Of course, NDCs as BAU do not remotely equal RCP8.5
This is pretty poor and I'm surprised it wasn't caught in review
"a +3C scenario representing current policies" is being used here as a euphemism for RCP8.5-as-BAU
By "+3C scenario" it simply means that the scenario passes through +3C on its way to 8C in 2500
LOL
Clever
In 2500 RCP8.5 is actually RCP12.0
🤫
Smuggling into a paper RCP12.0 (as RCP85 = current policies = 3C) is a new one for me, but I guess we will see more of this as RCP8.5 becomes both obviously problematic and at the same time, so seductive to continue to use as BAU
/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"the extent to which the insurance industry directs, funds & validates the production & use of science for estimating risk is itself a full blown political enterprise that functions to prioritize industry interests"
Weinkle documents the co-optation of scientists by the insurance industry to create regulatory-friendly research that appears to be "independent"
The use of the resulting research by industry goes unchallenged and in fact, legitimizes the work of the (no so) "independent" experts as authoritative because industry is using it ... so a mutually reinforcing legitimization circle
There is an interesting investigative journalism project to be done on the revolving door between climate science & policy and private sector climate services
Just as one example, John Kerry's predecessor as "climate envoy" co-founded a consulting firm that feeds off of RCP8.5
Absolutely fascinating how climate scenarios (RCPs, SSPs & their derivatives) are enabling entirely new markets for consulting based on financial risk assessments of fictional futures
It is also amazing how much money is being paid to explore these outdated, fictional futures
Observing the monetization of climate scenarios I am reminded of this passage from Rayner and Sarewitz 2021 @TheBTI Journal on how the Chesapeake Bay Program confused models and reality thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-13-…
🧵
Happy Monday
I'm going to let you in on a secret
It is out in the open but I doubt you've heard about it
Th most recent CMIP6 modeling studies of tropical cyclones/hurricanes project no detectable changes in storm metrics most associated with damage ... under RCP8.5 ... 1/n
Kreusseler et al GRL look at "integrated kinetic energy" (IKE) as a metric of potential damage and in model projections find "no significant changes in lifetime maximum IKE between present climate conditions and a projected climate scenario" agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.10…
Very important
Kreussler et al support Klotzbach et al 2020:
"minimum in MSLP seems to be a better predictor of IKE in HR than the max wind speed, which tends to support the use of central pressure deficit as a better proxy than max surface winds to estimate TC damage"