SOURCE:
The Week That Was: 2022-08-27 (August 27, 2022)Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)The Science and Environmental Policy Project
Quote of the Week: “What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that carbon dioxide from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin.“
“It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that carbon dioxide, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.”—Richard Lindzen, https://www.sec.gov/comments/climate-disclosure/cll12-8855233-238421.pdf
SUMMARY: No longer with the Center for Astrophysics of Harvard-Smithsonian Institute, astrophysicist Willie Soon gave a blunt assessment of the current state of global climate modeling at the 40th Annual Meeting of the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness (DDP). He addressed what he called the extreme green dreams with physical evidence, facts.
Noted professor emeritus at the University of Manitoba, Vaclav Smil, has over forty books on energy, environment, population, food production, and similar issues for modern civilization. In a disturbing paragraph in Numbers Don’t Lie (2020) Smil unintentionally summarizes how effective the propaganda produced by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been in misleading the public on human influence on climate, especially carbon dioxide emissions.
The great misunderstanding of the effectiveness of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will be discussed in light of the atmospheric window for infrared energy, described below. This window was suggested in the work of Karl Schwarzschild who died during World War I and was established by laboratory experiments in the 1920s. Yet it is ignored by the IPCC and global climate modelers, including defense experts even though some weapons systems depend on it.
Donn Dears has three essays on sustainable accounting and how false concepts about sustainability erode our energy and financial security.
Essays by Francis Menton and in the Wall Street Journal discuss why the “feel good” belief in an energy transition will fail. Western governments are rushing madly into net zero without knowing what they are doing. This teenage “feel good” thinking extends to the White House and many in Washington. Senator Manchin may find out that many in his party will not support his agreements to protect production of coal, oil, and natural gas, even though the public will suffer.
Politically appointed bureaucrats in California have banned new gasoline powered automobiles after 2035, all in the name of public health and safety. Is this the new form of authoritarianism?
Is It the Sun? Freed from the restraints of the Harvard-Smithsonian Institute, astrophysicist Willie Soon gave a forceful opening presentation on the poor status of climate science at the 40th Annual Meeting of the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness (DDP). Perhaps it can be summed up as how in thirty years of advancing knowledge about the atmosphere and the sun the UN IPCC has gone from science speculation to science fiction.
Soon covers a broad range of topics concerning climate models including climate deaths and extreme weather events, comparing model results with observations. He considers that climate models are tools to scare humans. He asks if false climate reports could fall under “18 U.S. Code § 2074 – False weather reports” which states:
“Whoever knowingly issues or publishes any counterfeit weather forecast or warning of weather conditions falsely representing such forecast or warning to have been issued or published by the Weather Bureau, United States Signal Service, or other branch of the Government service, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ninety days, or both.”
Soon goes into some detail on how the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6, 2021) misrepresented work by Connolly, et al. (2019) in which he was personally involved. The IPCC emphasized the Spring and Summer, but the work focused on the Fall and Winter.
[Jim Steele has a clear presentation on how snow cover is affected by changing weather patterns such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Consequently, snowfall patterns are not a good indicator of climate change, particularly global warming.]
Soon goes into some of the many false predictions of impending doom from global warming and how dates have changed as doom did not materialize. Backed by huge expenditures from government authorities, academic publications are also infected by false science. Even the Nobel Committee on Physics gave the prize to modelers for what the Committee said where their remarkably accurate model predictions. Yet, the central forecast for a doubling of CO2 causing a global temperature to increase by 3°C plus or minus 1.5°C has not change in over 40 years since the Charney Report was published in 1979, and it appears increasingly unlikely, far too high.
Soon considers it a human mystery why scientists ignore evidence contrary to their views. It is a problem of trying to attribute the complex problem of climate change to a single cause, CO2. To do so the modelers avoid and hide contradictions, which is contrary to the scientific method. Soon cites the Quote of the Week, above, from Richard Lindzen.
Soon considers CO2 is a bit player in climate change and compares it with the sun, a huge but underappreciated player. As he points out, climate models fail to simulate seasonal cycles, but solar models can explain seasonal cycles. If climate models cannot even explain seasonal cycles why use them to predict the future? The entire presentation by Soon is thoughtful and worthwhile. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.
*****************
Effectiveness of IPCC Propaganda: In Numbers Don’t Lie, Vaclav Smil begins the chapter titled “Running into Carbon” with the following.
“In 1896, Svante Arrhenius, of Sweden, became the first scientist to quantify the effects of man-made carbon dioxide on global temperatures. He calculated that doubling the atmospheric level of the gas from its concentration in his time would raise the average mid-latitude temperature by 5 to 6°C. That’s not too far from the latest results obtained by computer models running more than 200,000 lines of code.”
From his section on “Further Reading,” it appears that this interpretation of history came from a special report for the UN Climate Action Summit, September 2019. In 2014, Friends of Science Society published a 1906 paper from Arrhenius translated from German that gives a range of 1.6 to 3.9℃, with qualifiers.
