Guest contribution by Rud Istvan
I had to think about the guest contributions I had occasionally made to WUWT and Climate Etc. for 10 years now. Many things have been made available over the years, starting from deceiving the NRDC Congress (my very first post here in 2011, given below, maise). on problems with climate models and their predictions, on the usefulness of ARGO and Jason, on demonstrable scientific misconduct (Marcott 2013, O’Leary 2013 and Seattle Times / Fabricius 2013, just to select this unfavorable AR5 release year). Some, but not all, of these topics are also covered in the Blowing Smoke eBook with a friendly foreword by Dr. Judith Curry treats.
There are plenty of newer active commentators here now, a good sign for Anthony and Charles. You may not have dug your way deep into the extensive WUWT archives. One way to shape their overall dialogue is to look at some of the climate alarmist’s most basic failed predictions and examine why they failed. Here are nine of my BIG ones, grouped by three origins. Just read the Galois group theory again.
Models
- There is a modeled hotspot for tropical tropospheres. BUT, as John Christy showed Congress in 2016, there really aren’t any. The climate models exaggerate the warming of the tropical troposphere by about three times. The most plausible reason is Eschenbach’s hypothesis about emerging phenomena, especially thunderstorms. These flush out the air humidity, but cannot be modeled, only parameterized. (Details in a post published long ago, ‘The Problem with Climate Models’). Observationally, CMIP5 modeled about half of the tropical precipitation that ARGO observes through changes in the salinity of the thermocline. So true.
- Models hold back the anomalies sufficiently to match the observations. In fact, this is half true as the required model parameters are matched to true. The delusion lies in the use of model anomalies. In reality, the CMIP5 models varied in absolute temperatures by ~ 4 ° C in 2000 (at the beginning of their voting period) from roughly the observed global average of ~ 15.5 ° C.
Almost none was close to the observed reality – almost all of them hot. Anomalies hide this basic climate model “hot” predictive defect.
- Models reliably predict an “Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity” (ECS) of around 3 ° C. Half true again. They all do it, but not “reliably”. Observational ECS using energy budget (and other) methods consistently show about 1.6-1.7 ° C, about half of that modeled. This is a big deal as all alarming doomstering depends on a high ECS (or its close cousin, TCR). At 1.6 there is no climate problem at all. At 3 it might or might not be. The model / observation discrepancy is so great that AR5 declined to make a central estimate of the ECS, an embarrassing omission.
Follow it
- Sea level rise will accelerate. But it doesn’t have any, based on long records of differential GPS land-motion corrected tide meters, of which there are now about 70. The reason is that we are experiencing similar conditions to the previous Eemian interglacial (the Holocene is now about 1 ° C colder per paleoproxy and ice core records), with geological evidence pointing to a maximum sea level rise (SLR) in Eemian of about 2.2mm / year – exactly what we are now seeing as we close from the long tide gauges of the last century. There is no SLR acceleration.
- Harvest yields will fail and people will starve to death. This was the subject of my first post here a long time ago. The terrible NRDC prediction for Congress was based on two untruths. First, they misrepresented the “worst” prediction as the norm. Second, the “worst” paper they relied on for corn was itself fundamentally flawed (whether debated intentionally or incompetently). It was a massive statistical analysis of US corn yields over time at the granular US county level for all major corn producing states. It should be shown that temporary temperatures above x permanently reduced the maize yield by y. UNLESS, their multivariate regression analysis left out a covariant key term, temp x water. Their omission logic was that temperature and water do not correlate meteorologically. True. The flaw in their reasoning was that corn REALLY cares, and their y variable was corn yield. The omitted term falsifies their analysis because (after the authors became famous among alarmists and then foolishly published their now famous Mais data in graphical form) this was easily seen by simple visual inspection and a little logic. No advanced statistics required. Conclusion BOGUS.
- Polar bears will become extinct because the arctic summer ice will eventually go away (the prediction of when this will vary, but Wadkins was a leading alarmist who has already been proven wrong three times). As Dr. Susan Crawford has emphasized many times that the entire premise of scientific extinction is wrong. Polar bears make about 80% of their annual caloric intake during the spring puppy season. Indeed, spring ice that is too thick, not too little, is a problem for seals and then bears. They do not depend on summer ice for feeding at all. They come ashore and then feed in the summer like their close relatives on the brown bears (grizzly bears), opportunistically on bird’s nest eggs, berries, carrion such as washed up dead whales and walrus, perhaps even occasionally on an unhappy caribou child.
solutions
- Renewable Energies and the Green New Deal (GND). AOC and the team obviously don’t know anything about electrical engineering. The network should be reliable. First, renewable energies (wind, sun) are intermittent. Therefore, they need a backup for every significant penetration, high costs that are not covered by always subsidized (because uneconomical) renewable energies. Second, the network requires frequency stability, also known as network inertia. Renewable energies are asynchronous, so they don’t deliver. Large rotating conventional generators that run automatically on coal, natural gas, or inertial nuclear power. There is a solution called a synchronous capacitor (essentially a large rotating but unpowered generator mass), but renewables don’t pay off for it either, so none are added.
- Electric vehicles solve the problem of carbon emissions from gasoline / diesel emissions. They need large amounts of cobalt and lithium (hydroxide or carbonate). We don’t have enough of it either, and the prospects of improving the situation with new mines over the next few decades are nil with the EV penetration desired by the GND. Lithium is the 33rd most common earth element and cobalt the 31st. The prospects are NOT good in the long run. Comparing the abundance in the earth’s crust (only) aluminum is 3, iron 4 and carbon 17. Translation: Coke cans and planes, steel whatever, and ‘carbon’ fuels that we have. EV batteries, not so much. Ignoring the related rare earths China dominates because of the cost of environmental processing rather than abundance. The US has a very large deposit on the Cali-Nevada border in the Mountain Pass mine, now owned by China. The cost problem is not the ore, but the consequences for environmental processing. China doesn’t care. We do it. Advantage of China.
- Electric vehicles require a large investment in the grid. T&D plus generation. A rough estimate is 2x to replace gasoline and diesel. This is not possible in the Biden / .GND timeframe and is not even remotely economical. Promising impossiblium may feel good, but in reality it always ends badly.
4.6
21
voices
Item rating
Like this:
Loading…
Comments are closed.