Thursday, March 28, 2019

Meltdown Message - A Little Humility Needed

Subtitle:  Nuclear Can and Still Does Melt Down

Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant
courtesy Google Maps
Today, March 28, marks forty years to the day since the infamous Three Mile Island nuclear plant melted down in 1979 in Pennsylvania, USA.  It was a sobering reminder of the incredible danger associated with building nuclear power plants.   I remember it well, as a young 

process engineer working in a chemical plant on the Houston Ship Channel.   March 28 was a Tuesday, just another ordinary day, until the word began coming over the radio that a nuclear plant in Pennsylvania was having troubles.   Radiation leak was the phrase. 
As was normal then, and still is today, the nuclear industry was in full protect-thine-own-butt mode, with as little information made public as possible.  And then, only the bare minimum.  Those guys knew then, and know today, full well that their industry hangs on a slender thread.   One screwup, one meltdown, one massive radiation release into the sky or water, and they are done.  

As it turned out, TMI, as it was known, suffered "only" a partial melt-down.   The reactor operators screwed up, and screwed up royally.  They actually turned off a water pump that sent water into the core, and that act let the core overheat and melt down.  Eventually, they started that pump again and sent water into the core, but by then the damage was done.  The nuclear core had melted almost entirely through the reactor vessel's wall.   In their (operators') defense, the plant designers and those who approve the design did not give the operators a way to watch the water level in the reactor core.  They had to infer the water level by watching other measurements.   That was a design error that was changed in other US nuclear plants.  

All of the trouble started when a pump failed to operate.   As I wrote a few years ago in the Truth About Nuclear Power series, part 21:

"TMI (meltdown) was caused by a routine mechanical failure of a pump.  Nobody can claim that a pump failure is a rare event.   The problem at TMI was made much, much worse by a valve that stuck open.  It is inexcusable that nuclear plant designers, operators, and oversight agencies failed to recognize that valves sometimes stick.   The fact that valves sometimes stick in the open position, sometimes closed, and sometimes in-between is well-known to those in the process industries.   This particular valve was a relief valve.  Relief valves are even more prone to sticking open, a fact that is common knowledge.   Yet, as the facts below demonstrate, TMI operators made blunder after blunder because they believed the relief valve closed by itself – they believed it had not stuck open.  

"Nuclear proponents frequently argue that the reason nuclear plants cost so much is due to needless design changes by the NRC during plant construction, and costly retrofits to those plants already in operation.  The argument is invalid.  We would indeed be a stupid society to allow plants to operate with known safety deficiencies such as existed at TMI before the accident.   In fact, if not for the existence of all three required containment systems, deadly nuclear radiation would have spewed all over the northeastern corridor of the United States.   Those three levels of containment are the fuel tube, the reactor vessel, and the containment building.  Ultimately, the fuel tubes failed and melted, the reactor vessel barely contained the melted fuel, and the containment building contained most, but not all, of the gaseous radioactive particles.  

"With the passage of time, more than 3 decades now, TMI has faded into the background.  Yet, the lessons from that incident are serious, and point to what we can expect going forward."    see link to the rest of the TMI meltdown analysis on SLB. 

Fast forward 40 years to today, and we see the nuclear industry still points to the TMI incident as the turning point where the public mood for nuclear turned sour, and costs to build new nuclear plants began to zoom.   Today, a plant cannot be built for less than $10 billion for a 1,000 MWe output.  More typical is $12 billion.  That is approximately 10 to 12 times the price of a natural gas power plant with the same output.   We saw just recently that two new reactors were abandoned, unfinished, as completely out of the question due to construction costs rising and rising.   Two more reactors, these at Vogtle in Georgia, are staggering along, many years late and many $billions over their budget.  Only time will tell if the Vogtle reactors ever get finished, and what the final cost will be.  

In retrospect, nuclear plants seemed appropriate in the 1960s and then the 1970s after the oil price increases during the OPEC oil embargo.  We burned fuel oil then to make electricity, as strange as that sounds today.  Nuclear plants had almost zero fuel cost, we were told back then.  So, scrapping expensive oil as fuel, and building nuclear plants with very cheap fuel might have made sense.   After all, solar and wind power systems were possible, they actually worked, but their costs were outrageously high.   So, we built nuclear plants, approximately 120 of them.  

Today, though, all that has changed.  Wind turbines have declined in cost and improved in output, and the same is true for solar PV systems.  Also, natural gas power plants no longer are limited to the modest efficiency of a steam plant, with the Rankine cycle.  Improvements over the years now make the combined-cycle gas turbine plant much more efficient, at 60 percent.  Low natural gas prices also exist today due to superb innovations in natural gas production that uses precision directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing.  

Because of these things, we no longer have a need for nuclear power plants.   They served their purpose, they had their day.  It is time to retire them and stop building them.  

We note that it is seldom, and perhaps never, that a meltdown occurs in a shutdown nuclear power plant.   We don't need another Three Mile Island meltdown.   We need clean, safe, low-cost wind energy with efficient natural gas plants to accommodate the variations in output.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Houston, Texas
copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power
Climate  and here
Fresh  and here
Free Speech.................... here

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Oil Company Favors Carbon Tax - No Surprise

Subtitle:  Never Interrupt Your Opponent When He's Making A Mistake

In an earlier article posted on SLB, (see link) I stated that oil companies are indeed in favor of a carbon tax, that is, a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, not because they believe the man-made global warming hype, but because they stand to profit by selling more natural gas.  Natural gas emits far less carbon dioxide when burned in comparison to coal,
BP Energy Outlook 2019,
Fair Use exception to US copyright law
especially in electric power generating plants.   It is pure self-interest that drives oil companies to favor a carbon tax, and if the world has gone crazy in the belief that man-made global warming is real, and dangerous, and ceasing emissions of carbon dioxide is needed, then oil companies seize this as an opportunity.  One wonders just how many coal companies also favor a carbon tax. 

Very recently, yesterday in fact, BP, a major oil company went on record and on camera with a review of energy demand for the near future, out to about year 2040.  A major part of their vision, if you will, was having governments collect a carbon tax.  BP stands to benefit, by selling more natural gas.  BP Energy Outlook 2019 is at this link

Some of the major points that BP made in the video are:

1. Favors a carbon tax to replace coal with natural gas
2. Favors subsidies for carbon capture-sequestration, CCS
3. Favors massive energy efficiency investments
4. Favors biofuels for aviation
5. Favors battery-powered transportation, for all but aviation.  This increases electric power generation and sales of natural gas.  

6. Oil will be reduced to non-transportation uses such as petrochemical feed, etc.  (note that these are the more profitable business segments)

The video may be viewed on Twitter at this link.  The interview begins at around 6 minutes 10 seconds into the recording.  

Carbon tax:  BP stated that burning natural gas yields about one-half the carbon dioxide when compared to burning coal in a power plant.  That is rather generous, since the actual comparison is approximately one-third.   My number is based on the gas-powered plant using combined cycle technology, CCGT, with 60 percent efficiency while a coal-fired plant has only 30 percent efficiency.  If the fuels had an equal number of carbon and hydrogen atoms, that would give the one-half figure by BP.  But, coal has more carbon and less hydrogen than natural gas, so the actual comparison is less than one-half, and approximately one-third.   However, natural gas consumption is increasing while coal is decreasing in some areas, without a carbon tax.  UK, for example, has almost zero coal-fired power at this time.  The US has increased natural gas and decreased coal consumption for power generation as pollution laws changed so that coal plants now must invest in pollution abatement equipment.  The plants shut down rather than invest.  Meanwhile, natural gas power plants are booming.  

It is also instructive that Peabody, the major coal company, does not favor a carbon tax.  Instead, Peabody advocates for subsidies for carbon capture technologies, see below.   Also, Peabody's statement on climate change and ways to address it are at this link.

Subsidies for CCS:  BP stated the long-term subsidies for wind and solar power were very effective in making those technologies economic, and wants a similar treatment for CCS technologies.  They refer to it as CCUS, for carbon capture, use, and sequestration.  Presumably, the "use" includes CO2 mineralization such as conversion to sodium bicarbonate for food sales.   At present, there is already a great deal of research into the capture technology, as that is the capital and energy-intensive part.   BP wants more. 

Energy Efficiency Investments:  It is unclear exactly what BP means by this; however we have already seen energy reduction by mandated efficiency for automobiles, the CAFE standards.  Many years ago, the US chemical and refining industries had a mandated energy efficiency improvement that was quite successful.   The problem with energy efficiency in many areas is a diminishing return on the investment.   There are some areas, though, where efficiencies can save more energy; the mandated sale of high-efficiency home appliances is one such area.   It may be a good idea to promote off-peak power consumption for chilled water or ice-and-water storage, then use the stored chilled water the next day for building or home cooling.  This could save fuel when more efficient power plants are running at night, and the least-efficient are running during the peak of the day.  