Since 1979, satellite measurements and databases compiled from atmospheric measurements indicate that the 1906 numbers are still too high, even assuming no clouds. Since clouds have a cooling effect in general, the actual increase may be below 1℃, hardly reason to destroy modern civilization by destroying the energy it needs. See: https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Arrhenius%201906,%20final.pdf
*****************
The Hole in the CO2 Blanket: In discussing greenhouse gases, many commentators refer to them as a blanket trapping outgoing radiation (heat) from the surface to space. Yet seldom discussed is the hole in the blanket which permits outgoing radiation to escape undisturbed. Since this “spectral” hole has existed since time immemorial, the earth’s temperature has adjusted accordingly and increasing carbon dioxide will do little to block this hole. The hole is known as the Infrared Window and as stated in Wikipedia: [references omitted]
The infrared atmospheric window refers to a region of the Infrared spectrum where there is relatively little absorption of terrestrial thermal radiation by atmospheric gases. The window plays an important role in the atmospheric greenhouse effect by maintaining the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing IR [infrared radiation] to space.
In the Earth’s atmosphere this window is roughly the region between 8 and 14 μm [micrometer, one millionth of a meter] although it can be narrowed or closed at times and places of high humidity because of the strong absorption in the water vapor continuum or because of blocking by clouds. It covers a substantial part of the spectrum from surface thermal emission which starts at roughly 5 μm.
Principally it is a large gap in the absorption spectrum of water vapor. Carbon dioxide plays an important role in setting the boundary at the long wavelength end. Ozone partly blocks transmission in the middle of the window.
The importance of the infrared atmospheric window in the atmospheric energy balance was discovered by George Simpson in 1928, based on G. Hettner’s 1918 laboratory studies of the gap in the absorption spectrum of water vapor.
In those days, computers were not available, and Simpson notes that he used approximations; he writes about the need for this in order to calculate outgoing IR radiation: “There is no hope of getting an exact solution; but by making suitable simplifying assumptions . . ..” Nowadays, accurate line-by-line computations are possible, and careful studies of the spectroscopy of infrared atmospheric gases have been published.[Boldface added]
These “accurate line-by-line computations are possible, and careful studies of the spectroscopy of infrared atmospheric gases” were used by van Wijngaarden and Happer in “Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases” and extended by AMO physicist Howard Hayden in “Basic Climate Physics” available on the SEPP website.
In combining the Planck Curve of outgoing blackbody radiation based on surface temperature with the Karl Schwarzschild curve of actual outgoing radiation from Earth, Hayden demonstrates the actual Greenhouse Effect, eliminating many of the complications arising from changing weather patterns. These can be seen in Figures 1 & 2 of Hayden’s “Basic Climate Physics #2.”
The success of many modern munitions known for their accuracy is dependent on understanding the Infrared Window. These infrared guided (heat seeking) weapons include the Sidewinder (named after the pit viper, an infrared hunter), the Stinger, and the Javelin missiles. Thus, it is ironic to hear Department of Defense officials claiming greenhouse gases trap heat. Obviously, they don’t know why their weapons work. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_window and
http://www.sepp.org/science_papers/Climate%20Physics%202.pdf
Sustainable? “Sustainable” is one of the most abused terms used today. Solar power fails every night, yet it is called sustainable. Not if one needs a nightlight. Donn Dears has three short essays on how Washington is destroying America’s Energy Security in the name of sustainability. He writes:
“The integrity of the FASB [The Financial Accounting Standards Board] is crucial to the safe operation of America’s financial system. Retirement accounts, for example, would be put in danger if GAAP [GenerallyAccepted Accounting Principles] rules were fiddled with for political reasons.”
“Until now, Americans could trust that the FASB would establish unbiased, accounting principles without political interference.
“But is this about to change?”
*****************
Hitting the Green Wall: In discussing why the goal of Net Zero is complete fiction for a modern society, Francis Menton writes: [Boldface in original]
“There is a total absence in the entire world of any functioning Net Zero demonstration project.”
TWTW has sought examples and has found unsuccessful attempts such as El Hierro in the Canary Islands and King Island off Tasmania, both of which Menton discusses. It is completely irresponsible for politicians to promote the Net-Zero path to energy oblivion.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, James Freeman cites an upcoming work he reviewed by Mark Mills. Freeman writes:
“In a new report due out next week from the Manhattan Institute, Mark Mills takes on the ‘dangerous delusion’ of a global energy transition that eliminates the use of fossil fuels. Surveying energy markets and public policy around the world, Mr. Mills asks readers to ‘consider that years of hypertrophied rhetoric and trillions of dollars of spending and subsidies on a transition have not significantly changed the energy landscape.’ He notes:
“Civilization still depends on hydrocarbons for 84% of all energy, a mere two percentage points lower than two decades ago. Solar and wind technologies today supply barely 5% of global energy. Electric vehicles still offset less than 0.5% of world oil demand.
