The implausible climate scenarios are alive and well in Colorado! Colorado Fiscal Institute has prepared a report on Climate Resiliency that is informing the Larimer County (CO) Climate Smart and Future Ready program but they really should be using Roger Pielke Jr.'s work instead or at least consider it! It would be great if we can get you to come up to one of our meetings. The climate models used in the CFI report: "three downscaled CMIP5* models for two emission scenarios, RCP 4.5 (moderate emission scenario) and RCP 8.5 (high emission scenario) by mid-century (2045-2055). " The CFI has an agenda based on their reports and I see no scientists listed on their staff. PDF of the report: https://www.coloradofiscal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CFI-Colorado2050-rev5-08022021r5-print.pdf. Most people involved in the Climate Smart program, including County staff, keep saying that the droughts, flooding, heat waves, wildfires, severe weather are getting worse because of GHG and associated climate change and will keep getting worse. The lack of climate literacy does not bode well for sound decision making!
Roger, I spent an hour or so looking through the material on the UC Boulder website pertaining to Environmental Studies. I was just curious and I came away with a number of thoughts:
1. The course offerings are quite extensive............maybe overly broad.
2. The cost of a year at UC Boulder for an out of State student is $60K...............WTF
3. Roger Pielke Jr. is shown on sabbatical for 2022 and 2023.
4. One of the "inspirational graduates" founded a brewery in Colorado another is a head bartender in Hawaii the third is a professor of Environmental Studies in Vermont.
5. A doctor friend of mine sent his son to UC Boulder. He graduated a few years ago. When I mentioned you to him he had never heard of you. He did a Masters in The Netherlands. Last I heard he was living the good life on Sardinia living with the beautiful daughter of some Italian business mogul.
6. Another friend is considering sending his son to UC Boulder to study ES.
7. Overall the Faculty looks heavily weighted in Social Science rather than hard science.
I am not sure what, if anything, all this means. I don't think I would encourage a young undergrad to enroll in this program.
Hi Mark, I have indeed been on sabbatical for fall 22/spring 23. It has been great - enormously productive. When I return in the fall to campus I will not be returning to the ES program. I'd best bite my tongue at this point!
Yep, keep a good grip on that tongue until you're ready to make your move. I for one I am looking forward to hearing what you decide when you are ready.
"Here is a very big problem with this analysis SSP3-8.5 does not exist."
Well sure it does! Just mashup SSP3 and RCP8.5!
These jokers keep using RCP8.5 and pretending it's still "business as usual". We both know why. There is no plausible deniability in continuing to do so, Roger. It's not ignorant or an accident, it's malevolent.
We asked Gavin Schmidt if he ever validated the UN population data going back to IS92 era. After deflecting several times, the best response we got was "I'm not a demographer".
We asked Matt England why he used RCP8.5 for his recent Southern Ocean density/overturning study. Would give no answer.
Stefan Rahmstorf crowed on Twitter about England's study. We pointed out AR5 SPM figures showing ~130 Gt CO2e annual emissions on RCP8.5 trajectory at 2100, vs. SPM.5 from AR6 Synthesis Reporting showing present trajectory at ~60Gt annual by 2100 and asked Rahmstorf how large the difference is and whether it would be likely to effect England's study's results, and why he chose that scenario. No answer.
Using RCP8.5 without disclosing it's probability at this point is not disinterested science. It's political advocacy pretending to be science b/c it has models and fast computers. Period.
There are no good reasons to use implausible scenarios in the context of trying to say something about plausible futures. But there is a lot of momentum in the system. At least you got some responses, none of these folks will engage with me directly.
Any projection beyond 2100 is irresponsible garbage. We have no idea what people will be doing or what tech we will have by then. Even human population could be much lower than present under any number of scenarios such as the Ukraine War --> Global Nuclear War. There is certainly tech that might be available like the fully reusable Starship & its successors. Which mean it will be economical to construct a sunshade at the Sun-Earth L1 point and selectively prevent hot spells by adjusting solar insolation. And the effects of robotics and automation are at this point speculative even 50yrs from now.
This kind of reminds me of the ridiculous case control study put out by the CDC at one point purporting to show that immunity to Covid from prior infection was inferior to vaccine derived immunity. So much came out to contradict it that eventually even the CDC had to acknowledge (very quietly and with no fanfare) that immunity from prior infection was more protective, at least as far as Delta was concerned.