Biofuels for Aviation:  Bio-jet is similar to bio-diesel in that it handles and burns like jet fuel but is made from renewable feedstocks.   Bio-jet exists and a few test flights have been made. 

Battery-powered Transportation (EVs for cars and trucks):  BP favors these because they increase the demand for electric power.  In BP's vision, the additional electric power will be provided by natural gas, a product which they sell. 

Non-fuel uses for petroleum:  BP discussed single-use plastics, as an environmental problem that should be resolved.  Correctly, BP stated that plastic containers serve a useful purpose and their replacement must be carefully considered else it may be worse. Before plastic (another BP?), containers were typically glass or metal.  Plastic weighs less and therefore less fuel is consumed in the transport of such products in plastic containers.  

BP sees oil demand continuing for many years, perhaps two or three decades as fuel uses diminish, and petrochemicals from oil increase.   Not mentioned were asphalt and lubricating oils.   A reduced demand for oil will extend the life of oil fields, while reducing fuels produced from oil actually increases the profit margins for an integrated oil company. 

All of this has the goal of combating man-made climate change, or so BP says, but one really must wonder how much is simply taking advantage of an opportunity by putting self-interest first and nodding one's head.    Selling more natural gas as power plant fuel, and prolonging the life of oil reserves while making much more profit per barrel, are not bad things to a big oil company.   

If governments are making a mistake in stating that man-made global warming is real and a real danger, (and they are) then BP and other oil companies have figured out ways to make a profit.   That's not a bad thing, actually, since the entire business of mining, transporting, burning, and disposing of the ash from coal has serious and real environmental issues. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Houston, Texas
copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power
Climate  and here
Fresh  and here
Free Speech.................... here

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

Why Climate False-Alarmists Are Completely Wrong

Subtitle: Polar Bears Don't Know They Went Extinct 100,000 Years Ago

photo courtesy of US Fish and Wildlife Service
Climate science must be consistent, if it is to have any credibility.  So, this bears (no pun intended) checking.  The polar bear diverged from brown bears approximately 400,000 years ago per the scientists who study such things, but we are also told that the previous inter-glacial period was 8 degrees C warmer than today's temperature.     The last inter-glacial period was approximately 100,000 years ago. 

Meanwhile, there is much agonizing by the false-alarmists over polar bears' imminent extinction due to a - and get this one, folks - 2 degree C increase in temperature.   They survived a 10,000 year period when the temperature was 8 degrees hotter than today, but now a 2 degree C increase will run them all extinct.   That's their claim.   (as an aside, one must also wonder exactly how coral reefs and sea turtles also survived in such an 8 degree warmer world)

The claim:  "We analyzed 89 complete genomes of polar bear and brown bear using population genomic modeling and show that the species diverged only 479–343 thousand years BP."  - (Shiping Liu et. al. "Population Genomics Reveal Recent Speciation and Rapid Evolutionary Adaptation in Polar Bears,"  Cell 157, 785–794, May 8, 2014)   see link

This claim of divergence approximately 400,000 years ago is disputed, as earlier work showed the divergence might have been a few millions of years ago.  Something about assumptions one uses in the science one employs.   Either way, those polar bears are pretty stout.  

And, where is the claim made that the last inter-glacial period was 8 degrees C warmer compared to today?  From those scientists that study ice cores, in this case the Greenland ice cores.    For that matter, more recent data from ice cores show that the last 15,000 years, the current inter-glacial period also had several periods that were substantially warmer than today.  These include the Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, Minoan Warm Period, and the even earlier Climate Optimum. 

Yet polar bears and coral reefs are still here.   No tipping points existed back then, where polar ice melted, oceans turned acidic, frozen methane hydrates belched forth their stinking clouds of methane, ocean levels rose by the tens of meters, Florida was a giant reef, Memphis, Tennessee was a seaport while New Orleans was like Atlantis, a fabled underwater city,  and many lovely tropical islands were underwater homes to tropical fish.  

