How Climate Scenarios Lost Touch with Reality
1–10 of 85 posts
Re: How Climate Scenarios Lost Touch with Reality
#2This is waaaaaaaaay too many words when all they want to say is “RCP8.5 is now unrealistic given progress towards climate goals, and the “business as usual” scenario should be updated in the next IPCC report”
Re: How Climate Scenarios Lost Touch with Reality
#3Despite the provocative title this seems well-intentioned. The scientific accuracy needs to be top-priority, these particular elements of the projections should be assessed and reevaluated if necessary.
Re: How Climate Scenarios Lost Touch with Reality
#4Reality is the past actuals.
- Atmospheric CO2, 1960-now.[1]
- Ocean temperature, 1880-now. [2]
- Annual arctic sea ice minimum area, 1978-now. [3]
[1] https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
[2] https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Re: How Climate Scenarios Lost Touch with Reality
#5Despite the provocative title this seems well-intentioned. The scientific accuracy needs to be top-priority, these particular elements of the projections should be assessed and reevaluated if necessary.
[flagged]
Re: How Climate Scenarios Lost Touch with Reality
#6Reality is the past actuals. - Atmospheric CO2, 1960-now.[1] - Ocean temperature, 1880-now. [2] - Annual arctic sea ice minimum area, 1978-now. [3] [1] https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ [2] https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ [3] https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/5036
Warming that has occurred in the past is not disputed here.
Re: How Climate Scenarios Lost Touch with Reality
#7This is waaaaaaaaay too many words when all they want to say is “RCP8.5 is now unrealistic given progress towards climate goals, and the “business as usual” scenario should be updated in the next IPCC report”
Thank you. This seemed like it was written by a student who was saying the same thing over and over in order to satisfy a 4,500-word target, and I was wondering what I was missing.
Re: How Climate Scenarios Lost Touch with Reality
#8The Energy Transition Show has covered this in great detail for the past few years:
https://xenetwork.org/ets/episodes/episode-176-climate-scena...
To see all episodes related:
Re: How Climate Scenarios Lost Touch with Reality
#9Despite the provocative title this seems well-intentioned. The scientific accuracy needs to be top-priority, these particular elements of the projections should be assessed and reevaluated if necessary.
[flagged]
I’m going to imagine you mean ‘pawn’ instead of tool here. Otherwise it feels pretty harsh for a young girl who just cares about earth.
Re: How Climate Scenarios Lost Touch with Reality
#10This is waaaaaaaaay too many words when all they want to say is “RCP8.5 is now unrealistic given progress towards climate goals, and the “business as usual” scenario should be updated in the next IPCC report”
> This is waaaaaaaaay too many words…
I agree, so I used ChatGPT to summarize this for us:
In the article "Climate Change Scenarios Have Lost Touch with Reality," written by Roger Pielke Jr. and Justin Ritchie and published in Issues in Science and Technology, the authors argue that the climate change scenarios used by policymakers and scientists have become disconnected from empirical reality. They suggest that this has led to an overreliance on untested and unrealistic assumptions, which in turn undermines the credibility of climate change projections and makes it more difficult to develop effective policies.
The authors note that climate change projections are typically based on a set of assumptions about future greenhouse gas emissions, which are then used to generate a range of potential climate outcomes. However, these assumptions often fail to account for a range of important factors, such as economic growth, technological innovation, and changes in land use patterns, which can have a significant impact on emissions and climate outcomes.
Pielke and Ritchie argue that policymakers and scientists need to take a more pragmatic and evidence-based approach to climate change projections, one that is grounded in real-world data and incorporates a wider range of factors. They suggest that this could involve developing more diverse and flexible scenarios that are better able to capture the complexity and uncertainty of the real world.
Overall, the authors stress the importance of ensuring that climate change policies are based on realistic and evidence-based projections, rather than relying on overly simplistic or unrealistic assumptions. They argue that this will require a fundamental rethinking of the way that climate change scenarios are developed and used, and a greater emphasis on collaboration and dialogue between policymakers, scientists, and other stakeholders.