{"id":354648,"date":"2024-12-16T16:52:02","date_gmt":"2024-12-16T15:52:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=354648"},"modified":"2024-12-16T17:03:08","modified_gmt":"2024-12-16T16:03:08","slug":"straight-talk-on-climate-science-and-net-zero","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=354648","title":{"rendered":"Straight Talk on Climate Science and Net\u00a0Zero"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Science Matters<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Ron Clutz<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Michael Simpson of Sheffield University did the literature review and tells it like it is in his recent paper The Scientific Case Against Net Zero: Falsifying the Greenhouse Gas <\/strong>Hypothesis<\/strong><\/a> published at Journal of Sustainable Development (2024).  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abstract<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The UK Net Zero by 2050 Policy was undemocratically adopted<\/strong> by the UK government in 2019. Yet the science of so-called \u2018greenhouse gases\u2019 is well known and there is no reason to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), or nitrous oxide (N2O) because absorption of radiation is logarithmic. Adding to or removing these naturally occurring gases from the atmosphere will make little difference<\/strong> to the temperature or the climate. Water vapor (H2O) is claimed to be a much stronger \u2018greenhouse gas\u2019 than CO2, CH4 or N2O but cannot be regulated because it occurs naturally in vast quantities.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This work explores the established science and recent developments in scientific knowledge around Net Zero<\/strong> with a view to making a rational recommendation for policy makers. There is little scientific evidence to support the case for Net Zero and that greenhouse gases are unlikely to contribute to a \u2018climate emergency\u2019<\/strong> at current or any likely future higher concentrations. There is a case against<\/strong> the adoption of Net Zero<\/strong> given the enormous costs<\/strong> associated with implementing the policy, and the fact it is unlikely to achieve reductions<\/strong> in average near surface global air temperature, regardless of whether Net Zero is fully implemented and adopted worldwide. Therefore, Net Zero does not pass the cost-benefit test. The recommended policy is to abandon Net Zero and do nothing about so-called \u2018greenhouse gases\u2019.<\/strong> [Topics are shown below with excerpted contents.]<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Introduction<\/strong><\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The argument for Net Zero is that the concentration of CO2 in air is increasing, some small portion of which may be due to human activities and that Net Zero will address this supposed \u2018problem\u2019. The underpinning consensus hypothesis<\/strong> is that the human emission of so-called \u2018greenhouse gases\u2019 will increase concentrations<\/strong> of these gases in the atmosphere<\/strong> and thereby increase the global near surface atmospheric temperature<\/strong> by absorbance of infrared radiation leading to catastrophic changes in the weather. This leads to the idea that global temperatures should be limited to 2\u00b0C and preferably 1.5\u00b0C to avoid catastrophic climate change<\/strong> (Paris Climate Agreement, 2015).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A further hypothesis<\/strong> is that there are tipping points in the climate system<\/strong> which will result in positive feedback and a runaway heating<\/strong> of the planet\u2019s atmosphere may occur (Schellnhuber & Turner, 2009; Washington et al., 2009; Levermann et al., 2009; Notz & Schellnhuber, 2009; Lenton et al., 2008; Dakos et al., 2009; Archer et al., 2009). Some of these tipping point assumptions are built into faulty climate models,<\/strong> the outputs of which are interpreted as facts or evidence by activists and politicians<\/strong>. However, output from computer models is not data, evidence or fact and is controversial (Jaworowski, 2007; Bastardi, 2018; Innis, 2008: p.30; Smith, 2021; Nieboer, 2021; Craig, 2021). Only empirical scientifically established facts should be considered so that cause and effect are clear.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

From the point of view of physics<\/strong>, the atmosphere is an almost perfect example of a stable system<\/strong> (Coe, et al., 2021). The climate operates with negative feedback<\/strong> (Le Chatelier\u2019s Principle) as do most natural systems with many degrees of freedom (K\u00e4rner, 2007; Lindzen et al., 2001 & 2022). The ocean acts as a heat sink<\/strong>, effectively controlling the air temperature. Recent global average surface temperatures remain relatively stable<\/strong> (Easterbrook, 2016; Moran, 2015; Morano, 2021; Marohasy, 2017; Ridley, 2010) or warming very slightly from other causes (Sangster, 2018) and the increase in temperature from 1880 through 2000 is statistically indistinguishable from 0\u00b0K<\/strong> (Frank, 2010; Statistics Norway, 2023) and is less than predicted by climate models (Fyfe, 2013). This shows the difference between the consensus view and established facts.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
The results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2. Dagsvik et al. 2024<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The IPCC has produced six major assessment reports (AR1 to 6) and several special reports which report on a great deal of good science (Noting that the IPCC does not do any science itself<\/strong> but merely compiles literature reviews). The Summaries for Policy Makers (SPM) are followed by most politicians.<\/strong> Yet the SPM do not agree in large part with the scientific assessment by the IPCC reports and appear to exaggerate the role of CO2 and other \u2018greenhouse gases\u2019 in climate change<\/strong>. It appears that the SPM is written by governments and activists before  <\/sup>the scientific assessment is reached<\/strong> which is a questionable practice (Ball 2011, 2014 and 2016; Smith 2021).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other organizations have produced reports of a similar nature<\/strong> and using a similar literature (e.g. Science and Public Policy Institute; The Heartland Institute; The Centre for the Study of CO2; CO2 Science; Global Warming Policy Foundation; Net Zero Watch; The Fraser Institute; CO2 Coalition) and arrived at completely different conclusions to the IPCC and the SPM<\/strong> (Idso et al., 2013a; Idso et al., 2013b; Idso et al., 2014; Idso et al., 2015a, 2015b; Happer, et al., 2022). There are also some web pages (e.g. Popular Technology) which list over a thousand mainstream journal papers casting doubt on the role of CO2 and other greenhouse gases as a source of climate change. For example, a recent report by the CO2 Coalition (2023) states clearly Net Zero regulations and actions are scientifically invalid because they:<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n