The Week That Was: 2023-05-27 (May 27, 2023)
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Policy Project
Quote of the Week: “You can see what we are up against.” – Professor William Happer (May 27, 2023) when his presentation on “Why Climate Change is Not an Emergency” from the Princeton University Media Central Live was sabotaged.
Number of the Week: 86% Imagination? 2 out of 14
THIS WEEK:
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Scope: The following topics will be discussed. The sabotage of the presentation “Why Climate Change is Not an Emergency” broadcast from Media Central Live at Princeton University.
AMO physicist Howard Hayden wrote an essay in The Energy Advocate explaining that the greenhouse effect requires an understanding of radiation transfer. The transfer of radiative energy to greenhouse gas molecules and the subsequent transfers are not captured by convection or general measurements used in weather forecasting or in global climate models. The effect can only be measured with reasonable accuracy using spectroscopy instruments on satellites. Part of that essay is reproduced below.
Previous TWTWs discussed the problems of converting generation of electricity from fossil fuels to wind and solar as well as the problems of transforming motor vehicles from fossil fuels to batteries. A major issue is that the lightest material that works in batteries is relatively rare Lithium, the least dense metal and solid element with an atomic number of 3. Lithium is found in low concentrations. Extraction and processing are very expensive. Exxon Mobil has announced an experimental project to extract lithium from brine, which is produced in great quantities from oil and gas wells, particularly those developed by hydraulic fracturing.
The Supreme Court has announced a unanimous decision to curtail the practice by Federal Agencies of using the Clean Water Act to justify great expansion of Federal control over private property. Though the decision was unanimous, there were several different opinions that were announced.
Francis Menton writes about the miracle considered by many advocates of wind and solar to cover the fact that there is no successful demonstration project showing that wind and solar plus storage can supply the electricity needed by modern civilization – virtual power plants.
Andrew Montford writes that the low costs claimed by the International Energy Agency (IEA) depend on imaginary wind turbines. IEA ignores the costs of power generation in the UK, which has the largest set of wind turbines in the world.
Each May, the US Department of Agriculture makes a well-documented estimate of world grain production, including coarse grains such as corn, and fine grains such as wheat and rice. In order, corn, wheat, and rice are the most important cereals produced. Despite the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, involving an important “breadbasket” of the world, the estimated total production of cereals is at the highest levels ever, or increasing. So much for the climate emergency.
Last week, TWTW discussed that the global climate models continue to use the imaginary assertion of imagined huge increases in human carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions identified in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as RCP8.5 and later as SSP5-8.5. Since this scenario did not appear in the Working Group I, Physical Science, report, some skeptics hoped it would disappear. It has turned up again in projections (guesses) on what may happen in the Caribbean.
Canada has an estimated 300 billion trees. Wood burns. Now forest fires in Canada are being claimed to be a result of “climate change?”
*****************
Sabotage: On May 27, the Conservative Princeton Association sponsored a hard-hitting panel discussion on “Why Climate Change is NOT an Emergency.” Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, Dr. Bruce Everett, climate economist, and Princeton physicist William Happer were scheduled to present data and analysis to show that adding CO2 in the atmosphere will be beneficial, that the atmospheric temperature is relatively insensitive to addition of CO2 and decarbonization is unnecessary, undesirable, impossible and not happening.
The event was live streamed from Media Central Live, at Princeton University. There were difficulties with the broadcast of the presentation by Patrick Moore. Then, as William Happer began to talk, someone else took control of the media presentation. Several cartoons were drawn on the slides, then an obscene, juvenile one. Just before the video went dead, Happer politely said: “You can see what we are up against.”
Certainly, this was a deliberate effort. One hopes it does not reflect the quality of education at Princeton and the juvenile cartoons are not examples of what is considered mature, critical thinking.
*****************
Energy Is Conserved, Not Photons: In the May issue of his monthly newsletter, The Energy Advocate, AMO physicist Howard Hayden uses a graph of the Infrared Radiation (IR) measured by the Nimbus satellite passing over Guam in 1970 and a graph of the Planck’s curve for Blackbody radiation AMO physicist Hayden writes: [Boldface was Italics in original]
“The important message here is that the radiation to space that balances the heat absorbed from the sun can be calculated from the spectral properties of the GHGs [Greenhouse Gases] and surface temperature on a latitude-by-latitude basis. Just as important is the fact that no climate model produced by anybody has replicated the outgoing spectrum without invoking the greenhouse effect.”
Hayden refutes some claims that the greenhouse effect does not exist and goes on to explain what is involved in the greenhouse effect.
“Absorption of IR is not a one-and-done process. The energy absorbed by the molecule results in an excited vibrational/rotational state. The molecule can radiate the energy away as IR or can lose the energy to heat by collision with atmospheric molecules, primarily N2 [Nitrogen molecule] and O2 [Oxygen molecule].”
Hayden gives an example from nuclear fission showing that the number of protons plus the number of neutrons remains constant, as does the number of electrons. He continues:
“The total energy remains constant, but the number of photons – particles of light – does not. A photon absorbed by a molecule (or anything else) is gone forever. When a photon is emitted, it does not come from a warehouse of photons. It springs into existence and transports energy away from the source. It makes no sense to say that a molecule “re-radiates IR” because that expression implies that the molecule somehow stored the photon. The correct word is radiates.
“In our atmosphere composed mostly of nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), neither of which interacts with IR, the greenhouse gas molecules are bombarded with IR emanating from the surface. If one absorbs an IR photon, the molecule reacts by wiggling and rotating, having been kicked into one of a plethora of excited rotational/vibrational states. It can shed that excess energy by radiation and return to its ground state, but it is more likely that the energy will be shed by a collision with another molecule. A molecule has such encounters millions of times per second. But the collisions can also kick the greenhouse molecule into an excited state from which it can radiate IR or lose the excess energy by collision.
“Such collisions happen so frequently that in any locality in the atmosphere, there is thermodynamic equilibrium in which a few percent of the molecules are in excited states. The actual percentage depends on the local temperature. So, in every region of the atmosphere, there is some IR being emitted and some IR being absorbed, overall, in random directions.
“The theoretical approach to determining the IR emitted to space is therefore to combine knowledge of the known spectral properties of the GHG molecules, account for the latitude and altitude, and track the IR flux upward. At sufficiently high altitude, a good fraction of the IR can escape to outer space because of the low density of the air and its GHGs. For CO2, and for some of the spectrum absorbed by H2O, that atmosphere is so high that the temperature is about minus 50°C (minus 65°F). [This causes a big spike in the graph at 15-micrometers].
“This discussion has been a bit long and involved, but it comes with a very important lesson. The IR that goes to space balances the heat input from the sun can only be calculated by accounting for the properties of greenhouse gases. Were there not interactions with GHGs, the IR from the surface would go directly to space. The spectrum [observed by satellites] would be identical to that of blackbody radiation from the surface, both in shape and in quantity.
“Importantly, there is no way to use pure thermodynamics, the lapse rate [decease in temperature with altitude], fluid-flow equations, variations in cloud cover, weather patterns, ocean dynamics, temperature trends, or any combinations of such information to explain the spectrum of IR that goes to space.”
Hayden gives two graphs, one showing Planck’s blackbody emissions of infrared energy (IR) to space, the second being the observed emissions. The difference between the smooth Planck curve for blackbody emissions (theoretical) and the Schwartzwald jagged line (observed). Figure #4, in van Wijngaarden and Happer shows both together. Hayden continues:
“Models by skeptics abound, and probably most make significant contributions to climate science, but none can be considered complete unless they either acknowledge the roles of greenhouse gases or find some other way to explain the outgoing radiation. “
TWTW comment: The 1979 Charney Report reflected the insistence by climate modelers that warming from CO2 would be greatly amplified by warming from water vapor in the atmosphere. Laboratory experiments could not show what was occurring in the atmosphere. But already the Nimbus experiments over Guam, in the Tropics, provided physical evidence contradicting the modelers claims. The evidence was ignored. Since then, the contradictory evidence has grown enormously, yet it is still ignored. For citations in the Hayden essay, see the first two links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.
