Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Why the basic global warming hypothesis is wrong; CO2 climate sensitivity exaggerated 21X

Kyoji Kimoto, a Japanese chemist, scientist, and fuel-cell computer modeler & inventor, has a new essay below explaining why the basic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong and leads to highly exaggerated climate sensitivity to doubled CO2. Kimoto finds climate sensitivity of only 0.14C, a factor of 21 times smaller than the IPCC canonical climate sensitivity estimate of ~3C per doubled CO2.

See prior posts by Kimoto here.

Basic global warming hypothesis is wrong

by Kyoji Kimoto

1. Activities of four eminent modelers

The central dogma in anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory is that zero feedback climate sensitivity (Planck response) is 1.2~1.3 K. This gives climate sensitivity when multiplied by feedbacks (Hansen et al., 1984).

Until Kimoto (2009), theoretical discussions concentrated on the feedback issue. However, it is impossible to accurately determine the feedbacks caused by the variable nature of water in the perturbed atmosphere with CO2 doubling. This problem has resulted in speculative discussions for a long time.

However, rigorous discussions are possible for the zero feedback climate sensitivity (Planck response) based on mathematics and physics. The Planck response of 1.2 K for GCMs comes from one-dimensional radiative convective equilibrium models (1DRCM) that assume the fixed lapse rate of 6.5 K/km (FLRA) and use the mathematical method of Cess (1976), equation (3).

The work of the following eminent modelers are mainly concerned with the central dogma of the AGW theory.

Dr. S. Manabe:

Manabe & Wetherald (1967) used the FLRA for the CO₂ mixing ratio of 300 ppm (1xCO₂) and that of 600 ppm (2xCO₂) in the atmosphere, and obtained the zero feedback climate sensitivity CS(FAH) of 1.3 K in their 1DRCM study. Regarding lapse rate, Manabe & Strickler (1964) wrote,

“The observed tropospheric lapse rate of temperature is approximately 6.5 K/km. The explanation for this fact is rather complicated. It is essentially the result of a balance between (a) the stabilizing effect of upward heat transport in moist and dry convection on both small and large scales and (b), the destabilizing effect of radiative transfer. Instead of exploring the problem of the tropospheric lapse rate in detail, we here accept this as an observed fact and regard it as a critical lapse rate for convection.”

In the farewell lecture held on October 26, 2001, in Tokyo, Manabe told about his research,

“Research funds have been 3 million dollars per year and 120 million dollars for the past 40 years. It is not clever to pursue the scientific truth. Better way is choosing the relevant topics to the society for the funds covering the staff and computer cost of the project.”

Dr. J. Hansen:

(a) Hansen obtained the zero feedback climate sensitivity CS(FAH) of 1.2 K with the FLRA for 1xCO₂ and 2xCO₂ in his 1DRCM study.

(b) Although Hansen alarmed society about tipping points of catastrophic AGW many times, he showed no confidence in his model studies:

“The 1DRCM study is a fudge because obtained results strongly depend on the lapse rate assumed.”

https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/24309-1

“Observations Not Models”

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/04/14/observations-not-models/

“James Hansen Increasingly Insensitive”

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/04/28/james-hansen-increasingly-insensitive/

Dr. M. Schlesinger:

Schlesinger was an AGW denier in the early 1980s as shown by Gates et al. (1981) which calculated a climate sensitivity of 0.3 K when the sea surface temperature is held in climatological values for 2xCO_2. In order to get plentiful funds, he has become the top alarmist of catastrophic AGW. He calculated the central dogma of AGW theory as follows:

(a) He obtained the zero feedback climate sensitivity of 1.3 K with the FLRA for 1xCO₂and 2xCO₂ in his 1DRCM study (Schlesinger, 1986).

(b) Unfairly, he utilized the Cess method without referring to Cess (1976) to obtain his equation (6) for the Planck response of 1.2 K (Schlesinger, 1986). Kimoto (2009) pointed out that it is only a transformation of Cess equation (4) as shown in Section 3.

