It has taken a few days for the climate headbangers to work out the best spin to counter the recent IPCC ruling that the RCP8.5 computer model pathway is “implausible”. Necessary work of course, since the shock ruling from the UN’s main climate science body about a set of impossible assumptions destroyed the validity of almost every mainstream Net Zero-supporting climate scare story published over the last 15 years. First out of the traps was Adam Vaughan of the Times, who said that the most apocalyptic worst-case scenario had been ruled out “thanks to the rapid rise in renewable energy”.
This is the feeble explanation given by the IPCC ‘s own ‘implausible’ authors but, alas, it is not borne out by the facts. In 2011 at the start of the RCP8.5 madness, wind and solar accounted for 0.8% of world energy production. According to the latest fully compiled figures for 2023 from The World in Data, the percentage rose to 4.5%. In other words, the percentage of total global wind and solar energy supply rose from negligible to almost negligible – this despite trillions of dollars being spent on an increasingly expensive source of unreliable and industry-destroying power.
Supporters were quick to run with this seemingly best explanation.
Negligible is a word that also springs to mind given that Vince’s Ecotricity UK onshore wind turbine operation contributes just 0.06 % of current UK electricity generation. Over the last 20 years, he has collected a far from negligible £145 million in subsidy paid by the British consumer. Electricity only accounts for 20% of all UK energy consumption, so Vince’s contribution to the overall total at 0.012% is not so much negligible as practically invisible. Calculations on how much global warming has been saved by all this expensive effort are sadly impossible to calculate.
In passing, Vince also notes a new high scenario figure of 3.5°C, down from 4.5°C. This figure is also mentioned by Adam Vaughan, and it arises from slightly different calculations. The rise of temperature established under RCP8.5 is generally held to be 3.9°C by 2100 from a 1850-1900 baseline. The science writer Roger Pielke Jr., who first drew public attention to the “implausible” finding, calculates that a newly proposed high scenario has an upper temperature rise of 3°C. Still ridiculous, of course, since this is the IPCC, a politically-funded body that gives scientific backing to the belief that almost all global warming in the industrial age is caused by a few trace gases in the atmosphere. Since pre-industrial times, and the lifting of the Little Ice Age, the Earth has warmed around 1°C. All is not lost it seems for clickbait scientists and their willing messengers flaming up bizarre claims in mainstream media. Now the high-end assumptions fed into computer models suggest a possible rise of about 2°C in just 74 years compared with 3°C. Come back Roger Hallam and Extinction Rebellion – all is forgiven.
To digress for a moment. It will be interesting to see if Dale Vince has changed his mind on jailing climate deniers in the light of RCP8.5’s demise. In July 2024, he posted on Twitter, now X, the following in support of five climate vandals who had brought the vital London M25 ring-road to a halt. One of the lunatic disrupters putting emergency services at grave risk was Roger Hallam, who was subsequently imprisoned for five years. The conspiracy was organised by Just Stop Oil, a group given £340,000 by Vince.
The “facing the end of the world” defence has more than a touch of RCP8.5 hysteria about it. Is Vince still in favour of jailing people who have questioned some of the ridiculous stories that have arisen from this now discredited set of assumptions? Are there any other parts of the inquiring scientific process where he thinks jail time is appropriate for those who question the ‘settled’ narrative? I think we should be told.
Alas, Vaughan’s article indicates that the Old Guard has not given up on Hallam-style warnings of the coming apocalypse. IPCC scenario lead author Detlef van Vuuren said that “uncertainties” in how sensitive Earth’s climate is to more greenhouse gases “mean that even under this slightly lower emissions pathway, warming could still end up exceeding 4°C”. Phrases like that of course give the green light to future scaremongering designed to prop up the fading hard-Left Net Zero fantasy. The “uncertainties” noted over carbon dioxide are unlikely to surround the lack of a conclusive temperature link over 600 million years, or a consideration that the Earth has thrived in the past with gas levels many times higher than today’s denuded levels. No chance. When you are deliberately stoking mass climate psychosis for population controlling aims, the uncertainty scare is all about slyly suggesting scenarios that even King Charles, Sir David Attenborough and the Swedish Doom Goblin might think a bit rich.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.
I wonder if RCP 8.5 would have been withdrawn if Trump hadn’t come on the scene and pulled back from so much nonsense.
The US formally withdrew from the IPCC months ago, so no.
Duh. I didn’t say Trump told them what to do. But he sure threw a monkey wrench into the works, freaked out a lot of people, and I wondered if that included whoever did remove RCP 8.5.
In your opinion, politics happens in a matter of days?
They knew in November that he was coming back, so a matter of sixty days.
Are you on Vince’s payroll or are you just agitated because he has a better collection of virtue-signaling scarves than you do?
Who is it?
Some old guy trying to be hip with the young ladies.
Or the young men by the look of him.
AAAha ha ha ha ha ha.
Maybe the Chinese built enough coal fired electrical generating plants to avert the worst case scenario.
Yes, the Chinese have to build enough coal-fired power plants to cover for all those unreliable windmills and solar, when the wind doesn’t blow, and the Sun doesn’t shine.
Strange that their coal consumption for power generation decreased last year…
Strange that China added more than 70GW of new coal generating capacity last year…
George uses data, LooserName repeats whatever the propaganda sites tell him to believe.
According to the CREA/Global Energy Monitor second half review of coal power in China in 2025 52 coal units of 1GW or more entered operation with 291GW in the pipeline.
A further 83GW started construction.
Wrong again.. China is building new generating capacity at record pace.
You’re very sad.
The real reason for the drop in Chiunese coal consumption is that demand for cement and steel has fallen off a cliff as the real estate bubble pops.
RCP8.5 was stated as being unlikely in AR5 (2014).
In AR6 (2022), the IPCC further clarified that RCP8.5 should not be presented as a typical “business-as-usual” projection.
Those that push the narrative have no defence.
#IPCCKnew
No, it’s a fact. Data from Global Carbon Budget, show that the rate of man-made CO2 emissions (fossil fuel and land use combined) over the past decade has reduced from +1.9% per year (2005-2014) to +0.3% per year (2015-2024) and they continued to slow in 2025. They are expected to be negative within the next couple of years.
According to the International Energy Agency, this is largely attributed to clean energy expansion.
RCP8.5 was predicated on a continued increase in the rate of man-made CO2 emissions for the remainder of the century, i.e. that no climate policies would be enacted by any government. Since governments have taken action, the acceleration in emissions has greatly reduced and now deceleration is thought to be on the horizon. Therefore, the IPCC has deemed that an unrestrained emissions scenario is now ‘implausible’ and will officially ‘retire’ RCP8.5 from its upcoming report.
The idea of retiring RCP8.5 has been openly discussed among IPCC authors for over a decade, if anyone was paying attention, and retiring it is a perfectly sensible thing to do given, the long-term reduction in emission rates. Effectively it is an acknowledgement that global regulation of CO2 emissions is working.
“Effectively it is an acknowledgement that global regulation of CO2 emissions is working.”
Define “is working”.
Those are ‘cumulative’ emissions (stock), not annual emission rates (flow).
Sites like this rely on people not appreciating the difference between these two things.
RCP8.5 was predicated on ‘flow’. The rate of acceleration in CO2 emissions was expected to continue to increase, instead the rate of acceleration has decreased over the past decade and is widely expected to flatline and even start decelerating over the next decade.
It’s a nice dream you have 🙂
Forecast emission for 2026 38.4 billion tonnes up 0.5% on 2025 and forecast for 2027 is up 0.5% again on 2026 thanks to AI data centres. Global data centre electricity consumption is surging at roughly 15% per year, four times faster than the rest of the world’s sectors.
Those number BTW are even agreed with by your own lefty sources
https://www.carbonbrief.org/ai-five-charts-that-put-data-centre-energy-use-and-emissions-into-context/
Good luck with your emissions hopes 🙂
A rate of +0.5% per year over 2-years compares to the previous decade’s (2005-2014) rate of +1.9% per year. It won’t significantly move the current rate of +0.3% per year when averaged over a decade. So it still represents a significant decade-on-decade reduction in the rate of man-made CO2 emissions. Hence the retirement of RCP8.5
So something which was never going to happen is not going to happen.
Why is this such a slap in the face for the people who said it was never going to happen?
Well, they didn’t know at the time whether governments would put regulations or renewable incentives, etc, in place, so it’s wrong to say it “… was never going to happen…”
Thankfully, global governments did react and we’re seeing the effectiveness of these measures in the falling rate of acceleration.
It was wrong to say it was never going to happen, even though it never happened?
These people who tell you exactly the truth, and get called deniers, don’t you just hate them?
Western governments, destroying their electricity supply system but introducing “UNRELIABILITY” have made close to zero difference to “carbon” emissions.
You should stop now.
But Dales justification is funny.
Renewables make up only 7% of worlds energy production(according to US – EIA)yet knocked already down a whole degree.
In barely more than a decade(2014 since RCP 8.5?).
As renewable contribution went up roughly 50% since 2000,
and, I guess less than half of that since 2014,
We are talking about > a quarter of the existing 7% (= 1.75 %) that reduced warming by 1 degree.
This means any further increase of renewables by 1.75% should knok off one degree and 3.5* 1.75% should completely stop all the warming = a doubling of current global renewables should be the end of renewable investments
according to Dale.
But I somehow doubt that this was Dales intention.
Mathematicians in the field of topology are particularly intrigued by this guy’s renderings.
2015 -2024 includes several years of the pandemic shutdowns.
In your world, Poland invaded Germany in September 1939.
We really need to make the point that any “scenario”** based on “carbon” emissions is essentially JUNK SCIENCE from the start.
** In climate science, “scenario” means FANTASY, MAKE-BELIEVE,
CO2 is the “One Ring” to control everything ! 😉
“rate”. You keep using that word, but it is obvious you don’t even know what it means.
If your wild theories were true, there would be a decrease in the rate of increase. Please show evidence that supports your beliefs.
Let’s see. Annual emission rates have been reduced, yet cumulative emissions have not. Something is funky with your logic. Either that, or human emissions are a smaller part of the total that previously quoted.
edit -> _rate_of_ cumulative emissions
Not even wrong.
The plot is not cumulative, it is the rate of CO2 emissions per year: atmospheric CO2 concentration / time
Flow is a first order derivative.
Acceleration is a second order derivative.
Note the logarithmic scale in the plot below, the rate of CO2 continues to accelerate.
Anyways, RCP 8.5 was a fiction from the start, based on toy GIGO models.
The model-free measurements show that atmospheric CO2 absorption of the relevant infrared wavelengths saturates at about 400 ppm and increases only logarithmically.
The saturation concentration for the absorption of out going IR light for CO2 is ca. 300 ppmv, which occurred in 1930.
‘Standfast’ is correct – but let them have the success words, lest they redefine the words again and there’s a whole new argument before the money runs out.
In order for a stock to increase in a way that produces increased upward slopes, the flow must …?
Oh God, it’s pathetic.
No it wasn’t “expected to increase”. RCP8.5 was all about if it did increase exponentially. Reality was that it was never going to happen because there simply isn’t enough fossil fuels for that to happen.
“The rate of acceleration in CO2 emissions was expected to continue to increase..”
Perhaps those original expectations were implausible?
Ladies and gentlemen, please, please, please do you not feed the trolls! You believe you smash them? Not at all, they do not care, they are only laughing at you. Because by responding to their AI-generated points and fueling this argument you implicitly admit that: the Global Carbon Budget is a scientifically credible project, which is not; the International Energy Agency is a policy neutral and credible source, which is not; “IPCC authors” are honest and impartial brokers, which is not; and “global regulation of CO2 emissions is working”, which is nonsense per se. Please don’t let them manipulate you. Thank you.
Right, rely instead on fossil-fuel funded think tanks.
Thank you for admitting that you are a conspiracy theorist.
Fungal relies totally on fossil fuels for its very existence.
It could not make it through a single day without using a large number of products that were made, delivered etc using fossil fuels.
It is a massive supporter of the fossil fuel industry.
Can you find any evidence that all of the think tanks who disagree with the climate change scam are funded by fossil fuels? Or do you just repeat whatever you are told to believe.