*****************
Drilling for Lithium: With an atomic number of 3, three protons and electrons, and a mass of 7, Lithium (Li) lies between helium (He) (atomic number 2 and mass of 4) and Beryllium (Be) (atomic number 4 and mass of 9) and is the lightest solid in the Periodic table. Having only one electron in its outer ring, Lithium is ideal for lightweight batteries. Research on Lithium-ion batteries began in earnest in the 1960s with major breakthroughs in the 1970s and 1980s. Lithium salt dissolved in an organic solvent provides the medium for conducting ions passing between two poles. Lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries are rechargeable, but there are stability issues leading to safety issues.
Because lithium is a somewhat scarce element and not found in significant concentrations such as iron ore, the mining and processing of Lithium is a massive earth-moving process. According to reports, Exxon Mobil is investing over $100 million to explore the possibility of extracting Lithium from brine. Brine is a wastewater produced from oil and gas drilling, particularly from hydraulic fracturing. Perhaps the company will use a process similar to that developed by the Israelis and widely used to extract fresh water from oceans.
It is clear that this research project is similar to the company’s research into oil from algae in one regard. Unlike politically driven countries which are betting future prosperity on the hope that wind, solar, and storage can replace fossil fuels, Exxon Mobil is not betting the future of the company on an experimental project. TWTW considers it an exploratory investment because Exxon Mobil is moving prudently, something which many governments fail to do. See link under {Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy – Other} for earlier research; and see Article # 2 for the Exxon Mobil acquisition.
*****************
Unanimous: In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled against the EPA which stopped a couple from building a home on dry land for 16 years. The ruling is an outcome of Federal government zeal in broadly defining what are called “waters of the United States.”
Article 1 of the US Constitution states the enumerated powers of the Legislative Branch (Congress). Section 8 Clause 3 gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” The power to regulate commerce was extended to “navigable waters of the United States” in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) with the definitions of the US Army Corps of Engineers prevailing. What defines “navigable waters” has been a contention since The Clean Water Act of 1972, amended in 1977, complicated the issues with the EPA and Corps of Engineers broadly expanding definitions. Piles of wet leaves far from any moving water or navigable lakes have been labeled “waters of the United States.”
Although the decision was unanimous, the opinions varied, and Environmental Groups are insisting that any use of land is polluting (except industrial wind, solar and needed transmission lines). See link under Litigation Issues and Article # 1.
*****************
Virtual Power Plants: Francis Menton has repeatedly written that there is no example in the world where a modern civilization can run on wind, solar, and storage. Yet, countries including the US and many political jurisdictions are spending vast sums of money pursuing wind and solar power, without proven storage needed. Menton has discovered how they cover up the need for storage – Virtual Power Plants. Menton writes:
“A Manhattan Contrarian investigation now reveals that the Virtual Power Plant is exactly what you undoubtedly already suspect it to be: another new level of Orwellian doubletalk. ‘Virtual Power Plant’ turns out to be another term for pointless enforced sacrifice in service to the climate cult.”
For Menton’s essay and the US Department of Energy’s essays on Virtual Power Plants (VPPs) and its loan programs see links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.
*****************
Virtual Wind Turbines: During the OPEC Oil Embargo opposing US support of Israel in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, countries in Europe plus the US and Japan formed the International Energy Agency (IEA). The IEA was once a reliable resource for energy information. But no longer. Andrew Montford writes about levelised costs of renewable power.
“Meanwhile, the IEA’s levelised cost figures are staggeringly low. At a 3% cost of capital, the numbers cited for the US fall to around £20/MWh, which is roughly one sixth of what offshore windfarms cost in the UK.
“But there’s a second problem here. While 14 (unnamed) windfarms are outlined for the US, unfortunately, out in the real world, Uncle Sam has only got round to building two, both tiny pilot plants. Block Island, the larger of the two, has been so staggeringly expensive it makes even the UK ones look cheap.
“So where is the IEA getting these numbers for US offshore windfarms from? I have no idea.”
“Finally, it’s worth noting that at the time of the report’s publication, half of the world’s offshore wind capacity was in the UK, where hard data on the (very high) costs and the (rapidly deteriorating) operating performance is freely available. Strangely though, the IEA has chosen to include not a single windfarm from these shores.”
See link under Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.
*****************
Real Food – Farmers Fight Back: Each May, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) produces what are probably the most reliable estimates of grain production worldwide. Paul Homewood brings up the estimates for 2023/24, when production is expected to exceed consumption. By weight, Corn is the most produced grain. The estimates for 2023/24 are similar to production in 2021/22 and will support consumption, over 1,200 Million Metric Tons (MMT) thanks to continued high production in Brazil (a tropical country).
Global Wheat Production is expected to surpass consumption and be over 780 MMT. This is surprising. The USDA report states that Russia is expected to have a 11% decline; Australia a 26% decline, after 3 record crops; and Ukraine about one-half of its 2021/22 crop. Production in Argentina is expected to recover after last year’s drought, India’s production is expected to increase by 6%, EU’s production is expected to increase despite bad weather in Spain, Canada and Chana are projected to have higher production, and the US about the same. Thanks to farmers worldwide, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is having a major impact, but it is not causing the world to starve.
Global Rice Production is forecast at record levels at about 520 MMT. Bangladesh, India, and China are forecast to produce record levels.
Contrary to the claims of climate alarmists, basic food production is increasing, not decreasing. Fewer people are starving, and what human starvation continues is largely from political problems, not climate problems. The use of modern, modified plant varieties and modern fertilizer are a great boon to humanity, despite false claims by climate alarmists. Also, the addition of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere greatly promotes this growth in agriculture, for the benefit of humanity. Politicians who condemn the use of modern agriculture as causing dangerous food varieties and global warming (climate change) without physical evidence have contempt for humanity. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.
Fantasy Games: Charles Rotter of Watts Up With That brings attention to a paper on the rates of future climate change in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean and its implications to the coral reef ecosystem. The abstract states:
“We use a top-down modeling framework to diagnose future projected changes in thermal stress and ocean acidification and discuss its implications for coral reef ecosystems. We find that ocean temperatures increase by 2°C–3°C, over the 21st century and surpass reported regional bleaching thresholds by mid-century. Whereas ocean acidification occurs, the rate and magnitude of temperature changes outpace and outweigh the impacts of changes in aragonite saturation state.”
The work was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Academies of Sciences.
Last fall, a number of skeptics expressed hope in the new IPCC Working Group I, the Physical Science. It did not explicitly contain the high emissions scenario RCP 8.5. However, the RCP 8.5 scenario was already built into global climate models, such as the ones produced by the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) which is funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). NCAR refused to recognize the temperature trends calculated by UAH from NOAA satellites, which NOAA atmospheric researchers finally recognized. Further, NCAR fails to recognize the HITRAN database, a high-resolution spectroscopy database from laboratory experiments updated by over 40 years of recordings from instruments on weather balloons. It appears that to NSF, atmospheric research is confined to playing with elaborate, expensive computers, not data, physical evidence.
