Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project THIS WEEK: By Ken Haapala, President Houston Flooding – Resilience Needed: America’s great fortune of no major hurricanes (category 3 or above) making landfall ended after almost 12 years. As stated in last week’s TWTW, Hurricane Harvey made landfall on the Texas…
via Watts Up With That?
September 4, 2017 at 06:37AM
Rainfall from Hurricane Harvey so far has averaged around 30 inches, although the U.S. Weather Service projects that some areas of coastal Texas might receive as much as 50 inches before the slow moving storm exits the region.
Historically, Texas is no stranger to tropical storm inundation. In 1978 and 1979, the two wettest tropical cyclones on record, Amelia and Claudette respectively, dropped 48 and 42 inches of rain on coastal and central Texas.
Nevertheless, Hurricane Harvey has prompted some climatologists to assert that man-made climate change likely exacerbated the wind speed and moisture content of this tropical cyclone. Such claims are made based on the developing science in which researchers try to figure out how much man-made warming may have contributed to intensifying specific extreme weather events.
Last year the National Academies of Science (NAS) issued a report, Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change that observed, “The science of extreme event attribution has advanced rapidly in recent years, giving new insight to the ways that human-caused climate change can influence the magnitude or frequency of some extreme weather events.”
The NAS panel noted extreme event attribution science relies on the historical record to assess the change in probability or magnitude of various weather events and/or compares actual events with computer simulations of hypothetical worlds without climate change. The accuracy of such climate change attributions depends on judgments that the historical weather records are long enough to account for natural variability and confidence in the reliability of computer model projections.
Climate computer models suggest that hurricanes will increase in frequency and intensity should the planet warm over the course of this century. The NAS report, however, assigns “lower confidence” to making attributions about how climate change may be affecting hurricanes.
The 2017 draft of the U.S. Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report notes that “both theory and numerical modeling simulations (in general) indicate an increase in tropical cyclone (TC) intensity in a warmer world.” Nevertheless, MIT hurricane researcher Kerry Emmanuel told AFP, “It is awfully difficult to see climate change in historical data so far because hurricanes are fairly rare.” It is worth noting that the accumulated cyclone energy indexmeasuring the kinetic energy of Atlantic hurricanes has been trending downward during the last ten years.
The 2017 Special Report further finds that trends with respect to floods in the U.S. are a mixed: They have increased in some regions and declined in others. The draft also observes that “attribution studies have not established a robust connection between increased riverine flooding and human-induced climate change.”
A new study in the Journal of Hydrology analyzing long term flooding trends in North America and Western Europe finds no discernible increase in floods in those areas during the past 80 years. A team led U.S. Geological Survey researcher Glenn Hodgkins reported, “There was no compelling evidence for consistent changes over time in major-flood occurrence during the 80 years through 2010, using a very large dataset (>1200 gauges) of diverse but minimally altered catchments in North America and Europe.” The researchers added, “For North America and Europe, the results provide a firmer foundation for the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] finding that compelling evidence for increased flooding at a global scale is lacking.”
The 2014 National Climate Assessment reported, “The heaviest rainfall events have become heavier and more frequent, and the amount of rain falling on the heaviest rain days has also increased.” Interestingly, a 2016 study by researchers at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Geophyiscal Fluid Dynamics Laboratory looked for precipitation trends over the contiguous United States. They reported that “no evidence was found for changes in extreme precipitation attributable to climate change in the available observed record.”
Ultimately the concern about hurricanes is the risk they pose to lives and property. Sadly, Hurricane Harvey is reportedly responsible for 14 deaths so far and one estimate places property damage from the storm at $40 billion. According to the National Weather Service, deaths attributed to hurricanes have averaged 5 per year since 2007.
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
September 4, 2017 at 04:50AM
Below is a very abridged quoted summary of a new scientific paper published by Dr. Thomas Allmendinger, a physicist (chemistry, quantum mechanics) who uses a real-world experiment to document a glaring lack of empirical support for the position that CO2 is a dominant agent of atmospheric warming.
One-sentence summary: Shortwave radiation heats both CO2 and air only up to a limited temperature threshold, and there is no observed difference between the heat absorption/emission of air vs. CO2.
