aboodman / climate Goto Github PK

There are arguments that the IPCC reports are overly conservative. For example: What Lies Beneath: The Understatement of Existential Climate Risk.

It seems to me that the projected warming from the IPCC reports (and mainstream projections further back) have done OK overall. Here is a good analysis from Carbon Brief:

But the projections for sea-level rise have been low:

... as have the projections about artic sea ice loss.

• All the recent IPCC reports
• NOAA - GLOBAL AND REGIONAL SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIOS FOR THE UNITED STATES - NOAA's take on sea-level rise through end of century from a risk/engineering/practical POV
• The Eco-Modernist Manifesto
  • I'm nodding as hard as I can in agreement, but I don't get the point. This is ... just a PDF? What are the authors doing, or proposing to do, other than this?
• The Breakthrough Institute
• NuScale Small Modular Reactors
• Project Drawdown

• We are estimated to currently be at +1°C from pre-industrial levels (ipcc summary 2018)
• We are estimated to hit 1.5 between 2030 and 2052 on current trajectory (ipcc summary 2018)
• We are estimated to hit 4 by end of current century, assuming current commitments are met (ipcc data)
  • Some estimates for end of century look a little lower, maybe 3.5
  • But some also more dire: "If the currently planned actions are not fully implemented, a warming of 4°C could occur as early as the 2060s. Such a warming level by 2100 would not be the end point: a further warming to levels over 6°C would likely occur over the following centuries.” (worldbank)
• If we somehow stopped emitting today, we’d probably still get pretty close to 1.5 (ipcc 2018)
• Even holding to 2 requires unprecedented global mobilization
• Realistically, 4 seems like the path we are currently on.

Summary of some key impacts from Carbon Brief:

Note that in all scenarios, sea-level rise is strongly delayed. Even with +1.5, total sea-level rise is projected to be 1.5 meters by 2300.

Basically looking for this chart:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/global_emissions_sector_2015.png (from here: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data)

... but in terms of CO2-equivalents (or is this chart already in CO2e?)

This is a bit of an ill-formed question I've had for a long time. It seems like in all other life forms, populations will grow until resources are exhausted, and then usually crash. Human population doesn't seem to be behaving this way. Is that true, and if so why?