Preskoči na sadržaj
Korištenjem servisa na Twitteru pristajete na korištenje kolačića. Twitter i partneri rade globalno te koriste kolačiće za analize, personalizaciju i oglase.

Za najbolje sučelje na Twitteru koristite Microsoft Edge ili instalirajte aplikaciju Twitter iz trgovine Microsoft Store.

  • Naslovnica Naslovnica Naslovnica, trenutna stranica.
  • O Twitteru

Spremljena pretraživanja

  • obriši
  • U ovom razgovoru
    Ovjeren akauntZaštićeni tweetovi @
Predloženi korisnici
  • Ovjeren akauntZaštićeni tweetovi @
  • Ovjeren akauntZaštićeni tweetovi @
  • Jezik: Hrvatski
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • Ελληνικά
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Imate račun? Prijava
    Imate račun?
    · Zaboravili ste lozinku?

    Novi ste na Twitteru?
    Registrirajte se
Profil korisnika/ce hausfath
Zeke Hausfather
Zeke Hausfather
Zeke Hausfather
@hausfath

Tweets

Zeke Hausfather

@hausfath

Climate Scientist working on temperature records, climate, and energy system models. Director of Climate and Energy @TheBTI. Also: @CarbonBrief, @BerkeleyEarth

San Francisco
carbonbrief.org
Vrijeme pridruživanja: srpanj 2008.

Tweets

  • © 2020 Twitter
  • O Twitteru
  • Centar za pomoć
  • Uvjeti
  • Pravila o privatnosti
  • Imprint
  • Kolačići
  • Informacije o oglasima
Odbaci
Prethodni
Sljedeće

Idite na profil osobe

Spremljena pretraživanja

  • obriši
  • U ovom razgovoru
    Ovjeren akauntZaštićeni tweetovi @
Predloženi korisnici
  • Ovjeren akauntZaštićeni tweetovi @
  • Ovjeren akauntZaštićeni tweetovi @

Odjava

Blokiraj

  • Objavi Tweet s lokacijom

    U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više

    Vaši popisi

    Izradi novi popis


    Manje od 100 znakova, neobavezno

    Privatnost

    Kopiraj vezu u tweet

    Ugradi ovaj Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Dodajte ovaj Tweet na svoje web-mjesto kopiranjem koda u nastavku. Saznajte više

    Dodajte ovaj videozapis na svoje web-mjesto kopiranjem koda u nastavku. Saznajte više

    Hm, došlo je do problema prilikom povezivanja s poslužiteljem.

    Integracijom Twitterova sadržaja u svoje web-mjesto ili aplikaciju prihvaćate Twitterov Ugovor za programere i Pravila za programere.

    Pregled

    Razlog prikaza oglasa

    Prijavi se na Twitter

    · Zaboravili ste lozinku?
    Nemate račun? Registrirajte se »

    Prijavite se na Twitter

    Niste na Twitteru? Registrirajte se, uključite se u stvari koje vas zanimaju, i dobivajte promjene čim se dogode.

    Registrirajte se
    Imate račun? Prijava »

    Dvosmjerni (slanje i primanje) kratki kodovi:

    Država Kod Samo za korisnike
    Sjedinjene Američke Države 40404 (bilo koje)
    Kanada 21212 (bilo koje)
    Ujedinjeno Kraljevstvo 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Irska 51210 Vodafone, O2
    Indija 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonezija 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italija 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » Pogledajte SMS kratke šifre za druge zemlje

    Potvrda

     

    Dobro došli kući!

    Vremenska crta mjesto je na kojem ćete provesti najviše vremena i bez odgode dobivati novosti o svemu što vam je važno.

    Tweetovi vam ne valjaju?

    Prijeđite pokazivačem preko slike profila pa kliknite gumb Pratim da biste prestali pratiti neki račun.

    Kažite mnogo uz malo riječi

    Kada vidite Tweet koji volite, dodirnite srce – to osobi koja ga je napisala daje do znanja da vam se sviđa.

    Proširite glas

    Najbolji je način da podijelite nečiji Tweet s osobama koje vas prate prosljeđivanje. Dodirnite ikonu da biste smjesta poslali.

    Pridruži se razgovoru

    Pomoću odgovora dodajte sve što mislite o nekom tweetu. Pronađite temu koja vam je važna i uključite se.

    Saznajte najnovije vijesti

    Bez odgode pogledajte o čemu ljudi razgovaraju.

    Pratite više onoga što vam se sviđa

    Pratite više računa da biste dobivali novosti o temama do kojih vam je stalo.

    Saznajte što se događa

    Bez odgode pogledajte najnovije razgovore o bilo kojoj temi.

