Net Zero is Flawed

Erroneous CO₂ Models

Net-Zero will be Ineffective

Warming is a Natural Change

Climate Change is in Prophecy

Climate Change and Extreme Weather

Recent climate change is undeniable. For example, since about 1880:

• The world warmed by about 1.1 degree C [NASA]
• Most glaciers retreated; mean annual retreat about 20m [wikipedia.org]
• Global mean sea level rose about 9 inches (2 or 3mm/year) [climate.gov]
• Water tables fell significantly (China: 1.5m/year, India: 1-3m/year)
• Weather related disasters increased by a factor of 5 over the past 50 years [WMO, 2021]

Already, with 1.1 degrees C of global temperature rise, changes to the climate system that are unparalleled over centuries are now occurring in every region of the world, from rising sea levels to more extreme weather events [IPCC AR6 2023].

And as the climate warms there will be an increase in extreme weather events [BBC 2024]. For example, for every 1 degree C rise in average temperature, the atmosphere can hold up to around 7% more moisture – so increasing the risk of extreme rainfall. IPCC AR6 2023 details the devastating consequences of climate change — the destruction of homes, the loss of livelihoods and the fragmentation of communities.

Is Climate Change largely Anthropogenic – Caused by Humans?

The question is: “what” or “who” is causing climate change/extreme weather? The official scientific consensus claims that “human-caused climate change (anthropogenic warming) is happening”. To quote NASA: 

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. [NASA]

The vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists (97%) agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change [NASA]

So according to NASA, the influence of human activity on the warming of the climate system has now evolved from theory to established fact. Over the last century, burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂), and it is claimed that such human influence is the principal driver of many climatic changes.

That said, some challenge the official 97% scientific consensus, link, link.

Problems with the CO2 Theory

Whilst broadly true, the interpretation of climate change data (sea level rise etc.) should be done with care. Given that some question the modelling, or even the basic model physics (see later), it is reasonable to ask if natural changes are also a significant factor. In fact, on some measures it is hard to see the effect of anthropogenic CO₂ increase. For example:

NATURAL CHANGES : Sea level has risen by over 100m over thousands of years as the world emerged from the last ice age. The rise levelled-off some 6,000 years ago. The relatively small rise over the past 100 years therefore appears natural [scienceunderattack.com, 2019].  In modern times, glaciers were retreating at least 150 years before sharp CO₂ rise from industrialization. Similarly, sea levels were rising steadily well before sharp CO₂ rise.

NATURAL WARMING: Few realise that the global temperature has been rising naturally at a steady rate of 0.5°C per century since the end of the little ice age in the 1700s (see Fig.10 at sciencespeak). So much of the 0.8°C rise over the 20th century was to be expected! This is in stark contrast to the IPCC AR6 2021 Report which claims climate change is largely anthropogenic warming via CO₂.

NORMAL WEATHER:  Despite the fact that CO₂ is now 50% higher than it was before the Industrial Revolution, and despite a 1.2 degree C rise in average global temperature, some weather data seems normal. For example, the Annual Heatwave Index for the United States from 1880 to 2020 shows no significant change, apart from a transient increase around 1930 [data: NOAA via the US EPA]. And between 1895 and 2020 there was no overall increase in U.S. droughts, [ NOAA, 2021 ]. Similarly, between 1910 and 2020 there was no significant change in heavy precipitation measured over 48 U.S. states (noting that 1998 was a strong El-Nino year), [ NOAA, 2021 ].  

ATLANTIC STORMS: There is no strong evidence for an increase in Atlantic hurricanes, or U.S. land-falling hurricanes, since the late 1800s.  It is premature to conclude that anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases have caused a change in past Atlantic basin hurricane activity  [https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/, 2023].

TEMPERATURE DOES NOT CORRELATE WITH CO₂ : Temperature changes at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet (Fig.1) tend to reflect global temperature changes. Despite warm periods, there is a clear cooling trend over the last 4000 years. On the other hand, CO₂ (red graph) rises steadily, showing negative correlation with temperature. Also note that the transition from a cool to a warm climate by 1 degree C is rapid – typically just 100 years. That is similar to the warming over the past 100 years.

CO2 IS NOT THE CAUSAL FACTOR: The IPCC claims that CO₂ rise causes temperature rise i.e. CO₂ is the causal factor. This is not what is observed. Ice core data shows CO₂ change lagging temperature change. Typically, atmospheric CO₂ didn’t begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm, link. Similarly, modern data shows changes in global atmospheric CO₂ lag global surface air temperature by typically 10 months, link. So clearly, temperature rise due to anthropogenic CO₂ rise would seem hard to detect since temperature rises first. Also, as shown in Fig.1, Greenland ice sheet air temperature fluctuations show no correlation with atmospheric CO₂ changes, link.

It is claimed the IPCC computer models are the only place in the world where a CO2 increase precedes and causes a temperature change, link.

SATURATED GREENHOUSE EFFECT: The CO₂-temperature relationship is nonlinear, link. So as more and more CO₂ is added to the atmosphere the warming effect saturates (‘flat-lines’). The atmosphere maintains a “saturated greenhouse effect” controlled by water vapor content. That is, adding CO₂ to the atmosphere just replaces an equivalent amount of water vapour to maintain a near-constant greenhouse effect, link. For example, doubling CO₂ concentration from its 2015 level of 400 ppm to 800 ppm will increase its radiative forcing (the difference between incoming solar radiation and outgoing terrestrial radiation) by just 1%, link, link. This explains why there was no runaway greenhouse warming when the concentration of CO₂ was approaching 20 times that of today, link.

IMPORTANCE OF WATER VAPOUR: The most important greenhouse gas is water vapour, which is responsible for about 96% of the greenhouse effect. When water vapour is accounted for, all anthropogenic greenhouse sources (not just CO₂) contribute only about 0.3% to the Greenhouse Effect (GHE), link. So why are the nations spending huge sums trying to control CO₂?

SIMPLE STATISTICS: Leaving aside the science, we can note that CO₂ is a trace gas and amounts to just 0.04% of the atmosphere. Anthropogenic CO₂ is just 4% of this 0.04%, or about 0.0016% of the atmosphere. CO₂ warming theory insists that small changes to this 0.0016% are causing a climatic disaster! Does this make sense?

CO₂ Model Errors

Many claim there are serious problems with CO₂ modelling. For example: take so-called “Hot Climate Prediction”, Fig.2. When tropospheric temperature (TMT) from satellites and radiosondes is compared to the latest (CMIP6) model predictions, the models typically predict significantly higher temperatures from 2000 onwards, link. It is claimed that most model temperature forecasts are excessive compared with accurate satellite measurements [Scaffeta, 2022].

Some go further and claim the IPCC climate theory is simply wrong!

“The reason why the CO₂ atmosphere theory can never work is that the ocean-atmosphere interface controls the amount of CO₂ in air. Ocean temperatures control atmospheric CO₂ levels – a warmer ocean (which holds 50x more CO₂ than the atmosphere) emits CO₂ and vice versa. Millions of years of data show that ocean temperature changes lead atmospheric CO₂ changes” [ see “Why CO₂ Theory Fails” at WeatherAction ]

So some climate scientists claim that the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory itself is seriously flawed. They claim that CO₂ cannot possibly be the main cause of global warming, link, link, link, link, link, link. For example, IPCC models predict a “temperature hotspot” some 10-12 km in the air above the tropics. But radiosonde data contains no trace of such a hotspot. Some attribute the error to IPCC modelling of water vapour feedback, which in turn results in excessive temperature predictions.

INVALID CARBON CYCLE MODELLING: IPCC’s “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma rests on invalid presumptions and a rejectable non-realistic carbon cycle modelling which simply refutes reality … the IPCC model is neither supported by radioactive nor stable carbon isotope evidence, link. Concluding, the IPCC’s model assumptions that long-term natural net rate of accumulation is constant and anthropogenic emission rates are the only contributor to total long-term accumulation of atmospheric CO2, are false, link.

For more on climate modelling problems, see Issues on Climate Modelling

The Net Zero Trap

If CO₂ Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory is seriously flawed, then how can man control climate change? Is the media driven more by politics than real science, link? Is the Net-Zero philosophy meaningless? Is there a Net-Zero trap ? After all, analysis shows that Net-Zero will have little effect on temperature:

For worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity, the averted warming would (only) be 0.28 degree C [ co2coalition, June 2024 ]

“There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C” [ Dr Ahmed Al-Jaber, COP28 president ]

The Astronomical Cost of Net Zero

Suppose world governments assume the IPCC CO₂ warming models are correct and adopt Net-Zero policies. It turns out that the task of completely eliminating the use of fossil fuels by 2050 comes at an astronomical price tag. According to Climate Change Economics [2023] and the Hoover Institution the cost is estimated at over $200 trillion! Imagine the political turmoil! Consider the UK case:

It is also interesting to note that energy from renewables can fail completely. In November-December 2023 UK temperatures dropped to -10 degree C. At the same times the wind dropped and the sun failed to shine. So it was necessary to use fossil fuel power stations!

