Reposted from the Fabius Maximus website
By Larry Kummer, Editor / 8 February 2020
Summary: Progress in the climate policy debate comes too slowly. The use and misuse of RCP8.5 shows why. At this pace, the climate will give final answers before we get a consensus. We can’t afford this.
In 2015 I gave one of the early critiques of the RCP8.5 scenario. Is our certain fate a coal-burning climate apocalypse? No! And then Manufacturing climate nightmares: misusing science to create horrific predictions (it was the first Dr. Curry saw about the issue). I – and the many who followed – said two easily proven things.
- The RCP8.5 scenario was a good worst-case scenario, showing what might happen if many things go wrong. It is either unlikely or impossible.
- The RCP8.5 has been described as the “business as usual” (BAU) scenario and so become the central scenario for both researchers and policy-makers. It is not BAU (see below for details), and should not be the main case for either group.
In most other fields, there would have been debate and then RCP8.5 would have been used only in an appropriate way – as a worst-case scenario. But this is climate science, and five years later the debate continues to chase its tail. But this might be changing.
For an introduction to the RCPs, see “Understanding The Great Climate Science Scenario Debate” by Roger Pielke Jr. (Professor, U CO-Boulder) at Forbes. That these kinds of articles appear the major journals show that climate scientists might be seeing the obvious: “Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading” by Zeke Hausfather and Glen P. Peters in Nature – “Stop using the worst-case scenario for climate warming as the most likely outcome; more-realistic baselines make for better policy.” I recommend reading it in full, especially their conclusions.
“A sizeable portion of the literature on climate impacts refers to RCP8.5 as business as usual, implying that it is probable in the absence of stringent climate mitigation. The media then often amplifies this message, sometimes without communicating the nuances. This results in further confusion regarding probable emissions outcomes, because many climate researchers are not familiar with the details of these scenarios in the energy-modelling literature. …
“Happily – and that’s a word we climatologists rarely get to use – the world imagined in RCP8.5 is one that, in our view, becomes increasingly implausible with every passing year. …
“We must all – from physical scientists and climate-impact modellers to communicators and policymakers – stop presenting the worst-case scenario as the most likely one. Overstating the likelihood of extreme climate impacts can make mitigation seem harder than it actually is. This could lead to defeatism, because the problem is perceived as being out of control and unsolvable. Pressingly, it might result in poor planning, whereas a more realistic range of baseline scenarios will strengthen the assessment of climate risk.”
The fun for activists is over when even the BBC runs the headline “Climate change: Worst emissions scenario ‘exceedingly unlikely’.” It took a decade to make this simple point.
The skeptics contribute to the confusion
Many skeptics – both scientists and laypeople – say that RCP8.5 is “bad science” or “impossible.” Both are absurd. The first is easy to dismiss. The RCP’s are well-constructed and part of a decade-long research program. These papers clearly describe some of the many paths by we might get to RCP8.5. They often describe it as a “business as usual” scenario – which it is not.
The second objection is more complex. If it is impossible, then RCP8.5 is not a useful worst-case scenario for researchers and policy-making. It is not impossible. There are many ways to get to a given concentration pathway. We might get to RCP8.5 via inflection points in some long-standing trends (e.g., energy efficiency, population). We might get there by a poorly understood event (i.e., a massive release of methane from melting permafrost) whose probability cannot be estimated at present. We might thereby large emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels. We might get there because the strength of carbon cycle feedbacks or a dozen other climate dynamics are worse than currently estimated.
Each of those, in turn, can occur for several reasons. Technological progress could slow. Population growth might be faster than predicted, perhaps because fertility in Africa slowed less than expected. Petroleum might be less than estimated; coal deposits might be less than estimated (they probably are). Either of these would force tapping lower-quality deposits – which would release more CO2.
The worst-case scenario reminds us that bad things happen. Sometimes our luck goes bad and many bad things happen. These rare events make history. Let’s not become history like that.
Many things went wrong to make the Titanic famous
At 11:40 pm on 14 April 1912 the RMS Titanic was on its last voyage. The captain disregarded warnings of icebergs, and ordered steaming at high speed (22 knots) under a dark sky (no moon, no Venus) with no wind (so no waves breaking on the ice).
The lookouts peer ahead, but without binoculars. Second officer David Blair had the key to the locker holding the binoculars. He was transferred off the ship before it left on its maiden voyage from Southampton and accidentally took the key with him.
The lookouts sounded three bells for an object dead ahead. First Officer William Murdoch ordered the rudder “hard astarboard” and the engines “full astern” – intending to steer around the iceberg. That was not the “book” response, and it did not work well. Reversing the engines reduced the flow over the rudder and its effectiveness. Even so, the Titanic almost made it. The hull gently brushed against the ice. Water entered through 230′ rips where plates buckled and seams opened.
The Californian was close and could have rescued its passengers. Through incredible negligence, it did not do so (its captain was broken for negligence).
The rest is history. All of these things were necessary for the disaster. What were the odds of all these things happening on one voyage?
Conclusions
Well-designed worst-case scenarios are unlikely or impossible. And sometimes they happen. We need to prepare for those. But it is imprudent to bankrupt ourselves to prevent them – or become obsessed with one risk ignore other high-priority needs.
How should we use all these scenarios? There is a large body of knowledge and experience in the field of risk management. Of course they have little role in climate science and climate policy. This is a madness that we can fix by forcing climate science institutions to behave better. That means more science, less politics – as I propose here and here.
