Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has created a new post.
The Biden administration has just failed its first academic integrity test
Carbon pricing makes sense, but should not be at the expense of scientific integrity
Which can be found here.
Here is a following Twitter thread on the matter.
????Some technical details after my contribution in the SCC
Here are the cumulative CO2 emissions (FFI) up to 2300 for each of the 5 USG scenarios (4 are BAU & 1 is politics) along with the extended RCP8.5 & 2 net zero scenarios (for 2100 and 2200) .
Let me stress how ridiculous this is
If one considers the scenarios with high (USG2) and low (USG5), the result is a temperature increase of 2300 by up to> 9 ° C.
I have provided the figure with the red line indicating 3 ° C, which already occurs at ~ 2070 below USG2
Ok, now let’s look at the IAM damage functions
Here I have annotated the figure with the red line for 3 ° C
Note that the vast majority of damage occurs> 3 ° C (& up to 3 ° C is ~ 0 +/-)
According to @climateactiontr, current politics (BAU) has the world on the right track for a maximum increase of 2.9 ° C +/-
So if the world never sees a> 3 degree T surge, the vast majority of SCC damage is imaginary (according to the current USG methodology).
And this analysis is insensitive to 3 ° C – that’s just a round number
Choose your preferred BAU value for Peak T & invariably, most of the SCC will come from values above this peak using the USG method
For all the obvious complexity, this is a serious (and obvious) mistake
Is climate policy so important that scientific abuse can be excused?
Or is climate policy so important that scientific abuse cannot be tolerated?
(Note: 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And more generally: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-unstoppable-momentum-of-outdated
A typo was found in this image above in the thread
Originally tweeted by Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) on March 1, 2021.