.
	▲	cogman10 an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		You are right, it is an exaggeration. I should have said "land life" as the ocean temperature doesn't shift that much with the above ocean temps. And I'm sure there's some random bacteria and fungus that can survive and thrive at 40C web bulb. What doesn't tend to do so well is the likes of humans, birds, cattle, horses, mice, rats, insects, many crops, native animal life that didn't evolve to handle high heat temperatures. The last time earth will have been as hot as the 3C temperature was prehistorically.
	▲	whynotmaybe an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Yes for temperature but what about CO2 ppm?
	▲	egman_ekki an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		…and from here, it’s turtles all the way down.
	▲	MrGilbert an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I wonder if "but the turtles survived and I was right!" is the best way to look at it if humanity is close to extinction in the next century or so.
	▲	ahofmann an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		So ... It's turtles all the way down?

▲

mort96 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The 1.5C target (which, as others pointed out, is not an end-of-the-world scenario) is about average temperature above pre-industrial baseline across 20 years. The temperature anomaly of a single year has nothing to do with that; 2028 will likely be colder again.

Average temperature moves in cycles. By confusing single-year temperatures with the 1.5C target, you're just going to make people think "crisis averted" once 2028 turns out to be cold.

▲

fredski42 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Does anyone knows how much more the oceans can absorb heat?

	▲	inigyou 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Well they seem to have switched to releasing stored heat. Isn't that basically the El Nino / La Nina cycle? Metaphorically relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limnic_eruption
	▲	delichon an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		To vaporize 10^21 kg of seawater from ~4 °C to 100 °C would require ~10^27 joules, around 16 trillion Hiroshimas or ~2.5 seconds of the sun's output.
	▲	metalman 29 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		the oceans can adsorb a great deal more heat, but all the ice will melt, while the deap ocean water expands, from it's rather odd temperature ,that keeps it at the highest density possible, about .5% more than if it were just a bit warmer, so more warming will cause very significsnt sea level rise through several different mechanisms related to heat.