Monday, April 14, 2014

BBC Fails Again on Climate Change Report.

Listening to the BBC's Radio 4 news bulletins about the IPCC WGIII report on climate mitigation, one might be forgiven for thinking that all is well, that the climate could be sorted by adding some solar panels and at very little cost to the global economy.  What a relief!  This time the BBC did not roll out crackpot climate deniers - they just made up their own denial story.  The real report from the IPCC paints a very different story.  In the Summary, after a great deal of dire warnings, we reach page 17 where there is a paragraph about the economics, the aspect that the BBC focussed upon.  This is what it says.

Estimates of the aggregate economic costs of mitigation vary widely and are highly sensitive to model design and assumptions as well as the specification of scenarios, including the characterization of technologies and the timing of mitigation (high confidence). Scenarios in which all countries of the world begin mitigation immediately, there is a single global carbon price, and all key technologies are available, have been used as a cost‐effective benchmark for estimating macroeconomic mitigation costs. Under these assumptions, mitigation scenarios that reach atmospheric concentrations of about 450ppm CO2eq by 2100 entail losses in global consumption - not including benefits of reduced climate change as well as co‐benefits and adverse side‐effects of mitigation - of 1% to 4% (median: 1.7%) in 2030, 2% to 6% (median: 3.4%) in 2050, and 3% to 11% (median: 4.8%) in 2100 relative to consumption in baseline scenarios that grows anywhere from 300% to more than 900% over the century. These numbers correspond to an annualized reduction of consumption growth by 0.04 to 0.14 (median: 0.06) percentage points over the century relative to annualized consumption growth in the baseline that is between 1.6% and 3% per year. Estimates at the high end of these cost ranges are from models that are relatively inflexible to achieve the deep emissions reductions required in the long run to meet these goals and/or include assumptions about market imperfections that would raise costs. Under the absence or limited availability of technologies, mitigation costs can increase substantially depending on the technology considered. Delaying additional mitigation further increases mitigation costs in the medium to long term. Many models could not achieve atmospheric concentration levels of about 450 ppm CO2eq by 2100 if additional mitigation is considerably delayed or under limited availability of key technologies, such as bioenergy, CCS, and their combination (BECCS).

Original document here

The BBC has, quite rightly, received much criticism for its climate change reporting recently.  It now seems to have adopted a more subtle approach - selectively cherry-picking tiny fragments, removing them from their context and reporting them as the main story.  BBC fail again.

2 Comments:

Blogger tonyon said...

a SOLAR ENERGY CAR made by amateurs have crossed Australia. Why CAR´S FACTORIES do not want to know that?. Petroleum´s economic interests. Shame politicians

5:53 pm  
Blogger tonyon said...

...global warming ("good" no longer spend cold)... the discharge of pollutants into the air with its greenhouse effect is melting the Poles. This large amount of freshwater to the ocean could stop deep sea currents which depend on a delicate balance between fresh and salty water and temperatures. Heat from the Sun reaches the equator and currents distribute it throughout the Planet, then...goodbye to our warm climate. The horizontal oceanic currents produced by winds and some others by the rotation of the Earth, rotating all by the Coriolis effect, will continue...but the vertical currents produced by the sinking of horizontal currents of dense salty water that reaches the Poles where the water is sweeter, less salty, and forms deep currents would stop (why are the Grand Banks fishing in cold latitudes?...because over there is the polar ice, freshwater, different sweet/salty density, salty dense water arriving and sinks in a little salty water environment, nutrients that are removed from the bottom and rise to the surface, phytoplankton that feed on nutrients, zooplankton that feed on phytoplankton, fish that feed on zooplankton)... No polar ice over there will be no vertical currents...could reduce the rise of nutrients ro the surface and therefore PHYTOPLANKTON SHORTAGE MAY DECREASING ITS VITAL CONTRIBUTION WITH OXYGEN TO THE ATMOSPHERE (90 %)...fish...winds in some places of more warm latitudes carry out the surface hot water permitting the outcropping to surface of water and plankton (the upwelling) from the the botton cold currents coming from the Poles, forming other Banks fishing... Without polar ice the sea it could almost stratified into horizontal layers with little energetic movement of water masses in vertical which is what removes fertilizer nutrients from the sea bottom... Besides lowering salinity of the sea, for that great contribution with freshwater to melt the Poles, will increase evaporation (ebullioscopy: the less salt has, more evaporates) producing gigantic storm clouds as have never seen, that together with altering of the ocean currents, could cool areas of the Planet causing a new ice age... Warming...invasion of tropical diseases carried by their transfer agents, already without the "general winter" containing them would fall upon the World like a plague...can produce a cooling, a new ice age, like living at the North Pole...and less oxygen in the Atmosphere... Is not known to be worse... Go choosing.

9:13 am  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home