Thread by @Peters_Glen

@IvoHlebarov @PeterGleick @MichaelEMann @JKSteinberger @KHayhoe It is what the IPCC says. The way framed in the thread is not quite correct. Yes, the 50% and net zero 2050 is based on scenarios with carbon dioxide removal. You can do stylised with a carbon budget, and take the numbers from SR15 Table 2.2.
1/

@IvoHlebarov @PeterGleick @MichaelEMann @JKSteinberger @KHayhoe If we just accept these numbers (& not quibble over temp baselines, feedbacks, etc). These budgets are defined on when emissions reach zero (and temperature is about peak). The IPCC statement is equivalent to 50% 1.5C (at peak).

Area of triangle: 580*2/42=28 years to zero

2/

@IvoHlebarov @PeterGleick @MichaelEMann @JKSteinberger @KHayhoe Lets say that budget says zero globally in 2045, with absolutely no CO2 removal. If that is the criteria you want, then all countries can emit zero after 2045.

You want 66%, the 420GtCO2 budget? There are no scenarios in the literature, that I know of, that can do that!

3/

@IvoHlebarov @PeterGleick @MichaelEMann @JKSteinberger @KHayhoe To say it is a dangerous myth will get lots of retweets, but is itself a dangerous myth. I am not sure what the object is? Yes, quite ok to be critical of CO2 removal (as I have), but that is a different issue issue if you ask me.

4/

@IvoHlebarov @PeterGleick @MichaelEMann @JKSteinberger @KHayhoe And the point here is not to put in criteria which makes 1.5C seem harder & harder. The point is to stay below 1.5C (or well below 2C if you are into Paris). To do that, we need to reduce emissions, probably faster than we realistically could (disagree? Look out the window)

5/

@IvoHlebarov @PeterGleick @MichaelEMann @JKSteinberger @KHayhoe I will stop there... Otherwise I will just continue on an endless rant...

6/6