The Week That Was: 2023-08-26 (August 26, 2023)
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Policy Project
Quote of the Week: “In plain words, Chaos was the law of nature; Order was the dream of man.”– Henry Adams
Number of the Week: 1 million tons v. 37 billion tonnes.
THIS WEEK:
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Scope: This TWTW will focus on three topics. The first topic is why Steven Koonin who was appointed by President Obama as Chief Scientist at the Department of Energy became a climate science skeptic. In an understandable, low-key interview Koonin explains what separates him from so many who assert that science is the basis for claiming carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are causing dangerous global warming.
The second and third topics explain problems in the General Climate Models, or General Circulation Models, for long-term projections, or forecasts. In making projections, the internal errors increase to the extent that errors dominate the projections and what is being projected, such as “global temperature,” is lost in the error. Roy Spencer explains how this occurs with the conservation of energy and mass, concepts that must be maintained in any long-term climate forecasts. However they are not maintained.
Further, Patrick Frank explains how, in making forecasts to, say 2100, the errors are so huge that the forecasts are totally engulfed with errors and become meaningless. Nevertheless, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its followers ignore these errors, and thus make their claims scientifically meaningless.
*********************
Making of a Sceptic: Former chief scientist at the Department of Energy and former Provost at Cal Tech, Steven Koonin was interviewed by Peter Robinson, the Murdoch Distinguished Policy Fellow at the Hoover Institution. The YouTube interview provided Koonin’s illuminating journey to climate science skepticism. Much of it covered his book Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters, which was covered in TWTW. However, the interview is an excellent low-key explanation of what is wrong with current climate science. Thankfully, Ron Clutz provided an excellent transcript, parts of which are cited below, in which, PR stands for Peter Robinson and SK for Steve Koonin. The transcript is unedited, thus not polished.
PR: In Unsettled you write of a 2014 workshop for the American Physical Society, which means it’s you and a bunch of other people who I cannot even begin to follow. Serious professional scientists such as you and several colleagues were asked to subject current climate science to a stress test: to push it, to prod, to test it to see how good it was. From Unsettled I’m quoting you now Steve:
“I’m a scientist; I work to understand the world through measurements and observations. I came away from the workshop not only surprised but shaken by the realization that climate science was far less mature than I had supposed.”
Let’s start with the end of that. What had you supposed?
SK: Well, I had supposed that humans were warming the globe; carbon dioxide was accumulating in the atmosphere causing all kinds of trouble, melting ice caps, warming oceans and so on. And the data didn’t support a lot of that. And the projections of what would happen in the future relied on models that were, let’s say, shaky at best.
PR: All right. Former Senator John Kerry is now President Biden’s special Envoy for climate. Let me quote from John Kerry in a 2021 address to the UN Security Council:
“Net zero emissions by 2050 or earlier is the only way that science tells us we can limit this planet’s warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Why is that so crucial? Because overwhelming evidence tells us that anything more will have catastrophic implications. We are Marching forward in what is tantamount to a mutual suicide pact.”
Overwhelming evidence science tells us. What’s wrong with that?
SK: Well, you should look at the actual science which I suspect that Ambassador Kerry has not done. The UN puts out assessment reports every five or six years. Those are by the IPCC the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change and are meant to survey, assess, and summarize the state of our knowledge about the climate. The most recent one came out about a year ago in 2022, the previous one in 2014 or so.
Those reports are massive to read; the latest one is three thousand pages, and it took 300 scientists a couple years to write. And you really need to be a scientist to understand them. I have a background in theoretical physics, I can understand this stuff. But still it took me a couple years to really understand what goes on. Now Ambassador Kerry and other politicians certainly have not done that.
Likely he’s getting his information from the summary for policy makers, or more likely for an even further boiled down version. And as you boil down the good assessment into the summary, into more condensed versions, there’s plenty of room for mischief. That Mischief is evident when you compare what comes out the end of that game of telephone with what the actual science really is.
PR: All right: what we know and what we don’t. Let’s start with what we know. I’m quoting you again Steve from Unsettled “Not everything you’ve heard about climate science is wrong.” In particular you grant in this book two of the central premises or conclusions of climate science that the Press is always telling us about. here’s one and again I’m going to quote you:
“Surely we can all agree that the globe has gotten warmer over the last several decades.”
SK: No debunking. In fact, it’s gotten warmer over the last four centuries. Now that’s a different assertion, but it’s equally supported by the assessment reports. We’ll have to come back to that because the time scale is important. It’s one thing to say this about in my own lifetime the climate of the surface of this planet, and it’s an entirely different thing to say beginning 150 years before this nation was founded temperatures began to rise.
PR: Yes, it’s a different statement but it’s equally true and has some bearing on the warming that we’ve seen over the last century. Here’s the premise that you do grant. Again I’m going to quote Unsettled.
“There is no question that our emission of greenhouse gases, in particular CO2, is exerting a warming influence on the planet. We’re pumping CO2 into the atmosphere; CO2 is a greenhouse gas it must be having some effect of course.”
Absolutely, that’s as far as you’re willing to go. But then you say so actually those are pretty two benign premises that you grant: the Earth has been warming and it’s been warming for a long time. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it must be having some effect. It’s coming from human activities and it’s coming from Humanity, mostly fossil fuels. Now on to what we don’t know okay again from Unsettled:
“Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are small in relation to the climate system as a whole. That sets a very high bar for projecting the consequences of human influences.”
