Climate Discussion Group 2024, CDG2024
Discussion - Climate C2
October - November 2024
(C2) Traditional gas physics, thermodynamics, geothermal events help explain Earth’s weather
Nov. 15, 2024
Douglas Lightfoot, Gerald Ratzer
Hunga Tonga temperature impact waning
Good Science is based on the Scientific Method.
In this case, the Hypothesis is that the current spike in global temperatures as measured by UAH has been impacted by the Hunga Tonga submarine volcano explosion on 15th January 2022.
In 2022 and 2023 the media has been having a field day saying these are the hottest years “evah”! In 2022 there was a rise in the water vapor in the Stratosphere, after the massive explosion in the Western Pacific. This included 146 million metric tonnes of water blasted some 60 km into the air. This water froze into ice crystals. Usually, the Stratosphere has a low water vapor content, but the Hunga Tonga eruption added some extra 10%.
So, we agree that 2024 has been a very hot year, but not from the slow rise of CO2. The attribution of the heat spike to the Hunga Tonga volcano is based on several different empirical data sources and meets the standard of the Scientific Method.
Oct. 30, 2024
Pavel Kalenda Czechia
Oct. 25, 2024
Uli Weber
“The increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration is of natural origin.”
CLINTEL Conference Prague, Czechia
What was the first: temperature or CO2?
Germany Dear Gerald,
Thank you for your kind feedback. In my opinion almost all climate models suffer from their basic assumption: Solar ENERGY received by the Earth is averaged over the 24-hour day and this results in the usual factor4 for the global distribution of solar POWER then. At a first glance, such a global 24-hour average looks plausible, but the same result could also be obtained for a century, a decade, a year, a month, a week, an hour, a minute and a second. The following figure at solar equinox may explain for the situation:
Irradiation: High-frequency (HF) solar radiation falls on Earth within a circle of the Earth's radius (@PiR²)
Temperature generation: Solar radiation heats up the matter on the Earth’s day side (@2PiR²).
Radiation: The heated matter emits infrared (IR) radiation over the entire surface of the Earth (@4PiR²).
Areal relation 1:2:4: Solar radiation=1Heating of the Earth’s day side=2 - Entire surface of the Earth=4
As easily can be proved by the construction of astronaut suits that withstand temperatures of about 120°C, the solar constant of 1367 W/m² is able to produce such temperature at Earth’s distance. The usual faktor4approach neglects this fact and calculates a global POWER-average of 340 W/m² from the solar ENERGYamount [Joule] received by the Earth in 24 hours. This faktor4-average of 340 W/m² becomes then the basis of all further calculations and leads to a “natural” temperature of (-18°C) for the Earth.
Consequently, this factor4 approach is a pure mathematical scalar which does not match the demand of the physical Stefan-Boltzmann-Law:
o The radiation of a black body in the StefanBoltzmann-Law (temperature=>radiation) consists of vectors in direction of the black body’s surface normal. The inversion of the Stefan-Boltzmann-Law (radiation=>temperature) demands the portion of the incoming vectors parallel to the surface normal. Consequently, any Stefan-Boltzmann-calculation physically demands vectors rather than scalar values derived from an average of radiation within a timespan.
o The global averaged factor4 amount of solar POWER does not meet the local reality anywhere in the world. Because such local amount of solar power is exclusively restricted to the day-side of the Earth and depends on the local hour of day and the zenith-angle of the sun (and the Albedo).
o In the relation of Stefan and Boltzmann between POWER (linear) and TEMPERATURE (^4) no average values of either power or temperature are allowed, because such averages don’t follow the T^4-funktion.
o The Earth’s equator receives 1367 W/m² x (1-Albedo) at noon in solar equinox, a major part from which becomes convectively transported away by the global circulations in oceans and atmosphere.
o This factor4 plays even an essential role in the simplified solution of the Schwarzschild equation (ref.:
Oct. 25, 2024
Marty Cornell USA
Ausschnitt 3) for the Earth's atmosphere and in the Analytic Radiative-Convective Model for Planetary Atmospheres (ref.: Equ. 16).
