"21 April 2021

Optimum economic outturn is seen at 3.5 degrees Celsius of warming in 2100
Mortality due to extreme weather decreased spectacularly

Why did the EU invite the young Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg to speak in Brussels instead of the Nobel Prize winning climate economist William Nordhaus? That question is answered in an essay entitled Undue Climate Haste, which the CLINTEL Foundation is publishing today. The essay concludes: “The main message of this essay is that we are in no hurry and that panic is unwarranted. Climate change always deserves our attention, but the idea that we need to turn our energy supply upside down right now appears to be driven by emotion rather than reason.”

The EU has decided it wants to achieve net zero carbon emission by 2050. If they succeed, Europe will become the first ‘climate neutral’ continent. The media have mainly welcomed this ambition. Politicians claim that there will be many benefits of this policy: they say it will make the economy stronger and create jobs. But are these claims justified, by a cost-benefit analysis for example?

They are not, states the essay Undue Climate Haste. Remarkably the Nobel Prize (2018) winning climate economist William Nordhaus showed in his Nobel lecture in Stockholm that the ‘economic optimum’ for climate policy is to allow 3.5 degrees Celsius of warming in 2100. Economically, it is better to accept a certain amount of climate damage and to limit the cost of mitigation than the other way round: ambitious goals such as staying below 2 degrees or even 1.5 degrees are extremely costly.

Unfeasible
The climate goals of the EU are not only very costly, they are unachievable in practice. A simple calculation shows that in order to reach net zero emissions in 2050, the EU will have to deploy a new nuclear power station every week, from now until 2050. In total, 1650 new nuclear power stations would be needed. Yet today, 60 years after the first nuclear power plan went into production, there are only 450 such plants across the world.

The EU has a strong preference for ‘renewable’ energy sources, such as wind and solar, instead of nuclear. Achieving net zero with wind would require 450 new 2.5-MW turbines to be installed every two days until 2050; 82,000 windmills a year! Where would you place them all?

Unnecessary
The last part of the essay explains the EU’s haste towards its climate goal is totally unnecessary. Almost all important parameters indicate that climate change is a manageable phenomenon. We now have the technology and the wealth to cope.

The number of victims of extreme weather has decreased over the past century by more than 95%. Damage from such phenomena, corrected for the growth of the economy, has also declined slightly. Sea-level is rising, but very slowly and, moreover, no acceleration is apparent in long tide-gauge records.

Meanwhile there are strong indications that climate models, on which climate policy is largely based, are ‘oversensitive’, i.e. the real climate is less sensitive to CO2 than the climate models say it is. This means less future warming, and that CO2 reductions needed to stay below the 2 degrees target do not need to be so aggressive. Even if emissions stay above the 2020 level for the rest of the century, the 2-degree target remains in sight. Unfortunately, the climate science community rarely tells policymakers about these relatively new insights, preferring to discuss scenarios based on climate models.

The essay Undue Climate Haste was commissioned by the ECR Group of the European Parliament in Brussels."

https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ClintelECR_EssayNeedlessClimateHaste-def.pdf

Billy is an economist

Here is one criticism:


Quote:

Economist Steve Keen has severely criticized Nordhaus work[36] and said that his claim that a 4°C increase in global temperature over pre-industrial levels is only going to reduce GDP per capita by between 2% and 4% is nonsense. Keen disagrees that Nordhaus's "Damage Function" should be a quadratic equation. To demonstrate this he says that since his damage function is symmetrical "it predicts precisely the same level of damage to GDP from a fall of, for example, 4°C in the global average temperature, as it does for a rise of 4°C." If we try to apply the function to a period we had 20,000 years ago, during the last Ice Age, where countries like Canada, Ireland, Scotland, northern Germany, Poland, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden were under a kilometer or more of ice, the function would also estimate a reduction of GDP by 2% and 4% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Nordhaus

Many Scientist have a negative view on Billy's stuff. Mainly concluding that his linear model is flawed.

Billy's work is based on a linear expectation on the impact of temperature variation that nobody else believes to be correct.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2021 at 2:00pm:

Many Scientist have a negative view on Billy's stuff.

So now wiki is a valued scientific resource?

