Weather

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #527 – Watts Up With That?


The Week That Was: 2022-11-05 (November 5, 2022)
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: “[W]e compare the result of [a theory’s] computation to nature…[and] compare it directly with observations, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. — Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law, 1965 [H/t Happer & Lindzen]

Number of the Week: $1.3 Trillion a Year

THIS WEEK:

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

Scope: The following issues will be discussed following the concept that in physical science, physical evidence separates science fact from science fiction.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an extraordinary gas on this planet. Without it, all green life would cease. All complex life, which is dependent on green life, would cease. The EPA’s declaration that “the Administrator finds that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare” is extraordinary. It requires extraordinary physical evidence. The EPA has none. Instead, it relies on the opinions of government functionaries who are generally ignorant of how science works.

In submitting an Amicus Curiae (“friend of the court.”) brief (written argument), Professors William Happer and Richard Lindzen, and the CO2 Coalition believe that “the ‘science’ relied upon by the EPA in its Endangerment Findings is seriously flawed and not truly scientific.”

Last week, TWTW discussed a lecture by Professor Wyss Yim of Hong Kong University stating that there are two distinctively different events classified as El Niños, one incorrectly. Traditional El Niños occur when normal conditions in the Pacific change. By contrast, a Warm Pool El Niño occurs when a pool of warm water appears in the oceans, be it Pacific, Atlantic, or other. These apparently random events are the result of submarine volcanoes and may have a significant impact on global weather. Thanks to modern satellite instrumentation, these events can be tracked. This week AAAS Science published a paper stating that “January 2022 eruption of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano reached the mesosphere”, one of the submarine volcanoes discussed by Professor Yim.

Craig Idso has an essay on the dangers of reducing CO2 emissions, something which government entities and their supporters do not consider when calculating the supposed harmful effects of CO2 emissions.

The 27th annual conference to “save the planet” from lifegiving CO2 will start next week (COP 27). There is a typical outpouring of far-fetched studies on far-fetched harms.

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

Government Endangerment Finding: Professors Happer and Lindzen and the CO2 Coalition assert:

“that the denial to reconsider the Endangerment Findings is without a valid scientific basis, arbitrary, and capricious. For several decades, Amici have studied the science and evidence purportedly underpinning the Endangerment Findings and are experts in the fields of physics and atmospheric sciences from which the EPA’s evidence is drawn.” (p 1)

Selected quotes applying to the scientific method are cited below. The page numbers apply to the page in the actual document, not the recorded page. For example, p 1 becomes page 11 of 47 in the recorded document. The citations are not given below.

“INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The CO2 Coalition is a non-profit corporation comprised of more than 100 scientists, engineers, and energy experts, publishing on various aspects of climate change and related fields.

Professors Happer and Lindzen are career physicists who, for decades, have specialized in applying the scientific method to radiation physics and dynamic heat transfer.

Scientific knowledge is determined by the scientific method, through which theoretical predictions are validated or rejected by observations. If the theoretical predictions do not work, the theory is rejected. That’s real science. [Boldface added]

Scientific knowledge is not determined by government-controlled opinions, consensus, peer review, or theoretical models that do not work. Those are false science. This brief applies the scientific method to the Endangerment Findings and its supporting Technical Support Document and demonstrates both are scientifically corrupted and thus must be rescinded for the following reasons.

• IPCC Government-Controlled Opinions. The Endangerment Findings and the Technical Support Document extensively rely on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) assessments as a “primary scientific and technical basis” for the Findings. The IPCC is government controlled and thus issues only government opinions, not real science as the picture below—of government representatives determining content at IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers’ writing meeting—shows.[Picture not shown here}

This is not how scientific knowledge is determined. Governments do not determine scientific knowledge; the scientific method does. [Boldface added]

The dangers of governmentally determined science were tragically demonstrated about a century ago when Stalin appointed Trofim Lysenko as the czar of Russian agricultural science in the former Soviet Union. Lysenko suppressed the scientific method and dictated instead that his agricultural theories be used. Lysenko’s government-dictated theories led to famine and millions of deaths through starvation and disease. It is a poignant reminder that the IPCC’s government-dictated ‘science’ must not be used in the Endangerment Findings and Technical Support Document.

