Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Keepitsimple

A stormy Forecast for Climate Change Reporting

Recommended Posts

Guest TrueMetis

Read it. It says the *ocean* north of greenland had no ice. If that spot of ocean had no ice then it is unlikely that ice existed anywhere else. The quote from the scientists involved acknowledge that an ice free arctic is a plausible scenario.

So? plausible doesn't mean was a lot more date is needed to make that determination.

BTW - nothing anyone says about the past is "proven". If you are going to apply that standard to ever hypothesis about past conditions then you will have to toss out almost all of the paleo that climate science relies on. All this particlar hypothesis does is show there is scientific support for my claim that the arctic was ice free.

I disagree, even this claim could be proven they just haven't collected enough data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes, please... continue to highlight your ignorance on nutrition. That basic role of carbohydrates to supply energy requires a balance in supplying energy needs - carbohydrates can't do it alone; what is required is a combination of carbohydrates with proteins (and... water, vitamins, minerals, fats, etc.). As I said, your simplistic view has one offsetting reduced protein consequences of enhanced CO2 by "carb-loading". How's your diet of refined sugar doing, by the way?
We need the most volume of carbohydrates. Since CO2 is increasing the carbohydrate content we will need less land to provide the carbs that society needs. That in turn frees up land for growing crops to supplement the slight reduction in protein content. IOW - I don't see any real problem.

of course you don’t… you ignore what doesn’t fit your agenda. It allows you to wildly throw about your very selective use of “we”… “we eat”… “we need”. There is no one-fits all solution, no matter how much fertilizer you presume to throw at it… or how much carb-loading you deem an appropriate alternative to proper nutrition. I see you just glossed over that cassava study I linked to… you know, that staple of 750 million people… that study that counters your stated universal gains. (Growth and nutritive value of cassava are reduced when grown in elevated CO2).

I note you also jumped right over that all-encompassing study that measured against the full complement of components of global change caused by fossil-fuel burning… studying the representative interplay requirement; i.e., the inclusion of warming, elevated CO2, increased precipitation, and increased nitrogen deposition… not just the isolated effects of one variable (or one variable against another variable). Yes, you skipped right over that study that shows with full interplay between components, net primary production was not increased. (Grassland Responses to Global Environmental Changes Suppressed by Elevated CO2).

"we eat"? Who is "we" buddy? Speak to that 1 billion underfed and/or malnourished - hey? No... you're not even right in your TimG fantasy world... protein reductions still exist even in your panacea, "just add fertilizer" resolution. Who will pay for access/application to increased nitrogen fertilizer in developing countries? How do you propose to manage environmental consequences of increased fertilizer? Oh right... developing countries... just let them eat cake, (more carbs - hey?)
They won't be underfed and malnourished in 50 years. In fact, if they still are underfed and malnourished then that means CO2 levels will be much lower than what the IPCC predicts because the IPCC projections assume that poverty as we know it today will be gone.

are these the same IPCC projections you continue to beak-off about… you know, your previously incorrectly labelled “IPCC economic models”… your “interpretation” of the SRES scenarios? How many times do I need to keep calling you a hypocrite for presuming to leverage “IPCC models”… the same ones you continually, otherwise, criticize as “shams, bunk, astrology”? Perhaps you might indulge and advise just how, across the diverse nature of the SRES storylines involved, you presume to arrive at a one-of summation on economic growth… particularly since the various diverse storylines run the gamut of global, regional and local economic solutions/development?

what changes have you spoken to... other than your wishful certainty that new species will be developed... they just will, don't ya know? I'm not sure why you feel the need to label scientific study results as "doomsday scenarios" - other than they speak to scenarios that project the need for reduced CO2 emissions. Can't have that, right? That just gets in the way of your grand fertilizer solution!
Would you wake up. Scientists have a product that they need to sell. They are no different than the nightly TV news in that sense. To sell their product they need a hook. Doomsday scenarios are the most convenient hook. But you lap these things up because for some bizarre reason you want to believe the end of the world is coming and you latch onto these narratives and completely reject the suggestion that people can change and adapt. For you the only "change" that is acceptable to you is reducing CO2 at enormous cost. It is an insane obsession.

so… you label the results of scientific studies you don’t like, “doomsday scenarios”… you further label scientists involved in scientific studies you don’t like, “product sellers”… selling while, “dangling a doomsday scenario hook”. You further project your disdain for the study results and associated scientists by suggesting that anyone who, “buys into the studies”, is predisposed to world ending apocalypse… particularly for having the temerity to advocate for CO2 emission reductions, while speaking to logical approaches that include both mitigation and adaptation. Your best isolated ‘Adapt-R-Us only’ stance, has you beaking off about, “insane obsession”… while offering platitudes that are nothing more than hoping the negative effects of enhanced CO2 will just be wished away – in an insanely obsessive TimG style!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see you just glossed over that cassava study I linked to… you know, that staple of 750 million people.
They would be better off with different crops:

http://news.mongabay.com/bioenergy/2007/03/space-breeding-and-nuclear-techniques.html