The next time a climate false-alarmist starts proclaiming the end is near, bring these points up and watch what he (or she) does.   I did exactly that at a meeting of Chemical Engineers recently, (see link) and the reaction was, shall we say, less than positive.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Houston, Texas
copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power
Climate  and here
Fresh  and here
Free Speech.................... here

Sunday, March 10, 2019

Rebuttal to AIChE Presentation on Global Warming 3-2019

Subtitle: "A Man Seems Right Until Another Examines Him"

I had an interesting evening on 7- March -2019 in Houston, Texas at the AIChE – South Texas Section monthly dinner meeting.  The program speaker is a professor in chemical engineering at Texas A&M University, Dr. Mark Holtzapple.  His topic was “Global Warming – An Engineering Perspective."  I knew in advance that the slant would be pro-warming, pro-alarmism, based on the statements the current President of our section had made, and the biographical material on Professor Holtzapple.  His research is, in part, on biofuels.  So, it was not much of a surprise to attend the presentation and see slide after slide, statement after statement, parroting the pro-alarmist points.    I sat in silence, but mentally taking notes in case I was allowed to ask a question at the end.   (see this link to a previous SLB article written just before the meeting; with a list of questions I would have liked to ask)

UPDATE 23 March 2019:  added an item on Venus' surface temperature -- end update

It appeared to me that the presenter’s purpose was to show that the problem of global warming is real, it is cause for alarm, it is agreed to by almost everyone that counts, and it will create great harm if not stopped.     I don't know, but I strongly suspect that the presentation was one that is given to potential grant donors, who believe in global warming and fund research to halt it. 
Below is a list of points the presenter made (in bold font) with which I would take issue, and a brief statement of why what was said was either wrong, or misleading (in parentheses).    I may update this list as more return to my memory, and with literature references. 

Claimed the Climate models match the Temperature record, with a graph that appeared to start in perhaps 1900 and ran up to perhaps 2010   
              ( Perhaps the models do a fairly good job after detailed tuning, but there was no mention of the complete absence of ability to forecast 
     There was also no mention that it is easy to tune a model to a dataset, but what is difficult (and these models have never done, to my knowledge) is to tune the models on the first half of the data, then run them and show agreement with the second half. ) 

Said a rise in CO2 leads (occurs before) a rise in Temperature in modern times, but the lead-lag was reversed until the last 100 years.  That is, until year 1900, temperature rose first, followed centuries later by CO2 increases. 
      (no discussion that that may be unprecedented in the long history of Earth
      However, there are some scientists that claim volcanic emissions of CO2 caused a greenhouse effect sufficiently strong to melt glacial ice at some points in Earth’s long history.   What is far more likely is that volcanic ash and soot was deposited on the ice, which absorbed sunlight and accelerated the melting. )

CO2 absorbs heat; but showed a graph of the same IR wavelengths as H2O vapor.  
                 (big gloss-over here, nobody called him on this one.
                 The key point is that if, as he claims, H2O vapor absorbs the same wavelengths of IR heat as does CO2, then adding more CO2 will have zero effect.)  

Claimed Earth’s energy budget is Energy In = Energy Out 
             ( nobody called him on the incorrect statement.  The correct equation is Energy In = Energy Out + Accumulation, where accumulation is heat absorbed by or given up by the oceans)

Said that atmospheric CO2 is man made
               (Made no comment about natural sources of CO2.
       Man-made CO2 is trivial compared to natural increase.   How do we know?  For one thing, historic records of CO2 show values above 1000 PPM when human activity was zero. 
       For another, some publications show the oceans have warmed over the past 150 years, and warmer water out-gasses dissolved CO2.   How much the water warmed is highly debatable, given the measurements of the time.)

Claimed that warmer oceans will create species extinction now; gave an example of sea turtles
            (He saw me shake my head at this; he stopped and asked me why I disagree?   I asked him how the sea turtles would die off now, but did not die off in prior warm periods?                  Compared to today, warmer periods existed during the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warm Period, 2000 and 3500 years ago.  There were others before them. 
               He had no reply other than, as best I recall, saying I was being sarcastic.  
               see link for a discussion on how corals, sea turtles, and polar bears survived a period much, much warmer than today)

Claimed oceans are becoming more acidic as CO2 is absorbed; this and hotter oceans will kill off coral reefs
                   (same issue as before, how did corals survive the earlier warm periods
                    Alarmists have a problem with warmer oceans and increased acidity, because warmer water holds less dissolved gas such as CO2.  Increased acidity requires the warmer water to hold MORE dissolved CO2.)

Said Sealevel rise already floods Miami
         (why didn’t Florida flood in the recent warm periods? 
                 Subsidence, perhaps?)

