Weather

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #491 – Watts Up With That?


The Week That Was: 2022-02-12 (February 12, 2022)
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: “To defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.” – attributed to Einstein

Number of the Week: 1,230 GW compared with 240 GW

THIS WEEK:

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

Scope: On Monday, the Wall Street Journal published an article on the climate modeling performed by the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) which is a world leader. The article was striking because it illustrated how far behind NCAR’s thinking is in developing a model that will describe the massive amount of new evidence gathered over the past forty years on how the atmosphere is responding to increasing greenhouse gases, particularly human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). If models cannot describe what is happening in the atmosphere today, they cannot usefully forecast or predict what may happen in the future. The fear of a “climate crisis” is built on out-of-date information and models.

TWTW addresses the issue using modern atmospheric data (observations) taken by satellites. Unfortunately, climate modelers rely on data taken “the old-fashioned way” with instruments on the ground. These do not and cannot describe what is occurring in the atmosphere. The work of William Happer and William van Wijngaarden will be emphasized as explained simply by Howard Hayden.

If the American public is to be alarmed, it should be by the reports in Europe of the sharply increasing costs of energy, particularly electricity. Alternative energy promoters, including government entities, mislead the public by claiming the costs are coming down. It is not the cost of the wind turbine or solar panel that is important, it is the cost of reliable electricity. As reliable generators are closed due to government policy and market manipulation of electricity is becoming more expensive. Modern civilization requires reliable electricity, yet government policies in the US and in Europe favor unreliable electricity generation, making reliable generation unprofitable.

The US football season and the Winter Olympics are closing. Both gave climate fear promoters opportunities for propaganda.

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

Worsening Errors: Probably unknown by the reporter, a February 6 article in the Wall Street Journal on climate modeling at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) illustrates what is wrong with US climate modeling and the climate modeling world as it responds to demands by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The article was titled “Climate Scientists Encounter Limits of Computer Models, Bedeviling Policy. Supercomputer simulations are running up against the complex physics of programming thousands of weather variables such as the extensive impact of clouds.” The beginning of the article reads:

“For almost five years, an international consortium of scientists was chasing clouds, determined to solve a problem that bedeviled climate-change forecasts for a generation: How do these wisps of water vapor affect global warming?

They reworked 2.1 million lines of supercomputer code used to explore the future of climate change, adding more-intricate equations for clouds and hundreds of other improvements. They tested the equations, debugged them, and tested again.

“The scientists would find that even the best tools at hand can’t model climates with the sureness the world needs as rising temperatures impact almost every region.

“When they ran the updated simulation in 2018, the conclusion jolted them: Earth’s atmosphere was much more sensitive to greenhouse gases than decades of previous models had predicted, and future temperatures could be much higher than feared—perhaps even beyond hope of practical remedy.”

Certainly, the complexity of the models is a problem to climate science. However, there is a deeper problem. The models must be tested against the best data, not only for assumptions but also for results. However, testing of results against physical evidence is not done.

The morning of the article, Ken Haapala posted the following in the comments section of the electronic version of the article:

“Another failure of BIG Science. NCAR ignores the scientific method which requires their hypotheses be tested against all relevant physical evidence. The effect of greenhouse gases occurs in the atmosphere. Forty-two years of comprehensive observations of the lower atmosphere show a modest warming of 0.13 C (0.23 F) per decade, far below what NCAR claims. NCAR ignores basic science.”

The Blog ICECAP posted the article along with video by Tony Heller on how surface data is distorted after the fact. Essentially NOAA changes history to suit political needs. Further, Sterling Burnett brought out additional errors in Environment & Climate News. But none of these criticisms really goes far enough.

The article states that the assumptions were carefully tested. But no matter how well the assumptions were tested, it is the results that count. The results are a warming higher than what was previously shown by atmospheric temperature trends to be far too high. The entire modeling process must be revamped, or the modeling community will continue to produce what modeler Mototaka Nakamura identified, as quoted in last week’s TWTW. Nakamura wrote:

“…climate simulation models are fine tools to study the climate system, so long as the users are aware of the limitations of the models and exercise caution in designing experiments and interpreting their output.”

“The models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (worse, in a sense that they can produce gravely misleading output) only when they are used for climate forecasting.”

