Should we fight for Net Zero or adapt to climate change?

October 15, 2024 6 Reactions

How often do politicians, prominent leaders, and the mainstream media explicitly or implicitly conflate climate change with rising CO₂ concentration? Very often. It occurs so regularly that they have effectively become the same thing. Here are two examples.

Here is the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in June this year: “In the case of climate, we are not the dinosaurs. We are the meteor. We are not only in danger. We are the danger.”

And here is Prime Minister of Barbados, Mia Mottley, in 2021, in a speech which made her famous:

“Code Red. Code Red to the G7 countries, code red, code red to the G20.

Earth the COP. That’s what it said. Earth to COP. For those who have eyes to see, for those who have ears to listen and for those who have a heart to feel, 1.5 is what we need to survive. 2 degrees, yes S-G [Secretary-General], is a death sentence for the people of Antigua and Barbuda, for the people of the Maldives, for the people of Dominica and Fiji, for the people of Kenya and Mozambique, and yes, for the people of Samoa and Barbados.

We do not want that dreaded death sentence and we have come here today to say, ‘try harder, try harder,’ because our people, the climate army, the world, the planet needs our actions now, not next year, not in the next decade.”

I agree with them that global warming is real; I disagree that it’s time to panic. Let’s unpack this.

About global warming

The lower troposphere (our atmosphere up to 8 km altitude) has been warming at 0.16℃/decade since Dec 1, 1978. A new record was set in August 2024: “each of the last 12 consecutive months achieved their highest value [global temperature anomaly] in the 45+ year satellite record”, according to the UAH Global Temperature Report.

The Copernicus Global Climate Highlights 2023 and NOAA’s Annual 2023 Global Climate Report report a bleak situation. And there’s plenty more bad news below in this chart.

No wonder people are worried about climate change, especially as the world careens towards war and political and financial instability. Poor nations like Barbados are impacted the most by climate change.

But is it really a climate “code red” in the way Prime Minister Mottley fears? This may surprise you, but a recently published scientific paper suggests “perhaps not”. More about this later.

But from what I can see, as an educated layman in this debate, is that most people see one huge problem – global warming – and one expensive solution, Net Zero. This is mistaken.

According to the analysis underpinning the Paris Agreement limit of 2℃ (1.5℃ ideally), Net Zero is based on these assumptions:

CO₂ is the primary driver of temperature increase;
increasing global mean temperature anomaly drives climate; and
global mean temperature anomaly above 1.5℃ relative to 1850-1900 will lead to more frequent extreme weather events.

Let’s look at each of these.

CO₂ is the primary driver of temperature

The history of the melting glacier in Glacier Bay, Alaska, provides us with dramatic visual evidence showing that warming preceded a significant increase in CO₂ concentration.

Approximately 50 kilometres of glacier melted between 1760 and 1850 plus another 60 kilometres or so between 1850 and 1900. The figure above illustrates what remains of what was once an enormous volume of ice. And here is a photo of what it looks like today:

The next chart shows us how the concentration of CO₂ changed in that period (see here for details). If this graph concerns you or you find it alarming, please keep in mind that CO₂ is currently “saturated” and subject to the law of diminishing returns.

Climate scientist, Dr. W.A. van Wijngaarden, explains in one of his reports: “Greenhouse gas emissions were negligible during the 1800s. This indicates attributing melting glaciers as completely due to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations is incorrect. The glacier retreat has likely been due to ongoing warming of the Earth following the end of the Little Ice Age”.

I refer the technically inclined to these two scientific papers: here and here. The former, published in 2013, looks at the period 1980-2011. The authors discovered that increases in temperature preceded increases in CO₂ concentration as if temperature were driving CO_2.This must be astonishing to anyone—likely most people in the world--who believes the opposite is true. This alone calls into question Net Zero. To be fair, some scientists have criticized this paper, but Dr. Ole Humlum, one of its authors, maintains that the paper is fundamentally sound.

The latter paper, published in 2003, states, “...CO₂ increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years...” about 240,000 years ago. The upshot of their historical research is that temperature increases have preceded CO₂ increases for a very long time.

We’ve known since the mid-19th century about greenhouse gases, but the relationship between temperature and CO₂ isn’t as straightforward as it is often presented. It’s worth repeating this point since we’ve been told the opposite by the mainstream media so often: increases in temperature precede increases in CO₂concentration. This point just by itself requires us to question Net Zero. Shouldn’t this be front page news everywhere?

Liquid syntax error: Error in tag 'subpage' - No such page slug home-signup

Increasing global mean temperature anomaly drives climate change

What some people refer to as global temperature increase is more accurately called global mean temperature anomaly. A paper entitled On Climate Sensitivity published by the CO2 Coalition argues that the difference in temperature between the equator and the pole drives climate change, not the global mean temperature anomaly that is the focus of every COP and of every IPCC report.

