Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.global-warming > #780692

Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy

Cross-posted to 6 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 5/22/26 4:42 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> On May 22, 2026 at 3:29:52 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
> <6a10d8e0$0$18$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
> 
>> On 5/22/26 3:23 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>> On May 22, 2026 at 2:03:22 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>> <6a10c49a$0$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 5/22/26 2:24 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 1:04:24 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>> <6a10b6c8$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/22/26 1:53 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 12:43:32 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
>>>>>>> <6a10b1e4$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/22/26 11:45 AM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2026 at 10:29:07 AM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
>>>>>>>>> <Cn0QR.262949$gO1.24986@fx14.iad>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2026 1:17 PM, zendejo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <plonk>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I win... he plonked me. Or claimed to. :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Take a hike Snit, you simpering slackwit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah, not in your KF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given I have none true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But you were not happy when I discussed facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You misspelled "denied facts".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You were given solid source icons on catastrophism to go to in order to
>>>>>> get your knowledge up, and you refused of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As such you're just a pinata full of rocks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Notice you have nothing but insults.
>>>>
>>>> Like for like, as above, so below - where you reside, enjoy!
>>>
>>> You have insults.
>> I have facts.
>>
>> Liberals hate those.
>>
>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/453353528124367/posts/26619717614394601/
>>
>> The UN IPCC Climatologist have finally admitted that for the past 20
>> years all of the fake climate Doomsday predictions were all based on
>> junk science and manipulated data.
> 
> Already noted 

Good, now moar coming:

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/rcp85-is-officially-dead

In a paper released earlier this month, Van Vuuren et al. (VVetal26) 
introduce a new set of seven scenarios. The authors write of the 
obsolete high end emissions scenarios (emphasis added):

“For the 21st century, this range will be smaller than assessed before: 
on the high-end of the range, the CMIP6 high emission levels (quantified 
by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible, based on trends in the costs of 
renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends.”

Read that again — The high end scenarios are Implausible.2

I disagree that the implausibility of the high-end scenarios resulted 
from the falling costs of renewables or the emergence of climate policy, 
but that is a debate for another day.

What matters today is that the group with official responsibility for 
developing climate scenarios for the IPCC and broader research community 
has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate 
research, assessment, and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC 
assessment process are implausible: They describe impossible futures.

Tens of thousands of research papers have been — and continue to be — 
published using these scenarios, a similar number of media headlines 
have amplified their findings, and governments and international 
organization have built these implausible scenarios into policy and 
regulation.

We now know that all of this is built on a foundation of sand.

What changed
The new CMIP7 ScenarioMIP framework offers seven scenarios spanning a 
range from “VERY LOW” through “HIGH.” The current naming convention 
drops the radiative-forcing target labels of the SSP era — there is no 
“8.5” scenario, and no “7.0” scenario, but as I’ll show below, each 
scenario has a radiative forcing level in 2100.

I ran the available new scenarios (HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW, and VERY LOW) 
through the FaIR calibrated and constrained ensemble that Sanderson and 
Smith (2025) used to characterize the CMIP7 set (FaIR v. 2.2.0 as 
described in their README file). I then ran each of the five tier-1 SSPs 
through the same emulator with identical parameters to ensure that the 
results are apples-to-apples. The full methodology, data, and code is in 
the appendix to this post.

The headline results follow.

CO₂ emissions: fossil fuels and industry, 2000–2100



The chart above shows fossil-fuel and industry CO₂ emissions for four 
CMIP7 scenarios alongside the five tier-1 SSPs and the two main 
reference scenarios from the 2025 IEA World Energy Outlook.

Note the massive gap between the new HIGH and SSP5-8.5. The new HIGH 
reaches 71 Gt CO₂/yr in 2100 — far below SSP5-8.5 at 128 Gt in 2100. 
Nothing in the CMIP7 set comes close to SSP5-8.5. The new HIGH also sits 
below SSP3-7.0 by about 9% in terms of cumulative emissions to 2100. 
Note also the gap between MEDIUM (solid yellow) and SSP2-4.5 (dashed 
yellow), which I’ll return to below.

Both of the most recent IEA near term scenarios — which run to 2050 — 
fall below MEDIUM and SSP2-4.5.

The table below compares the CMIP7 scenarios to their closest AR6 
analogues, showing that the overall range has constricted. The higher 
scenarios have come down and the lower scenarios have come up — except 
VERY LOW, which moved down.




2100 effective radiative forcing and end-of-century temperature
The table below lists AR6 and CMIP7 scenarios from highest to lowest 
2100 radiative forcing. The middle column shows the average global 
temperature change from an 1850-1900 baseline, under the climate 
emulator used by CMIP7. The right column shows the average temperature 
change for the SSPs as projected by the IPCC AR6.




See Methods appendix for details.
Interestingly, the projected 2080-2100 temperatures of the SSPs 
decreased from their AR6 values based solely on recent updates to the 
FaIR climate emulator.3 These changes resulted primarily from the 
updating of emissions trajectories from 2014 (used in AR6) to 2023 (used 
by CMIP7). The more moderate emissions trajectories resulted in lower 
projected end-of-century temperature increases.

The new CMIP7 HIGH is 0.9°C cooler than SSP5-8.5 in apples-to-apples 
terms (and 1.4°C cooler versus IPCC AR6), and 0.2°C cooler than SSP3-7.0 
(-0.6°C against IPCC AR6).

The implausibility of upper-end legacy scenarios is now official.

CMIP7 avoided repeating the past with SSP3-7.0
Last April I argued here at THB that the climate science community was 
on the brink of repeating the RCP8.5 mistake with SSP3-7.0 — which 
assumed a 2100 global population approaching 13 billion, well above any 
contemporary demographic projection and a five-fold expansion of global 
coal use. Neither assumption survives current understandings of 
demographics or energy systems.

I don’t know if anyone in CMIP or ScenarioMIP reads THB4 — if not they 
should! — but regardless, they wisely chose not to adopt SSP3-7.0 as the 
new HIGH scenario.

The new HIGH scenario sits at 6.7 W/m² in 2100 — below the SSP3 baseline 
7.0 W/m² — with 9 percent less cumulative fossil CO₂ through 2100. As 
I’ll discuss below, this is progress; it is partial but real.

But the new HIGH still sits well above the plausibility range that we 
identified in Pielke, Burgess, and Ritchie (2022). We found that of the 
 >1,000 scenarios in the AR5 database, the plausible subset centered on 
a median of ~3.4 W/m² in 2100, with an upper end near 6 W/m². The new 
HIGH scenario is well above that upper end.

The authors of Van Vuuren et al. partially acknowledge that the new HIGH 
scenario is exploratory — a thought experiment, not a projection:

“Clearly, this scenario is not a “business-as-usual” scenario nor the 
no-policy reference scenario for the other scenarios. The scenario is 
intended to explore the upper end of GHG emissions resulting from deep 
political, technological, and structural deviation from current trends.”

Note that first sentence — It means that any future research that 
compares the HIGH scenario to lower scenarios in order to characterize 
the effects of climate policy will be fundamentally flawed. The HIGH 
scenario is not a projective scenario, but a “what if?” exercise.

Unfortunately, Van Vuuren et al. then engage in some unsupported 
speculation about the plausibility of the HIGH scenario in the real world:

“The are various reasons why such a scenario could emerge. For instance, 
a rollback of climate policies could result from a lack of public 
support for the energy transition. This could be related to, for 
instance, local opposition to building new wind farms or concerns about 
impacts on fossil industries related to jobs and national energy 
security. Also, the rapid cost decrease in renewable energy of the past 
decade could be discontinued, possibly as a result of regional scarcity 
and limited tradability in materials for solar and wind technologies and 
EV batteries . . .”

