How much longer can we keep using the IPCC AR6 1.5°C scenarios (limited overshoot) for percentage reductions, net zero years, etc, given that we are currently not even remotely on track? Starting today, the percentage reductions will be higher, net zero year earlier (all else equal). - ThreadSky

glenpeters.bsky.social • 96 days ago

How much longer can we keep using the IPCC AR6 1.5°C scenarios (limited overshoot) for percentage reductions, net zero years, etc, given that we are currently not even remotely on track?

Starting today, the percentage reductions will be higher, net zero year earlier (all else equal).

Comments

ilmthunderstorm.bsky.social•91 days ago

Sadly, the high emission RCP 8.5 scenario is the one I see having the most validity going forward

ccmack.bsky.social•96 days ago

Whoever thought that such a sharp turn at the peak of any of these scenarios could occur? Surely some sort of rule akin to a slow turning tanker needs to be applied...

radreduction.bsky.social•95 days ago

"Whoever thought that such a sharp turn at the peak of any of these scenarios could occur?"

It could, with policy to cut imports domestic & domestic production of fossil fuels X% of the starting level, every year. Clone across nations.

Absent that, I'm sure the needed sharp turn will never occur.

kleinergag.bsky.social•96 days ago

We won’t go down this chart without getting a serious kick…

jaennaet.fi•91 days ago

It's become pretty obvious that we won't do jack shit on a meaningful level until something goes spectacularly sideways, and even then I doubt we'll do anything smart.

Betting more on violence and chaos than climate action

commoner.bsky.social•90 days ago

By then it'll be too late.

jaennaet.fi•90 days ago

Exactly so.

But hey, we can console ourselves that at least we didn't upend our ecosystems for nothing and a handful of people (somehow mostly men) got fantastically rich.

kevinclimate.bsky.social•91 days ago

... but we can all but guarantee that the IAMers will scam the system again, ensuring that their headlines align with what they judge to be challenging but doable within political norms. Mustn't scare the horses!

leonsimons.bsky.social•90 days ago

Keep false hope alive!

climatenews.bsky.social•90 days ago

Hopium keeps the masses working!

Build those billionaire bunkers before the masses start to panic!

nator999.bsky.social•90 days ago

So true, they need the motivated masses until AI is ready to replace them

climatenews.bsky.social•90 days ago

AI won’t be replacing anyone intelligent

nator999.bsky.social•90 days ago

but easy to control and will do the needed tasks without questions. Intelligent people are a risk for them once they realize that they have been fooled

kevd67.bsky.social•90 days ago

That doesn’t really narrow it down much when you have so many people voting for Trump.

kevinclimate.bsky.social•91 days ago

Based on the carbon budgets from Lamboll et al, updated to Jan 2025, then for a 50% chance of not exceeding 1.5°C, the global reduction rate of CO2 needs to be ~19% year on year. For 2°C, it is nearer 7%. If we follow the NDCs, then by the early 2030s 2°C will be approaching where 1.5°C is today.

thierryaaron.bsky.social•90 days ago

Is that for a 50% chance of 2C as well?

kevinclimate.bsky.social•90 days ago

No, that 7% is for “well below 2°C”, interpreted as an 83% of not exceeding 2°C, ie. the IPCC’s highest headline probability.
I translate the Paris adjectival language of “pursuing..1.5°C” & “well below 2°C” into, respectively, a 50% chance of ≤ 1.5°C & an 83% chance of ≤ 2°? Hope that makes sense?

mathieuvv.bsky.social•90 days ago

Just looking at historical emissions, 7%/year reduction looks wildly implausible. In a nutshell, it is either a radical shift of our socio-economic organization (not plausible from recent elections in US & EU), or throwing the Paris Agreement to the trash.

kevinclimate.bsky.social•90 days ago

Either way we face huge socioeconomic upheaval. One way we have some sort of control over it, avoiding/alleviating chaos & violence. The other, we wait a little longer & then have escalating climate impacts thrust us into chaotic & often violent knee-jerk reactions. ‘We’ still have a choice - just.

mathieuvv.bsky.social•90 days ago

There really is a debate in some circles about the least bad option : modify the system from within (trying to get on board citizens, small companies, municipalities), risk = being too slow. Or the green shock doctrine and a radical movement. Risk = destroying way too much. Such a bad predicament.

infopointa.bsky.social•90 days ago

📌

glenpeters.bsky.social•91 days ago

Yes, the IPCC ones are not "1.5C" scenarios (they never actually were, in my view)

overshoot.bsky.social•90 days ago

📌

femkenijsse.bsky.social•96 days ago

I believe we can do this for 4 more years? That's when the carbon budget runs out according to the latest UNEP emissions gap report.

jamesbronson.bsky.social•91 days ago

We can certainly use those sweet scenarios until 2014 or 2015.

Oh... wait...

gideonrichards1.bsky.social•96 days ago

Glen, many want truth from our trusted scientists, we need honesty and as accurate numbers and charts as possible. Putting politics and power broking into equations hasn’t worked and won’t work. If we know where we stand with climate impacts, then perhaps we can mitigate the froth of obfuscation.

philipjdixon.bsky.social•96 days ago

I think the simple answer is that we have to, because if (or when) we exceed 1.5 then all hell (probably) breaks loose

This is not the same as relaxing a target to lose a few kg by Christmas

rishpardikar.bsky.social•96 days ago

At COPs, negotiators make multiple references to 1.5C. At COP29, some of them brought up the issue of financial feasibility. I was joking yesterday that we might as well discuss this because COPs can't get any worse but it is a necessary discussion

https://x.com/rishpardikar/status/1861342351995617574

bradbradshaw.bsky.social•91 days ago

North America and Europe appear to be making some progress on reining in GHG emissions. Asia is a train wreck. COP is historically & grotesquely ineffective. Ocean flooding is coming. Disastrous rain storms & flooding are coming. Heat deaths are coming. Agro destruction & famine is coming.

seesight.bsky.social•96 days ago

If we solve this problem the interest will look like this

aussieboroboy.bsky.social•91 days ago

Fantasy graphs. IPCC estimates have been 'conservative ' from the beginning. The real scenarios are too scary for those who want us to believe that there is still hope. They are those who still profit from FFuels. Truth is going to be difficult to handle

co2battle.bsky.social•96 days ago

Thanks for providing this figure. It provides a very stark depiction of where we are at.

bluecloudacademy.bsky.social•96 days ago

Looks like an impossible task to me.

Iconic graphs like this, the Keeling curve and the hockey stick paint pictures of our plight in ways no amount of words can.

No wonder that increasing numbers of people are actively ignoring the message here. Thought of impending disaster isn't so motivating.

cyberfarer.bsky.social•95 days ago

You should see people become motivated to hit the brakes when they finally see it coming.

swimsure.bsky.social•96 days ago

How will we know how off track we are if scientists stop showing what degree of equitable change is urgently required to come anywhere close to the globally agreed goal?

mightypengu.bsky.social•91 days ago

I completely agree. Net zero goals take at least a decade, of which we haven’t even begun to approach for 1.5 avoidance. We should be aiming to prevent higher temps at this point especially with COP29 shenanigans, again.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply