Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has put up a new post.
The Biden Administration Just Failed its First Science Integrity Test
Pricing carbon makes good sense but should not come at the expense of scientific integrity
Which can be found here.
Here is a subsequent Twitter thread on the subject.
🧵Some technical details following my post on the SCC
Here are cumulative CO2 emissions (FFI) to 2300 for each of the 5 USG scenarios (4 are BAU & 1 is policy), along with the extended RCP8.5 & 2 net-zero scenarios (for 2100 and 2200)
Let me emphasize how ridiculous this is🤡
Looking at the high (USG2) and low (USG5) scenarios gives a 2300 temperature increase of as much as >9 degrees C
I have annotated the figure with the red line indicating 3 deg C which occurs as early as ~2070 under USG2
Ok, now let’s look at the IAM damage functions
Here I have annotated the figure by adding the red line denoting 3 deg C
Note that the vast majority of damage occurs >3 deg C (& up to 3C is ~0 +/-)
According to @climateactiontr current policies (BAU) has the world on track for a maximum 2.9C +/- increase
So if the world never sees a T increase of >3 deg, then the vast majority of the SCC damages are imaginary (under the current USG methodology)
And this analysis is insensitive to 3 deg C – that’s just a round number
Pick your favorite BAU value for peak T & invariably the majority of the SCC under the USG method will come from values above that peak
This is a fatal (& obvious) flaw, despite all the apparent complexity
Is climate policy so important that science abuses can be excused?
Or is climate policy so important that science abuses cannot be tolerated?
(Hint: No & Yes)
Read more: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-biden-administration-just-failed
And more generally: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-unstoppable-momentum-of-outdated
Found a typo in this figure at the top of the thread
Credit: Source link