Climate Discussion Group 2024, CDG2024
Discussion - Climate C1
October - November 2024
Gerald Ratzer - Email: gerald.ratzer@mcgill.ca
Terigi Ciccone - Email: terigiciccone@gmail.com
C1 General
Dec. 31, 2024
Gerald Ratzer
Canada
CDG2024 Final Technical Report
Climate Discussion Group
Climate change is one of the most debated topics of our time, covering everything from the impact of weather patterns to economic stability and human health. As scientific opinions evolve around the causes and consequences of a warming planet, the urgency for effective policy responses becomes paramount. For policymakers, this means not only understanding the complex interplay of environmental, social, and economic factors but also crafting effective strategies. This is a discussion from invited participants about an understanding of Climate on the technical level.
C1 General
John Shanahan (30Nov) reviews four different possible sources for the increase in CO2
1. CO2 from fossil fuels causes most of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere and this is the cause of global warming.
2. CO2 from fossil fuels causes most of the additional CO2
but is not the cause of global warming.
3. CO2 from fossil fuels is rapidly absorbed by the oceans. In warm places, there is an outgassing of CO2 from the oceans.
4. A combination of the three above, while CO2 is not the main source of warming.
Ned Nikolov (28Nov) has commented on the Clintel Climate Conference in Prague. Here is the Conference Communiqué.
Kees le Pair and Ned Nikolov have an email exchange.
Terigi (15Nov) has Part 1 of “The benefits of increased CO2 and warmer temperatures”.
Clintel (14Nov) Prague Conference Press Release declares that the “Climate Emergency is at an end”.
CDG participants discuss the factors influencing the climate. This is a good summary of the complexity of our climate. No one-factor explanation of our varied weather conditions will do. What are the important variables?
Terigi Ciccone (7Nov) on the benefits of CO2.
John Shanahan (4Nov) addresses some of the observed weather events and facts in a form that high school students would understand.
Terigi Ciccone et al (2Nov) links to an Ed Berry newsletter with the essential science of climate change.
Terigi Ciccone (25Oct) – “Why the fuss with CO2 and the greenhouse effect?”
John Sackett (25Oct) asks how come CO2 is not driving global
December 19, 2024 2
Nov. 30, 2024
John Shanahan USA
warming. He presents several current explanations circulating in the media and asks for counterarguments.
Howard Dewhirst (22Oct) links to the Energy Institute's new version of the annual BP report. He shares his insight into the impact of different nations on our climate.
John Shanahan (14Oct) shares his experience of varied weather around the world.
Brian Catt (12Oct) quotes an Abstract of a paper which talks about life after fossil fuels run out. This is a long and informative post.
Howard Dewhirst (8Dec23) on the missing water vapor from many reports. There are a couple of interesting charts on the difference between the northern and southern hemispheres.
There are four distinct claims about the source of the additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since 1900 and what it means for the climate.
Some are tremendous waste of resources, Others are nobel endeavors to understand our wonderful planet:
1) The CO2 from fossil fuels causes most of the additional atmospheric CO2. It causess catestrophic global warming, climate change, sea level rise, more violent hurricanes, floods, wild fires and other destructive weather events that occurred for thousands of years in the past, but now are caused mostly by carbon dioxide from use of coal, petroleum and naturl gas. Some of the main alarmists are – the United Nations Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change, UN IPCC, the annual Conference on Parties, COP Conferences, the World Economic Forum, WEF, Greenpeace, Pope Francis, Joe Bidn, John Kerry, Bill McKibben, Barack Obama, John Holdren, Michael Mann, Al Gore, Thomas Cochran, nuclear power advocates, university presidents and faculty, and National Academies of Science. This is mostly to gain control of economies, reduce the population and scrounge
for pointless university research grants. Who will put a stop to this?
2) The CO2 from fossil fuels causes most of the additional atmospheric CO2 but the additional CO2 does not cause a measureable change in the weather or climate. Some physicists use this reasoning. They do not address the tremendous role of water as it evporates from the oceans, becomes water vapor, xondenses to become clouds, and falls as rain, snow and hail. The infrared radiation – greenhouse gas explanation does not account for the thermodynamic heat transport to the upper atmosphere and from the equator to the poles where the heat converts back to infrared radiation and exits to space. Neglecting these important weather phenomena and focusing only on infrared radiation interacting with greenhouse gases and scattering is one of the biggest unaccounted for edeficiencies in climate science.
3) The CO2 from fossil fuels is rapidly absorbed by oceans as evidenced by ratios of different carbon radioisotopes from long sequestered fossil fuels and CO2 normally in the atmosphere. The additional CO2 is from oceans warming in some regions.
