Feeds

back to article Delay climate mitigation, escalate the costs: study

Which would hurt less: a global carbon price of $US20 now, or a $US100 carbon price in 2020? That’s the stark choice offered by a new study by the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis in Austria, published in Nature (abstract here). The paper, Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation, seeks to …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Anonymous Coward

Bollocks. Next!

16
5

Clearly helps being an Anonymous Coward since, without a shred of evidence, you are able to dismiss all issues related to climate change. Fortunately the rest of humanity understands the concern and, hopefully, will not dismiss this most vital of decisions (I can't think of any more important decision facing humans than the survival of our future generations) and will follow Australian lead and start implementing price on carbon to gradually shift energy production for carbon-intense to renewable ... but this is of no cocern to you, so please resume your hibernation.

0
2
Anonymous Coward

The Anonymous Coward here.

Fortunately the rest of humanity understands the concern and, hopefully, will not dismiss this most vital of decisions

No, "the rest of humanity", or people like you more like, are simply useful idiots who cluelessly swallow and regurgitate any bollocks emanating from those claiming to be scientists. You may not have a critical bone in your body but I can assure you that by no means the rest of humanity give a shit about global warming or believe the hysterical ramblings of its high priests.

I would say I'd never heard such sanctimonious bullshit in my entire life but, unfortunately, I have.

If the madcap schemes of the AGW fantasists were entirely contributory, I suspect they wouldn't be seeing a penny from you.

0
0
Silver badge
FAIL

In order to pass the Bridge of Eternal Peril, you must first answer this question...

"Which would hurt less: a global carbon price of $US20 now, or a $US100 carbon price in 2020?"

That's easy!!!

Inflation means that USD 100 in 2020 will be actually worth far less than USD 20 NOW. It might even be worth nothing at all.

On the other hand, if you have USD 20 now you could actually invest it and hope that it grows to a lot more (in whatever denomination) by 2020 (though seeing the serial sabotage of any growth prospect by the Keynesians in charge, I wonder how that would be possible). That investment might yield the unexpected result of actually reducing carbon dioxide emissions!

Indeed, performing a bit of tax evasion will certainly work towards that goal, reducing government spending on wars and hindering crap like Olympic Games and schemes to reduce CO2 emissions.

Finally, how do I spend USD 20 per tonne of CO2, pray tell? Who takes the 20 USD and what do I get for it? This seems to be an exchange. Will the government give me USD 20 if I continue to drive my old car for a bit longer, as opposed to promising me rebates and tax deductions if I scrap it now and buy a new one I don't need in order to "kickstart the economy" (actually destroying the second hand market)? Somehow I doubt it.

10
1
Bronze badge
Holmes

Re: In order to pass the Bridge of Eternal Peril, you must first answer this question...

After 5 years of constant fiscal stimulation, US inflation is storming out of sight at a hair-raising -- 2% per annum. That's hardly Zimbabwean.

As for "how do I spend USD20 per tonne of CO2" -- that's not even a hard question. If the political will existed (ha!), you'd spend it in tax, every time you buy fuel or energy. And manufacturers, distributors and the like would be spending it on the same basis, meaning that it would be factored into their expenses, and thus into every price you pay.

None of this is groundbreaking, it doesn't even require any significant new paperwork. Of course in real life it *will* require that, because in real life it will be implemented by people whose primary goal is to generate work for their cronies, but that's because we still choose to build our society on this tragic everyone-for-themselves model.

3
5
Anonymous Coward

Re: In order to pass the Bridge of Eternal Peril, you must first answer this question...

From my last trip, I think 2% is wild optimism. A tea and a coffee in Starbucks in November was $3.30, in December, $3.90. This was the first trip I've made in the last 10 years of travel, where we didn't bother to buy anything to bring back. A 1L bottle of Southern Comfort is £19 in US duty free and only £21 in ASDA, without the transportation hassle. The local US grocers were frequently more expensive than Tesco.

1
0
Bronze badge
Thumb Down

Re: In order to pass the Bridge of Eternal Peril, you must first answer this question...@ veti

I believe the question is two parts, "To whom shall we pay it?" and "What are they going to do with it that will mitigate the problem?"

Your answer seems to be "to the gov't" and "SFA" respectfully, implying that the USD20/tonne is nothing more than a deterrent. If that's the case, then let's wait a bit and spend USD50 in 2020 and have it actually do something with it.

