The Week That Was: 2020-11-21 (November 21, 2020)
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Policy Project
Quote of the Week: “Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet.” — Niels Bohr (1885-1962)
Number of the Week: 75% and 145%
THIS WEEK:
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Greenhouse Continued: For the past several weeks TWTW has described work by W. A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer (W & H), on the thermal radiation of the five most abundant greenhouse gases. The most abundant greenhouse gas, water vapor, and the second most abundant, carbon dioxide, are extremely saturated. This means it would take major increases in the concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere to have a significant impact on global temperatures. For carbon dioxide to have a significant impact on temperatures, it would require burning of more coal and oil than are known to exist. [There is enough CH4 in methane clathrates on the continental shelf to provide 3,000 years of all 2020 energy.]
A Professor Emeritus of Physics, Howard Hayden spent most of his research career studing accelerator-based atomic and molecular collisions and published his first paper on the subject in 1964. A director of SEPP, Hayden sent a working paper to TWTW titled “CO2 and Climate: A Tutorial.” Though his approach is somewhat different, Hayden’s paper reinforces the findings of W & H: adding CO2 to today’s atmosphere will not cause significant (or dangerous) warming.
Hayden requested W & H to calculate greenhouse effects of an atmosphere with 50 parts per million of volume (ppmv); 100 ppmv, 200 ppmv, 400 ppmv (approximately today’s atmosphere) and 800 ppmv. They responded promptly, and Hayden clearly illustrates the results.
In explaining the influence of CO2, by itself, on today’s world, Hayden eliminates many of the complications of climate such as changes in natural influences that give rise to periods of glaciation interrupted by brief warm periods, changing sun, changing clouds, changing ocean currents, air circulations, etc. He assumes for the sake of argument that we have solved the basic problems of fluid dynamics, which we have not.
He then goes to the problem physicists faced in the 1800s, why is the earth warmer than it should be? They concluded that something in the atmosphere caused it to warm by blocking some of the cooling. As stated in previous TWTWs, in 1859 Irish physicist John Tyndall began experiments describing the partial blocking of the globe’s cooling by what are called greenhouse gases [GHGs], the primary one being water vapor. They block the cooling effect of planets. As Hayden writes:
“Since the only way for the earth to shed heat that comes from the sun is through radiation—and it has to be infrared radiation (IR)—you need to find somebody with expertise in the interaction between IR and the molecules in the atmosphere.”
Hayden then asks and answers the basic question:
“Is CO2 a strong greenhouse gas? The answer: It depends.” [Boldface are italic in original.]
The answer depends on the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. As the concentration increases, the strength wanes. Somewhat like the acceleration of a car, without gears. Initially, it will accelerate quickly but as it reaches maximum speed, acceleration slows, no matter how hard the driver presses the gas petal to the floor. As the concentration of CO2 increases the influence of each molecule declines.
“The lesson here is that at low concentrations, CO2 is a very effective IR absorber, hence a very effective greenhouse gas. By this, we mean that if a bit more CO2 is added, the greenhouse effect increases substantially.
“At higher CO2 concentrations, adding more CO2 does little to increase the greenhouse effect, for the simple reason that most (not all) of the IR that CO2 can absorb is already absorbed.”
When CO2 ceases to be an effective IR absorber, the wavelengths are said to be saturated. Additional absorption requires absorption by other IR wavelengths, which are not absorbed as readily.
“In other words, at very low concentrations, CO2 is a strong GHG; at the present concentration, CO2 is a weak GHG. This information has been around since long before Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, and long before the First Assessment Report FAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
“To modify a fashionable sentence: Wavelength Matters. Any ‘climate’ discussion that ignores the details of the spectrum ignores the relevant science.” [Boldface Italics in original.]
Hayden illustrates the calculations of the IR absorption properties with photos of razor cutouts of graphs based on W&H calculations. One image shows the IR emissions of the surface of the earth at a particular temperature if the atmosphere were transparent, no greenhouse gases, no clouds, and no fine particles (dust). A second image shows the part of the emissions that are blocked by the atmosphere (greenhouse gases). A third image shows the IR emissions to space that come from the surface and the atmosphere.
It is important to realize that a significant portion of the IR emissions from the globe to space do not come from the surface, but from greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere. Numerous internal processes, such as evaporation (which cools the surface) and condensation (which transfers that heat to the atmosphere) are important to consider, but in the end, the only way the globe sheds heat to outer space is by infrared radiation.
Though not as precise as the actual calculations, Hayden’s images clearly show the changes in IR absorption properties of CO2 as concentrations of CO2 change. The pattern of the atmospheric CO2 absorption of infrared radiation does not change significantly, but the range of frequencies (width) expands slowly. This illustrates the logarithmic relations between CO2 and temperature increases. From calculations by W & H, Hayden develops a graph on IR Blocking by CO2. This graph shows the logarithmic relationship between Infrared radiation Blocked in watts per meter squared (W/m2) and Atmospheric CO2 Concentration (ppmv). Several important items stand out:
First, the IR blockage by 50 ppmv—only one-eighth of the present CO2 concentration—is about 75% of the present amount of blockage by CO2, just as we noted above. Second, the present IR blockage is about 30 W/m2, a mere 20% of the total (150 W/m2), in agreement with the 20% figure given by Siegel [3] [Referenced in the paper but not here]. Third, the increase in blocking between 400 ppmv and its double at 800 ppmv is around 3 W/m2, in approximate agreement with that (3.7 W/m2) used by the IPCC as far back as its Third Assessment Report in 2001, and 3.5 W/m2 as used in present models. There is nothing controversial here.
In the consequences section, Hayden discusses the extent of agreement between what he writes and what the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has reported. Hayden goes on to write:
But failing to consider the spectrum leads to erroneous conclusions. Similarly, failing to distinguish between the surface of the earth and the earth as a whole is a failure to understand what happens.
To understand the physics, let us repeat that at equilibrium, the solar radiation absorbed by the earth will be exactly matched by the radiation emitted by the earth as a whole, namely 244 W/m2. An increase in CO2 concentration will necessarily decrease the amount of IR emitted in the CO2 band, and will heat the surface somewhat. The warmed surface will radiate more IR at all wavelengths, allowing more IR to escape at other (non-CO2) wavelengths. In other words, all other things remaining the same, the earth will still radiate 244 W/m2 averaged over the entire globe out to space. In still other words, the effective blackbody temperature of the earth [including the atmosphere] does not change…” [Boldface Italics in original.]
TWTW will continue with Hayden’s paper next week, to include comments. The paper reinforces the research showing the relationship between CO2 and temperatures are logarithmic. Adding CO2 to the current atmosphere will cause little warming, and carbon dioxide capture and sequestering is an exercise of little value.
See www.energyadvocate.com “The CO2-Climate Relationship: A Tutorial” and links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.
************************
Functional Obsolescence: After reviewing the papers by W & H and Hayden, TWTW searched for recent research by NASA on the role of CO2 on temperatures. The links went to the 2010 paper by Gavin Schmidt, now head of NASA-GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Studies) titled “Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect.” It gives a graph of the outgoing spectral radiance as measured at the top of Earth’s atmosphere compared to Blackbody emission (no greenhouse gases). It is similar to the one used by W & H and by Hayden.
The write up states:
“We find that water vapor is the dominant substance — responsible for about 50% of the absorption, with clouds responsible for about 25% — and CO2 responsible for 20% of the effect. The remainder is made up with the other minor greenhouse gases, ozone and methane for instance, and a small amount from particles in the air (dust and other ‘aerosols’).”