Concluding: the Net-Zero policy will have a trivial effect on global temperature, but a disastrous effect on the world economy.

Natural Climate Change

Fig.3: Natural Temperature Changes [ Co2coalition ]

Figure 3 shows temperature changes since the last Ice Age. Graph is from ice core data of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Clearly, the rapid swings of typically 1.5 degree C are natural and can’t be from anthropogenic CO₂! So the questions is this: does swing 10 correspond to a natural rise of over 1 degree C over the past 150 years, or is it anthropogenic (CO₂) warming?

Given this and similar data it is not surprising that eminent scientists dispute the IPCC warming consensus. See for example CLINTEL, the Climate Intelligence Foundation which is comprised of over 1500 scientists. An international team (including some Nobel Laureates) from CLINTEL has analysed the Physical Science Basis of IPCC report AR6. They claim it is biased, selective, and contains serious errors (see Video). So-called “good news” was ignored. For example, AR6 ignored a World Bank report claiming that global weather losses as a percentage of global GDP have fallen since 1990.

So CLINTEL claim:

There is no climate emergency – natural as well as anthropogenic factors are causing warming.

Similarly, some maintain that climate change observed during the 20th century was not primarily caused by CO₂ rise. It could be partly due to increased solar activity (sun spots) and the resulting reduced cloud cover. There were also strong El Ninos (1983, 1998 which caused spikes in global temperatures).

Possibly excluding the most recent decades, much of the warming of the past century can be quantitatively accounted for by the direct and indirect effects of solar activity. [ Solar Storms ]

The same applies to the 21st century. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) claimed 2024 to be the warmest year since global records began in 1850, link. But 2023/4 was nearing the next solar maximum, and saw the most powerful solar storm in more than 20 years strike the Earth’s atmosphere, link. In turn this reduced cloud cover and increased warming. At the same time, 2023  saw a “historically strong” El Nino, resulting in a 2 degree rise in sea surface temperature in the tropical Pacific region, link. These two factors should be born in mind when claiming CO₂ is the primary problem.

Significance of Solar Activity

Despite NASA and IPCC rejection of the significance of solar activity, some scientists still link climate change to “solar forcing”.

According to The Australian, a paper by 23 experts from 14 different countries who are experts in solar physics and climate science says the 16 most prominent datasets of solar output — including those used by the United Nation — show solar energy is more to blame than carbon dioxide for global warming. The peer-reviewed study was published in the journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics

[ C. Douglas Golden, The Western Journal August 17, 2021, link ]

For example, between 1880 and 1980, global Sea Surface Temperature (SST) correlates well with solar irradiance change or sun spot number, SSN [see Fig.16, link]. It has been shown that more sunspots (as in the last decades of the 20th century, link) deliver more energy (irradiance) to the atmosphere, and temperatures rise. Conversely, between 1790 and 1820, a decline in SSN (the Dalton Minimum) correlated with lower global temperatures. Note also that US annual temperatures over the last century correlate better with ocean and sun cycles than with CO₂.

Significance of Cloud Cover

Cloud cover/modelling is one of the key factors determining whether we have global warming or global cooling. An active sun (as in the last part of the 20th century) means less low clouds and higher temperatures, link, link. Conversely, during solar minima the weaker magnetic field allows more cosmic rays to Earth. Cosmic rays create aerosols which then seed clouds (so a solar minima means more low clouds).

Climate Change in the Bible

Apart from anthropogenic CO₂ and natural changes, there is a third factor to consider. Consider the climate/weather promise in Genesis:

While the earth remains, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night shall not cease (Genesis 8:22)

It seems that God intended the natural cycle of things (heat and cold) to continue. Nothing special was meant to happen to the climate whilst man is around. Put another way, according to the Bible, any change in the climate would seem to be natural. For example, natural solar irradiance change e.g. very low sunspot activity has been associated with climate change. Between 1790 and 1820, a decline in solar activity called the Dalton Minimum correlated with lower global temperatures.

That said, despite God’s promise of natural variations in Genesis 8, it seems man may well be upsetting God’s natural order of things. Regular rains, or regular freezing for example are no longer observed. Is God using climate change and extreme weather to speak to the rebellious nations – like Godless Britain, for example? Has God intervened in the past, and will God intervene in the future? There are good examples of God’s intervention in the scriptures. See Bible prophecy.

Summarising

Can the Nations Control Climate Change through Net Zero?

