[image credit: latinoamericarenovable.com]
Another trip to cloud cuckoo land. How do they plan to accurately measure all the so-called emissions and get all parties to agree with the results anyway? Time to return to reality and stop wasting time and effort on non-existent supposed remedies.
– – –
A new paper published in Nature has highlighted a fundamental mismatch in the way greenhouse gas emissions are measured which could mean that Net Zero could be met in one definition up to five years ahead of the other, says the Met Office .
The IPCC report shows that global temperature will stop increasing when we reach ‘net zero’ emissions of CO2. [Talkshop comment -*claims*, not shows].
To achieve this, human activity cannot put more CO2 into the atmosphere than it removes – we need to massively reduce our emissions, with some removal of CO2 to help areas which are really hard to decarbonise.
This sits behind the principle of Net Zero, which countries including the UK hope will be reached by 2050.
The paper by Gidden et al, highlights the differences between the two key greenhouse gas accounting systems: one which underlies the IPCC statement that net zero will halt global warming; and the other from how nations produce a National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (NGHGI) to report to the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change).
Professor Chris Jones, who is the Met Office’s lead on carbon budgets, was asked to write a discussion document alongside the paper.
Jeopardy
Chris Jones said: “Both of the key systems for measuring greenhouse gas emissions work well on their own. But there is a challenge when they have to work together in one view. It’s a little like having a bank account and spending in one currency, while trying to save in another. Both currencies work fine on their own, but merging the two together requires an exchange rate mechanism otherwise you risk financial jeopardy by spending beyond your means.”
. . .
The comment piece and original paper appear in the journal Nature.
Full press release here.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
One has to question the sanity of these net-zero idiots. They live in their little computer game world and so can’t define the reality from their computer printout and haven’t learned the first rule of computing GIGO and until they do their utterances will always be meaningless.
“The IPCC report shows that global temperature will stop increasing when we reach ‘net zero’ emissions of CO2”
And yet when anthropogenic emissions were reduced by an estimated 17% during the pandemic, rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentration never even twitched…
How can they both “work fine on their own”? Either one or both is wrong. Yet again we see climate science showing a serious problem with accuracy and reality but wanting to claim its all accurate and real.
B.S. or was it ISO, och but there’s SAE, and DIN, and JIC ( & BSP & UNF/C or ANF/C & BSW/F etc )
All just each to their own, Metric but not Decimal, Imperial but decimal ( 15oz cans) – all just a Generational thing. So how well do the Generations understand each other? Same thing ROck n Pop. Some tunes just clik, others Klick, if you’ve got the right Beat, maybe you can all pay together.
Trouble is that we do live in troubled times and everybody wants to be heard, regardless of their tune or playing abilities. Mammee, I wanna play too.
Gramps think there’s too many such people playing at working and, moreso, CONTROLING others. ( Raison d’etre) – and that;s the point.
Both currencies work fine on their own
Greenhouse gases can’t have ‘two currencies’, except of course in *cloud cuckoo land* 😎
Yes, catweazel , not just the slope but the idiosyncratic shapes were unchanged! Why has this not been noticed by the climate scientists? It’s all bollox isn’t it?
To answer your question liardetg, it is most probable that they are not scientists but computer gamers that play with computer model games.