# Bargain: Make the whole world “Net Zero”, spend a quadrillion dollars, and cool the world by 0.3 degrees!

By Jo Nova

### The deadliest climate question: How many degrees cooler will that be?

Ask it now, ask it later, before breakfast and while watching “the news”. Teach the children to ask in kindy.

We know the IPCC wildly exaggerates, but pretend they’re right and it still doesn’t make any sense. Richard Lindzen, Will Happer, and William van Wijngaarden took the IPCC at its word and calculate that even if we get to Net Zero by 2050, will only make the world a tiny bit cooler, assuming they’re right (which they’re not) and assuming the rest of the world joins in (which they aren’t).

Say we stop all coal, oil and gas, redesign our energy grids, cull the cows, give up our holidays, our cars and ride bikes to work, fill the oceans with windmills, and turn our thermostats down. We spend a quadrillion dollars on a Moonshot to stuff a perfectly good fertilizer in holes underground, and instead of getting to the moon, the world is barely 0.28 degrees C cooler. That’s a half of one lousy Fahrenheit less that it would have been. This ladies and gentlemen is the best case scenario for the global action plan against the 6th mass extinction.

This is why 100,000 people in private jets meet each year in Egypt, or Doha, or Azerbaijan. (Or so they say).

The whole United States of America could go Net Zero by 2050 and it would, at best, change global temperatures by three one-hundredths of a degree, which we can’t even measure. Rounded to the nearest tenth of a degree that’s a big 0.0°C. And if the Sun does a bit more, then it’s even less.

### Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase

R. Lindzen, W. Happer, and W. A. van Wijngaarden

Abstract:

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).

Read the entire short paper here at the CO2Coalition:  Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase

And Christopher Monckton points out the cost to benefit ratio for this \$2 Quadrillion dollar project is every billion dollars we spend cools the world by 20 millionths of a degree.

So let’s keep all the national science institutions that pointed out what a terrible deal this is for all our nations, and shut down the rest —  NOAA, NASA, Hadley, CSIRO, NIWA, BoM, Potsdam, NRC, ARC, and while we’re at it — the ABC, BBC, the CBC because they should have asked better questions, like “how many degrees will that cool us?”

UPDATE: And a long time ago Dr David Evans calculated that if Australia got to Net Zero and the IPCC were right, we would “cool” the world by 0.0154°C.

10 out of 10 based on 119 ratings

### 108 comments to Bargain: Make the whole world “Net Zero”, spend a quadrillion dollars, and cool the world by 0.3 degrees!

• #
Mike Smith

“how many degrees will that cool us?”

Green is so virtuous, it doesn’t seem to matter.

• #

We know the whole world will never go to Net Zero, only Western countries run by traitorous Leftist politicians and with support from traitorous Leftist activists.

Of course, Net Zero can only be achieved when economic output also reaches Net Zero.

And Net Zero is just the Leftist rebranding of Pol Pot’s Year Zero.

The world’s largest CO2 emitter, by far, is China with CO2 output more than twice as great as the next biggest emitter, the United States, and increasing exponentially (not that it matters).

Those same traitors responsible for de-energising, deindustrialising and generally destroying the West, are silent about China.

They have no CO2 emissions limits, nor will they allow any to be imposed. They are not stupid.

• #
John in Oz

The zealots are not interested in ‘net’ zero, only zero fossil fuels (by inference, zero CO2).

Accoding to the CSIRO, the Southern hemisphere in general and Australia in particular are already net zero, so why are the pollies only talking about Oz reaching net zero?

• #
Ross

John in OZ- it’s down to the definition of Net Zero. In pure biological terms and observing the Carbon cycle the Australian biosphere consumes many times our total CO2 emissions. I’ve seen estimates of 15 x. So Australia as well as the entire Southern Hemisphere is a Carbon sink. But that’s NOT the definition of Net Zero which is the sequestration of man made CO2 emissions by artificial means. Largely by CCS, the art of putting CO2 back in the hole it came out of, where you are mostly sequestering O anyway. Crazy madness which was typified by the dumb idea of pumping CO2 into the Great Artesian Basin. The fact Australia (looking at you Scott Morrison) went along with this charade is mind boggling, even with “aspirational” targets.

• #
Philip

To be fair to Scomo, I don’t think he really understands or thinks deeply on man and environment. And with all his advisors, and many MPs in his own party, constantly telling him climate change is real, he could no longer think outside those parameters.

• #
Boambee John

Wasn’t ScoMo heavied at a Klimate Konference (Glasgow??), with a threat to halt all investment in Oz if we didn’t sign up to Year Zero?

• #
Geoff Sherrington

His Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, made a short public statement that Australia would adopt a policy of net zero by 2050 because failure to do so would make it difficult to obtain international finance on favourable terms. (This not verbatim, being my recall of it.)
Missing from his statement than and after was the name of the heavy or heavies, what the size of the penalty might be and why he did not refer this illegal blackmail to prosecuting authorities. All of us are under an obligation to report crime. Geoff S

• #

Ignorance is not an excuse, especially for a Prime Minister.

But in today’s world of instant access to unlimited information, albeit with Goverment (e.g. Australia’s e-Safety Commissar) or Big Tech censorship, you can still find the truth and there is never an excuse for not knowing it.

• #
Steve4192

Net Zero can only be achieved when economic output also reaches Net Zero

100% True

Assuming you even buy into the ‘CO2 is the devil’ religion, all we have done thus far is shuffle deck chairs on the Titanic by moving industrial production from the post-industrial west to Asia. Humanity is still producing more stuff, using more energy, and creating more CO2 emissions than ever. But by God, the western politicians get to crow about their countries shaving off a couple of percentage points.

Those same traitors responsible for de-energising, deindustrialising and generally destroying the West, are silent about China.

See above. They’ve outsourced the west’s CO2 emissions to China. They can’t complain about China because without China taking on all the heavy industrial and extraction work, western politicians wouldn’t be able to meet their climate goals.

• #
Mike Jonas

Without China, these mongrels couldn’t meet their climate goals, because manufacture of wind turbines and solar panels needs reliable energy like coal or nuclear. They can’t be made using wind or solar power. What an insane bind they have put us in. But there is still a simple solution possible in the democratic west: remove them! Europe has started and hopefully everyone else will follow as elections come due.

• #
Philip

I do like listening to environmentalists justifying China’s co2 output. Their main argument is that its still the west’s fault for making them make our “stuff”. Then it’s the per capita “equality” argument. Though did I hear correctly recently, that their per capita is now on par with say NZ?

• #

The Political World is already at ‘Net Zero’. That is their collective IQ.