May I suggest to expand the current discussion to this contradictory factor4 in climate models?
Thank you and best regards - Uli
PS: An overview in German about the usual theories about the GHE may be found in the three Articles “An analysis of the theses/antitheses for a ‘natural atmospheric greenhouse effect’” (GOOGLE may help with the translation):
Part 1: Comparison of the theses/antitheses
Part 2: Discussion of the theses/antitheses
Part 3: Findings on the theses/antitheses and the result of this analysis
It’s only a conspiratory theory hypothesis until the data validates. Take the indoctrination of K-12 students by major US publishers of climate science education material who adhere to the National Academy of Science’s Next Generation Science Standards. Below is a list of distortions in the literature for 8th grade. This is the message being delivered to those 4 million students. This woke message did not exist 20 years ago. You bet, this dragon needs to be slain.
Marty Cornell
Climate Change Indoctrination
The Publishers Positioning for Grade 8 The Reality Not Taught
Recent global warming is a result of human activity
Climate has been stable for the last 12,000 years until the recent warming caused by man’s burning of fossil fuels
Industrial greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4) are the cause of recent warming (the Control Knob)
Water is ignored
Publishers avoid quantification of greenhouse effect
Publishers avoid quantification of sources and sinks of CO2
Greenhouse gases (GHG) trap heat
Increase/decrease of CO2 causes warming/cooling
The climate is always in a state of natural change regardless of human activity. Current warming began before significant industrialization or alteration of the land.
The earth is entering an orbital-based cooling trend starting ~8k years ago, punctuated by Minoan, Roman, Medieval, and the present warming periods.
Physics and empirical data show additional CO2 and CH4 induce only modest warming; natural factors dominate.
Water is the dominate greenhouse gas.
Water contributes ~75% of the current greenhouse effect, CO2 add ~20%, all other GH gases add ~5%
95.7% of CO2 is emitted from natural sources
GHG add heat, but outgoing radiation matches incoming radiation; heat is not trapped
Warming/cooling proceeds CO2 increase/decrease; orbital effects dominate. At present levels, the impact of added GHG is minor.
The climate impact of land use change is barely mentioned (e.g., deforestation)
Land use change, especially the Urban Heat Island effect and change in vegetation, dominates regional climate change.
The distribution of warming is not mentioned
Solar influence is discounted, equated with little change in solar irradiance
Warming is/will be harmful
Climate models project extreme warming by 2100
The tropics show little temperature change through climate cycles, and midlatitudes exhibit modest warming, mostly of nighttime temperatures. Arctic warming is magnified in the winter.
The impact of solar activity is unsettled science.
Mankind and the biosphere flourish in warm periods (and suffer in cold periods)
The suite of CMIP6 climate model averages run 2.5 OC hotter than reality. Scenarios based on the hottest model results are improperly used for policy.
It is implied that the impact of added GHG is linear
The impact of added GHG is logarithmic; a doubling of CO2 from 200 to 400 ppm induces the same warming as from 400 to 800 ppm (+1.1
OC)
Eliminating fossil fuels will stop warming
Severe weather events are increasing due to this warming
Higher CO2 causes harmful ocean acidification
Oceans are warming to the detriment of coral
Eliminating fossil fuels will have trivial effect on warming but severe negative impact on human wellbeing and on the biosphere. The poor will especially suffer.
There is no upward trend for severe weather events per the IPCC AR6 WG1 and empirical evidence.
Ocean water is buffered and cannot turn acid. Ocean biota is thriving.
Open ocean temperature is limited to 30 OC; the most diverse and abundant coral
The rate of sea level rise is increasing due to melting ice and greenhouse gas warming of the oceans.
reefs are in the +28 OC water of the Coral Triangle in the western Pacific.
Sea level rise rate has not significantly changed since the Holocene Optimum. IR heat penetrates only a few mm into water. Solar radiation warms the oceans, not GHG.
