what's the best rigorous case for the plausibility of runaway / extinction-level climate change?
-
Show this thread
-
the most relevant thing i've found is this https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gary_Russell3/publication/256666715_Climate_sensitivity_sea_level_and_atmospheric_CO2/links/54e60be80cf277664ff20993.pdf …
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
which talks about large parts of the world becoming uninhabitable, but (1) seems to be based on a high earth system sensitivity estimate
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow 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
Current projections, because all the non-worst case projected scenarios assumed there would be some significant climate-change mitigation action by now, and instead effectively nothing significant changed. Also, warming over land will be higher than the global average.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
the research here uses land temperatures and rcp8.5 emissions (no mitigation, high population growth, low tech growth)
-
-
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit @davidmanheim
it doesn't make sense that "all the non-worst case scenarios assumed climate mitigation". even given no mitigation, there's a wide range
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit @davidmanheim
"RCP8.5 leads to a forcing level near the 90th percentile for the baseline scenarios"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z …
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.