By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The new pause has been extended to 8 years and 9 months. Least squares linear regression trend on UAH satellite monthly global temperature data set shows no global warming from July 2015 to March 2023. As usual, page This web is almost the only place where the global temperature is constantly unstable. is said to be a report.
The start and end dates of the new Pause were not carefully selected. The end date is current; the start date is the furthest one can reach and still find zero trend. That’s what it is.
For comparison, here’s the entire data set for 44 years and 4 months from December 1978. It shows long-term warming rates well below the dreaded equivalent of 1.3 degrees/century, in that 0.3 K has occurred since January 2021, only 1 K remaining will continue (on current trends) until 2100, when coal, oil and gas reserves will be largely exhausted .
In fact, more than a third of a century since the IPCC (1990), global warming is proving to be far behind the 0.3 degrees/decade that the IPCC confidently predicted (and still predicts). to this day) was related to a question posed to two unfortunate representatives of the current state of U.S. mismanagement by Senator John Kennedy when he criticized them at a hearing. recently.
The senator began by asking Dr. Robert Litterman, chair of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s climate-related market risk subcommittee, how long he had studied the climate question. . Answer: 15 years. Next is Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum. Answer: about 25 years.
Senator Kennedy: “Dr. Litterman, how much will it cost to make the United States of America carbon-free by 2050?”
Litterman: “I don’t know, sir.”
Senator Kennedy: “So you’re advocating that we do these things but you don’t know the final cost?”
Litterman: “Yes, sure, I definitely don’t know the final cost and it’s very uncertain. It depends on innovation, it depends on…”
Senator Kennedy: “I’m just trying to lay the groundwork here to understand your expert testimony. Dr. Holtz-Eakin, do you know how much it will cost to make the US carbon neutral by 2050?
Holtz-Eakin: “It depends on how you do it. If we do it all with the Federal budget…”
Senator Kennedy: “Public and Private Dollars. It’s private dollars anyway.
Holtz-Eakin: “I agree.”
Senator Kennedy: “So, how much?”
Holtz-Eakin: “You’d look at $50 trillion.”
Senator Kennedy: “50 trillion dollars?”
Holtz-Eakin: “Yes.”
Senator Kennedy: “OK, thanks. If we make the United States of America carbon-free by 2050, by spending 50 trillion dollars, which you are supporting, I think…”
Holtz-Eakin: “No.”
Senator Kennedy: “OK, skip to the last part. I’m wrong. You don’t support it. You are supporting something.
Holtz-Eakin: “If you’re going to do something, do something smart: that’s what I’m advocating for.”
Senator Kennedy: “If we spend $50 trillion to make the United States of America carbon-free by 2050, How much lower will the world temperature be?” [1]
Holtz-Eakin: “I can’t say, because I don’t know what China, India and the rest of the world have done.”
Senator Kennedy: “Did you hear anyone from the Biden administration say How much will it reduce the world temperature?” [2]
Holtz-Eakin: “No.”
Senator Kennedy: “Who knows? How much will it reduce the world temperature? [Pause] ARE NOT?” [3]
Holtz-Eakin: “No one can know for sure.”
Senator Kennedy: “OK. Dr. Litterman, if we spend $50 trillion, or how much money, to make the United States of America carbon-free by 2050, How much will it reduce the world temperature?” [4]
Litterman: “Senator, that depends on the rest of the world. We have to work with the rest of the world. We are together. It’s a world. We can’t just put up a wall around America and say…”
Senator Kennedy: “What if we spend $50 trillion, Europe cooperates, most Western democracies cooperate, but India and China do not? How much will our $50 trillion reduce the world’s temperature?” [5]
Litterman: “We’re in, Senator. We have to get the world to work together.”
Senator Kennedy: “I understand. I got it. How much will it reduce the world temperature?”[6]
Litterman: “What if China and India don’t help? I do not know.”
Let us answer Senator Kennedy’s six times asked and six unanswered questions. It’s one of the central questions in the climate debate, but no one in Congress on this side of the country has the intelligence, the courage, or the persistence to ask it and keep asking it. I continue to be impressed with the caliber of your politicians compared to ours.
