Author Archives: climateequilibrium

Climate Change Science Summary

Climate Change is based on three dependent Theories.

Theory One – Green House Gas Theory – the first doubling of Carbon Dioxide content in the atmosphere is predicted to cause up to 1 degree C of warming in the atmosphere due to increased long wave back radiation.  Issues which limit further temperature rise are the logarithmic decline in the amount of back radiation as CO2 concentration increases and overlap/saturation of the back radiation spectrum by existing Water Vapor.  Most people are surprised to hear that the estimated amount of the GHG effect that is attributed to CO2 in the  peer reviewed scientific literature is a range from as low as 2 % to as high as 45 %. The amount of effect will vary by the second with latitude, altitude, time of day/night, over land/water, season, cloud cover/type and humidity, etc. so programming the changing effects in a Model is very difficult so most climate models use equations and relationships that approximate 15 to 20%. The only way to test or verify this is make projections and test against real world temperatures but it is hard to separate out natural variability.

Theory Two – Amplification/Positive Feedback Theory – the predicted temperature rise due to increased back radiation is theorized to increase humidity in atmosphere which is predicted to cause 1 to 4 Degrees C of additional warming which is 3 to 4 times as much as the predicted impact of the increase in CO2.  The main issues are that the predicted humidity rise and the resultant temperatures increases have not been observed in the atmosphere by decades of balloon and satellite observations so the Climate Sensitivity to increases in CO2 appears to be over estimated. The largest temperature rise was predicted by the climate models for the lower Troposphere in latitudes around the equator (20S to 20N)(Search “missing hot spot”).  Climate models also do not do a good job of handling clouds – formation, movement, albedo, etc. and vertical energy transfers like storms and loses to space.

Theory Three – Catastrophic Climate Change Theory – The additional warming from the first two theories is theorized to cause Catastrophic Changes to the Climate and dramatically increase disastrous climate events. Main issues are both the actual Global Temperatures and the rate of temperature increase are running way below Computer Model Forecasts. There has been very little increase in global temperatures in the last 19 years and the link between warming and increased climate disasters is not apparent.  There is no scientific link between Mild Warming and Catastrophic Climate Events so if there is only mild warming then no expected increase in catastrophic events. There are also positive benefits of increased CO2 and mild warming such as increased plant growth, less fuel use and less deaths to cold weather

The Positive Feedback Theory is predicted to cause the majority of the warming but the empirical real world data shows no increased humidity and very little increase in global temperatures for the last 19 years despite a 40% rise in CO2 concentration.  Climate Sensitivity forecasts are being reduced as there are now 14 published papers with climate sensitivities below the IPCC AR5 estimates. The lower sensitivities to CO2 are due to increased attribution to Natural Variability. 

Is Atmospheric CO2 Content Really the Dominant Driver in Global Temperatures?

Interesting graphs below or attached. 

Please read the recent Congressional and Senate Testimony (pdf attached) from Dr Christy who co designed the first temperature/weather satellite system for NASA and contributed to the UN IPCC reports.  He has been one of the esteemed members of the IPCC Consensus group but he is now questioning why the data does not match with the theories.

Comment on NASA site: I have previously read the NASA site and agree with most of it.  Of course the world has been warming up, the glaciers melting, etc since the last ice age and more recently since the Little Ice Age which ended in the mid 1800’s.  The real discussion is how much of the warming since 1950’s may be due to CO2 and specifically due to human caused CO2.  Scientists cannot even agree when the added human CO2 levels were enough to actually cause a detectable amount of temperature change – some say 1950 – some 1970’s.  The NASA site is very simplified and basically says that they cannot figure out why the earth is warming up or why the 1980 to 1998 period warmed quickly so it must be due to the increase in CO2!  The Consensus part is just statements that all the Science Societies do not have a better explanation for the warming so they agree that it is likely that it is caused by the increase in human CO2.  They do not really know but they have advanced theories on how the change in CO2 could work and that is what is programmed into the models that are over estimating the warming compared to the measured data.  Time to go looking for a new  or more complex explanation.

 

Follow the Scientific Method – propose theory – Test against real data – Adjust theory – retest – etc.

 

Models vs temps

GlobalRelativeHumidity300_700mb

Climate sensitivity

Climate sensitivity updated 2016

Drought

hurricainesperyear

Are Renewables Just a Dream?

 

The real problem with the unreliables is not just a low EROEI but the dragged out and erratic profile of the energy delivery. Oil, coal and gas can be 100 % utilized as soon as they are available(100 % dispatchable and distributable) whereas wind and solar comes in dribs and drabs over 10 or 20 years before they break even on the original energy expended. They can never build themselves. On a net present value or time value basis they are a dead loss which is why they are and will always be uneconomic.

Unreliables do not deliver energy:

  • How it is needed – unpredictable and not 24/7/365.  Solar is 10 to 20% and wind 15 to 23% – not dispatchable.
  • When it is needed – rarely during peak demand times during day or in winter
  • Where it is needed – not easily distributed plus has normal line losses with distance. Cannot be located where is is most needed.

Wind and solar do not deliver energy how, when, or where it is needed. They are not reliable, cheap, dispachable at peak need or 24/7/365 and cannot be located near high demand areas. So called green energy has to be paired with storage or full backup to be useful so it has too low of a EROEI to power modern society. The energy comes in dribs and drabs over the years so no renewable can build itself and can never be economic on a net present value or time value basis. We need to provide cheap abundant energy to everyone which will raise the standard of living which will also solve population growth fears.

Electric Cars

Some people seem to think that electric cars will become popular enough that they will lower the demand for oil which ignores the logic trap – that  cannot occur because it would mean that oil prices would be so low that electric cars would never have better economics than gasoline cars.

Dr. John Christy -Testimony to House Science Committee

In a nonpolitical world, this Testimony  by this prominent of an expert would be viewed by anyone who understands science as Checkmate, game-set-match, QED to the Climate Alarmist view of CO2 as a Climate Control Knob.

The GHG Theory and the Positive Feedback theory both manifest themselves ( in Climate Models) first as an increased temperature in the mid Troposphere which is the main layer measured by the balloon and satellite data sets.

None of the 4 balloon or 3 satellite data sets are measuring anything close to the predicted increases so the predicted “Climate Sensitivity ”  to changes in CO2 is over estimated by several times.  Carbon Dioxide has continued to rise and over a third of the total man made CO2 has been produced in the last 20 years and yet reality is that Temperatures have not risen as predicted.  The empirical measurements say the theory is busted.

The surface temperature data sets show more warming but are also way below predictions despite the “hottest year ever” claims.  The surface set is subject to UHI error , adjustments, estimates for large areas like the arctic and questionable handling of ocean data (70% of the area!).

It is also worthwhile to read the appendix as he shows how many of the claims about adverse effects of climate change are not happening. There is no increase in droughts, wildfires, crop losses and he could have included actual decreases in tornados and hurricanes and hurricane strength.

This has become such a stupid political football and is being used to justify expensive and damaging policies such as denying cheap fossil fuel energy to the third world which will continue to cost many lives.

https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JChristy-20160202.pdf

Dr. John Christy Testimony

Great Interviews With Freeman Dyson

Freeman Dyson is one of the preeminent minds in science.  He is a 91 year old physicist and Robert Oppenheimer and Neils Bohr were on his Phd review panel.

A new interview. He is not a global warming fan  Note that he is a die hard liberal, registered Democrat who voted for Obama twice but he says Obama has climate change all wrong.  He thinks the climate models have too many assumptions and fudge factors in them to be useful.

Dyson is a fan of Byorn Lomborg who is a calm rational economist who has good perspective on climate change.  See  here  and here

An older interview.   Here is a very interesting recent interview.      Conversations That Matter – Freeman Dyson.

Former President Of Greenpeace Scientifically Rips Climate Change To Shreds

Everyone who cares about Climate Change and the Carbon issue should read this excellent article by Patrick Moore.

Former President Of Greenpeace Scientifically Rips Climate Change To Shreds

or here

PATRICK MOORE: SHOULD WE CELEBRATE CARBON DIOXIDE?

Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide  – Video  

Carbon Dioxide is the gas of life that enables all plant life on earth which creates everything we eat and the Oxygen we breathe.  We breathe out 40,000 to 50,000 ppm of CO2 with each breath.

The geologic records do not scientifically support the theory of CO2 as a control knob of temperature.