Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences  (Read 1015604 times)

KiwiGriff

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1614
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 710
  • Likes Given: 372
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2400 on: August 24, 2019, 09:20:11 PM »
Quote
May his brother rapidly die of heartbreak,
Way to nice.
May he have an epiphany, grok the full consequence of his and his Brothers actions, and linger on to 101 dwelling on it constantly.

Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal that voluntarily does this to himself.
Notebooks of Lazarus Long.
Robert Heinlein.

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2401 on: November 10, 2019, 06:45:45 PM »
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/empowering-the-planet/how-scientists-got-climate-change-so-wrong/

How Scientists Got Climate Change So Wrong
Had a scientist in the early 1990s suggested that within 25 years a single heat wave would measurably raise sea levels, at an estimated two one-hundredths of an inch, bake the Arctic and produce Sahara-like temperatures in Paris and Berlin, the prediction would have been dismissed as alarmist.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-linden-nobel-economics-mistake-20181025-story.html
Op-Ed: The economics Nobel went to a guy who enabled climate change denial and delay
Given such a tepid assessment of the threat, it is little wonder that Nordhaus’ biggest cheerleaders have come from the “do nothing about it” crowd. In 1997, for instance, William Niskanen, then chairman of the ultra-conservative Cato Institute, seized on Nordhaus’ estimates to argue before Congress that it was premature to take action on climate change because “the costs of doing nothing appear to be quite small.”

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/scientists-have-been-underestimating-the-pace-of-climate-change/
Scientists Have Been Underestimating the Pace of Climate Change
Consistent underestimation is a form of bias—in the literal meaning of a systematic tendency to lean in one direction or another—which raises the question: what is causing this bias in scientific analyses of the climate system?

https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2019/august/1566136800/jo-lle-gergis/terrible-truth-climate-change
The terrible truth of climate change
When the IPCC’s fifth assessment report was published in 2013, it estimated that such a doubling of CO2 was likely to produce warming within the range of 1.5 to 4.5°C as the Earth reaches a new equilibrium. However, preliminary estimates calculated from the latest global climate models (being used in the current IPCC assessment, due out in 2021) are far higher than with the previous generation of models. Early reports are predicting that a doubling of CO2 may in fact produce between 2.8 and 5.8°C of warming. Incredibly, at least eight of the latest models produced by leading research centres in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and France are showing climate sensitivity of 5°C or warmer.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019MS001739?af=R
UKESM1: Description and evaluation of the UK Earth System Model
Abstract
We document the development of the first version of the United Kingdom Earth System Model UKESM1. The model represents a major advance on its predecessor HadGEM2‐ES, with enhancements to all component models and new feedback mechanisms. These include: a new core physical model with a well‐resolved stratosphere; terrestrial biogeochemistry with coupled carbon and nitrogen cycles and enhanced land management; tropospheric‐stratospheric chemistry allowing the holistic simulation of radiative forcing from ozone, methane and nitrous oxide; two‐moment, five‐species, modal aerosol; and ocean biogeochemistry with two‐way coupling to the carbon cycle and atmospheric aerosols. The complexity of coupling between the ocean, land and atmosphere physical climate and biogeochemical cycles in UKESM1 is unprecedented for an Earth system model. We describe in detail the process by which the coupled model was developed and tuned to achieve acceptable performance in key physical and Earth system quantities, and discuss the challenges involved in mitigating biases in a model with complex connections between its components. Overall the model performs well, with a stable pre‐industrial state, and good agreement with observations in the latter period of its historical simulations. However, global mean surface temperature exhibits stronger‐than‐observed cooling from 1950 to 1970, followed by rapid warming from 1980 to 2014. Metrics from idealised simulations show a high climate sensitivity relative to previous generations of models: equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is 5.4 K, transient climate response (TCR) ranges from 2.68 K to 2.85 K, and transient climate response to cumulative emissions (TCRE) is 2.49 K/TtC to 2.66 K/TtC.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1554-z
Climate and air-quality benefits of a realistic phase-out of fossil fuels
Abstract
The combustion of fossil fuels produces emissions of the long-lived greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and of short-lived pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, that contribute to the formation of atmospheric aerosols1. Atmospheric aerosols can cool the climate, masking some of the warming effect that results from the emission of greenhouse gases1. However, aerosol particulates are highly toxic when inhaled, leading to millions of premature deaths per year2,3. The phasing out of unabated fossil-fuel combustion will therefore provide health benefits, but will also reduce the extent to which the warming induced by greenhouse gases is masked by aerosols. Because aerosol levels respond much more rapidly to changes in emissions relative to carbon dioxide, large near-term increases in the magnitude and rate of climate warming are predicted in many idealized studies that typically assume an instantaneous removal of all anthropogenic or fossil-fuel-related emissions1,4,5,6,7,8,9. Here we show that more realistic modelling scenarios do not produce a substantial near-term increase in either the magnitude or the rate of warming, and in fact can lead to a decrease in warming rates within two decades of the start of the fossil-fuel phase-out. Accounting for the time required to transform power generation, industry and transportation leads to gradually increasing and largely offsetting climate impacts of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide, with the rate of warming further slowed by reductions in fossil-methane emissions. Our results indicate that even the most aggressive plausible transition to a clean-energy society provides benefits for climate change mitigation and air quality at essentially all decadal to centennial timescales.

