Weather

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #479 – Watts Up With That?


The Week That Was: 2021-11-13 (November 13, 2021)
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: “We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it,” – Charles Mackay [H/t I & I Editorial Board]

Number of the Week: About 20 to 25%

THIS WEEK:

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Scope: The Glasgow Follies are over. An agreement was signed, and pledges were made. Given the self-congratulatory attitudes of the participants amplified by a fawning press, it is difficult to determine exactly what was signed and how enforceable the claimed pledges are. For example, the governor of Hawaii urged that bolder action is needed than just “Net Zero Emissions.” Tourism is the dominant industry in Hawaii, making up over 20% of the state’s economy. To achieve below net zero, will the governor ban airline flights into Hawaii? If he does, how long will he remain governor? However, one issue seems clear, the current US administration will do what it can to damage the US oil and gas industries until voters rebel over higher energy prices.

Not wishing to speculate on what the Glasgow Follies accomplished, this TWTW will focus on a few of the glaring problems in what is called the “settled science” of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The presentations by Thomas Sheahen and Howard Hayden are emphasized. See links under After Paris, Change in US Administrations, Problems in the Orthodoxy, Communicating Better to the Public – Use Propaganda, Washington’s Control of Energy, and Below the Bottom Line.

******************

Getting It Right: In “The Theory of Gravitation” in his textbook Lectures on Physics, Richard Feynman provides an outstanding example of the development of the scientific method, a process for correcting errors and advancing knowledge of the physical world. The ancients observed the movement of the visible planets and the stars and deduced that the planets went around the sun, a concept rediscovered by mathematician and astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus in the early sixteenth century. Discovering how and why took more work.

In the late sixteenth century astronomer Tycho Brahe made a remarkable step towards solving the great controversy over the movement of the planets by asserting that the controversy could be resolved by accurate measurements of the planets in the sky. To determine something about the physical world it is better to make careful observations and experiments than to engage in deep philosophical discussions. For years, Brahe studied the positions of the planets recording them in voluminous tables.

After Brahe died, between 1609 and 1619, mathematician and astronomer Johannes Kepler used Brahe’s observations to develop three laws of planetary motion: planets move in elliptical paths around the sun; they sweep out equal areas in equal times; and the squares of the periods are directly proportional to the third power of the semi-major axes.

Independently, Galileo used careful experiments to formulate the concept of inertia – if something is moving and completely undisturbed, it will continue moving in the same direction at a uniform speed. Further, Galileo used the telescope for more accurate measurement of the positions of the planets, and to discover four moons of Jupiter (which confirm Kepler’s laws, though not recognized by Galileo).

Isaac Newton used the concepts of Kepler and Galileo to develop his law of universal gravitation and his laws of motion.

Careful observations from both experiments and nature were needed to develop the laws of gravity and planetary motion.

With the space age, over the past 40 years the US and others have developed powerful tools for accurately observing and measuring what is occurring in the atmosphere. These data are widely available, and numerous research groups have participated in analysis of them.

Certain US centers for climate research, such as the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA-GISS) participate in that analysis effort and run large GCMs (General Circulation Models) to project the climate of the future. However, most of those large models do not utilize the measurements of the atmosphere to compare and “validate” their models using physical evidence.

Those computational models predict large temperature increases in the distant future, caused by increasing carbon dioxide (CO2). That argument assumes that an increase in water vapor (the dominant greenhouse gas) will significantly amplify the warming caused by CO2. However, actual measurements show very little warming and contradict the speculation that increasing (CO2) will cause dangerous global warming.

Also unfortunately, once respected scientific journals are refusing to publish competent papers using measurements of what is actually occurring in the atmosphere because they contradict earlier speculations that is politically popular. Such entities have abandoned the scientific method for a political fad.

In 2020 W. A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer submitted a paper on the “Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases” to the journal Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics. The paper has been ignored.

Those physicists are experts on Atomic, Molecular, and Optical physics (AMO) and spectroscopy, the study of the interaction of electromagnetic radiation and matter (including atoms and molecules). Spectroscopy is applicable to many fields of physics, chemistry, and biology. Chemist John Tyndall started using it in 1859 to study radiative heat transfer from the Earth to find why the Earth was warm enough to support life. Tyndall coined the term “greenhouse gases”, the dominant one being water vapor. Tyndall realized that the greenhouse effect is critical for human existence, without it the land masses would be far too cold every night for plant life to grow. (Also, without carbon dioxide no plant life would exist.)

The van Wijngaarden and Happer paper relies on a comprehensive set of observations and calculations known as HITRAN, an acronym for high-resolution transmission molecular absorption, compiled under Air Force contract by the Atomic and Molecular Physics Division, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. It is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters (defining characteristics) that can be used to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of light (electromagnetic energy) in the atmosphere.

Using these data, which apply to cloudless skies, van Wijngaarden and Happer calculate the influence that increasing water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone, nitrous oxide, and methane have on temperatures. The observations and calculations confirm major conclusions by Tyndall and decades of laboratory experiments. Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, but it is not increasing significantly with a warming planet. Further, the influence of additional carbon dioxide diminishes greatly with concentrations above one hundred parts per million in volume (ppm), which is far less than that which naturally occurs. However, carbon dioxide provides roughly twenty to twenty-five percent of the total greenhouse effect. And given the existing influence of water vapor, the influences of the other gases on global temperatures are insignificant.

At the Heartland Conference, physicist Tom Sheahen reported why the paper was an outstanding example of using the scientific method to get the physics right. The authors calculated the cumulative radiation leaving the earth, calculated what is delayed in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect, and found that that the remainder matched satellite measurements of radiation leaving the atmosphere (going into space). Further, no one has done such thorough calculations before and showed they matched observations.

Sheahen emphasized that the agreement of calculations with observations is the key factor which certifies that their computational model is correct. That’s the proper use of the scientific method. Van Wijngaarden & Happer calculated the intensity of electromagnetic radiation (infrared radiation) leaving the atmosphere above the Sahara desert (low humidity); the Mediterranean (normal humidity) representative of the temperate regions of the earth; and wintertime Antarctica. Antarctica is remarkable since the relatively warm greenhouse gases in the troposphere, [mostly CO2, O3 and H2O] radiate more to space than the thermal radiation from the cold ice surface would be through a transparent atmosphere. One can add that this is an example of the importance of convection transporting heat from the tropics to the polar regions where it is lost to space. [The temperature used in the calculations is 190 K (minus 83 C, minus 118 F)].

Sheahen underlined that agreement between theory and experiment (and observations) is THE HALLMARK of good science. The method used by van Wijngaarden and Happer (W & H) meets that criterion. Therefore, it can be trusted to make predictions about hypothetical states where the concentrations of the various gases are changed.

The model of van Wijngaarden and Happer, validated by physical evidence, was used to forecast the effects of increasing greenhouse gases on escaping radiation, which in turn affects temperatures. At current concentrations, increasing water vapor and carbon dioxide have a very small effect on temperatures; the effects are termed “saturated.” The effects of increasing the other greenhouse gases are tiny.

Consequently, their method is far superior to that used in the global climate models featured in IPCC reports (and findings by NCAR and NASA-GISS). Those models begin with totally different (and highly questionable) initial assumptions, and greatly exaggerate atmospheric temperature increases compared with actual observations.

In their paper, “Methane and Climate” discussed in last week’s TWTW, van Wijngaarden and Happer conclude: The net forcing increase from CH4, and CO2 is about 0.05 watts per meter squared per year.

“Other things being equal, this will cause a temperature increase of about 0.012 C [per] year. Proposals to place harsh restrictions on methane emissions because of warming fears are not justified by facts.”

The same applies to restrictions on CO2 emissions. The increase calculated by W & H is about the same as reported by Roy Spencer (at University of Alabama – Huntsville): assuming a linear trend, atmospheric temperature observations over oceans have been increasing by 0.12 C per decade, derived from 42 years of satellite measurements.

The W & H paper demonstrates the folly of “climate science” ignoring critical physical evidence. As long as government “climate science” ignores physical evidence and continues to be mired in the politics of “global warming” it will stagnate just as science stagnated with philosophical discussions on the movement of planets. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

******************

Follow the Science! In his talk “Yes! Follow the Science!…And You Discover That IPCC Ignores the Inconvenient Science” Howard Hayden takes the audience through logical steps and shows that the IPCC science and the global climate models used are self-contradictory. They lead to absurd conclusions. [In the talk he expresses all infrared radiation in units of thermal watts per square meter (W/m2).]