All the people Fungal listens to are funded by the un-clean renewables industry.
The money in the “climate trough” is HUGE, magnitudes more than any fossil fuel funding to promote reality.
The only proper response, if any, is “Attention…”
Give them the attention they so desperately crave and nothing more.
CS, i agree with you entirely about IEA. It’s been a worthless propaganda mill for renewables ever since tub-of-lard Fatih Birol took over the place a decade ago. You refer to AI generated talking points. It’s not clear that anything human is behind things like TFN or Nick Stokes or several others. All of them may simply be various forms ‘bots carrying out their programs.
CGH: Thank you very much for your feedback.
Re use of AI. I asked ChatGPT if the UN uses AI to compile global climate reports. The answer is “Yes it does”. Here are the clearest examples:
1. AI-assisted climate assessment using IPCC literature (2026)
A 2026 study titled “AI-Assisted Scientific Assessment: A Case Study on Climate Change” tested a Gemini-based AI system to help scientists synthesize climate literature about the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). Researchers reported that “most AI-generated content was retained in the report,” although expert review remained essential. This is one of the strongest documented cases of substantial AI-generated text being used in a climate-science assessment workflow.
2. ChatClimate — AI-generated responses grounded in IPCC reports
The project ChatClimate connected GPT-4 to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) to generate climate-science answers based directly on official climate reports. Researchers found that the hybrid AI system produced more accurate responses than standard GPT-4 alone. Although not itself a formal climate report, the system generated AI-written summaries and explanations derived from IPCC content.
3. ClimateGPT — AI synthesis of climate research
The research project ClimateGPT developed specialized large language models trained on climate-change literature to synthesize interdisciplinary climate research. The goal was automated generation of climate-analysis text and scientific summaries. This represents an emerging direction toward partially AI-generated climate-report drafting.
4. UNESCO climate-policy reports using AI-generated examples
UNESCO published reports discussing AI and climate policy that included AI-generated examples and AI-assisted analysis: How AI Policy can Accelerate Climate Action discussed AI-generated climate analytics and policy applications. UNESCO’s studies on generative AI bias reproduced AI-generated narratives and examples as part of their methodology.
5. AI-generated mitigation scenario modeling
A 2025 paper in Nature Climate Change used deep learning to generate variables used in global mitigation scenarios, effectively automating portions of climate-scenario generation traditionally produced manually by integrated assessment models. While focused more on modeling than prose generation, these outputs increasingly feed directly into climate reports and policy summaries.
6. AI-generated climate communication and literacy tools
Climate researchers have experimented with AI-generated educational climate summaries and conversational systems: Generative AI tools can enhance climate literacy but must be checked for biases and inaccuracies evaluated AI-generated climate explanations. Several experimental systems used IPCC reports as training or retrieval sources to generate climate-report summaries and Q&A outputs.
I was intrigued and continued digging the UN system. Almost immediately I discovered internal guidelines such as “Guidance on the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based tools in the context of UNEP’s seventh edition of the Global Environment Outlook (GEO-7)”; “Practical guidance on the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence for FAO official activities” ; UNESCO “Guidance for generative AI in education and research” etc. For the IPCC, the next step is “to consider the means by which such knowledge systems can be assessed — such as artificial intelligence techniques, systematic review techniques, and participation of Indigenous Knowledge holders”. I guess I should stop here. Enough food for thought.The bottom line is that the climate brain-washing industry will more and more apply the most efficient ICT tools, which are rapidly advancing. Be vigilant.Thank you.
Aaaaah, I see – it’s the rate of emissions of CO2 that causes “climate change” and not its levels. You pathetic liars are going backwards. Actually., it’s even worse, it’s the percent change in emissions.
Give the clapping seal a fish.
The subject of this post is RCP8.5, not CO2’s effect on climate change. RCP8.5 specifically concerns rates of acceleration of man-made CO2 omissions. Hence my comment, which you ignore.
Your comments are ignored because your comments ignore reality.
The comment wasn’t ignored; the point it made was.
Only a lawyer or climate publicist would quibble like that.
“I didn’t ignore the glass of water. I ignored the water in the glass.”
Very nice.
