So so so many questions:
What is your view of scientific reticence? Do you communicate your expectations and concerns any differently in private than in public?
Given political considerations (I.e. policy prescriptions must be consistent with continued economic growth) as well as optimism bias and other behavioural psych factors that we all tend to suffer from to some degree, are we still, even now as govts are declaring climate "emergency"s, potentially downplaying the risks?
Is your report Independent or based on IPCC? (Science made in Canada? Or predicated on global scientific consensus)
If at 415ppm now and 500ish on CO2e basis... even without any further emissions.. when was planet last there.. and what was sea level and temp then?
What impacts are we seeing now that are already worse than scientific consensus had assumed we would yet be experiencing? E.g. arctic temps? Antarctic ice sheet destabilization?
Do ranges of RCPs totally encapsulate all possible scenarios? If worst case RCP 8.5 is actually BAU, do we really think it cant be worse than that?
Ecs?
Assumptions
E.g. is Ecs static or dynamic
Changes over time as other factors change... e.g. deforestation and ocean heating and acidification changing ability of carbon sinks to keep operating... also albedo etc from sea ice loss... and increasing release of methane not just from industrial sources like fracking but also permafrost and seafloor release
What will make temp stabilize at current levels give climate system inertia and lagged effects of past emissions?
If we are on track for 3+C..and 6 in Canada and 10 in the arctic... how do we stop there?
Tipping points and feedback loops
New wave of Climate models?
Isnt ECS being increased in new gen models?
Carbon budget based on 50% chance of staying under temp target
Precautionary principle re probabilities
But range of climate outcomes isnt normal curve...what about fat tail risks... should govts be basing their policy decisions on 50% chance of failure particularly when those probabilities based on models that dont yet capture all poorly understood climate phenomena meaning models potentially understating prospective temp changes?
Does conservatism in cli sci communication provide a false sense of precision?
What is your view of scientific reticence? Do you communicate your expectations and concerns any differently in private than in public?
Given political considerations (I.e. policy prescriptions must be consistent with continued economic growth) as well as optimism bias and other behavioural psych factors that we all tend to suffer from to some degree, are we still, even now as govts are declaring climate "emergency"s, potentially downplaying the risks?
Is your report Independent or based on IPCC? (Science made in Canada? Or predicated on global scientific consensus)
If at 415ppm now and 500ish on CO2e basis... even without any further emissions.. when was planet last there.. and what was sea level and temp then?
What impacts are we seeing now that are already worse than scientific consensus had assumed we would yet be experiencing? E.g. arctic temps? Antarctic ice sheet destabilization?
Do ranges of RCPs totally encapsulate all possible scenarios? If worst case RCP 8.5 is actually BAU, do we really think it cant be worse than that?
Ecs?
Assumptions
E.g. is Ecs static or dynamic
Changes over time as other factors change... e.g. deforestation and ocean heating and acidification changing ability of carbon sinks to keep operating... also albedo etc from sea ice loss... and increasing release of methane not just from industrial sources like fracking but also permafrost and seafloor release
What will make temp stabilize at current levels give climate system inertia and lagged effects of past emissions?
If we are on track for 3+C..and 6 in Canada and 10 in the arctic... how do we stop there?
Tipping points and feedback loops
New wave of Climate models?
Isnt ECS being increased in new gen models?
Carbon budget based on 50% chance of staying under temp target
Precautionary principle re probabilities
But range of climate outcomes isnt normal curve...what about fat tail risks... should govts be basing their policy decisions on 50% chance of failure particularly when those probabilities based on models that dont yet capture all poorly understood climate phenomena meaning models potentially understating prospective temp changes?
Does conservatism in cli sci communication provide a false sense of precision?
No comments:
Post a Comment