Hayden focuses on broad results, and states simple facts:

Fact 1. Heat coming from the sun equals the heat being radiated into space. (There may be a changing, but trivial imbalance.)

Fact 2: Surface radiation (infrared radiation) depends on surface temperature. There is a well-tested formula, the Stefan-Boltzmann law discussed in last week’s TWTW for this. The IPCC ignored the formula until 2021, and still does not apply it to the surface where it is absolutely necessary. The intensity of the radiation is a constant times the temperature raised to the fourth power.

Fact 3: The greenhouse effect is the difference between the heat radiated from the surface and the heat radiated into space.

It was not until the 2021 report that the IPCC recognized that the greenhouse effect is the difference between the heat radiated from the surface and the heat radiated into space. For over thirty years it has reported the results of global climate models without recognizing this important physics. Hayden’s method is to do the physics first, then do the math, not vice-versa.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is a constraining equation for climate reality. Going outside of it becomes fantasy. The IPCC models produce imaginary results. If the surface temperature of a planet increases surface emissions must increase provided that the solar intensity and albedo (reflectivity) remain constant.

Further, the IPCC confuses the surface of a planet with the top of the atmosphere of a planet when it states, “a warmer planet radiates more energy to space.” It is only what comes off the top of the atmosphere that goes into space. Thanks to space age technology, we can now measure what comes off the top of the atmosphere.

Hayden compares the radiation from the Earth’s atmosphere with that from Venus. Many have claimed the high temperature on the surface of Venus is an example of runaway greenhouse. Indeed, the surface of Venus is far hotter than that of Earth with a temperature of 737K (867 F), capable of melting lead, compared to 289K (60.5F) for Earth. Yet the atmosphere of Venus emits less radiation to space than the atmosphere of Earth (156 W/m2, compared with 239 W/m2). This is because even though Venus gets far more intense sunlight, much of the sun’s energy is reflected by the atmosphere and does not reach the surface. The hotter surface of Venus is due to a very strong greenhouse effect from CO2, CO, SO2, and H2O at the high atmospheric pressure at the surface, ninety-three times greater than the Earth’s atmospheres.

The IPCC claims the average temperature increase from a doubling of CO2 will be 3 ºC. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which the IPCC now recognizes but apparently does not understand, this would result in an increase surface radiation of 16.5 W/m2. Yet the IPCC continues to discuss “radiative forcing” as if it will be significant. Using the model and calculations advanced by van Wijngaarden and Happer, which have been tested and validated by physical evidence, Hayden shows IPCC’s “’radiative forcing’ due to CO 2 doubling of 3.7 W/m2 – is a mere 2.3% nudge with a dramatic name.”

As Hayden explains, the IPCC recognizes the Stefan-Boltzmann law, but ignores it.

“In other words, IPCC’s models have an inherent self-contradiction …… OR A DEATH SPIRAL”

And

“IPCC considers two possible ways out of this conundrum

The Modern Math Solution: 3.7 = 16.5 for very large values of 3.7, or

The Headline-Grabbing Solution: Over 4X amplification of heat! Disaster Looms!”

He concludes:

“Heat begets heat — Explains why we don’t exist

“This baked in physics-defying nonsense is the pillar of IPCC climate models

It is the source of terabytes of climate horror stories flooding the news media and – worse yet – leading science journals.”

See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

******************

Number of the Week: About 20 to 25%. Some may assume that because the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide added by humans will have a small influence on global temperatures, the total influence of carbon dioxide is small. It is not. The greenhouse effect and CO2 itself are critical to life on this planet and to humanity. As Tom Sheahen states, using the calculations by van Wijngaarden and Happer, carbon dioxide contributes about 20 to 25% of today’s greenhouse effect. The greatest portion of the CO2 greenhouse effect occurs at concentrations below 100 ppm (parts per million volume). At such concentrations, much, if not all, of plant life would not exist.

Suppressing Scientific Inquiry

The Hounding of Roger Pielke Jr amid the demise of academic freedom in climate change

By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Nov 11, 2021



Source link

news7g

News7g: Update the world's latest breaking news online of the day, breaking news, politics, society today, international mainstream news .Updated news 24/7: Entertainment, Sports...at the World everyday world. Hot news, images, video clips that are updated quickly and reliably

Related Articles

Back to top button