By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
With the impending global warming in Glasgow, Boris Johnson – under the pernicious influence of his crazy, extremist wife from Lucrezia-Borgia – will seek to convince other western nations to follow him in committing economic hara-kiri by promising to head towards the net walk. Zero greenhouse gas emissions in the three decades from today to 2050.
For this reason, our friends and allies in Europe, America, and the Commonwealth should resist the talkative, bombastic flattery of Boris the blond, Borgia-battered blunderbuss.
Net zero is just not worth it. Let’s do the math that no government seems to have done. It’s not very difficult – but the results are amazing.
For 30 years the annual growth of the anthropogenic net greenhouse gas forcing has been almost perfectly linear with 0.033 watts per square meter per year or 1 W m – 2 over the 30 years:
Thus, in normal business operations without a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, one could expect an additional 1 W m² of global warming in the 30 years 2021-2050, Johnson’s target date for the West’s economic extinction. A straight-line reduction to zero over the next 30 years would cut emissions growth of 1 W m – 2 by half that would otherwise have occurred in normal business operations.
IPCC (2021) predicts a final warming of 3 K as a reaction to the doubled CO2 forcing of 3.93 W m-2. Its implicit mid-tone equilibrium sensitivity parameter is then 3 / 3.93 or 0.76 KW-1 m2.
In 1850, however, the global equilibrium temperature was 287.5 K, consisting of 255 K emission temperature and 24.2 K feedback reaction on it and 7.6 K direct warming from pre-industrial non-condensing greenhouse gases and 0.7 K feedback reaction on it.
On this basis and assuming – as climatology implicitly does [see footnote] – that the system reaction is almost invariant with temperature, one would expect a feedback reaction of only 0.1 K to the direct warming of 1.05 K due to doubled CO2.
This direct doubled CO2 heating of 1.05 K is the product of the Planck reference sensitivity parameter of 0.3 KW – 1 m2 and the mean doubled CO2 radiative forcing of the 3.52 W m – 2 CMIP6 models, which is described in Zelinka et al. (2020, supplementary matter).
Therefore, the final doubled CO2 warming, which roughly corresponds to the total anthropogenic warming of this century, will not be 3 K, but a little more than 1.1 K. In fact, the rate of warming since the end of World War II is little more than 1.1K century – 1:
If radiative forcing continues at the predetermined rate, there is no particular reason to expect a much higher rate of warming equivalent to a century. In fact, there has been no global warming at all for 7 years 4 months (keyword) –
If one were to actually only expect a final warming of 1.1 K as a reaction to the doubled CO2 forcing of 3.52 W m², the equilibrium sensitivity parameter will only be 0.31 instead of 0.76 of the IPCC.
If the IPCC is right with the enforcement and warming, the global warming prevented until then would be only 0.5 x 0.76 = two fifths of a degree, even if the whole world were to become net zero by 2050. If one corrects the exaggerated estimates of the IPCC, the result is 0.5 x 0.31 = one sixth of a degree.
In reality, the heating prevented will be much less. This is because 80% of all new emissions come from developing countries like China and India, both of which have space programs but are nevertheless exempt from the restrictions of the Paris Agreement.
Western nations account for only 20% of new issues. Even in the highly unlikely event that all the nations of the West actually reach net zero by 2050 (dream about it: it won’t happen), the warming mitigated by 2050 would only be 1/13 of a degree (or 1/32 of a degree) if IPCC is wrong).
And how much global warming will shutting down the UK economy will mitigate by 2050? The answer is 1/220 degrees if the IPCC is right; 1/540 degrees if not.
The direct cost of UK net zero alone – even if it were achievable, which it is not – would be $ 4.2 trillion by 2050, according to the national grid authority. This is a howling underestimation for a number of reasons, but let’s get into it for now.
In that case, if all the nations of the West closed by 2050, the direct cost of reaching 1/32 to 1/13 degree mitigation would be $ 70 trillion. If the whole world collapses, make that $ 350 trillion.
On the same basis, the 4K global warming mitigation cost that the usual suspects predict on the fly this century would be $ 3.7 to $ 9 trillion.
These calculations are not particularly difficult. They are summarized in the table. The fact that the IPCC, UNFCCC and governments have failed to make these calculations speaks volumes about the wild, irrational, nihilistic, purely partisan and vicious totalitarian attack on the West that the narrative of climate change is.
But that’s before considering indirect costs. Heavy industry is already being pushed out of the West by crazy climate policies and is ending up in China or India, where electricity costs one sixth of what it costs here. Worse still, through its illegal occupation, enslavement and ruthless racial oppression of Tibet, China already controls 70% of the world’s known reserves of lithium, cobalt and other rare metals used in the batteries in Tesla’s electric buggies.
It also tacitly buys placeholder stakes in the 30% of lithium reserves that it does not already control. It is now closing a deal with the Taliban to take control of the large lithium reserves recently found in Afghanistan. And it buys placeholder stakes in lithium mines from Cornwall to southwest Greenland, where, for example, it holds 9% of Greenland Minerals’ recently discovered lithium reserves.
In short, China is offering fair bids to conquer the world market for rare earth metals. And if the West follows Slobberchops in its stupid net-zero ambition, it will become completely dependent on China for the strategic rare earth metals without which its electric buggies cannot function.
And all of this before you factor in the cost of getting rid of real cars and replacing them with golf carts. The problem with batteries is that they are heavy. Very difficult. Batteries add 25-30% to the weight of a buggy and reduce its fuel efficiency to about the value of a 1950s car. So not exactly a groundbreaking step forward. Energy is scarce enough anyway without wasting a quarter of it moving batteries.
And don’t get me started with electric trucks. If you download the specifications for the Tesla Milk Float, you will find an odd, most significant loophole. The load-bearing capacity is not specified anywhere:
And that’s a problem. The maximum gross vehicle weight of a truck on US roads is 80,000 lb. or 36 tons. If you take into account the enormous weight of the batteries, the dead weight of a Tesla milk float will be around 33 tons, leaving less than 3 tons for the cargo.
Compare these milk float figures to those for a real semi. The tare weight is 35,000 lb, so the saddle can carry 45,000 lb of cargo, almost seven times the 6000 lb carrying capacity of the Tesla milk float. Now a liter of milk weighs 1 pound, and the weight of the bottle and part of the crate weighs another 1 pound. The Tesla milk float can therefore carry around 3000 bottles of milk, roughly double the capacity of the milk float below – and nothing else:
Nobody in the climate establishment makes even the most elementary sums of money? Net zero is simply not worth the hassle, enormous cost, or strategic engagement in China.
Footnote: How the climatological system response is nearly invariant with temperature
Method 1: Lacis et al. (2010: above) say the feedback reaction is three times the direct warming from greenhouse gases, implying a final warming of 4 degrees after the feedback reaction for each degree of direct warming before the feedback reaction.
Method 2: In 1850, the three components of the 287.5 K equilibrium surface temperature were the 255 K emission temperature, the 7.6 K direct warming from pre-industrial non-condensing greenhouse gases, and the 24.9 K total feedback reaction. Since 24.9 K is about three times the direct warming from greenhouse gases of 7.6 K, climatologists imagine that the final warming is about 4 K per 1 K of direct warming.
Method 3: Zelinka et al. (2020) show a doubled CO2 radiative forcing of 3.52 W m-2 in the middle range as an average of 15 CMIP6 models, which implies a direct warming of 0.3 x 3.52 = 1.05 K due to doubled CO2. Zelinka et al. also show 3.9 K mean final warming from doubled CO2 in the same models, which in turn implies a final warming of almost 4 K for every 1 K direct warming.
So if you don’t think climatologists should make predictions based on the industrial age system response being nearly invariant with temperature, then don’t whine. Write to the IPCC. It is the official climatology that makes the implicit assumption of near-invariance.