Roger, you may be interested to know that here in New Zealand we have a report of a mainstream, experienced, IPCC lead author scientist openly acknowledging that RCP 8.5 is not widely believed - or to use his words it's a 'scenario nobody really believes."
1) Is it possible to get acceptance in the climate science community that RCP8.5 is implausible based on any reasonable projections of Global GDP, decarbonization, carbon free energy technology trends, use of Nuclear to create energy independence from Russia, Middle East, and limits of fossil fuel reserves.
2) create realistic projections for CO2 emissions around expecteded forecasts for energy and energy mix.
3) build a body of impact assessments around realistic forecasts for C02 emissions.
What would the climate impacts look like in i) a NetZero world ii) a realistic emissions world iii) a slow decarbonization world?
So, when we review the "scientific" terms Hausfather used in a recent interview, "Staggering. Unnerving. Mind-boggling. Absolutely gobsmackingly bananas”;
Can we assume his people are telling him he's not getting enough exposure for his career path, Piltdown Mann is getting all the press adulation, is this his attempt to make him more relevant in alarmist circles?
A simple "Business as usual" scenario, compounding the current growth of the use of fossil fuels (+0,70% per year over the past 5 years), results in 2100 with:
83 % of all proved fossil reserves consumed (that would have needed to be put in production).
664 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere (currently, 45% of the emitted carbon accumulates in the air).
4.62 W/m2 primary radiative forcing over beginning of the industrial era (Myhre equation).
When considering future warming, emissions trajectory is a key variable but so is climate sensitivity. One argument I have heard is that, since the ECS and TCS have a fair amount of uncertainty, we could see impacts akin to these high emissions scenarios even if the level of emissions is much lower than RCP8.5 assumes.
Would be interested if Roger has any thoughts on this. Is there value in understanding the effects of high warming scenarios, given that a status quo emissions trajectory plus an ECS that turns out to be at the 75th or 90th percentile of current estimates could produce an essentially similar outcome? This would change the characterization of the high warming scenario from “BAU” to “unlikely but very much possible under BAU conditions”.
Very dubious there is enough coal to fuel the predicted growth required for RCP8.5. China is already having supply problems. And the Developing World where that demand must come from does not have sufficient economical supply and lacks the foreign exchange to import it. So coal is just not feasible. Even moreso oil and gas are infeasible.
However it is still true that a 5X increase in World primary energy supply will be needed to modernize and industrialize the developing world. The only energy supply that can allow for that is nuclear which also happens to have the lowest emissions. With these facts being quite obvious, it is really astounding how the IPCC not only does not promote the nuclear solution but likes to throw shade on nuclear with ridiculous statements that are utterly false:
Open Letter to Heads of Government of the G-20 from Scientists and Scholars on Nuclear for Climate Change -- The IPCC anti-nuclear bias:
"...IPCC authors make misleading claims about nuclear power including:
An alleged debunking of the above-mentioned 2016 study in Science through the use of a 2018 study published in a journal[12] with an impact factor of just 10 percent of that of Science;
The suggestion that building new nuclear plants must be a slow process[13] despite evidence from the recent past that nuclear capacity can be installed very rapidly when required[11];
A statement[14] suggesting a connection between “nuclear installations” and “childhood leukemia,” and no mention of recent research finding higher radiation exposure from coal plants and the manufacturing of solar panels than from nuclear.[15] While the authors acknowledge that there is “low evidence/low agreement” to support their claim, in reality there is no valid evidentiary support for it and the supposed connection has been thoroughly dismissed in the literature[16];
A claim that nuclear power “can increase the risks of proliferation”[17] and that the "use of nuclear power poses a constant risk of proliferation"[18] even though no nation in history has ever created a nuclear weapon from civilian nuclear fuel under inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency;
A claim that nuclear has “mixed effects for human health when replacing fossil fuels,”[19] which is contradicted by the large body of scientific research, cited above, showing that nuclear saves lives;
Repeated concerns raised about nuclear waste[20] without acknowledgment or clarification that spent fuel is safely contained, usually on site, nor any mention of the waste from other low-carbon energy sources, including solar panels, which contain toxic metals including lead, chromium, and cadmium, and which in most of the world lack safe storage or recycling.[21]
Such fear-mongering about nuclear has serious consequences. ..."
Dear Dr. Pielke, I admire the clarity and integrity with which you address this issue. Would it be fair to say that, with a more plausible and less extreme baseline scenario, the need to reinvent industrial civilization becomes less urgent than present energy policies assume?
