Weather

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #496 – Watts Up With That?


The Week That Was: 2022-03-19 (March 19, 2022)
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: “Is science of any value? I think a power to do something is of value.” — Richard P. Feynman.

Number of the Week: 4.5 times

THIS WEEK:

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

Scope: This TWTW will conclude its discussion of the video presentation by William van Wijngaarden explaining his work with William Happer to the Irish Climate Science Foundation on the global temperature impacts of increasing water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone, nitrous oxide, and methane in the atmosphere. This work uses the high-resolution transmission molecular absorption database (HITRAN), which is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters, specifications, used to simulate and predict the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere. In the 1860s, John Tyndall correctly recognized that certain atmospheric gases keep the land masses of the earth from going into a deep freeze at night, naming them greenhouse gases. Yet, modern climate scientists largely ignore his work, which was not precise, and the work of modern scientists studying the atmosphere.

As van Wijngaarden presents, an important characteristic of these gases is that they quickly become saturated, meaning their effectiveness in absorbing, and emitting photons, electromagnetic energy in the infrared frequencies, is quickly diminished as their concentration increases. In the current atmosphere, the effectiveness of adding a few molecules of water vapor or carbon dioxide is diminished by over 1000 compared to adding them to an atmosphere that has not greenhouse gases. As a result, the long-term projections / predictions of impacts from increasing greenhouse gases favored by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its climate modelers are scientifically meaningless and completely mislead the public. These projections / predictions can be considered to be tools of propaganda.

TWTW will continue presenting the essays of Atomic, Molecular, and Optical (AMO) physicist Howard Hayden. Hayden looks at the overall results of the work of van Wijngaarden and Happer and compiled a series of essays using basic physics, all-inclusive physics, explaining the importance of their work and the limitations it places on global climate modeling. In ignoring what is occurring in the earth’s atmosphere, the climate modelers are creating an artificial world far different than the physical one, that may be best suited for their political aims.

Also, TWTW will discuss the continued foolishness of the Biden Administration in addressing the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which gave up its immense nuclear weapons on assurances by Russia and the US that its sovereignty will be protected. The administration “protections” are weak, at best. The entire Biden administration appears ignorant of what is occurring and can occur in its own backyard, and the Biden administration is destroying American prosperity and its credibility.

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

Power of an Additional Molecule: About 20 minutes into his UTUBE presentation, van Wijngaarden gives the method used to check the results of the Wijngaarden & Happer model against independent physical evidence, taken by the Nimbus 4 Satellite. Hayden extends this checking by also using observations taken over Guam, in the tropical Pacific. This type of testing of results of the model against independent physical evidence is the heart of the Scientific Method, yet is not done by modelers for NCAR, NOAA, and NASA-GISS. Yet, NCAR, NOAA and NASA-GISS model results are used to justify a false climate crisis, which is resulting in severe economic damage to the US.

Van Wijngaarden then goes into another significant contribution in understanding the physics of greenhouse gases – how the power per molecule of each greenhouse gas is reduced with additional concentrations of that gas. In Physics terms, this is called saturation. Van Wijngaarden gives a laymen’s definition:

“One can tell the difference between the 1st & 2nd coat of red paint on an old barn but not between the 10th and 11th coat.”

Or a homeowner who is painting a dark wall with a white or light paint will notice it takes several coats to properly do the job, but there is little difference between the 10th and 11 coats.

About 24 minutes into the presentation, van Wijngaarden presents a slide showing Radiative Forcing, which is the heat flux from the surface of the Earth calculated at 288.7 degrees K for the current atmosphere with water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, nitrous oxide. The net upward flux (heat flow towards space) increases with altitude to about 10 km (6 miles), then the increase slows, diminishes, until about 20 km (12 miles) altitude, after which the net heat flow becomes almost vertical (doesn’t change) with increasing altitude. He also shows the small changes in the heat flux for an atmosphere with CO2 concentrations of 200 parts per million volume (ppm) and 800 ppm. These are compared with the heat flux assuming no atmospheric gases.

Then, van Wijngaarden becomes a bit more technical introducing a slide titled “Power per Molecule equals Forcing divided by Column Density.” He points out that both water vapor and carbon dioxide are strongly saturated in today’s atmosphere. Now, it requires the addition of over a thousand molecules of water vapor into the atmosphere to have the same greenhouse effect that would have occurred by adding one molecule to a hypothetical atmosphere with no water vapor. [The figure in the slide is Figure 8 in the written presentation cited in TWTW. The scale on the vertical axis is logarithmic, not linear.]

In 1979, the Charney Report stated that whatever modest warming carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing will be greatly amplified by a warming caused by increasing water vapor. The report concluded that a doubling of CO2 will cause an increase in temperatures of 3°C plus or minus 1.5°C. This estimate was largely due to the urging of climate modelers involved. It is based on speculation, not physical evidence. Van Wijngaarden and Happer provide the physical evidence contradicting the assumption.

As van Wijngaarden points out, the physical evidence of a global increase in water vapor is ambiguous. [El Niños add water vapor to the atmosphere, particularly over the Arctic, but it appears to drop out over time, and the tropics are already saturated with water vapor.] Van Wijngaarden also points out that water vapor does not strongly overlap with other greenhouse gases, an error TWTW has made. Overlap means two gases absorb electromagnetic radiation in the same wavelengths, competing with each other.

He also points out that the influence of methane (CH4) overlaps with nitrous oxide (N2O), each reducing the effectiveness of the other.

The physical evidence and as well as the modeling being tested against independent physical evidence presented by van Wijngaarden and Happer point out significant errors in global climate modeling. These errors extend from the IPCC to its followers such as NCAR, NOAA and NASA-GISS. For years, the evidence of atmospheric temperature trends compiled by University of Alabama at Huntsville have shown that climate modeling greatly overestimates the influence of CO2. Now, we have physical evidence showing why. No wonder that once respected western scientific journals do not wish to publish such papers. The journals are more interested in political conformity than in advancing science. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

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

Basic Climate Physics: Howard ‘Cork’ Hayden is writing a series on Basic Climate Physics, meaning all-inclusive physics that pertains to the subject of climate. He uses the approach used by van Wijngaarden and Happer and the numbers established by the IPCC to establish an upper bound for calculations by climate modelers on temperature change from a doubling of carbon dioxide. Even though some may disagree with IPCC numbers, as Hayden does, there should be no disagreement with those numbers by climate modelers who follow IPCC procedures.

Posted on the SEPP website, Hayden’s first two papers established a Planetary Heat Balance and how the greenhouse effect can be easily calculated without the need for calculations of fluid dynamics, weather, and similar complications.

Essay # 3 deals with the IPCC’s inept physics and its misunderstanding of the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law that has been well known and accepted since the middle-to-late 1800s. This misunderstanding dates back to the First IPCC Assessment Report (FAR, 1990) and is repeated in the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6, 2021). The amount of radiation the surface of a planet in heat balance emits to space is not dependent on its temperature, but on the amount of solar radiation it receives. For example, Venus is closer to the sun than earth and is much hotter, but it emits only 156 watts per square meter compared to earth emitting 239 watts per square meter. This is because the clouds over Venus, the (albedo) reflect about 75% of the energy it receives whereby the Earth’s albedo (clouds, ice, etc.) reflect only about 30%.

Essay # 4 reviews the three prior essays, and using basic algebra obtains a basic equation describing the greenhouse effect that applies to all planets that have a surface (excludes gaseous planets without a surface). Hayden then illustrates the components of the equation on the widely accepted Keith-Trenbreth diagram, also used by the IPCC. He points out that climate models that do not produce values for all four components of the equation; greenhouse effect, temperature of the surface, intensity of the sun and albedo; are woefully incomplete.

In Essay #5, Hayden uses the law of conservation of energy to develop an energy constraint of climate and climate models. The greenhouse effect, G in his equations, is the difference between the radiation from the surface and the radiation to space. With a Planetary Heat Balance, the radiation from the surface must equal the radiant energy absorbed from the sun, (incident energy minus reflected energy). For values, Hayden prefers those calculated by van Wijngaarden and Happer but uses those calculated by the IPCC.