That is so counter to the general understanding that informs the headlines, particularly this hot summer we’ve had. So, explain that.
SK: Human influences as described in the IPCC are a one percent effect on the radiation flow–the flow of heat radiation and sunlight in the atmosphere. That means your understanding had better be at the one percent level or better if you’re going to predict how the climate system is going to respond. And the one percent makes sense because the changes in temperature we’re talking about are three degrees Kelvin, whereas the average temperature of the earth is about 300 degrees Kelvin.
PR: So human influences are a one percent effect on a complicated chaotic multi-scale system for which we have poor observations. You seem be quite relaxed about the original science
SK: The underlying science is expressed in the data and expressed in the research literature: the journals, the research papers that people produce, the conference proceedings, and so on. The IPCC takes those and assesses and summarizes them, and in general it does a pretty good job at that level. And there’s not going to be much politics in that, although they might quibble among themselves about adjectives and adverbs; “this is extremely certain”, or this is “unlikely” or “highly unlikely” and so on. But by and large it’s pretty good; this is done by fellow Professionals in a professional manner.
Now things begin to go wrong. The next step is because nobody who isn’t deeply in the field is going to read all that stuff. Therefore, there is a formal process to create a “summary for policy makers,” which is initially drafted by the governments — not by the scientists! Well, of course it’s not all of them, there’s some subcommittee to do the ‘summary for policy makers’; and that gets drafted and passed by the scientists for comment. In the end, it’s the governments who have approved the ‘summary for policy makers’ line-by-line; and that’s where the disconnect happens.
For the disconnect, I’ll give you an example: Look at the most recent report, where the ‘summary for policy makers’ is talking about deaths from extreme heat — incremental deaths — and it says that extreme heat or heat waves have contributed to ‘mortality,’ and that’s a true statement. But they forgot to tell you that the warming of the planet decreases the incidence of extreme cold events. And since nine times as many people around the globe die from extreme cold than from extreme heat, the warming from the planet has actually cut the number of deaths from extreme temperatures by a lot. That’s not in there at all!
So, the statement was completely factual, but factually incomplete in a way meant to alarm, not to inform.
And then John Kerry stands up and gives a speech. Maybe he read the SPM I don’t know, or his staff read it and probably some of their talking points. And so, you get Kerry saying that you get the Secretary General of the UN Gutierrez saying, we’re on a highway to climate hell with our foot on the accelerator. But they’re Preposterous of course, even by the IPCC reports they’re Preposterous. The climate scientists are negligent for not speaking up and saying that’s not okay.
PR: Another one of the things going wrong, you write about in a way that I have never seen anyone write about: computer models. I have never seen anybody make computer models interesting. So, congratulations Steve! You did something special as far as I know in the entire Corpus of English language.
Here I’m going to quote from a piece you published in the Wall Street Journal not long ago:
“Projections of future climate and weather events rely on models demonstrably unfit for the purpose.”
SK: Well, to make a projection of future climate you need to build this big, complicated computer model which is really one of the grand computational challenges of all time.
This is not something I wrote [about in] a textbook in the 1980s when the first PCs came out about how to do modeling on computers with physics. I do know what I’m talking about okay. And then you have to feed into the model what you think future emissions are going to be and the IPCC has five or six different scenarios, High emissions, low emissions. If you take a particular scenario and feed it into the roughly 50 different models that exist that are developed by groups around the world
So, Caltech has a model, Harvard has a model, yeah Oxford. But the Chinese have several models, the Russians and so on. When you feed the same scenario into those different models you get a range of answers. The range is as big as the change you’re trying to describe itself. And we can go into the reasons why there is that uncertainty, and in the latest generation of models about 40 percent of them were deemed to be too sensitive to be of much use.
Too sensitive meaning that when you add the carbon dioxide in, and the temperature goes up too fast compared to what we’ve seen already. So that’s really disheartening the world’s best models are trying as hard as they can, and they get it very wrong at least 40 percent of the time.
This is not only my assessment. You can look at papers published by Tim Palmer and Bjorn Stevens who are serious modelers in the consensus. And their own phrases are that these models are not fit for purpose. at least at the regional or more detailed Global level.
PR: Quoting Unsettled again, and this is one of the most astonishing passages in the book. Writing about the effects of the increases in computing power over the years:
“Having better tools and information to work with should make the models more accurate and more in line with each other. This has not happened. The spread in results among different computer models is increasing.”
This one you’re going to have to explain to me. As our modeling power, as our processing power increases, we should be closing in on reliable conclusions and yet they seem to be receding faster than we can approach them. if I got that correct that’s right how can that be
SK: Because as the models become more sophisticated that means either you made the boxes a little bit smaller in the model the grid boxes so there are more of them, or you made more sophisticated your description.
The whole globe is sort of divided into 10 million slabs really. The average size of a grid box in the current generation is 100 kilometers 60 miles okay and within that 60 miles there’s a lot that goes on that we can’t describe explicitly in the computer because clouds are maybe five kilometers big, and rain happens here and not there within the grid box we can’t describe all that.
One day we’ll be able to, but not really very soon and let me explain why. The current grid boxes are 100 kilometers so you might say well why not make them 10. well suddenly the number of boxes has gone up by a hundred okay so you need a hundred times more powerful computer but it’s worse than that because the time steps have to be smaller also because things shouldn’t move more than a grid box in one time step and so the processing power actually goes up as the cube of the grid size and so if you want to go from 100 kilometers to 10 kilometers that’s a factor of 10. the processing power required goes up by a factor of a thousand and it’s going to be a long time before we get a computer that’s a thousand times more powerful than what we have.”
