“If you believe that EPA has disseminated information that does not comply with the OMB or EPA Information Quality Guidelines and you are directly affected by this information, then you can submit a request to have this information correct. For information on submitting a request for correction, see "How do I submit a Request for Correction?"”
Clearly you and all of us will be affected by EPA’s approach. Why not use your analysis to submit a request to have their SCC calculation method corrected?
"There are both natural and human sources of methane emissions. The main natural sources include wetlands, termites and the oceans. Natural sources create 36% of methane emissions. Human sources include landfills and livestock farming. But the most important source being the production, transportation and use of fossil fuels. Human-related sources create the majority of methane emissions, accounting for 64% of the total.1
Methane levels have more than doubled over the last 150 years. This is because of human activities like fossil fuel use and intensive farming.2 Before the Industrial Revolution, natural sinks kept methane levels in a safe range."
The people demanding accurate data and proof of effective policies are the ones taking the issue seriously. The climate emergency consensus show themselves to be on the opposite side of the table from that standard with every conference, hyped warning, market tested name change they push.
There used to be a checklist of indicators for bad science. Climate policy consistently meets all or nearly all of the indicators. This woke madness is destructive, wasteful, anti-scientific and will do nothing about climate.
Great post! Hunting for a hidden RCP8.5 is like finding Waldo in a detailed picture. Thanks for circling Waldo for us! It keeps us laughing at the nearly naked king (I'm gonna steal your lead photo!).
Reading Table 1-4 you referred to shows a very low (2%) discount rate. A footnote mentions the Biden administration decision to not use the customary 7% rate for climate related issues. Cooking the books indeed!
IIRC, industrial methane [oil/gas drilling, production, transport] accounts for < 2% of the yearly methane budget, and it's been dropping. Is this correct?
Roger, I would like again to see the matrix of RPCs vs SSPs as that is one of the most powerful and disturbing things you have pointed out. I recall that matrix is very sparse and so there is basically no mixing nor matching the two. Hence your comment that you can't pair RPC 8.5 (aka the Zombie pathway) with SSP3 as that does not actually exist. Your reference does make that point, but the actual sparse matrix is much more powerful as a diagram than simply saying it.
Any SCC result that shows a positive for agriculture has no credibility. Apparently, these new models, like the former three (PAGE, DICE, FUND), fail to consider the tremendous positive impact (a negative in SCC parlance) of CO2 fertilization.
Are the people who invent these flawed procedures, and the people who use them, deliberately misleading the public to advance their political agenda, or are they simply incompetents who know not what they do?
Terrific sleuthing and analysis! Unfortunately, the complexity of SCC may be too much for those who don't closely follow climate science, and especially for those who don't want to hear anything that contradicts the climate crisis narrative they promote. This would apply to many or most "environmentalists", journalists, and politicians who, ignorant of RCP 8.5 and its significance, have been calling, and will continue call, real science, based upon actual data, by their favorite epithet- science denial. This promotion of a crisis narrative, not anchored in science and data, serves the purposes of those marketing wind and solar and all the others who benefit from the false narrative. I wish I were more optimistic about how we could turn this ship of foolishness around. Here is my question for you Roger. Are you optimistic, and why/why not?
The following is a statement from the "press release" of the EPA.
"Oil and natural gas operations are the nation’s largest industrial source of methane, a climate “super pollutant” that is many times more potent than carbon dioxide and is responsible for approximately one third of the warming from greenhouse gases occurring today."
There are three assumptions made in this statement alone that lean more to the side of "speculation" than actual "truth" or "science".
Assumption: #1
Oil and natural gas operations are the nation's largest industrial source of methane...
Observation: #1
Because the oil industry visibly "flares" the gases that are produced when drilling/fracking it is assumed that they produce the most methane (we can "see" how much methane is being produced). If you talked to an environmentalist who hates the cattle industry you would get a different answer. It's just a little harder to "see" cow flatulence.
Assumption: #2
.... methane, a climate “super pollutant” that is many times more potent than carbon dioxide...
Observation: #2
Carbon dioxide (CO2), at 421 ppm today, is 6 orders of magnitude [parts per million (ppm)] less abundant than water vapor.
Methane (CH4), 1867 ppb today, is 9 orders of magnitude [parts per billion (ppb)] less abundant than water vapor.
Water vapor: This is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Water vapor plays a crucial role in the greenhouse effect, amplifying the warming caused by other greenhouse gases.
