Weekly Climate and Energy Roundup #501 – Watts Up With That?

The Week That Was: 2022-04-23 (April 23, 2022)
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: “Science is a process for learning about nature in which competing ideas about how the world works are measured against observations.”
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.”
“If there is something very slightly wrong in our definition of the theories, then the full mathematical rigor may convert these errors into ridiculous conclusions.” – Richard Feynman.

Number of the Week: Up to $10 Trillion

THIS WEEK:

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

Scope: On the blog by Donna Laframboise, emeritus Professor of Mathematics and Physics Christopher Essex has posted an essay discussing the severe problem the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has experienced in its efforts to attribute global warming / climate change to greenhouse gases. This problem, a critical deficiency, underlies the work of the followers of the IPCC including the US National Climate Assessments and the 2009 EPA Endangerment Finding that increasing greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, endanger public health and welfare.

Very unfortunately, and very critically important, is that the IPCC cannot present any clear scientific facts that such gases actually produce their claimed warming causing climate change. Even worse, the IPCC cannot rationalize their draconian predicted impacts of climate change based on anything except highly suspect climate models, which are so limited and flawed that they cannot produce any predictions that match existing factual results, let alone credible future warming predictions. These deficiencies stem from fundamentally faulty mathematics and are illustrated by the recent efforts of the UN IPCC to change their global climate modeling, thus undermining their own earlier work and predictions. This creates a situation where nothing the IPCC has projected is credible anymore if it ever was. The nature of this fundamental problem is discussed below.

The three quotes from Richard Feynman making up the Quote of the Week apply particularly well to the work by Essex.

The problem leads to the need for an upper bound analysis such as that presented by The Right Climate Stuff Team (TRCS) and, recently, by Atomic, Molecular, and Optical (AMO) physicist Howard Hayden. The advantages of the Hayden approach over the TRCS team approach are discussed.

Last week, TWTW discussed an essay by Roy Spencer on atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements at Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii. The essay led to comments some of which are discussed below.

The UN IPCC and the US National Climate Assessments ignore the tremendous benefits of atmospheric carbon dioxide enrichment, making their reports particularly one-sided, politically biased government reports. Craig Idso presents a new review on studies showing that carbon dioxide increases plant productivity, particularly in C3 plants which include most crops and all trees.

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

The Closure Problem: Very unfortunately, and very critically important, is that the IPCC cannot present any clear scientific facts that such gases actually produce their claimed warming due to climate change. Even worse, the IPCC cannot rationalize their draconian predicted impacts of climate change based on anything except highly suspect climate models, which are so limited and flawed that they cannot produce any predictions that match existing factual results, let alone credible future warming predictions. These deficiencies stem from fundamentally faulty mathematics and are illustrated by the recent efforts of the UN IPCC to change their global climate modeling, thus undermining their own earlier work and predictions.  This creates a situation where nothing the IPCC has projected is credible anymore, if it ever was. The nature of this fundamental problem is discussed below.

Correspondingly, in modeling if a system has more unknowns than independent, defining equations there is no unique solution. Games can be played, but these can include imaginary numbers and similar constructions that do not give a realistic solution. Furthermore, if a modeling system does not have a unique solution, one cannot disprove it using the same system. But one can show that it is inconsistent with reality.

During the winter months, meteorologist Joe Bastardi of WeatherBELL Analytics has repeatedly noted that numerical weather models do not pick up cold waves. In this sense, they are not suitable for forecasting the weather.

Fittingly, Essex begins his essay “Can Computer Models Predict Climate?” with a discussion that the temperature of the surface of the Earth can hit low temperatures comparable to the low temperatures of the surface of Mars due to cold waves in the Earth’s atmosphere. Decades of climate modeling have been focused on the warming effect of greenhouse gases and yet have missed the reality of the atmosphere. The modelers deal with an imaginary atmosphere and ignore testing their models against the real one.

Starting with his section “Feynman, Experiment and Climate Models” Essex writes:

“‘Model’ is used in a peculiar manner in the climate field. In other fields, models are usually formulated so that they can be found false in the face of evidence. From fundamental physics (the Standard Model) to star formation, a model is meant to be put to the test, no matter how meritorious.

“Climate models do not have this character. No observation from Nature can cause them to be replaced by some new form of model. Instead, climate models are seen by some as the implementation of perfect established classical physics expressed on oracular [prophesizing] computers, and as such must be regarded as fully understood and beyond falsification. In terms of normal science, this is fantasy.

