Weather

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup # 493 – Watts Up With That?


The Week That Was: 2022-02-26 (February 26, 2022)
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: “To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven. The same key opens the gates of hell. And so it is with science.”— Richard P. Feynman.

Number of the Week: 595,000 BPD (barrels per day)

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

Scope: As the Russian troops and equipment maneuvered to invade Ukraine, the Biden White House countered with a “Climate Science Roundtable on Countering ‘Delayism’ and Communicating the Urgency of Climate Action” discussed below. The Biden Administration’s obsession with climate was verified by former US Secretary of State and current special climate envoy John Kerry who:

“warned in an interview this week about ‘massive emissions consequences’ from a Russian war against Ukraine, which he also said would be a distraction from work on climate change. Nevertheless, he added, ‘I hope President Putin will help us to stay on track with respect to what we need to do for the climate.’”

No doubt the Biden Administration has Putin quivering in fear of the consequences of his actions. An issue remains: Will the first invasion of a central European country since World War II delay the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) planned propaganda campaign on the supposed dangers of carbon dioxide global warming? The photos of Russian tanks invading Ukraine are a stark reminder that physical sciences depend on physical evidence, not imagined “evidence” resulting from climate models.

Ron Clutz posted the video and text of an interview by Climate Realism (Germany) of John Christy on data-based climate science. And based on physical evidence, Roger Pielke Jr. has an essay on trends in disaster risk. David Whitehouse warns us that trends in hurricane frequencies may be longer than the current warming period. All countering the false claims of the climate establishment which has abandoned the need for correcting of errors in science for it to advance.

Jennifer Marohasy has an interesting essay explaining why many alarming climate studies cannot be replicated. Articles by members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences are providing interesting counters to the nonsense being published by Western Academies. A recent one uses the IPCC’s high claims of the extent of warming to explore whether temperature increase alone, without the benefits of added carbon dioxide, would cause plant life to die.

Last week’s TWTW did not fully explain the concept behind its use of the Number of the Week and several readers commented on it. The reasoning will be explained below.

Over the course of this week, SEPP will be posting on its web site essays by Howard Hayden on Basic Climate Physics. Caution, basic physics means all-inclusive physics, not necessarily simple physics, and certainly not “made-up physics.” So, the essays may not be suitable for John Kerry, Al Gore, and other political “leaders” in climate science.

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

White House Propaganda: According to a White House press release:

“The head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and Deputy Assistant to the President Dr. Alondra Nelson applauded the roundtable participants for providing knowledge which will help to inform and accelerate federal climate action, and cited their work as an example of the value of combining social science with physical science:”

“‘This is deeply important to us, because, as you know, the Biden-Harris Administration’s agenda on climate change is historic. We rejoined the Paris Agreement on Day One, and we’ve been back at the table internationally — leading the world to increase our collective ambition, action, and innovation over the next decade. We’ve also set bold goals for the United States: to cut U.S. emissions in half by the end of the decade, to reach 100% clean electricity by 2035, and to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. And we are making unprecedented investments in clean energy and climate resilience, the largest in U.S. history, to build a better America.

Now, given the realities of climate change and global warming — including the rigor and ‘soundness of the science, and the increasing evidence of its impacts — one could be tempted to ask, ‘what’s taken so long?’ That brings us to another reality, which this group knows better than most: that there have been for decades, and still are, forces arrayed against the cause of climate action — running the gamut from self-interest and short-term thinking, to deliberate disinformation campaigns that are as insidious as they are invidious.’” [Boldface added.]

Those leading the attack on scientists and others who insist that physical science is built on actual physical evidence, not speculation in mathematical models, included White House OSTP Deputy Director for Climate and Environment Dr. Jane Lubchenco who led the roundtable. Formerly Administrator of NOAA under the Obama Administration, Lubchenco so lowered the standards of that agency that it continues to base projections of sea level rise on climate models rather than actual physical measurements.

“In closing remarks, White House Senior Advisor Neera Tanden said, ‘It’s clear that a variety of special interests have had a vested interest in sowing doubt on climate change and feeding denialism and delay. We need to confront that reality. However, despite this organized campaign, a strong majority of the country wants climate action because they understand the consequences of inaction.’”

The five speakers were:

Tony Leiserowitz, Founder and Director of the Yale Program on Climate Communication, Senior Research Scientist at the Yale School of the Environment, started the conversation by sharing data about public perceptions of climate change, how they have changed, and why.”

“Andrea Dutton, Professor of Geoscience from the University of Wisconsin, summarized evidence for some of the risks of delay in light of the predictable impacts of climate change over the next three to five decades, including some less predictable impacts and potential tipping points.”

“Gernot Wagner, New York University Associated Clinical Professor and Clinical Associate Professor of Environmental Studies and Public Service steered the discussion into the very real economic costs associated with delaying climate action.

“‘From an economic standpoint, it is precisely the risks and uncertainties that increase the urgency for action. What we know for sure is bad, what we don’t is potentially much worse.’

“Dan Abbasi, former government and civil society climate communicator, now with Douglass Winthrop Advisors, shared his experiences on effective ways to counter arguments for delay and lessons learned.

“‘We’re committed to 1 foot of sea level rise by 2050, but we can still stay at the low end of 2 to 7 feet by 2100 if we act. So, we need to make that fork in the road more visible and remind Americans of the can-do spirit they have always brought to challenges like this and need to again – from business innovators to citizens holding their elected officials more accountable.’

“Marshall Shepherd, University of Georgia Distinguished Professor of Geography and Atmospheric Sciences and past President of American Meteorological Society focused on overcoming arguments for delay through communication with different audiences.

“‘Doom and gloom solutions do not do well. Most Americans don’t see scientists like us every day – they see the scientists on their TV, their meteorologists, talking about kitchen table issues.  We have to remember that good messengers come from inside a community.’”

After such an array of people who use rhetoric as if it were physical evidence is there any wonder why John Kerry considers the Russian invasion of the Ukraine is a greater threat to an international climate agreement that it is to the civil liberties of the Ukrainian people?

See links under Defending the Orthodoxy.

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

Propaganda in Action: The above quote about John Kerry comes from an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, “John Kerry’s Ukraine Emissions, He frets that Russian Brutality will distract from climate change.” After the introduction, the editorial states:

“What’s overheated here is Mr. Kerry’s brain. His comments came before Vladimir Putin began Thursday’s massive assault on Ukraine. But the BBC says the interview was taped this week, and the alarms about Mr. Putin’s impending attack have been ringing loudly. Mr. Kerry was running Foggy Bottom in 2014 when Mr. Putin invaded Crimea. How has he failed to internalize that Mr. Putin is a bad actor motivated by power and Russian revanchism?

“Mr. Kerry told the BBC that he hopes Mr. Putin realizes Northern Russia is thawing, ‘and his infrastructure is at risk, and the people of Russia are at risk.’ We’ll wait until you stop laughing. Mr. Putin deserves to be made a pariah. Western leaders like Mr. Kerry shouldn’t be wondering whether a polite tea in Moscow might induce him to slightly lower next year’s oil production when he can enrich the Kremlin by selling it for $100 a barrel.

“Mr. Kerry’s defenders—assuming they exist—might say he’s merely fulfilling his role as President Biden’s climate envoy. And Mr. Kerry did express to the BBC his concerns about ‘the people of Ukraine,’ as well as the principle of using force to alter boundaries.

“But Mr. Kerry’s comments aren’t a gaffe. They reveal the Biden Administration’s obsession with climate, and with punishing fossil-fuel production, which has made the U.S. and Europe vulnerable to Mr. Putin’s energy blackmail. The climate lobby has made Mr. Putin more powerful. Every time Mr. Kerry visits Moscow, the boys in the Kremlin must think it’s Christmas.”

It is difficult to find words to describe an administration so out of touch with physical reality. Perhaps Kerry no more accepts images from satellites of Russian troop movements than he accepts images from satellites of the greening of the earth from carbon dioxide and measurements showing that atmospheric warming is not dangerous?

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

Physical Science in Action: In a timely post, Ron Clutz gives the text and video of an interview of John Christy by the Climate Realism group in Germany. The physical evidence presented by the head of the Earth System Science Center of the University of Alabama in Huntsville is based on comprehensive measurements of temperature trends by satellites. It is systematically ignored by scientists supporting the IPCC and participating in the Biden Administration’s display of ignorance. Perhaps scientists claiming to understand climate change who ignore atmospheric measurements should be called half-scientists.

