Solar activity, ocean cycles, & water vapor explain 98% of climate change since 1900, NOT CO2!

Climate Change Drivers

by Dan Pangburn, MSME

Summary

Thermalization and the complete dominance of water vapor in reverse-thermalization explain why atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has no significant effect on climate. Reported average global temperature (AGT) since before 1900 is accurately (98% match with measured trend) explained by a combination of ocean cycles, sunspot number anomaly time-integral and increased atmospheric water vapor.

Introduction

The only way that energy can significantly leave earth is by thermal radiation. Only solid or liquid bodies and greenhouse gases (ghg) can absorb/emit in the wavelength range of terrestrial radiation. Non-ghg gases must transfer energy to ghg gases (or liquid or solid bodies) for this energy to be radiated.

The word ‘trend’ is used here for temperatures in two different contexts. To differentiate, α-trend is an approximation of the net of ocean surface temperature oscillations after averaging-out the year-to-year fluctuations in reported average global temperatures. The term β-trend applies to the slower average energy change of the planet which is associated with change to the average temperature of the bulk volume of the material (mostly ocean water) involved.

Some ocean cycles have been named according to the particular area of the oceans where they occur. Names such as PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation), ENSO (el Nino Southern Oscillation), and AMO (Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation) might be familiar. They report the temperature of the water near the surface. The average temperature of the bulk water that is participating in these oscillations cannot significantly change so quickly because of high thermal capacitance [1].

This high thermal capacitance absolutely prohibits the rapid (year-to-year) AGT fluctuations which have been reported, from being a result of any credible forcing. According to one assessment [1], the time constant is about 5 years. A likely explanation for the reported year-to-year fluctuations is that they are stochastic phenomena in the over-all process that has been used to determine AGT. A simple calculation shows the standard deviation of the reported annual average measurements to be about ±0.09 K with respect to the trend. The temperature fluctuations of the bulk volume near the surface of the planet are more closely represented by the fluctuations in the trend. The trend is a better indicator of the change in global energy; which is the difference between energy received and energy radiated.

The kinetic theory of gases, some thermodynamics and the rudiments of quantum mechanics provide a rational explanation of what happens when ghg absorb photons of terrestrial thermal radiation.

Refutation of significant influence from CO₂

There is multiple evidence (most identified earlier [2] ) that CO₂ has no significant effect on climate:

1. In the late Ordovician Period, the planet plunged into and warmed up from the Andean/Saharan ice age, all at about 10 times the current CO₂ level [3].

2. Over the Phanerozoic eon (last 542 million years) there is no correlation between CO₂ level and AGT [3, 4].

3. During the last and previous glaciations AGT trend changed directions before CO₂ trend [2].

4. Since AGT has been directly and accurately measured world wide (about 1895), AGT has exhibited up and down trends while CO₂ trend has been only up. [2]

5. Since about 2001, the measured atmospheric CO₂ trend has continued to rise while the AGT trend has been essentially flat. [21, 13]

Thermalization refutes CO₂ influence on climate. (rev 10/21/16)

The relaxation time (amount of time that passes between absorption and emission of a photon by a molecule) for CO₂ in the atmosphere is about 6 µsec [5, 6]. The elapsed time between collisions between gaseous molecules at sea level average temperature and pressure is about 0.0002 µsec[7]. Thus, at sea level conditions, it is approximately 6/0.0002 = 30,000 times more likely that a CO₂ molecule, after it has absorbed a photon, will bump into another molecule, losing at least part of the momentum and energy it acquired from the photon. After multiple collisions, essentially all of the added photonic energy becomes distributed among other molecules and the probability of the CO₂ molecule emitting a photon at sea level conditions becomes negligible. The process of distribution of the energy to other molecules is thermal conduction in the gas. The process of absorbing photons and conducting the absorbed energy to other molecules is thermalization. Thermalized energy carries no identity of the molecule that absorbed it.

Water vapor molecules can absorb (and emit) photons at hundreds of wavelengths in the wavelength range of significant terrestrial thermal radiation (nearly all in the wavelength range 6-100 microns) compared to only one (15 micron) for CO₂ (wave length range of the single absorption band for CO₂ is broadened to about 14-16 microns at sea level due to pressure, etc. but the multiple absorb/emit wave length bands for water vapor are equally broadened). 

Reverse thermalization, where the warmed jostling molecules excite some molecules to emit a photon is almost entirely to water vapor molecules at sea level conditions. The reason is relaxation time of some water vapor molecule rotational emission lines is 0.5 µsec compared to 6 µsec for CO₂ molecules and/or the thousands more ‘opportunities’ for emission by water vapor.

Water vapor has more ‘opportunities’ for emission because there are about 35 times as many water vapor molecules in the atmosphere below about 5 km as there are CO₂ molecules (See Figure 2) and each water vapor molecule has hundreds of emission bands compared to only one band for each CO₂ molecule. Most, if not all, of the photons emitted by the water vapor molecules are at wavelengths different from the narrow band CO₂ molecules can absorb. Effectively, energy absorbed by CO₂ is rerouted to space via water vapor.

At very high altitudes, molecule spacing and time between collision increases to where reverse-thermalization to CO₂ molecules becomes significant as does radiation from them to space.

Figure 1 is a typical graph showing top-of-atmosphere (TOA) thermal radiation from the planet. The TOA radiation from different locations on the planet can be decidedly different, e.g. as shown in Figure 9 of Reference [8]. Figure 1, here, might be over a temperate ocean and thus typical for much of earth’s surface.

Figure 1: Terrestrial thermal radiation and absorption.

Approximately 98% of atmospheric molecules are non-ghg nitrogen and oxygen. They are substantially warmed by thermalization of the photonic energy absorbed by the ghg molecules.

Figure 2: Water vapor declines rapidly with altitude. [9] (original from NASA)

Thermalized energy carries no identity of the molecule that absorbed it. The thermalized radiation warms the air, reducing its density, causing updrafts which are exploited by soaring birds, sailplanes, and occasionally hail. Updrafts are matched by downdrafts elsewhere, usually spread out but sometimes recognized by pilots and passengers as ‘air pockets’ and micro bursts.

A common observation of thermalization by way of water vapor is cloudless nights cool faster when absolute water vapor content of the atmosphere is lower.

Jostling between gas molecules (observed as temperature and pressure) sometimes causes reverse-thermalization. At low to medium altitudes, EMR emission stimulated by reverse-thermalization is essentially all by way of water vapor.

At altitudes below about 10 km a comparatively steep population gradient (decline with increasing altitude) in water vapor molecules favors outward radiation with increasing amounts escaping directly to space. At higher altitudes, increased molecule spacing and greatly diminished water vapor molecules favors reverse thermalization to CO₂. This is observed in the sharp peaks at nominal absorb/emit wavelengths of non-condensing ghg (See Figure 1).

Thermalization results in the influence of CO₂ on climate to be not significantly different from zero.

Environmental Protection Agency mistake

The US EPA asserts [10] Global Warming Potential (GWP) is a measure of “effects on the Earth's warming” with “Two key ways in which these [ghg] gases differ from each other are their ability to absorb energy (their "radiative efficiency"), and how long they stay in the atmosphere (also known as their "lifetime").” 

The EPA calculation overlooks the very real phenomenon of thermalization. Trace ghg (all ghg except water vapor) have no significant effect on climate because absorbed energy is immediately thermalized. 