Then comes Schmidt’s kicker:
“Given that CO2 has such a major role in the natural greenhouse effect, it makes intuitive sense that changes in its concentration because of human activities might significantly enhance the greenhouse effect. However, calculating the impact of a change in CO2 is very different from calculating the current role with respect to water vapor and clouds. This is because both of these other substances depend on temperatures and atmospheric circulation in ways that CO2 does not. For instance, as temperature rises, the maximum sustainable water vapor concentration increases by about 7% per degree Celsius. Clouds too depend on temperature, pressure, convection and water vapor amounts. So, a change in CO2 that affects the greenhouse effect will also change the water vapor and the clouds. Thus, the total greenhouse effect after a change in CO2 needs to account for the consequent changes in the other components as well. If, for instance, CO2 concentrations are doubled, then the absorption would increase by 4 W/m2, but once the water vapor and clouds react, the absorption increases by almost 20 W/m2 — demonstrating that (in the GISS climate model, at least) the ‘feedbacks’ are amplifying the effects of the initial radiative forcing from CO2 alone. Past climate data suggests that this is what happens in the real world as well. [Boldface added.]
As Hayden shows, the effect of adding some CO2 to the atmosphere becomes smaller and smaller as the concentration increases. How can it be that adding some CO2 to the atmosphere suddenly become bigger and bigger? Moreover, the climate effect of adding CO2 is nothing more and nothing less than increasing the surface temperature somewhat. Any increase in temperature from any cause whatsoever, should, by Schmidt’s reasoning, be amplified by the same factor of five. In other words, any temperature perturbation should bootstrap itself into searing heat.
It is very clear that modelers fail at modeling clouds which are assumed to be a positive greenhouse effect (adding to warming) by NASA-GISS. Apparently, NASA-GISS is unaware that over the past 40 years, great strides have been made in measuring the greenhouse effect and temperature trends in the atmosphere, largely by satellites. What may have been intuitive sense years ago, may be obsolete today. See links under Defending the Orthodoxy.
************************
Eelgrass: In reviewing a study on eelgrasses, CO2 Science states:
“Seagrasses are key ecosystem engineers in marine environments, providing productive habitats for numerous species. They are also widely distributed across the world oceans, spanning a considerable range of thermal environments. Consequently, researchers have long been interested in their response to projections of future climate change.”
Eelgrasses are particularly valuable in temperate regions around the world where they support large numbers of grazing crustaceans which are an important part of the food chain. They thrive in soft seafloor environments such as shallow bays and estuaries. These habitats include the West Coast and the Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the United States.
In its review of the study of eelgrasses inhabiting the Puget Sound (Washington State) and the Chesapeake Bay, CO2 Science reported that the five scientists examined the growth performance and metabolic profile of two distinct populations across a range of five pCO2 levels spanning seawater pH values of approximately 8.0 (ambient) down to 6.0 (highly enriched with pCO2) over one year. [Note that alarmists would identify a pH of 6.0 as human-caused acidification, though occurring naturally.] CO2 Science states:
“In describing their findings Zayas-Santiago et al. [the researchers] report the two eelgrass populations each experienced overall enhancements in plant size, growth and survival in response to CO2 enrichment. What is more, elevated CO2 stimulated growth-related metabolites while suppressing those associated with stress, indicating an improved tolerance to high temperature in addition to improvements in growth.
“Commenting on these important findings the scientists say their findings ‘suggest that seagrass populations will respond variably, but overall positively, to increasing CO2 concentrations, generating negative feedbacks to climate change [by sequestering increased amounts of carbon].’” See links under Review of Recent Scientific Articles by CO2 Science
************************
Insect Apocalypse: Writing on his website, Jim Steele reports on the modern, grim fairy tale being told to children:
The American Psychological Association reports young people are suffering from “a chronic fear of environmental doom”. A recent national survey reported “eco-anxiety” is causing 43 percent of our youth to feel hopeless. Psychologists warn such hopelessness leads to suicide, drug addiction and anti-social behavior. Why such eco-anxiety? Their hopelessness is driven solely by media narratives. Young people lack the scientific knowledge, lack years of observation, and have yet to acquire the critical thinking skills needed to detect any ecosystem collapse. Its [sic] headlines like the Guardian’s, “Plummeting insect numbers ‘threaten collapse of nature”, that induce paranoia that “insects are hurtling down the path to extinction, and threatening a “catastrophic collapse of nature’s ecosystems”.
Steele points out that with modern agricultural techniques, such as Bt corn, less insecticides are used, and less land is under cultivation is necessary to feed the public in the US (except where used for unnecessary biofuels). See links under Communicating Better to the Public – Use Propaganda on Children
************************
Marching On: In 2006, British economist Nicholas Stern presented a report to the UK government claiming the world costs of climate change in the future will be far greater than the costs of addressing it today. In it he used totally unrealistic interest rates to calculate future costs and future benefits.
The UN IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4, 2007) falsely declared that greenhouse gases are the primary cause of warming since 1880, the average temperatures of the Northern Hemisphere was higher than the Medieval Warm Period, and the Urban Heat Island effect is negligible for global temperatures.
Based on these, the British Government “took the lead” and passed the 2008 Climate Change Act. Now, the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is leading the nation where many do not wish to go. He has announced a ten-point program which includes the banning of the sale of automobiles that use petrol (gasoline) or diesel by 2030. There are many comments regarding this program. Some include:
“These over-reaching proposals are technically absurd, economically deluded and politically disastrous. Does the Prime Minister have any competent advisors? One wonders?” – Global Warming Policy Forum
“The problem is the perverse target which lies at its heart: the legally-binding demand, laid down in the Climate Change Act, to cut carbon emissions to net zero by 2050.
“This is so badly defined that the government’s ten-point plan becomes really little more than a manifesto to export much of British industry, food production and power generation.
“As long as the government proceeds with the net zero target we are doomed to follow perverse policies which make the country poorer while doing little or nothing to reduce global net carbon emissions.” – Ross Clark, The Spectator
“If the Government were trying to damage the economy, they couldn’t be doing it better.” Lord Lawson, Global Warming Policy Foundation
************************
Exaggerated Fires: This year the public has been bombarded by the press about forest, prairie, or other fires, now called wildfires. Politicians are blaming climate change. The biggest problem is that few have knowledge of history, and the press no longer cares. Future policies will be no improvement as long as ignorance rules the day. See links under Science, Policy, and Evidence, and Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.
************************
Number of the Week: 75% and 145%. For decades, The Club of Rome, a well-financed private organization with great political influence claimed its computer models proved the world was about the run out of oil and natural gas. Those calculated outputs were later shown to be a result of mathematical chaos, but not before President Carter believed it. Carter declare the miracle fuel would be coal. Of course, coal is now condemned, and natural gas has largely replaced coal in the US.
In Real Clear Energy, Rupert Darwall writes about the US as an energy exporter:
“Since 2005, America has boosted its production of natural gas by 75% and since 2008, of crude oil by a spectacular 145%. To give up being the world’s hydrocarbon superpower represents a huge strategic and economic sacrifice that no other country is making.”
The next few years will be interesting. See links under Change in US Administrations.
NEWS YOU CAN USE:
Censorship
KNKX, James Madison, and Mobs
James Madison, the primary author of the U.S. Constitution, knew that all democracies had a serious vulnerability.
