Weather

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #545 – Watts Up With That?


The Week That Was: 2023-03-25 (March 25, 2023)
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: “No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles.”— Richard Feynman [H/t CO2 Coalition]

Number of the Week: 145 Times

THIS WEEK:

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

Scope: The issues discussed include the following. On March 20, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Synthesis Report on its Sixth Assessment Report (AR6, 2021, 2022). The full report came in three parts: 1) Working Group I, the physical science; 2) Working Group II, impacts of climate change; and 3) Working Group III, progress in limiting emissions. AR6 changed terminology of possible future emissions from Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) to Shared Socio-Economic Pathways (SSPs) leading to some confusion among commentators as to what is the most extreme case being used. Usually, the popular press and politicians emphasize the most extreme case.

The Synthesis Report had an eight-page Fact Sheet that reveals the political nature of the entire report. Page eight showed that the final draft of each part was reviewed only by representatives of governments. This is political review, not scientific review. Certain key parts of the Summary for Policymakers of the Synthesis Report and accompanying material are review below.

A big issue with carbon dioxide (CO2) caused climate change is the extent to which an increase in temperatures will cause an increase in atmospheric water vapor, amplifying the increase in temperatures. Global climate modelers insisted on a dramatic rise in water vapor during the preparation of the 1979 Charney Report. The question is, where is the evidence? The “hot spot” over the tropics at about 50,000 feet is a myth. Climate researcher Andy May explores other possibilities.

Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford Wade Allison taught physics and mathematics and was a researcher at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, home of the Large Hadron Collider. He applied his considerable skills in analyzing the ability of wind power to provide electricity for the UK and EU and finds it inadequate.

Financial commentator Rupert Darwall states that the economics profession has been very quiet about the impracticality of Net Zero. He called the belief that the faster western nations decarbonize, the wealthier they will become — “cakeism” — “the wish to have or do two good things at the same time when this is impossible.” The International Energy Agency (IEA) is a promoter of this false belief.

Last week, TWTW discussed that US National Renewable Energy Laboratories (NREL) reported that the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law contain $430 billion for renewable (wind and solar) electrical power. The Wall Street Journal reports that a study by Goldman-Sachs projects far more than that. The IRA alone has subsidies that may cost $1.2 trillion. The US government will spend any amount needed to reduce inflation?

In the 2022 decision on West Virginia v. EPA, the US Supreme Court has slapped down the EPA’s efforts to control the use of fossil fuels for generation of electricity under the false claim that it is a primary cause of dangerous climate change. The EPA is back claiming that fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions from the use of fossil fuels are a severe health concern. These particles of 2.5 microns or less (there are about 25,000 microns in an inch) are claimed to increase asthma and mortality from lung cancer and heart disease. The evidence is largely based on mathematical speculation, not death certificates or even rigorous statistics. On March 28 comments on the EPA’s new regulations are due. Several comments are made below.

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

AR6 Synthesis Report: In the IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report, 2023, there is a section called “Headline Statements”: “overarching conclusions of the approved Summary for Policymakers which, taken together, provide a concise narrative.” Under Observed Warming and its Causes is the following:

“Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1°C above 1850–1900 in 2011–2020. Global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase, with unequal historical and ongoing contributions arising from unsustainable energy use, land use and land-use change, lifestyles and patterns of consumption and production across regions, between and within countries, and among individuals (high confidence). {2.1, Figure 2.1, Figure 2.2}.”

Interestingly, these lead to a set of figures in Chapter 2 of the AR6 Working Group I report titled “Upper air temperature trends” primarily from Radio occultation, which uses instruments on satellites. The figure shows an increase in atmospheric temperatures, (except for two small hot spots) showing an increase ranging from 0.15 °C per decade to 0.45 °C per decade over the period 2002 to 2019. The once vaunted tropical hot spot is gone. It showed a pronounced warming at an altitude of about 9 kilometers (km) to 15 km. Instead, there is a general warming from about 9 km to 25 km. In the graph is a line for a warming shown by AIRS Infrared satellite instruments, but it is not clear what it shows, because there is no relationship between temperature and altitude (or latitude) shown.

