Weather

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #482 – Watts Up With That?


The Week That Was: 2021-12-04 (December 4, 2021)
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: “So, it is a one percent effect—it is actually a little less than that because that is with no clouds. Clouds make everything even less threatening.” – William Happer on the greenhouse effect of doubling CO2.

Number of the Week: 40% of rate in 1980

THIS WEEK:

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

Scope: William Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor Emeritus of Physics at Princeton University, gave a talk to the CLINTEL group in Amsterdam on November 16. On his blog, Ron Clutz posted the latest talk along with the transcript and images from a talk Happer gave at the Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Phoenix, Arizona, that was held on February 19. Although previously covered in TWTW, the effort is worth reviewing because Happer discusses a viable physical evidence-based alternative to the speculative process used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to understand the influence of CO2 on climate. The IPCC effort has stagnated. The results of the IPCC process were used in the effort to force an agreement upon developing countries to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions at the 26th Conference of Parties (COP26) in November in Glasgow.

Recognizing that fossil fuels are critical for their economic prosperity, the developing countries, mainly China and India, rightly rejected the false science of the IPCC. Happer clearly demonstrates that the IPCC science is false because it greatly exaggerates the actual effect that CO2 and other greenhouse gases will have global temperatures. Further, Happer uses a method for directly calculating the influence of changing greenhouses gases on global temperatures.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation President Benny Peiser discusses the frenzied nature of the anti-CO2 organizations and how the efforts are changing, particularly in the UK and Europe. In the Biden Administration’s desire to suppress the petroleum industry, Washington has produced two vacuous studies making claims without regard to physical evidence. A study by the US National Academies is on plastics and the second study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory is on solar power.

Two books are reviewed by others writing in the Wall Street Journal. One book is on the Boeing 737 MAX where an important component, the engines, was replaced without thoroughly testing the impact the new component has on the entire system.

The second book is on how online lies become accepted as truth. It is a guide to what many organizations in the environmental industry are doing in their effort to suppress CO2 emissions and destroy the fossil fuel industries.

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

Physical Evidence of CO2’s Influence on Temperatures: Although discussed a number of times in previous TWTWs, the presentation by William Happer remains very important because he uses a direct approach to estimating how much influence growing CO2 emissions will have on global temperatures for the foreseeable future. Although from an earlier presentation, February 19, the presentation on the web site by Ron Clutz provides some of the key graphics in color. Also, since the transcript is from the earlier presentation, it does not follow smoothly the current presentation. However, some of the key points include:

  • Don’t Confuse CO2 with Air Pollution. Photos in articles on pollution are often misleading – if you can see it, it’s not carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, or methane. For example, a popular photo of Shanghai shows haze. Some of this haze is due to burning coal [often for heating and cooking]. But a bigger fraction is due to dust from the Gobi Desert. They have had this type of pollution in Shanghai since the days of Marco Polo and long before. Real pollution has largely been eliminated in the US and other developed countries.
  • There is nothing environmentally friendly about industrial wind. Many turbines have been abandoned when they no longer work. Renewable energy is what I would call the inverse Robin Hood strategy—you rob from the poor to give to the rich. Utilities are permitted to raise rates because of their capital investments in inefficient, unreliable renewables. They junk fully depreciated coal, gas, and nuclear plants, all of which are working beautifully, and producing inexpensive, reliable energy. But regulated profits are much less. Taxpayers subsidize the rich, who can afford to lease land for wind and solar farms. Tax incentives pander to the upper class who live in gated communities and can afford to buy Tesla electric cars. They get subsidies from the state and federal government.
  • Climate involves a complicated interplay of the sunlight that warms us, and thermal infrared radiation that escapes to space. Heat is transported from the tropics to the poles by the motion of warm air and ocean water. We all know about the Gulf Stream that carries huge amounts of heat to northern Europe, even to Russia. Movements of air in the atmosphere also carry a lot of heat, as we know from regular cold spells and hot spells.
  • Convection cells in the atmosphere as well as radiation are needed to get rid of energy. The heat is eventually released by radiation into space. But for the first few kilometers of altitude, a good fraction of that heat is not carried by radiation, but by convection of warm, moist air. CO2 has no direct effect on convection near the surface. But once you get up to 10 kilometers or so, most of the heat is transported by radiation.
  • [Using a CO2 meter,] “at the end of a summer day the CO2 levels on my back porch drop to maybe 300 parts per million, way below the average for outside air. That is because the trees and grass in my backyard have sucked most of the CO2 out of the local air during the day. If I get up early the next morning and I look at the meter, it is up to 600 parts per million. So just from morning to night CO2 doubles in the air of my back yard. Doubles and halves, doubles, and halves. At least during the growing season that is quite common. And we have these hysterics about CO2 increasing by 30 or 40 percent. It is amazing.”
  • [From the ground, we cannot measure the radiation exiting to space. To understand the heat transported to space by radiation, we need to measure it from above the atmosphere.]
  • Clouds, which we do not understand, will be recognized as the dominate factor in controlling the earth’s climate.
  • Happer uses the idealized Plank curves for showing the radiation transmitted by the atmosphere. In the graph, down-going solar radiation is colored red, with about 70 to 75% transmitted from the top of the atmosphere to the surface. But only about 25% of the outgoing thermal radiation, in blue, is transmitted from the surface to space. [Shown in the graphs in the referenced post by Clutz].
  • Then Happer compares two graphs from the work of two of his heroes: Max Planck and Karl Schwarzschild. [Shown in the graphs in the referenced post by Clutz]. He states
  • “Amazingly, quantum mechanics got its start from greenhouse gas-physics and thermal radiation, just what we are talking about today. Most climate fanatics do not understand the basic physics. But Planck understood it very well and he was the first to show why the spectrum of radiation from warm bodies has the shape shown on this picture, to the left of Planck. Below is a smooth blue curve. The horizontal scale, left to right is the “spatial frequency” (wave peaks per cm) of thermal radiation. The vertical scale is the thermal power that is going out to space. If there were no greenhouse gases, the radiation going to space would be the area under the blue Planck curve. This would be the thermal radiation that balances the heating of Earth by sunlight.
  • “In fact, you never observe the Planck curve if you look down from a satellite. We have lots of satellite measurements now. What you see is something that looks a lot like the black curve, with lots of jags and wiggles in it. That curve was first calculated by Karl Schwarzschild, whose picture is below Planck’s picture. Schwarzschild was an officer in the German army in World War I, and he did some of his most creative work in the trenches on the eastern front facing Russia. He found one of the first analytic solutions to Einstein’s general theory of relativity while he was there on the front lines. Alas, he died before he got home. The cause of death was not Russian bullets but an autoimmune disease. This was a real tragedy for science. Schwarzschild was the theorist who first figured out how the real Earth, including the greenhouse gases in its atmosphere, radiates to space. That is described by the jagged black line. The important point here is the red line. This is what Earth would radiate to space if you were to double the CO2 concentration from today’s value. Right in the middle of these curves, you can see a gap in spectrum. The gap is caused by CO2 absorbing radiation that would otherwise cool the Earth. If you double the amount of CO2, you don’t double the size of that gap. You just go from the black curve to the red curve, and you can barely see the difference. The gap hardly changes.
  • “The message I want you to understand, which practically no one really understands, is that doubling CO2 makes almost no difference.”
  • “Doubling would replace the black curve by the red curve. On the basis of this, we are supposed to give up our liberties. We are supposed to give up the gasoline engines of our automobiles. We are supposed to accept dictatorial power by Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, because of the difference between the red and the black curve. Do not let anyone convince you that that is a good bargain. It is a terrible bargain. The doubling actually does make a little difference. It decreases the radiation to space by about three watts per square meters. In comparison, the total radiation to space is about 300 watts per square meter.
  • Happer then goes into the beneficial effects of increasing CO2 for vegetation. He estimates that the optimum CO2 for plants is about 1500 to 2000 ppm. At the maximum extent of the glaciation period, about 20,000 years ago, there were major dust storms mostly from the high plains of Asia and North America (which were probably devoid of vegetation caused by CO2 starvation).
  • Satellite evidence shows a greening of the earth from CO2 fertilization, which is most effective in dry areas, such as arid areas of Africa, North America, and Australia. This is the only effect we can clearly attribute to human emissions of CO2, and it is not a threat to mankind.

See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

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

A Shift in Climate Frenzy: Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) President Benny Peiser discusses the big issue for developed countries demanding that parties at COP 26 in Glasgow stop emitting CO2 was the counter-demand by developing countries, particularly China and India, that they receive a trillion dollars a year. That must have sobered up a few party goers at the Glasgow follies. It would be difficult for some to explain to their citizens why their government should participate in such as huge transfer of wealth.

To Peiser, the effort began with an IPCC special report in 2018 that global warming be limited to 1.5 °C. There is no physical evidence supporting this demand or any evidence that it is desirable given a history of climate change that includes the periods of glaciation in the current Quaternary Period, characterized as an Ice Age, with ice caps on both poles. Based on the 2018 report, and the IPCC’s erroneous estimates of the influence of CO2 on temperatures, government experts have calculated that the false “limit” will be reached in about 2030.

Peiser states that in the 12 years from 2018 to 2030, the IPCC and its followers estimate that given the current rate of CO2 emission growth, the CO2 emissions will increase global temperatures by 0.4 °C, reaching the dreaded limit. This has given rise to “doomsday” cults that claim the extinction of humanity will result, leading many types of governments to declare a climate emergency. Examples of governments showing doomsday thinking include the UK and the Biden Administration.

Particularly for the UK and parts of the EU, the doomsday cults have led to a real crisis. The naïve belief that erratic, unreliable wind power can provide safe and affordable electricity created demands of “Net Zero” – no CO2 emissions allowed. This is the reason why the name of the Global Warming Policy Forum was changed to Net Zero Watch. No one knows the cost of Net Zero, and don’t bother asking a government official.

There has been a new development in the UK over the past 18 months, – a crisis of reliable, affordable, and cost-effective electricity. The claim that more wind turbines will yield lower cost and reliable power is false. What is being seen is that surveys of how people feel about saving the environment produce strong positive feelings. But when asked how much they are willing to spend, the answer is closer to zero. There is a disparity between what people say and what people do.

Costs of net zero programs are becoming astronomical, moving into the third phase of questioning – are you willing to pay for saving the planet if it makes you poorer and colder? In the latest Swiss election, the people answered that their economic fears trump climate fears. According to Peiser, in the five phase “Issue Attention Cycle” by Anthony Downs, the UK is moving from Phase 2, “discovery and enthusiasm”, to Phase 3, “realization of cost.”

Net Zero Watch is offering an alternative to net zero: realism. The workable alternative is dash-for-gas and nuclear. The US has undergone the first but nuclear is strongly opposed. Since the UK is further along the path of economic destruction brought by net zero than the US, it is instructive to watch what happens and note the extreme claims made in the frenzy. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy, Questioning European Green, Energy Issues – Non-US, and Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy — Other

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

Vacuous Reports: The extent to which plastics in the ocean are a problem is not clear. They are destructive to some life forms, but they provide protection to other life forms. A report by the National Academies on plastics contributes nothing to the issue and is little more than an attack on the US plastics industry, which depends on hydrocarbons. The report emphasizes the growth of US manufacturing and ignores its proper disposal.

Apparently, the National Academies are unaware of the geography of the US. Everything east of the Continental Divide drains into the Atlantic. The drainage from much of west of the Continental Divide goes into the Colorado River, which has little water when it reaches Mexico; or into the Great Basin, which goes nowhere. The drainage that goes into the Pacific is mostly from California (Sacramento River), and Oregon, Washington, and Idaho (the Columbia River).

The National Academies report emphasizes US plastics production as the proxy for ocean plastic pollution. But the biggest problem is in the Pacific. According to Our World in Data: “It is estimated that 81% of ocean plastics come from Asian rivers. The Philippines alone contributes around one-third of the global total. Since the number of contributing rivers is much higher than previously thought, we will need global efforts to improve waste management and plastic collection rather than targeting only a few of the largest rivers.” The issue is disposal, not manufacture. The National Academies confuse the two.

The US Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy produced an equally vacuous report. In part, it states:

“The ‘Decarbonization (Decarb)’ scenario assumes policies drive a 95% reduction (from 2005 levels) in the grid’s carbon dioxide emissions by 2035 and a 100% reduction by 2050. This scenario assumes more aggressive cost-reduction projections than the Reference scenario for solar as well as other renewable and energy storage technologies, but it uses standard future projections for electricity demand.”

“Even under the Reference scenario, installed solar capacity increases by nearly a factor of 7 by 2050, and grid emissions decline by 45% by 2035 and 61% by 2050, relative to 2005 levels. That is, even without a concerted policy effort, market forces and technology advances will drive significant deployment of solar and other clean energy technologies as well as substantial decarbonization.”

“Solar can facilitate deep decarbonization of the U.S. electric grid by 2035 without increasing projected 2035 electricity prices if targeted technological advances are achieved.”

The report does not state clearly what the targeted technological advances are – other than expanding pumped hydro-storage, batteries, and suggesting various other types of storage. “The DOE Energy Storage Grand Challenge has set aggressive storage cost goals, potentially exploiting technologies better suited for stationary applications.” Utility scale examples are lost in the “pixie dust” thinking of the report.

