Friday, 22 January 2021

Urban heat - Dr Fed Goldberg

Here we see very rapid [temperature] increase and this of course is said to be caused by human emissions well what really took place is the following: here you see the global average temperature year by year and here's the amount of weather stations recording the temperatures and they slowly went down and then something dramatic happened they fell down very rapidly at the same time the average global temperatures jumped up quite a bit and what happened here? Well the Soviet Union collapsed and not only Soviet Union but more or less all their weather stations in the Arctic. So suddenly there was a heavy imbalance between cold and warm stations making the warm stations dominate and the global average temperature skyrocketed as we see here.
Dr Fred Goldberg

Friday, 15 January 2021

Does climate work in an opposite sense to climate models?

CO2 is higher at the Poles than the Equator. When air warms, CO2 goes down and water vapor goes up. The warming effects of CO2 and water vapor do not add; they oppose each other. This is opposite of IPCC claims. It is explained in a recent paper; but is not an empirical claim; nor is the IPCC climate feedback supported by observation!

Sunday, 20 December 2020

Scientists find more CO2 causes land surface cooling

Biophysical impacts of Earth greening largely controlled by aerodynamic resistance
Satellite observations show widespread increasing trends of leaf area index (LAI), known as the Earth greening. However, the biophysical impacts of this greening on land surface temperature (LST) remain unclear. Here, we quantify the biophysical impacts of Earth greening on LST from 2000 to 2014 and disentangle the contributions of different factors using a physically based attribution model.
... We find that 93% of the global vegetated area shows negative sensitivity of LST to LAI increase at the annual scale, especially for semiarid woody vegetation. Further considering the LAI trends (P ≤ 0.1), 30% of the global vegetated area is cooled by these trends and 5% is warmed ...
93% of the global vegetated area shows ∂Tsbio/∂LAI < 0 with an average of −0.36 ± 0.22 K m2 m−2 (mean ± 1 SD, where SD indicates spatial variability). We find that the mean magnitude of ∂Tsbio/∂LAI is larger in temperate regions (−0.44 K m2 m−2) than those in high-latitude (−0.34 K m2 m−2) and tropical regions (−0.29 K m2 m−2) ...

LAI = leaf area index = a measure of vegetation.
LST = land surface temperature

Thursday, 17 December 2020

Neoliberalism

You probably hear a lot of bad things against Neoliberalism from the woke and left media. It's a general swear word they use when talking about capitalism. A way to dis' capitalism by implying capitalism got worse and turned into something more evil: 'Neoliberalism'.

It is: In fact: what you hear is probably all nonsense. Neoliberalism was specifically, an attempt to make things better by making more human interactions more market like: to apply market principles to otherwise, non-market relationships. For example, Neolibs wanted a market like solution to pollution. They thought they could use the tax system to "make the polluter pay". Using, for example, fines, penalties, to the tax system to act like negative money. In it's essence that's all neoliberalism really is.

What it's not: There are lot's of other iseas associtated with Neoliberalism, supported by the same people who promoted Neoliberalism. Ideas such as free movement of labour and abolishing trade tarriffs. But those other ideas weren't new.

Why Neoliberalism fails? It fails for the same reasons all government interference in the economy fails. Government thinks it knows best. It doesn't. Unfortunately Big Gov does not care. Because everyone in Big Gov is using Neo-lib policies, they are all, neolibs. Even the woke and left critics of neoliberalism are neo-libs. Despite it's failures, Neoliberalism remains without real critics because governments never abolish useless regulations.

Saturday, 28 November 2020

UK 2030 'zero carbon' electricity needs.

We'll probably need to, at least, triple electricity supply in the end to move to 'zero carbon'. Double to move vehicles to electricity. Tripling it will also do away with gas boilers. We can't get to zero carbon. There are no plans for zero carbon ocean: frieght, air traffic, nor heavy industry. Just road traffic and domestic heating.

Some UK stats:

  • 2018 UK electricity use = 333 TWh
  • Average of 2.5 million new vehicles are sold in UK each year (average for last 10 years)
  • UK has 38.36 million licensed vehicles.
  • Making the average lifetime of a vehicle ~ 15.4 years
  • In 2018, total UK motor vehicle fuel use = 37 million tonnes
  • UK vehicles use about 430 TWh/year of fuel.
  • Motor vehicle traffic was at a record high in 2019 as 356.5 billion vehicle miles (bvm) were driven on Great Britain’s roads, a 2 per cent increase from the previous year.

Assuming higher electric car efficiency, we need to add about 333/15 TWh per year in electricty generation until we've doubled it after about 15 years. About 22 TWh/year. But we're also banning domestic gas boilers! So make that about 13% more electricy per year (about 44 TWh) for 15 years. This is 5GWe of dispatchable plant per year. Nuclear plants take about 6 years from 1st concrete to finish and another year of testing before they are connected to the grid. At least 7 years. I see no plans to build NPPs from 2023. We begin phasing out the existing nuclear fleet in 2022. It should all be decommissioned by 2030.

If we build more wind turbines we need to build natural gas plants to supply dispatchable electricity in a wind lull.

Friday, 27 November 2020

J Curry - Week in science 122

Reblog: Judith Curry science review.. I commented out a lot of these because when they're of no interest, have been said before, especially when they're not hard science. After skipping through the open access, I'll get to the pay-wall papers one by one - even if they don't interest me - because they interest Judith Curry - who is an influential person.

My intention is to copy the links worth reading, so I can comment on them. I'll look at the open access papers first.


by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye these past 10 (!) weeks

Politics-free thread, please!

Climate science

  • How changing content of clouds could influence climate change [link]

    Nonesense. A discussion of models entirely divorced from science. Contains no discussion of testing, validation nor falsification. A few of the original links from J Curry were also like that. One of the reasons I commented some of them out

  • Rebuttal of recent Mann paper: Multidecadal and Interdecadal climate oscillations: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence [link]
  • Antarctic ice dynamics amplified by Northern Hemisphere sea-level forcing [link]
  • Status and outlook for the climate change scenario framework [link]
  • Forcing of western tropical Sought Atlantic sea surface temperate across three glacial-interglacial cycles [link]
  • Earth greening mitigates surface warming by enhancing the efficiency in heat and water transfer (i.e., aerodynamic resistance). advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/47/e

    According to a model, ... Greening, due to increased CO2, cools the climate ...

    This is another model: untested, non-validated. Probably untestable.

  • A very strong stratospheric polar vortex and other record-breaking phenomena made the Northern Hemisphere winter of 2019–2020 one of extremes. [link]

    Exceptionally strong stratospheric polar vortex of winter 2019–2020 enabled severe ozone depletion, and likely also contributed to unusual warmth at the surface across the Northern Hemisphere, such as Siberia. I accept their claim regarding Ozone. But the other claim? I only looked at the abstract so far.

  • Oreskes:Severe weather event attribution: Why values won’t go away [link]
  • Unraveling glacial hydroclimate in the Indo-Pacific warm pool [link]
  • Interannual variability in the North America carbon cycle [link]

    Only really of interest to climatologists - in that it could be useful to scale this for the whole plantet.

  • Anthropogenic stresses on the worlds big rivers [link]
  • Geothermal heat persistently warms the ocean’s bottom ~2000 m by 0.3-0.5°C via seafloor vents. With horizontal circulation heat accumulates over time. The abyssal ocean was 6-10°C warmer 9k yrs ago and still much warmer 1k yrs ago. [link]
  • Combining modern and paleoceanographic perspectives on ocean heat uptake [link]
  • Coherent stream flow variability in Monsoon Asia over the past eight centuries links to oceanic drivers [link]
  • Moist heat stress extremes in India enhanced by irrigation [link]

    To say I found this extremely tendentious is an understatement.

  • Enhanced warming constrained by past trends in equatorial Pacific sea surface temperature gradient [link]
  • Inherent uncertainty disguises attribution of reduced atmospheric CO2 growth to CO2 emission reduction [link]
  • Decadal and multi-decadal natural variability in European temperatures [link]

    Many climate papers begin by paying homage to man-made climate change as the price authors must pay for publication. None of that here. These guys are naturalists. They begin their article saying they're looking at natural variability, AKA everything which is not 'man-made'

    European monthly temperatures undergo strong fluctuations from one year to the other. The variability is controlled by natural processes such as Atlantic cycles, changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions, unforcedinternal atmospheric variability, as well as anthropogenic factors.

    So they added 'as well as anthropogenic factors'. But just to get published. They didn't really mean it. So they are deniers. Everyone studying natural variability and the sun is a denier, or shill anyhow - by climate scare-mongering definitions.

    </SNARK>

    This paper more or less demands to be read in full. Especially as we just entered a grand solar minimum for the next 33 years. I'm puzzled by the correlations and anti-correlations sitting side by side!

  • No net warming in Sweden over the last 210 years [link]

    No net warming in Sweden over the last 210 years. They will not actually say that!, and their paper shows a new dendroclimatology technique - so is nothing to do with Sweden nor warming, nor not-warming! Yet that's the important byte to take for the climate war: 'catastrophic global warming?', definitely not in Sweden. Ho, ho.: it's supposed to be most noticeable closes to the poles (where Sweden is), at night and during winters.

  • East Antartica has cooled substantially since 1986 [link]
  • Koutsoyiannis:  Atmospheric temperature and CO2: hen-or-egg causality? [link]
  • Oligocene much warmer than previously thought; this is difficult to explain & has implications for ice sheet stability. [link]
  • Water on Mars: discovery of three buried lakes [link]
  • “This is why hurricanes are bigger and longer-lasting and more intense than before.” New study shows that ocean stratification is increasing. [link]
  • New synthesis article on ocean acidification & changing seawater chemistry from rising CO2 and the impacts on biological organisms, marine ecosystems, people, fisheries & aquaculture annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.114
  • New study finds the modulation of cloud cover that drives decadal- and century-scale climate changes is thought to be either driven by internal variability or (more likely) by interplanetary factors operating within a 60-year cycle. [link] …

Technology, impacts and policy

  • Michael Kelly: Warming is not the only threat [link]
  • Michael Kelly:  Until we get a proper roadmap, Net Zero is a goal without a plan [link]
  • Misconceptions of global catastrophe [link]
  • Approximate calculations of the net economic impact of global warming mitigation targets under heightened damage estimates.  The cure is worse than the disease? [link]
  • Compact nuclear fusion reactor is very likely to work [link]
  • BTI:  How to stop the wildfires [link]
  • Extreme weather and marriage among girls and women in Bangladesh [link]
  • America needs a modern electric grid [link]
  • Do we focus too much on IAMs & scenarios? Do alternative methods need a more prominent role? [link]
  • “The UN Secretary General António Guterres’s call for India to give up coal immediately and reduce emissions by 45% by 2030 is a call to de-industrialise the country and abandon the population to a permanent low-development trap” [link]
  • The invisible elephant in the room with a Green New Deal is the staggering quantity of stuff that needs to be mined in order to build all the green machines, and where that mining and processing happens. dailycaller.com/2020/10/27/gre
  • Michael Pollan: The sickness in our food supply [link]
  • Room-temperature superconductivity [link]
  • Pielke Jr:  Global CO2 emissions are on the brink of a long plateau [link]
  • Re-imagining the Colorado River by exploring extreme events [link]
  • Plan for climate solutions takes Georgia-specific approach [link]
  • G20 countries projected to miss 1.5C targets by wide margin [link]
  • Maybe the narrative that dense cities are better for the environment may be off. Here’s new research from Australia. newgeography.com/content/006840

About science and scientists

  • Five ways to ensure that models serve society: a manifesto [link]

Wednesday, 25 November 2020

Review: Rex Fleming: Rise and Fall of the CO2 theory of Climate Change

Dr Rex Fleming, an ex- Climate modeller (now retired), with qualifications in physics and maths, renounces IPCC and establishment to look at what really causes climate change. He says that climate models fail and

"CO2 does not contribute any net heating to the atmosphere column - though both CO2 and H2O contribute to the thermal blanket at the earth's surface.

