Climate confusion: worst carbon emissions scenario ‘misleading’

Posted: January 29, 2020 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, Emissions, modelling, propaganda, Temperature
Tags:


Maybe the climate alarmist leaders have finally grown tired of being panned for blatant exaggeration and dishonest fearmongering, based entirely on failing climate models. But of course much of the desired psychological damage has already been done.

Scientists should stop using the very worst predictions for carbon emissions, a study suggests – reporting by the BBC.

Referred to as “business as usual”, the scenario assumes a 500% increase in the use of coal, which is now considered unlikely.

Climate models suggest that this level of carbon could see warming of up to 6C by 2100, with severe impacts.

Researchers say that on current trends, a rise in temperatures of around 3C is far more likely.

How has this confusion come about?

About 10 years ago, ahead of the fifth assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), researchers developed four different scenarios to describe how carbon emissions might change over the rest of this century.

One of these clumsily titled “Representative Concentration Pathways” (RCPs), was called RCP8.5 and it was intended to show the impact of very high emissions consistent with a five fold increase in the use of coal and virtually no policies to limit CO2 emissions.

RCP8.5 was first developed by energy researchers to help with their modelling. According to the authors of this paper, they didn’t do a good job of communicating the limitations of this approach to climate scientists who wanted to use it to see what would happen with temperatures.

Rather than being seen as something that only had a 3% chance of becoming reality, it became known as the “business-as-usual” scenario, by climate scientists and has been used in more than 2,000 research papers since.

“What we’re arguing is that we’ve been misusing the worst climate change scenario,” said author Zeke Hausfather, director of climate and energy at the Breakthrough Institute in California.

Full report here.
– – –
Nature comment: Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading

Stop using the worst-case scenario for climate warming as the most likely outcome — more-realistic baselines make for better policy.

— Zeke Hausfather & Glen P. Peters (research director at the CICERO Center for International Climate Research, Oslo, Norway)
– – –

Comments
  1. hunterson7 says:

    So Zeke finally looks for the exit from the fire he did so much to light.
    How many thousands of articles that skeptics were condemned for criticizing are now shown to be crap?
    How many skeptics have had their voices censored for pointing this obvious truth out years ago?
    Major media in the West used the lie pointed out in the article to braineash an entire generation.
    Are those writers, editors and producers going to say, “oops, sorry?”
    As a certain teenager likes to say,
    “How dare you!”

  2. oldbrew says:

    If climate science was a bank there would be a big mis-selling scandal with hefty fines to pay for this fiasco.

  3. Phoenix44 says:

    A study suggests?

    Matt Ridley, Pielke junior and others have been saying this for ages and in particular campaigning on Twitter on this issue for the last few weeks.

    Why do you need a study to tell you a scenario is very unlikely?

  4. oldbrew says:

    Phoenix – they only listen to their own camp.

  5. tom0mason says:

    ” Scientists should stop using the very worst predictions for carbon emissions, a study suggests – reporting by the BBC.
    Referred to as “business as usual”, the scenario assumes a 500% increase in the use of coal, which is now considered unlikely. “

    NO!
    Let them carry on using their natural ignorance, let them confuse climate with weather, let them maximize the hype about the alleged effects of atmospheric CO2 and the awful climate models interpretation of future climate, let them run fear campaigns even harder.

    YES!
    Let them hype up a ‘climate crisis’ for all they can, the more extreme they become the greater their fall, and the more the public will see them for the manipulative idiot Marxists they are!

  6. JB says:

    Michael Crichton/Charlie Rose Interview 2007
    Michael Crichton: “Sit down at a dinner party, and you say: The world is coming to an end—we have the most horrible things [imminent], and you immediately get the aroused attention at the table. Alternatively, you say, you know what? Basically everything’s good. The world’s getting better.
    Charlie: Nobody cares?
    Michael: No! They get angry, or they turn away. It’s not what we want to hear. We want to hear disaster.”

    Its the drama in their petty lives they crave. It gives them “purpose” to “make a difference.”

    Funny how nobody stops to think that a reduction in daily drama is the best “difference” to make of all.

