By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Some time ago, I sent Professor Richard Lindzen an estimate of how much warming a straight-line progress to net zero emissions by all nations on Earth would achieve. He was intrigued. Now – with the stellar team of Professors Happer and van Wiijngaarden – he has prepared a short paper, now published by our friends at the CO2 Coalition, that offers a scientific answer to that question:
https://co2coalition.org/publications/net-zero-averted-temperature-increase
By chance, on receiving news of the new paper, I was putting the finishing touches for a paper by my own team that covers the same subject matter. Our paper is intended for publication in an economics journal, where, like all papers presenting a serious and scientifically credible challenge to the official catastrophe narrative, it will probably be rejected out of hand, not because it is wrong but because it is right.
This article will briefly describe the two methodologies for answering the question “How much warming would net zero by 2050 prevent?”
Both approaches start by assuming that all nations (not just the West, against which the international climate accords are selectively targeted) move linearly together from their current emissions to net zero, achieving it by 2050.
First, here is the abstract from the professors’ paper –
Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase
Using feedback-free estimates of the warming by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and observed rates of increase, we estimate that if the United States (U.S.) eliminated net CO2 emissions by the year 2050, this would avert a warming of 0.0084 C (0.015 F), which is below our ability to accurately measure. If the entire world forced net zero CO2 emissions by the year 2050, a warming of only 0.070 C (0.13 F) would be averted. If one assumes that the warming is a factor of 4 larger because of positive feedbacks, as asserted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming averted by a net zero U.S. policy would still be very small, 0.034 C (0.061 F). For worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity, the averted warming would be 0.28 C (0.50 F).
The professors start by assuming that direct warming by an anthropogenic forcing equivalent to doubling the CO2 in the air compared with 1850, before adding any feedback response, will be about 0.75 C, while IPCC’s midrange final warming, after adding feedback response, is four times greater, at 3 C.
The professors take today’s CO2 concentration as 427 ppmv, which, on current trends, would rise by 64 ppmv to 491 ppmv by 2050, the official target date for net zero. Since the CO2 forcing is an approximately logarithmic function of concentration, the direct warming from now to 2050 on business as usual would be 1 C x log2(491 / 427), or about 0.15 C.
They then estimate that one-eighth of the 64 ppmv increase in concentration from now to 2050 – i.e., 8 ppmv, of which about half, or 4 ppmv, would be abated if the US alone attained net zero by 2050, reducing the 491 ppmv otherwise-projected CO2 concentration in 2050 to 487 ppmv.
Then, if the rest of the world went on emitting as at present, the economic sacrifice of the U.S. in alone attaining net zero would reduce the 0.15 C warming by 2050 by just 0.01 C to 0.14 C. Even if one assumed, as IPCC does, that feedback response would triple or quadruple the 0.75 C direct warming by doubled CO2, U.S. net zero would decrease global temperature by only 1/30th C by 2050, while global net zero would reduce it by little more than 1/4 C.
Our own approach is even simpler than that of the professors. First, here is our abstract –
Has interdisciplinary incomprehension vitiated economic-assessment models?
Integrated-assessment models that study the economic effects of abating global warming are of their essence interdisciplinary. At minimum, they demand knowledge of optical physics (to study the influence of anthropogenic forcing on climate); climate sensitivity (the “how much warming” question); probability theory (to assess data uncertainties); mitigation economics (for benefit-cost analysis); geology (are specialist mineral resources sufficient for global net zero energy infrastructure?); engineering (control theory, wind and solar systems and electric vehicles); and geopolitics (climate accords target the West, whose energy prices thus exceed by an order of magnitude those in the East, where emissions are rising fast). It is here shown that climate sensitivity is overstated by double; that, notwithstanding trillions spent on abatement since 1990, the uptrend in forcing remains linear; that even if all nations attained net zero by 2050 only 0.1-0.2 C warming would be abated by then; that the cost would be $2 quadrillion; that each $1 billion spent would abate one 20-millionth C warming by 2050; that in most Western grids installed wind and solar nameplate capacity exceeds mean hourly demand; that further installations would cost much but abate nothing; that the mass of electric-vehicle batteries increases energy consumption per kilometer by 25-100%; that insufficient techno-metals exist for even one 15-year generation of net-zero infrastructure; and that the West sets itself at a strategic terms-of-trade disadvantage in relying upon integrated-assessment models so vitiated by interdisciplinary divides that they do not reflect such readily-established facts as these.
Our results broadly agree with those of the professors, though we take an even simpler route. First, we assume that direct warming by doubled CO2 is 1 K, the average of four published results. We conclude, in line with the professors, that only 0.1-0.2 C warming would be abated by 2050 even if the whole world moved linearly from current emissions to net zero by then.
Therefore, the United States’ contribution, on its own, would be 1/40th to 1/80th C. Indeed, the whole of the West would abate only 1/30th C, while the UK, on its own, would abate only 1/1000 C by 2050 even if it attained net zero by 2050, which it will not.
Step 1: The trend in anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing
Our method begins with this devastating graph of NOAA’s Annual Greenhouse-Gas Index. We start here because, unlike the professors’ analysis, our analysis takes account of all anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing, not just that from CO2:
All those trillions spent – in the West almost alone – on attempted emissions abatement have had no discernible effect whatsoever on the near-perfectly linear growth rate of anthropogenic forcing over the past one-third of a century since IPCC’s first report in 1990.
Note in passing that the growth in methane concentration has been minuscule, altogether removing cow-farts as a legitimate pretext for the Left’s intended destruction of yet another Western industry – this time the beef and dairy industry.
Step 2: The expected increase in anthropogenic forcing, 2023-2049
Even if all global warming is anthropogenic (which it may not be), on business as usual the near-linear 1 W m–2 uptrend of the past three decades in CO2-equivalent radiative forcing (NOAA op. cit.) may be expected to continue at 1/30th W m–2 yr–1 over the next three decades. Therefore, if all nations moved stepwise together towards net zero emissions by 2050, half the next 0.9 W m–2 of forcing, or 0.45 W m–2, might in theory be abated.
Step 3: From forcing abated to medium-term warming abated
IPCC (2021, p. 7-7) yields the effective doubled-CO2-equivalent radiative forcing as 3.93 W m–2 at midrange. Nijsse (2020) gives the consequent doubled-CO2 sensitivity over the 21st century as 1.68 K. Warming per unit of forcing is thus 1.68 / 3.93, or 0.43 K W–1 m2, so that global net zero would abate 0.45 x 0.43, or just 1/5 K.
The more detailed appraisal that follows will show that first-order estimate to be optimistic.
Step 4: The rate of global warming is half the predicted midrange
When the global climatological community issued its first collective prediction of the rate of global warming (IPCC, 1990), four emissions scenarios A-D were presented. Scenario A represented business as usual.
Predicted Scenario-B growth in anthropogenic forcing from 1990-2025 (ibid., p. 56, fig. 2.4B) was near-coincident with such growth where annual emissions were fixed at 1990 levels (ibid., p. 338, fig. A.15).
However, since 1990 annual emissions have risen near-linearly by more than 75%, from 32.5 Gte CO2e in 1990 to 57.2 Gte CO2e in 2022 (UNEP 2023).
Outturn, then, tracks Scenario A, by which 21st-century global mean surface temperature would rise by 0.3 [0.2 to 0.5] C decade–1, or 3 [2 to 5] C century–1, or 3 [2 to 5] C equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity (ECS).
IPCC (2021) projected equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity of 3 [2 to 5] C. However, observed warming from 1990-2023 (UAH 2023) was only 0.15 C decade–1, implying that – not least owing to the control-theoretic error – the long-standing midrange global-warming predictions are overstated by a factor 2.
A third of a century after the global scientific community first came together to assess the anthropogenic influence on climate, observed decadal warming has proven to be half the midrange that was originally (and still is) predicted. What is more, the trend shows little sign of acceleration in almost half a century.
Step 5: Global warming abated by worldwide net zero
Combining these midrange initial conditions, the otherwise-expected global warming that would be abated if all nations were to move directly towards net zero, reaching the target by 2050, would be less than 1/10th C (Table 1).
Step 5: Global warming abated by Paris-obligated net zero
Since the chiefly Western Paris-obligated nations, responsible for only 30% of new emissions, are in practice the only nations taking substantial steps towards net zero, even if the Paris-exempt nations were to cease increasing their emissions the global warming abated by 2050 would be less than 1/30th C.