The point here is not to rehash old Covid controversies but to show that when you want to manipulate data to demonstrate a pre-determined conclusion, anything is possible. This is doubly true when it comes to modeling.
Just a final note on my “watch your back” comment.
Stating that you don’t question the underlying science is no protection from the mob.
As a Canadian I’m still waiting for an apology to Susan Crockford over what was done to her. She did not question any aspect of the AGW theory that I’m aware of, all she did was point out that the ill effects predicted weren’t actually happening. In her case, Polar bear extinction.
Hopefully I can drive more people to this site, all I’m looking for is rational public policy discussion, which by the way does not include lighting your hair on fire and running around screaming we are all going to die unless throw trillions of dollars at rent seeking crony corps and China.
Well I sure hope those questions are asked. How about some smart politician actually use your illustrations when asking the question. I know you don’t like getting political however if people like you don’t put a stop to this nonsense our country will go bankrupt. We can ill afford the startling costs associated with this administration ridiculous and harmful climate policies. Thank you as always for your thoughtful analysis.
Roger, could you tell me, do the methodologies you discuss take account of the benefits to most countries of the reduction in excess deaths that (should) follow from increased minimum temperatures with the increased heat? I can see the information is there, but it is not clear to me from the discussion that it is naturally included.
The answer is that no, they do not (almost universally)
I am of the view that they should not, although the climate impacts associated with reduced cold spells should definitely be studied with the same intensity and attention as impacts associated with extreme heat
That is to say -- I do not want to see a "net" analysis but an independent analysis of the effects of each phenomenon. If people then want to net them out, fine.
But as you might guess the negative consequences of climate change receive far more research attention than any possible positive impacts.
I don’t want to be a troll, but can you point to anything published in any recognized (the dreaded msm) media in the last few years that discusses the positive aspects of climate change?
In this galaxy almost any change results in both positive and negative effects, but climate change on earth somehow upends reality.
Everything is bad, anything positive today is merely a prelude to it getting worse.
It remains my belief that all climate change to date has been beneficial .
While it is apparent that including adaptation into models is both fair and reasonable, how does one properly quantify adaptation? Seems like a very complex and hence elusive thing.
And let me add - if Greenstone or anyone else whose work is discussed here would like to comment, they are invited to do so, I encourage it in fact. They can email me directly with permission to post if they happen to be among those few people still not yet subscribed here ;-)
A colleague sent me a reaction to this post by Michael Greenstone (a collaborator on Carleton et al. and a witness at this week's testimony). I won't reproduce the comments here, because I received them second hand. But my responses are:
1. Yes, they use a 4.5 scenario in their work in addition to the fictional SSP3-8.5. Typically a 4.5 scenario is paired with an 8.5 scenario, the latter referencing where we are headed and the former is meant as policy success. The reality is that 4.5 is above a worst case trajectory at present on current policies and their work still lacks a current policies trajectory.
2. Yes, some studies (very few) try to incorporate adaptation. The EPA study I discussed in this post does not.
OK, thanks. That was my read also. It amazes me that the EPA would ignore the historic evidence of the last 100 years in climate-related disaster deaths, yet still claim that their study "significantly advances understanding in climate impacts."
As I've stated many times and even published in the Wall Street Journal, cost is an accounting term that only has relevance when used in context with benefit. But no one on the left wants to acknowledge the benefits of using fossil fuels to enhance life on earth for humans.
The implausible climate scenarios are alive and well in Colorado! Colorado Fiscal Institute has prepared a report on Climate Resiliency that is informing the Larimer County (CO) Climate Smart and Future Ready program but they really should be using Roger Pielke Jr.'s work instead or at least consider it! It would be great if we can get you to come up to one of our meetings. The climate models used in the CFI report: "three downscaled CMIP5* models for two emission scenarios, RCP 4.5 (moderate emission scenario) and RCP 8.5 (high emission scenario) by mid-century (2045-2055). " The CFI has an agenda based on their reports and I see no scientists listed on their staff. PDF of the report: https://www.coloradofiscal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CFI-Colorado2050-rev5-08022021r5-print.pdf. Most people involved in the Climate Smart program, including County staff, keep saying that the droughts, flooding, heat waves, wildfires, severe weather are getting worse because of GHG and associated climate change and will keep getting worse. The lack of climate literacy does not bode well for sound decision making!
