{"id":22975,"date":"2020-01-30T08:38:15","date_gmt":"2020-01-30T13:38:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/?p=22975"},"modified":"2020-01-30T08:39:24","modified_gmt":"2020-01-30T13:39:24","slug":"bau-wow-wow","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/archives\/2020\/01\/bau-wow-wow\/","title":{"rendered":"BAU wow wow"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"kcite-section\" kcite-section-id=\"22975\">\n\n<p>How should we discuss scenarios of future emissions? What is the range of scenarios we should explore? These are constant issues in climate modeling and policy discussions, and need to be reassessed every few years as knowledge improves. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>I discussed some of this in a post on <a href=\"http:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/archives\/2019\/02\/the-best-case-for-worst-case-scenarios\/\">worst case scenarios<\/a> a few months ago, but the issue has gained more prominence with <span id=\"cite_ITEM-22975-0\" name=\"citation\"><a href=\"#ITEM-22975-0\">a commentary<\/a><\/span> by Zeke Hausfather and Glen Peters in Nature this week (which itself partially derives from ongoing twitter arguments which I won&#8217;t link to because there are only so many rabbit holes that you want to fall into). <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>My brief response to this is here though:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed-twitter wp-block-embed\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<blockquote class=\"twitter-tweet\" data-width=\"500\" data-dnt=\"true\"><p lang=\"en\" dir=\"ltr\">How to judge the importance of scientific critiques? Use a necessary edits scale:<br><br>4* Big deal: All papers to be rewritten from scratch<br>3* Important: Major revisions in many papers<br>2* Notable: Some sections reframed<br>1* Inconsequential: A sentence or two edited<\/p>&mdash; Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin) <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/ClimateOfGavin\/status\/1222680744134397953?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\">January 30, 2020<\/a><\/blockquote><script async src=\"https:\/\/platform.twitter.com\/widgets.js\" charset=\"utf-8\"><\/script>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p> <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Mike Mann has a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.michaelmann.net\/content\/story-about-%E2%80%98business-usual%E2%80%99-story-misleading\">short discussion<\/a> on this as well. But there are many different perspectives around &#8211; ranging from the merely posturing to the credible and constructive. The bigger questions are certainly worth discussing, but if the upshot of the current focus is that we just stop using the term &#8216;business-as-usual&#8217; (as was suggested in the last IPCC report), then that is fine with me, but just not very substantive.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p> <\/p>\n<h2>References<\/h2>\n    <ol>\n    <li><a name='ITEM-22975-0'><\/a>\nZ. Hausfather, and G.P. Peters, \"Emissions \u2013 the \u2018business as usual\u2019 story is misleading\", <i>Nature<\/i>, vol. 577, pp. 618-620, 2020. <a href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1038\/d41586-020-00177-3\">http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1038\/d41586-020-00177-3<\/a>\n\n\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n<\/div> <!-- kcite-section 22975 -->","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>How should we discuss scenarios of future emissions? What is the range of scenarios we should explore? These are constant issues in climate modeling and policy discussions, and need to be reassessed every few years as knowledge improves. I discussed some of this in a post on worst case scenarios a few months ago, but [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[41,5,1,35,23,38],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-22975","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-climate-impacts","7":"category-climate-modelling","8":"category-climate-science","9":"category-communicating-climate","10":"category-ipcc","11":"category-scientific-practice","12":"entry"},"aioseo_notices":[],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22975","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22975"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22975\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22977,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22975\/revisions\/22977"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22975"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22975"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22975"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}