By Cliff Mass, Weather Blog, Nov 17, 2020
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2020-11-19T07:51:00-08:00&max-results=2
Suppressing Scientific Inquiry
In the case of Peter Ridd, we’ll soon learn whether academic freedom matters
By Janet Albrechtsen, The Australian, Via GWPF, Nov 16, 2020
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
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
Download with no charge:
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
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
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
Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases
By W. A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics, submitted June 4, 2020
https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03098
Link to prepublication version: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf
The End Game
By Joel Kotkin, Real Clear Energy, Nov 18, 2020
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2020/11/18/the_end_game_650132.html
Boris’s “Green Industrial Revolution” is Economic Lockdown, for ever…
Editorial, GWPF, Nov 18, 2020
Banning the sale of petrol cars is ‘a colossal error’
By Staff, GWPF, Nov 18, 2020
Link to report: The Battery Car Delusion
By Gautam Kalghatgi, GWPF, 2020
Climate change claim on thin ice
By David Whitehouse, GWPF, Nov 19, 2020
“Another example of climate journalists and researchers not looking carefully at the data they are reporting.”
Not so simple after all
By Paul Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Nov 18, 2020
[SEPP Comment: Describing work of van Wijngaarden and Happer
Defending the Orthodoxy
Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect
By Gavin Schmidt, Science Briefs, NASA-GISS, October 2010, Accessed Nov 19, 2020
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
Link to: CO2: The Thermostat that Controls Earth’s Temperature
By Andrew Lacis, Science Briefs, NASA-GISS, October 2010, Accessed Nov 19, 2020
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
Link to paper: Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature
By Andrew A. Lacis, Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, Reto A. Ruedy, Science, Oct 15, 2010
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356
“A study by GISS climate scientists recently published in the journal Science shows that atmospheric CO2 operates as a thermostat to control the temperature of Earth.”
The Carbon Cycle
By Staff, NASA, Accessed Nov 19, 2020
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle
“Over the long term, the carbon cycle seems to maintain a balance that prevents all of Earth’s carbon from entering the atmosphere (as is the case on Venus) or from being stored entirely in rocks. This balance helps keep Earth’s temperature relatively stable, like a thermostat.”
Boris’ 10-point Climate Plan
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Nov 18, 2020
“And all of this has been inevitable since the Climate Change Act was passed in 2008.”
Questioning the Orthodoxy
Surprise: The “Smartest” People Are Actually Painfully Stupid
By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, Nov 17, 2020
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2020-11-17-good-news-science-is-back
Bad rainforests
By Paul Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Nov 18, 2020
“The article cites two institutes (the Evandro Chagas Institute in Belém and the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation) and a scientist, Adalberto Luís Val of the National Institute for Research in the Amazon (INPA) in Manaus, all in Brazil, as it lays on the threats thickly: ‘220 different types of viruses in the Amazon, 37 of which can cause diseases in humans and 15 of which have the potential to cause epidemics’ from ‘different encephalitis varieties’ to ‘West Nile fever and rocio, a Brazilian virus from the same family that produces yellow fever and West Nile’.”
Bradley–Rob, not Ray–Gets Attention on Twitter
By Robert Bradley Jr., Master Resource, Nov 17, 2020
This time it’s different
By Paul Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Nov 18, 2020
After Paris!
Submit the Paris climate agreement to the Senate — so they can shoot it down
By Patrick Michaels, Washington Examiner, Nov 19, 2020
Change in US Administrations
Joe Biden’s Net-Zero Isn’t Normal
By Rupert Darwall, Real Clear Energy Nov 17, 2020
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2020/11/16/joe_bidens_net-zero_isnt_normal_649867.html
The Climate Scam: What We Are Up Against
By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, Nov 19, 2020
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2020-11-19-the-climate-scam-what-we-are-up-against
Scientist questioning ties between climate and extreme weather to oversee critical program: report
By Rachel Frazin, The Hill, Nov 16, 2020
Possible, Probable, or Unlikely? Climate Change Policy in a Biden Administration
By James W. Noe & Meghan E. Smith, Real Clear Energy, Nov 16, 2020
Social Benefits of Carbon Dioxide
Further evidence the CO2 fertilization effect is presently enhancing global vegetative productivity
By Paul Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Nov 18, 2020
[SEPP Comment: Repeating an important post from CO2 Science.]
Problems in the Orthodoxy
China has started to ‘walk the walk’ on climate crisis–Guardian
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Nov 20, 2020
“But what we need to remember here is that Ma Jun is not the brave campaigner painted by the Guardian. He actually heads the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs (IPE), a non-profit environmental research organization registered and based in Beijing,
“But as with Greenpeace China and other such organisations, the IPE has little in the way of real independence, and is very much a tool of the Chinese government. If Ma Jun ever deviated from government diktat, he would quickly be disappeared.
“Indeed, as the IPE’s website boasts, its partner organisations include four government bodies:”
Vijay Jayaraj: China and India are growing their coal ambitions
By Vijay Jayaraj, GWPF, Nov 11, 2020
[SEPP Comment: Graph in the article on construction of coal-fired power plants contradicts the claims in the Guardian, link immediately above.]
EU Leaders May Delay Landmark Decision on 2030 Climate Goal
By Nikos Chrysoloras and Ewa Krukowska, Bloomberg Green, Nov 18, 2020 [H/t GWPF]
Seeking a Common Ground
The climate-change hustle
John Stossel: Through 50 years of reporting on scares, only COVID proved true
By John Stossel, World Net Daly, Nov 17, 2020 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
How Much Damage To America Can Biden Do With His Energy Plan?
By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, Nov 14, 2020
“I’m old enough to remember when the leaders of the federal government thought it was their job to facilitate the people in achieving prosperity. Now, it seems that we are shortly to have a President and a bureaucracy firmly committed to impoverishing the American people and undermining their security by making energy less available and driving up its price. And all to accomplish absolutely nothing.”
No home treatment for COVID? Here it is
Dr. Jane Orient offers simple guidance your government refuses to give
By WND Staff, World Net Daily, Nov 17, 2020 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
The Utter Failure of Yet Another Bushfire Panel
By Roger Underwood, Quadrant, Nov 19, 2020
“Then I saw the Commission’s Terms of Reference. My heart dropped to my boots. These were clearly designed to provide the PM and the state bushfire jurisdictions with a way of escaping accountability. The focus would be on process, not outcomes, on administration, not operations, on response, not mitigation.”
COVID Lockdowns Have Had No Impact On Atmospheric CO2
By Tony Heller, His Blog, Nov 18, 2020
https://realclimatescience.com/2020/11/covid-lockdowns-have-had-no-impact-on-atmospheric-co2/
Go Back To Work–The Planet Needs You!
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Nov 16, 2020
“They won’t be happy till we are back in the dark ages, with no technology and no life.”