Roger, I see a parallel process emerging in New Zealand sea level rise studies. Here, climate scientists have wedded the RCP 8.5 scenario, which you say was underpinned by a 4 year snapshot enhanced by Chinese activity, with a model of future vertical land movement that is based on a 7 year snap shot taken between 2003 and 2011, selected for its 'inter-seismic' and consequent 'subsiding' attributes.
The result is an exaggerated model of sea level rise where New Zealand is 'sinking', exacerbating the sea level rise, with stories of insurance withdrawal all arising in the same week as the gov't kicked off its managed retreat legislative processes - coincidence?
The truth is NZ is rising out of the sea over geological time but will be in a 'subsiding' part of the seismic cycle after significant earthquakes raise the coastal land by metres within seconds (e.g. Wellington 1855, Napier 1931) or over longer periods as the country slowly decouples from the Pacific plate that is subducting underneath it, dragging it down a few millimetres for a period before it ratchets back over months to years (known as 'slow slip events') usually with interest.
This uplifting characteristic of most of NZ is well known and established but gov'ts and local councils are determined to impose strict development restrictions on coastal properties and even halt public services, based on a model underpinned by a very short, unrealistic and already proved wrong scenario of subsidence that is anything but 'representative' of the decadal, centennial and multi-millennial trend.
They also seem to want us to live in high density cities, ride bikes, abandon meat, own nothing and be happy. Is there a connection?
I know you are not an economist, but you continually assert that climate change is 'real and a risk.' Can you quantify the risk with specific examples?
Do you dispute that Nordhouse's estimate of less than 1% lower GDP in 2100 is a manageable cost associated with climate change?
Also, you iron law fails if governments mandate the use of EVs to the exclusion of ICE and ban the use of natural gas because, while these mandates significantly raise energy price, it is hard for the average person to connect the dots.
You have done a good job of tracing and identifying the error of using RCP8.5 as the baseline climate change scenario. However, you continue to not face the fact that your scientific paradigm of data, science, policy has been turned on its head to meet the political goal of a fundamental transformation of the global economy. The IPCC reports are political documents that support this transformation and will continue to use selected, even if incorrect, scenarios that support their policy goals.
With 8.5 being seriously debunked as a rational scenario and with the world currently tracking below 4.5, can you explain why you still seem to categorize climate change as a serious problem requiring accelerated decarbonization.
Dr. Pielke, you say that you can't "explain why the error has not since been corrected by the IPCC or others in authoritative positions in the scientific community." Your logic is compelling, and quite probably correct, but it is equally clear that the IPCC will not acknowledge the error for the plain reason that they don't believe it to be an error. That much is clear from Field & McNutt's declaration that "a no-policy endpoint remains an important point for comparison, even after the world has begun to diverge from the no-policy path. Referring to this no-policy endpoint as business-as-usual is imprecise, but it is not a significant failure of scientific integrity."
What is sad about this is that they do not recognize that their stubborn adherence to a flawed scenario has led to policy decisions based on a false belief in urgency and a very, very direct collision with policies directing economic growth and human flourishment.
The IPCC’s position on this reminds me of Barry Goldwater’s remark leading up to the 1964 Presidential Election: “Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice.” He was wrong, as proven by recent history. I believe the IPCC is also wrong.
Adopting the impossibly high RCP8.5 as a baseline emissions scenario is an egregious form of policy based science making.
It is the default scenario for climate impact assessments and a consequence it has become embedded at every level of government whether looking at energy policy, sea level impact studies, forestry and even projections of deaths from heat waves.
It is the deaths from climate catastrophe implausibly assessed at the level of 1 to 2 billion by 2100 that is fuelling radical movements like Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil.
The flames of hysteria are bring fanned by the likes of the head of the UN Antonio Guterres describing the future as an era of "Global Boiling".
Roger, you may be interested to know that here in New Zealand we have a report of a mainstream, experienced, IPCC lead author scientist openly acknowledging that RCP 8.5 is not widely believed - or to use his words it's a 'scenario nobody really believes."
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/03/20/govt-warns-councils-against-picking-extremes-in-climate-decisions/
https://electrek.co/2023/10/19/half-the-world-is-5-years-past-a-peak-in-fossil-fuel-power-generation/
Half of the world’s economies are already five years past a peak in power generation from fossil fuels.
So what happens now?
1) Is it possible to get acceptance in the climate science community that RCP8.5 is implausible based on any reasonable projections of Global GDP, decarbonization, carbon free energy technology trends, use of Nuclear to create energy independence from Russia, Middle East, and limits of fossil fuel reserves.
