A twitter thread by Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.
Over coming days, I’ll have a few follow up threads on my @FT piece published online today . . .
https://www.ft.com/content/a82a7bf6-b567-46cf-899c-edcee1079349
🧵The @NGFS_ climate scenarios are interesting in notable respects . . .
In June 2020 @NGFS_ recognized that RCP scenarios underpinning most scenario-based climate studies “do not match well with recent emissions trends”👍
Thus new scenarios were needed, lest they rely on outdated science
So the NGFS created new scenarios…
The new scenarios add even more complexity to the already Byzantine world of climate scenarios … but once you go down the rabbit hole, one can quickly realize that the new scenarios repeat key mistakes of the old scenarios they were to replace…
The @NGFS_ baseline scenario – called “Hot House World” – is simply implausible projecting ever-increasing emissions to 2100, accelerating late century
Using such an implausible future as a plausible baseline expectation is bound to mislead . . .
Red line is more plausible
A more technical illustration of the same point can be seen below
“Hot House World” is not as extreme as IPCC baselines (SSP-7.0 & SSP-8.5) but it is still far too extreme to serve as a plausible baseline scenario, falling about midway between SSP6.0 & 7.0 outcomes
There is an urgent need to not just update climate scenarios, but to implement a process whereby they can be kept instantaneously current … we can do this, we know how
More here:
https://www.ft.com/content/a82a7bf6-b567-46cf-899c-edcee1079349
More tomorrow … 🔥
Originally tweeted by Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) on May 9, 2021.
The Future isn’t as good as it used to be !
Too sophisticated. There is a simpler analysis:
More momentum for the UK renewables crash test dummy, presently burning huge amounts of green cash.
Rud: Our Fed is spouting the same garbage.
It’s not garbage to them. It’s a Job Description.
…but it has to be “worse than we thought” or else the unicorns magic won’t work.
Nick believes in those unicorns
I don’t think that our emissions have enough effect on the atmospheric content to make any difference. Dr. Ed Berry, Hermann Harde and Murray Salby don’t either. Will Happer doesn,t think more CO2 in the atmosphere will have much effect on warming because his analysis finds that band saturated. Before getting the scenarios fixed some of those working on it ought to check out these works to decide if their efforts are useful.
DMA, you may be right, but please don’t bring Murray Salby into it. Shows lack of climate science knowledge. If you persist, I will resurrect the detailed, archived post Judith decided not to post at CLimate Etc. lest it bring more attention to him. Will give it to Charles to send to you privately. WE also thoroughly debunked Salby here years ago just by showing Salby got confused about efold times. BTW, did you know Salby got expelled from AUS because while he was traveling in EU the AUS Uni discovered he had been expelled from his previous US uni for misappropriation of grant funds? A little research can go a long way.
Rud
Thank you for the report. I will look it over closly. Have you or anyone refuted Harde or Berry? I am not capable of doing a scientific review but can catch some poor assumptions and analysis. Kohler’s refutation of Harde 2017 was a hollow effort. In your view, how much of the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is from human emissions? IPCC says it all is but their analysis sits on some shaky assumptions in my opinion.
Did not even try. Just focused on Salby, because of all the attention he created when ‘canceled’ by his the AUS uni. He then did a series of three video lectures available (maybe still) on Ytube. My critiques was based on his three video lectures. After each, responding to valid criticism, he changed definitions and calculations. A NoNo.
Rud Istvan knows as much about this subject as he does about science.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/murry-salby-responds-to-the-attacks-on-his-record/
https://mlsxmq.wixsite.com/salby-macquarie/page-1f
Thermogeddonites can’t explain acceleration in temperatures or sea level rise, without relying on a perceived positive feedback or a tipping point. Without explaining the mechanism for producing the feedback cycle or identifying the point-of-balance, there is no scientific basis for either of those conditions to exist. In the absence of experience and evidence for any substantial warming or meaningful measurement of drastic, unprecedented rise of sea level, the scary adjectives don’t matter, merely verbal multiplying of nothing by null, and without any rational factual content.
Ravings by maniacs shouldn’t be ignored, but the individuals in question should be isolated so as to prevent harm to themselves and others and a cure can be attempted.
DK, I have written about this issue extensively in many essays in ebook Blowing Smoke. There is ample evidence for (weak) positive feedback, netting an ECS about 1.6-1.7-1.8C ( hey, there are massive uncertainties). There is NO observational evidence for any century or millenium tipping point in anything. See essay One if by Land… for two contrived examples claiming the opposite with respect to sea level, one of which is from its own SI proven academic misconduct.
Note Willis Eschenbach’s post last week “Surface Response to Increased Forcing” argues for an ECS of about half a degree:
“An increase of 3.7 W/m2 in downwelling surface radiation, which is the theoretical increase from a doubling of CO2, will only increase the surface temperature by something on the order of a half of a degree C.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/05/surface-response-to-increased-forcing/
Is too low. I have explained many times, Plus, am not sure his analysis is correct. Wrote him about that in a comment to that post. See my comment to it there for details, to which he did not satisfacgtorily respond. IMO, one of the biggest ‘sekptic ‘postions’ is overstating conclusions. I have had this stuff with Monckton since forever. See my latest reply to him for a very subtle, but brutal, rebuttal.
