A new paper is out:
Roy Spencer is pretty close to on point here:
The idea was discussed here:
This theory by Nikolov does not seem worth pursuing.
For a doubling of CO2 the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is from 1.5 C to 4.5 C with 66% confidence. – AR5
For a doubling of CO2 the transient climate sensitivity (TCS) is from 1.0 C to 3.0 C with 90% confidence. – AR4
I just noticed the X to 3X in both ranges. Why is the intermediate in the same ratio as the equilibrium? Is this the climate iron ratio? No.
From here to there the bounds are kind of the same, but more tightly constrained on the way to there. So we could have a hockey stick with a blade near the end. So when we are about to get there, as things settle down, we can get a dramatic up or down turn. That’s my kind of equilibrium.
Expert assessments. That’s what we have.
The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:
- Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
- Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
- Oil and Gas exploration and development expense ($7.1 billion)
The foreign tax credit is not a subsidy. When one of our corporations pays income tax to another nation because they made money there, a credit is available up to the amount of the income taxes paid. To not allow this could amount to being taxed twice on the same income. Individuals can use this credit as well as just about every corporation in the S & P 500.
The Credit for production of non-conventional fuels I think is a subsidy. Scaling it back or ending it should be considered.
Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing is not much of a subsidy. Either the corporation takes an immediate write off or takes it over 6 years for expenses. It is a timing difference and a benefit obtained sooner, gets paid back later. It is a subsidy when considering the time value of money which might be 2% annually. The subsidy amount given by Wikipedia is likely overstated by 10 times, using the time value of money.
Wikipedia has overstated the amount of the 3 largest subsidies by at least two times.
“Local optimization is accomplished by applying intelligent decision making at the local level.”
We are trying to solve world problems with mitigation. Say New Jersey tried to prevent storm surges with wind turbines. Wouldn’t their money be better spent on making their coasts more resilient to them?
“Projections of Antarctic SMB changes over the 21st century thus indicate a negative contribution to sea level because of the projected widespread increase in snowfall
associated with warming air temperatures (Krinner et al., 2007; Uotila et al., 2007; Bracegirdle et al., 2008). Several studies (Krinner et al., 2007; Uotila et al., 2007; Bengtsson et al., 2011) have shown that the precipitation increase is directly linked to atmospheric warming via the increased moisture holding capacity of warmer air, and is therefore
larger for scenarios of greater warming. The relationship is exponential, resulting in an increase of SMB as a function of Antarctic SAT change evaluated in various recent studies with high-resolution (~60 km) models as 3.7% °C–1 (Bengtsson et al., 2011), 4.8% °C–1 (Ligtenberg et al., 2013) and ~7% °C–1 (Krinner et al., 2007). These agree well with the sensitivity of 5.1 ± 1.5% °C–1 (one standard deviation) of CMIP3 AOGCMs (Gregory and Huybrechts, 2006).” – AR5
““This result is consistent with recent findings that beside the anthropogenic signature, a non-negligible fraction of the observed 20th century sea level rise still represents a response to pre-industrial natural climate variations such as the Little Ice Age” – a period of low temperatures which occurred between 1300 and 1850.”