4) A mix of events (1), (2) and (3). However, CO2 plays a negligible role in warming the planet compared to other causes of short term and long term warming and cooling and factors causingice ages to begin and end.
Stopping use of coal, petroleum and natural gas for power plants and transportation and for producing 6,000 plus by-products will destroy the modern world and cause a drastic collapse of the populaion.
Costly programs for universities in Australia, North America and Europe to focus heavily on research for carbon dioxide causing climate change, for tremendous energy expended for carbon dioxide sequestration, for building wind and solar energy farms, for transitioning to electric vehicles, batteries and recharging stations, for transitioning to hydrogen and bio-fuels wastes money that could be spent for much better purposes, destroys agriculture, forests and wildlife habitat and generates mountains of permanent waste for the long term.
Extreme Green leaders in Australia, Europe and North America are destroying their economies while the rest of the world is keeping a steady course of improving their standards of living with fossil fuels and their by-
Nov. 28, 2024
Ned Nikolov USA
products.
People in (2), (3) and (4) must stop fighting each other and work together. That is the main goal of Climate Discussion Group 2024, CDG2024.
To: Christopher Monckton
Christopher,
The Communique from a science conference should reflect not the majority of participants' personal opinions, but data- and math-based findings of reported research. After all, the purpose of a science conference is not to report a consensus on a topic, but to highlight new study results with significant implications for the science field in question.
How many times do we have to go through the same soft-ball (vanilla) approach in criticizing IPCC before realizing that it's NOT working? Can you or anyone else name 3 recommendations made by CLINTEL conferences in the past that have been taken into account by IPCC or somehow influenced the IPCC's approach to climate change?
Was it Einstein, who famously said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"?
Isn't it time to reconsider the methods employed by skeptics thus far to combat the IPCC's AGW insanity?
- Ned
Nov. 28, 2024
Ned Nikolov USA
Dear Kees,
Describing climate change with high precision has little to do with showing the physical insolvency of the "greenhouse" theory. The fact that this 19th-Century concept proposed before the discovery of the Gas Law is fundamentally wrong can be shown numerically using modern NASA data and the Laws of Thermodynamics, which we have conclusively done in our
December 19, 2024
published papers... One has just to spend some time studying these papers rather than just reading the Abstracts.
And yes, we do have a new, alternative, full-fledged physical climate theory that accurately explains:
a) The true nature of so-called "Greenhouse Effect" not just on Earth but also on all rocky planets & moons with atmospheres in the Solar System. We call it Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement or ATE;
b) The polar amplifications observed in proxy-based geological records of Earth going back 100+ million years and the mega drivers of Earth's paleoclimate;
c) The immediate cause of the observed modern warming during the past 150 years verified against CERES satellite data from the last 24 years.
Please, spend a month or so studying our published papers (in 2014, 2017, and 2024) and these science videos:
- Demystifying the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
- Drivers of Earth's Paleoclimate
Learning a new paradigm takes a significant amount of mental effort, but it's rewarding to those willing to go through the process.
In addition, our new climate concept identifies specific areas of research, where funding should be allocate to advance of climate science. Providing such a practical guidance is another valuable feature of our novel paradigm.
Regards,
-Ned Nikolov
Nov. 28, 2024
Kees le Pair
Netherlands
Dr. Nikolov,
Your message to CLINTEL’s president supposes that we can only put an end to the disastrous CO 2 -hunt, if we understand the Earth’s climates. If true, this would be catastrophic. Because understanding and describing that system with a precision of average temperatures better than some 5 o C is beyond our capabilities. The system is too complex and any one-factor attempt, like CO 2 , H 2 O, volcanoes, oceanic currents, solar input, atmospheric dynamics etc. is doomed to fail.
Below I shall try to explain a little better what and why.
Leaders and public must be convinced that falsifying the CO 2 story, like any other hypothesis or theory, can be done, and has been done, in many other ways, common in science. Such as: showing wrong arithmetic or wrong logic, difference with measurements, or other facts, wrong physical assumptions… .
If excellent one-actor studies show, that their influence on energy transport through our habitable shell is of the same order, or stronger than that of CO 2 , you have an argument for disbelief in the CO 2 -story. But you still do not have a true climate theory.
I think that making leaders and public understand that the “CO 2 -theory” has been duly falsified and present science is not able to describe climate precise enough for policy purposes, is our only honest message.