• #
Saighdear

Aye, and THIS is how to do it ( from my Mailbox this now )and Oldbrew at the Talkshop, tells us: UK: Siemens Mobility Looks to Build Battery Trains in Goole Of course I got the wrong end of the stick, OR ? …. a brilliant idea !

• #
Lawrie

I note that both Labour and Conservative leaders are having a competition to see who can come up with the worst policies for Britons when dealing with private transportation. Banning diesel and petrol vehicles is stupidity writ large. Will Britons reclaim their independence and vote for neither main party? Much like in Victoria where you can vote for dumb 1 or dumb 2.

• #
Mike Jonas

Under Britain’s first past the post voting system, neither side of politics can transition smoothly (I’m talking political transition not energy transition). At the upcoming general election, you can vote for dumb left, dumb right or smart right. In Australia’s (to my mind) imperfect but highly superior voting system, dumb right and smart right effectively get added together (just like dumb left and dumb green far left get added together), but in Britain dumb right and smart right only subtract from each other. So dumb left is guaranteed to win in a landslide. Five years is a long time to wait for another chance to vote in some sanity, but that’s the price imposed by the system.

Personally, I want to see the execrable Rishi Sunak and his pompous anti-British anti-Brexit Remainer brigade totally and permanently destroyed by the coming election, no matter who gets in instead. If five years of Keir Starmer is the price, so be it.

Is Keir Starmer really all that bad? We are repeatedly told that he doesn’t stand for anything. Right now, that sounds better than standing for Europe over Britain and for energy poverty over prosperity. Anyway, we are soon going to find out.

• #
John in NZ

I want to a company meeting about “Emissions” a couple of weeks ago and asked about the cost/benefit of net zero. I showed the presenter a couple of back of the envelope calculations which showed that achieving net zero would result in an undetectable change in temperature.

The response I always get is that we have to do it because our customers require it.

This is being driven by ESG.

• #
Honk R Smith

Was your meeting with this guy?

Really expensive suit, couple hours a day at the BJJ gym, on message like a hawk on a rabbit.
Behold an ESG samurai.
I think we’re gonna need a bigger boat.

• #
John in NZ

And a scuba tank and a rifle.

• #
the sting

The question you have asked is “ can you provide empirical evidence that man is warming the planet?

• #
Ross

Yep, and the only people benefitting from ESG are all the financial advisors, stock brokers and big investors. The latter group will buy into the “Green” investments or harvest government subsidies and then, just at the right time, dump them for a huge profit. As George Carlin said ” … it’s a big club, and we’re not in it” (pointing to his audience).

• #
Peter McRae

Alan Jones Utterly Schools a Panel Of Climate Zealots. Their answers and protestations are priceless. https://rumble.com/v3ll3lg-alan-jones-utterly-schools-panel-of-climate-zealots.html

• #
Bruce

Cool?

Here in sub-tropical, “coastal” Briz Vegas, at 6AM it was NINE degrees.

The early “dawn chorus” of birds were not very vocal when th eturned up for breakfast. Be they rainbow lorikeets, butcher birds ofr magpies, they perched, all “fluffed up” on the verandah rail, grabbed what was on offer and fled to teh next fuel stop.

Anyone else checked their thermometers this morning?

• #
Penguinite

Sounds like an EV charging station parade

• #
Ross

9° C! That’s luxury. Presently 4° in central Victoria.

• #
John in Oz

and more to come along the entire East coast over the next few days, according to this mornings weather report

• #
PeterPetrum

Try 1.0°C in the Blue Mountains! Magpies lined up on the lawn waiting for handouts.

• #
Richard C (NZ)

>Azerbaijan [COP29]

Could get awkward. Home of the Baku oilfields.

Then – The oil fields of Binagardy, Baku, August 1918
https://collection.nam.ac.uk/images/960/190000-190999/190612.jpg

Now – BAKU, AZERBAIJAN – 16 MAY 2013
https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-4742777-baku-azerbaijan—16-may-2013-old

I wonder if they will all be taken on a bus tour…..?

• #
Richard C (NZ)

Top Gear: The Grand Tour, Series 3, Episode 11 – Sea to Unsalty Sea.

The presenters drive from Georgia to Azerbaijan in a selection of new Grand Tourers – Clarkson takes the new Aston Martin DBS Superleggera, Hammond uses the new Bentley Continental GT and May selects the even newer BMW 8 Series. They head on a true Grand Tour across the Caucasus, driving from the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea, to answer the question that’s on the lips of no one.

The Trailer shows a glimpse of, I think, the streets of Baku (and oilfields of course). It is a very wealthy city. I can’t reference it but the actual episode had the trio driving past a row of parked cars almost all of which were similar to what they were driving – top end Ferraris, Lambos, whatever.

Clarkson doing a water slide in the main street is spectacular in the Trailer.

Also – “TURD. PETROL”

All the COP29 Greenpeace delegates will want to be photographed under THAT sign.

• #
Neville

Of course even the Royal Society ( Q 20 + Answer) and the USA NAS told us years ago that if we stopped all Human co2 emissions today we wouldn’t see a change in temp for a thousand years or more.
And even “their Conversation” repeated their message years ago as well.
I’ve linked their claims here many years ago and more recent times.
So wasting endless trillions of \$ for years won’t change anything, just add more BS and fraud for the kiddies to worry about.
BUT the really big change will be the weakness and vulnerability of the OECD countries as we face a new “Axis of evil” from China, Russia, Iran, Nth Korea etc.

• #
Neville

BTW here’s the Royal Society’s question 20 and answer. You only need to read their first couple of paragraphs to understand what they “really believe” about the result of trying to reduce co2 emissions.
And even maths guru Nic Lewis agreed it would take a very long time to make any difference.

https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-20/

• #
PeterPetrum

I read the first paragraph. Looks like the Royal Society has no knowledge that temperature levels vary constantly under a range of scenarios and extraneous forces. It is quite unbelievable that the can talk about “CO2 descending into the deep oceans over thousands of years and being trapped on the ocean floor”. Goodness me.

• #
Richard C (NZ)

>”the world is barely 0.28 degrees C cooler” [by 2050]

The world is 0.18 cooler since January according to Climate Pulse.

Anyone notice the difference?

Maybe that extra 0.1 will do it.

• #
Ross

Ahh, the Andrew Bolt question.

• #

China has over four times the population of the US.

When they reach or exceed US levels of CO2 production per capita, they will have at least four times the CO2 production the US now has, probably much more since the US is deindustrialising, at least until Trump is elected.

The contribution of CO2 from the US and the West will then be insignificant compared to China.

And the Left will still be rioting in support of their objectives of Year Zero in the West.

And China will still have no CO2 emissions limits or would ignore them even if they did.

The situation is bizarre.

The Left won’t stop until they have destroyed everything in the West.

• #
Tides of Mudgee

What I don’t understand is why no-one ever seems to ask the question about how we in Shtraya (as our powerful and handsome leader calls it) are exporting millions of tons of coal, and it is one of our greatest earners, to other countries ON THE SAME PLANET!!!!! and yet it is taboo to even consider using it here because of “the emissions” (next question, “what’s wrong with emissions?”) but it doesn’t seem to occur to those brilliant activists, that as the recipients of our coal are on THE SAME PLANET and are burning it like there’s no tomorrow, that we won’t be affected by those evil emissions. So we continue happily exporting the very thing that non-thinkers consider is destroying the planet. Does no-one think any more? We are dying of dumb. ToM

• #
Kalm Keith

Atmospheric CO2 levels are a complete irrelevance to atmospheric temperature.

The atmosphere is, the atmosphere, and it deals with the solar input and following Earth leakage of energy on a twenty four hour basis.

The presence of CO2 is a complete irrelevance and makes no difference to atmospheric temperature.

P.V = n.R.T Rulz.

One of the dead giveaways of the Klimate Science is that proponents of CAGW simply average the system and ignore the two different mechanisms operating in each 24 hour cycle.

Thermodynamics is ignored by the IPCCC.

• #

They used to teach the Ideal Gas Law in high schools in Australia, back in the day.

At university they used to teach statistical mechanics. The derivation from first principles from statistical mechanics gives PV = nkT where k is Boltzmann’s constant.

• #
Richard C (NZ)

>Thermodynamics is ignored by the IPCCC

>One of the dead giveaways of the Klimate Science is that proponents of CAGW simply average the system and ignore the two different mechanisms operating in each 24 hour cycle.

Their climate models don’t model the annual cycle either – which is opposite phase for both hemispheres.

Makes a big difference where I live near the ocean BoP NZ. In the following graph you can see the flux of warm water that comes down from the tropics every year:

That’s heat dissipation along the Equator to Poles Temperature Gradient (EPG).

This offers a perfect opportunity for some pretzelized contortion, complete with internal contradictions, in the form of model-based “investigations”. Here’s an example:

Decoding the dynamics of poleward shifting climate zones using aqua-planet model simulations
Yang, Lu, , Wang, Shi, and Lohmann (2022)

They conclude, with no physical evidence whatsoever, that a “CO2 induced radiative forcing” “generates an enhanced subtropical ocean surface warming”:

5 Conclusions

We find that the direct CO2 forcing plays a minor role in contributing the atmospheric circulation shift. In contrast, the induced ocean warming plays a dominant role in driving the atmospheric circulation displacement. Under the CO2 induced radiative forcing, the background ocean Ekman transport convergence near the subtropical region generates an enhanced subtropical ocean surface warming. This enhanced subtropical warming, causes poleward displacement in the mid-latitude temperature gradient, forcing a corresponding shift in the atmospheric circulation (Fig. 8).

Induced?

So based on a heroic assumption, but they offer no explanation of how, exactly, on a thermodynamic microphysics level at the AO interface, their “CO2 induced radiative forcing” actually warms water.

So yes, “Thermodynamics is ignored by the IPCC” and CO2-centric climate modellers in favour of a prescribed premise and bold assumption.

• #
Richard C (NZ)

Yang et al:

1 Introduction

Therefore, growing number of studies suggest that the observed tropical expansion is more attributable to the natural climate variability than the anthropogenic climate change.

And we can’t have that. Yang et al to the rescue!

More recently, following the finding of shifting large-scale ocean circulation, Yang et al. (2020a, 2020b) highlight that the entire atmospheric and oceanic circulation is moving towards the higher latitudes, which is not solely owing to natural climate variability. This is because that many of the observed climate trends, such as the patterns of sea level pressure (SLP), sea surface height (SSH) and near-surface winds, well resemble the patterns obtained from the climate simulations forced by increasing greenhouse gases.

“Well resemble” – hmmm, lets see:

Figure 4: Comparison between experiments of global warming (C1) and pre-industrial (C0) showing a poleward shift of the atmospheric and oceanic circulation under warmer climate.

Apparently they had “pre-industrial data” to compare.

Can’t be bothered looking up how they obtained that but I’m guessing they conjured it up with their model.

• #
Richard C (NZ)

>Can’t be bothered looking up how they obtained that [pre-industrial data] but I’m guessing they conjured it up with their model.

Ok, I looked it up:

2.1 Experiment design

We perform two simulations using the fully coupled AWI-ESM, i.e., a control experiment (i.e., C0) and a global warming experiment (i.e., C1). The control simulation (C0) is integrated for 640 years with the pre-industrial CO configuration (i.e., 284 ppmv). The global warming simulation (C1) is initialised from the 500th model year of the C0 experiment and integrated for 140 years by increasing the concentration of CO linearly from 284 ppmv to 1284 ppmv within 100 years. Afterwards, the CO level is kept constant at the value of 1284 ppmv (Fig. 3).

So yes, they conjured it up with their model.

And they extort “warming” with CO2 at 1284 ppmv – Heroic!

• #

“And they extort “warming” with CO2 at 1284 ppmv – Heroic!”
And rising at [1284-284 = 1000]/100 so 10 PPM/YEAR.

Not related to this planet, though.

Auto

• #
Neville

Again here’s “the Conversation” link about the stupidity of trying to reduce co2 emissions.
See what happens when we “slam on the brakes” and try to reduce co2 emissions. Again they “believe” it would take thousands of years to make a difference.
And the Petit study also found that co2 lag of thousands of years from the Vostok ice core studies.
IOW temperature changes first and then co2 stays at the same level for thousands of years before it gradually falls to lower levels.

• #
Kalm Keith

The ice core data shows definitively that Earth’s temperature drives atmospheric CO2 levels.

• #
TdeF

Quora question.

“What are some immediate solutions for global warming and other major world issues?”

It takes my breath away. When was warming a major world issue? On a par with Nuclear war?

Where is there an actual climate problem?

• #
TdeF

What I am pointing out is that there is no public debate and no science debate about nett zero.

All sides of politics see Nett Zero as obligatory science based direction. The urgent task of a truly democratic government. We must set an example to the world of how we, in Australia alone, will control our weather.

It’s utter rubbish, fake science, beyond madness. Can’t anyone call out this nonsense except on economic grounds?

There is not a word of truth in it. 36 years later, there never was.

Any political party who calls out Nett zero, uncontrolled immigration, a million genders and moral equivalance will win in a landslide.

Even the word Liberal has been stolen by the handwringing apologists and virtue signallers. Every who disagrees is a skinhead far right.

• #
TdeF

Nigel Farage is a breath of fresh air to the non debate, non science, dictatorship of the elites.

5 minutes of silent television with a fixed black screeen.

Britain is broken.
Britain needs reform.

Australia and America are in the same boat. There is no debate about science, nett zero, viruses, gender, immigration. All sides are on the same side. Against democracy.

The people did not want what the politicians are serving up. And Farage’s party is now polling higher than the Tories.

• #
Gary S

Farage’s Reform Party have just overtaken the Tories in the polls are now the opposition.

• #
Philip

Many of the far right you mention actually believe in climate change and environmentalism. So the slur is extremely misleading.

They see the modern world as an industrialised nightmare created by their banking class enemy, enslaving them to that system. They share the fantasy of the destroyed environment of the mainstream environmentalist.

If you want an example, a fellow called Keith Woods, an intellectual self-proclaimed national socialist from Ireland, very popular on YouTube and X, did a video outlining his environmentalism and climate change beliefs, all caused by the you know who. Elon Musk has retweeted him before.

• #
TdeF

How can a national socialist be far right? That’s fascist, which is far left and unholy alliance with big business and socialism. Hitler was a National Socialist, as was Mussolini.

Fascism is socialism, no matter what Wikipedia says.

WWII and the cold war redefined terms.

Hitler was universally hated and a failure, so Fascism has been conveniently redefined as extreme right. Problem fixed. And only the extreme right are racist anti semites? Talk to Adam Bandt/Lenin/Stalin.

And communism was to free the workers? A total failure as it was so obvious that capitalism was better. So it also has been redefined to post modernist Marxism where the oppressed are not the workers, but women, migrants, gays, transvestites, every group you can name and group identity, even intersectionality explains why you need to be a post modern Marxist. All that matters is your group identity. Otherwise you do not exist, as in communism and fascism. You are just a pawn and the leader is all powerful.

• #
Philip

yes, they are actually more left than right, but they don’t call themselves that. Their current term is the dissident right.

But that’s not my point. It is that, slurring a “climate denier” as them, is grossly inaccurate as they do not think like me on matters of environment and climate at all.

• #
Philip

None of the maths makes sense because it is environmentalism driving these decisions, an ideology, not maths. But this is why it is so successful. The human mind likes simple equations.

You may have noticed at school that most of your student peers didn’t like maths. Overwhelmingly! Remember? And this is what climate change offers, the simplest of equations. We used to call the lowest maths class “maths in space” which turned out to be quite fitting.

• #
TdeF

There is no maths involved. Nett zero means ZERO.

• #
Neville

Again if Aussies stopped all co2 emissions today we might reduce the temperature of the world by 0.3 c divided by 100 = 0.003 c in a few thousand years according to the Royal Society, the Conversation and Petit’s study of the ice cores. Whoopee.
We can be sure that China, India + Asia + Africa + all developing countries will continue to build many more reliable BASE-LOAD Coal, Gas and Nuclear plants to guarantee their energy requirements until 2100.

• #
TdeF

We need Tony Abbott, Peta Credlin, sensible people back.

Or we have to hope that Trump wins because there is no democracy in Australia. The place is being shut down by the extreme left on all sides of politics. Even the country party wants fartless cows and methane free termites.

Florence and Turnbull’s black hole

• #
Neville

Most importantly Willis Eschenbach lists all the data about their so called Climate change Emergency and found nothing to worry about.
And his latest update was May 9th 2024. If only we could get our govt, MSM and so called scientific bedwetters etc to check out the real world data for themselves?
Alas they just love their fantasy world and all of their BS and fraud and this is their final chance to destroy our freedom and democracy.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/

• #
TdeF

“their final chance to destroy our freedom and democracy.”

Exactly. No one votes for open borders, no power, a million genders, compulsory electric cars and windmills. We elect people who ignore our needs and wants. As Adam Bandt’s mantra, we tell them what they want to hear and when we get power we do what we like.

It is the new pandemic. Politicians doing whatever they want.

• #
AlanG

This post from Jo should be sent to Dutton to support his current emission statements (that is if the LNP are really serious about not meeting/having emission targets) and also sent to Bowen & Albo calling out their continued misinformation. And to the Greens/Teals to reveal their hypocrisy to themselves.

• #
Philip

They are not the slightest bit interested in the maths being wrong. Nothing could be less of a consideration. This is why we have lost up until now, we keep trying to argue maths and science, but they don’t care about that. Their response is pure emotion, an emotional response to the modern world, their self-loathing and empathy toward nonwhite people (even though that is a false veneer) and the feeling they have that everything is “unbalanced”, that is as close as they get to maths.

Good news is, once they feel the effects of their policies, they will have a big emotional response which will have them begging for consistent reliable power.

• #
AlanG

I agree with you Philip, but we should still keep going at them irrespective of their stubborn attitudes. No change happens from silence. To get supporters you need to give out information and not give up. For example, this website and it’s posts continue despite the silent majority never seeing it, but one day maybe they will.

• #
TdeF

My son sent me this. It is in the medical field but very relevant as it shows how politicians and public servants have no connection whatsoever with reality

How can we expect sense with Global Warming, nett zero?

The politicians and public servants live in a bubble where they are all doing a great job and have zero self awareness.

And the person shaking his head is a 36 year old professional rugby player born in 1988, the year Man made Global Warming was invented.

• #
Philip

You need to give out information alright. This side of the argument gives out a lot which is great, it is good at science.

But it is terrible at propaganda. The opposition is pretty good at it.

• #
Bruce of Newcastle

I can cool the world 0.3C by means of one single proposal. Not only will it cost nothing it will actually save money.

My proposal is this: turn off all flue gas desulfurization units on coal plants. The SO2 generates cloud seeding nuclei and the increase in cloud cover increases Earth’s albedo.

Global Temperatures and Reduced Cloud Cover (Paul Homewood, 29 Apr)

Reintroducing higher sulfur maritime fuel oil would also do the same, per this paper.

Oddly enough I don’t think the climate industrial complex will like my proposal. Weird huh?

• #
TdeF

No one is actually trying to solve any problem. Science is not involved. It was never involved. And that is the frustration, that we have reached a point where science is irrelevant. There are true believers and high priests, largely politicians, none scientists. Otherwise it’s all about money and political power. And the least interested in the environment are the Greens.

• #
Dave in the States

Exactly right. The elites and bureaucrats-government employed, many with BS and MS degrees- are on board because it’s a gravy train. There’s a lot of money and power at stake. The true believers are onboard because it’s the modern day stone idol.

• #
Gee Aye

I though the aim of net zero was to halt warming. There is actually a reduction possible by 2050? Let’s go for it.

• #

No Gee Aye. You are behind the times. First came the Global Warming scam. And then there was no warming. Then came the Climate Change scam. Now there is the UN mob saying that the Oceans are boiling. Talk about Climate Stupidity and the strangulation of the English Language. Please show me an Ocean that is any where near boiling.

Net Zero is the collective IQ of all ‘Pollies’ and the hangers on getting the subsidies. Stealing from the long suffering Taxpayer and giving the loot to the Elites.

Bring back Robin Hood who took from the Rich to give to the Poor.

If I was Peter Dutton, I would promise to stop all subsidies to the Wind Towers/Solar Mobs and give the money saved as tax cuts to the Taxpayers of this once Great Nation. Now, that would be an Election Winner.

• #
Neville

So how do you try to get stupid people + govts + the MSM + so called scientists etc to understand the lunacy of wasting trillions of \$ for SFA return over the last 32 years? Or 1990 to 2022.
Since 1990 the wealthy OECD countries’ co2 emissions per year have decreased slightly in 2022.
But the NON OECD countries’ co2 emissions have increased per year by about 14.2 billion tonnes by 2022.
Look at the graphs for the World, the NON OECD and the OECD since 1990 and then to 2022.
So how can we dumb it down any more than OECD SFA per year difference by 2022 and NON OECD now 14.2 billion Ts per year more since 1990?
Surely the latest numbers of zero per year difference and an extra 14.2 billion tonnes per year are easy to understand? Or is it all too difficult for them?

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=OWID_WRL~OECD+%28GCP%29~Non-OECD+%28GCP%29

• #
Neville

BTW we need to add about another 1 billion Ts per year for Aviation and Shipping to OECD + NON OECD co2 emissions to equal World emissions shown on the graph.

• #
Neville

Alex Epstein puts the Moral case for Fossil Fuels.

• #
Johnny Rotten

A bit of Global Cooling going on right now in SE Australia. Get those Coal Fired Power Stations cranked up and only deliver Ruinaball Electrickery to Albo and Blackout Bowen. See how they freeze when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.

• #
Rusty of Qld

Remember this from 2011.
“Victoria University’s Professor Roger Jones, a warmist, figured the carbon tax could lower the world’s temperature in 2100 by just 0.0038 of one degree”. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/huge-price-for-green-policies-that-dont-work/news-story/f26aae482cc166bb566c63b3b44701ed

Sydney Morning Herald
September 4 2011

The question is, what earthly difference can we make?
Michael Bachelard

Jason Fong’s question was the runaway winner of the OurSay climate agenda poll.

THE policy of both major parties is to reduce Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions by 5 per cent by 2020, even though both know that, in Jason Fong’s words, it will make ”negligible” difference to global temperatures.
So the question is, why bother? If the key goal of global climate policy is to at least cap temperature increases, what difference can Australian action make? There is a factual answer to the question, and there’s a context that is more complicated.
The first part of Fong’s question is not as easy as it seems because scientists talk of a range of temperature rises that are possible if emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere continue unabated. Victoria University climate scientist Professor Roger Jones has calculated that if the rest of the world did not act and Australia reduced emissions until 2020, then did nothing else, Australia’s policy would knock 0.0038 degrees off the global temperature rise by 2100.

• #
another ian

FWIW

“Bargain: Make the whole world “Net Zero”, spend a quadrillion dollars, and cool the world by 0.3 degrees!”

That would nearly have to be the worst return on investment ever flogged to the general public wouldn’t it?

• #
Richard C (NZ)

Lindzen , Happer, and van Wijngaarden (2024):

The proportionality of the temperature increment ∆T to the logarithm of the concentration ratio C/C0 means that the warming from increased CO2 concentrations C is “saturated.” That is, each increment dC of CO2 concentration causes less warming than the previous equal increment. Greenhouse warming from CO2 is subject to the law of diminishing returns.

Try telling that to one of the wonks that only reads the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.

And that’s assuming the following is valid:

δT = S log2 (C/C′)…………..(2)

In (2) the symbol S denotes the equilibrium temperature increase caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

This is conjecture – not fact.

Process of “estimates” next.

• #
Richard C (NZ)

Just how sensitive is the climate to increased carbon dioxide? Scientists are narrowing in on the answer
Richard Betts, Jason Lowe, Timothy Andrews
Published: July 23, 2020

It [“equilibrium climate sensitivity” ECS] can be estimated using three main lines of evidence:

1. Temperature measurements made with thermometers from 1850 (when enough global coverage began) to the near present. By comparing temperatures, CO₂ levels and the effect of other climate drivers in the past and present, we can estimate the longer-term changes.

[An inherent assumption already – not necessarily valid]

2. Evidence from paleoclimate records from the peak of the last ice age 20,000 years ago, when CO₂ was lower than now, and a warm period around 4 million years ago when CO₂ was more comparable to today. We can tell how warm the climate was and how much CO₂ there was in the atmosphere based on the make-up of gases trapped in air bubbles in ancient ice cores.

[Again, an inherent assumption]

3. Present-day observations – for instance from satellite data – and evidence from climate models, theory and detailed process models that examine the physics of interactions within the climate system.

[Models and theory are not “evidence”]

Despite its importance, equilibrium climate sensitivity is very uncertain

Not only is ECS very uncertain, it is highly contentious that, given the complete lack of proof of validity, it even merits adoption as a basis for climate change risk assessments.

The importance of ECS next.

• #
Richard C (NZ)

ECS “estimates” are critically important policy-wise because ECS feeds into integrated assessment models (IAMs) for climate risk assessment as this paper lays out:

Challenges and innovations in the economic evaluation of the risks of climate change
Rising, Taylor, Ives, and Ward (2022)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800922000994

1. Introduction

A class of models, called integrated assessment models (IAMs)1 are designed to combine models of climate change, estimates of environmental changes with economic, social, and technological development, and climate impacts (see Fig. 1). Although many appear in the academic literature, three have been especially influential: DICE (Nordhaus, 2018), PAGE (Yumashev et al., 2019) and FUND (Anthoff and Tol, 2014) (van den Bergh and Botzen, 2014; Ackerman and Munitz, 2016). These models have several limitations, arising from both our incomplete understanding of climate impacts and…

And,

5. Conclusion

Features of cost-benefit IAMs

Tipping points ECS feedbacks a; economic catastrophe risk

a
ECS- equilibrium climate sensitivity- is the long-term global temperature rise that is expected to result from an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The use of a constant ECS does not produce any tipping point dynamics, but it captures the average outcomes of any tipping points that are included in its calibration.

ECS is merely an “expectation” but it fuels notions of “tipping points” and “economic catastrophe risk”.

ECS is an extremely powerful policy weapon but there is no underlying factual proof that the concept is valid.

• #
TdeF

Ian Plimer explains it as drawing a second (thinner) blind over the first one.

• #
Neville

So how do we know that there is definitely no climate emergency?
Again Andrew Bolt’s interview with Hydrographic Surveyor Daniel Fitzhenry easily proves the case.
We’re told frequently about their so called dangerous SLR by the MSM and BS and fraud from stupid pollies, so called scientists etc, but this certainly doesn’t apply to Fort Denison NSW since 1914.
Daniel takes us from 1914 to 2019 and finds no dangerous SLR over the last 119 years. And this uses the BOM data over that long period of time.
So why do they continue to lie to us and why are we destroying our land and sea environments by using toxic, unreliable W & S for a guaranteed ZERO change? Does anyone have an answer to their idiocy?

• #
spangled drongo

Yes Neville. That BoM mean sea level gauge shows the average monthly MSL for those 1,318 months from May 1914 to March 2024 to be 0.940 metres whereas it was 1.111 metres in May 1914.

Not much happening wrt SLR for the Pacific Ocean.

http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.shtml

• #
Boambee John

G’Day Spangled D,

Haven’t seen you since the demise of Don Aitkin’s excellent blog.

And hello to Neville also, I have been checking out your comments here for a while.

Whatever happened to stu and Chris (Warren??) who both polluted Don’s blog? Hopefully they have gone into well-deserved oblivion.

• #

If Mr Bowen was shown the maths, I am sure he would understand it and then maybe change his mind about his envirinment destroying unreliables. (SARC). I might have been able to do the maths 55 years ago!

• #
TdeF

This is a science blog. I see no science in nett zero.

I believe Nett Zero is utterly meaningless. If it means anything the only concept I can find is that Australia is not to use fossil fuels or generate CO2 or methane by any means. It’s not a balance. It’s a ban. Even corpses in the cemetery will be taxed. All life on earth emits CO2. And cellulose means methane. So goodbye ruminants, termites and fungi as well. We have to stop breathing.
So Nett Zero means ZERO.

Consider Peter Dutton is not promising to repeal the

1. RET Reneweable Energy(Electricity) Act 2001. (John Howard)
2. Carbon Credits(Carbon Farming Initiative Act) 2011 (Gillard)
3. Safeguard Mechanism Act 2023.(Albanese) 2024 is the first year where the top 250 companies pay their first 5% tax on Carbon Dioxide. Next year 10%, then 15%.. 35%. Even the MMBW is to pay the tax on sewage no less. Watch these companies leave the country.

Dutton is still on board with Paris.

All political parties have been quietly passing punitive massive carbon taxes for 24 years! Illegally as they are not taxes but carbon credit/certificates. And blowing up power stations. And it’s nothing to do with temperature and climate change or Climate Science. That’s a fool’s errand like striped paint or a left handed screwdriver. It doesn’t make scientific sense because it never did. That’s not denial, it’s the truth.

No one is promising sanity. Just slavery.

Jo is right. It makes no difference to temperature. But no one said it did because they really don’t care! It’s a cover story, pretend science.

We will pay more and more carbon taxes because the UN wants us to pay carbon taxes. And China wants us as a helpless vassal state, an open cut mine no more.

No political party has offered to stop doing this in 23 years.

Dutton is talking Nuclear power when we have perfectly good coal. Why? And iron ore we could process ourselves but we have to have Green Steel. And shipping most of our country in ships raw at rock bottom prices to China in exchange for windmills. I think we all need to practice using chopsticks.

• #

There is no net zero. There is only zero. Nil. Zilch.

Just like they say negative growth. LOL. It is growth or no growth. How about a positive decline. How stupid and a mangle of the English Language.

• #
Simon

S≠0.75! Lindzen et. al. have completely ignored water vapour feedback nor considered the initial transient versus equilibrium climate sensitivity. That’s why you need a Global Climate Model rather than the back of an envelope. Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is somewhere between 2.5°C to 4°C. This can be verified by actual measurement, CO2 has increased by 50% since pre-industrial times and global surface temperature has increased by about 1.3°C.

• #

Rubbish Simple Simon.

Show mw one Climate Model that has been any where near correct. Or a Climate Alarmist whose predictions have been correct or anywhere near correct.

And I give you Tim Tam Flatulence as a Great Example of Alarmism –

Most Stupidest Predictions.

Tim Tam Flim Flannery, Full List. Tim Flannery. Former Climate Commissioner, Professorial fellow at Melbourne University. Australian of the Year 2007. Failed Predictor.

1. “There is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis.” 2004

2. 2005 predicted Sydney’s dams could be dry in as little as two years, leaving the city “facing extreme difficulties.”

3. In 2007, he claimed: “In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months.”

4. 2007 said “global warming was so baking our Earth that even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems.”

5. An almost permanent drought. “Over the past 50 years southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming, he claimed in 2007.

6. In 2008, he said: “Adelaide … may run out of water by early 2009.”

7. In 2009, Flannery warned “this may be the Arctic’s first ice-free year.”

https://www.realclimaterecords.com.au/?p=2940

Over to you Simple Simon. Please show us your models. And not the model dolls that you play with.

• #
Simon

Tim Flannery didn’t write this idealised temperature estimate which bears no resemblance to the real world. The authors were Richard Lindzen, Will Happer, and William van Wijngaarden.

• #
Richard C (NZ)

Simon >”Tim Flannery didn’t write this idealised temperature estimate which bears no resemblance to the real world.”

No, and he didn’t write the IPCC’s idealised radiative forcing estimate, dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co), which bears no resemblance to the real world either.

But at least with Lindzen et al we can see in full view the stupidity of entire net zero concept by simply inserting non-contentious values in an IPCC Paradigm-based formula, as un-worldly as it is. As they describe:

Lindzen et al – Computer models are not needed to estimate the averted temperature increase (1).

It is given to high accuracy by the simple formula

δT = S log2 (C/C′), (2)

Not hard was it?

And we can also see the stupidity of the IPCC’s “idealized” radiative forcing estimate above, which also does not need a climate model, now that the climate models are veering off away from observations (after removal of natural variation) after only a decade of “projections” using the same GHG-forcing theory.

It’s a stupidity exposure win-win.

• #
Richard C (NZ)

Simon

>”Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is somewhere between 2.5°C to 4°C.

Already addressed at #27 and downthread in 3 comments but held up in moderation. Article referenced in #27.1 is – ‘Just how sensitive is the climate to increased carbon dioxide? Scientists are narrowing in on the answer’ by Richard Betts, Jason Lowe, Timothy Andrews.

They present 3 methods to “estimate” “very uncertain” ECS. The first 2 are simply inherent assumptions. The third is also an assumption based on observations vs models and theory – but no physical proof that there’s a linkage (models and theory are not proof and “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” – the “Sagan standard”).

>”This [ECS] can be verified by actual measurement.CO2 has increased by 50% since pre-industrial times and global surface temperature has increased by about 1.3°C.”

As above, there’s no verification, no physical evidence of linkage. There is conjecture but conjecture is not fact.

We just saw on Thursday Javier Vinós Winter Gatekeeper theory. Explains far more than CO2 ever has including 20th century warming.

Then in the next 2 comments there’s a major problem with your assertion, viz., zero warming in Antarctica as a result of “Radiative Effects of Increasing CO2”.

Gets worse for you – ‘Unmasking the negative greenhouse effect over the Antarctic Plateau’ Sejas, Taylor, and Cai (2018) features in the thread (that you appear to have missed). Yes, that’s right, negative greenhouse effect with increasing CO2 – how’s your ECS working out now?

Worse still for you, the documentation referenced, specifically Sejas et al (2018) and Northolt et al (2024) finds unequivocally that a lack of H2O, not CO2, determines the “greenhouse effect” in Antarctica. Of course, the opposite is true in the Tropics – H2O determines the greenhouse effect, CO2 is just a minor bit player.

• #
Richard C (NZ)

>H2O determines the greenhouse effect, CO2 is just a minor bit player

Not just my opinion here.

On a global scale:

Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008
Wang & Liang (2009)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD011800

[29] The dominant emitters of longwave radiation in the atmosphere are water vapor, and to a lesser extent, carbon dioxide. The water vapor effect is parameterized in this study, while the CO2 effect on Ld is not. The effect of CO2 can be accurately calculated with an atmosphere radiative transfer model given the concentration of atmospheric CO2. Prata [2008] showed that under the 1976 U.S. standard atmosphere, current atmospheric CO2 contributes about 6 W m−2 to Ld, and if atmospheric CO2 concentration increases at the current rate of ∼1.9 ppm yr−1 [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007], this will contribute to an increase of Ld by ∼0.3 W m−2 per decade. Therefore, the total variation rate in Ld is 2.2 W m−2 per decade.

So CO2 change is only 0.14 of the Ld change per decade. And 6 W.m2 in 1976 only translates to about 7 W.m2 now out of anywhere between 290 Boulder USA and 440 Bukit Soeharto Indonesia (see Table 1). Which leads us to data from the Tropics.

In the Tropics:

The Diurnal Cycle of the Boundary Layer, Convection, Clouds, and Surface Radiation in a Coastal Monsoon Environment (Darwin Australia)
May & Protat (2012)

Figure 5 – 440 W.m2 Ld. Only about 7 W.m2 of that attributable to CO2 from previous paper. The bulk is overwhelmingly H20 in all 3 phases – gas, liquid, and ice.

The minuscule change in CO2 is lost in total Ld. And obviously H2O determines the greenhouse effect, or lack of, all over the planet.

It is absurd then, to attribute an observed rise in surface temperature to a minor bit player – let alone contrive an unproven paradigm (ECS) on which to base worldwide climate risk assessment.

• #
Simon

You can estimate S from actual observational evidence. S = δT/log2(C/C’). Preindustrial CO2 concentration was 280, it is now 420. Observed warming is 1.3°C. S = 1.3/log2(420/280) = 2.2°C. This aligns well with current transient climate sensitivity estimates between 1°C and 2.5°C.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

• #
Richard C (NZ)

Simon

[1] >”You can estimate S from actual observational evidence. S = δT/log2(C/C’).:

You’ve just repeated what I’ve already copied from Lindzen et al at #31.1.1.1 and now you agree with them. That was:

Lindzen et al – Computer models are not needed to estimate the averted temperature increase (1).

It is given to high accuracy by the simple formula

δT = S log2 (C/C′), (2)

But you dissed this formula previously so now you are contradicting yourself:

[2]

Simon June 14, 2024 at 8:25 pm

Tim Flannery didn’t write this idealised temperature estimate which bears no resemblance to the real world. The authors were Richard Lindzen, Will Happer, and William van Wijngaarden.

Now you’re back implying that the formula DOES estimate the real world. Please make up your mind Simon:

Does the formula, in your opinion, estimate the real world as in your assertion [1] ?

Or, in your opinion, is the formula NOT an estimate of the real world as in your assertion [2] ?

In any case there’s no physical proof that the estimate is valid. See next for – ‘Correlation does not imply causation’.

• #
Richard C (NZ)

Simon – Correlation does not imply causation

The phrase “correlation does not imply causation” refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause-and-effect relationship between two events or variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them.[1][2] The idea that “correlation implies causation” is an example of a questionable-cause logical fallacy, in which two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known by the Latin phrase cum hoc ergo propter hoc (‘with this, therefore because of this’).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Even taken at face value the correlation between say CO2 and USHCN version 2 is very weak: R2 = 0.44.

But:

Climate Modeling: Ocean Oscillations + Solar Activity R²=.96
https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html

Warming Trend: PDO And Solar Correlate Better Than CO2
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/warming-trend-pdo-and-solar-correlate-better-than-co2/

So Simon, if you still want to persist with a logically false correlation-implies-causation argument, which correlation are you going with:

0.44 – CO2 vs Temperature
0.96 – Ocean Oscillations + Solar Activity

• #
Richard C (NZ)

Simon >”Lindzen et. al. have completely ignored water vapour feedback”

No they didn’t:

3 Alternate Assumptions

Using the last line of (7), we can see what happens if we use alternate assumptions about the averted temperature increase. For many years the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) asserted that the most likely value of the equilibrium climate sensitivity is four times larger than the feedback-free value (3),

S = 3.0 ◦C. (22)

This assumes a positive feedback that increases the warming by 400%.

And,

4 Worldwide Net Zero

Using the four-times larger sensitivity S = 3 ◦C of (22) instead of the more physically reasonable value, S = 0.75 ◦C of (3) to evaluate (27) we find an averted temperature increase of

δT = 0.28 ◦C. (28)

>”That’s why you need a Global Climate Model rather than the back of an envelope.”

Except they didn’t need a Global Climate Model – “back of an envelope” was perfectly adequate.

• #
Richard C (NZ)

ECS in Global Climate Models is proving problematic:

Causes of Higher Climate Sensitivity in CMIP6 Models
Mark D. Zelinka, Timothy A. Myers, Daniel T. McCoy, Stephen Po-Chedley, Peter M. Caldwell, Paulo Ceppi, Stephen A. Klein, Karl E. Taylor (2020)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085782

Abstract

Equilibrium climate sensitivity, the global surface temperature response to CO2 doubling, has been persistently uncertain. . Recent consensus places it likely within 1.5–4.5 K. Global climate models (GCMs), which attempt to represent all relevant physical processes, provide the most direct means of estimating climate sensitivity via CO2 quadrupling experiments. Here we show that the closely related effective climate sensitivity has increased substantially in Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6), with values spanning 1.8–5.6 K across 27 GCMs and exceeding 4.5 K in 10 of them. This (statistically insignificant) increase is primarily due to stronger positive cloud feedbacks from decreasing extratropical low cloud coverage and albedo. Both of these are tied to the physical representation of clouds which in CMIP6 models lead to weaker responses of extratropical low cloud cover and water content to unforced variations in surface temperature. Establishing the plausibility of these higher sensitivity models is imperative given their implied societal ramifications.

“Establishing the plausibility of these higher sensitivity models is imperative given their implied societal ramifications” – well, yes. That would be good start.

• #
Simon

0.28◦C is the temperature rise we will see even if we went to Net Zero immediately. Atmospheric temperatures will continue rising at a logarithmic rate until net emissions are reduced to zero.

• #
Richard C (NZ)

Simon

>0.28◦C is the temperature rise we will see even if we went to Net Zero immediately.

You obviously don’t understand the meaning of “avert” and your assertion doesn’t tally with the crowds of “experts” mining the concept of net zero. For example:

The meaning of net zero and how to get it right
Sam Fankhauser, Stephen M. Smith, Myles Allen, Kaya Axelsson, Thomas Hale, Cameron Hepburn, J. Michael Kendall, Radhika Khosla, Javier Lezaun, Eli Mitchell-Larson, Michael Obersteiner, Lavanya Rajamani, Rosalind Rickaby, Nathalie Seddon & Thom Wetzer
(2022)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01245-w

Net zero as a scientific concept

A series of papers noted the longevity of the impact of fossil carbon emissions7,8,9 and the monotonic, near-linear (so far) relationship between cumulative net anthropogenic CO2 emissions and CO2-induced surface warming10,11,12,13. The corollary of this result is that CO2-induced warming halts when net anthropogenic CO2 emissions halt (that is, CO2 emissions reach net zero), with the level of warming determined by cumulative net emissions to that point.

“relationship” – There’s that ‘Correlation does not imply causation’ logical fallacy again.

>Atmospheric temperatures will continue rising at a logarithmic rate until net emissions are reduced to zero.

In the CO2-forced models yes, true, but that is not real world and not what observations exhibit. You’re just making it up now.

After the end of neutral conditions around July 2015, the metric exhibits an abrupt rise that cannot be explained by “a logarithmic rate” attributable to CO2 increase.

In the intervening time 2015 – 2024 there has been radical natural variation – super El Ninos, a massive marine volcano, and a solar cycle peak.

Now in 2024 the anomaly since January is slowly returning to 2015 level.

• #
Boambee John

Simon

“completely ignored water vapour feedback”

Are you pushing for “Nett Zero” water vapour in the atmosphere? Gutsy call!

• #
Robert Austin

Simon,
Which global climate model? the spaghetti graphs of the various models are all over the place. Which model is most realistic? If you average the models as are some want to do, you are creating scientific and mathematical nonsense. “Water vapour feedback” is the deus ex machina used by activist “scientists” to drive their scary scenarios (and attract grants).

• #

And from that Report is the Conclusion –

6 Conclusion

As shown by (1), (23), (25) and (26), there appears to be no credible scenario where driving
U.S. emissions of CO2 to 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.

References
[1] R. Lindzen, On Climate Sensitivity
On-Climate-Sensitivity.pdf

• #
TdeF

There. Trust Richard Lindzen to put it well

Nett Zero = driving emissions of CO2 to zero by the year 2050. There is no “NETT”

It is zero, zilch, nada, nothing. That is not a balance. It is a total ban.

_________________________________________

Now how are you going to make concrete without producing CO2? It’s chemical reaction. An invention.

How are you going to make steel without producing CO2. The UK has given up. They only melt old steel.

Australia is going to give up. And close our blast furnaces.

We are going to give up making metals. Because it always involves CO2.

And give up on animals, because they output Methane and CO2.

And stop automated harvesting and transportation grow all our vegetables in our backyards. In cities?

We are being driven into the Dark Ages. Even Sewage is being carbon and methane taxed.

Already half the world’s steel is made the old way in China. And the West is agreeing it should be 100%. No one is allowed make steel, the foundation of the industrial revolution. To save China’s climate?

And Labor and Liberal, Democrat and Republican and Tory. They all agree we should stop breathing. Why are they doing this?

It is NOT to save the planet. It is not science. There is no problem!

• #
TdeF

Humans output 3 tons of CO2 a year just breathing. We are solar powered internal combustion engines. And ALL LIFE BREATHES OUT CO2. We share the genes, the choromosones, cell structure. From fungi to blue whales to eagles and bacteria.

And we are told to stop producing CO2. That’s a death sentence.

Or to put it in context for little Australia

The people of China, 1,400,000,000 of them output 4.2 billion tons of CO2 a year. Just breathing.

Australia’s total output of CO2 is around 420 million tons. If the Chinese held every 10th breath, we would be at nett zero! Why not ask them? It’s more reasonable than shutting down the country. Why are we doing it? For whom?

• #
exsteelworker

I,ve heard that Claus of the unelected swill that’s the UN,is working on a new climate change invention,called abbreviated..CFU,or Collect Farts Underwear.All humans with front, back side ,up and down holes and don’t forget poles will be required by law to wear them at all times, collecting our farts
in a lightweight aluminium cylinder and when you get home, transfer to your
homes fart gas tank to power your home. So instead of Carbon capture, it’s now called, Fart n’ capture. Smell ya later.

• #
TdeF

And if you want to know why the free world has lost its way on everything, especially CO2.

• #
• #

[…] tottering in Europe as Germany et al recognise the havoc the Greens have caused their economies. Renewables are bunk too, not that Joelle would admit that. The climate models causing people to imagine “global […]