Achieving 'Net Zero by 2050' Reduces Temps by 0.28 C Costing Tens of $TRILLIONS

.

Cost-benefit analyses affirm, it would be better to abandon Net Zero policy initiatives, and instead “do nothing” about greenhouse gas emissions.

New research finds CO2’s largest possible climate impact is “negligible.”

The cumulative expected temperature change in doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm is only 0.81 C at most, and this is “certainly not cause for alarm or for declaring a climate emergency”.

As Figure 1 from the paper shows, the temperature effects of increasing CO2 are strongest when concentrations hover below 100 ppm.

After that, the CO2 impact collapses logarithmically to less than 0.05 C, even as concentrations rise to 900 ppm.

Using heat transfer calculations, it is estimated, even if governments across the world were to actually achieve Net Zero by 2050, it would only achieve a 0.28 C reduction in global temperature.

In other words, it would have “no measurable effect” on climate.

The tens of trillions in costs to achieve an inconsequential global temperature reduction would be much better spent on policies that would actually improve the economic, health, and educational conditions of those living in poverty.

Trump has been right all along

Get rid of wind, solar, batteries, heat pumps, EVs, etc.
All are a sure way to poverty, debt, and industrial stagnation/regression, as Europe has been demonstrating for years.

After 35 years of subsidies, the results are no gain and lots of pain
When will these woke non-STEM idiots ever learn
Vote them out
They do not belong in government

US Energy Consumption in 2023
Over 77.1 quad (82.4%) came from fossil fuels and 8.1 % (8.7%) from nuclear fuels
After 35 years and several hundred $billion of subsidies, only 8.2 quad (8.8%) came from renewables, such as:
1) wind,
2) pre-existing and new hydro,
3) pre-existing and new bio (mostly tree burning),
4) solar
1 quad = 10^15 Btu
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/visualized-u-s-energy-...
.
World Energy Consumption in 2023
According to the Energy Institute’s 2023 Statistical Review of World Energy, world primary energy consumption was 620 Exajoules (EJ) in 2023. Breakdown by sector:
Fossil Fuels: 505 EJ (81.5%), of which
Oil: 196 EJ (up 2.5%)
Coal: 164 EJ (up 1.6%)
Natural Gas: 144 EJ (flat)
Renewables (including pre-existing and new bio, but excluding pre-existing and new hydro): About 8% of the total energy mix
1 EJ = 0.94781707774915 x 10^15 Btu, slightly less than a quad
https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review.

Comment by Willem Post on December 18, 2024 at 11:27am: In the tropics and subtropics, CO2 a weak photon absorber, plays no measurable role, because, near the surface, it is outnumbered by at least seventy to one by water vapor, a strong photon absorber,

plus water vapor, 18, is lighter than CO2, 44, and air, 29, so it condenses into clouds at about 2000 meter elevation, which, with prevailing winds, are transported to northern latitudes, to areas underserved by the sun, especially during winter.

That means the water vapor and clouds we see up north comes from faraway places, because up north there is not enough energy to evaporate the water, which often lies on the ground as snow and ice.

But, even up north, near the surface, CO2 plays no measurable role, because water vapor outnumbers it at least 20 to one.

CO2 begins to play a measurable role when the presence of water vapor is lower, say 3 to 1, which is above the clouds.

However, above the clouds it is colder, and any photons emitted there would have longer wavelengths beyond the CO2 15 micrometer absorption window, but water vapor would absorb these photons, because it has a much wider window starting at about 15 micrometer.

No liberal arts journalists would ever write this, because it is way above their heads. That is the reason they stick to talking points provided by self-serving $stakeholders and their associates

Comment by Willem Post on December 16, 2024 at 9:50am: Trump has been right all along

Get rid of wind, solar, batteries, heat pumps, EVs, etc.
All are a sure way to poverty, debt, and industrial stagnation/regression, as Europe has been demonstrating for years.

After 35 years of subsidies, the results are no gain and lots of pain
When will these woke non-STEM idiots ever learn
Vote them out
They do not belong in government

US Energy Consumption in 2023
Over 77.1 quad (82.4%) came from fossil fuels and 8.1 % (8.7%) from nuclear fuels
After 35 years and several hundred $billion of subsidies, only 8.2 quad (8.8%) came from renewables, such as:
1) wind,
2) pre-existing and new hydro,
3) pre-existing and new bio (mostly tree burning),
4) solar
1 quad = 10^15 Btu
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/visualized-u-s-energy-...
.
World Energy Consumption in 2023
According to the Energy Institute’s 2023 Statistical Review of World Energy, world primary energy consumption was 620 Exajoules (EJ) in 2023. Breakdown by sector:
Fossil Fuels: 505 EJ (81.5%), of which
Oil: 196 EJ (up 2.5%)
Coal: 164 EJ (up 1.6%)
Natural Gas: 144 EJ (flat)
Renewables (including pre-existing and new bio, but excluding pre-existing and new hydro): About 8% of the total energy mix
1 EJ = 0.94781707774915 x 10^15 Btu, slightly less than a quad
https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review.

Achieving 'Net Zero by 2050' Reduces Temps by 0.28 C Costing Tens of $TRILLIONS

.

Cost-benefit analyses affirm, it would be better to abandon Net Zero policy initiatives, and instead “do nothing” about greenhouse gas emissions.

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law