John Christy gives a bit of history by stating:

Around 1988 or so there was a lot of information coming out stating that the globe was warming rapidly, and congressional hearings were held. But we knew that those data were based upon ground stations which were pretty sparse and not very well calibrated. And my colleague Roy Spencer being a satellite expert, we were able to take data from NOAA satellites that orbit the earth from pole to pole. They see the entire earth and take a deep layer of the atmosphere and get the temperature of that rather than something just right at the surface. We actually were able to measure the temperature of the entire troposphere from the surface to about 10 kilometers in altitude. That’s the bulk of the atmosphere, so if you know the temperature of that, you will know if there really is a change in what’s going on.  We began that study in 1989 and published in 1990 and are still carrying on with satellites today.

In discussing radiosonde balloon data, which is to verify satellite data, Christy states:

“Oh, weather balloons can do something satellites can’t. Weather balloons take precise temperature and humidity and wind readings at very discrete levels. Satellites see big layers, and so if you want to get the fine resolution in the vertical, you do need balloons. So, we will continue to have balloon data.

“CR [interviewer]:  So how does it work with balloons in practical terms? How often are they released and how big a network do you have for people who release it?

“JC: Well of course balloons are only released where people live and so that’s going to be at best a few islands out in the oceans and various places on the continents. United States and Europe and China have lots of balloon data but most of the rest of the continents do not. So, we do have kind of a sparse network of balloons and that’s a little problem. So, in comparing with satellites, we take what the satellite sees at that same point where the balloon was released. And so, we’re able to do a real direct comparison between the two.

Although initially, Christy and Spencer won awards for their pioneering work, the climate establishment ignores their work. Their work does not support a climate alarm or crisis. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

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

The Decline Effect: In discussing why most published studies exaggerate the effects of a possible lowering of ocean alkalinity (the ill-named ocean acidification) Jennifer Marohasy writes:

“My colleague Peter Ridd describes the situation:

“’This problem with exaggeration of threats applies to many areas of science and has a name: The Decline Effect.

“’The Decline Effect goes like this: an early report, usually attracting huge media interest, predicts some sort of catastrophe. But when follow up work is done, usually with far better experimental procedure and far greater numbers of samples, the original report turns out to be wrong.’”

The essay goes on to point out that most studies on changing ocean chemistry around the Great Barrier Reef are wrong.

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

World Less Dangerous? In discussing the reduction in disaster risks, Roger Pielke Jr. brings up the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. The goals of the framework are:

“a) Substantially reduce global disaster mortality by 2030, aiming to lower the average per 100,000 global mortality rate in the decade 2020–2030 compared to the period 2005–2015.

(b) Substantially reduce the number of affected people globally by 2030, aiming to lower the average global figure per 100,000 in the decade 2020–2030 compared to the period 2005–2015.

(c) Reduce direct disaster economic loss in relation to global gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030”

This seems to be a positive step by a UN entity in reducing human suffering, based on physical evidence rather than speculation.

David Whitehouse of Net Zero Watch has a provocative essay on why we should not be misled by the recent reduction in severe hurricanes hitting the US. He writes:

“Hurricanes, like other extreme events, vary on timescales longer than the recent spell of global warming. While some contemplate the implications some are waiting for the increase in hurricane frequency. Others are sure it’s already happened. The debate can be described as unsettled.”

He looks at research at Hine’s Hole, a blue hole on Cal Sal Bank in the Bahamian Archipelago and finds:

Hine’s Hole records 16 intense storms per century from 1850 to 2016, but there are three periods from 1505 to 1530, 1570 to 1620, and 1710 to 1875 with over twice as many intense storms per century.

These active periods are also found in other reconstructions from the Bahamian Archipelago and Florida Keys, where the effect seems more pronounced. Hine’s Hole provides data on weaker and more distal storms and provides unprecedented insight into changes in hurricane activity within the pre-industrial climate system. Its 170-year record shows many more hurricanes than seen in recent decades.