Said the sunlight that reaches Earth's surface is 342 W/m2 (as I recall, the number was perhaps slightly bigger or smaller) after albedo effects; and greenhouse gases warm the Earth to the present average 15 degrees C. 
         (What Gray body emissivity factor is used as a fudge factor to get 15 C Global Average Temperature?   
         No mention that actual measured solar radiation at Earth’s surface exceeds 1000 W/m2 on sunny days.  Reference Southwestern desert temperature stations via NOAA and NWS.  Mountain Springs near Las Vegas, e.g. 
          No mention that the measured solar radiation decreases to 200-600 W/m2 when clouds cover the sky.   
                   Clear and convincing evidence that cloud cover is far, far more significant than any change in CO2. )  

Showed a graph of total fossil fuel use over time, claimed this as the source of atmospheric warming due to CO2 emissions
        (No mention of urban warming nor the urban heat island effect
         Simple heat balance requires that all that heat released from burning the fuels must be removed, else local areas will increase steadily in temperature.  The large cities do show an increased, steady temperature rise since 1900 e.g. Boston, San Francisco, New York City, others).  

Showed the classic Temperature vs Time chart where Global Temperature declined during 1940-1980 while CO2 rose (actually that was probably the graph of GATA vs time, global average temperature anomaly)
        (no mention of the disconnect.  He said earlier that increased CO2 causes temperature to increase.   How, then, did temperatures decline for almost 40 years in mid-century?  CO2 was increasing during that time.)

Said Arctic bare water absorbs more sunlight and heat than does sea ice; shrinking ice therefore causes warming.  
         (No mention that Arctic ocean water loses more heat via radiation per Stefan-Boltzmann,
                  No mention that ice acts as a very good insulator, holding heat in the water that would otherwise be lost as cold, fierce winds howl across the surface and black-body radiation allows heat to radiate into space.) 

Showed a graph of Arctic ice extent (I think) vs time, showed a distinct downward trend that ended at a low point.
        (No mention that Arctic ice extent stabilized and actually has increased since 2007,
       No mention that the downward trend is highly correlated to dark ash and soot from coal-fired power plants, and from over-the-pole jet aircraft engine emissions,
        No mention of undersea volcanic warming of Arctic water.)

Showed a Graph of a world map with present temperatures compared to average or baseline Temperature from 1951-1981, shouted (twice) at the audience that the Arctic is 11 deg C warmer.  
       (No mention that few, or no measurements exist in the Arctic before 1980, so how do they know?  How accurate is the before-and-after comparison)

Says wind power must have storage, showed compressed air storage underground, aka CAES for compressed air energy storage
       (but we don’t require grid storage, instead we use flexible gas power plants, 
        meanwhile wind produces 6.5 pct of electricity in US annual average,
        wind produces more than 25 pct annually in several states. 
        Texas’ grid managing entity ERCOT states that wind power reached a record of 54 percent of Texas' momentary grid load in October, 2017.  Texas has no grid storage to speak of.
               SLB article on wind power and natural gas is at this link )

Showed an Ice core CO2 graph spliced onto Mauna Loa CO2 graph, 
        (This is wrong because one data set is actual measurements (Mauna Loa) while the other is a completely different method (bubbles from ice cores)
          no mention of gas migration in snow to ice as compaction occurred, 
          no mention of gas diffusivity in ice at pressure.   
          CO2 values in ice cores' bubbles are therefore much lower than in the atmosphere.) 
Mentioned 100,000 year climate cycle, 
         (no mention of 1500 year global warming cycle.
                   e.g. Medieval Warming, Roman Warming, Minoan Warming, etc.)

Mentioned Methane hydrates as source of methane emissions creating greenhouse effect, showed a video clip of James Hansen re tipping point, 
         (but no mention of how Earth survived the recent past warm periods eg Roman Warming, Minoan Warm Period, and previous for the past 15,000 years since glaciers melted.)

Slide of a glacier retreat over several decades, 
       (no context of similar rate of retreat since 1850, warming due to Little Ice Age. 
        No mention of other glaciers that are growing)

Showed recent Houston flooding events and frequency; 
       (no mention of NOAA's chart showing decreased flooding frequency over recent 30 years.   
        No mention of massive Texas floods in 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.  
        Colorado and Brazos rivers joined in a great flood.)  