Second, we need to understand that we face many serious risks. Allowing activists to focus us on one that find politically useful could be disasterous. We need to allocate our limited funds with a rational awareness of the full spectrum of risks – as I propose here.
Simple and sensible steps can help us steer to a safe and prosperous future. Getting there requires our involvement to make it happen.
For More Information
Ideas! For some shopping ideas see my recommended books and films at Amazon. Also, see a story about our future: Ultra Violence: Tales from Venus.
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. For more information see The keys to understanding climate change, all posts about coal, about the RCPs, and especially these …
- Climate scientists can restart the climate policy debate & win: test the models!
- We can end the climate policy wars: demand a test of the models.
- Focusing on worst-case climate futures doesn’t work. It shouldn’t work.
- Roger Pielke Jr.: the politics of unlikely climate scenarios.
- Is climate change an existential threat to humanity?
- After 30 years of failed climate politics, let’s try science! – A proposal to break the policy gridlock.
- The biggest question: how much will the world warm?
- An obvious solution to the climate policy crisis.
Activists don’t want you to read these
Some unexpected good news about polar bears: The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened
To learn more about the state of climate change see The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters & Climate Change
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Happily – and that’s a word we climatologists rarely get to use”
That’s because you’ve let it go on and on and on without evidence of any harm by CO2. It’s YOUR fault that you can’t use the word very often, not because of what’s actually happening naturally.
Nice work Larry
You know it’s an alarmist screed when drive-by Mosh praises it.
The Warmests claims have never been about the climate or sea level rise or any of their other predictions. It has always been about. One World communist government and the redistribution of wealth around the world. If you want the Western world to become another Venezuela continue on the current path, or you could just move to Venezuela.
With regard to the Titanic, as far as I know there was a fire in one of the coal stores onboard the ship prior to departure. The easiest way of dealing with such a fire was to spend the coal as fast as possible, and this was apparently the cause of the ship keeping high speed on its journey. With regard to the binoculars for the look-out, the sentiment at the time was that the lookout was there to keep an eye on the “big picture” of things and it was not his task to spot and identify sightings. He was only there for the call-out, and the officer on watch would do the identification. Quite a few captains were of the opinion that it was of no use to a look-out, and some even said it was outright dangerous since it would draw the look-outs attention. At least five pairs of binoculars were available and not locked away at the time the iceberg was spotted.
In any case, the sinking of the Titanic was a result of a chain of events. If the analogy is useful here it is that of the universal accident – a chain of events that by themselves are unlikely, and together are near to impossible – but it happens anyway (Douglas Adams makes a fun point about it with his Infinite Improbability Drive).
That said, I find this piece to be in the constructive tone it should be. I believe it is important to show that the use of RCP8.5, and the similar scenarios and other mechanisms used by the IPCC in previous AR’s , has been criticized by skeptics all along. That Hausfather and Peters wrote that piece is all good, but it does not let them off the hook for not writing it earlier. They have known this for a very long time, but they are amongst those who sit quietly and don’t rock the boat. I know it is not in the spirit of being constructive, but we should never stop questioning ethics in all of this. If you call yourself a scientist or researcher, there are standards of ethics you must adhere to. One of them is speaking up despite it being uncomfortable.
“Summary: Progress in the climate policy debate comes too slowly. The use and misuse of RCP8.5 shows why. At this pace, the climate will give final answers before we get a consensus. We can’t afford this.”
We don’t need “progress” in the “climate policy debate,” because we don’t NEED any “climate policy.” The notion that we do is based on the entirely false premise that human activities have a significant and dangerous impact on the Earth’s climate and that changes in human activities can “control” the degree to which the Earth’s climate changes.
The use and misuse of RCP8.5 is merely a reflection of the degree to which changes to the Earth’s climate are being propagandized in order to push a political agenda that wouldn’t solve the imaginary “crisis” IF it was real.
The climate’s “final answer” is much more affordable than the deluded attempts to “control” climate, which will cause nothing but economic pain and human suffering while doing nothing about “climate,” and while simultaneously undermining human ability to do the one and only thing it can do about “climate,” which is called “adapt to it.”
Summary: What we can’t afford IS “climate policy.”
Progress in the climate policy debate comes too slowly. The use and misuse of RCP8.5 shows why. At this pace, the climate will give final answers before
– we get a consensus.
– We can’t afford this.
“We must all – [ ] – stop presenting the worst-case scenario [ ] before
we get a consensus ….
– We might get to RCP8.5 via inflection points ….
– We might get there by a poorly understood event ( ) whose probability cannot be estimated at present ….
– We might there by large emissions of greenhouse gases ….
– We might get there because the strength of carbon cycle feedbacks ….
Lots of “We”.
It’s you,
Charles Rotter / 2 weeks ago February 10, 2020 Reposted from the Fabius Maximus website By Larry Kummer, Editor / 8 February
I’m sure.
____________________________________
Many things went wrong At 11:40 pm on 14 April 1912 on board the RMS Titanic
https://www.google.com/search?q=unsave+titanic&oq=unsave+titanic&aqs=chrome.
____________________________________
The night was cold and foggy. Bad luck.
There’s been Icebergs underway, on their chosen route; they didn’t find appropriate field glasses; they underestimated the driving ice chunks in the distance.
Negligence. They wanted to be just in time. For the passengers. And to save coal on the Steam Boiler Operation.
Sad story. April 1912.
____________________________________
The world did not come to an end. Knock on wood.
Feb 2020.