We Are Learning A LOT! ft Roger Pielke Jr.

This is simply for my own future use, perhaps in a future graduate seminar. Feel free to suggest additions in the comments, which I will use to update. These are intended to be key articles about the history, roles and impacts of integrated assessment models in energy and climate science and policy. The point is not to be comprehensive, but to curate a manageable set of articles that well describe current debates on the use/misuse of IAMs, and the background necessary to place those debates into historical, intellectual and political context.

Updated 1 June 2021

Haikola, S., Anshelm, J., & Hansson, A. (2021). Limits to climate action-Narratives of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Political Geography, 88, 102416.

Pielke Jr, R., & Ritchie, J. (2021). Distorting the view of our climate future: The misuse and abuse of climate pathways and scenarios. Energy Research & Social Science, 72, 101890.

van Beek, L., Hajer, M., Pelzer, P., van Vuuren, D., & Cassen, C. (2020). Anticipating futures through models: the rise of Integrated Assessment Modelling in the climate science-policy interface since 1970. Global Environmental Change, 65, 102191.

Cointe, B., Cassen, C., & Nadai, A. (2019). Organising policy-relevant knowledge for climate action: Integrated assessment modelling, the IPCC, and the emergence of a collective expertise on socioeconomic emission scenarios. Science & Technology Studies.

Gambhir, A., Butnar, I., Li, P. H., Smith, P., & Strachan, N. (2019). A review of criticisms of integrated assessment models and proposed approaches to address these, through the lens of BECCS. Energies, 12(9), 1747.

Beck, M. (2018). Telling stories with models and making policy with stories: an exploration. Climate Policy, 18(7), 928-941.

Ritchie, J., & Dowlatabadi, H. (2018). Defining climate change scenario characteristics with a phase space of cumulative primary energy and carbon intensity. Environmental Research Letters, 13(2), 024012.

Pielke, Jr., R. (2018). Opening up the climate policy envelope. Issues in Science and Technology, 34(4), 30-36.

Randalls, S. (2010). History of the 2 C climate target. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(4), 598-605.

Vieille Blanchard, E. (2010). Modelling the future: an overview of the ‘Limits to growth’debate. Centaurus, 52(2), 91-116.

Girod, B., Wiek, A., Mieg, H., & Hulme, M. (2009). The evolution of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios. Environmental science & policy, 12(2), 103-118.

Pulver, S., & VanDeveer, S. D. (2009). “Thinking about tomorrows”: scenarios, global environmental politics, and social science scholarship. Global Environmental Politics, 9(2), 1-13.

Morgan, M. G., & Keith, D. W. (2008). Improving the way we think about projecting future energy use and emissions of carbon dioxide. Climatic Change, 90(3), 189-215.

Robinson, J. B. (1990). Futures under glass: a recipe for people who hate to predict. Futures, 22(8), 820-842.

In the interests of transparency, and to provide a window to some of the ugliness found in climate science, here in PDF is a copy of my deposition in the case of Mann vs. CEI/National Review, which is into its 8th year.

You can find some various documents related to the case here and here. Here is an update on the most recent actions in the case.

Elite sport can sound like an alphabet soup of organisations – WADA, NADO, UKAD, NGB, and on – but what these bodies do, and how they conduct themselves, is vital to the integrity of sport.

That the World Anti-Doping Agency are now investigating a NADO (a national anti-doping organisation, in this case, UK Anti-Doping Agency) for letting a National Governing Body (British Cycling) do their own anti-doping probes and tests before London 2012 is a big deal. . .

Read it all here

Updated: 21 Dec 2020

All my 2020 publications, podcasts and videos after the break …

Continue reading “My 2020 Publications, Podcasts and Videos” →

Earlier this year a paper of mine was published that review more than 50 studies that employ “normalization” methodologies to assess disaster losses over time.

Pielke, R. (2020). Economic ‘normalisation’ of disaster losses 1998–2020: a literature review and assessment. Environmental Hazards, 1-19.

Here I will continue to track literature that has been published since my review was completed.

Sajjad, M., & Chan, J. C. (2020). Tropical Cyclone Impacts on Cities: A Case of Hong Kong. Frontiers in Built Environment, 6, 172.

“It is important to note that through there is a significant increase in the TC-related non-normalized damages (95% confidence), this trend becomes insignificant after normalizing the damages with the corresponding years GDP. This finding is in line with the existing literature . . .”