Do people (and I'm including intelligent scientists in this group) believe that CO2 and CH4 are the biggest driving force behind "climate change" or the alleged and minuscule increase in global temperature (1.5 degrees C)? I do have some perfectly good swamp land for sale. ;)
Assumption: #3
... "methane, is responsible for approximately one third of the warming from greenhouse gases occurring today."
Observation: #3
I'm sorry, this is such an outrageous guess, speculation, theory as to be risible. What scientific methodology (necromancy) was performed to arrive at this conclusion?
I wish I could say the rest of the article got better but alas I chose not to read further for fear of losing what precious sanity I have left. (Too harsh?)
Roger, seems like a typo got in here: "Of the 43 SCC estimates that comprise the meta-study, 18 were published before 2000 and 29 before 2010."
On a separate note, I find your arguments compelling, but based on my familiarity with damage functions in the insurance world of NatCat risk modelling, a damage function trained on a given Hazard intensity (let's say RCP 8.5 in this case) would not necessarily produce estimated impact levels that are necessarily 'high' or 'low'. In Cat-models, where scant historical data is often the norm, the damage functions still have to behave in a manner that's justifiable given the few data points that are available (total losses, and damage intensity by risk type & geography).
It sounds like I should just pick up some of the whitepapers that were used as sources for the SCC impact calculation methodologies. But if you can help clarify why their using RCP 8.5 is leading to overestimates in the Social Cost of Carbon, that will be very helpful.
Roger, Sometime when people always try and deceive, one stops taking anything they say at face value. Has the IPCC gotten there with you yet? They did with me long ago as it’s clear that nothing would keep them from their goal which is regulation and control over the modern economy’s life blood, which is inexpensive, reliable, clean and safe energy. They hate the independence and quality of life improvements fossil fuels provide the population and are committed severely restricting them.
“If you believe that EPA has disseminated information that does not comply with the OMB or EPA Information Quality Guidelines and you are directly affected by this information, then you can submit a request to have this information correct. For information on submitting a request for correction, see "How do I submit a Request for Correction?"”
Clearly you and all of us will be affected by EPA’s approach. Why not use your analysis to submit a request to have their SCC calculation method corrected?
Let's count the deceptive assumptions and iutright bad info in the opening paragraphs of a typical bit of climate propaganda:
https://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/methane-emissions
"There are both natural and human sources of methane emissions. The main natural sources include wetlands, termites and the oceans. Natural sources create 36% of methane emissions. Human sources include landfills and livestock farming. But the most important source being the production, transportation and use of fossil fuels. Human-related sources create the majority of methane emissions, accounting for 64% of the total.1
Methane levels have more than doubled over the last 150 years. This is because of human activities like fossil fuel use and intensive farming.2 Before the Industrial Revolution, natural sinks kept methane levels in a safe range."
The people demanding accurate data and proof of effective policies are the ones taking the issue seriously. The climate emergency consensus show themselves to be on the opposite side of the table from that standard with every conference, hyped warning, market tested name change they push.
There used to be a checklist of indicators for bad science. Climate policy consistently meets all or nearly all of the indicators. This woke madness is destructive, wasteful, anti-scientific and will do nothing about climate.
The three most dangerous numbers I see:
1.5(mm), 8.5(RCP), 350(ppm).
“Sneaky. Uncool. Not science”
The definition of alarmist climate science, or, everything Piltdown Mann has ever said and done.
What next.
Great post! Hunting for a hidden RCP8.5 is like finding Waldo in a detailed picture. Thanks for circling Waldo for us! It keeps us laughing at the nearly naked king (I'm gonna steal your lead photo!).
Reading Table 1-4 you referred to shows a very low (2%) discount rate. A footnote mentions the Biden administration decision to not use the customary 7% rate for climate related issues. Cooking the books indeed!
IIRC, industrial methane [oil/gas drilling, production, transport] accounts for < 2% of the yearly methane budget, and it's been dropping. Is this correct?
Roger, I would like again to see the matrix of RPCs vs SSPs as that is one of the most powerful and disturbing things you have pointed out. I recall that matrix is very sparse and so there is basically no mixing nor matching the two. Hence your comment that you can't pair RPC 8.5 (aka the Zombie pathway) with SSP3 as that does not actually exist. Your reference does make that point, but the actual sparse matrix is much more powerful as a diagram than simply saying it.
