When it comes to a scientific study, the news contains scientific facts and accurate reporting of them. Typically, this entails studying the facts, interviewing the outside experts and authors. But the majority of the times, the narrative shared by media is not actually supported by the scientific study or the experts.
And same is the case with the newly published study of climate change!
Nature Geosciences Climate Change Study
Recently, a study was published in Nature Geosciences, which tried to determine the amount of carbon that humans will possibly emit before surpassing the global warming threshold of 1.5C – set forth in the Paris Climate Accord.
The results were expected or sort of optimistic; as it showed the likelihood of having more carbon in the bank than previously estimated. While some experts remain sceptical, the study’s key finding was twisted and transformed into a bad parody by many outlets, suggesting that the ‘fear of global warming is exaggerated’ and the issue of climate change is not actually ‘as threatening as previously thought’.
From there onwards, things went off the rail.
“The scientists who produce those doomsday reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have finally come clean — the computer models they have been using to predict runaway global warming are wrong,” – The Sun bloviated.
“Climate alarmists have finally admitted that they have got it wrong on global warming,” says Breitbart
On the basis of this, the researchers at Oxford University released a statement disavowing the idea, that there is no need of taking aggressive measures to cut down carbon emission.
The researchers wrote. “Our analysis suggests that ‘pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 C’ is not chasing a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require a significant strengthening of the NDC at the first opportunity in 2020,”
In simple words:
Countries are still required to ratchet up their measures a lot so that warming can be limited to 1.5C degrees. And for this, aggressive reduction of emissions must be started from today and the CO2 output must be brought to net zero in around 40 years at most.
However, the new study was pushed back by some other climate scientists. And there is a continuous debate about defining the baseline temperatures.
But as Zeke Hausfather – climatologist – mentions Carbon Brief, the records of global temperature which go back as far would have produced more warming by the year 2015 and hence reduced carbon in the bank.
Indeed, comparing the observations with the model is not an easy or wise decision. For example, if some models including the paper ones, estimate the temperature of air over the surface of the planet, scientists measure the temperature of Earth both at the surface oceans and the air, which is warming slowly.
According to the statement of Michael Mann to Gizmodo – Penn State climate scientist:
“Studies that account for both the land/ocean sampling issues and the needed corrections for historical forcing show no discrepancy between observed vs. modelled warming.”
All in all, the conclusion of this essential new study does not differ from the ones which were presented earlier. In order to keep the climate change at a minimum level, the world still needs an aggressive approach towards carbon reductions.