Quote
Note: the last looks at the potential locked in warming under reasonable mitigation if ECS is 6C and the total aerosol forcing is -1.9Watts per meter squared.  The image below shows this committed warming -- these ECS and Aerosol forcing parameters are now becoming the middle estimate.
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2402 on: November 10, 2019, 07:30:17 PM »
^^
Jai
Remember that the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" is awarded by "The Svergies Risbank Prize in Economics in Memory of Alfred Nobel", a very conservative group that has no connection to the Nobel Committees that chooses actual Nobel Prize winners. There is no "Nobel Prize in Economics".

The name of the prize was obviously intended to deceive.
Terry

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2403 on: November 10, 2019, 11:13:12 PM »
^^
Jai
Remember that the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" is awarded by "The Svergies Risbank Prize in Economics in Memory of Alfred Nobel", a very conservative group that has no connection to the Nobel Committees that chooses actual Nobel Prize winners. There is no "Nobel Prize in Economics".

The name of the prize was obviously intended to deceive.
Terry

As was the entire body of work by Nordhaus and his parasitic water carrier Tol.
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2404 on: July 10, 2021, 10:36:21 PM »
The truth is starting to come out.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-66541-5

Radioisotopes demonstrate changes in global atmospheric circulation possibly caused by global warming

Published: 01 July 2020



Quote
"This may also indicate that the warming trend is more severe and rapid than many climate projections show, and that we cannot exclude that weather extremes predicted to occur between 2050 and 2100 already materialize during the next few decades."
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2405 on: August 31, 2021, 01:33:25 AM »
good graphic to use
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2406 on: August 31, 2021, 09:18:25 AM »
It appears that a measure of time for invalidation of IPCC projections is only 7 years.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1053.msg39360.html#msg39360

(we are at 1.2C now)
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2407 on: May 23, 2022, 03:39:25 PM »
This presentation by HSBCs risk management is the best description of how layers of 'opposite world' conservativism within the IPCC filter down from the models to the projections of impacts to the economic impacts and finally into administrative policy.

Not only does he discount anything that 'may' happen in 25 years, he states that the 'worst case' IPCC projection shows 5% declines in global GDP by 2100 but then shows what current econ models show will happen over that same time (about 1000% increase)  so he determines that 'worst case' climate impacts on global GDP will be 'imperceptible'

The reality is, of course, complete collapse of global trade and resource scarcity by 2060.

Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8235
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2041
  • Likes Given: 1986
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2408 on: May 23, 2022, 05:22:50 PM »
Which also shows the value of the economic models we use (quite low).

