Claim: Early climate ‘payback’ with higher emission reductions

From the UK met office and the “decarbonize now” brigade:

Early climate ‘payback’ with higher emission reductions

Climate scientists at the Met Office Hadley Centre have shown that the early mitigation needed to limit eventual warming below potentially dangerous levels has a climate ‘payback’ much earlier than previously thought.

Lead scientist Andrew Ciavarella explains: “Our study has shown that efforts to reduce global temperature rise in the long term — through aggressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions — can halve the risk of heat extremes within two decades.”

The study — published in the journal Nature Climate Change — investigates how quickly benefits of mitigation could be realised through any reduction in the occurrence of extreme seasonal temperatures over land.

The team focussed on model results from future scenarios of a rapidly-warming world: one without any action to reduce emissions; and one where emissions are reduced enough to keep long-term global warming below 2 °C above pre-industrial times.

Ciavarella and the team discovered that it takes less than 20 years in many regions for the risk of extreme seasonal temperatures (one-in-ten-year extreme heat events) to halve following the start of aggressive emissions reductions.

Andrew Ciavarella added: “We show that the global exposure to climate risk is reduced markedly and rapidly with substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. It had been thought previously that most of the benefits of mitigation would have been hidden by natural climate variability until later in the century.”

Prof Peter Stott — a fellow author on the paper — is the Acting Director of the Met Office Hadley Centre and part of the Mathematics department at the University of Exeter. He said: “It is necessary to reduce greenhouse emissions rapidly to help avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change but it had been thought that most of the benefits of this early mitigation would be felt only much later in the century.

“This new research shows that many people alive today could see substantial benefits of efforts to reduce emissions thanks to a greatly reduced risk of heat waves in as little as two decades.”

The paper — Early benefits of mitigation in risk of regional climate extremes — is published in the journal Nature Climate Change.


Obviously, headlines matter more than the science, because the paper hasn’t been published yet according to the URL for the paper given in the press release.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 3, 2017 11:46 am

Reducing more emissions now, will have a bigger impact than reducing fewer emissions later.
Another study from the department of the blindingly obvious.

Reply to  MarkW
April 3, 2017 1:14 pm

not obvious at all.

if reducing emissions has zero impact on climate reducing them more will have twice zero impact.

Or the square root of sweet fanny adams*.

* a highly technical term employed by the military to delineate zero.

Reply to  Leo Smith
April 3, 2017 1:33 pm

This entire “study” is just “oh no people think it will take too long and won’t commit! Let’s change the numbers to make people think they will actually see something happen in the short turn!”

And then when Temperatures don’t go up, same as if we had done nothing, they could say “look! It worked!!!”

Reply to  Leo Smith
April 3, 2017 1:55 pm

WWS;you nailed it. They just make this shit up as the go along.

Reply to  MarkW
April 3, 2017 4:16 pm

Absolutely! Reducing the emissions more quickly will bork the economy more quickly. Like you say … blindingly obvious.

April 3, 2017 11:47 am

The models did nothing t capture the pause, produce a non existant tropical troposphere hotspot, and do not regionally downscale. For all those reasons, to claim that playing with models showed reduced risk of heat extremes in twenty years is not research. It is computer fantasy games.

tom s
April 3, 2017 11:50 am

I like it warmer. I want it warmer. Warmer is better. So you ‘scientists’ can stick it where the sun don’t shine! I don’t want you to make it colder and you won’t by your futile little plans.

Reply to  tom s
April 3, 2017 7:19 pm

I’m sorry, but I have a BAD news for you Tom S — it will become colder! You see, we’re just nearing the end of rather long interglacial period and glaciation will start soon and no amount of CO2 or CH4 or even IPCC* BS^2 will make it go away.

April 3, 2017 11:52 am

If there is one topic that is glossed over if not ignored entirely in most discussion of climate change it is the notion that a warm climate is supposed to be “bad”. Poppycock – warm is good, it’s good for virtually all plant life and animal life, and is especially good for humans.

It only takes the barest of study to figure out that human life and human civilization and human society only existed during the present warming period, known as an “interglacial”, over the last roughly 15-20KYA. Prior to that, humans lived at the barest of subsistance levels along the vast margins of the ice sheets on the northern continents, bereft of agriculture and all the social benefits that accrue from agriculture as opposed to hunting and gathering. You know, things like writing, specialization, accumulation of knowledge, wealth, and other forms of resources. A life that is not short, brutal, and struggle to survive day by day.

Since the development of civilization and all that we know to be life, during shorter cooling periods, the results were inevitably crop failures, starvation, wars, disease, dislocation and failure of entire societies. While warm periods produce food aplenty, reduced mortality, rapid cultural advancement, etc. etc.

So I entirely reject the entire notion that there are any benefits at all to be had from forestalling climatic warming … indeed, human kind must quickly find a way to survive the next glaciation period that inevitably will arrive.

Steve Case
Reply to  Duane
April 3, 2017 12:55 pm

That a climate warm-up has been sold as a catastrophic disaster is testimony to the naked power of government funded continuous propaganda.

Reply to  Duane
April 3, 2017 7:28 pm

Well, I can come with a “benefit” of mandatory CO2 reduction (attempt) = the less of fossil fuels we burn today, the more we can put our freezing hands on in the near future…

David Holliday
April 3, 2017 11:54 am

Computer models aren’t research. Period.

Reply to  David Holliday
April 4, 2017 3:56 am

They can be, though the circumstances i which they impart knowledge (which is one definition of research) is limited. This though…model something happening – call it X – and then say wow, our model shows that X will happen!

What worries me is that I suspect these people are not doing this nonsense deliberately, they actually think they are doing something worthwhile.

Reply to  Phoenix44
April 4, 2017 8:33 am

Models help you figure out what it is that you don’t know.

April 3, 2017 11:55 am

can halve the risk of heat extremes within two decades….obviously they are expecting cooler weather

…and making it easier and easier to comply

Funny how the Met has gone from it’s too late….to every donation counts

Reply to  Latitude
April 3, 2017 11:56 am

oh and of course politicas had nothing to do with that…… < snark

Bruce Cobb
April 3, 2017 12:01 pm

I wonder if used-car salesmen were ever as sleazy as these so-called “scientists”?

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 3, 2017 12:13 pm

There is one difference.
Used car salesman were selling something that people wanted to buy.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  MarkW
April 3, 2017 12:54 pm

No, we were selling something WE wanted the people to buy.

Reply to  MarkW
April 3, 2017 1:41 pm

Well not always..

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 3, 2017 1:09 pm

“I wonder if used-car salesmen were ever as sleazy as these so-called “scientists”?”

Where’s Mosh?

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 4, 2017 3:58 am

As I say above, what worries m is that they are not sleazy, they actually think this stuff is meaningful. I have come across far too many people in far too many fields who simply don’t understand that a model is a model, i.e. what your assumptions look like if they are correct. Almost all believe that the model of their assumptions validates those assumptions.

But of course if you are modelling the future, the model doesn’t, only the future can do that.

Richard M
April 3, 2017 12:02 pm

It’s already working. The future reductions in CO2 emissions just lowered the March UAH anomaly to .19 C. This is consistent with 2013 (.20) and 2014 (.17) prior to the big El Nino. Just think how much cooler it will get with more future emissions reductions.

M Courtney
April 3, 2017 12:04 pm

Did the models capture the costs of decarbonisaton later?
If so, how did they know what technology will come along?

April 3, 2017 12:06 pm

“Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual can believe them.”

George Orwell

April 3, 2017 12:07 pm

Nature Climate Change – publishing fake science since 1400

M Courtney
Reply to  Dinsdale
April 3, 2017 12:44 pm

That’s nothing.
The readers were born a day earlier at 1400, yesterday.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Dinsdale
April 3, 2017 2:11 pm

It wasn’t originally that old. That’s the homogenized date.


Schrodinger's Cat
April 3, 2017 12:12 pm

The Met Office models managed to produce an impressive succession of seasonal forecast failures. It seems that their rapidly warming world exists mainly within their models. One of these days there may be a scientific breakthrough that links the modelled world with the real one. That will involve reducing the impact of their favourite gas.

April 3, 2017 12:14 pm

Even the dirtiest used car salesman would be ashamed in this crowd. One very telling moment in the recent Congressional climate science hearing was Mann stating an increase in extreme weather events and Pielke
repudiating it straight away. Mann claimed science and Pielke claimed no scientific proof. This would seem an excellent point to debate in greater detail before the public.
“Dirty weather” has been thrown out there by most of the big political players on the other side. They have staked a very clear public position which can be categorically destroyed by existing science. Thought here is knock down one domino and the whole chain falls.

Ron Williams
April 3, 2017 12:23 pm

And they will take the credit for the cooling that we will experience through 2030 from solar forcing cycles, by stating that our collective global attempts with CO2 reductions from the previous Paris’ agreements and renewables introduction is the cause of the temperature reversal in 10-15 years.

Even though net CO2 emissions are and will be increasing globally through 2030. So, much of academia and science will miss out on how much solar forcing has to do with the wiggles in climate over the decadal time scale and we will be caught in a perpetual mobius strip of CO2 is responsible for everything warmer, cooler, wetter and drier. CO2 can do anything you want it to do, if you are a (dubious) climate scientist.

Reply to  Ron Williams
April 3, 2017 1:08 pm

Don’t worry, they are already working on widening the range of “predictions”. 😉

Building a bigger barn, so to speak… since they couldn’t hit the first one.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Ron Williams
April 3, 2017 1:22 pm

Ron, why do you thing they came out with this paper? It’s not but one short step from ‘early payback with reduced emissions’ (this paper) to ‘we no long have heat extremes since we have reduced the rate of increase in CO2 emissions.’ Of course always ending with ‘these results need more study.’

James Bradley
April 3, 2017 12:24 pm

This is the ‘we can’t keep homogenising historical data and there’s no more hottest evvvaaaa years so… let’s take credit for global cooling now before anyone catches on’ cover story.

R Hansen
April 3, 2017 12:28 pm

That gravy train can’t leave the station. No coal.

john harmsworth
April 3, 2017 12:38 pm

I understand their math! Unlimited cost over 0 payback = Hey! Look what we did! The world didn’t get warmer! Hand me my coat, would you?

April 3, 2017 12:40 pm

These two men, Nikolaos Christidis & Peter A. Stott, wrote a paper in which they stated:
“Attribution assessments still remain challenging for events with a smaller spatial extent for which variability could largely mask the anthropogenic signal and future research is undoubtedly going to concentrate more on local scales.”
I assume this means: ‘ we couldn’t find little or any of the anthropogenic warming in regional climate, but when we average all regional data, by some miracle the anthropogenic warming pops out of nowhere. Give us more money and we’ll find the AGW anywhere you want .

increasingly skeptical
April 3, 2017 12:42 pm

If co2 knocks around in the atmosphere for centuries and extra warming is already “baked in ” how does that fit with this recent work ?

Bruce Cobb
April 3, 2017 12:53 pm

The secret is in the sauce.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 3, 2017 2:19 pm

It’s really just mayonnaise and ketchup

April 3, 2017 12:54 pm

They’re just making it up as they go along…

Steve Case
Reply to  jones
April 3, 2017 1:01 pm

jones @ 12:54
They’re just making it up as they go along…

Yes, and the next thing, they’re already softening up the beach head, is methane. 86 Times more potent than CO2 they say, and no one is calling B.S. on it.

Reply to  Steve Case
April 3, 2017 1:26 pm

Aye Steve, they will have a few contingencies on the shelf waiting to be dusted down and used.