As above, the point it made was deflection, so keep clapping and enjoy the fish. Somebody give him another.
The point it made is not the point you believe it made.
RCP8.5 is based on “carbon emissions” causing warming…
.. yet this has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.
It is essentially just MAKE-BELIEVE.
The point he believed he made was not a point at all. As usual.
The problem for you is that you attempted to justify the start of your “team’s” inevitable slow walk-back. I pointed out your support of the deflection from the last 30-40 years of the lies having started, directly addressing your and your team of liars’ deflection.
By the way, I preferred the previous pack of lies you lot had brewing, which were that there’s a lack of support amongst rich people now, because they’re gonna need loads of energy to power AI. I can figure out why your “betters” are running with this current deflection attempt, but I’ll be surprised if you can.
Lol.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
It is not credible that an intermittent energy source can have replaced a dispatchable one on the scale claimed. If you take a particular case where we have lots of public data, the UK, its not credible that the installation of all that wind and solar has reduced emissions at all, if you count the emissions themselves correctly, and if you take account of all the drivers of emissions.
A bit like LCOE, you can prove anything if you leave out half the numbers, or in this case, drivers.
But in any case, lets suppose the argument is correct, what does it show regarding energy policy and ‘renewables’?
It says stop now with renewables, which are incredibly expensive and deliver low quality product. Because if its true that what the world has done so far with renewables really has reduced emissions so much, we can all heave a huge sigh of relief. The danger is over. We have done it. We have no need to go to net zero. China can carry on installing coal as much as it wants, and India too. As for poor little Britain, that always was in the noise. So repeal the Climate Change Act right away. It always was useless, it never was going to make any difference to the supposed problem, but now there isn’t even any problem for it to fail to affect!
It is rather as if I and a bunch of the like minded resolved to stand on our heads every morning to fight global warming. Global warming slowed to safe levels, we claim in response. The rest of the population says good on you all, you did it so we don’t have to. We don’t understand why it can have caused it to stop, but you said it would, and now it has can you please stop telling the rest of us to do these very uncomfortable and now unnecessary things before breakfast.
A denier, evidently? No, something much more dangerous. A voter!
Take it up with the International Energy Agency.
What is for sure is that rates of man-made CO2 emissions are accelerating at a much slower rate than they were in past decades. Since RCP8.5 is predicated on those rates continuing to accelerate, it is no longer considered a plausible scenario.
And that’s it, really. That’s all there is to this silly non-story.
I love your channelling of Frank Drebin. There’s nothing to see here. Move along.
The mainstream press have taken the same attitude, by and large. That’s not because there’s some ‘big conspiracy‘; it’s but because the explanation really is a simple and uncontroversial as it appears.
Translation:
When people agree with me, it’s because I’m right.
When people disagree with me, it’s because they are paid to.
PS: Only those authorities who agree with me are right All others have been bought off by evil influence
For a fraction of the money that bought off the people he believes.
Funny how their message of “money corrupts” doesn’t apply to their “camp,” which has received orders of magnitude more money.
The fact that global “carbon” emissions do continue to accelerate seems to have escaped the poor child.
RCP8.5 was always JUNK SCIENCE, as is any other “carbon emissions” based fantasy scenario.
IEA projections are one among many, you may choose to believe it but it cops criticisms from both sides as it swings wildly.
The much better indication has always been forward contracts and futures
Coal late 2027 delivery are pricing around US$113 to $121 per metric ton
We only have early 2027 oil futures atm which are around $80.50
The chances of emission dropping on that strength is very low but hey if you believe it play the market.
If you don’t like the projections just look at the facts quoted. Rates of acceleration are down from +1.9% per year between 2005 and 2014 down to +0.3% per year between 2015 and 2024. Why on earth would you expect the trend to suddenly reverse in this decade? The IPCC don’t.
Maybe you should stop clapping for Tinkerbell. The curtain rang down on IPCC reality long ago, and she’s long since changed out of her costume and gone home.
AI and the whole net-zero support collapsing 🙂
Who cares what the IPCC thinks they are a mob of retards who couldn’t organize a piss up in a bar.
