which talks about large parts of the world becoming uninhabitable, but (1) seems to be based on a high earth system sensitivity estimate
-
Show this thread
-
(2) seems to assume very high co2 emissions for a very long time, (3) talks about effects that are centuries or millennia away
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit
Do you see countries and individuals cutting back on emissions after the point where they are uninhabitable multiple months of the year? (See: Most of the Middle East.) My worry is that once we hit that point, they will give up and stop seriously trying to mitigate the impact.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @davidmanheim
i think predicting anything multiple centuries ahead is silly. afaik though business as usual scenarios predict way less than 3-5 doublings
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit
I think you're wrong about timeframe. Some parts of the middle east will be functionally uninhabitable for part of the year by the end of the century under almost all projections. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/151215-global-warming-heat-wave-stress-death-climate/ … (And the current projections are less optimistic than those ones were.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @davidmanheim
never trust a journalist, always go to the actual science. the thing cited seems to be this http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa00e/pdf …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit @davidmanheim
what are you referring to when you say current projections are worse? afaik cmip5 models are widely seen as somewhat too sensitive
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit @davidmanheim
and this is a subset of them, so i have no idea what that means
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit @davidmanheim
the authors say this "could" happen which doesn't mean anything, though they do seem to be using a central estimate under their assumptions
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit @davidmanheim
this is based on rcp8.5 which i think is widely considered pessimistic even for a business as usual emissions scenario
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
NG article talks about 2060 and this paper talks about 2070-2080, which is also confusing
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.