As discussed below, the new population assumptions of the updated SSP3 
are ridiculous, and by themselves render the HIGH scenario implausible. 
The lack of any systematic effort to evaluate plausibility of scenarios 
remains a fundamental weakness of the scenario development process.

The new scenarios are SSPs in new clothing
The new CMIP7 framework does not start from a fresh socioeconomic 
foundation. Van Vuuren et al. explain:

“In practice, the IAM [Integrated Assessment Modeling] teams have based 
their current scenarios on various SSPs, as it was generally deemed 
pragmatic as these come with already available, suitably rich 
quantifications and were implemented by the participating modelling 
teams within the given timeline.”

The CMIP7 scenarios rely on the same narrative architecture as the IPCC 
AR6 SSPs. The table below shows how the SSP storylines map onto the new 
scenarios — Confusion is sure to result, as the old SSPs are not the new 
SSPs.




The new HIGH inherits the SSP3 storyline directly — the same SSP3 whose 
enormous 2100 population rendered it implausible when used in the IPCC 
AR6. Remarkably, the IIASA 2024 update to the SSPs did not bring the 
population projections down. Instead, it increased them, as you can see 
in the table below.




The 2024 demographic update (KC et al. 2024, IIASA Working Paper 
WP-24-003, also referred to as WIC2023) revises SSP 2100 populations 
upward: SSP3 jumps from 12.6 to 14.5 billion. SSP4 increases from 9.3 to 
13.3 billion — an eye-popping 43% increase.

The SSP population update assumes that child mortality declines faster 
than WIC2013 anticipated, fertility declines slower in sub-Saharan 
Africa, and Africa’s 2020 base-year population was already 76 million 
higher than WIC2013 had projected. Africa’s 2100 population alone is now 
3.55 billion, up from 2.62 billion in the AR6-era projection — a 35% 
upward revision.

This puts the CMIP7 HIGH scenario in a strange position: The cumulative 
fossil CO₂ from energy and industry in CMIP7 HIGH (4,629 Gt 2020-2100) 
is lower than SSP3-7.0 (5,074 Gt), but it has a 2100 population that is 
15 percent larger. That means that the implied per-capita emissions 
trajectory in the new HIGH has a steeper decline.

How much of the new HIGH scenario’s warming is due to its incredible 
population projection?

I performed a simple sensitivity analysis:

Take HIGH as published: 4,629 Gt cumulative fossil CO₂ over 2020-2100, 
producing about 3.0°C of 2081-2100 warming.

That means per-capita emissions intensity average about 5.2 tonnes of 
CO₂ per person per year using 11-billion as the mean population across 
the century.

Hold that per-capita intensity constant and replace the SSP3 population 
trajectory with the SSP1/SSP5 population trajectory — peaking at 8.5 
billion in 2050, declining to 7.4 billion by 2100, averaging about 8 
billion.

Under these assumptions, under HIGH, cumulative fossil CO₂ falls to 
roughly 3,330 Gt, a 1,300 Gt reduction. The IPCC AR6 central TCRE 
estimate (0.45°C per 1,000 Gt CO₂) gives about 0.6°C less warming. The 
HIGH scenario with SSP1/SSP5 population thus would deliver about 2.4°C 
of 2081-2100 warming — slightly cooler than the new MEDIUM at 2.5°C.

Under this simple method, about 0.6°C of the HIGH scenario’s projected 
warming traces to the population assumption alone. The HIGH scenario may 
be much less about carbon and much more about assumed human fecundity.

This is a sensitivity analysis, not a coherent scenario — combining 
SSP3’s per-capita intensity with the SSP1/SSP5 demographic profile is 
internally inconsistent. But it suggests that the demographic 
contribution to the HIGH scenario’s warming is significant.

The plausibility vacuum remains
The deeper problem with the SSP/RCP architecture, as Justin Ritchie has 
documented at length, is that physical climate modeling became decoupled 
from the underlying IAM socio-economic scenarios.