Dr. D. Randall:

Randall obtained the zero feedback climate sensitivity of 1.2 K utilizing equation (3) in his lecture (2011) here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjE4GDC7afQ

However, his calculation contains a mathematical error as shown in Section 4.

2. Failure of the fixed lapse rate assumption of 6.5 K/km (FLRA)

Modern AGW theory began from the 1DRCM studies with fixed absolute and relative humidity utilizing the FLRA for 1xCO₂ and 2xCO₂ (Manabe & Strickler, 1964; Manabe & Wetherald, 1967; Hansen et al., 1981).

Table 1 shows the climate sensitivities for 2xCO₂ obtained in these studies, where the climate sensitivity with the fixed absolute humidity CS (FAH) is 1.2 to 1.3 K (Hansen et al., 1984).

Schlesinger (1986) confirmed these results by obtaining the CS (FAH) of 1.3 K and the radiative forcing of 4 W/m2 for 2xCO₂ in his 1DRCM study.

The ratio of the climate sensitivity with fixed relative humidity CS (FRH) to the zero feedback climate sensitivity CS (FAH) is water vapor feedback WVF by (1), which is 1.6 ~ 1.8 as shown in Table 1.

CS (FRH) = CS (FAH) x WVF=CS (FAH) x 1.6 ~ 1.8 (1)

In the 1DRCM studies, the most basic assumption is the FLRA. The lapse rate of 6.5 K/km is defined for 1xCO₂ in the U.S. Standard Atmosphere (1962) (Ramanathan & Coakley, 1978). There is no guarantee, however, for the same lapse rate maintained in the perturbed atmosphere with 2xCO₂ (Chylek & Kiehl, 1981; Sinha, 1995).

Therefore, the lapse rate for 2xCO₂ is a parameter requiring a sensitivity analysis to check the validity of the modeled results as shown in Fig.1. In the figure, line B shows the FLRA gives a uniform warming for the troposphere and the surface. Since CS (FAH) greatly changes with a minute variation of the lapse rate for 2xCO₂, the results of the 1DRCM studies in Table 1 are theoretically meaningless.

Further, Fig.1 shows the failure of the FLRA in 1DRCM studies, which were initiated by Manabe & Strickler (1964) who used an invalid assumption about how doubling CO2 perturbs the atmosphere, shown in Section 1.

KK Fig 1A — Fig. 1 Parameter sensitivity analysis of the lapse rate for 2xCO2. CS (FAH): Climate sensitivity with the fixed absolute humidity.

In IPCC’s AGW theory, the CS (FAH) of 1.2 ~ 1.3 K is called as Planck response (Bony et al., 2006). The FLRA in the 1DRCM is extended to the Planck response of 1.2 K with the uniform warming throughout the troposphere in the GCMs studies (Hansen et al., 1984; Soden & Held, 2006; Bony et al., 2006). Climate sensitivity for 2xCO₂ is expressed by (2) in the 14 GCMs studies for the IPCC AR4 as the extension of (1) (Soden & Held, 2006; Bony et al., 2006).

Climate sensitivity = Planck response x Feedbacks (wv, al, cl, lr)

= 1.2 K x 2.5 = 3 K (2)

Feedbacks are water vapor, ice albedo, cloud and lapse rate feedback.

The theoretical 1DRCM studies with the FLRA have failed, as shown in Fig. 1. Therefore, the canonical climate sensitivity of 3 K claimed by the IPCC is theoretically meaningless since it is used the 1DRCM studies in Table 1 in its GCMs.

Therefore, the cause of the AGW debate for the past 50 years is the lack of the parameter sensitivity analysis in the 1DRCM studies by Manabe & Wetherald (1967), Hansen et al. (1981) and Schlesinger (1986). Such sensitivity analysis is a standard scientific procedure to check the validity of the obtained results.

If sensitivity analysis were performed in the above studies, the result would show AGW will cause no huge economic loss. Also, the Fukushima nuclear disaster might not have occurred without the Kyoto protocol that promoted nuclear power.