SOME EXPLAINING NOTES
1. GEOTRIAD. The real magnitude of the Earth’s “greenhouse”>>30 deg. C. The dominant processes.
https://www.clepair.net/GreenhousClP-Eng.html
2. CLIMATE RESEARCH ON SYSTEM & ACTORS
https://www.clepair.net/climate_system_and_actors.html
3. COMPLEXITY December 19, 2024
Nov. 28, 2024
Ned Nikolov USA
https://www.clepair.net/complexity.html
Please note: Your message contains some laudable truisms, but also some not substantiated opinions. I highlighted a few words in your text rather unusual in thought exchanges about physics. By the way, did you check the credentials of the persons editing the communique? If not, they deserve some excuse. Do you realise that your text could be harmful to the scientific climate realist message?
Regards, Kees.
Dr. C. (Kees) le Pair
To: CLINTEL
Dear Guus,
Thank you for the politically correct statement!
I think that the truth about climate can only be revealed by vetted observations and objective, rigorous data analysis. CLINTEL scientists should learn to distinguish findings obtained through such an approach from personal opinions and wild guesses in the form of unsupported hypotheses.
Another important point to keep in mind for future conferences is that nonscientists (i.e. political activists with no formal training in physical sciences) should not be allowed to lead/moderate science discussions or influence the content of final documents issued by CLINTEL science conferences. The current Communique is a good example of this. It was drafted by nonscientists prior to the end of the conference, which effectively defeats the purpose of the conference itself.
Third, a diversity of approaches to data analyses should be encouraged and participating scientists should not be asked to form a “consensus” by voting on a topic. Science is not an exercise in democracy, but a method to finding the truth about physical phenomena through objective data analysis and adherence to known physical laws.
Nov. 15, 2024
Terigi Ciccone USA
Finally, the message “there is no climate emergency” while scientifically correct, is not sufficient anymore to have a lasting impact, let alone capable of derailing the IPCC agenda. The missing part in this message is a sound explanation as to why the IPCC climate models are unreliable and unsuitable for guiding economic policies. Arguing about the magnitude of warming or the quality of temperature records without addressing the fundamental fallacies of the current climate theory is not going to stop or even slowdown the UN Bureaucracy.
I invite everyone to start deeply contemplating on these issues...
Regards,
Ned Nikolov
The benefits of increase CO2 and warmer temperatures –Part 2
Climate alarmists, the press/media, and politicians say we must achieve net zero CO2 by 2050 to avoid catastrophic global warming. In reality, all humanity and all life on Earth benefit from the increased atmospheric CO2 and the slight temperature increase.
In Part 2, we set out facts and scientific principles consistent with established laws of physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics to state that greenhouse gases (GHGs) and the greenhouse effect (GHE) do not measurably warm the Earth. The concept that it does is at best a 100-yearold myth. The absorption and re-emission of longwave infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface does not cause any measurable warming of the Earth.[i] It also raises the particular concern that the UN IPCC and NASA/NOAA do not address all of the sources of heat that warm the Earth. Nor consider the many natural forces and cycles that cause weather and climate variations that operate at the Astronomical, Endo-Earth, and BioEarth levels. Their well-published and promoted Earth Energy Budget needs serious revisions or to be discarded.
..
In summary, we find out that CO2/GHG absorption of LWIR energy emitted by the surface provides a negligible amount of physical heat in the troposphere. Consequently, the GHG/GHE
December 19, 2024
Nov. 15, 2024
Terigi Ciccone USA
provides near zero of the missing heat that the IPCC attributes to the GHGs and the GHE.
Nov. 14, 2024
CLINTEL
Czechia, Netherlands
The benefits of increase CO2 and warmer temperatures –Part 1
Climate alarmists, the press/media, and politicians say we must achieve Net Zero by 2050 to avoid catastrophic global warming. All humanity and all life on Earth benefit from the increase in atmospheric CO2 and the slight increase in temperatures.
In Part 1, we present scientific arguments to show how increased CO2, and warmer temperatures benefit humanity and all life on Earth.
.. ..
W see the beneficial impact of warmer temperatures and higher CO2 for humanity in Figure 4. Here we see a significant increase in food production to meet the needs of the Planet’s growing population. Especially note the bottom line showing that all this increased cereal production happened with no increase in land acreage, allowing more areas for bio-life habitat.
CLINTEL Prague Conference 2024, Press Release 1
Official press release by the Climate Intelligence Group (Clintel) Clintel international climate conference in Czech Parliament
CLINTEL ‘declares and affirms that the imagined
Nov. 14, 2024
CLINTEL
Czechia, Netherlands
and imaginary “climate emergency” is at an end’.