Any SCC result that shows a positive for agriculture has no credibility. Apparently, these new models, like the former three (PAGE, DICE, FUND), fail to consider the tremendous positive impact (a negative in SCC parlance) of CO2 fertilization.
This reminds me of Shakespeare’s three witches in Macbeth, calculating the social cost of carbon thus:
Round about the cauldron go;
In the poison’d entrails throw.
…
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the cauldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt, and toe of frog,
Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
Adder’s fork, and blind-worm’s sting,
Lizard’s leg, and howlet’s wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
…
and out comes SCC!
Some of both, they truly evil deceivers like Kerry, Gore, Gates Sorros and some useful idiots like college profs, many business leaders and students.
Are the people who invent these flawed procedures, and the people who use them, deliberately misleading the public to advance their political agenda, or are they simply incompetents who know not what they do?
Terrific sleuthing and analysis! Unfortunately, the complexity of SCC may be too much for those who don't closely follow climate science, and especially for those who don't want to hear anything that contradicts the climate crisis narrative they promote. This would apply to many or most "environmentalists", journalists, and politicians who, ignorant of RCP 8.5 and its significance, have been calling, and will continue call, real science, based upon actual data, by their favorite epithet- science denial. This promotion of a crisis narrative, not anchored in science and data, serves the purposes of those marketing wind and solar and all the others who benefit from the false narrative. I wish I were more optimistic about how we could turn this ship of foolishness around. Here is my question for you Roger. Are you optimistic, and why/why not?
'
The following is a statement from the "press release" of the EPA.
"Oil and natural gas operations are the nation’s largest industrial source of methane, a climate “super pollutant” that is many times more potent than carbon dioxide and is responsible for approximately one third of the warming from greenhouse gases occurring today."
There are three assumptions made in this statement alone that lean more to the side of "speculation" than actual "truth" or "science".
Assumption: #1
Oil and natural gas operations are the nation's largest industrial source of methane...
Observation: #1
Because the oil industry visibly "flares" the gases that are produced when drilling/fracking it is assumed that they produce the most methane (we can "see" how much methane is being produced). If you talked to an environmentalist who hates the cattle industry you would get a different answer. It's just a little harder to "see" cow flatulence.
Assumption: #2
.... methane, a climate “super pollutant” that is many times more potent than carbon dioxide...
Observation: #2
Carbon dioxide (CO2), at 421 ppm today, is 6 orders of magnitude [parts per million (ppm)] less abundant than water vapor.
Methane (CH4), 1867 ppb today, is 9 orders of magnitude [parts per billion (ppb)] less abundant than water vapor.
Water vapor: This is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Water vapor plays a crucial role in the greenhouse effect, amplifying the warming caused by other greenhouse gases.
Do people (and I'm including intelligent scientists in this group) believe that CO2 and CH4 are the biggest driving force behind "climate change" or the alleged and minuscule increase in global temperature (1.5 degrees C)? I do have some perfectly good swamp land for sale. ;)
Assumption: #3
... "methane, is responsible for approximately one third of the warming from greenhouse gases occurring today."
Observation: #3
I'm sorry, this is such an outrageous guess, speculation, theory as to be risible. What scientific methodology (necromancy) was performed to arrive at this conclusion?
I wish I could say the rest of the article got better but alas I chose not to read further for fear of losing what precious sanity I have left. (Too harsh?)
Roger, seems like a typo got in here: "Of the 43 SCC estimates that comprise the meta-study, 18 were published before 2000 and 29 before 2010."
On a separate note, I find your arguments compelling, but based on my familiarity with damage functions in the insurance world of NatCat risk modelling, a damage function trained on a given Hazard intensity (let's say RCP 8.5 in this case) would not necessarily produce estimated impact levels that are necessarily 'high' or 'low'. In Cat-models, where scant historical data is often the norm, the damage functions still have to behave in a manner that's justifiable given the few data points that are available (total losses, and damage intensity by risk type & geography).
It sounds like I should just pick up some of the whitepapers that were used as sources for the SCC impact calculation methodologies. But if you can help clarify why their using RCP 8.5 is leading to overestimates in the Social Cost of Carbon, that will be very helpful.
Roger, Sometime when people always try and deceive, one stops taking anything they say at face value. Has the IPCC gotten there with you yet? They did with me long ago as it’s clear that nothing would keep them from their goal which is regulation and control over the modern economy’s life blood, which is inexpensive, reliable, clean and safe energy. They hate the independence and quality of life improvements fossil fuels provide the population and are committed severely restricting them.