Further, the claims of ocean acidification are absurd. Warm water absorbs less carbon dioxide (CO2) than cold water. Further, the extensive deposits of chalk, limestone, dolomite, etc. made by calcium forming fossils using CO2, when CO2 was at greater concentrations than today, contradict ocean acidification assertions. See link under Defending the Orthodoxy – Bandwagon Science.
*****************
Trees Burn? John Robson writes:
“This just in, there are wildfires in the Canadian province of Alberta. It could be connected with Canada having 300 billion trees made of wood, the same combustible stuff as fire logs.”
Meteorologist Cliff Mass addresses the false claims that the Alberta fires are the result of climate change (CO2 caused warming).
In his book, Climate, History, and the Modern World, H.H. Lamb, a pioneer in studying climate change wrote that after the Holocene Climate Optimum, which ended about 8300 years ago, a cooling caused massive areas of trees covering the Northern Hemisphere to die. This resulted in massive burning with associated ash deposits. Increasing CO2 is causing woodlands to flourish. Sometimes they burn. The burning may be associated with warming or cooling, but not with increasing CO2 which causes trees to flourish. See links under Communicating Better to the Public – Use Yellow (Green) Journalism?
*****************
No TWTW June 3. Due to international travel, there will be No TWTW on the weekend of June 3. TWTW will resume on the weekend of June 10.
***********************
SEPP’S APRIL FOOLS AWARD – THE JACKSON
SEPP is conducting its annual vote for the recipient of the coveted trophy, The Jackson, a lump of coal. Readers are asked to nominate and vote for who they think is most deserving. Senators Schumer and Manchin won in 2022.
The voting will close on June 30. Please send your nominee and a brief reason why the person is qualified for the honor to Ken@SEPP.org. The awardee will be announced at the annual meeting of the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness on July 7 to 9.
*******************
Number of the Week: 86% Imagination? According to Andrew Montford, who is careful about numbers, in calculating the falling costs of offshore wind power generation, the International Energy Agency (IEA) referenced 14 offshore wind projects in the US. Only two projects are operating: Block Island (completed in 2016) with five 6MW turbines and Coastal Virginia Offshore (completed in 2020) with two 6MW turbines. The remaining 12 projects, 86%, are imaginary. So are the IEA’s calculated costs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms_in_the_United_States
NEWS YOU CAN USE:
Censorship
Regime Climate Censorship Enforcer NewsGuard: The tragic case of Zack Fishman
By Anthony Watts, WUWT, May 23, 2023
Challenging the Orthodoxy — NIPCC
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science
Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2013
Summary: https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/CCR/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts
Idso, Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2014
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/climate-change-reconsidered-ii-biological-impacts/
Summary: https://www.heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-IIb/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels
By Multiple Authors, Bezdek, Idso, Legates, and Singer eds., Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, April 2019
http://store.heartland.org/shop/ccr-ii-fossil-fuels/
Download with no charge:
Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming
The NIPCC Report on the Scientific Consensus
By Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Nov 23, 2015
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/
Download with no charge:
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate
S. Fred Singer, Editor, NIPCC, 2008
http://www.sepp.org/publications/nipcc_final.pdf
Global Sea-Level Rise: An Evaluation of the Data
By Craig D. Idso, David Legates, and S. Fred Singer, Heartland Policy Brief, May 20, 2019
Record World Cereal Outputs Forecast for 2023/24
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 24, 2023
Link to: Grain: World Markets and Trade
2023/24 Grain Production Exceeds Consumption
By Staff, United States Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service, May 2023
“Cereals: Generic name for certain grasses that produce edible seeds. Also used for certain products made from seeds. Cereals include wheat, rice, and coarse grains such as oats, barley, rye, millet, corn, and sorghum grain.” [Boldface added] https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-per-capita-data-system/glossary/#cereals
Climate Alarmist Claim Fact Checks
By Joseph D’Aleo, ICECAP, May 21, 2023
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/alarmist_claim_rebuttals_updated/
A set of videos
Finally, A Solution To The Problem Of Intermittent Power Generation — The “Virtual Power Plant”
By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, May 20, 2023
Link to: Virtual Power Plants
By Staff, US Department of Energy, Accessed May 25, 2023
Defending the Orthodoxy
DAVID BLACKMON: The EU Chief Just Let Slip The Dirty Secret Behind The ‘Green’ Transition
By David Blackmon, The Daily Caller, May 17, 2023
“… European Commission President Ursula Von Der Leyen said out loud what the climate alarm movement has been trying to keep under wraps for a decade: That economic de-growth enforced by authoritarian governments is a fundamental element of its agenda.”
Defending the Orthodoxy – Bandwagon Science
More RCP 8.5 Fantasy Games:
By Charles Rotter, WUWT, May 22, 2023
Link to paper: Rates of Future Climate Change in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea: Implications for Coral Reef Ecosystems
By A. E. Lawman, et al., JGR Biogeosciences, Aug 27, 2023
Early season snowmelt could bring the West summer water scarcity: study
By Sharon Udasin, The Hill, May 22, 2023
Link to paper: Recent decreases in snow water storage in western North America
By Katherine E. Hale, et al., Communications Earth & Environment, May 22, 2023
From the abstract: “In western North America, annual SSI has decreased (p < 0.05) from 1950–2013 in over 25% of mountainous areas, as a result of substantially earlier snowmelt and rainfall in spring months, with additional declines in winter precipitation.”
[SEPP Comment: There is a shortage of reservoirs, but the probabilities are meaningless. They are not a reason to assume what applied from 1950 to 2013 will apply in the future, just as there is no reason to assume that what applied in the winter of 2022-23 will apply in the future.]
Current emissions trajectory could expose billions to extreme heat: study
By Zack Budryk, The Hill, May 23, 2023
Link to paper: Quantifying the human cost of global warming
By Timothy M. Lenton, et al., Nature Sustainability, May 22, 2023
[SEPP Comment: Falsely claiming CO2 is responsible for temperature increase since the Little Ice Age, then making calculations from the false claims.]
Questioning the Orthodoxy
Climate Hypocrisy Wednesday Part Two: It’s Not Hypocrisy if Your Heart is Pure
By Charles Rotter, WUWT, May 24, 2023
Link to: Climate hypocrisy and environmental integrity
By Valentin Beck, Social Philosophy, May 18, 2023
Climate Hypocrisy Wednesday Part Three: Nature Magazine Calls Out the IPPC for Climate Hypocrisy
By Charles Rotter, WUWT, May 24, 2023
Link to article: Against climate hypocrisy: why the IPCC needs its own net-zero target
By Benjamin M. Sanderson, Nature, May 23, 2023
“A robust strategy to slash the IPCC’s carbon emissions would be a testbed for international climate policy — and serve as an example of effective action.”
Jude Clemente: “Five Things I Truly Don’t Understand About… the Energy Transition”
By David Middleton, WUWT, May 23, 2023
Energy and Environmental Review: May 22, 2023
By John Droz, Jr., Master Resource, May 22, 2023
After Paris!
Major LNG Liquefaction Projects 2023-2027
By Tim Daiss, Energy Tracker Asia, Apr 3, 2023
“Against this massive LNG development backdrop, the 2023 UN Climate Change Conference, including COP28, will have its hands full when it takes place in Dubai from November 30 to December 12.
“Much of their task, like those summits before them, involves convincing and proving how bad the LNG projects are for the environment.”
Seeking a Common Ground
Colorado River basin states reach agreement on water cutbacks
By Sharon Udasin, The Hill, May 22, 2023
[SEPP Comment: The Colorado River compact was based on poor science – falsely assuming a wet period will apply into the future.]
Biden administration announces new investments in Colorado River conservation
By Sharon Udasin, The Hill, May 24, 2023
“Funded by the Inflation Reduction Act, these agreements will help finance system conservation and bolster reservoir storage volumes amid climate change-driven drought conditions, according to the agency.”
