Follow the money. RCP 8.5 is sciencey sounding magical thinking that yields great power, resulting in money to the magicians promoting it. You, like your father before you, keep offering reason and integrity to an industry that cares only about the money that flows from power.
Although the IPCC shows that atmospheric CO2 is "forever," IPCC SPM projections are all now only to 2100. From the IPCC RCP scenarios the world is tracking closest to the worst case scenario (RCP8.5). On this scenario the IPCC 1.5°C Report projects 1.5°C by 2035 and 2°C by 2047. The greatest risk to the future of humanity and most life is multiple inter-reinforcing amplifying feedbacks that lead to hothouse Earth and on to runaway. The evidence for multiple Arctic feedback emissions and Amazon die-back can be found in the IPCC 2014 5th assessment. This reinforces the imperative requiring immediate and rapid global emissions decline.
This figure shows observed and projected impacts of excess heat on emergency room visits in Rhode Island via three graphs. On the left, maximum daily temperatures in the summer have trended upwards over the last 60 years. In the center, data shows that heat-related ER visits rose sharply as maximum daily temperatures climbed above 80°F. On the right, with continued climate change, Rhode Islanders could experience an additional 400 (6.8% more) heat-related ER visits each year by 2050 and up to an additional 1,500 (24.4% more) such visits each year by 2095 under the higher scenario (RCP8.5).
By the late 21st century, if emissions of heat-trapping gases continue increasing, most Southeast counties are projected to experience economic damages from climate change. Colors show annual economic damages projected for 2080–2099 under RCP8.5, expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product for each county in the Southeast. Data from Hsiang, Kopp, Jina, Rising, et al. (2017). Click on the image for a larger view and credit information.
On average, the state is expected to experience an increase of 5.9°F (3.3°C) in average annual
temperature by mid-century under the RCP8.5 scenario. The effect of these increasing average temperatures will be felt throughout the Commonwealth and across sectors. In particular,
human health, winter recreation and tourism, and forests, ecosystems, and wildlife are expected to face higher levels of risk. The occurrence of heat-related illness and death is projected to increase. Outdoor recreation that relies on snow and ice may no longer be possible after midcentury, though would likely be replaced by other forms of recreation. Species may experience range shifts or even local extirpation due to sensitivity to temperature and a decrease in suitable habitat
Here is a good explanation for what they are up to. And Climate Change is one of the fake justifications they are using to impose it.:
Who’s Behind the Plot to Push Farmers Off Their Land?
"...As small and mid-sized farms close their doors, governments and corporate entities can scoop up the land — is it all part of Agenda 2030 and the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals?..."
Who’s Running the World? 8 Takeaways From This Week’s WEF Meeting
"...As the World Economic Forum today wrapped up its week long annual meeting of nearly 3,000 political, business, media and academic elites, The Defender identified eight key takeaways based on news reports and comments by participants and attendees..."
In the scenario literature, the plausibility of some scenarios with high CO2 emissions,
such as RCP8.5 or SSP5-8.5, has been debated in light of recent developments in the
energy sector. However, climate projections from these scenarios can still be valuable
because the concentration levels reached in RCP8.5 or SSP5-8.5 and corresponding
simulated climate futures cannot be ruled out.9
RCP8.5 may most accurately reflect near-term risk because it closely follows historical emissions but represents an upper-bound/ high-consequence future for the end of the century.
Recognizing that global warming caused by human activity that increases emissions of greenhouse gases has resulted in a climate and ecological emergency.
WHEREAS, a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science determined that the "worst-case" climate model of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, known as RCP8.5, was the "most useful choice" for government planning in the period leading up to 2050; and
WHEREAS, the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season was the fifth above-average season in a row for storm activity and was the most volatile hurricane season on record, with 30 named storms, a number that is two-and-a-half times the seasonal average; and
WHEREAS, in January 2020, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Centers for Environmental Information reported that 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 were the five hottest years on record and that 2019 was the forty-third consecutive year with global land and ocean temperatures above average; and
WHEREAS, in January 2020, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.....
RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring, That the General Assembly recognize that global warming caused by human activity that increases emissions of greenhouse gases has resulted in a climate and ecological emergency. Such global warming severely and urgently affects the environment, economy, and security of Virginia, and the social well-being, health, and safety of Virginians, and demands an immediate social, technological, and economic mobilization of the resources and labor of Virginia at a massive scale to halt, mitigate, reverse, and prepare for the consequences of the climate emergency and to restore the climate for future generations.
Yeah, that's why they have or are shutting down a dozen perfectly good Nuclear power plants and paying substantially more for idiotic wind, solar, hydrogen, agrofuel, ITER, CCS, biomass burning scams that do zip to reduce emissions. When the only success they have really had is Nuclear + Coal --> Gas. That makes perfect sense.
I am currently at the World Forum on Urban Forests where a talk is scheduled to be presented (I have heard it before) that makes recommendations for "tree species for the future." Their model uses RCP8.5 to *predict* future temperatures in California cities, then makes tree species recommendations assuming that this new climate will appear. When I first heard this work presented, I questioned their choice of RCP8.5 and was told, with condescension, that this is the scenario we can expect to happen if changes aren't made.
When I pointed out that RCP8.5 was barely possible, let alone plausible enough to base important decisions on, they nearly rolled their eyes, but suggested that they might possibly conduct a sensitivity analysis to see how important the choice of scenario is.
All of these models are fatally flawed by assuming that more CO2 could and would increase energy absorption from earth radiance.
Two simple facts that have never been publicised.
1. Neither IPCC or anyone else has put forward a proof that this assumption is true. Why not? perhaps because it is not true.
2. The 1991 NASA study of atmospheric absorption/transmission of Infr-red shows that the only important absorption is the 15 micron band is effectively opaque at the present levels of CO2. Although hidden from the public, the data was given to the NASA Infra-red Astronomy program. Thus it has been rigourously test and shown to be sound.
The effective width of this band is 14-16microns, being the 15 micron absorption point widened byThe doppler effect. This is related to molecular velocities, so is not changed by adding CO2.
So the climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero and all the models are based on a false hypothesis.
Perhaps we should spend 1% of the war on carbon on finding the real cause, if any.
I am a retired PhD engineer with no ties to either side. Just on the side of truth and the scientific method.
I happen to have read the original '97% consensus' paper. The consensus tested for agreement that A) Temperatures have warmed and B) Humans have had some effect on that
This paper literally included such skeptics as Richard Lindzen as part of the consensus. Possibly Judy Curry. Because they are, based on those definitions. Do you think Lindzen missed these basic facts when he estimated the doubling effect of CO2 to be about .8 degrees of warming?
Are you sure you disagree with even the skeptics?
And do you think people who think they're in an apocalypse will listen to your claim that no warming effect exists, at all?
First, I never claimed that no warming effect exists, only that no warming from CO2 addition exists.
The people who treat CO2 global warming as a religion will never be convinced otherwise. It is said that one can not convince someone with facts, whose belief is not founded on facts.
I do not believe in science by vote. Nor did Einstein.
Remember the original source of the 97% figure was a student. He sent thousands of postcards out to people who had written something in a climat journal. Of the replies, he than picked out the 57 "wise Men" who had written the most. the result was 55 for and 2 against=96.5% or 97. A lesson inhow not to conduct a survey.
Whether global temperature has increased beyond normal and by how much is beyond me.
I think Lindzen was writing before the NASA data was available. As to no proof proffered that CO2 is the culprit, I have never seen it mentioned in a public article, nor even discussed. So, yes, I believe that most likely Lindzen had never become conscious of this fact.
Lindzen calculations start by assuming that more co2 will have an effect. The unproven assumption underlying all the models.
This is the tragedy of the malfesance of the NASA high officer who kept it hidden for 30 years. The whole war on carbon would never have gotten started.
