In a bit of news, Roger, New Zealand's Climate Change Commission explained to webinar participants yesterday that they are dropping SSP5-8.5 and using SSP3-7.0 for their National Adaptation planning - they say for 'stress testing', suggesting it be used fort sensitivity analysis. It was not clear whether this meant adopting the resultant outcomes for policy.
They are using SSP3-7.0 for 'stress testing' models. I am very familiar with discounted cashflow modelling where you plug in variables like inflation, oil price, fx rates and you might 'stress test' your model by inflating or reducing them, to see which variable makes the project uneconomic, but you wouldn't use these for investment decision making.
Agreed but it is progress, especially if it is solely for sensitivity analysis. I've done that for economic modelling by hyping up (or down), say US - NZ $ fx rates, or using unrealistically high or low oil price, to test a project's resilience, but not for decision making.
Given their exceptional talent for adapting to sea level increases, perhaps the Dutch are just trying to gin up international business for their dike construction firms by exaggeration of the problem?
In all due respect why should we believe change will come. If I didn’t subscribe to your blog I would be ignorant of the use of unrealistic and flawed scenarios. My local paper which is part of USA Today has at least 2 articles a week blaming everything on climate change. Yesterday a high official in the current administration when asked a question about the threats the US faces due to current conflicts actually compared them to climate change and stated all scientists believe that it is an existential threat. They lie everyday hope your right Roger but I am pessimistic.
The KNMI has a hisory with bad science when it comes to climate.
They also cooled the past Dutch climate. The revised their data because it had been measured with a pagode hut instead of a Steveson hut. This does lead to different results, but the KNMI followed a flawed method for correcting the temperature, in such a way that the past became colder and many heatwaves disappeared.
The statement that RCP8.5 is a "benchmark of no mitigation" is true in a given context - that is, the context of going back in time and saying that if we did not do anything at all since 1992 then we would be on track for something like that scenario.
And this is all to common in the world of climate science and politics. State something dire and bury the real context.
I agree with you, this is scientific malpractice. And you can add Norway to your list of countries.
Bjorn Lomborg in elsevier.com/locate/techfore-“welfare in the 21st century” seem to say SSP8.5 is a better way for humanity if it happens that way,ie,do less and we will be better off as a civilization.Am I misunderstanding that ?Is he saying that reducing fossil fuel use a lot will be harmful in the long run? Help! Please explain in laymans language!
He's saying in a much more complex fashion that attempting a massive reduction in fossil fuels use while expanding solar and wind will only have the effect of making developing countries more vulnerable and much poorer. While wealthy countries reduce consumption of fuels in cars and homes, that will be replaced by the enormously more resource (oil, minerals, rare earth metals, etc) dependent solar and wind installations and battery production necessary to produce and store the electricity necessary for a functioning society to exist. Further, since wind and the sun are intermittent, we will continue to require gas, coal and oil backup for said electricity.
The green utopia requires more fossil fuels than are used now along with the largest increase in mining in the history of that activity to support ever greater electricity needs. And in the meantime, poor countries won't begin to have enough wealth to create the ecological disaster that will be a wind and solar infrastructure as they try to crawl out of poverty. The West is selling empty water bottles to the parched.
1. No one has ever presented a proof that more CO2 will increase absorption of more of earths radiation. Not in 30 years!!
2. The NASA study of atmospheric absorption of earth's IR radiation shows that The present level of CO2 is adequate to absorb ALL of the energy in the only wavelengths that CO2 can effectively absorb, 14-16 microns. Even Mann has admitted this.
Thus Added CO2 can have no effect on climate, and all the models in the world are based on a falsity, so are worthless. One model is as baseless as any other.
We need to get off this delusion that carbon dioxide is a problem. If global warming is a problem, lets investigate it rationally. Stop the war on carboniferous fuels.
As Michael Shellenberger writes, opposition to the Climate Alarmism scenario is dead and gone. The climate is changing but in it's normal, cyclical fashion as the Planets climate has cyclically changed over millennia. This Climatist, climate alarmism is a scam, but has been so deeply ingrained in the minds of the populace by persistent lies and ceaseless propaganda, spread by MSM, so as to make it almost impossible to change the sheeples' minds on this matter. As witness to what happened in Germany in the 1930's, who had the masters of propaganda, if you want to lie make it so huge and backed up by continuous propagands that even you - the propagandist - will eventually believe such a lie is true. This is what has happened to climate alarmism. The MSM engendered FEAR, is just too big to be just a lie, too big to fail, too many converted believers, too much money involved individually by the billionaires, too much at stake for the globalists such as the trans nationalists organisations of the woke WEF, the woke UN and corporationally and politically of those in power in the Western societies. Unless there is a paradigm shift in the core beliefs of the western world sheeple, there can be no change in the accetance of this FEAR of cliate alarmism... 😒
In NC, the scientists and the public pushed back on the proposed legislation but never explained the underlying assumptions of different scenarios including their implicitly chosen one, A1F1, arguing it to be most likely. The follow up compared RCP8.5 to RCP 2.6.
