iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-11-29--At a lower cost … compared to what exactly?

Just an update on previous post about new big batteries to be built in New South Wales .
In that post , the author made the claim that grid-size batteries are cost-effective and come at a low ( er ) cost .
Here are the instances in the article were such claims are made : In doing so , TransGrid will demonstrate that batteries can provide the most cost-effective solution for NSW ’ s projected upcoming inertia shortfall , ” Miller said .
This innovation will help accelerate the industry ’ s transformation to a low-carbon energy system , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
Batteries offer a solution to this challenge at a small fraction of the cost of traditional technologies such as synchronous condensers .
Research and results from the trial will be shared to support future projects and help demonstrate that battery technology is a low cost and technically viable solution to the emerging challenge created by the transformation of the generation sector .
Again , this looks impressive and also confirms the narrative of the media and some researchers that renewable technologies are cheap .
If this is really true , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wind and batteries seems the most logical thing to do .
However , not everything is what it seems .
When consumers in New South Wales would read this article , then they would probably be delighted .
This battery is described as low cost , the most cost-effective , just a small fraction of the cost of traditional technologies , therefor facilitating the transformation at a lower cost to the consumer .
What is there not to like ?
You now would probably think that this means that the electricity price for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go down because of these cost effective , low cost solutions .
Well , I am not so sure about that .
The article is primary about inertia services and this is a very specific part of electricity production .
Inertia provides a buffer against rapid changes , ensuring that the system stays stable and is less susceptible to blackouts .
When part of the system breaks down , it gives the other providers more time to step in .
The author of the article correctly acknowledged that inertia is traditionally provided by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas .
This all changes when adding intermittent power sources like solar and wind power to the grid .
They don ’ t have inertia like the conventional power sources and this loss is what these batteries are supposed to fix .
However , the intermittency of solar and wind will cause even more rapid changes on the grid .
The more intermittent power sources added to the system , the more actions are needed to keep the frequency within its normal range of operation .
Not sure whether this also is taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if those batteries are so cost-effective and come at a low cost , then why the need to support them ?
The Wallgrove battery will get at least a $ 20 million support according to the article .
That is roughly one third of the projected cost… In principle , that should not be necessary if that battery was deemed profitable .
This claim should be seen in the context of inertia .
These batteries don ’ t replace anything , they will be added to the grid in order to provide the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power plants are being retired .
Even when those batteries would completely tackle the loss of inertia , New South Wales still need to tackle backup production to overcome periods of no ( t much ) sun or no ( t much ) wind .
Backup capacity could become an even tougher nut to crack than the loss of inertia .
When intermittent capacity increases , the backup capacity will not decrease much while production at peaks will increase dramatically .
This means that , on the one side , there will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of sun and a lot of wind .
On the other side , the need for backup capacity will not decrease easily .
It is necessary to prevent the grid from overloading ( when there is a lot of sun and wind ) , but also to prevent the grid from collapsing ( when there is no sun and not much wind ) .
Solar and wind don ’ t follow demand , so production lows could also occur during peak demand and backup capacity should be enough to roughly cover peak demand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed when there is no ( t much ) sun and no ( t much ) wind , therefor it will become be economically not viable .
The first batteries will surely earn quite some money , but income will diminish the more backup capacity gets installed .
More and more of that capacity will sit idle , not making money .
This will make additional capacity less attractive for investors .
Just as the batteries used for frequency control and inertia , backup capacity also will become in need of extra support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on what is compared to .
Looking at the increasing need for support , the cost of electricity only seems to move in one direction and that is up .
That “ lower ” cost is therefor not something that will end up being subtracted from the energy bill of the consumer , it is a virtual gain .
It is certainly possible that these batteries only cost a fraction of traditional technologies and therefor make transition cheaper , but this inertia is only part of a bigger story .
A low ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t necessarily mean an overall lower price .
Electricity will become more expensive , at lower cost in this context means just less expensive than when using some other technologies .

Just an update on previous post about new big batteries to be built in New South Wales. In that post, the author made the claim that grid-size batteries are cost-effective and come at a low(er) cost. Here are the instances in the article were such claims are made (my emphasis) :
In doing so, TransGrid will demonstrate that batteries can provide the most cost-effective solution for NSW’s projected upcoming inertia shortfall,” Miller said. This innovation will help accelerate the industry’s transformation to a low-carbon energy system, at a lower cost to customers” she said. Batteries offer a solution to this challenge at a small fraction of the cost of traditional technologies such as synchronous condensers. Research and results from the trial will be shared to support future projects and help demonstrate that battery technology is a low cost and technically viable solution to the emerging challenge created by the transformation of the generation sector.
Again, this looks impressive and also confirms the narrative of the media and some researchers that renewable technologies are cheap. If this is really true, then migrating to a combination of solar, wind and batteries seems the most logical thing to do.
However, not everything is what it seems.
When consumers in New South Wales would read this article, then they would probably be delighted. This battery is described as low cost, the most cost-effective, just a small fraction of the cost of traditional technologies, therefor facilitating the transformation at a lower cost to the consumer. What is there not to like?
You now would probably think that this means that the electricity price for the consumer in New South Wales will go down because of these cost effective, low cost solutions. Well, I am not so sure about that.
The article is primary about inertia services and this is a very specific part of electricity production. Inertia provides a buffer against rapid changes, ensuring that the system stays stable and is less susceptible to blackouts. When part of the system breaks down, it gives the other providers more time to step in.
The author of the article correctly acknowledged that inertia is traditionally provided by the conventional power generators like coal and gas. This all changes when adding intermittent power sources like solar and wind power to the grid. They don’t have inertia like the conventional power sources and this loss is what these batteries are supposed to fix. However, the intermittency of solar and wind will cause even more rapid changes on the grid. The more intermittent power sources added to the system, the more actions are needed to keep the frequency within its normal range of operation. Not sure whether this also is taken into account.
But, but, if those batteries are so cost-effective and come at a low cost, then why the need to support them? The Wallgrove battery will get at least a $20 million support according to the article. That is roughly one third of the projected cost… In principle, that should not be necessary if that battery was deemed profitable.
This claim should be seen in the context of inertia. These batteries don’t replace anything, they will be added to the grid in order to provide the inertia that will disappear when these coal power plants are being retired. Even when those batteries would completely tackle the loss of inertia, New South Wales still need to tackle backup production to overcome periods of no(t much) sun or no(t much) wind.
Backup capacity could become an even tougher nut to crack than the loss of inertia. When intermittent capacity increases, the backup capacity will not decrease much while production at peaks will increase dramatically. This means that, on the one side, there will be an overproduction when there is a lot of sun and a lot of wind. On the other side, the need for backup capacity will not decrease easily. It is necessary to prevent the grid from overloading (when there is a lot of sun and wind), but also to prevent the grid from collapsing (when there is no sun and not much wind). Solar and wind don’t follow demand, so production lows could also occur during peak demand and backup capacity should be enough to roughly cover peak demand.
This backup capacity will only be needed when there is no(t much) sun and no(t much) wind, therefor it will become be economically not viable. The first batteries will surely earn quite some money, but income will diminish the more backup capacity gets installed. More and more of that capacity will sit idle, not making money. This will make additional capacity less attractive for investors. Just as the batteries used for frequency control and inertia, backup capacity also will become in need of extra support.
In the end, it depends on what is compared to. Looking at the increasing need for support, the cost of electricity only seems to move in one direction and that is up. That “lower” cost is therefor not something that will end up being subtracted from the energy bill of the consumer, it is a virtual gain. It is certainly possible that these batteries only cost a fraction of traditional technologies and therefor make transition cheaper, but this inertia is only part of a bigger story. A low(er) cost for inertia services doesn’t necessarily mean an overall lower price. Electricity will become more expensive, at lower cost in this context means just less expensive than when using some other technologies.
via Trust, yet verify
https://ift.tt/36l4V89
November 29, 2020 at 05:02PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-11-29--Measuring Old Corals & Coral Reefs (Part 1)

