Got it... Let's see:
1. Sometime around 2007, an obscure committee decides to create four emissions pathways for CMIP5 (the IPCC's climate model intercomparison project number five). The most extreme forcing is 8.5 watts per m2, known as RCP8.5
2. A team is asked to assemble an IAM (Integrated Assessment Model) to deliver emissions forecasts, which yield the specified 8.5 watts/m2 the committee wanted). To achieve the target 8.5 they create a dystopian vision of the future. I read it includes assumptions like Nigeria with a population over 1 billion burning coal like there's no tomorrow - even though temperatures increase over 3 degrees C and everything is falling apart. They also burn oil and natural gas at rates we can't produce simply because the reserves aren't there. Even then they can't achieve the target, so they introduce huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere. This dystopia is simply irrational. But they have to achieve the 8.5, so screw it, anything goes.
3. Sometime in 2013 we start seeing references to this dystopia as "Business as usual". BAU. The first mention I see is by an IPCC official at a press conference (this is what perked my ears and made me start digging into the whole mess).
4. Thousands of papers, tens of thousands of articles, and hundreds of thousands of comments begin to use this BAU case as a the basis for projected impacts. This dystopia is the foundation for the climate hysteria movement. The hysteria Obama says 97 % of scientists think is justified.
5. The economic analyses used to justify the cockamamie actions advocated by the IPCC (also advocated by Obama, the EU and the Pope) use RCP 8.5 dystopia as the "alternate reality" to the "de carbonized" world they create in their models.
I conclude this is one of the biggest scientific AND political frauds ever committed. It needs to be documented properly, and the world must be informed of this monstrous deceit.
The aftermath as of right now:
.....as the COP21 dust settles, we see the imbeciles leading the EU saying the same IPCC, which has shown itself to be shoddy, unprofessional, and fraudulent, is supposed to tell us how to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C above "preindustrial". So they scam the world and now they get to tell us what we are supposed to do....
However, if we merely assume that radiative forcing continues to increase at the average rate for the past 14 years, we do get an RF of 7.8 W/m^2 by 2100 - not terribly far off from the worst case, "business as usual scenario." The bau scenario assumed that nothing would be done by way of mitigation, but in fact fairly aggressive steps have been taken by some nations, and solar and wind have grown rapidly since 1988.
ResponderEliminar"Business as usual" wasn't exactly a neutral name, but calling it fraud when all the assumptions were clearly stated is a real overreach.
Sure, but why should we assume the radiative forcing is increasing? Theory? There's no data to back up increases. Furthermore, i bet this year and next year forcing may be decreasing.
EliminarIt's always better to go directly to the source. Your interpretation is .... fanciful.
ResponderEliminarIPCC WGII: Mitigation
"7.3.2.3 Baseline Scenario Concepts
Figure 7.2: Greenhouse gas emission profiles of different baseline case approaches.
The literature reports several different baseline scenario concepts, including (Sanstad and Howart, 1994; Halsnæs et al., 1998; Sathaye and Ravindranath, 1998):
--- efficient baseline case, which assumes that all resources are employed efficiently; and
----“business-as-usual” baseline case , which assumes that future development trends follow those of the past and no changes in policies will take place.
These different baseline scenario concepts represent different expectations about future GHG emission development trends, as well as different perspectives on the trade-offs between climate change mitigation policies and other policies. The costs of a given GHG emissions reduction policy depend in a very complicated way on numerous assumptions about future GHG emissions, the potential for emissions reductions, technological developments and penetration, resource costs, and markets."
The idea of BAU and its meaning was introduced into the scientific discussion of climate change long before 2007.
Or we could read this: "The RCPs were chosen to represent a broad range of climate outcomes, based on a literature review, and are neither forecasts nor policy recommendations.
And of course this post completely omits the history of SRESs (Special Report on Emissions Scenarios) which were the precursors to RCPs.
Surprise. (/snark>
I don't think you get it. I have much more expertise in the subject when it comes to fossil fuel resources. The IPCC simply lacks anybody with the proper perspective and information. After all, they are mostly into climatology. As far as I'm concerned, in this field they are committing fraud.
Eliminar