Thread by @RogerPielkeJr

🧵Some technical details following my post on the SCC

Here are cumulative CO2 emissions (FFI) to 2300 for each of the 5 USG scenarios (4 are BAU & 1 is policy), along with the extended RCP8.5 & 2 net-zero scenarios (for 2100 and 2200)

Let me emphasize how ridiculous this is🤡

Looking at the high (USG2) and low (USG5) scenarios gives a 2300 temperature increase of as much as >9 degrees C

I have annotated the figure with the red line indicating 3 deg C which occurs as early as ~2070 under USG2

Ok, now let's look at the IAM damage functions
Here I have annotated the figure by adding the red line denoting 3 deg C

Note that the vast majority of damage occurs >3 deg C (& up to 3C is ~0 +/-)

According to @climateactiontr current policies (BAU) has the world on track for a maximum 2.9C +/- increase

So if the world never sees a T increase of >3 deg, then the vast majority of the SCC damages are imaginary (under the current USG methodology)

And this analysis is insensitive to 3 deg C - that's just a round number

Pick your favorite BAU value for peak T & invariably the majority of the SCC under the USG method will come from values above that peak

This is a fatal (& obvious) flaw, despite all the apparent complexity

Is climate policy so important that science abuses can be excused?

Or is climate policy so important that science abuses cannot be tolerated?

(Hint: No & Yes)

Read more: rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-biden-ad…

And more generally: rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-unstoppa…

/END

Found a typo in this figure at the top of the thread
Corrected version⬇️