4 ms·

If I understand you correctly, your gripe here is with the name of the worst scenario, because you believe that: > A 500% increase in anything is not "business

by Timon3 4y ago

If I understand you correctly, your gripe here is with the name of the worst scenario, because you believe that: > A 500% increase in anything is not "business as usual" by definition I have two questions here: 1) why is a 500% increase in coal usage "not business as usual by definition"? What is the definition you're going off, and why does it not fit? "Business as usual" doesn't mean "everything as it is right now", it means "continuing on the current trajectory". If there was a definitive trend of increased coal usage, how would a 500% increase fall out of the definition of "business as usual"? 2) this is a gripe you have with communication, but it's actually not really relevant to what I asked. Do you have a specific answer for my initial question? An example could be that you show the prognosticated change in temperature, and show that current data falls completely out of it.

revelio 4y ago
https://www.iea.org/news/the-world-s-coal-consumption-is-set-to-reach-a-new-high-in-2022-as-the-energy-crisis-shakes-markets https://www.iea.org/news/the-world-s-coal-consumption-is-set... Global coal use is set to rise by 1.2% in 2022, surpassing 8 billion tonnes in a single year for the first time and eclipsing the previous record set in 2013, according to Coal 2022, the IEA’s latest annual market report on the sector. Based on current market trends, the report forecasts that coal consumption will then remain flat at that level through 2025 as declines in mature markets are offset by continued robust demand in emerging Asian economies That was 2022, a year in which Europe had to increase coal usage for the first time in a long time due to exploding natural gas pipelines and Germany shutting down nuclear power. Even in that extreme and unprecedented situation, the world managed only a 1.2% increase in coal usage. In other years coal usage fell or was flat. A 500% increase is a fantasy and everyone who looks at it for even a split second knows it. The complaint isn't the name of the worst case scenario. That's just an example. This scenario is routinely used as the basis for "climate crisis" claims, so it's not merely a naming issue either. The complaint is about the overall duplicity and manipulative nature of what this field produces. >> An example could be that you show the prognosticated change in temperature, and show that current data falls completely out of it. https://i0.wp.com/judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/slide1.png?ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04... But bear in mind that even this sort of graph can be misleading, because it assumes the relation between temperature and the effect on the climate is understood. It actually isn't. BTW, you say "it's actually not really relevant to what I asked" but you originally said "we're on track for the more pessimistic paths" and it was meant to show that although this claim is often made, it's not really right. The more pessimistic path is implausible and has been for a long time.

by Timon3 4y ago

revelio 4y ago

https://www.iea.org/news/the-world-s-coal-consumption-is-set-to-reach-a-new-high-in-2022-as-the-energy-crisis-shakes-markets https://www.iea.org/news/the-world-s-coal-consumption-is-set... Global coal use is set to rise by 1.2% in 2022, surpassing 8 billion tonnes in a single year for the first time and eclipsing the previous record set in 2013, according to Coal 2022, the IEA’s latest annual market report on the sector. Based on current market trends, the report forecasts that coal consumption will then remain flat at that level through 2025 as declines in mature markets are offset by continued robust demand in emerging Asian economies That was 2022, a year in which Europe had to increase coal usage for the first time in a long time due to exploding natural gas pipelines and Germany shutting down nuclear power. Even in that extreme and unprecedented situation, the world managed only a 1.2% increase in coal usage. In other years coal usage fell or was flat. A 500% increase is a fantasy and everyone who looks at it for even a split second knows it. The complaint isn't the name of the worst case scenario. That's just an example. This scenario is routinely used as the basis for "climate crisis" claims, so it's not merely a naming issue either. The complaint is about the overall duplicity and manipulative nature of what this field produces. >> An example could be that you show the prognosticated change in temperature, and show that current data falls completely out of it. https://i0.wp.com/judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/slide1.png?ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04... But bear in mind that even this sort of graph can be misleading, because it assumes the relation between temperature and the effect on the climate is understood. It actually isn't. BTW, you say "it's actually not really relevant to what I asked" but you originally said "we're on track for the more pessimistic paths" and it was meant to show that although this claim is often made, it's not really right. The more pessimistic path is implausible and has been for a long time.