“All climate simulation models have many details that become fatal flaws when they are used as climate forecasting tools, especially for mid- to long-term (several years and longer) climate variations and changes.”

“It means that they are also completely useless for assessing the effects of the past atmospheric carbon dioxide increase on the climate. I myself used to use climate simulation models for scientific studies, not for predictions, and learned about their problems and limitations in the process.”

TWTW is not optimistic that government funded modelers are capable of making the necessary changes. Their funding is dependent on continuing promoting fears of climate change. There is no question that we don’t understand cloud formation. However, for NCAR modelers to assume that understanding cloud formation will result in higher estimates of warming from CO2 emissions is absurd. Other than high altitude cirrus clouds, in general clouds have a cooling effect, lowering daytime high temperatures by reflecting sunlight back to space. Whatever the warming effect may be (by slowing nighttime heat loss), it is overcome by the cooling effect. Heatwaves are caused by continued clear skies from stagnant high-pressure systems, not cloudy nights. Yet, the NCAR press release of the updated models claimed: “Increased warming in latest generation of climate models likely caused by clouds.”

It is doubtful that the new $40 million supercomputer being installed in Cheyanne, Wyoming, for NCAR will be used for anything but promoting fear of climate change, and climate science will continue to stagnate. At least the new supercomputer has an appropriate name: “Derecho.” (Spanish for “straight.) A Derecho is a fast-moving line of intense storms that can blow down trees and power lines and disrupt electrical power for days or weeks at a time. The fear of climate change is doing that. See Article # 1, links under Challenging the Orthodoxy, Defending the Orthodoxy and last week’s TWTW.

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

A Better Way, Continued: Last week, TWTW began a series proposing a better way to understand the greenhouse effect than what is used by the IPCC and its followers. The better procedure is shown in the work of W. A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer in their paper titled: “Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases,” discussed in the January 22, 2022, TWTW. As Tom Sheahen points out, the paper is especially important because it shows a remarkable agreement between theory and observations under significantly different conditions: the Sahara, the Mediterranean, and the Antarctic.

The theory of how greenhouse gases influence global temperatures is not sufficiently developed to be considered all inclusive. A theory for cloud formation is needed. It is not unusual to make accurate observations and calculations and use them before a full understanding of a concept is established. For example, 16th century Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe believed the controversy between believers in an Earth centered universe (Ptolemaic system) and a Sun centered solar system (Copernican system) could be resolved by accurate measurements of the planets, even before advent of the telescope. After his death, his assistant Johannes Kepler used these observations to develop Kepler’s laws of planetary motion without fully understanding gravity. Later Newton co-developed calculus, particularly integral calculus, to better explain planetary motion (including moons) and universal gravitation.

What is important here is that the calculations being advanced are reliable and testable against physical evidence, which Sheahen demonstrates. Howard Hayden expands the work of van Wijngaarden and Happer in a pair of papers posted on the SEPP website. In his January newsletter, The Energy Advocate, Hayden incorporates the measurements of infrared radiation to space by the Nimbus satellite over Guam on April 27, 1970. Guam is in the Pacific Ocean, east of the Philippines, roughly 13.5°N latitude, well within the tropics. Thus, the polar regions, temperate regions, tropics, and deserts are covered by these measurements.

Using the Planck and Schwarzschild curves provided by van Wijngaarden and Happer, Hayden explains that the greenhouse effect is the difference between the blackbody infrared radiation from the surface (Planck curve) and the radiation going to space (Schwarzschild jagged line) measured by satellites. [Both can be seen in Happer’s November 16, 2021, presentation to CLINTEL (Dec 11, 2021, TWTW)]

Both Nitrous Oxide (N2O) and Water Vapor absorb infrared radiation in the same frequencies as the primary frequencies for Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Hayden calculates the absorption from CO2 to be about 20% of the total greenhouse effect. He calculates that doubling CO2 from 400 parts per million volume (ppm) to 800 ppm adds about one percentage point to this. Thus, CO2 goes from 20% of the total greenhouse effect to 21% — not much! It is not worth destroying modern civilization for this. Hayden goes on to explain the Planetary Energy Balance which applies to everything that orbits the sun. That, and the Climate Constraint Equation will be further explained next week.

