Weather

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #492 – Watts Up With That?


The Week That Was: 2022-02-19 (February 19, 2022)
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: “In God we trust, all others bring data.” – Motto of The Right Climate Stuff Team.

Number of the Week: $1289/kWh v. $0.1059/kWh

THIS WEEK:

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

Scope: Using the numbers published by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Physicist Howard Hayden, a SEPP director, continues to develop a quite simple model explaining the maximum upper bound that increasing greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, would cause if they are doubled. This TWTW describes another step in the process. The papers will be posted on the SEPP website within three weeks. Using a different approach, the Right Climate Stuff Team of Apollo veterans used an upper bound analysis. It as a rigorous a type of scientific analysis as that which got the US to the moon.

Borrowing from Hollywood publicity, the UN has begun a propaganda blitz for its upcoming, politically negotiated, final Summary for Policymakers of its Sixth Assessment Report (AR6, 2021 & 2022). It promises horrors so extreme that they don’t know what they are, yet.

Keeping up with the tall tales, NOAA released a report on sea level rise along the Atlantic coast. This was quickly demolished by facts, a quaint concept that parts of NOAA have abandoned. Also discussed are further revaluations of manipulation of the European temperature record, supposedly kept in safety by NOAA. The Journal Atmosphere published a paper by a group of independent scientists, including SEPP director Willie Soon, who exposed unjustified manipulation of temperature records entrusted to NOAA. This manipulated surface data is used by climate modelers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the ill-named NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA-GISS).

A paper published by Nature Climate Change proclaimed that the US Southwest is experiencing the driest period in 1,200 years. It depends on what their definition of period is.

Matt Ridley has a thoughtful essay on why the current warming benefits humanity. Unfortunately, the IPCC and its followers forget the benefits of warming and carbon dioxide emissions in their attempts to frighten the public, especially children.

Finally, the Biden White House has come out with a “fact sheet” on industrial energy use. It is long on promised subsidies and short on facts.

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

A Better Way, Continued – Equations: The Earth’s climate system involves two fluids of different viscosity (resistance to change) interacting with irregular surfaces on a spinning planet unevenly heated by the sun. This gives rise to perplexing nonlinear mathematical problems, which involve the Navier-Stokes equation. In over 150 years, there has never been an exact solution, and there is no proof that a solution is even possible. The Clay Mathematics Institute called a solution one of the seven most important open problems in mathematics and has offered $1 million as a Millennium Prize for a solution.

Despite having spent tens of millions of dollars climate modeling has stagnated. Based on observations of atmospheric temperatures, the climate modelers following the IPCC procedures make estimates that are far too high, leading to false assertions of a climate crisis. What is involved can be called the weather machine, the complex motion of the two fluids involved in convection, moving heat from the tropics to the polar regions and to space, thereby cooling the Earth.

A further problem is the notion used by the IPCC and the modelers of an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS). Equilibrium in this case does not mean that the equator and the North Pole are at the same temperature; ECS refers to the eventual average temperature of the earth following a doubling of CO2 concentration.  No one has ever yet established an equilibrium climate on this ever-changing planet. Yet, as they produce no solutions to these problems, climate modelers continue to increase their claims of what they would like the solution to be, whether it bears any resemblance to actual facts or not.

From the standpoint of astronomy, all planets are in equilibrium in the sense that they absorb heat from the sun and radiate the same amount of heat into space.  The equation is called the Planetary Heat Balance, and it uses only two variables—the Total Solar Irradiance and the albedo (reflectivity) of the planet—to tell us that quantity of heat.  Planet Earth absorbs and radiates 239 watts per square meter of surface.

The surface of the planet, however, radiates more infrared than the planet radiates into space.  The well-established Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law tells us that the average emission from the surface is 398 watts per square meter.

The numerical difference between these two emission values is (at long last) given a symbol G by the IPCC, which also assigns the name greenhouse effect.  The atmosphere is ultimately responsible for the greenhouse effect, which turns out to be 159 watts per square meter (using IPCC-approved numbers).

Hayden’s calculation amounts to equating the outgoing IR (surface radiation minus greenhouse effect) to the radiation to space from the Planetary Heat Balance equation to obtain what he calls the Climate Constraint Equation.  The equation derives entirely from the conservation of energy and is therefore universal.  The equation cannot make predictions of future climate, but any correct climate model must satisfy the equation.

The processes by which the atmosphere reduces the infrared from the surface to the amount that goes to space are very numerous and very complicated.  Atomic/molecular/optical scientists van Wijngaarden and Happer have calculated the greenhouse by working with a third of a million spectral lines of five greenhouse gases (including CO2) and have thereby duplicated spectral measurements made from satellites.  They have also repeated the calculation for doubled CO2 and found that the increase in the greenhouse effect due to that increase is about 3 watts per square meter.  (IPCC has long used 3.7 watts per square meter.)