Measurement Issues — Atmosphere
New NASA mission will help improve extreme weather forecasts
By Amy Thompson, The Hill, May 21, 2023
[SEPP Comment: Who knows, NASA-GISS may discover that satellites can measure atmospheric temperature trends? Article continues usual bunk that hurricanes are intensifying.]
Changing Weather
#CoolClimateData: Dr. Maue’s tropical cyclone data
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, May 24, 2023
Global warming means more hurricanes unless it means fewer hurricanes
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, May 24, 2023
May 22, 1911, Record Heat
By Tony Heller, His Blog, May 22, 2023
Changing Climate
Another New Study Shows The Siberian Arctic Is Warmer When CO2 Is Low And Colder As CO2 Rises
By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, May 22, 2023
Link to latest paper: Stabilization of mineral-associated organic carbon in Pleistocene permafrost
By Jannik Martens, et al., Nature Communications, Apr 13, 2023
Changing Earth
Tonga underwater volcano disrupted satellite signals halfway around the world
By Staff Writers, Nagoya, Japan (SPX) May 24, 2023
Link to paper: Generation of equatorial plasma bubble after the 2022 Tonga volcanic eruption
By Atsuki Shinbori, et al. Nature, Scientific Reports, May 22, 2023
Acidic Waters
Six months of natural pH fluctuations on the Heron Island reef flat
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, May 24, 2023
Agriculture Issues & Fear of Famine
John Kerry targets farmers: ‘We can’t get to Net-Zero…unless agriculture is front & center as part of the solution’ – ‘I refuse to call it climate change anymore. It’s not change. It’s a crisis’
By Marc Morano, Climate Depot, May 19, 2023
[SEPP Comment: Of course, he is too busy to stop flying in private jets.]
Communicating Better to the Public – Use Yellow (Green) Journalism?
Alberta on fire, must be you-know-what
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, May 24, 2023
Are the Large Alberta Fires the Result of Climate Change?
By Cliff Mass, Weather Blog, May 23, 2023
Charles Darwin, call your office
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, May 24, 2023
[SEPP Comment: Salmon are incapable of changing migration patterns? Nonsense.]
Tidbits
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, May 24, 2023
[SEPP Comment: “Pero-Masculinity?”]
Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.
The IEA’s comedy data
By Andrew Montford, Net Zero Watch, May 23, 2023
UN: 2 Million Lives Lost to Global Warming Over the Last 50 Years
By Eric Worrall, WUWT, May 22, 2023
Communicating Better to the Public – Do a Poll?
German Greens In Crisis, Plummet 40% In Opinion Polls As Anger Mounts Over Bans, Scandals
By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, May 21, 2023
Do humans cause climate change? Even now, only half of Americans say yes.
By Daniel De Vise, The Hill, May 25, 2023
Link to press release: Inflation Reduction Act Guidebook
The White House, Accessed, May 25, 2023
“The Inflation Reduction Act, signed last year by President Biden, doesn’t sound like a climate-change initiative. But the measure marks ‘the most significant action Congress has taken on clean energy and climate change in the nation’s history,’ according to a White House summary.”
Communicating Better to the Public – Use Propaganda
Explosion of AP climate change stories following $8 million environmental grant
By Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner, May 22, 2023
“The media giant [AP], which feeds news outlets worldwide, received grants totaling $8 million from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Quadrivium, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation in February 2022.”
The Telegraph & Infectious Diseases.
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 24, 2023
Communicating Better to the Public – Protest
Climate activists blacken Trevi Fountain over Italy floods
By Staff, DW.com, May 21, 2023
Questioning European Green
How the foreign funded climate cabal bought Germany to its knees
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, May 24, 2023
Lord Frost warns: Hurtling towards net zero at any cost will be a mistake
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 20, 2023
Europe can achieve Net Zero by demolishing historic buildings and starting again, Central Bank claims
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 22, 2023
[SEPP Comment: Build Back Better – destroy first!]
Germany’s Growing List Of Bans: Next Up: Wood Stoves And Heating With Wood!
By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, May 20, 2023
Questioning Green Elsewhere
Exxon says NetZero degrades global standard of living so much there’s only a remote chance it will happen
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, May 22, 2023
Another Green Energy Assault on the West
By Jonathan Lesser, Real Clear Energy, May 24, 2023
[SEPP Comment: The Senators want to forget the locals.]
Electricity Prices and the Ukraine Excuse
By Aynsley Kellow, Quadrant, May 22, 2023
Funding Issues
The Numbers Are In on How Biden-Era Funding Is Skewing Scientific Research Ever-Wokeward
By Steve Miller, Real Clear Investigations, May 16, 2023
The Political Games Continue
House votes in favor of overturning Biden truck pollution rule
By Rachel Frazin, The Hill, May 23, 2023
“The Biden rule in question, which aims to cut pollution from heavy-duty trucks, would be expected to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides by 50 percent in the year 2045. These pollutants can worsen respiratory health conditions, like asthma, and long-term exposure to them can contribute to the development of respiratory infections.
“Proponents point to the rule’s expected health benefits; it is expected to reduce premature deaths each year, saving 2,900 lives in 2045.”
[SEPP Comment: Math mania is not science.]
Litigation Issues
Sackett et ux. V. Environmental Protection Agency et al.
Supreme Court of the United States, October Term, 2022
Subsidies and Mandates Forever
Volkswagen’s Monster
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, May 24, 2023
“Or as Rudyard Kipling put it more than a century ago, ‘if once you have paid him the Dane-geld/ You never get rid of the Dane.’
“P.S. In the National Post Fr. Raymond de Souza reminds us that Volkswagen was caught less than eight years ago committing a massive, deliberate fraud on diesel particulate emissions readings and fined tens of billions of dollars worldwide, while no fewer than 60 charges were laid in Canada alone under our Environmental Protection Act. Who better to get a massive green subsidy?”
Pouring green Kool Aid into your tank
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, May 24, 2023
EPA and other Regulators on the March
World’s worst air quality: This US city ranked in the top 5
By Dara Bitler, and Russell Falcon, The Hill, May 21, 2023
Link to IQAir https://www.iqair.com/us/world-air-quality-ranking
[SEPP Comment: Since EPA has no minimum threshold, will people in Denver die in massive numbers? Interestingly, for 2022 the highest ranked city in the US was Oakridge, Oregon, with a rating of 33.5 and a ranking of 382. Far below many population centers in China, India, South Asia, and the Mid-East.]
Energy Issues – Non-US
If it were COVID…
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, May 24, 2023
“And more, because ‘Looking across countries reveals that those with the highest excess deaths typically experienced the biggest increases in fuel costs.’ Not the biggest drops in temperature.”
The Case for Expanding Copper Production Is Compelling
By Danny Ervin, Real Clear Energy, May 24, 2023
Washington’s Control of Energy
Biden Supports Manchin: The Time to Expand Mining and Streamline Permitting Is Now
By Jude Clemente, Real Clear Energy, May 23, 2023
[SEPP Comment: More optimism, not reality?]
Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?
Fossil Fuels Saved The Whales
By Tony Heller, His Blog, May 25, 2023
“’ In the 1850’s the industrialization of the United States caused a rapid’ increase in demand for illuminants and lubricants.’”