Important side note: the wavelengths covered by infrared radiation range from about 1 centimeter to about 0.0004 centimeter (2500 per centimeter). These wavelengths are divided into about one-third of a million little rectangles permitting calculations of the areas under a curve. [Also, small changes in wavelengths along the electromagnetic spectrum are often called spectral bands. Special instruments such as spectrometers can measure small differences in frequency.] Those who remember integral calculus may remember the introduction where it is shown that by calculating the area in little rectangles under a curve and adding them together, one can approximate the total area underneath the curve. Using HITRAN, Van Wijngaarden and Happer make these calculations on a laptop not a $40 million supercomputer. Nonetheless, their calculations are much more realistic than those of BIG science. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy and the January 22, 2022, TWTW.

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

Innumeracy: Innumeracy can be defined as illiteracy in numbers. Far too often government entities use numbers without understanding what they mean. One example is stating that the warming potential of methane is, say, 50 times that of carbon dioxide. However, as shown by Hayden and many others, the warming potential of carbon dioxide varies greatly with concentration. The higher the concentration, the less effective it is. [Somewhat akin to the economists’ law of diminishing returns, but more dramatic.] By 180 parts per million volume (180 ppm) the peak effectiveness of CO2 is well past.

[At concentrations this low, some plant life would struggle and die out in parts of the globe. This is particularly true for C3 plants that are not as effective in using carbon dioxide in photosynthesis and under stress such as drought as well as C4 plants. C3 plants include some of the most important sources of calories all over the world: cowpea, cassava, soybean, and rice. Thus, regulatory schemes to reduce carbon dioxide may be contrary to plant life.]

As with carbon dioxide, the effectiveness of methane in increasing temperatures is non-linear. But its effectiveness is tiny because in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) water vapor already interferes with the infrared radiation that methane absorbs and re-emits. Above the tropopause, where water freezes out, methane is chemically broken down by oxidation.

The recent fad of claiming that methane is dangerous often demonstrates innumeracy. According to the EPA page on Methane: “Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 is 25 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.” The cited source is IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Since any functions describing the warming influence of methane and CO2 are both non-linear, the ratio of their values cannot be a constant. Anyone who uses a constant simply does not understand the temperature impacts of different greenhouse gases. See links under Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up, https://www.epa.gov/gmi/importance-methane, and https://ripe.illinois.edu/blog/difference-between-c3-and-c4-plants

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

How Much? The public in Europe is beginning to experience the high costs of going green. Pierre Gosselin writes:

“According to new data from the German Association of Energy and Water Industries, German households paid an average of 36.19 [Euro] cents for a kilowatt hour in January 2022.” [About 41.1 US cents. The average US household cost is about 10.4 cents per kilowatt hour.]

“According to FOCUS, consumer electricity costs significantly less in neighboring countries like Italy, where the price 25 euro-cents, or in Switzerland, Austria and Luxembourg where it is about 23 cents.”

According to The Daily Upside, the UK Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem, the UK independent National Regulatory Authority) announced an increase in the price cap for consumer electricity:

“When the price cap is raised in April, Ofgem estimates as many as 1 in 10 people in the UK will fall into ‘energy poverty’ — which means spending over 10% of income on heat and electricity. 2.2 million people already fit the definition, and that will triple to 6.6 million.”

TWTW is uncertain about the exact numbers, but a big price increase is coming to the UK. Of course, the bureaucrats’ solution to problems their policy creates is to punish the people, in this case blaming the lack of spare capacity when going green. Paul Homewood writes:

“In any properly managed electricity supply system there should be more than enough spare capacity to cope with all eventualities. If OFGEM believe they need to reduce peak demand, that clearly will not be the case in future.” See links under Questioning European Green.

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

A Match? Apparently, the Secretary of Energy of the Biden Administration believes she must exceed the destructive policies of the UK and EU. In her opening remarks at a U.S.-EU Energy Council Ministerial, she said:

“No country has been held hostage to access to the sun. No country has been hostage to the wind. This is not just an energy and climate issue; it is also potentially the greatest peace plan that ever existed, to be able to build energy independence from clean energy.”

“So, the faster we move, the faster we complete the clean energy transition, The faster we’ll be able to deliver more affordable energy, more diverse energy, more reliable power and true energy independence and therefore security.”

