Study Demonstrates What Skeptics Have Said For Decades!!!


But, will they understand what this means?

The paper titled “Improving environmental change research with systematic techniques for qualitative scenarios” is about the various scenarios bandied about by the climate nutters.  It turns out, they’re not very realistic.  Yes, I know, that’s a shocker.  I think Hansen was one of the first to use various scenarios to predict the future.  That is to say, if things are such with GHG’s then we can expect X.  Or if things are different, we can expect Y.  They’ve come up with more details in their scenarios, but they don’t proper express the likelihood of  such scenarios.  For instance, usually in scenario dependent projections, it often includes the scenario where we all suddenly stop emitting CO2.  It’s silly and stupid to do so because that isn’t going to happen. 

From the accompanied press release…….

Scenarios can be useful to help predict the future. But it is hard to check how realistic they are in advance, particularly when they contain both the quantitative aspects of biophysical and socioeconomic systems and more qualitative approaches involving a storyline.

Now a team from the US and Germany has used cross-impact balance (CIB) analysis to look at the internal consistency of storylines in the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). The four principal storylines employed vary widely in internal consistency, the team found, and storylines involving highly carbon-intensive development are under represented.

No kidding.  I would have never thought.  Here’s how one of the nutters put it…..

“The strong internal consistency of the high emission scenarios and the robustness of this finding to changes in our analytical assumptions suggest there may be tendencies in the global-energy system toward higher emissions,” Vanessa Schweizer of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) told environmentalresearchweb. “Scenarios with lower emission profiles did not share this quality. This may mean that scenario analysts do decision-makers a disservice when they claim that low emission scenarios are equally plausible to high emission scenarios without climate policy.”

Schweizer and Kriegler examined six socioeconomic drivers of emissions – population, economy, energy, technology, economic policy and environmental policy.  They came up with a pretty cool matrix.  But, they realize that they still can’t adequately add enough factors to get it right…..

Additionally one can generate only rough scenarios, since a CIB matrix can get large very quickly. Thus there is incentive to aggregate descriptors and descriptor states. On this note, CIB analysis is not appropriate for problems that allow a theory-based or empirical treatment, as CIB analysis cannot deliver this level of detail. This is why CIB analysis is most appropriate for assessing the internal consistency of storylines as opposed to quantitative ranges of carbon emissions. Finally, since CIB analysis relies on judgments, it is best performed ‘live’ to allow iterations with storyline authors (the experts) on any controversial impact relationships. Because this was not possible in our particular analysis, we used statements from the SRES and sensitivity analysis as surrogates.

If you read through the verbiage to understand what they are saying, you see that they are saying low carbon emission scenarios are not nearly as likely as high carbon emission scenarios.  They do have an interesting passage…….

This finding is especially relevant, since recent research showed that energy-related CO2 emissions were increasing rapidly prior to the global economic downturn (de la Rue du Can and Price 2008, Peters and Hertwich 2008, Pielke et al 2008, Raupach et al 2007). Although it is not yet clear if these near-term observations signify a long-term emissions trend (van Vuuren and Riahi 2008, van Vuuren et al 2010), it should nevertheless be noted that recent high emissions trajectories were due to a combination of strong economic growth, highly carbon-intensive energy structures, increased use of coal and modest improvement in primary energy intensity—scenarios our study found to be highly robust and, therefore, most consistent with information available at the time the SRES was written.

In spite of the lunatics’ best efforts, we still do not have a replacement for carbon based energy.  And, we won’t, either.  It is a simple choice.  If one expects economic growth, one will expect a higher rate of CO2 emissions.  They are inseparable.  Alternative energy sources have been an abject failure.  But, they were always going to be.  Us skeptics knew this from the start.  While the western world seems hell-bent on economic suicide, the rest of the world has clearly stated that they will not wait for us. 

Another major factor, ……. population.  If we are concerned with population, then history tells us that economic growth is the solution.  It is a simple fact.  Wealthy nations tend to breed less than impoverished nations.  The key, of course, is to make carbon based fuels and energy available to the impoverished nations.  It isn’t that hard to understand.  Technology advancements, will, of course, make the use of the fuels more efficient, but one has to let technology go where it will, and not try to force innovation.  As demonstrated by the nutters, it doesn’t work when one forces a fantasy on the innovators. 

How many lives have been adversely affected by this lunacy?  How many people have been starved for energy and literally starved for food as a result of this awful experiment? 

Finally, a note of interest.  The paper makes it a point to say prior to the recession, economic growth caused higher emissions.  Since the recession, the rate of rise of atmospheric CO2 is unchanged. 



This entry was posted in Climate, Economics. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Study Demonstrates What Skeptics Have Said For Decades!!!

  1. Craig King says:

    Hi James, good article. Here is a long paper by an economist that I am sure you will find interesting in terms of how the author views the IPCC and all those who buy into its nonsense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s