As an example, Hayden discusses IPCC’s “most probable” temperature rise due to CO2 doubling (the ECS) of 3ºC.  With this temperature rise, the surface must, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, radiate about 16.5 more watts per square meter.  Since the additional greenhouse effect due to CO2 doubling is only 3.7 watts per square meter (IPCC’s value), how does the IPCC account for the 12.8 W/m2?  (Spoiler alert:  they don’t.)  If their models were correct, some combination of increased greenhouse effect from other gases and a decrease in albedo (say, by increasing the cosmic ray flux as Svensmark suggests) would be required.

IPCC, however, does not recognize their quandary.  They attribute about 80% of the increased temperature to CO2, and assert that the albedo will increase, rather than decrease.

A series of Hayden’s short climate physics papers will soon be posted on the SEPP website, and TWTW will discuss them more fully.

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

Unknown Horrors: According to reports, bureaucrats representing nearly two hundred countries had a virtual meeting on February 14 to begin negotiating the definitive version of UN IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers of its Sixth Assessment Report (AR6, SPM). Marlowe Hood of AFP reports:

“Nearly 200 nations kick off a virtual UN meeting Monday to finalise what is sure to be a harrowing catalogue of climate change impacts — past, present and future.”

“A crucial, 40-page Summary for Policymakers — distilling underlying chapters totaling thousands of pages, and reviewed line-by-line — is to be made public on February 28.”

Seth Borenstein and Frank Jordans report:

“Scientists and governments meet to finalise UN report on ‘nightmare’ impacts of global warming.”

What is frightening is the general incompetence of the news reporters. Unquestioningly they accept whatever the IPCC says. Yet, the physical evidence is building that the models are wrong, and the globe is not warming dangerously.

In 1812 the brothers Grimm published their first volume of stories, largely from folklore, Children’s and Household Tales, later called Grimms’ Fairy Tales. Many people thought they were unsuitable for children. But their work inspired Europeans in other cultures to collect stories from their folklore. Perhaps the upcoming IPCC Summary for Policymakers should be considered in that light. See links under Defending the Orthodoxy

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

Selective Seas? NOAA has provided its own version of Grimms Fairy Tales with its “2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report.” As all too usual, it finds sea level rise where land is subsiding, and, strangely, where land is not subsiding. One can say that melting ice in Greenland and Antarctica may not cause sea level rise, depending on where one lives. Writing in ICECAP, Joseph D’Aleo explains the mystery:

“However, the new satellite and radar altimeter data lacked the resolution to accurately measure sea levels down to the mm [millimeter] level. Moreover, the raw data from this technology also conflicted with Alarmists’ claims. As a result, adjustments to this data were also made – most notably a Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA). GIA assumes that basically all land is rebounding from long ago glaciations and oceanic basins are deepening. The assumption is that this rebounding is masking the true sea level rise. Alarmists continue to proclaim that their models project a rapid acceleration of sea level rise over the next 30 to 70 years, when those same models have failed to even come close to accurately predicting the past 25 years.”

Nothing like adjusting data to suit one’s needs. See links under Changing Seas:

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

How Good Is It? In a 2014 debate sponsored by the American Physical Society, William Collins of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and an IPCC modeler stated it was common procedure to adjust (tune) global climate models to surface temperatures, then to discard the adjustments when making predictions / projections. This is nonsense, but none-the-less it is done. Still, the question of how good the surface temperature record is remains. Tony Heller and others have demonstrated that the US data has been heavily manipulated by lowering past temperatures. There appears to be no clear record of the adjustments, thus the data are meaningless. The next largest area for which data of reasonable density exists is Europe.

The journal Atmosphere just published an article describing an investigation by independent scientists into the European surface temperature data and the results show that the data are poor – unreliable. The abstract states:

“A remarkable inconsistency in the identified breakpoints (and hence adjustments applied) was revealed. Of the adjustments applied for GHCN [Global Historical Climatology Network] Version 4, 64% (61% for Version 3) were identified on less than 25% of runs, while only 16% of the adjustments (21% for Version 3) were identified consistently for more than 75% of the runs. The consistency of PHA [“Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm] adjustments improved when the breakpoints corresponded to documented station history metadata events. However, only 19% of the breakpoints (18% for Version 3) were associated with a documented event within 1 year, and 67% (69% for Version 3) were not associated with any documented event. Therefore, while the PHA remains a useful tool in the community’s homogenization toolbox, many of the PHA adjustments applied to the homogenized GHCN dataset may have been spurious.”

The Global Historical Climatology Network is the responsibility of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI).

Francis Menton describes the problem well. He quotes NOAA and writes:

“’NOAAGlobalTempv5 is a reconstructed dataset, meaning that the entire period of record is recalculated each month with new data. Based on those new calculations, the new historical data can bring about updates to previously reported values. These factors, together, mean that calculations from the past may be superseded by the most recent data and can affect the numbers reported in the monthly climate reports.’ [Boldface in Menton.]

“Yes, ‘calculations from the past may be superseded by the most recent data.’ Huh?” This simply and plainly rewriting history and has absolutely no basis in facts.

Simply put, we don’t know how good the data record is and have no way of knowing. NOAA’s NCEI cannot be trusted with keeping records. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy and the Jan 29, 2022, TWTW.

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

Greatest Drought? Nature Climate Change published a paper using a new method for measuring drought, soil moisture deficit, which was used to claim the US Southwest is experiencing the worst drought since 800 AD. Meteorologist Cliff Mass points out that the duration of the greatest drought is unusual. The IPCC usually considers that for climate change to take effect, it takes at least 30 years, anything less can just be a shift in weather. Mass writes:

“Now, I am not a little surprised that none of the “curious” media stopped for a moment and asked:  why did these researchers pick 22 years? Why not 25 years, 30 years, or 50 years?

“The answer is that their whole narrative, their whole claim of unusual drought, would have weakened greatly if they had used 25 years or 30 years or anything longer.”

“A NOAA website just came up and using it I have plotted the Palmer Drought Severity Index for the whole Southwest. I put a line on the year 2000. You will see that the Williams et al study selected the driest period for analysis, the optimally dry period, with a much wetter period preceding. Such a rapid transition is not the expected impact of global warming, which would tend to change temperature/moisture gradually.” [Boldface added]

Simply put, journalists who accept what scientists say without questioning and doing their own research can mislead the public. See links under Defending the Orthodoxy and Defending the Orthodoxy – Bandwagon Science.

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

Benefits of Carbon Dioxide: Matt Ridley has an excellent essay on some of the benefits of human emissions of carbon dioxide causing a modest warming. The benefits include the general greening of the Earth, as shown by NASA satellites, with new green leaves encompassing an area equal to three Great Britains each year. Also, there are far fewer deaths in Britain from extreme cold, a greater killer than hot weather. Globally, extreme weather deaths, heat and cold, are declining, daytime highs in the tropics are increasing very slowly.

“Globally, deaths from droughts, floods and storms are down by about 98 per cent over the past 100 years – not because weather is less dangerous but because shelter, transport and communication (which are mostly the products of the fossil-fuel economy) have dramatically improved people’s ability to survive such natural disasters.”

Rather than condemning the fossil fuels industries, the Biden and other administrations in western countries should be thanking them. Instead, they are doing whatever they can to damage these industries and the economies of their nations. See links under Social Benefits of Carbon Dioxide.

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

Fact Sheet? Illustrating how divorced it is from reality the White House produced a “fact sheet.” The highlights include:

 “…major clean hydrogen initiatives…first-ever Buy Clean Task Force…carbon-based trade policies to reward American manufacturers of clean steel and aluminum…guidance on responsible deployment of Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Sequestration (CCUS) technologies…Initiative for Interdisciplinary Industrial Decarbonization Research…”

“$8 billion for Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs…$1 billion for a Clean Hydrogen Electrolysis Program…$1 billion for a Clean Hydrogen Electrolysis Program…”

What stood out was:

“To further support DOE’s Hydrogen Shot to reduce the cost of clean hydrogen by 80% to $1 for one kilogram in one-decade, last week DOE announced $28 million for R&D and front-end engineering design projects to advance clean hydrogen in industrial uses, as well as the transportation and electricity sectors.”

Apparently, the “experts” behind the Hydrogen Shot do not understand that the Apollo “Moon Shot” required scientists and engineers to rigorously test their concepts against physical evidence, solid data, not manipulated fluff which is used as data today. The “fact sheet” is the stuff that pipedreams are made of. Of course, some industry executives will take all they can get. See links under Subsidies and Mandates Forever.

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

Number of the Week: $1289/kWh v. $0.1059/kWh. Moss Landing, California, is the largest battery storage facility in the US at 400MW/1,600MWh capacity. A commercial facility, according to its website:

“As of February 2022, the average storage system cost in Moss Landing, CA is $1289/kWh. Given a storage system size of 13 kWh, an average storage installation in Moss Landing, CA ranges in cost from $14,246 to $19,274, with the average gross price for storage in Moss Landing, CA coming in at $16,760.”

According to the latest figures from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), in 2020 the average cost of generating electricity in the US was $0.1059/kWh and California with high penetration of solar power at $0.1800/kWh.

Those who talk about costs of solar and wind power coming down never get around to talking about costs of storage. Now we know why. See links under Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy – Storage, https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/, and https://www.energysage.com/local-data/energy-storage-cost/ca/monterey-county/moss-landing/#:~:text=Given%20a%20storage%20system%20size,CA%20coming%20in%20at%20%2416%2C760.]

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

33 controversial conclusions about energy, environmental, and climate issues

In Fossil Future, I look at the *full context* of facts about energy, environment, and climate from a *human flourishing perspective*. This leads to some very controversial conclusions.

By Alex Epstein, His Blog, Feb 4, 2022

https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/33-controversial-conclusions-from?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo3MDk1MzEsIl8iOiJPMWE0ZiIsImlhdCI6MTY0NTAyNzAwNSwiZXhwIjoxNjQ1MDMwNjA1LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItNTEzNjAxIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.3IYHtIKcLFG1s-0u06T0M6FA4l1cqJ20LJ8eLenjtZw&r=f7h7

The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time — Part XXIX

By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, Feb 18, 2022

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-2-18-the-greatest-scientific-fraud-of-all-time-part-xxix

Link to paper: Evaluation of the Homogenization Adjustments Applied to European Temperature Records in the Global Historical Climatology Network Dataset

By Peter O’Neill, et al. Atmosphere, Feb 8, 2022

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/13/2/285

Increasing Cold Extremes Worldwide: Is Global Cooling on the way?

By Madhav Khandekar, Ray Garnett, Frontier Centre for Public Policy, Feb 11, 2022 [H/t ICECAP]

West megadrought worsens to driest in at least 1,200 years

By Staff, ICECAP, Feb 16, 2022

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/west_megadrought_worsens_to_driest_in_at_least_1200_years1/

Link to Exceptional Years: A History of California Floods and Drought

By J.M. Guinn, The Historical Society of Southern California, 1890

Sorry, New York Times and NPR, Megadroughts Have Been Far, Far, Worse Than Today

By Anthony Watts, Climate Realism, Feb 15, 2022

Hundreds More Papers Published In 2021 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm

By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Feb 14, 2022

Main Reason Behind Europe’s “Energy Price Explosion” Is Green Policy In Europe And Germany

The major reason for Europe’s energy price explosion is green policy in Europe and Germany

By Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt (Text translated/edited by P. Gosselin), Via No Tricks Zone, Feb 16, 2022

“But the grand finale is yet to come because now fertilizer prices are also rising and with them food prices. The outlawing of oil and gas exploration by the listed western oil companies from Shell to BP through green guidelines from investors will continue to drive up oil and gas prices, but also wheat and soy prices worldwide. Only China, Russia and the Arab oil companies will profit from this.”

[SEPP Comment: Price of nitrogen fertilizer is 3 times what it was in 2020.]

Defending the Orthodoxy

Is the Southwest U.S. Experiencing a Megadrought Fueled by Global Warming?

By Cliff Mass, Weather Blog, Feb 17, 2022

https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2022/02/is-southwest-us-experiencing.html

Link to paper: Rapid intensification of the emerging southwestern North American megadrought in 2020–2021

By Williams, Cook & Smerdon, Nature Climate Change Feb 14, 2022

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01290-z

Stakes ‘never been higher’ in climate fight: IPCC head

By Marlowe Hood, Paris (AFP) Feb 14, 2022

https://www.terradaily.com/reports/Stakes_never_been_higher_in_climate_fight_IPCC_head_999.html

Nations to review harrowing catalogue of climate impacts

By Marlowe Hood, Paris (AFP) Feb 14, 2022

https://www.terradaily.com/reports/Nations_to_review_harrowing_catalogue_of_climate_impacts_999.html

Scientists and governments meet to finalise UN report on ‘nightmare’ impacts of global warming

By Seth Borenstein and Frank Jordans, EuroNews.green, Feb 14, 2022 [H/t Dennis Ambler]

https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/02/14/scientists-and-governments-meet-to-finalise-un-report-on-nightmare-impacts-of-global-warmi

Defending the Orthodoxy – Bandwagon Science

Climate-boosted drought in western US worst in 1,200 years

By Marlowe Hood, Paris (AFP) Feb 14, 2022

https://www.terradaily.com/reports/Climate-boosted_drought_in_western_US_worst_in_1200_years_999.html

UCLA’s Hypothetical Droughts

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Feb 15, 2022



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