Who thinks climate impacts in a 3-5°C world are zero? ...or a 1°C world (today)?
This is what the SSPs assume, by design.
To believe #RCP85 you need
* World that prioritises fossil fuels
* Zero climate policy to 2100
* Zero climate impacts to 2100
1/
link.springer.com/article/10.100…
This is what the SSPs assume, by design.
To believe #RCP85 you need
* World that prioritises fossil fuels
* Zero climate policy to 2100
* Zero climate impacts to 2100
1/
link.springer.com/article/10.100…
The same is true for low-mitigation pathways, even when climate policy is assumed.
RCP1.9 or RCP2.6 (1.5°C or 2°C) generally use loads of Bioenergy with CCS, but it is assumed that a 2°C world has no climate impacts on that bioenergy (or food & agriculture, or forestry).
2/
RCP1.9 or RCP2.6 (1.5°C or 2°C) generally use loads of Bioenergy with CCS, but it is assumed that a 2°C world has no climate impacts on that bioenergy (or food & agriculture, or forestry).
2/
This is a methodological design choice. The SSPs are meant to be 'modular' & have climate policies & climate impacts added.
In practice, mitigation pathways don't consider feedbacks from climate impacts (in the vast majority of studies).
3/
In practice, mitigation pathways don't consider feedbacks from climate impacts (in the vast majority of studies).
3/
Those that worry people are discarding #RCP85 too early for climate impact studies, also seem to be most worried about climate impacts... Which is fine, but don't forget you are assuming that a 4°C world has zero climate impacts on the functioning of society...
4/4
4/4