No mention is made of the benefits of higher levels of atmospheric CO2
Publishers promote the concept of “too much” atmospheric CO2
Publishers promote carbon capture and sequestration
CO2, CH4, and fossil fuels are demonized
The earth is greening due to CO2 fertilization, increasing primary plant productivity by over 31% since 1900
Vascular plants evolved with atmospheric CO2 exceeded 2,000 ppm. At the current 420 ppm, plants are starved for CO2.
Per above, promoting “too much” belies reality
Removal of CO2 diminishes plant productivity, is very expensive, and will have minute impact on global temperature.
The benefits of fossil fuels (which provide abundant, reliable, and economical energy and thus enabling human flourishing) are ignored.
Appeals to authority are made with “consensus” and “scientists say” statements
Publishers promote wind and solar generation of energy, asking students to research [the web] for knowledge
“Consensus” is a political construct. It is disingenuous to ignore many scientists who are skeptical of the CO2 control knob hypothesis.
8th-grade students are ill prepared to objectively judge the merits/demerits of renewable energy nor the extreme bias of sources on
Oct. 23, 2024
Russ Babcock Canada
Activism is promoted to reduce an individual’s “carbon footprint”
To: Eduard Harinck CLINTEL
The Netherlands
Eduard,
websites.
Promotion of a political position is inappropriate in a science course.
If I may, I'd like to respond to this piece against Carbon Capture by the CO2 Coalition with some additional and more significant reasons to be against carbon capture.
Text revised Oct. 28, 2024
Apparently, at COP28, it was agreed to include the permanent removal of CO2 from the atmosphere (carbon capture) as part of the accepted 'wisdom' of fighting against climate change.
Let's go out on a limb here and let's assume that the laws of Nature apply when it comes to the deportment of CO2. The particular law that I'm referring to is Henry's Law and it states that the distribution of CO2 in a 2phase system between the gas phase (the atmosphere) and the liquid phase (the oceans), is a constant ratio at any particular temperature and pH. In the case of CO2, under present-day temperature and pH conditions, that ratio of [CO2]ocean / [CO2]atm is well over 90/10.
Note: the brackets, [ and ]. They denote molar concentrations. In other words, 90%+ of total CO2 will equilibrate in the ocean and less than 10% of total CO2 will equilibrate in the atmosphere. Under current temperature and pH conditions, I believe the ratio is closer to 98/2, but why quibble? That ratio decreases
as ocean temperatures increase, all in accordance with Henry's Law. When the ratio at equilibrium drops from say 98/2 to 96/4 due to warming oceans, that is tantamount to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, everything other than ocean surface temperature remaining equal. The opposite is true when ocean temperatures decrease.
So, what happens when mankind in his 'infinite wisdom' actually does permanently extract CO2 from the atmosphere in super-sized fashion?
Answer: That removal of CO2 from the atmosphere will be largely replaced (90%+) from the gargantuan sink of CO2 that resides in the oceans (as various speciesH2CO3, HCO3-, CO3=, CO2). THAT is NATURE! We call it phase and equilibrium chemistry.
If we extrapolate this carbon capture stupidity to its logical conclusion, we will have to permanently capture 9 megatons of CO2 to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by only 1 megaton. A FOOL'S ERRAND at best! And for what?
Then many years later, mankind, in his 'infinite wisdom', will find that his efforts have had zero impact on global temperatures, but the sink of CO2 in the oceans will have dropped precipitously. Now, let's imagine that ocean temperatures begin to cycle back to lower temperatures, as Nature has accomplished many times throughout the last several hundreds millions of years. What does Henry's Law tell us?
Answer: The cooler oceans will begin to absorb a higher percentage of the total CO2, and the atmospheric levels will drop to levels that will not sustain LIFE as we know it. Would we call that reduction of atmospheric CO2 a win for mankind? Or would we call that just plain suicide?
Moral of this Story:
Oct. 22, 2024
Gregory Wrightstone
CO2
Coalition USA
DON'T MEDDLE WITH MOTHER NATURE. SHE IS IN CONTROL, JUST LIKE SHE ALWAYS HAS BEEN. MANKIND'S EFFORTS TO OUTDO HER IS NO DIFFERENT THAN RELYING ON THE CHICKENS TO MANAGE THE BARN.