To answer this question, we will use only mainstream, mid-range data from scientific sources that the “Democrats” deem relevant.
Firstly, near-linear speed at which global man-made CO2– equivalent emissions have increased since Firstly Evaluate Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990 presented above. That normal pace of business is likely to continue, as most countries continue to expand burning coal, oil and gas.
The annual Global Greenhouse Gas Index, compiled by the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, shows that, although costly measures are mainly taken by Western nations to reduce the emissions, the radiative force due to global greenhouse gas emissions has continued to increase since 1990 at a roughly straight-line rate of 1/30lame pants units per year. Thus, the effect of existing global emissions reductions, estimated by McKinsey Consulting last year to cost $5.6 trillion a year, remains unclear.
Monday, The near-linear upward trend in man-made forces will continue, driven by the expansion of coal-fired power in countries such as India, China (currently building 43 new coal-fired power plants and plans to build added) and Pakistan (which in early 2023 announced that it would quadruple its coal-fired generation capacity).
In 27 years 2023-2049, more 27/30ths of a unit (0.9 units) will arise in business as usual. But if all countries go straight to net zero by 2050, then half of those 0.9 units – or 0.45 units – will be reduced.
Tuesday, The medium-term rate of global warming per unit of anthropogenic force is the ratio of 1.8 degrees C medium term 2xCO2 transient climate response, (TCR, above) and 3.93 W·m-2 2xCO efficiency2 force (ERF, below): ie, 0.458KW-first I2.
Wednesday, the adjustment was made based on the fact that global warming since 1990 has been shown to be less than half the average rate of decline then predicted – and continues to be predicted to this day . Decade-by-decade global warming rates observed since 1990, using a global temperature satellite dataset maintained by the University of Alabama at Huntsville, have been only 0.136 degrees Celsius in the decade-first:
The IPCC (1990) made predictions for global warming based on four post-AD emissions scenarios, in descending order of predicted anthropogenic emissions. Scenario B trendline in CO2-coercive equivalent from 1990-2025 (phone number., figs. 2.4B) is similar to a trendline assuming constant annual emissions after 1990 (phone number., figs. A.15). However, in reality, by 2023 emissions have increased by about 53% compared to 1990.
Thus, in the 33 years since 1990, Scenario A has proven to be very close to the results compared to Scenario BD. Under Scenario A (business as usual), the IPCC predicts global warming at an average of decade 0.3 C-first, or 3C to the year 2100, and also the last 3 Cs to be doubled-CO2 warming.
Accordingly, multiply by 0.136 / 0.3, or 0.453reduce predicted warming per unit of human influence to match observations.
The above calculations, based on formal data, are then combined into a simple equation. 27/30ths the trend of increasing human influence over the next 27 years is halved to allow all countries to move in a straight line from here to net zero by 2050 rather than to net zero immediately. Man-made coercion is then converted to averted global temperature change, thus diminishing by the shortfall of real-world medium-term warming every decade since 1990. compared with the then-predicted medium-term global warming. Global warming has been contained, even if all countries succeed in achieving net zero emissions by 2050, which they will not, would be. less than one tenth of a degree Celsius:
Even if the United States, responsible for 15% of global emissions, could reach net zero by 2050, its contribution would reduce global temperatures by less than one seventieth of a degree. That’s the answer to Senator Kennedy’s question—an answer that climate “experts” “Democrats” with 15 and 25 years of experience simply can’t (or don’t want to) answer.
Does this tiny drop in global temperature represent value for money? Let’s use Mr. Holtz-Eakin’s $60 trillion cost of US net zero as a starting point. As it implies that the cost of global net zero will be $400 trillion. Given that McKinsey Consulting alone estimates the cost of capital to be $275 trillion, and that opex is two to three times the cost of capital, the total could be $900 trillion, more than double that Holtz-Eakin’s impromptu estimate.
In that case, every $1 billion spent on a futile effort to achieve net zero emissions would prevent about one one tenth of a million degrees of global warming – worst value for money in history.
I’ve included some of these new calculations in detail because once it becomes more widely known, it will help end climate nonsense.
Related
