As a rule climate outcomes tend to deliver results above, or well above, those predicted. Furthermore, today’s climate policy goals can no longer be relied on, in view of the mad stampede for Arctic oil and gas,combined with the oil industry’s successful defiance of all efforts to rein it in. Conservatively, the fossil fuels sector will kill 350m people by 2050 and over a billion by 2100, not including those who die of famine or water scarcity. Instead of attempting to predict degrees of heating, it is time the climate community got real and predicted human fatalities. Governments and corporates would find that less easy to ignore.
My gut feeling is the quicker than expected cheaper renewables deployment was the heavier factor in lowering the worst case outlook. However, I see 2 C degrees by 2030 something because the carbon sinks to carbon sources scenario is not understood well ( you gotta be a prophet ) and also cloud albedo is nebulous (pun intended:) )
You said, "How much of this decline is driven by earlier scenarios being unrealistic vs progress on technology and policy is an interesting debate". Looking at Mauna Loa, it looks like your first suggestion is correct rather than the latter. Have a good day,
As a rule climate outcomes tend to deliver results above, or well above, those predicted. Furthermore, today’s climate policy goals can no longer be relied on, in view of the mad stampede for Arctic oil and gas,combined with the oil industry’s successful defiance of all efforts to rein it in. Conservatively, the fossil fuels sector will kill 350m people by 2050 and over a billion by 2100, not including those who die of famine or water scarcity. Instead of attempting to predict degrees of heating, it is time the climate community got real and predicted human fatalities. Governments and corporates would find that less easy to ignore.
My gut feeling is the quicker than expected cheaper renewables deployment was the heavier factor in lowering the worst case outlook. However, I see 2 C degrees by 2030 something because the carbon sinks to carbon sources scenario is not understood well ( you gotta be a prophet ) and also cloud albedo is nebulous (pun intended:) )
Hi Zeke,
You said, "How much of this decline is driven by earlier scenarios being unrealistic vs progress on technology and policy is an interesting debate". Looking at Mauna Loa, it looks like your first suggestion is correct rather than the latter. Have a good day,