  7. oldbrew says:

    ‘a rise in temperatures of around 3C is far more likely.’

    More likely than 6C or whatever, that’s all. But climate models have always exaggerated, compared to reality.

  8. ivan says:

    I’m sorry but I have to laugh at all this talk about temperature rise.

    Where are they actually measuring this temperature? In the past 24 hours I have recorded a low of 2.0C and a high of 15.6C, I don’t think I would notice a temperature rise of 3C other than I might think about turning the heating down.

    Maybe, just maybe, if they actually went out and measured the temperature on a 1 km grid all over the world, including oceans, they might, but I doubt it, realise their models are just GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).

  9. hunterson7 says:

    This was deliberate hyping of the least likely scenario. From the deceptive “Business As Usual” name, to the dishonest way it was presented. Once again, skeptics were right. Those who defended the consensus were wrong. Those who helped write papers attacking skeptics and skepticism, like Lewandowsky, were at best unwitting hacks.
    Our very own ATTP and Steve placed themselves firmly in the side of deception.
    But the most evil are those who knew better but allowed the manipulation of children, like Greta, because it helped their goals.
    Nihilistic irrational groups like ER were inspired by the “Business As Usual” deception. Media sold its soul to pimp lies based on “Business As Usual”. People pay ever higher prices for less and less quality of power because of this deception.
    It is far past time to have an honest conversation about climate. It sure as

  10. hunterson7 says:

    ….That honest conversation sure as heck hasn’t yet happened.

  11. Jeremy says:

    Worst case emissions scenario.. Best case emissions scenario..
    They are all irrelevant. CO2 in the atmosphere is not controlled by human emissions.

    https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/human-co2-emissions-have-little-effect-on-atmospheric-co2-discussion/

    The costly genuflecting is farcical.

  12. oldbrew says:

    CLINTEL Manifesto Blasts Climate Scaremongering
    Posted on Thu 01/30/2020 by PA Pundits – International

    By David Wojick, Ph.D. ~

    There is NO climate emergency. Preaching doom and gloom is a crime against the young generation. These are the key points of a new manifesto from the Climate Intelligence Group or CLINTEL.

    CLINTEL is a rapidly growing international group, led by prominent scientists, that opposes the ill-founded attempts to scare people into hasty climate policy actions. They also oppose the terrorizing of children as part of the false climate alarm.

    https://papundits.wordpress.com/2020/01/30/clintel-manifesto-blasts-climate-scaremongering/

  13. stpaulchuck says:

    pretty much everything about climate warming and the Satanic Gases is misleading. Consider that around 40% of all the surface reported temperatures are total fiction. Made up. Fake. Look for the little ‘e’ in the temperature grid box. Stands for ‘estimated’. Coincidentally they use two of the nearest hot spots to infer the missing temperatures which also coincidentally happen to be missing from the cooler non-city areas.

    Then there’s the universal variable constants applied to the raw temperatures that coincidentally increase directly in step with the CO2 content of the air. Just subtract the raw temperatures from the final reported temperatures and graph it. Graph the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere on the same graph. QED.

    Gibbs Rules
    ———–
    Rule #39: There is no such thing as coincidence.

  14. gallopingcamel says:

    Public policy based on the idea that CO2 is harmful has wasted trillions of dollars and it is slowly dawning on much abused taxpayers that the whole thing is a hoax. Unfortunately our ruling elites cling to their crazy ideas since they are getting rich at our (taxpayer) expense.

    Clearly this hoax is like the “Teapot Dome” bubble or a “Ponzi Scheme”. Eventually the whole thing will collapse in scandal and disgrace………sadly you won’t be getting your money back.

    For some time I have been asking myself how to burst the bubble. The best answer I have come up with so far is to follow the advice of tom0mason:
    “NO!
    Let them carry on using their natural ignorance, let them confuse climate with weather, let them maximize the hype about the alleged effects of atmospheric CO2 and the awful climate models interpretation of future climate, let them run fear campaigns even harder.

    YES!
    Let them hype up a ‘climate crisis’ for all they can, the more extreme they become the greater their fall, and the more the public will see them for the manipulative idiot Marxists they are!