Yesterday 03:07 PM
(This post was last modified: Yesterday 03:12 PM by C C.)
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/med...-rcp85-rip
EXCERPT: The most substantive mainstream coverage came from the Netherlands — perhaps fittingly, since Detlef van Vuuren, lead author of the ScenarioMIP paper that announced the new scenarios and a fixture across generations of climate scenarios, works at Utrecht University and the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
De Volkskrant, one of the country’s largest outlets, ran the story on its front page on May 4 under the headline: UN Climate Panel Drops Doomsday Scenario. The story notes that a few years ago De Volkskrant did a self-audit of its own climate coverage and identified 54 articles it had published on RCP8.5 studies.
Science journalist Maarten Keulemans, who wrote that story, posted on X: “This is so huge. Mind-blowing. Crazy. The IPCC admits what’s been circulating for a while: the highest doomsday scenario, 8.5, no longer matches reality. ALMOST EVERYTHING YOU READ ABOUT THE CLIMATE FUTURE IS WRONG.”
Van Vuuren was quoted in De Volkskrant and his comments were notable. The consequences of 3.5°C warming are “vervelend genoeg,” bad enough already.
Van Vuuren characterized the new high-end warming in 2100 as 3.5C, which is considerably higher than the ~3C that I estimated from the available data that the ScenarioMIP posted online and using the same climate emulator. Interestingly, Van Vuuren’s framing — centered on the high scenario, rather than the medium “current policy” scenario — misuses the new high end scenario in a manner that the paper he led said to avoid: by using it as a projective reference scenario, rather than an exploratory “what if?” exercise. I am sure we will be seeing more of this sort of misuse of HIGH. Everyone loves the most extreme scenario available.
Van Vuuren attributes the need to retire the upper end scenarios to changes in the real world rather than basic flaws in the scenarios. As THB readers well know, this is just wrong. The high end scenarios were always off target, because they were based on flawed assumptions of a world that was going to dramatically expand coal use. Van Vuuren explained to De Volkskrant: “The world has fortunately developed. Renewable energy has become cheaper quickly. And, even if it is still too little, there is climate policy.”
Credit to Van Vuuren for acknowledging that the elimination of the extreme scenarios will be very disruptive... (MORE - missing details)
EXCERPT: The most substantive mainstream coverage came from the Netherlands — perhaps fittingly, since Detlef van Vuuren, lead author of the ScenarioMIP paper that announced the new scenarios and a fixture across generations of climate scenarios, works at Utrecht University and the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
De Volkskrant, one of the country’s largest outlets, ran the story on its front page on May 4 under the headline: UN Climate Panel Drops Doomsday Scenario. The story notes that a few years ago De Volkskrant did a self-audit of its own climate coverage and identified 54 articles it had published on RCP8.5 studies.
Science journalist Maarten Keulemans, who wrote that story, posted on X: “This is so huge. Mind-blowing. Crazy. The IPCC admits what’s been circulating for a while: the highest doomsday scenario, 8.5, no longer matches reality. ALMOST EVERYTHING YOU READ ABOUT THE CLIMATE FUTURE IS WRONG.”
Van Vuuren was quoted in De Volkskrant and his comments were notable. The consequences of 3.5°C warming are “vervelend genoeg,” bad enough already.
Van Vuuren characterized the new high-end warming in 2100 as 3.5C, which is considerably higher than the ~3C that I estimated from the available data that the ScenarioMIP posted online and using the same climate emulator. Interestingly, Van Vuuren’s framing — centered on the high scenario, rather than the medium “current policy” scenario — misuses the new high end scenario in a manner that the paper he led said to avoid: by using it as a projective reference scenario, rather than an exploratory “what if?” exercise. I am sure we will be seeing more of this sort of misuse of HIGH. Everyone loves the most extreme scenario available.
Van Vuuren attributes the need to retire the upper end scenarios to changes in the real world rather than basic flaws in the scenarios. As THB readers well know, this is just wrong. The high end scenarios were always off target, because they were based on flawed assumptions of a world that was going to dramatically expand coal use. Van Vuuren explained to De Volkskrant: “The world has fortunately developed. Renewable energy has become cheaper quickly. And, even if it is still too little, there is climate policy.”
Credit to Van Vuuren for acknowledging that the elimination of the extreme scenarios will be very disruptive... (MORE - missing details)