Cassava is poor in providing sufficient nutrition to its consumers. The tubers are the main source of carbohydrates (35%), and provide a negligible amount of proteins. Fresh leaves have a much higher amount of proteins (7%) than tuber flesh (0.5–1.5%). Starch is the main carbohydrate source in root tubers, and is present in very low levels in fresh leaves.
Of course in your world we are forever locked into our current conditions and unable to change anything.
How many times do I need to keep calling you a hypocrite for presuming to leverage “IPCC models”… the same ones you continually, otherwise, criticize as “shams, bunk, astrology”?
As many times as you like because it just shows you are clueless. I reference them to show how your own arguments contradict themselves.

There are really only 2 possibilities:

1) The IPPC economic models (a.k.a. SRES scenarios) are basically right. This means there will be no poverty as we know it today in 50 years.

2) The IPCC economic models are wrong. This means poverty will be still here but CO2 levels will be much lower than the IPCC predicted because without economic growth (and the reduction in poverty that comes with it) there are no increasing in emissions.

In other words, the only one who is a hypocrite is you because you want to use the poverty that exists today as an excuse to reject adaptation as an option when your own sources presume that that poverty will not exist in the future largely because of the increased CO2 emissions.

To further emphasize the hypocrisy and misanthropy in your own views: limiting CO2 emission will exacerbate poverty around the world by making energy more expensive. This will cause greater harm than CO2 ever will yet you don't care because reducing CO2 comes with no cost in your fantasy world.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
of course you don’t… you ignore what doesn’t fit your agenda. It allows you to wildly throw about your very selective use of “we”… “we eat”… “we need”. There is no one-fits all solution, no matter how much fertilizer you presume to throw at it… or how much carb-loading you deem an appropriate alternative to proper nutrition. I see you just glossed over that cassava study I linked to… you know, that staple of 750 million people… that study that counters your stated universal gains. (Growth and nutritive value of cassava are reduced when grown in elevated CO2).
They would be better off with different crops: http://news.mongabay...techniques.html
Cassava is poor in providing sufficient nutrition to its consumers. The tubers are the main source of carbohydrates (35%), and provide a negligible amount of proteins. Fresh leaves have a much higher amount of proteins (7%) than tuber flesh (0.5–1.5%). Starch is the main carbohydrate source in root tubers, and is present in very low levels in fresh leaves.

Of course in your world we are forever locked into our current conditions and unable to change anything.

what’s prevented initiatives to replace cassava these last decades? I mean, really, c’mon… all it takes is TimG’s wishful thinking to make it happen – hey? In case you didn’t catch the actual drift of the article you linked to… one focus is on improving the nutrition capabilities of the plant itself – nothing in your linked article presumes on replacing it… as in your opening statement, “They would be better off with different crops”.

I guess you also missed this little ditty in your own linked article:

- “The crop (cassava) adapts well to a variety of soil and climatic conditions, is drought tolerant and has the ability to be grown on depleted and marginal soil”.

and, of course, you glossed right over this inconvenient study... ground-breaking study that deals with the requisite interplay, not just your favoured playing off one facet of global change caused by fossil-fuel burning. Of course you skipped right over it - hey?

I note you also jumped right over that all-encompassing study that measured against the full complement of components of global change caused by fossil-fuel burning… studying the representative interplay requirement; i.e., the inclusion of warming, elevated CO2, increased precipitation, and increased nitrogen deposition… not just the isolated effects of one variable (or one variable against another variable). Yes, you skipped right over that study that shows with full interplay between components, net primary production was not increased. (
).
are these the same IPCC projections you continue to beak-off about… you know, your previously incorrectly labelled “IPCC economic models”… your “interpretation” of the SRES scenarios? How many times do I need to keep calling you a hypocrite for presuming to leverage “IPCC models”… the same ones you continually, otherwise, criticize as “shams, bunk, astrology”? Perhaps you might indulge and advise just how, across the diverse nature of the SRES storylines involved, you presume to arrive at a one-of summation on economic growth… particularly since the various diverse storylines run the gamut of global, regional and local economic solutions/development?
As many times as you like because it just shows you are clueless. I reference them to show how your own arguments contradict themselves.

you reference them as it fits your selective purpose… you have no qualms in deriding “them” at every opportunity… yet, when you feel you can make a point from them, they’re your ready go-to. Hypocrite extraordinaire!

There are really only 2 possibilities:

1) The IPPC economic models (a.k.a. SRES scenarios) are basically right. This means there will be no poverty as we know it today in 50 years.

2) The IPCC economic models are wrong. This means poverty will be still here but CO2 levels will be much lower than the IPCC predicted because without economic growth (and the reduction in poverty that comes with it) there are no increasing in emissions.

In other words, the only one who is a hypocrite is you because you want to use the poverty that exists today as an excuse to reject adaptation as an option when your own sources presume that that poverty will not exist in the future largely because of the increased CO2 emissions.

To further emphasize the hypocrisy and misanthropy in your own views: limiting CO2 emission will exacerbate poverty around the world by making energy more expensive. This will cause greater harm than CO2 ever will yet you don't care because reducing CO2 comes with no cost in your fantasy world.

you’ve already been schooled once on your improper labeling of the SRES scenarios as “economic models” – would you like that post replayed back to you? Your curt summation of the SRES scenarios is farcical, at best. I see you once again, conveniently, failed to answer a basic request... again: “Perhaps you might indulge and advise just how, across the diverse nature of the SRES story-lines involved, you presume to arrive at a one-of summation on economic growth (“poverty”)… particularly since the various diverse story-lines run the gamut of global, regional and local economic solutions/development… notwithstanding respective scenario/storyline distinctions across other aspects related to different demographic, social, economic, technological, and environmental developments. At least your simplistic, self-serving and audacious analysis is consistent with your pattern/norm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what’s prevented initiatives to replace cassava these last decades?
Because it useful for poor people with no access to energy. That, of course, will change the future. The fact is no one grows that plant unless they have to. It is hard to work with and poisonous.
you’ve already been schooled once on your improper labeling of the SRES scenarios as “economic models” – would you like that post replayed back to you?
Yawn. You can rate and rave as much as you want but the SRES scenarios used to predict BAU emissions presume that poverty as we know it is gone within 50 years. The math on the projected emissions does not add up if they assumed otherwise.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/093.htm

The global economy expands at an average annual rate of about 3% to 2100, reaching around US$550 trillion (all dollar amounts herein are expressed in 1990 dollars, unless stated otherwise). This is approximately the same as average global growth since 1850, although the conditions that lead to this global growth in productivity and per capita incomes in the scenario are unparalleled in history. Global average income per capita reaches about US$21,000 by 2050. While the high average level of income per capita contributes to a great improvement in the overall health and social conditions of the majority of people, this world is not necessarily devoid of problems. In particular, many communities could face some of the problems of social exclusion encountered in the wealthiest countries during the 20 th century, and in many places income growth could produce increased pressure on the global commons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quoting from one of 6 main story-lines within the assorted 40 scenarios. Care to quote, compare/contrast the annual rates of economic expansion and average income per capita across the respective storylines/scenarios?
I said the BAU scenario which is generally said to be the A1 family. The A2 family presumes rapid population growth which reduces the per capita income and is not that plausible given the current population trends (A2 has 15 billion by 2100, A1 projects 6 billion).

The GDP stats for the scenarios are here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=14

As you can see in the A1 scenario the developing world pre capita GDP will be 15K by 2050 and 66K by 2100.

To put that in context see here:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-per-capita&date=1990

IOW, The developing world will be richer than the Irish were in 1990. By 2100 they will be far richer than we are today. Those numbers make it pretty clear that poverty as we know it today will not exist by 2050.

What is most interesting is reducing emissions will cost the the developing world about 1/3 of their wealth which makes reducing emissions a incredibly expensive option.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what’s prevented initiatives to replace cassava these last decades? I mean, really, c’mon… all it takes is TimG’s wishful thinking to make it happen – hey? In case you didn’t catch the actual drift of the article you linked to… one focus is on improving the nutrition capabilities of the plant itself – nothing in your linked article presumes on replacing it… as in your opening statement, “They would be better off with different crops”.

I guess you also missed this little ditty in your own linked article:

- “The crop (cassava) adapts well to a variety of soil and climatic conditions, is drought tolerant and has the ability to be grown on depleted and marginal soil”.

Because it useful for poor people with no access to energy. That, of course, will change the future. The fact is no one grows that plant unless they have to. It is hard to work with and poisonous.

of course - it's TimG's wishful thinking... that's all that's needed. Details... details - hey? Oh, wait - will that occur through your oft stated boogeyman... wealth transfer? Are you giving in to the boogeyman? Oh my! :lol:

you’ve already been schooled once on your improper labeling of the SRES scenarios as “economic models” – would you like that post replayed back to you? Your curt summation of the SRES scenarios is farcical, at best. I see you once again, conveniently, failed to answer a basic request... again: “Perhaps you might indulge and advise just how, across the diverse nature of the SRES story-lines involved, you presume to arrive at a one-of summation on economic growth (“poverty”)… particularly since the various diverse story-lines run the gamut of global, regional and local economic solutions/development… notwithstanding respective scenario/storyline distinctions across other aspects related to different demographic, social, economic, technological, and environmental developments. At least your simplistic, self-serving and audacious analysis is consistent with your pattern/norm.
Yawn. You can rate and rave as much as you want but the SRES scenarios used to predict BAU emissions presume that poverty as we know it is gone within 50 years. The math on the projected emissions does not add up if they assumed otherwise.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/093.htm

The global economy expands at an average annual rate of about 3% to 2100, reaching around US$550 trillion (all dollar amounts herein are expressed in 1990 dollars, unless stated otherwise). This is approximately the same as average global growth since 1850, although the conditions that lead to this global growth in productivity and per capita incomes in the scenario are unparalleled in history. Global average income per capita reaches about US$21,000 by 2050

you truly haven't a clue... quoting from one of 6 main story-lines within the assorted 40 scenarios. Care to quote, compare/contrast the annual rates of economic expansion and average income per capita across the respective storylines/scenarios? Care to advise just how you equate those numbers to your described state of world "poverty"? Why not start with the status quo... how about you quote from the latest World Bank figures and equate today's numbers to your projected state of world "poverty"... today's TimG analysis on world "poverty". How about you start there. Then make your TimG leap to project a singular summation on world "poverty" based on the myriad of options within the respective (and diverse) story-lines/scenarios. More of TimG's "one size fits all" analysis - hee haw!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you’ve already been schooled once on your improper labeling of the SRES scenarios as “economic models” – would you like that post replayed back to you? Your curt summation of the SRES scenarios is farcical, at best. I see you once again, conveniently, failed to answer a basic request... again: “Perhaps you might indulge and advise just how, across the diverse nature of the SRES story-lines involved, you presume to arrive at a one-of summation on economic growth (“poverty”)… particularly since the various diverse story-lines run the gamut of global, regional and local economic solutions/development… notwithstanding respective scenario/storyline distinctions across other aspects related to different demographic, social, economic, technological, and environmental developments. At least your simplistic, self-serving and audacious analysis is consistent with your pattern/norm.
you truly haven't a clue... quoting from one of 6 main story-lines within the assorted 40 scenarios. Care to quote, compare/contrast the annual rates of economic expansion and average income per capita across the respective storylines/scenarios? Care to advise just how you equate those numbers to your described state of world "poverty"? Why not start with the status quo... how about you quote from the latest World Bank figures and equate today's numbers to your projected state of world "poverty"... today's TimG analysis on world "poverty". How about you start there. Then make your TimG leap to project a singular summation on world "poverty" based on the myriad of options within the respective (and diverse) story-lines/scenarios. More of TimG's "one size fits all" analysis - hee haw!
I said the BAU scenario which is generally said to be the A1 family. The A2 family presumes rapid population growth which reduces the per capita income and is not that plausible given the current population trends (A2 has 15 billion by 2100, A1 projects 6 billion).

The GDP stats for the scenarios are here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=14

As you can see in the A1 scenario the developing world pre capita GDP will be 15K by 2050 and 66K by 2100.

To put that in context see here:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-per-capita&date=1990

IOW, The developing world will be richer than the Irish were in 1990. By 2100 they will be far richer than we are today. Those numbers make it pretty clear that poverty as we know it today will not exist by 2050.

What is most interesting is reducing emissions will cost the the developing world about 1/3 of their wealth which makes reducing emissions a incredibly expensive option.

nonsense. You continue to stumble over 'business-as-usual - BAU'... it's the same mistake I've repeatedly pressed you on from the point at which you made your first reference to "IPCC AR4 SRES BAU" in a previous MLW thread. I continued to press you to state which SRES scenario was your so-called "BAU". Finally we have your answer... one somewhat couched in cautionary uncertainty, with you now stating (finally), "the BAU scenario which is generally said to be the A1 family". No - as I stated previously, the concept of BAU does not exist within the SRES scenarios:

Describing potential future developments involves inherent ambiguities and uncertainties. One and only one possible development path (as alluded to, for instance, in concepts such as "business-as-usual scenario") simply does not exist alone. And even for each alternative development path described by any given scenario, there are numerous combinations of driving forces and numeric values that can be consistent with a particular scenario description. The numeric precision of any model result should not distract from the basic fact that uncertainty abounds. However, the multi-model approach increases the value of the SRES scenario set, since uncertainties in the choice of model input assumptions can be separated more explicitly from the specific model behavior and related modeling uncertainties.

you clearly have extreme difficulty understanding what the SRES scenarios are... and how to use/interpret them. Of course, that hasn't stopped you from, repeatedly, incorrectly labeling them as "economic models"... that hasn't stopped you from, repeatedly, denouncing them as "fraudulent, scams, astrology". Repeatedly denouncing them... unless, of course, you feel you can leverage them for some denialist/delaying agenda point you think you're making. Here - let me say it again - hypocrite!