Alternatively, if there is a feasible plan to use that money for something constructive (maybe use it to finance nuke plants?) then it maybe a good idea. As-is, it will accomplish nothing to reduce energy consumption except via Malthusian methods (the poor/elderly won't be able to afford the cost of running heat/cooling and will perish from exposure). This strikes me as a Bad Idea.

3
0
Bronze badge
Flame

everyone-for-themselves model

As opposed to the wonderfully working socialist work for the government model? no thanks

0
0

Re: everyone-for-themselves model

I agree, anarchy has always delivered better outcome than governments, look at these examples .... ok, so I can't think of a single example but take my word for it, it's better!!! Just imagine, everybody doing their bit in their own selfish way to mitigate climate change, wouldn't that be a fantastic example of CHAOS???

0
0

Re: In order to pass the Bridge of Eternal Peril, you must first answer this question...

Sorry, please go back to basic compound interest calculations. Inflation rates over the past 20 years has been in the range of 3%. Between 2012 and 2020 there are, let me see, 8 years ... at a compound interest rate of 3% I don't think I'll increase my $20 of today by a factor of 5. It won't even double ... it will be a mere $25.34. Last time I looked, $100 is about 4 times $25, i.e. if we act today it will cost 4 times less then if we wait another 8 years. I hope your investment strategy is considerably better then your ability to calculate ...

0
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Silver badge

Yes, but...

How much is that in Chinese Yuan? They now produce more CO2 than most (if not all) other countries, and aren't going to pay to mitigate any CO2.

Then again, it was cold last night and even getting close to my wife didn't help as much as it should have. That and today is the closest the earth gets to the sun as it orbits.

Sorry, warming is also happening on Mars and they don't have silly carbon taxes that only help to enslaven us all.

3
3
Silver badge

Re: Yes, but...

warming isn't happening on mars

4
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Yes, but...

And also: Even if warming was happening on Mars, that doesn't mean that the same mechanism is warming the Earth. It doesn't mean that we can't do anything about the warming Earth. Whereas we couldn't do anything about a warming Mars and it wouldn't matter anyway because we don't live there.

0
1
Bronze badge
Paris Hilton

Re: Yes, but... (squared)

A warming Mars would actually be Good Thing, as it's rather nippy there as is. It will be easier to sell Virgin's and SpaceX's one-way tickets to Mars if it warms up a bit. Once we do that, people will be living there, so it'll matter to them *and* Weather Channel and Weatherbug.

Paris, since she seems to like everything "hot".

0
0
K
Bronze badge
Thumb Down

Message Translated..

To Public Citizen: "Do your bit for global warming, pay your due"

To Mr Government: "Continue to fund me and I'll give you a chance to really tax the shit out of your citizens! Then spend the money on some airy fairy bullshit that suits your political agenda.."

...

Until they tell me exactly what f*cking use this money is and being spent on, they can all go f@#$ themselves!

13
1
Thumb Up

Re: Message Translated..

I was thinking more along the lines of:

Buy one window or door and get one free, ONLY at SAFESTYLE UK! But hurry, this offer is strictly time limited! Honest!

0
0
Facepalm

More pointless people billing themselves pointless fines for completely pointless reasons...

6
2

More scammers at work

Isn't this the same technique scamsters use to get money out of the naive and elderly...

...you can't have time to think about it, you must sign up NOW!!!

7
1
Bronze badge
Pirate

Missing options

Pay $500 in 2030, or $2500 in 2040. Or .....

0
0
Bronze badge
FAIL

Too funny!

What cracks me up is that even the IPCC admits they have no idea how much temps will rise for a doubling of CO2 concentrations (versus the 280 ppm in pre-industrial times); it might be 1C, it might be 2C, it might be 3C, it might be something else; this paper picks their own value, notwithstanding the existence of observations.

Recent scientific attempts to use real observational data (instead of the computer models (ab)used in papers like this one) to narrow the possibilities indicate a value around 1.7C for a doubling of CO2 (to 560 ppm, expected perhaps around the end of the 21st century). That's about 3 degrees Fahrenheit for the Americans here. We've already experienced part of that temperature rise, since we're already at 391 ppm -- the best guess is that we've experienced 1/3 to 1/2 of the temperature rise already, leaving maybe 1.2C (or 2F) of temperature rise for the next 80 - 90 years. Doesn't seem so scary when you put it like that, does it?

