Zeke Hausfather is as much responsible for this debacle as anyone else in pounding the frum for years that the 8.5 scenario is impossible and by implication, irrelevant.
I don't think it's right to blame Zeke. He pointed out that the scenario was too aggressive, which I think was a useful piece of information. If you want to heap derision on anyone, it's the people who then took that result and spun it into a conspiracy theory that scientists were intentionally using this to scare people.
> This analysis shows that we cannot rule out that the real climate system driven by a SSP2-4.5 emissions delivers warming at the end of the century equal to what a typical model produces under SSP5-8.5 (around 4°C).
This alone should be reason to keep the SSP5-8.5 scenario.
In your summary you use straw men when a better approach is suggested.
You say,
"The amendment rests on two false premises: 1) that NCA5 presents RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5 results as expected, baseline, or business-as-usual futures..."
I would change it to,
"The amendment rests on the false premise that NCA5 presents RCP8.5 and SSP-8.5 as ** anything other than ** an illustrative, potentially worst case, scenario for comparison with the other scenarios..."
If other climate scientists and the IPCC listened to Dr James Hsnsen we wouldn't be in this mess and all the people NOW posting things are worse would have saved face.
Thank Hansen. Treat him with alot more R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
Zeke Hausfather is as much responsible for this debacle as anyone else in pounding the frum for years that the 8.5 scenario is impossible and by implication, irrelevant.
I don't think it's right to blame Zeke. He pointed out that the scenario was too aggressive, which I think was a useful piece of information. If you want to heap derision on anyone, it's the people who then took that result and spun it into a conspiracy theory that scientists were intentionally using this to scare people.
Can we ignore the trivia of "this or that proposal" - the words, statements, and targets.
Let’s focus. Our world is going to +3C in the next 25 years and to the “End-Permian” +5C by 2100.
Let’s make that the reality we need to address, ameliorate, and adapt to.
> This analysis shows that we cannot rule out that the real climate system driven by a SSP2-4.5 emissions delivers warming at the end of the century equal to what a typical model produces under SSP5-8.5 (around 4°C).
This alone should be reason to keep the SSP5-8.5 scenario.
In your summary you use straw men when a better approach is suggested.
You say,
"The amendment rests on two false premises: 1) that NCA5 presents RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5 results as expected, baseline, or business-as-usual futures..."
I would change it to,
"The amendment rests on the false premise that NCA5 presents RCP8.5 and SSP-8.5 as ** anything other than ** an illustrative, potentially worst case, scenario for comparison with the other scenarios..."
Some people just can't take "implausible" as a no.
Thank you for presenting these important arguments!
Can you post a URL where others can add comments supporting yours?
I think replying to his post us your answer.
The only thing you can do is submit your own comment. You cannot respond (positively or negatively) to comments submitted by others.
If other climate scientists and the IPCC listened to Dr James Hsnsen we wouldn't be in this mess and all the people NOW posting things are worse would have saved face.
Thank Hansen. Treat him with alot more R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
As Earth burns..