In the latest in radical climate doomsaying, a new report warns that fossil fuel consumption will need to be reduced “below a quarter of primary energy supply by 2100” to avoid possibly disastrous effects on global temperatures.
In their report, titled “Pathways for balancing CO2 emissions and sinks,” a team of eight scientists warns that “anthropogenic emissions need to peak within the next 10 years, to maintain realistic pathways to meeting the COP21 emissions and warming targets.”
As is always the case in studies of this sort, the scientists juggle dozens of variables, none of which is entirely predictable and which taken together tell us virtually nothing about the future of the environment.
Although the scientists admit that “there are significant uncertainties associated with projecting energy consumption several decades into the future,” they fail to acknowledge a number of even greater uncertainties implicit in their calculations.
Despite their valiant efforts to produce trustworthy projections, the scientists rely on basic presumptions that are contested by extremely capable minds within their own field.
Dr. Duane Thresher, a climate scientist with a Ph.D. from Columbia University and NASA GISS, has stated bluntly that it is “mathematically impossible for climate models to predict climate.”
Appealing to corollaries of the well-known “Butterfly Effect,” Thresher said that long-term climate forecasting is “a quintessential example of this phenomenon” because of the elevated number of variables playing into climate phenomena.
“Climate models are just more complex/chaotic weather models,” Thresher has noted, “which have a theoretical maximum predictive ability of just 10 days into the future.”