The 'safe' threshold for global warming will be passed in just 6 years, scientists say

A cloudy burning orange sky hangs above a desert wasteland with the towering ruins of a modern city decaying on the horizon.
We have just six years before carbon emissions tip us over the 1.5 C warming threshold, new research has found. (Image credit: f9photos , Shutterstock)

Global carbon emissions are on track to exceed safe limits by 2030 and unleash the worst effects of climate change, new research suggests. This means we have just six years to change course and dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

A new estimate of our remaining carbon budget — the amount of carbon dioxide we can produce while keeping global temperatures below a dangerous threshold — indicates that, as of January, if we emit more than 276 gigatons (250 metric gigatons) of CO2 we will hit temperatures 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels. The researchers found that if emissions continue at the current rate, we will cross this threshold before the end of the decade, according to a study published Monday (Oct. 30) in the journal Nature Climate Change.

"Our finding confirms what we already know — we're not doing nearly enough to keep warming below 1.5 degrees C," study lead author Robin Lamboll, a researcher at the Center for Environmental Policy at Imperial College London, said in a statement. "We can be ever more certain that the window for keeping warming to safe levels is rapidly closing."

Related: Climate change has pushed Earth into 'uncharted territory': report

In 2015, 196 world leaders signed the Paris Agreement, a legally binding treaty on climate change that aims to keep global average temperature below 2 C (3.6 F) above preindustrial levels. The agreement stressed that limiting global warming to 1.5 C would help prevent the worst impacts of climate change.

Earlier this year, a UN report warned that temperatures may soon periodically exceed the dangerous 1.5 C threshold, but the new study refers to long-term warming.

Humans currently emit nearly 40 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, according to the statement. Without a reduction in these emissions, our remaining carbon budget to stay below 1.5 C will be exhausted within the next six years.

"This does not mean that 1.5 degrees C will be achieved on that timescale," Benjamin Sanderson, research director at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Norway who was not involved in the study, wrote in an accompanying Nature News & Views article. There is a time lag between the release of emissions and the warming effects being felt, according to the article, meaning record-breaking temperatures in recent months and years result largely from historical emissions.

The new study is based on data used in a recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but Lamboll and colleagues revised the methods to account for the latest emissions and for historical aerosol emissions. Aerosols are small particles suspended in the air that can reflect sunlight and can cool the climate, partially offsetting the warming effects of greenhouse gases

The revised estimate halves the remaining carbon budget to keep warming below 1.5 C from 550 gigatons (500 metric gigatons) of CO2 to 276 gigatons. The team also calculated that we have 1,323 gigatons (1,200 metric gigatons) of CO2 left to emit before we breach the Paris Agreement's central limit of 2 C — a budget that will be exhausted within the next two decades if no steps are taken to reduce emissions, according to the statement.

These estimates come with large uncertainties linked to the effects of other greenhouse gases, such as methane. It's also unclear how various parts of the climate system will respond to rising temperatures, according to the statement. Increased vegetation growth in certain regions could absorb large amounts of CO2 and offset some warming, for instance, while changes in ocean circulation and melting ice sheets could accelerate warming.

These uncertainties emphasize the need to rapidly cut emissions, Lamboll said. "The remaining budget is now so small that minor changes in our understanding of the world can result in large proportional changes to the budget," Lamboll said. "Every fraction of a degree of warming will make life harder for people and ecosystems."

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Sascha Pare
Trainee staff writer

Sascha is a U.K.-based trainee staff writer at Live Science. She holds a bachelor’s degree in biology from the University of Southampton in England and a master’s degree in science communication from Imperial College London. Her work has appeared in The Guardian and the health website Zoe. Besides writing, she enjoys playing tennis, bread-making and browsing second-hand shops for hidden gems.

  • chemicalmicroscopist
    The models are all over the place, so the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has cherry picked the ones that fit it's narrative. I make choices based on conserving resources and not a set of climate models that show no consistency, predicting both global warming and global cooling.
    Reply
  • Atlan0001
    "Changes to ocean circulation" is a lead-in to the Earth normal (millions of years' worth of normal) of Ice Age. Global warming up to levels even warmer than now is only short interludes between and before sudden (a couple of hundred years' worth of sudden) plunges into long periods (eighty to a hundred-thousand years plus) of Ice Age. We're about there. We're coming due for the plunge.
    Reply
  • Helio
    chemicalmicroscopist said:
    The models are all over the place, so the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has cherry picked the ones that fit it's narrative. I make choices based on conserving resources and not a set of climate models that show no consistency, predicting both global warming and global cooling.

    The IPCC doesn’t seem supportive of this dickering of their models….

    “The new study is based on data used in a recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but Lamboll and colleagues revised the methods to account for the latest emissions and for historical aerosol emissions.”
    Reply
  • Temple
    This was such a stinker that space.com assigned it to the trainee writer
    Reply
  • Ken Fabian
    chemicalmicroscopist said:
    The models are all over the place, so the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has cherry picked the ones that fit it's narrative. I make choices based on conserving resources and not a set of climate models that show no consistency, predicting both global warming and global cooling.
    Individual models do vary widely but none are showing global cooling. 2023 looks near certain to break previous records and there are good reasons - known climate processes - to expect 2024 will exceed 2023.

    Worth noting that this comparison leaves out a bunch of model runs that showed greater warming - because the IPCC authors did not have high confidence in them. ie the very opposite of the alleged deliberate distorting in favour of warming. For which there is no evidence, just accusation - usually predicated on misunderstandings or misinformation.

    None of this is prediction - all of it is observation -


    The climate problem is real and as world-changing serious as the top level science based advice has been saying it is for more than 3 decades. It would not ever have become an issue of such global significance if there were any credible evidence it is being faked. The objections of pseudonymous pseudo-experts don't count, for sound and sensible reasons.
    Reply
  • chemicalmicroscopist
    Ken Fabian said:
    Individual models do vary widely but none are showing global cooling. 2023 looks near certain to break previous records and there are good reasons - known climate processes - to expect 2024 will exceed 2023.

    Worth noting that this comparison leaves out a bunch of model runs that showed greater warming - because the IPCC authors did not have high confidence in them. ie the very opposite of the alleged deliberate distorting in favour of warming. For which there is no evidence, just accusation - usually predicated on misunderstandings or misinformation.

    None of this is prediction - all of it is observation -


    The climate problem is real and as world-changing serious as the top level science based advice has been saying it is for more than 3 decades. It would not ever have become an issue of such global significance if there were any credible evidence it is being faked. The objections of pseudonymous pseudo-experts don't count, for sound and sensible reasons.
    Try looking at the data over a long period of time, as for example Steven Koonin did in "Unsettled". The 99 (pseudo-experts) that claimed it was settled, ignored or didn't ask a large number of experts that didn't agree with them. I recall fears of global cooling 50 years ago. Your 3 decades is far too short a time draw such vast conclusions.
    Your data above isn't in question, it is all the other data that eyes are being turned from that is disturbing. What about all the temperature data that was deleted because "it took up too much data storage", before it could be peer reviewed by others outside the small group that published. It screams fraud to me. If this had been done in the pharmaceutical industry (where I worked for many years) people would go to jail for it. There is credible evidence it is being distorted.
    Reply
  • Atlan0001
    The "climate problem" has been "real" prior to every plunge into Ice Age in history . . . and during every Ice Age in history.
    Reply