Tuesday, December 13, 2016

The Week That Was: 2016-12-10

The Week That Was: 2016-12-10 (December 10, 2016) 
Brought to You by SEPP www.sepp.org 
The Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
PLEASE NOTE: The complete TWTW can be downloaded in an easily printable form at this web site: http://www.sepp.org/the-week-that-was.cfm...
Please forward this Newsletter to those interested in Science and Environmental Policy. Thank you. Forward.

Quote of the Week. 
“In God we trust, all others bring data.” – Motto of the Apollo team.

Number of the Week: 99.98%

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Deliberate Ignorance – Where’s The Data? As discussed in the past few TWTWs, the 1979 Charney Report to the National Research Council of the US National Academy of Sciences articulated that there were two components to possible global warming from carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. The first component is a warming directly from CO2. The warming takes place in the atmosphere. Based on laboratory experiments, this warming would be modest, highly logarithmic, and likely beneficial. The second component was proposed by those creating global climate models. This warming is from an increase in atmospheric water vapor, and far more powerful than warming from CO2. At the time, there was no data to confirm or deny this warming from an increase in water vapor.

Based primarily on calculations with global climate models, the Charney report estimated that “the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO2 to be near 3ºC with a probable error of ±1.5ºC.” Since the Charney Report, we have had five reports from the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, and several reports for the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), under various names. Generally, they repeat the findings in the Charney report. Except for the discredited Santer “hotspot” which depended on eliminating data that was inconsistent with the assertion, these reports produce no atmospheric data to confirm or deny the second component of the warming, the more powerful warming from water vapor.

Now, we have comprehensive data of atmospheric temperatures dating from December 1978, independently confirmed by data from weather balloons. In his February 2, 2016, testimony, John Christy, a co-discoverer of the method of calculating atmospheric temperatures from information collected by satellites, produced excellent summaries of the data from satellites, particularly between the surface to 50,000 feet where both components of the greenhouse gas warming should take place, and compared them with global climate models. In general, the models overestimated atmospheric warming by 2.5 times and by 3 times over the tropics, where the water vapor warming should be more pronounced.

As discussed in last week’s TWTW, in making its finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health and welfare (Endangerment Finding), the EPA produced no data, instead relied on three lines of evidence: 1) understanding of the physics of greenhouse gases; 2) a questionable study that late 20th century warming was unusual; and 3) global climate models. The evidence is woefully incomplete.

Further, any warming of the surface is not the same as a warming of the atmosphere, and can be highly influenced by other human activities such as change in land use, change in instrument locations, and change in instrument types. An example of the last type, is a switch in instruments used to measure surface ocean temperatures. Earlier methods were instruments located on ship water intakes, well below the surface of the water, the current method is to use instrument buoys at the surface. The latter is subject to direct warming from sunlight, unrelated to and CO2 – caused warming. For example, see NIPCC 2008, p. 19 & 20.

To build a reliable database, any such changes must be carefully calibrated. For surface temperature measurements, all too frequently changes in instruments have not been carefully calibrated. For example, in the US, the use of mathematical adjustments for land surface records is highly questionable, because the results are inconsistent with the historic records of high temperatures.

For satellite measurements, the changes in instrumentation are carefully calibrated, errors are quickly corrected, and deviations are noted. Now, three independent, competitive groups analyze the same data when received.

It is time to petition the EPA for a reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding, stating that there are no data supporting the second component of the global warming theory and that its reliance on global climate models is not scientifically based, because the greatly overestimate atmospheric warming. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy – NIPCC, Challenging the Orthodoxy, and Defending the Orthodoxy.

If Not CO2, then What? One of the most scientifically vacuous arguments advanced by the IPCC and its advocates is: “If CO2 has not caused late 20th century warming, then what?” The paper by Wallace, Christy, and D’Aleo provides the “what” – changes in the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Others, including Ian Plimer of Australia and de Freitas et al. of New Zealand, have suggested this may be the case. The Wallace et al. paper shows strong statistical relationships between changes in ENSO events, coupled with the PDO, and changes in temperatures. The statistical relationships are far stronger than the one between CO2 and temperatures. The Wallace, et al. paper applies to both atmospheric and surface measurements.

This research is being confirmed by other independent research by other groups.

The IPCC has considered the ENSO as weather events, too short for consideration for climate change. But, the changes in the frequency of ENSOs and changes in the PDO are not too short for climate events influencing global temperatures.

Of course, correlation is not causation. This adage came with the development of statistical techniques in the early 20th century, when efforts to use correlation to assert causation produced foolish results. Conversely, without correlation causation is difficult to establish, because many other influences may dominate. That appears to be the case in the CO2 – temperature relationship, particularly for surface data. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy – NIPCC and Challenging the Orthodoxy.

Acid – Alkaline Balance: A great misnomer in studies of the influence of increased atmospheric CO2 is ocean acidification. The term is alarming and wrong. The corrosiveness of a water-based solution is measured by its pH. A pH below 7 is acidic, a pH above 7 is alkaline, which can be very corrosive. The closer the pH is to 7, the less corrosive the solution. SEPP has reviewed no empirical studies which assert that with increasing atmospheric CO2, the pH of the oceans will drop below 7 – become acidic.

Yet, we have numerous laboratory studies in which the researchers drop acid, such as hydrochloric acid, into tanks with marine life and consider the results as credible.

Such actions would horrify some tropically fish fanciers who bubble CO2 through their aquariums to lower the pH below 7, to promote coloration in Amazonian fish such as discus. They would not consider pouring hydrochloric acid in the aquarium, which would kill the life.

That said, increasingly, there are studies showing seasonal, and daily variations in pH, without harm to marine life, such as corals. Some coral reefs have pH gradients with depth or exposure to natural CO2 seeps.

As stated in the NIPCC Report on Biological Impacts: “Caution should be applied when interpreting results from laboratory-based studies … Rising atmospheric CO2 do not pose a significant threat to aquatic life … The natural variability of oceanic pH is often much greater than the change in pH levels forecast by IPCC…”

The difference between the laboratory results and the field results illustrates the need to verify the results of the laboratory in the field. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy – NIPCC and Review of Recent Scientific Articles by CO2 Science, both this week and in last week’s TWTW.

Model Issues – Importance of Aerosols in Climate Models: One of the deficiencies in the IPCC approach to understanding climate, is basing the findings on runs of a suite of models. Often these model runs are singular. Yet, as explained by Fred Singer in a paper, model runs produce different results each time. Singer estimates that at least 10 different runs are needed for each model to obtain a reasonable approximation for the results of that model. This is not done.

A second major issue creating significant uncertainty in the results of models is that often the models are run producing estimates for both warming from CO2 and cooling from aerosols, small particles in the atmosphere. This procedure makes as much logical sense as expecting that solving one simple linear equation with two unknowns will produce a unique solution. The range of solutions is infinite. If imaginary numbers are added, then the range of solutions is imaginary! Is there a difference?

The important CLOUD experiment at CERN began to estimate a range of values for aerosols, an important beginning to arrive at empirical bounds for aerosols and for climate models. Until bounds are established, the certainty expressed by the IPCC, the EPA, and the Climate Establishment in these simply is not justified. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy – NIPCC and Model Issues.

After the Election: An outpouring of outrage over the election of Donald Trump continues. One thing is clear: he is upsetting the Democratic establishment, the Republican establishment, and, above all, the Climate Establishment. His designation of Scott Pruitt for administrator of the EPA will not win accolades among green groups, but Trump did not receive their support in the election. Pruitt is the Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma, and a litigant against the Obama administration’s so-called Clean Power Plan. Expect events to become quite heated in Washington for the remainder of the winter, even though actual Congressional sessions will be mostly symbolic rather than meaningful. It is impossible to predict what the outgoing administration will do. For a sampling of articles see links under After the Election --.

Post-Election Predictions? Perhaps as a result of the election, in Polar Bear Science, Susan Crockford highlights several highly questionable assertions being made by “experts” on Arctic animals about the future. See links under Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.

Post-normal Science and Thinking: Writing in Power Line, Steven Hayward discusses what he calls “post truth” media. Hayward considers this concept as stemming from a remark by the 19th century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche: “there are no facts, only interpretation.” The concept was picked up by nihilist philosophers and continues today. Of course, post-normal view is rejected by empirical scientists who believe that facts stem from observations. Perhaps the view is the basis for some people, such as those who identify themselves as from the Union of Concerned Scientists, to label hypothesis testing as “cherry picking.”

Quote of the Week: The quote of the week: In God we trust, all others bring data., was prominently displayed at NASA Space Flight Center near Houston, which controlled the Apollo missions. The activities of this center should not be confused with NASA-GISS, which focuses on surface temperatures. Gavin Schmidt, GISS director, is a listed expert reviewer of the Endangerment Finding and has produced slogans such as carbon dioxide is the “control knob” of the earth’s temperatures. The web site gives his office as on 2880 Broadway, New York, NY. The difference between the science behind NASA-GISS reports and the science behind Apollo missions is greater than the difference between Broadway and the Houston Space Flight Center. See 

Number of the Week: 99.98% As stated in last week’s TWTW: According to reports, on Dec. 1, construction of the 1,172-mile Dakota Access Pipeline will be all but finished. The only thing left to build, says its owner, Energy Transfer Partners, will be about 1,100 feet of pipe to be laid beneath Lake Oahe, a sliver of water south of Bismarck, N.D., that is man-created by a dam on the Missouri River. The pipe will be drilled underneath the river bed, and will not disturb it. Laying of the $3.5 Billion pipeline was 99.98% complete.

This week, the administration killed construction by refusing to issue necessary permits, even though the pipeline developers won past court challenges.

In addition to an enormous increase in National Debt, the US is in the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression. Is there any question why? See links under Washington’s Control of Energy.

We ask you to make a generous, tax-deductible donation to SEPP, an IRS recognized 501(c)3 organization. There is much to be done, to undo the damage to the economy by the current administration.

Please address your check to:

P.O. Box 1126
Springfield, VA 22151

Alternatively, you may donate through PayPal. See Donate at www.sepp.org
Thank you -- whether you celebrate Hanukkah, Christmas, or other holy days during this time, we wish you and your family happiness in this blessed season and a joyful new year.

Kenneth Haapala, President 
Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

SEPP is a 501(c)3 organization incorporated in Virginia with the Federal Tax ID of #54-1645372.

The donated funds will be used exclusively in furtherance of SEPP’s charitable purpose and will not be used to fulfill any pledge, personal obligation, or lobbying activities. SEPP provides no direct benefit to donors as a result of their donations.

Suppressing Scientific Inquiry – The Witch Hunt
Dem senator: Trump’s EPA pick is ‘corruption’ 
By Devin Henry, The Hill, Dec 8, 2016 
[SEPP Comment: As corrupt as the “witch hunt” in which Sen. Whitehouse participated?]
Suppressing Scientific Inquiry – The Witch Hunt – Push-Back
The disclosure that could end Eric Schneiderman’s career 
Editorial, New York Post, Dec 4, 2016 
“A state judge ruled in favor of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank whose Freedom of Information request the AG had denied. That gave Schneiderman 30 days to cough up documents concerning his agreements with other states’ AGs, and with a group of green activists, about their joint persecution of ExxonMobile and other entities for supposed ‘climate fraud.’”
Challenging the Orthodoxy -- NIPCC
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate 
S. Fred Singer, Editor, NIPCC, 2008 

Overcoming Chaotic Behavior of Climate Models 
By S. Fred Singer, SEPP, July 2010 

Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming 
The NIPCC Report on the Scientific Consensus 
By Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, NIPCC, Nov 23, 2015 
Download with no charge 

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science 
Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, 2013 

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts 
Idso, Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, 2014 
Challenging the Orthodoxy
Prepared Testimony to House Committee on Science, Space & Technology 
By John Christy, UAH, Feb 2, 2016 

On the Existence of a “Tropical Hotspot” & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding 
By Wallace, Christy, and D’Aleo, Independent Researchers, August 2016 

Finally there’s agreement: Ocean cycles are responsible for the missing warming since 2000 
By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, (German text translated, edited by P Gosselin) No Tricks Zone, Dec 9, 2016 
[SEPP Comment: Under: A Showerof Papers, New Climate Models, Show Natural Oceanic Cycles The Recent Major Climate Factor!]

Latest on The Myth of More Severe Storms 
By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Dec 9, 2016 
Defending the Orthodoxy
Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment 
Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate 
By Jule G. Charney, et al, Climate Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, July 23-27, 1979 

Endangerment and Cause or Contributed Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act 
By Benjamin DeAngelo, et al. EPA – Includes Alan Carlin (an opponent of the finding) 
Expert reviewers include: William Emanuel, NASA, Thomas Karl, NOAA, Gavin Schmidt, NASA, Susan Solomon, NOAA, Dec 7, 2009 
p. 47 (59 on my screen) 
5(a) Attribution of Observed Climate Change to Anthropogenic Emissions

How to make climate progress with Trump in the White House 
By Daniel Cohan, The Hill, Dec 9, 2016 
[SEPP Comment: No demand to show the data that CO2 is the cause!]

Leaked Transition Team Memo Outlines Trump’s Catastrophic Energy Agenda 
By Joshua Hill, Clean Technica, Dec 8, 2016 
[SEPP Comment: The author states: “I'm a Christian, a nerd, a geek, and I believe that we're pretty quickly directing planet-Earth into hell in a handbasket!”]
Questioning the Orthodoxy
Clearing the air 
By Martin Livermore, The Scientific Alliance, Dec 9, 2016 

Has the AGW hypothesis been falsified again? 
By Geoff Brown, Australian Climate Sceptics, Dec 10, 2016 
Link to earlier article: Climate-cooling aerosols can form from tree vapors 
Pollution’s sulfuric acid not needed to make cloud-seeding particles in the air 
By Thomas Sumner, Science News, May 25, 2016 

Trump Induced Panic Exposes Media Bias and Ignorance of Climate 
Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball, WUWT, Dec 6, 2016 
“It is not the same people who said tobacco was healthy. This is an apparent reference to the early attempt to link Fred Singer to the tobacco industry. Fred wrote a critical review of the terrible research in the original article claiming to link cancer to second-hand smoke. His review was later supported by others. Environmentalists used to claim Fred was paid by the tobacco companies and in favor of smoking. In fact, Fred has always actively and openly opposed smoking.”
After Brexit!
145 MPs warn Brexit should not lead to cull of climate laws 
Greener UK coalition of 13 civil society groups and a fifth of sitting British MPs urge government to safeguard climate and environment laws 
By Ed King, Climate Change News, Dec 8, 2016 
After The US Election -- Opposed
EPA fears 'unprecedented disaster' for environment over Scott Pruitt pick 
Senate Democrats vow to fight Trump’s nominee to lead the EPA, a climate denier who has sued the agency multiple times as attorney general of Oklahoma 
By Oliver Milman, Guardian, UK, Dec 8, 2016 

Trump pricks prominent climate skeptic as EPA chief 
By David Malakoff, Science Mag, Dec 7, 2016 

Trump's EPA pick may struggle to dismantle Obama's environmental legacy 
By Valerie Volcovici and David Shepardson, Reuters, Dec 9, 2016 

Greens slam Trump’s Interior Department pick 
By Timothy Cama, The Hill, Dec 9, 2016 
[SEPP Comment: Will she stem the increase in government control of US lands?]

If Trump wants to dismantle Obama’s EPA rules, here are all the obstacles he’ll face 
By Brad Plumer, Vox, Dec 8, 2016 

Three Reasons Trump Doesn't Matter To Energy Policy 
By Jeff McMahon, Forbes, Dec 7, 2016 
[SEPP Comment: According to the article: 1. Most effective energy policies are set at the state level, 2. Momentum favors clean energy, and 3. Technology trumps commodity. Why has the emphasis of the greens been on 1) Federal policy such as the Administration’s power plan and the EPA; 2) subsidies for wind and solar, and 3) ignoring that solar and wind power cannot be commercially stored.]

Trump Team’s Memo Hints at Broad Shake-Up of U.S. Energy Policy 
By Catherine Traywick and Jennifer Dlouhy, Bloomberg, Dec 8, 2016 

Trump team wants names at DOE who worked on climate 
By Devin Henry, The Hill, Dec 9, 2016 
[SEPP Comment: Great propaganda photo of condensing steam from cooling towers. Could it be from a nuclear power plant?]