Step 6: Global warming abated by single-nation net zero
The contribution of any individual Western nation to net zero would be negligible. For instance, if the United States, accounting 12% of global emissions, were to attain net zero, its contribution to abatement of global warming by that year would be ònly 1/100th C. The United Kingdom, with just 0.8% of global emissions, would abate less than 1/1000th C.
Step 7: The cost of attaining net zero
Our analysis goes a little further than that of the Professors. We look at the global cost of attaining net zero emissions. We begin with one of the few genuine cost figures available, since there has been a concerted effort to conceal the true cost from the public.
The global cost of attaining net zero, extrapolated pro rata from the estimated $3.8 trillion cost of net-zeroing the UK power grid, which accounts for just 25% of all UK emissions, which in turn represent only 0.8% of all global emissions, might reach $2 quadrillion:
Step 8: Value for money
Each $1 billion spent might prevent only one 20-millionth of a degree of global warming by 2050. Even if value for money were ten times better than that (which it is not), expenditure on emissions abatement would have no rational justification:
Let the professors’ conclusion be ours also:
“There appears to be no credible scenario where driving U.S. emissions of CO2 to net zero by the year 2050 would avert a temperature increase of more than a few hundredths of a degree centigrade. The immense costs and sacrifices involved would lead to a reduction in warming approximately equal to the measurement uncertainty. It would be hard to find a better example of a policy of all pain and no gain.”
Glad your back Christopher!
Wild guesses predictions like this article are almost completely worthless, because r they are extremely unlikely to be right
The future growth of the atmospheric CO2 level is unknown
The effect of CO2 including all feedbacks is unknown, with a huge range of estimates. Lindzen and Happer seem to prefer no water vapor feedback, which is an extreme position.
The fact is that about 175 of 195 nations are not participating in net Zero
The remaining nations will never reach their
Nut Zero targets
I created a simpler guess based on how little progress Nut Zero is likely to make
(1) Assume all +0.7 degrees C. warming since 1975 was caused by CO2, as a worst case estimate. The CO2 rise rate was almost 2 ppm a year since 1975.
(2) Assume Nut Zero reduces the current CO2 rise rate of +2.5 ppm a year back to +2 ppm a year
(3) Assume the CO2 / temperature trend from 1975 to 2023 will continue until CO2 is double the 1975 level, in about 2150
(4) With these assumptions the global average temperature in about 2150 would be +2.4 egrees C. higher than in 1975
(5) +2.4 degrees C. is not a catastrophe if caused by CO2 alone, because most of the warming would be TMIN, mainly in colder nations and mainly in the six colder months of the year
(6) Based on science, no one actually knows if the climate in 2150 will be warmer or colder. But I suppose everyone is entitled to a prediction
My prediction for 2150:
Nothing to worry about
unless you fear warmer winters
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog: Why I started calling climate computer models “Climate Confuser Games” in 1997
\
On the contrary – they are a fine way to illustrate how unbelievably STUPID pursuing “goals” that will result in nothing measurable at eye-watering expense are.
For some people who believe the “climate crisis” nonsense, such pragmatism is sorely needed.
Remember that people usually have two reasons for doing anything — a good reason, and the real reason. If the climatistas’ real goal is to humble the peasants, perhaps their schemes are not as stupid as they look. “Eye-watering expense” works well at humbling peasants.
I toured a migrating fish facility at a dam last week. The 400′ high dam was built around 1950 and included a gondola system to raise and lower salmon and steelhead. Needless to say it did not work and migrating fish count went to 0. When the tribe and electric company, co-owners, applied for the 50 year permit renewal, they were required to re-establish the fish run. In 2009 a new intake system was built to correct the problem. Note, a real fish ladder would not have been as economical as the intake approved at $112,000,000 capital costs + operating costs. So, the new intake system has been proven successful and to date 70 fish have returned! The math goes $112,000,000 / 70 fish = $1,600,000 per fish plus operating costs for 14 years. I like it when opinions are supported by numbers. It shows the quality of our politicians and bureaucrats.
70>0. Cost be damned. We are talking elsewhere abundant LOCAL migratory fish here, and local TRIBAL concerns. Money is never a consideration under those circumstances. Until they run out of other people’s money. Then it becomes a BIG consideration.