9
1

Re: Too funny!

Spot on. It's beginning to look as if the GCMs have been over estimating the cooling effects of particulates and aerosols by quite some margin.

Even the AR5 draft contains statements that indicate the IPCC is now expecting rises to be at the bottom end of the range predictions. Their graphs also show that current measured temperatures are in fact bumping along right at the bottom of model predictions and could fall out of range entirely if this period of stability in global temperatures continues, or even moves toward a slight decline over the next 5 years.

The GCMs are looking increasingly fragile and that's a big problem, as trillions of dollars are going to be spent on the basis of their predictions. So big a problem in fact, that I suspect everything possible will be done to avoid having to admit it.

3
1
Gold badge

Re: Too funny!

"Spot on. It's beginning to look as if the GCMs have been over estimating the cooling effects of particulates and aerosols by quite some margin."

I'm aware climate is complex but don't you mean underestimating the cooling effects particulates & aerosols?

Just puzzled.how it would work otherwise.

1
0
Bronze badge
Pint

Re: Too funny!

js, it's indeed *over*estimating. We've done a pretty good job of reducing human-caused particulates and aerosols (e.g. sulphur dioxide, soot, etc -- good "London Fog" stuff) over the past 50 years, so although the P&As masked/counteracted a portion of the greenhouse warming during that period, going forward we expect there to be less of them, offsetting less of the "underlying" warming.

However, the modelers can only tune their models to past temps, not future ones, so if they model their P&As as doing too much cooling (the *over*estimating), the warming effects in the model also end up being boosted to restore the balance so the sum of cooling and warming adds up to the correct historical measured temperatures. Then, once the cooling P&As are cleaned out of the atmosphere in the 21st century, the (boosted) underlying warming mechanisms are all that's left in the model, and the modeled temps skyrocket.

0
1
Meh

So, basically it says we need nuclear on the table for the time being or we are fucked unless we suddenly magic up a world full of 'advanced technology strategies' (such as electric cars and highly efficient energy end-use technologies) and rapidly shut down all coal fired power stations and replace them with 'other energy sources'. Oh, not heard that one before.

So it's not really a question of what do we want to pay and when, but what can we realistically achieve in a remarkably short time-scale. Will 20USD now get us all electric vehicles and highly efficient energy end-use technologies such as appliances, buildings and transportation? I very much doubt it.

Richard, can I safely assume that you have read the study? If so what are the full details on the 'advanced technology strategies' and the 'other energy sources' as referenced in the original press release?

3
0
Anonymous Coward

"...$US20 now, or a $US100 carbon price in 2020?"

Or even find out in 2020 that the whole thing was FUD and man-made global warming wasn't man-made after all?

9
3
Bronze badge

Splitting atoms

As there is no way to even marginally reduce the CO2 production at the end user level there is only one possible approach, reduce at the production level. And the only viable option we have for that is nuclear. Sadly this is never going to happen either as there are too many paranoids to ever let that option get any traction.

1
0
WTF?

Made up target

So they fabricate a target which they say we have to meet, then construct a model which says we're doomed anyway. By a large majority, the model runs are over estimating their temperature projections, yet we are still relying on these outdated and inaccurate models to guide policy.

It seems the best they can come up with now is a scenario where if we have lost, we've lost worse than before. Why not assume that maybe the worst-case isn't the right thing to plan for for a change?

6
2
Mushroom

How about we just stop burning shit and bash atoms together.

Not 'cos some eco-weenie has a broken computer that tells us we're all going to die, but because it's the right thing to to do, simply by considering the risks and benefits alone.

3
3
Anonymous Coward

Pressure sales

When the salesman tries this the best option is to walk out and not bother. With the huge question marks over MMCC and the even larger question marks over what they actually know/think they know means MMCC may be one of those funny things to look back on like the other "end of the world" cults. If it turns out there is an actual problem, and we have some reliable science to back it up we are likely to have better technology then.

For the mean time there is real pollution and real global problems to work on. With actual and measurable results.

6
1
Silver badge

Re: Pressure sales

"If it turns out there is an actual problem, and we have some reliable science to back it up we are likely to have better technology then."

But probably not sufficient technology of the scale required to revert Earth back to it's original state. Once the Earth cooks up enough that the ice sheets become de-stabilized and frozen hydrocarbon deposits start degassing only epic scale sci-fi level technology is going to work.

