Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #RCP85isBollox
Most recents (10)
I like this nuanced rebuttal by @RogerPielkeJr of a new book claiming we should not mitigate climate change because the science is "not settled". I know Roger for a while now and I dare you to read the substack post and then (!) add your own analysis to this thread.
Basically this thread is about the question:
Should we strive for clarity and an 'us vs them' approach in communicating climate change,
OR should we stick to the science and the facts, even when they are messy and confusing?
Like Roger, I think it should be the latter.
Should we strive for clarity and an 'us vs them' approach in communicating climate change,
OR should we stick to the science and the facts, even when they are messy and confusing?
Like Roger, I think it should be the latter.
Roger is extremely knowledgable on both policy making and extreme weather (he one of the world's leading experts on hurricanes) and he's convinced climate change is a large problem we have to tackle, but he's often vilified by people who's mission it is to combat climate change.
How messed up is this? "Thousands of studies use RCP8.5 as business as usual, and the scenario that is used as policy success is RCP4.5. But today much of the literature considers RCP4.5 as an *upper bound* based on current policies." #RCP85isBollox
youtube.com/clip/Ugkx78bVv…
youtube.com/clip/Ugkx78bVv…
Here I give a concrete example of RCP8.5 being used as BAU, and RCP4.5 as what success looks like - even though we are now on RCP4.5 or better. From the US National Climate Assessment 2018, which spawned climate porn headlines in NYT and CNN and others.
youtube.com/clip/UgkxAswnF…
youtube.com/clip/UgkxAswnF…
Don't believe the US National Climate Assessment 2018 used RCP8.5 as BAU and RCP4.5 as policy success? There it is, plain as day on page 1358: "Annual damages under RCP8.5" and "Damages avoided under RCP4.5". This is #RCP85isBollox and drives bad policy. nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/NCA4… 
"Have you ever published a paper that *never* would have happened without twitter?" @dsquintana
Hmmm, certainly yes, & most of my papers are in some way influenced by Twitter, & five minutes on Twitter can generate lots of new paper ideas...
1/
Hmmm, certainly yes, & most of my papers are in some way influenced by Twitter, & five minutes on Twitter can generate lots of new paper ideas...
1/
Perhaps the most (in)famous climate paper in recent times only came about because @MLiebreich provoked 90% of #ClimateTwitter with #RCP85isBollox, laying the foundation for this paper with @hausfath & myself
nature.com/articles/d4158…
2/
nature.com/articles/d4158…
2/
I met @Oliver_Geden on Twitter, & we have written several papers together (& have many ideas that are waiting some time & resources).
I suspect the trouble paper with @KevinClimate was heavily influenced by debates on Twitter science.org/doi/abs/10.112…
3/
I suspect the trouble paper with @KevinClimate was heavily influenced by debates on Twitter science.org/doi/abs/10.112…
3/
Warning for the consequences of climate change is important!
(I devote my life to this stuff...)
But it's not helpful to keep repeating an alarmist scenario that relevant scientists think is highly unlikely.
Let me explain. (Again.)
theguardian.com/environment/20…
(I devote my life to this stuff...)
But it's not helpful to keep repeating an alarmist scenario that relevant scientists think is highly unlikely.
Let me explain. (Again.)
theguardian.com/environment/20…
To be clear: professionally I would love for the most alarming facts to be true!
It makes what I do more important!
But I have 4 problems:
1) It's not true
2) It damages science
3) It gives children depressions
4) Doing nothing looks like achievement (compared to the scenario)
It makes what I do more important!
But I have 4 problems:
1) It's not true
2) It damages science
3) It gives children depressions
4) Doing nothing looks like achievement (compared to the scenario)
Now the explanation.
The venerable @IPCC_CH has one set of scenarios in which we get rich quick and only burn fossil fuels: SSP5.
In the worst scenario we use 6x more coal PER CAPITA in 2100.
This scenario was called RCP 8.5 and is now called SSP5-8.5.
The venerable @IPCC_CH has one set of scenarios in which we get rich quick and only burn fossil fuels: SSP5.
In the worst scenario we use 6x more coal PER CAPITA in 2100.
This scenario was called RCP 8.5 and is now called SSP5-8.5.
Une étude incontournable pour ceux qui travaillent sur la prospective #climat et l'#adaptation :
En version courte, parmi les 4 scénarios d'émissions du 5e rapport du GIEC, nous sommes sur la trajectoire du plus pessimiste, le RCP8.5.
pnas.org/content/early/…
En version courte, parmi les 4 scénarios d'émissions du 5e rapport du GIEC, nous sommes sur la trajectoire du plus pessimiste, le RCP8.5.
pnas.org/content/early/…
En version longue :
Le scénario RCP8.5 est généralement présenté comme un scénario "business as usual" mais ça n'est pas le cas si on regarde ses hypothèses : sa croissance est plus rapide que la réalité, le coût des renouvelables trop élevé, la part du charbon pas réaliste, etc.
Le scénario RCP8.5 est généralement présenté comme un scénario "business as usual" mais ça n'est pas le cas si on regarde ses hypothèses : sa croissance est plus rapide que la réalité, le coût des renouvelables trop élevé, la part du charbon pas réaliste, etc.