Fundamental to science is measurement .
It is a way of objectively assessing something , anything , even the state of a coral reef , even of an individual coral .
Historically coral growth rates were measured by coring the really old massive Porites .
Like tree rings in temperate forests , the massive old Porites can be cored to see the banding and from this it is possible to calculate coral calcification rates which are a measure of the growth rate of individual corals .
Peter Ridd has been asking for some quality assurance of so many of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including coral growth rates .
Key Australian institutions have responded by stonewalling , and in the case of James Cook University , actually sacking him .
After two rounds in the federal courts his appeal against his dismissal is finally going to the High Court of Australia , with the next hearing probably in February 2021 .
While the lawyers are preoccupied with Peter ’ s rights , or otherwise , to academic freedom and freedom of speech , my concern is whether Peter is actually telling the truth when he says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and definitely not dying from coral bleaching , though there is a problem with the integrity of the science .
Most media reports , based on extensive aerial surveys by his one-time colleague Terry Hughes , conclude that the reef is variously 50 % or 60 % dead from coral bleaching as a direct consequence of global warming .
These media reports do not consider coral growth rates , but rather the area of coral that Professor Hughes has measured to be bleached , with an inference being that this will all die @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t both be right .
How can they have come to such different conclusions regarding the health of the Great Barrier Reef ?
Is the reef really half dead , or not ?
My working hypothesis is that Terry Hughes ’ claims the reef is half dead , are not objective because there is a flaw with his particular survey method .
This method is detailed in the technical literature , specifically his paper in Ecology published in 2018 entitled ‘ Large-scale bleaching of corals on the Great Barrier Reef ’ .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a way of getting to the truth via some method or other that often involves measurement .
Sometimes scientists get the method wrong , and so they come up with answers that are also wrong .
Sometimes the wrong answer pleases because it is politically correct .
Could it be that in surveying by looking out the window of an aeroplane at such a high altitude ( 150 metres ) , and then ground truthing only with respect to a particular reef habitat-type known as the ‘ reef crescent ’ , Professor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Could he be avoiding , even in denial , when it comes to all the corals in the reef lagoon ?
Marine scientists , and anyone with experience diving coral reefs , knows that there are distinct ecological zones at coral reefs .
The reef crest , as the name suggests , is the highest part with corals in this habitat often exposed at low tides , sometimes rained-on , and during storms and cyclones this is the part of the reef that will be most likely smashed by big waves .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reef may be totally devoid of live coral or the coral may be more stunted , and sparse .
At the same reef there may be healthy corals in the lagoon and back reef to the leeward side of the crest , and also corals growing down the front slope , even around the perimeter of the crest if it is a flat-topped platform .
So , in only surveying the crest , the scientist/Terry Hughes could come away with the impression the reef is dead , when it is actually teeming with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crest .
Professor Hughes specifically states in his 2018 article that underwater surveys were conducted to assess the accuracy of aerial surveys using five 10 x 1m belt transects placed on the reef crest .
There is no suggestion that he distinguished between the different reef habitats .
He only surveys the reef crest .
He surveyed the area that probably had the ‘ worst ’ and ‘ least ’ coral .
I tested my hypothesis that Professor Hughes ’ s methodology is flawed at Pixie Reef just two days ago ( 25th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Skido into the air and took photographs at 5 , 10 , 20 , 40 , 100 and 120 metres of altitude at the reef crest , reef lagoon and reef front slope .
Following are photographs just at 5 and 120 metres and just from the crest and lagoon at Pixie Reef .
( If I can get a large collection of these type of photographs together from different reefs , they could form the basis of a note for publication about measurement and the importance of measuring different habitat types at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to understand the health of the entire reef ecosystem , not just the reef crest . )
A photograph taken at 120 metres altitude of the reef crest is quite different from a photograph of the reef lagoon taken at exactly the same altitude .
At 120 metres altitude parts of the reef crest looks rather barren , perhaps bleached .
Hughes has mostly concluded that the Great Barrier Reef is 60 % bleached from 150 metres looking out a plane window at the reef crest .
The rather large circular boulders in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are massive Porites corals .
The type of coral that Peter Ridd would like AIMS to core , so we had an objective measure of coral growth rates back 100s of years .
The photograph of the reef crest from 120 metres altitude was taken with the drone ( Skido of course ) lifted vertically from 5 metres to 120 metres .
This is what the same reef looked like at just 5 metres above the crest .
There are live corals but no massive Porites or even red Gorgonians , though both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been excluded from a 10 metre belt transect across the reef crest and from an aerial survey of the crest , because they exist in a different habitat type .
A photograph taken at 5 metres from above a section of reef lagoon shows plate corals , presenting as toadstools when photographed from under-the-water , which seems most appropriate given this is Pixie reef .
I didn ’ t find any pixies though .
So much thanks to Stuart Ireland for taking me to Pixie Reef , and for taking all the photographs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
All the photographs ( except the shutterstock of the coring ) , were taken at Pixie reef on 25th November 2020 .
Pixie reef is just to the north east of Cairns in Far North Queensland .
**** The image at the very top of this blog post is of me/Jen swimming over the top of a 7 metre wide Porites at Pixie Reef on 25th November 2020 .
This is the type and size of coral that Peter Ridd would like to think was still being cored by the Australian Institute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an objective measure of coral growth rates .
AIMS used to core these old corals , to get an idea of climate change back hundreds of years .
This coral could be more than 400 years old , with annual bands that can be measured at the scale of one year , year on year perhaps back 300 or 400 years to calculate an annual growth rate .
So , from the one coral we could ( if they cored it ) see if growth rates have increased or decreased year on @ @ @ @

Reposting from Jennifer Marohasy’s Blog
November 27, 2020 By jennifer
Fundamental to science is measurement. It is a way of objectively assessing something, anything, even the state of a coral reef, even of an individual coral. Historically coral growth rates were measured by coring the really old massive Porites.
Like tree rings in temperate forests, the massive old Porites can be cored to see the banding and from this it is possible to calculate coral calcification rates which are a measure of the growth rate of individual corals.
Peter Ridd has been asking for some quality assurance of so many of the measurements relating to Great Barrier Reef health, including coral growth rates. Key Australian institutions have responded by stonewalling, and in the case of James Cook University, actually sacking him. After two rounds in the federal courts his appeal against his dismissal is finally going to the High Court of Australia, with the next hearing probably in February 2021. While the lawyers are preoccupied with Peter’s rights, or otherwise, to academic freedom and freedom of speech, my concern is whether Peter is actually telling the truth when he says that the Great Barrier Reef is resilient and definitely not dying from coral bleaching, though there is a problem with the integrity of the science.
Most media reports, based on extensive aerial surveys by his one-time colleague Terry Hughes, conclude that the reef is variously 50% or 60% dead from coral bleaching as a direct consequence of global warming.
These media reports do not consider coral growth rates, but rather the area of coral that Professor Hughes has measured to be bleached, with an inference being that this will all die.
Terry Hughes and Peter Ridd can’t both be right.
How can they have come to such different conclusions regarding the health of the Great Barrier Reef? Is the reef really half dead, or not?
Jen/me the other side of a red Gorgonian coral, just two days ago at Pixie Reef.
My working hypothesis is that Terry Hughes’ claims the reef is half dead, are not objective because there is a flaw with his particular survey method. This method is detailed in the technical literature, specifically his paper in Ecology published in 2018 entitled ‘Large-scale bleaching of corals on the Great Barrier Reef’.
Science is not a truth. It is a way of getting to the truth via some method or other that often involves measurement. Sometimes scientists get the method wrong, and so they come up with answers that are also wrong. Sometimes the wrong answer pleases because it is politically correct.
Could it be that in surveying by looking out the window of an aeroplane at such a high altitude (150 metres), and then ground truthing only with respect to a particular reef habitat-type known as the ‘reef crescent’, Professor Hughes has inadvertently recorded a wrong answer? Could he be avoiding, even in denial, when it comes to all the corals in the reef lagoon?
Marine scientists, and anyone with experience diving coral reefs, knows that there are distinct ecological zones at coral reefs. The reef crest, as the name suggests, is the highest part with corals in this habitat often exposed at low tides, sometimes rained-on, and during storms and cyclones this is the part of the reef that will be most likely smashed by big waves. Not surprisingly this habitat/area of a coral reef may be totally devoid of live coral or the coral may be more stunted, and sparse. At the same reef there may be healthy corals in the lagoon and back reef to the leeward side of the crest, and also corals growing down the front slope, even around the perimeter of the crest if it is a flat-topped platform. So, in only surveying the crest, the scientist/Terry Hughes could come away with the impression the reef is dead, when it is actually teeming with life – just not at the reef crest.
Pixie reef from about 100 metres altitude (thanks to my drone Skido). In the foreground (with our boat) is what is known as the reef lagoon. Then there is the reef crest which is mostly showing as beige in colour. Beyond the crest is the front of the reef that slopes more steeply to a greater depth. The types of coral vary so much with these three different habitat types.
A lower altitude picture more clearly showing a delineation between the reef lagoon and reef crest, at the one reef, Pixie Reef not far from the city of Cairns in Far North Queensland.
Professor Hughes specifically states in his 2018 article that underwater surveys were conducted to assess the accuracy of aerial surveys using five 10 x 1m belt transects placed on the reef crest. There is no suggestion that he distinguished between the different reef habitats. He only surveys the reef crest. He surveyed the area that probably had the ‘worst’ and ‘least’ coral.
I tested my hypothesis that Professor Hughes’s methodology is flawed at Pixie Reef just two days ago (25th November). We put my drone Skido into the air and took photographs at 5, 10, 20, 40, 100 and 120 metres of altitude at the reef crest, reef lagoon and reef front slope. Following are photographs just at 5 and 120 metres and just from the crest and lagoon at Pixie Reef. (If I can get a large collection of these type of photographs together from different reefs, they could form the basis of a note for publication about measurement and the importance of measuring different habitat types at the same reef if the idea is to understand the health of the entire reef ecosystem, not just the reef crest.)
A photograph taken at 120 metres altitude of the reef crest is quite different from a photograph of the reef lagoon taken at exactly the same altitude. At 120 metres altitude parts of the reef crest looks rather barren, perhaps bleached. Hughes has mostly concluded that the Great Barrier Reef is 60% bleached from 150 metres looking out a plane window at the reef crest.
The reef crest at Pixie Reef looking down from 120 metres.
The reef lagoon at Pixie Reef looking down from 120 metres. Photograph taken on 25th November with Skido.
The rather large circular boulders in the lagoon photograph from 120 metres up are massive Porites corals. The type of coral that Peter Ridd would like AIMS to core, so we had an objective measure of coral growth rates back 100s of years.
Jen/me laying a tape measure to know that this Porites is about 1.2 metres in height and 1.8 metres wide. These are external measurements. I wonder how old this coral is? It would be possible to know its age through coring (an internal measure), and then by counting the annual growth rings.
This is a close-up of the same Porites showing its golden-coloured tentacles. When the tentacles are retracted, I wonder if the coral is pale pink in colour, rather than golden?
The photograph of the reef crest from 120 metres altitude was taken with the drone (Skido of course) lifted vertically from 5 metres to 120 metres. This is what the same reef looked like at just 5 metres above the crest. There are live corals but no massive Porites or even red Gorgonians, though both exist at Pixie reef but would have been excluded from a 10 metre belt transect across the reef crest and from an aerial survey of the crest, because they exist in a different habitat type.
The reef crest at just 5 metre’s altitude.
A photograph taken at 5 metres from above a section of reef lagoon shows plate corals, presenting as toadstools when photographed from under-the-water, which seems most appropriate given this is Pixie reef. I didn’t find any pixies though.
The reef lagoon at just 5 metres altitude. To really know the corals it is necessary to go under the water, of course.
This is what a plate coral looks like under the water. Of course, at Pixie reef it may look more like a toadstool.
So much thanks to Stuart Ireland for taking me to Pixie Reef, and for taking all the photographs under-the-water, and he also flew Skido. All the photographs (except the shutterstock of the coring), were taken at Pixie reef on 25th November 2020. Pixie reef is just to the north east of Cairns in Far North Queensland.
****
The image at the very top of this blog post is of me/Jen swimming over the top of a 7 metre wide Porites at Pixie Reef on 25th November 2020. This is the type and size of coral that Peter Ridd would like to think was still being cored by the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), as an objective measure of coral growth rates. AIMS used to core these old corals, to get an idea of climate change back hundreds of years. This coral could be more than 400 years old, with annual bands that can be measured at the scale of one year, year on year perhaps back 300 or 400 years to calculate an annual growth rate. So, from the one coral we could (if they cored it) see if growth rates have increased or decreased year on year, or not.ShareTweetShare
Like this: Like Loading…
Related


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-11-29--Slight, beneficial warming from more carbon dioxide!

Exhaustive study finds more CO2 and water molecules will not cause dangerous warming Precision research by physicists William Happer and Willem van Wijngaarden has determined that the current levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor are “ saturated.
” In radiation physics that means adding more CO2 or water molecules will bring modest warming that will benefit plant growth , and thus all life on Earth .
More CO2 and H2O will not cause dangerous warming .
From this point forward , emissions from burning fossil fuels will bring little additional global warming , and what does occur will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There is no climate emergency .
This finding is astounding , paradigm shattering , contrary to what alarmist scientists have told us for decades .
Scientifically , it resolves a huge uncertainty that has plagued climate science for over a century : How should saturation be measured , and what is its extent regarding the primary greenhouse gases ?
Just as “ the greenhouse effect ” is nothing akin to how greenhouses work , in radiation physics “ saturation ” is nothing like the simple , everyday concept of saturation .
Your paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t pick up any more spilled milk .
Greenhouse gases are saturated when adding more water , methane or carbon dioxide molecules has no significant further effects on planetary warming and climate .
Dr. Happer is known as a leading skeptic of “ dangerous human-caused climate change.
” He co-founded the prestigious CO2 Coalition and served on the National Security Council , advising President Trump .
But his career has been as a world-class radiation physicist at Princeton .
Dr. van Wijngaarden teaches and conducts research in pure and applied physics at York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numerous peer-reviewed journal articles have collectively garnered over 12,000 citations by other researchers .
In their study , Professors Happer and van Wijngaarden ( H & W ) analyzed saturation physics in painstaking detail .
Their preprint , “ Dependence of Earth ’ s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases , ” goes far beyond any work done previously on this complex problem .
To begin with , standard studies examine the absorption of solar radiation by greenhouse molecules using crude absorption bands of radiation energy .
H & W go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions of distinct energies , called spectral lines , that make up these bands .
Their detailed line-by-line approach is an emerging field that often yields dramatically new results – and here contradict prevailing climate theory .
Moreover , H & W do not look only at absorption .
As Dr. Happer explained it to me : First , thermal emission of greenhouse gases is just as important as absorption .
Second , how the atmosphere ’ s temperature varies with altitude is just as important as its concentration of greenhouse gases .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not just at absorption , but also at emissions and atmospheric temperature variation .
The work is far more complex than I , most non-physicist scientists , and certainly most citizens and politicians can understand .
However , the conclusions are simple and dramatically clear .
Happer and van Wijngaarden ’ s central conclusion is this : For the most abundant greenhouse gases , H2O and CO2 , the saturation effects are extreme , with per-molecule forcing powers suppressed by four orders of magnitude at standard concentrations .
( Forcing power means effects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are especially compelling : Figure 9 and Tables 2 and 4 show that , at current concentrations , the forcings from all greenhouse gases are saturated .
The saturations of the most abundant greenhouse gases , H2O and CO2 , mean the per-molecule forcing is weakened by a factor of 10,000 .
The other greenhouse gases analyzed are ozone , nitrous oxide and methane .
These are also nearly saturated , but not as completely as water vapor and carbon dioxide .
They are also even less significant components of the atmosphere than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , which in turn is tiny compared to H2O ( 3 % or less ) .
At just 0.00019 % methane truly has minuscule influence on climate .
The climate science community clearly needs to consider this work very carefully .
This may not be easy since three major physics journals have refused to publish it .
Their reviews have been defensive and antagonistic , instead of thoughtful , science-based or helpful .
Climate alarmism seems to control these journals , and they tend to censor contrary findings .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ version .
Undaunted , H & W are now extending their analysis to include clouds .
Alarmist climate science bases its “ dangerous manmade ” global warming , not on the CO2 increase alone , but also on incorporating positive water vapor and cloud feedbacks : emphasizing heat-trapping properties of clouds , while largely ignoring the degree to which clouds also block or reflect incoming solar radiation .
Because carbon dioxide and water vapor are both saturated , it is highly unlikely that any positive cloud feedbacks can do much damage .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this for sure .
Stay tuned .
Meanwhile , America and the world are forced to ponder only “ permissible ” climate science – which is being used to justify demands that we eliminate the fossil fuels that provide 80 % of all US and world energy , and replace that energy with enormous numbers of solar panels , wind turbines , batteries , new transmission lines … and mines to produce their raw materials … all with major environmental impacts .
“ Permissible ” climate science is also being used as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predict planetary warming and weather 50 to 100 years from now .
The models have not gotten anything correct up to now , which is understandable since the physics on which they are based is so faulty .
The good news , says Science and Environmental Policy Project president Ken Haapala , is that humanity ’ s use of fossil fuels and addition of CO2 to the atmosphere are not causing a climate crisis .
Cutting existing atmospheric CO2 levels in half would have little effect on climate – but would harm plant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ food crops and grasslands to survive droughts and other stress .
“ Carbon capture ” ( actually carbon dioxide capture ) is of little value , and would just increase electricity prices .
As to climate “ tipping points ” – at which the Earth gets inexorably hotter , never to cool down – the very notion is laughable .
Over the ages , our planet has swung back and forth from moderate to very warm periods ; from ice ages and mile-high glaciers across half of North America and Europe to interglacial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in now ; from the Medieval warm period to the Little Ice Age , 1350-1810 , Haapala notes .
( The LIA was ending just about the time the fossil fuel and industrial era began . )
Put another way , because greenhouse gases are already saturated , there is no reason we should accept IPCC or other claims that planetary temperatures could rise more than 3.0 ͦ C ( 5.4ᵒ F ) without compelling empirical evidence of strong atmospheric warming .
That evidence is totally lacking in IPCC reports , and satellite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alarmist claims is science denial .
In reality , according to atmospheric temperature trends measured by satellites and weather balloons , and tracked by the Earth System Science Center , University of Alabama-Huntsville , the warming trend is modest .
Since January 1979 , it has remained at +0.14ᵒC/decade ( +0.12ᵒC/decade over the global-averaged oceans , and +0.18ᵒC/decade over global-averaged land areas ) .
That ’ s just 0.25ᵒF per decade , or 2.5ᵒF per century – modest , beneficial warming ; certainly nothing remotely catastrophic .
Some of that warming is likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is natural and not at all unprecedented .
Moreover , the atmospheric “ hot spot ” above the tropics predicted by climate models is nowhere to be found .
Put another way , for carbon dioxide to have significant impacts on global temperatures , humanity would have to burn more fossil fuels than are known to exist on our planet , Haapala concludes .
It ’ s no wonder climate alarmists , computer modelers , Green New Deal proponents , and wind turbine , solar panel , battery and concrete salesmen want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or at least keep their work out of scientific journals .
It ’ s also not surprising that China is happy to see the H & W science suppressed : its companies will be the ones selling us turbines , panels and batteries .
Follow the science !
David Wojick is an independent analyst specializing in science , logic and human rights in public policy , and author of numerous articles on these topics .

Exhaustive study finds more CO2 and water molecules will not cause dangerous warming
David Wojick, Ph.D.
Precision research by physicists William Happer and Willem van Wijngaarden has determined that the current levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor are “saturated.” In radiation physics that means adding more CO2 or water molecules will bring modest warming that will benefit plant growth, and thus all life on Earth. More CO2 and H2O will not cause dangerous warming.
From this point forward, emissions from burning fossil fuels will bring little additional global warming, and what does occur will improve forests, grasslands and agriculture. There is no climate emergency.
This finding is astounding, paradigm shattering, contrary to what alarmist scientists have told us for decades. Scientifically, it resolves a huge uncertainty that has plagued climate science for over a century: How should saturation be measured, and what is its extent regarding the primary greenhouse gases?
Just as “the greenhouse effect” is nothing akin to how greenhouses work, in radiation physics “saturation” is nothing like the simple, everyday concept of saturation. Your paper towel is saturated when it won’t pick up any more spilled milk. Greenhouse gases are saturated when adding more water, methane or carbon dioxide molecules has no significant further effects on planetary warming and climate.
Dr. Happer is known as a leading skeptic of “dangerous human-caused climate change.” He co-founded the prestigious CO2 Coalition and served on the National Security Council, advising President Trump. But his career has been as a world-class radiation physicist at Princeton. Dr. van Wijngaarden teaches and conducts research in pure and applied physics at York University in Canada. Happer’s numerous peer-reviewed journal articles have collectively garnered over 12,000 citations by other researchers.
In their study, Professors Happer and van Wijngaarden (H&W) analyzed saturation physics in painstaking detail. Their preprint, “Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases,” goes far beyond any work done previously on this complex problem.
To begin with, standard studies examine the absorption of solar radiation by greenhouse molecules using crude absorption bands of radiation energy. H&W go far beyond this, to analyze the millions of distinct energies, called spectral lines, that make up these bands. Their detailed line-by-line approach is an emerging field that often yields dramatically new results – and here contradict prevailing climate theory.
Moreover, H&W do not look only at absorption. As Dr. Happer explained it to me:First, thermal emission of greenhouse gases is just as important as absorption. Second, how the atmosphere’s temperature varies with altitude is just as important as its concentration of greenhouse gases.
The two physicists therefore looked hard, not just at absorption, but also at emissions and atmospheric temperature variation. The work is far more complex than I, most non-physicist scientists, and certainly most citizens and politicians can understand. However, the conclusions are simple and dramatically clear.
Happer and van Wijngaarden’s central conclusion is this: For the most abundant greenhouse gases, H2O and CO2, the saturation effects are extreme, with per-molecule forcing powers suppressed by four orders of magnitude at standard concentrations. (Forcing power means effects on atmospheric temperature.)
Their graphs are especially compelling: Figure 9 and Tables 2 and 4 show that, at current concentrations, the forcings from all greenhouse gases are saturated. The saturations of the most abundant greenhouse gases, H2O and CO2, mean the per-molecule forcing is weakened by a factor of 10,000.
The other greenhouse gases analyzed are ozone, nitrous oxide and methane. These are also nearly saturated, but not as completely as water vapor and carbon dioxide. They are also even less significant components of the atmosphere than CO2 (0.0415% or 415 ppm), which in turn is tiny compared to H2O (3% or less). At just 0.00019% methane truly has minuscule influence on climate.
The climate science community clearly needs to consider this work very carefully. This may not be easy since three major physics journals have refused to publish it. Their reviews have been defensive and antagonistic, instead of thoughtful, science-based or helpful. Climate alarmism seems to control these journals, and they tend to censor contrary findings. That’s why H&W released the preprint version.
Undaunted, H&W are now extending their analysis to include clouds. Alarmist climate science bases its “dangerous manmade” global warming, not on the CO2 increase alone, but also on incorporating positive water vapor and cloud feedbacks: emphasizing heat-trapping properties of clouds, while largely ignoring the degree to which clouds also block or reflect incoming solar radiation. Because carbon dioxide and water vapor are both saturated, it is highly unlikely that any positive cloud feedbacks can do much damage. However further careful analysis is needed to know this for sure. Stay tuned.
Meanwhile, America and the world are forced to ponder only “permissible” climate science – which is being used to justify demands that we eliminate the fossil fuels that provide 80% of all US and world energy, and replace that energy with enormous numbers of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, new transmission lines … and mines to produce their raw materials … all with major environmental impacts.
“Permissible” climate science is also being used as the basis for computer models that purport to predict planetary warming and weather 50 to 100 years from now. The models have not gotten anything correct up to now, which is understandable since the physics on which they are based is so faulty.
The good news, says Science and Environmental Policy Project president Ken Haapala, is that humanity’s use of fossil fuels and addition of CO2 to the atmosphere are not causing a climate crisis. Cutting existing atmospheric CO2 levels in half would have little effect on climate – but would harm plant growth and the ability of forests, food crops and grasslands to survive droughts and other stress. “Carbon capture” (actually carbon dioxide capture) is of little value, and would just increase electricity prices.
As to climate “tipping points” – at which the Earth gets inexorably hotter, never to cool down – the very notion is laughable. Over the ages, our planet has swung back and forth from moderate to very warm periods; from ice ages and mile-high glaciers across half of North America and Europe to interglacial periods, like the one we are in now; from the Medieval warm period to the Little Ice Age, 1350-1810, Haapala notes. (The LIA was ending just about the time the fossil fuel and industrial era began.)
Put another way, because greenhouse gases are already saturated, there is no reason we should accept IPCC or other claims that planetary temperatures could rise more than 3.0 ͦ C (5.4ᵒ F) without compelling empirical evidence of strong atmospheric warming. That evidence is totally lacking in IPCC reports, and satellite measurements find no strong warming. Accepting alarmist claims is science denial.
In reality, according to atmospheric temperature trends measured by satellites and weather balloons, and tracked by the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama-Huntsville, the warming trend is modest. Since January 1979, it has remained at +0.14ᵒC/decade (+0.12ᵒC/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18ᵒC/decade over global-averaged land areas). That’s just 0.25ᵒF per decade, or 2.5ᵒF per century – modest, beneficial warming; certainly nothing remotely catastrophic.
Some of that warming is likely to be manmade. But most of it is natural and not at all unprecedented.
Moreover, the atmospheric “hot spot” above the tropics predicted by climate models is nowhere to be found. Put another way, for carbon dioxide to have significant impacts on global temperatures, humanity would have to burn more fossil fuels than are known to exist on our planet, Haapala concludes.
It’s no wonder climate alarmists, computer modelers, Green New Deal proponents, and wind turbine, solar panel, battery and concrete salesmen want to silence Happer and van Wijngaarden – or at least keep their work out of scientific journals. It’s also not surprising that China is happy to see the H&W science suppressed: its companies will be the ones selling us turbines, panels and batteries. Follow the science!
David Wojick is an independent analyst specializing in science, logic and human rights in public policy, and author of numerous articles on these topics.
Like this: Like Loading…
Related


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-11-29--UK Power Station Capacity

UK Power Station Capacity

Drax specifically say that they are waiting for a Capacity Market contract before going ahead , and I suspect the rest are too .
Certainly some have been on the shelf for some time now .
For instance , EPUKI received approval to build Kings Lynn and Eggborough in 2018 , but have not got any further .
Their Annual Accounts , signed off in June this year , states : Which does not sound to me as if they are going to start construction any time soon .
I suspect the same applies to Teeside and Ferrybridge .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Capacity Market mechanism works , in that it favours existing operators , who can bid low .
It also allows bids from storage , demand side response and small scale peakers such as diesel engines .
These are all low cost options , but can only offer short term capacity , typically for an hour or two .
As such , they can not offer the baseload which CCGT can , and which the Capacity Market was originally set up to encourage .
We have already seen the planned new CCGT at Trafford @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contract , because the finances simply did not stack up .
With CCGTs being increasingly marginalised by heavily subsidised renewables , Trafford ’ s contract was priced at £19.40/KW/Yr , meaning it was worth £32m a year for 15 years .
But even this was not enough to make building the new plant profitable , as trading losses would be greater .
The economics have not changed , and I doubt whether these other new entrants will find it profitable to go ahead , unless the next Capacity Market auction comes up with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other consideration .
Net Zero commits to eventually phasing out conventional CCGTs , unless they can fit Carbon Capture & Storage ( CCS ) .
This could come as soon as the 2030s .
If Drax , for instance , go ahead now with their new plant , they may only get 15 years of operation out of it , unless they are prepared to pay out millions more fitting CCS at some stage .
Hardly an enticing prospect , when investments like this need an income stream of at least thirty years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of these planned CCGTs , UK capacity looks extremely tight , given the extra demand on the grid in years to come .
Without them , the situation looks dire .

9.7
Drax specifically say that they are waiting for a Capacity Market contract before going ahead, and I suspect the rest are too.
Certainly some have been on the shelf for some time now. For instance, EPUKI received approval to build Kings Lynn and Eggborough in 2018, but have not got any further. Their Annual Accounts, signed off in June this year, states:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09255154/filing-history
Which does not sound to me as if they are going to start construction any time soon. I suspect the same applies to Teeside and Ferrybridge.
The big problem lies in the way the Capacity Market mechanism works, in that it favours existing operators, who can bid low.
It also allows bids from storage, demand side response and small scale peakers such as diesel engines. These are all low cost options, but can only offer short term capacity, typically for an hour or two. As such, they cannot offer the baseload which CCGT can, and which the Capacity Market was originally set up to encourage.
We have already seen the planned new CCGT at Trafford abandoned, despite winning a Capacity Market contract, because the finances simply did not stack up. With CCGTs being increasingly marginalised by heavily subsidised renewables,
Trafford’s contract was priced at £19.40/KW/Yr, meaning it was worth £32m a year for 15 years. But even this was not enough to make building the new plant profitable, as trading losses would be greater.
The economics have not changed, and I doubt whether these other new entrants will find it profitable to go ahead, unless the next Capacity Market auction comes up with much higher prices.
There is one other consideration. Net Zero commits to eventually phasing out conventional CCGTs, unless they can fit Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS). This could come as soon as the 2030s.
If Drax, for instance, go ahead now with their new plant, they may only get 15 years of operation out of it, unless they are prepared to pay out millions more fitting CCS at some stage. Hardly an enticing prospect, when investments like this need an income stream of at least thirty years to recover capital costs.
Even with all of these planned CCGTs, UK capacity looks extremely tight, given the extra demand on the grid in years to come.
Without them, the situation looks dire.


Winter UVB Deficit

UVB Activation of AMPs Production in the Skin and the Innate Respiratory Immunity shows that we do need exposure to the UVB to maintain healthy immune system against COVID-19 and other respiratory infections .
Vitamin D supplementation does not replace sunlight .
Moderate exposure to sunlight is beneficial , not harmful .
The winter season brings with it deficit of sunlight exposure .
Lockdowns make things worse .
Currently , African-Americans in the northern states are in the worst situation .
Most of them get only a small fraction of the necessary UVB exposure .
Brown-skinned people in the north @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better .
Dark skinned Indians-vegetarians is another high risk group , because they do not eat fish .
Diet rich in fatty fish or cod liver oil ( as was made in 1930 ’ s ) , have been shown to improve respiratory immunity .
Fish and fish oil contains vitamin D and fatty acids , which might have a synergetic effect .
White ( skin types I-IV ) people need less UVB light than darker skin types .
Nevertheless , the deficit still occurs in winter .
The face is responsible for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ USA in winter .
Wearing masks outdoor further decreases the exposure and increases the deficit .

UVB Activation of AMPs Production in the Skin and the Innate Respiratory Immunity shows that we do need exposure to the UVB to maintain healthy immune system against COVID-19 and other respiratory infections. Vitamin D supplementation does not replace sunlight. Moderate exposure to sunlight is beneficial, not harmful. The winter season brings with it deficit of sunlight exposure. Lockdowns make things worse.
Currently, African-Americans in the northern states are in the worst situation. Most of them get only a small fraction of the necessary UVB exposure. Brown-skinned people in the north and Blacks in the south fare slightly better.
Dark skinned Indians-vegetarians is another high risk group, because they do not eat fish. Diet rich in fatty fish or cod liver oil (as was made in 1930’s), have been shown to improve respiratory immunity. Fish and fish oil contains vitamin D and fatty acids, which might have a synergetic effect.
White (skin types I-IV) people need less UVB light than darker skin types. Nevertheless, the deficit still occurs in winter. The face is responsible for most occasional UVB exposure in the north USA in winter. Wearing masks outdoor further decreases the exposure and increases the deficit.
via Science Defies Politics
https://ift.tt/33pmLVu
November 29, 2020 at 09:29AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-11-29--Internal Multidecadal and Interdecadal Climate Oscillations: Absence of Evidence Is No Evidence of A

The present paper contributes a critical commentary on the recent finding by Mann , M. E. , Steinman , B .
A. and Miller , S. K ( 2020 ) .
Absence of internal multidecadal and interdecadal oscillations in climate model simulations .
Nat .
Commun .
11 , 1–9 .
Climate oscillations are recurring large-scale fluctuations in the surface temperatures of the oceans in connection with the atmosphere .
This commentary focuses on the Pacific Decadal Oscillation ( PDO , interdecadal timescale ) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation ( AMO , multidecadal timescale ) , which have been regarded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continents in numerous studies based on observations and paleoclimate reconstructions ( Henley , 2017 ; O ’ Reilly et al.
, 2017 ) .
In a recent paper , Michael E. Mann and colleagues ( Mann et al.
, 2020 , hereafter M20 ) fail to find a PDO signal in global measured and modeled temperatures that is statistically different from noise .
They further propose that the significant AMO-like signal is mainly due to anthropogenic aerosols in the 20th century , and to statistical artifacts before .
Therefore they doubt the intrinsic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ present paper shows that M20 ’ s results are largely artifacts themselves with issues ranging from using inadequate data and referencing improper literature on anthropogenic aerosols with regards to the AMO to inappropriately interpreting the results with regards to the PDO .
After briefly sketching the rationale and method of M20 , I will elaborate on these three points .
M20 ( p. 3 ) argue that any truly oscillatory AMO or PDO signals should generate a spatially coherent and large-scale variability pattern in the climate system with a narrowband signature in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signals in global ( observed and modeled ) temperature grids of different time lengths with the multi-taper method of singular value decomposition ( MTM-SVD ) , which was developed and widely applied by Mann and Park ( Mann and Park , 1994 ; Mann et al.
, 1995 ; Mann and Park , 1999 ) .
Significance tests of the test statistic LFV ( local fractional variance ) are carried out with Monte Carlo simulations generated according to the null hypothesis of colored ( red ) noise .
The method can generally be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spatial pattern of any potential oscillatory climate signal .
M20 examine three global sets of temperature data for oscillatory signals , all spanning a minimum length of 158 years : Control simulations ( control runs of the IPCC model ensemble CMIP5 , using pre-industrial conditions of the atmosphere without any external forcing so that “ any apparently oscillatory behavior must arise from internal variability ” ) , historical observations ( annualized global monthly average surface temperatures from the HadCRUT4 land and ocean surface temperature dataset ) , and historical simulations ( IPCC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and natural forcing ) .
They find robust significant spectral peaks in the multidecadal AMO range ( period 40–70 years ) in the historical observations and the historical simulations , but not in the control simulations .
However , the latter data set is the only one that covers a greater length of time , with almost half of the model runs spanning 500 years or more .
The absence of robust multidecadal AMO oscillations in the control simulations stands in sharp contrast to numerous studies finding the opposite in paleoclimatic data ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2004 ; Chylek et al.
, 2011 ; Lanci and Hirt , 2015 ) .
Even with the same MTM-SVD method , the main author of M20 himself formerly identified robust and significant AMO frequencies in four independent sets of global proxy temperature data ( Mann and Park , 1994 ) .
The most obvious explanation for the discrepancy is that control runs of the CMIP5 models have little to do with reality ( Power et al.
, 2017 ) .
Since it is unclear to which extent the modeled “ internal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control simulations can not be trusted unless their results were validated with paleoclimate data .
On the other hand , the historical observations and the historical simulations are insufficient in length in order to detect AMO frequencies with sufficient statistical power .
They cover barely two cycles of the putative oscillation , which may span 80 years and more ( Schlesinger and Ramankutty , 1994 ) and may consist of a broader band of low-frequency signals ( O ’ Reilly et al.
, 2017 ; Sutton et al.
, 2018 ) than can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Furthermore , M20 leaves some confusion about the actual length of their control and historical simulations .
Although they state in the text that a minimum length of 158 years is required and fulfilled by N = 44 control runs and N = 118 historical runs of the CMIP5 models , Table 1 in their Supplement reveals that only N = 42 ( not 44 ) from the altogether N = 47 control simulations and only N = 8 ( not 118 ) from the altogether N = 164 historical simulations satisfied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 158 years .
So even though the latter data set showed a robust significant AMO frequency around a ∼45 year period , other multidecadal frequencies might have been missed .
Having found significant AMO frequencies only in the historical observations and simulations for the industrial time , M20 suggest that this multidecadal fluctuation is due to anthropogenic aerosols rather than to an intrinsic climate oscillation .
They argue 1 ) that no multidecadal fluctuation is present under preindustrial conditions , 2 ) that in industrial times its phase is synchronized across three independent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unlikely if it were an intrinsic oscillation , whereas 3 ) the fluctuation with positive ( warm ) peaks near 1940 and 2000 and a negative ( cool ) peak near 1980 coincides with the response of the climate system to anthropogenic sulfate aerosol emissions .
The first part of the argument is questioned above .
The second refers to the observation that three global time series , namely two specific models and the historical observations , are roughly in phase ( Figure 3 of M20 ) .
I agree with the authors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were ( stochastically ) independent , but “ internal ” / “ intrinsic ” is not necessarily the same as “ independent ” : The same phase points to a structural relationship , but it says nothing about whether its cause is external or internal to the climate system .
For the third part of the argument , M20 refer to a recent paper by Kasoar et al .
( 2018 ) .
However , this referenced paper supports only the spatial correspondence of sulfate aerosol effects and the putative AMO signal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With regard to the alleged temporal correspondence , the reader is referred to Figure 3 of M20 , which not only leaves several questions open , but also ignores a substantial refutation in the literature : M20 do not provide enough detail to clearly understand what they are plotting in the time series of their Figure 3 .