3. Mathematical error in Cess (1976)

In 1976, Cess obtained – 3.3 (W/m2)/K for the Planck feedback parameter $\lambda_0$ utilizing the modified Stefan-Boltzmann equation (3), which gives the Planck response of 1.2 K with the radiative forcing RF of 4 W/m2 for 2xCO₂ as follows (Cess, 1976).

OLR = $\epsilon$ $\sigma$ T_s⁴ (3)

$\lambda_0$ = – dOLR/dT_s= – 4 $\epsilon$ $\sigma$ T_s³= – 4 OLR/T_s= – 3.3 (W/m2)/K (4)

Planck response = – RF/ $\lambda_0$ = 4(W/m2)/ 3.3 (W/m2)/K = 1.2 K (5)

Where,

OLR (Outgoing long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere) = 233 W/m2

$\epsilon$ : the effective emissivity of the surface-atmosphere system

$\sigma$ : Stefan-Boltzmann constant

T_s: the surface temperature of 288 K

Coincidently, the Planck response of 1.2 K in (5) is the same as the zero feedback climate sensitivities of 1.2 to 1.3 K obtained from the 1DRCM studies in Table 1. Therefore, many researchers followed the Cess method. Their results are in the 14 GCMs studies for the IPCC AR4. AR4 shows the theoretical basis of IPCC’s claim that the Planck response is 1.2 K (Schlesinger, 1986; Wetherald & Manabe, 1988; Cess et al., 1989; Cess et al., 1990; Tsushima et al., 2005; Soden & Held, 2006; Bony et al., 2006).

However, the above derivation is apparently a mathematical error since it is not a constant enabling us to differentiate (3) as shown in (4) (Kimoto, 2009). Schlesinger (1986) proposed a different equation (6) to give the Planck response of 1.2 K, which is only a transformation of (4) as follows (Kimoto, 2009).

– 1/ $\lambda_0$ = $\Lambda_0$ = T_s/ (1 – $\alpha$ ) S₀= 0.3 K / (W/m2) (6)

Here,

surface albedo $\alpha$ = 0.3 and solar constant S₀ = 1370 W/m2.

At the equilibrium,

OLR = (S₀/4) (1 – $\alpha$ )

From (4),

$\lambda_0$ = – 4OLR/T_s= – 4x (S₀/4) (1 – $\alpha$ )/T_s

Then,

– 1/ $\lambda_0$ = $\Lambda_0$ = T_s/ (1 – $\alpha$ ) S₀

Further, the combination of T_s=288 K and OLR=233 W/m2 is not in accordance with Stefan-Boltzmann law in (4) (Bony et al., 2006; Kimoto, 2009). Since (3) can be rewritten as

$\epsilon$ = OLR/T_s⁴,

$\epsilon$ is the ratio of OLR to the radiation flux at the surface. There are, however, fluxes from evaporation and thermal conduction in addition to the radiation flux at the surface in Fig. 3. Therefore, (3) cannot be a theoretical basis of the AGW theory because it is against the physical reality of nature.

4. Mathematical error in Randall lecture (2011)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjE4GDC7afQ

Randall shows the following equation series in his lecture.

(1 – $\alpha$ )S $\pi$ a²= $\epsilon$ ( $\sigma$ T_s⁴) 4 $\pi$ a²

(1 – $\alpha$ )S = 4 $\epsilon$ ( $\sigma$ T_s⁴)

0 = 4( $\Delta$ $\epsilon$ ) ( $\sigma$ T_s⁴) + 4 $\epsilon$ (4 $\sigma$ T_s³ $\Delta$ T_s)

$\Delta$ Ts = – (T_s/4) ( $\Delta$ $\epsilon$ / $\epsilon$ )

$\epsilon$ ( $\sigma$ T_s⁴) = 240 W/m2

( $\Delta$ $\epsilon$ ) ( $\sigma$ T_s⁴) = – 4 W/m2

This is a mathematical error as shown below.

$\Delta$ $\epsilon$ / $\epsilon$ = – 4/240

Ts = 288 K

$\Delta$ Ts = – (T_s/4) ( $\Delta$ $\epsilon$ / $\epsilon$ ) = (- 288/4) (- 4/240) = 1.2 K

Kimoto critique:

The following equation is obtained when Cess’s eq.

OLR = $\epsilon$ ( $\sigma$ T_s⁴

is differentiated with CO2 concentration C.

$\Delta$ OLR/ $\Delta$ C = ( $\Delta$ $\epsilon$ / $\Delta$ C) ( $\sigma$ T_s⁴) + 4 $\epsilon$ ( $\sigma$ T_s³) ( $\Delta$ Ts/ $\Delta$ C)

Radiative forcing is 4 W/m2 when $\Delta$ C is 2xCO2.

– 4 W/m2 = $\Delta$ $\epsilon$ ( $\sigma$ T_s⁴) + 4 $\epsilon$ ( $\sigma$ T_s³) $\Delta$ Ts

Randall lecture (2011) neglects the second term to obtain the tricky equation above.

5. Physical reality of the response to 2xCO₂

In the orthodox AGW theory based on the radiation height change by Mitchell (1989) and Held & Soden (2000), the radiation height increases from point a to point b in Fig. 2 due to the increased opaqueness when CO₂ is doubled. This decreases the temperature at the effective radiation height of 5 km which causes an energy imbalance between the absorbed solar radiation (ASR) of 239 W/m2 and the outgoing long wave radiation (OLR) in Fig. 3.

In order to recover the balance of energy, the radiation temperature increases from point b to point c. A 1 K warming at the effective radiation height is enough to recover the energy imbalance caused by the radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m2 for 2xCO₂ from Stefan-Boltzmann law as shown in Fig.2. Under the FLRA, the surface temperature increases in the same degree of 1 K from T_s1 to T_s2 in Mitchell (1989) and Held & Soden (2000). However, it is erroneous since the FLRA failed in Section 2.

KK Fig 2A — Fig. 2. Global warming theory based on the radiation height change. Physical reality: The surface temperature increase is 0.1 ~ 0.2 K with the slightly decreased lapse rate of 6.3 K/km from 6.5 K/km.

In reality, the bold line in Fig.2 shows the surface temperature increases as much as 0.1~0.2 K with the slightly decreased lapse rate from 6.5 K/km to 6.3 K/km. Since the zero feedback climate sensitivity CS(FAH) is negligibly small at the surface, there is no water vapor or ice albedo feedback which are large positive feedbacks in the GCMs studies of the IPCC. The following data support the above picture.

(A) Kiehl & Ramanathan (1982) show the following radiative forcing for 2xCO₂.

Radiative forcing at the tropopause: 3.7 W/m2.

Radiative forcing at the surface: 0.55 ~ 1.56 W/m2 (averaged 1.1 W/m2).

The surface radiative forcing is greatly reduced by the IR absorption overlap with water vapor plentifully existing at the surface. This denies the FLRA giving the uniform warming throughout the troposphere in the 1DRCM and the GCMs studies.

(B) Newell & Dopplick (1979) obtained a climate sensitivity of 0.24 K considering the evaporation cooling from the surface of the ocean.

(C) Ramanathan (1981) shows the surface temperature increase of 0.17 K with the direct heating of 1.2 W/m2 for 2xCO₂ at the surface.

(D) The surface climate sensitivity is calculated from the energy budget of the earth in Fig. 3 and the surface radiative forcing of 1.1W/m2 as follows.

Natural greenhouse effect: 289 K – 255 K = 34 K

Natural greenhouse energy: E_b – E_s= 333 – 78 (W/m2) = 255 (W/m2)

Climate sensitivity factor : 34 K/255 (W/m2) = 0.13 K/ (W/m2)

Surface radiative forcing: 0.55 ~ 1.56 W/m2 (averaged 1.1 W/m2 )

Surface climate sensitivity: 0.13K/(W/m2) x 1.1 (W/m2) = 0.14 K

KK Fig 3A — Fig. 3. Energy budget of the earth adapted from Trenberth et al. (2009).

Conclusions

Four eminent modelers formed the central dogma of the IPCC AGW theory. Their theory claims the zero feedback climate sensitivity (Planck response) is 1.2 ~ 1.3 K for 2xCO2. When multiplied by the feedback factor of 2.5, this gives the canonical climate sensitivity of 3 K claimed by the IPCC .

However, this IPCC dogma fails due to the lack of parameter sensitivity analysis of the lapse rate for 2xCO2 in the one dimensional model (1DRCM). The dogma also contains a mathematical error in its derivation of the Planck response by Cess (1976). Therefore, the IPCC AGW theory and its canonical climate sensitivity of 3 K for 2xCO2 are invalid.

This study derives a climate sensitivity of 0.14 K from the energy budget of the earth.

References

Bony, S., Colman, R., Kattsov, V.M., Allan, R.P., Bretherton, C.S., Dufresne, J.L., Hall, A., Hallegatte, S., Holland, M.M., Ingram, W., Randall, D.A., Soden, B.J., Tselioudis, G., Webb, M.J., 2006. Review article: How well do we understand and evaluate climate change feedback processes? J. Climate 19, 3445-3482.

Cess, R.D., 1976. An appraisal of atmospheric feedback mechanisms employing zonal climatology. J.Atmospheric Sciences 33, 1831-1843.

Cess, R.D., Potter, G.L., Blanchet, J.P., Boer, G.J., Ghan, S.J., Kiehl, J.T., Le Treut, H., Li, Z.X., Liang, X.Z., Mitchell, J.F.B., Morcrette, J.J., Randall, D.A., Riches, M.R., Roeckner, E., Schlese, U., Slingo, A., Taylor, K.E., Washington, W.M., Wetherald, R.T., Yagai, I., 1989. Interpretation of cloud-climate feedback as produced by 14 atmospheric general circulation models. Science 245, 513-516.

Cess, R.D., Potter, G.L., Blanchet, J.P., Boer, G.J., DelGenio, A.D., Deque, M., Dymnikov, V., Galin, V., Gates, W.L., Ghan, S.J., Kiehl, J.T., Lacis, A.A., LeTreut, H., Li, Z.X., Liang, X.Z., McAvaney, B.J., Meleshko, V.P., Mitchell, J.F.B., Morcrette, J.J., Randall, D.A., Rikus, L., Roeckner, E., Royer, J.F., Schlese, U., Sheinin, D.A., Slingo, A., Sokolov, A.P., Taylor, K.E., Washington, W.M. and Wetherald, R.T., 1990. Intercomparison and interpretation of climate feedback processes in 19 Atmospheric General Circulation Models. J. Geophysical Research 95, 16,601-16,615.

Chylek, P., Kiehl, J.T., 1981. Sensitivities of radiative-convective climate models. J. Atmospheric Sciences 38, 1105-1110.

Gates, W.L., Cook, K.H., Schlesinger, M.E., 1981: Preliminary analysis of experiments on the climatic effects of increased CO2 with an atmospheric general circulation model and a climatological ocean. J. Geophysical Research 86, 6385-6393.

Hansen, J., Johnson, D., Lacis, A., Lebedeff, S., Lee, P., Rind, D., Russell, G., 1981. Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science 213, 957-966.

Hansen, J., Lacis, A., Rind, D., Russell, G., Stone, P., Fung, I., Ruedy, R., Lerner, J., 1984. Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. in Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, J.E. Hansen and T. Takahashi, Eds. (American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., 1984), pp. 130-163.

Held, I.M., Soden, B.J., 2000. Water vapor feedback and global warming. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 25, 441-475.

Kiehl, J.T., Ramanathan, V., 1982. Radiative heating due to increased CO₂: The role of H₂O continuum absorption in the 12-18 micron region. J. Atmospheric Sciences 39, 2923-2926.

Kimoto, K., 2009. On the confusion of Planck feedback parameters. Energy & Environment 20, 1057-1066.

Manabe, S., Strickler, R.F., 1964. Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a convective adjustment. J. Atmospheric Sciences 21, 361-385.

Manabe, S., Wetherald, R.T., 1967. Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity. J. Atmospheric Sciences 24, 241-259.

Mitchell, J.F.B., 1989. The greenhouse effect and climate change. Reviews of Geophysics 27, 115-139.

Newell, R.E., Dopplick, T.G., 1979. Questions concerning the possible influence of anthropogenic CO₂ on atmospheric temperature. J. Applied Meteorology 18, 822-825.

Ramanathan, V., Coakley, Jr.J.A., 1978. Climate modeling through radiative-convective models. Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics 16, 465-489.

Ramanathan, V., 1981. The role of ocean-atmosphere interactions in the CO₂ climate problem. J. Atmospheric Sciences 38, 918-930.

Schlesinger, M.E., 1986. Equilibrium and transient climatic warming induced by increased atmospheric CO₂. Climate Dynamics 1, 35-51.

Sinha, A., 1995. Relative influence of lapse rate and water vapor on the greenhouse effect. J. Geophysical Research 100, 5095-5103.

Soden, B.J., Held, I.M., 2006. An assessment of climate feedbacks in coupled ocean-atmosphere models. J. Climate 19, 3354-3360.

Trenberth, K.E., Fasullo, J.T., Kiehl, J., 2009. Earth’s global energy budget. BAMS March 2009, 311-323.

Tsushima, Y., Abe-Ouchi, A., Manabe, S., 2005. Radiative damping of annual variation in global mean temperature: comparison between observed and simulated feedbacks. Climate Dynamics 24, 591-597.

Wetherald, R.T., Manabe, S., 1988. Cloud Feedback Processes in a General Circulation Model. J. Atmospheric Science 45, 1397-1415.

Friday, November 6, 2015

WSJ: "In Exxon War, Bamboozled by Greenies" & "The Tombstone Pipeline"

In Exxon War, Bamboozled by Greenies

Journalists discover (and misrepresent) what the oil giant has been trying to tell them for years.

By HOLMAN JENKINS, JR.

Nov. 6, 2015 6:28 p.m. ET THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

15 COMMENTS

ENLARGE

The Exxon Mobil refinery in Baytown, Texas.PHOTO: JESSICA RINALDI/REUTERS

Scurry on board the Exxon prosecution express. Lest they be left behind and called “deniers,” Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley,the attorney general of New York and Al Gorethis week all demanded criminal investigation of Exxon Mobil as a result of recent media “exposés.”

Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire on Thursday agreed, saying, “There’s a lot of evidence that they misled people.”

Not one of these worthies likely examined the evidence, which tells a story quite different from the claim that Exxon somehow concealed its understanding of the climate debate. But the hurdle rate for “investigative” journalism has apparently become low. The allegedly damning documents that the Los Angeles Times and the website Inside Climate News (ICN) claim to have unearthed were published by Exxon itself, in peer-reviewed journals, on its website, and in archives created by Exxon for public use.

Opinion Journal Video

Business World Columnist Holman Jenkins Jr.on President Obama’s announcement to reject TransCanada’s application to build the Keystone XL Pipeline. Photo credit: Associated Press.

Technically, the reporters wallow in the equivocation fallacy. Uncertainty about whether X=2 is not the same as uncertainty about whether 2+2=4. Acknowledging and even studying man’s impact on the climate, as Exxon has done and continues to do, is not tantamount to endorsing a green policy agenda of highly questionable value.

And that’s the real problem. Read closely and the accusation isn’t really that Exxon misled the public by emphasizing the uncertainties of climate science, which are real. It’s that Exxon refused to sign up for a vision of climate doom that would justify large and immediate costs to reduce fossil fuel use.

This fantasy is summed up in the ICN series by Penn State climatologist Michael Mann,who is quoted as saying, “All it would’ve taken is for one prominent fossil fuel CEO to know this was about more than just shareholder profits.”

But wait, hasn’t this experiment been run? In the early 2000s, BP CEO John Brownebegan sounding a climate alarm. Ron Oxburgh, the chairman of Shell, gave a speech warning of planetary doom. In 2007, Alcoa, GE, Duke Energy, Ford, DuPont and others endorsed a U.S. cap-and-trade bill. All this failed to move the ball in two successive congresses, though, because Senate Democrats (the second time joined by President Obama) didn’t want to be blamed for jacking up gasoline prices.

The same experiment has also been run globally. Out of 196 countries, 196 have concluded that there is no way, with current technology, to take a big enough whack out of carbon-dioxide emissions at a cost their societies would be prepared to bear.

Even Mr. Obama’s decision on Friday to nix the Keystone XL pipeline came at a time of low gas prices when he will never face voters again, and in full knowledge that his decision won’t impede Canada’s development of its oil sands.

The narrative of Exxon’s supposedly criminal deceit may be loopy, but save your real contempt for the climate lawyers now rubbing their hands over a Big Tobacco-style lawsuit. In effect, their cynical reasoning is that Exxon can be punished for failing to conceal its awareness of the climate debate.

But why stop at Exxon? President Obama is aware of the threat of climate change—he talks about it all the time—yet has presided over an expansion of oil and gas leasing. Vice President Al Gore endlessly harped on climate change—yet when confronted with a modest uptick in gasoline prices during his presidential run, insisted that President Clinton open the strategic reserve to keep gas prices low.

Maybe the tobacco analogy is apt after all. Recall that the result of government lawsuits wasn’t to ban tobacco use but to make government (and organized crime) the main beneficiary of tobacco revenues. The U.S. government controls 31% of America’s mineral rights, and has 42,000 drilling leases in effect covering 80 million acres. Federal lands produce 41% of America’s coal output. Elsewhere, governments control 100% of mineral rights. Wherever it operates these days, Exxon is mainly an agent for governments determined to realize oil revenues regardless of any climate fears.

But the big lie here is that any Exxon spectacle would be aimed at advancing the cause of climate policy anyway. Especially sad is the decision by Fred Krupp of the Environmental Defense Fund to sign a group letter calling for a criminal inquiry, though he mealy-mouthed his participation by saying “We don’t have all the facts. We’re not prejudging what happened.”

Mr. Krupp was last seen blaming the “shrillness that has permeated our advocacy” for the Senate defeats, and calling for a “more reasoned” and “calmer discussion” that is diametrically the opposite of the Exxon witch trial now being whipped up.

At least until this week, Mr. Krupp was an outlier, devoting himself to the coalition-building that is indispensable for real policy progress (and Exxon for the past six years has been a public supporter of a carbon tax). But Mr. Krupp’s fellow climate campaigners clearly have other priorities.

The Tombstone Pipeline

Obama kills thousands of jobs for climate-change symbolism.

Nov. 6, 2015 6:56 p.m. ET

132 COMMENTS

President Obama personally killed the Keystone XL pipeline on Friday, dismissing the project as a mere “symbol” that “has occupied what I, frankly, consider an overinflated role in our political discourse.” The irony is that the pipeline’s benefits would be tangible, while the symbolism and overinflation are entirely political.

A President more invested in the real economy would have long ago welcomed Keystone’s contribution to North American energy development. But on Friday Mr. Obama emerged, seven years into both his Presidency and multiple State Department reviews of the pipeline, to declare that Keystone is not in the national interest of the United States.

This position is—to borrow his phrase—well outside the bipartisan political center. Mr. Obama would have been more honest if he’d admitted that he is bowing to the interests of the green-left fringe and the Democratic donors who oppose all forms of carbon energy.

A broad Congressional majority voted to approve Keystone this year, including nine Democrats in the Senate and 28 in the House, falling only a few votes short of a veto override. Business, consumers, labor unions and America’s No. 1 trading partner Canada also wanted to connect Alberta’s oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries, which would create thousands of jobs and strengthen energy security.

Opinon Journal Video

Business World Columnist Holman Jenkins Jr.on President Obama’s announcement to reject TransCanada’s application to build the Keystone XL Pipeline. Photo credit: Associated Press.

Even as he killed Keystone, Mr. Obama urged Congress to “pass a serious infrastructure plan.” But what are pipelines if not the definition of infrastructure—and this one shovel-ready besides, at no cost to taxpayers? Even Mr. Obama conceded that Keystone is not “the express lane to climate disaster,” and the State Department determined the pipeline would reduce CO2 emissions by displacing oil transport via truck and rail. Then why reject it?

To promote his climate-change ambitions, by Mr. Obama’s own admission. Mr. Obama said in his statement Friday that the U.S. “is now a global leader” on climate change “and frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership.” So he will now dump Keystone’s corpse at the Paris global-warming summit in the coming weeks and demand that other countries make their own ritual sacrifices.

Mr. Obama suggested that “other big emitters like China” will be impressed. Yet only this week the Chinese revealed that their coal use is 17% higher than previously thought. China is such a heavy carbon user that this 17% wedge alone amounts to 70% of all U.S. coal emissions. If this correction in any way revises Mr. Obama’s climate pact with Chinese President Xi Jinping, he didn’t mention it.

The larger and more dangerous symbolism is what Mr. Obama’s refusal reveals about today’s Democratic Party. Liberals used to favor a price on carbon, which would be damaging enough for economic growth. Now they believe fossil fuels must remain underground forever and favor any obstruction against their development. Hillary Clinton now embraces this same philosophy.

Maybe Keystone can be revived in the next Administration, assuming a Republican wins the Presidency and the TransCanada company hasn’t written off America as too politically risky. For now, workers and the economy will have to suffer for Mr. Obama’s green illusions.

Thursday, November 5, 2015

Even the 'lukewarmer' position on global warming has become untenable on the basis of both observations & theory

Even the "lukewarmer" position on anthropogenic global warming has become untenable on the basis of both observations and theory:

1. Lindzen & Choi papers based on ERBE satellite observations showed sensitivity (to doubled CO2 levels) of only ~0.18C

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-paper-confirms-findings-of-lindzen.html

2. Dr. David Evans has shown, using the same flawed radiative model of the IPCC as the basis, that "The ECS might be almost zero, is likely less than 0.25 °C"

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-18-finally-climate-sensitivity-calculated-at-just-one-tenth-of-official-estimates/

3. Kimoto has shown climate sensitivity is ~.15-.2C due to the IPCC false assumptions of a fixed lapse rate and a mathematical error in calculating the Planck feedback parameter:

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=kimoto

4 Volokin et al have shown that planetary surface temperatures are a function of solar insolation and surface pressure only, not greenhouse gas concentrations, on all 8 planets for which we have adequate data, including Earth & Venus.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=volokin

5. The surface temperature and tropospheric temperature profile can easily be derived from physical first principles including the 1st LoT, Ideal Gas Law, Poisson Equation, Newton's 2nd Law, and Stefan-Boltzmann Law for solar forcing only, and without greenhouse gas "radiative forcing," and perfectly replicates the verified 1976 US Standard Atmosphere. Thus, once again, sensitivity to CO2 is mathematically proven to be essentially zero.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=greenhouse+equation

6. Convection dominates radiative-convective equilibrium in the troposphere by a factor of ~8X, and increased greenhouse gases accelerate convection, thereby erasing any alleged cold-heats-hot greenhouse gas radiative effects on the surface.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-greenhouse-gases-accelerate.html

7. Many other climate sensitivity estimates have concluded climate sensitivity is effectively zero, or so close to zero as to be unmeasurable and negligible.