Probably not. Consider three major contenders for climate change:

1. First: The much publicised IPCC climate change “consensus”: “climate change is mainly caused by anthropogenic CO₂“. Really? Even accounting for all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, man’s contribution to the greenhouse effect is still very small. Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is only around 0.3% (after factoring in water vapor). Put another way, it is claimed that even if the whole world achieved Net Zero emissions by 2050, the averted warming would only be about 0.3 degree C [ CO2 Coalition ].
2. Secondly: Climate changes naturally. Greenland ice core data shows natural swings of several degree C since the last ice age – with no correlation to CO₂ change (see Fig.1). So a 1 degree C change over the 20th century is quite normal. Conversely, between 1880 and 1980 there is good correlation (see Fig.59) between sunspot number (SSN) and global mean sea surface temperature (SST).
3. Lastly, Bible prophecy says quite clearly that God will use climate change, particularly extreme weather events, to gain the attention of the rebellious nations. This has happened in the past and it will happen towards the end of the age. It seems God has the last word when it comes to extreme weather.

---

APPENDIX

Recent Extreme Weather

EXTREME WINDS: 2013 will be remembered for apocalyptic weather across the globe. Super typhoon Haiyan hit the eastern Philippines with maximum sustained winds of 195 mph and gusts to 235 mph – one of the most powerful storms ever recorded. Powerful tornadoes carved a path of destruction across the US Midwest, with Washington being hit by winds of up to 200 mph.

EXTREME RAINS: As the climate warms, studies have shown that for every one degree Celsius rise, there is an additional 15% increase in extreme rain at high elevation [nature.com, 2023]. In January 2014 southern Britain saw its wettest winter month on record, and saw its largest wave ever (75 feet)! The highest ever rainfall recorded in UK was in December 2015 at Honister Pass in Lake District with 341.4 mm falling in 24 hours. In July 2021, Zhengzhou (China) had over 550 mm in just 24 hours. In April 2024 some regions in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) witnessed the heaviest rainfall for 75 years. Some regions reported more rain in a single day than they usually received in an entire year.

EXTREME DROUGHT: Australia’s “Millennium” drought began in 1995 and continued country-wide until late 2009. Desalination plants were built to partially combat the extreme drought. The European Commission Joint Research Centre (EC-JRC) warned that the 2022 drought could be the worst in 500 years, potentially reaching 47% of the continent, [euronews.com]. Nowhere on Earth are groundwater declines greater than in northern India. NASA attributed this to large-scale irrigation, and today 54% of India faces extremely high water stress [wri.org ]

EXTREME HEAT: The Pacific north-west has warmed by about 1.7C in the past 50 years (much more than the global average), and in 2021 this contributed to historic heatwaves in California and parts of Canada. British Columbia reached 46C, Las Vegas reached 47C, Palm Springs reached 49C, and California’s Death Valley reached 53C (although this is lower than the 57C recorded in Furnace Creek in 1913). April 2022 was the third-hottest April India has seen in the past 122 years (1901 to 2022). Such unusual, early heat waves were made 30 times more likely due to the direct impact of climate change, [World Weather Attribution Network (WWAN)]. 

EXTREME COLD: In 2010 the UK had the coldest December for 100 years [UK Met Office]. In 2018 (‘the beast from the east’) thick snow blanketed the UK and brought the average March temperature down a whole seven degrees. Rural areas experienced temperature lows of -12°C. In February 2021 Scotland experienced -23°C, and Texas had rare extreme cold – colder than Alaska! In late January 2023 temperatures in Mohe northern China plummeted to -53°C, the lowest ever recorded in China. Record low temperatures hit the northeast USA early February 2023. Scientists claim arctic warming is creating more polar vortex events [CNN]. In May 2023 Antarctica experienced a new record low for early winter (-75°C) [weatherandradar.co.uk ].

EXTREME SNOW: In mid-April 2022, a major blizzard dumped feet of snow on North Dakota, USA. The highest snowfall was in south west Montana which received nearly four feet of snow. Forecasters were warning of a “storm of the century”. On Tuesday 12 April the temperature plummeted to 10 degrees Fahrenheit, making it the coldest day in April since 1986. In November 2022, the snow mass in the northern hemisphere was beyond the highest ever observed [www.severe-weather.eu ].

SUCESSIVE EXTREMES: The UK has seen three extreme Februaries in succession. February 2019 saw a winter heatwave when London reached 21.2 degrees C. The following February was the wettest on record in England. And February 2021 saw minus 23 degrees C in Scotland and the river Thames froze over for the first time since 1963.

EXTREME COST: These events come at extreme cost. By 2020 the US had sustained 273 weather and climate disasters since 1980 where overall damages/costs reached or exceeded $1 billion. NOAA claim the total cost of these 273 events exceeds $1.790 trillion, link. Scientists blame ‘an unlucky combination of global warming and freak chance’!

---