As human technology currently stands we can barely deal with plugging up a relatively small oil leak in the gulf of mexico.

1
5
Anonymous Coward

Re: Pressure sales

Which original state? The rock in space? Reptiles the dominant species? Or some arbitrary point in time you have selected somewhere between the many natural cycles in temperature and climate?

And you assume MMCC we all gonna cook is true. If you assume the other side of the very possible coin we could tank all economies and cause many deaths globally while fixing nothing but causing a lot more damage.

The outcome is not certain. If we are warming the planet and to what extent and to what temperature and to what result is unknown.

4
1
Silver badge

Re: Pressure sales

I pick the relatively stable climate of the last 10,000 years as this is the only tested time period in which human civilization has flourished on Earth. Any other climate state is untested and threatening.

"If we are warming the planet and to what extent and to what temperature and to what result is unknown."

The strong likelihood is we are going to push the climate into a warm period the likes of which it hasn't been in for millions of years. Which won't just be a novel situation for humans but much of other life on Earth. Business as usual with the idea of just risking it is fine, but don't expect to be able to reverse the process down the line if it all goes wrong. Human technology is highly unlikely to be up to that task.

1
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: Pressure sales

Over the last 10,000 yrs we have had cooling and warming. So much so that the current situation is not beyond the possibility (or likelihood) of being natural. The other climates have been tested (without our co2) and a fear of the dark is threatening to some.

I say fear of the dark because its the unknown which scares people, yet the whole climate science is in the unknown territory. They cant explain why the predictions keep failing. They have to revise down the figures regularly and fix the broken models constantly. Mostly because they dont know enough to model accurately.

You talk of a worst case situation which is far from proven or factually supported. Instead of science it has become politics. And the skeptics and agnostics have laughed plenty at the IPCC and politicians statements which show a fear of the boogie man and a lack of scientific foundation.

3
0
Silver badge

Re: Pressure sales

"Over the last 10,000 yrs we have had cooling and warming."

but not as much as expected in the next 200 years, even by moderate estimates of the warming in store.

"hey have to revise down the figures regularly and fix the broken models constantly. Mostly because they dont know enough to model accurately."

Uncertainty works both ways. Eg look at this incorrect prediction:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/files/2012/09/naam-ice-12.jpg

"You talk of a worst case situation which is far from proven or factually supported."

It doesn't have to be proven. Anymore than nuclear terrorism has to be proven for it to be a threat.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Pressure sales

"but not as much as expected in the next 200 years, even by moderate estimates of the warming in store."

By expected you mean in the same way that many people in the past have expected many end of the earth scenarios without actually having facts to back it up. As there is so much unknown and not understood in the science of climate the next 200yrs has little chance of such prediction. They couldnt predict a few years ahead and have had to revise down the expectations consistently.

"Uncertainty works both ways. Eg look at this incorrect prediction:"

But the word which completely removes your entire credability is "Uncertainty" which you use to support your position but actually destroys yours. If its unknown then we need facts. We dont have working facts yet so "we all gonna fry" is as legit as "we all gonna freeze". Your acceptance of uncertainty removes your certainty that we gonna burn.

"It doesn't have to be proven. Anymore than nuclear terrorism has to be proven for it to be a threat."

So you offer no proof but expect my money in the collection plate to save my soul? Funnily enough this is not the first I have heard of this racket. How about you and your friends go sit on a hill in france for the UFO to save you and I will take my chances?

Comparing theoretical theology (unproven with moving goalposts) with nuclear terrorism which is a factual situation that can be measured and has an actual level of risk shows your lack of understanding. I demonstrate-

Nuclear material goes missing. Varying levels of talk on terrorist communications and interrogations. Witnesses and evidence. All contribute to an actual assessment of an actual possibility.

Cherry pick some numbers. Filter the majority of scientists out so only the few who agree are counted, and only publish their stuff (if its biased enough). Put out a propaganda campaign including misinformation to politicians (we have x days to save the world). Revise down the figures when science catches up to the lies and false predictions but insist the result hasnt changed. Bleed as much money from the populations but provide nothing meaningful. But insist the risk is there, no matter how made up it is.

Do you see a difference?

0
0
FAIL

Re: Pressure sales

Around 125,000 years ago, the temperature was a couple of degrees higher than currently, right before we plunged into an ice age.

