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% THIS WEEK:  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  http://www.therightclimatestuff.com... 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: SEPP  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. NEWS YOU CAN USE: Suppressing Scientific Inquiry – The Witch Hunt Dem senator: Trump’s EPA pick is ‘corruption’  By Devin Henry, The Hill, Dec 8, 2016  http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...  [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  http://nypost.com/2016/12/04/the-di...  “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  http://www.sepp.org/publications/ni... Overcoming Chaotic Behavior of Climate Models  By S. Fred Singer, SEPP, July 2010  http://www.sepp.org/science_papers/... 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  http://climatechangereconsidered.or...  Download with no charge  https://www.heartland.org/policy-do... Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science  Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, 2013  https://www.heartland.org/media-lib...  Summary:  http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/... Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts  Idso, Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, 2014  http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/...  Summary:  https://www.heartland.org/media-lib... Challenging the Orthodoxy Prepared Testimony to House Committee on Science, Space & Technology  By John Christy, UAH, Feb 2, 2016  https://science.house.gov/sites/rep... 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  https://thsresearch.files.wordpress... 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  http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/09/...  [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  https://dddusmma.wordpress.com/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  https://www.nap.edu/read/12181/chap... 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  https://www.epa.gov/sites/productio...  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  http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...  [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  https://cleantechnica.com/2016/12/0...  [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  http://scientific-alliance.org/node... Has the AGW hypothesis been falsified again?  By Geoff Brown, Australian Climate Sceptics, Dec 10, 2016  http://theclimatescepticsparty.blog...  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  https://www.sciencenews.org/article... Trump Induced Panic Exposes Media Bias and Ignorance of Climate  Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball, WUWT, Dec 6, 2016  https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12...  “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  http://www.climatechangenews.com/20... 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  https://www.theguardian.com/environ... Trump pricks prominent climate skeptic as EPA chief  By David Malakoff, Science Mag, Dec 7, 2016  http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016... Trump's EPA pick may struggle to dismantle Obama's environmental legacy  By Valerie Volcovici and David Shepardson, Reuters, Dec 9, 2016  http://www.reuters.com/article/us-u... Greens slam Trump’s Interior Department pick  By Timothy Cama, The Hill, Dec 9, 2016  http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...  [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  http://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir... Three Reasons Trump Doesn't Matter To Energy Policy  By Jeff McMahon, Forbes, Dec 7, 2016  http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcm...  [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  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti... Trump team wants names at DOE who worked on climate  By Devin Henry, The Hill, Dec 9, 2016  http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...  [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  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti... 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  https://www.project-syndicate.org/o...  [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  http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl... Pragmatic energy policy recommendations for the Trump administration  By David Gattie, Climate Etc. Dec 8, 2016  https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/08/... “Post-Truth” Media Should Look in the Mirror  By Steven Hayward, Power Line, Dec 6, 2016  http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv... 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  http://www.carlineconomics.com/arch... 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  http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/04/... Trump EPA nomination a home run! Scott Pruitt tapped to reform EPA  By Staff Writers, ICECAP, Dec 9, 2016  http://icecap.us/index.php/go/polit... Rolling back environmental progress?  Having achieved major goals, US should refocus EPA and other environmental agencies  By Paul Driessen, ICECAP, Dec 4, 2016  http://icecap.us/index.php/go/icing... Problems in the Orthodoxy SHOCK: The ‘Father of global warming’, James Hansen, dials back alarm  By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Dec 3, 2016  https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12... Seeking a Common Ground Climate Heretic: to be or not to be?  By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Dec 5, 2016  https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/05/... ‘Truthiness’ and ‘factiness’ in politicized scientific debates  By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Dec 3, 2016  https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/03/... 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  http://www.co2science.org/articles/...  “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  http://www.co2science.org/articles/...  [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  http://www.co2science.org/articles/... 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  http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/08/... Model Issues CLOUD experiment sharpens climate predictions  Press Release by Matthew Chalmers, CERN, Oct 28, 2016 [H/t Australian Climate Skeptics]  https://home.cern/about/updates/201... Measurement Issues -- Surface Despite Denial, Global Temperatures Are Dropping Fast  By David Whitehouse, GWPF, Dec 5, 2016  http://www.thegwpf.com/despite-deni... November 2016 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly Update  By Bob Tisdale, Climate Observations, Dec 6, 2016 [H/t GWPF]  https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/20...  [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  http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-a... 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  http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/05/...  [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

Prof Emeritus of Chemical Engineering explains why 'it is impossible that significant climate change is solely due to increased CO2'

Dutch Professor Emeritus of Chemical Engineering and thermodynamics, Dr. Dick Thoenes, explains a multitude of reasons that, 

"My conclusion is that it is impossible that significant climate change is due solely to an increase in CO2 levels. This means that all measures to reduce CO2 emissions are pointless. This has enormous financial consequences for the world."

