Highest Rated Comments

Jumpsteady797 karma

Dear Ed Hawkins,

Harvard Professor James Anderson says: "Recovery is all but impossible, without a World War II-style transformation of industry—an acceleration of the effort to halt carbon pollution and remove it from the atmosphere, and a new effort to reflect sunlight away from the earth’s poles. This has do be done, within the next FIVE years."

Article here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/01/15/carbon-pollution-has-shoved-the-climate-backward-at-least-12-million-years-harvard-scientist-says/

We thought so far, that reaching carbon neutrality in 2050 would be sufficient. Can you explain why our window of action has reduced to five years now?

Thank you very much.

Jumpsteady795 karma

Dear Prof Hawkins, how will average temperatures change in Iceland in 2050 and 2100 following the RCP8.5? Do you have a Link for me or the information itself?

Jumpsteady794 karma

Thank you. I am sorry but I don’t know what the three columns stand for. 25% / 50% / 75% At which one do I have to look?

Jumpsteady792 karma

Thanks for your answer. I am just wondering why is the basis for all public goals the 67% chance budget. Has anyone decided to go with 67% chance because this seems good enough? Why not aim for 90% chance or even higher? I don’t really understand this. Is it simply because it is impossible to stay below 2°C warming with a 90% chance?

Jumpsteady791 karma

Thank you for pointing out that you are not certain as to why 67% was chosen. But may I ask you for your opinion as a scientist? To me 67% chance sounds not quite certain especially when it comes to such an existential threat as the climate crisis. This still means that with 33% probability, we will not limit warming to 2°C, even if we stay within the carbon budget.

What do you think about 67%? What chance would you regard as a sensible probability target? If you were counselling policymakers on that, what probability target would you suggest to use as a basis?

Thank you.