The communiqué drafted by the eminent scientists and researchers who spoke at the conference makes clear that for several decades climate scientists have systematically exaggerated the influence of CO2 on global temperature.
The high-level scientific conference also declared:
‘The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which excludes participants and published papers disagreeing with its narrative, fails to comply with its own error-reporting protocol and draws conclusions some of which are dishonest, should be forthwith dismantled.’
CLINTEL Prague Conference 2024, Communique 1
The International Scientific Conference of the Climate Intelligence Group (Clintel) has resolved and now declares
1. The modest increase in the atmospheric burden of carbon dioxide that has taken place since the end of the Little Ice Age has been net-beneficial to humanity.
18. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which excludes participants and published papers disagreeing with its narrative, fails to comply with its own error-reporting protocol and draws conclusions some of which are dishonest, should be forthwith dismantled.
December 19, 2024
Nov. 14, 2024
Terigi Ciccone, James Croll, Douglas Lightfoot, Richard Mackey, Ned Nikolov, Vaclav
Prochazka, Lazlo Szarka, Valentina
Zharkova, Karl Zeller Canada, Czechia, UK, USA
Therefore, this conference hereby declares and affirms that the imagined and imaginary ‘climate emergency’ is at an end.
CLINTEL Prague Conference 2024, Discussion 1
What do we know?
Only a short list of the factors influencing climate:
1. Solar irradiance - TSI is decreasing (but not enough to stop warming),
2. Albedo - especially the non-temperature governed changes (decreasing - but the cause is unknown: depletion of condensation nuclei?),
3. The suppression of radiation into space by clouds and greenhouse gases,
4. Occasionally huge magmatic events or asteroid/comet impacts.
These factors are influenced by:
- solar activity, astronomical cycles, - accumulation of solar energy in the Earth's crust and ocean,
- cosmic rays (influencing clouds), atmospheric circulation, - geomagnetic field (influencing cosmic radiation), endogenic geological processes,
- land use, emissions of substances which are active optically or in condensation nuclei (SO2 - decreasing, NH3...),
- greenhouse gas emissions (especially the natural ones which are much higher),
- greenhouse gas consumption (affected by: temperature, the productivity of terrestrial and marine ecosystems
- dependent on other nutrients etc., Clintel Cliamte Debate
December 19, 2024
2 November 13, 2024 volcanism and hydrothermal activity, regime of ocean currents; methane oxidation rate is enhanced by some pollutants like NOx...).
Nov. 7, 2024
Terigi Ciccone
USA
All humanity and all life on Earth benefit from the increase in atmospheric CO2 and the slight increase in temperatures.
Planetwide, plant growth increased, by almost 45% from 1900 to about 2020.
Plants significantly cool the Earth by absorbing more sunlight, by reflecting more solar rays into space, and by scattering it throughout the atmosphere.
Most plant growth happened in the warmer and dryer regions. We see this in the real world when NASA tells us that in a 35year test period, the Earth greened by about 35% because of CO2 fertilization.
We see a significant increase in food production to meet the needs of the planet’s growing population. Especially note all this increased cereal production happened with no increase in land acreage,
See full article at link below.
The benefits of increased CO2 and warmer temperatures
Nov. 4, 2024
John Shanahan
USA
John Shanahan is a civil-structural engineer who at the beginning of his career in 1970 was given the assignment to become thoroughly proficient in understanding what tornadoes can do and to make sure that nuclear power plants were properly protected. He spent seven years in field research, computer modeling of three dimensional moving tornadoess and three
December 19, 2024
dimensional nuclear power plants and their ventilation systems and physical testing of missile barriers. He collected the most extreme data of the most powerful storms over 100 years in the United States. Most of the reports were submitted to the sponsoring utilities. He still has the reports and data.
No one had collected such an amount of extreme data and analyzed it in detail. He had expert help from Professor Tetsuya Ted Fujita, Mesometeorologist, America’s top specialist for tornadoes at the University of Chicago and Professor Merit White, Civil Engineer, the top bomb bunker design specialist in WWII.
In all this research for tornadoes and hurricanes, the science that mattered involved parameters that are familiar to everyone studying the weather: temperature, wind, barometric pressure change, clouds, precipitation, flooding, lightning and airborne missiles.
Only when he began studying the topic of supposed catastrophic man-made global warming from use of fossil fuels did he see scientists studying the problem exclusively from the point of electromagnetic radiation and its interaction with CO2 and similar molecules.
After 25 years of carefully studying the subject from all points of view, he has concluded that studying climate change only through electromagnetic radiation and so called greenhouse gasses is not enough. We must study all the parameters influencing the weather from around the solar system to the core of the planet – a lot more than just infrared radiation and CO2.
Here is a short essay simply explaining the important aspects of weather and climate change that high school students can
December 19, 2024
Nov. 2, 2024
Terigi Ciccone, Ed Berry, Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller
USA
Nov. 2, 2024
Ed Berry USA
understand.
High school students can understand climate change
Climate Discussion Group 2024, CDG2024, CLINTEL Prague Conference 2024 and many other sources in countries around the world offer tremendous information that completely discredit the man-made global warming mantra of very sinister people and organizations that insist that the world stop using fossil fuels and their esssential by-products.
Below is the 10-31-2024 edition of the Dr. Ed Berry newsletter. In this edition, Dr. Ed Berry efficiently summarizes the essential science of climate change, within the context of public policy. I encourage all to read it and advocate for the implementation of these principles. However, the newsletter does not do enough service to the valuable contributions made by “Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller (2024).”
For those not familiar with their work, please watch this informative video.
https://vimeo.com/602819278?&login=true.
True experts are important. If German physicist Werner von Braun had not come to America after WWII, America would not have built the rockets that sent our astronauts to the Moon. Sometimes, a goal is reached because of only one person.
Below are selections of scientific publications and statements that summarize what we know about climate
December 19, 2024
Oct. 25, 2024 Terigi Ciccone USA
change. This selection does not include hundreds of good authors and their scientific papers that support the same conclusions as in this summary.
The authors below prove IPCC’s climate claims are false. According to the scientific method, these papers override all papers that claim human CO2 changes the climate.
See link below for full message.
The true science of climate change
Here is a reply by Terigi Ciccone to John Sackett’s request for answers to Climate Issues in Montana dated Oct. 25, 2024
"Revised, Why all the fuss with CO2 and the Greenhouse effect?"
All of your comments from both sides of these issues are welcome.
Comments about the original points and comments about Terigi Ciccone's paper.
We encourage YOU! to respond with your criticisms, ideas and suggestions. The author, Terigi Ciccone will evaluate the comments and reply,
You may forward this to your colleagues, friends and policy makers and encourage them to reply also. Please reply to:
Terigi Ciccone <terigiciccone@gmail.com>
Many thanks.
Oct 25, 2024
John Sackett USA
I appreciate John Shanahan’s steady work in understanding energy needs and impacts. He emphasizes that he, with support of many scientists, believe that CO2 is not driving the climate changes that we are seeing. In Montana for example, the agricultural growing season has been lengthened by two weeks. I would appreciate comments on the following, which are the most common arguments for cause and effect.
“1. **Atmospheric CO2 Measurements**: Since the late 1950s, scientists have measured CO2 levels at the Mauna Loa Observatory. Data shows a clear upward trend in CO2 concentrations, correlating with industrialization and fossil fuel use.
2. **Correlation with Global Temperatures**: Historical data indicates a strong correlation between rising CO2 levels and global temperatures. Ice core samples reveal that periods of high CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere coincide with warmer periods in Earth's history.
3. **Climate Models**: Climate models that include greenhouse gas emissions predict future warming accurately. When models only consider natural factors (like solar radiation and volcanic activity), they fail to account for the observed temperature increases.
4. **Ocean Acidification**: Increased CO2 levels lead to higher concentrations of carbonic acid in oceans, affecting marine ecosystems. This phenomenon demonstrates the direct impact of CO2 emissions on the environment.
December 19, 2024
5. **Paleoclimate Evidence**: Studies of ancient climates show that CO2 levels have been closely linked to temperature changes over millions of years, reinforcing the idea that CO2 is a significant climate driver.
6. **Attribution Studies**: Research that attributes recent climate changes to specific causes shows that observed warming cannot be explained without accounting for human-induced CO2 emissions.
7. **Physical Chemistry**: The fundamental science of how CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation provides a clear mechanism for how increased CO2 leads to warming. Together, these lines of evidence form a robust framework supporting the conclusion that CO2 emissions are a major driver of climate change.”
So, how best to counter these arguments?
John Sackett
Oct. 22, 2024
Howard
Dewhirst
UK BP have stopped producing their annual global review but the data base has been taken over by the energy Institute https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review/resources-anddata-downloads
And here is my graph of who is doing what at the end of 2023.
China is accelerating her emissions and wealth, India is trying to follow suit, while the west declines into selfsatisfied net zero oblivion.