Google translation from the German EIKE website:

My views on the influence of CO2 on the climate

The Dutch professor em. of Chemical Engineering at the Eindhoven University and author of many reference books on mass and energy flows in materials, exactly the areas that need the climate science, Dick Thoenes, pushes for anyone interested in clear and understandable why the postulated greenhouse effect in the real world is not seen.

1. Why we believed that more CO2 would warm the atmosphere?

This idea was based on the results of laboratory tests of Svante Arrhenius, which had been published in two studies in 1896 and 1906. He concluded from his first measurements that infrared rays are absorbed by air containing CO2, which heat is released.The surface of the earth receives energy from the sun, where it is converted into infrared radiation, which is at least partially absorbed by the atmospheric CO2, creating a temperature rise occurs. The temperature at the earth's surface also increases in order to ensure a constant flow of heat into the atmosphere.This is called "greenhouse effect". From the heated air layer, energy is transported upwards.

 

2. How important is the greenhouse effect of CO2?

Arrhenius was interested in this effect, because he wanted to explain the warming of the atmosphere after each ice age. Meanwhile it became clear that we owe the relatively mild temperatures of the atmosphere combined the greenhouse effect of CO2 and water vapor (which is however questioned by some scientists). The effect of water vapor is by far the biggest. Arrhenius supposed that the atmosphere in the future would be warmer because of the burning of fossil fuels. This is called the "additional greenhouse effect". He estimated that this effect would account for a doubling of CO2 concentration is about 5 ° C; the former concentration was about 300 ppm. In his second trial he corrected this value to only 1.6 ° C. In the eighties of the last century has often referred to this first study, and it was feared that the rising CO2 content would result due to the increasing burning of fossil fuels to a significant warming of the atmosphere.The second study was, I believe, was not discovered until after 2000. The effect appears in less threatening, but still significant. So far as I know, this second estimate is now considered to be correct.

(Note: It is sometimes claimed that the earth's surface is heated by the heated air back reflection layer containing CO2 but this is wrong, because heat can not flow from colder to warmer temperatures.)

3. Has the "additional greenhouse effect" of CO2 been proved in the real world?

No it has not! It is impossible to conduct appropriate experiments in the atmosphere. In the atmosphere was observed no significant warming in the 20th century, in spite of a huge increase in the CO2 content. There was only one heating 1979-1998 by 0.4 ° C. From 1940 to 1979, gave a slight cooling by 0.2 ° C, and by 1998, the temperature had remained constant. The mean increase in 1940 was about 0.2 ° C. The CO2 content has increased throughout this period. If the measurements do not match the theory, the theory is wrong. [Media {especially the Süddeutsche Zeitung} and see the policy course the other way around. Hold the theory of right and wrong measurements. Note. D. Trans.]

Also, we should carefully deal with the term "air". Originally, the term referred to the local climate of a country or a region. If we now read in the newspapers of "the climate", it is meant an average "global climate". However, such a climate does not exist and can not be clearly defined. Likewise, a "medium temperature" can not be uniquely determined (see section 6).

4. Why do not we notice an additional greenhouse effect?

The greenhouse effect of CO2 has not yet confirmed neither in laboratory experiments on real observations. Although the hypothesis of Arrhenius quite plausible, so it lacks  any scientific  evidence. The reason may be that he is too weak to make itself felt and is therefore superimposed by stronger forcings.

The physical constellation in the atmosphere is much more complicated and can not be reproduced in the laboratory. In the real atmosphere, several additional phenomena occur simultaneously, as there would be solar radiation, reflection on water and ice surfaces, evaporation, convection (vertical ventilation), cloud formation (which radiate upwards and solar radiation reflected), rain, snow, etc. We can simultaneous occurrence and the interactions between these phenomena can not predict, especially because they vary significantly from one area to the next. It is important to note that the evaporation and cloud formation any counteract warming and act as a negative feedback. In fact, has not been shown conclusively that a CO2 increase in the atmosphere has a definite influence on the climate.

5. Are there any other factors that affect the climate?

Yes, there are two natural phenomena that can affect the temperature and fluctuate unpredictably. These are the solar activity and the major ocean currents. The solar activity (which is manifested by sunspots) gives the "solar wind", ie a flow of charged particles emitted by the sun and fly into space. They also hit the Earth and interact with cosmic rays (which comes from distant stars). This in turn affects the formation of clouds in the atmosphere, which determines how much solar radiation reaches the earth's surface. Through this complicated mechanism ensures higher solar activity for higher temperatures in the atmosphere. The solar activity is slowly changing and unpredictable. During the last quarter of the 20th century, solar activity was high, decreased after 2000 and is currently (2015) is very low. It is possible (but not proven) that the measured increase in temperature of 0.4 ° ​​C from 1979 to 1998 is due to the high solar activity.

The great ocean currents distribute the excess heat that is produced in the tropics, over the entire surface. When flows in a given year a little more warm water to one of the poles, it is a bit warmer there. And vice versa. This also affects the average global temperature. So far as I know, the reason for these changes in the ocean currents is still completely unknown. Both of these effects may be the reasons for the variations in the average temperatures of the world, which may vary from one year to the next between 0.1 ° C and 0.5 ° C.

6. Complications and uncertainties

There are significant uncertainties, not only in terms of the quantitative effects of CO2, but also in terms of the mass balance of the CO2 fluxes. These mass balances are quite complicated. The different natural sources, which are much larger than the human emissions are not known with sufficient accuracy. The four sources rivers are: The emergence of CO2 through decomposition of plant parts, the release of CO2 from warm seawater, the absorption of CO2 from the air by growing vegetation and absorption (solution) of CO2 in cold seawater. These sources are each about ten times larger than the human emissions, and are subject to change gradually over time. However, these changes can not be measured accurately. Therefore we can not say with certainty whether a CO2 increase is due to the burning of fossil fuels in the atmosphere, although it seems plausible (but doubtful, see below). An increase can also be searched in a temporary increase in the natural formation or a decrease in the natural reduction (which are not directly linked).

Another hit and miss affair, the proportion of human CO2 emissions remaining in the atmosphere. Of all that enter the atmosphere CO2 fluxes, both natural and anthropogenic origin, around 98% are absorbed by nature (plants and oceans).The remaining 2% in the atmosphere corresponding to the measured increase in the CO2 content. It is not clear whether this has any relation to human CO2 emissions.

What makes the magnitude of these shares determined? Will they remain constant? That's not safe. As a result of increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere increases plant growth around the world gradually. Therefore, the CO2 absorption will increase by plants, but ultimately also the decomposition of dead plant parts. We can not accurately assess these developments. It may be so, that the 2% (which accumulate) gradually increase or decrease. In the latter case, the CO2 content can be constant (that is of course speculation).

(It is sometimes claimed that about half of human emissions remains in the atmosphere, but this is certainly wrong. The natural absorption processes do not distinguish between CO2 from various sources. The error is based on the observation that the accumulation of CO2 is approximately equal to the half of human emissions, but that's just a coincidence).

The oceans contain about 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere, mostly as bicarbonates. When the temperature of the ocean rises a little, more CO2 is released into the atmosphere, and when it cools down, goes back more CO2 in the water. Small changes in the CO2 content of water correspond to large changes in the atmosphere. Moreover, some of the CO2 will be permanently removed from the cycle by the formation of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) as shells of marine organisms that sink to the bottom. We do not know how much the mind, but possibly the proportion is not negligible.The limestone cliffs z. B. at Dover in England and many other places around the world are created.

A further complication is the fact that the solar radiation reaching the earth's surface is simultaneously transported upwards through three processes: evaporation, followed by condensation, and cloud formation, heat transfer by convection and infrared radiation followed by (partial) absorption. Although the emphasis is usually on radiation, this is actually the least important (10 to 20% of the whole). This limits the greenhouse effect. Energy is transported through these three processes upwards, but ultimately the power of the upper layers of the atmosphere is radiated into space.A quantitative description of these processes is hardly possible, since they vary considerably between one point and the next.

We know that the evaporation of surface water (including water from wet earth) plays an important role in our climate.When the temperature starts to rise, and the evaporation, which slows down the heating increases (therefore, temperature variations in humid countries like the Netherlands is smaller than in dry areas such as deserts). Also evaporation leads to cloud formation, which hinder the radiation to the Earth's surface. These processes reduce the greenhouse effect (so-called negative feedback). We can not accurately measure this on a global scale.

Another uncertainty is the greenhouse effect of water vapor, which is much larger than the CO2 effect and varies enormously over the world. We can not accurately assess this effect. Therefore it is not possible, a given change in temperature alone the CO2 assign [doing this is exactly what make IPCC and company, without exception! Note. D. Trans.]

A significant uncertainty is the fact that it's not really possible to define an average temperature of the atmosphere. We can amounts of mass or energy resources, but "quantities" of temperature, there is not, so we can not convey. The reported average temperatures are calculated from temperature measurements from around the world in a special way and be extended to the areas from which no measurements exist. This calculated mean temperature is not constant, it can vary without any external influence. This can happen in the form of the sequence of phase transitions as evaporation, condensation, ice melt, ice, evaporation over ice and ice formation in moist air. All these processes are coupled with production or consumption of heat. The extent of these phase transitions can vary in the wake of variations of water or air currents. And they cause warming or cooling of the environment. All these phenomena take place against the background that the atmosphere and the oceans are not in balance.