Around 250,000 years ago, the temp was around 3 degrees higher than currently, right before we plunged into an ice age.

Around 375,000 years ago, the temp was a couple of degrees higher than currently, right before we plunged into an ice age.

This data comes from the climate change exhibit in Wellington museum, New Zealand. The same graph showing these data points can be found on the web.

I find it quite distressing that so many people believe that the spec's on the planet's surface that are human beings have so much control and/or input into altering the planets climate.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Pressure sales

"Around 125,000 years ago, the temperature was a couple of degrees higher than currently, right before we plunged into an ice age."

Not so. You are looking at a graph of temperatures from a proxy in central Antarctica. That's not global temperature. Changes at the poles are much greater than at the tropics. Therefore the average global temperaturee difference is much smaller than measured at eg Antarctica.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Pressure sales

"By expected you mean in the same way that many people in the past have expected many end of the earth scenarios without actually having facts to back it up."

No I mean by the method of science.

"As there is so much unknown and not understood in the science of climate the next 200yrs has little chance of such prediction."

Wrong. Not knowing how much warming a 2% increase in solar output would produce doesn't preclude science from estimating it. You are appealing to total ignorance, similar to how creationists appeal to total ignorance about the past to claim that "we can't know" and therefore their theories about the earth and life are just as good as mainstream ones.

"But the word which completely removes your entire credability is "Uncertainty" which you use to support your position but actually destroys yours. If its unknown then we need facts."

It's not unknown, it's uncertain. The precise amount of warming if the Sun's output increases by 2% is unknown, but it can be estimated and bounded with an uncertainty range. Claiming that the word uncertainty

"We dont have working facts yet so "we all gonna fry" is as legit as "we all gonna freeze"."

This is just flat out wrong. To give another analogy it's like claiming that uncertainty in the age of the Earth (it's not precisely known) means believing it's 6000 years old is just as good a conclusion.

"Your acceptance of uncertainty removes your certainty that we gonna burn."

I didn't express any certainty. I expressed what is likely.

"So you offer no proof"

Science doesn't deal in proofs. That's maths. Science deals in evidence.

"nuclear terrorism which is a factual situation that can be measured and has an actual level of risk"

Now you are being inconsistent. You can't PROVE that nuclear terrorism will happen but you accept the risk, yet you demand warming be PROVEN or else it's completely unknown.

"Nuclear material goes missing. Varying levels of talk on terrorist communications and interrogations. Witnesses and evidence. All contribute to an actual assessment of an actual possibility."

Similarly CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas. CO2 levels are rising fast. All contribute to an actual assessment of an actual possibility (I note you used the word "possibility" here, backing down from PROOF).

It seems you tolerate tying of evidence together to form assessments of threat when it comes to terrorism, but not when it comes to science.

"Cherry pick some numbers. Filter the majority of scientists out so only the few who agree are counted, and only publish their stuff (if its biased enough)."

Same excuse the creationists use. To justify why they can't get their nonsense published.

0
1
WTF?

Propaganda still winning hearts and minds?

Well, the comments so far either confirm how effective the propaganda from the AGW denial machine has been, or there are a lot of astroturfers posting here as Anonymous Coward!

0
3

Re: Propaganda still winning hearts and minds?

Alternatively, perhaps it's merely indicative of the Reg being frequented by the kind of people that would rather see data and evidence than hyperbole.

But of course, rather like climate 'science', you conveniently ignored any possibility which didn't suit you. Funny that.

5
1

Re: Propaganda still winning hearts and minds?

I think this comment requires a proper reply, so here goes...

Let's assume that it is possible that people, acting in good faith and with some knowledge of science, make the following observations:

1 - Human acivities are causing an increase in the amount of CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

2 - The laws of physics would seem to suggest that, all other things remaining equal, an increase in greenhouse gases results in higher temperatures (noting that there is no experimental evidence that this is true, but believing that the physics is correct).

3 - From 1880 to 1998, global mean temperatures rose approx 0.8 degrees C.

4 - There has been no increase in global mean temperatures since 1998 and no statistically significant global warming since 1995.

5 - No-one seems to be able to state with certainty what has caused this pause in warming, whether and when it will resume, and whether positive and/or negative feedback in the global climate system will cause runaway warming or asymptotic warming or no further warming at all.