So Keen disagrees? And draws a parallel to GDP 20,000 years ago? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

From your reference -

"Dr. Jason Hickel, who researches ecological economics, writes that "Many believe that the failure of the world’s governments to pursue aggressive climate action over the past few decades is in large part due to arguments that Nordhaus has advanced." One of his criticisms is that Nordhaus uses a very high discount rate which allows him to argue that we shouldn’t reduce emissions too quickly, because the economic cost to people today will be higher than the benefit of protecting people in the future.[38]"

"For social discounting, some countries also do this (notably France), while others, driven largely by the Arrow-Lind Principle, do not. Our median survey response of 2% is explicitly risk-free, comparable with the 1.2% yield offered by TIPS.  Nordhaus’ 4.5% rate is risk-adjusted (“I assume that the consumption beta on climate investments is close to one” Nordhaus 2014, p.280) as would be the rate in the oil and gas reserves sector. It is important to make sure that, whatever approach we take to incorporating risk premiums into social discount rates, we are comparing like-with-like."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/04/is-nordhaus-discount-rate-really-too-low/

I know you don't like Watts but he posts stuff from others, not his own work. ;)

So is there a risk in spending trillions of dollars, that could be better spent elsewhere, in fighting climate? Is it better to Mitigate or Adapt to any changes in climate?


Dnarever wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2021 at 2:00pm:

Mainly concluding that his linear model is flawed.

But as you like wiki I will quote some to you.

"According to a summary of the DICE and RICE models prepared by Stephen Newbold,[1] the earliest precursor to DICE was a linear programming model of energy supply and demand in two 1977 papers of William Nordhaus"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DICE_model
So not the late ones? Oh dear.

Only about 10 years behind me....

Nordhaus calls for carbon tax

https://www.top1000funds.com/2020/09/nordhaus-calls-for-carbon-tax/#:~:text=Carbon%20emissions%20will%20never%20slow,Nobel%20Prize%20winner%20in%20Economics.

International negotiations like the Paris Agreement no longer work. The world needs a new framework supporting a carbon tax with both carrots and sticks to encourage participation, says William Nordhaus, Sterling Professor of Economics, Yale University and 2018 Nobel Prize winner in Economics.

If we keep on Geo-engineering the Earth then real climate change may happen and god help us all.

The puppet masters will only invite their puppets, not people that will challenge their way of living.

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2021 at 9:08am:

ordhaus calls for carbon tax

"He added that the Paris Agreement is “nowhere near” strong enough to get to 2 degrees, even assuming it is met by countries which have set targets."

That is of course only if the climate models are right. And none have been yet. So why should we believe it? ::)

lee wrote on Apr 24^th, 2021 at 3:05pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 24th, 2021 at 9:08am: ordhaus calls for carbon tax "He added that the Paris Agreement is “nowhere near” strong enough to get to 2 degrees, even assuming it is met by countries which have set targets." That is of course only if the climate models are right. And none have been yet. So why should we believe it? ::)

For the same reason your hero Nordhaus does (because you are not a complete moron).

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2021 at 4:46pm:

For the same reason your hero Nordhaus does (because you are not a complete moron).

So tell us petal; which model has been proven right?

Ah, I knew you'd disagree with me on that one.

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2021 at 5:24pm:

Ah, I knew you'd disagree with me on that one.

So you must agree with the notion that the models reflect reality?

lee wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2021 at 2:54pm:

Dnarever wrote on Apr 23rd, 2021 at 2:00pm: Many Scientist have a negative view on Billy's stuff. So now wiki is a valued scientific resource? So Keen disagrees? And draws a parallel to GDP 20,000 years ago? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D From your reference - "Dr. Jason Hickel, who researches ecological economics, writes that "Many believe that the failure of the world’s governments to pursue aggressive climate action over the past few decades is in large part due to arguments that Nordhaus has advanced." One of his criticisms is that Nordhaus uses a very high discount rate which allows him to argue that we shouldn’t reduce emissions too quickly, because the economic cost to people today will be higher than the benefit of protecting people in the future.[38]" "For social discounting, some countries also do this (notably France), while others, driven largely by the Arrow-Lind Principle, do not. Our median survey response of 2% is explicitly risk-free, comparable with the 1.2% yield offered by TIPS.  Nordhaus’ 4.5% rate is risk-adjusted (“I assume that the consumption beta on climate investments is close to one” Nordhaus 2014, p.280) as would be the rate in the oil and gas reserves sector. It is important to make sure that, whatever approach we take to incorporating risk premiums into social discount rates, we are comparing like-with-like." https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/04/is-nordhaus-discount-rate-really-too-low/ I know you don't like Watts but he posts stuff from others, not his own work. ;) So is there a risk in spending trillions of dollars, that could be better spent elsewhere, in fighting climate? Is it better to Mitigate or Adapt to any changes in climate? Dnarever wrote on Apr 23rd, 2021 at 2:00pm: Mainly concluding that his linear model is flawed. But as you like wiki I will quote some to you. "According to a summary of the DICE and RICE models prepared by Stephen Newbold,[1] the earliest precursor to DICE was a linear programming model of energy supply and demand in two 1977 papers of William Nordhaus" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DICE_model So not the late ones? Oh dear.