Wild guesses predictions like this article are almost completely worthless, because r they are extremely unlikely to be right
I suppose since the author used IPCC data, it is a wild guess. That does not excuse your disparaging verbiage.
Likewise, the same verbiage, “wild guesses predictions” applies to your simplistic viewpoint.
By the way, the author made not predictions. He made calculations and posted the results.
Dont be silly
They are all predictions
Calculations require data
There are no data for the future
Only assumptions
I merely extrapolate the 1975 to 2023 trend with the worst case assumption that all post 1975 warming was caused by CO2
I used another very conservative assumption that CO2 emissions would be reduced by 20% as a result of Nut Zero. Perhaps they will not be reduced at all. But it was hard to believe Nut Zero would accomplish nothing at all.
My back of the envelope prediction is just as good as any other prediction — all are very unlikely to be correct,
So basically ZERO understanding of anything.
Just mindless ASS-umptions.
That suits your MO. !
Calculations, being fundamentally mathematics, required numbers.
Results of calculations can be predictions, can be projections, can be results of the calculation.
If I take 1 dollar and subtract 50 cents, is the result a prediction? No. It is the result of a calculation.
I assume your real intent is to promote your blog. Too bad you chose an antagonistic approach that alienates you from more than a few would be supporters.
I provided a link to an article I wrote that explained my +2.4 degrees C warming by 2150 guess if anyone was interested, rather than posting a very long comment here.
I am the peanut gallery here, for what used to be close to a conservative echo chamber. Where any anti-consensus claim was cheered, whether sensible or not
My blog has had almost 800,000 lifetime page views. I get paid the same no matter how many pageviews there have been = zero.
99.9% of the few dozen recommended conservative articles every morning were written by other authors, not by me.
A link to a load of anti-science gibberish then.
People will soon realise that your blog is nothing but self-opinonated garbage.
Looks like all your reason start with “ASS” !!
Very appropriate for any of your comments. !
And has absolutely ZERO scientific credibility !
If my comments were not followed by an insult comment from BeNasty2000, I would be worried that he was sick in a hospital. or dead.
If RG’s comments ever contained anything remotely scientific..
We would all be totally stunned. !
Do you DENY that your first three “reasons” start with “Ass” ?
And hence everything that follows.
I don’t understand RG’s comments. They remind me of the Dilbert cartoon expression: “content free.”
I remember 1 time RG posted something scientific.
Don’t know why this has attracted so much ire. What it amounts to saying is that even if you make climate driver assumptions which would tend to favor alarmism, there is in fact no cause for concern, certainly not in the short term and probably not in the long term (2150) either.
Instead of lapsing into insults and foaming at the mouth, it would be more productive to say exactly what people disagree with.
(1) is hugely uncertain because of the difficulty of distinguishing between natural temperature movements and CO2 caused ones.
2) is maybe on the high side. There is little evidence that net zero is going to change the level of emissions at all.
(3) is very dubious. It takes the assumption of (1) which is dubious in itself and then extends this by 100 years. The implicit assumption is no negative feedbacks kick in over this period.
(5) is probably wrong, there is no guarantee what form any rise in temperatures would take, regardless of how it is caused.
The productive way to approach this would be change the parameter assumptions if you think they are unrealistic. Also change the causation assumptions if you think they don’t capture the drivers – I think these do not, the drivers of climate are a lot more complex than this summary suggests. And try to cover uncertainty.
It has already been done.
The real question is, what would the effect of a doubling of CO2 ppm be? The best estimate is probably Curry and Lewis’ median estimate of 1.66 deg. C from their observational study.
Roy Spencer has an easy summary here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/new-lewis-curry-study-concludes-climate-sensitivity-is-low/
My suggestion is to lower the level of air pollution in these comments. Go read Spencer, preferably also Curry and Lewis, and then come back and tell RG why he is being rather simple minded about the climate and its drivers, is on the high side of his climate sensitivity estimate, but is right about one thing, there is no cause for alarm.
He’s also right to think that net zero is going nowhere, but that is another story.
It looks like it could be much lower. More like 0.7 or less.
https://youtu.be/SClbn4VNqjs?si=7AWnpgGGgvUrLuaA
And yet this is still all completely hypothetical, thereby providing an upper bound on the warming that would occur, all other things held equal.
