@willschones @PeterDClack Maybe you mean this science where the sentients declared worst case scenario overblown ? There were good news you see, no news of panic. https://t.co/t6QvniiP88
@MikeHudema @RiveraSunAuthor @NASA The inflection point to have affected climate change was in 1950! There is NO present technology to reverse humanity’s 270 year uncontrolled atmospheric experiment! It is baked in for the next 1/2 million years! https://t
RT @rahmstorf: 3. Ohne Klimaschutz erwarten die Szenarien von Ökonomen und Energieexperten immerhin bis zu einer Versechsfachung von 2000 -…
RT @rahmstorf: 3. Ohne Klimaschutz erwarten die Szenarien von Ökonomen und Energieexperten immerhin bis zu einer Versechsfachung von 2000 -…
3. Ohne Klimaschutz erwarten die Szenarien von Ökonomen und Energieexperten immerhin bis zu einer Versechsfachung von 2000 - 2100. Das würde schon rund 0.1 °C globale Erwärmung zufügen (lokal viel mehr), und wir kämpfen jetzt um jedes Zehntel Grad. https
@dezmac_au @Colleenhenx @Michell50577992 So you are stating that my comment is BS? https://t.co/Fz4E0BSIof ➡️ https://t.co/ndjJhLx0Vp ➡️ https://t.co/q7no2pkzOJ➡️ https://t.co/5dL1tflmXk ➡️ https://t.co/ggqf0IGAEP ➡️ https://t.co/Xc4rimg58S ➡️ https://t.co
@olehelgesen7 @ToreFurevik @wskorge Riahi introduserte begrepet "business as usual" i følgende paper: https://t.co/rLDmwpgeI4
@theresphysics @curryja @hausfath @PNTags @richardabetts @schipper_lisa @AdaptableMe @RogerPielkeJr It says: "high emission scenarios such as RCP8.5" As you might know, RCP8.5 was introduced as: "RCP8.5 depicts thus a relatively conservative business as u
2/n RCP8.5 is unscientific as the scenario is neither traceable to the premises nor to the data that formed the basis for the scenario. Here is the paper that introduced RCP8.5 and the term "Business as usual": https://t.co/u2bio43Yr5
#auspol Increasingly frustrated by papers that quote high CO2 scenarios eg RCP/8.5 which then assume forcings which we now know are wrong https://t.co/Ta7Jgd5h1C. The latest is a phytoplankton study- bad enough but it even ignores how the CO2 helps growth
@libertyF7R8 @Of_The_Root RCP 8.5 is pretty bad, but I guess that since surface temperatures won’t melt lead it could be worse https://t.co/tBA3pl4BdQ
RCP8.5 er nærmere beskrevet i følgende paper: "RCP 8.5—A scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions" Riahi et al 2011 https://t.co/u2bio43Yr5
Hier auch ein Video zum Thema #RCP85 von Mark Benecke: https://t.co/kXOo4eLpJu
Hey, wir sind bei RCP 8.5!!! Keine #Modell, keine #Meinung, alles #Messungen! "The greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations in this scenario increase considerably over time, leading to a radiative forcing of 8.5 W/m2 at the end of the century." https://
RCP 8.5—A scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions Keywan Riahi https://t.co/XcVzDuJMkG https://t.co/bpouOxHNKS
Par ex. dans le scénario RCP8.5 [Representative Concentration Pathway] — où les émissions ne sont pas réduites — jusqu'à 74%* de la population mondiale pourrait être exposée à au moins 20 jours de chaleur extrême, létale, par an, d'ici la fin du siècle…🔽 h
@SekWisniewski Te 5°C z filmu to zdaje się scenariusz RCP 8,5 https://t.co/zz44udVrot
@Peters_Glen 500 % increase in coal ? From where do you get the 500 % ? Keywan Riahi et al states: "Coal use in particular increases almost 10 fold by 2100" That is almost 1000 % , isn´t it? Ref. RCP 8.5—A scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas
@Peters_Glen @JKSteinberger @eroston The original RCP 8.5 scenario also assumes strong population growth (12 billion by 2100). But as coal use almost increases 10 fold, per capita increase is crazy high. Primary energy increases over 4 fold with a large sh
@jritch @RogerPielkeJr @Peters_Glen @hausfath @RARohde @ProfMarkMaslin @theresphysics @Rhitrition @watts_nick @markgfh @StottPeter @RHarrabin @jjblackstock @SusanMichie @richardabetts @NB_pik One can not find a sound basis for RCP8.5 This is what I happen
@richardabetts @hausfath @Peters_Glen This 2011 paper describes it as business as usual twice and uses baseline 20 times. This doesn't seem to a problem that has developed over the years. It seems to have been there at the beginning. https://t.co/Jl5K6fZ2D
@hausfath Also misspells @Peters_Glen's name as 'Peter'! Not up to @MattMcGrathBBC's usual standard, sadly. 2010: https://t.co/gEtze44WIn Plus all the other caveats @hausfath (re)tweeted https://t.co/ILKeoMsXFb https://t.co/PIxY9XN9ah
@themadstone @MikeBastasch Worth bearing in mind (IMO) that the paper that introduced RCP8.5 described it as "a high-emissions business as usual scenario". Not all that surprising, then, that this is how it has been subsequently described. https://t.co/8I0
RT @theresphysics: The problem with this section of the article is that it seems to ignore that the paper that introduced RCP8.5 described…
The problem with this section of the article is that it seems to ignore that the paper that introduced RCP8.5 described it as "a high-emission business as usual scenario". Maybe those who used it did check! https://t.co/8I0CP7OFq0
@AjayGambhir11 @MLiebreich @TransitionShow Yes, RCP8.5 predated the SSPs (I mean, you know all this?). RCP8.5 itself was built on SRES. Interestingly, SSP5-8.5 has much higher emissions than RCP8.5... https://t.co/0M4VqwCjkM But, given we are moving for
@anterojarvi @ivanpuopolo @VaresMinna @ja_puntanen Pyöristin alaspäin tästä https://t.co/xWVdMSHw4e mutta tämän mukaan oikea luku olisikin 10 kertaa enemmän hiiltä. Asia riippunee siitä, mitä olettaa muille energianlähteiden käytölle tapahtuvan. https://t
@stevebloom55 @MLiebreich @richardabetts @aaronhuertas @theresphysics @LabradorIce @rahmstorf @hausfath @AukeHoekstra @KeithTuffley @jritch Here is one characteristic of RCP8.5: «Coal use in particular increases almost 10 fold by 2100» Plausible? To use
@hausfath 500 % ? "Coal use in particular increases almost 10 fold by 2100" That is 1000 % , isn´t it? https://t.co/fn4qNOdPKk
@theresphysics @PietroMonticone @aaronhuertas @MLiebreich @richardabetts @LabradorIce @rahmstorf @hausfath @AukeHoekstra @KeithTuffley @jritch I found the ´business-as-usual´ term in this paper. The paper is referred to in IPCC;AR5;WGI regarding the RCP8.5
Next question: Which assumptions were RCP8.5 based on? The assumtions are indicated in figure 4 https://t.co/u2bio43Yr5 https://t.co/aqjbTPHtPJ
Where does the term ´business-as-usual´ term come from? The term is used 2 times in a paper by Keywan Riahi et al: ´RCP 8.5—A scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions´ https://t.co/u2bio43Yr5 https://t.co/tzEcQ342Fb
@C1aranMurray @AukeHoekstra @LabradorIce @richardabetts @rahmstorf @hausfath @MLiebreich @aaronhuertas @KeithTuffley @jritch @RogerPielkeJr You should probably start here, though, and maybe ponder why it is that some many papers describe RCP8.5 as a "busin
@MLiebreich @AukeHoekstra @C1aranMurray @LabradorIce @richardabetts @rahmstorf @hausfath @aaronhuertas @KeithTuffley @jritch Let's just remind people (because you seem to have conveniently forgotten) that the paper that introduced RCP8.5 (written by an ene
RT @theresphysics: Apparently, climate scientists should not refer to RCP8.5 as business as usual (BAU). What might have helped is if the p…
RT @theresphysics: Apparently, climate scientists should not refer to RCP8.5 as business as usual (BAU). What might have helped is if the p…
RT @theresphysics: Apparently, climate scientists should not refer to RCP8.5 as business as usual (BAU). What might have helped is if the p…
RT @theresphysics: Apparently, climate scientists should not refer to RCP8.5 as business as usual (BAU). What might have helped is if the p…
RT @theresphysics: Apparently, climate scientists should not refer to RCP8.5 as business as usual (BAU). What might have helped is if the p…
@RogerPielkeJr @jim_bouldin @climatedynamics I guess it didn't help that Riahi et al. (2011) referred to it as "a high-emission business as usual scenario." https://t.co/8I0CP7OFq0
Apparently, climate scientists should not refer to RCP8.5 as business as usual (BAU). What might have helped is if the paper that introduced it didn't refer to it as a "a high-emission *business as usual* scenario." https://t.co/8I0CP7OFq0
@DocRichard @flimsin @psud12 @GreenRupertRead It is based on peer-revieved published estimates. RCP8.5 extrapolated demand estimates without taking into consideration the supply in form of estimated recoverable resources. https://t.co/fn4qNOdPKk
@simondonner @hausfath Except it is business as usual. It may be high end business as usual, but that doesn't stop it being so. The RCP8.5 paper clearly describes it as "business as usual": https://t.co/3bOvXV693f
@vassalos @EmmanuelSchizas I don't think the 16 year old girl knows what she is talking about. Btw those projections are according to the (bad) scenario RCP 8.5 (and as long term forecasts, they are subject to a huge margin of error) https://t.co/6GGY1i13
@mister_g_g @ScuolaPossibile @lofioramonti @civati @MiurSocial @EulaliaGrillo @beabri @LordPist65 @maresml @fabbriclau @dafnemure @profgallio @EmanuelaAmendo1 Ti lascio un po' di link e poi fai tu. https://t.co/89oHEDtwhe https://t.co/8aUFt4blJx https://t.