Quote:

So now wiki is a valued scientific resource?

It is a very good quick overview to something not credible.

After his 2016 model while more realistic his economic outcome allows a 4 degree rise in temp (3.5 in the 2016 report) as optimal and 6 degrees likely.


Quote:

saying that the 1.5°C target is impossible to achieve at this point.10 Yet we can go further. Nordhaus’s work shows that such an aggressive goal would make humanity much worse off than if we simply adapted to climate change with no government measures.

On Nordhaus's assessment economically doing nothing the model that kills several billion people is preferred to the cost of the current model for 1.5 degree. The only reason the current model is so difficult and expensive is because of doing nothing for 30 years - as projected it would be.

Economists hey !!!.

Is anyone going to take this guys view ?

I suspect that people still saying to do nothing or very little -  we are past that.

lee wrote on Apr 24^th, 2021 at 5:54pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 24th, 2021 at 5:24pm: Ah, I knew you'd disagree with me on that one. So you must agree with the notion that the models reflect reality?

Aiming for 4 degrees and accepting 6 degrees is insane.

Lee you appear to think that not being able to predict exactly how bad our impact is going to be is a reason for more confidence in our ability to get away with polluting, not less.

You realise that is irrational, right?

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2021 at 10:48am:

Lee you appear to think that not being able to predict exactly how bad our impact is going to be is a reason for more confidence in our ability to get away with polluting, not less.

You appear to think the models prove anything. Most climate scientists admit any warming will be benign.


freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2021 at 10:48am:

You realise that is irrational, right?

What is irrational is your fear. ;)

You are being irrational Lee. Calm down and think about what you are saying. Not understanding the consequences of what you do is not a rational reason for greater confidence that you should do it. You do not realise it, but your silly questions support my case, not yours.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2021 at 12:37pm:

Not understanding the consequences of what you do is not a rational reason for greater confidence that you should do it.

The consequences are understood. Benign warming. Anything else is irrational. ;)

The fact you can't point to one model that has proved to be correct in 40 years of modeling proves my point. They have all overestimated warming. ::)

There are plenty of correct models. Global warming has pretty much followed the middle ground of past IPCC predictions.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2021 at 2:51pm:

There are plenty of correct models.

Name one.


freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2021 at 2:51pm:

Global warming has pretty much followed the middle ground of past IPCC predictions.

You do know the average of 90 model runs doesn't mean one is correct?

https://i1.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/image-66.png

You are so full of crap your eyes are brown Lee. The actual global temperature data shows those models to be spot on.,

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2021 at 5:04pm:

The actual global temperature data shows those models to be spot on.,

"Another scientist has pushed back against the doom-and-gloom climate change predictions from the United Nations and other governmental agencies.

Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, is a former NASA scientist along with other impressive accomplishments on his distinguished professional resume.

In an interview, he laughed off man-made climate change as nonsense and a money-making industry for the green lobby, which approaches the subject with a religious fervor. Explained Woodcock:

"The term 'climate change' is meaningless. The Earth's climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of 'man-made climate change' is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth's surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences. The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the 'greenhouse gas' causes 'global warming' -- in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent. There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years. Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean anything in science, it's not significant..."

https://www.inquisitr.com/1234575/nasa-scientist-global-warming-is-nonsense/

original link posted -

https://nsidc.org/news/inthenews/nasa-scientist-global-warming-nonsense

But you saw the spread of tempertures depicted by the models; which ONE is spot on? An average of climate models is not ONE.