Is it just one realization or an average of the two and five members that they have for the MPI-ESM-LR and HadGEM2-ES models ?
If it is the latter , they are methodologically canceling out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If it is the former , on which criteria did they select the member , and do the rest behave similarly ?
Furthermore , in the MPI-ESM-LR model ( Figure 3C of M20 ) the signal amplitude and the signal-to-noize ratio appear to be very low , which is reflected in the small percentage of explained variance .
I doubt that this signal exceeds the statistical significance limit , which the authors do not comment on .
Regarding the HadGEM2-ES model , Booth et al .
showed already in 2012 that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sea surface temperature ( NASST ) variability in the 20th century , and claimed that aerosols caused this variability .
However , Zhang et al .
( 2013 ) refuted this claim on various methodological grounds , for example by comparing the heat content anomaly of the upper ocean in the North Atlantic with the HadGEM2-ES model with constant aerosols vs. all drivers , or by showing differences between observed and modeled spatial patterns of multi-decadal SST changes inside and outside the North Atlantic , and observed and modeled anomalies in salinity in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the large and multivariate discrepancies in the mechanisms , Zhang et al .
concluded that the aerosol effects simulated by HadGEM2-ES can not be responsible for the multi-decadal temperature variations observed in the North Atlantic in the 20th century .
M20 make the same claim again now without mentioning this debate in the literature .
In the interdecadal time range attributed to the PDO ( 16–20 years according to the authors ) , M20 found no robust significant spectral peaks in any of the three data sets .
Again , this stands in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ literature ( for a review see e.g.
, Henley , 2017 ) , including previous work by the main author using the same MTM-SVD method ( Mann and Park , 1994 ) .
M20 explain the discrepancy by the time window being larger in their present than in their former work , rendering the present results more reliable .
However , on closer inspection the respective Supplementary Figure S2 in M20 suggests another interpretation : The moving window shows that the frequencies on the interdecadal scale are not constant over time – in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ episodic ( see Figure 1 ) .
This is fully consistent with the work of Folland et al .
( 2002 ) , which M20 themselves mention in their introductory discussion on whether the PDO has a broad or narrow frequency band .
However , with reference to their own former work ( Mann and Park , 1994 ; Mann and Park , 1999 ) they decide a priori that the PDO is confined to a narrowband 16–20 year period .
When they later find that this narrowband frequency is not robust over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there is no intrinsic PDO at all .
However , a more appropriate interpretation would have been that their assumption of a continuous narrowband PDO frequency was premature and should be revised .
FIGURE 1 FIGURE 1 .
Evolutionary spectra of historical observations in M20 , using a moving window of 100 years length .
The year at the horizontal axis represents the center of the 100 years moving window , with the vertical line indicating the window 1890–1990 analyzed by Mann and Park 1994 .
The colored scale depicts LVF values @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Mann and Park , 1994 , LFV values exceeding roughly 0.53 were significant at p < 0.05 level ) .
The red arrows point to two slightly different frequencies showing up episodically significant and thereby supporting the view that the PDO is characterized by a rather broad and changing frequency band over time ( Figure adapted from Mann et al.
, 2020 , Supplementary Figure 2 .
Using the figure is permitted by the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ) .
Altogether , I conclude that the paper M20 is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multi- and interdecadal oscillations such as the AMO and PDO .
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication .
The author declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest .
The author would like to thank a reviewer for valuable hints concerning argumentation and literature .
Booth , B .
B. , Dunstone , N. J. , Halloran , P. R. , Andrews , T. , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Aerosols implicated as a prime driver of twentieth-century North Atlantic climate variability .
Nature 484 , 228–232 .
doi:10.1038/nature10946 Chylek , P. , Folland , C. K. , Dijkstra , H. A. , Lesins , G. , and Dubey , M. K. ( 2011 ) .
Ice‐core data evidence for a prominent near 20 year time‐scale of the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation .
Geophys .
Res .
Lett .
38 , L13704 .
doi:10.1029/2011GL047501 Folland , C. K. , Renwick , J .
A. , Salinger , M. J. , and Mullan , A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Relative influences of the interdecadal Pacific oscillation and ENSO on the South Pacific convergence zone .
Geophys .
Res .
Lett .
29 , 21–24 .
doi:10.1029/2001GL014201 Gray , S. T. , Graumlich , L. J. , Betancourt , J. L. , and Pederson , G. T. ( 2004 ) .
A tree-ring based reconstruction of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation since 1567 A.D. Geophys .
Res .
Lett .
31 , L12205 .
doi:10.1029/2004GL019932 Kasoar , M. , Shawki , D. , and Voulgarakis , A .
( 2018 ) .
Similar spatial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from different regions .
Npj Clim .
Atmos .
Sci .
1 , 1–8 .
doi:10.1038/s41612-018-0022-z Lanci , L. , and Hirt , A. M. ( 2015 ) .
Evidence of Atlantic multidecadal oscillation in the magnetic properties of Alpine lakes during the last 2500 years .
Palaeogeogr .
Palaeoclimatol .
Palaeoecol .
440 , 47–52 .
doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2015.08.040 Mann , M. E. , Park , J. , and Bradley , R. S. ( 1995 ) .
Global interdecadal and century-scale climate oscillations during the past five centuries .
Nature 378 , 266–270 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Park , J .
( 1994 ) .
Global-scale modes of surface temperature variability on interannual to century timescales .
J. Geophys .
Res .
99 , 25819–25833 .
doi:10.1029/94jd02396 Mann , M. E. , Steinman , B .
A. , and Miller , S. K. ( 2020 ) .
Absence of internal multidecadal and interdecadal oscillations in climate model simulations .
Nat .
Commun .
11 , 1–9 .
doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13823-w O ’ Reilly , C. H. , Woollings , T. , and Zanna , L. ( 2017 ) .
The dynamical influence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate .
J. Clim .
30 , 7213–7230 .
Power , S. , Delage , F. , Wang , G. , Smith , I. , and Kociuba , G. ( 2017 ) .
Apparent limitations in the ability of CMIP5 climate models to simulate recent multi-decadal change in surface temperature : implications for global temperature projections .
Clim .
Dynam .
49 , 53–69 .
doi:10.1007/s00382-016-3326-x Schlesinger , M. E. , and Ramankutty , N. ( 1994 ) .
An oscillation in the global climate system of period 65–70 years .
Nature 367 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ T. , McCarthy , G. D. , Robson , J. , Sinha , B. , Archibald , A. T. , and Gray , L. J .
( 2018 ) .
Atlantic multidecadal variability and the U.K. ACSIS program .
Bull .
Am .
Meteorol .
Soc .
99 , 415–425 .
doi:10.1175/bams-d-16-0266.1 Zhang , R. , Delworth , T. L. , Sutton , R. , Hodson , D. L. R. , Dixon , K. W. , Held , I. M. , et al .
( 2013 ) .
Have aerosols caused the observed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sci .
70 , 1135–1144 .
doi:10.1175/jas-d-12-0331.1 Citation : Müller-Plath G ( 2020 ) Internal Multidecadal and Interdecadal Climate Oscillations : Absence of Evidence Is No Evidence of Absence .
Front .
Earth Sci .
8:559337. doi : 10.3389/feart.2020.559337 Copyright © 2020 Müller-Plath .
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( CC BY ) .
The use , distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted , provided the original author ( s ) and the copyright owner ( s ) are credited and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is cited , in accordance with accepted academic practice .
No use , distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms .

Reposted under a Creative Commons License
Gisela Müller-Plath*
Department of Psychology and Ergonomics, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Introduction
The present paper contributes a critical commentary on the recent finding by Mann, M. E., Steinman, B. A. and Miller, S. K (2020). Absence of internal multidecadal and interdecadal oscillations in climate model simulations. Nat. Commun. 11, 1–9.
Climate oscillations are recurring large-scale fluctuations in the surface temperatures of the oceans in connection with the atmosphere. This commentary focuses on the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO, interdecadal timescale) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO, multidecadal timescale), which have been regarded as intrinsic climate drivers on the adjacent continents in numerous studies based on observations and paleoclimate reconstructions (Henley, 2017; O’Reilly et al., 2017). In a recent paper, Michael E. Mann and colleagues (Mann et al., 2020, hereafter M20) fail to find a PDO signal in global measured and modeled temperatures that is statistically different from noise. They further propose that the significant AMO-like signal is mainly due to anthropogenic aerosols in the 20th century, and to statistical artifacts before. Therefore they doubt the intrinsic nature of the two oscillations. The present paper shows that M20’s results are largely artifacts themselves with issues ranging from using inadequate data and referencing improper literature on anthropogenic aerosols with regards to the AMO to inappropriately interpreting the results with regards to the PDO.
After briefly sketching the rationale and method of M20, I will elaborate on these three points.
M20 (p. 3) argue that any truly oscillatory AMO or PDO signals should generate a spatially coherent and large-scale variability pattern in the climate system with a narrowband signature in the frequency domain. They search for such signals in global (observed and modeled) temperature grids of different time lengths with the multi-taper method of singular value decomposition (MTM-SVD), which was developed and widely applied by Mann and Park (Mann and Park, 1994; Mann et al., 1995; Mann and Park, 1999). Significance tests of the test statistic LFV (local fractional variance) are carried out with Monte Carlo simulations generated according to the null hypothesis of colored (red) noise. The method can generally be applied to reconstruct the time course and the spatial pattern of any potential oscillatory climate signal.
Inadequate Data
M20 examine three global sets of temperature data for oscillatory signals, all spanning a minimum length of 158 years: Control simulations (control runs of the IPCC model ensemble CMIP5, using pre-industrial conditions of the atmosphere without any external forcing so that “any apparently oscillatory behavior must arise from internal variability”), historical observations (annualized global monthly average surface temperatures from the HadCRUT4 land and ocean surface temperature dataset), and historical simulations (IPCC model ensemble CMIP5, containing external anthropogenic and natural forcing). They find robust significant spectral peaks in the multidecadal AMO range (period 40–70 years) in the historical observations and the historical simulations, but not in the control simulations. However, the latter data set is the only one that covers a greater length of time, with almost half of the model runs spanning 500 years or more.
The absence of robust multidecadal AMO oscillations in the control simulations stands in sharp contrast to numerous studies finding the opposite in paleoclimatic data (Kerr, 2000; Gray et al., 2004; Chylek et al., 2011; Lanci and Hirt, 2015). Even with the same MTM-SVD method, the main author of M20 himself formerly identified robust and significant AMO frequencies in four independent sets of global proxy temperature data (Mann and Park, 1994). The most obvious explanation for the discrepancy is that control runs of the CMIP5 models have little to do with reality (Power et al., 2017). Since it is unclear to which extent the modeled “internal variability” reflects real conditions, the control simulations cannot be trusted unless their results were validated with paleoclimate data.
On the other hand, the historical observations and the historical simulations are insufficient in length in order to detect AMO frequencies with sufficient statistical power. They cover barely two cycles of the putative oscillation, which may span 80 years and more (Schlesinger and Ramankutty, 1994) and may consist of a broader band of low-frequency signals (O’Reilly et al., 2017; Sutton et al., 2018) than can be identified with the short time series. Furthermore, M20 leaves some confusion about the actual length of their control and historical simulations. Although they state in the text that a minimum length of 158 years is required and fulfilled by N = 44 control runs and N = 118 historical runs of the CMIP5 models, Table 1 in their Supplement reveals that only N = 42 (not 44) from the altogether N = 47 control simulations and only N = 8 (not 118) from the altogether N = 164 historical simulations satisfied the requirement of a minimum length of 158 years. So even though the latter data set showed a robust significant AMO frequency around a ∼45 year period, other multidecadal frequencies might have been missed.
Improper Literature Reference
Having found significant AMO frequencies only in the historical observations and simulations for the industrial time, M20 suggest that this multidecadal fluctuation is due to anthropogenic aerosols rather than to an intrinsic climate oscillation. They argue 1) that no multidecadal fluctuation is present under preindustrial conditions, 2) that in industrial times its phase is synchronized across three independent global time series, which would be unlikely if it were an intrinsic oscillation, whereas 3) the fluctuation with positive (warm) peaks near 1940 and 2000 and a negative (cool) peak near 1980 coincides with the response of the climate system to anthropogenic sulfate aerosol emissions. The first part of the argument is questioned above. The second refers to the observation that three global time series, namely two specific models and the historical observations, are roughly in phase (Figure 3 of M20). I agree with the authors that this would be unlikely if they were (stochastically) independent, but “internal”/“intrinsic” is not necessarily the same as “independent”: The same phase points to a structural relationship, but it says nothing about whether its cause is external or internal to the climate system. For the third part of the argument, M20 refer to a recent paper by Kasoar et al. (2018). However, this referenced paper supports only the spatial correspondence of sulfate aerosol effects and the putative AMO signal, both emphasizing the North Atlantic region. With regard to the alleged temporal correspondence, the reader is referred to Figure 3 of M20, which not only leaves several questions open, but also ignores a substantial refutation in the literature: M20 do not provide enough detail to clearly understand what they are plotting in the time series of their Figure 3. Is it just one realization or an average of the two and five members that they have for the MPI-ESM-LR and HadGEM2-ES models? If it is the latter, they are methodologically canceling out any internal variability the model could show. If it is the former, on which criteria did they select the member, and do the rest behave similarly? Furthermore, in the MPI-ESM-LR model (Figure 3C of M20) the signal amplitude and the signal-to-noize ratio appear to be very low, which is reflected in the small percentage of explained variance. I doubt that this signal exceeds the statistical significance limit, which the authors do not comment on. Regarding the HadGEM2-ES model, Booth et al. showed already in 2012 that it closely reproduced the AMO-like multidecadal North Atlantic sea surface temperature (NASST) variability in the 20th century, and claimed that aerosols caused this variability. However, Zhang et al. (2013) refuted this claim on various methodological grounds, for example by comparing the heat content anomaly of the upper ocean in the North Atlantic with the HadGEM2-ES model with constant aerosols vs. all drivers, or by showing differences between observed and modeled spatial patterns of multi-decadal SST changes inside and outside the North Atlantic, and observed and modeled anomalies in salinity in the subpolar North Atlantic. Due to the large and multivariate discrepancies in the mechanisms, Zhang et al. concluded that the aerosol effects simulated by HadGEM2-ES cannot be responsible for the multi-decadal temperature variations observed in the North Atlantic in the 20th century. M20 make the same claim again now without mentioning this debate in the literature.
Inappropriate Interpretation
In the interdecadal time range attributed to the PDO (16–20 years according to the authors), M20 found no robust significant spectral peaks in any of the three data sets. Again, this stands in sharp contrast to a large body of literature (for a review see e.g., Henley, 2017), including previous work by the main author using the same MTM-SVD method (Mann and Park, 1994). M20 explain the discrepancy by the time window being larger in their present than in their former work, rendering the present results more reliable. However, on closer inspection the respective Supplementary Figure S2 in M20 suggests another interpretation: The moving window shows that the frequencies on the interdecadal scale are not constant over time – in other words, narrowband PDO oscillations are episodic (see Figure 1). This is fully consistent with the work of Folland et al. (2002), which M20 themselves mention in their introductory discussion on whether the PDO has a broad or narrow frequency band. However, with reference to their own former work (Mann and Park, 1994; Mann and Park, 1999) they decide a priori that the PDO is confined to a narrowband 16–20 year period. When they later find that this narrowband frequency is not robust over a larger time window, they conclude that there is no intrinsic PDO at all. However, a more appropriate interpretation would have been that their assumption of a continuous narrowband PDO frequency was premature and should be revised. FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1. Evolutionary spectra of historical observations in M20, using a moving window of 100 years length. The year at the horizontal axis represents the center of the 100 years moving window, with the vertical line indicating the window 1890–1990 analyzed by Mann and Park 1994. The colored scale depicts LVF values (In the 100 years time series in Mann and Park, 1994, LFV values exceeding roughly 0.53 were significant at p < 0.05 level). The red arrows point to two slightly different frequencies showing up episodically significant and thereby supporting the view that the PDO is characterized by a rather broad and changing frequency band over time (Figure adapted from Mann et al., 2020, Supplementary Figure 2. Using the figure is permitted by the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License).
Conclusion
Altogether, I conclude that the paper M20 is not advancing our understanding of the nature of multi- and interdecadal oscillations such as the AMO and PDO.
Author Contributions
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.
Conflict of Interest
The author declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank a reviewer for valuable hints concerning argumentation and literature.
References
Booth, B. B., Dunstone, N. J., Halloran, P. R., Andrews, T., and Bellouin, N. (2012). Aerosols implicated as a prime driver of twentieth-century North Atlantic climate variability. Nature 484, 228–232. doi:10.1038/nature10946
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Chylek, P., Folland, C. K., Dijkstra, H. A., Lesins, G., and Dubey, M. K. (2011). Ice‐core data evidence for a prominent near 20 year time‐scale of the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L13704. doi:10.1029/2011GL047501
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Folland, C. K., Renwick, J. A., Salinger, M. J., and Mullan, A. B. (2002). Relative influences of the interdecadal Pacific oscillation and ENSO on the South Pacific convergence zone. Geophys. Res. Lett. 29, 21–24. doi:10.1029/2001GL014201
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Gray, S. T., Graumlich, L. J., Betancourt, J. L., and Pederson, G. T. (2004). A tree-ring based reconstruction of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation since 1567 A.D. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L12205. doi:10.1029/2004GL019932
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Henley, B. J. (2017). Pacific decadal climate variability: indices, patterns and tropical-extratropical interactions. Global Planet. Change 155, 42–55. doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.06.004
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Kasoar, M., Shawki, D., and Voulgarakis, A. (2018). Similar spatial patterns of global climate response to aerosols from different regions. Npj Clim. Atmos. Sci. 1, 1–8. doi:10.1038/s41612-018-0022-z
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Kerr, R. A. (2000). A North Atlantic climate pacemaker for the centuries. Science 288, 1984–1985. doi:10.1126/science.288.5473.1984
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Lanci, L., and Hirt, A. M. (2015). Evidence of Atlantic multidecadal oscillation in the magnetic properties of Alpine lakes during the last 2500 years. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 440, 47–52. doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2015.08.040
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Mann, M. E., Park, J., and Bradley, R. S. (1995). Global interdecadal and century-scale climate oscillations during the past five centuries. Nature 378, 266–270. doi:10.1038/378266a0
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Mann, M. E., and Park, J. (1994). Global-scale modes of surface temperature variability on interannual to century timescales. J. Geophys. Res. 99, 25819–25833. doi:10.1029/94jd02396
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Mann, M. E., and Park, J. (1999). Oscillatory spatiotemporal signal detection in climate studies: a multiple-taper spectral domain approach. Adv. Geophys. 41, 1–131. doi:10.1016/s0065-2687(08)60026-6
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Mann, M. E., Steinman, B. A., and Miller, S. K. (2020). Absence of internal multidecadal and interdecadal oscillations in climate model simulations. Nat. Commun. 11, 1–9. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13823-w
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
O’Reilly, C. H., Woollings, T., and Zanna, L. (2017). The dynamical influence of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation on continental climate. J. Clim. 30, 7213–7230.
Google Scholar
Power, S., Delage, F., Wang, G., Smith, I., and Kociuba, G. (2017). Apparent limitations in the ability of CMIP5 climate models to simulate recent multi-decadal change in surface temperature: implications for global temperature projections. Clim. Dynam. 49, 53–69. doi:10.1007/s00382-016-3326-x
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Schlesinger, M. E., and Ramankutty, N. (1994). An oscillation in the global climate system of period 65–70 years. Nature 367, 723–726. doi:10.1038/367723a0
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Sutton, R. T., McCarthy, G. D., Robson, J., Sinha, B., Archibald, A. T., and Gray, L. J. (2018). Atlantic multidecadal variability and the U.K. ACSIS program. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 99, 415–425. doi:10.1175/bams-d-16-0266.1
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Zhang, R., Delworth, T. L., Sutton, R., Hodson, D. L. R., Dixon, K. W., Held, I. M., et al. (2013). Have aerosols caused the observed Atlantic multidecadal variability? J. Atmos. Sci. 70, 1135–1144. doi:10.1175/jas-d-12-0331.1
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Keywords: Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, sulfate aerosols, climate oscillations, multi-taper method of singular value decomposition spectral analysis (MTM-SVD), CMIP5 model simulation
Citation: Müller-Plath G (2020) Internal Multidecadal and Interdecadal Climate Oscillations: Absence of Evidence Is No Evidence of Absence. Front. Earth Sci. 8:559337. doi: 10.3389/feart.2020.559337
Edited by:Jing-Jia Luo, Bureau of Meteorology, Australia
Reviewed by:Elsa Mohino, Complutense University of Madrid, Spain
Copyright © 2020 Müller-Plath. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Like this: Like Loading…
Related