“Modern critics of climate models cite a famous remark of the physicist Richard Feynman: ‘It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.’ Those critics imagine models as theory, and observations as experiment. No knowledgeable model builder believes that climate models capture all features of the system well. As such they disagree with observations. However, they do not violate Feynman’s edict because climate models are no theory for climate, and observations of an uncontrolled system are no experiment. Feynman was speaking in the context of controlled physical experiments, which cannot be done for climate.

Actually, Feynman later broaden his approach to include observations from nature, not just experiments. See quote of the week.

“If a climate model disagrees with data, in principle the sub-grid-scale (more below) of ad hoc climate models can be adjusted to make it agree. Fortunately, good model builders resist the temptation to overdo such tuning. However, they may do things inadvertently like tune models to be more like each other than like the atmosphere and oceans.”

“Extreme Computing in Search of Climate

“Extreme conditions can compromise any computer calculation, despite popular faith otherwise. Sharp transitions on boundaries, extreme gradients, and extremes in density are examples. There are also extremes that are often overlooked, e.g., an extreme of time. Direct computation of the meteorological physics for long timescales is an extreme in time. Integrations of classical physics on computers for climatological timescales are unique and unprecedented. Like other forms of extreme computation, there are consequences.” [Boldface added]

Essex discusses errors that occur in rounding off, truncation and symmetry. He writes:

“The third type of error [symmetry] tells us that the actual computer model equations that take us into the future will usually conserve different things than the original equations. The conservation laws from the original mathematics are broken and replaced with something artifactual. For example, consider a simple numerical treatment of a pendulum. Typically, such numerical treatments do not conserve energy, even though the original equations do. For long times, the amplitude of the pendulum can grow (unphysically) with time because the energy grows instead of being constant in the numerical system. Note that there are conservation laws, due to symmetries, in dissipative systems too.”

“The significance for long term forecasting is clear. The only tie the present has to the future, through fundamental equations, is in terms of change relative to those properties that are preserved over time. Change those properties; change the prescribed future. Such change can accrue over long timescales.” [Boldface added]

Here we see part of the problem with the Climate Crisis and the Endangerment Finding. They are built on what might happen, not on what is actually occurring. To further complicate the issues, in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4, 2007) on which the EPA Endangerment Finding is based, the climate modelers recognized the models were unstable and have shifted the models by stabilizing them, and thus undermining the rationale for the Endangerment Finding. Essex writes:

“In contrast, modern versions are so stable that nothing happens unless pushed from the outside. Models exhibit no natural variability over long times (white spectra). But instability is also a real-world property. Are computational stabilization schemes too aggressive, throwing the baby out with the bath water? Have they encountered computational over-stabilization? [reference 4 (not shown)] Is their long-term stability a bug or a feature? Some modelers believe the latter. They believe that models have discovered what climate is. Thus, they contend that climate is a “boundary value problem,” as startup conditions no longer matter in the long term. If true, an observer living on climate timescales would experience no variability – nothing analogous to weather. Every moment would be like the last. Change would strictly be a matter of external causes. However, there is no known way to deduce it from first principles, and long-term internal variability is evident.”

The modelers have achieved a completely imaginary atmosphere which they falsely claim is based on first principles. Essex goes through other efforts to define Climate in a way useful for numerical models and shows that the efforts have failed. He concludes:

“A physical definition for climate remains scientifically elusive because it represents a deep problem that neither elegant theories nor brute force computations have succeeded in getting a foothold on. Without that definition, the question posed by the title cannot be answered.

“There are many paths yet to explore, but they are buried by the greenhouse mindset inherited from the models of the 1960s. It makes this deep problem seem trivial and it invites the vision of one temperature controlled solely by infrared active gases. That is the basis of climate sensitivity, which amounts to a dubious claim of closure for the climate problem. However, this function need not exist in Nature.

“This questionable closure invites the vision of climate as a control problem. But it would be control over something that is not actually climate through a function that exists only in the radiative-convective models. This vision is itself unfalsifiable. Following it ensures that we only fool ourselves, because as Feynman also said, ‘Nature can’t be fooled.’”

In summary, in claiming a Climate Crisis, Washington has declared an imaginary crisis, based on an imaginary atmosphere for which it has an imaginary solution – that wind and solar power are reliable and affordable. With such imagination, what can go wrong? See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy and https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar4/

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

A Better Way: The Right Climate Stuff Team included scientists and engineers who designed the Apollo lander, for which there were no textbooks or experience. They had to examine and evaluate a wide range of possibilities. Realizing that the IPCC “goal” of “equilibrium climate sensitivity” was an ideal, not a reality, they used their skills in establishing an upper bound analysis for global warming from carbon dioxide emissions. However, their notable effort has a weakness: it is dependent on knowledge of the extent of fossil fuel resources and the ability to extract them.