Perhaps you prefer this one?

https://andymaypetrophysicist.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/072516_1631_factsandthe2.png

"The purple line going through the observations is the Russian model “INM-CM4.” It is the only model that comes close to reality. INM-CM4, over longer periods, does very well at hindcasting observed temperatures. This model uses a CO2 forcing response that is 37% lower than the other models, a much higher deep ocean heat capacity (climate system inertia) and it exactly matches lower tropospheric water content and is biased low above that. The other models are biased high. The model predicts future temperature increases at a rate of about 1K/century, not at all alarming and much lower than the predictions of the other models."

https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/facts-and-theories/

So sad that you have to resort to ad homs to try to make yourself believable. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Lee you are so full of crap your eyes are brown.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Oh look, 0.86 degree temperature rise since 1983 - pretty much bang in the middle of those predictions.

Is that why you graphs don't show the actual temperature after 2013 - because it would show how full of crap you are?

---

Why are climate "skeptics" always blatant liars?

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2021 at 6:02pm:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ Oh look, 0.86 degree temperature rise since 1983 - pretty much bang in the middle of those predictions.

So tell me how they arrive at the global temperature? perhaps I can help you there. This is a little older but explains a lot. -

"The Japanese Meteorological Agency released data on January 5, 2015, that showed 2014 was the warmest year on its record. NASA and NOAA made a similar announcement on January 16. The UK Met Office, which maintains the fourth major global temperature record, ranked 2014 as tied with 2010 for being the hottest year on record on January 26."

"The four research groups mentioned above deal with those gaps in slightly different ways. The Japanese group leaves areas without plenty of temperature stations out of their analysis, so its analysis covers about 85 percent of the globe. The Met Office makes similar choices, meaning its record covers about 86 percent of Earth’s surface. NOAA takes a different approach to the gaps, using nearby stations to interpolate temperatures in some areas that lack stations, giving the NOAA analysis 93 percent coverage of the globe. The group at NASA interpolates even more aggressively—areas with gaps are interpolated from the nearest station up to 1,200 kilometers away—and offers 99 percent coverage."

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/2015/01/21/why-so-many-global-temperature-records/

Wow. NASA can tell the temperature at home here from Exmouth. How good is that? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

And they can tell temperatue all rhe way back to 1880 to within 1/100  of a degree. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2021 at 6:02pm:

Oh look, 0.86 degree temperature rise since 1983 - pretty much bang in the middle of those predictions.

I suggest you look at NOAA's Climate at a Glance.

1983 the anomaly was 0.43ºC and 2021 is 0.85ºC. that makes the warming 0.42ºC.  About twice what you mention. Why is that?


https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series

Set Start date to March 1983 and the end date to 2021.


freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2021 at 6:03pm:

Why are climate "skeptics" always blatant liars?

Why do you try to discredit yourself? You are succeeding. ;)

Quote:

So tell me how they arrive at the global temperature?

They measure it.

Why did your "data" stop at 2013? Is it because you are so full of crap your eyes are brown? What happened after 2013?

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2021 at 10:23pm:

Quote: So tell me how they arrive at the global temperature? They measure it.

Exactly wrong petal. They calculate it using data from all over. And guess parts of it.


freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2021 at 10:23pm:

Why did your "data" stop at 2013? Is it because you are so full of crap your eyes are brown? What happened after 2013?

So tell us how much warmer it has got since 2013. I know you want to. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Here is another for you -

https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/68-models-vs-obs-1979-2021-oceans-Fig01.jpg

Zeke Hausfather and HadCRUt use Marine Air Temperature in their model as oceans cover most of the erath and that is where all that "missing heat" was slated to go.

But why don't you want to comment on the NOAA data I posted? ;)

Or tell us which climate model was "spot on".

Why did you give us a graph with measured data stopping at 2013 Lee? Did it really not occur to you that that is a bit suss?

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2021 at 2:27pm:

Why did you give us a graph with measured data stopping at 2013 Lee? Did it really not occur to you that that is a bit suss?