so - let's recap. You've repeatedly pulled a "one-of" summation analysis out of what you label, "IPCC economic models"... stating that, (I paraphrase), the "IPCC economic models" rely upon a singular economic growth result, one that results in pulling the developing world out of it's abject poverty. I do recall that was how you presumed your fertilizer panacea was going to be paid for... either that or... gasp, "wealth transfer"! You quoting Income per Capita projections from the A1 family (from the A1B scenario) has no more relevance than quoting from any of the other SRES scenarios... unless, of course, you've been able to peer into your crystal ball and wade through the inherent uncertainty within future development and pull out a matching SRES scenario within that broad swath of SRES scenarios that spans the plausibly wide range of indisputable uncertainty... that your TimG crystal ball has resolved to TimG's "business-as-usual - BAU"! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the concept of BAU does not exist within the SRES scenarios
You are correct to say that the fine print in the IPCC report has all sorts of weasel words designed allow alarmists to claim that no possible facts or outcomes could show the projection are wrong (Cargo cult science at its finest). However, many discussions in the media and other places use A1B as the BAU. That is also what I call the BAU because it is most like the recent past. The A2 scenarios with their ridiculous assumptions about population growth are not remotely realistic (feeding 15 billion people will be impossible without rapid technological innovation and economic growth).

Here is an example of an EPA reports which treat the A1B scenario as BAU:

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.highlight/abstract/8429/report/2008

http://cfpub2.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.highlight/abstract/7495/report/F

So if you have a problem with my labeling of A1B as BAU then you have a problem with EPA.

To illustrate how the A2 scenarios over estimate population growth, here is the UN data on population trends:

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/English.pdf

You will find that the A2 scenario projects close 12 billion people by 2050. The UN projections are no more than 11 billion with a medium around 9 billion which is about where the A1 scenarios. It appears the 12 billion only makes sense if one assumes that fertility stops declining.

Frankly, the more I look at these SRES the more deceptive they are. It appears the IPCC wanted to make sure that they had "scary" outcomes. They realized that they could do that by inflating the population projections (A2) or by inflating the economic projections (A1).

Lastly, whether you like or not these SRES scenarios are nothing but "economic models" and are subject to the limitations of all economic models. This means they provide no useful information about the future. The only reason I bring them up when talking about farming is because one cannot simulataneously argue that emission levels will increase and that economic welfare will remain the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nonsense. You continue to stumble over 'business-as-usual - BAU'... it's the same mistake I've repeatedly pressed you on from the point at which you made your first reference to "IPCC AR4 SRES BAU" in a previous MLW thread. I continued to press you to state which SRES scenario was your so-called "BAU". Finally we have your answer... one somewhat couched in cautionary uncertainty, with you now stating (finally), "the BAU scenario which is generally said to be the A1 family". No - as I stated previously, the concept of BAU does not exist within the SRES scenarios:
Describing potential future developments involves inherent ambiguities and uncertainties. One and only one possible development path (as alluded to, for instance, in concepts such as "business-as-usual scenario") simply does not exist alone. And even for each alternative development path described by any given scenario, there are numerous combinations of driving forces and numeric values that can be consistent with a particular scenario description. The numeric precision of any model result should not distract from the basic fact that uncertainty abounds. However, the multi-model approach increases the value of the SRES scenario set, since uncertainties in the choice of model input assumptions can be separated more explicitly from the specific model behavior and related modeling uncertainties.

you clearly have extreme difficulty understanding what the SRES scenarios are... and how to use/interpret them. Of course, that hasn't stopped you from, repeatedly, incorrectly labeling them as "economic models"... that hasn't stopped you from, repeatedly, denouncing them as "fraudulent, scams, astrology". Repeatedly denouncing them... unless, of course, you feel you can leverage them for some denialist/delaying agenda point you think you're making. Here - let me say it again - hypocrite!

so - let's recap. You've repeatedly pulled a "one-of" summation analysis out of what you label, "IPCC economic models"... stating that, (I paraphrase), the "IPCC economic models" rely upon a singular economic growth result, one that results in pulling the developing world out of it's abject poverty. I do recall that was how you presumed your fertilizer panacea was going to be paid for... either that or... gasp, "wealth transfer"! You quoting Income per Capita projections from the A1 family (from the A1B scenario) has no more relevance than quoting from any of the other SRES scenarios... unless, of course, you've been able to peer into your crystal ball and wade through the inherent uncertainty within future development and pull out a matching SRES scenario within that broad swath of SRES scenarios that spans the plausibly wide range of indisputable uncertainty... that your TimG crystal ball has resolved to TimG's "business-as-usual - BAU"! :lol:

You are correct to say that the fine print in the IPCC report has all sorts of weasel words designed allow alarmists to claim that no possible facts or outcomes could show the projection are wrong (Cargo cult science at its finest). However, many discussions in the media and other places use A1B as the BAU. That is also what I call the BAU because it is most like the recent past.

beauty! Turn your failed understanding and brash, meaningless platitudes into a (failed) attack! Your reach for, "Weasel words"... "cargo cult science", simply highlights your back-peddling, save-face self! Buddy... there's nothing fine print about it - the absence of BAU within the SRES scenarios is a design construct that's been heavily scrutinized and written about. You merrily trundled along, repeatedly, speaking of SRES BAU... presuming to leverage for your agenda... while equally casting aspersion toward the scenarios at every and any opportunity. Hypocrite!

