I just searched the 2020 AGU abstracts for the RCPs
RCP8.5 = 77
RCP6.0 = 3
RCP4.5 = 33
RCP2.6 = 14RCP8.5 continues its preeminent role in climate research
Our new paper explains why that is such a problem, how we got here and why it is so hard to fix pic.twitter.com/jK12z5iJ4E
— The Honest Broker (@RogerPielkeJr) December 17, 2020
Same search for abstracts for RCPs for next month's AMS annual meeting
RCP8.5 = 22
RCP6.0 = 0
RCP4.5 = 5
RCP2.6 = 2We ❤️ RCP8.5 https://t.co/GRQffyqUjm
— The Honest Broker (@RogerPielkeJr) December 18, 2020
Related:
Donna Laframboise: “RCP8.5, I think of it as Ridiculous Climate Prophecy” – “Fairy tales to describe how humans might impact the climate by the year 2100.”
It can’t become reality, they point out, unless humanity burns five times more coal than we currently do, “an amount larger than some estimates of recoverable coal reserves.” Whenever RCP8.5 gets mentioned, they say, it should be clearly labelled as an “unlikely worst case.”
Incredibly, that ‘major scientific report’ (National Climate Assessment) takes RCP8.5 seriously. Calling it a “core scenario,” page 6 of the report presents it as a realistic possibility rather than a farfetched hallucination:
“RCP8.5 is generally associated with higher population growth, less technological innovation, and higher carbon intensity of the global energy mix.”
This means the report is junk. No matter how many federal agencies were involved in its creation. But the New York Times didn’t tell readers that.
NYT: Marc Morano, a prominent denier of established climate change science, cheered the departure of Mr. Kuperberg and said he expects Mr. Legates to be named. “The Trump administration is ‘listening to the science’ by clearing out the anti-science promoters of extreme climate scenarios. These moves are long, long overdue,” he said.
