The NetZero 2050 policy is a dangerous trap.
Each of the following factors alone is enough to reject
this policy. What should come instead before Glasgow COP26 ?
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. NASA has calculated that the Earth, like Venus, will become
over +400C if the atmosphere is 100% CO2
Each level of CO2 gives an expected global temperature, from ice age to pizza oven.
We see that the line in the graph fits well with the measurements from ice cores.
This confirms that the line drawn is quite accurate.
At the current 420 ppm CO2, the Earth wants to aim for +22 C anomaly.
From NASA we know we know that global temperatures are now rising at +0.035 C/year.
If all emissions are stopped today, the Earth will reach +22C after 22/0.035 = 630 years
Today we have +1.2 C anomaly and it is only 0.3 C before the Paris Agreement falls.
That's 0.3 /0.035= 8 years away if CO2 alone is allowed to rule.
Unfortunately, methane is rising sharply
which makes the time to the fall of the Paris Agreement shorter.
Surely we can do no better than to stop all emissions today. This means that all outcomes
of the Zero Emissions 2050 policy will be significantly worse.
Whatever we do within this policy will fail if the goal is to stay below +1.5.
It is then clear that the Zero Emissions 2050 policy cannot work.
The Paris Agreement cannot be saved no matter how much the world saves on emissions.
If we reach zero emissions today, the Paris Agreement falls in 6-8 years.
If we reach zero emissions in 2050, the Paris Agreement falls even faster.
There are already 3000 Gt of CO2 in the atmosphere.
40 Gt are emitted every year and that is about 1% of what is already there.
Therefore, one year of new emissions hardly affects global temperatures.
Moreover, it will take 700 years before the full temperature impact is reached by
these additional emissions.
It is unlikely that a number of years of full emissions will even be measurable by 2050.
Since Glasgow is aiming entirely for NetZero, this conference risks being
The focus must be on the 3000 Gt that already exists.
If 200 Gtonnes are removed per year, starting in 2025
then we save the Paris Agreement. The entire atmosphere will be repaired within 20 years.
This is the only strategy that will work.
So the message is that the world's efforts need to be a factor of 100 x higher.
This is achievable.
Three scientists give their arguments, here also translated into Swedish
Swedish Svenska Dagbladet writes:
In just over 20 years, greenhouse gas emissions will be zero.
Emissions must be reduced by 10% every year until 2045.
So far they have fallen by around 1% per year. This is an impossible plan.
NetZero2050 means that most of the reduction is before 2050 while
the critical level of +1.5C is already 6-10 years away.
Even NetZero 2025 is not enough. It only solves 1% of the problem.
My new book is an action plan for what must come instead of NetZero.
The book also proves that the time between emissions and full temperature impact
is about 700 years. The climate crisis is caused by the emissions that have already
been made and these 3000 Gt must be reduced to zero in 20 years
if we seriously want to follow the Paris Agreement.
Only this pace can save the Paris Agreement. The last chapter of the book shows
the mathematics behind these claims.
We are just at the beginning, the earth has reached +1.2 C.
This uphill climb will continue for 700 years until +22 C is reached.
On the way up, we risk entering vicious circles, where increasing temperatures
attracts large amounts of methane and other things that cause the climate to spiral out of control.
On the way up, the Paris Agreement will fall in as little as 6-10 years.
With current technology, it can cost 100 $/ton to deal with CO2 (government figure)
The world cannot afford this. It could be $ 40,000-400,000 /person
in the world. This is the debt to nature for each of us.
Nature does not negotiate: "pay or face the consequences. "
The way out is to be smart:
Innovation and cooperation (Quote swedish Climate Minister Bolund)
The only workable solution is to make methane in the atmosphere pay the bill.
Anything else will be too expensive.
Adding 1% atmospheric methane to fossil fuels is enough to
to make it climate neutral. Here's the smart solution that gives a
comfortable transition to a new world while repairing the atmosphere
with great speed.
The first diagram, above, proves that the world MUST be below 285 ppm CO2
before temperatures can go downwards. There is no way that this can be
accomplished with NetZero2050
This animation is more exciting than any TV movie. If you watch it for a few hours
with a detective's imagination, the whole truth slowly creeps out.
The truth that is needed to design a workable climate policy.
The book explains it all better.
The animation shows the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature anomaly.
The cloud of dots is from VOSTOK ice cores and stretches back half a million years.
These are old points that have had plenty of time to stabilize
The stick are NASA measurements a century back. These are young measurements
that have not yet stabilized.
Just by pondering we can determine:
1. Climate sensitivity is about 36 and not 3 as the IPCC has claimed for 40 years
2. The time lag is about 700 years between emissions and full temperature.
The slope of the stick reveals this
3. ZeroEmissions 2050 cannot work because the last points of the stick go up the elevator
and settles into the cloud over the next 700 years. If we stop all emissions now
then the Earth will follow the elevator up to +22 C for the next 700 years.
The IPCC has probably been fooling themselves for 40 years by seeing the stick as stationary.
It actually has climate sensitivity=cs=3 in a static perspective.
With both the IPCC and SMHI (representing the IPCC) having recently published the following two
curves, both organizations show that they believe that the Earth's temperature may
stay at low emissions. This is an outright lie that puts the world in existential danger.
The IPCC and SMHI need to go to the media well in advance of Glasgow COP26 and
announce that they have misjudged the situation.