You might wish to add to your analysis and overview of modelling scenarios. The result of this modelling is described in the mainstream media as scientific because it is done by scientists. However, any model whether considered probable or improbable is not science or scientific. It is merely an if-then statement, as an act of the human imagination.
You quote "if a policymaker cares about a 2 degree stabilization scenario, then the 8.5 W/m2 data from the decade where 2 degrees is reached can be used as a proxy for the 2 degree outcome in 2100."
My first question to the authors would be "What's the point?". If you want 2 degrees at 2100 then use one of the lower wattage per sq foot scenarios that actually gives you 2 degrees at 2100.
My second question is: if you're trying to estimate the social cost of carbon, wouldn't all the demographic/economic growth conditions be dramatically different between, say, 2040 and 2100, both at 2 degrees increase? Presumably the world will be much richer in 2100 than 2040.
You might wish to add to your analysis and overview of modelling scenarios. The result of this modelling is described in the mainstream media as scientific because it is done by scientists. However, any model whether considered probable or improbable is not science or scientific. It is merely an if-then statement, as an act of the human imagination.
I call them "quantified assumptions." quantifying them does not make them more real, nor useful.
"All models are wrong, but some are useful.", George Box
Nailed it.
You quote "if a policymaker cares about a 2 degree stabilization scenario, then the 8.5 W/m2 data from the decade where 2 degrees is reached can be used as a proxy for the 2 degree outcome in 2100."
My first question to the authors would be "What's the point?". If you want 2 degrees at 2100 then use one of the lower wattage per sq foot scenarios that actually gives you 2 degrees at 2100.
My second question is: if you're trying to estimate the social cost of carbon, wouldn't all the demographic/economic growth conditions be dramatically different between, say, 2040 and 2100, both at 2 degrees increase? Presumably the world will be much richer in 2100 than 2040.
Thanks for this reporting.
These days bad "science" just doesn't want to die.