humus wrote:ABC2019 wrote:So that's what I was saying, it's completely contradictory with the so-called "BAU" scenario adopted by the IPCC, on which most disaster scenarios are based. We can't have both collapse and continuous growth
To my knowledge, the IPCC uses RCP 8.5 as an upper limit and not as a reference.
the IPCC does not use either, since the scenarios were never said to be predictive or limiting. These are just examples of trajectories among an infinite number of others, that we have no reason to follow in particular, and it is not a lower or an upper bound either.
It is not the IPCC the problem, it is the media hysteria which is around which ended up considering that the worst case scenario retained was that which would happen "if we did nothing", (called BAU), whereas no one had ever said that to begin with.
This is an example of what is claimed to be "the discourse of scientists" and which is in fact a mythological discourse constructed from fantasies.
In RCP 8.5, emissions continue to increase throughout the 21st century. [13] Since AR5 this has been considered highly unlikely, but still possible as the feedbacks are not well understood. [16] RCP8.5, widely regarded as the basis for worst case climate change scenarios, was based on what turned out to be an overestimation of coal production projections. The RCP8.5 scenario can be relatively unlikely, with one report calling it "more and more implausible from year to year". [17] RCP8.5 remains useful for its ability to both track historical cumulative total CO 2 emissions and predict mid-century (and earlier) emissions based on current and reported policies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Represent ... on_Pathway
yeah blah blah blah, to try to twist to explain why we keep it when more and more people think it is implausible.
The problem is that without this scenario, a lot of catastrophic predictions fail, and that's not good for climate-business ....
ABC2019 wrote: Obviously we can do without them, I say that there is no solution to replace them while keeping a standard of living comparable to that currently, of course.
If you want to go back to the way of life of the first peoples, there is no longer a problem, apart from that of feeding 8 billion human beings of course. But hopefully you'll be in the right group.
The notion of cursor seems to escape you.
You only "reason" on 2 bounds: All or nothing.
Sounds like it suits you somewhere to be so cartoonish and lacking in finesse?
well no, in the end, it will be zero fossils, moreover otherwise I do not see how we would stabilize the CO2. Finally can be just what we can sequester, that is to say nothing for the moment.
You have to land a bit, and look at the figures a bit before talking about it! well it's progress, you've already seen the RCP 8.5 scenario on wikipedia, something that you had obviously never looked at until now ....