Here is an example of an EPA reports which treat the A1B scenario as BAU:

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.highlight/abstract/8429/report/2008

http://cfpub2.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.highlight/abstract/7495/report/F

So if you have a problem with my labeling of A1B as BAU then you have a problem with EPA.

bullshit! Substantiate your assertion by quoting from those reports... waiting...

To illustrate how the A2 scenarios over estimate population growth, here is the UN data on population trends:

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/English.pdf

You will find that the A2 scenario projects close 12 billion people by 2050. The UN projections are no more than 11 billion with a medium around 9 billion which is about where the A1 scenarios. It appears the 12 billion only makes sense if one assumes that fertility stops declining.

whatever you think you're interpreting, you, again, isolate a scenario family... zero in on one of it's many interacting components... and presume to make another straight-across TimG "one-of analysis" in comparing it to other storyline/family scenarios. And from that... you look into your crystal ball and shout eureka! "BAU"! More TimG nonsense...

Frankly, the more I look at these SRES the more deceptive they are. It appears the IPCC wanted to make sure that they had "scary" outcomes. They realized that they could do that by inflating the population projections (A2) or by inflating the economic projections (A1).

huh! How do you rationalize your statement that the IPCC inflated the economic projections of the A1 scenario family... while, at the same time, you choose to label it as the "business-as-usual BAU" scenario??? Oh my! :lol:

I choose to match your stated frankness... your frankly... with my own frankly. Frankly, the more I read from you, the more your deception rises to the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there's nothing fine print about it - the absence of BAU within the SRES scenarios is a design construct that's been heavily scrutinized and written about.
The "fine print" in this case is nonsense because the scenarios are clearly NOT equally plausible (my links to the UN report on population proves that the A2 scenario is much less plausible). The wording is in the IPCC report because they could not get the committee to agree on the relative plausibilily. Most informed readers understand this and then look at the different scenarios and make their own judgment on relative plausibility.

Most informed people who look at the scenarios agree that the A1 family best represents what is happening now (i.e. BAU) and A1B is the best choice if you have to pick one because it is the middle of the road. That is why the EPA uses the A1B scenario in its reports on the effects of climate change. They did not state their rational explicitly in the papers I linked because it is one of those assumptions that goes without saying.

Now there is not much more to say if you are continue to be an idiot by claiming there is no generally accepted BAU scenario. Even then, whether you call the A1 family the BAU or not it does change the fact that poverty as we know it today will be gone by 2050 according to the IPCC's own projections. This means your arguments about how the poor won't be able to pay for better crops and fertilizer are nonsense unless you want to also argue that the A2 scenario a more plausible BAU.

Last thing: the future will likely not look like any of the IPCC scenarios. The A1 scenario family is nothing more than an extrapolation of current trends which is useful as long as one understands what it is. My feeling is we will see these trends change as the price of oil increases and there is good chance that the world will return to more regional trading blocks for manufactured goods. However, that will not stop the global exchange of ideas and technology or anything else that can transferred over the Internet. The net result is we see continued improvement in human welfare with declining population and emissions even if there is never any special CO2 reduction policy adopted by governments.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beauty! Turn your failed understanding and brash, meaningless platitudes into a (failed) attack! Your reach for, "Weasel words"... "cargo cult science", simply highlights your back-peddling, save-face self! Buddy... there's nothing fine print about it - the absence of BAU within the SRES scenarios is a design construct that's been heavily scrutinized and written about. You merrily trundled along, repeatedly, speaking of SRES BAU... presuming to leverage for your agenda... while equally casting aspersion toward the scenarios at every and any opportunity. Hypocrite!
The "fine print" in this case is nonsense because the scenarios are clearly NOT equally plausible (my links to the UN report on population proves that the A2 scenario is much less plausible). The wording is in the IPCC report because they could not get the committee to agree on the relative plausibilily. Most informed readers understand this and then look at the different scenarios and make their own judgment on relative plausibility.

you continue to fail - big time! You pulled out "fine print" & "weasel words" & "cargo cult science" in response to being shown that you were wrong about SRES BAU. You clearly haven't the most basic grasp of what the SRES scenarios are even about... how to correctly interpret/use them. In your continuing scramble-about, which fine words will you pull out of your TimG denialti word-bag in response to being shown (now) that you haven't a clue concerning plausibility of the respective SRES scenarios. From the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios - Summary for PolicyMakers:

There is no single most likely, “central”, or “best-guess” scenario, either with respect to SRES scenarios or to the underlying scenario literature. Probabilities or likelihood are not assigned to individual SRES scenarios. None of the SRES scenarios represents an estimate of a central tendency for all driving forces or emissions, such as the mean or median, and none should be interpreted as such. The distribution of the scenarios provides a useful context for understanding the relative position of a scenario but does not represent the likelihood of its occurrence.
Most informed people who look at the scenarios agree that the A1 family best represents what is happening now (i.e. BAU) and A1B is the best choice if you have to pick one because it is the middle of the road. That is why the EPA uses the A1B scenario in its reports on the effects of climate change. They did not state their rational explicitly in the papers I linked because it is one of those assumptions that goes without saying.

no. Again, the concept of BAU does not exist within the SRES scenarios... no matter how hard you try to kluge something together. Of course, in spite of the IPCC's adamant position against BAU within the SRES scenarios, many (like you) have attempted to arrive at one, for assorted reasons - some even going to the extent of writing formal papers to that end. One in-depth one I recall seemed to fix a hypothetical BAU as a blend between the A1 and A2 scenario storylines/families... it was certainly full of real fancy/smancy tables, graphs, and statistical "wizardry" - certainly rising above the level of your stated "weasel words" & "cargo-cult science"! :lol:

oh snap! Thanks for at least responding to my challenge... and acknowledging the EPA reports you linked to contained no such statements to support your assertion that the, "EPA recognizes A1B as the business-as-usual (BAU) scenario". In any case, my quick scan of those two linked reports seems to have them referencing more than one scenario... and yet, you amazingly picked up on the A1B - google is funny that way - hey? (/snarc). In summation to your assertion concerning the EPA: you failed to provide any substantiation to your claim... you simply saying it carries no weight, particularly given your big-time fail concerning SRES scenarios.

Now there is not much more to say if you are continue to be an idiot by claiming there is no generally accepted BAU scenario. Even then, whether you call the A1 family the BAU or not it does change the fact that poverty as we know it today will be gone by 2050 according to the IPCC's own projections. This means your arguments about how the poor won't be able to pay for better crops and fertilizer are nonsense unless you want to also argue that the A2 scenario a more plausible BAU.

further and continued evidence to your complete lack of understanding... the idiot you speak of... is yourself - see previous IPCC quote references! I most certainly won't be offering argument as to the plausibility of a BAU scenario... see previous posts!!! :lol: Regardless of what flight-of-fancy you choose to take concerning BAU, the same challenge put to you previously still remains unanswered (by you)... translate those economic projections into interpretations of global, regional and local poverty... but make sure you apply cautionary interpretation to ensure you've (also) properly measured against the myriad of other options within the respective scenarios. Good luck.

Last thing: the future will likely not look like any of the IPCC scenarios. The A1 scenario family is nothing more than an extrapolation of current trends which is useful as long as one understands what it is. My feeling is we will see these trends change as the price of oil increases and there is good chance that the world will return to more regional trading blocks for manufactured goods. However, that will not stop the global exchange of ideas and technology or anything else that can transferred over the Internet. The net result is we see continued improvement in human welfare with declining population and emissions even if there is never any special CO2 reduction policy adopted by governments.

oh my! One wonders how you so confidently strut about claiming an, "end to poverty as we know it" based upon your "interpretations" of the SRES scenarios... the same ones you now buttress up against your statement advising you believe the, "future will likely not look like any of the IPCC scenarios". And here I thought you were at least confident in your own nonsense - go figure!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, in spite of the IPCC's adamant position against BAU within the SRES scenarios
The IPCC is clearly covering its a** on this point because it is absurd to claim that all scenarios are equally likely. The fact is some scenarios are more plausible than others. This is a fact that does not change no matter how many weasel words the IPCC put in the text.
In any case, my quick scan of those two linked reports seems to have them referencing more than one scenario... and yet, you amazingly picked up on the A1B
The referenced A1B and B1. The BAU and the "CO2 reduction" scenario based on the same economic assumptions as A1. In anycase, you have no alternate explanation for why those particular scenarios were chosen. In fact, there is no rational explanation for the use of A1B unless the authors felt it represented the BAU. Also despite your blather, you have no argument to show that the A2 scenarios are even remotely plausible. This alone leaves the A1 scenarios as the BAU by default.