“Not to mention the economic growth and the jobs we will create.”

Does the Secretary understand the Sun will go down at night and the wind will blow erratically no matter what she says? Diverse energy will come from the shutdown of coal, natural gas and nuclear? The arrogance is amazing! See links under Defending the Orthodoxy.

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

Solar Powered Helicopters and Wind Powered Tanks? The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations has come out with a report on the army going to net zero, as directed by the Biden Administration.

Marc Morano of Climate Depot had comments that were directly on:

“John Horgan, the director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology, explained, ‘In spite of the recent surge in violence in the Middle East, war-related casualties have fallen over the last half-century, as temperatures have risen…

“A 2013 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that cold eras were dark times in Eastern Europe. ‘Some of Eastern Europe’s greatest wars and plagues over the last millennium coincided with cold periods,’ explained a summary of the study in Science News.”

Frankly, having read many Army reports, Haapala concludes that this Army report reads as a classic in “Let’s kick the can down the road, let the next set of generals worry about it.” See links under Expanding the Orthodoxy.

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

Propaganda Moments: The Winter Olympics are being held in Beijing, one of the world’s most populous city, at the northern tip of the North China Plain. In the winter, the climate is cold and dry. This winter it is cold and dry. The Chinese adjusted by creating artificial snow. This weather led to climate crisis propagandists declaring that the winter Olympics are unfit for temperate regions.

In sunny southern California, the weather is very warm. On Sunday, Los Angeles is hosting the popular American football Super Bowl. On February 10, the Los Angeles Times reported:

“…before we turn to the top of the news, here’s a weather report: It’s warm. In our outdoors newsletter the Wild, Mary Forgione noted the early blooms bursting out on the evergreen pear trees in L.A. neighborhoods. They’re making it feel like spring, she said. Well, spring’s over and now it’s summer. The National Weather Service has issued a heat advisory, warning of temperatures from 85 to 90 degrees. Part of the reason for the rare wintertime advisory is for the sake of Super Bowl visitors, said an NWS meteorologist. They might not be prepared to swelter in Southern California in February.”

The Saturday temperature forecast is a maximum of 87 °F (30.5 °C) around 2 pm local time. After that it cools. The beginning of the game is scheduled for 3:30 pm local time. The solar generation graphs from the California ISO for February 11-12 show that by 3 pm solar generation begins its rapid fall to zero which it achieves around 5 pm. The temperature cools as well. So much for heat causing “sweltering in Southern California” during the Super Bowl. See http://www.caiso.com/todaysoutlook/pages/supply.aspx

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

Number of the Week: 1,230 GW compared with 240 GW. Paul Homewood writes:

“Researchers with the [Chinese] State Grid Corporation expect another 150 GW of new coal-fired power capacity to be built over the 2021-2025 period, bringing the total [to be built] to 1,230 GW.”

By comparison: the American Public Power Association 2021 report states that the US coal nameplate generation capacity is 240 GW. Granted that some of the new Chinese capacity will be more efficient ultra-critical coal fired power plants, does it make any sense for the US Government to continue its campaign against reliable, US coal-fired power plants when China is building coal-fired power plants totaling far greater carbon dioxide emissions. See links under https://www.publicpower.org/system/files/documents/Americas-Electricity-Generation-Capacity_2021-update.pdf and Problems in the Orthodoxy.

Commentary: Is the Sun Rising?

5 Nigerian Physicists Predict Global Cooling In The Next 80 Years: 2100 Will Be 0.5°C Colder Than 2018

By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Feb 7, 2022

Link to paper: Prediction of Solar Cycles: Implication for the Trend of Global Surface Temperature

By Efiong A. Ibanga, Communication in Physical Sciences, Dec 30, 20020

file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/214-Article%20Text-606-1-10-20211003.pdf

Yes, that sun

By John Robeson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Feb 9, 2022

Link to paper: Atmospheric ionization and cloud radiative forcing

By Henrik Svensmark, J. Svensmark, M Enhoff & N. Shaviv, Nature, Scientific Reports, Oct 11, 2021

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-99033-1

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

An oversimplified picture of the climate behavior based on a single process can lead to distorted conclusions

By Richard S. Lindzen, The European Physical Journal Plus, June 3, 2020

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00471-z

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