Hmm. To be fair, it isn't that renewables did nothing — it's that they were a low-efficiency use of decarbonization capital next to nuclear, grid, and gas-for-coal, and the flat primary-energy mix. If the high scenario died partly on falling renewable costs as the ScenarioMIP authors claim, doesn't that cut against calling the spend wasted? Maybe not the best use of energy capital, for sure.
The high scenario did not die on the falling cost of "renewables" as the ScenarioMIP authors claim.
The high scenarios labeled by the media and too many scientists as "business as usual" were never plausible due to bad underlying assumptions, not the least of which were 12 billion+ humans and 6X more coal consumption by 2100.
And, at the same time, the cost of "renewables" dropped dramatically.
Both can be true. (They are).
And, the % of global primary energy from hydrocarbons today vs. before it all started, along with global emissions intensity dropping steadily for 60 odd years, mean that any relationship between "renewables" becoming far cheaper (read: inefficiently using printed taxpayer money the govts did not have) and the worst case being avoided is somewhere on the range of coincidental to a fart in an F5 tornado. (Take your pick).
One thing that never gets covered is the fact that fossil fuel related deaths have declined ~99% over the last 100 years. At the same time as the usage of fossil fuels has never been higher. We have been dealing more with theological beliefs than physics.
Although there has now been a scientific correction, the "stated pathways" influenced by these implausible scenarios will linger and continue to impact energy and infrastructure investment. For example, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney continues to insist that major energy infrastructure projects must align with federal climate policy as it currently stands, meaning investors will face significant additional burdens. The Prime Minister says that the world wants "low-carbon" oil and natural gas from Canada, but all the world really wants is oil and natural gas from Canada. A trader might (might) think twice about buying from you if your oil field looked like Baku or Bakersfield in the early 1900s, but short of that, the world wants the energy.
Like the inertia in the climate system itself, the mistaken science has its own inertia, and that inertia has consequences.
Ultimately this is self-correcting, but not before those consequences make themselves more fully apparent globally, as they have domestically in Canada.
Your comment about "low-carbon" oil is important. We've been waiting for someone (anyone ... hello ... is this thing on?!?!!?) to ask Carney "How much more per barrel or per million BTUs for nat gas is this supposed world of yours going to pay for Canada's "low-carbon" oil and natural gas?"
As far as oil traders thinking twice about buying your oil if your field looks like Baku or Bakersfield in the 1990s, we think you're right .... for most of the advanced countries. But, as one example, the traders buying for China's teapot refineries did not seem to be particularly concerned about the conditions of Lake Maracaibo or the Orinoco Belt in Venezuela so there are surely limits to that!
Man (and woman) have been on earth for just a blink of geologic time. Our planet has been through 4.5 billion years of "severe weather". Geology tells us that in the "recent" past million years or so the earth has cycled through approximately 100,000 years of multiple ice ages interspersed with approximately 10,000 years of warmth/melting. Just wait around and the weather is sure to meet your wildest fantasies?
Heard it a few years back. Faded now, I suspect. Similar to "Global Warming" (all the rage in the late 90's and early 21st) becoming "Climate Change" when the scammers realized that temperatures where not complying with their lying narrative.
It's going to be fascinating to watch folks like him try to save RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios. When you hear them use terms like "valid", "important", "reference", "relevant" that will be your clue they are insufferable political advocates for which actual science doesn't really matter.
As a reader of “Access to Energy” in the mid ‘80s when fear of global warming destroyed fear of nuclear winter, the author, Peter Beckmann made the point that the minuscule amount of CO2 in our atmosphere had little chance of been responsible for any warming. He’s been proven accurate over the past decade. Need I say, burning of the inaccurate UN Assessment Report paper copies has probably heat the earth more.
You show the increased contribution of natural gas to the world’s heat load but I wonder, does that also account for the gasses flared at the source where containment means are lacking? Including all prior years of flaring?
Thank you for following the IPCC, so I don't have to. I have a question you may be able to answer. Has the IPCC ever, on any occasion, acknowledged that 1) CO2 levels today are historically much lower than normal on a large geological time frame, and 2) that rising CO2 levels over the last 100 years have increased crop yields and green areas, all to the benefit of mankind? My belief is that they have never acknowledged or addressed these facts. Am I correct?
Accountability has been gone for decades when it comes to climate hysteria. Not a single radical claim has come true, yet climate hysteria continues as many sheeple prefer apathy over reality. Trillions and trillions of dollars wasted, for sure, and how many natural resources are being squandered as well? An awful lot 🥲
Hmm. To be fair, it isn't that renewables did nothing — it's that they were a low-efficiency use of decarbonization capital next to nuclear, grid, and gas-for-coal, and the flat primary-energy mix. If the high scenario died partly on falling renewable costs as the ScenarioMIP authors claim, doesn't that cut against calling the spend wasted? Maybe not the best use of energy capital, for sure.
The high scenario did not die on the falling cost of "renewables" as the ScenarioMIP authors claim.
