IPCC Monumental Blunders

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is proceeding with its 6^th Assessment Report (6^th AR).   Their Working Group 1, consisting of three groups of ten environmental scientists, is responsible for the Physical Science Basis for the 6^th AR.  The group’s first draft underwent an expert review in 2019. The second draft review by “governments and experts” opened on 2 March 2020 and will close on 5 June.  It’s due to be finalized in April 2021 for AR6. The entire 6^th AR will be released in 2022.

When it is released it will undoubtedly reassert the claim, “Human influence on the climate system is clear”.  All the other concerns about climate change stem from concern about affects of anthropogenic emissions on global temperatures.  The basis for the “human influence” claim on temperatures was detailed in an August 2007, Scientific American article “The Physical Science behind Climate Change”. 

It described how attempts to use computer simulations to replicate measured temperatures led to the conclusion, “models using only natural forcing (i.e. without fossil emission) do not reflect the actual increases in temperature”.  They concluded the anthropogenic CO2 emissions in their computer models had to have 10 times the effect of the Sun to match measured data (The ~1.7 CO2 “forcing” was 10 times ~0.17 for Sun).

The IPCC AR5 concluded the CO2 “forcing” was 1.68 but reduced the Sun median “forcing” to 0.05.  It’s not clear why they reduced the Sun’s “forcing” to where CO2 emission had more than 30 times the affect on global temperatures as the Sun.

Measurements of CO2 show fossil emissions have had very little effect on atmospheric levels.  The IPPC AR5 reported CO2 emission increased from 5.3 Gigatons carbon (GtC) in 1990 to 9.9 GtC in 2011.  The 85% CO2 increase raised atmospheric CO2 from 354 parts per million (ppm) to 390 ppm in 2011, a 10% increase.  The 9.9 GtC in 2011 added 2 ppm to atmospheric CO2 levels compared to the 1.5 ppm added by 5.3 GtC in 1990.  Clearly nearly all of the CO2 emissions were offset by increased dissolution into ocean, belying any IPCC contention they had 30 times the affect of the Sun.   

The IPCC decision to minimize Sun’s impact on temperatures also ignores 800,000 years of ice core data.  They showed global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels for the four prior Interglacial periods and the current warming out of the last ice age.  The four prior periods show CO2 level was the result of increased out gassing from ocean when temperatures were warming and increased dissolution when temperatures were cooling.  Both warming and cooling and CO2 increasing and decreasing were driven by the Sun. 

The clearest example was the Sun warmed global temperatures during the Eemian Interglacial Period some 126,000 years ago to 4 deg C higher than current levels.  Yet CO2 levels never exceeded 290 parts per million (ppm) CO2 in atmosphere. 

The entire developed world has already paid heavily for climatologists’ conclusion “models using only natural forcing do not reflect the actual increases in temperature”.   (It’s the ultimate example of problem with all computer models, “Garbage in, Garbage out”).  The IPCC made two monumental blunders.  The first was their failure to recognize ice core data showed the dominant affect of the Sun on both temperatures and CO2 levels. 

The second was their failure to recognize most of the increase in CO2 from fossil emission has been offset by increased dissolution of CO2 to ocean. Again, an 85% increase in emissions only increased the rate CO2 increased from 1.5 ppm to 2.0 ppm per year.  One could anticipate doubling the emissions would increase annual rate to 2.5-2.6 ppm.

  

However even if the added emissions doubled the annual increase to 4 ppm, the 50 years of increase would raise CO2 by 200 ppm, raising CO2 from 410 to 610 ppm, or from 0.041 to 0.061%, a tiny fraction of the 96.5% currently warming Venus.  The idea that increase constitutes an existential threat to our climate is absurd.  (The other option is to believe the IPCC claim current global warming is due to 96% of radiation is currently reflected back to earth, leaving only 4% more no matter how much additional fossil emissions add.)

It's only a question of when not whether, if not the IPCC, other scientists recognize that reality.  Again the sooner the better.