Which they have never been, are not, and will never be.
Since the real world feedbacks have always been negative, offsetting feedbacks, there will in reality be no effect on the climate of the catastrophe of “net zero” being “achieved.”
Not that the destruction of modern civilization should be viewed as an “achievement.”
Great civilizations often commit suicide. Not always, but often enough. No one knows why.
Perhaps we should look more closely at that dilemma.
The Romans let in too many Goths, thinking they could assimilate, but they didn’t. Within a couple of centuries the Goths emptied Roman cities, and knocked down the aqueducts that sustained them.
The Chinese were on the verge of dominating global trade and exploration by the late Middle Ages, when much of the West was still mired in backwardness. Instead, China dismantled their Treasure Fleet of oceangoing ships in the mid-15th century, and handed over global leadership to Europe for the next 400 years.
The Mayas were the most advanced civilization in the Americas 1,000 years ago. It collapsed shortly afterwards, 400 years before European arrivals, and left ancient cities to be swallowed by jungles throughout Central America. To this day, no one knows why, not even the millions of Mayas who still live there.
Perhaps someone can explain why powerful factions in the West have decided that dismantling Western Civilization is likely to make the world a better place?
Sounds like a theme for a book.
Glad you brought up the Mayas. I first read about them when I was a kid in the book ‘Lost Cities and Vanished Civilizations’ by Robert Silverberg.
In addition to ‘climate change’, aka drought, some investigators believe the Maya never went anywhere – instead they just got tired of endlessly stacking rocks and being raided and sacrificed by their ‘elites’, hence they faded back into the jungle.
It’s happened before and could happen again.
I can not speak to the other examples, but the Roman empire collapsed when the elites ignored growth for personal wealth accumulation.
panem et circensus
In the history of the world, tyranny is a lot
more common than democracy
I think what destroyed the Roman Empire was winning the Third Punic War. They destroyed Carthage and took many slaves. Those slaves eventually revolted and brought down the empire. Also their plumbing was made of lead pipes. Most of the aristocracy had lead plumbing (the Latin word for lead was “Plumbum”). I think it made them loony tunes.
I remember a TV movie about Caligua. The Praetorian Guard (the Secret Service for emperors) murdered Caligua, entered the bedroom of Claudius, dragged him out from under the bed, and hailed him as the new Caesar.
Jim Masterson:
“Also their plumbing was made of lead pipes”
As well as their drinking vessels!
Not to mention pewter.
You have the right event, but the wrong conclusion. The destruction of Carthage had the result of a massive influx of wealth. That was, imho, the turning point.
I like this picture. It’s taken from a road that runs from Cortona, Italy passed the home of the author who wrote “Under the Tuscan Sun.” Neither are in the picture. Cortona is off to the right and Mayes’s villa is off to the left.
The road is a Roman road. Roman roads had no curves. If they needed to change direction, they just stopped going one way and started going another. The water in the distance peeking around the hill is part of Lake Trasimene. A famous battle was fought between the Romans and Hannibal during the Second Punic War. Hannibal is known for bringing elephants across the Alps. He never marched on Rome which was strange. He was defeating the Romans every time. He stopped fighting and returned to Carthage where he didn’t fare well.
His troops battled small armies and raped and plundered their way through Italy, and finally went back to Carthage.
Hannibal was never strong enough to face the armies of Rome
Makes sense. Hannibal killed every fighting-age male he came across. I’m not sure the legions guarding Rome were that powerful, but possibly Hannibal thought so.
Feedbacks should be negative in the long run but they could be positive in the short rum
Earth’s response to warming may not be immediate — there could be an unknown lag.
Our planet has a history of naturally declining atmospheric CO2 levels.
The long term effects of recycling sequestered underground CO2 (CARBON) are not known
Leftist climate fascism is not a solution for what may not be a climate problem at all.
Nope. There are no positive feedbacks. Of course if one were to endorse the idiocy of hijacking and repurposing a word and accepting that, then you will disagree.
The math in this article is almost as indecipherable as the math in the climatistas’ doomsday scenarios. Endless quarreling over conjured-up figures proves only the wisdom of Benjamin Disraeli’s quip: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
Larger, more important questions are:
nailed it!