His motive: Fleming breaks ranks with the climate establishment on humanitarian grounds because of the deliberate attempt to obstruct fossil fuel use. Many regions in Africa have grossly inefficient energy systems or no energy systems. Leaving: inadequate clean water and food, landscape denuded of trees, women forced to cook with dried animal dung.

  • 30,000 people die of diseases due to poverty each day
  • ⅓ of earth's population lack electricity
  • 1 billion people have no clean water
  • ½ billion people go to bed hungry each night

Far from global warming being a worry - the opposite - a return to cold conditions of the Little Ice Age is a huge concern.

IPCC climate change: IPCC / establishment definition of climate change is wrong. IPCC definite climate change as a change in earth's surface temperature over a 30-year period; with humans overwhelming the cause. Let's call the IPCC version of climate change: anthropogenic global warming, AGW - as there's no scope there for humans to cool the climate. In fact: recent research shows that more CO2 in the atmosphere promotes plant growth and more vegetation does, indeed, cool the climate! by about ⅓C in vegetated areas. In addition the 30 year period over which climate is decided has always been wrong because there are clear ocean cycles lasting longer than 30 years! (65 to 70 years!) - such as the AMO

They have ulterior political motives to promote renewables and abolish fossil fuel use.

IPCC tactics are to scare the public over extreme weather - supposedly caused by people: Hurricanes, bush fires, heat waves are all blamed on humanity. They acieve their objectives by replacing the temperature record with anomalies and adjusting to make the anomalies look big. Justifying 90% AGW with bad models. Mass media is ruthless controlled to censor reason and dissenting views.

The global temperature anomally relates to nothing but itself.

Bad models: vastly exaggerate the role of carbon dioxide in climate. In particular: climate models misattribute warming to CO2 which is really due to H2O. For example, at the surface, water vapour (up to 40000ppm) is up to 100 times more concentrated than CO2 (400ppm). Although CO2(g) is a more powerful GHG than H2O(g), by 5.5, H2O(g) causes 18 times more warming. The ratio of CO2:H2O GHGE, at the surface is 5.5 : 100. Only 5.5% of it can be due to CO2.

Oceans and atmosphere are turbulent, interacting, fluids. Atmospheric winds drive ocean currents and oceans exchange heat and chemicals with the atmosphere. The atmosphere is chaotic and oceans have chaotic elements too.

There are 3 dynamic atmospheric processes transferring heat from earth's surface:

  1. Radiation
  2. Sensible heat transfer (Convection and conduction)
  3. Latent heat transfer - due to the vapourization of water at the surface, and condensation as water droplets (AKA clouds) in the upper troposphere

Radiation also works to transfer heat to space. But due to changing amounts of water vapour with altitude it works differently according to altitude. The relative role of radiation has been bother exaggerated and misrepresented. The effect of the sun on climate is much greater than media and establishment say; amounting to fraudulent misrepresentation.

Note:

Temperature adjustments IPCC measure temperature changes since 1880; claiming human fossil fuel use increased climate warming by 1C. Their trick is to manipulate temperature records and always talk in terms of temperature anomalies (never actual terran surface averages). This enables them to set the starting position of global temperature (in 1880) at anything they want. In practice: they set it at about 14C, or less. In fact a book written in 1889 stated the average global surface temperature was 14.6C. Many metrological institutes today still measure the global surface temperature at below 15C - indicating a real rise of only about 0.4C over 110 years; when they claim temperature rises of at least 1C due to man-made changes over the last century! PS: Fleming does not state this]

Summary

Dr Fleming, very much agrees with Henrik Svensmark's cosmic ray theory of climate change which explains shorter term climate change in terms of solar cycles. I too, believe solar cycles dominate climate changes. We know that changes in clouds over the past 4 decades (net global changes of at least 7% in cloud cover) ara the dominant cause of earth's warming. I don't go as far as attributing all those changes to cosmic ray variation. The evidence for cosmic rays as a sole cause is not yet here. The evidence for the sun dominating climate change (99% of it) is here.

This is a valuable book on technical aspects of climate change. It's a must read. I also recommend Don Easterbrook's new book to complement it.