WSDOT Problems Beyond Bridge Oversite

The May 18^th Seattle Times Traffic Lab article “Report: Time running out to salvage West Seattle Bridge” details how the bridge must be shored up to keep from collapsing under its own weight.  Clearly the bridge cantilever design was flawed from the beginning, whether from lack of depth at the mid-span to support its 590 ft length, lack of adequate post tensioning steel, or segmented construction.  (A retired Boeing propulsion engineer “suggested” solution could be a temporary mid-span support from below with long term plans for support from above with suspension cables from towers added to piers.)

However, the WSDOT oversight of the West Seattle Bridge is far from their first bridge failure. First there was the Tacoma Narrows Suspension Bridge.  It opened to traffic on July 1, 1940 and collapsed into Puget Sound on November 7 the same year. The original I-90 Floating Bridge sank in 1990 as had the Hood Cannel bridge eleven years earlier.  The original ST 520 Bridge was structurally deficient.  Its replacement endured costly delays due to design and construction problems and opened a year and a half late.

East Link was the first attempt to install light rail on a floating bridge.  The WSDOT used flat bed trucks to simulate light rail cars on I-90 Bridge to conclude “the test confirmed previous findings that the bridge can be structurally retrofitted to carry the loads associated with the light rail system under consideration, in addition to general traffic on the roadway”. 

It took an FHWA and legislature funded Joint Transportation Committee to convince WSDOT more testing was needed.  It remains to be seen how long the interface between the fixed and floating parts of the bridge can withstand the loads from four heavily loaded light rail cars.

The WSDOT problems go beyond bridge design and construction oversight to an apparent failure to understand transit basics.  Transit capacity is defined by the number of vehicles per hour times the number of potential riders in each vehicle.   The PSRC concluded in 2004 the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) limited light rail to 60 light rail cars per hour and that each 74-seat car could accommodate 148 riders or 8880 riders per hour. 

Yet the WSDOT agreed to Sound Transit splitting that limited capacity between Central Link south and East Link leaving neither with adequate transit capacity for future growth.  Even more egregious they allowed Sound Transit to confiscate the I-90 Bridge center roadway precluding two-way BRT with 10 times light rail capacity at 1/10^th the cost, 10 years sooner.

The WSDOT response to the Freeman litigation objecting to bridge confiscation convinced a federal judge the I-90 Bridge center roadway wasn’t needed for vehicles and thus could be used for light rail.  They simply ignored a 2004 FHWA study conclusion that, even with the 4th lanes added to outer roadways, the center roadway was needed for vehicles.  Increased I-90 Bridge congestion since center roadway closure validates FHWA concerns.

They’ve abetted Sound Transit plans to use East Link to replace cross-lake buses rather than add transit capacity.  Apparently not realizing bridge congestion was not due to too many buses.  Sound Transit “bus intercept” agreement with Mercer Island requires they and King County Metro halve current I-90 corridor vehicles, halving capacity.  East Link operation in 2023 will demonstrate the WSDOT abetted spending billions on a transportation system that increases congestion along the entire I-90 corridor into Seattle.

The WSDOT approach to I-405 congestion shows a failure to understand basics of lane capacity.  A lane’s maximum vehicle capacity is obtained by limiting traffic to 2000 vehicles per hour (vpr), assuring 45 mph.   HOT lanes improve HOV velocities by raising fees to reduce the number of vehicles from carpoolers to what’s needed to limit traffic to the 2000 vph. 

The WSDOT decision to impose HOT on two I-405 lanes is based on their “unique” assumption HOT fees increase lane capacity.  The slower HOT lanes with the 2^nd HOT lane along Lynnwood-to-Bellevue route have already debunked the assumption.  The problem being, during much of the commute, the 2^nd HOT lane increased GP congestion on remaining lanes, attracting more than 2000 vehicles willing to pay the WSDOT fees on the two lanes.  The result being GP lanes have slowed and HOV lanes have failed to achieve 45 mph for those paying for HOT.  Future growth will add to both problems.

In 2017 the WSDOT announced plans to begin adding 4^th lanes between Renton and Bellevue in 2019, again imposing HOT fees on 4^th lanes as well as on existing HOV lane.  One can only hope the delay is due to their belated recognition that HOT should be limited to one lane with fees raised to limit traffic to 2000 vph and use additional lane for GP traffic.  Again one can hope they’ll do the same to I-405 between Bothell and Bellevue.