• IPCC Theoretical Models Don’t Work. Both the Endangerment Findings and the Technical Support Document should be withdrawn because they fundamentally rely on IPCC theoretical models that predict catastrophic warming unless fossil fuel CO2 is eliminated. The IPCC climate models then and most recently have been proven conclusively by observations to fail by over-predicting warming. Therefore, they must be rejected and not used. See, infra, § IV.

• Peer Review and Consensus. Both the Endangerment Findings and Technical Support Document use peer review and consensus extensively, which, as noted, does not determine real science.

• Censorship of the Contradicting Real Science. By using “the scientific assessments of the IPCC, USGCRP, and the NRC” as “best reference” for science, 74 Fed. Reg. 66,511, the EPA inadvertently admits it censored the overwhelming evidence from real science that demonstrates there is no danger that fossil fuel CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming. See, e.g., infra, § V.

• The Endangerment Findings and Technical Support Document are Driving Disastrous Consequences. Contrary to common reporting, CO2 is essential to life by producing food through photosynthesis. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels will produce more food for people worldwide. Elimination of fossil fuels in response to the Endangerment Findings will be doubly disastrous by reducing the amount of food available to people worldwide and eliminating the major source of low-cost energy.

Thus, real science requires that all the false science be removed from the Endangerment Findings and Technical Support Document. This requires deleting all the government-dictated IPCC material, all IPCC theoretical climate models and scenarios, and all citations to consensus. As a result, the Endangerment Findings and Technical Support Document will be without adequate required real scientific support.

Accordingly, it is Amici’s scientific opinion that the Endangerment Findings and Technical Support Document are based, in part, on government dictated material and must be withdrawn before they cause more disastrous reduction in the food supply worldwide and the end of affordable and reliable fossil fuel energy for people worldwide, future generations, and the United States.” (pp 7 to 11)

TWTW supports the view of Professors Happer and Lindzen that the Endangerment Finding endangers the integrity of American physical science itself, replacing physical evidence with government-controlled groupthink. The brief continues:

“ARGUMENT I. THE ENDANGERMENT FINDINGS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT ARE NOT BASED ON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

According to the Endangerment Findings, ‘the Administrator finds that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare.’ 74 Fed. Reg. 66,497.

Government-Controlled Opinions. The Administrator emphasized that three government organizations were the ‘primary scientific basis for the Findings:

The major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator’s endangerment finding.

The Technical Support Document…summarizes scientific findings from the major assessments of the USGCRP, the IPCC, and the NRC accompanies these Findings.

‘It is EPA’s view that the scientific assessments of the IPCC, USGRCP, and the NRC represent the best reference materials for determining the general state of knowledge on the scientific and 4 74 Fed. Reg. 66,497’ (footnote omitted). 5 Id. at 66,510. technical issues before the agency in making an endangerment decision.

Unintentionally, the Administrator made clear she chose to use government-determined opinions as ‘science,’ rather than scientific knowledge determined by the scientific method: [Boldface added]

‘The USGCRP, IPCC, and NRC assessments have been reviewed and formally accepted by, commissioned by, or in some cases authored by U.S. government agencies and individual government scientists. These reports already reflect significant input from EPA’s scientists and the scientists of many other government agencies.’

Id. at 66,511 (emphasis added).

Of the three, IPCC opinions are the dominant source of purported ‘science’ underlying the Endangerment Findings and Technical Support Document, and indeed all ‘Net Zero’ policies to eliminate fossil fuel CO2 emissions in the U.S. and worldwide.

However, contrary to the vigorous assertions by the IPCC that it provides the best climate science in the world, the IPCC is government-controlled and, therefore, the IPCC’s Summaries for Policymakers and assessment reports are government dictated opinions with little scientific value, all of which is elaborated on in section III. 6 Id. at 66,511 [Boldface added]

Theoretical Models Don’t Work. As noted, the Endangerment Findings and Technical Support Document fundamentally rely on IPCC theoretical models that predict catastrophic global warming unless fossil fuel CO2 is eliminated. The IPCC climate models used in support of the Endangerment Findings shown below are the most dominant models used to support the argument that fossil fuel CO2 must be eliminated and reduced to ‘Net Zero’ to avoid catastrophic global warming. Specifically, the Endangerment Findings assert: ‘According to climate model simulations summarized by the IPCC…[b]y the end of the century, projected average global warming… [will range] from 1.8 to 4.0 °C (3.2 to 7.2 °F).’ 74 Fed. Reg. 66,519. The Technical Support Document similarly relies on IPCC theoretical climate model predictions to assert that by the end of the century there will be ‘a warming range of 3.2°F to 7.2°F.’” (pp 11 to 13)