If it ain’t [allegedly] broke they have no raison d’etre.
Spoken like the true pragmatic you are.
I thought the lie statement belonged to Mark Twain.
I think Mark Twain also said, “Climate is what you expect; weather is what you get.”
That is why when you poll people, ‘climate change’ is way down on their priorities. The average Joe is concerned with and will always be concerned with how to put food on the table, and gas in the car.
Old mate Joe, he don’t give a flying fish about the earth’s temperature, or all the endless graphs, plots, dots and so called data into the year 21000000
>£3 trillion and a “potential” reduction of 0.070C
I can see why Ed Miliband thinks that is a bargain.
“Nut zero” would prevent no discernible warming by 2050. The whole thing is based on the idea of controlling most of the world’s citizens, and their wealth, in a few hands with the dire prophecies from a relatively few of the would-be Gods in their midst. Their proper place is on street corners with signs proclaiming the end of the world due to globull warming. Oh, wait a minute, they already do that with their various nutjob organizations blocking streets and defacing everything they don’t like.
Loony bins need to be reopened and populated with such folks.
When will even the critics of net zero add in the costs of welfare and redundancies etc etc?
Considering that the vast majority of Co2 emissions are natural in the first place, and humans emit about 5% of the total, why do people consider doubling the TOTAL Co2, when in fact that is virtually impossible? If all human emissions were stopped today, the climate would not take notice. There is a larger natural variation, yearly, than our measly 5%. If you want to calculate something that ‘might’ make sense, you would want to double the HUMAN contribution, to 10% of the total. I can’t site this reference, but I remember that the annual variation of natural emissions is on the order of 15%.
Lastly, there is no proof that ANY of the temperature change is due to emissions. Study after study has shown, through ice core analysis, that temperature rises first, then CO2 rises. That would mean, if the studies are true, that a rising CO2 is due to climate change, not the other way around.
It can’t be both. Co2 has been 7000 PPM in earth’s history. We are CO2 starved, which is evident when growers increase their greenhouse CO2 to a typical 1200 PPM. I used to work in a commercial greenhouse, and that is exactly what we did. We propagated plants by snipping off shoots and laying them on a gravel bed, with overhead misting, and 1200 ppm co2. They took off and shot out roots. We didn’t buy seeds or plants, it was all done with cuttings.
Those trillions of dollars would go a long way to eliminating sickness, providing clean water and air and sanitary facilities. That would save millions of lives per year. But there’s no virtue signaling possible with just spending money to make things better.
If you want to discuss annual CO2 emissions, but “forget” to mention natural CO2 absorption, that exceeds natural CO2 emissions, then you can make that 5% claim
But doing so marks you as a liar or dumb on the subject of climate change.
Again… RG in DENIAL of actual science and logic… just to support his AGW cultism.
If natural absorption exceeds natural emissions, and since nature cannot tell the difference between the 4% or so of human emissions.. That implies that nearly all human released is absorbed immediately.
That is why there is no isotopic signature of human released CO2 in the atmosphere.
I typed “dumb” and you showed up1
Nature has been absorbing CO2 for over 4 billion years
It is sequestered as CARBON in rocks, shells, oil, gas, coal … and also in beer and soda cans.
Humans have started increasing atmospheric CO2 faster than nature can absorb CO2.
Nature ABSORBS as much CO2 as possible
Because carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing due to the emissions produced by human societies, the ocean is also absorbing more carbon dioxide. In contrast to preindustrial times, Mr. El Nino Nutter.
Humans added over +250 ppm CO2 to the atmosphere since 1850 and total atmospheric CO2 increased +140 ppm. You figure it out, Einstein.
“Nature ABSORBS as much CO2 as possible”
So you now admit that Nature absorbs basically all human released CO2. (since it is a very small fraction of the nature flux)
Thanks… you finally got there.! Totally by accident, of course.
I notice you are still in total DENIAL of the fact that the only atmospheric warming comes at strong El Nino events.
UAH data makes that patently obvious, to all but the blind AGW-cultist.
bnice2000:
“only atmospheric warming comes from El Nino events”
El Ninos are only temporary events, and contribute NOTHING to atmospheric warming.
Nonsense!