It’s a perpetual battle and no mistake.

Reply to  Steve Case
April 3, 2017 1:59 pm

surely BS is the largest single source of methane?

Tom in Florida
April 3, 2017 12:59 pm

“Ciavarella and the team discovered that it takes less than 20 years in many regions for the risk of extreme seasonal temperatures (one-in-ten-year extreme heat events) to halve following the start of aggressive emissions reductions.”

So is he saying that a one-in-ten year extreme heat event will happen only once in 20 years instead of twice? And we need to keep granting them all that money just for that?

April 3, 2017 1:05 pm

Whatever happened to, “It’s too late, we are all doomed. “.

Maybe it’s not selling as much snake oil as it used to.

April 3, 2017 1:15 pm

You know, if they would just tune the imagined deleterious effects of CO2 out of their models we would have nothing to worry about. It’s really so simple…

Oh, wait… what was I thinking?

April 3, 2017 1:18 pm

I nominate California, the UK, and Australia to demonstrate the marginal analysis and results.

April 3, 2017 1:24 pm

The team focussed on model results from future scenarios of a rapidly-warming world

Meanwhile, in the real world…

Iain Russell
April 3, 2017 1:24 pm

I wonder why this ‘modelling’ has just hit the press. My best guess is that the Warmies need a quick hit to counter the swelling tide of scepticism. And 20 years fits in with the usual time span for no snow, no Reek, no rain etc.

Reply to  Iain Russell
April 3, 2017 3:03 pm

I dunno about no ‘reek’. I can definitely smell the reek of BS…

Tom O
April 3, 2017 1:26 pm

Hold temperatures to 2 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures. I hear that all the time. But wasn’t “pre-industrial temperatures” basically the same as little ice age temperatures? Why would you want to hold temperatures to as close to ice age temperatures as you possible could? Making sure we are ready for the next real ice age? Am I missing something or just not masochistic enough to appreciate the colder temperatures these “climate stewards” want? Are they all obese and bothered by hot flashes?

Warren Latham
April 3, 2017 1:33 pm

Ah yes, the (British) “Met. Office”: the very people who claim that carbonated-oxygen is a problem. Well, they will eventually shut up when they learn that CO2 is not a problem and that CO2 is in fact the solution.

They seem to be under the control of the World Banking Organisation, the United Nations, the European (taxation) Union and a government which is still tied to the Great Global Warming Gravy Train.

As for their new computer (costing us £67 million) I very much doubt that it could forecast the weather for 1952.

April 3, 2017 1:38 pm

If ‘climate change’ can CAUSE any number of terrible things – and requires funding to know that…then any improvement in the disaster scenario as told by the warmists brigade, will be seen as proof positive that it was money well spent, and NOT to back away from doing more (and yes, more funding required for that too).
Tiny changes now = keeping the temp increased suppressed = money well spent.
Natural variation = temperatures don’t rise = warmists STILL cease the credit = say money was well spent
Natural variation = temperatures rise slightly = we haven’t done enough = send more money

April 3, 2017 1:40 pm

Climate Change. Natural they win. Cooling they win. A sincerely held fantasy of having your baby, and a-borting it, too.

April 3, 2017 1:45 pm

More BS from the usual suspects – no validation of the models + unsupported assertions from sinecured alarmists.

Stott is a bluidy disgrace – as a mathematician he must know that a model is simply a hypothesis until it’s validated – maybe he’s just such a crap mathematician that he needs to change job to head up Hadley and orchestrate scaremongering to monster up more funds?

This is not science.

Reply to  tomo
April 3, 2017 2:08 pm

Doesn’t a hypothesis merely evolve to a theory, until refuted?

As a layman, I don’t believe anything is ever a fact. Not that you mentioned the term ‘fact’.

April 3, 2017 2:04 pm

“The team focussed on model results”

I like em in Bikini’s, with big bombalini’s and a thong.

