Cost-benefit analyses affirm it would be better to abandon Net Zero policy initiatives and instead “do nothing” about greenhouse gas emissions. [emphasis, links added]
New research finds that 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 [pictured below], 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 that even if governments across the world were to actually achieve all of their proposed Net Zero policy goals, it would only elicit 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 improve the economic, health, and educational conditions of those living in poverty.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
There is nothing wrong with running honest calculations on the impact of carbon dioxide on warming. However, empirical data is the most reliable. Whether it be the Roman Warn Period, Little Ice Age, or the early part of the Twentieth Century, empirical data shows there is little to no impact on temperature from changing carbon dioxide levels. We should do nothing to limit that gas.
Unfortunately the climate change movement is driven not by true data, but the desire by some to fund the trillion dollar renewable energy complex, justify new taxes as has been done in California and Washington, degrade the life style of the average person, and promote the vegan and vegetarian life style.
The negative control feedback from additional water vapour caused by SST warming is far larger than the positive GHE feedback effect claimed to be caused by the same water vapour.
The additional water vapour increases radiation losses to space resulting from latent heat transfer to the Troposphere by 7% per degree, over a wide range of temperature and humidity. That energy ends up in space after condensation in the Troposphere. 7% of 84W/m^2 is 6W/m^2 deg K. A lot more negative feedback from water vapour than positive feedback from its GHE, which NASA put at 2W/m^2 deg K.. Net water vapour feedback to warming is 4W/m^2, large and negative. Check the data and WV variability . How can it be otherwise? Case closed. CPhys, CEng.
The effect of CO2 x 2 is unknow with a range of guesses from about +0.7 degrees C. to +5.5 degrees C. The 0.7 includes no net feedbacks based on lab spectroscopy, while the 5.5 assumes a huge water vapor positive feedback.
More important than guessing the right number is describing greenhouse warming: Mainly in colder nations, mainly in colder months, and mainly at night. Think of warmer winter nights in Siberia … very far from a climate crisis. Actually good news.
Kenneth Richard has been a CO2 does nothing biased author in the past, but this article is very reasonable coming from him. Whatever CO2 emissions do to the climate, they have not harmed anyone in the past 50 years. That is a fact.