The Race To Secure Long-Term LNG Contracts
By Irina Slav, Oil Price.com, May 19, 2023
Haynesville Natural Gas Production Sets New Record… Again
By David Middleton, WUWT, May 25, 2023
Nuclear Energy and Fears
Electrifying for Climate Must Include Much More Nuclear Power
By Patrick Gibbons, Real Clear Energy, May 23, 2023
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind
Green Projects Hit Iron Wall
By James E. Hanley, Real Clear Policy, May 22, 2023
“The Iron Law, coined by Oxford Professor Bent Flyvbjerg, says that “megaprojects” — which cost billions of dollars, take years to complete, and are socially transformative — reliably come in over budget, over time, over and over.”
Feds play shell game with wind / whale impacts
By David Wojick, CFACT, May 23, 2023
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy — Other
Lithium Recovery from Brines Including Seawater, Salt Lake Brine, Underground Water and Geothermal Water
By Samadiy Murodjon, et al, Thermodynamics and Energy Engineering, Sep 15, 2019
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Vehicles
EVs: Political Pushback (151 Republicans vs. Big Brother)
By Robert Bradley, Jr. Master Resource, May 24, 2023
“Specifically, over its lifetime, an EV only has lower emissions than an internal combustion engine vehicle if it travels between 28,069 and 68,160 miles and remains in service for more than 10 years – circumstances which are not being realized today.”
EV’s increase pollution: heavier cars wear out tyres 50% faster, increasing waste and poisonous particles…
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, May 22, 2023
[SEPP Comment: Without petroleum, what would be the material for tires?]
California Dreaming
“California’s Duck Curve Hits Record Lows”
By Robert Bradley Jr.., Master Resource, May 23, 2023
[SEPP Comment: Without extensive natural gas generation and imports the lights would go out every night in California.]
Other News that May Be of Interest
NYCHA, Circling The Drain
By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, May 23, 2023
BELOW THE BOTTOM LINE
World’s Biggest Nuclear Plant May Stay Closed Due to Papers Left on Car Roof
By Shoko Oda, Yahoo, May 22, 2023
German Green Parliamentarian Shocks The Nation…Couldn’t Even Name First German Empire Chancellor!
By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, May 23, 2023
King Charles backed these care homes for 40 years – now Net Zero is forcing them to close
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 20, 2023
It’s Climate Hypocrisy Wednesday Part One: Climate Activists Channel Michael Crichton
By Charles Rotter, WUWT, May 24, 2023
They Believe In Science
By Tony Heller, His Blog, May 24, 2023
Funny photo
ARTICLES
1. A Clean Water Landmark for Liberty at the Supreme Court
In Sackett v. EPA, the Justices rebuke the agency for its land grab over ‘waters of the United States.’
By The Editorial Board, WSJ, Updated May 25, 2023
“The Supreme Court issued another landmark decision pruning back an overgrown administrative state on Thursday in Sackett v. EPA. Don’t believe the cries that the 5-4 decision will despoil America’s precious wetlands. The majority simply stopped a regulatory land grab.
Michael and Chantell Sackett’s ordeal reveals how rule by an unfettered administrative state can cause significant cost and hardship. For 16 years the couple has been battling the bureaucracy to build a home. The Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers claim their dry property is a wetland subject to federal regulation.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes EPA to regulate only ‘navigable waters’ in interstate commerce. Yet the EPA said the Sacketts’ property was connected to a wetland some 30 feet away, which was connected to a ditch that connected to a nonnavigable creek that connected to a lake. Follow that?
Americans anywhere in the country could have their backyard declared a wetland, but they wouldn’t know it until the EPA swoops in and threatens enormous penalties for pouring herbicide on weeds. EPA advises landowners to solicit the Army Corps’ opinion before doing anything with their property. But 75% of the time the Corps claims jurisdiction.
Does federal jurisdiction really ‘encompass any backyard that is soggy enough for some minimum period of time?’ Justice Samuel Alito asks in the majority opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. ‘How about ditches, swimming pools, and puddles?’
A majority in Rapanos (2006) couldn’t agree on how to limit EPA’s authority over wetlands. Four Justices said the Clean Water Act’s scope extended to ‘only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water’ such as oceans, rivers and lakes, and wetlands that were directly adjacent and ‘indistinguishable’ from those waters.
However, the agencies and lower courts have adopted Justice Anthony Kennedy’s lone opinion that federal jurisdiction extends to land that has a ‘significant nexus’ to a waterway. This test is as clear as a swamp.
While all nine Justices ruled for the Sacketts, they disagreed on the scope of federal power. The majority strips away the ‘significant nexus’ ambiguity from Justice Kennedy’s Rapanos opinion, but reaffirms the conservative plurality’s view that a ‘wetland’ must ‘be indistinguishably part of a body of water that itself constitutes ‘waters’ under the CWA.’
Justice Thomas writes separately that the majority should have also considered the scope of the term ‘navigable.’ He echoes an originalist criticism that the Court has expanded Congress’s authority ‘to regulate any private intrastate activity that substantially affects interstate commerce.’ Too bad only Justice Gorsuch joined his concurrence.
The other four Justices say the law should be interpreted broadly to cover land that is ‘adjacent’ to navigable water, which need not be ‘adjoining’ as long as it is ‘close to’ or ‘lying near.’ Under their opinion, there would be no limiting principle to federal authority.
In an opinion joined by the three liberals, Justice Brett Kavanaugh writes that the majority’s limitations on federal authority could endanger ‘water quality and flood control throughout the United States.’ But states will still be able to regulate land and water within their borders, and Congress can rewrite the Clean Water Act.
As Justice Alito writes, the minority doesn’t even attempt ‘to explain how the wetlands included in their interpretation fall within a fair reading of ‘waters.’ Textualist arguments that ignore the operative text cannot be taken seriously.’ It’s disappointing that Justice Kavanaugh departed from his typically rigorous administrative law analysis.”
The editorial closes by declaring that the decision is a triumph of liberty over the administrative state.
*****************
2. Exxon Joins Hunt for Lithium in Bet on EV Boom
Oil giant quietly laid plans this year for producing mineral in Arkansas
By Benoît Morenne and Collin Eaton, WSJ, May 21, 2023
Key parts of the article on the Exxon Mobile acquisition of 120,000 acres in southern Arkansas that TWTW has not addressed previously include:
“The Biden administration is seeking to encourage domestic production of the metal, despite opposition from environmentalists and others. The Inflation Reduction Act signed by President Biden into law last year includes tax credits covering 10% of the cost of producing critical minerals, including lithium.
The U.S. once was the world’s largest lithium producer, but its output has plummeted, and it is now dependent on other nations such as China for its supply of the mineral. Producing lithium from regions such as Arkansas could help the U.S. meet its domestic needs as well as compete globally, analysts said.
In the 1970s, Exxon played a key role in the foundation of the lithium industry. Exxon chemist Stanley Whittingham won a Nobel Prize in 2019 for helping to develop the lithium-ion battery while working at Exxon’s corporate laboratory in Linden, N.J. Exxon began to manufacture the batteries in 1976, but the market ultimately proved too small, so the company ceased making the batteries some years later.”
“Southern Arkansas in recent years has emerged as a potential future lithium hub. Smackover brine, a rich broth of saltwater and minerals, has long been known to contain relatively high concentrations of lithium, but new technologies have recently made it possible to extract the metal from the brine in warehouse-size facilities. “
News tip:
https://joannenova.com.au/2023/05/thats-a-big-climate-surprise-frost-season-growing-longer-across-australia-and-for-years/
Climate cooling there ?
Where is my global warming ?
😉
It’s on constant display in all the models.
Real world –
show us something we haven’t seen before.
I hope that the Princeton presentation gets a proper airing. I for one would be very interested to see the presentations.
And I would be very interested to know if the saboteurs were members of the Princeton ‘community’ and if the administration is mounting any sort of investigation.
This shows how myopic these numbats are. Most of the OLR leaving earth does not involve gas. It comes from a solid – specifically ice particles.
The radiance curve for the tropical oceans and rainforests is very close to a a black body at 235K. Peak radiance at 436/cm and a slight dip around 650cm, otherwise same as black body at 235K.
Then none of this has anything to do with the energy balance because that is entirely controlled by surface temperature regulating processes causing formation of sea ice at-1.7C and the formation of persistent cloud at 30C.
‘This shows how myopic these numbats are. Most of the OLR leaving earth does not involve gas. It comes from a solid – specifically ice particles.’
My understanding from physicists like Will Happer is that OLR to space originates from the surface and every level of the atmosphere. Am I misinformed?
‘Then none of this has anything to do with the energy balance because that is entirely controlled by surface temperature regulating processes causing formation of sea ice at-1.7C and the formation of persistent cloud at 30C.’
You quote words to this effect in many of your comments. I think it’s clear from the geological record that Earth’s surface temperature has varied over time, primarily due to the long term effects of plate movements and orbital mechanics (Milankovitch), the latter of which you often refer to. But it’s also clear that temperature also varies on much shorter scales than these, e.g., the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, just to name a couple of the more recent instances.
So, going back to your limits of -1.7C and 30C – – do these actually govern the variability of the Earth’s surface temperature, or is it just that the extent(s) of the Earth’s surface area reaching these limits simply reflects surface temperature variability arising from other causes?
“My understanding from physicists like Will Happer is that OLR to space originates from the surface and every level of the atmosphere. Am I misinformed?”
No, you are correct.
Furthermore, because molecular collisions between ALL gas constituents of the atmosphere occur at a rate that is 10^6–10^9 faster than the times for photo relaxation of any LWIR excited greenhouse gas (including water vapor) in the troposphere, LWIR energy is collisionally “thermalized” across atmospheric gases within the first 10 km or so of altitude. Thus, all atmospheric gases—not just GHGs—emit radiation energy both upward and downward throughout the height of the atmosphere because they have a temperature above absolute zero (Planck’s Law). The net balance of this energy exchange is, of course, the total w/m^2 of OLR integrated over Earth’s TOA surface.
As Dr. Happer has explained quite eloquently, the collisional thermalization of LWIR energy across all atmospheric gases at the current CO2 concentration of ~420 ppm in large part explains why additional increases in CO2 will have negligible effect on lower atmospheric temperature at global scale.
The “greenhouse effect” is real but must be considered in the context of thermalization across the atmosphere (as a function of gas density versus altitude).
Well stated, thank you. Further more, even Dr. Happer’s results showing that 2xCO2 will have a negligible effect on temperatures cannot be considered evidence that any of our prior emissions have had any impact on same.
Agree. Theoretically, anthropogenic CO2 could have contributed to global warming over the last 200 or so years . . . but there is a distinct lack of scientific data saying such actually occurred, especially in a quantitative sense.
This is unscientific junk. Your LWIR is ELECTRO-MAGNETIC RADIATION. Energy transfer is governed by Maxwell’s equations in the coupled electric-magnetic field meaning it must be unidirectional at any point in time and space always from the high potential to the low potential. (high temperature to low temperature)
All matter communicates at the speed of light in the medium which is a function of the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of the medium. The communication across the gravity field is more readily appreciated because well can feel it in our legs when we stand up or observing Earth orbiting the sun. Gravity waves travel at the same speed as EMR.
Then you agree with what I stated that LWIR only becomes significant above the lower troposphere.
“Energy transfer is governed by Maxwell’s equations in the coupled electric-magnetic field meaning it must be unidirectional at any point in time and space always from the high potential to the low potential. (high temperature to low temperature).”
Really?
Far-field from an electric dipole oscillating over a a short physical distance and located far away from a ground plane, say as is the case for emissions from aircraft radio antenna, the radiated EM field appears to be omnidirectional, not unidirectional.
And your assertion is the first case where I’ve ever heard of EM radiation “potential” linked to a temperature gradient. A close examination of Maxwell’s equations, in integral or differential form, does not reveal any temperature term (ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations )
I am a loss to understand, let alone counter, other parts of your response, sorry.
Finally, I DO NOT agree with your last statement, which is based on seriously flawed logic.
Here you are confusing a field and energy transmission. You have not mentioned the energy transport.
This is Mishchenko’s proof of unidirectional energy transport in the E-M field:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/mmishchenko/publications/2010_OE_18_19770.pdf
The Stefan-Boltman equation is a simplified case for radiation transfer it is often misapplied – back and forth radiation energy is one of those conceptually flawed notions. The notion of a two way flow of energy in a single field is bat crazy.
Oh, well, here goes:
A radiated EM field necessarily involves the transmission of energy. Due to the wave-particle duality of electrons in motion, the radiation necessarily requires power (energy transfer per unit time) . . . in the most simple terms possible, it explains why a battery-powered transmitter (e.g., walkie-talkie) will run out of battery power if the transmitter is keyed “on” for an extended length of time.
The power for one transmitter to radiate at a given frequency and field strength is INDEPENDENT of the number of other transmitters that may be operating in the same spacetime.
In full duplex mode, a radio transceiver can receive an incoming signal at the same time it is transmitting an outgoing signal . . . that’s equivalent to a two-way flow of energy in a single field established by the superposition of both transmitters.
EM physics 101.
The radiance curve from the tropics shows no OLR going directly from the surface to space. Emission occurs high in the atmosphere from ice. This is a common condition for the entire globe wherever ice (clouds) are present..
There is very little OLR in the lower troposphere. Most heat is transported by convection on heating and water condensate when cooling.
If radiation fluxes were significant you would not have an ADIABATIC lapse rate. There would have to be allowance for the radiative losses directly to space and absorption of solar in the atmospheric column. .
Power fluxes of air currents in the atmosphere are measured in KILOWATTS/m^2 not watts. The potential energy that drive vertical convection are thousands of J/kg of air mass and can produce vertical velocities above 300kph so manifest as very high power fluxes.
The solar input from month to month that govern the annual temperature range are easily determined and this gives the long term trends. For example, we know that the SH is in a long term cooling trend starting about 2000 years ago and the NH a long term warming trend around the same time. So expect more of the NH ocean surface to reach 30C and it is quite possible that the Arctic will be ice free in late summer. The warmer and more exposed ocean surface in September leads to more snowfall on land starting in October. So expect to see new snow records for about 9,000 years. What is more diffident to determine is when it begins to accumulate again. So far only Greenland is showing increase in permanent ice cover and elevation but calving is still outpacing accumulation. My forecast is by 2200 the permafrost will be moving southward.
What is not well known is the response times of oceans. It is known that surface water entering the abyssal currents can take up to 2000 years to circuit. So water and heat entering the circulation when the SH had peak solar input could still be having an influence in the NH.
There was a levelling of the rise in NH June solar input around 1200AD. That could be reflected in the LIA.
The tropical ocean temperature exhibits cycles with periods around 11 years, 18 years and 22 years. Probably related to sun, other planets and Earth’s moon.
‘The radiance curve from the tropics shows no OLR going directly from the surface to space. Emission occurs high in the atmosphere from ice. This is a common condition for the entire globe wherever ice (clouds) are present.’
Here’s a link to current satellite imagery for 13.3 microns. Looks like a fair bit of OLR isn’t originating from ice:
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/fulldisk_band.php?sat=G16&band=16&length=12
‘If radiation fluxes were significant you would not have an ADIABATIC lapse rate.’
My understanding, again from physicists like Will Happer, is that absent so-called greenhouse gases the Earth’s atmosphere would be isothermal. Agree?