    Ne propustite nijedan aktualni događaj

    Bez odgode pratite kako se razvijaju događaji koje pratite.

    Zeke Hausfather‏ @hausfath 29. sij
    • Prijavi Tweet

    Nature just published a comment by @Peters_Glen and I pointing out that the high-emissions RCP8.5 emissions scenario – with its 500% increase in coal use by 2100 – is increasingly unlikely in a world of falling clean energy prices. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3 … A thread: 1/11pic.twitter.com/Z9nJR12JWo

    10:05 - 29. sij 2020.
    • 399 proslijeđenih tweetova
    • 719 oznaka „sviđa mi se”
    • Stephen Flood Philippe charbonneau Lucius M.🐒 Franz Krützmann Carlos Mz 𒇷 𒁯𒅗 S Lunnon Scott McFatridge André huykman
    399 proslijeđenih tweetova 719 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
      1. Novi razgovor
      2. Zeke Hausfather‏ @hausfath 29. sij
        • Prijavi Tweet

        RCP8.5 was never intended to be business-as-usual. It was originally selected to represent roughly the 90th percentile of no-policy (after 2005) outcomes in the literature. In the intervening 15 years it has become increasingly unlikely. https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-high-emissions-rcp8-5-global-warming-scenario … 2/11pic.twitter.com/5Qu7mL6ziw

        17 proslijeđenih tweetova 78 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      3. Zeke Hausfather‏ @hausfath 29. sij
        • Prijavi Tweet

        While some scientific papers correctly contextualized it as a very high end scenario, others referred to it as business-as-usual or indicated it was the current pathway that world was on. This traces back to poor communication between energy modelers and climate scientists. 3/11

        8 proslijeđenih tweetova 68 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      4. Zeke Hausfather‏ @hausfath 29. sij
        • Prijavi Tweet

        While emissions used to generate RCP8.5 are increasingly unrealistic, we can't be as confident that warming in RCP8.5 is beyond the realm of possibility. Current policies seem to be leading us to a 3C (+/- 1C) world, but large uncertainties remain: https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/3c-world … 4/11

        24 proslijeđena tweeta 69 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      5. Zeke Hausfather‏ @hausfath 29. sij
        • Prijavi Tweet

        For example, if climate sensitivity is on the high end its possible to get 4C+ warming even current policies. Carbon cycle feedbacks are poorly represented in current model projections (ScenarioMIP) and could lead to 8.5-level forcings under, say, a SSP3-7.0 scenario. 5/11

        19 proslijeđenih tweetova 65 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      6. Zeke Hausfather‏ @hausfath 29. sij
        • Prijavi Tweet

        The world also doesn't end in 2100, even though most of our models do. As long as emissions remain above net-zero the world will continue to warm. At current emission levels we would still see RCP8.5-type outcomes in the 22nd century. 6/11

        19 proslijeđenih tweetova 74 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      7. Zeke Hausfather‏ @hausfath 29. sij
        • Prijavi Tweet

        At the same time, the fact that the world is not on track for emissions consistent with 5C warming by 2100 is reason for hope. A world on track for ~3C is one where its easier to bend the curve down toward 2C or below than a world on track for emissions consistent with 5C. 7/11

        12 proslijeđenih tweetova 65 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      8. Zeke Hausfather‏ @hausfath 29. sij
        • Prijavi Tweet

        So what are the broad takeaways? We suggest three steps for the climate science community moving forward: First, the new SSPs have a wider range of intermediate baselines that can be used to explore more likely emissions scenarios: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-shared-socioeconomic-pathways-explore-future-climate-change … 8/xpic.twitter.com/aJhD9RStWj

        17 proslijeđenih tweetova 55 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      9. Zeke Hausfather‏ @hausfath 29. sij
        • Prijavi Tweet

        Second, we need at least some assessment of relative risk of future emission scenarios. When specialists refuse to assign probabilities, users often do so themselves, and often poorly because they do not have a deep understanding of the underlying assumptions. 9/11

        10 proslijeđenih tweetova 44 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      10. Zeke Hausfather‏ @hausfath 29. sij
        • Prijavi Tweet

        At a minimum this could include an incorporation of IEA WEO and UNEP assessments of likely emissions outcomes implied by current policies and commitments. We should not be afraid to say that RCP8.5 is less likely today than, say, RCP6.0, assuming current policies remain. 10/11

        1 reply 6 proslijeđenih tweetova 36 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      11. Zeke Hausfather‏ @hausfath 29. sij
        • Prijavi Tweet

        Finally, we aren't arguing RCP8.5 should be banished from the literature completely, just that it shouldn't be used as the sole no-policy baseline in studies. When RCP8.5 (and its SSP5-8.5 successor) are used it should be labeled as a worst case rather than BAU outcome. 11/11