Dominion Energy’s Bath County Pumped Storage in Virginia (3,000 MW) is the largest such facility in the world, and it is replenished by nuclear and coal-fired power plants. Dominion Energy is proposing a second, smaller pumped storage facility (300 MW) in Tazewell County, Virginia, which is being opposed by environmental groups. That facility would be replenished by nuclear power. Though it has looked for several years, TWTW has been unable to find any utility scale examples that solar or wind can replenish storage in a timely manner. On islands with low populations, it has been tried and failed, falling back on diesel. See links under Defending the Orthodoxy, Changing Seas, and https://ourworldindata.org/ocean-plastics.

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

Changing Cultures: According to the review of Flying Blind, Boeing forgot that its success depended on a reputation for superior engineering and this failure exemplifies what can occur with changing organizational cultures and how important components of that culture maybe lost.

For TWTW readers the unfortunate set of events is important for two reasons. The US Grids are complex energized systems serving all who are on it. They are designed by power engineers to provide at least 99.9% reliability to customers at lowest possible costs. As Federal and state politicians exert greater pressure on grid operators, failures will appear. As with Boeing managers, the politicians will ignore the problems and blame others. We are seeing this in California where the legislators control the grid but take no responsibility for the wildfires created by downed power lines or the blackouts that are becoming more frequent.

The second reason for concern is that no one knows how poorly the grid will respond with more solar or wind. Contrary to the false claims of today’s Department of Energy, there is no reliable, utility scale storage using solar and wind generation. In Germany, Denmark, and the UK we are seeing the enormous costs of the false promises. See Article # 1.

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

Creating Truth: According to the review of The Wires of War: How Online Lies Become the Truth

First, cook up an ‘untruth.’ Then ‘layer’ it, obscuring its source. At any hint of suspicion, use a ‘firehose’ to drown out the correct details” begins:

“The scam runs something like this: You start with what’s known as ‘placement.’ ‘Some untruth is cooked up,’ Jacob Helberg tells us. ‘The disinformation can be completely fabricated’ or ‘it may originate with hacked or compromising information.’ Next comes ‘amplification,’ using shells or false online identities to disseminate that cooked-up untruth. From there one proceeds to ‘layering,’ in which intermediaries ‘obscure the original source of disinformation and spread propaganda far and wide.’ The coup de grâce arrives with ‘integration,’ the point at which the lie has been so widely propagated that it becomes accepted as truth.”

A similar approach is used in the attacks on greenhouse gases as well as on viable American industries such as petroleum. See Article #2.

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

Number of the Week: 40% of rate in 1980: According to Statista, in the US the 1980 death rate from heart disease was 412 people per 100,000 population. In 2018 (latest numbers available) it was 164 per 100,000 population. The death rate is about 40% of what it was in 1980. This remarkable decline reflects the great increase in understanding and treatment of heart disease accepted by the medical community.

Since 1980 we have seen a remarkable increase in our understanding of what is occurring in the atmosphere and can calculate the actual influence of greenhouse gases. Yet the IPCC and the climate science community ignore this advancement. Use your own term to describe this deliberate ignorance. See https://www.statista.com/statistics/184515/deaths-by-heart-diseases-in-the-us-since-1950/

Challenging the Orthodoxy — NIPCC

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science

Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2013

Summary: https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/CCR/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts

Idso, Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2014

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/climate-change-reconsidered-ii-biological-impacts/

Summary: https://www.heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-IIb/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels

By Multiple Authors, Bezdek, Idso, Legates, and Singer eds., Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, April 2019

http://store.heartland.org/shop/ccr-ii-fossil-fuels/

Download with no charge:

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Climate-Change-Reconsidered-II-Fossil-Fuels-FULL-Volume-with-covers.pdf

Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming

The NIPCC Report on the Scientific Consensus

By Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Nov 23, 2015

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

Download with no charge:

https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/why-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate

S. Fred Singer, Editor, NIPCC, 2008

http://www.sepp.org/publications/nipcc_final.pdf

Global Sea-Level Rise: An Evaluation of the Data

By Craig D. Idso, David Legates, and S. Fred Singer, Heartland Policy Brief, May 20, 2019

Challenging the Orthodoxy

Climate Change and CO2 Not a Problem

By William Happer, CLINTEL lecture, Nov 16, 2021

With transcript and images from Feb 2021 presentation, by Ron Clutz, Via Science Matters, Dec 4, 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