Revised data can cool climate debates
As the Northern Hemisphere summer approaches, parts of Europe and North America are seeing record-high temperatures. Yet as the mercury rises, an update on the worst-case scenario for global warming, calculated 15 years ago, shows that the forecast is no longer likely.聽
Known as RCP8.5, this 2011 projection was among many modeled at a time when greenhouse gas emissions had risen by 30% over the preceding decade. Today, RCP8.5 has 鈥渂ecome implausible,鈥� according to a study published in April. The reason? The worldwide advances in energy conservation and technologies, such as solar.
鈥淭he good news is that we did not follow the most dramatic emission pathway,鈥� Detlef van Vuuren, the study鈥檚 lead author, told The Associated Press. But, he cautioned, 鈥渢he risks of climate change have not disappeared.鈥澛�
Neither has the heated debate over the causes of global warming and how much of a threat it poses.聽
Referencing the study, U.S. President Donald Trump used strong language to claim that researchers had been wrong in their projections all along. Media attention to the issue picked up markedly after a mid-May social media post by the president.
But fanning the embers of the climate debate obscures larger lessons behind the retiring of the worst-case scenario. The move points to how governments, businesses, and individuals have adapted policies, products, and consumption habits.
It also highlights scientists鈥� continuing curiosity, pursuit of new and better data, and willingness to question and adjust working hypotheses. These aspects are key, given that the updated calibrations have also jettisoned the previous model鈥檚 best-case scenario as no longer attainable by 2100.聽
The complexities of climate research hint at a need for more nuance and balance in the sharing and reporting of emerging findings. As The New York Times noted in May, the RCP8.5 estimates of damage, even though now less likely, tended to be 鈥渁 big focus and got more attention.鈥澛�
The new study, the Times said, 鈥渉as raised questions about whether some of the risks of climate change have been poorly communicated or overstated in years past and how best to think about those risks going forward.鈥澛�
To Andrew King, a University of Melbourne scientist and one of the study鈥檚 more than 40 co-authors, updating the scenarios does not imply 鈥渇ailed modelling鈥� or a climate hoax. He underscores the need to revisit assumptions and changing circumstances (such as rates of renewable energy usage), while using continually improving climate models.
The best view of the new updates is that they increase knowledge and understanding, and provide a hopeful opening for heated debate to be replaced with respect and reason. In turn, that can fuel the expectation of finding solutions to the climate challenge.
