this makes no sense then. its the worst case scenario not the current scenario. I believe we mostly have tracked like not quite the worst case scenario. You don’t change scenarios like this because of day to day activites. You use day to day activities to track which trajectory we are on. Still the article says before they expected 5 degrees by the end of the century and I doubt we won’t easily do that based on what we have seen so far. Makes me wonder if the scenarios even take into account feedback loops.
So the first set of them were greenhouse gas concentration pathways, so modeling included feedbacks like ice-albedo, but not ones which resulted in additional fossil fuel use.
Current approaches are shared socioeconomic pathways rather than representative concentration pathways.
Still not perfect because people won’t actually follow any such path exactly; it’s a lot harder to predict human behavior than physics
this makes no sense then. its the worst case scenario not the current scenario. I believe we mostly have tracked like not quite the worst case scenario. You don’t change scenarios like this because of day to day activites. You use day to day activities to track which trajectory we are on. Still the article says before they expected 5 degrees by the end of the century and I doubt we won’t easily do that based on what we have seen so far. Makes me wonder if the scenarios even take into account feedback loops.
So the first set of them were greenhouse gas concentration pathways, so modeling included feedbacks like ice-albedo, but not ones which resulted in additional fossil fuel use.
Current approaches are shared socioeconomic pathways rather than representative concentration pathways.
Still not perfect because people won’t actually follow any such path exactly; it’s a lot harder to predict human behavior than physics