Talk:Climate change mitigation scenarios

Is Cloud reflectivity modification part of any of these scenarios?

Is Cloud reflectivity modification part of any of these scenarios? 99.52.150.169 (talk) 07:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Add? Climate crunch: A burden beyond bearing from Nature (journal)

"Climate crunch: A burden beyond bearing" The climate situation may be even worse than you think. In the first of three features, Richard Monastersky looks at evidence that keeping carbon dioxide beneath dangerous levels is tougher than previously thought. 99.190.89.224 (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably better at Tipping point (climatology). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the wind-water-solar carbon projection?

In Jacobson, M.Z. (2009) "Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security" Energy and Environmental Science 2:148-73 doi 10.1039/b809990c and Jacobson, M.Z. and Delucchi, M.A. (November 2009) "A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables" (originally published as "A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030") Scientific American 301(5):58-65 what is the projected atmospheric carbon over time for their preferred wind-water-solar program? What year do they start subtracting carbon and when do they reach 350 ppm?

Based on the greater activity at WP:RDS I asked there, too.

I like that they cover the worst-case scenarios:

"Because the production of nuclear weapons material is occurring only in countries that have developed civilian nuclear energy programs, the risk of a limited nuclear exchange between countries or the detonation of a nuclear device by terrorists has increased due to the dissemination of nuclear energy facilities worldwide. As such, it is a valid exercise to estimate the potential number of immediate deaths and carbon emissions due to the burning of buildings and infrastructure associated with the proliferation of nuclear energy facilities and the resulting proliferation of nuclear weapons."

Scary though. Why Other (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Per Dr. Jacobson, this is related to Eqn. 3 in http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/fossil/ClimRespUpdJGR%201.pdf

"[calculate] the time-dependent change in CO2 mixing ratio from a given anthropogenic emission rate, [and with that] the time-dependent difference in mixing ratio resulting from two different emission levels by subtracting results from the equation solved twice. Note that chi in the equation is the anthropogenic portion of the mixing ratio (this is explained in the text) and units of E need to be converted to mixing ratio. The conversion is given in the paper."

Why Other (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to ask about this at WP:RDS, here (now archived), here, and here. Why Other (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Add some reference to geoengineering ?

Add some reference to geoengineering ? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It is in See also, but just the word linked. 99.181.150.162 (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not add Sustainability and environmental management, Environmental management, Planetary management, or Portal:Global warming links?

• Sustainability and environmental management
• Portal:Global warming
• Environmental management
• Planetary management —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.255.78.138 (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Global warming portal

is there, for what ever that is worth. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"Preindustrial" refers to pre-Industrial Revolution, as in pre-Industrial society for example.

"Preindustrial" refers to pre-Industrial Revolution, as in pre-Industrial society for example. 99.19.42.239 (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I might believe preindustrial society. "Pre-industrial revolution" would require a specific source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What other Industrial makes any sense besides the Industrial Revolution? 99.181.141.126 (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Add wikilinks: Effects of climate change on humans, Extinction risk from global warming and Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth #Climate change and global warming.

Add wikilinks ...

• Effects of climate change on humans
• Extinction risk from global warming
• Risks to civilization from climate change global warming 99.181.130.163 (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Why? That last is particularly questionable, being a pipe, but they all seem to connect to this subject only through global warming. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Include Planetary boundaries ...

Johan Rockström, director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre states 350 ppm is one of the Planetary boundaries for CO₂ in the atmosphere. 99.181.128.190 (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No reason for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

References

Arthur please stop being silly, this clearly has relevance to the 350 ppm section, overtly stated.

Johan Rockström, director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre states 350 ppm is one of the Planetary boundaries for CO₂ in the atmosphere. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

References

Resource ... 112 Countries for 350 ppm / 1.5 C

Countries for 350 ppm / 1.5 C ... Association of Small Island States (AOSIS 39 countries) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs 49 total, 8 are AOSIS members) + Latin America (8 Countries) + Climate Vulnerable Forum (3 Countries) + COP 15 in Copenhagen (13 additional countries) = Total: 112 Countries, from 350.org. 99.109.124.5 (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Please reference multiple sources. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There are 193 United Nations (UN) member states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.139.223 (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

112/193 = 0.58 = 58 % Over half support 350 ppm. 99.119.128.119 (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is this currently being removed?

Johan Rockström, in a 2009 report, states 350 ppm is one of the planetary boundaries for CO₂ in the atmosphere.

141.218.36.152 (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Edit summaries given for deletion ...

• "No relevance to the first paragraph whatsoever. A target might be relevant, but not the general concept of targets."
• "No mitigation scenarios mentioned in that article"
• "Irrelevant; not referring to "mitigation"."

141.218.36.152 (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The concept of planetary boundaries is not relevant to the target. And I said a target might be relevant, not that it would necessarily be relevant. My other comments are still clearly accurate; there are no mitigation scenarios mentioned in Planetary Boundaries. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be on a tangent. 350 ppm is a target and a subsection of a list of scenarios (other ppm). Johan Rockström' group falls in the 350 ppm scenarios subsection. 141.218.36.152 (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, as long as Planetary Boundaries is not linked, but is explained. (In fact, that entire section might be spun off into an article 350 ppm, with the links summarized here.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason not to wikilink Planetary Boundaries as that is the source of the 350 ppm connection. There also is no reason to "spin-off" 350 ppm as it would lessen the list. This article isn't even long. 141.218.36.152 (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That's funny. I see no reason to wikilink Planetary Boundaries. And the reason for spinning of 350 ppm is not because it's long, but so that 350.org has an article to refer to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep Planetary boundaries, but reword sentence?

Here is the reference so it is easier to see ...

Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin III FS, Lambin EF, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sörlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen P and Foley JA (2009) "Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity" Ecology and Society, 14(2): 32.

See parallel on Talk:Planetary boundaries#Add 350 ppm planetary boundary to Climate change mitigation scenarios 99.56.123.120 (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

References

Target levels of CO2

What does that have to do with this article? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Climate change mitigation scenarios. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100329041043/http://www.brookings.edu/experts/morrisa.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/experts/morrisa.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Climate change mitigation scenarios. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100429214836/http://environment.umn.edu/about/people.html to http://environment.umn.edu/about/people.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ucsusa.wsm.ga3.org/ssi/archive/ucs-review-for-alternative-scenario.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130416054856/http://www.willstegerfoundation.org/index.php/policy to http://www.willstegerfoundation.org/index.php/policy
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091107170518/http://greenbuilders.ning.com/profiles/blogs/bianca-jagger-speech to http://greenbuilders.ning.com/profiles/blogs/bianca-jagger-speech

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge to climate change scenario

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

---

I am proposing to merge this article to climate change scenario. It is small, rather outdated and it would be too much effort to maintain and update both of these scenario articles. Ping Femkemilene EMsmile (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support - the two topics are almost the same. You design climate change scenarios because you want to study mitigation. Femke (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.