There’s a lot more to pull out of the 2023 data but this
December 19, 2024
Oct. 14, 2024
John
should provide a preliminary snapshot.
Ask yourself what difference it would make if the UK sank below the N Sea – or doubled her emissions?
Not forgetting that on average 50% of human emissions are sequestrated by the biosphere and oceans; so China’ 1.44 ppme of CO2 merely adds 0.7 ppme to the atmosphere, and the UK … ?
Howard
To: Professor Gerald Ratzer Emeritus Professor, McGill University
19, 2024
Shanahan USA
Montreal, Canada
Dear Gerald,
I have over 80 years of appreciation and experience with Earth’s climate, both professionally and personally in both hemispheres and from elevations minus 430 meters, 1,410 feet (Dead Sea) to plus 5,944 meters, 19,500 feet (mountains in Ecuador, Nepal and Tibet).
In the 1970s, I was involved in extensive field research, atmospheric and engineering computer modeling and physical testing for extreme meso-meteorology eventsTORNADOS! And protecting nuclear power plants so they can continue to provide reliable electricity.
Along with this field research and engineering analysis, I have sixty years of experience of writing computer programs for engineering research, management databases and designing and selecting content for allaboutenergy.net.
All of this experience is being applied to your project: Climate Discussion Group 2024, CDG2024.
Gerald Ratzer, Terigi Ciccone and about 100 participants from 24 countries are aiming to accomplish what has not been accomplished satisfactorily to date: A successful discussion among many scientists and engineers on most of the parameters affecting Earth’s climate.
Yes, there have been many conferences and publications. But most have not succeeded in coming close to unifying the understanding of climate science. Many people have their preferred ways of explaining climate science. We forget to ask Mother Nature.
Particularly problematic have been scientists like James Hansen and John Holdren who have terrorized the
December 19, 2024
Oct. 12, 2024
Brian Catt UK
National Academies of Science around the world, universities and think tanks to fall in line with Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming DOGMA.
I’ve known President Obama’s Science Advisor as a personal acquaintance since 1970. We have had many discussions over four decades about his views and my views about climate, use of fossil fuels and advanced technology nuclear power/
Then there are the Climate Change Alarmist politicians and their professional handlers in North America and Europe.
The public hardly has a chance to get it right.
Another problem for this civil engineer are the attempts to answer most climate change questions with analysis of just a few average parameters radiation and temperature, and electromagnet spectrum analysis of greenhouse gases on a flat, stationary disk representation of the dynamic, rotating, thermodynamic Blue Marvelous Planet, Earth with three phases of plentiful water plus clouds.
I wish CDG2024 great success.
John Shanahan
Dr. Engineering (Germany), retired Professional Engineer, Civil Engineer with career in nuclear power.
Date Written: April 5, 2018
Abstract
This paper quantifies the practical deliverability of the strategic engineering options proposed to power a future national grid, when fossil fuel use for generation, heating and transport is reducing to zero. The main contenders are the naturally variable renewables with their essential storage for
December 19, 2024
times of low output, and an all base-load nuclear grid, including load balancing use for off-peak surpluses. The measures used are the objectives of government policy - most affordable, adequate, sustainable, with lowest CO2 emissions per unit energy of grid supply, including the effects of subsidies awarded to the available options. The results clearly demonstrate that low-density renewable energy is an inadequate primary energy source to meet UK grid demand. In particular when the true cost of renewable intermittency is considered, in terms of provisioning essential battery backup, or other low-density storage, that naturally variable renewables require to match demand 24/7 without fossil backup. Finally, how the approximate cost of 4 years of battery support for an all renewable grid, at today's demand level, would fund a surplus of nuclear plant adequate to power the UK grid at triple today's supply for 60 years, using fuel that is sustainable for the foreseeable future.
Keywords: renewable, nuclear, fossil, energy, storage, pumped, battery
Gerald,
I would love to contribute, on energy reality I have costed and global climate I have created an absolute empirical model for, after 14 years of understanding how it fits together and how the major controls work….. the second stage of my journey after I realised the energy solutions were a demonstrable engineering fraudalmost entirely regressive and pointless, that make all the claimed measurements worse when compared to preferring nuclear replacing
December 19, 2024
fossil fuels via a gas or clean coal fuelled transition, gas in the UK for sure.
Solar is a joke at 50 deg North, where max demand is when it's dark most of the day at an effective 73 degrees North, and it can be very cold, often at the same time its windless for days from a Europe wide high pressure event. No renewable interconnect surplus for us., etc..