Change will NOT come unless scientists speak out! And scientists who suck on Government's teat have a strong incentive NOT to speak out. Like good little Docilians working on the government plantation, they do only what they're told to do. When it all falls apart, they whine that they were only following orders...
Some profit from the implausible scenarios. Fear will justify spending that employs more policy makers and researchers; more investment in projects that may serve no purpose; and all at the expense of more worthwhile endeavors.
Face it. Eliminating 8.5 as being highly implausible and accepting that we are currently on track to undershoot 4.5 significantly reduces the seriousness of the climate change problem and calls into question the need to drastically accelerate decarbonization. The fact that the climate industrial complex refuses to get on board with this should not be surprising.
Maybe a good start toward rationality would be for Roger to update the first slide in his "Introduction to Climate Change for Dummies" deck.
I've long assumed that policy makers would use the most aggressive scenarios. Not so much to affect policy but to claim victory. As reality pushes on projections, and as those projections drop to be more in line with reality, policy makers will adopt a "we averted a crisis" position to justify past policy. It becomes much like a self reinforcing loop. The bigger the gap between projection and reality, the more likely victory will claimed. This has always been the policy goal. As for the scientists, I'm sorry to say, this process was never designed to allow reality to eclipse hyperbole. The scientists were only there to provide legitimacy to the process. Don't misconstrue my statements here, I'm not saying that man has no effect on climate. I'm not a scientist, but I am a recovering politician. And as such I know a win/win two step when I see one.
More evidence to support my contention that this entire anthropogenic climate change debate has never been about the science of climate. It is about controlling humanity, which apparently, is our biggest threat.
“The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models.” – Chris Folland UK Meteorological Office
In a bit of news, Roger, New Zealand's Climate Change Commission explained to webinar participants yesterday that they are dropping SSP5-8.5 and using SSP3-7.0 for their National Adaptation planning - they say for 'stress testing', suggesting it be used fort sensitivity analysis. It was not clear whether this meant adopting the resultant outcomes for policy.
Interesting!
SSP3-7.0 is just as bad
It's like saying that I need to improve my diet, so instead of two Big Macs for lunch I've decided to scale back and have one Big Mac and a Whopper
The video recording of the NZ Climate Change Commission's reveal of their withdrawal from SSP5-8.5: https://youtu.be/NpZvwN5MmgE?si=xG1ln-L_cTTWAnfq&t=2429 .
They are using SSP3-7.0 for 'stress testing' models. I am very familiar with discounted cashflow modelling where you plug in variables like inflation, oil price, fx rates and you might 'stress test' your model by inflating or reducing them, to see which variable makes the project uneconomic, but you wouldn't use these for investment decision making.
Thank you!
Agreed but it is progress, especially if it is solely for sensitivity analysis. I've done that for economic modelling by hyping up (or down), say US - NZ $ fx rates, or using unrealistically high or low oil price, to test a project's resilience, but not for decision making.
Given their exceptional talent for adapting to sea level increases, perhaps the Dutch are just trying to gin up international business for their dike construction firms by exaggeration of the problem?
In all due respect why should we believe change will come. If I didn’t subscribe to your blog I would be ignorant of the use of unrealistic and flawed scenarios. My local paper which is part of USA Today has at least 2 articles a week blaming everything on climate change. Yesterday a high official in the current administration when asked a question about the threats the US faces due to current conflicts actually compared them to climate change and stated all scientists believe that it is an existential threat. They lie everyday hope your right Roger but I am pessimistic.
The KNMI has a hisory with bad science when it comes to climate.
They also cooled the past Dutch climate. The revised their data because it had been measured with a pagode hut instead of a Steveson hut. This does lead to different results, but the KNMI followed a flawed method for correcting the temperature, in such a way that the past became colder and many heatwaves disappeared.
Noble cause corruption.
The statement that RCP8.5 is a "benchmark of no mitigation" is true in a given context - that is, the context of going back in time and saying that if we did not do anything at all since 1992 then we would be on track for something like that scenario.
And this is all to common in the world of climate science and politics. State something dire and bury the real context.
I agree with you, this is scientific malpractice. And you can add Norway to your list of countries.
Include the state government of Western Australia an another user of RCP8.5.
It’s time for scientists to stop being supporting cast players in the Kabuki theater of climate science.
The show has been taken over by rabidly vocal, partisan control freaks who preach Armageddon.
Of course, standing up for their belief in accurate science would likely cost their job, career and innumerable other hardships, If done alone.
