Climate models are ‘wrong’
CLIMATE change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than was thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a study has suggested.
Research by British scientists found that the world was being polluted and warming up at a slower rate than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.
An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook. Experts now say there is a two-inthree chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris agreement.
They also condemned the “overreaction” to the US’S withdrawal from the pact, announced by Donald Trump in June, saying it is unlikely to make a significant difference.
According to the models used to draw up the agreement, the world ought now to be 1.3 degrees above the
mid-19th century average, whereas the most recent observations suggest it is actually between 0.9 to 1 degree above.
The discrepancy means nations could continue emitting carbon dioxide at the current rate for another 20 years before the target was breached, instead of the three to five predicted by the previous model.
“When you are talking about a budget of 1.5 degrees, then a 0.3 degree difference is a big deal”, said Professor Myles Allen, of Oxford University, and one of the authors of the new study.
Published in the journal Nature Geoscience, it suggests that if polluting peaks and then declines to below current levels before 2030 and then continue to drop more sharply, there is a 66 per cent chance of global average temperatures staying below 1.5 degrees.
The goal was yesterday described as “very ambitious” but “physically possible”. Another reason the climate outlook is less bleak than previously thought is stabilising emissions, particularly in China. Renewable energy has also enjoyed more use than was predicted. China has acquired more than 100 gigawatts of solar cells, 25 per cent of which in the last six months, and in the UK, offshore wind has turned out to cost less than expected.
Professor Michael Grubb, from University College London, had described the goals agreed at Paris in 2015 as “incompatible with democracy”. But yesterday he said: “We’re in the midst of an energy revolution and it’s happening faster than we thought, which makes it much more credible for governments to tighten the offer they put on the table at Paris.” He added that President Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement would not be significant because “the White House’s position doesn’t have much impact on US emissions”.
“The smaller constituencies – cities, businesses, states – are just saying they’re getting on with it, partly for carbon reduction, but partly because there’s this energy revolution and they don’t want to be left behind,” he said.