Apologies. I guess I'm slightly confused as to the time period we are talking about? Before 2018 there were barely any demand scenarios. Post 2018 there have been way more - which the IMPs include. There's a big demand-specific project IAMs are doing now called EDITS
Yeah exactly. Would have been good if that had been done a decade ago. But academia moves so slowly
Absolutely agree with this. But it's moved on a lot. Most models like in NGFS have recently downgraded CCS assumptions substantially. Problem is that AR6 is so outdated already
And there was a strong emphasis on WG1 and WG3 using the same SSP/RCPs that allowed for consistency of scenario comparisons that meant less time was spent on working on endogenous or exogenous demand change
And to expand slightly: Even when I started working with IAMs in 2014, people like Charlie Wilson were involved for a bit already trying to improve demand-side aspects in projects.
The real reason is because they are detailed supply-side models and so that was what we knew best & could do quickly with limited funding
We didn't stop banging on and on about the potential risks of heavy reliance on NETs
As a 'mainstream climate scientist' I find this kind of article intensely annoying. First, the authors intended target (IAM scenario designers) is far smaller than 'mainstream climate science' & second, assuming that running a scenario implies you think it's likely or good or preferred is nonsense.
In which immutable atmospheric physics was sacrificed on the altars of diplomacy, industry, and "feasibility" by climate scientists who caved to fossil fuel lobbying pressure theconversation.com/how-mainstre...
Surpassing 1.5°C of warming can be undone at a later date – using tech, land and resources that don’t exist.
Yup. This is 100% my view. Fine to do it and even provide some help if for some industry e.g. cement. But it should be forced by regulation and paid for by record-profit-making oil & gas companies.