Bottom line: you are only engaging in this nonsense discussion of the BAU because your own desire to believe in doomsday scenarios does not allow you to accept that the IPCC's own economic models show life will be much better for everyone in the world even if we do nothing about CO2 emissions.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no. Again, the concept of BAU does not exist within the SRES scenarios... no matter how hard you try to kluge something together. Of course, in spite of the IPCC's adamant position against BAU within the SRES scenarios, many (like you) have attempted to arrive at one, for assorted reasons - some even going to the extent of writing formal papers to that end. One in-depth one I recall seemed to fix a hypothetical BAU as a blend between the A1 and A2 scenario storylines/families... it was certainly full of real fancy/smancy tables, graphs, and statistical "wizardry" - certainly rising above the level of your stated "weasel words" & "cargo-cult science"! :lol:
The IPCC is clearly covering its a** on this point because it is absurd to claim that all scenarios are equally likely. The fact is some scenarios are more plausible than others. This is a fact that does not change no matter how many weasel words the IPCC put in the text.

you’ve most definitely shown no understanding of the SRES scenarios. You’ve been quoted/linked explicit IPCC wording that refutes your claims concerning BAU. You’ve been quoted/linked explicit IPCC wording that refutes your claims concerning plausibility. Clearly, the ass-covering and weasel words are yours… and yours alone.

oh snap! Thanks for at least responding to my challenge... and acknowledging the EPA reports you linked to contained no such statements to support your assertion that the, "EPA recognizes A1B as the business-as-usual (BAU) scenario". In any case, my quick scan of those two linked reports seems to have them referencing more than one scenario... and yet, you amazingly picked up on the A1B - google is funny that way - hey? (/snarc). In summation to your assertion concerning the EPA: you failed to provide any substantiation to your claim... you simply saying it carries no weight, particularly given your big-time fail concerning SRES scenarios. :
The referenced A1B and B1. The BAU and the "CO2 reduction" scenario based on the same economic assumptions as A1. In any case, you have no alternate explanation for why those particular scenarios were chosen. In fact, there is no rational explanation for the use of A1B unless the authors felt it represented the BAU. Also despite your blather, you have no argument to show that the A2 scenarios are even remotely plausible. This alone leaves the A1 scenarios as the BAU by default.

Bottom line: you are only engaging in this nonsense discussion of the BAU because your own desire to believe in doomsday scenarios does not allow you to accept that the IPCC's own economic models show life will be much better for everyone in the world even if we do nothing about CO2 emissions.

the bottom line you speak of: you know jack-shit about the SRES scenarios. You pull a couple of references off an EPA web-site and pompously claim that, as you stated, “So if you have a problem with my labeling of A1B as BAU then you have a problem with EPA”. I called bullshit and challenged you to substantiate your claim – whereupon you come back with your own “weasel words”… and no substantiation. Nuff said!

Most informed people who look at the scenarios agree that the A1 family best represents what is happening now (i.e. BAU) and A1B is the best choice if you have to pick one because it is the middle of the road. That is why the EPA uses the A1B scenario in its reports on the effects of climate change. They did not state their rational explicitly in the papers I linked because it is one of those assumptions that
goes without saying
.

whaaa! “Goes without saying” :lol:

of course, your minuscule comprehension didn’t allow you to properly interpret what you were referencing. Your linked references had nothing to do with the EPA… other than funding for the related research came from the EPA. Both of your linked EPA website references associate to independent scientific work undertaken by non-EPA personnel from academic and/or scientific organizations… each reference reflects upon published scientific work. For example, one of your linked EPA website references is this published paper from the journal, ‘JGR’, authored by two scientists; Jacobson from Stanford University & Streets from the Argonne National Laboratory… the papers abstract wording is identical to the EPA website wording description. These are not, as you stated, “EPA reports”… these reflect independent scientific work/research… independently published… with research funding from the EPA.

it, “goes without saying” (/snarc)… but, again, there is no concept of BAU within the IPCC AR4 SRES scenarios. Your futile efforts to continue to assert that the concept exists and to attempt to label a particular scenario in that regard, in spite of explicit countering IPCC design/wording, simply reflects upon your ignorance and unwillingness to acknowledge you are wrong... or to at least slink away quietly. Hey now… here’s a thought… is your mystical TimG BAU a North American BAU, or a Far East BAU, or an EU BAU, or a Latin American BAU, or a ‘developing world’ BAU, or a….? Does your mystical TimG BAU allow you to recognize that choices (other than climate policy) influence emission levels? Are you able to assign that mystical TimG BAU because your TimG crystal ball allows you to see into the future? How could there only be one mystical TimG BAU… why so limiting? How does your mystical TimG BAU fit within the practicalities of the myriad of parametrized/option adjustments within the respective scenario story-lines/families (vis-à-vis, projected (non-emissions) related trending)? What BAU (non-climate) policies are you relying upon to shape your mystical TimG BAU? Etc, etc, etc,… Give it up buddy, or I'll really run your ass ragged - hey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...