Just curious, where on this chart is the massive ‘renewables’ impact? https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy-share-inc-biomass
Ha ha yeah, it barely registers, and divide it by 20 also for it’s role in climate when you include the natural carbon cycle.
…… with, of course, its role in climate at current levels being between zero and undetectable based on the data.
Hmmm,
Rate of distance change is velocity, the first derivative.
Rate of velocity change is acceleration, the second derivsative.
Rate of acceleration (change) is the jerk, the third derivative.
Which are you talking about?
TheFinalNail has problems with Arithmetic, let alone Calculus.
Since RCP8.5 is predicated on those rates continuing to accelerate, it is no longer considered a plausible scenario.
And that’s it, really. That’s all there is to this silly non-story.No, that is not the point of the story
No, that is not all there is to it. The point is that for years, decades, the coverage in the mainstream media, the claims of lots of politicians and much of energy policy in the English speaking countries has been based on RCP8.5, whether this is made explicit or not. It always was impossible, it never was going to happen, but it was the basis of the climate scare. Trillions of dollars of spending on the whole crazy scenario of move to wind and solar, and at the same time move to heat pumps and EVs, was based on a the view that there is a climate crisis, and the plausibility of RCP8.5 was an underlying requirement for the whole story to be reasonable.
Without that, there is no crisis and no need to spend the trillions.
The story is documenting the first stage in the ending of the mass hysteria. It is, as I have said before, a case of what is documented in ‘When Prophecy Fails’. The first stage happens when the leaders of the movement start to back off from the apocalyptic predictions and get very nervous about the grass roots level of extremism.
So what to watch for is stuff like Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion coupled with alarmed retreat by members of bodies like the IPCC. Because the leaders of the cult are not silly. They realize that what will destroy the whole movement is predictions of disaster that repeatedly fail to happen.
The first result of the failures on the grass roots, which we can see here in TFN and MUNR, is, paradoxically, to intensify belief and to intensify the vigor of their attacks on skeptics. That too is a slgn we are near Peak Climate, and in the next phase that too will fade and be forgotten.
So the story is a small but very encouraging sign that the leaders of the cult are having to come to terms with reality. There is no crisis, the world is not going to move to wind and solar, nor is it going to move to EVs and heat pumps, and the effort, which is confined to the West, is not going to reduce either emissions or temperatures.
The legacy is going to be yet another book in a long series about the group hysterias that seize parts of humanity from time to time. At least this one has not involved mass murder or mass suicide. It has been differently very damaging, though.
When it can’t support the arguments it has been told to use, the troll retreats to the authority of it’s choice.
All the while proclaiming that any authority that disagrees must be ignored.
AI tells us …
“The NOAA‑calculated global atmospheric CO₂ average over the last 10 years can be derived from NOAA’s globally averaged marine surface annual mean dataset. While the search results do not list each of the last 10 annual values individually, they do provide two anchor points:
NOAA’s global CO₂ record shows a nearly linear rise of ~2.5–3.0 ppm per year over the past decade. Using the directly sourced 2024 value and the known decadal growth rate, the 10‑year global mean (2015–2024) is approximately: 412–415 ppm (NOAA global average over the last decade)”
The total concentration of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere is between 412 and 415 Parts per Million! And it is rising by ~2.5–3.0 ppm per year. That’s 3 divided by 412 or 0.007 or one seventh of one percent increase per year! And that’s going to end life on earth as we know it?
Quick, someone till me how much CO2 all the humans on earth expire every year.
This is “heads of a pin” level stuff. “Engineers, physicists, and microscopists use it as a relatable unit when describing things at micro‑ or nano‑scale.”
I wonder how much carbon is removed from the atmosphere when a farmer plows an acre of corn stalks into the soil …
Yes, fictional scenarios of doom are easily resolved by equally fictional solutions. Convoluted rationalizations from the FailSnail are good for a few laughs at least.
Mark Twain’s (or Benjamin Disraeli’s ?) “lies, damned lies and statistics” quotation comes irresistibly to mind, but I’ve always been a big fan of the “plot the data and just look at it” approach.
NB : I use the “FF&I” (Fossil-Fuel and Industry) numbers, as the IPCC and IIASA focus on them rather than the “land use” (or AFOLU, ex-LULUCF) numbers. The ratio is roughly 10:1, so the overall pictures are very similar.