As a proud Poudre High grad I'd welcome the chance ;-)
Cool, I just sent you an email!
Roger, I spent an hour or so looking through the material on the UC Boulder website pertaining to Environmental Studies. I was just curious and I came away with a number of thoughts:
1. The course offerings are quite extensive............maybe overly broad.
2. The cost of a year at UC Boulder for an out of State student is $60K...............WTF
3. Roger Pielke Jr. is shown on sabbatical for 2022 and 2023.
4. One of the "inspirational graduates" founded a brewery in Colorado another is a head bartender in Hawaii the third is a professor of Environmental Studies in Vermont.
5. A doctor friend of mine sent his son to UC Boulder. He graduated a few years ago. When I mentioned you to him he had never heard of you. He did a Masters in The Netherlands. Last I heard he was living the good life on Sardinia living with the beautiful daughter of some Italian business mogul.
6. Another friend is considering sending his son to UC Boulder to study ES.
7. Overall the Faculty looks heavily weighted in Social Science rather than hard science.
I am not sure what, if anything, all this means. I don't think I would encourage a young undergrad to enroll in this program.
Hi Mark, I have indeed been on sabbatical for fall 22/spring 23. It has been great - enormously productive. When I return in the fall to campus I will not be returning to the ES program. I'd best bite my tongue at this point!
Yep, keep a good grip on that tongue until you're ready to make your move. I for one I am looking forward to hearing what you decide when you are ready.
"Here is a very big problem with this analysis SSP3-8.5 does not exist."
Well sure it does! Just mashup SSP3 and RCP8.5!
These jokers keep using RCP8.5 and pretending it's still "business as usual". We both know why. There is no plausible deniability in continuing to do so, Roger. It's not ignorant or an accident, it's malevolent.
We asked Gavin Schmidt if he ever validated the UN population data going back to IS92 era. After deflecting several times, the best response we got was "I'm not a demographer".
We asked Matt England why he used RCP8.5 for his recent Southern Ocean density/overturning study. Would give no answer.
Stefan Rahmstorf crowed on Twitter about England's study. We pointed out AR5 SPM figures showing ~130 Gt CO2e annual emissions on RCP8.5 trajectory at 2100, vs. SPM.5 from AR6 Synthesis Reporting showing present trajectory at ~60Gt annual by 2100 and asked Rahmstorf how large the difference is and whether it would be likely to effect England's study's results, and why he chose that scenario. No answer.
Using RCP8.5 without disclosing it's probability at this point is not disinterested science. It's political advocacy pretending to be science b/c it has models and fast computers. Period.
There are no good reasons to use implausible scenarios in the context of trying to say something about plausible futures. But there is a lot of momentum in the system. At least you got some responses, none of these folks will engage with me directly.
Covid shows what happens when government and crony capitalist rent seeking corps collide.
The climate industrial complex is no different.
If anything there is far more money involved.
I have no idea how to slow down this freight train.
https://leefang.substack.com/p/pfizer-quietly-financed-groups-lobbying
Any projection beyond 2100 is irresponsible garbage. We have no idea what people will be doing or what tech we will have by then. Even human population could be much lower than present under any number of scenarios such as the Ukraine War --> Global Nuclear War. There is certainly tech that might be available like the fully reusable Starship & its successors. Which mean it will be economical to construct a sunshade at the Sun-Earth L1 point and selectively prevent hot spells by adjusting solar insolation. And the effects of robotics and automation are at this point speculative even 50yrs from now.
This kind of reminds me of the ridiculous case control study put out by the CDC at one point purporting to show that immunity to Covid from prior infection was inferior to vaccine derived immunity. So much came out to contradict it that eventually even the CDC had to acknowledge (very quietly and with no fanfare) that immunity from prior infection was more protective, at least as far as Delta was concerned.
The point here is not to rehash old Covid controversies but to show that when you want to manipulate data to demonstrate a pre-determined conclusion, anything is possible. This is doubly true when it comes to modeling.
Just a final note on my “watch your back” comment.
Stating that you don’t question the underlying science is no protection from the mob.