Trump Team Memo Hints at Big Shake-Up of U.S. Energy Policy 
By Catherine Traywick and Jennifer A Dlouhy, Bloomberg, Dec 8, 2016 

Trump and the End of the West? 
If America’s president-elect delivers on his promises, the long-term costs – both domestic and international – are likely to outweigh any short-term gains. If he fails to deliver, the long-term costs will fall due much sooner. 
By Staff Writers, Project Syndicate, Dec 9, 2016 
[SEPP Comment: A review “of the best thinking on current events and key trends.”]
After US Election -- Neutral
Trump's EPA pick will make Obama regret his environmental overreach 
By Patrick Michaels, The Hill, Dec 8, 2016 

Pragmatic energy policy recommendations for the Trump administration 
By David Gattie, Climate Etc. Dec 8, 2016 

“Post-Truth” Media Should Look in the Mirror 
By Steven Hayward, Power Line, Dec 6, 2016 
After The US Election -- Favorable
How Trump’s Climate Skepticism Can Play a Crucial Role in Achieving His Larger Objectives 
By Alan Carlin, Carlin Economics and Science, Dec 9, 2016 

Trump’s Election Means A Chance For “A Return To Reason In Climate Policy”, German Expert Writes 
By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Dec 4, 2016 

Trump EPA nomination a home run! Scott Pruitt tapped to reform EPA 
By Staff Writers, ICECAP, Dec 9, 2016 

Rolling back environmental progress? 
Having achieved major goals, US should refocus EPA and other environmental agencies 
By Paul Driessen, ICECAP, Dec 4, 2016 
Problems in the Orthodoxy
SHOCK: The ‘Father of global warming’, James Hansen, dials back alarm 
By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Dec 3, 2016 
Seeking a Common Ground
Climate Heretic: to be or not to be? 
By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Dec 5, 2016 

‘Truthiness’ and ‘factiness’ in politicized scientific debates 
By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Dec 3, 2016 
Review of Recent Scientific Articles by CO2 Science
The Growth Benefits of Elevated CO2 Overwhelm the Growth Damages of Ozone on Wheat 
Rao, M.V., Hale, B.A. and Ormrod, D.P. 1995. Amelioration of ozone-induced oxidative damage in wheat plants grown under high carbon dioxide. Plant Physiology 109: 421-432. Dec 7, 2016 
“In other words, the beneficial effects of elevated CO2 not only fully compensated for the dry weight loss due to elevated ozone, it completely overcame it as if this stress was never present! And driving this point home, Rao et al. write ‘we did not observe an adverse impact of O3 on the shoot biomass of wheat plants grown under high CO2.’"

Massive Corals Can Adapt to End-of-Century CO2 Concentrations 
Wall, M., Fietzke, J., Schmidt, G.M., Fink, A., Hofmann, L.C., de Beer, D. and Fabricius K.E. 2016. Internal pH regulation facilitates in situ long-term acclimation of massive corals to end-of-century carbon dioxide conditions. Scientific Reports 6: 10.1038/srep30688. Dec 6, 2016 
[SEPP Comment: Corals adapt to changing pH in natural CO2 seeps – indicating that experiments shocking life in aquariums by suddenly lowering pH are grossly misleading.]

How Birds Regulate their Body Temperatures as Climates Warm 
Nilsson, J.-A., Molokwu, M.N. and Olsson, O. 2016. Body temperature regulation in hot environments. PLOS ONE 11(8): eO161481.doi:1371/journal.pone.0161481. Dec 5, 2016 
Models v. Observations
New Paper Debunks Ad Hoc ‘Explanation’ That Antarctic Sea Ice Has Been Growing Since ’80s Due To Human Activity 
By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Dec 8, 2016 
Model Issues
CLOUD experiment sharpens climate predictions 
Press Release by Matthew Chalmers, CERN, Oct 28, 2016 [H/t Australian Climate Skeptics] 
Measurement Issues -- Surface
Despite Denial, Global Temperatures Are Dropping Fast 
By David Whitehouse, GWPF, Dec 5, 2016 

November 2016 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update 
By Bob Tisdale, Climate Observations, Dec 6, 2016 [H/t GWPF] 
[SEPP Question: A gradual increase in sea surface temperatures, with lots of noise. Is the increase due to gradual warming or change in measurement techniques such as location of instruments?]
Changing Weather
Historic December cold and Lake-effect snows coming 
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow, ICECAP, Dec 7, 2016 
Changing Seas
3 New Papers: Global Seas Now Rising About 2 Inches Per Century … Claims Of 1 Meter Rise By 2100 ‘Sheer Nonsense’ 
By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Dec 5, 2016 
[SEPP Comment: The most widely cited estimate suffers from the same problems many alarmist papers do, long-term projections from short-term trends, which may be from local conditions.]
Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice
An El Niño year late start to freeze-up on Hudson Bay: bears gearing up to hunt 

No comments:

Post a Comment