Sauf que les 2 ne sont pas compatibles mutuellement. Les scénarios à plus de 2,5°C de réchauffement impliquent que le "pic pétrolier" (qui ne veut pas dire fin du pétrole) ne serait pas atteint avant 2050. https://t.co/Z0qWyGiip5 voir la figure 5.
@FernandoLeanme @ATomalty @curryja Re: "although it's evident RCP8.5 is by far the worst pathway, and smears the comparisons" You're back to your usual nonsense, even tho it has no bearing on the topic at hand. Do better in your trolling, denialist. https
RT @hausfath: While Riahi et al call RCP8.5 "a high-emission business as usual scenario" in their paper, Riahi told Carbon Brief that "I wi…
RT @hausfath: While Riahi et al call RCP8.5 "a high-emission business as usual scenario" in their paper, Riahi told Carbon Brief that "I wi…
RT @hausfath: While Riahi et al call RCP8.5 "a high-emission business as usual scenario" in their paper, Riahi told Carbon Brief that "I wi…
RT @hausfath: While Riahi et al call RCP8.5 "a high-emission business as usual scenario" in their paper, Riahi told Carbon Brief that "I wi…
RT @hausfath: To clarify here (as twitter makes nuance difficult at times), each RCP scenario still had an underlying IAM run that generate…
To clarify here (as twitter makes nuance difficult at times), each RCP scenario still had an underlying IAM run that generated its emissions scenario: https://t.co/BZKt8b7HmL
@hausfath Nice piece, this should help clarify. A detail: it's wrong to say RCPs are not associated with specific economy/emissions scenarios (tweet 5, Brief). All of them are. RCP8.5 on this one. Their use however focuses on resulting concentrations. http
While Riahi et al call RCP8.5 "a high-emission business as usual scenario" in their paper, Riahi told Carbon Brief that "I wished I would have been clearer with what I meant by business as usual in that paragraph." https://t.co/vktYCwGImV 15/
@FernandoLeanme @HenrikHindby @coffeetabletsla @MccarronTed @GeraldKutney Re: "The question is why the world isn't told MOST adverse climate change impact predictions are based on RCP8.5 or other exaggerated emissions cases. Calling such cases "Business as
@Z06Ronald Uit dit plaatje blijkt ook dat de verandering van landgebruik ook een klein effect is. Dat wordt meegenomen in klimaatmodellen, maar omdat de mens onvoorspelbaar is gebeurt dat in de vorm van scenario’s. Zie bv https://t.co/JTMHi7unY4 over wat e
@theresphysics @MLiebreich @JustinHGillis @psud12 @rgatess @jg_environ @alannogee @past_is_future @rustneversleepz @mtobis There are valid reasons to keep RCP8.5 and similar RCP's under consideration. In e.g. Riahi 2011, you'll see the high CH4 concentrat
RT @jg_environ: @theresphysics They assume little technological progress on clean energy or energy efficiency, and inexpensive oil and gas…
Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 should never be called Business As Usual, as it often is. RCP 8.5 has been used to produce frightening 'scenarios' that are highly unrealistic. If that was the only flaw with climate alarmism it would be a big one.
