Month: May 2024

Climate and Energy Realism

 

Washington Times provide an important Book Review: ‘Climate and Energy: The Case for Realism’ Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Flipping the script on popular climate change narrative. 

“Human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing long term catastrophic climate change.” This is the kind of “settled science” narrative that is countered by “Climate and Energy: The Case for Realism,” edited by E. Calvin Beisner and David R. Legates. Mr. Beisner is founder of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, and Mr. Legates, a veteran climatologist, is a senior fellow at the Cornwall Alliance.

There is much scientific evidence to challenge the climate change mantra. So, “why don’t you learn of climate realism from science journals or mainstream media?” The prologue to “Climate and Energy” answers this key question.

This aptly titled, cogent book further expands the real-world horizon of climate and energy knowledge and practice in 16 readable chapters.

These chapters cover the spectrum of climate and energy concerns. In addition to giving the history and politics of climate change, the book clearly explains the science of climate, climate models, the pertinence of the scientific method, and crucial aspects of the energy economy.

“Climate and Energy” clarifies the role of the sun, the oceans and the water cycle, and the clear and opaque connections between climate policy and energy economics, especially the economics that affect the poor in the developing world. After all, economists provide not only the budgetary balance to the climate change issue, but also broaden the understanding of the human toll of climate change.

Climate is largely set by water in all its forms: as liquid in oceans and clouds, as solid in ice sheets and snow, and as invisible vapor in air. In addition, as water changes phases, the process either cools or warms the atmosphere, depending on whether evaporation or condensation is occurring.

“Climate and Energy” addresses the role of water in climate change in lucid detail. For instance, climate scientist Roy Spencer discloses that water vapor is “the strongest of Earth’s greenhouse gases. Together with the clouds we see, water vapor accounts for about 75% of the greenhouse effect.” In addition, “the processes that limit how much water vapor accumulates in the atmosphere — precipitation — are not known in enough detail to predict how the weak direct-warming effect of CO2 will be either amplified or reduced by precipitation limits on water vapor.”

The book makes a strong case that the “uncertainties associated with water vapor, cloud, and precipitation processes regarding their impact on global warming estimates cannot be overemphasized.”

“Climate and Energy” includes further challenges to the oft-cited catastrophic climate change narrative such as discussions of the impact of urbanization on temperature records since the mid-1800s, when consistent, widespread surface-based measurements began, and the comparison of natural temperature oscillations with the established surface observations.

Not to be missed is the appendix prepared by Mr. Legates in which he provides individual synopses of 44 important historical scientific papers on climate change science, beginning with Svante Arrhenius’ 1896 work quantifying carbon dioxide’s impact on air temperatures.

The vast majority of papers explored are by authors who provide reasonable challenges to the popular climate storyline. The papers by these well-qualified atmospheric science and statistics authors were published in journals such as Science, Nature, Geophysical Research Letters and the Journal of Climate.

Subject matter includes early work on El Nino (the warming of ocean water off the coast of Peru that has a huge effect on weather across the globe including in the U.S.); air-sea interactions and their enormous impact on climate change; statistical analysis of the infamous “hockey-stick graph” that purportedly showed steady global temperatures for the past couple of thousand years until a dramatic uptick beginning the last half of the 20th century; the impact of the sun on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends; and other critical topics.

“Climate and Energy” is authored by exceptionally well-qualified climate scientists, economists and professionals immersed in climate and energy analysis and policy. The intelligent perspective delivered in this book is sorely needed to clear today’s climate change atmosphere polluted with too much politics and scientism. “Climate and Energy” proposes a return to hard science and solid reasoning when addressing one of the defining issues of our time.

Preface from Book Cover

Scientists and experts call it catastrophic. A U.S. president says it is “more frightening than a nuclear war.” Blamed for the deaths of millions, climate change is said to be an apocalyptic threat that requires government spending in the hundreds of trillions of dollars.

Anyone who dares to deny the “science” of climate change is banished to an intellectual gulag, but climate change policies shouldn’t be determined by a coterie of elites in New York or Davos. Decisions that would drastically change our way of life belong not to the experts but to the millions whose lives and livelihoods are on the line.

Climate and Energy: The Case for Realism is a daringly “heretical” scientific and rational discussion of the issue that affects every person on earth. Fourteen climate scientists, energy engineers, environmental economists, and a theologian offer a rigorous discussion of:

• The real causes of “global warming”
• How sensitive the climate actually is to greenhouse gases
• How the sun, oceans, clouds, and rain play a key role in climate change
• The benefits of human-generated CO2
• Why the abandonment of fossil fuels would leave developing countries perma nently impoverished and doom millions to an early death
• The failure of renewable energies—and the billion-dollar subsidies that fund them
• The ethics of climate and energy policy
• How climate change may actually leave man better off

Despite assertions of a “97 percent” consensus, the science of climate change isn’t settled. And neither are the policy solutions. A stark contrast to the “climate science” that is being force-fed to the public, Climate and Energy is a resource for CEOs and professors, policymakers and laymen, inviting readers to participate in a nuanced discourse—not a diatribe—and draw their own conclusions.