The NASA data is now available on Kindle or in vast detail in NASA Technical Memorandum 103957, Appendices E and F. The useful parts are shown and discussed in my booklet on Kindle "Carbon Dioxide-Not Guilty" for 99c. Or free if you send me an email address. Bobhisey@comcast.net
Obviously they could care less about Climate Change or CO2. What they care about is UN Agenda 2030, global governance, impoverishment of the 99%, a feudal society, run by an elite class.
The RCP pathways are defined in terms of radiative forcing. Is there an accepted table of equivalent CO2 emissions? The AR5 chart is hard to read but for 2050 emissions levels RCP4.5 appears to be about 40 GtCO2/yr, RCP6.0 45 GtCO2 /yr and RCP2.6 down at 20 GtCO2 / yr
The IEA 2023 energy Outlook has 2022 emissions at 35.7 GtCO2 / yr rising to 35 - 48 GtCO2 /yr by 2050 depending on scenario.
It is clear that RCP8.5 is unrealistically high at 100 GtCO2 by 2050 so roughly 2.5 the IEA's projected range, but it is hard to differentiate RCP4.5 and RCP 6.0 whilst RCP2.6 looks unrealistically low at 20 GtCO2 / yr.
Do you believe Government Net Zero commitments, Mark Jacobson's 100% renewables and batteries PV , or do you think the road to NetZero will hit some resistance. I'm just looking for some alternate projections. So let's look at the BP 2023 Energy Outlook.
Their current trajectory for CO2 emissions (called New Momentum) projects a decline from 2019 emissions of 39.8 GtCO2 in 2019 to 28.7 GtCO2 by 2050. So in line with Roger's narrative that we are on a RCP4.5 to RCP2.6 trajectory not all the way to NetZero.
They have a 2nd trajectory called "Accelerated" which assumes increased decarbonization reaching 75% reductions in 2050, at 9.1 GtCO2 in 2050.
And of course there is the NetZero scenario getting down to 2.0 GtCO2 in 2050 more than offset by 6 GtCO2 of CCS.
"Net zero" is the equivalent of Calvin's theocratic rule of Geneva imposing his unobtainable and dystopian version of utopia. "Net zero" is anti-scientific and not surprisingly, anti-human.
Lastly I have looked at the IEA's 2022 World Energy Outlook rather than their NetZero pathways. This is again more optimistic than the EIA forecast for emissions reductions and supports Roger's forecast of a trend between RCP2.6 and RCP4.5. The 2022 report takes account of both sanctions on Russian oil and the US so called Inflation Reduction Act.
This is what they have to say...
STEPS is Stated Policy Scenario
APS is Announced Pledges Scenario.
Energy‐related CO2 emissions rebounded to 36.6 Gt in 2021, the largest ever annual rise in emissions. In the STEPS, they reach a plateau around 37 Gt before falling slowly to 32 Gt in 2050, a trajectory that would lead to a 2.5 °C rise in global average temperatures by 2100. This is around 1 °C lower than implied by the baseline trajectory prior to the Paris Agreement, indicating the progress that has been made since then. But much more needs to be done. In the APS, emissions peak in the mid‐2020s and fall to 12 Gt in 2050, resulting in a projected global median temperature rise in 2100 of 1.7 °C. In the Net Zero Emissions by 2050 (NZE) Scenario, CO2 emissions fall to 23 Gt in 2030 and to zero in 2050, a trajectory consistent with limiting the temperature increase to less than 1.5 °C in 2100.
Not sure what we agree on, i don't think CO2 emissions are a problem of any sort, all of the evidence to date is they are a net benefit. If they do actually help us get back to the world temp of 1000 years ago, or even better the higher temps of 2000 years ago, im all in with that.
Reading history shows that colder always means civilizational collapse, warmer means thriving civilization.
We might already be back to the Roman Climate Optimum, but that wasn't with high CO2 concentrations, and you can argue that CO2 emissions help us we avoid the onset of a real ice age. Do you have a preferred level of CO2 in the atmosphere? Does 650 ppm sound good (RCP4.5), or maybe 850 ppm (RCP6.0)?