“Mr. Mills then explains why the global appetite for energy is not heading south:
“’One can begin with a reality that cannot be blinked away: energy is needed for everything that is fabricated, grown, operated, or moved… digital devices and hardware—the most complex products ever produced at scale—require, on average, about 1,000 times more energy to fabricate, pound for pound, than the products that dominated the 20th century…
it takes nearly as much energy to make one smartphone as it does one refrigerator, even though the latter weighs 1,000 times more. The world produces nearly 10 times more smartphones a year than refrigerators. Thus, the global fabrication of smartphones now uses 15% as much energy as does the entire automotive industry, even though a car weighs 10,000 times more than a smartphone.
The global Cloud, society’s newest and biggest infrastructure, uses twice as much electricity as the entire nation of Japan. And then, of course, there are all the other common, vital needs for energy, from heating and cooling homes to producing food and delivering freight.
“’Advocates of a carbon-free world underestimate not only how much energy the world already uses, but how much more energy the world will yet demand… In America, there are nearly as many vehicles as people, while in most of the world, fewer than 1 in 20 people have a car. More than 80% of the world population has yet to take a single flight.’
“He then proceeds to take on the argument that wind and solar power are now becoming competitive with fossil fuels:
“’Claims that wind, solar, and [electrical vehicles] have reached cost parity with traditional energy sources or modes of transportation are not based on evidence. Even before the latest period of rising energy prices, Germany and Britain—both further down the grid transition path than the U.S.— have seen average electricity rates rise 60%–110% over the past two decades.
The same pattern is visible in Australia and Canada. It’s also apparent in U.S. states and regions where mandates have resulted in grids with a higher share of wind/solar energy.
In general, overall U.S. residential electricity costs rose over the past 20 years. But those rates should have declined because of the collapse in the cost of natural gas and coal—the two energy sources that, together, supplied nearly 70% of electricity in that period. Instead, rates have been pushed higher thanks to elevated spending on the otherwise unneeded infrastructure required to transmit wind/solar-generated electricity, as well as the increased costs to keep lights on during ‘droughts’ of wind and sun that come from also keeping conventional power plants available (like having an extra, fully fueled car parked and ready to go) in effect by spending on two grids.
“None of the above accounts for the costs hidden as taxpayer-funded subsidies that were intended to make alternative energy cheaper.
Added up over the past two decades, the cumulative subsidies across the world for biofuels, wind, and solar approach about $5 trillion, all of that to supply roughly 5% of global energy.
“Whether it’s to cool a home, heat steel, or power a data center, the eternal engineering challenge has always been to find the lowest-cost way to make energy available when it’s needed to meet inherently variable demands, especially in the face of inevitable challenges from nature’s attacks as well as supply chain and machine failures.
Oil, natural gas, coal, and even wood and water are easy to store in very large volumes at very low cost, but not so electricity. Hence, grid-scale electric availability has been made possible by using electricity-producing machines (turbines) that can be turned on when needed, fueled by large quantities of primary energy sources (such as natural gas, coal, and flowing water) that are easily and inexpensively stored.
Such metrics characterize, for now, more than 80% of U.S. electricity production and more than 90% of transportation. The U.S., on average, has about one to two months’ worth of national demand in storage for each kind of hydrocarbon. Such enormous quantities are possible because it costs less than $1 a barrel per month to store oil or the energy equivalent of natural gas. Storing coal is even cheaper.
Thus, over the past century, engineers achieved the feat of building a nation-spanning group of electricity grids that powers nearly everything, anytime, while still consuming less than 3% of the GDP.”
Freeman then goes into the problem of storage, which Menton has well discussed. Nothing has worked that is replenished by wind or solar. Replenishment by fossil fuel or nuclear generation does work but requires approvals that are difficult to get in the US. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy and Article # 1.
*****************
Democracy California Style: According to reports on August 25, The California Air Resources Board (CARB) voted to ban the sale of gas-powered cars starting in 2035. According to its website:
“CARB is charged with protecting the public from the harmful effects of air pollution and developing programs and actions to fight climate change. From requirements for clean cars and fuels to adopting innovative solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, California has pioneered a range of effective approaches that have set the standard for effective air and climate programs for the nation, and the world.”
“CARB’s mission is to promote and protect public health, welfare, and ecological resources through effective reduction of air pollutants while recognizing and considering effects on the economy. CARB is the lead agency for climate change programs and oversees all air pollution control efforts in California to attain and maintain health-based air quality standards.”
“The California Air Resources Board consists of 16 members. 12 are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the state Senate.” See links under California Dreaming and https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/about
*****************
Number of the Week: Down 16%; Up 53%: According to World Bank estimates, in 2007 US emissions of carbon dioxide were 5,736,000 kilotons, in 2019 they were 4,818,000 kilotons, a decline of 16%. In 2007 emissions from China were 6,993,000 kilotons and in 2019 they were 10,707,000 kilotons, an increase of 53%. In 2019, China had 2.2 times the CO2 emissions that the US had. And Washington is punishing the US oil and gas industry for Washington’s false claim of a climate emergency from CO2 emissions? Will Washington punish China? How? See Change in US Administrations, Article # 2, https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carbon-co2-emissions, and https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/carbon-co2-emissions