Nor is that sexist, thank you very much. I didn’t express a gender, nor sexual orientation within that statement.

PS, my spellchecker wanted to correct bombalini’s to ‘Lamborghini’s’. Personally, I would prefer it as Lamborghini, as one in the hand is worth many bombalini’s in the passenger seat. And yes, I intentionally avoided any reference to ‘Bush’…….No, not the family.

Reply to  HotScot
April 3, 2017 2:14 pm

We need to get you married.

Reply to  MarkW
April 3, 2017 3:41 pm

“We need to get you married”
What do you have against women? Er…um… genderless, disoriented, bombalini owners? :=)

Reply to  MarkW
April 4, 2017 8:36 am

bombalini bearers?

April 3, 2017 2:53 pm

Early? According to Prince Charles we have three months left to save the planet: — “Jul 8, 2009 – Just 96 months to save world, says Prince Charles”

I, for one, am taking “On The Beach” precautions so I’ll have our family’s pills all ready to go.

April 3, 2017 5:40 pm

Why now even release that paper since some folks would only try to find things wrong with it.

Reply to  JohnWho
April 3, 2017 11:12 pm

Because science.

Reply to  JohnWho
April 4, 2017 7:19 am

I imagine the motive is political, John, being aimed at the British government as it enters into negotiations with the EU over the terms of Brexit. A guest-poster (Oldbrew) on Tallbloke’s blog reported a few days ago that a leaked record of a secret meeting of EU policy-makers says they are insisting that “Britain must uphold climate standards to secure EU trade deal”. (See: ) I think the Met Office may be intending the announcement as a sweetener to help persuade the British side to accept the EU’s terms so that the Met Office’s and the EU’s established business of plundering the British economy and disrupting its energy-infrastructure in the name of saving the planet from the abominable climatic ravages of natural plant-food will be able to continue as usual after Brexit.

I hope, though, that the British negotiating team will not fall for any such fanatical green nonsense on this occasion and will give the EU’s outrageous demands the short shrift that they deserve.

April 3, 2017 7:19 pm

“Ciavarella and the team discovered that it takes less than 20 years in many regions for the risk of extreme seasonal temperatures ”

But .. but,, residence time? 100 years? 😉

April 3, 2017 11:11 pm

How convenient…

Matt S
April 4, 2017 1:33 am

“OK, It will only cost half as much, just don’t sack us!!!!”

Gary Pearse
April 4, 2017 3:48 am

I think we have a big enough list to have a section on the Trump Effect. There’ve been several of these downsizing, quicky-cheapy, bargaining offers put on the table. Elon Musk’s even advised that Tesla’s could be run just fine on fossil fuel generated electricity.

BTW, what do you expect when taxpayers have bought these totally failed forecasters a £100M computer to do something with?

April 4, 2017 3:53 am

This is simply not research. It is trivial and banal.

Produce a “model” that shows bad things happen, then make those bad things happen sooner. Wow, the sooner one is worse.

What exactly did they think their “research” was going to show? That having bad things happen sooner ws better? Utter, utter nonsense.

j martin
April 4, 2017 11:43 am

This is preparing the ground for the possibility that the pause may reappear or lengthen or that it might get colder. They will then claim the credit for this by claiming that the efforts to decarbonise and move to renewables are working and that this proves they were right all along and so they can continue their privileged positions and continue to get grant money and rewards and honours.

April 4, 2017 1:12 pm

This is like lamenting the benefits of going insane early in your life – the rest of your life passes in joy.

April 4, 2017 4:31 pm

Scientists seem myopic in their thought process … CO2 is the evil of the planet.

In their zeal to focus on one substance, in UK promoting diesel over petrol driven vehicles. Well, golly gosh, we now have a report via Sky News that Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, is concerned at the “dangerous” levels of nitrous oxide emitted from … diesel vehicles. The problem becoming evident throughout UK major cities

Maybe the scientists should look up from their “models” and start looking at the REAL world

%d bloggers like this: