🧵Another new paper shows implausibility of most commonly used climate scenarios - Liddicoat et al 2020 in JOC doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D…
Assuming constant 2019 CO2 emissions to 2100 (10 GtC via @gcarbonproject) gives cumulative of 1200 GtC 1850-2100, about SSP2-4.5 in Table 5⤵️
Assume net zero CO2 by 2100 give cumulative 800 GtC 1850-2100, or ~10% more than SSP1-2.6 in Table 5
Assume net zero CO2 by 2060 gives cumulative 600 GtC 1850-2100, or ~15% more than SSP1-1.9 in Table 5
Contrast:
SSP5-8.5 has 2580 GtC 1850-2100
SSP3-7.0 has 1909 GtC 1850-2100
So:
To consider SSP5-8.5 plausible requires believing that from now until 2100 the world will _average_ annual FF emissions from CO2 of about 30 GtC, or 3x that of 2019, meaning no peak until >2080 at ~50 GtC/yr
No one believes this is plausible.
/END
PS. If you want to know how it is that climate scenarios have taken climate research far off track, please read our new paper⤵️
It was not by design but the emergent result of interactions of various institutional, historical, professional, social factors
1-Integrate science advice with other forms of advice
Me-Honestly, we would all be better off if we just started using the phrase "expert advice" rather than "science advice" (2021 goals!)
2- Gov't needs to better explain trade-offs
Me- This points clearly to the need for expert advisors to offer decision alternatives, with judgments of expected costs & benefits of alternative courses of action as well as the bases for those judgments, uncertainties, trade-offs.
An interesting article from @jg_environ@michaelvandenb6 that says that it critiques arguments on climate policy advanced by me, Hulme, Sarewitz, Rayner
It is very confusing because it posits "critique" in the guise of enthusiastic agreement
On climate policy JG & MV assert "our preference for an incremental process of muddling through with polycentric governance" as somehow counter to my views, Hulmes, Hartwell etc.
Actually, this perspective is identical to my own, example from The Climate Fix below
Big role for direct air capture in the Omnibus Bill, including creation of a new Direct Air Capture Technology Advisory Board in DOE - apparently, it is coming rules.house.gov/sites/democrat…
Interesting
Act includes a prohibition on asking federal scientific advisors their political party affiliation or voting history
New paper finds risks of natural disasters going down (1970-2019) for both people and property (even as financial risks increase with more wealth) sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
It also has a nice one-paragraph summary of most recent IPCC conclusions on "natural hazards (not disasters)"
A nice addition to the magnum opus literature of mine published earlier this year: