SOURCE:
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
SUMMARY: TWTW will begin with a discussion of spectroscopy and its wide acceptance in many fields of physics as well as other technical fields of science and its applications.
Generally attributed to Newton, over 150 years ago John Tyndall used spectroscopy to identify why what he called greenhouse gases kept the Earth warm enough to promote life.
Ignored by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the climate establishment, spectroscopy can be used to understand the greenhouse effect.
SEPP Chairman Thomas Sheahen discusses why the work in atmospheric spectroscopy is solid science, far superior to the work of the IPCC.
Sheahen specifically discusses the efforts of Professors William van Wijngaarden and William Happer in their pioneering work in calculating the real-world Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) of the five most common Green-House Gases (GHGs)
and explains why the approach used by IPCC is faulty but nonetheless is used by its followers such as the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the EPA.
These faulty methods lead to great exaggeration of the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide, methane, and other minor greenhouse gases.
Following the faulty approach used by the IPCC, western Europe has adopted energy policies that President Putin of Russia exploited in his attack of Ukraine.
Western Europe largely abandoned coal and exploration for oil and gas in favor of importing natural gas from Russia.
John Constable details why western Europe, particularly the UK, must change its thinking about fossil fuels, or suffer significant economic and human harm.
Highlighting the illusion that unreliable wind and solar power can replace reliable thermal power, Francis Menton discusses that the Biden Administration is following the same path to economic and human harm followed by the UK and Germany.
Menton brings up a detailed report by Joseph Toomey on the ideologically driven Biden administration. ...
Identified as a “planning engineer” on Judith Curry’s blog, an individual discusses practical reasons why solar and wind power are not a solution to climate change. They become an increasing problem in attempting to reliable and affordable electric power as more solar and wind are added to the system.
*********************
Spectroscopy: The description of spectroscopy in Britannica starts with the:
“…study of the absorption and emission of light and other radiation by matter, as related to the dependence of these processes on the wavelength of the radiation. More recently, the definition has been expanded to include the study of the interactions between particles such as electrons, protons, and ions, as well as their interaction with other particles as a function of their collision energy.
Spectroscopic analysis has been crucial in the development of the most fundamental theories in physics, including quantum mechanics, the special and general theories of relativity, and quantum electrodynamics.
Spectroscopy, as applied to high-energy collisions, has been a key tool in developing scientific understanding not only of the electromagnetic force but also of the strong and weak nuclear forces.
“Spectroscopic techniques have been applied in virtually all technical fields of science and technology.
Radio-frequency spectroscopy of nuclei in a magnetic field has been employed in a medical technique called magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to visualize the internal soft tissue of the body with unprecedented resolution.
Microwave spectroscopy was used to discover the so-called three-degree blackbody radiation, the remnant of the big bang…”
This widely used and precise method to understanding critical parts of the physical world is ignored by the climate establishment because it produces testable results that climate bureaucracies do not wish to see – that after water vapor is considered, greenhouse gases have a minor impact on climate and are overwhelmed by natural changes.
The bigger the better is the underlying goal of bureaucracies.
If the work of William van Wijngaarden and William Happer using the high-resolution transmission molecular absorption database (HITRAN) becomes well known, funding of the great climate bureaucracies will become difficult to obtain.
So, these bureaucracies sacrifice acquiring knowledge of the physical world in favor of funding.
[Note: the 1979 Charney report attempted to intensify the known weak influence of carbon dioxide by claiming, without evidence, its influence would be amplified by water vapor.
This claim appears in general circulation models (global climate models); however, the physical evidence to validate the claim is still missing.
*********************
The Real Atmosphere: In “Methane: The Irrelevant Greenhouse Gas” SEPP Chairman Thomas Sheahen explains the procedural flaws used by the IPCC and its followers in overemphasizing the importance of carbon dioxide and methane in influencing global temperatures and climate.
He reviews the work of van Wijngaarden and Happer and explains why they got it right – adhered to the scientific method rather than producing what is politically popular.
Sheahen explains that the real atmosphere contains water vapor.
If we are to understand how human additions of carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases affect the atmosphere we must understand the actual atmosphere.
However, the “US Standard Atmosphere” is without water vapor and therefore is unrealistic.
It is an artificial construct of little value in understanding what will happen with human additions of greenhouse gases.
Furthermore, Sheahen notes that the calculations of van Wijngaarden and Happer are for a simple gaseous atmosphere, one in which clouds and aerosols (atmospheric particles) do not inhibit electromagnetic energy passing through it.
Thus, it is also an idealized concept; however, overall clouds and aerosols have a cooling effect.
Consequently, the calculations by van Wijngaarden and Happer reveal the maximum possible influence of increasing greenhouse gases – an upper bound or limit.
Larger estimates are an exaggeration without support of physical evidence.
As he did in his presentation at the last Heartland conference, Sheahen shows the stunning agreement between the calculations of van Wijngaarden and Happer (W & H) with satellite observations of outgoing infrared radiation emitted by the earth going to space.
Three very different regions of the globe appear: Deserts (Sahara); Temperate regions (Mediterranean); and Polar regions (Antarctica)
Sheahen’s major point is that, because of the exceptionally good agreement between observational data and the calculations of W & H, we conclude that their model has now been validated.
That embodies the scientific method.
In that case, it is reasonable to use it to study other hypothetical cases.
It is not possible to do so with IPCC models, which have never achieved agreement with observation.
Thanks to this agreement, one can compute the maximum of what will happen with an increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Showing the difference between the idealized Planck curve for blackbody radiation (no internal heat source such as what occurs in stars) and the Schwarzschild curve for actual (observed) radiation, Sheahen shows that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the actual atmosphere has a minor effect on temperatures.
A doubling of methane has an even smaller effect on temperatures.
Sheahen explains that the influence of carbon dioxide (CO2) is very small because at its current level it is extremely saturated.
As carbon dioxide increases it effectiveness in warming declines. This decline begins immediately.
Sheahen shows the calculations in twenty parts per million (ppm) increments, the current concentration is over 410 ppm. In today’s atmosphere the influence of CO2 is small.
In explaining what this means Sheahen states:
“• If CO2 were zero, it would make a big difference (about 25%), and the earth would be cooler
• If CO2 were doubled, it would make a very small difference
• CH4 and N2O are extremely hard to find on any graph. Clearly, their contribution to the greenhouse effect is trivial
• Molecules of tiny concentration have even less effect – example of HFCs, with extremely high GWP [Global Warming Potential] numbers”
To Sheahen, the scientific implications are:
• Agreement between theory and experiment is the hallmark of good science
• The method of van Wijngaarden & Happer meets that criterion
• It is far superior to the GCM results featured in IPCC reports, which always predict too high temperatures.
• More CO2 makes only a tiny difference
• More N2O [Nitrous oxide] or CH4 [Methane] is tinier still, far less than CO2’s effect
He gives the policy implications:
- Acknowledge that van Wijngaarden and Happer “Got it Right”
- Reject the words of the IPCC and its Summary for Policymakers.
- There is NO climate emergency!
- Reducing greenhouse gases cannot stop the ever-changing climate, therefore expensive mitigation actions are a waste of resources.
TWTW adds that slides showing the Planck and Schwarzschild curves show large ranges in wavelengths (frequencies) where greenhouse gases have little or no impact on outgoing infrared radiation.
About one-sixth of the infrared energy to space passes through the atmosphere unimpeded and adding CO2 and other greenhouse gases does not change these ranges.
It is in these wavelengths (frequencies) that optical rangefinders, night-vision googles, and infrared (heat-seeking) guided missiles operate, and they clearly work.
Yet, they are ignored by those who claims greenhouse gases trap heat.
*********************
Scientific Freedom of Inquiry: Separately, Kenneth Richard presents a study published by the Joint Institute for High Temperatures of the Russian Academy of Sciences using the HITRAN database.
The Russian Academy of Sciences is publishing papers that the US Academy of Sciences and its followers refuse to touch for political reasons.
Is scientific freedom of inquiry greater in Russia than in the US?