6 - Certain countries have agreed to try and limit and/or reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide. The methods by which this reduction is to be achieved will cost significant sums of money, paid by the consumers and taxpayers of those countries.

7 - Other significant emitting countries have not agreed to limit their CO2 emissions.

Believing these observations to be valid (while open to being corrected on the facts), some ask the following questions:

- Is it fair that we are being asked to lower our incomes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions when others aren't and when there is a lack of clarity as to the outcome if we don't?

- Is the magnitude of the danger from inaction so clearly defined that we must commit significant resources to emission reduction now, regardless of the uncertainty of outcome?

I believe that a large number of Reg readers think that the answer to those 2 questions is No.

Whether or not you agree that the answers are No, I hope you can agree that this is a reasonable opinion to hold given the observations made.

3
0

Re: Propaganda still winning hearts and minds?

That's how propaganda works - by defining the agenda. So, yes it is a reasonable position to hold, given the limited points you raise.

0
2
Silver badge

Re: Propaganda still winning hearts and minds?

#4, the claim that there has been no warming since 1998 is a common misconception.

It's an illusion caused by a single data point outlier, a spike in 1998:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/compress:12

To help disspell the illusion, here is the same graph but with the single outlier year 1998 removed:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1998/compress:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/compress:12

With the year removed it's clear the data is compatible with a continuation of the rise since ~1980. A claim of warming having stopped cannot possibly stand on a single outlier. 1998 is known to be an outlier because the cause of the temporary spike is known.

1
2
Bronze badge
Thumb Down

Or just look at the data yourself without NNN's compression/averaging

Let's say NNN is right, and remove 1998; there's still a plateau. From the graph, I'd estimate that removing 1998 shifts the "plateau" forward about 4 years, so we've currently got about 10 years and running of the "plateau":

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/compress:1

However, removing data without a very good a priori reason is dangerous, as it often brings in selection bias. I'd be interested in knowing what NNN's specific criteria are for designating 1998 (in part? all?) as an outlier, whether any other years in the temp record qualify (whether "hot" or "cold"), and what exactly the "cause" of 1998's value is claimed to be. I had thought that the climate system was so complex that even things like whether clouds are net positive or negative feedbacks was unknown, but I'm always up for learning something new.

0
0

Re: Propaganda still winning hearts and minds?

@NomNomNom - Oh my fracking word! So what you are suggesting, if I read your comment correctly, is that we remove any temperature record that does not fit in your world view/model/ideology? Sure datasets can and should be normalized, but this dataset has already been normalised.

This looks like the study done by Mann (et all) that decided to remove the MWP so that I can get a nice hockey stick graph. And I'm sorry but if this study and practice is going to directly influence my bottom line I'm not going to be too happy about it.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Propaganda still winning hearts and minds?

1998 was a super El Nino, El Nino of the century. A large but temporary surface warming blip as cold upwelling waters in the tropical pacific were severely suppressed for months on end. We shouldn't expect years without such an effect shortly after 1998 to be as warm, let alone warmer than 1998. It took time until a year reached 1998 without such a outlier.

Because of such year-to-year variation the expected warming trend shouldn't be thought of as a single rising line, but as a rising range. Eg: http://tinyurl.com/bhtpaqt

The "plateau since 1998" is an illusion caused by the fact temperature was in the top part of the range at the start of the period and below it towards the end. But it is still within the range and any diversion at this point is not significant enough. Especially considering the start of the period had a high solar max, a run of El Ninos and the last few years have had a quiet sun, a run of La Ninas and a pdo shift. If anything the lack of cooling in recent years in the face of these events suggests greenhouse gas warming has easily opposed them all.

0
0
Bronze badge
WTF?

Re: if you blame it on El Nino...

Then you're calling the whole "global surface temperature" methodology into question. You're saying that El Nino essentially reduces the transfer of heat to the ocean deeps, which are not included in the global surface temperature measurements. If that's true, then it would seem that looking at global surface temps alone is meaningless, as varying (and unknown!) amounts of energy are removed from the surface every year.

If that's not an own goal, I'm not sure what is.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: if you blame it on El Nino...

"then it would seem that looking at global surface temps alone is meaningless"

Now that you mention it yes. And measurements of the ocean heat show heat accumulation didn't end in 1998 and hasn't stopped.

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

So I would say that's the real own goal.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Exponential Integral Error....

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.