The ECB’s local weather fashions are primarily based on outdated eventualities – Watts Up With That?

A Twitter thread from Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.

In the coming days, I will be posting some follow-up threads to my @FT article online today. . .

https://www.ft.com/content/a82a7bf6-b567-46cf-899c-edcee1079349

🧵The @NGFS_ climate scenarios are interesting in a remarkable way. . .

In June 2020, @NGFS_ realized that RCP scenarios, on which most scenario-based climate studies are based, “do not align well with recent emissions trends” 👍

Hence, new scenarios were needed so that they are not based on outdated science

So the NGFS created new scenarios …

The new scenarios add even more complexity to the already Byzantine world of climate scenarios. However, if you walk down the rabbit hole, you can quickly see that the new scenarios repeat the main mistakes of the old scenarios that they were intended to replace.

https://data.ene.iiasa.ac.at/ngfs/#/workspaces

The @NGFS_ base scenario – called “Hot House World” – is simply implausible and predicts ever higher emissions by 2100, which will accelerate the late century

Using such an implausible future as a plausible basic expectation is inevitably misleading. . .

Red line is more plausible

A more technical illustration of the same point is shown below

“Hot House World” is not as extreme as IPCC baselines (SSP-7.0 and SSP-8.5), but it is still far too extreme to serve as a plausible baseline scenario, which is roughly halfway between SSP6.0 and 7.0 lies

There is an urgent need not only to update climate scenarios, but to implement a process that allows them to be kept up-to-date immediately. We can do this, we know how

More here:
https://www.ft.com/content/a82a7bf6-b567-46cf-899c-edcee1079349

More tomorrow … 🔥

Originally tweeted by Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) on May 9, 2021.

Like this:

To like Loading…

connected