To go beyond the HSBC presentation the big flaw in the IPCC reports is the far future and the lack of a definition of what is properly save. Then there is a big report and the leaders gather and pledge and then f off gome to dine with oil prospects.

Even 1C is not properly safe. This temperture rise is enough for fish stocks to start migrating from the equator. And there is a bunch of other considerations (the permafrost, the likely near term Thwaites glacier collapse).

Too much people believe our own crap we made up. We are selectively ignoring parts of the world. Capitalism shields you from the worst consequences if you live in Winnersland. But all the results of climate change are physics. And the solution has been made ever more complex by all the time wasted. We could have financed all kinds of research for decades or raised house standards in efficiency for new builds etc. But the oil money was so good.

And it still is...


 
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

The Walrus

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2827
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 149
  • Likes Given: 484
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2409 on: May 23, 2022, 05:26:52 PM »
The reality is, of course, complete collapse of global trade and resource scarcity by 2060.

Whose reality?  This is as much fantasy as the 1000% increase in GDP.  Countering one unlikely projection with another, does little good.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8235
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2041
  • Likes Given: 1986
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2410 on: May 23, 2022, 07:54:47 PM »
FWIW in 2060 we have had at least a partial BoE for 10 years going on model projections. That kicks up global temperatures up by at least 0,2C and when it progresses to a full BoE that should give about 0,7 C. That should also show interesting teleconnections so weather might be very different.

Would bet collapse over 1000% increase but it will be more in the middle although a bit more towards collapse.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2411 on: May 24, 2022, 06:19:45 PM »
The reality is, of course, complete collapse of global trade and resource scarcity by 2060.

Whose reality?  This is as much fantasy as the 1000% increase in GDP.  Countering one unlikely projection with another, does little good.

Unless we rapidly reduce our emissions we will be approaching 4C by then.  You obviously have not read the peer review on 4C impacts to the global supply chain.

Here is a video that might help you to understand what it would look like.  Note that this is happening over the next 60 years or so.  The rapid rate of warming toward this level and impacts will drive migration wars and collapse of all trade/production (including food).



Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

The Walrus

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2827
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 149
  • Likes Given: 484
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2412 on: May 24, 2022, 06:37:18 PM »
That video is unlikely to help anyone understand anything.  It is pure speculation, and does not say that we will approach 4C by 2060. 

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8235
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2041
  • Likes Given: 1986
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2413 on: May 24, 2022, 06:40:42 PM »
I much prefer text explanations to videos.

ETA: And this one is not good. In fact it´s so bad i agree with The Walrus.

Realistically we would be at about 2C max hopefully lower. The trends shown might very well be quite similar in a map for that. We see dust blowing in places. If you talk about 2060 then lots of glaciers have been lost too which dries out the land they fed. This is an issue for glaciers in the tropics and in the Andes.

« Last Edit: May 24, 2022, 07:09:41 PM by kassy »
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

The Walrus

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2827
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 149
  • Likes Given: 484
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2414 on: May 24, 2022, 07:01:14 PM »
I much prefer text explanations too videos.

I agree.  Especially when it is a YouTube video based on a book by an economist.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8235
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2041
  • Likes Given: 1986
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2415 on: May 25, 2022, 02:13:49 PM »
Quote
“If you’re going to pass one and a half degrees in 10 years, and then you are going to pass two degrees in about 25 years, that’s what we need to focus on,” said Veerabhadran Ramanathan, an atmospheric and climate sciences professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a co-author of the study. “We need to cut the short-lived pollutants so that there are no short-term catastrophes in the next 25 years, without losing track of the long term.”

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23052022/short-lived-super-climate-pollutants-impact/

There is also the sulfate masking dropping out which is another big boost.

So that is 2C by 2037 or so.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

The Walrus

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2827
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 149
  • Likes Given: 484
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2416 on: May 25, 2022, 03:37:12 PM »
Quote
“If you’re going to pass one and a half degrees in 10 years, and then you are going to pass two degrees in about 25 years, that’s what we need to focus on,” said Veerabhadran Ramanathan, an atmospheric and climate sciences professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a co-author of the study. “We need to cut the short-lived pollutants so that there are no short-term catastrophes in the next 25 years, without losing track of the long term.”

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23052022/short-lived-super-climate-pollutants-impact/

There is also the sulfate masking dropping out which is another big boost.

So that is 2C by 2037 or so.

Sulphate emissions tend to warm winters and cool summers, especially in the Arctic. 

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2021.766538/full

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2417 on: May 25, 2022, 04:44:15 PM »
That video is unlikely to help anyone understand anything.  It is pure speculation, and does not say that we will approach 4C by 2060.

That is correct, I am the one who is saying that (though, to be fair we can still limit warming by 2100 to just under 3C if we rapidly move to decarbonize the global economy and engage in Direct air capture in the next 20 years or so.
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2418 on: May 25, 2022, 04:58:19 PM »
h/t Kassy

Quote
Indeed, our model shows that the combined cooling effects of aerosols including the indirect effects via enhancing cloud albedo (–1.15 °C) has masked an amount of warming that is almost equal to the total non-CO2 warming of 1.17 °C.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2123536119

Mitigating climate disruption in time: A self-consistent approach for avoiding both near-term and long-term global warming

May 23, 2022

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2123536119
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8235
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2041
  • Likes Given: 1986
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2419 on: June 09, 2022, 08:49:17 PM »
There is another way in which science can be conservative and that is in it´s perspective and bias:

“It’s a Very Western Vision of the World”

How ideological bias and structural inequality prevent the IPCC from exploring possibilities for fundamental transformation

The most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) not only shows that urgent and drastic changes will be necessary to avert even more devastating consequences of global warming than those which are already unavoidable, but also mentions, for the first time, the possibility or even necessity of reducing demand, i.e. the use of energy and resources.

This reality, however, is not reflected in the scenarios included in the IPCC report, as climate experts Yamina Saheb and Kai Kuhnhenn point out. Juliane Schumacher spoke with both of them to understand more about how IPCC reports are compiled, whose interests and biases they reflect, and how to address the deep inequalities in funding and access to the scientific process.

The third part of the IPCC report was published in April, with a focus on mitigation scenarios and policies. Yamina and Kai, you’re both familiar with the IPCC process or have even contributed to the report. Was there anything in it that surprised you?

YS: Yes, there was! We succeeded in including the concept of “sufficiency” in the Summary for Policymakers — that’s actually revolutionary. We even have a definition on page 41, footnote 60.

How is sufficiency defined?

YS: Sufficiency denotes all the policy measures and daily practices that avoid the demand for energy, materials, water, and land, while providing wellbeing for all within planetary boundaries. This means putting a cap on the overconsumption of the North to allow the South to develop, with another cap on the overconsumption of the richest in the North to allow low-income communities to access decent living standards.

KK: I was surprised by Chapter 5, which mentioned the inequality of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. It’s good that this is getting discussed.

If you look at the IPCC reports over the years, there is usually a statement on growth in some part of the report, something like: “economic growth is a driver of emissions”, or “economic growth does not correlate with wellbeing in saturated societies”. But then you have the modelling side, and that side has a very strict bias: “We will model economic growth until the end of times.”

So, there was always a certain kind of schizophrenia between the different parts of the IPCC. That is even stronger in this report, because there is so much talk about reducing demand, sufficiency, or even degrowth, but it’s not reflected at all in the modelling part.

...

The people in this chapter were responsible for developing the IPCC scenarios?

YS: No, we had a call — or rather, we had three calls — for scenarios. The IPCC doesn’t develop its own scenarios.

This is important to know: people say “IPCC scenarios”, but actually these are scenarios assessed by the IPCC authors. The assessment of long-term scenarios was led by the authors of Chapter 3. So we had three calls for scenarios: one for long-term scenarios, one for short-term, and one for the building sector. We got more than 3,300 scenarios, out of which 700 were Paris-compatible, meaning that you are between 1.5° and 2°C by the end of the century.

