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
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 Nuclear Power Plants.......here
Climate Change................here and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here and here
Free Speech.................... here
No comments:
Post a Comment