The interview continues with Koonin using parts of the core of the Science section (Working Group I) of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report to refute many recent claims concerning climate change. The interview concludes with:
“PR: According to a Harris poll in January 2022 a little over a year and a half ago now 84% of teenagers in the United States agree with both of the two following statements. they agree with:
♦ Climate change will impact everyone in my generation through Global political instability.
♦ If we don’t address climate change today it will be too late for future Generations making some parts of the planet unlivable.
John Kerry, Al Gore, Greta Thunberg and on and on, and countless voices warning that climate change represents a genuine danger to life on the planet. And now millions of Young Americans are really scared. Surely this has some role to play in what we see the suicidal ideation and the increasing unhappiness.
SK: I’m sure there are all kinds of social factors but surely this is part of what’s going on. There are two immoralities here. One is the immoral treatment of the developing World which we talked about. The other immorality is scaring the bejesus out of the younger generation. And it’s doubly dangerous because it’s mostly in the west and not in China or India. I’ve tried. I go out and talk in universities and of course the audiences I talk to tend to be quantitative and factually driven. So, the minds get opened up if the eyes get opened up.
I think in the US the problem will eventually solve itself because the route we are headed down is starting to impact people’s daily lives. Electricity is getting more expensive, [and] you won’t be able to buy an internal combustion car in 10 or 15 years. If you’re here in California, people are going to say wait a second, as they already are in Europe, in UK, Germany, France. And I think there will be a falling down to Earth of all of this at some point and we will get more sensible.
PR: Let’s say your audience now is not a colleague of yours but is an 18- to 24-year-old American pretty bright, maybe in college maybe not, but bright. Reads newspapers or at least reads them online. Speaking to that person an American kid or young adult: Do they need to be scared?
SK: No absolutely not. I would quote that 1900 to now [plant life] flourishing as an example. And I would say, you probably believe that hurricanes are getting worse, and then point them to the IPCC line. And say you know you were misinformed about that by the media, don’t you think that there are other things about which you’ve been misinformed. You can read the book and find out many of them, and then go ask your climate friends how come it says one thing in the IPCC report but you’re telling me something else.”
In his transcript, Ron Clutz provides many useful graphs and cartoons. The interview is an exceptional resource for intelligent young people without technical backgrounds. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy, Defending the Orthodoxy, and several TWTWs from April to June 2021.
*********************
Error Over Time: One of the major problems in long-term models is that errors propagate, that is they spread. Multiple errors do not diminish or cancel each other out, as many climate advocates seem to believe. In his post “Climate models do not conserve mass or energy,” Roy Spencer states it well:
One of the most fundamental requirements of any physics-based model of climate change is that it must conserve mass and energy. This is partly why I (along with Danny Braswell and John Christy) have been using simple 1-dimensional climate models that have simplified calculations and where conservation is not a problem.
Changes in the global energy budget associated with increasing atmospheric CO2 are small, roughly 1% of the average radiative energy fluxes in and out of the climate system. So, you would think that climate models are sufficiently carefully constructed so that, without any global radiative energy imbalance imposed on them (no “external forcing”), that they would not produce any temperature change.
It turns out, this isn’t true.
Back in 2014 our 1D model paper showed evidence that CMIP3 models don’t conserve energy, as evidenced by the wide range of deep-ocean warming (and even cooling) that occurred in those models despite the imposed positive energy imbalance the models were forced with to mimic the effects of increasing atmospheric CO2.
Now, I just stumbled upon a paper from 2021 (Irving et al., “A Mass and Energy Conservation Analysis of Drift in the CMIP6 Ensemble)” which describes significant problems in the latest (CMIP5 and CMIP6) models regarding not only energy conservation in the ocean but also at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA, thus affecting global warming rates) and even the water vapor budget of the atmosphere (which represents the largest component of the global greenhouse effect).
These represent potentially serious problems when it comes to our reliance on climate models to guide energy policy. It boggles my mind that conservation of mass and energy were not requirements of all models before their results were released decades ago. [Boldface in original]
One possible source of problems are the model “numerics” … the mathematical formulas (often “finite-difference” formulas) used to compute changes in all quantities between grid points in the horizontal, levels in the vertical, and from one time step to the next. Miniscule errors in these calculations can accumulate over time, especially if physically impossible negative mass values are set to zero, causing “leakage” of mass. We don’t worry about such things in weather forecast models that are run for only days or weeks. But climate models are run for decades or hundreds of years of model time, and tiny errors (if they don’t average out to zero) can accumulate over time.
The paper Spencer refers to is titled “A Mass and Energy Conservation Analysis of Drift in the CMIP6 Ensemble.” The abstract begins with:
“Coupled climate models are prone to ‘drift’ (long-term unforced trends in state variables) due to incomplete spin up and nonclosure of the global mass and energy budgets. Here we assess model drift and the associated conservation of energy, mass, and salt in CMIP6 and CMIP5 models. For most models, drift in globally integrated ocean mass and heat content represents a small but nonnegligible fraction of recent historical trends, while drift in atmospheric water vapor is negligible. Model drift tends to be much larger in time-integrated ocean heat and freshwater flux, net top-of-the-atmosphere radiation (netTOA) and moisture flux into the atmosphere (evaporation minus precipitation), indicating a substantial leakage of mass and energy in the simulated climate system. Most models are able to achieve approximate energy budget closure after drift is removed, but ocean mass budget closure eludes a number of models even after dedrifting and none achieve closure of the atmospheric moisture budget.”
Western governments are making energy policy decisions based on long-term results from global climate models that have increasing internal error over time. Spencer has a more complete explanation of the problem. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.
*********************
Propagation of Error: The July 1 TWTW discussed a simplified version of a recent article by Patrick Frank in Sensors explaining problems involved in using General Climate Models in making long-term forecasts of temperature and other climate features. As noted by Kenneth Richards of the blog, No Tricks Zone, some climate advocates objected, and Frank demolished them. Now we have a clear low-key interview of Frank by Tom Nelson and the slides that Frank used are available. Some of the key points raised by Frank are: [any errors are from TWTW]
“Uncertainty of the thermal content of the atmosphere is many time greater than the ‘forcing.’ You cannot make predictions. You cannot tell what the forcing is doing to climate. In AR6, the uncertainty of thermal content is 83 times the [predicted] greenhouse forcing.
What is the error of forcing in the thermal uncertainty. The models propagate the model error, resulting in an enormous uncertainty. In CMIP6, by 2100 the uncertainty bar is 16 C. So large, we have no idea what the temp will be. Models have no physical meaning at all. All projections are lost in the uncertainty of the models. Emulates the modeled climate. [This is shown in Slide # 4 of the slides, “The Projections are Physically Meaningless, The Information Content is Zero.”]
Climate sensitivity emerges from how the models are constructed. All are tuned to reproduce the 20th century trends. Once they go beyond that, they spray out. [This is one procedure that upset Koonin in the 2014 conference cited above. The modelers do not adhere to the changes they made to reproduce 20th century trends.]
These are anomalies, changes in temperature, not actual temperature. No one knows what the errors are.
Problem of modeling the climate, either leap to the theory and then model it. But the Theory is lacking. There is no theory of clouds. The whole hydrology cycle, including phase change, has not been described in physics.
Most of energy is held in oceans, so oceans control climate. Oceans are modeled as the thermohaline currents. We cannot measure the current, it cannot be measured. Ocean current problems are not being studied; thus, climate energy state cannot be solved. No research effort to understand the climate, just add computers to get the wrong answers faster. Models cannot re-produce the climate; great computers produce convincing nonsense.
Climate is a bunch of oscillating patterns beating against each other swapping energy. Big changes in climate without forcings. We cannot see what clouds do with precision.
Younger Drays cannot be explained. DO [Dansgaard-Oeschger] Events are not explained. Up 10 C in a century, then slowly down. Why? They dwarf what is going on now. We live in a stable climate.
Everything going on now can be natural.”
Frank then goes into the problems of the surface-air temperatures used by the IPCC which was discussed previously. His concluding slide states:
“What We Know About Future and Measured Global Average Surface Air Temperature
• About future global surface air temperature: Nothing.
• About Climate models:
• cannot simulate present air temperature.
• cannot predict future air temperature.
• cannot resolve the effect of GHG emissions.
• cannot detect, attribute or project the impact, if any, of human fossil fuel emissions.
• About measured global surface air temperature: A little.
• The climate has probably warmed since 1900.
• The rate of warming is unknown.
• The magnitude of warming is unknown.
• No evidence of any unprecedented change.
• Not discussed: prior to 1900, the entire surface air temperature record is unreliable.
CO2 climatology lives on false precision.
CO2 climatologists are not trained to evaluate the reliability of their own models and data.
The UN IPCC claim of human-caused climate change has no basis in science.
Colloquially: The UN IPCC and the CO2 climatologists don’t know what they’re talking about.
There is no climate crisis in evidence.”
Interestingly, at the end Frank cites a 2003 paper by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas. “Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years” for prompting him to study the problem, rather than accept the IPCC claims. Unfortunately, Baliunas was overcome by the bitter criticism by IPCC supporters and withdrew from the controversy. Willie Soon still soldiers on. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.
*********************
Number of the Week: 1 million tons v. 37 billion tonnes. An article on carbon dioxide removal in the Wall Street Journal highlighted how Washington is using the Infrastructure Act in fighting inflation. Key parts stated:
If funded and completed, the two carbon-removal hubs would remove roughly 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere annually and store it underground.
“The Energy Department is also trying to spur a feasible business model for the industry by pledging to pay $35 million for carbon that the companies remove from the air. These are the same type of carbon-credit purchases that Microsoft and JPMorgan Chase have made recently to kick-start the industry. That funding also isn’t limited to direct-air capture, potentially boosting other promising approaches.”
Direct-air capture will have a crucial role in helping the world reach its climate goals, [Occidental Chief Executive Vicki] Hollub said in a written statement, adding that her company’s selection shows that it has the technology and project expertise to neutralize carbon emissions.
The carbon-removal hubs were funded in the 2021 infrastructure law. The companies have to contribute funds equivalent to the government grants and would be responsible for any cost overruns. The Energy Department will soon award billions of dollars for hydrogen hubs using more infrastructure-law funding, another step to jump-start a critical climate sector.
Carbon removal has become increasingly popular for businesses because it provides certainty that companies are helping the climate, though many consumers remain hesitant.
“’There’s no illusion that the taxpayers rose as one and asked for a direct-air capture program,’ said the Energy Department’s [David] Crane,” [undersecretary for infrastructure].
In 2021, China alone produced about 11.5 billion [metric] tonnes while the world produced 37.1 billion tonnes. Assuming the program is successful, if it costs Washington $35 million to spur companies to remove one million US tons, and one metric tonne is 1.1 US tons, how much will it cost to remove 40,700 times that? Should the US public pay for it? See link under Carbon Schemes, Article # 3, and https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
Commentary: Is the Sun Rising?
New Scientist: How worried should we be about climate change?
By David Whitehouse, Net Zero Watch, Aug 23, 2023
“Unsurprisingly, important data and factors are omitted from the article. Nowhere does it mention observations that show that more heat from the Sun is being retained. There has been an increase of 0.3 W/m2 since 2019 as the Sun surges to its current solar maximum.”
Climategate Continued
How Science is Done These Days
By Tony Thomas, Quadrant Online, Aug 22, 2023
Censorship
Stuff you’re not allowed to know #1: Hurricanes
By John Robeson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Aug 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
Hot or Not: Steven Koonin Questions Conventional Climate Science and Methodology| Uncommon Knowledge
Interview of Steve Koonin, Hoover Institution, Aug 15, 2023
Koonin’s Climate Honesty
By Ron Clutz, Science Matters, Aug 24, 2023
[SEPP Comment: Text of above interview.]
Dr. Patrick Frank’s Refutation Of A SkS Critique Attempt: Loblaw’s 24 ‘Mistakes’ Exposed
By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Aug 24, 2023
Link to Video: Patrick Frank: Nobody understands climate
By Tom Nelson, Podcast # 139, Accessed Aug 25, 2023
Key assumption: All error cancels out and becomes zero. Nonsense!
SITYS: Climate models do not conserve mass or energy
By Roy Spencer, His Blog, Aug 21, 2023
Link to paper: A Mass and Energy Conservation Analysis of Drift in the CMIP6 Ensemble
By Damien Irving, et al. Journal of Climate, Apr 1, 2021
Defending the Orthodoxy
Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis
By Staff, UN IPCC, 2021
Defending the Orthodoxy – Bandwagon Science
Pre–Younger Dryas megafaunal extirpation at Rancho La Brea linked to fire-driven state shift
By F. Robin O’Keefe, et al. AAAS Science, Aug 18, 2023 [H/t WUWT]
From Editor’s summary: “The authors argue that this increase in fire may have resulted from climate change–induced warming and drying in conjunction with increasing impacts of humans in the system. —Sacha Vignieri”
[SEPP Comment: So, human activity ended the Ice Age?]
Questioning the Orthodoxy
As the Earth boils
By John Robeson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Aug 23, 2023
“But it’s not a conspiracy or a scam. These manipulations are happening, and being shared credulously, because activist scientists and activist journalists are sure what they purport to show is real, not because they’re sure it’s not. And it’s a lot more subtle than switching back from metric to the supposedly absurd Fahrenheit in order to get from two to three digits, which is also going on.”
[SEPP Comment: Speculating when imaginary “tipping points” will occur is like speculating how far from land can a ship sail before falling off the edge of the earth.]
1.5 Degrees Of Climate Fabrication
By I & I Editorial Board, Aug 24, 2023
“The rock-solid, undeniable fact is that it’s impossible to make long-term climate predictions, because our climate is ever changing and volatile. It says so in the Third Assessment Report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
“’The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.’”
German Scientists: Global Warming A “Corrupt”, Fear-Mongering Scheme “Headed By Super-Rich”
By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Aug 23, 2023
“German Profs. Dr. Klaus-Dieter Döhler, a natural scientist and environmentalist, and Josef Kowatsch, a nature conservationist, have published an essay at EIKE alleging ‘scientific corruption and waste of taxes’ Germany in the corrupt business model that is ‘climate science.’”
Manufactured Climate Consensus Deemed False By Climate Scientist – ‘The Time For Debate Has Ended’
Story by Olawale Ogunjimi, His post, Aug 24, 2023
Problems in the Orthodoxy
From Poverty to Moon Landing: How Coal Propelled Indian Economy
By Vijay Jayaraj, CO2 Coalition, Aug 23, 2023
“During the fiscal year ending March 2022, coal-generated electricity accounted for 72% of all electricity consumed by the country’s 1.3 billion people. In 2022-2023, this rose to 73%.”
[SEPP Comment: Percent of population with access to electricity from about 50% in 1995 to 99% today, largely thanks to coal.]
Iran, Saudi Arabia, UEA and other invited to join BRICS group
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 25, 2023
Science, Policy, and Evidence
Devastating wildfires caught Hawaii underprepared for ‘preventable disaster’
By Sharon Udasin, The Hill, Aug 19, 2023
“’Over the last few years, the wildfire risk there has increased more quickly than then our ability to raise awareness throughout the population,’ wildland fire consultant Pat Durland, who is also a board member Hawaiʻi Wildfire Management Organization, told The Hill.”
Model Issues
The Blunt Truth about Global Warming Models
By Vic Hughes, American Thinker, Aug 23, 2023
Reproduced by Ron Clutz: https://rclutz.com/2023/08/24/why-climate-models-cant-be-right/
“I quickly realized that the goal of the project, to forecast accurately the temperature long-term, was impossible because small errors in data inputs could result in huge forecasts errors. Equally important was that errors compounded so quickly that it caused the error ranges to explode.”