The bottom line is the WSDOT history of failing to effectively oversee the design and construction of the area’s bridges has cost the area.  However those problems will eventually be resolved.  Far more damaging is their slavish support for Sound Transit Prop 1 extensions.  WSDOT abetting of Sound Transit refusal to add bus transit capacity shows their failure to understand the basics of public transit. That I-405 congestion will continue to increase on both GP and HOV lanes until WSDOT limits HOT to one lane.

My Take: The Fossil Emission Hoax

(I submitted the following to the Seattle Times to atone for neglecting to include me in their list of gubernatorial candidates.  I'm posting it since they "may"  also ignore it)

My Take: The Fossil Emission Hoax

It’s been more than thirty years since Al Gore warned the world about fossil emissions with his “Inconvenient Truth” claim.  Since then the entire developed world has spent hundreds of billions annually replacing thousands of coal power plants with far more expensive and far less reliable windmills and solar panels.  Oil drilling and fracking have been demonized and pipelines delayed, and battery and high mileage cars imposed to minimize fossil emission.  

However even those efforts will be dwarfed by the Green New Deal.  The claim fossil emissions are an existential threat has resulted in plans to spend trillions for years to dramatically reduce if not end the emissions. 

My take is Al Gore’s claim is in fact a monumental lie.  The rationale is relatively simple. Ice core data clearly show CO2 level was the result of increased out gassing from ocean when temperatures were warming and increased dissolution when temperatures were cooling.  Both warming and cooling were driven by the Sun.  The clearest example was the Sun warming global temperatures during the Eemian Interglacial Period some 126,000 years ago to 4 deg C higher than current levels with 290  parts per million (ppm) CO2 in atmosphere 

The fossil emissions have added to the Sun's impact on CO2 over the last 60 years raising level to the current 410 ppm.  The basis for climatologists concern is the failure of computer models to match measured temperatures unless increasing fossil emissions had 10 times the impact of Sun on global warming.

However, fossil emissions currently add ~5 gigaton carbon (GtC) to the ~90 GtC out gassed from ocean.  Even more important, the fossil emissions are largely offset by increased dissolution since atmospheric CO2 only increased by ~2 ppm.  If emissions averaged 10 GtC over the next 50 years the additional 500 GtC would add 200 ppm more raising the current level from 410 to 610 ppm, or from 0.041 to 0.061%, still a tiny fraction of the 96.5% CO2 that warms Venus.  

Sooner or later the entire "scientific" world will recognize the futility of continuing to spend trillions each year to limit global warming by reducing those emissions.  It's not a case of whether but when.

Bill Hirt (Candidate for Washington Governor).

Bellevue, Wa

Seattle Times Ignores Another Candidacy

The May 16^th Seattle Times filings article exemplifies the paper’s decade-long decision to either ignore or belittle my candidacies.  It continues the paper’s years long decision to refuse urging legislators require auditing Sound Transit.  Choosing instead to abet spending billions on light rail extensions to Central Link that either Northgate operation next year or East Link in 2023 will demonstrate Prop 1 was the biggest transportation boondoggle in history.  The paper still refuses to recognize Sound Transit’s decade-long failure to increase bus transit capacity is the reason for area’s congestion.

This year they ignore my candidacy’s attempt to debunk the claim fossil emissions are an “existential threat”.  My rationale is relatively simple.  Ice core data clearly show CO2 level was the result of increased out gassing from ocean when temperatures were warming and increased dissolution when temperatures were cooling.  Both warming and cooling were driven by the Sun.

The fossil emissions have added to the Sun's impact on CO2 over the last 60 years raising level to the current 410 ppm.  The basis for climatologists concern is the failure of computer models to match measured temperatures unless increasing fossil emissions had 10 times the impact of Sun on global warming.

However, fossil emissions currently add ~5 gigaton carbon (GtC) to the ~90 GtC out gassed from ocean.  Even more important, the fossil emissions are largely offset by increased dissolution since atmospheric CO2 only increased by ~2 ppm.  If emissions averaged 10 GtC over the next 50 years the additional 500 GtC would add 200 ppm raising the current level from 410 to 610 ppm, or from 0.041 to 0.061%, still a tiny fraction of the 96.5% CO2 that warms Venus.  Sooner or later the entire "scientific" world will recognize the futility of continuing to spend trillions each year to limit global warming by reducing those emissions.

