Guest post by Willis Eschenbach (@WEschenbach on eX-Twitter)
I saw that Mad Keith Starmer, the frontman of a grunge rock band who performed in the name of “Britain” at this UN Climate Conference of the Parties, unilaterally announced that the UK will cut carbon dioxide emissions by 81% from 1990 levels. % by 2035.
I also note that the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that it will cost the UK £321 billion (about $410 billion) to reach net zero emissions by 2050…and, I have to laugh, it's not £320 billion, it's pounds. 321 billion…
Now, I've said many times that those proposing huge plans to try to lower future temperatures should be legally required to calculate how much cooler the world will be in 2050, if (and this is a big if) the IPCC estimates do. The impact is spot on.
So let's take Mad Keith Starmer's UK plan as a test case. Here are the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions records.
Figure 1. UK emissions Since 1850
Looks pretty impressive, okay. Since 1975, they have cut emissions in half. Massive emissions reductions are due to the hollowing out of the UK economy due to the offshoring of UK manufacturing, so that the CO2 is produced in another country and Britons feel ennobled.
But Mad Keith won't talk about it, so I won't talk about it either.
However, here's a slightly different take on the exact same data. This shows UK emissions as the yellow line as shown in Figure 1, and emissions from the rest of the world (excluding the UK) as the red line.
Figure 2. CO2 emissions in the UK and the rest of the world.
Now, the IPCC says that the changes shown by the CO2 emissions redline have warmed the planet by about 1.4°C…so this gives us our first hint that the temperature changes caused by UK emissions will be small, insignificant.
In fact, the graph clearly shows that nothing the UK does will have a noticeable impact on global temperatures.
But how small exactly? To estimate the impact of Britain's sacrifice, here are some simplified diagrams of possible scenarios for the UK's future.
Figure 3. Possible future emissions scenarios for the UK.
The scenario shown in blue freezes UK emissions at current (2022) levels. The red line would reduce emissions to 19% of 1990 levels by 2035, then to net zero by 2050.
Since some people are allergic to math, I've included the actual calculations as an appendix. But the result is as follows:
By 2050, the difference in CO2 emissions between the blue and red scenarios is approximately 5.5 gigatons.
For every ppmv of carbon dioxide change in the atmosphere, 17.3 Gt of carbon dioxide is emitted, equivalent to a change of 0.32 ppmv of carbon dioxide.
So if (and this is a big if) the IPCC estimates of CO2's impact on temperature are accurate, then all the time, effort and significant money spent by UK taxpayers will result in the Earth becoming colder by 2050…
…
……etc……
…
…a huge 0.0007℃.
Seriously. All the wealth and manpower, all the government regulation and interference, and all the suffering of the poor due to skyrocketing energy costs, By 2050, world temperatures could drop by 70,000 degrees.
Call me crazy, but I think if everyone in the UK knew that what the 2050 net zero emissions plan would achieve is to potentially reduce temperatures by 0.0007°C by 2050, the idea would disappear immediately.
Now, Mad Keith says he hopes other countries follow the UK's lead and we can cool the world by about one degree. To see if they will do it, let's look at how much it would cost to lower the world's temperature by 1°C by 2050.
It would cost the UK $408 billion to cool our lovely planet by 0.0007°C by 2050, and $580 trillion to cool it by 1°C.
By comparison, the total revenue collected (and often squandered or wasted) by all governments on this wonderful planet is about $15 trillion per year… even If every government around the world spent every dime of taxpayers’ money between today and 2050 on a mad war on CO2, we still wouldn’t let temperatures drop by 1°C.
If Mad Keith thinks China, India, Russia, Brazil or similar countries are going to fall into this madness, well, that's why he's Mad Keith. He may think it's insurance against catastrophe, but that's like an insurance policy that pays $2000 a year for years and once a catastrophe strikes, you pay $750… just to pick a random payout number…
My warmest regards to you all,
w.
generally: Please quote the exact words you are discussing. I'm happy to defend my words. I cannot defend you in restating my words in a different form.
appendix: First, here's my usual trigger warning, Calvin regarding math problems.
Once determined, the total mass of the atmosphere is approximately 5.1 x 10^18 kg. 1 ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere is equivalent to:
- 2.13 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon
- 7.8 Gt CO2 (because the molecular weight of CO2 is 44/12 times that of carbon)
About 45% of the carbon dioxide emitted remains in the atmosphere, while the remainder is absorbed by oceans and land
Therefore, a 1 ppm increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately equal to 17.3 Gt of CO2 emissions. The UK's 5.5 Gt CO2 change translates into a 0.32 ppmv reduction in atmospheric CO2
Next, under a “business as usual” scenario, halfway through 2050, CO2 levels will be about 450 ppmv. The 2022 level is 425.6. According to IPCC assumptions, the average change in forcing over a period of time is approximately log2(450/425.6)*3.7 W/m2. The change including the UK reduction is log2( (450-.32) /425.6)*3.7 W/m2. The difference between them is the change due to the UK reduction which is 0.0009 W/m2
Finally, the IPCC assumes that climate sensitivity will rise by 3°C for every doubling of carbon dioxide, or 0.8°C for every increase in W/m2. This gives us the final figure that UK stupidity could have resulted in a change of 0.0007°C.
Relevant