Hayden then calculates the poorly named Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity used by the IPCC, 3°C. He shows that using the IPCC value of “radiative forcing” (from a doubling CO2) of 3.7 watts per square meter results in a mere 2.3% increase in the greenhouse effect from 159 to only 162.7 watts per square meter. The question is how can a doubling of CO2 simultaneously result in 3.7 watts per square meter of radiative forcing and a surface temperature rise of 3°C that increases surface radiation by 12.8 watts per square meter? Hayden has asked this question to a number of climate “experts,” but none has provided an answer. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy

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

Building Back Better? The Russian invasion of Ukraine has exposed the folly of European countries relying on Russia for fossil fuels, as well as the US. As discussed in last week’s TWTW, the US imported a total of 245,194,000 bbl. [barrels] of crude oil and petroleum products from Russia in 2021. The nation has allowed the production from Alaska to fall by 78.4% since its peak in 1998. In 2021 it was 159,623,000 bbl, far less than the peak of in 738,143,000 bbl in 1978. The major issue for this production is drilling permits. The US can easily replace Russian oil with oil from Alaska. Further, the Biden Administration is strangling the oil and gas industries by revoking permits and stopping pipeline construction.

In addition, the Biden Administration stopped the construction of the Keystone pipeline, perhaps for good. This pipeline was needed to bring oil from Alberta, Canada. What in 2019 was called building back better, is really building back bad. A September 6, 2019, video sums up Joe Biden’s views of the oil and gas industries, he guarantees that he will end our use of fossil fuels. There is no reason he has changed or anyone in his administration will change. As long as he and his colleagues are in control of US energy policy, the results will be economically disastrous.

Donn Dears, who has long followed energy issues, estimates it will take as long as two years before Europe can replace Russian energy sources. Needless to say, since the oil and gas countries that can provide replacement will incur significant costs, they are demanding long term contracts. Many green organizations are reacting with typical zealotry, claiming civilization does not need fossil fuels, and that wind and solar power can replace total energy needs at about the same cost. As the UK and Germany are finding out and Paul Homewood points out in discussing the UK power flex deficit:

“And the ‘solutions’ naively offered by Timera? [An energy consulting service] Batteries, DSR, Interconnectors (which they acknowledge may not be reliable at times of stress in Europe) and burning gas.

“But as they themselves regularly admit, batteries, DSR and other forms of storage are strictly short-term measures – that is for an hour or two, designed to manage fluctuations in grid frequency and peak demands.

“They are utterly useless when power is needed for days and weeks on end, when the wind stops blowing.

“Which brings us back to gas.”

See links under Change in US Administrations, Energy Issues – Non-US, Energy Issues – US, and Washington’s Control of Energy.

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

Additions and Corrections: Last week, The Number of the Week shifted units of measurements, confusing some readers. It went from barrels per day, to barrels per month to barrels per year. Although the values were carefully checked with the sources, TWTW will try to keep shifting such units clear.

TWTW uses three different formats, depending how the information is sent: 1) Word, 2) a Mad Mimi (the email format) editing of Word, and 3) pdf (Adobe). Sometimes mathematical notations can change. For example, using superscript for “times 10 to the fifth power” (times 100,000) can become “times 105” (which is not correct).  TWTW will endeavor to be alert to such changes.

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

Number of the Week: 4.5 times. Based on the calculations by Howard Hayden using the Planetary Heat Balance, the IPCC can account for an increase in greenhouse effect of only 3.7 watts per square meter for a doubling of CO2. Yet, the increase in temperatures the IPCC projects /predicts requires an increase of 16.5 watts per square meter. About 12.8 watts per square meter, 4.5 times more than what can be calculated. Where does this increase of 4.5 times come from since the influence of water vapor on temperature is highly saturated?

Commentary: Is the Sun Rising?

New Study: The CO2-Drives-Global-Warming ‘Concept’ Is ‘Obsolete And Incorrect’

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

Link to paper: The Sun Versus CO2 as the Cause of Climate Change Projected to 2050

By H. Douglas Lightfoot & Gerald Ratzer, Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences, Feb 1, 2022

https://setpublisher.com/pms/index.php/jbas/article/view/2350

Censorship

When Trust and Safety Encounter Fact and Science

By Pat Frank, WUWT, Mar 17, 2022

“I’m not claiming this explanation is physically correct. However, the derivable inference that the recent warming is the result of natural variation is more compelling than a CO2 assumption forced by tendentiously constructed models and self-circular interpretations of ice-core records.”

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

Relative Potency of Greenhouse Molecules

By W. A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer, Jan 14, 2021

https://wvanwijngaarden.info.yorku.ca/files/2021/03/WPotency.pdf?x45936

Methane and Climate Change

By William van Wijngaarden. Irish Climate Science Foundation, Nov 25, 2020

Video

Basic Climate Physics #3, #4, #5

By Howard “Cork” Hayden, SEPP website, March 12, 2022

http://sepp.org/science_papers.cfm

Climate Models Don’t

By Willis Eschenbach, WUWT, Mar 16, 2022

Link to KNMI Climate Explorer

By Staff WMO, Mar 14, 2022

https://climexp.knmi.nl/start.cgi

Link to paper: Robustness of CMIP6 Historical Global Mean Temperature Simulations: Trends, Long-Term Persistence, Autocorrelation, and Distributional Shape

By Simon Michael Papalexiou, et al., Earth’s Future, Sep 10, 2020

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020EF001667

[SEPP Comment: Increasingly, global climate models are departing from reality. A consequence of lobbying by NCAR climate modelers?]

Not Expecting Coral Bleaching During a La Niña

By Jennifer Marohasy, Her Blog, Mar 19, 2022

“…This reef, Pixie Reef, is listed as one of the worse bleached of all the Great Barrier Reefs, yet we found it so healthy.”

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has exploded our renewables myth

By Bjorn Lomborg courtesy of the Australian, Via Royhill, Mar 12, 2022

https://www.royhill.com.au/russias-invasion-of-ukraine-has-exploded-our-renewables-myth/

“Our continued use of Kremlin-backed oil and gas reveals two inconvenient truths.

“First, reliable energy maintains the foundation of modern society and few are willing to give up its benefits.

“Access to cheap, abundant and dependable energy has been the cornerstone of the industrial revolution and humanity’s achievements.

“Second, we have been sold a largely untrue story that renewables can give us energy independence.”

The Green Immoralists

Elite ideology divorced from reality impoverishes people and can get them killed.

By Victor David Hanson, Independent Institute, Mar 10, 2022

https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14067&omhide=true&trk=rm

Defending the Orthodoxy

Green groups say gas crisis makes transition to renewables even more urgent

By Zack Budryk, The Hill, Mar 11, 2022

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/597743-green-groups-democrats-say-gas-crisis-makes-transition-to

Defending the Orthodoxy – Bandwagon Science

Permafrost peatlands approaching tipping point

Press Release, University of Leeds, Mar 14, 2022

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/946184

Link to paper: Imminent loss of climate space for permafrost peatlands in Europe and Western Siberia

By Richard E. Fewster, et al. Nature Climate Change, Mar 14, 2022

Imminent loss of climate space for permafrost peatlands in Europe and Western Siberia | Nature Climate Change

From the abstract: “Here we show that permafrost peatlands in Europe and Western Siberia will soon surpass a climatic tipping point under scenarios of moderate-to-high warming (Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) 2-4.5, SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5)”

[SEPP Comment: More tipping point nonsense, based on projections from models that fail basic testing then using absurd assumptions.]

Questioning the Orthodoxy

An earthquake in Eden [UK]

By Tim Worstall, Net Zero Watch, Mar 11, 2022

“Our argument is not that fracking must be allowed to shake cathedral spires from their foundations. Rather, we must have a sensible set of rules about earth tremors, and those same rules must apply to all causes and processes that lead to earth tremors.”

Energy and Environmental Review: March 14, 2022

By John Droz, Jr., Master Resource, March 14, 2022

Change in US Administrations

Biden: “I Guarantee You We’re Going To End Fossil Fuel”

Video, Via Real Clear Energy, Mar 18, 2022

Fact check: Biden falsely claims he never opposed fracking

By Holmes Lybrand, CNN, Oct 23, 2020 [H/t Real Clear Energy]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/23/politics/biden-fracking-fact-check/index.html

The Russian Invasion of Ukraine And Energy Prices: Myth vs. Fact

By Ben Lieberman, CEI, Mar 16, 2022

https://cei.org/blog/the-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-and-energy-prices-myth-vs-fact/

An Artificial Energy Crisis

By Benjamin Dierker, Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure, Mar 9, 2022

Biden Administration Handicapped Domestic Energy Production on First Day in Office, Memos Reveal

By Caroline Downey, National Review, Mar 16, 2022

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/biden-administration-handicapped-domestic-energy-production-on-first-day-in-office-memos-reveal/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=27043223

“This past January, the Biden administration also took half of the 23 million acres of federal land in National Petroleum Reserve Alaska “off the table” for drilling, Padgett added.

