Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #626 – Watts Up With That?

The Week That Was: 2025 01-11 (January 11, 2025)
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week:  I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything. — Richard Feynman (1981)

Number of the Week: ZERO

THIS WEEK:

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

Scope: This Week begins with a paper by van Wijngaarden and Happer estimating the role of clouds in a varying climate. Then it discusses another paper by van Wijngaarden and Happer estimating the role of Methane on today’s climate. Japanese researcher Kyoji Kimoto asserts that many modelers ignore the atmospheric window. Wallace Manheimer cautions scientific societies on their unsupported assertions regarding climate change. A new form of estimating carbon dioxide concentrations in periods with different climates is questioned. A Nobel Prize in Medicine is questioned. Also discussed is the failure of government entities in southern California to recognize changing weather.

**************

Clarifying a Cloudy Issue? In the No Tricks Zone, Kenneth Richard briefly discusses a new paper by Atomic, Molecular, and Optical (AMO) physicists William van Wijngaarden and William Happer “Radiation Transport in Clouds” published by Klimarealistene (Norwegian, Climate Realists), in The Science of Climate Change. As Nobel Laureate John Clauser and others have pointed out, the importance of variation in clouds is overlooked by the IPCC and its collaborators, as is the variation in the intensity of the sun and the solar wind. The paper includes high level mathematics and this TWTW will briefly discuss the new van Wijngaarden and Happer paper and discuss it further in a subsequent issue.

The abstract states:

“We briefly review the dominant role of clouds in Earth’s climate. The earliest observational studies of heat transfer through Earth’s atmosphere, for example, those of John Leslie around 1800, showed that clouds have a large effect on radiative heat transfer from Earth’s surface to space. Greenhouse gases also affect heat transfer, but much less than clouds. For example, “instantaneously doubling” CO2 concentrations, a 100% increase, only decreases radiation to space by about 1%. To increase solar heating of the Earth by a few percent, low cloud cover only needs to decrease by a few percent. The first half of this paper reviews observational facts about how clouds affect heat transfer. The second half gives a brief summary of the new 2n-stream radiation transfer theory for quantitatively analyzing how clouds scatter radiation incident from outside the cloud, and how they emit thermal radiation generated by their particulates.” [Boldface added]

The “new 2n-stream radiation transfer theory” needs to be carefully explored, subsequently. It goes into AMO physics. Here n is an integer of axially symmetric radiation (unchanged if the axis is rotated). What happens when light, electromagnetic energy, hits a droplet in a cloud? How does the collision scatter the energy? The work of van Wijngaarden and Happer previously presented in TWTW deals with cloudless skies. How do clouds affect the warming and cooling of Earth and the greenhouse effect?

Further, how do clouds and aerosols scatter infrared radiation?

Based on limited, historic records, principally from Europe, during the Little Ice Age, the skies were cloudy and growing seasons were short. In northern latitudes grains did not ripen, famine and diseases associated with the toxins developed in un-ripened grain were common. IPCC and its collaborators dismiss this period as a regional event. But clouds cover over 50% of the blue marble. Dismissing clouds is ignoring Earth.

Van Wijngaarden and Happer conclude their new paper with [citations omitted here]:

“In conclusion, radiative transfer theory shows that doubling the concentration of the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, for a cloudless sky only decreases radiation to space by 1%. However, clouds cover more than half the planet as shown by the iconic Blue Marble photograph in Fig. 15. An increase in low cloud cover of only about 1% could largely compensate for the doubling of CO2.[Boldface added]

2n-stream radiative transfer theory is an invaluable tool to model clouds and particulates such as aerosols that scatter infrared radiation. It is essential that accurate measurements of cloud parameters such as the single scattering albedo, optical depth and scattering phase function be made as these quantities are essential inputs into any calculation. The dependence of these parameters on infrared wavelength as well as an understanding of how they vary for clouds at different altitudes or consisting of different amounts of water droplets and ice crystals is essential for meaningful progress in climate modelling.”

This is important work in a field that the IPCC and its collaborators have attempted to suppress further research by declaring “the science is settled.” It is anything but settled. See links Challenging the Orthodoxy.