Russ Babcock
CO2 Coalition: Don’t Waste Money on CO2 Removal
Submitted by Gregory Wrightstone, Executive Director
Frits Byron Soepyan, Research and Science Associate
CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia October 22, 2024 to the Wyoming Energy Authority
We recommend against the expenditure of Wyoming tax revenues to study or implement the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or from the effluents of power plants and other industrial facilities for the purpose of effecting change in Earth’s temperature now or in the future.
In representing the CO2 Coalition, our qualifications to make such a recommendation are extensive. Established in 2015 as a 501(c)(3), the Coalition comprises a membership of approximately 200 scientists and researchers engaged in educating thought leaders, policy makers and the public about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy. We engage in informed and dispassionate discussions of climate change, humans’ role in the climate system, the limitations of climate models and the consequences of mandated reductions in CO2 emissions.
Our analysis of costs and benefits of CO2 removal find that it is exceedingly expensive, provides no environmental benefit and ignores the enormous benefits of increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide to plants and life in general.
By way of context, in April 24, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) passed a rule that would require coal power plants that plan to continue operating after January 1, 2039, and new natural gas power plants that plan to begin operation on or after 2035 to capture at least 90% of their CO2 emissions.
So, the natural question for us were how much would this cost and is it worth it?
Well, as they say, we ran the numbers. Thankfully, researchers from the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) have provided the cost and performance estimates for retrofitting an existing coal power plant with Shell’s CANSOLV CO2 capture system.
For the performance and cost estimates, we used the NETL estimates for 90% carbon capture. (Here, we are using the term “carbon capture,” rather than “CO2 capture,” because NETL uses the mass of carbon, rather than the mass of CO2, in its calculations.)
Before the retrofit, NETL’s baseline coal power plant had a net output of 650 megawatts (MW). But after retrofitting it with the CO2 capture system, the power output was reduced by 24% to 495 MW. In terms of money, the retrofit cost is about $988 million, or about $2 million/MW of net power output.
What do these numbers mean for the United States?
Based on the U.S. Energy Information Administration,
as of March 2024, the United States has 148 coal power plants in operation in the electric utility sector, with an average capacity of about 139,000 MW. Of these, 36 plants plan to retire completely on or before December 2040 and 8 plan to retire at least one steam turbine on or before December 2034, but not entirely. Taking the difference of 148 and 36, there are 112 coal power plants in the United States without any planned retirement year, having a total average capacity of about 96,000 MW.
Using the NETL estimates, if we were to retrofit these 112 coal power plants to enable 90% carbon capture, the 24% net power output reduction would bring electricity production down to about 73,000 MW. Applying the retrofit cost of about $2 million/MW of net power output to the plants’ reduced power output, we arrive at a projected cost of about $146 billion.
Keep in mind, these estimates are only for coal power plants. We haven’t even gotten to retrofitting natural gas power plants, nor have we addressed the cost of replacing the tens of thousands of megawatts lost in the 24% production decrease of converted plants.
And what about constructing brand new natural gas power plants? How much would that cost?
Again, we turn to NETL for the estimates.
Using NETL’s baseline natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plant, the numbers provided by NETL include a cost of about $1.05 billion to construct a new 992 MW plant without CO2 capture and a cost of about $1.87 billion to construct a new 883 MW plant with 90% carbon capture. In other words, the 78% plant cost increase comes with an 11% net power output reduction.
So, we clearly are talking about a lot of money to remove most of the carbon dioxide from our American power
plants fueled by fossil fuels. But is spending the extra money to capture CO2 worth it?
Based on the analysis performed using the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change (MAGICC), theoretically, if the United States ceased all CO2 emissions in 2010, the amount of warming averted would be only about 0.07 °F by 2050 and 0.19 °F by 2100. Such a temperature difference is negligible and can hardly be felt or measured.
Furthermore, in the United States in 2022, the CO2 emissions from coal and natural gas amounted to about 0.93 and 1.74 billion metric tons, respectively, for a total of 2.67 billion metric tons. However, the total CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industrial processes amounted to 5.06 billion metric tons. This means that the CO2 emissions from coal and natural gas contributed to only about 53% of the total emissions. Therefore, the temperature rise averted by stopping all CO2 emissions from burning coal and natural gas becomes even smaller compared to the above estimates from MAGICC.
Finally, besides being expensive and futile, keep in mind: Plants need CO2, along with sunlight, water, and nutrients from the soil to produce oxygen and food, both of which are essential for all living beings.
In fact, higher concentrations of CO2 have enabled an increase in the growth, food production, water-use efficiency and drought resistance of plants, as well as the greening of Earth, as confirmed by NASA. According to NASA, 70% of this greening is attributed to “fertilization” by CO2.
Given the critical role CO2 plays in driving plant and crop growth, is spending billions of dollars to remove it from the air sensible? We think not.
Oct. 15, 2024
Eric Jelinski
Gerald Ratzer Canada
Gregory R. Wrightstone Executive Director CO2 Coalition
Arlington, VA, USA
Hi Eric,
Thanks for this link to the Nature paper. I wish the politicians and media would read this type of publication.
"There is no surge in the GMST - surface temperature trend". Not detectable!
Gerald —------------------------------------------------------------
Hello all; I just now came across this article that was posted on Twitter X,
A recent surge in global warming is not detectable yet | Communications Earth & Environment (nature.com)
Eric
Eric Jelinski M. Eng. P. Eng. Retired Nuclear Engineer Stayner Ontario
Oct. 14, 2024
Brendan
Godwin Gerald, Yes I would like to participate in this discussion. I am
Australia particularly interested in learning more about the Radiative Transfer Equation or RTE, something I have not researched.
By way of a comment. As far as I am concerned IR radiation provides zero heat to Earth or it’s atmosphere. In that respect I regard the RTE to be falsified by the experiments of The Woods Experiment 1909 https://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/01/07/r-w-wood-note-onthe-theory-of replicated by Nahle 2011 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alexander-Kolker/post/ What_is_the_statistical_relationship_between_CO2_concentra tion_level_and_Global_change_in_Temperature/attachment/ 61a567c8b3729f0f6196909e/AS
%3A1095630017568768%401638229960177/download/ R_Wood_Experiment_on_Greenhouses__EffectNO+trapped+radiation.pdf and Wong & Minnett 2018 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017 JC013351.
The RTE has been around for 100 years. This Radiative Transfer concept (RTC) seeking to explain how the Sun’s radiant energy is absorbed by the air and surface and “captured” by the Greenhouse gases. This process is said to “delay” the cooling of the Earth, thus warming the planet is a very new concept. I don’t see a relationship between RTE and RTC. This RTC concept started with Raval & Ramanathan 1989 https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6440147. It has been totally ignored in all the IPCC reports only getting a mention in AR6. It’s taken 35 years for the IPCC to even mention it. This concept has only been promoted in the last 12 months. Raval & Ramanathan said greenhouse gases GHGs trap IR radiation heating the Earth’s atmosphere. They did not say GHGs delay cooling, this is a brand new concept promoted by Robert Wentworth https://climatepuzzles.org. This is just one of numerous different greenhouse effect GHE ideas that have been promoted over the past 35 years. https://osf.io/preprints/thesiscommons/j7y8v Every time one idea gets knocked down and falsified they invent another. It demonstrates how desperate the promoters of the Catastrophic
Anthropogenic Global Warming CAGW are. They are starting to run out of ideas.
This RTC idea is well and truly falsified. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377727824_Critical_ analysis_of_Robert_Wentworth's_How_the_Greenhouse_effe ct_warms_a_planet
Brendan
Brendan Godwin
Weather Observations & General Meteorology
Radio (EMR & Radar) Technical Officer Bureau of Meteorology (Retired) https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brendan-Godwin https://www.authorea.com/users/459592 https://essopenarchive.org/users/459592 https://independent.academia.edu/BrendanGodwin