“The U.S. is producing approximately one million fewer barrels of oil a day than in 2019, when the pandemic hit and production had been ramping up. About 700,000 barrels that year were imported each day from Russia.”

Climate Change Weekly #429: Climate Change Poses No Existential Threat. Nada. Not Any

By H Sterling Burnett, Environment & Climate News, Mar 17, 2022

Does the Biden Administration Deserve Blame for High Gasoline Prices?

By Benjamin Zycher, National Review, Mar 17, 2022

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/03/does-the-biden-administration-deserve-blame-for-high-gasoline-prices/

Biden’s “They have 9,000 to drill onshore that are already approved” Drilling Permits Canard

By David Middleton, WUWT, Mar 16, 2022

“To explain the lies, I am going to start with leases, which are often conflated with permits. In order to obtain a drilling permit, you have to have a lease. In order to have a lease, the Federal government has to follow the law and hold lease sales and honor those leases.

Yes, Biden Is To Blame For The Energy Crisis. Here’s Why.

By MacIver Staff, Maclver Institute, Mar 9, 2022

Joe Biden’s ‘Transition Away From the Oil Industry’ Is Strangling America’s Economy

By Levi A. Russell, Real Clear Energy, Mar 15, 2022

https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2022/03/15/joe_bidens_transition_away_from_the_oil_industry_is_strangling_americas_economy_821682.html

Why Rely on OPEC for Biden Blunder Bailouts?

By Larry Bell, Newsmax, Mar 14, 2022

https://www.newsmax.com/larrybell/opec/2022/03/14/id/1061063/

Joe Biden Needs to Support U.S. Energy Industry Now– Not Our Foreign Adversaries Abroad

By Craig Stevens, Real Clear Energy, March 13, 2022

https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2022/03/13/joe_biden_needs_to_support_us_energy_industry_now_not_our_foreign_adversaries_abroad_821115.html

‘C’mon Man’ Stop Sabotaging American Energy

Kevin Mooney RealClearEnergy March 16, 2022

https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2022/03/15/cmon_man_stop_sabotaging_american_energy_821880.html

Social Benefits of Carbon Dioxide

CO2 A Blessing: Just 1 PPM Increase Means Up To 0.8% Greater Crop Yields, New Study Shows

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Mar 18, 2022

Link to a study of US agriculture: Environmental Drivers of Agricultural Productivity Growth: CO₂ Fertilization of US Field Crops

By Charles A. Taylor & Wolfram Schlenker, National Bureau of Economic Research, October 2021

https://www.nber.org/papers/w29320

From abstract: We find consistently high fertilization effects: a 1 ppm increase in CO₂ equates to a 0.5%, 0.6%, and 0.8% yield increase for corn, soybeans, and wheat, respectively. Viewed retrospectively, 10%, 30%, and 40% of each crop’s yield improvements since 1940 are attributable to rising CO₂.,

[SEPP Comment: Corn (maize) is a C4 plant, which has evolved a type of photosynthesis that uses CO2 more efficiently than C3 plants, making it less prone to CO2 starvation. About 95% of plants are C3 plants including rice, wheat, oats, barley, cotton, peanuts, sugar beets, soybeans, and spinach.]

Study: Climate Change Boosted Plant Growth is Bad

By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Mar 15, 2022

Link to paper:  Projected climate-driven changes in pollen emission season length and magnitude over the continental United States

By Yingxiao Zhang & Allison L. Steiner, Nature Communications, Mar 15, 2022

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28764-0

Seeking a Common Ground

A ‘Plan B’ for addressing climate change and the energy transition

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Mar 17, 2022

New Project on Honest Brokering and Citizen Juries

By Roger Pielke Jr. His Blog, Mar 16, 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