‘The solar input from month to month that govern the annual temperature range are easily determined and this gives the long term trends.’
Ok, I previously acknowledged that the effect of long-term orbital cycles can be seen to have had at least some impact on the Earth’s surface temperature. The response I was looking for was more along the line of what happens, with respect to the -1,5 C and 30 C limits when we transition from a warm period, e.g., the Medieval Warm Period to a cold period, e.g., the Little Ice Age. Do these limits change or is there just more (or less) area where the cold (or warm) limits are exhibited?
This is a narrow band and unrelated to the broad spectrum OLR energy emissions. There is no detail on the processing to arrive at the temperature indicated. It even states it is only an estimated temperature.
This is a simplistic view that downplays the real role of water. Water has two more important physical properties than just being a radiative gas. The first is its low density compared with the main atmospheric gases. This imbues the atmosphere with the ability to form a level of free convection. Without that, the earth would be a snow ball. The other property is the fact that water solidifies or condenses. This enables it to power the heat engine that drives earth’s convective engine. The solidification produces highly reflective cloud. The radiative aspects of OLR in the lower troposphere are negligible.
The full radiance spectrum for OLR measurement at the top of the atmosphere are much closer to freezing and colder than anything near surface temperature. Even the Sahara that I attached above is closer to 270K than the surface of 298K.
The radiation energy input is limited by the sustainable surface temperature limit on tropical oceans of 30C. This is where the convective engine is in balance. The sunlight getting to the surface is regulated by the persistence of cloud. Convection limits the maximum sustainable temperature. It has nothing to do with delicate radiation balance.
Evaporation is a big deal. Convection is a big deal. Clouds are a big deal. No one I consider a climate ‘realist’ has ever stated anything to the contrary. My inquiry to you is simply about this:
‘The radiation energy input is limited by the sustainable surface temperature limit on tropical oceans of 30C.’
So, allow me to try a different formulation of my question: If we could revisit the Eocene Hothouse (or even the Holocene Climate Optimum) when the Earth was warmer than it is now (for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with CO2), would we find that the AREA of the tropical oceans exhibiting the 30C limit is greater than what we see today?
Frank from NoVA,
Your reformatted bottom line question is a very good one, but why limit it to the Eocene vis-a-vis addressing RickWill’s assertion that the world’s oceans can never have a “sustainable” surface temperature above 30C?
A quick Web search uncovered the following scientific paper An early Cambrian greenhouse climate, T.W. Hearing, et.al., SCIENCE ADVANCES, 9 May 2018, Vol 4, Issue 5, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aar5690
[read/download at https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aar5690 ],
that is based on the paleoclimatology proxy of pristine phosphatic microfossils from the Comley Limestones, UK, yielding a robust δ18O signature indicative of sea-surface temperatures during the Cretaceous Period.
The following graph from that paper clearly falsifies RickWill’s assertion for the Cretaceous period of Earth’s climate history, showing ocean sea-surface temperatures in the range of 30-45C to latitudes as far as 45 degrees off the equator. But note that the gray area on same graph also shows the “modern day” SST range does not exceed 30C, just as RickWill asserts.
I will leave it to RickWill or others to explain why the now-asserted 30C max ocean SST was exceeded in Earth’s past, albeit ~ 66–145 million years ago, and what might prevent a reoccurrence of SSTs up to 45C in the future.
Ooops . . . here’s the graph that I mentioned:
Thank you. If I may paraphrase Ron DeSantis, paleo reconstructions (but not of the B/S tree-ring variety), are where CO2 alarmism goes to die.
Having said that, my intent is not to question that under current conditions 30C would appear to be an upper limit on ocean surface temperature, but rather that if the Earth were to warm or cool, the areal extent of this ‘warm pool’ would change commensurately. In other words, that the extent of 30C-limited water is itself an effect, not a cause, of the Earth’s warming or cooling.
It is because the atmosphere was denser. Surface pressure is a function of gravity acting on atmospheric gases. Rick is saying given the current atmospheric mass, 30 C is the maximum sustainable ocean temperature.
Ummmm . . . got any fact(s) to support that?
To know the density of the air at Earth’s surface during the Cretaceous period, one would have to know the atmospheric composition (mainly N2:O2 ratio), the surface temperature and the surface pressure, as per the ideal gas law: density = P/(R*T).
Proxies exist to estimate Cretaceous atmospheric gas composition and surface temperature, but AFAIK there are no proxies to estimate surface pressure during the Cretaceous period.
“Further, the claims of ocean acidification are absurd. Warm water absorbs less carbon dioxide (CO2) than cold water.”
Warm water does not ‘absorb less CO2’; at T~ ≥25.6°C, CO2 outgasses, it prevents absorption.
The warm area of the ocean ≥25.6°C has grown in size and increased in temperature since 1854, meaning more of the ocean surface is outgassing now and not absorbing, which is a main reason atmospheric CO2 has increased aside from more manmade CO2 emissions.
If the ocean hadn’t warmed up, more CO2 sinking would’ve lead to less atm CO2 by now as the ocean would’ve absorbed more atm CO2 while more of the ocean surface was below 25.6°C.
Not quite correct.
The CO2 that has been absorbed into the world’s oceans (as a result of partial pressure differential) does not remain there as a total gas in solution, ready to be desorbed/outgas solely as a function of CO2 solubility verses temperature. This is a common misperception.
In the saltwater oceans, a really insignificant amount of CO2 remains as a gas in aqueous solution (see Figure 1, the Bjerrum plot, at https://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/faculty/zeebe_files/Publications/ZeebeWolfEnclp07.pdf , which incidentally provides a great overall description of overall ocean chemistry with respect to CO2 and its dissolution into ionic compounds in ocean water). Furthermore, because there is a relative absence of H+ ions in a basic solution, the CO2 dissolution reactions are not reversible with either temperature or pressure changes.
As long as the average ocean pH level remains on the basic side (i.e., in the range of 8.1-8.2, as it currently is and is strongly buffered to remain so), one cannot expect decreasing global surface temperatures to result in any significant increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 in the oceans (excluding thin interface layer, say the uppermost meter of the oceans).
The inverse of this is also true: an increasing average temperature of the world’s ocean does not directly lead to “outgassing” of CO2 from the world’s oceans. It does, however, lead to a slight increase in the rate of uptake of CO2 by the oceans (in accordance with Arrhenius temperature dependence of chemical reactions).
Bottom line: the specific ocean chemistry that results from ocean water being in the basic range of pH means that, long term, the ocean does not act in accordance with Henry’s Law at equilibrium and, therefore, since the partial pressure of CO2 in solution never comes close to that of CO2’s partial pressure in the atmosphere, the ocean never reaches the condition for Charles’s Law (increasing temperature causing decreasing solubility) to apply.
That’s a helluva story, heard it before. The problem is the absurd application of average pH conditions everywhere simultaneously at all times, which never happens, right?
What do you suppose happens at the tropical ocean surface when the temperature is high enough for evaporation and outgassing? It rains. By raining onto the surface, the influx of new fresh water dilutes the surface waters, changing the pH towards neutral, allowing for more CO2 outgassing.
Both the evaporation and outgassing phenomenon are temperature regulated. The MEI increases with increasing Niño3.4 temperature above 25.6°C, while OLR decreases, indicating more evaporation, clouds, and rain.
That is why the CO2 closely follows the ≥25.6°C up and down temperature spikes:
In addition, there is a coral bleaching component under high TSI & El Niño conditions:
All images are mine from various posters.
The bottom line is you’re pitching a textbook example that is readily overruled by the available evidence. Can we move forward now?
I believe you are confusing the solubility of a gas, e.g. CO2 and others, in pure water (your top graph), which is a physical process, with the dissociation of the CO2 molecule into ions that immediately react with water molecules and H+ and OH- ions to form carbonate and bicarbonate ions, which is a chemical process.
As summarized at the end of the second paragraph of the http://www.soest.hawaii.edu article that I linked in my previous response:
“The majority of dissolved inorganic carbon in the modern ocean is in the form of HCO3− (>85%), as described below.”
However, since you’ve “heard it before”, you can indeed move forward now with your own “available evidence”. Good luck to you.
Biden’s Solar Push Is Destroying The Desert And Releasing Stored Carbon
When bureaucrats put their personal agenda ahead of what science can deliver, bad things happen…
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bidens-solar-push-destroying-desert-and-releasing-stored-carbon
story tip
Is the belief that N2 and O2 don’t interact with the IR spectrum correct? Maybe it makes sense in equilibrium, but the molecules are constantly “colliding.”
My interpretation of Rick Will’s graph above is that in the tropics, water vapor is a “coolant”. This is consistent with a graph of the water vapor and CO2 impacts in the tropics presented by Maria Hakuba from JPL.
Re: the sabotage of the panel discussion on “Why Climate Change is NOT an Emergency” by Professors Patrick Moore, Bruce Everett, and William Happer at Princeton University:
Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals:
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”
So sad for the fact that Princeton University was once viewed as a noble institution of learning.
Just wondering if Princeton issued a formal apology to the above-listed panelists for what was obviously an “inside job”.
Very sad about this. However, outside of SEPP’s brief note, above, I haven’t found anything else about this incident online, so am somewhat hopeful that it wasn’t an inside job.
This is a great article, especially because of the references. Yes, there’s plenty of discussions about that theory of molecular collision, energy, direction, equilibrium of carbon with living organisms,!air, soils and oceans. Everything counts when making a thorough assessment for research; all angles affecting the variable under investigation count. However, it is important to distinguish what’s priority, as in which effects are direct and which are more indirect. In this article, the mentioning of the quantum effects of infrared light absorption and subsequent CO2 molecular excitation into vibrational states is an issue of priority deciding if CO2 is capable and if it has any role related to warming/heat retention/irradiation/confection/advection. In college organic chemistry, every textbook has a chapter on infrared spectroscopy, an instrumental technique used to help identifying molecular structure. In this chapter it is clear that molecules that absorb IR light uses the energy to increase vibrational modes of wagging, bending, stretching etc. at wavelengths of 4.26 μm (2,347 cm−1) (asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 μm (667 cm−1) (bending vibrational mode). You can see in this link how molecules change the vibrational modes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibration
Now, if the IR light (photons of the IR wavelength/frequency range) are absorbed by CO2 (quantum jumps), then the molecular electrons, those in the hybridized p-orbitals, will get excited and make the molecule vibrate faster. The process of winding down or relaxation, is when the excited electrons quantum jump back to their normal or ground star, understanding that a quantum jump means that they move up and down in energy levels/dimensions without a way to trace the changing trajectory; like magic: now is here, and after the photon absorption, is there, no way to tell how it move between orbitals, as this space in atoms is forbidden for electrons to exist. It is not common scientific sense to think that the faster vibrations are capable of warming up the rest of the 99.96% of the atmosphere, because, even after “human are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere like a balloon getting inflated with air, risking to blow, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to be 0.04%; yes, CO2, the food of plants to photosynthesize to make glucose (food, autotroph) and molecular oxygen O2 for you and I to breathe; CO2 isn’t a pollutant. There’s claims that the amount of watts or Kilo-joules per molecule of CO2 of capacity to absorb IR light is unclear and exaggerated by computer models. It seems very clear that the IR light that objects release/emit when hotter is being confused with the IR light that molecules absorb to vibrate; the absorption effect isn’t the same as the emission effect. I saw in this article a comment about photons absorption and emission: make clear that molecules can equally absorb and emit photons of light in different wavelength/frequencies. Photons can be retained by molecules or emitted out depending on physical conditions. However, a photon that is absorbed does not necessarily has the same energy as the one emitted, because some of the energy can be lost to the environment. And a molecule can never emit a photon with a higher energy than the absorbed. For example, CO2 molecules can absorb infrared light, and it can release it in infrared or below like microwaves. It seems that the confusion of heat related to IR and the effect of vibrations is fundamental key clarifying the false claim of global warming by CO2.
JBVigo, PhD
I left this comment before, found a few errors, they are fixed here:
This is a great article, especially because of the references. Yes, there’s plenty of discussions about the theory of molecular collision, energy, direction, equilibrium of carbon with living organisms, air, soils and oceans. Everything counts when making a thorough assessment for research; all angles affecting the variable under investigation count. However, it is important to distinguish what’s priority, as in which effects are direct and which are more indirect. In this article, the mentioning of the quantum effects of infrared light absorption and subsequent CO2 molecular excitation into vibrational states is an issue of priority deciding if CO2 is capable and if it has any role related to warming/heat retention/irradiation/confection/advection. In college organic chemistry, every textbook has a chapter on infrared spectroscopy, an instrumental technique used to help identifying molecular structure. In this chapter it is clear that molecules that absorb IR light use the energy to increase vibrational modes of wagging, bending, stretching etc., for CO2 at wavelengths of 4.26 μm (2,347 cm−1) (asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 μm (667 cm−1) (bending vibrational mode). You can see in this link how molecules change the vibrational modes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibration
Now, if the IR light (photons of the IR wavelength/frequency range) are absorbed by CO2 (quantum jumps), then the molecular electrons, those in the hybridized p-orbitals, will get excited and make the molecule vibrate faster. The process of winding down or relaxation, is when the excited electrons quantum jump back to their normal or ground state, understanding that a quantum jump means that they move up and down in energy levels/dimensions without a way to trace the changing trajectory; like magic: now is here, and after the photon absorption, is there, no way to tell how it move between orbitals, as this space in atoms is forbidden for electrons to exist. It is not common scientific sense to think that the faster vibrations are capable of warming up the rest of the 99.96% of the atmosphere, because, even after “human are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere like a balloon getting inflated with air, risking to blow up”, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to be 0.04%; yes, CO2, the food of plants to photosynthesize to make glucose (food, autotroph) and molecular oxygen O2 for you and I to breathe; CO2 isn’t a pollutant. There’s claims that the amount of watts or Kilo-joules per molecule of CO2 of capacity to absorb IR light is unclear and exaggerated by computer models. It seems very clear that the IR light that objects release/emit when hotter is being confused with the IR light that molecules absorb to vibrate; the absorption effect isn’t the same as the emission effect. I saw in this article a comment about photons absorption and emission: make clear that molecules can equally absorb and emit photons of light in different wavelength/frequencies. Photons can be retained by molecules or emitted out depending on physical conditions. However, a photon that is absorbed does not necessarily has the same energy as the one emitted, because some of the energy can be lost to the environment. And a molecule can never emit a photon with a higher energy than the absorbed. For example, CO2 molecules can absorb infrared light, and it can release it in infrared or below like microwaves. It can’t release in visible or ultraviolet light. It seems that the confusion of heat related to IR and the effect of vibrations is fundamental key clarifying the false claim of global warming by CO2: CO2 uses IR energy to vibrate, not to warm up the environment.
Full article here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/29/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-554/
JBVigo, PhD
Typhoon will bring heavy downpours to southern Japan.
The typhoon is slowly moving north, bringing heavy downpours across Japan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEFAVoaLfug
Why Climate Change is NOT an Emergency – Princeton Reunions Panel Discussion
Seems clean, no sabotage….