As a Canadian I’m still waiting for an apology to Susan Crockford over what was done to her. She did not question any aspect of the AGW theory that I’m aware of, all she did was point out that the ill effects predicted weren’t actually happening. In her case, Polar bear extinction.
Hopefully I can drive more people to this site, all I’m looking for is rational public policy discussion, which by the way does not include lighting your hair on fire and running around screaming we are all going to die unless throw trillions of dollars at rent seeking crony corps and China.
Well I sure hope those questions are asked. How about some smart politician actually use your illustrations when asking the question. I know you don’t like getting political however if people like you don’t put a stop to this nonsense our country will go bankrupt. We can ill afford the startling costs associated with this administration ridiculous and harmful climate policies. Thank you as always for your thoughtful analysis.
A collaboration between Public Health Agencies and our deeply politicized EPA.....................what could possibly go wrong.
BTW, still waiting for your promised opus on COVID19.
Roger, could you tell me, do the methodologies you discuss take account of the benefits to most countries of the reduction in excess deaths that (should) follow from increased minimum temperatures with the increased heat? I can see the information is there, but it is not clear to me from the discussion that it is naturally included.
The answer is that no, they do not (almost universally)
I am of the view that they should not, although the climate impacts associated with reduced cold spells should definitely be studied with the same intensity and attention as impacts associated with extreme heat
That is to say -- I do not want to see a "net" analysis but an independent analysis of the effects of each phenomenon. If people then want to net them out, fine.
But as you might guess the negative consequences of climate change receive far more research attention than any possible positive impacts.
I don’t want to be a troll, but can you point to anything published in any recognized (the dreaded msm) media in the last few years that discusses the positive aspects of climate change?
In this galaxy almost any change results in both positive and negative effects, but climate change on earth somehow upends reality.
Everything is bad, anything positive today is merely a prelude to it getting worse.
It remains my belief that all climate change to date has been beneficial .
Timely! I already used this.https://forestpolicypub.com/2023/04/24/a-first-look-at-moggie-anpr-ii-lets-ground-truth-the-new-fs-climate-risk-viewer/
While it is apparent that including adaptation into models is both fair and reasonable, how does one properly quantify adaptation? Seems like a very complex and hence elusive thing.
Absolutely!
Assume 100% adaptation and the impacts go away
Assume 0% and the impacts are massive
Look to history as your guide and the impacts drop by ~95%+
Tell me what answer you want and I can gin it up!
And that is a big part of the problem
You just described the impetus behind “decision based evidence making”.
A massive industry when you consider the trillions involved in this bubble.
Indeed, policy-based evidence is always a risk when methods and assumptions have infinite degrees of freedom
And let me add - if Greenstone or anyone else whose work is discussed here would like to comment, they are invited to do so, I encourage it in fact. They can email me directly with permission to post if they happen to be among those few people still not yet subscribed here ;-)
A colleague sent me a reaction to this post by Michael Greenstone (a collaborator on Carleton et al. and a witness at this week's testimony). I won't reproduce the comments here, because I received them second hand. But my responses are:
1. Yes, they use a 4.5 scenario in their work in addition to the fictional SSP3-8.5. Typically a 4.5 scenario is paired with an 8.5 scenario, the latter referencing where we are headed and the former is meant as policy success. The reality is that 4.5 is above a worst case trajectory at present on current policies and their work still lacks a current policies trajectory.
2. Yes, some studies (very few) try to incorporate adaptation. The EPA study I discussed in this post does not.
Dr. Pielke, what is your basis for saying the EPA study does not incorporate adaption. Table A.2 suggests it it.
Yes, EPA makes some assumptions about adaptation for some categories of impact, but not extreme heat.
OK, thanks. That was my read also. It amazes me that the EPA would ignore the historic evidence of the last 100 years in climate-related disaster deaths, yet still claim that their study "significantly advances understanding in climate impacts."
As I've stated many times and even published in the Wall Street Journal, cost is an accounting term that only has relevance when used in context with benefit. But no one on the left wants to acknowledge the benefits of using fossil fuels to enhance life on earth for humans.
The RFF chart seems to run through 2300, and not just 2100. Lots to wonder about there, but the specific comments on the chart may need to be edited.
Eagle eyes always appreciated! Thanks