Water vapor (Rev 8/26/16)

Water vapor is the ghg which makes earth warm enough for life as we know it. Increased atmospheric water vapor contributes to planet warming. Water vapor molecules are far more effective at absorbing terrestrial thermal radiation than CO₂ molecules (even if thermalization did not eliminate CO₂ as a significant warmer). Atmospheric water vapor has increased primarily (≈ 98%) as a result of increased irrigation, with comparatively tiny contributions from cooling towers at electricity generating facilities, and increased burning of hydrogen rich fossil fuels especially natural gas which is nearly all methane. Of course increased water vapor causes the planet to warm which further increases water vapor so there is a cumulative effect (in control system analysis as done by engineers, this is called feedback. The term ‘feedback’ has a somewhat different meaning to Climate Scientists). This cumulative effect also amplifies cooldowns. More water vapor in the atmosphere means more warming, probably acceleration of the hydrologic cycle and increased probability of floods. How much of recent flooding is simply bad luck in the randomness of weather and how much is because of the ‘thumb on the scale’ of added water vapor? Water vapor exhibits a logarithmic decline in effect of equal added increments (Fig. 3 of Ref. [12]).

Essentially all of the ghg effect on earth comes from water vapor. Clear air water vapor measurements over the non-ice-covered oceans in the form of total precipitable water (TPW) have been made since about 1987 by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) [11]. A graph of this measured ‘global’ average anomaly data, with a reference value of 28.73 added, is shown in the left graph of Figure 3. The trend of this data is extrapolated both earlier and later using CO₂ level as a proxy, with the expression kg/m^2 TPW = 4.5118 * ppmvCO₂^0.31286. The result is the right-hand graph of Figure 3. (The 1940-1950 flat exists in the Law Dome CO₂ data base.)

Figure 3: Average clear air total precipitable water over all non-ice-covered oceans.

Clouds (average emissivity about 0.5) consist of solid and/or liquid water particles that radiate approximately according to Planck spectrum and Stephan-Boltzmann (S-B) law (each particle contains millions of molecules).

The perception water vapor content of the atmosphere depends even minutely on CO₂ content is profoundly misleading and precisely wrong because it ignores the partial pressure of water.

The AGT Model

Most modeling of global climate has been with Global Climate Models (GCMs) where physical laws are applied to hundreds of thousands of discrete blocks and the interactions between the discrete blocks are analyzed using super computers with an end result being calculation of the AGT trajectory. This might be described as a ‘bottom up’ approach. Although theoretically promising, multiple issues currently exist with this approach. Reference [13] discloses that nearly all of the more than 100 current GCMs are obviously faulty. The few which appear to follow measurements might even be statistical outliers of the ‘consensus’ method. The growing separation between calculated and measured AGT as shown at Figure 17 in Ref. [14] also suggests some factor is missing.

The approach in the analysis presented here is ‘top down’. This type of approach has been called ‘emergent structures analysis’. As described by Dr. Roy Spencer in his book THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING BLUNDER, “Rather than model the system from the bottom up with many building blocks, one looks at how the system as a whole behaves.” That approach is used here with strict compliance with physical laws. 

The basis for assessment of AGT is the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, applied to the entire planet as a single entity. Much of the available data are forcings or proxies for forcings which must be integrated (mathematically as in calculus, i.e. accumulated over time) to compute energy change. Energy change divided by effective thermal capacitance is temperature change. Temperature change is expressed as anomalies which are the differences between annual averages of measured temperatures and some baseline reference temperature; usually the average over a previous multiple-year time period. (Monthly anomalies, which are not used here, are referenced to previous average for the same month to account for seasonal norms.)

The AGT model, a summation of contributing factors, is expressed in this equation:

Tanom = (A,y)+thcap^-1 * Σ^y_i=1895 {B*[S(i)-Savg] + C*ln[TPW(i)/TPW(1895)] –                              F * [(T(i)/T(1895))⁴ – 1]} + D                                                                                 (1)

Where:

Tanom = Calculated average global temperature anomaly with respect to the baseline of the anomaly for the measured temperature data set, K

A = highest-to-lowest extent in the saw-tooth approximation of the net effect on planet AGT of all ocean cycles, K

y = year being calculated

(A,y) = value of the net effect of ocean cycles on AGT in year y (α-trend), K

thcap = effective  thermal capacitance [1] of the planet = 17±7 W yr m^-2 K^-1

1895 = Selected beginning year of acceptably accurate world wide temperature measurements.

B = combined proxy factor and influence coefficient for energy change due to sunspot number anomaly change, W yr m^-2

S(i) = average daily V2 sunspot numbers [15,16] in year i

Savg = baseline for determining SSN anomalies 

C = influence coefficient for energy change due to TPW change, W yr m^-2

TPW(i) = total precipitable water in year i, kg m^-2

TPW(1895) = TPW in 1895, same units as TPW(i)  

F = 1 to account for change to S-B radiation from earth due to AGT change, W yr m^-2

T(i) = AGT calculated by adding T(1895) to the reported anomaly, K

T(1895) = AGT in 1895 = 286.707 K

D = offset that shifts the calculated trajectory vertically on the graph, without changing its shape, to best match the measured data, K (equivalent to changing the anomaly reference temperature).

Accuracy of the model is determined using the Coefficient of Determination, R ², to compare calculated AGT with measured AGT.

Approximate effect on the planet of the net of ocean surface temperature (SST)

The average global ocean surface temperature oscillation is only about ±1/6 K. It is defined to not significantly add or remove planet energy. The net influence of SST oscillation on reported AGT is defined as α-trend. In the decades immediately prior to 1941 the amplitude range of the trends was not significantly influenced by change to any candidate internal forcing effect; so the observed amplitude of the effect on AGT of the net ocean surface temperature trend anomaly then, must be approximately the same as the amplitude of the part of the AGT trend anomaly due to ocean oscillations since then. This part is approximately 0.36 K total highest-to-lowest extent with a period of approximately 64 years (verified by high R² in Table 1). 

The measured AGT trajectory (Figure 9) suggests that the least-biased simple wave form of the effective ocean surface temperature oscillation is approximately saw-toothed. Approximation of the sea surface temperature anomaly oscillation can be described as varying linearly from –A/2 K in 1909 to approximately +A/2 K in 1941 and linearly back to the 1909 value in 1973. This cycle repeats before and after with a period of 64 years.

Because the actual magnitude of the effect of ocean oscillation in any year is needed, the expression to account for the contribution of the ocean oscillation in each year to AGT is given by the following:

ΔTosc = (A,y)             K (degrees)                 (2)

where the contribution of the net of ocean oscillations to AGT change is the magnitude of the effect on AGT of the surface temperature anomaly trend of the oscillation in year y, and A is the maximum highest-to-lowest extent of the effect on AGT of the net ocean surface temperature oscillation. 

Equation (2) is graphed in Figure 4 for A=0.36.

Figure 4: Ocean surface temperature oscillations (α-trend) do not significantly affect the bulk energy of the planet.

Comparison of approximation with ‘named’ ocean cycles

Named ocean cycles include, in the Pacific north of 20N, Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO); in the equatorial Pacific, El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO); and in the north Atlantic, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

Ocean cycles are perceived to contribute to AGT in two ways: The first is the direct measurement of sea surface temperature (SST). The second is warmer SST increases atmospheric water vapor which acts as a forcing and therefore has a time-integral effect on temperature. The approximation, (A,y), accounts for both ways.

SST data is available for three named cycles: PDO index, ENSO 3.4 index and AMO index. Successful accounting for oscillations is achieved for PDO and ENSO when considering these as forcings (with appropriate proxy factors) instead of direct measurements. As forcings, their influence accumulates with time. The proxy factors must be determined separately for each forcing. The measurements are available since 1900 for PDO [17] and ENSO3.4 [18]. This PDO data set has the PDO temperature measurements reduced by the average SST measurements for the planet.

The contribution of PDO and ENSO3.4 to AGT is calculated by:

PDO_NINO = Σ^y_i=1900 (0.017*PDO(i) + 0.009 * ENSO34(i))        (3)

Where:

            PDO(i) = PDO index [17] in year i

            ENSO34(i) = ENSO 3.4 index [18] in year i

How this calculation compares to the idealized approximation used in Equation (2) with A = 0.36 is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Comparison of idealized approximation of ocean cycle effect and the calculated effect from PDO and ENSO.

The AMO index [19] is formed from area-weighted and de-trended SST data. It is shown with two different amounts of smoothing in Figure 6 along with the saw-tooth approximation for the entire planet per Equation (2) with A = 0.36.

Figure 6: Comparison of idealized approximation of ocean cycle effect and the AMO index.

The high Coefficients of Determination in Table 1 and the comparisons in Figures 5 and 6 corroborate the assumption that the saw-tooth profile with a period of 64 years provides adequate approximation of the net effect of all named and unnamed ocean cycles in the calculated AGT anomalies.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide

The level of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) has been widely measured over the years. Values from ancient times were determined by measurements on gas bubbles which had been trapped in ice cores extracted from Antarctic glaciers [20]. Spatial variations between sources have been found to be inconsequential [2]. The best current source for atmospheric carbon dioxide level [21] is Mauna Loa, Hawaii. Extrapolation to future CO₂ levels, shown in Figure 7, is accomplished using a second-order curve fit to data measured at Mauna Loa from 1980 to 2012. 

Figure 7: Measured atmospheric carbon dioxide level since 1880 and extrapolation to 2037.

Sunspot numbers

Sunspots have been regularly recorded since 1610. In 2015 historical (V1) SSN were reevaluated in light of current perceptions and more sensitive instruments and are designated as V2. The V2 SSN data set is used throughout this assessment. V2 SSN [15] are shown in Figure 8.

Sunspot numbers (SSN) are seen to be in cycles each lasting approximately 11 years. The current cycle, called 24, has been comparatively low, has peaked, and is now in decline.

The Maunder Minimum (1645-1700), an era of extremely low SSN, was associated with the Little Ice Age. The Dalton Minimum (1790-1820) was a period of low SSN and low temperatures. An unnamed period of low SSN (1880-1930) was also accompanied by comparatively low temperatures.

An assessment of this is that sunspots are somehow related to the net energy retained by the planet, as indicated by changes to the average global temperature trend. Fewer sunspots are associated with cooling, and more sunspots are associated with warming. Thus the hypothesis is made that SSN are proxies for the rate at which the planet accumulates (or loses) radiant energy over time. Therefore the time-integral of the SSN anomalies is a proxy for most of the amount of energy retained by the planet above or below breakeven.

Also, a lower solar cycle over a longer period might result in the same increase in energy retained by the planet as a higher solar cycle over a shorter period. Both magnitude and time are accounted for by taking the time-integral of the SSN anomalies, which is simply the sum of annual mean SSN (each minus Savg) over the period of study.

SSN change correlates with change to Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). However, TSI change can only account for less than 10% of the AGT change on earth. Because AGT change has been found to correlate with SSN change, the SSN change must act as a catalyst on some other factor (perhaps clouds [22]) which have a substantial effect on AGT.

Figure 8: V2 SSN [15]

Possible values for Savg are subject to two constraints. Initially they are determined as that which results in derived coefficients and maximum R². However, calculated values must also result in rational values for calculated AGT at the depths of the Little Ice Age. The necessity to calculate a rational LIA AGT is a somewhat more sensitive constraint. The selected value for Savg results in calculated LIA AGT of approximately 1 K less than the recent trend which appears rational and is consistent with most LIA AGT assessments.

PLEASE CONTINUE FOR REMAINDER OF ARTICLE AT DAN PANGBURN'S SITE for the Identity of the 3 factors in the equation which matches average global temperature (98% correlation from 1895-2015) at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com . 

HINT: CO2 is an insignificant factor. From the conclusions:

Conclusions

Three factors explain essentially all of Average Global Temperature change since before 1900. They are ocean cycles, accounted for with an approximation, influence quantified by a proxy; the  SSN [sunspot numbers] anomaly time-integral and, the gain in atmospheric water vapor measured since 1987 and extrapolated before and after using measured CO₂ as a proxy.

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