2) create realistic projections for CO2 emissions around expecteded forecasts for energy and energy mix.
3) build a body of impact assessments around realistic forecasts for C02 emissions.
What would the climate impacts look like in i) a NetZero world ii) a realistic emissions world iii) a slow decarbonization world?
Roger
So, when we review the "scientific" terms Hausfather used in a recent interview, "Staggering. Unnerving. Mind-boggling. Absolutely gobsmackingly bananas”;
Can we assume his people are telling him he's not getting enough exposure for his career path, Piltdown Mann is getting all the press adulation, is this his attempt to make him more relevant in alarmist circles?
A simple "Business as usual" scenario, compounding the current growth of the use of fossil fuels (+0,70% per year over the past 5 years), results in 2100 with:
83 % of all proved fossil reserves consumed (that would have needed to be put in production).
664 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere (currently, 45% of the emitted carbon accumulates in the air).
4.62 W/m2 primary radiative forcing over beginning of the industrial era (Myhre equation).
See details: https://blog.mr-int.ch/?attachment_id=11033
Even this perpetuation is more than 'unlikely' in IPCC's newspeak.
The RCP8.5 scenario indicates a CO2 concentration of 936 ppm in 2100, with a corresponding primary radiative forcing of 6.46 W/m2.
With such concentration, 171 % of proved fossil reserves would be used.
Scenario games are no science, they are a misuse of science.
What remains to be understood is WHY the climate alarmism establishment stubbornly persists in its blunder. while pretending to be 'scientific.'
When considering future warming, emissions trajectory is a key variable but so is climate sensitivity. One argument I have heard is that, since the ECS and TCS have a fair amount of uncertainty, we could see impacts akin to these high emissions scenarios even if the level of emissions is much lower than RCP8.5 assumes.
Would be interested if Roger has any thoughts on this. Is there value in understanding the effects of high warming scenarios, given that a status quo emissions trajectory plus an ECS that turns out to be at the 75th or 90th percentile of current estimates could produce an essentially similar outcome? This would change the characterization of the high warming scenario from “BAU” to “unlikely but very much possible under BAU conditions”.
Very dubious there is enough coal to fuel the predicted growth required for RCP8.5. China is already having supply problems. And the Developing World where that demand must come from does not have sufficient economical supply and lacks the foreign exchange to import it. So coal is just not feasible. Even moreso oil and gas are infeasible.
However it is still true that a 5X increase in World primary energy supply will be needed to modernize and industrialize the developing world. The only energy supply that can allow for that is nuclear which also happens to have the lowest emissions. With these facts being quite obvious, it is really astounding how the IPCC not only does not promote the nuclear solution but likes to throw shade on nuclear with ridiculous statements that are utterly false:
Open Letter to Heads of Government of the G-20 from Scientists and Scholars on Nuclear for Climate Change -- The IPCC anti-nuclear bias:
https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/10/25/open-letter-to-heads-of-state-of-the-g-20-from-scientists-and-scholars-on-nuclear-for-climate-change
"...IPCC authors make misleading claims about nuclear power including:
An alleged debunking of the above-mentioned 2016 study in Science through the use of a 2018 study published in a journal[12] with an impact factor of just 10 percent of that of Science;
The suggestion that building new nuclear plants must be a slow process[13] despite evidence from the recent past that nuclear capacity can be installed very rapidly when required[11];
A statement[14] suggesting a connection between “nuclear installations” and “childhood leukemia,” and no mention of recent research finding higher radiation exposure from coal plants and the manufacturing of solar panels than from nuclear.[15] While the authors acknowledge that there is “low evidence/low agreement” to support their claim, in reality there is no valid evidentiary support for it and the supposed connection has been thoroughly dismissed in the literature[16];
A claim that nuclear power “can increase the risks of proliferation”[17] and that the "use of nuclear power poses a constant risk of proliferation"[18] even though no nation in history has ever created a nuclear weapon from civilian nuclear fuel under inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency;
A claim that nuclear has “mixed effects for human health when replacing fossil fuels,”[19] which is contradicted by the large body of scientific research, cited above, showing that nuclear saves lives;
Repeated concerns raised about nuclear waste[20] without acknowledgment or clarification that spent fuel is safely contained, usually on site, nor any mention of the waste from other low-carbon energy sources, including solar panels, which contain toxic metals including lead, chromium, and cadmium, and which in most of the world lack safe storage or recycling.[21]
Such fear-mongering about nuclear has serious consequences. ..."