Under the RCPs, scenario creators identified concentration pathways and 
the underlying socio-economic assumptions were expected to be filled in 
later. Whether the underlying assumptions actually described a coherent 
picture of the world was never systematically assessed.

Ritchie called this a plausibility vacuum — a situation where any 
combination of climate model inputs could be used without any assessment 
of the real-world plausibility of the assumptions.

To be fair, the new CMIP7 framework does address some earlier 
shortfalls. The new design specifies emission-driven runs as the 
default, which allows for carbon-cycle feedbacks. The harmonization of 
emissions to observed 2023 data is an improvement — CMIP6 harmonized to 
2014, and that harmonization had become well out-of-date by the time AR6 
came out.

However, the plausibility vacuum problem remains. Van Vuuren et al. do 
not evaluate scenario plausibility against observed energy trends, 
against IEA projections, or against the body of literature critiquing 
the SSP set.

The 2023 ScenarioMIP workshop report — which kicked off the process of 
developing these new scenarios — recognized the plausibility problem and 
committed to addressing it. Van Vuuren et al. does not deliver on that 
commitment.

ScenarioMIP produces a better scenario set than those of AR6, but the 
improvement comes from incorporating more recent emissions data and 
accepting the undeniable collapse of SSP5-8.5’s credibility — not from 
any methodological reform of how scenario plausibility is assessed.

The MEDIUM scenario is not “current policy”
The walk-back at the high end is the most important change in the new 
framework. The story in the middle is more complicated.

Van Vuuren et al. describe the MEDIUM scenario as one that “shows the 
consequences of the current policy situation (as of 2025) and trends 
continuing over the century.” They specify that MEDIUM includes only 
policies “actually officially being implemented” — no NDC pledges, no 
net-zero announcements, unless backed by explicit policy. The framing 
implies that MEDIUM tracks where the world is actually headed under 
current policies.

That framing is not consistent with other approaches to defining a 
current policy trajectory. The CMIP7 MEDIUM scenario produces 
fossil-fuel CO₂ emissions that rise from about 38 Gt CO₂/yr today to 41 
Gt by 2050 — that part compares well to the scenarios (CPS and STEPS) of 
IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2025, released last November.

However, it is post-2050 where the new MEDIUM scenario diverges from 
other current-policy projections, with its emissions slowly rising 
through the second half of the century.




In contrast, STEPS — the IEA’s standard reference for where current and 
announced policies actually take us — falls below 30 Gt by 2050 and 
produces about 2.5°C of 2100 warming.

The CMIP7 MEDIUM is more accurately characterized as a “policy 
stagnation” scenario rather than a “current policy” scenario. Cumulative 
fossil CO₂ emissions through the end of the century come in 18% higher 
than SSP2-4.5 — the AR6-era middle-of-the-road scenario — even though 
the MEDIUM 2081–2100 mean temperature is slightly cooler (explained below).

The figure below shows what happens once SSP2-4.5 and MEDIUM are 
anchored to the same observed 2020 baseline. The original SSP2-4.5 
(black) sits roughly 0.6°C above CMIP7 MEDIUM (red) at 2020 — not 
because the 21st century plays out differently, but because the SSP 
framework's historical emissions are harmonized to 2014 while CMIP7's 
are harmonized to 2023. That head start propagates through the entire 
21st century trajectory.




Running SSP2-4.5 post-2020 emissions through the CMIP7 FaIR emulator 
with CMIP7’s updated historical baseline (dashed blue), the picture 
inverts: SSP2-4.5 produces a 2081-2100 mean of 2.44°C against CMIP7 
MEDIUM 2.56°C. On an apples-to-apples comparison, the new MEDIUM results 
in about 0.12-0.20°C more warming than SSP2-4.5 — due to its 520 Gt 
larger cumulative CO₂ budget over the century.