Editorial: Boris Johnson risks wrong turn
By Staff, Daily Mail, Via GWPF, Nov 18, 2020
Review of Recent Scientific Articles by CO2 Science
The Effects of CO2 and Water Stress on Bell Pepper
Fan, X., Cao, X., Zhou, H., Hao, L., Dong, W., He, C., Xu, M., Wu, H., Wang, L., Chang, Z. and Zheng, Y. 2020. Carbon dioxide fertilization effect on plant growth under soil water stress associates with changes in stomatal traits, leaf photosynthesis, and foliar nitrogen of bell pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). Environmental and Experimental Botany 179: 104203, doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2020.104203. Nov 20, 2020
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V23/nov/a9.php
The Positive Response of Two Eelgrass Populations to CO2 Enrichment
Zayas-Santiago, C., Rivas-Ubach, A., Kuo, L.-J., Ward, N.D. and Zimmerman, R.C. 2020. Metabolic profiling reveals biochemical pathways responsible for eelgrass response to elevated CO2 and temperature. Scientific Reports 10: 4693. Nov 18, 2020
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V23/nov/a8.php
The Growth Response of Maize to CO2 across Two Generations
Khan, I., Vanaja, M., Sathish, P. and Vagheera, P. 2020. Impact of elevated CO2 on two successive generations of CO2 responsive maize genotype. Climate Dynamics 44: 3469-3479. Nov 16, 2020
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V23/nov/a7.php
And thus it might well be inferred that the many benefits of atmospheric CO2 enrichment witnessed in thousands of experiments conducted on first generation crops may well vastly underestimate the true impact of this benevolent gas, which impact appears to increase across generations.
Models v. Observations
Uncertain Certainty: Germany’s Potsdam Climate Institute Humiliated After One-Year El Nino Forecast Model Flops
By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Nov 15, 2020
“Prof. Hans-Joachim (John) Schellnhuber, Director Emeritus of PIK, explained: ‘This clever combination of measured data and mathematics gives us unique insights – and we make these available to the people affected.’”
A long-distance connection: Polar climate affects trade wind strength in tropics
Press Release, by University of Hawaii at Manoa, Nov 20, 2020 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-distance-polar-climate-affects-strength.html
Link to paper: Walker circulation response to extratropical radiative forcing
By Sarah M. Kang, et al. Science Advances, Nov 20, 2020
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/47/eabd3021
Model Issues
A sweeping climate model of the Red Sea
News Release, King Abdullah University of Science & Technology (KAUST), Nov 16, 2020 [H/t WUWT]
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-11/kauo-asc111620.php
Measurement Issues — Surface
A blast from the past
By Paul Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Nov 18, 2020
https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2020/11/18/a-blast-from-the-past/
2 More Studies Affirm A Glaring Lack Of Correlation Between CO2 And Temperature
By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Nov 16, 2020
Link to one study: Lake Heimtjønna at Dovre, Mid-Norway, reveals remarkable late-glacial and Holocene sedimentary environments and the early establishment of spruce (Picea abies), alder (Alnus cf. incana), and alpine plants with present centric distributions
By Aage Paus, Quaternary International, Sep 8, 2020
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1040618220305474
GHCN V3 Unadjusted Data Shows Casa Blanca, Cuba Had A Cooling Trend Since 1880
By Kirye, Tony Heller’s Blog, Nov 19, 2020
Changing Weather
Current Decade Globally Warmer Than Previous Decade – Due To Powerful Natural Oceanic Cycles, Not CO2
By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Nov 18, 2020
The Best Early Snow in Years
By Cliff Mass, Weather Blog, Nov 19, 2020
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2020/11/the-best-early-snow-in-years.html
“Amazing. The entire Northwest is not only above normal, but WAY about normal, like 441% of normal in the Olympics. The kind of map that skiers and water managers like to see.”
Cooling Planet: NASA Projects Deep La Niña Event, Peak Temperature Deviation Up To -3°C!
By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Nov 14, 2020
[SEPP Comment: The peak may be from one model that significantly deviates from the bulk of the projections.]
Changing Seas
“Scientists Say”
By Tony Heller, His Blog, Nov 17, 2020
https://realclimatescience.com/2020/11/scientists-say-9/
Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice
Strange sea ice pattern over Hudson Bay as winds blow polar bears offshore
By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Nov 16, 2020
There’s a lot of ice in the Arctic (Part II)
By Paul Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Nov 18, 2020
https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2020/11/18/theres-a-lot-of-ice-in-the-arctic-part-ii/
Good news: Gulf of Boothia and M’Clintock Channel polar bear survey results
By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Nov 17, 2020
Lowering Standards
Hydrogen, WSJ Spin
By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Nov 20, 2020
https://ddears.com/2020/11/20/hydrogen-wsj-spin/
Who Wrote The Climate Assembly Report?
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Nov 15, 2020
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2020/11/15/who-wrote-the-climate-assembly-report/
Communicating Better to the Public – Exaggerate, or be Vague?
Slower decay of landfalling Hurricanes in a warmer world — really?
By Frank Bosse, Climate Etc. Nov 17, 2020
[SEPP Comment: More on the “peer reviewed” science published in Nature.]
Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.
New footage reveals Netflix faked walrus climate deaths
By Staff, GWPF, Nov 19, 2020
https://www.thegwpf.com/new-footage-reveals-netflix-faked-walrus-climate-deaths/
Greenland Meltdown Hoax
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Nov 13, 2020
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/08/13/greenland-meltdown-hoax/
“worst fire season on record.”
By Tony Heller, His Blog, Nov 14, 2020
https://realclimatescience.com/2020/11/worst-fire-season-on-record/
New Video: Worst Junk Science Season On Record
By Tony Heller, His Blog, Nov 114, 2020
https://realclimatescience.com/2020/11/new-video-worst-junk-science-season-on-record/
All for a good cause
By Paul Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Nov 18, 2020
https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2020/11/18/all-for-a-good-cause/
Communicating Better to the Public – Use Propaganda
Tesla Supercharging now more expensive than petrol refuelling
By Toby Hagon, Whichcar, Nov 13, 2020
https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-news/teslas-now-more-expensive-to-charge-than-petrol-cars
“But it doesn’t excuse the blatantly incorrect figures on the Tesla website in claiming Supercharging is cheaper than paying for petrol.”
Communicating Better to the Public – Use Propaganda on Children
Children and the Insect Apocalypse
By Jim Steele, Landscapes and Cycles, Accessed Nov 21, 2020
http://landscapesandcycles.net/children-and-the-insect-apocalypse-.html
Link to report: How Is Land in the United States Used? A Focus on Agricultural Land
By Cynthia Nickerson and Allison Borchers, Economic Research Service, USDA, Mar 1, 2012
Updated Data: Major Land Use
By Scott Callahan, Economic Research Service, USDA, April 16, 2020
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/major-land-uses/
Communicating Better to the Public – Protest
German Parliament Accused of Passing a Covid-19 Enabling Act
By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Nov 21, 2020
Expanding the Orthodoxy
Montreal Protocol Continues Process of Morphing Into A Climate Treaty
By Ben Lieberman, CEI, Nov 20, 2020
https://cei.org/blog/montreal-protocol-continues-process-of-morphing-into-a-climate-treaty/
Red Cross claims of increasing climate disasters is “grossly misleading”
Press Release, GWPF, Nov 20, 2020
https://www.thegwpf.com/red-cross-claims-of-increasing-climate-disasters-is-grossly-misleading/
Link to report: World Disasters Report 2020: Come Heat or High Water: Tackling the humanitarian impacts of the climate crisis together.
By Staff, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies,
https://media.ifrc.org/ifrc/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/20201116_WorldDisasters_Full.pdf
Tiny homes to fix the climate crisis, UN report suggests
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Nov 19, 2020
[SEPP Comment: For others, not for them!]
The fatal flaw in Boris’s ten point carbon plan
By Ross Clark, The Spectator, Nov 18, 2020
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-fatal-flaw-in-boris-s-ten-point-carbon-plan
Lord Lawson criticises Prime Minister Johnson for being ‘economically illiterate’
By Staff, GWPF, Nov 18, 2020
“If the Government were trying to damage the economy they couldn’t be doing it better.
More Boris disasters waiting to happen
By Andrew Montford, The Conservative Woman, Nov 18, 2020
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/more-boris-disasters-waiting-to-happen/
The German transformation to green energies will fail due to wind power
By Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, Die kalte Sonne, (German text translated/edited/subheadings by P. Gosselin), No Tricks Zone, Nov 17, 2020
Questioning Green Elsewhere
Millions in Africa Being Sacrificed to Extreme Poverty, Premature Death on Altar of ‘Green Energy’
By Gregory Wrightstone, The Daily Signal, Nov 17, 2020
‘Renewable Energy’ and its Four Icebergs
By Rafe Champion, Quadrant, Nov 20, 2020
[SEPP Comment: Isn’t renewable unsinkable?]
Funding Issues
Bezos makes first donations from $10 billion Earth Fund
By Rebecca Beitsch, The Hill, Nov 16, 2020
Jeff Bezos announces first beneficiaries of his $10 billion climate fund
Unlike other tech giants with climate change pledges, Bezos focuses on funding advocacy groups
By Jastine Calma, The Verge, Nov 16, 2020
The Political Games Continue
Lawmakers condemn Trump’s ‘destabilizing’ and ‘politicizing’ moves on climate assessment
By Rebecca Beitsch, The Hill, Nov 19, 2020
“’We cannot stand by and tolerate the suppression, censorship, and manipulation of climate science,’ lawmakers wrote in the letter spearheaded by Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.).”
[SEPP Comment: Does this apply to handling physical evidence?]
Cap-and-Trade and Carbon Taxes
Road Charging Moves Closer
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Nov 16, 2020
UK plans to charge motorists for every mile they drive in switch to electric cars
By Staff, Daily Mail, Via GWPF, Nov 16, 2020
Subsidies and Mandates Forever
‘Is it time for the political fall of renewable energy?’ [Peacock in the Houston Chronicle]
By Robert Bradley Jr. Master Resource, Nov 18, 2020
TCI [Transportation and Climate Initiative]: Taxing the Poor to Benefit the Rich
By Steve Haner, Bacon’s Rebellion, Nov 20, 2020 [H/t WUWT]
Energy Issues – Non-US
Authoritarian, elitist, anti-motorist.. and eye-wateringly expensive: Drivers, business and economists slam PM’s ‘Stalinist’ plan to ban new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030 – a date that was NOT in Tory manifesto – and his ten-point green revolution
By James Tapsfield and Mark Duell, Daily Mail, Nov 19, 2020
The Impact Of EVs On Grid Capacity
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Nov 20, 2020
“In reality, although the average car might only need an hour or two charge each night, most drivers will start charging up in a small band of time, with most cars being charged between 6pm and 8pm. Under this scenario, and assuming half of the nation’s cars on charge at this time, we would need capacity of 112 GW. [16 million cars at 7 KW]”
Aurora’s Blackout Analysis
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Nov 14, 2020
Link to summary: Initial analysis and thoughts on the power outages on 9th
August [2019]
By Staff, Aurora Energy Research, Nov 2020
Energy Issues — US
Michigan Governor Moves to Prevent Great Lakes Oil Spill by Shutting Down Aging Pipeline
By Olivia Rosane, EcoWatch, Nov 16, 2020
https://www.ecowatch.com/michigan-enbridge-pipeline-whitmer-2648940155.html
[SEPP Comment: Forcing the shut-down of an old pipeline to prevent the construction of a new one?]
Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?
Study reveals how to improve natural gas production in shale
By Staff Writers, Los Alamos NM (SPX), Nov 13, 2020
Link to paper: Reduced methane recovery at high pressure due to methane trapping in shale nanopores
By Chelsea W. Neil, et al. Nature Communications, Nov 10, 2020
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00047-w
Sempra to build LNG export facility in Baja
By Rob Nikolewski, San Diego Union-Tribune, Nov 17, 2020
[SEPP Comment: Does not discuss expected source of the Natural Gas, probably Texas and New Mexico.]
Russia Pushes Ahead With Plans to Expand Gas Supplies To Asia
By Vusala Abbasova, Caspian News, Oct 31, 2020 [H/t GWPF]
2020 Hurricane Season Curtailed Over 40 Million bbl of GOM Oil Production
By David Middleton, WUWT, Nov 18, 2020
Return of King Coal?
CO2 Coalition: Clean Coal Technology Can Fight Energy Poverty in Africa
By David Middleton, WUWT, Nov 17, 2020
Link to paper: New-tech American Coal-fired Electricity for Africa: Clean Air, Indoors and Out
By Kathleen White, et al. CO2 Coalition, Nov 2020
From the paper: “There is a strong consensus among power analysts that Africa’s cheap, abundant, easily transportable coal will continue to be used on a large scale for electricity. Without modern “scrubbing” and other technologies to neutralize pollutants, Africa could be trading one health crisis for another.”
How Fast Will The Electric Industry Exit Coal?
By Leonard Hyman & William Tilles, Oil Price.com, Nov 17, 2020
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Coal/How-Fast-Will-The-Electric-Industry-Exit-Coal.html
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind
Cultural motivations for wind and solar renewables deployment
By Andy West, Climate Etc. Nov 19, 2020
“Right here at Climate Etc, the first of the excellent analyses by ‘Planning Engineer’ (on his retirement revealed to be Russ Schussler, ex-VP of Transmission Planning at Georgia Transmission Corporations), laudably highlighted the limitation of technical analyses with his very first line: ‘Power System Planners do not have the expertise or knowledge to say whether or not the benefits of reducing carbon emissions are worth the costs. However they should be respected as experts for obtaining a better understanding of what the implications and costs of such programs are.’”
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy — Other
Report: In retrospect, the burning of wood in district heating plants has resulted in climate saving
A new report from the University of Copenhagen shows that the burning of wood is significantly more climate friendly than coal and slightly more climate friendly than [natural gas over the long run.]
News Release, Faculty of Science – University of Copenhagen, Nov 17, 2020
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-11/fos–rir111720.php
[SEPP Comment: And when the trees are gone? Wood burning and wood use virtually eliminated the forests on the East Coast of the US, until coal replaced wood.]
Step Aside, Green Hydrogen, There’s a New, Cleaner Color in Town
By Whitaker B. Irvin, Jr., Real Clear Energy, Nov 20, 2020
Deal revives plan for removal of dams on Klamath River to save salmon
By Gillian Flaccus, AP, Nov 17, 2020
From Klamath River Project, PacifiCorp:
“PacifiCorp’s 169-megawatt (MW) Klamath Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2082) is located in a predominantly rural area in southern Oregon. The project generates approximately 716 gigawatt-hours of emissions-free electricity on an annual basis – enough power to supply the energy needs of approximately 70,000 households.”
“It is bleak, but I want to have hope that with dam removal and with all the prayers that we’ve been sending up all these years, salmon could come back. If we just give them a chance, they will,” said Chook-Chook Hillman, a Karuk tribal member fighting for dam removal. “If you provide a good place for salmon, they’ll always come home.”
[SEPP Comment: Salmon spawning in rivers has not come back on the East Coast.]
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Vehicles
New CEI Paper Asks: Would More Electric Vehicles be Good for the Environment?
By Ben Lieberman, CEI, Nov 17, 2020
Link to paper: Would More Electric Vehicles be Good for the Environment?