Please take your time and examine the graph attached to the end of this post carefully.
.
Notes
– The “decadal rate of rise” over the timespan of my plot (2000-2024) was indeed highest from (roughly) 2001/2 to 2011/2, but the “past decade” of 2015-2024 is marked by the 2020 “COVID dip” and subsequent recovery. While my “rebound” to the 2010-2019 “decadal rate” would technically count as a “deceleration” from 2024 onwards, hopes of it turning “negative within the next couple of years” are just that, hopes.
– “Actual” (GCP estimates of) past CO2 emissions were closest to RCP 8.5 … up to 2014. Since then they have moved ever closer to RCP 4.5, and are remarkably close to the (more recent) SSP2-4.5 “pathway”.
– You don’t need to extend the graph to 2100 to see why the IPCC designated the SSP5-8.5 and SSP3-7.0 — and, implicitly, RCP 8.5 — emissions pathways as “counterfactual” in the AR6 WG1 assessment report of 2021, and more recently designating all three as “implausible” (along with SSP1-1.9, if I read the reports correctly ?).
.
.
“Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too.” — Voltaire
RCP8.5 is based on “carbon” emissions.
IT IS JUNK SCIENCE since there is no evidence that incremental CO2 has caused any warming whatsoever.
What are the error bars? I’ll wager that the supposed change is just noise.
The fact that you believe that shows how far you still have to go.
No it doesn’t. Here’s what your reference actually says
You appear to have quoted US figures. The growth today is against 3.75ppm and is 0.8% of that per year and decreasing. But even with that long term knowledge, the growth was defined exponentially because of the alarm factor. There is no way those sustained increases can be maintained given the fossil fuel reserves remaining. RCP8.5 was never realistic and was always alarmist.
And yet it’s been the go-to path for climate science. Did the scientists who chose it in the last, say 10 years, know what they were doing? Did they run their models with lower concentrations and decide to use RCP8.5 for maximum advocacy?
The article actually overstates how much of the world’s energy is produced by wind and solar. It is not 4.5%; it is only 2.8%.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2025/06/26/bp-energy-review-2024/
This is truly amazing. The 100% beneficial trace gas CO2, of which man emits some, continues to rise at the same rate it always has, and yet, at horrendous cost, the Climate Industrial Complex has managed to decrease man’s contribution of this 100% beneficial gas by some small percentage, and they are now crowing about it, claiming they are “saving the planet”. It is weapons-grade absurdity.
Erm…?
Gosh, that equates to a rise from 3 molecules of CO2 per ten thousand air molecules to….*drumroll* 4 molecules of CO2 per 10 000 air molecules.
Excuse me while I go back to sleep.
And it is absolutely GREAT NEWS for the world’s plant life.
CO2 levels 280 ppm or less are a massive constraint on plant growth.
Thank you for refuting a point never made.
You’re right, in a sense. We have managed to raise CO2 levels out of the dangerously low levels of 300 million years ago. So man, via his 100% beneficial CO2 emissions has actually “saved the planet”. No need for the planet to thank us. The fossil fuels provided by the planet were thanks enough.
Ah, the windmills and the fossil fuels.
An elephant and a mouse are crossing the river on a wooden bridge. Says the mouse to the elephant: we make a lot of noise, don’t we?
People like Dale Vince are totally unaware of how actual science progresses.
Funny – I thought we quit jailing people for not believing in religion centuries ago…
The left has always been in favor of jailing those who oppose it.
Fine. Let them declare victory. Just make sure to turn off the subsidies first.
Dale Vince: “Climate Denial should be illegal”.
What the flying heck is “Cliamte Denial”.
Climate is the average of 30 years of weather.
How can you deny an average?
And if you can deny an average can you also deny a sum? or π?
The fatal glitch in the “success of renewable energy” excuse is simple: whatever trillions the world has spent on renewables, the CO2 Keeling curve has continued unabated, totally unaffected— and isn’t that (CO2 increase) what this supposedly has all been about? It seems to me that they have lost the plot completely here, revising models rather than watching reality.