A compelling omission is that the report ignores the entire data record (1979 to 2022) of the lower troposphere, from surface to about 10 km (33,000 feet) which is where the greenhouse effect primarily occurs. Above the lower troposphere, water vapor (which is claimed to double a warming from CO2) freezes out and cannot be a significant cause of warming. In the troposphere, air cools with higher altitude. The cooling is called the lapse rate and is subject to thermal inversions from convection (weather). Above the troposphere, the stratosphere, air warms with higher altitude to about 50 km (31 miles). This omission is one of several “red flags” raised in this IPCC report.

The section with the graph titled: “Limiting warming to 1.5°C and 2°C involves rapid, deep and in most cases immediate reduction of greenhouse gas emissions” states:

“Figure SPM.5: Global emissions pathways consistent with implemented policies and mitigation strategies. Panels (a), (b) and (c) show the development of global GHG, CO2 and methane emissions in modelled pathways, while panel (d) shows the associated timing of when GHG and CO2 emissions reach net zero. Colored ranges denote the 5th to 95th percentile across the global modelled pathways falling within a given category as described in Box SPM.1.”

Note that water vapor is not mentioned. Yet it was an increase in atmospheric water vapor caused by a warming caused by an increase in CO2 that was the primary concern giving rise to the whole CO2 warming fear. The graphs are colorful but meaningless. The real question is who is going to compel China, India, and the rest of Asia to comply? The leaders of these countries appear to be more scientifically literate than the politicized authors of this report. See links under Defending the Orthodoxy, Questioning the Orthodoxy and https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/atmosphere/layers-earths-atmosphere#:~:text=UCAR%2FRandy%20Russell-,Troposphere,occurs%20in%20this%20lowest%20layer.

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

The Water Vapor Problem: The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4, 2007) featured a pronounced warming above the tropical regions centered at about 8 to 12 km. This has been a source of contention since the report. The source of the speculated warming is latent heat released as water vapor condenses and falls as rain. The results of atmospheric data are mixed. Researcher Andy May carefully discusses the varied, uncertain signals given by various datasets. He writes:

“Bottom line, water vapor feedback is a huge (66% according to Pierrehumbert) part of the dangerous greenhouse gas hypothesis. Total atmospheric water vapor content is very difficult to measure accurately, but the measurements and trends we have today do not support the hypothesis over all time periods. It seems likely that the Clausius-Clapeyron relation is not the only factor affecting TPW [Total Precipitable Water]. This casts considerable doubt on the CMIP6 model results, which rely only on Clausius-Clapeyron, human activities, and sporadic volcanism.”

However, May concludes:

“’In summary, radiosonde, GPS and satellite observations of tropospheric water vapor indicate very likely increases at near global scales since the 1970s occurring at a rate that is generally consistent with the Clausius-Clapeyron relation (about 7% per degree Celsius) and the observed increase in atmospheric temperature.’

The uncertainty arising from different datasets is used by some dangerous global warming advocates to reject findings by John Christy and Ross McKitrick and others who show a failure to demonstrate a tropical hotspot. The advocates claim that simply because a hotspot cannot be found with statistical certainty, that is no reason for denying its existence. This is science fiction: because you cannot disprove that ghosts do not exist, they exist?

In their work “Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases” W. A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer use the detailed HITRAN database that is based on laboratory experiments modified by almost 50 years of data from weather balloons measuring temperature, pressure and relative water vapor up to about 130,000 feet (39.6 km). Using these data for clear skies, they divide the troposphere into 100 segments (a typo in an earlier TWTW had 500 segments) and found a midlatitude lapse rate to above 10 km (33,000 feet). Above that the temperatures were constant to about 20 km (66,000 feet). The point here is that the IPCC is bringing back a pronounced warming between about 9 km and 15 km where very little water vapor exists. There is nothing unusual about a warming of the stratosphere with increasing altitude, which is shown by van Wijngaarden and Happer. The warming with altitude continues until the Mesopause and above that there is a cooling in the Mesosphere. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy and https://wvanwijngaarden.info.yorku.ca/files/2020/12/WThermal-Radiationf.pdf?x45936. Note: recent papers by van Wijngaarden and Happer will be discussed in an upcoming TWTW.

