There comes a point at which the uncertainties make any estimates completely divorced from reality. It also necessarily downplays or ignores the work of adaptation. I don’t know how essentially bogus numbers are supposed to have utility.. because enough people claim that they do. Usually the ones who calculated them… another conflict of interest.
You are spot on. Some say the SCC is the yardstick against which we should measure the cost-effectiveness of CO2 mitigation policies. But the dimensions of the yardstick itself are in the eyes of the beholder, making it borderline useless for policy analysis.
SCC is negative. More CO2 in the atmosphere creates significant tangible economic benefits. The negative consequences are almost negligible given that the real climate sensitivity of these gasses is very much lower than has been misrepresented.
A few lines from one of my favorite movies, Grand Prix; "We should send the teams a strongly worded letter from the driver's association". "They file strongly worded letters from the driver's association". Enjoy your day
It's quite interesting to see a solid rationale behind a 2% discount rate, it's nice to know one exists
So not only does an outdated scenario prop up the EPA number but as you say it seemingly assumes no dynamic adaptation. I think this ranks fully equal to Trump's number in terms of putting the 'politics' in 'scientific consensus'
There comes a point at which the uncertainties make any estimates completely divorced from reality. It also necessarily downplays or ignores the work of adaptation. I don’t know how essentially bogus numbers are supposed to have utility.. because enough people claim that they do. Usually the ones who calculated them… another conflict of interest.
You are spot on. Some say the SCC is the yardstick against which we should measure the cost-effectiveness of CO2 mitigation policies. But the dimensions of the yardstick itself are in the eyes of the beholder, making it borderline useless for policy analysis.
SCC is negative. More CO2 in the atmosphere creates significant tangible economic benefits. The negative consequences are almost negligible given that the real climate sensitivity of these gasses is very much lower than has been misrepresented.
Glad someone caught that glaring omission!
288 K w GHE – 255 K wo GHE = 33 C cooler & -18 C Earth.
Just flat wrong.
Calculated 396 up/333 “back”/2nd net 63 GHE unreal perpetual “extra” energy loop.
Just flat wrong.
Earth radiating 396 W/m^2 as a 16 C BB.
Just flat wrong.
GHE
Just flat wrong.
CAGW
Just flat wrong.
A few lines from one of my favorite movies, Grand Prix; "We should send the teams a strongly worded letter from the driver's association". "They file strongly worded letters from the driver's association". Enjoy your day
The papers that found the high temperature mortality risk in later decades, or centuries, also relied on RCP8.5 warming estimates
https://open.substack.com/pub/rogerpielkejr/p/secret-sauce?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=q4k5f
It's quite interesting to see a solid rationale behind a 2% discount rate, it's nice to know one exists
So not only does an outdated scenario prop up the EPA number but as you say it seemingly assumes no dynamic adaptation. I think this ranks fully equal to Trump's number in terms of putting the 'politics' in 'scientific consensus'