It might be getting a bit stuffy over 2,000ppm.
BTW the Romans were rich, but sick. The average male height was under 5 ft 5in, average heights increased about 3 inches after the fall of Rome.
One fundamental problem with RCP8.5 is that it is based on a population of 12 billion in 2100. Current estimates are that the Earth will have no larger than the 2023 population of 8 billion and would be lower if the fertility rates continue to drop.
"One aspect of the IPCC that is not widely appreciated — and is sometimes outright denied — is that the organization oversaw and directed the creation of the scenarios that underpin much of climate research. The IPCC thus served not simply as an assessor of the scientific literature, but also a coordinator and director of the research that it assesses."
You could rewrite that sentence replacing IPCC with Anthony Fauci and "scenarios" with GoF research and get the same result.
People pretending they had nothing to do with something claiming it is independent verification of their own position, smiling innocuously all the time.
Such interesting times, here in the censorship industrial complex.
I do not at all mind being called a political scientist. It is not how I present myself (political scientists wouldn't like that!) but I do have a PhD in political science. Being (one of?) the only poli sci PhD who routinely publishes in the climate science literature and cited by all 3 IPCC WGs is not really the diss they think it is ;-)
I'm crushed and heartbroken to find out i have been quoting "not a climate scientist".
However, as you can "read" and "think" and place one logical thought after another and not stampede off a cliff like a lemming (yes, another false thing), i will continue to quote you as a climate scientist.
I certainly appreciate your using the term error. It seems to me that is is a deliberate attempt to misguide the public. Factually it is a perfect example of misinformation certain people like to talk about when trying to quiet the criticism or real science. You walk a fine line. Thanks for doing it.
Follow the money. RCP 8.5 is sciencey sounding magical thinking that yields great power, resulting in money to the magicians promoting it. You, like your father before you, keep offering reason and integrity to an industry that cares only about the money that flows from power.
European Geosciences Union
https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU21/EGU21-6315.html
Although the IPCC shows that atmospheric CO2 is "forever," IPCC SPM projections are all now only to 2100. From the IPCC RCP scenarios the world is tracking closest to the worst case scenario (RCP8.5). On this scenario the IPCC 1.5°C Report projects 1.5°C by 2035 and 2°C by 2047. The greatest risk to the future of humanity and most life is multiple inter-reinforcing amplifying feedbacks that lead to hothouse Earth and on to runaway. The evidence for multiple Arctic feedback emissions and Amazon die-back can be found in the IPCC 2014 5th assessment. This reinforces the imperative requiring immediate and rapid global emissions decline.
https://toolkit.climate.gov/regions/northeast
Assessment for the NE Region
This figure shows observed and projected impacts of excess heat on emergency room visits in Rhode Island via three graphs. On the left, maximum daily temperatures in the summer have trended upwards over the last 60 years. In the center, data shows that heat-related ER visits rose sharply as maximum daily temperatures climbed above 80°F. On the right, with continued climate change, Rhode Islanders could experience an additional 400 (6.8% more) heat-related ER visits each year by 2050 and up to an additional 1,500 (24.4% more) such visits each year by 2095 under the higher scenario (RCP8.5).
https://toolkit.climate.gov/image/3052
From the US Climate Resilience Toolkit
By the late 21st century, if emissions of heat-trapping gases continue increasing, most Southeast counties are projected to experience economic damages from climate change. Colors show annual economic damages projected for 2080–2099 under RCP8.5, expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product for each county in the Southeast. Data from Hsiang, Kopp, Jina, Rising, et al. (2017). Click on the image for a larger view and credit information.