The advantage of the upper bound analysis found in his essays on Basic Climate Physics by Howard Hayden is that it is independent of technology, such as oil extraction technology on which the TRCS approach depends. Hayden’s approach is based on well-established physics and estimates in IPCC reports. Climate model results exceeding the upper bound have no basis in physics. See https://therightclimatestuff.com/ and http://www.sepp.org/science_papers.cfm

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

Additions and Corrections: In commenting on the analysis by Roy Spencer regarding a recent drop in CO2 concentrations measured at Mauna Loa, Richard Courtney writes:

“…similar falls in ‘Mauna Loa dCO2/dt’ [decline in CO2 over time] occurred when there were no reductions to ‘Global Anthro CO2 Emissions’ similar to the ‘Covid drop’ (e.g., around 1970, 1990, 2008)”

and

“…rises in ‘Mauna Loa dCO2/dt’ of magnitude much larger than the ‘Covid drop’ happened when there were no significant increases to ‘Global Anthro CO2 Emissions’ (e.g., around 1974, 1988, 1998 and 2018).”

These observations suggest to me that the fall in ‘Mauna Loa dCO2/dt’ [decline in CO2 over time] coincident with the ‘Covid drop’ is natural fluctuation of similar kind to the previous similar natural fluctuations.

This is a good example of the problems with “messy” data. What appears to some may be interpreted differently by others. There is no clear answer. In addition, Geoffrey Sherrington asserts that the measurement errors are too large for asserting that the drop was from COVID. Too often in climate research false precision is used to imply certainty. They are not the same. See link under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

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

Multiple Benefits: In Master Resource, Craig Idso writes of an experiment by his father, Dr. Sherwood Idso who worked at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona. Craig states:

“In one of his more famous experiments, my father grew sour orange trees in ambient and CO2-enriched air in the Phoenix desert for nearly two decades. In that study, which was the longest such experiment ever to be conducted anywhere in the world, trees exposed to a CO2 concentration 75% greater than normal annually produced 70% more biomass and 85% more fruit. And as icing on the cake, so to speak, the vitamin C concentration of the juice of the CO2-enriched oranges was between 5 and 15% greater than that of the juice of the oranges produced on the trees growing in ambient air.”

Note that CO2 enhancement not only resulted in more fruits and fruit biomass, but also resulted in greater vitamin C concentrations. Unfortunately, such research is no longer politically popular. Based on his extensive research Craig writes:

“Although much less studied than terrestrial plants, many aquatic plants are also known to be responsive to atmospheric CO2 enrichment, including unicellular phytoplankton and bottom-rooted macrophytes of both freshwater and saltwater species. Hence, there is probably no category of photosynthesizing plant that does not respond in a positive manner to atmospheric CO2 enrichment and that is not likely to be benefited by the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content.”

Today, politicized entities such as NOAA and many academic organizations will claim such an increase in CO2 is “Ocean Acidification” and totally ignore that primary production areas in the oceans are precisely where major upwellings bring carbon dioxide rich waters to the surface increasing photosynthesis and marine life. See links under Social Benefits of Carbon Dioxide.

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

Paralysis By Analysis: The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was used to kill much needed improvements to protect New Orleans from flooding, a fact touted by environmental organizations until Katrina killed about a thousand people in Louisiana. Now, under the guise of the infrastructure bill, Washington is planning to expand bureaucratic efforts to stop needed pipelines, highways, and other infrastructure. See Article # 1.

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

SEPP’S APRIL FOOLS AWARD – THE JACKSON

SEPP is conducting its annual vote for the recipient of the coveted trophy, The Jackson, a lump of coal. Readers are asked to nominate and vote for who they think is most deserving. The entire Biden Administration won in 2021, so individuals in it are still eligible.

The voting will close on July 30. Please send your nominee and a brief reason the person is qualified for the honor to [email protected]. The awardee will be announced at the annual meeting of the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness on August 14 to 16 at the South Point Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas.

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

Number of the Week: Up to $10 Trillion. Craig Idso writes:

“I have also calculated the direct monetary benefits of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on both historic and future global crop production. Over the past 50 years, which benefit amounts to well over $3 trillion. And projecting the monetary value of this positive externality forward in time reveals that it will bestow an additional $10 trillion on crop production over the next 50 years. Yet, as amazing as this estimate sounds, it may very well be vastly undervalued.” [Boldface added] See link under Social Benefits of Carbon Dioxide.

Censorship

USA and Canada’s Plan to Silence Independent Media

By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Apr 18, 2022