Great. None of those were remotely plausible. The most confusing thing is they are often used as the standard scenario in papers and leads to people feeling they have to prepare for a climate that can never happen.
As that article says the high and medum scenarios are also very implausible. Between low and very low.
End of century averages for 2081 to 2100:
High 3 C
Medium 2.5 C
[Both basically require reversing the renewables revolution significantly somehow]
Low 1.7 C
Very low 1.4 C
The substack argues that Medium is far too high above anything possible with current policies to count as current policies.
It could do with being more compressed, say High as 2.5 C, Medium 2 C, Low 1.7 C, very low 1.4 C
Low corresponds to our situation before the triple renewables pledge, just the net zero pledges, when we already know we are even ahead of the curve for triple renewables to some extent.
BLOG: We are ahead of target for 1.5 C with the COP28 triple renewables pledge
— media and academics lag far behind what’s happening in the real world when they claim we are headed for 2.6 C
You can read it here:
https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/world-is-overachieving-for-15-c-with
But there was a motivation before for the RCP 8.5 even when it was totally unrealistic - that it gives a way to study scenarios where the effects are more noticeable in the models than more realistic scenarios.
Perhaps that can be a motivation for the High and Medium scenarios.
Anyway good to hear they are considering more relevant scenarios for AR7 🙂