By Ben Lieberman, CEI, November 20202
Electric cars are good fun for wealthy virtue signallers, but a dreadful way to save the planet
By Bjorn Lomborg, Via Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Nov 20, 2020
No Gasoline Cars after 2035
By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Nov 17, 2020
California Dreaming
California Governor Apologises for Breaching his Own Covid-19 Lockdown Rules
By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Nov 18, 2020
Nolte: Photos Call Into Question Newsom’s ‘Outdoor French Laundry Party
By John Nolte, Breitbart, Nov 18, 2020
Health, Energy, and Climate
Meanwhile in the real world
By Paul Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Nov 18, 2020
“But indirectly it has a lot to do with the situation, because the Post story is a tale of real pollution causing real misery and illness and requiring real and expensive solutions. Instead of which the best and brightest want the Indian government like others to spend their time on money fighting carbon “pollution’ and in the process leaving many of their people too poor to afford efficient indoor heating and cooking, proper farm machinery and the other things essential to ridding Delhi of the choking smog you no longer find in Western cities from London to Los Angeles.”
Other Scientific News
Claim: The USA’s Largest Radio Observatory is on the Verge of Structural Collapse
By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Nov 18, 2020
BELOW THE BOTTOM LINE
Josh 2021
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Nov 15, 2020
[SEPP Comment: How to obtain the 2021 calendar with Josh cartoons.]
“Sinking” Maldives Clear Forests, Pave Beaches, To Construct Four New Airports For Future Tourism!
By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Nov 20, 2020
[SEPP Comment: No more underwater cabinet meetings?]
Donegal: Peat landslide linked to wind farm raised in Dáil
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Nov 18, 2020
“So much for that wonderful ‘Green Energy’!”
“The river flows into the Foyle catchment which has EU protection as an important salmon habitat.” [In Northern Ireland]
ARTICLES
1. California, Love It and Leave It
Bad policy has made the state unlivable, so I moved my family and my venture-capital firm to Texas.
By Joe Lonsdale, WSJ, Nov 15, 2020
https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-love-it-and-leave-it-11605472619?mod=hp_opin_pos_2
TWTW Summary: The general partner at the venture-capital firm 8VC writes:
“I love California, but I had to leave. I grew up in Fremont, attended Stanford, and have spent most of my adult life in the San Francisco Bay Area, founding technology companies like Palantir and Addepar and investing in many others. In 2011 I founded 8VC, a venture-capital firm that today manages more than $3.6 billion in committed capital. Few top venture capitalists consider living anywhere other than California and a handful of global financial centers, but I am moving myself and dozens of my 8VC colleagues to a new land of opportunity: Texas.
“The harsh truth is that California has fallen into disrepair. Bad policies discourage business and innovation, stifle opportunity and make life in major cities ugly and unpleasant.
“Forty years ago my parents came to California because you could accomplish anything in the Golden State. Government policy facilitated the entrepreneurial spirit. Dreamers and doers could thrive. The burst of activity in tech, finance, medicine, energy and many other industries lasted for decades. But now a state like Texas provides these opportunities without the problems and baggage California has accumulated. Let me mention a few personal examples:
“• Public safety. Ill-conceived criminal-justice reforms and radical district attorneys are taking a toll on urban life. Three of my colleagues’ wives have been harassed and chased by derelicts in San Francisco’s streets, which are littered with needles and human waste. My wife is afraid to walk around the city with our young daughters. Police often don’t even respond to harassment and property crime, which has surged; San Francisco’s property-crime rate is now the nation’s highest.
“• Electricity. The wildfire smoke that has blanketed California cities is one thing. But power outages, which left us stressed about spoiling breast milk for our daughter, are the direct result of California government incompetence. Last year the state had 25,000 blackouts, and this year has been even worse. The electricity turns on and off, as in Third World countries. Meanwhile, Texas has its own energy grid, with a plentiful and diverse supply. It’s nice to turn on the lights whenever we want.
“• Responsiveness. In the early days of the pandemic in March, 8VC entreated the mayor of San Francisco and city staff to clarify rules to allow our critical employees to work on accelerating Covid-19 testing and the development of therapeutics. The city didn’t deign to respond. Government officials in Texas, by contrast, care about business. They return calls.
“• Housing. California’s restrictive zoning laws make it nearly impossible for many essential low- and middle-income workers to live anywhere near major cities. In Texas, permissive zoning allows every member of our staff to live close to work and spend time with friends and family instead of enduring grueling commutes.
“That’s not all. The California government is beholden to public-employee unions and spending is out of control. A broken environmental review process means it takes a decade of paying lawyers to build anything. Legislation makes it impossible for businesses to hire contractors without an exemption—granted by friends in the legislature, as with the music industry, or won by spending hundreds of millions on a referendum, as gig-economy companies with drivers just did. This isn’t how business is done in developed countries.
“Politics in the state is in many ways closed off to different ideas. We grew weary of California’s intolerant far left, which would rather demonize opponents than discuss honest differences of opinion.
“I will continue investing in Silicon Valley startups and fighting to help the state. I’m optimistic that over the long run, California can return to the values that once made it the dynamic center of global technology entrepreneurship. But until priorities change, the state will keep losing its top builders and creators.
“In 2000 or 2010, it made sense to build in San Francisco. That’s where all the talent was, but not anymore. Except for a few concentrated parts of advanced biotech and software infrastructure technology, talented people are building top technology firms all over the country. This disaggregation of talent will spread prosperity across the U.S. Some of my most prolific entrepreneurial friends from California have moved with us here to Texas. Others have left for Miami, Nashville, Las Vegas and other great American cities. Six of our portfolio companies are already based in Austin and employ hundreds of people.
“Our investments follow the talent. We’re betting that the future of America is going to be built in the middle of the country, in places with good government and a reasonable cost of living. In other words, places like Texas.
“My firm has a motto: ‘The world is broken, let’s fix it.’ We invest in technologies and people who will transform major industries and improve the lives of millions. It’s tragic that California is no longer hospitable to that mission, but beautiful that Texas is. Our job as entrepreneurs and investors is to build the future, and I know of no better place to do so than Texas.”
********************
2. Colorado Targets Oil and Gas
Regulators disparage fossil fuels as they ready sweeping new rules.
Editorial, WSJ, Nov 20, 2020
https://www.wsj.com/articles/colorado-targets-oil-and-gas-11605915600?mod=opinion_lead_pos4
TWTW Summary: In demonstrating that in a regulatory state the regulators are more important that the public, the editorial states:
“Colorado regulators are preparing to approve sweeping new restrictions on oil and gas companies on Monday. Meanwhile, the companies received an unintended glimpse this week of how their regulators hold them in contempt.
“For years state law required the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to strike a balance between energy development and protecting the environment and the public. But Democrats tipped the scales against oil and gas last year with Senate Bill 181.
“The new legislation installed professional regulators on the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission while reducing the number of energy representatives. Under the new statute, the commission’s mission is no longer to “foster” energy development but to “regulate” it to protect the environment, wildlife and public health, safety and welfare.
“On Monday the regulators are expected to finalize new restrictions as part of a broader overhaul of Colorado’s rules on energy development. Most significant is a proposal to restrict new energy development within 2,000 feet of schools, homes and other buildings, and another that would impose setbacks near waterways and wildlife. This could put millions of acres of Colorado land off limits for fracking. The commission says oil and gas companies could seek waivers in some circumstances, but there’s no guarantee they’d be granted. Under the new regulatory regime, that would be left to regulators’ discretion.
“Colorado voters rejected a similar scheme in 2018 when they voted down Prop. 112, which would have imposed a 2,500-foot setback on energy development. That ballot measure would have put 85% of all non-federal land off limits, and it would also have cost up to $1.1 billion in lost annual tax revenue by 2030, according to an analysis from the Common Sense Policy Roundtable, reviewed by faculty from the Colorado School of Mines. Coloradans weren’t willing to bear these costs.
“Never mind. The commission is now preparing to vote on another version of the same idea, and it hasn’t bothered to analyze the potential harm to jobs or the Colorado economy. That’s no small shortcoming in a state that ranked seventh in the U.S. for energy production in 2018. Some 100,000 residents depend on the industry for their livelihoods.
“The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission added insult to injury with a revealing internet blunder that unfolded Sunday. Its staffers were tinkering with a new online filing system and accidentally sent oil and gas developers a test email, which included “disparaging fake company names,” the Denver Post reported. The snark included such subtle epithets as “Snake Oil Inc,” “Bad Oil and Gas,” and “The Lorax.”
“Commission spokeswoman Megan Castle apologized for the insults and said it “doesn’t demonstrate who we are as individuals or an organization.” But it sure does demonstrate what regulatory staffers think about the industry that employs so many of their fellow citizens.”
“The most abundant greenhouse gas, water vapor, and the second most abundant, carbon dioxide, are extremely saturated. This means it would take major increases in the concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere to have a significant impact on global temperatures.”
Flagrant disinformation in the first para…ffs.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
See his “stupid skeptical argument” #5
I see that Loydo’s unique ability to not understand what he reads still reigns supreme.
The argument quoted from the article, is that CO2 is nearly saturated.
The argument quoted from Dr. Spencer’s article refutes the claim that CO2 is completely saturated.
Not the same argument at all and only a complete moron or someone being paid to play the moron would claim that they are.
Whatever the truth of CO2 is, Spencer explicitly says
“It doesn’t matter even if the CO2 absorption bands are 100% opaque to the transmission of IR radiation from the surface to the top of the atmosphere…adding more CO2 still causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere (and cooling in the upper atmosphere).”
And
Spencer also explains why he believes this because of what he believes happens.
“The most abundant greenhouse gas, water vapor, and the second most abundant, carbon dioxide, are extremely saturated. This means it would take major increases in the concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere to have a significant impact on global temperatures.”
Flagrant disinformation in the first para…ffs.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
See his “stupid skeptical argument” #5 “…even if the atmosphere was 100% opaque, it doesn’t matter…”
You’d think Mr Haapala, the President no less of something with “science” and “enviromental policy” in it’s title, would know this. So is it lazy incompetance or is downright disinformation – the calculated resurrection of one of the pet zombie myths? I’d say the latter.
Pressure and doppler broadening can contribute to further absorption once the bands are effectively saturated but while this extends the effect it is neither large or unlimited. William Happer knows all about broadening and looked at it in his recent work.
Alarmist climate scientists are aware of the logarithmic dwindling of CO2 IR absorption with increasing concentration. They have been using the line broadening argument to claim that saturation is not a problem, the GH effect continues, implying that line broadening is a magic process that continues indefinitely. Happer has proved them wrong.
“in CO2 concentration will necessarily decrease the amount of IR emitted in the CO2 band, and will heat the surface somewhat. The warmed surface will radiate more IR at all wavelengths”
I’ve been arguing this for several years. You ignore the fact that as something warms it radiates more. In your view the Earth can warm from “back radiation” and *not* radiate more, that the increase in heat is permanent.
It’s always been a losing argument since CO2 has been much higher in the past and the Earth still didn’t turn into a burnt cinder. Positive feedback *always* runs away sooner or later. Small amounts of positive feedback may take longer to run away but it still happens eventually.
You need to be able to show how positive feedback doesn’t run away in order to support your viewpoint. You need to be able to do it mathematically. My bet is that you can’t. And neither can the “models” that depend on that positive feedback for their projections.
Speaking of being lazy and incompetent, Dr. Spencer’s argument #5 is a refutation of the claim that CO2 is 100% saturated.
The article above never makes that claim, so only someone who doesn’t bother to actually understand what it is reading would make that mistake.
I think that Loydo has a point here. I have sent the message below also to SEPP.
There has been a lot of blog stories on different websites like Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), WUWT about the article of W&H by name “Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases”. The message of these stories has been the same that “at current concentrations, the forcings from all greenhouse gases are saturated.”
This is a strange conclusion directly conflicting with the results of the article of W&H. They conclude that doubling the CO2 concentration will cause the case of fixed absolute humidity, the surface warms by 1.4 K which agrees very well with other research studies.
Indeed, in the AR4 the IPCC reports that “In the idealized situation that the climate response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 consisted of a uniform temperature change only, with no feedbacks operating, the global warming from GCMs would be around 1.2°C”.
W&H reports that “The surface warming increases significantly for the case of water feedback assuming fixed relative humidity. Our result of 2.3 K is within 0.1 K of values obtained by two other groups.” So, what is the IPCC value in the case of water feedback? The IPCC reports in AR 5 that “It can be estimated that in the presence of water vapor, lapse rate and surface albedo feedbacks, but in the absence of cloud feedbacks, current GCMs would predict a climate sensitivity (±1 standard deviation) of roughly 1.9 ⁰C ± 0.15 ⁰C.”
The conclusion looks pretty strange to me. The IPCC’s TCR value is 1.9 ⁰C and the same of W&H is 2.3 ⁰C, and the TRC values without any feedbacks are 1.2 ⁰C versus 1.4 ⁰C. The warming values of W&H turns to be greater than those of the IPCC. The basis of saturated CO2 effects by W&H is not true at all. Or is somebody playing with words like saturated, and completely saturated?
“How can it be that adding some CO2 to the atmosphere suddenly become bigger and bigger? ”
Sorry. Lost me on this sentence.
I’m going to disagree slightly with the claim that water vapor is nearly saturated. It depends on where you are talking about.
In those places where there is lots of liquid water available, water vapor is most definitely nearly saturated.
In those places where there is precious little liquid water to be found (deserts anyone?) water vapor is not nearly saturated.
In those places where water vapor is nearly saturated, if the atmosphere did warm up a little, causing a tiny amount of extra water vapor in the atmosphere, because of this saturation the extra water vapor has very, very, little impact on temperatures.
In those places where water vapor is low, additional heating won’t cause the amount of water vapor in the air to increase, because there isn’t any liquid water available in the first place.
In both cases, the claimed water vapor, positive feedback just doesn’t exist.
Sahara today 20 celsius 15% relative moisture. (very dry!)
That is approx 3 g water per kilogram air and that is approx 5.000 ppm (6.2 g water per kg is 10.000 ppm) . It can me much higher (50.000 ppm)
It could be much higher, but where is the liquid water that will enable it to go higher.
There seems to be one aspect of this not discussed. Please point out an explanation if I’m missing it or misunderstanding something.
I’ve seen a variety of calculations of how long the average IR photon is delayed by greenhouse gases. Basically, the re-emission time of the IR photon is somewhat equivalent to the emission of a particle from radioactive decay in that it is not set but follow a probability distribution over time. The average of that delay between absorption and emission has been stated as various lengths of time in different articles but most often seems to be stated as about 2 milliseconds.
If that were the whole of it, the photon is now on its way to the edge of the galaxy; it seems unlikely to have had any significant effect on temperature. However, most photons are absorbed and emitted a number of times by different molecules as they travels through the atmosphere. The relevant question becomes not the emission time per molecule but the transit time through the atmosphere.
This is a calculated estimate because until someone figures out how to tag individual photons so they can be identified as they are emitted at the surface, then again as they leave at TOA, it cannot be measured. Calculation results I’ve seen vary from about 2 seconds to several hours.
The important part of this calculation, it seems to me, is the average distance the photon travels between one emission and the next absorption. If the distance is long, that means fewer interactions, thus a shorted time, before reaching TOA. Contrary wise, if the distance is short, absorption/emission will happen more times over the, more or less, fixed distance between the surface and TOA.
By that reasoning, adding more CO2 will mean the molecules are closer together in the atmosphere so the probable average distance between emission and absorption will be shorter, thus will happen more often over the fixed distance This should result in a longer time until the photon reaches TOA. This means the energy will be retain in the earth system longer.
In addition, since emissions can be in any direction, there will be more downward emissions (as well as more upward ones) so each downward emission means a still further delay in reaching TOA. It seems to me the total time should continue to increase as more CO2 molecules are added, regardless of ‘saturation’ of the spectral lines.
The saturation argument seems to be that there are N photons emitted from the surface. There are M absorbing molecules between the surface and TOA. Once M equals N, all photons are absorbed. More molecules have nothing to absorb so they have no effect.
But, as the added molecules are added to a fixed volume, they become more likely to interact with previously absorbed, then emitted photons as the photons “try” to leave the atmosphere, delaying them longer.
[[To understand the physics, let us repeat that at equilibrium, the solar radiation absorbed by the earth will be exactly matched by the radiation emitted by the earth as a whole, namely 244 W/m2. An increase in CO2 concentration will necessarily decrease the amount of IR emitted in the CO2 band, and will heat the surface somewhat. The warmed surface will radiate more IR at all wavelengths, allowing more IR to escape at other (non-CO2) wavelengths. In other words, all other things remaining the same, the earth will still radiate 244 W/m2 averaged over the entire globe out to space. In still other words, the effective blackbody temperature of the earth [including the atmosphere] does not change…”]]
How long will this fake physics hoax go on? For the umpteenth time:
1. There is no global radiation balance with the Sun because the atmosphere acts as a Carnot heat engine that turns heat into work to generate wind and storms via conduction at the surface followed by convection, which bypasses radiation. A Carnot heat engine is like a gasoline engine that uses gas to move the wheels. The input energy isn’t returned intact, rather, it’s used up forever. Any physical reasoning that starts with this fake science Earth-Sun radiation balance is divorced from reality and totally Looney Tunes.
2. It was always an attempt to frame CO2 emissions as evil in order to attack Big Oil and hopefully shut it down to prepare the world for global Marxism. Too bad, they picked the wrong getaway driver. CO2 can’t heat anything with its weak 15 micron photons that have a Planck radiation temperature of -80C like dry ice. -80C isn’t heat, period. It’s closer to microwaves, and no matter how high the power, the photons can’t melt an ice cube or cause global warming higher than -80C, thus CO2-driven AGW is a pure fake physics hoax, and now we see that all of the other layers of the bloomin’ onion were created just to keep the hoax going to prepare the world to accept the Great Reset global Marxist Neverneverland. Notice how the hoaxers never mention Planck’s Radiation Law that is dependent on photon wavelength, but only the more limited derivative Stefan-Boltzmann Law that is dependent on temperature alone and doesn’t worry about the problem of photon energy being inversely proportional to wavelength, which is what makes photons have temperature, even though even a child can see an iron rod turn from black to red to orange to yellow to white as it is heated in a fire.
I’m sorry that an entire generation of scientists have to find new jobs, but unless they can overturn Planck’s Radiation Law they should see if there are any blue collar job opportunities in their area. I won’t even mention the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Read my free online essay that does the math and forever kills the hoax that CO2 can heat anything.
http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html
Study my golden basket of links that forever proves that the CO2 AGW hoax was always about foisting global Marxism to take away all freedoms so that the elite can control population, which explains why leftist billionaires who are all Malthusians are all on its bandwagon.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-environmental-concept/answer/TL-Winslow
It doesn’t matter what the atmosphere does, that merely moves heat around within the atmosphere.
At the intersection of the atmosphere and space, the heat flow will always balance.
[[It doesn’t matter what the atmosphere does, that merely moves heat around within the atmosphere.
At the intersection of the atmosphere and space, the heat flow will always balance.]]
ROTFL.
TL Winslow,
Back up another step: ‘Energy cannot be created or destroyed’ There is only one kind of energy but it can be converted to different types such as radiation, molecular motion, mechanical motion, chemical bonds. The conversion appears to always be less than 100% efficient. The inefficient portion is radiated away or conducted away, depending upon the environment and other factors of the conversion circumstances.
A heat engine does not “use up energy forever” it merely uses energy across a gradient, from high concentration to low concentration. The high concentration is the input, burning coal to heat water to produce steam comes to mind. The steam is used to do some work such as turn the wheels, and push the automobile down the road, or up the hill. The low concentration in this case is heat at a lower temperature, more dissipated, not concentrated enough to be used for any useful work. The heat from burning eventually ends up in the atmosphere.
Heat in the atmosphere could, in theory be used again. Over most parts of the earth the surface is warmer than the deep ocean so there is a gradient between the two that could be converted to electricity with a thermocouple. If that could be done within economic sense, and ignoring environmental consequences, the result would be to raise the deep ocean temperature. That heat energy eventually has to be radiated away to space or someday the oceans really would indeed boil – which would return the energy to the atmosphere to be radiated away.
Even the existence of fossil fuels means that the complete “balance” happens only over a long period. The input solar radiation for producing coal and petroleum seems to have been many millions of years a go. It is retained as chemical energy, not radiated away from the earth, until the ‘fuel’ is burnt, so the balance isn’t complete until all that stored energy is released and radiates away.
The ultimate end of all this is often refereed to as “the heat death of the universe” which means that all energy everywhere in the universe has reached the same temperature, there is no more gradient to use for anything. Today we see the cosmic background radiation which is believed to be the intense, perhaps millions or billions of degrees of the creation (I am not up on the theoretical details which postulate what the “temperature’ was when), now reduced to just a little above absolute zero. Its hard to find a gradient with which to make useful work from that, but none of the energy has gone away forever.
Black holes, as a sink, have to have a place in the overall structure that fits this scheme. The current idea is that black holes aren’t really closed. They radiated away over many billions of years, depending on their size (i.e. how much energy they, like fossil fuels, have managed to collect for temporary storage).
A simple way…
Incoming solar average = 340W
Take Earth albedo (without clouds, greenery, water reflection) same as Moon =0.1
Energy absorbed by surface= 306W
That energy, to get back into space has to be radiated from the atmosphere.
The oxygen/nitrogen mix has an emissivity of about 0.02
We all know Stefan’s formula, go work it out.
3.6 = 5.67e(-8) x 0.02 x T^4
I get about 740 Kelvin or 467 Celsius
take a look around you outside.
EVERYTHING that water does is dump energy, reflect it, grow plants to reflect even more
Water is an ANTI greenhouse gas – it cools the planet.
How can it not?
You all keep saying what a potent absorber water is – it MUST therefore be a good emitter
Water increases the emissivity of the atmosphere, dumping even *more* energy
As Does Carbon Dioxide and all the other supposed Greenhouse Gases.
They DUMP energy
How did it all go so wrong?
Is it possible us super intelligent rich well-educated high-tech humans (we know that because we keep telling ourselves) have got wrong
Answers on a bill-board please
306