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

But Not Today: Wade Allison neatly summarizes the inadequacy of wind power at the beginning of his paper for the Global Warming Policy Foundation. He writes:

“The plan dramatically to cut the combustion of fossil fuels was accepted at the 2015 Paris Conference. The instinctive reaction around the world has been to revert to ‘renewables’, the sources of energy delivered intermittently by the power of the Sun. Unfortunately, this power, attenuated by the huge distance that it must travel to reach the Earth, is extremely weak. That is why, before the advent of the Industrial Revolution, it was unable to provide the energy to sustain even a small global population with an acceptable standard of living.

 Today, modern technology is deployed to harvest these weak sources of energy. Vast ‘farms’ that monopolize the natural environment are built, to the detriment of other creatures. Developments are made regardless of the damage wrought. Hydro-electric schemes, enormous turbines and square miles of solar panels are constructed, despite being unreliable and ineffective; even unnecessary.1

In particular, the generation of electricity by wind tells a disappointing story. The political enthusiasm and the investor hype are not supported by the evidence, even for offshore wind, which can be deployed out of sight of the infamous My Back Yard. What does such evidence actually say?

That the wind fluctuates is common knowledge. But these fluctuations are grossly magnified to an extent that is not immediately obvious – and has nothing to do with the technology of the wind turbine. The energy of the wind is that of the moving air, and, as every student knows, such energy is ½Mv squared, where M is the mass of air and v the speed. The mass of air reaching each square meter of the area swept by the turbine blade in a second is M=ρv, where ρ is the density of air: about 1.2kg per cubic meter. So, the maximum power that the turbine can deliver is one-half ρ times v cubed watts per square meter.

If the wind speed is 10 meters per second (about 20 mph) the power is 600 watts per square meter at 100% efficiency. That means to deliver the same power as Hinkley Point C (3200 million watts) by wind would require 5.5 million square meters of turbine swept area – that should be quite unacceptable to those who care about birds and to other environmentalists.

But the performance of wind is much worse than that, as a look at the simple formula shows. Because the power carried by the wind depends on the third power of the wind speed, if the wind drops to half speed, the power available drops by a factor of 8. Almost worse, if the wind speed doubles, the power delivered goes up 8 times, and as a result the turbine has to be turned off for its own protection. This is not related to the technology of the turbine, which can harvest no more than the power that reaches the area swept by its blades.”

Slight variations in wind cause great variations in electricity generated, contributing to a destabilization of the electric grid, the stability of which is critical as discussed in last week’s TWTW.

Allison concludes by discussing an announcement by (now former) PM Boris Johnson claiming that wind farms could power every UK home by 2030. Allison writes:

“The significant word in the announcement was ‘could’. Evidently, offshore wind might provide such lighting in the UK – sometimes. But Great Britain needs reliable energy all the time. British consumers should follow the example of Alice who, in negotiating terms with the White Queen, insisted on clarification of the day on which jam should be delivered. Evidently, they should not look to wind power for reliable energy, but elsewhere.1

With general energy shortages, the war in Europe, high prices and the likelihood of failures in electricity supply, many popular scientific presumptions underlying energy policy should be questioned. Wind power fails on every count.”

See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

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

Real Broken Windows: In discussing the failure of economists to speak out against the cost of unreliable wind and solar Rupert Darwall writes:

“Thus, climate policy makes us poorer (the cost) than we would otherwise be for the sake of a better future (the benefit). Politicians pushing action on climate aren’t going to admit this, but one might expect better of economists. Instead, much of the economics profession has been complicit in the spinning of this fairy tale and has forsaken the tools of its science to disabuse politicians and the public of the net zero goldilocks story.”

“The IEA’s net zero roadmap foresees rapidly falling demand for oil, causing oil prices to drop to $35 a barrel by the end of the decade. This is fantasyland economics.”

TWTW adds that “Net Zero” and “Build Back Better” are true “broken windows” policies. Destroy first, then see if there is something better to replace it. See link under Funding Issues. For comments by an economist on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing see Defending the Orthodoxy – Bandwagon Science.

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

$1.2 Trillion: The Wall Street Journal reports that the investment firm Goldman-Sachs estimates that the cost of the “Inflation Reduction Act” (IRA) will be some $1.2 trillion – about 25% of the US cost of World War II, adjusting for inflation. The editors write:

The Inflation Reduction Act may go down as one of the greatest confidence tricks on taxpayers in history. Democrats used accounting gimmicks to claim the partisan law would reduce the budget deficit. But now a Goldman Sachs report projects its myriad green subsidies will cost $1.2 trillion—more than three times what the law’s supporters claimed.