A single number for global warming is an average which masks differences all over the surface of the globe, notably at the equator and at the poles. Why are temperatures rising at the poles, but not in the tropics? What could be causing this? According to On Climate Sensitivity, changes in polar temperature have been driven by powerful Milankovitch Cycles that result in large fluctuations to the amount of solar energy reaching Earth.

For the technically inclined, I encourage you to look at Fig. 5 (p. 11) to see how well Milankovitch cycles match the rate of change of Arctic ice. Once you see this, you will be forced to start asking difficult questions about what you have been told so far about climate change. Climate change has been going on for millions of years, and it’s still going on (see here and here).

Exceeding 1.5℃ will lead to significantly more extreme weather events

Various parts of the world have undoubtedly experienced extreme weather events recently, but to conclude that this is a trend taking place everywhere is wrong.

We often hear in the mainstream media that the frequency and intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, etc., have been increasing -- and that this is evidence of human-induced climate change. Is this true? Well, it isn’t true for tornadoes in the USA, for example, where the number of EF3-EF5 (strongest) tornadoes is decreasing. This is illustrated in the graph below (see The American Midwest and Climate Change for details).

Regarding Atlantic storms, “it is likely that the increase in Atlantic tropical storm and hurricane frequency in HURDAT [hurricane database] since the late-1800s is primarily due to improved monitoring ... The evidence for an upward trend is even weaker if we look at U.S. landfalling hurricanes, which even show a slight negative trend beginning from 1900 or from the late 1800s” (see here for details).

Regarding droughts and precipitation, I would like to refer you again to The American Midwest and Climate Change. This thoroughly researched paper doesn’t agree with the typical media reports on extreme weather events, and it may surprise you.

The WMO issued a press release indicating that July 2023 was the hottest day in recent history based on the ERA5 dataset whose data begins in 1940.

Dr John Christy produced the chart below. It shows the number of record high (red) and low (blue) daily temperatures by year. Each station has 153 days in the warm season (May-Sep) and 122 in the cold season (Dec-Mar). This is the average per station for the entire conterminous US. The greatest number of daily hot records occurred in the 1930s. How many times have you seen this chart or anything like it? Perhaps never?

By now, I hope that you can see that the CO₂-induced-climate-change narrative we read in the media is at least highly questionable if not misleading and untrustworthy.

Nevertheless, let’s treat these assumptions as facts, and try to calculate expected warming in 2050. For that we need two pieces of information: (1) warming from 1850-1900 (the start of the Second Industrial Revolution) to 2024; and (2) predicted warming from 2024 to 2050.

Warming since 1850-1900

You might think that we know accurately and consistently how much warming has taken place since 1850-1900. Not so. Here are some estimates from major climate databases. Note that they range from 1.07 to 1.48℃.

(Sources: IPCC, Berkeley Earth, NOAA, Climate.gov, NASA, WMO, Copernicus)

Please note, “That goal [Paris Agreement] is defined in reference to the average climate over many years, so a few individual months or a single year above 1.5 °C do not automatically mean that the target has been exceeded” (see here for details).

Warming from 2024 to 2050

The IPCC’s Climate Change 2021 The Physical Science Basis is loaded with climate model predictions on future warming (e.g. see Full Report p. 22). Perhaps we don’t need those climate models that collectively have cost billions to develop.

Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase, alluded to before, was published this past June; it’s only a few pages long; the math can be understood by anyone who took university-level math, and the science is straightforward. That makes it powerful. Few people even know it exists, but it is, as they say, a game changer. The Net Zero Averted Temperature states:

If the entire world forced net zero CO₂ emissions by the year 2050, a warming of only 0.070℃(0.13℉) would be averted...For worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity [3℃], the averted warming would be 0.28 ℃ (0.50 ℉).

This is astonishing given the worldwide maniacal pursuit of Net Zero with its enormous consequences and costs, e.g. worsened food security. Billions if not trillions of dollars will be spent to avoid 0.070℃. This should shock any reasonable person, and yet here we are right in the middle of doing so.

If Net Zero Averted Temperature is correct—and nobody has challenged it as far as I know--the expected warming by 2050 would be 1.55℃ (1.48+0.07=1.55) assuming a worst-case scenario of warming since 1850-1900 of 1.48℃. Does it seem reasonable for an additional 0.05℃ above 1.5℃ to lead to global climate calamity given that climate change is driven by the difference in temperature between the poles and the equator (see second assumption)?