Measurement Issues — Surface
4 More Temperature Reconstructions Fail To Support The ‘Unprecedented’ Global Warming Narrative
By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Aug 21, 2023
Link to one paper: Temperature variability over Dokriani glacier region, Western Himalaya, India
By Tanupriya Rastogi, et al., Affiliated with Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, Quaternary International, June 2023
“The 21-year running mean of the temperature record showed 1978–1998 CE as the coldest period followed by 1925–1945 CE, and 1890–1910 CE as the warmest period followed by 1946–1966 CE over the entire time series.”
Changing Weather
Heat Of 1936 vs. 2023
By Tony Heller, His Blog, Aug 23, 2023
Changing Climate
On the origin of extreme climatic events
By John Robeson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Aug 23, 2023
From the CO2Science archive:
Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice
Arctic “Amplification” Not What You Think
By Ron Clutz, Science Matters, Aug 19, 2023
Climate Emergency At The Poles
By Tony Heller, His Blog, Aug 23, 2023
Million Year Decades
By Tony Heller, His Blog, Aug 24, 2023
Text: https://realclimatescience.com/
[SEPP Comment: Video exposing absurd long-term extrapolation about Antarctic ice.]
Changing Earth
So about that underwater volcano
By John Robeson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Aug 23, 2023
Lowering Standards
Fact Checking The Met Office’s Fact Checks
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 25, 2023
“This particular sentence sums up the Met Office’s motivation:
“’There are certain areas that are regularly questioned and unfortunately some of this scepticism can deflect attention away from important issues such as the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions’.
“What they are in effect saying is that, in their minds, climate change is too important a topic to allow inconvenient facts to get in the way.”
Betty–The Storm That Never Was
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 20, 2023
“But Gentle Breeze Betty does not have quite the same ring to it!”
Communicating Better to the Public – Use Yellow (Green) Journalism?
Bloomberg’s Wildfire Denial
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 25, 2023
Hawildfires
By John Robeson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Aug 23, 2023
“In the old days we’d say the connections were ‘unknown’, now they’re ‘yet to be determined’ and, for good measure, ‘likely to increase’. As in verdict first, trial after. And if they go down instead, they’ll find a way to pin that on CO2 too.”
L A Times Hypes “Green China” the World’s Champ of Global Coal Use & CO2 Emissions While Demanding U.S. Declare a “Climate Emergency”
By Larry Hamlin, WUWT, Aug 23, 2023
So about that heat
By John Robeson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Aug 23, 2023
“Even the once-sober Times hollered in an email that ‘Charon ‘heat storm’ continues to sweep across southern Europe, sparking power cuts and threatening record high temperatures’. One day you’re naming heatwaves. The next you’re renaming them ‘heat storms.’”
Hurricane Hilary Unprecedented? The BBC Would Like You To Think So
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 21, 2023
[SEPP Comment: Unprecedented ignorance of weather history.]
Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.
Climate change doubled chances of conditions that fueled record wildfire season in Canada: research
By Zack Budryk, The Hill, Aug 23, 2023
Link to press release: Climate change more than doubled the likelihood of extreme fire weather conditions in Eastern Canada
By Staff, World Weather Attribution, Aug 22, 2023
[SEPP Comment: No rigorous basis for probability claims.]
Communicating Better to the Public – Do a Poll?
Predicting public attitudes on climate change: the ‘Holy Grail’
By Andy West, Net Zero Watch, Aug 25, 2023
Communicating Better to the Public – Use Propaganda
Activists try to reboot Pacific walrus as climate change icons just as numbers reach a new high
By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Aug 20, 2023
Communicating Better to the Public – Use Children for Propaganda
Students’ test scores, already beleaguered, face new threats from extreme heat
By Lexi Lonas, The Hill, Aug 21, 2023
[SEPP Comment: Can’t schools be airconditioned?]
Communicating Better to the Public – Protest
Over 300 “low emission” surveillance cameras stolen or damaged in London since April
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Aug 19, 2023
Sales of old fossil cars are booming in Ultra Low Emission London…
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Aug 25, 2023
“The much hated Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) starts on August 29th and people driving petrol cars older than 2006 or diesel cars from before 2015 are likely to end up paying £12.50 every day just to drive in London. Vintage cars older than 40 years are exempt.”
Expanding the Orthodoxy
DHS, FEMA organizing extreme heat summit
By Zack Budryk, The Hill, Aug 24, 2023
Link to absurd paper: Heat-related mortality in Europe during the summer of 2022
By Joan Ballester, et al, Nature Medicine, July 10, 2023
Greenwashing the Skies: Why Aviation Needs Climate Accountability
By Alyssa Norris, Real Clear Energy, August 23, 2023
[SEPP Comment: But no accountability for exaggeration of the influence of CO2?]
Questioning Green Elsewhere
The Green Energy Future Is Arriving Faster Than You Think — Or Not
By Franics Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, Aug 19, 2023
“To be fair, these figures reflect little if any of the massive subsidies brought forth by the big federal green energy bill (“Inflation Reduction Act” [sic]), which was signed a year ago on August 16, 2022, and is just getting cranked up. Will those subsidies move this needle at all? You would think that they couldn’t help moving the needle at least a little. But my own prediction is that the percent of primary energy from fossil fuels will decrease only minimally.”
Carnage of Child Labor and Ecological Destruction “Elsewhere” acceptable to Wealthy Countries
By Ron Stein, The Heartland Institute, Aug 19, 2023
“Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure”
By Steve Goreham, Master Resource, Aug 22, 2023
Green Jobs
A planlike object
By John Robeson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Aug 23, 2023
Link to plan (dream): Clean Electricity Regulations
Clean, affordable and reliable electricity
By Staff, Environment and natural resources, Government of Canada, Accessed Aug 23, 2023
[SEPP Comment: Complete with 2.68 million clean energy new jobs that will save energy costs.]
Litigation Issues
Bloomberg Finances and Coopts State Attorneys General
State AGs aid Bloomberg quest for ‘green’ energy that threatens planet, wildlife and people
By Paul Driessen, WUWT, Aug 22, 2023
Conservation groups sue to keep Virginia in Youngkin-opposed climate program
By Zack Budryk, The Hill, Aug 21, 2023
EPA and other Regulators on the March
EPA finds toxic ‘forever chemicals’ in water systems around the nation
By Rachel Frazin, The Hill, Aug 18, 2023
“A sample from Fresno, for example, saw 16 parts per trillion of PFOA and 29 parts per trillion of PFOS — 4 and 7.25 times the proposed regulatory level from the EPA.”
Plant-based straws touted as eco-friendly may contain toxic ‘forever chemicals’
By Sharon Udasin, The Hill, Aug 24, 2023
Link to paper: Assessment of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in commercially available drinking straws using targeted and suspect screening approaches
By Pauline Boisacqa, et al., Food Additives & Contaminants, Aug 24, 2023
“PFAS were detected in almost all paper-based straws, with highly variable concentrations between brands, ranging from < LOQ to 7.15 ng/g.”
“In bamboo straws, PFAS were detected in the range < LOQ to 3.47 ng/g in four out of five brands. In glass straws two brands showed concentrations above the LOQ, ranging from < LOQ to 6.65 ng/g, while the concentrations for the other brands were found to be below the LOQ.”
“Limits of Quantification (LOQs”
[SEPP Comment: A nanogram (ng) is one-billionth of a gram. Imagine how lethal chopsticks must be and how many millions of Chinese die from using them!]
Ceiling fan efficiency rule draws ire of House Republicans
By Zack Budryk, The Hill, Aug 25, 2023
“According to the Energy Department, the rule as applied to standard residential ceiling fans would cut fan-related electricity costs by about 40 percent relative to the least efficient fans currently available.”
[SEPP Comment: Rather than focus on providing reliable energy from an alternative to fossil fuels, Washington energy “experts” are regulating energy use by consumer products.]
Executive Orders and the End of Liberty
By David Lanza, American Thinker, Aug 25, 2023
[SEPP Comment: DOE banning of incandescent light bulbs and the Boston mayor banning new construction on public buildings using fossil fuels are examples of petty despotism.]
Energy Issues – Australia
Aussie Government Intergenerational Report 2023: We’ll All Live Longer and Be Richer in the Age of Climate Crisis
By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Aug 24, 2023
Suddenly Australia needs $1.5 Trillion dollars on Energy “Moonshot” quest for global weather control
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Aug 22, 2023
Expert “Everyone knows Australia will miss” the NetZero target — only 4 renewables projects approved in last Quarter
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Aug 24, 2023
Energy Issues — US
Alleged Climate Activism Among Energy Commissioners Spurs Court Order and Congressional Inquiries
By Kevin Mooney, Real Clear Energy, August 21, 2023
Energy Density is the Answer (Amy Westervelt, DRILLED vs. the public)
By Robert Bradley Jr, Master Resource, Aug 23, 2023
[SEPP Comment: Answering an absurd question about energy “fairness.”]
Washington’s Control of Energy
One Year After the Inflation Reduction Act, Investors Are Bullish on the Clean Energy Revolution
By Jon Phillips, Real Clear Energy, Aug 21, 2023
“President Biden admitted it: The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has little to do with inflation. ‘It has less to do with reducing inflation than it does providing for alternatives that generate economic growth,’ Biden said last week, as his Administration prepared to mark the one-year anniversary of the landmark spending bill.”
Oil Spills, Gas Leaks & Consequences
Biden administration reinstates Obama-era offshore drilling safety rules
By Zack Budryk, The Hill, Aug 22, 2023
[SEPP Comments; Not mentioned is the private, rapid deployment team to cap any well-blowouts.
Nuclear Energy and Fears
Australia can’t build one nuclear plant but fifty years ago France built 56 in 15 years
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Aug 23, 2023
Nuclear Power, Electrification, and Carbon-Free Fuel Are Key to INL Achieving Net-Zero by 2031
By Aaron Larson, Power Bag, Aug 23, 2023
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind
Biden administration approves fourth commercial-scale offshore wind project
By Zack Budryk, The Hill Aug 22, 2023
Don’t believe the renewables myth. Wind and solar are not cheap
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 25, 2023
Siemens Energy’s wind turbine problems could cost 4.5 bln euros
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 25, 2023
Offshore Wind Farms Altering Marine Ecosystems: “Sufficiently Potent To Redirect Existing Currents”
By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Aug 20, 2023
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy — Other
Hydrogen Production, SMRs Touted for Virginia Data Center Hub
By Darrell Proctor, Power Mag, Aug 20, 2023
Carbon Schemes
Biden’s Multi-Billion Dollar Carbon Capture Gamble
By Charles Rotter, WUWT, Aug 20, 2023
“Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm describes the technology as “’essentially a giant vacuum that can suck decades of old carbon pollution straight out of the sky.’”