See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

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

Warming Making the Earth Greener? The journal Advances in Atmospheric Sciences is “sponsored by the Chinese Committee for International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences (IAMAS), the Institute of Atmospheric Physics at Chinese Academy of Sciences and Chinese Meteorological Society.” It published an unusual article using the second version of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) Earth System Model (CAS-ESM2): “Changes in Global Vegetation Distribution and Carbon Fluxes in Response to Global Warming: Simulated Results from IAP-DGVM in CAS-ESM2” The abstract states:

“We conducted two sets of simulations, a present-day simulation and a future simulation, which were forced by the present-day climate during 1981–2000 and the future climate during 2081–2100, respectively, as derived from RCP8.5 outputs in CMIP5. CO2 concentration is kept constant in all simulations to isolate CO2-fertilization effects.”

The research indicates that contrary to the claims of the IPCC and its followers, but using the extreme warming claimed by the IPCC (under RCP8.5) even without considering the benefits of increasing CO2 for plant life, the supposed warming will not be a dangerous situation for plant life on earth. If the research holds up, it illustrates another false claim by the IPCC and its followers, including the Biden Administration. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

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

Additions and Corrections: In last week’s TWTW $1289/kWh v. $0.1059/kWh were used as number of the week. Readers correctly pointed out that was not a proper comparison. The first number was the capital cost of constructing battery storage at Moss Landing, California. The second was average retail price of electricity in the US. The analysis by TWTW was not complete.

If we multiply the average retail price of electricity per hour by 8760 hours in a year, we get the average retail cost of electricity to be $927.70 per year. This includes the capital costs and operating costs, and profit of those generating electricity on the grid, as well as transmission costs, distribution costs, overhead costs and profits for entities involved. To make the numbers more comparable, the average gross price for storage in Moss Landing is $16,760 / kWh. The annual cost depends on how long they last and their deterioration rate, which is unknown.

Since the major supplier of alternative electricity to the California ISO is PV Solar, the hours of the day the sun does not generate electricity are important.

Having followed solar generation as posted by California ISO, TWTW looked at generation and storage requirements for a solar system that could provide around-the-clock power. There can be days on end when sunshine is weak, and winter days are shorter than summer days. For example, in late February the system provides 80% of rated capacity power for only about 8 hours. To handle just a single day, the solar system would have to produce at least three times the average daily power, and the storage capacity would have to be over two-thirds of one day’s energy.  To handle just two days (a bright day followed by one cloudy day) the solar panels would have to generate over 6 times as much power as the average consumption, and the storage system would have to hold 2-2/3 day’s energy.  Moreover, the batteries have very short lives under conditions of either fast charging/discharging or being run down to near-dead status (using the full capacity).

In short, the amortized cost per kWh per year of storage calculated above needs to be multiplied by perhaps 5 to 10, depending on where the solar system exists.  The vast requirements of the solar system are becoming apparent.

As to the cost of batteries coming down, right now the cost decline in EV batteries is barely keeping with inflation of 7.5%. See Article # 2 and http://www.caiso.com/todaysoutlook/pages/supply.aspx

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

Number of the Week: 595,000 BPD (barrels per day). According to Robert Rapier writing in Forbes:

“As of late 2021, the U.S. was importing 8.5 million BPD of crude oil from all countries. Canada was our top supplier, sending the U.S. 4.5 million BPD. (Having secure oil supplies from close allies highlights the importance of the Keystone XL Pipeline expansion). Mexico was second, at 700,000 BPD, and then Russia at 595,000 BPD. Saudi Arabia was our 4th largest supplier at 555,000 BPD.”

Many US refineries were designed for heavy crude from Venezuela. As the policies of government of Venezuela were destroying the oil industry in Venezuela, the refineries in the US shifted to other sources. We do not need heavy crude from Russia, we can get it from Canada and the Gulf. But for different ideological reasons, the policies of the Biden Administration are intent on destroying the US oil and gas industries, benefiting Russia.

Censorship

Facebook labeled half of climate denial posts from ‘Toxic Ten’: report

By Rebecca Klar, The Hill, Feb 23, 2022

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/595385-facebook-labeled-half-of-climate-denial-posts-from-toxic-ten-report

[SEPP Comment: No link to a new report by the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). The prior report dealt with anti-vaccine advocates.]

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

Christy’s Data-Based Climate Science

By Ron Clutz, Science Matters, Feb 20, 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