(2) seems to assume very high co2 emissions for a very long time, (3) talks about effects that are centuries or millennia away
-
Show 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 -
Replying to @davidmanheim
the research here uses land temperatures and rcp8.5 emissions (no mitigation, high population growth, low tech growth)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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
Yes, I'm unclear exactly what modelling assumptions they used - especially because we know that regional imputation from climate models is mediocre at best. But in the moderate case, +2C globally clearly implies +3C or more in many already heat-stressed areas.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
i think wet bulb temps are supposed to increase slower. anyway we can agree it gets hotter than is good for people
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.