The pursuit of Net Zero is harmful in many ways:

It reinforces in the public mind the notion that we need to fight CO₂, when we really need to be adapting to climate change that will come no matter how much we want to believe that we can control nature. Clinging to that false notion makes us more vulnerable and diminishes our capacity to respond to climate change.
It creates the illusion that politicians and world leaders are “doing something” to fight climate change without accomplishing the stated aim. This will undermine trust in them and in our institutions when climate continues to change despite Net Zero.
The relentless and thoughtless promotion of Net Zero by the mainstream media further undermines their own credibility.
It diverts enormous sums of money into projects that will accomplish essentially nothing, i.e. the avoidance of a 0.070℃ increase in temperature.
By diverting huge sums of money into unproductive projects that will only enrich green sector investors, there will be less money available to help poor nations take practical measures to protect themselves from climate change (ironically finance is one of the pillars of COP29).
Wealthier nations will suffer too as they allocate huge sums of money to ineffective projects. Take the City of Toronto as an example. Toronto City Council is unable to fund “basic responsibilities” (see p. 11 here), but enthusiastically squanders billions on Net Zero projects even though Toronto contributes about 0.00001℃/year to global warming.
Net Zero will reduce the amount of fertilizer that can be used by farmers, and that will significantly reduce crop production and worsen food security globally, e.g. see here.
Reducing the concentration of CO₂ will decrease crop production that benefits from higher levels of CO₂.
Reducing the concentration of CO₂ will reverse a general greening of Earth brought about by an increase in CO₂ concentration (the COP29 homepage ironically states “In solidarity with a green world”).
The risk of drought will increase as CO₂ decreases since plants uptake more water in lower CO₂concentration making land drier.

Ms Mottley declared a “code red.” Well, she’s partially correct. Poor nations are struggling with climate change and don’t have the resources to cope with it.

The real code red, however, is the squandering of trillions of dollars on Net Zero that will not work, and which will produce many negative consequences. Adapting to climate change is the only way forward.

COP29 runs from November 11 to 22. Will it be more of the same “doom and gloom, spend, spend, spend” or will some leader finally burst the bubble of groupthink that surrounds it by asking some tough questions about whether Net Zero makes scientific sense?

Are you a climate denialist if you question Net Zero?

Fabiano Micoli has a B.Eng. (mechanical), MBA, and BEd (math and physics). He writes from Toronto.

Image credit: Glacier Bay, Alaska / Bigstock

Showing 6 reactions

Sign in with

_oauth_login_links template is deprecated.

Rob McKilliam commented 2024-10-19 18:23:36 +1100

Emberson:

“I just don’t understand the right. First it was climate change is “complete crap.” Then it was “the science isn’t settled.” Now it’s “let’s adapt to climate change.””
-——-
About 20 years ago I came to the conclusion that anthropogenic, CO2 induced climate change was “complete crap” because if “the science was settled” we would have gone nuclear 30 years ago. The renewables feeding trough only lasts as long as the population is terrified. I am reminded of the “Year 2000 millenniam bug” scare overkill.
Emberson Fedders commented 2024-10-18 15:09:30 +1100

“I believe in the sun as the main factor on our climate.”

Your beliefs are irrelevant in this situation.

“Cool years, especially in Europe, had been years of hunger, because the grain on the fields did not ripen properly in the summer.”

Of course, that was the case in the Middle Ages. Don’t think anyone is going hungry in Europe today because we had a cooler summer.
Jürgen Siemer commented 2024-10-16 16:26:14 +1100

What evidence?

CO2 has an effect, but it is small.

CO2 is a fertilizer for plants, in many places its scarcity is one important growth limiting factor. Talk to a farmer with greenhouses, he should explain to you that CO2 in the air inside greenhouses is intentionally kept at higher levels.

I believe in the sun as the main factor on our climate. The energy emitted by the sun fluctuates in cycles.

And scientists have now understood these cycles and tell us that we are approaching another maunder minimum, a little ice age, which would be number 3 in our historically observed time.

I bet that it is going to get significantly colder in the next 2 decades.

And honestly, I would rather experience more climate warming.

Cool years, especially in Europe, had been years of hunger, because the grain on the fields did not ripen properly in the summer.
Anon Emouse commented 2024-10-16 05:14:28 +1100

Emberson-

Because today’s dollar is worth more than our future lives. Because it’s not profitable to be environmentally friendly so corporations don’t care.
Emberson Fedders commented 2024-10-15 12:59:59 +1100

I just don’t understand the right. First it was climate change is “complete crap.” Then it was “the science isn’t settled.” Now it’s “let’s adapt to climate change.”

Why can’t the right just accept the evidence? Why this constant, ideologically driven denial? It makes no sense. And it must be exhausting to constantly have your fingers in your ears shouting ’Na na na na."
Fabiano Micoli published this page in The Latest 2024-10-15 10:41:42 +1100

Like what you are reading?

Here are some more articles you may enjoy