Cela a conduit à des critiques très virulentes, y compris au parmi des gens qui travaillent sérieusement sur le #climat et voient le 8.5 comme un épouvantail catastrophiste.
Illustration : #RCP85IsBollox
Illustration : #RCP85IsBollox
We have another 'winner': a study claiming RCP 8.5 is 'business as usual' when in fact it is highly unlikely. In @NatureClimate no less.
RCP 8.5 is NOT business as usual!
STOP printing that misleading claim!
theguardian.com/environment/20…
RCP 8.5 is NOT business as usual!
STOP printing that misleading claim!
theguardian.com/environment/20…
If you're new to RCP 8.5: it's a scenario used by the IPCC with assumption on CO2 emissions.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Represent…
It means we assume 'forcings' of 8.5 W/m2 in 2100.
People started calling this 'business as usual' even though by now most scientists think it's highly unlikely.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Represent…
It means we assume 'forcings' of 8.5 W/m2 in 2100.
People started calling this 'business as usual' even though by now most scientists think it's highly unlikely.
In the abstract the paper calls RCP8.5 'high' and RCP4.5 'mitigation' which sort of muddles the misinformation. But again: nobody should call RCP8.5 'business as usual'.
1/n
There has been lots of discussion of IPCC IAM scenarios, particularly focusing on the supply side: eg assumptions on solar PV costs and coal consumption in #RCP85isBollox.
But what do these models and scenarios assume on the demand side? This is just as important.
Thread.
There has been lots of discussion of IPCC IAM scenarios, particularly focusing on the supply side: eg assumptions on solar PV costs and coal consumption in #RCP85isBollox.
But what do these models and scenarios assume on the demand side? This is just as important.
Thread.
2/n
Firstly, for this I'm using the data so kindly provided here: data.ene.iiasa.ac.at/iamc-1.5c-expl…
Whatever you think about IAMS etc, this level of data provision is really welcome.
I'll focus on baseline and 2C scenarios
Firstly, for this I'm using the data so kindly provided here: data.ene.iiasa.ac.at/iamc-1.5c-expl…
Whatever you think about IAMS etc, this level of data provision is really welcome.
I'll focus on baseline and 2C scenarios
3/n
Today I'm going to focus on the issue of end-use transition. What do these models show?
The graph 👇 shows mean levels of H2 penetration in baseline / weak policy scenarios: penetrations in the order of 4-5% by end of the century, evenly spread between sectors.
Today I'm going to focus on the issue of end-use transition. What do these models show?
The graph 👇 shows mean levels of H2 penetration in baseline / weak policy scenarios: penetrations in the order of 4-5% by end of the century, evenly spread between sectors.
I just read a really well researched article titled:
"Climate change is not going to be THAT bad:
how a disaster scenario got the upper hand."
Since it's in Dutch I thought I'd do a thread about it but you can also try Google translate.
volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/zo-…
"Climate change is not going to be THAT bad:
how a disaster scenario got the upper hand."
Since it's in Dutch I thought I'd do a thread about it but you can also try Google translate.
volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/zo-…
It was written in the Dutch quality newspaper de @volkskrant by @mkeulemans who's twitter motto resonates with me: "Wherever and whenever you can, count". He interviewed multiple scientists and looked how climate change was depicted in the Dutch media.
Will rice yields plummet by 40%?
Emperor penguin die out?
Will 1/6th of sea life die?
And many others.
Reading newspapers you would think: surely!
In reality it's very unsure it will be that bad.
Emperor penguin die out?
Will 1/6th of sea life die?
And many others.
Reading newspapers you would think: surely!
In reality it's very unsure it will be that bad.
After 2 days of negotiation, G20 finance ministers agree that "the FSB is examining the financial stability implications of climate change." At the G20 Energy Ministerial in Argentina, we did no work on energy, just discussed the communiqué. US leadership.
uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/id…
uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/id…
Since you ask, I suspect the Financial Stability Board will conclude climate change poses little systemic financial risk. 1) Per IMF, an individual climate disaster may wipe 0.4% off GDP growth for the countries affected for one year. Globally modest compared to Coronavirus.
2) The catastrophic physical risks - multiple disasters in one year, disasters that span whole continents are not likely for several (or many) decades. I know that's not the @ExtinctionR line, but it's what the @IPCC_CH says and it's also my reading of the science.
Happy holidays everyone! I wish you much joy over the holidays, and some wonderful time with your families. The news can be pretty bleak, but there is much to be (guardedly) optimistic about as we enter the new decade. If you have a moment, read on...
about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…
about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…
Peak emissions are closer than you think. The new decade will be, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, a decade of consequences. Play it right, and we have a chance of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change. Waste it, and we are in uncharted territory. about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…
Just to be clear, we will not see the sort of emissions decline by 2030 demanded by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – a 20% cut by 2030 to keep temperature rises to 2C, 45% cut to remain under 1.5C – but I would guess at a drop of around 5%.
about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…
about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…