The Congressional Budget Office forecast that the IRA’s energy and climate provisions would cost $391 billion between 2022 and 2031, but this appears to be a huge under-estimate. One reason is companies are rushing to cash in on tax credits that aren’t capped. The Biden Administration is also loosely interpreting conditions for the credits.

By Goldman’s estimate, the IRA tax credits will cost tens to hundreds of billions more than CBO estimated over 10 years. The forecast misses include electric vehicles (difference: $379 billion), green energy manufacturing ($156 billion), renewable electricity production ($82 billion), energy efficiency ($42 billion), hydrogen ($36 billion), biofuels ($34 billion) and carbon capture ($31 billion).

Goldman says the difference in the EV credit estimates owes to its projection that more vehicles will meet the law’s ‘self-sufficiency’ mineral and battery material conditions for the partial $3,750 consumer credit and full $7,500 credit. But even Goldman’s estimate for the EV credit could be low if Treasury loosely interprets the credit conditions, which is what auto makers are lobbying for.

Auto makers are also racing to take advantage of a tax credit for locally manufactured battery cells and modules by setting up plants in the U.S. Similar to Goldman’s estimate, an analysis last month by Mercatus Center fellow Christine McDaniel projected that the tax credit for battery production could cost up to $196.5 billion.

Ford’s Michigan plant with Chinese battery maker CATL alone could cost $1.5 billion annually in credits. Goldman estimates the tax credit could shave the cost of battery production by 35% to 42%, though EVs would still cost 17% more than vehicles with internal combustion engines. While tax credits will improve auto maker EV margins, it’s not clear whether they will make EVs profitable.

Goldman predicts the IRA will ‘drive’ $3 trillion in climate investments—that is, reallocate $3 trillion in capital across the economy. Oil and gas companies will spend less on increasing production and more on developing carbon capture technologies, hydrogen and biofuels that are profitable only with the IRA’s rich tax credits. Expect energy prices to rise.

Goldman says green subsidies will benefit companies across the economy—from aluminum manufacturers to agriculture producers. This will make it politically more difficult for Republicans to roll back the subsidies if they gain control of the White House and Congress. Subsidies will also be ‘deployed meaningfully’ in states like Texas with large GOP Congressional caucuses, Goldman notes.

The editorial concludes with comments about politics. See Article # 1.

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

Number of the Week: 145 Times. The EPA desires to expand power over the use of fossil fuels in providing reliable, affordable electricity. In West Virginia v. EPA, The US Supreme Court shot down its efforts to do so under the guise of climate change. It is now attempting to use particulate matter emitted by the burning of fossil fuels. In preparing comments, TWTW made a few calculations.

According to the World Health Organization about 7 million people die each year from ambient and internal air pollution, most from particulate matter. It is very difficult to get a straight answer on the number of deaths from EPA data. The latest, in January 2023, was that its new regulations will avert 4200 to 11,000 premature deaths but the page is no longer being updated. It emphasized mercury as well as PM2.5 from fossil fuel-fired power plants. In short, we have regulations before evidence.

If claims of human susceptibility to PM2.5 were true, we should be seeing a massive increase in deaths in cities in China. According to Our World in Data, China’s CO2 emissions were 79 million tons in 1950 and 11.5 billion tones in 2021. This is an increase of about 145 times the 1950 value. In 1950 life expectancy in China was 43.7 years, in 2021 78.2 years. This is an increase of about 79% of the 1950 value. [Note there was a sharp decline in life expectancy during the late 1950s and early 1960s. Not suggested, but this is probably from the Cultural Revolution]

If EPA assertions are correct, we should be seeing a dramatic drop in life expectancy in China, instead it is one of the fastest aging populations in the world. See link under EPA and other Regulators on the March, https://www.epa.gov/mats/healthier-americans and https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china

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

Challenging the National Science Teaching Association’s Position Statement on Climate Change

By Staff, CO2 Coalition, March 23, 2023 [H/t WUWT]

Climate change isn’t ‘particularly dangerous’: Richard Lindzen

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Mar 21, 2023

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