This connects to the larger argument in Pielke, Burgess, and Ritchie 
(2022): observed CO₂ emissions from 2005 through 2020 tracked closer to 
the SSP 3.4 W/m² range than to SSP2-4.5. Today, the gap has widened, not 
closed. IEA STEPS now has emissions falling to under 30 Gt by 2050 — a 
trajectory consistent with the SSP 3.4 forcing range. The center of the 
new CMIP7 scenario set sits well above that range.

The new framework compressed the high end. Good.

The middle did not move far enough. The new MEDIUM might be considered a 
worst-case scenario rather than a current policy scenario. 
Interestingly, that would mean that there is no real current-policy 
scenario in the new CMIP7 scenarios, which would be something like a 
SSP2-3.4 scenario with updated demographics.

Perhaps, if projected demographic changes continue to trend lower, CMIP7 
LOW will come to represent something akin to a current policy trajectory.

Why this matters: these scenarios live in policy
The now-implausible upper-end scenarios — RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5, and SSP3-7.0 
— are not just academic constructs used in esoteric research. They are 
embedded in the policies and regulations of most of the world’s largest 
economies, found across the world’s most important multilateral 
institutions, and used in the climate stress tests that govern hundreds 
of billions of dollars in bank capital.

The table below provides just a few examples.




National climate impact assessments in the United States, United 
Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Australia, Japan, and the Netherlands all use 
RCP8.5 or SSP5-8.5 as a reference scenario. The Network for Greening the 
Financial System framework, used by more than 140 central banks, has 
utilized a “Hot House World” scenario calibrated to RCP8.5 physical risk 
into the bank stress tests run by the European Central Bank, the Bank of 
England, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, the Banque de France, and the 
US Federal Reserve. The World Bank’s Climate Change Knowledge Portal, 
which provides the climate diagnostics that feed into the Country 
Climate and Development Reports for more than 100 client countries, 
defaults to SSP5-8.5 and SSP3-7.0.

The abandonment of the high-end legacy scenarios by CMIP7 will need to 
propagate through this entire infrastructure. The policy machinery built 
on RCP8.5 and the other implausible scenarios is systemic.

What this means
The new CMIP7 ScenarioMIP framework represents a real course correction, 
but with more work to do. SSP5-8.5 is gone. SSP3-7.0 has a successor 
that is less extreme but arguably remains implausible. The middle of the 
set is more pessimistic than trajectories of current and announced 
policies. The plausibility vacuum at the heart of the architecture has 
yet to be addressed.

All this means that users of climate models and model output based on 
legacy scenarios will now face decisions about if and how they’d like to 
realign with the latest scientific understandings versus continuing to 
rely on outdated research.

Furthermore, there are no doubt many — hundreds if not thousands — of 
studies in the publication pipeline that depend upon the upper end 
scenarios. Editors and reviewers should ensure that they are properly 
characterized as exploratory and are not intended to be interpreted as 
projective.

We’ve known since 2017 that upper end climate scenarios are fatally 
flawed. Nine years later, that understanding has now become officially 
recognized. That is good news.

We can debate whether nine years is short or long for the overturning of 
scientific understandings with massive economic and policy implications. 
But today, that overturning is undeniable.

Science is self-correcting. What matters now is what happens next.

Back to alt.global-warming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-22 16:29 -0600
  Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 22:42 +0000
    Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 09:14 -0600
      Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 10:32 -0600
        Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 16:37 +0000
          Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 10:47 -0600
            Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 16:55 +0000
              Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 12:28 -0600
                Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 18:53 +0000
                Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 14:08 -0600
                Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 01:05 +0000
                Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Dietrich Von GassenHousen <Dietrich@ZyklonB.org> - 2026-05-24 01:58 +0000
                Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-24 11:13 -0600
                Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 17:51 +0000
                Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-24 13:13 -0600
            Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 11:00 -0600
              Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 18:14 +0000
                Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 12:32 -0600
              Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 12:31 -0600
        Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 10:41 -0600
          Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 16:54 +0000
            Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 12:27 -0600

csiph-web