California Dreaming
Net Zero In California
By Tony Heller, His Blog, Aug 23, 2023
California Tried but Failed to Have an Extreme Weather Disaster
By Kip Hansen, WUWT, Aug 22, 2023
Supernatural Warnings Come to California
By Duggan Flanakin, Real Clear Energy, Aug 24, 2023
Other Scientific News
Neptune’s Disappearing Clouds Linked to the Solar Cycle
As Sunspots Come and Go, So Does the Cloudy Weather on the Blue Giant Planet
By Staff, NASA Hubblesite, Aug 17, 2023
Other News that May Be of Interest
Lessons From China On The Planned Economy
By Franics Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, Aug 22, 2023
BELOW THE BOTTOM LINE
A Return to the Age of Sailing Ships: Nostalgia or Nonsense?
About the BBC article “Pioneering wind-powered cargo ship sets sail” by Tom Singleton.
By Charles Rotter, WUWT, Aug 22, 2023
NASA’s running a mental ward?! Kimberley Miner: ‘I’m a NASA climate scientist. Here’s how I’m handling climate grief’ – ‘I already have five scientist friends with severe, emergent health challenges’
By Marc Morano, Climate Depot, Aug 17, 2023
Link to paper: I’m a climate scientist. Here’s how I’m handling climate grief
Researchers must find personal ways to cope with impending losses — one way is by taking small solutions-oriented actions, says Kimberley R. Miner.
By Kimberley R. Miner. Nature, Aug 17, 2023
ARTICLES
1. Canada’s Oil-Rich Alberta Province Halts Renewable-Energy Projects
Foes say seven-month suspension threatens to undermine a fast-growing sector
By Vipal Monga, WSJ, Aug 19, 2023
TWTW Summary: The editorial begins:
Canada’s oil-rich province of Alberta has become the latest jurisdiction to push back against renewable-energy initiatives, declaring a seven-month moratorium on new wind and solar projects.
The pause put in place by the province’s conservative government has provoked criticism from members of the renewables industry, which says the move threatens to undermine a fast-growing sector that has been contributing a growing share of energy to Alberta’s power grid.
Alberta, which is home to Canada’s oil sands, the fourth-largest oil reserve in the world, announced earlier this month that it would pause until Feb. 29, 2024, approvals of any renewable-energy projects that produce over 1 megawatt of power. Alberta wants to study how the projects affect the power grid, their impact on the environment and what the government called “Alberta’s pristine viewscapes.” The government also wants to consider end-of-life rules for solar farms and windmill projects.
The action has effectively put at risk 80 projects worth roughly $15 billion, said Vittoria Bellissimo, president and chief executive of the Canadian Renewable Energy Association, an industry group.
“We are concerned and disappointed,” she said. More than 75% of all renewable projects built in Canada last year were in Alberta, adding about 1,391 megawatts of power to the provincial grid, she said.
Alberta’s actions complicate a broader push by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government to lower carbon emissions from Canada’s electricity grid. The government in Alberta has called draft regulations from Ottawa that would require the Canadian electricity grid to be carbon-neutral by 2035 unconstitutional.
The confrontation is the latest spat between Trudeau’s Liberal government and Alberta’s conservative leadership, which has sparred with Ottawa on energy policy and Covid vaccine mandates.
Alberta’s move mirrors efforts in the U.S. Renewable projects in states such as Kansas and Iowa have encountered resistance from local municipalities and state governments, which have cited the effect of solar and wind farm projects on small communities.
The article concludes with other politicians claiming that oil rich Alberta is missing a huge economic opportunity by ignoring government subsidies for wind and solar.
******************
2. Industrial Policy Follies: Solar-Power Edition
The contradictions of subsidies and tariffs pile up, as taxpayers lose.
By The Editorial Board, Aug. 25, 2023
TWTW Summary: The editorial begins with:
“Bidenomics is fast becoming a study in the contortions of industrial policy. Consider the Commerce Department’s decision late last week to slap tariffs on solar imports from Southeast Asia, raising the costs of U.S. solar-energy projects that the White House says are the vital future of U.S. energy.
After a 17-month investigation, Commerce concluded that five Chinese solar manufacturers were circumventing U.S. anti-dumping tariffs by doing minor assembly of solar components in Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia for export. The costs for U.S. solar-power developers will rise with the new tariffs, which will run as high as 254%.”
The article discusses how the solar industry is objecting to these tariffs and concludes:
“The solar follies reveal the contradictions of the Biden Administration’s industrial policy. Its labor, climate and anti-China agendas conflict in their combination of subsidies, mandates, bans and taxes. Subsidies lead to tariffs, which lead to more subsidies as government becomes the allocator of capital and decides which companies win or lose. The biggest losers, as usual, will be American taxpayers.”
******************
3. How Oil and Tech Giants Came to Rule a Vital Climate Industry
Generous government support helps carbon removal play a crucial role in neutralizing emissions
By Amrith Ramkumar, WSJ, Aug. 24, 2023
TWTW Summary: Key portions covered in the This Week section above.