I really wish people would take time to understand the actual issue in question before tweeting hot takes. The @ScienceMagazine article is discussing high climate sensitivity of some models; it rather by definition has nothing to do with plausibility of future emissions scenarios
https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1421102140689326089
We covered the implausible sensitivity values in some CMIP6 models - and their disagreement with observations - last year. The solution, as the Science piece discusses, is to give more weight to models that better match observations. thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/…
As we discussed in a review last year, there is actually strong evidence to narrow the range of climate sensitivity, both on the high end but especially on the low end: sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/a…
The question of emissions scenarios is a completely different one. Within any given emissions scenario you can have a range of possible warming outcomes due to uncertainties in both climate sensitivity and carbon cycle feedbacks: 
We have gotten more clarity on the emissions side in recent years. The structural decline of global coal use and rise of cheap clean energy means that nightmarish scenarios of 3x emissions by 2100 are much less plausible. nature.com/articles/d4158…
The world is on track for a best-estimate of 3C warming by 2100 under current policies. But we cannot fully rule out warming of 4C+ if we get unluckly. thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/…
The world also does not end in 2100, and as long as our emissions remain above zero the world will continue to warm. carbonbrief.org/explainer-will…
Even if we do end up at 3C warming vs the 4C or 5C that seemed more plausible a decade ago, it's still a pretty bad outcome for human and natural systems. We have a lot more work to do to cut emissions. economist.com/briefing/2021/…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