Seeing as the latest one broadly agrees with the earlier one; No. But keep trying. ;)

So it literally did not occur to you that it is a bit suss that it did not have data up to this year? Do you have some kind of fetish for being lied to?

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2021 at 5:01pm:

So it literally did not occur to you that it is a bit suss that it did not have data up to this year?

So it still has not occurred to you they were up to date at the moment of them being posted by the authors. ::)


freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2021 at 5:01pm:

Do you have some kind of fetish for being lied to?

If i had I would rely solely on you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

So it still has not occurred to you they were up to date at the moment of them being posted by the authors.

There are all sorts of explanations for why you post the crap you do. None of them reflect well on you.

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2021 at 6:16pm:

There are all sorts of explanations for why you post the crap you do. None of them reflect well on you.

And yet the later data supports the earlier data. The reflection you see is your own. Never mind petal. Keep trying. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

The later data has the exact same problems.

Are you too lazy to dig up a more recent piece of crap?

Why would Billy be invited exactly ?

He set his plan on the belief that it will cost too much to restrict the warming below 4 to 6 degrees. This is the plan where you allow about 3 billion people to die to save some money because we were too stupid to act in time.

I suspect that they don't invite anyone who has a plan to basically do nothing.

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2021 at 6:30pm:

The later data has the exact same problems.

Which problem would that be petal? The adjustments put into the the global temperatures by NASA and NOAA?


freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2021 at 6:30pm:

Are you too lazy to dig up a more recent piece of crap?

The latest one is up to 2021; how recent do you want? Are you too lay to do any research yourself? ::)

Dnarever wrote on Apr 26^th, 2021 at 6:31pm:

He set his plan on the belief that it will cost too much to restrict the warming below 4 to 6 degrees. This is the plan where you allow about 3 billion people to die to save some money because we were too stupid to act in time.

https://edmhdotme.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/screen-shot-2016-05-28-at-09-43-15.png

The last two studies are from IPCC authors; so according to the. about 0.73C - 0.97C for CO2 up to 1000ppm. Nowhere near the postulate 4-6 degrees.

Quote:

The latest one is up to 2021

The last one is not the temperature of the earth's climate.

Whichever way you try to spin it, you are always full of crap.

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2021 at 7:17pm:

The last one is not the temperature of the earth's climate

That's right it is the anomaly with the models also in anomalies, which is in what they actually deal. And all of the graphs show that. ::)

You don't trust the anomalies? NASA/NOAA will not be pleased. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Edit: perhaps you want the 0.9C change in Kelvin on top of the 278Kelvin which is the earth's temperature (approximately). ;)

lee wrote on Apr 26^th, 2021 at 7:15pm:

Dnarever wrote on Apr 26th, 2021 at 6:31pm: He set his plan on the belief that it will cost too much to restrict the warming below 4 to 6 degrees. This is the plan where you allow about 3 billion people to die to save some money because we were too stupid to act in time. https://edmhdotme.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/screen-shot-2016-05-28-at-09-43-15.png The last two studies are from IPCC authors; so according to the. about 0.73C - 0.97C for CO2 up to 1000ppm. Nowhere near the postulate 4-6 degrees.

It isn't my position it is what the William Nordhaus model suggests to be the optimal outcome.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 26^th, 2021 at 7:30pm:

It isn't my position it is what the William Nordhaus model suggests to be the optimal outcome.

Perhaps you can direct me to the quote of 3 billion deaths?

And which model DICE, RICE or other?

I found something that suggested Bill Gates said that but was refuted. Nothing about Nordhaus.

lee wrote on Apr 26^th, 2021 at 7:34pm:

Dnarever wrote on Apr 26th, 2021 at 7:30pm: It isn't my position it is what the William Nordhaus model suggests to be the optimal outcome. Perhaps you can direct me to the quote of 3 billion deaths? And which model DICE, RICE or other?

https://theconversation.com/4-c-of-global-warming-is-optimal-even-nobel-prize-winners-are-getting-things-catastrophically-wrong-125802


Quote:

In his Nobel Prize lecture, Nordhaus described a 4°C increase in global average temperature as “optimal” — that is, the point at which the costs and benefits of mitigating climate change are balanced.

