Thank you, Roger, for the link to the interview with Prof. Skea. The whole interview is very informative, but here is a link to the section where Michael Liebriech and Prof. Skea discuss RCP8.5 and the section Roger quoted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAWUdL5ZKsk&t=2312s Michael goes on to say,
"if we were to really step on, on you know, pull every lever possible to produce emissions, the laws of physics and chemistry would allow us to get to 8.5"
And yet, RPC8.5 is apparently the scenario governments in North American and Europe are using to mandate the spending of trillions of dollars on measures to combate climate change.
So here's a radical idea... Throw some curious non climate scientists onto the " solutions" team of the IPCC.
Make me that czar and I'll ask a team of economists to estimate how many nuclear reactors we'd have on line right now if the IPCC had convinced the EU, USA, et all to build those over the last 25 years rather than blow the same public money on wind & solar. How many more coal plants would have been retired, WHAT WOULD THE LAND USE DIFFERENCE BE, how much more reliable would the capacity factor be, etc...
Model the path not taken. The estimate will be absurdly conservative, because it will measure with loopy current prices of building reactors as if they were individually works of art, rather than the economy of scale that would take hold. But it would be a start.
Then let the climate scientists back in to explain where that might have put us right now and going forward.
A friendlier attitude toward natgas for coal replacement could be factored in as well.
I'm not looking for a "we warned you" moment, but more a worldwide "let's turn around & do this better" realization.
COVID demonstrated pretty well that science can make a mess when it leaves the "here's the data" lane & veers into the "we know the ideal policy response" assumption.
We should find out soon enough if the new IPCC Chair intends to make the necessary changes to the approach toward science vs advocacy, if he starts with the inclusion of “outsiders” for the next assessment who are not captured by the climate advocacy cartel.
Thank you, Roger, for this analysis focusing on priority areas for IPCC and its new Chairman.
I remain puzzled by the submission everyone must demonstrate for the hegemon of diversity and inclusion, as if it would by itself enhance the quality of the result. I would prefer indifference to particularisms and a commitment to excellence that does not leave any stone unturned.
On scientific integrity and policy relevance, I would rather call for a resizing of the IPCC scope: It has become a kind of "state in the state" that prescribes policies (although this is not explicitly stated) and feeds alarmism with no intent to calm down overinterpretation. The remit of the 2nd and 3rd working groups needs trimming to the bone to avoid entering in tasks that pertain to legitimate political institutions (and the trials and errors they are bound to make).
For the scientific/technical part, many questions still need resolving and I agree with your assessment.
Overall, it strikes me that, contrary to any scientific society or professional association, the climate issue is taken as a deterministic object: model making, impact assessments and scenario plays to achieve predictability. Isn't this fundamentally wrong?
This said, we all know that a human organization that developed that many idiosyncrasies in a relatively brief time (35 years since the inception of IPCC) will not be prone to change. Any director, minister or chairperson taking up a new office will be confronted with all the impossibilities that will be exposed to them in response to any proposal for improvement. That's why these points (and yours too) may well remain nothing more than wishful thinking.
There's plenty more to comment on, and I'm thinking of writing something along those lines, but I'll leave it at that for now.
I share your hope. I have come around to a less anti ipcc than in the early 00s. I'd like to believe this is based on objective reasoning but the truth is it's more likely the ipcc has moved closer to my gut feeling on the affects of humans on climate. Where I'm most bearish, however; is in regards to the summary statements. As long as these are written by politicians, or politicized scientist, the ipcc could project future warming ranges of 0 to .1c and it would still be reported in apocalyptic fashion. I admit to not understanding that process well. But what I hear from the scientists and what I hear from the summaries are quite nearly polar opposites.
Well done. Appreciate your analysis. I wish more people would listen to you but I’m afraid careers and ideology are too far embedded into the IPCC and politicians.
What does it mean to wear the "official hat"? Seems to say that there is a party line that he is obligated to espouse in public. Given where we are today, Prof. Skea needs to get rid of that hat and open up his and the IPCC's mind to new paradigms and processes. Is he up to the task or is he a politician that will go along to get along? He's been heavily involved with the IPCC for 30 years..........time will tell.
Prof. Skea points out that the "I" in "IPCC" stands for "Intergovernmental", not "International" or "Independent". So it would seem to be difficult to impossible for a group of IPCC scientists to go back to governments they're beholden to and say, "those trillion dollar climatic bills you just passed, they're actually based on very unlikely information we gave you."?
Not sure if the IPCC has ever assessed this but I’d like to see it address the plausibility and pros and cons of different levels of policy stringency and net zero timelines for different classes of emitting counties.
Very few folks will admit to there being any downside to the most aggressive timelines but surely there are? Misplaced political energy for one. Counterproductive political backlashes for another.
Mr. Pielke, well put, hope the new boss listens more to the likes of you or Judith Curry and less to Michael Mann who is so thoroughly invested in alarmism, he’s lost much of his credibility. Two words are absent here:
1) wicked problem ( must be acknowledged)and
2) precautionary principle (in my opinion doesn’t apply)
Two things, first, thanks for the link to the practitioners piece.
Second - don’t know if you’ve seen this.. isn’t everyone basically trying to do the same thing at the same time? (That is northern countries with lotsa R&D bucks and the IPCC?). If IPCC says one thing about future climate and adaptation and National Big Science says something else, what are we to do? Other than employ lots of scientists..on topics that may not be all that useful . See first thing about practitioners..
The issue is not “science”. The relation between Gt CO2, ppm CO2 and delta-T can be reasonably approximated.
There are two issues:
Issue #1 is scenarios. What makes sense? What is a reasonable projection for the future? Right now, the IPCC has lost all credibility for its extremely high and low scenarios. I think the lowest two are as crazy as the 8.5.
Issue#2 is impacts. For any given Gt CO2, ppm CO2 and delta-T , what are the impacts. In some sense I suppose you could call that "science" but it seems to degenerate into a pseudoscience biased by preconceived views?
Yeah, I have extremely high confidence that CO2 causes warming and nearly the same confidence that negative impacts are almost exclusively being considered and modeled
Of the three main climate economic models only one includes CO2 fertilization as a benefit despite it likely being one of the most certain and quantifiable effects of climate change
Thank you, Roger, for the link to the interview with Prof. Skea. The whole interview is very informative, but here is a link to the section where Michael Liebriech and Prof. Skea discuss RCP8.5 and the section Roger quoted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAWUdL5ZKsk&t=2312s Michael goes on to say,
"if we were to really step on, on you know, pull every lever possible to produce emissions, the laws of physics and chemistry would allow us to get to 8.5"
And yet, RPC8.5 is apparently the scenario governments in North American and Europe are using to mandate the spending of trillions of dollars on measures to combate climate change.
So here's a radical idea... Throw some curious non climate scientists onto the " solutions" team of the IPCC.
Make me that czar and I'll ask a team of economists to estimate how many nuclear reactors we'd have on line right now if the IPCC had convinced the EU, USA, et all to build those over the last 25 years rather than blow the same public money on wind & solar. How many more coal plants would have been retired, WHAT WOULD THE LAND USE DIFFERENCE BE, how much more reliable would the capacity factor be, etc...
Model the path not taken. The estimate will be absurdly conservative, because it will measure with loopy current prices of building reactors as if they were individually works of art, rather than the economy of scale that would take hold. But it would be a start.
Then let the climate scientists back in to explain where that might have put us right now and going forward.
A friendlier attitude toward natgas for coal replacement could be factored in as well.
I'm not looking for a "we warned you" moment, but more a worldwide "let's turn around & do this better" realization.
COVID demonstrated pretty well that science can make a mess when it leaves the "here's the data" lane & veers into the "we know the ideal policy response" assumption.
We should find out soon enough if the new IPCC Chair intends to make the necessary changes to the approach toward science vs advocacy, if he starts with the inclusion of “outsiders” for the next assessment who are not captured by the climate advocacy cartel.
Thank you, Roger, for this analysis focusing on priority areas for IPCC and its new Chairman.
I remain puzzled by the submission everyone must demonstrate for the hegemon of diversity and inclusion, as if it would by itself enhance the quality of the result. I would prefer indifference to particularisms and a commitment to excellence that does not leave any stone unturned.
On scientific integrity and policy relevance, I would rather call for a resizing of the IPCC scope: It has become a kind of "state in the state" that prescribes policies (although this is not explicitly stated) and feeds alarmism with no intent to calm down overinterpretation. The remit of the 2nd and 3rd working groups needs trimming to the bone to avoid entering in tasks that pertain to legitimate political institutions (and the trials and errors they are bound to make).
For the scientific/technical part, many questions still need resolving and I agree with your assessment.
Overall, it strikes me that, contrary to any scientific society or professional association, the climate issue is taken as a deterministic object: model making, impact assessments and scenario plays to achieve predictability. Isn't this fundamentally wrong?
This said, we all know that a human organization that developed that many idiosyncrasies in a relatively brief time (35 years since the inception of IPCC) will not be prone to change. Any director, minister or chairperson taking up a new office will be confronted with all the impossibilities that will be exposed to them in response to any proposal for improvement. That's why these points (and yours too) may well remain nothing more than wishful thinking.
There's plenty more to comment on, and I'm thinking of writing something along those lines, but I'll leave it at that for now.
So, his first priority is “ improving inclusiveness and diversity”.
So flush merit which means flush science.
It’s going to get worse Roger, he was selected to keep the panic meter at 11.
Sad.
I share your hope. I have come around to a less anti ipcc than in the early 00s. I'd like to believe this is based on objective reasoning but the truth is it's more likely the ipcc has moved closer to my gut feeling on the affects of humans on climate. Where I'm most bearish, however; is in regards to the summary statements. As long as these are written by politicians, or politicized scientist, the ipcc could project future warming ranges of 0 to .1c and it would still be reported in apocalyptic fashion. I admit to not understanding that process well. But what I hear from the scientists and what I hear from the summaries are quite nearly polar opposites.
Well done. Appreciate your analysis. I wish more people would listen to you but I’m afraid careers and ideology are too far embedded into the IPCC and politicians.
Thanks!
I admire your optimism that the IPCC can be fixed.
I hope you are right.
I fear that you are sadly mistaken and they can never escape the interests that have captured them.
I'd prefer to live in the world where you are correct....
Thanks... let's give them a chance. We will be following carefully for sure!
"Climate policy cannot succeed by keeping poor people poor..."
Profound and succinct. I'm pretty sure Professor Skea is going to adopt this as his motto.
We all should!
I have never seen Diversity (as in DEI) interpreted as diversity of opinion, but hopefully the IPCC will be the first to do so.
I hear this a fair bit
What does it mean to wear the "official hat"? Seems to say that there is a party line that he is obligated to espouse in public. Given where we are today, Prof. Skea needs to get rid of that hat and open up his and the IPCC's mind to new paradigms and processes. Is he up to the task or is he a politician that will go along to get along? He's been heavily involved with the IPCC for 30 years..........time will tell.
Prof. Skea points out that the "I" in "IPCC" stands for "Intergovernmental", not "International" or "Independent". So it would seem to be difficult to impossible for a group of IPCC scientists to go back to governments they're beholden to and say, "those trillion dollar climatic bills you just passed, they're actually based on very unlikely information we gave you."?
Yes, that was troubling to be sure
Great post.
Not sure if the IPCC has ever assessed this but I’d like to see it address the plausibility and pros and cons of different levels of policy stringency and net zero timelines for different classes of emitting counties.
Very few folks will admit to there being any downside to the most aggressive timelines but surely there are? Misplaced political energy for one. Counterproductive political backlashes for another.
Thanks
Exactly the sort of dispassionate info that is needed
Mr. Pielke, well put, hope the new boss listens more to the likes of you or Judith Curry and less to Michael Mann who is so thoroughly invested in alarmism, he’s lost much of his credibility. Two words are absent here:
1) wicked problem ( must be acknowledged)and
2) precautionary principle (in my opinion doesn’t apply)
Thanks for a great post
Victor Adams
Thanks!
Two things, first, thanks for the link to the practitioners piece.
Second - don’t know if you’ve seen this.. isn’t everyone basically trying to do the same thing at the same time? (That is northern countries with lotsa R&D bucks and the IPCC?). If IPCC says one thing about future climate and adaptation and National Big Science says something else, what are we to do? Other than employ lots of scientists..on topics that may not be all that useful . See first thing about practitioners..
https://democrats-science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/wildland_fire_risk_reduction_program_act_2023_reintroduction.pdf
The issue is not “science”. The relation between Gt CO2, ppm CO2 and delta-T can be reasonably approximated.
There are two issues:
Issue #1 is scenarios. What makes sense? What is a reasonable projection for the future? Right now, the IPCC has lost all credibility for its extremely high and low scenarios. I think the lowest two are as crazy as the 8.5.
Issue#2 is impacts. For any given Gt CO2, ppm CO2 and delta-T , what are the impacts. In some sense I suppose you could call that "science" but it seems to degenerate into a pseudoscience biased by preconceived views?
Yeah, I have extremely high confidence that CO2 causes warming and nearly the same confidence that negative impacts are almost exclusively being considered and modeled
Of the three main climate economic models only one includes CO2 fertilization as a benefit despite it likely being one of the most certain and quantifiable effects of climate change