Pennsylvania Climate Impact Assessment...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://files.dep.state.pa.us/Energy/Office%2520of%2520Energy%2520and%2520Technology/OETDPortalFiles/Climate%2520Change%2520Advisory%2520Committee/2021/2-23-21/2021_Impacts_Assessment_Final_2-09-21_clean.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjrhMC2yf-BAxUlF1kFHYMtBCkQFnoECCAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw38DIy_2iCGjoUJv7f7bwQT
4.1 Increasing Average Temperatures
4.1.1 Overview
On average, the state is expected to experience an increase of 5.9°F (3.3°C) in average annual
temperature by mid-century under the RCP8.5 scenario. The effect of these increasing average temperatures will be felt throughout the Commonwealth and across sectors. In particular,
human health, winter recreation and tourism, and forests, ecosystems, and wildlife are expected to face higher levels of risk. The occurrence of heat-related illness and death is projected to increase. Outdoor recreation that relies on snow and ice may no longer be possible after midcentury, though would likely be replaced by other forms of recreation. Species may experience range shifts or even local extirpation due to sensitivity to temperature and a decrease in suitable habitat
Here is a good explanation for what they are up to. And Climate Change is one of the fake justifications they are using to impose it.:
Who’s Behind the Plot to Push Farmers Off Their Land?
"...As small and mid-sized farms close their doors, governments and corporate entities can scoop up the land — is it all part of Agenda 2030 and the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals?..."
By Dr. Joseph Mercola
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/un-agenda-remove-farmers-land-cola/?utm_source=luminate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20231016
Who’s Running the World? 8 Takeaways From This Week’s WEF Meeting
"...As the World Economic Forum today wrapped up its week long annual meeting of nearly 3,000 political, business, media and academic elites, The Defender identified eight key takeaways based on news reports and comments by participants and attendees..."
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/wef-meeting-davos-klaus-gates/
SELECTING CLIMATE INFORMATION TO USE IN CLIMATE RISK AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
White House guidelines.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Guide-on-Selecting-Climate-Information-to-Use-in-Climate-Risk-and-Impact-Assessments.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjtw6_00PuBAxWcElkFHSrWAEMQFnoECD0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3VFbTjaDIY3p0lNpxIyxYx
In the scenario literature, the plausibility of some scenarios with high CO2 emissions,
such as RCP8.5 or SSP5-8.5, has been debated in light of recent developments in the
energy sector. However, climate projections from these scenarios can still be valuable
because the concentration levels reached in RCP8.5 or SSP5-8.5 and corresponding
simulated climate futures cannot be ruled out.9
RCP8.5 may most accurately reflect near-term risk because it closely follows historical emissions but represents an upper-bound/ high-consequence future for the end of the century.
I could agree if it was the basis of a talking point but crazy energy policy is being force fed everyone based on this.
So no.
Roger called for crowd sourcing of evidence for government legislation based on RCP8.5.
I Googled Legislation "RCP8.5" and Virginia, Maryland, White House to quickly find 3 examples. It should be possible to find many more.
I think we are agreed that RCP8.5 is ridiculously high at 2.5 times even the IEA forecasts, and more than 3 times the BP 2023 base line projection.
The goal should be to get legislation to take account of more realistic forecasts for CO2 emissions.
Maryland study of sea level rise
Because greenhouse gas emissions are still increasing
close to the rate of the Growing Emissions pathway (RCP8.5), in planning
medium-term projects it would be prudent to use the upper end of the Likely
range in 2080 (3.1 feet) under low risk aversion and the 1% probability (4.7 feet)
under high risk aversion.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.umces.edu/sites/default/files/Sea-Level%2520Rise%2520Projections%2520for%2520Maryland%25202018_0.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjM5saLz_uBAxW5EVkFHUKhDhsQFnoECCwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1Frcutxt6VkP9C3Mh5TQOv
https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?211+ful+HJ559
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 559
Offered January 13, 2021
Prefiled January 12, 2021
Recognizing that global warming caused by human activity that increases emissions of greenhouse gases has resulted in a climate and ecological emergency.