I owe Doug a lot for coming to the IET in London and giving his Nuclear Talk in 2008, which answered most of the questions I had started on but not yet quantified in detail, so saved me a lot of time.
I doubt the IET would allow Doug to do this now, but he is on video…
Because, as with the GSL, the IET and IoP I belong to have been captured by the woke 5th Column, they don’t do science any more..
The political opposition to solving the supposed problem best, using the nuclear technology we have developed and refined, is large, and the IET and IoP management are woke, and/or in the Government’s pocket …. also the pockets of the profiteering commercial enrgy companies, who are making so much quick n Easy subsidy fortunes for making energy supply worse at public expense from the enrgy protection rackets, and who employ IET
December 19, 2024
members to do it - whose jobs depend on knowingly defrauding the public, or are not competent engineers. Both are simply corrupted by their need to work and not to question, or publish if in Academe.
They can support nuclear when renewables fail, as they must. For success, the PR must match the physics…
It is longer possible to publish this reality in the mainstream of Institute Journals IF you tell the engineering truth you are trained to know and use as a professional.
Professionals that these institutions also accredit, their real power. And Institutions that also depend on their Royal Charter for their income and also the money they get from the companies and government who have created the get rich quick renewable subsidy rackets, also their worthy honours on retirement for preferring politics over science..
As regards energy…. the ONLY zero emissions generation known to science and engineering that can replace fossil fuelled generation on a steam powered grid with serious inertia all - so needs no CCS ir storage, or subsidies, is nuclear. Most intense, dispatchable, scalable, sovereign, sustainable and cheapest per KWh.
They want to impose what cannot deliver the energy we use now, and certainly not at the
price fossil fuel and Gen 2 Nuclear enables. The so called green remedies barely work compared to nuclear, and the costs of intermittency make them even more expensive than dispatchable fossil and nuclear, by a factor 5-10 if the gas backup is taken away and the grid system depends on renewables and storage alone, all costed by ME.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3274611
For politicians to want to reverse Western economic progress and impoverish the mass of people, by laws imposing what are measurably simple lies about energy generation, make made me look next at the supposed problem this would avert.
Which, as with Doug, brought me to cimate “science”.
Don’t get me started on climate… its so obviously a blatant fraud by the mostbasic tests of science. Which I attack from the observations of the past, geological, archaeological, and historical, and the clear empirical balance of the Earth energy system that any one with A level maths and physics can understand, and quantify.
Except nobody wants to consider the reality of the whole system, just play with radiative transfer models in computers that do not represent the whole system, just components of
the system, and attribute a small effect within it to all the change we measure.. Not a lot anyway, on the natural record, within the dominant controls that deliver Earth’s natural energy balance.
I have written a paper on that, which I am trying to review effectively in pre-approval stage, which is attached.
IF interested, GO TO Section 2, do not pass GO.
As I write I should be calculating an additional table of the actual change in Water vapour feedback per deg, over the broader range this occurs across Earth’s oceans as regards temperarure and RHI. I have only presented the rather consistent 7% per Deg K at 288K from 10-90% RHI. THis matters because it creates 6W/m^2 deg K negative feedback that is simply not in the climate models at this level…
I wrote to Trenberth who replied it is more like 2% where it matters, which I know is BS, so I am adding the figures for 30C oceans where most heat is lost, but is still over 5% per deg K at 90% RHI, and polar oceans, which I know have a higher delta than 7% per deg K, because the control is by the differential change from a very low level, not the absolute amount, right?
So, in summary, the rate of increase at low December 19, 2024
temperatures is higher than 7% per deg and the rate in the Tropics is still well above 2%. So Tenberth has no real grasp of the differential effects that determine climate stability, on the properties of water vapour I have quantified. But pronounces on it.
It gets better…
nb: Same goes for S-B sums in the troposphere, the Delta in radiative effect with temperature at the lower absolute temperatures in the Troposphere is higher than that at the surface, not less, because the absolute temperature base the 1 deg variation is compared to is smaller. Why does nobody point this simple fact out?? Even sceptics cannot step out of their own narrative.
It gets better. Trenberth also writes that the radiative energy released by water vapour in the troposphere returns to disrupt energy flows and warm the climate system, when his own energy balance balance shows the radiative enrgy from latent heat release all goes to Space, where the 2nd law says it should. Easiest check anyone could make, on a calculator, or even a piece of paper with a pen.
Speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Leveraging credible science to prove a deceitful narrative.
These people have just made this up to scare
people. It’s not real. In particular they have made up the sensitivity of the surface temperature to radiative perturbation.