Road to Destruction? Europe, particularly the UK and Germany, are further towards the imaginary goal of Net Zero carbon dioxide emissions than the US.
John Constable has studied the problem for UK’s Net Zero Watch. In the summary of “European Fossil Fuels: Resources and Proven Reserves” he writes:
“Europe is in the midst of the worst energy crisis for a generation or more, a crisis that has been in the making for many years and was beginning to become acute even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine accelerated the process.
Mr Putin had a clear intention to capitalize on the weakness in European energy supply, something that has now been made manifest in the intimidatory sabotage of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
“There is very little that the European states can do in the short run, but it is of critical importance that the causes of the current crisis are correctly identified, otherwise counterproductive remedial measures will result.
The naïve, indeed dangerously ignorant and unrealistic conclusion, is that dependence on natural gas justifies still greater emphasis on renewable energy.
In fact, it is the renewables policies have that resulted in this gas dependency.
The energy and economic system must have a thermodynamically competent fuel somewhere in the scheme, and this inevitably has been natural gas for most European states, since both solar and wind are of such low entropic quality that they contribute little or less than nothing to security of supply.
Yet, in a bizarre paradox, European policymakers, notably those of Germany and the European Union, have systematically deprecated fossil fuels since 1990s in an effort to seize international leadership on climate change, while at the same making the remaining fossil fuel of natural gas the sole thread by which economic and societal stability hands.
Forceful promotion of renewable energy through instruments coercing consumers to buy its output at above market prices has not only cost European consumers an additional €770 billion in subsidies to green energy since 2008, but has discouraged exploration for fossil fuels and the development of available resources of coal, oil and natural gas, and made the European markets increasingly dependent on imports, imports that must be bought on the short-term markets because the output from the wind and solar fleet varies over all timescales from seconds to decades.
The EU’s policy could not have been more damaging to the interests of the European states if it has been drafted in the Kremlin itself.”
Using the BP Statistical Review, Constable estimates the proven fossil fuel reserves in Europe (not including Russia) in Reserve/production ratios are Coal, 299 years; Oil, 10.4 years; and Natural gas, 14.5 years.
He then gives further details before concluding:
“In reviewing the potential of shale gas to contribute to energy security, in 2014 the European Commission concluded that ‘the volumes produced will not make Europe self-sufficient in gas but could help to reduce prices.
That conclusion is obviously correct, and applies with equal force to coal, oil, and conventional natural gas resources.
No-one would argue from the data reviewed in this study that the European region can become self-sufficient in fossil energy, but it is equally clear that further exploration of the very substantial resources of these fuels could enlarge proven reserves, increase production and have a significant effect on regional prices and overall security.”
*********************
Into the Valley: Unlike Europe, the US and Canada have abundant resources of coal, oil, and natural gas.
But the governments of these countries seemed determined to punish their publics by denying use of these resources on the false claims that carbon dioxide emissions are causing a climate crisis.
As discussed above, W & H and Tom Sheahen demonstrate the feeble extent of the physical evidence used to claim a climate crisis.
In discussing the “energy madness” of the Biden administration, Francis Menton mentions a recent study by Joseph Toomey who critiqued the energy policies of the Obama administration.
President Obama famously bragged that under his policies energy prices will skyrocket.
They would have, had he not been stopped by a defeat of the Democrats in the 2010 mid-term election.
The Biden administration appears to be determined to implement Obama’s policies.
Regarding the piece by Toomy, Menton writes:
“At 35 pages in length, Toomey’s piece is a seemingly endless litany of one intentionally destructive policy after another.
Even if you follow this issue regularly, as I do, you can’t help but be astounded when you see the full extent of the destruction organized into one piece.
An energy infrastructure built up over a century and more that actually provides reliable and affordable energy to millions of people — a true miracle of human ingenuity! — is being systematically and intentionally attacked and wrecked by ignorant fools who have no idea how difficult the existing system was to create, and equally have no idea how to make something to replace it that might actually work.”
Toomey concludes his piece with:
“Assured of the righteousness of that cause, the Biden team has begun paring back the supply of CO2-emitting fossil fuel output today, decades before the multi-exa- joule-producing low-carbon infrastructure is in place, which will presumably act as a substitute.