----------
Patrons-- Guzman, Carter, Cole, J.G., Helmer, Hope, Keam, Kory, Levine, Lopez, Murphy, Plum, Samirah, Simon, Simonds, Subramanyam and Tran; Senators: Edwards and Marsden
----------
Referred to Committee on Rules
----------
WHEREAS, a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science determined that the "worst-case" climate model of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, known as RCP8.5, was the "most useful choice" for government planning in the period leading up to 2050; and
WHEREAS, the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season was the fifth above-average season in a row for storm activity and was the most volatile hurricane season on record, with 30 named storms, a number that is two-and-a-half times the seasonal average; and
WHEREAS, in January 2020, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Centers for Environmental Information reported that 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 were the five hottest years on record and that 2019 was the forty-third consecutive year with global land and ocean temperatures above average; and
WHEREAS, in January 2020, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.....
RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring, That the General Assembly recognize that global warming caused by human activity that increases emissions of greenhouse gases has resulted in a climate and ecological emergency. Such global warming severely and urgently affects the environment, economy, and security of Virginia, and the social well-being, health, and safety of Virginians, and demands an immediate social, technological, and economic mobilization of the resources and labor of Virginia at a massive scale to halt, mitigate, reverse, and prepare for the consequences of the climate emergency and to restore the climate for future generations.
Yeah, that's why they have or are shutting down a dozen perfectly good Nuclear power plants and paying substantially more for idiotic wind, solar, hydrogen, agrofuel, ITER, CCS, biomass burning scams that do zip to reduce emissions. When the only success they have really had is Nuclear + Coal --> Gas. That makes perfect sense.
RCP8.5 in urban forestry policy:
I am currently at the World Forum on Urban Forests where a talk is scheduled to be presented (I have heard it before) that makes recommendations for "tree species for the future." Their model uses RCP8.5 to *predict* future temperatures in California cities, then makes tree species recommendations assuming that this new climate will appear. When I first heard this work presented, I questioned their choice of RCP8.5 and was told, with condescension, that this is the scenario we can expect to happen if changes aren't made.
When I pointed out that RCP8.5 was barely possible, let alone plausible enough to base important decisions on, they nearly rolled their eyes, but suggested that they might possibly conduct a sensitivity analysis to see how important the choice of scenario is.
All of these models are fatally flawed by assuming that more CO2 could and would increase energy absorption from earth radiance.
Two simple facts that have never been publicised.
1. Neither IPCC or anyone else has put forward a proof that this assumption is true. Why not? perhaps because it is not true.
2. The 1991 NASA study of atmospheric absorption/transmission of Infr-red shows that the only important absorption is the 15 micron band is effectively opaque at the present levels of CO2. Although hidden from the public, the data was given to the NASA Infra-red Astronomy program. Thus it has been rigourously test and shown to be sound.
The effective width of this band is 14-16microns, being the 15 micron absorption point widened byThe doppler effect. This is related to molecular velocities, so is not changed by adding CO2.
So the climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero and all the models are based on a false hypothesis.
Perhaps we should spend 1% of the war on carbon on finding the real cause, if any.
I am a retired PhD engineer with no ties to either side. Just on the side of truth and the scientific method.
I happen to have read the original '97% consensus' paper. The consensus tested for agreement that A) Temperatures have warmed and B) Humans have had some effect on that
This paper literally included such skeptics as Richard Lindzen as part of the consensus. Possibly Judy Curry. Because they are, based on those definitions. Do you think Lindzen missed these basic facts when he estimated the doubling effect of CO2 to be about .8 degrees of warming?
Are you sure you disagree with even the skeptics?
And do you think people who think they're in an apocalypse will listen to your claim that no warming effect exists, at all?
First, I never claimed that no warming effect exists, only that no warming from CO2 addition exists.
The people who treat CO2 global warming as a religion will never be convinced otherwise. It is said that one can not convince someone with facts, whose belief is not founded on facts.
I do not believe in science by vote. Nor did Einstein.
Remember the original source of the 97% figure was a student. He sent thousands of postcards out to people who had written something in a climat journal. Of the replies, he than picked out the 57 "wise Men" who had written the most. the result was 55 for and 2 against=96.5% or 97. A lesson inhow not to conduct a survey.