 

via Science Matters

https://ift.tt/IbhyRZi

May 27, 2024 at 12:08PM

It Gets Rainier

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Well, since I was on a roll with my last post Rainergy, I thought I’d look further at the Copernicus global rainfall dataset. I started by looking at the change in global rainfall over time.

Figure 1. Global monthly rainfall, 1979 – 2022.

Well, that’s interesting. Overall, despite endless hype about increasing floods, there’s no significant trend in rainfall. The main feature is the dropoff in rain from the 2016 peak. Being curious about that drop, I thought I might look at the hemispheres separately to see where it’s happening. Here’s that data:

Figure 2. CEEMD smooths, northern and southern hemisphere monthly rainfall

Zowie, sez I … do you see what I see?

The two hemispheres are basically mirror images! When one is wetter, the other is dryer, and vice versa. And as to why that would be, my only guess is that it’s from the very rainy Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) wandering above and below the Equator. Other than that, I fear I have no answer except for the quote below.

Figure 3. Quote from Richard Feynman, one of the most outstanding physicists of our time

Seeing the inverse relationship between the northern and the southern hemispheres made me wonder how well the models managed to hindcast the rainfall over the same period, and whether the models found the same mirroring of the NH and SH. For example, in the real world the northern hemisphere (blue line in Figure 2 above) is wetter than the southern (red line) … do the models find this difference?

So I went to the marvelous KNMI website and got the CMIP6 model average data. And when I graphed it up, my eyebrows went up to my hairline and I busted out laughing …

Figure 4. CEEMD smooths of modeled hemispheric rainfall, CMIP6 model average. This model average is created by first averaging all of the model runs of each model, and then averaging the model averages. This is to prevent overweighting the models with lots of runs.

I am totally gobsmacked. I don’t know what I expected, but it sure wasn’t this … in total contradiction to the real-world observations, in modelworld the southern hemisphere is wetter than the north, the northern hemisphere is getting much wetter over time, total annual rainfall is about 75mm (3 inches) or about 8% too large, and there’s no mirroring …

But wait, as they say on TV, there’s more! Here’s the CMIP6 SSP245 model average global rainfall from 1850 to 2100. It is hindcasting using real data up to 2014, and forecasting after that.

Figure 5. Modeled global rainfall, CMIP6 model average, SSP245 scenario. The graphs are taken directly from the KNMI website. Upper panel is full data, lower panel shows residual after removing seasonal variations. This CMIP6 model average is created by first averaging all of the model runs of each model, and then averaging the model averages. This is to prevent overweighting the models with lots of runs.

Seriously? Does that look real to anyone?

And there’s another oddity. Recall from my post Rainergy that evaporating water to create rainfall cools the surface. The modeled rainfall shown above claims that by 2100, the rainfall will have increased from the 20th Century average by ~60 mm. The evaporation necessary to produce this increased rainfall would cool the surface by an additional 4.8 W/m2 … which per IPCC calculations would offset the theoretical increase in forcing resulting from CO2 increasing from 400 ppmv to 980 ppmv.

Right … that’s totally believable …

These are the Tinkertoy™ models that our noble climate cognoscenti are using to predict the climate in the year 2100? We’re abandoning the world’s reliable energy sources based on these ludicrous models??? …

Madness. Tragic madness.

I fear that’s all for today. Although I’m sure that there’s more to be learned from the Copernicus rainfall data, at this moment I’m laughing and crying too hard to do any more mathematical analysis.

My best to all,

w.

Yeah, yeah, you heard it before, but I gotta say it again: When you comment, please quote the exact words you are discussing. I can defend my words. I cannot defend your interpretation of my words.

And if you wish to show that I’m wrong, here are complete instructions on how to show Willis is wrong.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/PqIKngx

May 27, 2024 at 12:03PM

New Study: China’s Loess Plateau 7-8°C Warmer Than Today For Much Of The Last 4000 Years

Scientists refer to the Middle and Late Holocene’s much warmer and wetter regional climate as “favorable,” “optimal” and “the best.”

New research from a Loess Plateau study site identifies mean annual temperatures as 9.86°C today, while annual precipitation averages 531 mm. These values are shown to be among the coldest and driest of the last 5000 years.

In contrast, for the period extending from 2700 years ago to the last few centuries the mean annual temperatures were 17.02°C. This is 7.16°C warmer than present. The mean annual precipitation was 903 mm for this Late Holocene period, which is about 70% higher than today’s.

From about 4700 to 3900 years ago there were periods when mean annual temperatures varied up to 18.46°C, which is 8.6°C warmer than present.

The authors of this temperature and precipitation reconstruction note that the naturally warmer and wetter Middle and Late Holocene millennia were “the best,” most “favorable,” and “optimal” climate period when compared to the drier and colder climates of recent centuries.

Image Source: Guo et al., 2024

via NoTricksZone

https://ift.tt/1ySz7vl

May 27, 2024 at 11:48AM

Tuesday

0 out of 10 based on 0 rating

via JoNova

https://ift.tt/B70IKE5

May 27, 2024 at 10:06AM