@flimsin @Peters_Glen @ClimateAdam @MichaelEMann @FrediOtto Yes, I was going to mention that more generally there is a misunderstanding that the political goals for limiting warming to round(fish) numbers (1.5C, 2C) represent some sort of physical threshold, beyond which feedbacks suddenly kick in or all is lost in some other way >
@flimsin @Peters_Glen @ClimateAdam @MichaelEMann @FrediOtto And as a variant on that, some folk seem to think that there is some sort of physical significance to warming of 1.5C, 2C at smaller scales, eg. individual countries. These numbers were established as targets to keep *global* warming below (+2C) or to try to limit to (+1.5C)
@flimsin @Peters_Glen @ClimateAdam @MichaelEMann @FrediOtto haha just noticed my typo after "round"! 🐟🤣
@flimsin @Peters_Glen @ClimateAdam @MichaelEMann @FrediOtto There's also a particularly pernicious conspiracy theory that climate scientists (especially those in government institutions) are deliberately hiding some sort of terrible "truth" from the public (that things are even worse than we say)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Richard Betts

Richard Betts Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @richardabetts

6 Sep
@clivehbest @HG54 @Leigh_Phillips @CC_NoThanks @XRebellionUK @ziontree @afneil @ScientistsX 4C global warming by 2100 seems to be much more likely than a lot of people realise

It doesn't even need one of the highest emissions scenarios. RCP6.0 (considered likely with current policies) gives that much warming fairly near the middle of the range in our latest projections
@clivehbest @HG54 @Leigh_Phillips @CC_NoThanks @XRebellionUK @ziontree @afneil @ScientistsX For RCP6.0 and current policies, see this from the Hausfather & Peters Nature comment

They label it 3C but that's the central estimate, & I don't think it accounts for uncertainties in carbon cycle feedbacks like the UKCP18 probabilistic projections do

nature.com/articles/d4158…
@clivehbest @HG54 @Leigh_Phillips @CC_NoThanks @XRebellionUK @ziontree @afneil @ScientistsX Hausfather and Ritchie made their own "current policies" estimate of global warming by 2100 based on extending the International Energy Agency scenarios with different assumptions

Again the central estimate was +3C, but +4C by 2100 was within the range

thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/…
Read 5 tweets
5 Sep
Are we on track to cause mass extinction of other species?

Yes

Huge numbers of species to be lost if we don't act now to change course

This includes improving conservation efforts and stopping global heating

Short thread⤵️ prompted by this new study

bbc.co.uk/news/science-e…
Here's this week's paper by Andermann et al on human impacts on mammal extinctions

"Based on current trends, we predict for the near future a rate escalation of unprecedented magnitude"

"still a window of opportunity to prevent many species extinctions"

advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/e…
They focus on the need for improved conservation efforts, which is right, especially for mammals

Habitat loss and degradation due to direct human impact are a huge driver of extinction, currently more than climate change

But climate change adds a further massive risk in future
Read 7 tweets
29 Aug
@PlanB_earth @IlanKelman @thetimes @bwebster135 I read the emails

Yes global warming of 4˚C this century is quite possible, & would bring massive risks to life & society (heatwaves, coastal & river flooding, drought etc)

Ilan does not seem to dispute that - he just says (correctly) that societal outcomes can't be predicted >
@PlanB_earth @IlanKelman @thetimes @bwebster135 Ilan's right that the DARA claim of 400,000 deaths per year due to climate change can't be verified - they don't give the source. It's possible that they have mis-typed a reference as there's a similar one in their bibliography, but even that doesn't seem to support the number >
@PlanB_earth @IlanKelman @thetimes @bwebster135 This is not to say that the number is less. It might be more. We just don't know, and IMO quoting numbers that can't be substantiated is just not useful because it undermines the concept of rigorous analysis (and this number is being quoted as if it's somehow authoritative) >
Read 7 tweets
9 Jul
The latest forecast from the World Meteorological Organization @WMO, led by @metoffice, suggests that over the next five years there is a 24% chance of the global average temperature exceeding 1.5C above pre-industrial levels for at least one year

carbonbrief.org/guest-post-glo…
This is a reminder of rising temperatures, but it would not mean that the long-term Paris goal to limit warming to 1.5C will have been breached

The 1.5C limit refers specifically to long-term human-caused warming and not the added effect of natural fluctuations in the climate
The blue band shows the WMO forecast for the next five years, with the darker blue shading indicating higher probabilities.

Annual global temperatures are likely to be > 1C warmer than pre-industrial in each of the coming five years – and very likely within the range 0.91-1.59C
Read 9 tweets
14 Jun
Extremely important to note the caution by the @metoffice scientist who actually led the development of this model:

“my first response is: why has the model done that? We are still in the stage of evaluating the processes driving the different response.”

theguardian.com/environment/20…
I see that this scientist (Cath Senior, our Head of Understanding Climate Change) is not quoted until paragraph 16 of the article, whereas Johan Rockström (not a climate modeller, and not involved in developing, evaluating or using this model in any way) is quoted in paragraph 5
Read 4 tweets
16 Mar
Good @edyong209 piece on science advice to UK govt:

"actual goal is same as that of other countries:

flatten the curve by staggering the onset of infections.

As a *consequence*, the nation may achieve herd immunity;

it’s a side effect, not an aim"

theatlantic.com/health/archive…
The Coronavirus action plan, published on 3rd March, never even mentioned "herd immunity"

gov.uk/government/pub…
Also please read this important and well-informed thread, if you haven't already

Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!