Weather

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #488 – Watts Up With That?


The Week That Was: 2022-01-22 (January 22, 2022)
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: “When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.”― Jonathan Swift

Number of the Week: 4,996,000 b/d

THIS WEEK:

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

Scope: TWTW will continue reviewing significant efforts over the last year or so. Steve McIntyre exposed the shoddy nature of the proxy data used to claim that temperatures for the last two thousand years have been roughly stable, with the recent increase unusual. In a post on McIntyre’s website, Donald Rapp goes into the specific deficiencies of the proxy data, which was featured in the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6, 2021). The lack of rigor in the SPM illustrates the politicized nature of the IPCC’s science.

Also reviewed will be the presentation by Tom Sheahen describing the significance of the work by William van Wijngaarden and William Happer on the extent to which the five major greenhouse gases influence temperatures in today’s atmosphere. Howard Hayden extends the work of van Wijngaarden and Happer to show that the procedures used by the IPCC (the methodology) are unlikely to reveal the impact of increasing greenhouse gases on the globe’s temperatures.

After making bold promises that the UK will significantly reduce the use of fossil fuels, Prime Minister Boris Johnson is being called upon to show how such a reduction will not have a major negative impact on the economy and how wind power can be affordable and reliable. US President Biden is also receiving such calls as his administration tries to use administrative measures to make the use of fossil fuels extremely expensive, to the detriment of the US public.

Despite the administration’s efforts to cripple the oil and natural gas industries, Texas appears to be leading the way out of the government policy (COVID) induced recession through the development of oil and natural gas.

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

Manufacturing Evidence to Order: For several years Steve McIntyre has warned readers of Climate Audit that an effort has been underway to produce spotty marine data over the past two thousand years and declare it compelling. As stated in the September 11 TWTW:

McIntyre traced that the assertions that temperatures have been stable up to the industrial revolution come from a set of studies by an international paleoclimatology group based in Bern, Switzerland, known as PAGES 2k (PAst Global ChangES with 2k referring to the past two thousand years). The data itself are maintained by NOAA in Boulder. The most devastating criticism is the deliberate omission of high-resolution, well-established proxy studies of alkenone deposits (produced by marine algae). These deposits include those in limestone beds and date back millions of years. McIntyre writes:

“But most of all, given that the 60-30S latband [latitude band] is almost entirely (~96%) ocean, it seems bizarre that PAGES 2019 did not use any ocean core proxies, especially since there are physical formulas for estimating SST [Sea Surface Temperatures] from alkenone or Mg/Ca measurements. Any conversion of tree ring widths to temperature in deg C is the result of ad hoc statistical fitting, not a universal formula. Alkenone values have been measured all over the modern ocean and nicely fit known ocean temperatures. In addition, alkenone values for ocean cores going back to deeper time (even to the Miocene) give a consistent and reproducible narrative. So, there’s a lot to like about them as a candidate for a “good” proxy.

“While there are numerous high-resolution (10-year resolution) alkenone and Mg/Ca measurements in the North Atlantic with values through the last millennium and up to the present, to my knowledge, there were not any such series as of PAGES 2013 or PAGES 2017. (In my opinion, IPCC AR5 [2013] ought to have noted this and suggested that this deficiency be remedied.)

“PAGES 2017 included three ocean core proxy series in the 30-60S, all from offshore Chile. Their resolutions ranged from 24 to 83 years. There are some thus far undiscussed puzzles in the PAGES 2017 version of these series – as, in each case, modern values available in the underlying archive series were deleted. In each case, unsurprisingly, the effect of the deletion was to hide a decline. I will discuss this series below.

In the series of posts on his website, McIntyre extends the coverage of the deficiencies in the PAGES2k data to cover marine data from 60° South Latitude to 30° North Latitude. This is about 68% earth’s surface (not separating oceans from land). McIntyre finds no 2000-year period with roughly stable temperatures from the beginning of the Christian era to the beginning of the industrial era. The deficiencies in these data prompted Donald Rapp, author of Assessing Climate Change: Temperatures, Solar Radiation and Heat Balance (in its third edition) to post a comment on McIntyre’s website on November 1 discussing a theory of the Climategate hack and the problems with proxy data used by the IPCC:

I think the arguments presented are credible – there was a simple hack most likely based on a simple entry. But from my point of view, I don’t care if the world’s worst villains were responsible for the hack, nor am I concerned with the degree of sophistication used to get into these secret files. What does matter is that as of 2009, it is clear that the climate science tribe was strongly biased in favor of alarmism and built their arguments around dubious data and worse manipulation of the data, complete with cherry picking some and hiding others, while at the same time using their influence to squelch alternative views and punish those not in the tribe. It became clear that the whole science of proxies for past climate was rife with fake news. Any proxy requires a standardization period when the model can be compared to data. Then, extrapolation to previous eras requires justification by showing that other variables were comparable during the extrapolated period to those during the standardization period. I have read dozens of published papers that utilize proxies. Very few if any show the comparison during the standardization period and/or the basis for justifying extrapolation. I came to the reluctant conclusion that almost all the proxy data is highly suspect. SM [Steve McIntyre] penetrated far more deeply than I did into the proxies used by MBH [Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, & Malcolm Hughes] and demonstrated the fallacies in both the proxies themselves as well as the methods of processing data. It seems unimaginable that after all the demonstrations by SM over a decade and more, they are still putting forth their un-science and Mann still is a highly respected leader in the climate field. The climate gate releases demonstrated not so much the details (they were revealed by SM) as much as the mindset of these rascals. Altogether, the events of 2009 cast a very long shadow on the periodic UN reports that came out subsequently. Can you believe anything that the climate establishment publicizes? [Boldface added]

Without question, everyone must be wary of using proxy data promoted by the IPCC. It is as likely to be solid science as manufactured wood (wood particles glued together and covered with a veneer) is solid wood. See the September TWTWs and link under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

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

Greenhouse Gas Warming: As discussed in previous TWTWs, 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. Overall, carbon dioxide provides roughly twenty to twenty-five percent of the total greenhouse effect but doubling the concentration would only increase the total greenhouse effect by a little over 2 percent. And given the existing influence of water vapor, the influences of the other gases on global temperatures are insignificant.

The November 13 TWTW discussed that 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 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 surface 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 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 tiny effect on temperatures; the term is “saturated.” The effects of increasing the other greenhouse gases are virtually imperceptible.

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

In their paper, “Methane and Climate” discussed in the November 6 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.”

It is important to remember that these calculations are based on “clear skies,” no clouds. If and when a solid theory on cloud formations is developed, then the calculated influence of greenhouse gases on temperatures should be lower. Clouds reflect significant sunlight, preventing it from reaching the surface, cooling the surface. See link under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

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

The Whole Globe, Atmosphere Included: In his presentation at the Heartland Conference, and in a subsequent paper on the SEPP website, physicist Howard Hayden shows that for 30 years the IPCC and its followers ignored the long-established Stefan-Boltzmann Law which is critical for understanding the radiation emitted from the surface of the earth.

Discussed in the November 13 TWTW, Hayden shows that 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 require 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 CO2 doubling of 3.7 W/m2 – is a mere 2.3% nudge with a dramatic name.” That is, the “radiative forcing” of CO2 is negligible compared to the total greenhouse effect of over 150 W/m2.

Hayden also explains why the procedures (methodology) used by the IPCC and its followers are unlikely to result in an accurate understanding of the greenhouse effect. What is important to determine a warming or cooling of the globe is the energy released to space, which can be measured from the top of the atmosphere, not at the surface. The infrared energy can be measured using instruments on satellites under NASA’s Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) program, which have been operating since 1999 and show no dramatic change in infrared radiation going to space,

Without an increase in absorbed sunlight (hence, outgoing IR), the increased IR from the surface must be matched exactly by an increase in “radiative forcing.”  With a supposed 3ºC rise in surface temperature, there must be an increase of 16.5 W/m2 from the surface supposedly caused by 3.7 W/m2 due to CO2 doubling.  IPCC has never considered this contradiction, let alone provided an explanation.  Hayden constructs derives a simple formula from elementary physics which should be a constraint on any and all climate model projections. of increased warming from a doubling of CO2. The direct increase in the greenhouse effect is 2.3%, a temperature increase far less than glacial to interglacial warming. For example, the glacial-to-interglacial warming of 10ºC caused the surface to radiate more than 50 W/m2, yet the “radiative forcing” due to the increase in CO2 concentration was certainly less than 3.7 W/m2.  See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy and Hayden’s paper at http://www.sepp.org/science_papers/Climate%20Comments.pdf

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

Another Assessment Report: Boris Johnson’s government released the Third Climate Change Risk Assessment required under the UK’s Climate Change Act of 2008 and prepared by the Climate Change Committee (CCC). Paul Homewood sums up its value: “I think the CCC have been watching too many disaster movies!” and “The whole report is just another attempt to scare the children and persuade people to accept the high costs of Net Zero.”

Further, the net balancing costs [cost of balancing the electricity load for erratic wind and solar power] in the UK continue to skyrocket. These will continue to increase as additional intermittent generation is brought in. Homewood states, “Net balancing costs were £506m in 2015. The system pressures mentioned above have pushed the net cost in 2020 to £1.3Bn, 67% higher than 2019 (£794m).”

Further, according to the BBC the Johnson government “is developing a £15bn plus ‘Cost Deferral Mechanism’ to smooth the expected rise of energy bills over a period of years, with ‘some supporters of the PM arguing he will use this Cost Deferral Scheme, to relaunch his premiership.’”

Net Zero Watch states: ‘Mr Johnson’s political gamble is bad news for everyone. Rather than address the fundamental problem with UK energy supply, which has been distorted and damaged by vast subsidies to intermittent green generators (£10 billion a year at present), the government seems prepared to bail out energy companies and force banks to lend them billions.”

We have here another subsidy pit. Green subsidies require ever more green subsidies to bail out those who took the initial green subsidies. “The Tony Blair (former PM) Institute for Global Change” claims that high energy (electricity) prices could have been avoided by building more wind turbines earlier.

Now with Net Zero Watch, Professor Gordon Hughes, School of Economics, University of Edinburgh, who has long studied wind power economics and differentiated between rhetoric and reality responded:

“The ‘Tony Blair Institute’ and ‘Carbon Brief’ authors appear to live in an alternative universe of speculative numbers. We have plenty of actual evidence about the cost of onshore wind in exactly the period under discussion. It was (and still is) extremely expensive. To have built more of it would have made the current situation even more painful for consumers.”

See links under Defending the Orthodoxy and Energy Issues – Non-US

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

The Alternative Universe: The entire Biden Administration appears to be in an alternative universe of speculative numbers. It continues to clamp down on oil and natural gas production in the US and promote wind and solar which are not affordable and reliable. The cost of providing necessary back-up is severe and greatly underestimated. “The BPA (Bonneville Power Authority) Balancing Authority Total Wind and Solar (Generation and Basepoint), Near-Real-Time” for this week illustrates this problem.

After days of bouncing at zero, on Jan 17 wind power began to increase to about 50% of capacity (about 2900 MW under the BPA) in late morning on the 18th, then fell back to zero by the end of the day where it stayed until Jan 20 when it increased to almost 90% of capacity about noon where it stayed for a few hours before falling down to near zero on Jan 22. It has stayed there since. This erratic power is balanced (backed-up) by the nation’s largest hydroelectric system. The system cannot handle any more erratic wind. Yet, the Biden Administration is bragging about building more wind and solar, and issued an executive order requiring the government, including the Department of Defense to go Net Zero. This order can greatly damage the US military and the US grid.

See links under Change in US Administrations, Energy Issues – US, Washington’s Control of Energy, and https://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/twndbspt.aspx

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

Texas Responds? Despite the administration’s opposition to the oil and natural gas industry, a group called Texans for Natural Gas issued a report on the plentiful quantities of natural gas in Texas:

“An abundance of natural gas – made possible by the Shale Revolution that began in Texas’ Barnett Shale nearly two decades ago – has enabled the United States to become one of the world’s largest exporters of the resource in only a few short years. Global demand for natural gas continues to grow as the world seeks to increase energy access and reduce emissions, and the bottom line is that Texas is poised to help meet the world’s energy needs.

“The United States is currently the third largest exporter of liquefied natural gas and is forecast to surpass Qatar and Australia to become the top exporter by 2023. The growth of LNG has occurred as the international market for natural gas has grown, giving rise to the use of natural gas in its liquefied form for efficient transportation.”

For more on this remarkable shift in the natural gas industry see links under Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?

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

Number of the Week: 4,996,000 b/d. The US Energy Information Administration reported that in January 2022, it expected that the Permian Basin alone (West Texas and Eastern New Mexico) will produce 4,966,000 barrels of crude oil a day. According to World Population Review, in 2021 US oil production was 12,108,000 b/d; Russia was 10,835,000 b/d; Saudi Arabia (member of OPEC) was 9,580,000 b/d; Iraq (member of OPEC) was 4,620,000 b/d, Canada was 4,129,000 b/d, China was 3,823,000 b/d, UAE (member of OPEC) was 3,068,000 b/d, Kuwait (member of OPEC) was 2,652,000 b/d. Except for Saudi Arabia, the Permian Basin is producing more oil than individual countries that are member of OPEC.

This gives a basis for understanding the enormous size of the oil and gas industry in the US, which the Biden Administration is trying to cripple while promoting unreliable and expensive wind and solar which cannot survive without subsidies. No wonder the Russian Deputy PM Alexander Novak and top OPEC+ negotiator could not believe the Biden Administration when it approached “hat in hand” requesting OPEC+ increase oil production!

See links under Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past? and https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/oil-production-by-country

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

Getting It Right

Scientifically, “success” means “agreement with measurement.”  Because van Wijngaarten & Happer did so, their method of calculation can be used to make predictions about alternate GHG conditions.

By Tom Sheahen, 14th International Conference on Climate Change, Oct 16, 2021

Follow the Science: The IPCC’s Backdoor Science Agenda

By Howard Hayden, 14th International Conference on Climate Change, Oct 16, 2021

A Constraint Equation for Climate

By Howard Hayden, SEPP Website, 2021

http://www.sepp.org/science_papers/Climate%20Constraint%20Equation.pdf

A Theory of the Hack [Climategate 2009]

By Stephen McIntyre, Climate Audit, Nov 1, 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