@dolanecon @mtobis @JohnCoviello1 @Tokyo_Tom @Sustainable2050 @JaumeFreire RCP8.5 is actually a 'low' case of a whole family of trajectories, where oil and natural gas get scarce (due to a rapid rise of primary energy consumption) and are supplanted by coa
@andrew_lilico @GideonSimeloff @pleaseuseaussie It seems you are confusing RCP 8.5 with an actual temperature rise of 8.5C? [ref: https://t.co/2fBYxK1OCb] [https://t.co/TU2uzZoWeF]
RT @simonoxfphys: More info about RCP8.5 - which is more complicated than I've made it sound - here: https://t.co/A4l5WU86Q1
More info about RCP8.5 - which is more complicated than I've made it sound - here: https://t.co/A4l5WU86Q1
@lahti_tomi Jostain syystä jutuissa käytetään lähes aina RCP 8.5 skenaariota, eli pahinta mahdollista https://t.co/H7FwXYuBbG Skenaariot ovat siis epävarmoja mallinnuksia tulevaisuudesta. Isoin virhe kaikissa siinä, että ihmisen tuottama CO2 olisi niin mää
@RasmusBenestad @Peters_Glen @CICERO_klima There is no doubt that these experts: https://t.co/oTSJyz479d got a different answer from the experts that constructed RCP8.5 : https://t.co/fn4qNOdPKk All peer-reviewed. ´Business as usual´ certainly doesn´t s
@RasmusBenestad It is wrong to use extreme values for every factor in a calculation. The result must become unlikely. A Monte Carlo simulation with a pdf for each premise would give low probability for RCP8.5. To call it a "business as usual" scenario is
@afreedma @curryja @RogerPielkeJr @nynjpaweather Among other things: RCP8.5 is an extreme and demand driven scenario referred to as ´business as usual´ https://t.co/fn4qNOdPKk which seems to "take insufficient consideration of the constrained emissions that
@aeberman12 @TSXcapital @JaggerMickOZ The forward is model. 5 models in graph. Beyond ~200 yr back also model. So, there are 200 years in millions of year “record” that is not some model. RE RCP8.5 LOL, I think if you read the assumptions you will agree w
Ocean Sciences Article of the Day - RCP 8.5: A scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions (Springer) https://t.co/hp9NBEmFV8
@Sustainable2050 @RichardMeyerDC @RonaldBailey From https://t.co/yWaiAAHXd6 RCP8.5 has "a global population of 12 billion by 2100," "little progress in terms of efficiency," "modest" technological progress, AND a "future energy system [that[ moves toward
@DoctorVive RCP 8.5 imagines a world with no climate mitigation. https://t.co/A78nL5dYew We are faced with a world that features some, manifestly insufficient, mitigation. See eg fig ES3 in the UNEP Emissions Gap report. https://t.co/MdFN6xhZHw
@bobathon @USWeatherExpert @theresphysics He’s basing it on Carbon Bubble economics. Which yes. Will not likely make it into the 22nd century. What he isn’t mentioning is that 8.5 accounts for that and steers into the bubble. It’s all in here. https://
@Francisco_DA57 @ShawnCl66134576 @thehill Just carefully read the title part, the rectangle at bottom. These numbers come from 4 weather balloons and 2 satellites, it was collected in between the latitudes 20 S and 20 N. Anyway I looked for the rcp8.5 stu
@FernandoLeanme Re: "the IPCC committed what I call borderline fraud when they designated RCP8.5 a “business as usual” case" Learn to read: "Compared to the scenario literature RCP8.5 depicts thus a relatively conservative business as usual case" https:/
@FernandoLeanme Re: "The IPCC is borderline fraudulent because they call RCP8.5 "business as usual". Its not." Please do your homework: "Compared to the scenario literature RCP8.5 depicts thus a relatively conservative business as usual case" https://t.
@noahqk @bobkopp @eroston @ClimateOfGavin I picked it up from Riahi et al: "Compared to the scenario literature RCP8.5 depicts thus a relatively conservative business as usual case with low income, high population and high energy demand due to only modest
RT @rtmcswee: @KHayhoe @bradplumer I think RCP8.5 often gets described as BAU because it’s mentioned (twice!) in the original paper: "RCP…
@KHayhoe @bradplumer I think RCP8.5 often gets described as BAU because it’s mentioned (twice!) in the original paper: "RCP8.5 depicts, compared to the scenario literature, a high-emission business as usual scenario” https://t.co/Vq8G5IS9xr
@RozPidcock a scenario, RCP8.5) whose assumptions, etc are not ever going to happen. https://t.co/uYdhSyNPn5 https://t.co/GTxgjT2rsN
(2/2)But could also be avoided: RCP8.5=worst case scenario,a storyline of bad policy choices https://t.co/OBXwNoucZJ https://t.co/NN5jLaSFjU
@ruth_mottram See Fig5: https://t.co/IUxceEu3eA Think about area under curve = fossil fuel reserves, think 'bell shaped curve' into future.
Great for #GEES506 https://t.co/AGJSHekxNv #springerlink
RCP 8.5 reference full text https://t.co/Sk2L2x4oXl https://t.co/jMvTnLHPl1
@KenCaldeira @dbiello 4/ CO2 emissions in RCPs used in AR5. RCP8.5 is a far outlier. http://t.co/VANMEGCO4u http://t.co/xOXY9ey1CY
@Peters_Glen @CColose @JustinHGillis paper documenting the RCP8.5 scenario (IIASA model) is here: http://t.co/bXRnPdEZ3S
@flimsin @theresphysics @ClimateOfGavin well, do look this up when you finish painting: http://t.co/M50lNu2NNh