For example, if observed that in certain periods ice sheets have melted (as it periodically happens), this is not a sign of the warming of the globe ', but rather of its cooling. When ice melts, the environment is (usually water) removed from heat.

This situation of imbalance caused by the fact that the earth is constantly supplied heat or removed from this (because of the solar radiation and the infrared radiation into space). This leads to a large extent on water and air currents around the Earth. One consequence of this is that it is not possible to calculate an average temperature with an accuracy better than 0.5 ° C (see the end of section 5). Small deviations of the mean temperature are therefore not significant. The fact that an average "Climate Change" can not be defined addition follows.

7. The unpredictability of the climate

For a long time it was assumed that the future climate can be predicted if we had knowledge of the following two things:

● A climate model, which describes the Earth's climate in sufficient detail (in this case, is a model, a set of mathematical equations).

● Adequate climate data (from all over the world) that can be included in the model, to put it in a position to predict the future climate.

However, both are wrong. There are too many uncertainties (section 6) in order to form a sufficiently accurate model.Our current climate models are very progressive, but do not represent all of the relevant processes. But even if we had such a perfect model, we could not predict the future climate, as the world's climate as a "chaotic" system behaves.Chaos is in this sense a mathematical concept which means that the system is described by a number of simultaneous non-linear differential equations. Such systems are extremely sensitive to their initial conditions, such as temperatures, which are measured at certain points at certain times. Small variations of these data (less than the measurement accuracy) can lead to completely different results. Therefore, the future of the global climate can not be predicted.

8. warms the world or not?

This question can not be answered. We can ask the following questions that can be answered: Has the world warmed so far? You expect a warming of the world in the future?

Measurements show that has warmed the atmosphere in the period from 1979 to 1998 0.4 ° C, but it is doubtful whether this is significant (see section 6). Even before 1940 there was a slight warming, but there was then no CO2 emissions, so that there must be other reasons.

We can not say whether or not the world is warming in the future, because the climate is essentially unpredictable (Section 7). However, we can expect have. We know that, have been already absorbed about 90% and converted to heat by the infrared radiation that can be absorbed by CO2. If the CO2 content rises, the absorption can of course never rise above 100%. This will lead to a warming below 2 ° C. However, we also know that it would have more advantages than disadvantages. The advantages are: higher yields and lower energy consumption (which would be reflected savings per year in billions of dollars). Because of the negative feedback of the temperature rise is likely to be much lower (unfortunately). Many astronomers say in the near future require a cooling, which would be significantly detrimental than a warming.

9. We can draw a conclusion?

We had originally thought that there would be a relationship between the CO2 content of the atmosphere and the average temperature. This was demonstrated for the geological history, during the last few hundred thousand years.However, showing the geological research, that a temperature increase of an increase of the CO2 content always preceded was (no doubt by gas emissions from the oceans). There is no evidence that CO2 can cause significant warming (more than a few tenths of a degree). We now know that the large number of running processes in the atmosphere is so complex that we can never produce a quantitative description.

Should not we be worried about the fact that we continue to blow large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere? As far as we know, has a higher CO2 content only benefits (better plant growth), but no disadvantages. In certain geological periods, the CO2 content was much higher than today without any dramatic effect.

(Some people push a possible acidification of the oceans to the CO2 in the shoes, but I believe that is unlikely. The ocean water is slightly basic, and a little more CO2 can be a little less basic, but never acidic).

10. Consequences

My conclusion is that it is impossible is that significant climate change is due solely to an increase in CO2 levels. This means that all measures to reduce CO2 emissions are pointless. This has enormous financial consequences for the world.

About the Author:

Prof. Dr. Dick Thoenes b.1930 taught chemical engineering until 1995, the year he Emiretierung, at the Eindhoven University, Netherlands. He is the author of many books and worked as a research consultant for many companies and the Swedish and Netherlands Governments. He was chairman and is now an honorary member of the KNCV (Royal Chemical Society) and became the Foreign Member of the Royal Academy of Engineering Sciences (IVA) Stockholm appointed. 

He focuses on "Transport phenomena" (the first in the famous book by RB Bird, et al., 1960 formulated). This includes fluid flow, mixing, mass transfer, heat transfer, evaporation, radiation, etc. These phenomena are the basis of chemical engineering and they are also the basis for climate research. So when the second assessment report of the IPCC was published in 1995 (the year of his retirement), he studied it and thought: That can not be true! Later studies confirmed this impression.