        1 reply 10 proslijeđenih tweetova 63 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      12. Zeke Hausfather‏ @hausfath 29. sij
        • Prijavi Tweet

        A technical addendum: if we can't exclude a real possibility of RCP8.5 (or SSP5-8.5) levels of warming, doesn't that mean we should continue using RCP8.5? There are two primary uncertainties at play: climate sensitivity and carbon cycle feedbacks. 1/A

        7 proslijeđenih tweetova 42 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      13. Zeke Hausfather‏ @hausfath 29. sij
        • Prijavi Tweet

        For climate sensitivity, future warming scenarios are specifically set up so that uncertainties in emissions and uncertainties in sensitivity are independent. 2/A

        1 reply 5 proslijeđenih tweetova 29 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      14. Zeke Hausfather‏ @hausfath 29. sij
        • Prijavi Tweet

        If you want to explore high sensitivity outcomes it makes a lot more sense to look at high sensitivity models in a more realistic scenario (say SSP4-6.0 or SSP3-7.0) than use the average of all models in a scenario driven by with less realistic emissions (SSP5-8.5). 3/A

        7 proslijeđenih tweetova 39 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      15. Zeke Hausfather‏ @hausfath 29. sij
        • Prijavi Tweet

        For example, high sensitivity models may show different regional patterns of changes that you'd miss if you were using all RCP8.5 models as a (poor) proxy of a lower-forcing higher-sensitivity outcome. 4/A

        1 reply 5 proslijeđenih tweetova 30 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      16. Zeke Hausfather‏ @hausfath 29. sij
        • Prijavi Tweet

        The more compelling argument in favor of RCP8.5 is that the IPCC scenario runs commonly featured exclude many important carbon cycle feedbacks. This is a real problem, and the reasons for it are a tad complex. 5/A

        1 reply 7 proslijeđenih tweetova 32 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      17. Zeke Hausfather‏ @hausfath 29. sij
        • Prijavi Tweet

        About half of climate models are Earth System Models (ESMs) that include biogeochemical processes governing carbon cycle feedbacks. These models include feedbacks from changing vegetive cover, melting permafrost, etc. 6/A

        1 reply 6 proslijeđenih tweetova 28 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      18. Zeke Hausfather‏ @hausfath 29. sij
        • Prijavi Tweet

        However, the other half of models are more simple climate models that do not include these feedbacks. In order to compare all the models, the IPCC uses scenarios where concentrations of greenhouse gases are fixed. Models are run on future concentrations rather than emissions. 7/A

        1 reply 4 proslijeđena tweeta 31 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      19. Zeke Hausfather‏ @hausfath 29. sij
        • Prijavi Tweet

        So the commonly presented IPCC figures of future warming exclude many important carbon cycle feedbacks. There is a separate set of experiments – C4MIP – where ESMs are run with future emissions rather than concentrations, and where more carbon cycle feedbacks are present. 8/A

        1 reply 6 proslijeđenih tweetova 33 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      20. Zeke Hausfather‏ @hausfath 29. sij
        • Prijavi Tweet

        These experiments show a wide range of potential feedbacks, but on the high end they are enough to turn a SSP3-7.0 forcing scenario into a SSP5-8.5 one, for example. 9/A

        1 reply 4 proslijeđena tweeta 30 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      21. Zeke Hausfather‏ @hausfath 29. sij
        • Prijavi Tweet

        I'd argue that the solution here isn't to make up for a lack of carbon cycle feedbacks with a purposefully unrealistic emissions scenario. Rather, C4MIP results should be more prominently featured in future projections shown in assessments. 10/A

        4 proslijeđena tweeta 38 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      22. Zeke Hausfather‏ @hausfath 29. sij
        • Prijavi Tweet

        Its also important to emphasize even including carbon cycle feedbacks doen't make RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5 likely. You'd need the combination of feedbacks on the high end of the model range and an emissions scenario (like SSP3-7.0) above current policy projections to get there. 11/A

        4 proslijeđena tweeta 33 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      23. Zeke Hausfather‏ @hausfath 29. sij
        • Prijavi Tweet

        For this reason while we think that the RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5 emissions scenario is increasingly unlikely, we don't think that level of forcing should be excluded from future assessments. Rather, it needs to be correctly contextualized as a very-high-end or worst-case outcome. 12/A

        8 replies 11 proslijeđenih tweetova 61 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa
        Prikaži ovu nit
      24. Kraj razgovora

    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.

      Sponzorirani tweet

      false

      • © 2020 Twitter
      • O Twitteru
      • Centar za pomoć
      • Uvjeti
      • Pravila o privatnosti
      • Imprint
      • Kolačići
      • Informacije o oglasima