Said even the major oil companies favor a carbon tax, 
         (no mention of why?  They want to sell natural gas as power plant fuel, and put coal out of business.  Self interest. 
          Oil companies' Climate statement was only due to shareholder pressure.
           For a recent SLB article on BP's favorable stance on a carbon tax, see link)

Mentioned Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth," perhaps as an attempt to persuade the audience that global warming is real and catastrophic.
                (No mention that the movie contains multiple defects
                 No mention that a judge requires the defects to be presented along with the movie in UK schools
                 The primary defect is the huge graph of CO2 and temperature over time, giving the false impression that increases in CO2 cause an increase in global temperature)

•  Mentioned the surface temperature of planet Venus is hotter than is Mercury, even though Mercury is much closer to the Sun.  Blamed the CO2 in Venus' atmosphere. 
                (No mention that Venus' atmosphere is very thick, many miles deep, and surface pressure is approximately 94 times that of Earth at sea level.   Venus' atmospheric composition is almost entirely carbon dioxide, approximately 96 percent by volume.   In contrast, Earth has only 400 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere.    One would expect a professor of chemical engineering to know about the adiabatic lapse rate for gases at altitude.   (Adiabatic lapse rate is why a mountain top is colder than the valley floor below, at the same date and time.)  
                One would also expect a professor of chemical engineering to know about the parameters for radiant heat transfer in luminous gases, as described in the Perry's Chemical Engineering Handbook.  
               The important point is that Earth has far too little CO2, at temperatures far too low, and overall pressures much too low for CO2 to be a significant heating source.   As stated by Professor Richard Lindzen (MIT), greenhouse gas warming by CO2 on Earth is trivially true but numerically insignificant.)

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Houston, Texas
copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power
Climate  and here
Fresh  and here
Free Speech.................... here

Thursday, March 7, 2019

Questions for Climate Change Believers

Subtitle:  Is Global Warming Just BS (Bad Science)?

If I were to attend a conference or even a dinner meeting with a featured speaker who made the presumption that man-made global warming is real, is cause for alarm, and is due to humanity's use of fossil fuels that produce CO2 into the atmosphere, I would have some questions for the speaker. 

As background, SLB has many articles on the subject of man-made global warming, and the science behind the belief that it is a problem.   Three of the most-read articles are linked below:

- A lengthy article on my journey from being a believer in man-made global warming to my conversion to a rational skeptic  see link

- The transcript of my 2012 public speech on why climate warmists are wrong, and deep global cooling is coming, see link

- And, a chemical engineer uses principles of process control to rebut the concept of CO2 causing global warming  see link

In no particular order, the questions I would ask include: 

Is it true that...

...A 1 percent change in cloud cover has more effect on solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface than all CO2 increase since 1950?

… The greenhouse gas warming effect of man-made CO2 is “trivially true but numerically insignificant,” a quote from Professor Richard Lindzen, of MIT?

… the long-term record shows that CO2 increases approximately 800 years after a global temperature increase?

...Warmer sea  surface temperatures are due to fewer hurricanes?

... Areas with Low population had no warming in 20th century?

...Sea level rise is the same on average as the deposition rate of ocean sediment?

... Arctic ice began shrinking when coal soot deposits increased?

... Arctic ice above Russia began shrinking as volcanic activity occurred on the Arctic seafloor?

...Arctic ice has stabilized since 2007?

....Antarctic ice breaks away right above the volcanic zone?

...Greenland’s ancient settlements are now buried in ice?

...Earth cooled as Little Ice Age started in year 1300 AD and lasted 550 years?

...Earth warmed as Little Ice Age ended in 1850 with zero help from humans? 

...The three cold winters of 1977-78-79 and the warm El Nino year 1998 created the illusion of global warming in the final 25 years of the 20th century?  (reference the graph below of Abilene, Texas, showing the cold winters before 1980 and the El Nino before 2000)

...Earth entered glaciation periods when CO2 was far higher than today?

...Coral reefs survived several hot ocean eras and ice ages?

… Many areas show a cooling trend, interrupted by slight warming due to El Nino events?

… A change in 50 years from 300 to 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is the same as having a small house 1250 square feet with 8 foot ceilings that has 3 beach balls inside initially, 15 inch diameter, and after 50 years adding just one more beach ball?   Such a house has 10,000 cubic feet volume, and each beach ball has almost exactly 1 cubic foot volume. 

In addition, I would ask the presenter what he has to say about a few books on Global warming, including: 

The Neglected Sun, 

Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, 

A Disgrace To The Profession, 

Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming, and

Polar Bears In The Hot Tub.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Houston, Texas
copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power
Climate  and here
Fresh  and here
Free Speech.................... here