The high scenarios labeled by the media and too many scientists as "business as usual" were never plausible due to bad underlying assumptions, not the least of which were 12 billion+ humans and 6X more coal consumption by 2100.
And, at the same time, the cost of "renewables" dropped dramatically.
Both can be true. (They are).
And, the % of global primary energy from hydrocarbons today vs. before it all started, along with global emissions intensity dropping steadily for 60 odd years, mean that any relationship between "renewables" becoming far cheaper (read: inefficiently using printed taxpayer money the govts did not have) and the worst case being avoided is somewhere on the range of coincidental to a fart in an F5 tornado. (Take your pick).
One thing that never gets covered is the fact that fossil fuel related deaths have declined ~99% over the last 100 years. At the same time as the usage of fossil fuels has never been higher. We have been dealing more with theological beliefs than physics.
Although there has now been a scientific correction, the "stated pathways" influenced by these implausible scenarios will linger and continue to impact energy and infrastructure investment. For example, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney continues to insist that major energy infrastructure projects must align with federal climate policy as it currently stands, meaning investors will face significant additional burdens. The Prime Minister says that the world wants "low-carbon" oil and natural gas from Canada, but all the world really wants is oil and natural gas from Canada. A trader might (might) think twice about buying from you if your oil field looked like Baku or Bakersfield in the early 1900s, but short of that, the world wants the energy.
Nailed it.
Like the inertia in the climate system itself, the mistaken science has its own inertia, and that inertia has consequences.
Ultimately this is self-correcting, but not before those consequences make themselves more fully apparent globally, as they have domestically in Canada.
Your comment about "low-carbon" oil is important. We've been waiting for someone (anyone ... hello ... is this thing on?!?!!?) to ask Carney "How much more per barrel or per million BTUs for nat gas is this supposed world of yours going to pay for Canada's "low-carbon" oil and natural gas?"
As far as oil traders thinking twice about buying your oil if your field looks like Baku or Bakersfield in the 1990s, we think you're right .... for most of the advanced countries. But, as one example, the traders buying for China's teapot refineries did not seem to be particularly concerned about the conditions of Lake Maracaibo or the Orinoco Belt in Venezuela so there are surely limits to that!
Thanks for the comment, Trevor!
Man (and woman) have been on earth for just a blink of geologic time. Our planet has been through 4.5 billion years of "severe weather". Geology tells us that in the "recent" past million years or so the earth has cycled through approximately 100,000 years of multiple ice ages interspersed with approximately 10,000 years of warmth/melting. Just wait around and the weather is sure to meet your wildest fantasies?
Yup. Happy Holocene, Bro!
Surely you mean the Angry Anthropocene? 😉
Oh we hate the term “anthropocene.” Height of human arrogance. But love your use here!
Heard it a few years back. Faded now, I suspect. Similar to "Global Warming" (all the rage in the late 90's and early 21st) becoming "Climate Change" when the scammers realized that temperatures where not complying with their lying narrative.
Oh that term has been around almost 2 decades. Since we took over the climate.
I still kinda fancy that RCP8.5 tattoo on my head.
What country are you in? We’ll find you a shop. We only ask that you reciprocate with a picture. And no AI bullshit. We want to see blood!
😉
Have to saw my horns off first
Oh. Right. Different.
My bad!
Wait .. don’t you shed them naturally once/year?
I don’t grow antlers…
Some people are too far gone
https://x.com/mazemoore/status/2055376238345076837/video/1?s=46
It's going to be fascinating to watch folks like him try to save RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios. When you hear them use terms like "valid", "important", "reference", "relevant" that will be your clue they are insufferable political advocates for which actual science doesn't really matter.
As a reader of “Access to Energy” in the mid ‘80s when fear of global warming destroyed fear of nuclear winter, the author, Peter Beckmann made the point that the minuscule amount of CO2 in our atmosphere had little chance of been responsible for any warming. He’s been proven accurate over the past decade. Need I say, burning of the inaccurate UN Assessment Report paper copies has probably heat the earth more.
You show the increased contribution of natural gas to the world’s heat load but I wonder, does that also account for the gasses flared at the source where containment means are lacking? Including all prior years of flaring?
It does not. The figures account for nat gas consumption, and that which is flared is not counted in the totals.
Thank you for following the IPCC, so I don't have to. I have a question you may be able to answer. Has the IPCC ever, on any occasion, acknowledged that 1) CO2 levels today are historically much lower than normal on a large geological time frame, and 2) that rising CO2 levels over the last 100 years have increased crop yields and green areas, all to the benefit of mankind? My belief is that they have never acknowledged or addressed these facts. Am I correct?
I believe they actually have #2. Not sure about #1.
Accountability has been gone for decades when it comes to climate hysteria. Not a single radical claim has come true, yet climate hysteria continues as many sheeple prefer apathy over reality. Trillions and trillions of dollars wasted, for sure, and how many natural resources are being squandered as well? An awful lot 🥲
Your point about natural resources being squandered is a good one. Something we've been thinking about.