Whether global temperature has increased beyond normal and by how much is beyond me.
I think Lindzen was writing before the NASA data was available. As to no proof proffered that CO2 is the culprit, I have never seen it mentioned in a public article, nor even discussed. So, yes, I believe that most likely Lindzen had never become conscious of this fact.
Lindzen calculations start by assuming that more co2 will have an effect. The unproven assumption underlying all the models.
This is the tragedy of the malfesance of the NASA high officer who kept it hidden for 30 years. The whole war on carbon would never have gotten started.
The NASA data is now available on Kindle or in vast detail in NASA Technical Memorandum 103957, Appendices E and F. The useful parts are shown and discussed in my booklet on Kindle "Carbon Dioxide-Not Guilty" for 99c. Or free if you send me an email address. Bobhisey@comcast.net
Obviously they could care less about Climate Change or CO2. What they care about is UN Agenda 2030, global governance, impoverishment of the 99%, a feudal society, run by an elite class.
The RCP pathways are defined in terms of radiative forcing. Is there an accepted table of equivalent CO2 emissions? The AR5 chart is hard to read but for 2050 emissions levels RCP4.5 appears to be about 40 GtCO2/yr, RCP6.0 45 GtCO2 /yr and RCP2.6 down at 20 GtCO2 / yr
The IEA 2023 energy Outlook has 2022 emissions at 35.7 GtCO2 / yr rising to 35 - 48 GtCO2 /yr by 2050 depending on scenario.
It is clear that RCP8.5 is unrealistically high at 100 GtCO2 by 2050 so roughly 2.5 the IEA's projected range, but it is hard to differentiate RCP4.5 and RCP 6.0 whilst RCP2.6 looks unrealistically low at 20 GtCO2 / yr.
See our paper:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abcdd2
You sure seem to love those IEA numbers?
Do you believe Government Net Zero commitments, Mark Jacobson's 100% renewables and batteries PV , or do you think the road to NetZero will hit some resistance. I'm just looking for some alternate projections. So let's look at the BP 2023 Energy Outlook.
Their current trajectory for CO2 emissions (called New Momentum) projects a decline from 2019 emissions of 39.8 GtCO2 in 2019 to 28.7 GtCO2 by 2050. So in line with Roger's narrative that we are on a RCP4.5 to RCP2.6 trajectory not all the way to NetZero.
They have a 2nd trajectory called "Accelerated" which assumes increased decarbonization reaching 75% reductions in 2050, at 9.1 GtCO2 in 2050.
And of course there is the NetZero scenario getting down to 2.0 GtCO2 in 2050 more than offset by 6 GtCO2 of CCS.
"Net zero" is the equivalent of Calvin's theocratic rule of Geneva imposing his unobtainable and dystopian version of utopia. "Net zero" is anti-scientific and not surprisingly, anti-human.
I do not believe govt net zero targets nor do I believe there is any need for them.
Jacobson is a loony tunes
So we agree.
Lastly I have looked at the IEA's 2022 World Energy Outlook rather than their NetZero pathways. This is again more optimistic than the EIA forecast for emissions reductions and supports Roger's forecast of a trend between RCP2.6 and RCP4.5. The 2022 report takes account of both sanctions on Russian oil and the US so called Inflation Reduction Act.
This is what they have to say...
STEPS is Stated Policy Scenario
APS is Announced Pledges Scenario.
Energy‐related CO2 emissions rebounded to 36.6 Gt in 2021, the largest ever annual rise in emissions. In the STEPS, they reach a plateau around 37 Gt before falling slowly to 32 Gt in 2050, a trajectory that would lead to a 2.5 °C rise in global average temperatures by 2100. This is around 1 °C lower than implied by the baseline trajectory prior to the Paris Agreement, indicating the progress that has been made since then. But much more needs to be done. In the APS, emissions peak in the mid‐2020s and fall to 12 Gt in 2050, resulting in a projected global median temperature rise in 2100 of 1.7 °C. In the Net Zero Emissions by 2050 (NZE) Scenario, CO2 emissions fall to 23 Gt in 2030 and to zero in 2050, a trajectory consistent with limiting the temperature increase to less than 1.5 °C in 2100.