Rockström doesn’t like our chances. “It’s difficult to see how we could accommodate eight billion people or maybe even half of that,” he says (note: this is at a time where the estimated population is 11 Billion). “There will be a rich minority of people who survive with modern lifestyles, no doubt, but it will be a turbulent, conflict-ridden world.” (He is discussing a 4 degree rise)

From <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/18/climate-crisis-heat-is-on-global-heating-four-degrees-2100-change-way-we-live>




https://www.greenfacts.org/en/impacts-global-warming/l-2/index.htm


In a way it’s an obscene question: if the planet warms by 4 degrees Celsius (°C), would only a billion
people survive and many billions perish? 

From <http://www.climatecodered.org/2019/08/at-4c-of-warming-would-billion-people.html>

lee wrote on Apr 26^th, 2021 at 7:22pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2021 at 7:17pm: The last one is not the temperature of the earth's climate That's right it is the anomaly with the models also in anomalies, which is in what they actually deal. And all of the graphs show that. ::) You don't trust the anomalies? NASA/NOAA will not be pleased. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Edit: perhaps you want the 0.9C change in Kelvin on top of the 278Kelvin which is the earth's temperature (approximately). ;)

Once again you are full of crap.

It is not the anomaly of the temperature of the earth's climate either.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 26^th, 2021 at 8:45pm:

https://theconversation.com/4-c-of-global-warming-is-optimal-even-nobel-prize-wi... Quote: In his Nobel Prize lecture, Nordhaus described a 4°C increase in global average temperature as “optimal” — that is, the point at which the costs and benefits of mitigating climate change are balanced.

So Steve Keen disagrees but no mention of 3 billion.

"Nordhaus’s conclusions are based in part on the simple but wayward assumption that the weak relationship between temperature and GDP within the US today can be used to assume how future global temperature rises will affect the economy."

Much like the weak and wayward relationship between CO2 increase and Temperature. ;)

Ah I see where he got his delusional post about decrease in temperatures and GDP. ;D ;D ;D ;D

"But given the distinct possibility that 2°C of warming could set off a cascade of “tipping points” that cause the planet to irreversibly heat to catastrophic temperatures, can we afford to play with fire?"

Absolute frogshit. There is no point at which we get  "the planet to irreversibly heat to catastrophic temperatures". He is into Climate Seance not Science.

"But that adaptability has occurred in a remarkably stable climate where global temperatures have fluctuated by 1℃ below or above the average for the last 10,000 years."

About the same level as now.


Dnarever wrote on Apr 26^th, 2021 at 8:45pm:

Rockström doesn’t like our chances.

AH Rockström, Of the Climate Alarmist PIK.

"We’re looking at vast dead zones in the oceans as nutrients from fertiliser runoff combine with warmer waters to produce an explosion in algae that starve marine life of oxygen. This will be exacerbated by the acidity from dissolved CO2, which will cause a mass die-off, particularly of shellfish, plankton and coral. “We will have lost all the reefs decades before 2100 – at somewhere between 2C and 4C,” says Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany."

He doesn't seem to know about the millions of tonnes of Calcium Carbonate in the ocean that buffers any CO2. And the bones of the dead :Dead corals. dead people, dead whales the list goes on.

"Sea levels will be perhaps two metres higher and, more worryingly, we will be well on our way to an ice-free world, having passed the tipping points for the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets, committing us to at least 10 metres of sea-level rise in coming centuries."

Sea level Rise is about 3mm/ year. 80 years = 240 mm about 11inches.

https://i2.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/change-in-ice-mass-antarctica-1992-2017.png

https://i1.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/change-in-ice-mass-greenland-1992-2018-2.png

"However, most rivers, especially in Asia, will flood more often, according to research by Richard Betts, head of climate impacts at the Met Office Hadley Centre, because the hotter atmosphere will produce more intense monsoons, violent storms and extreme rainfall. "

And yet that has shown no inkling of changing.

"Consequently, the current assessment is that there is low confidence regarding changes in monsoons at these lower global warming levels, as well as regarding differences in monsoon responses at 1.5°C versus 2°C." source IPCC AR5

"Some models predict that desert conditions will stretch from the Sahara right up through south and central Europe, drying rivers including the Danube and the Rhine"

https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Global_Greening_NASA.jpg

So much crap in such a small space. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2021 at 9:29pm:

It is not the anomaly of the temperature of the earth's climate either.