If you consider only those aiming for 1.5°C by the end of the century, the number of scenarios drops to 230. I’ve been looking for sufficiency measures, meaning measures to avoid the demand for energy and materials, in those 230 scenarios — you know the expression, “searching for a needle in a haystack”? —and I found just two. And those two scenarios don’t even mention the word sufficiency.

KK: Oh, wow.

YS: This is such a scandal! At the global level, there are two other scenarios that include sufficiency. One of them is the Societal Transformation Scenario developed by Kai and his colleagues, and the other is the one developed by Julia Steinberger and her team in Leeds called “Providing decent living with minimum energy: A global scenario”.

These two scenarios, however, didn’t make it to the IPCC database, because to be able to submit to the database you need to have resources — especially human resources. Realistic scenarios for a liveable planet like the ones developed by Kai and Julia are often developed by very small teams, sometimes on a voluntary basis, putting in lots of hours during their free time.

The IAM models, by contrast, are developed by huge teams — 40, 60 people — and they have plenty of little hands to do the work. The IPCC database has been conceived for this majority. I contacted Kai and his team and Julia and asked them about submitting their scenarios, but it wasn’t possible for either of them.

Because the datasets have to be prepared in a specific format?

YS: Yes, and that’s a lot of work. So Julia’s and Kai’s scenario couldn’t make it into the IPCC report. But even if they made it into the IPCC, this wouldn’t have meant they would be among the five scenarios selected in the end. We were a group of more than 60 people discussing and selecting the scenarios, but the majority of these scientists are all from the IAM community, and IAM scenarios are based on growth — they are driven by continuous growth.

How are these IAM models made?

YS: Integrated Assessment Models have existed for about 30 years. They’re a specific form of scientific computer modelling. A huge community works with these models, with associations in different parts of the world, one of the most important is the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria.

All these models anticipate a continuation of growth. At the same time, they’re driven by supply-side decarbonization and not by demand reduction. In our chapter, we clearly show what it means if we ignore the demand side and don’t consider sufficiency measures. Between 1990 and 2019, the improvement of efficiency in the building sector led to reducing emissions by 49 percent. However, the lack of sufficiency measures — people living or working in bigger buildings and using more and larger appliances — has led to an increase of emissions by 52 percent.

It is also highly problematic that these scenarios do not seek convergence between the Global North and Global South in terms of access to decent living standards.

They expect a continuation of economic growth in the North, but less so in the South?

YS: I’ll give you an example from my area of expertise, buildings. Today, the floor area per capita in North America is around 60 square metres, while it’s below 10 square metres in whole of Africa. In some African countries it is even below five, they don’t have proper housing at all. But these scenarios usually expect continuous growth, so in some scenarios, by 2050 they reach 65 square metres per capita in North America, and the Africans reach 10 square metres per capita. Why the hell would I accept this as an African? It’s just not acceptable.

From which disciplines are these modellers coming from, and where are they based?

YS: Most of them are based in the Global North. It’s a very Western vision of the world — neo-colonial, as Jason Hickel wrote. I understand that, today, things are like that. This is the world we inherited. But what’s really shocking for me as an European-African citizen, who is from both sides of the Mediterranean, is to see that they project a world for my son in 2050 that is similarly unequal to my world today.

...

https://www.rosalux.de/en/news/id/46631/its-a-very-western-vision-of-the-world
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8235
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2041
  • Likes Given: 1986
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2420 on: June 13, 2022, 08:11:34 PM »
And some bias from the field maybe.

Model-based net-zero scenarios, including those of the IPCC, aren’t worth the paper they are written on, say leading economists

World-leading economists have blown a hole right through the middle of the main tool used to produce the net-zero scenarios embraced by climate policymakers.

In a new paper, Sir Nicholas Stern, Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz and Charlotte Taylor conclude that climate-energy-economy Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs), which are the key tool in producing emission-reduction scenarios, “have very limited value in answering the two critical questions” of the speed and nature of emissions reductions and “fail to provide much in the way of useful guidance, either for the intensity of action, or for the policies that deliver the desired outcomes”.  The research paper is The economics of immense risk, urgent action and radical change: towards new approaches to the economics of climate change.

...

Last year Breakthrough’s report, Degrees of Risk, described how an objectivity is bestowed on IAMs that they do not serve: they are highly subjective tools with unrealistic assumptions that more than anything else reflect modellers’ view of society. Depending on how modellers perceive the roots of the problem to be solved, they will “design the model structure, including possible instruments and relationships within the model accordingly... Hence, the very structure of a model depends on the modeller’s beliefs about the functioning of society”. Consequently, IAM results have the capacity to privilege particular pathways and entice policymakers into thinking that the forecasts the models generate have some kind of scientific legitimacy.

A stunning example is the set of net-zero 2050 (NZ2050) scenarios being promoted by the world’s central bankers. They have up to 50% of primary energy use coming from fossil fuels in 2050, “offset” by use of unreliable carbon accounting and land-based measures — including bio-energy — which impinge upon and may decrease land for cropping even as demand for food increases by half over the next 30 years This agenda is supported by the fossil fuel industry and by some “climate activist” investor groups.

...

The economists' research identifies a number of fundamental problems with IAMs, some of which are intrinsic to their structure and cannot be remedied. Perhaps the biggest is the deep uncertainty that surrounds climate change, let alone the uncertainty in trying to map those physical changes into social and economic impacts. Deep uncertainty exists “where the outcomes cannot be fully described” and hence cannot be quantified. Yet without quantification of future costs and benefits, IAMs simply cannot compute: they break down and can provide no answer.

An allied problem is the failure of IAMs to deal with extreme risk (such as “fat tails”, where there is a higher probability of occurrences at the high end of the range of possibilities). As the authors note, “the world has been much more focused than the IAMs on a different set of issues, the risks of catastrophic consequences”.

...

This is but one of a number of fundamental flaws identified by Stern, Stiglitz and Taylor. Others include:

 Systematic underestimation of future damages;
 Unjustifiably high discount rates;
One-sided assumptions about carbon prices being the primary de-carbonisation driver;
Flawed descriptions of how the underlying economy actually works: unworldly assumptions about utility maximisation, and descriptions about structural change, markets and technologies that turn a blind eye to market failures, dislocation and how markets actually function.

...

As noted in Degrees of Risk, The NGFS scenarios chronically underestimate future damage, using IAMs that basically ignore non-linearities and cascades. The NGFS admits its damage estimate from physical risks “only cover a limited number of risk transmission channels. For example, they do not capture the risks from sea-level rise or severe weather. They also assume socio-economic factors such as population, migration and conflict remain constant even at high levels of warming.” This, in itself, is enough to disqualify these scenarios from being seen as credible stories about alternative futures.

...

http://www.climatecodered.org/2022/06/model-based-net-zero-scenarios.html

If you do science you should first ask the correct questions and that is what is missing. The most basic question is what is the actual dangerous temperature. This then leads to questions as how you define it. Just declaring 1,5C to be safe and then steering for 2,7 is not going to cut it.

Instead of working on society models it would be so much easier if we just compute the outcomes for the temperature range. That should show some line not to cross somewhere especially if you integrate all knowledge in some big model, think of it as a climate CERN. Off course this process has the disadvantage of yielding really hard targets.

We already know that at 1.1 C the fish are moving away from the equator. That problem is just as slow to fix as the melting of Antarctica.... Then there is melting permafrost and some burning bushes. All those things increase with temperature. So the big question is what is the maximum we can afford? If you make it really simple aiming for 1C would have been a good start but that is long lost.

Even if we stop overnight there is a big committed warming, can we work out what happens when we do that? Can we work out what happens if we do it in 5 or 10 years? Do we cross indicators for really bad stuff? Yes that is already very likely.

On the global scale we are still pretending it is a long scale problem but if you are just honest it is not. See Iraqs dust storms or India´s temperatures or the southern hemisphere weather. How much years do we need before we hit some fractional BOE? Can you stop it by braking early?
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.