@rahmstorf's point especially so because, imho, the whole late-2000's cluster of research on the need for zero emissions; implying finite carbon budgets; temperature irreversibility; and zero-emissions commitment had such profound implications for policy.
Une partie de la confusion, identifiée dans le Rapport Spécial 1.5, provient du fait que certains confondent l’inertie "à composition constante" (forçage radiatif/concentrations constants) et l'inertie pour des émissions nulles. Hare&Meinshausen, 2006:
@PFriedling We're simply trying to follow in the tracks of giants. Almost 15 years ago, @BillHareClimate and @meinshausen looked directly at this question already in their Climatic Change paper: "How Much Warming are We Committed to and How Much can be
@KenCaldeira @JoeriRogelj @froeltho @KirstenZickfeld @damon_matthews @NadineMengis Hare & Meinhausen 2006, was the earliest simulations of ZEC we could find in the literature. https://t.co/yUeQzYsrE1
RT @EcoInternetDrGB: How Much Warming are We Committed to and How Much can be Avoided?: Springer Link https://t.co/Rzrsf3714s #environment…
69B/x Re: "Exxon" The response is not instantaneous, due to factors like ocean thermal inertia: https://t.co/WdhVjkE3AG https://t.co/4UtWgYEIEe But the Exxon scientists' projection has done pretty well so far: Figure 1b: https://t.co/Qae38lYseu https://
@Peters_Glen Here's one: https://t.co/uEd0VW5BpN