While I disagree with the conclusion the analysis is as I’ve been saying

Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found.

Wrong isn’t quite the right word. Actions taken have changed things.

An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook.

Near everyone uses Business as Usual (BAU) predictions of emissions and thus temperatures. Near everyone uses, as their BAU, either A1FI from the SRES or RCP 8.5 from the newer set.

We’re not, ever, going to get anywhere close to those emissions levels, Precisely because we’ve gone off and done all this stuff with renewables.

No, leave aside whether they’re reliable, cheap, whatever, we’re simply not, ever, going to have the sort of energy mix assumed by either of those BAUs. The use of them is, in reality, lying now, for we really do know they’re never going to come to pass. Even just the simple existence of fracking for gas means we’re never going to get to them. For their basic underlying assumption is a largely coal fired world.

So, that part of the analysis is correct. This isn’t:

But yesterday he said: “We’re in the midst of an energy revolution and it’s happening faster than we thought, which makes it much more credible for governments to tighten the offer they put on the table at Paris.”

No, that’s not what to do at all. Instead, say, great, it’ll be cheaper to hit the target we need to thus great, we’ve done it. That’s the time to declare victory and go home.

10 thoughts on “While I disagree with the conclusion the analysis is as I’ve been saying”

  1. Pingback: Poor old AC Grayling, well behind the curve | Tim Worstall

  2. Bloke in North Dorset

    Having listened to the author on Today what they are saying is that given the conditions we have now the models are saying the world should be 0.3deg warmer. It isn’t so the models must be wrong.

    This is something Coyote keeps pointing on on his Climate Skeptic blog.

  3. But for the greenies it’s never been about victory then going home. It’s an on going battle in the war for total control by the watermelons.

  4. Man-made climate change? Of course, it’s true. It’s like when the ant and the elephant who crossed a bridge and the ant turned around to the elephant and said: Man we make this bridge shake, don’t we?

  5. Wrong is the right word. They are saying previous models were overstating the effect of CO2 emissions.

    What happens if they are still wrong?

  6. Don’t expect the undermining of the whole basis of the scam to derail the bandwagon. As we all know on this blog it stopped being about the science a long time ago.

    The number of times we’ve heard we know the models got this wrong, but our new models now take account of it, so keep sending the money. Actually this one is a little unusual, the usual cry is it’s much worse than we thought.

  7. Observable change to the Earth’s climate system outside natural variability can only start to be noticed above an increase in global average of 1.5C and up to 2.5C it will be beneficial.

    The average increase for the last century has been 0.8C. At half the necessary increase, how can there have been climate change attributable to CO2 emissions?

    The rate of CO2 emissions has increased significantly in the last 20 years, the rate of global warming has remained static with a slight decline in the last few years.

    Given this and since it is impossible, as reported by the IPCC, to predict future climate, exactly how have ‘recent actions’ changed things and what are these ‘things’?

    Is it that we are better equipped to solve an unknown problem? Why are we engaged in activity to prevent/mitigate an event we only imagine and whose scope and scale we cannot know?

    ‘Climate change’ is the deranged raving of the madhouse and attempts to avert it the preoccupation of charlatans taking advantage of the easily tricked.

  8. Theory makes a testable prediction.
    Outcome of the test is out by 0.3.
    Theory is validated

    What the feck has happened to the scientific method here. Feynman would be smashing his head into a blackboard if he was still alive. I buy into mankind burning stuff having an effect, but this really needs downgrading to a hypothesis.

  9. ‘threat to the planet’

    The planet doesn’t give a shit what we do.

    This big old dirt ball will keep flying around the sun no matter what we do.

    Prof Dent: I came to warn you!
    Dr. No: Warn me?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *