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 Plants.......here
Climate Change................here  and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here  and here
Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here  

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: Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe," 
by Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Luning (2015)

"Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years," by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery (2007)

"A Disgrace To The Profession," by Mark Steyn (2015)

"Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus," by Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, et al. (2016) and

"Polar Bears In The Hot Tub," by Arthur Krugler (2018).

(note: updated to add authors' names and year of publication to book titles)

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

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

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here
Climate Change................here  and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here  and here
Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here  

Imminent Scientist Agrees on Global Cooling

A few weeks ago, an important article was written by Dr. S. Fred Singer on the subject of being prepared for global cooling.  The article is "A Paradigm Change: Re-directing Public Concern from Global Warming to Global Cooling"  see link  and also published in American Thinker.  

Dr. Singer writes, "My main argument relies on the fact, backed by historical evidence, that cooling, even on a regional or local scale, is much more damaging than warming. The key threat is to agriculture, leading to failure of harvests, followed by famine, starvation, disease, and mass deaths."  

He also writes, "But (increasing atmospheric) CO2 is not the answer (to preventing global cooling); its atmospheric lifetime is too long and its distribution is global—a poor match to what is required. In addition, CO2 effectiveness is questionable—or at least controversial—judging by the current temperature plateau (a.k.a. ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’) that has lasted nearly 20 years—and perhaps even much longer."

All of this matches neatly with my 2012 speech, and SLB article (see link) on Warmists are Wrong, Cooling is Coming. 

I also find Dr. Singer's suggested coping mechanism very interesting, as it is the identical method we were taught in 1963 in grade school - dropping black powder (i.e. charcoal) on stubborn ice or snow fields that refuse to melt in the summer.  The sun's rays will melt the snow or ice.   One hopes there is sufficient black soot, charcoal, or perhaps even coal will suffice since the US has lost it's mind and is trying to make coal-burning for power generation too burdensome to continue.  

I highly recommend Dr. Singer's article for reading and discussion.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2015 by Roger Sowell all rights reserved

Most Important Event of 2014

Subtitle: Weak Sunspot Cycle - Most Important Event was Not On The Radar

Cycle 24 - weakest, at bottom.  Source: solen.info

As the year 2015 has arrived and 2014 is gone, many writers have already discussed what they view as the most important event or events of 2014.  This is a very common thing, reviewing the old year as the new year arrives.  

This article addresses briefly a half-dozen events (more or less) that made the news in 2014, in no particular order, then discusses the most important event of the year: Sunspot Cycle 24 (the current cycle) peaked right on schedule, but far below most previous cycles.   The world-wide climate implications are grim. (see chart showing the relative activity of the four most recent solar cycles, 21, 22, 23, and 24)

1.  US midterm elections - resulting in conservative majorities in House and Senate for the remaining 2 years of Liberal Obama presidency.   Many of Obama's presidential accomplishments will be criticized, and a few will be reversed.   The defection of some Democrat legislators to vote with conservatives will be required.  However, the defection will likely save their electoral lives as they can show increasing distance from a wildly unpopular president.  

2.  Ebola outbreak, treatments improved, vaccines tested.   The deadly virus spread to many countries with this most recent outbreak, including the US and some in Europe.  Treatment systems and protocols work, at least for those who seek early treatment and are correctly diagnosed.  

3.  Space - first landing on a comet, successful test blastoff and return to Earth of Orion system.   The comet-lander bounced a bit and landed in a shadow, which is unfortunate because the batteries are solar-powered.  The solar panels are essentially useless in the shade.  We may never receive data from the lander again.  

Meanwhile, the Orion spacecraft was a huge success.    The Orion may be the technology that carries men to other moons and planets in the solar system, and perhaps asteroids.  SLB soon will carry an original article on the idiocy of a Mars manned colony.  As a preview, the hard reality is that Mars has strong radiation, very little protection from meteors, an unbreathable atmosphere, and is very cold, to mention only a few deadly issues.   

4.  China passed the US as the world's largest economy.  The diplomatic implications are staggering, as China can, and probably will, either threaten or impose economic sanctions on the US to achieve their goals.   

5.  OPEC caused the world price of oil to decline more than 50 percent by maintaining cartel output.  Gasoline prices have dropped to under US $2 per gallon, although California in its infinite wisdom increased state gasoline sales tax as part of the futile effort to combat global warming under state law AB 32, "The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006."   Worldwide, the lower oil price has many important implications.  Russia, a major oil exporter, will have greatly reduced revenues.  OPEC members will also see reduced revenues.  As SLB predicted years ago, this will very likely see OPEC fractured and member nations withdraw so they can pump all the oil they want.  Natural gas prices in many countries will also decrease, which will make electricity prices also decrease.  Consumers will have more disposable income, which will boost economic activity. 

6.  Nuclear power - Another US plant shutdown, Vermont Yankee; Sowell published 30 articles on SLB on Truth About Nuclear Power showing the futility of building and operating nuclear power plants, as not economic, not safe, and not sustainable long-term; as predicted, plants under construction are hopelessly delayed and have escalating construction costs; French plants are aging and are not reliable.   Providers of small, modular nuclear plants failed to attract investment or orders, completely as predicted - the small plants cannot possibly hope to be economic.   

7.  CO2 capture plant started operating in San Antonio, Texas - a commercial scale and economically viable plant designed and operated by Skyonic, Inc. of Austin, Texas.   This falsifies the statements made by many (ill-informed?  Deliberately misleading?) who maintain that there is no viable technology to reduce atmospheric CO2, therefore draconian reductions in fossil fuel use are required.    

8.  World coal consumption passed 9 billion tons annually, further decreasing the remaining years of economically viable coal.   An economically viable, and long-lasting (sustainable) source of 40 percent of the world's electricity production must be found and proven, long before the coal runs out.  This should be a strong priority for planners and policy makers around the world.  Economically produced coal is expected to run out in approximately 50 years.  

9.  Sunspot Cycle 24 had a weak peak and is now declining.   This is the single most important fact of the year 2014.   The sun's magnetic poles reversed, indicating the maximum has occurred.  The long, slow decline in sunspot number is now underway.   The Cycle 24 peak was approximately 80, compared to 120 (cycle 23), and 160 (both cycles 22 and 21)  (see graph at top of post).  

Some prominent solar physicists are on record calling for awareness that the weak solar activity is strongly associated with cold, sometimes bitterly cold, temperatures on Earth.   They also predict a return of the cold based on the very weak Cycle 24.   The winter of 2014-2015 has already started, with unusually cold events across the northern hemisphere.  As just one indication, winter ice appeared on the US Great Lakes far earlier than normal.   As another, Heating Degree Days for November in the US, per EIA, were 13 percent above average, however some regions experienced 30 and 36 percent greater than normal HDD.   Data for HDD for December will be published by EIA soon.   And yet another, the NOAA-predicted El Niño did not occur.   Finally, a new media term emerged: Polar Vortex, to describe vast areas of bitterly cold air plunging southward from Arctic regions and causing ice storms, heavy snow, and cold temperatures.  

As stated in other posts on SLB, there is no man-made global warming from burning fossil fuels.   Tiny increases in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere have no measurable effect on Earth's temperatures, as stated (paraphrased) by the imminent climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen (professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT).  

The area of grave concern, however, is the sudden and dramatic decrease in solar activity and the associated cold weather.   More detail on the implications are at an earlier post, Warmists are Wrong - Cooling is Coming (see part II), see link. 

There is no doubt about it:  the sun is weaker than it has been in the past 60 years.  Winter weather is earlier and colder.   The implications of prolonged and bitter cold are grim.   The most important event of 2014 was the weak peak of Sunspot Cycle 24.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq. 
Marina del Rey, California
Copyright (c) 2015 by Roger Sowell

Skeptics on Climate - Lovers of Nuclear

Subtitle: They Know Not What They Do

Reflecting on the 9th International Climate Change Convention earlier this week, there were many moments when I agreed with the words that were spoken, but there were also a few moments when I cringed.  I also muttered a few quiet words at times, such as "BS" or "Not true!."   I didn't quite do a Wilson and yell out YOU LIE!!!, but I did feel like I could have.  

The moments at issue were those when somebody at the microphone said something pro-nuclear energy.  I cannot recall who, nor the exact words.  What concerned me most was the obvious approval across the room, and it is a big room.  It comfortably held 600 people seated at round tables.  There was a smattering of applause.    I knew before the convention that many, if not most, climate skeptics are pro-nuclear.  I knew I would be in a small minority, perhaps a minority of one at the meetings.  

I remember thinking, if only they all knew what I know about nuclear power.  I wish I could convey to each one of them the truth about nuclear power, have them read and understand the many, many issues that show nuclear power is not economic, not safe, and will not ever be safe nor economic.   Instead, it appears they have blindly accepted the talking points from the nuclear advocates.  (a 30-part series on Truth About Nuclear Power begins at this link)

This is just a bit odd, because nuclear advocates have taken to cheering for nuclear because it emits no carbon dioxide - it is "carbon free power" in the latest incarnation of their talking points.  Yet, as climate change skeptics, why would anyone want a power source on that basis?  Surely, more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not harming the planet, so why use a source that produces zero carbon dioxide?  

One of the speakers mentioned that Germany's government is shutting down nuclear plants because, and I believe I have the quote correct, "Chancellor is afraid a tsunami will hit Germany."  That line drew laughter from the audience.    The Chancellor is well aware that a tsunami will not hit Germany - but she is also keenly aware (after Fukushima) that nuclear plants will meltdown with devastating consequences for any number of unforeseen circumstances.  In short, if the grid goes down for an extended period, and the backup generators fail, the nuclear plant and surrounding population are in a world of trouble. 

I have also read in other places the talking points that nuclear power is low-cost (it is not), see link, the fuel is readily available for thousands of years (it is not), the reactors are perfectly safe and new ones are much safer (they are not), see link,  nuclear power reduces dependence on foreign oil (not true, unless a country is actually burning oil for power, which almost no country does), nuclear plants use very small land area (true only in some cases, but not for those that built their own cooling lake such as South Texas Nuclear Project, and the land area does not consider the uranium mining and processing plants).    Few web sites mention the points raised by Professor Derek Abbott, that both uranium fuel, plus raw materials for the plants are limited and running out, and that suitable plant locations are few and getting fewer as more plants are built.   see link

Also, almost nobody mentions the huge consumption of cooling water in a nuclear plant - four times that of a comparable gas-fired combined cycle plant.   see link

I also read in other places that nuclear plants are highly reliable, yet I wonder if those people who repeat that talking point know the truth: nuclear plants shut down at a moment's notice and with great regularity.  Upon shutdown, the grid operator must somehow find 900 to 1200 MW of power rather quickly, as in a few minutes, or drop some load to balance the grid until the replacement power is humming.   These same pro-nuclear voices complain that wind power and solar power are both unreliable, that they must have "full-time backup" power.  Actually, every nuclear plant also must have 100 percent backup for the times when they shut down.  

I also read that nuclear plants "last for 60 years," which they do not.   see link

Finally, I read that alternative energy technology requires subsidies for their very existence, that no wind turbines and no solar power plants would be built absent these substantial subsidies.  I wonder, though, how many of these people making those subsidy claims are aware that nuclear plants also are heavily subsidized, that nuclear plants would not exist at all unless the government takes on the substantial liability of a major nuclear accident - a meltdown with radiation release that injures or kills people.  see link

Yes, I felt a bit sad at the ICCC9 when people were applauding the pro-nuclear power statements.  I suppose it is best to forgive them (for now), for they know not what they do.   Hopefully, I will be able to present to them the truth.  Whether they will follow the data and question the dogma from the nuclear industry, as they have done with climate science, is another matter.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq. 
Marina del Rey, California

Climate Change Deception from President

Subtitle:  UCI Commencement Speech 2014 Full of Lies

A few weeks ago, President Barack Hussein Obama gave the commencement address at University of California at Irvine (UCI).   His theme was climate change is man-made, it is real, it is a serious threat, and the young graduates from UCI should do something about it.   [Update - 6/22/2014:  Added lie number 13: President said solar in California reached 18 percent of total consumption in California -- see below for more -- end update ]

[Update - 6/28/2014 - added link to nuclear power articles; see point 11 below] 

A friend and colleague, a UCI alumnus in chemical engineering, asked me to review the commencement speech and offer my comments on where the President is wrong.  The speech is long, but I have excerpted a dozen whoppers (lies, false statements) and make some comments below.  

How can the statements be labeled as false, as lies?  The evidence shows the statements are false.  A US President is expected to appoint the best people available to advisory positions, but modern Presidents such as Obama appoint those with his own political agenda.  This is unfortunate for the progress of science and discovery.  However, eventually, Nature wins.  Or as we say in baseball terms, Nature bats last.  

The twelve false statements, with Obama's statement in italics, my comments below:

1)  "you already know the science.  Burning fossil fuels release carbon dioxide.  Carbon dioxide traps heat.  Levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are higher than they’ve been in 800,000 years." 

BS (Bad Science) The change of CO2 since 1950 has been steadily upward while global temperature – as measured by the scientists themselves – shows ups, downs, and stagnant periods.  Any competent engineer knows that CO2 cannot control temperature.   The second part of that statement addresses current CO2 levels (400 ppm) as greater than the past 800,000 years.  This is based on dubious ice-core samples.  It is mere supposition that measured gas samples from bubbles trapped in the ice are representative of the atmosphere at that time.  

2)  "We know the trends.  The 18 warmest years on record have all happened since you graduates were born.  We know what we see with our own eyes.  Out West, firefighters brave longer, harsher wildfire seasons; states have to budget for that.  Mountain towns worry about what smaller snowpacks mean for tourism.  Farmers and families at the bottom worry about what it will mean for their water.  In cities like Norfolk and Miami, streets now flood frequently at high tide.  Shrinking icecaps have National Geographic making the biggest change in its atlas since the Soviet Union broke apart."

BS.  Temperatures were as warm or greater during the 1930s, but scientists have repeatedly adjusted the past temperature record downward. Longer fire seasons are due to years of forest mismanagement, particularly fire suppression.  Average snowpack has not changed over long periods, but it does have fluctuations about an average.  Credible scientists know this, but apparently the President does not.  If he does know, he is lying. 

 Ground subsidence, both natural and due to man's extraction of fresh water, is the main source of "sea level rise."  On the oceans themselves, sea level generally is not rising except where it rains heavily in the ocean.   Arctic ice is shrinking, but Antarctic ice is growing.  Air temperatures have nothing to do with either, while ocean temperatures do. 

 3)  "The overwhelming judgment of science, accumulated and measured and reviewed over decades, has put that question to rest."  

BS  When anyone tells us the science is settled, ask them why there is any more research done?  There are hundreds of scientists publishing papers that conclude that man-made global warming is false.  See SEPP publications for the real story, also NIPCC, GWPF.

4)  "A UC Irvine glaciologist’s work led to one of last month’s report showing one of the world’s major ice sheets in irreversible retreat."  

BS. Antarctic ice is growing year by year, now at all-time maximum in the modern (post 1978) era.   

5)  "to help coastal communities adapt to rising seas."

 BS.  Seas are not rising due to man-made global warming, but land is falling in a few places due to natural subsidence.  The entire history of humans, for the past 12,000 years, has been a slow retreat from the then-existing shoreline.  As the last global glaciers melted, the sea has been rising.  There is nothing unusually rapid about recent sea level rises.  As proof, one can examine modern maps that show underwater canyons located in a line with major rivers.  The river mouth was far out to sea.  The Congo river in Africa is a striking example, but there are many others. 

6) "Since 2006, no country on Earth has reduced its total carbon pollution by as much as the United States of America."

BS.  There is no such thing as carbon pollution, unless it is soot.  The US has reduced carbon dioxide emissions, and did it without a carbon tax.  Producing more natural gas led to lower gas prices, therefore more power generation via natural gas.  Also, industry retired older less efficient coal plants as scheduled.    

7)  "hundreds of scientists declared last month, that climate change is no longer a distant threat, but “has moved firmly into the present.”  That’s a quote." 

BS The fact is that global measured temperatures (even with all the NASA-provided adjustments) shows zero warming for 18 years.  

8) "In some parts of the country, weather-related disasters like droughts, and fires, and storms, and floods are going to get harsher and they’re going to get costlier." 

