I think you missed Prof X's lecture where we were taught mind control. It was immediately after the one where we learned to control hurricanes. In fairness, calling 1.6C-peak pathways 1.5C is a jedi mind trick, but the essay would read differently if it had to denote how much overshoot it means.
Art. 4 refers to *emissions* peaking, and strictly indicates net 0 GHG emissions, whereas strong overshoot requires negative net GHG. You can get weak overshoot in pathways without net negative GHG because the methane warming decreases over time, but not that much!
Our poster is correct and we can't control what other people say!
Thanks!
As with any active field of research, there are disagreements between experts. There are questions about whether the trend in the last few years are robust, though the decadal trends are clear (post-2000 definitely faster than 1980-2000). But the literal measured warming is higher now than before.
Hi, I'm a climate scientist researching things like temperature and human emissions, e.g. calculating remaining carbon budgets or converting between government targets and temperature goals. profiles.imperial.ac.uk/r.lambollscholar.google.com/citations?us...
Hi, professional scientist, even if I rarely use 🧪! www.imperial.ac.uk/people/r.lam...
Oh, there are different versions but it usually defined as the average over 20 or 30 years, or a way to estimate this without waiting so long.
In other words, choosing not to reduce CH4 emissions will cause 1.5 °C compatible carbon budgets to be exhausted as of today, also 1.7°C budgets will be strongly depleted. (end) Read all the details in our open access publication: www.nature.com/articles/s43...