“IMO, one of the biggest ‘sekptic ‘postions’ is overstating conclusions.”
Kettle, meet pot.
Water is a net cooling agent in the atmosphere. The open ocean surface does not get warmer than 30C for sustained periods. The energy input goes negative above 32C. Convergence sets in to regulate around 30C.
At higher latitudes, all the moisture moisture catapulted high into the atmosphere over the tropics produces reflective cloud as it solidifies and eventually reaches the surface as rain. The ocean circulations have 6cm of water at the tropics and it drops to 1cm bu the time it gets to the higher latitudes.
Ocean temperature reaches a maximum in July and the atmospheric water is providing 4W/sq.m cooling for every cm of water added – strong cooling response.
There is no “Greenhouse Effect”. It is a contrived fantasy. Ocean surface temperature has regulated upper and lowrer limits; sea ice at the lower limit and increasing altitude for Level of Free Convection with surface temperature that results in persistent reflective cloud over 32C ocean water to take surface energy input negative. Albedo quite clearly trumps absorption and re-emission at lower temperature.
I have been saying this for a long time. The 30C figure stems from the water vapour pressure V temperature graph where this pressure rises very rapidly to increase evaporation to the level where solar radiation is converted to Latent Heat at constant temperature of around this 30C (ie: at a Plank coefficient of sensitivity of Zero)
This Latent Heat is then carried UP through the atmosphere by the buoyancy of the vapor/gas generated for dissipation in the clouds and on to space. The whole process being totally independent of CO2 at whatever level.
The IPCC claim that water provides a POSITIVE feedback to the Greenhouse Effect is manifestly FALSE as the large energies involved in the above (circa 694 Watthrs per kilogram of water evaporated) act to ensure a NEGATIVE feedback.
Yes. H2O absorbs a lot of the sun’s near IR. Much more than CO2 could “feedback”.
We need to emphasize that the basic formulation of warming theory is that ECS is a constant that is applied per doubling of CO2 concentration. A graph of temperature vs CO2 will be a logarithmic curve. It does not accelerate, it decelerates.
Regardless merits, this will never happen. It would take far too much effort to continually revise their algorithms to keep producing the desired result. That is too much like work and anathema to rent seekers.
Desperation is truly setting in for the warmunists. It’s hilarious to watch the depths of it.
As I read Kip’s articles on the manipulation of the MSM along with censorship on social media, yup, “desperation” is the word.
I’ve got a National Weather Service station about three miles to the north. I’m monitoring it’s web site, along with Weather Channel who use the same station. The Weather Channel reported figure is normally one or two degrees higher. This morning, for yesterdays readings: 91° on the ‘station’ report, 94° on the ‘WC’. (sic. – deliberate)
Twentynine Palms SELF Airport
Twentynine Palms, CA Monthly Weather Forecast – weather.com
(It’s 1300, two indoor thermometers each showing 86°, my wife just turned on the swamp cooler.)
The statement ‘”Hot House World” from fossil fuels’ begs the question i.e. assumes the very point in dispute, they get away with it because that basic assumption has been ingrained in the public mind starting with the infamous hockey stick graph.
The same applies to all their scenarios.
Of course that is not to deny human emissions may have some indeterminable effect.
It’s tough handling the global warmening crisis in shorts T-shirts and thongs-
Millions to face cold snap plunging Australia into an early winter (msn.com)
The problem for humanity is not global warming but rather the reverse climate cooling which was at the désertification’s origin of millions km2: Sahara, Arabian Peninsula, Pakistan … Today global warming is an opportunity for us humans apart from a few countries which will lose:
https://nantt44.wordpress.com/2019/02/19/chapter-viii-betius-charmutha-arabia-felix-and-the-climatic-change/
There is an urgent need to disband all climate models and save the billions that will be spent on them in the future. They will never model the eath’s climate accurately and always will do more harm than good. What is the value of a weather forecast 10 yrs from now? Zilch. Same goes for a climate forecast since we know that the whole GHG scam will NEVER cause a climate emergency. Without an emergency to solve there is no need for climate scientists. Individual topics like the sun, extreme weather ….etc can be studied within the Atmospheric science sub faculties or other appropriate faculty. Since the 70’s climate scientists invented their own sub discipline mainly driven by expensive computer coding run on super computers. It is time to stop this charade.
“What is the value of a weather forecast 10 yrs from now? Zilch.” The same can be said for a week out.
CAGW has, and always be, a political phenomenon and not a physical one…
The CAGW hypothesis has always been a Marxist Trojan horse scheme designed to replace the incredibly successful free-enterprise economic system with a failed fascist/Marxist government controlled economic system.
CAGW’s sole purpose is to scare taxpayers into paying $100’s of trillions to address a fictitious “crisis” that ONLY exists in contrived climate models and manipulated global temperature datasets, and to provide rent-seeking corporations with massive subsidies who are happy play along with Marxists’ WOKE CAGW charade for “free” money…
This stupid scam cannot end soon enough.
When you say a “failed fascist/Marxist government controlled economic system” it’s important to remember whom it has failed. It has NOT failed the implementers. The rent-seekers with little discernable talent other that convincing others to trust them do quite nicely, and hence are all onboard.
People like that never admit a thing. They are emotionally incapable of ever doing so.