The brief then demonstrates the wild model results that are meaningless because the models are not tested against physical evidence. The brief has a section on “Real Science” which is determined by validating theoretical predictions with observations: “False Science” is determined by consensus, peer review, government opinion, fabricated data or models that don’t work. Another section is titled “The IPCC is government-controlled and thus only issues government opinions, not real science.”

The fourth section is titled “The IPCC theoretical models do not work and thus under basic scientific method must not be used.” Another section is titled “Censored Real science proves fossil fuel CO2 will not cause catastrophic global warming.” This section includes graphs of 600 million years of atmospheric CO2 and temperature data and a part titled Atmospheric CO2 is now “heavily saturated,” which in physics means more CO2 will have little warming effect.

The section before the brief conclusion is titled “The Endangerment Findings and Technical Support Document support of ‘Net Zero’ fossil fuel CO2 policies will disastrously reduce food worldwide and eliminate fossil fuels, the major source of low-cost energy for the US and people worldwide.”

This brief is the most effective, well-articulated, practical summation of the false science that went into the disastrous Endangerment Finding that TWTW has seen. The consequences of this ideological decision include the perversion of American physical science. All concerned readers and all citizens are encouraged to read it. See link under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

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

Unprecedented Observation: On January 15, 2022, the submarine volcano with some islands, Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai, erupted forcefully. Its estimated Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) is six, similar to the land-based Mount Pinatubo in 1991. Thanks to modern satellite instrumentation the volcanic plume was measured to reach an altitude of 57 km (35 miles). It sent atmospheric shock waves, sonic booms, and tsunami waves around the world. NASA Goddard posted:

“Analyzing data from NASA’s Ionospheric Connection Explorer, or ICON, mission and ESA’s (the European Space Agency) Swarm satellites, scientists found that in the hours after the eruption, hurricane-speed winds and unusual electric currents formed in the ionosphere – Earth’s electrified upper atmospheric layer at the edge of space.”

NASA JPL posted:

“The underwater eruption in the South Pacific Ocean also blasted an enormous plume of water vapor into Earth’s stratosphere – enough to fill more than 58,000 Olympic-size swimming pools. The sheer amount of water vapor could be enough to temporarily affect Earth’s global average temperature.”

The article linked below stated:

“‘We’ve never seen anything like it,’ said Luis Millán, an atmospheric scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California. He led a new study examining the amount of water vapor that the Tonga volcano injected into the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere between about 8 and 33 miles (12 and 53 kilometers) above Earth’s surface.

“In the study, published in Geophysical Research Letters, Millán and his colleagues estimate that the Tonga eruption sent around 146 teragrams (1 teragram equals a trillion grams) of water vapor into Earth’s stratosphere – equal to 10% of the water already present in that atmospheric layer. That’s nearly four times the amount of water vapor that scientists estimate the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines lofted into the stratosphere.” [A teragram is about 1.1 US tons].

According to the plain language summary of the article:

“Unlike previous strong eruptions, this event may not cool the surface, but rather it could potentially warm the surface due to the excess water vapor.”

Some years ago, Joe D’Aleo and Joe Bastardi (now with WeatherBell Analytics) separately identified warm spots in the oceans, called warm pool La Niños by Professor Yim. They are created by underseas (submarine) volcanoes. Last week on his Saturday Summary, Bastardi spent 20 minutes presenting an array of charts supporting his claims that these eruptions are causing a warming of the atmosphere particularly over the Arctic. They occur before the peaks shown in atmospheric temperature trends shown over the past ten years. (Before then, detailed ocean temperature measurements did not exist.) The water vapor from the January volcanic eruption may cause another peak in atmospheric temperature trends in late 2022 and 2023.