Either they have no gasp of joined up physics, so not a clue about the whole Earth enrgy balance system, OR something bad is going on.
Anyway, its provably wrong, so just I proved it. Probably.
With a calculator, engineering tables, basic physics and the observations. WIP……….. attached
Here is me doing my job reasonably well, Doug Style, but to a political audience at Reform conference in 2022.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYgLYKFRIc&lc=UgywMZixsT4AlyhCq2x4AaABAg.9h 2DXQiIl0S9h5839S5lAd
It was a one off so could be done better as regards energy use, that is what most people are interested in, and is the target of climate policies, of course.
It's about the reality we know and measure vs. the climate and energy narratives, 15 minutes on “Back to the Future?” as regards the absolute engineering realities of energy supply and the basis for the climate claims that are claimed to support these “solutions",
December 19, 2024
renewables, electrification, etc., and don’t because they can't.
I will follow up with some more later when the two new water vapour tables are done and sent to Trenberth to challnege his "2% per deg WV creation where it matter in the Tropics" assertion.
The rate that the global 86.4W/m^2 latent heat transfer to the Troposphere varies with temperature is the dominant feedback in the whole Earth energy balance. But who knew?
Is it only me?
Why has no one else done this obvious analysis, parameter by parameter.
WE have the properies of the effects and the direct observations of what goes in and what comes out. What more do we need?
That is a serious question.
Did I miss something?
…….and thanks again …..
I will visit the website when I have reposted my pre pub paper with the extra WV rate of change tables...
Brian
December 19, 2024
Dec. 8, 2023
Howard
Dewhirst
UK
Eur Ing Brian Catt CEng, CPhys, MBA www.deconfused.com
The figure below is from NASA’s Earth Now site and shows Water Vapor, but which is missing from so many accounts.
I have looked at the CO2 data from a lot of the weather stations and can see distinct latitudinal banding in the way CO2 is absorbed and releasesd by photosynthesis. The two hemispheres are quite distinct with the annual CO2 flux in and out being uniformly low in the SH and as far as ~30 deg N and increases rapidly as one approaches the N Pole.
The seasonal fall in atmospheric CO2 which characterises most of the northern hemisphere is due to the enhanced uptake during the summer by the large surface area of vegetation, reinforced by the longer sunlit days. The southern hemisphere in contrast has a small area of vegetation and none at all near the poles for the lengthening sunlit days to affect.[1]
Atmospheric CO2 records for 2018-19 at Point Barrow in Northern Alaska (Fig 6 dark blue) show monthly average CO2 concentrations declining by 16 ppm from May to August, due mainly to plant photosynthesis and precipitation during the northern summer. They then increase sharply by a similar amount from September to
19, 2024
January, due mainly to organic decomposition and respiration, and more slowly by a further 3 ppm through to April/May. Fossil fuel emissions in 2020 were 4.14 ppm or 0.345 ppm per month, half of which according to the IPCC appear to be sequestrated in the biosphere and oceans, reducing the monthly impact just 0.172 ppm.
At Cape Grim, Tasmania and every weather station in the southern hemisphere, not only are the seasons reversed, but the absorption during the summer (Fig 6 orange) is suppressed and hardly more than 0.5 ppm (Fig 5 red), while desorption during the autumn/winter struggles to reach 3 ppm. This uniformly low level of annual CO2 flux is recorded at some fifty weather stations, from around 20-30 deg north of the equator to the South Pole; and with a lag of some 3-4 years compared to the northern hemisphere. Seasonally adjusted figures still have a 2year lag.
The marked reduction of atmospheric CO2 in the northern hemisphere as the summer growing season advances, daylight increases and temperatures rise, and the increase in atmospheric CO2 as the winter draws in (Fig 6 blue) and temperatures fall (Fig 6 dashed blue) is contrary to what would be expected if increasing CO2 leads to global warming, as proposed by the AGW conjecture. A similar but much less extreme pattern is present in the southern hemisphere (Fig 6 red & orange). This pattern of warming and declining atmospheric CO2, mirrors what happens on a daily basis (Fig 4 left) as the reduction of atmospheric CO2 in both situations is due to warming and photosynthesis uptake, not cooling.
Best wishes
i [] Dr. Brendan Godwin provides a comprehensive and easy to understand scientific refutation of the UN IPCC Radiative Transport Theory. Read the article Critical analysis of Robert Wentworth’s How the Greenhouse effect warms a Planet. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377727824_Critical_analysis_of_Robert_Wentworth's_H ow_the_Greenhouse_effect_warms_a_planet