Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
Mark Maslin
science has made a huge difference. No longer are we predicting 5 deg warming as policies have slowed carbon emissions. Next challenge is to have policies to get to net zero by 2050. Given our past geopolitical success we could do it!
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se" More
Robert Rohde 31. sij
Gotta say, I'm having trouble seeing the "huge difference".
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Zeke Hausfather 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @RARohde @ProfMarkMaslin i 10 ostali
For what its worth, IS92-A is a bit above RCP6.0, which is in the range of outcomes consistent with current policies. We are far from bending down the curve though, which is whats needed to get to below-2C.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Ian Sinclair 3. velj
Hi Mark. My understanding is 2 or 3 degrees at 2100 is very dangerous because it is unlikely to stablise at this point, and could lead to uncontrolled temperature increase. Is this wrong?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Mark Maslin 3. velj
In all of Earth history we have no evidence of runaway global warming. We have evidence of sharp rapid rises in global temperatures but never runaway. So we have to balance the real scary science with the apocalyptic views of some activist - who try to scary children!
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Paul Maidowski 31. sij
First read this as a (good) joke. Which geopolitical success exactly? Are y'all following the news & geopolitics at all?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Paul Roundy 31. sij
It seems like energy markets have dominated these changes rather than top down controls/policies?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Ken Rice 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @PaulRoundy1 @ProfMarkMaslin i 9 ostali
Do you think that this would have happened in the absence of people highlighting the risks associated with climate change?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Frederick Guy 31. sij
As an *emissions* pathway 8.5 has become highly unlikely, we are told. But as a *concentration* pathway (it's in the name, RCP) does our optimism not depend on feedbacks about which there is far more uncertainty?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Ken Rice 31. sij
Yes. However, if the emission projections are reasonable, then the feedbacks required to get to 8.5W/m^2 are probably now on the higher end of what is possible. However, could still turn RCP6 into RCP7, for example.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Alexander Ač 31. sij
Which policies? You mean emission trading scheme?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
falafeldiaper 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Lacertko @ProfMarkMaslin i 10 ostali
Does make some rich
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"