Whatever you say petal. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

It's basically written on the graph Lee. Did you check that that what you were posting even made sense before posting it? Or does that not matter when you are always full of crap anyway?

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2021 at 9:52pm:

It's basically written on the graph Lee. Did you check that that what you were posting even made sense before posting it?

Is it? What did I miss? That they used a baseline period of 1979-1983? That's when satellite coverage started. It doesn't change anomalies; well that's what NASA/NOAA tells us. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Dnarever wrote on Apr 26^th, 2021 at 8:45pm:

https://www.greenfacts.org/en/impacts-global-warming/l-2/index.htm

"The President of the World Bank Group, is very clear in its foreword of the report : The explored consequences of an increase of the global earth temperature of 4°C are indeed devastating. "

From the report -

"For this report, results for RCP8.5 (Moss et al. 2010) from the new IPCC AR5 CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Proj-ect; Taylor, Stouffer, & Meehl 2012) climate projections have been analyzed. Figure 24 shows the full range of increase of global mean temperature over the 21st century, relative to the 1980–2000 period from 24 models driven by the RCP8.5 scenario, with those eight models highlighted that produce a mean warming of 4–5°C above preindustrial temperatures averaged over the period 2080–2100"

"RCP8.5 was intended to explore an unlikely high-risk future2. But it has been widely used by some experts, policymakers and the media as something else entirely: as a likely ‘business as usual’ outcome. A sizeable portion of the literature on climate impacts refers to RCP8.5 as business as usual, implying that it is probable in the absence of stringent climate mitigation. The media then often amplifies this message, sometimes without communicating the nuances. This results in further confusion regarding probable emissions outcomes, because many climate researchers are not familiar with the details of these scenarios in the energy-modelling literature."

Zeke Hausfather in  Nature - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3


Just more alarmist claptrap.

lee wrote on Apr 27^th, 2021 at 12:59pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2021 at 9:52pm: It's basically written on the graph Lee. Did you check that that what you were posting even made sense before posting it? Is it? What did I miss? That they used a baseline period of 1979-1983? That's when satellite coverage started. It doesn't change anomalies; well that's what NASA/NOAA tells us. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You are full of crap Lee. You are whining that the measured sea surface temperature change does not match the predicted atmospheric temperature change.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2021 at 6:26pm:

You are whining that the measured sea surface temperature change does not match the predicted atmospheric temperature change.

You have comprehension issues don't you?


lee wrote on Apr 26^th, 2021 at 1:53pm:

Zeke Hausfather and HadCRUt use Marine Air Temperature in their model as oceans cover most of the erath and that is where all that "missing heat" was slated to go.

Further details because you obviously need them. They use Marine Air Temperature as a proxy for Sea Surface Temperature.  ::)

You are full of crap Lee. Your temperature graph has SST written on it - see surface temperature. You are whining that the measured sea surface temperature change does not match the predicted atmospheric temperature change.

BTW, did I mention that you are full of crap?

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2021 at 6:49pm:

Your temperature graph has SST written on it - see surface temperature. You are whining that the measured sea surface temperature change does not match the predicted atmospheric temperature change.

You are just whining because you can't see the truth of it. And it shows. Ad homs top AND bottom. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Apr 27^th, 2021 at 6:37pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 27th, 2021 at 6:26pm: You are whining that the measured sea surface temperature change does not match the predicted atmospheric temperature change. You have comprehension issues don't you? lee wrote on Apr 26th, 2021 at 1:53pm: Zeke Hausfather and HadCRUt use Marine Air Temperature in their model as oceans cover most of the erath and that is where all that "missing heat" was slated to go. Further details because you obviously need them. They use Marine Air Temperature as a proxy for Sea Surface Temperature.  ::)

Another of the impacts is that ocean covered areas will be cooler. the 4 to 6 degree average is reached by land areas getting up to 10 degree increases.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 27^th, 2021 at 6:57pm:

Another of the impacts is that ocean covered areas will be cooler. the 4 to 6 degree average is reached by land areas getting up to 10 degree increases.

Using World Bank RCP8.5?