Not sure what we agree on, i don't think CO2 emissions are a problem of any sort, all of the evidence to date is they are a net benefit. If they do actually help us get back to the world temp of 1000 years ago, or even better the higher temps of 2000 years ago, im all in with that.
Reading history shows that colder always means civilizational collapse, warmer means thriving civilization.
If you want 1 to 1 correlation, there it is.
https://climateaudit.org/2014/10/28/warmest-since-uh-the-medieval-warm-period/
We might already be back to the Roman Climate Optimum, but that wasn't with high CO2 concentrations, and you can argue that CO2 emissions help us we avoid the onset of a real ice age. Do you have a preferred level of CO2 in the atmosphere? Does 650 ppm sound good (RCP4.5), or maybe 850 ppm (RCP6.0)?
It might be getting a bit stuffy over 2,000ppm.
BTW the Romans were rich, but sick. The average male height was under 5 ft 5in, average heights increased about 3 inches after the fall of Rome.
One fundamental problem with RCP8.5 is that it is based on a population of 12 billion in 2100. Current estimates are that the Earth will have no larger than the 2023 population of 8 billion and would be lower if the fertility rates continue to drop.
Another thought;
"One aspect of the IPCC that is not widely appreciated — and is sometimes outright denied — is that the organization oversaw and directed the creation of the scenarios that underpin much of climate research. The IPCC thus served not simply as an assessor of the scientific literature, but also a coordinator and director of the research that it assesses."
You could rewrite that sentence replacing IPCC with Anthony Fauci and "scenarios" with GoF research and get the same result.
People pretending they had nothing to do with something claiming it is independent verification of their own position, smiling innocuously all the time.
Such interesting times, here in the censorship industrial complex.
Indeed, IPCC/UN FUD, Fauci & Covid Tyranny, Bioweapon development all controlled by our Global Kleptocracy.
Hi Roger
I referenced your site in a discussion over at the financial post and the Climatism adherent referred to you as "a political scientist".
Curious to hear how you feel about that, you apparently have no background in climate science.
You are being erased.
Is this a new angle from Desmog? Is this from Piltdown Mann?
And Albert Einstein was just a patent clerk.
I do not at all mind being called a political scientist. It is not how I present myself (political scientists wouldn't like that!) but I do have a PhD in political science. Being (one of?) the only poli sci PhD who routinely publishes in the climate science literature and cited by all 3 IPCC WGs is not really the diss they think it is ;-)
Ah so you really are "not a climate scientist". Just like mathematician Gavin Schmidt.
Oh dear.
:-)
I'm crushed and heartbroken to find out i have been quoting "not a climate scientist".
However, as you can "read" and "think" and place one logical thought after another and not stampede off a cliff like a lemming (yes, another false thing), i will continue to quote you as a climate scientist.
A real one.
Ha!
Thanks ... this is a never ending debate
Some people assert that all experts across the three IPCC working groups are "climate scientists"
Some like to say only those with WG1 expertise
My work is cited in all 3 IPCC WGs
I do not characterize myself as a climate scientist
But I do have lots of deep climate expertise
People call me all sorts of things ;-)
Just remember the Jr.
I get it, you should see what people call me, good thing my mom passed.
Keep up the fight
We don't have to agree on everything, thats the way the world is supposed to work.
Thanks, and amen!
I certainly appreciate your using the term error. It seems to me that is is a deliberate attempt to misguide the public. Factually it is a perfect example of misinformation certain people like to talk about when trying to quiet the criticism or real science. You walk a fine line. Thanks for doing it.
Thanks
More on this today over at twitter/x
https://x.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1714326933423734818?s=20