Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad, pointing out that RCP8.5 is unlikely
RCP 8.5 "assumes the fastest population growth (a doubling of Earth’s population to 12 billion), the lowest rate of technology development, slow GDP growth, a massive increase in world poverty, plus high energy use and emissions."
World poverty is decreasing rapidly... innovation in solar and storage and efficiency continue. Emissions in developed countries are kinda flat.
|
NY Mag Intelligencer now agrees, with a very thorough and well-researched article:
We’re Getting a Clearer Picture of the Climate Future — and It’s Not as Bad as It Once Looked.
It finds that RCP8.5 is now highly unlikely, in light of a new International Energy Agency report which puts warming at, most likely, about 3 degrees by end of 2100.
Author has conversations with climate scientists about this, and from his POV, there's a developing consensus on it (bold mine):
Quote:
|
I’ve spent the last few weeks trying to wrap my head around all of this, speaking with energy analysts and climate scientists (including Hausfather) about just what these projections mean for our understanding of where we are headed. Nearly every one has told me the IEA projections, while limited in ways, nevertheless represent a more plausible projection of the medium-term energy future than is contained in RCP8.5. Most — though not all — told me that they did not see RCP8.5 as a plausible scenario, even in the absence of meaningful climate policy. Honestly, this surprised me; while objections to RCP8.5 have been around for a decade or more, those who view it skeptically now seem to outnumber those who see it as useful — at least as a vision of a “business as usual” future.
|
This doesn't mean it's not a problem; three degrees of warming still has a large impact, just not the nightmare scenarios of RCP8.5.