By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Some time ago, I posted Professor Richard Lindzen’s estimate of the straight-line warming that would achieve zero emissions by all countries on Earth. He was interested. Now – with the stellar team of Professors Happer and van Wiijngaarden – they have prepared a short paper, now published by colleagues at CO2 Coalition, which provides scientific answers to these questions:
Coincidentally, when I received the news about the new paper, I was putting the finishing touches on a paper by my own team covering the same subject. Our paper was intended for publication in an economic journal, where, like all papers that present a serious and scientifically credible challenge to the official disaster narrative, it will likely be rejected, not because it is wrong but because it is right.
This article will briefly describe two methodologies to answer the question “How much warming will zero in 2050 prevent?”
Both approaches start with the assumption that all countries (not just the West, which conforms to the selectively targeted international climate) move linearly from current emissions to zero, reaching them by 2050.
First, here is an abstract of the professor’s paper –
Net Zero Avoids Temperature Increase
Using feedback-free estimates of warming by increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and observed rate increases, we estimate that the United States (US) eliminates net CO2 emissions by 2050, this would prevent 0.0084 C (0.015 F) of warming, which is less than our ability to accurately measure. If the whole world forces net zero CO2 emissions by 2050, only 0.070 C (0.13 F) of warming will be avoided. If one considers that the warming is a factor of 4 greater due to positive feedback, as stated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming prevented by the US net zero policy is still small, 0.034 C (0.061 F). ). For net zero emissions worldwide by 2050 and IPCC climate sensitivity 4 times greater, the avoided warming is 0.28 C (0.50 F).
The professors start by assuming that direct warming with anthropogenic pressure is equivalent to a doubling of CO.2 in the air compared to 1850, before increasing the feedback response, will be about 0.75 C, while the IPCC midrange final warming, after increasing the feedback response, is four times greater, at 3 C.
The professors are taking CO now2 concentration as 427 ppmv, which, in the current trend, will rise by 64 ppmv to 491 ppmv by 2050, the official target date for net zero. Since CO2 forcing is a logarithmic function of concentration, direct warming from now to 2050 in business as usual will be 1 C x log2(491 / 427), or about 0.15 C.
They then estimate that one-eighth of the 64 ppmv increase in concentrations from now to 2050 — that is, 8 ppmv, which is roughly half, or 4 ppmv, would be reduced if the U.S. just went to net zero by 2050, a reduction of 491 ppmv. used-projected CO2 concentration in 2050 to 487 ppmv.
Then, if the rest of the world continues to emit as it is now, the US economic sacrifice of just reaching net zero will reduce the 0.15 C of warming in 2050 by only 0.01 C to 0.14 C. Although some assume, as the IPCC has done. , the feedback response would be three times or three times that of a direct warming of 0.75 C with a doubling of CO2US net zero will reduce global temperature by only 1/30Th C by 2050, while global net zero would reduce it by 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 model?
Integrated assessment models that study the economic effects of reducing global warming are essentially interdisciplinary. At the very least, they demand knowledge of optical physics (to study the impact of anthropogenic forcing on climate); climate sensitivity (the “how much warming” question); probability theory (to assess data uncertainty); mitigation economics (for benefit-cost analysis); geology (are specialist mineral resources sufficient for a global net zero energy infrastructure?); engineering (control theory, wind and solar systems and electric vehicles); and geopolitics (the climate agreement is aimed at the West, where energy prices exceed by orders of magnitude those in the East, where emissions are increasing rapidly). It is shown that climate sensitivity is overstated by double; that, despite trillions spent on abatement since 1990, the uptrend in pressure remains linear; even if all countries achieve net zero by 2050 only 0.1-0.2 C of warming will be reduced; that the cost will be $2 quadrillion; that every $1 billion spent will abate one 20 million C of warming by 2050; that in most Western grids installed wind and solar nameplate capacity exceeds the hourly demand; that more installation will cost a lot but nothing; that the battery mass of electric vehicles increases energy consumption per kilometer by 25-100%; that there is not enough techno-metal for even one generation of 15-year net-zero infrastructure; and that the West set itself in the strategic terms-of-trade disadvantage in relying on an integrated model-assessment so vitiated by interdisciplinary divides that they do not reflect the reality ready-established like this.
Our results generally agree with the professors, although we took a simpler route. First, we assume that direct heating with CO doubles2 is 1 K, the average of four published results. We conclude, in line with the professors, that only 0.1-0.2 C of warming will be reduced by 2050 even if the entire world moves linearly from current emissions to net zero.
Therefore, the contribution of the United States, itself, will be 1/40Th for 1/80Th C. Indeed, the entire West will be only 1/30Th C, while the UK, will only decrease by 1/1000 C by 2050 even if it gets to net zero by 2050, which it won’t.