They have driven us into ‘the energy transition’s looming valley of death’ without a compass, a map, or any idea of how to escape.”
As his administration was busy with destroying America’s reliable energy system,
President Biden asked the Saudis not to cut oil production as proposed by OPEC+. OPEC+ doubled the cut.
Biden then asked Venezuela, which has already destroyed its oil industry, to expand its production. Ironically, Venezuela’s oil production comes from tar sands, which the Greens despise.
Menton writes on the lack of feasibility studies demonstrating that wind and solar power can provide reliable and affordable electricity:
“Essentially the entire developed part of the world is currently embarked on a crash program to eliminate fossil fuels from the energy system of the economy.
The program has two main parts: first the suppression of the production and distribution of fossil fuels; and second the construction of large numbers of wind and solar generation facilities to replace them.
Both parts of the program are currently underway simultaneously in all advanced countries, as a matter of what we are told is the highest moral urgency.”
**********************
The Penetration Problem: The individual who is identified in Judith Curry’s blog as “Planning Engineer” gives eight reasons why wind and solar have a major problem that can be summed as the more you have the worse it gets.
The analysis begins:
“Increasing penetration levels of wind and solar is like a Sisyphean task, except that it is worse.
The challenge may be better understood as akin to pushing a huge rock which is getting heavier and heavier, up a hill of a steeper and steeper slope while the ground below gets slicker and more unstable.
The problems associated with increased penetration swamp any potential benefits that might be achieved through economies of scale.
“The bulk power system has traditionally been strong and very robust.
There are generally not significant problems associated with adding small system elements (small amounts of wind and solar) which lean on the system, rather than support it.
The system has a limited ability to absorb wind and solar power and can use it to displace generation which relies on costly fuels.
But at higher penetration levels this ability is greatly reduced, and the economics can degrade and even reverse.
Listed below are some reasons why increasing the penetration levels of renewables will lead to rapidly increasing costs as well as rapidly decreasing reliability.”
After going through the eight points and stating they cannot be solved with economies of scale from increasing wind and solar, the analysis concludes:
“Could nuclear energy be a piece of a lower carbon emission future?
Most certainly.
None of the above concerns apply to nuclear power.
We could see cheaper costs from standardized nuclear facilities and reasonable regulations.
Hydro too works well with the power system.
Unfortunately, there are negligible to no potential locations to expand hydro generation. (Note-pumped storage is an option for storing energy, but not producing additional net energy).
“It is way too soon to be envisioning a 100% renewable future with significant contributions from current wind and solar capabilities.
It is not a good strategy to support current “green” technologies and retire and prohibit conventional generation hoping that a miracle will occur when we need it.
Perhaps with the extensive deployment of nuclear power, carbon capture and other technologies we might be able to approach a zero-carbon grid.
At best, current wind and solar technologies will play at most a small part in such a plan.”
**********************
Number of the Week: 1 kt equals 1.15 mph. One of the problems journalists may have in reporting hurricanes is that often wind speed is reported in knots (kt) while most people in the US think in miles per hour (mph).
One knot equals 1.15058 miles per hour. For example, the Saffir-Simson Hurricane Wind Scale lists a category 4 (major) hurricanes as sustained wind speeds of 130-156 mph; 113-136 kt; 209-251 km/h.
In a private communication addressing the wind speed of hurricane Ian, Meteorologist Chuck Wiese wrote that the weather maps showed:
“…the pressure gradient near the eyewall supported wind gusts to 148 mph. The central pressure was 952 millibars or 28.11 inches of mercury just before landfall measured by an aircraft reconnaissance dropsonde.
That is about the high end of average for hurricanes of this strength, but gusts of wind at 148 mph produce catastrophic damage as that wind hitting a square foot of surface area facing the wind would have a force acting on it of 103 pounds.”
“As bad as all this is, Hurricane Ian is no more deadly than many other hurricanes from the Atlantic and Caribbean have been in the records.”
The difference between sustained wind speeds and gusts can also be a problem among journalists. See https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php