********************

Methane and Climate: The CO2 Coalition has issued a report by van Wijngaarden and Happer, Methane and Climate. This is for a cloudless sky and uses the HITRAN database based on experiments and updated by observations using spectroscopy instruments on weather balloons and satellites. There is no finer data existing for evaluating the role of atmospheric greenhouse gases in slowing the emission of energy from Earth to space. The abstract states:

“Atmospheric methane (CH4) contributes to the radiative forcing of Earth’s atmosphere. Radiative forcing is the difference in the net upward thermal radiation from the Earth through a transparent atmosphere and radiation through an otherwise identical atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Radiative forcing, normally specified in units of W m−2, depends on latitude, longitude, and altitude, but it is often quoted for a representative temperate latitude, and for the altitude of the tropopause, or for the top of the atmosphere. For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing at the tropopause, per added CH4 molecule, is about 30 times larger than the forcing per added carbon-dioxide (CO2) molecule. This is due to the heavy saturation of the absorption band of the abundant greenhouse gas, CO2. But the rate of increase of CO2 molecules, about 2.3 ppm/year (ppm = part per million), is about 300 times larger than the rate of increase of CH4 molecules, which has been around 0.0076 ppm/year since the year 2008. So, the contribution of methane to the annual increase in forcing is one tenth (30/300) that of carbon dioxide. The net forcing increase from CH4 and CO2 increases is about 0.05 W m−2 year−1. Other things being equal, this will cause a temperature increase of about 0.011 °C year−1. Proposals to place harsh restrictions on methane emissions because of warming fears are not justified by facts.”

Thus, when one accounts for the concentration of methane compared to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the amount of methane emitted annually; the emissions of methane from livestock and from oil and gas operations are insignificant in warming the globe. The evidence is contrary to the US EPA’s misleading claim that “Methane is more than 28 times as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere.” Further, the “EPA’s Final Rule to Reduce Methane and Other Harmful Pollution from Oil and Natural Gas Operations and Related Actions” is another example of regulatory excess without physical justification. There is no reason to fear these emissions.

See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy, https://www.epa.gov/gmi/importance-methane for EPA’s version of the importance of methane, and https://www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-operations/epas-final-rule-reduce-methane-and-other for EPA’s final rule on oil and natural gas operations, which is an attempt to significantly damage the industry without justification, except political ones.

********************

Atmospheric Window: There are specific ranges of frequencies (or of wavelengths) in which incoming solar radiation and infrared radiation emitted by Earth to space pass through the atmosphere without any or with little interruption (blocking) from greenhouse gases. These are called atmospheric windows. The most pronounced one is for visible light. A smaller one exists for outgoing infrared radiation. P. Gosselin presents a paper by Japanese energy researcher Kyoji Kimoto who asserts that:

“climate models were developed by Manabe, Hansen, Cess and Schlesinger using the energy budget of the earth … with no atmospheric window.”

His point is well taken. Amusingly, without an atmospheric window, certain constrictors such as pythons which are an invasive species in the Everglades, and all pit vipers such as cottonmouths could not successfully hunt warm blooded prey. The high-water vapor content in the humid air of swamps would prevent their ability to sense the infrared radiation of their prey. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

********************

Scientific Societies: Long-time US Naval Research Laboratory scientist Wallace Manheimer has a paper expressing significant concerns of pronouncements by scientific societies on climate. The abstract of the paper states:

“The assertion that a climate crisis is rapidly approaching due to excess carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is said to be based on science. This science is summarized in the statements of the major scientific societies. These statements have motivated governments, the media, and much of the public to commit to abandoning fossil fuels, i.e., going to “net zero” at some time in the not-so-distant future, perhaps by 2050, 26 years from now. The claims of these scientific societies clearly have a profound impact on the government, the media, and the public, and therefore the scientific basis for these claims needs to be frequently and rigorously reexamined by the societies and scrutinized by the public. This paper illustrates some serious concerns regarding the claims of these societies. It is not difficult to question these claims by comparing them with actual data from well-established organizations such as NOAA and NASA. Furthermore, the claims seem to go against such well-established scientific laws as the Stefan Boltzmann radiation law, and le Chatelier’s principle. If the statements of the societies overstate the danger, or are even incorrect, they may be motivating the United States, the western world, or even the whole world to make an enormously expensive and unnecessary transition to an energy infrastructure that is more expensive, less reliable, and more environmentally damaging than the one we have today. This article suggests that these scientific societies reexamine their climate statements with the goal of making them more moderate and more scientifically correct.”

In a summary of the paper in American Thinker, Manheimer points out that many statements from societies such as American Physical Society (APS), American Meteorological Society (AMS), National Academy of Science (NAS), American Chemical Society (ACS), and American Geophysical Union (AGU) are contradicted by physical evidence. For example:

“After all, the APS statement says, ‘Multiple lines of evidence strongly support the finding that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have become the dominant driver of global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century.’ What will its president say when the congressman puts up a graph showing that for 30 years in the early decades of the 20th century, the warming rate was the same or greater? Or when he puts up a map proving that the northern forests, 4000 years ago extended about 200 miles further north worldwide than they do today. Or shows that 2000 years ago, the Romans had vineyards in England extending all the way to Hadrian’s wall, millennia before cold weather grapes had been developed. Or when he shows evidence that 1000 years ago the Vikings grew barley in Greenland, something not possible today. Surely this proves that the world had many warmer periods without the help of extra CO2 in the atmosphere.”

To improve the situation Manheimer suggests the societies:

1. “Replace their climate statements with ones that say there is most likely an effect humans have on the changing climate, but its importance for humanity is uncertain and it is still being debated.
2. Eliminate statements that are demonstrably incorrect, as shown by comparison with easily available and reliable data.
3. Acknowledge in their statements that fossil fuels cannot be replaced in the next several decades without greatly endangering our civilization.
4. Acknowledge in their statements that CO2 has obvious benefit for human existence, as well as potential risks.”

See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy

********************

CO2 Regulating Temperatures? For years leaders of organizations such as NASA-GISS and NOAA have been carefully selecting data to claim that CO2 has been regulating Earth’s temperatures for millions of years. TWTW has rejected such claims by pointing out that they are not based on consistent physical evidence contiguous  in the time periods covered. A new technique is now claimed to provide evidence, CO2 concentration based on boron isotopes.

In personal correspondence, meteorologist Chuck Wiese discussed significant deficiencies in such studies. The studies ignore the Hydrological Cycle (clouds, precipitation and H2O vapor) which dominates heat loss in the troposphere (lower atmosphere). John Tyndall recognized the importance of water vapor from his experiments starting in 1859 and asserted it is water vapor (not carbon dioxide) which prevents the land masses from freezing at night. The research efforts focusing on atmospheric gases as the primary cause of changing climate are misleading. The relationship between Earth and the Sun, solar variation, cloudiness, ocean heat storage, and changes in ocean currents are far more important. See links under Defending the Orthodoxy

********************

Global Temperature Report: In their Global Temperature Report the staff at the Earth System Science Center, UAH, give a map of the changes in the lower troposphere trend from December 1978 to December 2024. Most of the lower troposphere is warming particularly in the upper latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, over part of southwest China, and a bit of Antarctica. But other parts of Antarctica are cooling. See links under Measurement Issues – Atmosphere.

********************

Tarnished Prize: Receiving the Nobel Prize is often considered the premier scientific achievement one can receive in a lifetime. Unfortunately, it has been tarnished on occasion. The terrorist Yasser Arafat receiving the Nobel Peace Prize comes to mind. Writing in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, Edward J. Calabrese & Dima Yazji Shamoun bring up another example of tarnishing the Nobel, Hermann Muller who promoted eugenics. Muller’s work gave rise to the Linear No Threshold Model and other mathematical absurdities used by the US EPA. The abstract of the paper by Calabrese and Shamoun states:

“This paper asserts that the Nobel Prize for Medicine/Physiology that Hermann J. Muller received in 1946 was a front to enhance the legitimacy, acceptance, and application of eugenics, a strategy to guide the direction and rate of human evolutionary change. Seven of the nine people nominating (1932–1946) Muller were proponents of eugenics with Muller being among the most visible of the scientific leaders. Muller’s nominators never cited his Nobel Prize research in scientific literature, lacked expertise in radiation-induced mutations, and were not qualified to evaluate Muller’s research. Muller’s claim of induced “gene” mutations with extremely high radiation dose rates remained highly uncertain, undercutting legitimate Nobel Prize consideration. Despite their diverse range of educational, research, and political backgrounds, they nominated Muller based on the convergence of their respective eugenic ideologies. The Chair of the Nobel Prize committee not only was a committed eugenicist but also nominated Muller the previous year and had invited these nominators under the belief they would support his prolonged advocacy for Muller. While the underlying intent of the nominations was to associate extremely high scientific achievement with eugenics, the Prize was ironically awarded immediately after World War II, and eugenics would be profoundly stigmatized due to its association with horrific actions against humanity by the Nazis. However, Muller’s Nobel Prize became a fear-based lightning rod for the environmental revolution, inspiring the book Silent Spring (1962), and providing the central framework for cancer risk assessment by regulatory agencies worldwide.”

The work of Muller was contradicted by the physical evidence that there were no unusual human mutations in the offspring of the survivors of the atomic bomb explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nor were there unusual human mutations in the offspring from those near Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or other nuclear mishaps. The human body is capable of repairing small amounts of radiation damage and there are membrane barriers similar to the blood-brain barrier protecting other organs in the human body such as testes and ovaries.

Radiation physicists make an important distinction between radiation dose and dose rate. For example, a summer’s sunlight by a daily sunbather makes for a nice tan but contributes a little toward skin cancer, but all that sunlight in an hour would be fatal. However, the EPA doesn’t really seem to understand that dose is not an additive quantity in the first place. See link under Other Scientific News.

********************

Santa Ana Winds: The climates of warm, semi-arid places such as southern California have a common characteristic: when its wet, vegetation grows; when its dry, vegetation dries. This drying is particularly severe for non-native species. California has had two wet winters in a row and its reservoirs are mostly normal. Vegetation flourished during the wet winters. However, California has what are called Santa Ana wind events.

Santa Ana winds originate with high pressure systems over the Great Basin and the upper Mojave Desert and are triggered by low pressure systems along the Pacific Coast. They bring fierce dry winds down the mountain slopes drying vegetation and driving brush fires. Fierce brush fires have been known in the Los Angeles basin probably since it was settled about 10,000 years ago. They have been recorded in English since the mid-19^th century. Some years ago, meteorologists used the pressure difference between Las Vegas and Los Angeles airports to forecast Santa Ana winds.

There is nothing new occurring in the Los Angeles Basin today, except for the failure of government entities to adapt to the reality that the wind-driven fires will come. Preparations for such events must be made and government entities such as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power have failed. Necessary water storage facilities have not been built to serve a growing population, the water supply systems are antiquated, and precautionary fire control measures such as large fire breaks and fire-resistant housing have not been implemented. Perhaps the political will may change when influential people are burnt out of wealthy neighborhoods such as Pacific Palisades (median-priced home about $3.5 million). But who knows?

The finger pointing has begun, and academics are adding to the mess. UCLA had a press release titled “Floods, droughts, then fires: Hydroclimate whiplash is speeding up globally.” However, West Coast meteorologist Cliff Mass who followed the situation showed that the National Weather Service well predicted intense Santa Ana winds. Electrical power should have been cut off in those areas most affected with weak power poles. The power was not cut. Based on aerial photographs Mass speculates that the Palisade Fire started with a failed powerline as did the disastrous Camp Fire in 2018 which killed over 80 people.

See links under Defending the Orthodoxy, Questioning the Orthodoxy and Article #1

********************

Number of the Week: ZERO: A few years ago, the UN Environmental Programme showed off a list of financial institutions that were parties to the Net Zero Banking Alliance that included the six major banks in the US, the major world economy. Now there are zero, with the departure of JP Morgan. BlackRock, the world’s largest assent manager with US $11.5 trillion under management, has announced it is leaving. Are these funds leaving a bad investment? See links under Problems in the Orthodoxy.

Censorship

Met Office Try To Shut Down Debate On Junk Temperature Measurements

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Jan 10, 2025