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  

Sea Level Rise Hysteria in California Delta

Subtitle: The Data Shows Zero Cause For Alarm

The headlines are certainly alarming, but what are the facts?

From DeltaConservancy.ca.gov  :   "Climate Change. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta could undergo many changes due to climate change and sea level rise in the decades ahead. The potential impacts to this region include an increased risk of levee failure, loss of agricultural land and productivity, loss of wetlands, reduced water quality,. . ."

From SacBee.com:  "How climate change could threaten the water supply for millions of Californians  --  When it comes to California and climate change, the predictions are staggering: coastal airports besieged by floodwaters, entire beaches disappearing as sea levels rise.

"Another disturbing scenario is brewing inland, in the sleepy backwaters of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. It’s a threat to the Delta’s ecosystem that could swallow up a significant portion of California’s water supply."


And now, the truly terrifying article, by environmental scientist Ronald Melcer:   "There is nearly a 70 percent chance that by [year]  2100 we’re going to see 2.4 ft of sea level rise at the Golden Gate Bridge. That’s with a low-emissions scenario, which is based on the Paris climate agreement. [But] if we don’t do anything, that’s where [California is] headed. That [do nothing scenario] shows 3.4 ft of sea level rise by 2100."  see link 

All that is certainly sobering, if it were anywhere close to being true.  But, the facts show it is simply scare-mongering at its worst.   Sadly for science, this type of mis-information is and has been the reality for many years now.   Some facts are shown below. 

Figure 1
Change in Sea Level at San Francisco, CA - NOAA
Overall Trend is 1.96 mm/yr (7.8 inches per Century)
But note zero rise from 1985-2014

The Figure 1 shows the measured, gauge-based sea level increase at San Francisco Bay since 1855.  The overall increase was only 1.96 mm per year (7.8 inches per century).  What is more interesting, though, is the period from 1985 through 2014.  In those 30 years, the sea level did not increase at all.  The heavy black lines indicate the flat trend from 1985 through 2014.  (one could easily start the zero-trend period a few years earlier, in 1980)   Yet, the false-alarmist scientists insist that sea level was rising faster in the past 30 years or so, due to increased Carbon Dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels.   Certainly, that is not true in San Francisco Bay, as measured by NOAA. 

Now, to examine the rate of sea level increase that is required to achieve the alarmist claims from above by Melcer:  With a low-emissions scenario, he claims 2.4 feet increase in sea level by year 2100.  And, with a do-nothing or business-as-usual scenario, he claims 3.4 feet by year 2100.   A bit of math shows that 2.4 feet equates to 8.9 mm per year increase.   That's almost 4.5 times the measured rate over the past 150 years, and infinitely higher than the zero increase during the past 30 years.  

Similary, the 3.4 feet increase by year 2100 equates to 12.6 mm per year; almost 6.5 times as great as the measured, steady rate since 1850.  Again, that rate is infinitely higher than the zero increase during the past 30 years. 

So, with the actual NOAA measurements at only 1.96 mm per year, how does a scientist make such outrageous claims with a straight face?   The answer is in what are referred to as "tipping points."  These are predicted events that greatly accelerate existing trends.  In the case of sea level rise, the tipping point is supposedly the rapid melting of Greenland ice and Antarctic ice.   That rapid melting is to occur because CO2 shines its heating rays down on the ice.   The reality is that Antarctic ice is increasing, not decreasing.  The Greenland ice is melting only due to black carbon and soot particles that were and still are deposited from coal-burning power plants, wildfires, and jet engine exhaust.    As it turns out, coal-burning power plants will be shutting down in 20 to 30 years due to a lack of affordable coal.   

The false-alarmism is blatant on this one.   The sea level at San Francisco would be required to jump from barely 8 inches per century to 52  inches per century. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Houston, Texas
copyright (c) 2018 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  

Arctic Sea Ice for 2015 Summer Minimum

Subtitle:  Arctic Ice Still Here and Still Growing

Arctic sea ice extent for recent years

The graphic shows the Arctic sea ice extent for 2015 and recent years.  It is noteworthy for not disappearing at all, as some warmists claimed would happen.  It is also noteworthy for reaching the minimum several days earlier than in recent years.   The graph's source is at this link, from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), which was established in 1872.   The data shows ice concentrations of 15 percent or greater.  


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

copyright (c) 2015 by Roger Sowell all rights reserved

Arctic Sea Ice 2015

Subtitle: Not Shrinking Like Before

source: Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) Centre for Ocean and Ice

In the endless debate over Global Warming, or Climate Change, one of the key indicators is the polar ice.  Warmists insist that the polar ice is melting away and will lead to all manner of havoc, such as seashores inundated by rising seas.  The implications are grim, for those who live within a few feet of sea level.  Warmists also insist that the addition of tiny amounts of carbon dioxide, CO2, to the atmosphere will increase the globe's average temperature and accelerate rate at which the polar ice melts.   The figure at the right, from Danish Meteorological Institute, shows millions of square kilometers of Arctic ice over a year's period, with different colors for each of the past few years.  The shaded gray area and darker gray line are the mean (roughly the average) over the 22 year period 1979-2000.    The bold black line shows the data for 2015.  (see link  for updated data) 

A few things can be observed from this figure.  First, the ice extent reaches a maximum in mid-February, and a minimum in early September.  The average maximum extent for the '79-2000 period was approximately 16 million km2.  The recent few years are only 1 million less, at approximately 15 million km2.  That is a decrease of only 6.2 percent over 35 years. 

The minimum extent has a much greater variation, with the '79-2000 average of approximately 7.5 million km2.  Recent years showed a minimum of 4 million km2 in 2012, and 6 million km2 in 2013 and 2014.   The extent in 2012 led to much press over the ice is melting and claims that we are all going to die from sea level rise, by the warmists.   

The extent for 2015, though, is only a bit past the mid-way from maximum to minimum, March to September.  That black line has several things to convey.  First, the other recent years (2011 - 2014) all had approximately the same rate of melting - the slope of the line - as does 2015 from approximately April 15 through June 1.  But, something is different starting in about June 1.  The recent years all began melting more rapidly starting June 1 (the slope of their lines increased downward), but the line for 2015 continued on its early slope.    One can speculate about the causes of the steady melting, and not the accelerated melting of the past few years.  Melting occurs from four sources: heat absorbed by the ice from seawater from below, heat absorbed from warmer air from above, heat absorbed from radiant heat from sunlight, and wind that breaks up the ice then pushes the ice into warmer water where melting takes place.   Warmists will add a fifth source of heat bombarding the Arctic ice: radiant heat from CO2 and water molecules in the atmosphere above the ice.  

So, what is different this year, that is not accelerating the ice melt?  One cannot determine the cause from the simple figure above.   One thing we do know for certain, though, is that the tiny amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere during the past year could not be responsible for a sudden and large change in melt rate.  

This graph bears watching closely, especially as the upcoming IPCC meeting in November will attempt (once again, because they failed each previous time) to obtain an accord to retard fossil fuel use world-wide.   

Warmists, especially those in the alarmist camp, have a very difficult time refuting solid evidence of Arctic ice growing, year over year over year.  

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

Arctic Sea Ice Not Melting in 2015

Subtitle:  Where Is All The Heat That Melts The Ice?

Arctic sea-ice extent, 4/22/2015, Red line is 2015
source: NORSEX SSM/I

One of the interesting aspects of being a global warming skeptic is observing the data that cannot be easily falsified, fabricated, adjusted, or plain made-up.   As readers of SLB will know, my view of the entire Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) issue is that there is zero cause for alarm from warming.  There is, however, genuine reason for concern over global cooling.   

The graph at the right shows a close-up of sea-ice extent data from NORSEX for the past few years, with the red line indicating extent for 2015  (see link).  What caught my attention is the relative flat-ness of the red line, compared to most of the earlier years.  The graph shows ice extent in millions of square kilometers on the vertical axis.  The horizontal axis shows time in approximately 10 day increments (three increments for each month), with January 1 at the far left. 

Is this normal, or unprecedented?   Careful inspection of the graph shows that the light green line, representing the data for 2011, also had a similar flat trend over the same period.  Therefore, the flat trend for this year has a precedent.  

One can also speculate on the reasons for the ice not melting at the "normal" rate, where "normal" is provided by the blue dotted line.  The blue dots represent the monthly average of the period 1979 - 2006.   The slope of the blue dotted line from the maximum (roughly March 10th) to April 22 is (very roughly estimated) 15 million to 14 million, or a decrease of 1 million square kilometers.  Yet this year, only (roughly) one-third that amount of ice melted.    Could the reason be that CO2 in the atmosphere is not getting the job done?   Are there clouds over the Arctic this year, preventing solar heat from hitting the ice?   Are the ocean currents that enter the Arctic colder than usual this year?   Is the black carbon soot that normally falls on the ice absent this year?    Perhaps the Arctic winds are not blowing the ice floes to the south, where they meet warmer waters and melt.  

I don't know the answer or answers.  What I do know is that the ice is not melting this year, at least not at the historic rate.  

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