Step 1: Trends in anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing
Our method starts with NOAA’s Annual Greenhouse Gas Index chart. We start here because, unlike the professor’s analysis, our analysis takes into account all anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing, not just from CO.2:
All those trillions – in the West almost – to try to reduce emissions have had no discernible effect on the almost perfect anthropogenic growth rate over the last third of a century since the first IPCC report in 1990.
Remember that the growth in the concentration of methane has been minuscule, all the removal of cow-fart as a legitimate pretext for the Left intended to destroy yet another Western industry – this time the beef and dairy industry.
Step 2: Expected increase in anthropogenic pressure, 2023-2049
Even if all global warming were anthropogenic (which it probably isn’t), in business as usual, a near-linear 1 W m-2 Thirty years ago, CO2-equivalent radiative forcing (NOAA Op. cit.) can be expected to continue on 1/30Th Wm-2 year-1 over the next three decades. So, if all countries progress gradually towards net zero emissions by 2050, half of the next 0.9 Wm.-2 of pressure, or 0.45 Wm-2in theory can be abated.
Step 3: From forcing abated to medium-term warming abated
IPCC (2021, p. 7-7) effectively produces double-CO2– radiative forcing is equal to 3.93 W m-2 in the midrange. Nijsse (2020) gives the consequence of double-CO2 sensitivity through 21St century is 1.68 K. Heat per unit pressure is thus 1.68 / 3.93, or 0.43 KW-1 m2so the global net zero will be 0.45 x 0.43, or only 1/5 K.
A more detailed evaluation below will show that the first-order approximation is optimistic.
Step 4: The rate of global warming is half of the predicted midrange
When the global climatological community issued its first collective prediction of global warming rates (IPCC, 1990), four AD emission scenarios were presented. Scenario A represents business as usual.
Scenario-B growth predicted under anthropogenic forcing from 1990-2025 (ibid., pp. 56, fig. 2.4B) is almost identical to the growth in which annual emissions remain at 1990 levels (ibid., pp. 338, fig. A.15).
However, since 1990, annual emissions have increased almost linearly by more than 75%, from 32.5 Gte CO.2e in 1990 for 57.2 Gte CO2e in 2022 (UNEP 2023).
Outturn, then, track Scenario A, which is 21St-Century global average surface temperature will rise by 0.3 (0.2 to 0.5) C per decade-1or 3 (2 to 5) century C-1or 3 (2 to 5) C double-CO equilibrium2 sensitivity (ECS).
The IPCC (2021) projected an equilibrium CO2 sensitivity of 3 (2 to 5) C. However, the observed warming from 1990-2023 (UAH 2023) is only 0.15 C per decade-1shows that – at least due to control theory errors – long-standing midrange global warming predictions are outpaced by a factor of 2.
A third of a century after the global scientific community first came together to assess the anthropogenic influence on the climate, observed decadal warming has proven to be half the midrange that was originally (and still is) predicted. What’s more, the trend shows signs of acceleration in nearly half a century.
Step 5: Global warming is reduced to net zero worldwide
Combining these midrange initial conditions, the expected global warming reduction if all countries moved directly to net zero, reaching the target by 2050, would be less than 1/10Th C (Table 1).
Step 5: Global warming is reduced by the net zero Paris mandate
Since the countries that are mainly obliged to West Paris, which are responsible for only 30% of the new emissions, in practice are the only countries that have taken important steps towards net zero, although the countries that have been exempted from Paris must stop increasing their emissions, warming global decrease in 2050. will be less than 1/30Th C.
Step 6: Global warming is reduced by one-country net zero
The contribution of each Western country to net zero will be negligible. For example, if the United States, with 12% of global emissions, achieved net zero, its contribution to reducing global warming that year would only be 1/100Th C. The UK, with only 0.8% of global emissions, will reduce by less than 1/1000Th C.
Step 7: Cost to reach net zero
Our analysis is less than that of the Professors. We look at the global cost of achieving net zero emissions. We start with one of the few original cost figures available, since there has been a concerted effort to hide the true cost from the public.
The global cost of achieving net zero, extrapolated pro rata from approx $3.8 trillion cost net-zeroing UK power grid, which account only 25% all UK emissions, which only represent 0.8% all global emissions, can reach $2 quadrillion:
Step 8: Value for money
Per $1 billion used can just prevent it one 20-million degrees of global warming by 2050. Even if the value of money is the same ten times better therefore (which is not), spending to reduce emissions has no rational reason:
Come to our professor’s conclusion:
“There is no plausible scenario for driving US CO emissions2 to net zero by 2050 would prevent temperature increases of more than a few hundred degrees centigrade. The enormous costs and sacrifices would result in a reduction in warming roughly equal to the measurement uncertainty. It would be hard to find a better example of a policy of all pain and no gain.
Related