Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #409

Quote of the Week: “When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.” – William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin

Number of the Week: ZERO – $0

THIS WEEK:

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Red Team Vs Blue Team: Various organizations, such as the military, cybersecurity, etc. use a red team vs blue team conflict where the blue team uses the conventional thinking and tactics of the organization and the red team tries to break and / or exploit weaknesses in the conventional approach. Over the past several years there has been an effort to establish such a mental conflict to demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of the approach used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its followers. Thus far the effort has failed, and Washington is geared to the election cycle, making it unlikely such an approach will be used until after the elections, if ever.

In discussing COVID-19 for the Global Warming Policy Forum, Benny Peiser states:

“The evident divisions and contradictory results published in thousands of new studies in recent weeks (and the conflicting scientific advice provided to governments) is causing growing confusion, anger and disarray both within the scientific community and the general public.

“Scientific models and predictions based on widely differing assumptions are exposed as fatally flawed as never before. As a result, institutional science is hemorrhaging trust around the world while the way research is conducted and published is facing an existential crisis. In many ways, the coronavirus crisis has triggered the biggest crisis of science in modern history.

“In light of this evident disarray, calls for a radical reform of quality control of scientific methods and claims and the introduction of institutional Red Teaming are gaining ground. In a compelling article in the journal Nature, Professor Daniël Lakens sets out the arguments for a radically new way to conduct quality-control of scientific research and its methods.”

In the opening of the article published by Nature, Lakens states:

“As researchers rush to find the best ways to quell the COVID-19 crisis, they want to get results out ultra-fast. Preprints — public but unvetted studies — are getting lots of attention. But even their advocates are seeing a problem. To keep up the speed of research and reduce sloppiness, scientists must find ways to build criticism into the process.

Finding ways to prove ourselves wrong is a scientific ideal, but it is rarely scientific practice. Openness to critiques is nowhere near as widespread as researchers like to think. Scientists rarely implement procedures to receive and incorporate pushback. Most formal mechanisms are tied to the peer-review and publishing system. With preprints, the boldest peers will still criticize the work, but only after mistakes are made and often, widely disseminated. [Boldface added]

After giving specific examples of demonstrated flaws in estimates, Lakens states:

“It is time to adopt a ‘red team’ approach in science that integrates criticism into each step of the research process. A red team is a designated ‘devil’s advocate’ charged to find holes and errors in ongoing work and to challenge dominant assumptions, with the goal of improving project quality. The team has a role similar to that of ‘white-hat hackers’ hired in the software industry to identify security flaws before they can be discovered and exploited by malefactors. Similarly, teams of scientists should engage with red teams at each phase of a research project and incorporate their criticism. The logic is similar to the Registered Report publication system — in which protocols are reviewed before the results are known — except that criticism is not organized by journals. Ideally, there is a larger amount of speedier communication between researchers and their red team than peer review allows, resulting in higher-quality preprints and submissions for publication.

“Even scientists who invite criticism from a red team acknowledge that it is difficult not to become defensive. The best time for scrutiny is before you have fallen in love with your results. And the more important the claims, the more scrutiny they deserve. The scientific process needs to incorporate methods to include ‘severe’ tests that will prove us wrong when we really are wrong. [Boldface added.]

After giving an example of researchers ignoring red team criticisms, Lakens goes on to state:

“This shows that assembling a red team isn’t enough: research teams need to commit to addressing criticism from the outset. Sometimes, this is straightforward — items on checklists are absent from a proposal, or an independent statistical analysis yields different results, for example. Usually, it will be less clear whether criticism merits changing a protocol or including a caveat. The key is that, when results are presented, the team transparently communicates the criticism that the red team raised. (Perhaps incorporated criticism could be listed in the methods section of a paper, and unincorporated criticism in the limitations.) This will show how severely a claim has been tested.

“Pushback on each step of a research project should be recognized as valuable quality control and adherence to scientific values. Ideally, a research team could recruit their own red team from group members not immediately involved in the project.”

This entire approach is very useful not only for the current health crisis, but to help prevent government funded research organizations from becoming ossified – management failing to respond to reported problems until they result in a disaster, such as the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

*********************

Personal Attacks: Contrary to the views expressed above that scientists need to recognize, indeed invite, criticism, in a video, electrical engineer Terry Gannon reviews the extensive accusations or insinuations made against Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysicist Willie Soon who published a paper disputing the IPCC claim that human carbon dioxide emissions are the main cause of global warming, now called climate change. Soon asserted that solar variation is the principal cause.

The main accusations began in February 2015 with articles in the New York Times and other papers repeating assertions by Kert Davies, a former Greenpeace Research Director, claiming Soon had received direct funding from Exxon of over a million dollars to deny that CO2 emissions are the primary cause of climate change. Harvard-Smithsonian investigated and found no documented evidence that such direct payments were made. If those engineering the attacks had some, they should have provided it.

Such is the plight of those challenging the accepted dogma of climate science. As a professor Haapala had in graduate school said: “Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach; those who can’t teach, teach the teachers.” To which one can add an additional level: Those who cannot do anything, smear those who can. Willie Soon is a recipient of the Fredrick Seitz Memorial Award for exceptional courage in the quest for knowledge and a member of SEPP’s board of directors. See links under Communicating Better to the Public – Go Personal.

*********************

A Natural Experiment: The sun may be conducting a natural experiment. Physicist Nicola Scafetta has postulated that variations in the orbits and alignment of the heavy planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune can cause changes in the sun, in 2019 Stefani, et al, postulated that the alignment of Venus, Earth and Jupiter influence the solar magnetic field, thus governing the solar cycle. Professor Fritz Vahrenholt’s Monthly Solar Report explains the concept more simply:

“’The agreement is amazingly accurate: we see a complete parallelism with the planets over 90 cycles,’ explains Frank Stefani, one of the authors of the publication published in Solar Physics. Just as the gravitational pull of the Moon causes the tides on Earth, planets could move the hot plasma on the surface of the Sun. But the effect of a simple gravitational force is too weak to significantly disturb the flow in the Sun’s interior, so the temporal coincidence has long been ignored.”

“Now the researchers assume that the layers of the plasma are subject to a Taylor instability. The Taylor instability is known from the behavior of liquids of different densities at their interface (we know the turbulence that occurs when milk is poured into a cup of tea).  Taylor instability is sensitive to even very small forces. A small burst of energy is enough for the polarity of the solar magnetic field to swing back and forth every 11 years. The necessary impulse for this could be provided by the tidal action of the planets – and thus ultimately determine the rhythm in which the sun’s magnetic field reverses its polarity.

“The tidal forces of the planets could have other effects on the Sun in addition to their role as pace-setter for the 11-year cycle. For example, it would be conceivable that they could change the stratification of the plasma in the boundary area between the inner radiation zone and the outer convection zone of the Sun, the tachocline, in such a way that the magnetic flux could be more easily dissipated.

“Under these conditions, the strength of the activity cycles could also change, just as the ‘Maunder Minimum’ once caused a significant decrease in solar activity over a longer period, the researchers write on the Helmholtz Center website. It is an unusual idea that the activity of the sun is controlled by the planets, including the earth itself. This sounds like astrology – but it is the latest in solar research.”

To this we add the Svensmark hypothesis that a dormant sun will allow more high-energy cosmic rays to hit the atmosphere, thus increase cloudiness. Now we have the possibility that the earth may be entering a cooling phase, though it will take several solar cycles before any conclusions can be drawn. It will be interesting to see the effects on the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and other natural variability occurring in the oceans. See links under Science: Is the Sun Rising? and Commentary: Is the Sun Rising?

*********************

Confusion: In recent weeks, many environmental commentators have confused falling human CO2 emissions with falling levels of CO2. In addition, they have confused falling levels of visible pollutants such as nitrous oxide (NO2) with falling levels of CO2, which is invisible. Roy Spencer has a post explaining why what is claimed to be happening is not happening. His summary states:

“Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) continue to increase with no sign of the global economic slowdown in response to the spread of COVID-19. This is because the estimated reductions in CO2 emissions (around -11% globally during 2020) is too small a reduction to be noticed against a background of large natural variability. The reduction in economic activity would have to be 4 times larger than 11% to halt the rise in atmospheric CO2.”

He then goes into a clear explanation of his findings and concludes:

“That relatively small 11% reduction also illustrates how dependent humanity is on energy, since the economic disruption is leading to U.S. unemployment rates not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Everything that humans do requires access to abundant and affordable energy, and even the current economic downturn is not enough to substantially reduce global CO2 emissions.”

To its credit, NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory answers the question: “Can we see a change in the CO2 record because of COVID-19?” in a similar fashion. The variation in CO2 from stopping a great deal of human activity is too small when compared with natural variation to be able to “see” it. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy and https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/covid2.html

*********************

Solid Model and Solid Data: As those who follow the COVID-19 controversy may realize, to create models that give realistic results requires both a solid, well tested model and solid, realistic data fitting the issue. No matter how good the model, if the data are inappropriate, the results are poor. Contrary to what is implied in the Quote-of-the-Week, expressing issues in numbers does not necessarily mean expressing understanding. The critical question is: How good are the numbers (measurements) in defining the issue?

According to Worldometers, the current (May 16, 2020, midnight GMT) world-wide death rate from COVID-19 is 40.1 per million, the USA rate is 272 per million; yet the rate for China is 3, for India 2, Bangladesh 2; Indonesia 4; Philippines 7; Malaysia 3; Thailand 0.8, and so on. While in Spain it is 590; UK 508; Italy 525; France 423; Belgium 777; Netherlands 331; and so on. Using such numbers, the unscrupulous researcher could argue that it is clear that the virus was engineered to infect those of European descent, leaving Asians largely unharmed.

No matter how good the infection model may be, using data from China would not be appropriate for the US. Yet, all too frequently modelers use inappropriate data and produce inappropriate results they claim to be meaningful. This is an all too common problem in climate modeling. Surface data are used in most models cited by the IPCC, including US models, to claim that warming is from atmospheric CO2. Yet, the most appropriate data, atmospheric temperature trends are ignored. Such errors in use of data should not be tolerated in climate science any more than in medical research. See links under Defending the Orthodoxy, Health, Energy, and Climate, and https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

*********************

Age – The Hidden Problem: The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports “Provisional COVID-19 Death Counts by Sex, Age, and State.” TWTW accessed the tables on May 13, and the reports covered the period February 1 to May 9, 2020.

The total deaths from COVID-19 were 54,861. Of the total 17,478 (32%) were 85 or older; 14,930 (27%) were 75 to 84; 11, 524 (21%) were 65 to 74; 6,725 (12%) were 55 to 64; 2.772 (5%) were 45 to 54, and subsequent groups were 2%; 1% and 0%. It is clear from the best data available that for COVID-19, 80% of those who have died were 65 or older; 92% 55 or older.

Generally, those who are dying in large numbers are past the prime income years and employment advancement years. Those who are in their prime income and advancement years have low risk. A proper policy question should be: are economic lockdowns, which penalize wage earners in their high earning and advancement years, justified; when so few are threatened? TWTW has not seen this policy issue discussed. See links under Science, Policy, and Evidence, Articles # 2 & #3, and https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku

******************

SEPP’S APRIL FOOLS AWARD

THE JACKSON

Since 2012, SEPP conducted an annual vote for the recipient of the coveted trophy, The Jackson, a lump of coal. Readers are asked to nominate and vote for who they think is most deserving, following these criteria:

  • The nominee has advanced, or proposes to advance, significant expansion of governmental power, regulation, or control over the public or significant sections of the general economy.
  • The nominee does so by declaring such measures are necessary to protect public health, welfare, or the environment.
  • The nominee declares that physical science supports such measures.
  • The physical science supporting the measures is flimsy at best, and possibly non-existent.

The eight past recipients, Lisa Jackson (12), Barrack Obama (13), John Kerry (14), Ernest Moniz (15), Michael Mann (16), Christiana Figueres (17), Jerry Brown (18), and AOC (19) are not eligible. Generally, the committee that makes the selection prefers a candidate with a national or international presence. The voting will close on June 30. Please send your nominee and a brief reason why the person is qualified for the honor to Ken@SEPP.org. Thank you.

**********************

Number of the Week: ZERO – $0: According to press accounts and tweets, when asked by columnist Jonah Goldberg about the cost of the Green New Deal (GND), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez responded: “’Totally get it if you’ve never bothered to read the legislation you’re commenting so authoritatively on,” She continued by noting that the GND is a “non-binding resolution of values” and “costs us $0 if passed.