BTW - here is the RSS which is supposedly superior to UAH satellite data compared to climate models -

"To illustrate this last problem, we show several plots below.  Each of these plots has a time series of TLT temperature anomalies using a reference period of 1979-2008.  In each plot, the thick black line are the results from the most recent version of the RSS satellite dataset.  The yellow band shows the 5% to 95% envelope for the results of 33 CMIP-5 model simulations (19 different models, many with multiple realizations) that are intended to simulate Earth's Climate over the 20th Century.  For the time period before 2005, the models were forced with historical values of greenhouse gases, volcanic aerosols, and solar output.  After 2005, estimated projections of these forcings were used. If the models, as a whole, were doing an acceptable job of simulating the past, then the observations would mostly lie within the yellow band."

 
http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_globev4.png

For some reason the image won't post.

Fig. 1.  Global (70S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time.  The black line is the time series for the  RSS V4.0 MSU/AMSU atmosperhic temperature dataset.  The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations.  The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen.  Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be in the lower part of the model distribution, indicating that there is a small discrepancy between the model predictions and the satelllite observations.(All time series have been smoothed to remove variabilty on time scales shorter than 6 months.)

Notice how divergent the series is becoming. The models barely scraping into the lower bounds.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 27^th, 2021 at 6:57pm:

Another of the impacts is that ocean covered areas will be cooler.

CO2 warming AND cooling? KOOL.

"

lee wrote on Apr 27^th, 2021 at 6:57pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 27th, 2021 at 6:49pm: Your temperature graph has SST written on it - see surface temperature. You are whining that the measured sea surface temperature change does not match the predicted atmospheric temperature change. You are just whining because you can't see the truth of it. And it shows. Ad homs top AND bottom. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Just pointing out that as usual, you are full of crap Lee. The predictions look pretty good to me. One whole degree in just over 40 years.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/GlobalTemp.png

Now what sort of fool would try to prove the models were wrong using measured data ending in 2013? Did you really expect anyone to take you seriously?

Also, I just wanted you to know, you are full of crap.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2021 at 9:24pm:

Just pointing out that as usual, you are full of crap Lee. The predictions look pretty good to me. One whole degree in just over 40 years.

Have a look at the remss site I posted to Dna. They have picked the best 50 and they are diverging.

http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_globev4.png

BTW - Why don't you like the NOAA data?
Year          Temp     Rank       
1983      0.43°C      11

2021      0.85°C      32

That's 1 month figures

12 month figures -

1983      0.28°C      6

2021      0.88°C      36

But you just post schitt you know nothing about. Why is that?

BTW - Why have you gone back to your 2013 shlock after being shown that the SST was correct? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

BTW - I noticed how you lied again.

NASA - 1983 0.31C   2020 1.02C Difference 0.71C not 0.86 as claimed.


freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2021 at 6:02pm:

Oh look, 0.86 degree temperature rise since 1983 - pretty much bang in the middle of those predictions.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2021 at 9:24pm:

One whole degree in just over 40 years.

Another lie - NASA 1981 0.32C 2020 1.02C Difference 0.70C

Why do alarmists have this compulsion to lie all the time? ::)

Edit: Here is the remss image -

https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/s474/leanto/RSS_Model_TS_compare_globev4.png

You notice the only time the models have been close is during Los Ninos. ;)

Quote:

BTW - I noticed how you lied again. NASA - 1983 0.31C   2020 1.02C Difference 0.71C not 0.86 as claimed.

You are full of crap Lee. It is bleeding obvious where I got the number from.

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2021 at 6:26pm:

It is bleeding obvious where I got the number from.

It wasn't from that graph you posted.

You know those bubbles on the page, they give you the temperatures.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

It is an interactive. You just have to run the mouse over them. ::)

Quote:

It wasn't from that graph you posted.

You are full of crap Lee. It is from the graph I posted. Anyone with half a brain could figure it out.

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2021 at 6:55pm:

It is from the graph I posted. Anyone with half a brain could figure it out.

And yet you can't. ;) I gave you the link. Look at it yourself. Move the mouse over the bubbles for 1983 and 2020 and get back to us with what the numbers are. Your Mk11 eyeball is faulty. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You are full of crap Lee. Like I said, anyone with half a brain could figure out where I got it from.

Let me know when you do.

poor petal. Can't even correct himself. Has to lie through his teeth to cover up the fact he guesses at temperatures. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D