But a group could put together a delegation letter or document of some sort to attempt to course correct this issue that has gone wildly off course.
Bjorn Lomborg in elsevier.com/locate/techfore-“welfare in the 21st century” seem to say SSP8.5 is a better way for humanity if it happens that way,ie,do less and we will be better off as a civilization.Am I misunderstanding that ?Is he saying that reducing fossil fuel use a lot will be harmful in the long run? Help! Please explain in laymans language!
He's saying in a much more complex fashion that attempting a massive reduction in fossil fuels use while expanding solar and wind will only have the effect of making developing countries more vulnerable and much poorer. While wealthy countries reduce consumption of fuels in cars and homes, that will be replaced by the enormously more resource (oil, minerals, rare earth metals, etc) dependent solar and wind installations and battery production necessary to produce and store the electricity necessary for a functioning society to exist. Further, since wind and the sun are intermittent, we will continue to require gas, coal and oil backup for said electricity.
The green utopia requires more fossil fuels than are used now along with the largest increase in mining in the history of that activity to support ever greater electricity needs. And in the meantime, poor countries won't begin to have enough wealth to create the ecological disaster that will be a wind and solar infrastructure as they try to crawl out of poverty. The West is selling empty water bottles to the parched.
No one wants to hear just two facts:
1. No one has ever presented a proof that more CO2 will increase absorption of more of earths radiation. Not in 30 years!!
2. The NASA study of atmospheric absorption of earth's IR radiation shows that The present level of CO2 is adequate to absorb ALL of the energy in the only wavelengths that CO2 can effectively absorb, 14-16 microns. Even Mann has admitted this.
Thus Added CO2 can have no effect on climate, and all the models in the world are based on a falsity, so are worthless. One model is as baseless as any other.
We need to get off this delusion that carbon dioxide is a problem. If global warming is a problem, lets investigate it rationally. Stop the war on carboniferous fuels.
As Michael Shellenberger writes, opposition to the Climate Alarmism scenario is dead and gone. The climate is changing but in it's normal, cyclical fashion as the Planets climate has cyclically changed over millennia. This Climatist, climate alarmism is a scam, but has been so deeply ingrained in the minds of the populace by persistent lies and ceaseless propaganda, spread by MSM, so as to make it almost impossible to change the sheeples' minds on this matter. As witness to what happened in Germany in the 1930's, who had the masters of propaganda, if you want to lie make it so huge and backed up by continuous propagands that even you - the propagandist - will eventually believe such a lie is true. This is what has happened to climate alarmism. The MSM engendered FEAR, is just too big to be just a lie, too big to fail, too many converted believers, too much money involved individually by the billionaires, too much at stake for the globalists such as the trans nationalists organisations of the woke WEF, the woke UN and corporationally and politically of those in power in the Western societies. Unless there is a paradigm shift in the core beliefs of the western world sheeple, there can be no change in the accetance of this FEAR of cliate alarmism... 😒
In NC, the scientists and the public pushed back on the proposed legislation but never explained the underlying assumptions of different scenarios including their implicitly chosen one, A1F1, arguing it to be most likely. The follow up compared RCP8.5 to RCP 2.6.
Change will NOT come unless scientists speak out! And scientists who suck on Government's teat have a strong incentive NOT to speak out. Like good little Docilians working on the government plantation, they do only what they're told to do. When it all falls apart, they whine that they were only following orders...
Some profit from the implausible scenarios. Fear will justify spending that employs more policy makers and researchers; more investment in projects that may serve no purpose; and all at the expense of more worthwhile endeavors.
Face it. Eliminating 8.5 as being highly implausible and accepting that we are currently on track to undershoot 4.5 significantly reduces the seriousness of the climate change problem and calls into question the need to drastically accelerate decarbonization. The fact that the climate industrial complex refuses to get on board with this should not be surprising.
Maybe a good start toward rationality would be for Roger to update the first slide in his "Introduction to Climate Change for Dummies" deck.
I've long assumed that policy makers would use the most aggressive scenarios. Not so much to affect policy but to claim victory. As reality pushes on projections, and as those projections drop to be more in line with reality, policy makers will adopt a "we averted a crisis" position to justify past policy. It becomes much like a self reinforcing loop. The bigger the gap between projection and reality, the more likely victory will claimed. This has always been the policy goal. As for the scientists, I'm sorry to say, this process was never designed to allow reality to eclipse hyperbole. The scientists were only there to provide legitimacy to the process. Don't misconstrue my statements here, I'm not saying that man has no effect on climate. I'm not a scientist, but I am a recovering politician. And as such I know a win/win two step when I see one.
More evidence to support my contention that this entire anthropogenic climate change debate has never been about the science of climate. It is about controlling humanity, which apparently, is our biggest threat.
“The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models.” – Chris Folland UK Meteorological Office