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-11-30--Media hype for subsidised Scottish project to heat 300 homes with 100% green hydrogen

Billed as ‘ A bright future for Levenmouth ’ , the claim that switching to hydrogen could ‘ save energy customers across Britain billions of pounds ’ looks rose-tinted to say the least .
Maybe it ’ s easy to get carried away when you imagine you ’ re going to save the world , or something .
– – – Fife has leapt closer to launching the world ’ s first 100 % green hydrogen network with the announcement of an £18 million funding boost , reports The Courier .
Three hundred homes across Levenmouth will be connected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first in the world to use zero carbon hydrogen for heating and cooking .
Householders will be invited to get involved in the four to five year trial from late next year .
Energy regulator Ofgem has awarded funding to gas network company SGN to build its H100 Fife hydrogen demonstration project at the energy park in Methil .
The trial has been hailed as a revolutionary , with the potential to cut carbon emissions while improving the Fife economy .
It will see the initial 300 customers given a free hydrogen connection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maintenance over the length of the project .
SGN said the hydrogen appliances would connect to the existing pipes for zero carbon cooking and heating .
New hydrogen-ready boilers will be provided but there will be no need to replace radiators or plumbing and households will pay the same as for natural gas .
The project aims to demonstrate how renewable energy produced by offshore wind can generate a secure and reliable supply of green hydrogen to heat homes .
If successful , homes and businesses across the UK could eventually receive hydrogen @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Billed as ‘A bright future for Levenmouth’, the claim that switching to hydrogen could ‘save energy customers across Britain billions of pounds’ looks rose-tinted to say the least. Maybe it’s easy to get carried away when you imagine you’re going to save the world, or something.
– – –
Fife has leapt closer to launching the world’s first 100% green hydrogen network with the announcement of an £18 million funding boost, reports The Courier.
Three hundred homes across Levenmouth will be connected to the network, with residents becoming the first in the world to use zero carbon hydrogen for heating and cooking.
Householders will be invited to get involved in the four to five year trial from late next year.
Energy regulator Ofgem has awarded funding to gas network company SGN to build its H100 Fife hydrogen demonstration project at the energy park in Methil.
The trial has been hailed as a revolutionary, with the potential to cut carbon emissions while improving the Fife economy.
It will see the initial 300 customers given a free hydrogen connection, free replacement hydrogen appliances and free maintenance over the length of the project.
SGN said the hydrogen appliances would connect to the existing pipes for zero carbon cooking and heating.
New hydrogen-ready boilers will be provided but there will be no need to replace radiators or plumbing and households will pay the same as for natural gas.
The project aims to demonstrate how renewable energy produced by offshore wind can generate a secure and reliable supply of green hydrogen to heat homes.
If successful, homes and businesses across the UK could eventually receive hydrogen heating via 170,000 miles of pipes.
Full report here.
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
https://ift.tt/3loiHLv
November 30, 2020 at 05:00AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-11-30--Will Trump send the Paris Agreement to the US Senate?

This is the key question that will determine the future of US and international climate diplomacy for years .
The next few months will show whether the incoming Biden administration will get its way and rejoin the Paris climate accord as promised , or whether the outgoing Trump administration will try to prevent this from happening .
Ever since he ran for President , Donald Trump made leaving the Paris agreement a key part of his election platform in 2016 , arguing that withdrawing from the accord would help to revitalise the US economy with booming energy production , turning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leading energy superpower .
Trump ’ s rejection of the Paris agreement was based on his view that it was extremely unfair to the US , allowing rising Asian superpowers , in particular China , to use cheap fossil fuels to make Chinese manufacturing much more competitive and to increase its energy investments around the world , while the US was forced to curtail using its abundant cheap energy resources , while becoming the main contributor to the $ 100 billion annual green fund which is part of the Paris agreement .
President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 , but the Obama administration had made sure that the US couldn ’ t withdraw that easily .
It took more than three year for that to happen .
On 4 November , one day after the US Presidential elections , the US formally withdrew from the Paris climate agreement .
The delay was due to the hurdles that were intentionally built into the Paris agreement to minimise the possibility that a future US president would decide to withdraw the US from the deal – just as Republican-lead US Senate leaders promised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden has promised would reverse the reversal , announcing that his incoming administration will re-join the Paris agreement , most likely on 20 January 2021 , the same day he takes office .
This widely predicted development has caused an angry response by President Trump .
During the recent G20 meeting of world leaders Trump repeated his key reasons for pulling out of the UN climate agreement .
Yet , Trump has only himself to blame for a situation whereby a simple letter by President Biden to the UN can undo what he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
By failing to submit the Paris agreement to the US Senate for ratification or likely rejection , he has enabled the new US administration to rejoin the climate accord in the same way he withdrew , simply by sending a letter to the UN .
Now , the Wall Street Journal has published a call for Donald Trump to use his remaining time in office to finally send the Paris Accord to the US Senate .
Joe Biden has promised to rejoin the Paris Climate Accord on day one , but President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ binding legal power .
President Obama signed on to the international agreement by executive action in 2015 , which meant Mr. Trump could withdraw from it the same way , as he did in 2017 .
As per the terms of the accord , that withdrawal became effective on Nov. 4 , 2020 .
Mr. Obama ’ s pledge to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions at least 26 % by 2025 wasn ’ t legally binding .
Only Senate consent to its ratification could have made it so—and the upper chamber would have rejected the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
Yet if Mr. Biden brought the U.S. back into the accord , it ’ s possible it will take on the weight of law .
Although there is nothing about the agreement ’ s terms or the manner in which the U.S. entered it that make it legally binding on the U.S. , some green group may find a friendly federal court to produce that result .
Example : Mr. Trump rescinded Mr. Obama ’ s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals immigration program , yet it remains in place .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by executive action , the Supreme Court blocked its rescission in June on grounds that the Trump administration ’ s decision was “ arbitrary and capricious ” under the Administrative Procedures Act .
The court ’ s rationale was procedural ; the justices didn ’ t deny that the president can reverse a predecessor ’ s executive action .
But creative lawyers and judges can find ways of blocking a new president from changing policies , with Congress never having a say .
To prevent the Paris Climate Accord from taking on such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to the Senate , and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should schedule a quick vote .
It would certainly be rejected—ratification requires a two-thirds vote—and it is unlikely any court could subsequently resurrect a legislatively tossed treaty .
Without the help of judges , Mr. Biden would need a winning ratification vote to make the accord binding , which he likely couldn ’ t get no matter how well Democrats do in Georgia ’ s January runoffs and the 2022 midterm elections .
The next few months will show whether the incoming Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Paris climate accord , or whether the outgoing Trump administration will try to prevent this from happening .
The post Will Trump send the Paris Agreement to the US Senate ?
appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) .

This is the key question that will determine the future of US and international climate diplomacy for years.
The next few months will show whether the incoming Biden administration will get its way and rejoin the Paris climate accord as promised, or whether the outgoing Trump administration will try to prevent this from happening.
Ever since he ran for President, Donald Trump made leaving the Paris agreement a key part of his election platform in 2016, arguing that withdrawing from the accord would help to revitalise the US economy with booming energy production, turning the USA into the world’s leading energy superpower.
Trump’s rejection of the Paris agreement was based on his view that it was extremely unfair to the US, allowing rising Asian superpowers, in particular China, to use cheap fossil fuels to make Chinese manufacturing much more competitive and to increase its energy investments around the world, while the US was forced to curtail using its abundant cheap energy resources, while becoming the main contributor to the $100 billion annual green fund which is part of the Paris agreement.
President Trump announced the withdrawal back in June 2017, but the Obama administration had made sure that the US couldn’t withdraw that easily. It took more than three year for that to happen. On 4 November, one day after the US Presidential elections, the US formally withdrew from the Paris climate agreement. The delay was due to the hurdles that were intentionally built into the Paris agreement to minimise the possibility that a future US president would decide to withdraw the US from the deal – just as Republican-lead US Senate leaders promised.
Now, of course, Joe Biden has promised would reverse the reversal, announcing that his incoming administration will re-join the Paris agreement, most likely on 20 January 2021, the same day he takes office.
This widely predicted development has caused an angry response by President Trump. During the recent G20 meeting of world leaders Trump repeated his key reasons for pulling out of the UN climate agreement.
Yet, Trump has only himself to blame for a situation whereby a simple letter by President Biden to the UN can undo what he decided by the stroke of a pen. By failing to submit the Paris agreement to the US Senate for ratification or likely rejection, he has enabled the new US administration to rejoin the climate accord in the same way he withdrew, simply by sending a letter to the UN.
Now, the Wall Street Journal has published a call for Donald Trump to use his remaining time in office to finally send the Paris Accord to the US Senate.
Joe Biden has promised to rejoin the Paris Climate Accord on day one, but President Trump could stop it from having any binding legal power. President Obama signed on to the international agreement by executive action in 2015, which meant Mr. Trump could withdraw from it the same way, as he did in 2017. As per the terms of the accord, that withdrawal became effective on Nov. 4, 2020. Mr. Obama’s pledge to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions at least 26% by 2025 wasn’t legally binding. Only Senate consent to its ratification could have made it so—and the upper chamber would have rejected the treaty handily if Mr. Obama had submitted it. Yet if Mr. Biden brought the U.S. back into the accord, it’s possible it will take on the weight of law. Although there is nothing about the agreement’s terms or the manner in which the U.S. entered it that make it legally binding on the U.S., some green group may find a friendly federal court to produce that result. Example: Mr. Trump rescinded Mr. Obama’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals immigration program, yet it remains in place. Although DACA was both created and reversed by executive action, the Supreme Court blocked its rescission in June on grounds that the Trump administration’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedures Act. The court’s rationale was procedural; the justices didn’t deny that the president can reverse a predecessor’s executive action. But creative lawyers and judges can find ways of blocking a new president from changing policies, with Congress never having a say. To prevent the Paris Climate Accord from taking on such undue power, Mr. Trump should submit it to the Senate, and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should schedule a quick vote. It would certainly be rejected—ratification requires a two-thirds vote—and it is unlikely any court could subsequently resurrect a legislatively tossed treaty. Without the help of judges, Mr. Biden would need a winning ratification vote to make the accord binding, which he likely couldn’t get no matter how well Democrats do in Georgia’s January runoffs and the 2022 midterm elections.
The next few months will show whether the incoming Biden administration will get its way and rejoin the Paris climate accord, or whether the outgoing Trump administration will try to prevent this from happening.
The post Will Trump send the Paris Agreement to the US Senate? appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/2JehjhE
November 30, 2020 at 04:56AM