BS He is repeating himself, see point 2 above.  Past droughts, storms, and floods were much, much worse.  Fewer people back then led to less damage.  Forest mismanagement leads to more and stronger fires.  CO2 has nothing to do with it.

9) "Now, their view (skeptics) may be wrong -- and a fairly serious threat to everybody’s future -- but at least they have the brass to say what they actually think." 

BS  All the warmists’ predictions are false, based on broken models that use corrupted input data and failed to predict the 17 years of no warming that their own measurements (after adjustments) show. 

10) "the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change, including some who once disputed the data, have put that debate to rest."  

BS The 97 percent figure has been debunked many times.   The fact is that thousands of scientists have placed their names on a statement that man-made global warming is bunk.

11)  "But they’re waiting to see what does America do.  That’s what the world does.  It waits to watch us act.  And when we do, they move.  And I’m convinced that on this issue, when America proves what’s possible, then they’re going to join us."  

BS.  There are so many things wrong with this statement.  It is, firstly, a huge insult to citizens of other countries.  With coal being exhausted in 60 to 70 years, the biggest threat is finding economic, reliable renewable replacement power.  It cannot be nuclear power due to costs, resource availability, and decommissioning concerns, also meltdown hazards.  [UPDATE- 6/28/2014: this comment by me generated quite some interest, both in the comments below and in emails to me.  My position on nuclear power is presented in a 30-part series Truth About Nuclear Power, see link. -- end update] 

12)  "You’ve got to educate your classmates, and colleagues, and family members and fellow citizens, and tell them what’s at stake.  You’ve got to push back against the misinformation, and speak out for facts, and organize others around your vision for the future." 

BS.  We must combat the disinformation that CO2 is bad.  We must examine the data and conclusions critically, and not accept the wild, unsupportable conclusions of agenda-driven politicians and their paid scientists.  

Conclusion: 

I repeat here what I wrote in January, 2010: "The tragedy of all this is, of course, that the "science" behind global warming due to greenhouse gases (which includes CO2 in the scientists' view) is completely false. Engineers such as Dr. Pierre Latour, and myself, have published on this, and have each made acclaimed speeches across the country on this topic. Recent developments (late 2009 and January, 2010) show that the supposed warming of the earth's average temperature in the 20th century was falsified, the peer review process was perverted, the temperature records themselves were adjusted and manipulated, and the IPCC report relied on questionable studies (not peer-reviewed, in fact, taken from general non-science magazines). The Wall Street Journal reported that the IPCC's alarmists predictions for melting glaciers in the Himalayan mountains was completely wrong (they are not melting), and the IPCC's statement that warming produces more intense storms and natural catastrophes (heat waves, droughts, etc) were also bunk. The IPCC authors clearly knew the truth, but published their outlandish claims anyway. (As an aside, one must wonder how long they thought they would hide the truth, especially in this era of the internet, and literally hundreds of millions of internet users world-wide. The ability to fact-check by millions of independent persons should give pause to those who seek to dis-inform.)"

[UPDATE 6/22/2014:  . 13) "And this state, California, is so far ahead of the rest of the country in solar, that earlier this year solar power met 18 percent of your total power demand one day."  

BS.  Off by a factor of 3, roughly.  Possibly just wrong information, though.  The fact is that California has installed more and more solar-generated power, both PV and thermal.  The highest amount generated thus far, appears to be from 6/19/2014 when combined solar (PV plus thermal) produced 44,500 MWh.  That is barely 6.4 percent of the total power demand that day of 694,697 MWh.    Note that June 19 is near the summer solstice where hours of sunshine are the greatest.  June is also not the hottest month (that is typically August) so total demand is not at the peak.  One could expect, then, that mid-June will usually have the greatest solar energy as a percent of total energy consumed. 

However, total renewable power on that same day was 17.4 percent, where renewables are comprised of solar, wind, small hydroelectric, geothermal, biogas and biomass.  Note that large hydroelectric does not count, at least not in California.   see link for daily results of renewable energy in California. -- end update ]

Links to supporting posts -

Warmists Are Wrong - Cooling Is Coming

From Man-Made Global Warmist to Skeptic - My Journey

Obama Lies And Economies Will Die  (shows more climate lies from Obama in 2009)

Climate Science Is Not Settled

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California