All CO2 emissions on earth are natural. Unless you specifically consider humans to be unnatural.
If that is the case, then you must also believe that humans were created by divine intervention and not a result of evolution which is, of course, what the natural world does using natural selection.
doonman:
The burning of fossil fuels has CO2 as a byproduct. Which is why we are spending trillions of dollars to abandon the burning of fossil fuels
Another idiot statement. Let’s do something sensible–burn fossil fuels.
Good, we need more atmospheric CO2 not less. Which is why we need gazillions of dollars to burn more hydrocarbons into the future. And that is exactly what is and will continue to happen.
The futility of any given national effort pointed out by Lindzen, Happer, and van Wiijngaarden and here by Monckton could have the effect of uniting the “one-world-order” group (or is it groupies?) in their planned destruction of industrialized civilization…. Instead of doing something useful like spending windmill money on nuclear power plants.
Very simple analogies can often work far better than statistics.
If the whole of the sky was a million pounds sterling . . . .
Hydrogen is just 55p
Krypton is £1.14
Methane is £1.91
Helium is £5.24
Neon is £18.16
CO2 is £421.00 (175 years ago it apparently used to be £250).
Argon is £9,311.00
Oxygen is £209,431.00
Nitrogen is £780,810.00
Total: £1,000,000.00
Forgot to add . . . .
Man-made CO2 is only £21.05
Natural CO2 is £399.95
Total CO2: £421.00
We’re spending quadrillions trying to discount £21.05!
Manmade CO2 is about 33% of the 420ppm of atmospheric CO2
You may want to learn that someday, unless you prefer to remain perpetually clueless.
Again.
Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year.
That would be 3.9%. But if you up that to 35 gigatons you get 4.7%. So of the TOTAL CO2 moving thru the atmosphere man is under 5%.
Think of it as a CO2 highway system, everything is moving, but mankind is adding about 40 Gt to the traffic flow, year after year
Some of ALL CO2, natural and human, stays in the atmosphere, some goes into the oceans and some is used by biomass to produce glucose for energy
BUT MORE CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS A BLESSING FOR FLORA AND FAUNA
Stop bitching about fossil fuel CO2. It is a blessing
but mankind is adding about 40 Gt to the traffic flow, year after year”
And nature is adding even more… Warming does that.
The 6 lane highway grows to 8 lanes, then 10 lanes.. etc etc…
Human contribution is barely noticeable, and leaves at the same rate as the much large natural contribution.
Nature absorbs slightly more CO2 than it emits
You are clueless or deliberately being deceptive by ignoring natural CO2 absorption, the other half of the annual carbon cycle.
“Nature absorbs slightly more CO2 than it emits”
Since human emissions are a tiny part of the natural carbon cycle, that means that Nature absorbs basically ALL human released CO2.
The only cluelessness here is your comprehension of basic mass balance.
MKelly – Thanks for backing me on the 5% anthropogenic CO2 figure (I just rounded the normal 3.9% to 4.7% up for ease).
I am not perpetually clueless Richard Greene. But I do have a sense of humour. I bet your shoes are made of Scoby Leather (Kombucha Leather) and your mother smelt of Econyl. H/T to Python.
The 3% to 5% of atmospheric CO2 is Natural Nutters are DEFINITELY perpetually clueless.
Still in total DENIAL of the actual sceince, hey RG.
Gotta keep that AGW-cultism held firm against all facts. ! 😉
What a total anti-science piece of gibberish
Humans release only 4%-5% of the total CO2 flux.
All of that is absorbed almost immediately.
There is no isotopic signature of human CO2 in the atmosphere.
Are you one of those gormless AGW cultists that thinks warming doesn’t increase the amount of CO2 in the carbon cycle ?
A small increase in natural CO2 flux swamps human’s tiny contribution to the enhancement of the carbon cycle.
I typed “perpetually clueless” and BeNasty showed up
As usual from RG… zero comprehension and zero content.
Sad… very sad.
You left out H2O
Lord Moncton, I asked for and you were kind enough to send me an email of your research paper. Thanks.
I have just one question about all this feedback idea. What if one component is zero or there is an open?
Professor Hotel and others have shown via experiment that CO2 has an emissivity of almost zero at temperature below 30 C and standard atmospheric pressures.