See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy, Measurement Issues – Atmosphere, https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2022/sun/nasa-mission-finds-tonga-volcanic-eruption-effects-reached-space and https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere

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

Urban Heat Island Effect: The surface-air temperature data used by the IPCC and its followers has a notorious defect in that it is not adjusted for urbanization that is occurring worldwide. The Urban Heat Island effect reflects the warming caused by replacing greenery with pavement and using drainage to eliminate wet areas. Roy Spencer presents a beginning of what is needed to adjust the surface data. In the overview he states:

“A relatively new global dataset of urbanization changes over the 40-year period 1975-2014 based upon Landsat data is used to determine the average effect urbanization has had on surface temperatures. A method is presented to compute the magnitude of the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect on temperatures using the example of summertime 09 UTC (early morning) Integrated Surface Database (ISD) hourly data (mostly from airports) over the period 1973-2022 by comparing urbanization differences to temperature differences from closely-spaced weather stations. The results for the eastern U.S. lead to a 50-year warming trend 50% less than that from the official NOAA homogenized surface temperature dataset. It is likely that the daytime reductions in temperature trends will be less dramatic.” [Boldface added]

Spencer describes his effort and concludes, in part:

“The urbanization effect on surface temperature trends for August at 09 UTC (near the time of daily minimum temperature) results in a 50% reduction in those trends over the last 50 years. From some preliminary looks I have had at the data from other months and times of day I’d say this will likely be the upper limit of de-urbanization adjustments. So, it is likely that trends in daytime temperature near the time of the daily maximum will not be reduced nearly as much as 50%.

“But given the fact that all CMIP6 climate models produce U.S. summer temperature trends greater than the NOAA observations means the discrepancy between climate models and observations is even larger than currently suspected by many of us. John Christy and I believe it is time for a new surface temperature dataset, and the methodology outlined above looks like a viable approach to that end.” [Boldface added]

Indeed, it is past time to remove this travesty of physical science. See link under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

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

Benefits of CO2: Over the years, Craig Idso of CO2 Science has written about the benefits of CO2 fertilization of plants. Writing for Master Resource, he addresses a different issue – the harm that will occur by reducing CO2. For this he cites an experiment of plant bulbs that were a major source of carbohydrates for humans 75 thousand to 125 thousand years ago. Plants grown under reduced CO2, including the IPCC’s claim of pre-industrial CO2 of a concentration of 280 parts per million (ppm), did poorly compared with a concentration of 390 ppm. Today’s concentration is about 420 ppm. So, the programs to reduce atmospheric CO2 may truly endanger human health and welfare. See link under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

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

Saving the Planet: The drumbeat to save the planet is intensifying and all the IPCC followers are lining up. The Lancet produced possibly the worst of health studies. It emphasized the deaths due to heat. However, it ignored that most of the populated world experiences a winter, and more people die of exposure to cold than heat. But in saving the world, there is apparently no reason to understand the world. See link under Defending the Orthodoxy and Article # 1

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

Number of the Week: $1.3 Trillion a Year. Paul Homewood shows that according to the Wall Street Journal, China, India, and other developing nations going to COP 27, seek $1.3 Trillion a year for the supposed damage that carbon dioxide emissions have caused and to build alternative energy projects. Since the UN IPCC reports of harmful CO2 emissions are a counterfeit physical science, will the UN pay them in in counterfeit money? See link under Funding Issues.

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

Brief of Amici Curiae Dr. William Happer, Dr Richard Lindzen, and the CO2 Coalition in Support of Petitioners and Reversal

USCA Case #22-1139, Filed Oct 21, 2022

Scientists identify the highest-ever recorded volcanic plume

By Staff Writers, Oxford UK (SPX), Nov 04, 2022

https://www.terradaily.com/reports/Scientists_identify_the_highest_ever_recorded_volcanic_plume_999.html

Link to paper: The January 2022 eruption of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano reached the mesosphere

By Simon Proud, et al, AAAS Science, Nov 3, 2022

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo4076

The Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai Hydration of the Stratosphere

By L Millan, et al, Geophysical Research Letters, July 1, 2022

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022GL099381

De-Urbanization of Surface Temperatures with the Landsat-Based “Built-Up” Dataset

By Roy Spencer, His Blog, Nov 2, 2022

The Dangers of Low Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations

By Craig D. Idso, Master Resource, Nov 1, 2022

Eco-extremists are leading the world towards despair, poverty, and starvation–Jordan Peterson

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Oct 29, 2022

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