Glen Peters

@Peters_Glen

Research Director at on past, current, and future trends in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions

Vrijeme pridruživanja: listopad 2012.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @Peters_Glen

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @Peters_Glen

  1. Prikvačeni tweet
    3. pro 2019.

    THREAD Global fossil CO₂ emissions set to grow a slow 0.6% in 2019 [range: -0.2% to +1.5%] with robust growth in oil & natural gas, but a slight decline in coal. 1/

    , , i još njih 7
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  2. prije 15 sati

    There is a view that amongst some "the problem is solved if we don't call RCP8.5 business as usual". Is this a cheap shot? Scroll up & read the first few tweets in the thread. Keep the comments coming, but preferably on our takeaways at the start of the thread... 10/10

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  3. prije 15 sati

    Our purpose with the comment is quite the opposite. We would like to see scenarios become more useful, more helpful to inform climate policy, more useful to business & investors that need to make decisions, & more useful in helping public understanding. 9/

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  4. prije 15 sati

    There is an argument along the lines that papers like ours lead to less climate action. This would require, on a net basis over time, that our suggestions would change peoples minds to want less climate action. That is a long bow if you ask me... 8/

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  5. prije 15 sati

    There is a discussion on the realism of RCP8.5 emission pathways, particularly coal. There is quite some literature on this (& other arguments) But, back to the substance. Either way, RCP8.5 emissions will remain an outlier. Our arguments remain. 7/

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  6. prije 15 sati

    There are also critiques of our comment. One is that we do not consider feedbacks (also the link between emissions & concentration). We discuss this, & yes, this is important & needs more research. RCP8.5 is still an outlier. Zeke explains here 6/

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  7. prije 15 sati

    Some of us already work on some of these questions. My colleagues, for example, work closely with financial users on want they want (& need) to deal with climate risks. We are building capacity & activity in these areas, but lack resources 💰. 5/

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  8. prije 15 sati

    Why? First, it is useful to better outline the climate impacts we need to adapt to (including exploring higher risks). Second, there is a gap in the scenarios (& type of scenarios) in the direction we are heading, & these are the real reference for future mitigation action. 4/

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  9. prije 15 sati

    Second, put more focus on mid-range scenarios. Previously, there has been a lot of focus on a high end scenario (RCP8.5), but choices were a little limited. Modellers now have a range of scenario choices. There is no need to focus on an increasingly unlikely worst case. 3/

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  10. prije 15 sati

    Over time, the probabilistic scenarios could become more quantitative. This would help in risk assessment. This will require research, new methods, etc. What do different user group want from scenarios? How to develop probabilistic scenarios? Etc 2/

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  11. prije 15 sati

    THREAD What were the key takeaways from & my comment last week? First, move to more probabilistic scenarios. Initially, this can be qualitative (to the right of figure), & this would be very helpful to avoid confusion by scenario users. 1/

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  12. 2. velj

    "Our argument isn’t that we should ignore the possibility of getting to 4° or 5°C of warming this century" "It's that you shouldn’t be using unrealistic emissions scenarios to get there" [meaning, your climate model should get you there]

    Poništi
  13. 2. velj

    "Pathways reflecting current nationally stated mitigation ambition until 2030 are broadly consistent with cost-effective pathways that result in a global warming of about 3°C by 2100, with warming continuing afterwards" According to

    Poništi
  14. 2. velj

    Now may be a convenient time to start changing the narrative... "Going forward, we have a much wider toolbox available to look at no-policy baselines. We just need to make sure that we use it." [We also have scenarios with weak & moderate polices]

    Poništi
  15. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    1. velj

    A reminder of EIA's track record on predicting coal. US coal production is likely to fall below 600 million tons this year -- literally off the charts.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  16. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    1. velj

    I fully endorse the probabilistic approach and think the IAM community does to some extent. See thread for examples. The main obstacle has been the late focus on multi-model comparisons, aimed at finding insights robust to model uncertainty. Hard to do both. 1/5

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  17. 1. velj

    I would add, very little of the discussion on twitter has been around some of our suggestions on scenario selection and a shift to more probabilistic approaches, which I would think of as more controversial...

    Poništi
  18. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    The correct response to “So what?” re: RCP8.5 is none of these It is: “RCP8.5 is bad science. And as researchers one of our jobs is to do good science. Sure we have to be smart about social & political contexts of our work. But none of that excuses bad science” Boom. Done. /END

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  19. 1. velj

    Some climate scientists & energy experts say the worst-case scenario is increasingly unlikely. That’s stirred debate within the research community over whether a rare bit of good news about global warming has emerged or if [it] is far more complicated.

    Poništi
  20. 1. velj

    Our Nature Comment on RCP8.5 ( & myself) & scenario selection has created a good debate, often not on the juicy bits though... If you want an energy take, then listen to & I discuss! Podcast Paper

    Poništi
  21. 1. velj

    "Stop using the worst-case scenario for climate warming as the most likely outcome – more-realistic baselines make for better policy"

    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·