The starting point of the here referenced research was the generally accepted greenhouse thesis which assumes that the present climate change is mainly due to the observed growing amount of the so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, particularly of carbon-dioxide in spite of the fact that, unlike a greenhouse, the Earth atmosphere doesn’t exhibit a transparent roof … This [greenhouse effect] idea takes its source in Fourier’s treatise made in 1827, exhibiting no empirical data or physical calculations and experimental data.
The first results were delivered by Tyndall in the sixties of the 19th century, using artificial IR (= infrared) radiation. His photometric [light-measuring] apparatus consisted of metallic tubes as gas vessels and Leslie cubes as heat radiation sources, entailing comparatively low temperatures, namely 100°C and lower. In the [eighteen] nineties, Arrhenius continued such measurements. He established the greenhouse thesis claiming that, unlike air, carbon-dioxide considerably absorbs infrared-radiation. Thereby we distinguish between near IR (λ = 0.8 – 3μm), emitted at high temperatures (> 1000 K), and medium IR (λ = 3 – 50μm) occurring at lower temperatures as usual thermal radiation, while IR-radiation with larger wavelengths (λ = 50 – 1000μm) is defined as far IR.
[O]verall, the greenhouse thesis has been commonly settled even if […] its empiric basis appears poor while several theoretical presumptions are speculative. … there is reason enough to examine the current climate theory, and in particular the greenhouse thesis, regarding fundamental scientific principles and possibly to question the usual assumptions.
The analytic methods applied in climatology were exclusively photometric [light-measuring] ones. … Thermal measurements have never been made, except those by pyranometers comprising the whole spectrum, so that direct coherences between light absorption and warming-up effects at matter have not been detected yet.
The natural laws which were used for constructing the theory were confined to the temperature law of Stefan-Boltzmann (1), Planck’s distribution law (2), both being solely valid for black bodies, and BeerLambert’s absorption law (3), being unequivocally valid solely for visible light, and not compellingly for IR radiation (see below). These laws were often impermissibly generalized and used in an incorrect way leading to wrong conclusions.
[A]ccording to this [greenhouse theory] model the assumption is made that any warming-up of the atmosphere is exclusively due to a partial absorption of medium-wave IR-radiation while any short-wave IR-absorption can be excluded since it has never been detected spectrometrically.
Against this, at least the following [5] arguments may be alleged [just the 1st , 4th, and 5th arguments are included here in very condensed form]:
1. As already found within a previous investigation [12], the greater part – namely at least 60% – of the energy being emitted from a warmed plate to the surrounding atmosphere is transferred by heat conduction, and not by heat radiation [i.e., via the greenhouse effect] obeying Stefan-Boltzmann’s law which is only valid in the vacuum. That part is even enhanced when the air convection is enhanced. Moreover, near the ground the molar concentration of water vapour is much higher than that one of carbon dioxide letting assume that its absorbance of heat radiation is much stronger. (e.g. at 20°C and 60% rel. humidity, the molar concentration of water vapour is 36 times larger than that one of carbon-dioxide being 0.038 volume%). Hence it can be assumed that the major part of the heat transfer between Earth surface and atmosphere occurs near the ground while the greenhouse theory neglects that part solely regarding the radiative absorption by CO2 passing the whole atmosphere.
4. Between the energetic absorption of electromagnetic radiation by gases and their resulting warming-up no empirical – and also no
theoretical – coherence is known which would be needed to carry spectroscopic results onto thermodynamic properties. There is no good reason to assume that absorbed IR-radiation will be entirely transformed into heat. Rather it is conceivable that a part of it is re-emitted, to wit in all directions [i.e., to space]. But the link between the two phenomena is not known.
5. The question of radiation emission by hot gases is related with it since it is obvious that any gas, also air, begins to radiate to such an extent as it is warmed-up. This question arises when the so-called radiative energy transfer is studied. But instead of empiric measurements, complicated theories were developed [15-17] starting from the abstruse assumption that the atmosphere behaves like a black body obeying Stefan-Boltzmann’s emission law, and disregarding the kinetic gas theory.
Overall it must be assessed that the atmospheric theory is on a shaky ground. widely missing empiric key methods to check the principles and their consequences.
Beyond, there is an aspect which hitherto has been overlooked, and which delivers the final proof that the climate theory cannot be true. It is the topic of the here reported author’s work [Allmendinger, 2016] concerning thermal measurements instead of spectroscopic ones, and delivering the evidence that any gas absorbs IR-radiation – but in the short wavelength range -, with the consequence that air is warmed up by direct solar insolation – as well as by artificial IR-light – up to a limiting temperature due to radiative emission, and leading to an equilibrium state.
Preliminary tests for the present investigation were made with solar light using square twin-tubes from Styrofoam (3 cm thick, 1 m long, outer diameter 25 cm), each equipped with three thermometers at different positions, and covered above and below by a thin transparent foil (preferably a 0.01 mm thick Saran-wrap). The tubes were pivoted on a frame in such a way that they could be oriented in the direction of the solar light (Figure 3). One tube was filled with air, the other with carbon-dioxide. Incipiently, the tubes were covered on the tops with aluminium-foils being removed at the start of the experiment.
The primary experimental result was quite astonishing in many respects.
Firstly: The content gases warmed within a few minutes by approximately 10°C up to a constant limiting temperature. This was surprising – at least in the case of air – for no warming-up was anticipated since sunlight is colourless and allegedly not able to absorb any IR-radiation. However, the existence of a limiting temperature is conceivable since a growing radiative emission has to be expected as far as the temperature rises.
Secondly: The limiting temperatures were more or less equal at any measuring point. This means that the intensity of the sun beam was virtually not affected by the heat absorption in the gas tube since the latter one was comparatively weak.
And thirdly: Between the two tubes [one filled with air, the other with CO2] no significant difference could be detected. Therefore, thanks to this simple experiment a special effect of carbon dioxide on the direct sunlight absorption could already be excluded.
As evident from Figure 8, any gas absorbs IR-light – even the noble [non-greenhouse] gases argon, neon and helium do so – while there is no significant difference between argon and carbon dioxide, but only a small difference between carbon-dioxide and air.
Besides a critical discussion of the convenient atmosphere theory profoundly questioning the greenhouse thesis by disclosing several basic errors, the here reported investigation reveals the discovery of direct absorption of shortwave IR-radiation by air. It is part of the incident solar light, but also of artificial light which enables a more exact detection. It is caused by another effect than the one which is responsible for the longer-wave absorption being observed at carbon dioxide, and it is not detectable by IR-spectroscopy since its absorption coefficient is too low. However, it is clearly detectable by means of the here applied apparatus leading to a distinct temperature elevation up to a limiting temperature which depends on the radiative emission. The limiting temperature depends on the gas kind, whereby practically no difference between air and carbon-dioxide could be found.
Nevertheless, that direct absorption effect [shortwave] which was discovered thanks to this method probably contributes significantly to the warming up of the atmosphere while the warming-up due to carbon-dioxide can be neglected.
But since the direct absorption cannot be influenced, the surface albedo must be focused as the governing factor providing the only [anthropogenic] opportunity to mitigate the climate, or at least the microclimate, by changing colour and structure of the surface, particularly in urban areas. However, a prediction seems not feasible since the global climate is too complex. But the greenhouse theory turns out to be a phantasm delivering the wrong diagnosis for the climate change, and a wrong diagnosis cannot enable a healing.
via NoTricksZone
September 4, 2017 at 04:28AM
The numbers are scary. Africa, with 1.2-billion people and 20% of global land mass, makes just 3% of the world’s electricity.
Half of the continent’s power comes from Eskom in SA, while America burns more in a day than countries like Ghana or Tanzania make in a year.
It was one of the issues raised on 28 August at a conference on illegal migration to Europe. Leaders of Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Chad, Niger and Libya resolved to crack down on people-trafficking, and provide more development aid to source countries.
The push driving people north, they agreed, was not war but poverty and unemployment. And with no electricity, it was hard to change either.
John Owusu is a retired engineer originally from Ghana, but for 50 years he has worked across all regions of Africa.
“Young people on our continent are mostly urban, or in the process of moving from the countryside,” he said. “So if you want to employ millions who are currently without jobs, you need mines, factories and service industries.
“But how can you do that without electricity? In Europe or America, having the lights on is taken for granted,” Owusu said. “But what would happen to cities like New York or London if there was no power for a month, a year? That’s what millions of Africans live with.”
Dams on the continent’s biggest rivers pump out power, but a recent drought left water levels on some reservoirs so low they could no longer spin the turbines.
The cost of solar panels has fallen dramatically, but foreign currency needed to import enough to make a difference can put them beyond the reach of poorer states.
And theft of panels is a problem for India, Africa and parts of Latin America. A Johannesburg firm has patented a system of lock-bolts making access more difficult, but police reports from Limpopo province, where the crime is especially bad on farms, show gangs now arrive with a blowtorch.
It is a challenge for both the aid lobby and environmentalists who would like to see Africa move straight to renewables. But extracting coal, oil and gas provides employment for thousands, hard to argue with in countries with mass unemployment.
Whatever the source of power, the author of a new book says Africa’s answers should be homegrown.
Dr Sylvanus Adetokunboh Ayeni was born in Nigeria but lives in the US where he recently retired as a neurosurgeon. In lectures, on radio and in public forums, Dr Ayeni slams into corruption and incompetence on his native continent, asking why countries with virtually no natural resources like Singapore that gained independence in 1965 rank among the world’s best economies, “while oil-rich Angola manufacturers almost nothing and, under president Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe has gone from breadbasket to a beggar state”.
But, in Rescue Thyself – subtitled “Change in sub-Saharan Africa must come from within” – the author says little can be done until there is a workable supply of electricity.
“When you have no power, you can’t set up factories, run hotels, do homework, keep vaccines chilled at a clinic or even pump water efficiently. In short, you have no hope of a better life,” Ayeni said.
“And with the resultant poverty and unemployment, young people have few options,” he said. “Why do you think millions are striking out to cross the Mediterranean while others join gangs or militia? Ask yourself what you would do if you lived in such misery.”
India has an estimated 300-million people – close to the population of the US – who are still off the grid. Africa has double that number.
The Power Africa initiative started by President Barack Obama and continued by the Trump administration encourages private US companies to build generation capacity across Africa.
But in Uganda, where both Power Africa and USAID are active, only 22% of the population are on the grid while the country sells what it calls its “excess power” to neighbouring Kenya for cash. Two new dams with turbines are about to come online but much of the output will flow down pylons into the Democratic Republic of Congo, boosting the treasury in Kampala but still leaving a majority of Ugandans in the dark.
In July, President Donald Trump lifted an Obama-era ban on World Bank funds being used for clean-coal projects to generate power in the developing world.
But Dr Ayeni believes aid is not the answer.
“We hear endlessly how a gift of money can put things right, but more than a trillion dollars in aid to Africa since 1960 has done little to help.
“We need solutions that work locally, not wafty notions from aid junkies and NGOs who, when they get it wrong, run back to the comfort of London or Los Angeles,” he said.
“For example, what’s the point of spending scarce foreign exchange to import solar panels or wind turbines for oil-rich countries like Angola or Nigeria? Or to Tanzania, Botswana and South Africa with billions of tons of coal in the ground.”
Nigeria, with more than three times the population of South Africa, produces one tenth as much power.
Experts say the problem often lies in last-mile technology, lines from substations to homes and factories, even to whole towns.
Nigel Lawson was chancellor under Margaret Thatcher and today sits in the House of Lords. In London, he also chairs a non-partisan think tank, the Global Warming Policy Forum, or GWPF, with a board of leading business people and academics.
GWPF director, Dr Benny Peiser, agrees with Ayeni that power generation is vital to changing Africa for the better. “If you worry about Africans in poverty and people drowning in the Mediterranean, or the rise of militia and criminal networks, do something about it. And that must begin with electricity.”
Peiser said it was “an outrage that, in 2017, some African states produce less power than a mid-size town in Europe or America”.
This, he said, is a threat to the environment. “People need to cook and stay warm, so they cut down trees.” A recent report published in Nairobi shows that over the past half century Kenya has lost three-quarters of its old-growth forest.
And he said Ayeni was right that supply of power had to be done quickly and in a way that works for Africa.
“China has 1.4-billion people, roughly the same as Africa, but it generates 12 times more electricity. You only get those numbers from hydro plants on rivers and, for the most part, from coal and gas.”
But Ayeni says time is short. “Africa is urbanising perhaps faster than anywhere on the planet, and in our cities unemployment can reach 70%, especially among the youth. If we don’t find something for these people to do, we face a bloody revolution worse than anything in history.”
Migration, crime, militia and “a continent in dysfunction”, he said, were “a product of poor governance, bad aid and hundreds of millions left destitute because there is no work and no electricity to build an economy”.
Peiser said while small solar units handed out by US and British aid groups were helpful, “let’s not kid ourselves that this is the answer. We need every city and town on a central grid where the power doesn’t go off”.
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
September 4, 2017 at 03:50AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 