Month: May 2017

Uncategorized 17 May 2017

Real World energy and climate

Source: SPPI

“The sky is falling” scare stories have no place in public interest science or policy

by John Coleman

Earth Day 2016 brought extensive consternation about how our Earth will soon become uninhabitable, as mankind’s activities of civilization trigger unstoppable global warming and climate change. President Obama used the occasion to sign the Paris climate treaty and further obligate the United States to slash its fossil fuel use, carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth.

I love this little blue planet and do all I can to preserve it for my children and grandchildren.

If I thought for even a second that the civilized activities of mankind are producing a threat to our planet, I would spend the rest of my life correcting the problems. However, after devoting a decade to carefully studying mankind’s impact on our climate, I am firmly convinced that the entire global warming/climate change campaign is based on a failed scientific theory.

In short, there is no dangerous manmade climate change problem.

“Who cares about your scientific study,” many people respond. “This is about loving a native environment. This is about escaping from the horrors of so-called civilization.”

That response is understandable because for fifteen years the Greenpeace-Sierra Club crowd has been constantly decrying the “ugliness” of civilization: cars, planes, trains, trucks, factories, power plants and all the rest. It seems they think things were better in pre-industrial times, or perhaps the world of Tarzan or modern-day central Africa.

There certainly has been a steady barrage of “research” that finds everything going drastically wrong with Planet Earth because of our civilized life. The media join in, of course, proclaiming “the sky is falling,” and Al Gore’s book, movie and “climate crisis tipping point” mantra stirred the media into an even bigger tizzy. Now almost the entire Democrat Party has climbed aboard.

As a result, billions of dollars in annual government funding keep the alarmist climate research and environmental campaigns marching on. Tens of billions more subsidize wind, solar and biofuel energy that is supposedly more “sustainable” and “climate friendly.”

Today, a high percentage of Americans accept climate change as a valid problem, even though the vast majority rate it at the bottom of their top ten or twenty concerns. Many accept news reports that tell us the United Nations through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) has “settled” the science in the last fifteen years.

In fact, President Obama and others say the matter is so proven that 97% of scientists agree on climate change. But this oft-quoted phrase has been totally debunked as fabricated or bait-and-switch. A group of scientists is asked, “Do you agree that Earth has warmed in recent years and Earth’s climate is changing?”

Probably every honest, competent scientist would answer “Yes.” But then the “survey” team changes the question to have them say, “Yes, humans are causing dangerous climate change.” Since 100% agreement would look suspicious, they back off a little and make it a “97% consensus.”

This leaves a somewhat David and Goliath situation for those of us climate experts who agree that Earth’s climate is changing, has always changed, and humans have some effects today – but do not believe that mankind’s emissions of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide have replaced the powerful natural forces that have always driven climate change, or that any current or future changes must necessarily be dangerous or cataclysmic. We are frequently insulted and dismissed as Deniers.

Our side is not as small as the media may have you think. Many notable scientists totally reject claims of a manmade climate crisis. Over 31,000 have signed a statement that rejects the manmade global warming scare and says we see “no convincing evidence” that humans are causing dangerous climate change. They and other experts have widely discredited the IPCC and other assertions about the climate.

There is even a Non-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). It has published several impressive 4,000-page books of scientific papers that totally dismantle IPCC claims. The NIPCC’s Climate Change Reconsidered and other books are also published on-line.

Even the late, great author/physician/scientist Michael Crichton (of Jurassic Park fame) debunked global warming and wrote about it in his novel State of Fear.

Our fossil fuel, nuclear and hydroelectric powered civilization has made billions of lives much healthier, longer and more pleasant than in previous times. Heating and air conditioning, power for lights and computers and smart phones, and modern hospitals and schools are just a few of the blessings that bring incalculable value to our lives. What we enjoy today is the result of hundreds of generations of hard working men and women, each one moving us forward by inches or miles.

In my 80s now, I think about the world into which I was born. Radio was just beginning. Phones were few and far between and very primitive, requiring hand cranks and operators. Cars and trucks were slow and produced awful soot, smoke, carbon monoxide and other pollutants. Factories, power plants and home furnaces fueled by dirty unprocessed coal with un-scrubbed smoke billowing from their chimneys, left us all in smoggy, unhealthy air.

Doctors had few medicines to offer, and only primitive x-ray devices to peer inside us. Jet airplanes, computers, televisions, rockets, satellites and so much more had not yet been invented. Most people died in their late 40s or 50s. In this one man’s lifetime, civilization has made amazing progress.

Now think about what life on Earth will be like when you are my age. I predict the fossil fuel-powered society will have been replaced by systems only a few geniuses are even thinking about today. A long list of now fatal diseases will have been conquered, and people will live healthy life into their late nineties.

I predict our cars and planes will not need drivers or pilots, and space flight will become common. Robots will do much of the work, so people can enjoy their lives much, much more.

And I predict that anyone who looks back on the threat of climate change/global warming and all the threats to life on Earth will have a hearty laugh, as mankind will have progressed beyond accepting any such silliness.

Life is good. Enjoy it. And stop worrying about climate hobgoblins.

___________

Weather Channel founder John Coleman was the original meteorologist on ABC’s Good Morning America. He has been studying weather and climate for over 60 years.

via The SPPI Blog http://sppiblog.org

May 17, 2017 at 07:23AM

Uncategorized 17 May 2017

Are we headed for a new solar minimum?

via The SPPI Blog
http://sppiblog.org

Source: http://ift.tt/297rgYJ

by Judith Curry

We can conclude that the evidence provided is sufficient to justify a complete updating and reviewing of present climate models to better consider these detected natural recurrences and lags in solar processes. – Jorge Sánchez-Sesma

In pondering how the climate of the 21^st century will play out, solar variability has generally been dismissed as an important factor by the proponents of AGW. However, I think that it is important that scenarios of future solar variability and their potential impacts on climate should by considered in scenarios of future climate change.

I have been cursorily following the literature on this topic. I have recently been in communication with Jorge Sanchez-Sesma. He has new paper that was just accepted for publication in Earth System Dynamics, an interactive open-access journal published by the EGU. I am featuring this paper in a post since it provides important new analysis and insights on this topic, and also provides a useful assessment of the literature and current state of knowledge on this topic.

The significance of this paper is reflected in the EG

U metrics link that indicates that this paper has been downloaded 1531 times so far (before it has been formally published).

For full text of the Curry post, see here: http://ift.tt/297rgYJ

JC reflections

This is a remarkable paper in many ways. This paper has a single author — Jorge Sanchez-Sesma, who is a climatologist (not a solar physicist). I have been in contact with Jorge and will be posting an interview with him in several weeks. He has a remarkable story to tell.

This paper indicates that the case is increasingly compelling for millennial-scale variations in solar activity. The arguments for a forthcoming Grand Solar Minimum are also increasingly compelling.

To what extent a Grand Solar Minimum will influence

the Earth’s climate remains uncertain. As discussed on a previous blog post IPCC: solar variations don’t matter, the IPCC AR5 Ch 8 stated:

Nevertheless, even if there is such decrease in the solar activity, there is a high confidence that the TSI RF variations will be much smaller in magnitude than the projected increased forcing due to GHG.

The previous post also describes different perspectives on this from Svensmark and a 2013 NRC report (see also Effects of solar variability on climate; 21^st century solar cooling.)

Solar indirect effects on climate remain at the knowledge frontier, and ar

e associated with substantial uncertainty and ignorance. This uncertainty and ignorance is not a rationale for ignoring solar effects on the 21^st century climate (and 22^nd, 23^rd centuries). And anyways, is the solar uncertainty (we understand the sign) really so much more greater than that associated with the effects of clouds on climate (see my recent post The cloud climate conundrum), where even the sign of the feedback is uncertain and the magnitude of cloud forcing swamps greenhouse gas radiative forcings.

But we are starting to see some ideas emerge as to how these solar effects and processes could be included in climate models. Independently of climate models, the statistical forecast technique used by Sanchez-Sesma provides the basis for creating alternative scenarios of the 21^st century climate. I find his arguments about lags to be particularly important as we sort out the solar-climate effects.

Tackling the variability of solar activity and solar indirect effects seems more tractable than the cloud-climate problem and untangling the myriad of scales of ocean oscillations, so I would hope to see much more emphasis put on unraveling the solar-climate connections.

The policy significance of this issue is clear: if we are headed to a

mid-20th century solar minimum, or a Grand Solar Minimum for the next two centuries, this will offset greenhouse warming to some extent. The extent of the offset depends on whether climate sensitivity to CO2 is on the larger or smaller end of the range of estimates, and the magnitude of the solar impact. But the sign of the solar offset is becoming increasingly clear: towards cooling.

via The SPPI Blog http://sppiblog.org

May 17, 2017 at 07:16AM

Uncategorized 17 May 2017

Cool science: Watch water droplets navigate a maze

via Watts Up With That?
http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

Cool science: Watch water droplets navigate a maze | Watts Up With That?

Cool science: Watch water droplets navigate a maze

From the American Chemical Society.

WASHINGTON — Have you ever seen a drop of water navigate a maze? It’s possible thanks to the same phenomenon that lets you know if a griddle is hot enough for pancake batter. Water droplets that dance and skitter across a hot surface instead of boil away on the spot are experiencing the Leidenfrost effect.

Understanding Leidenfrost — first described more than 200 years ago — helped engineers make more efficient steam engines. Today, scientists are using high-speed cameras to better characterize how superhot water behaves on metal surfaces. The investigation might lead to improvements in power generation. Watch the superhot dancing droplets here:

via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

May 17, 2017 at 07:13AM

Uncategorized 17 May 2017

National Energy Board (NEB) – Implications of Proposed Changes: A Review

via Friends of Science Calgary
http://ift.tt/2on3Vep

Many Canadians have been unaware of the work of the National Energy Board (NEB) since its establishment in 1959, as a group of highly skilled, very technical people with a mandate to carefully review proposals for national energy infrastructure, such as pipelines and power lines, and oil/gas imports/exports, with a view to national safety, resilience and economic interests.

Recently various activists and environmental groups claimed the NEB process was flawed and demanded a review. Now there are proposals for a significant revision to the existing operation. The proposed processes will take much longer for approvals, will incorporate less tangible, less measurable considerations such as climate change, and much of the focus on the present very important technical and long-term performance evaluations appear to be taking second place to these less tangible considerations.

Robert Lyman posed the question “Can Canada Survive Climate Change Policy?” at his Calgary presentation on May 9, 2017. The proposed changes to the NEB are a related complication. Canadians must look at the highly competitive global markets and evaluate whether making infrastructure projects more difficult to approve, in a process that is apparently less technical, is in the best economic interests of the nation, even as Canada is already an acknowledged leader in environmental management. Ottawa energy policy expert, Robert Lyman, has contributed the following overview. This summary is the first of a multi-part series on this topic. – Friends of Science Society

THE REPORT OF THE EXPERT PANEL ON THE MODERNIZATION

OF THE NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD

This document is intended to provide a summary of the key elements of the May 15, 2017 report of the panel appointed by the current Trudeau Government with a mandate to offer recommendations that would “modernize” the National Energy Board, and specifically would “position the NEB as a modern, efficient, and effective energy regulator and regain public trust”.

This summary will focus especially on the policy and regulatory system that would result if the panel’s recommendations were accepted and implemented, not on the rationale offered by the panel. As introduction, however, it should be noted that the panel presented its conclusions as a product of its cross-Canada consultations and as part of “a comprehensive vision for the future of the energy transmission infrastructure regulation” in Canada. Notably, the report recommended:

Placing energy infrastructure regulation within the framework of a national energy strategy that furthers Canada’s climate change emissions reduction commitments;
Significantly increasing the role and authority of indigenous people (“creating a nation-to-nation relationship”) in all phases of energy policy, infrastructure regulation, and lifelong oversight of energy infrastructure;
Radically increasing the scale and scope of stakeholder engagement in all phases of energy project regulation; and
Increasing the transparency and openness of all licensing processes and follow-up actions by the regulator.

To achieve this vision, the panel recommends the following:

Replacement of the National Energy Board with an entirely new policy and regulatory review system
Recommendation that, as the first stage in that system, the government of Canada develop an energy strategy that “reconciles economic, social and environmental (particularly climate change) goals in a way that can meaningfully inform decision making and frame the context for debates about whether, for example, a proposed energy infrastructure project aligns with Canada’s big-picture goals for economic, social and environmental progress”.
Establishment of the first step in project review as a one-year process in which the Governor in Council (i.e. the federal Cabinet), after extensive consultations with aboriginals and analysis by a new Major Projects Management Office in Natural Resources Canada of its strategic acceptability, would determine whether the project “aligned with the national interest”;
Creation of a new Canadian Energy Transmission Commission (CETC) to replace the National Energy Board. This board, along with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA), would evaluate “the potential risks of a project to Indigenous peoples (based on robust consultation), the environment, and human health and safety”. This process would be conducted by a five-person panel of Hearing Commissioners at least one of whom is indigenous), composed of two commissioners from the CETC, two commissioners from the CEA, and a fifth panel member. The environmental assessment would take place under CEA authority. The panel expects this to be a process that would take one year.
The CETC would then examine all the “technical issues” related to the pipeline and whether it could operate safely and securely (there is no mention of regulating safety, engineering, economic viability or rates). This process would take another two years and, if satisfied, the Joint Panel would have authority to grant or deny licences.
Creation of a new, independent Canadian Energy Information Agency, separate from policy and regulatory functions, to provide “information and analysis for policy makers and the public”.
The CETC play a major role in “keeping the land pure”, by regulating the safety and integrity of pipelines and electricity transmission lines during their operation, recognizing that “as we reduce our global dependence on fossil fuels we can expect the number of new major pipeline projects to dwindle…Overall, the goal shared by the CETC and industry is an ambitious one: zero incidents and zero releases.”
End of Summary. Look for additional posting on this topic in the coming days.

Additional reading:

Moving Oil by Pipeline: Examining The Facts

http://ift.tt/2qsrvHa

Moving Oil by Tanker in Canada: The Facts

http://ift.tt/2qsGgtf

via Friends of Science Calgary http://ift.tt/2on3Vep

May 17, 2017 at 07:07AM