3 ms·
From the article : "For instance, O’Neill and colleagues find that “many studies” use scenarios that are “unlikely.” In fact, in their literature review such “
by sien 6y ago
From the article :
"For instance, O’Neill and colleagues find that “many studies” use scenarios that are “unlikely.” In fact, in their literature review such “unlikely” scenarios comprise more than 20% of all scenario applications from 2014 to 2019. They also call for “re-examining the assumptions underlying” the high-end emissions scenarios that are favored in physical climate research, impact studies and economic and policy analyses. As a result of such high prevalence of such studies in the literature, they are also the most commonly cited within scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. O’Neill and colleagues find that the highest emission scenarios comprise about 30% of all applications in studies over the past five years, from a family of 35 different scenarios that they surveyed."
- adgjlsfhk1 6y agoThis sounds like good science being done. When you are trying to predict something like carbon emissions, standard practice is to run a few different scenarios. If you run 5 models, one with predicted CO2, and the others with higher and lower values, of course some of your scenarios will be unlikely. You're doing that on purpose so that you have a ability to see how wide the range of possible results is even with uncertainty in CO2.
- sien 6y agoFrom the article: "Correspondingly, the authors “recommend establishing a process for regular updates” to the scenarios and recommend that key variables in the scenarios “be updated now to be consistent with new historical data.”" So the author is explicitly saying different scenarios should be used, just that they should be updated regularly.