Regardless of the accuracy of the report: given that the proponents of the Green New Deal fail to distinguish between electricity generation that is dispatchable (reliable) and nondispatchable (unreliable) and promote unreliable generation, one can respond that Zero is the value of the critical thinking that has gone into the Green New Deal. See links under The Political Games Continue and Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind, and Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy – Storage

NEWS YOU CAN USE:

Science: Is the Sun Rising?

The Sun Has Entered ‘Very Deep’ Solar Minimum

By Niamh Shackleton, UNILAD, May 14, 2020 [H/t GWPF]

https://www.unilad.co.uk/science/the-sun-has-entered-very-deep-solar-minimum/

Earth’s Mean Temperature Falling, Planetary Alignment Suspected As Driver Of The 11-Year Solar Cycle

Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt’s Monthly Solar Report, Translated by P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, May 9, 2020

Link to press release: The Sun follows the rhythm of the planets

New study corroborates the influence of planetary tidal forces on solar activity

By Staff, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), an independent German research institute, May 27, 2019

https://www.hzdr.de/db/Cms?pNid=99&pOid=58444

Link to paper: A Model of a Tidally Synchronized Solar Dynamo

By Stefani, Giesecke & Weier, Solar Physics, May 22, 2020

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-019-1447-1

Link to second paper: Solar Oscillations and the Orbital Invariant Inequalities of the Solar System

By Nicola Scafetta, Solar Physics, Feb 26, 2020

https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s11207-020-01599-y?author_access_token=L-s0bgPea2pLm1b6tsdOMfe4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY55v9m3MM54tpj-CQPyVsAzzf6opG9W4gdgr8oVT4GOrzfpdh9XXEd-wc7RCZ_GqoBlUMf7XrmvDqvSdnxCjBRITA0FH-rHD__udFgR1gFZDw%3D%3D

Commentary: Is the Sun Rising?

New Study: Solar Forcing Estimates Since 1750 Could Be Much Larger Than Estimates Of Anthropogenic Forcing

By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, May 11, 2020

Link to paper: Sun-like Stars Shed Light on Solar Climate Forcing

By Judge, Egeland, and Henry, The Astrophysical Journal, March 9, 2020

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab72a9/meta

[SEPP Comment: According to the abstract, the new study does not contest the IPCC version of solar influence on the climate since 1750 but it does suggest that it may be double of that estimated.]

On 99-year anniversary of huge disruptive solar storm, we are about to enter the deepest period of solar “recession” ever recorded

By Tony Phillips, WUWT, May 15, 2020

Challenging the Orthodoxy — NIPCC

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science

Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2013

https://www.heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/CCR-II-Full.pdf

Summary: https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/CCR/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts

Idso, Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2014

Summary: https://www.heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-IIb/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels

By Multiple Authors, Bezdek, Idso, Legates, and Singer eds., Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, April 2019

Download with no charge:

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Climate-Change-Reconsidered-II-Fossil-Fuels-FULL-Volume-with-covers.pdf

Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming

The NIPCC Report on the Scientific Consensus

By Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Nov 23, 2015

Download with no charge:

https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/why-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate

S. Fred Singer, Editor, NIPCC, 2008

http://www.sepp.org/publications/nipcc_final.pdf

Global Sea-Level Rise: An Evaluation of the Data

By Craig D. Idso, David Legates, and S. Fred Singer, Heartland Policy Brief, May 20, 2019

https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/SeaLevelRiseCCRII.pdf

Challenging the Orthodoxy

It Is Time To Adopt A ‘Red Team’ Approach In Science

By Benny Peiser, GWPF, May 13, 2020

Link to paper: Pandemic researchers — recruit your own best critics

To guard against rushed and sloppy science, build pressure testing into your research.

By Daniël Lakens, Nature, May 11, 2020

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01392-8

The Fatal Attraction Of A Post-Covid Green Deal

Press Release, GWPF, May 15, 2020

Link to paper: The Fatal Attraction Of A Post-Covid Green Deal

By John Constable, GWPF, May 2020

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2020/05/Constable-Covid-GreenDeal.pdf

GWPF TV: The Net Zero Threat to Economic Recovery

Webinar by GWPF, May 15, 2020

[SEPP Comment: The webinar giving the basis for the above paper.]

Why the Current Economic Slowdown Won’t Show Up in the Atmospheric CO2 Record

By Roy Spencer, His Blog, May 15, 2020

Coronavirus And Climate Change: A Tale Of Two Hysterias

By Tilak Doshi, Forbes, May 14, 2020

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2020/05/14/coronavirus-and-climate-change-a-tale-of-two-hysterias/#73e1d20eb53b

“Unlike climate change models that predict outcomes over a period of decades, however, its takes only days and weeks for epidemiological model forecasts to be falsified by data.”

We know everything – and nothing – about Covid

It is data, not modelling, that we need now

By Matt Ridley, Rational Optimist, May 9, 2020

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/we-know-everything-and-nothing/

The Coronavirus Lockdown Has Not Made the Air Cleaner

By Todd Myers, National Review, May 14, 2020

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/coronavirus-lockdowns-have-not-made-air-cleaner/?itm_campaign=headline-testing-coronavirus-lockdowns-have-not-made-air-cleaner&itm_medium=headline&itm_source=nationalreview&itm_content=Cleaner%20COVID%20Air%3F%20Au%20Contraire&itm_term=Cleaner%20COVID%20Air%3F%20Au%20Contraire

Global “weirding” or nature being nature?

By Joe Bastardi, CFACT, May 9, 2020 [H/t WUWT]

Opinion/Letter: ‘Clean’ power plan just shifts pollution

By Charles Battig, The Daily Progress, VA, May 13, 2020

https://www.dailyprogress.com/opinion/opinion-letter-clean-power-plan-just-shifts-pollution/article_9b506be3-c15a-598d-a5b0-33fe9e3ba64c.html

Defending the Orthodoxy

Tying celestial mechanics to Earth’s ice ages

Gradual falls and sharp rises in temperature for millions of years have profoundly affected living conditions on the planet and, consequently, our own evolution.

By Mark Maslin, Physics Today, May 1, 2020 [H/t Edwin Berry]

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.4474

Link to key reference: Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation

By Jeremy D. Shakun, et al. Nature, Apr 4, 2012

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915

Later paper: Critical insolation–CO2 relation for diagnosing past and future glacial inception

By Ganopolski, Winkelmannn, and Schellnhuber, Nature, Jan 13, 2016

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16494

“Using an ensemble of simulations generated by an Earth system model of intermediate complexity constrained by palaeoclimatic data, we suggest that glacial inception was narrowly missed before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Additionally, our analysis suggests that even in the absence of human perturbations no substantial build-up of ice sheets would occur within the next several thousand years and that the current interglacial would probably last for another 50,000 years. However, moderate anthropogenic cumulative CO2 emissions of 1,000 to 1,500 gigatonnes of carbon will postpone the next glacial inception by at least 100,000 years.”

COVID-19 is a practice run for climate change

By Kate Kressmann-Kehoe, Rochester Beacon, May 12, 2020 [H/t Climate Depot]

Global Warming: Seeing the Negative Side of Longer Growing Seasons

By Eric Worrall, WUWT, May 12, 2020

“In addition, in many northern ecosystems, the benefits of warmer springs on increased CO2 absorption is offset by the accumulation of seasonal water deficits. New evidence shows that the increased spring plant growth and earlier start of the growing season actually deplete summer soil moisture and decrease the overall summer time plant growth in boreal and tundra ecosystems.”

[SEPP Comment: Mysterious new evidence!]

New Ashurst Study Shows Growing Investor Awareness to Speed the Energy Transition

By Editors, Real Clear Energy, May 15, 2020

https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2020/05/15/new_ashurst_study_shows_growing_investor_awareness_to_speed_the_energy_transition_491643.html

Link to study: Powering Change: Energy in Transition

By Staff, Ashurst, Accessed May 15, 2020

https://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-insights/hubs/energy-transition/

Questioning the Orthodoxy

Covid-19 is a frightening dress rehearsal of the climate agenda

Freedom, democracy and the economy have all been sacrificed to the precautionary principle.

By Ben Pile, Spiked, May 12, 2020

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/05/12/covid-19-is-a-frightening-dress-rehearsal-of-the-climate-agenda/

The Real Climate Science Deniers

By Paul Driessen, Townhall, May 16, 2020

https://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2020/05/16/the-real-climate-science-deniers-n2568909?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=05/16/2020&bcid=600713400c5e414103c69dc935baaf47&recip=4143601

Germany Seeing Little Improvement In Air Pollution, Despite Lockdown

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 12, 2020

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/3cHDC8B

May 18, 2020 at 04:36AM

Leave a comment