The short of it is there will never be any scientific, detectable measurement of benefit to the atmosphere, climate or weather.
Just like the total absence of measurable impact from the global COVID lockdown emissions reduction. Only presumptions, theories, predictions and decrees.
This is how the AGW mega scam works. Wild, endlessly worsening claims that can never be shown by scientific measurement. Yet the advocates are certain.
Activists.
Only if you accede and accept the GAT uncertainty numbers promulgated by the GAT practitioners and the climate model jockeys: real values of u(GAT) are likely two orders of magnitude greater.
I second calls for the use of practical calculations of uncertainty in these natural settings. We are not in tightly controlled lab conditions or dealing with synthetic sets of test numbers for the study of math. Use the correct GAT.
Geoff S
To say nothing about the fake average temperature of Earth. Or the fact that most thermometers are improperly located, or maintained. Also, errors in temperature reading are always on the high side since there are many sources of heat, but virtually zero sources of cold.
As my high school physics teacher advised, check the consistency of the units in your equations.
To that end, the units on the left side and right side of the equation given as the lead-in to the above article (as well as cited under Step 8 of the article itself) are inconsistent:
— left hand side simplifies to the unit of degrees K (as a change)
— right hand side simplifies to units of degrees C (= degrees K) change per $ spent.
Everyone is more or less pointing to the same conclusions – none of these goals are S.M.A.R.T. – or at least certainly not measurable or achievable.
So should we not be asking the settled science team
“what CO2 concentration does the current net zero plans expect or need to achieve by 2050 and what will the resulting reduction in global temperatures be?”
I’d imagine that with all of that settled and consensus science, they must have those values on a Post-It note right in front of their screens just to remind them of what the goals are and how close they are getting.
Otherwise the whole $quadrillion ++ bondoogle can never be shown to have succeeded.
I don’t know how much warming would be prevented by Net-Zero, but there’d likely be fewer people around to measure it.
(Would they call that a success?)
It is actually much worse, because of spending tens of $TRILLIONS during high interest rates and high rates of inflation times, and that spending will reduce our standard of living and deplete the earth of its resources much faster
GO WOKE, GO SERIOUSLY BROKE
NET ZERO IS A SUICIDE PACT, BECAUSE CO2 IS ALREADY TOO LOW FOR MOST PLANTS TO THRIVE. IT NEEDS TO BE AT LEAST 1000 PPM
There is NO climate crisis–regardless of how rationalized.
Just a crisis of misspent, MALspent wealth that weakens the West (and alleged democracies, republics or not) and strengthens the authoritarian regimes
How many people will die because of policies attempting to achieve net zero?
Trying to use their calculations to show the futility of Net-Zero policies is a fool’s errand.
You can only use facts and reason to change a person’s opinion when their opinion is based on facts and reason. Most people’s opinions are based on emotions. You can’t reason with feelings.
Don’t present the climate alarmists with such facts since most of them either are heavily invested in Green products and initiatives and/or depend on generous government handouts to publicize the catastrophes that supposedly will accompany manmade climate change. They would have us believe that unless we can return global temperatures to the levels of the Little Ice Age, humanity and all other living things will be doomed. Fortunately only a small percentage of that same humanity pays them any attention and continues to live their lives as they see fit.
An interesting arithmetic exercise. But IMO by and large pointless because the starting assumption is that all nations will move to net zero by 2050. This is plainly NOT the case for China and India. So whatever the otherwise NET Zero cost, it will fail.
I feel all better now, after turning my air conditioner up to 78 or 80 deg F. just think? in three hours I will have used 100 kw hours less than normal, and in another 30 years global temperature will be a ten tenth thousandth of a degree cooler!
But I DID something!!!
Gums sends…
$2 quadrillion over 26 years is about $77 trillion per year. That is about the same as the current gross world product. In other words, we could maybe get to net zero if we spend 100% of every country’s output toward the goal. Actually, we would probably reach the goal early because most of humanity would be dead.
Exactly — Folks here can rattle on about co2 absorption, graphs, data, models, dots, plots and anomalies as we have done for decades. But ultimately, and we are now seeing fundamental economics and physics will kill the climate change bogeyman.
Other People’s Money so well spent and no comeback on the perpetrators of this nonsense