Dear Dr. Pielke, I admire the clarity and integrity with which you address this issue. Would it be fair to say that, with a more plausible and less extreme baseline scenario, the need to reinvent industrial civilization becomes less urgent than present energy policies assume?
Thanks for another clean and clear piece, Roger.
Roger, I see a parallel process emerging in New Zealand sea level rise studies. Here, climate scientists have wedded the RCP 8.5 scenario, which you say was underpinned by a 4 year snapshot enhanced by Chinese activity, with a model of future vertical land movement that is based on a 7 year snap shot taken between 2003 and 2011, selected for its 'inter-seismic' and consequent 'subsiding' attributes.
The result is an exaggerated model of sea level rise where New Zealand is 'sinking', exacerbating the sea level rise, with stories of insurance withdrawal all arising in the same week as the gov't kicked off its managed retreat legislative processes - coincidence?
The truth is NZ is rising out of the sea over geological time but will be in a 'subsiding' part of the seismic cycle after significant earthquakes raise the coastal land by metres within seconds (e.g. Wellington 1855, Napier 1931) or over longer periods as the country slowly decouples from the Pacific plate that is subducting underneath it, dragging it down a few millimetres for a period before it ratchets back over months to years (known as 'slow slip events') usually with interest.
This uplifting characteristic of most of NZ is well known and established but gov'ts and local councils are determined to impose strict development restrictions on coastal properties and even halt public services, based on a model underpinned by a very short, unrealistic and already proved wrong scenario of subsidence that is anything but 'representative' of the decadal, centennial and multi-millennial trend.
They also seem to want us to live in high density cities, ride bikes, abandon meat, own nothing and be happy. Is there a connection?
I know you are not an economist, but you continually assert that climate change is 'real and a risk.' Can you quantify the risk with specific examples?
Do you dispute that Nordhouse's estimate of less than 1% lower GDP in 2100 is a manageable cost associated with climate change?
Also, you iron law fails if governments mandate the use of EVs to the exclusion of ICE and ban the use of natural gas because, while these mandates significantly raise energy price, it is hard for the average person to connect the dots.
You have done a good job of tracing and identifying the error of using RCP8.5 as the baseline climate change scenario. However, you continue to not face the fact that your scientific paradigm of data, science, policy has been turned on its head to meet the political goal of a fundamental transformation of the global economy. The IPCC reports are political documents that support this transformation and will continue to use selected, even if incorrect, scenarios that support their policy goals.
With 8.5 being seriously debunked as a rational scenario and with the world currently tracking below 4.5, can you explain why you still seem to categorize climate change as a serious problem requiring accelerated decarbonization.
Dr. Pielke, you say that you can't "explain why the error has not since been corrected by the IPCC or others in authoritative positions in the scientific community." Your logic is compelling, and quite probably correct, but it is equally clear that the IPCC will not acknowledge the error for the plain reason that they don't believe it to be an error. That much is clear from Field & McNutt's declaration that "a no-policy endpoint remains an important point for comparison, even after the world has begun to diverge from the no-policy path. Referring to this no-policy endpoint as business-as-usual is imprecise, but it is not a significant failure of scientific integrity."
What is sad about this is that they do not recognize that their stubborn adherence to a flawed scenario has led to policy decisions based on a false belief in urgency and a very, very direct collision with policies directing economic growth and human flourishment.
The IPCC’s position on this reminds me of Barry Goldwater’s remark leading up to the 1964 Presidential Election: “Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice.” He was wrong, as proven by recent history. I believe the IPCC is also wrong.
Adopting the impossibly high RCP8.5 as a baseline emissions scenario is an egregious form of policy based science making.
It is the default scenario for climate impact assessments and a consequence it has become embedded at every level of government whether looking at energy policy, sea level impact studies, forestry and even projections of deaths from heat waves.
It is the deaths from climate catastrophe implausibly assessed at the level of 1 to 2 billion by 2100 that is fuelling radical movements like Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil.
The flames of hysteria are bring fanned by the likes of the head of the UN Antonio Guterres describing the future as an era of "Global Boiling".
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DnWbdXl4XSiI&ved=2ahUKEwiw0tiZkICCAxU2FlkFHfObAXIQwqsBegQIExAB&usg=AOvVaw35vvaC6uSCLCpXQIT9G_gk
This has to be challenged.
'scientists' who use RCP8.5 in their papers get published and get more funding. Those who don't ... don't
What could be simpler?