One would think the Seattle Times, whose pages are replete with the need to support a "free press," would welcome the chance to tell the world about a candidate's claim debunking global warming.  Instead they refuse to even mention my candidacy despite having finished third in 2016.  Choosing instead to include those who are “far better known” or have received significant financial support.  Including my candidacy as one of  “Republicans haven’t reported raising significant amounts of money” despite having finishing 3^rd without spending a dime campaigning.

It’s not clear what prompted Inslee to waive the $1822 filing fee.  As one of those who paid, I’m now one of 35 candidates instead of one of 11 in 2016.  (They may not be aware of the need for Public Disclosure filings)  As one of 11 the Times chose to interview me, though belittled my candidacy.  This year they’ll likely ignore me as one of 35. (They refused to interview me when I ran for King County Executive, King County Council, and 48th District Senator.)

Thus voters will now have to wait until they receive Voters’ Pamphlet to learn of my candidacy.  However,  I’m optimistic of being on general ballot this fall.  While I believe Inslee is totally incompetent (more on that later), as with my previous 8 candidacies, I have no desire or expectation of winning.  Instead I welcome the chance to use it to "spread the word" and debate Inslee about his $3 million campaign on the futility of his carbon tax to influence global temperature.

If not, as with Sound Transit, I’m confident it’s only a question of when not whether I’ll be vindicated.

Gubernatorial Voters' Pamphlet Candidates Statement

(I posted it since the Seattle Times will likely ignore it)

My previous 8 campaigns have never been to win but to tell voters Sound Transit should've never been allowed to spend billions adding Prop 1 extensions to Central Link.  Now it's only a question of whether it's the Northgate operation in 2021 or East Link in 2023 that vindicate my concern.

This year it's to debunk claim fossil emissions are an existential threat.  That Al Gore's "Inconvenient truth" is in fact a monumental lie.  Ice core temperatures from four prior interglacial periods were higher than current levels with 300 ppm CO2 far lower than current 410 ppm. 

That during those periods the CO2 level was the result of increased out gassing from ocean when temperatures were warming and increased dissolution when temperatures were cooling.  Both warming and cooling were driven by the Sun.

It was the Sun that raised temperatures and CO2 levels after the last ice age, culminating in the Medieval Warming Period, Little Ice Age, and subsequent warming prior to significant fossil emissions.  The increased fossil emissions have added to the Sun's impact on CO2 over the last 60 years raising level to the current 410 ppm.

However it's the Sun not higher CO2 levels from increasing fossil emissions that can significantly increase global temperatures.  The ~5 gigaton carbon (GtC) annual fossil emissions currently increase CO2 by ~2ppm.  If emissions averaged 10 GtC over the next 50 years the additional 500 GtC would add 200 ppm raising the current level from 410 to 610 ppm, or from 0.041 to 0.061%, still a tiny fraction of the 96.5% CO2 that warms Venus.

My campaign and stopeastlinknow blog are to expose the futility of adding trillions more in an attempt to limit global warming by reducing that increase. 

“Scientists” ignore Global Warming Realities.

I’m a retired Boeing engineer so have no claim for climate expertise.  However it doesn’t take much expertise to point out global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels “raise questions” about the claim fossil emissions are an "existential threat"   In particular the claim fossil CO2 emissions have 10 times the impact on global temperatures as increasing warming from the Sun.

A plot of global temperatures from 1850 to 2018 shows the temperatures increased between 1920 and 1950, before significant CO2 emissions, at the same rate as from 1970 to 2018 with far higher levels.  That between 1950 and 1970 temperatures went down despite fossil emissions doubling (the climatologists CO2 fossil driven ice age concern).  Temperature increased from1990 to 2018 at the same rate as from 1970 to 1990 despite the 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions.  “Scientists” apparently haven't recognized global temperatures over the last 100 years have failed to reflect the purported sensitivity to fossil emissions. 

Vostek Ice core data provided global temperature and CO2 levels for five Interglacial periods over the last 450,000 years.  The peak global temperatures for the previous four periods were higher than current levels with CO2 concentrations all less than 300 ppm.  The peak temperature for the Eemian, the period preceding current period, was 4 degrees higher than current temperatures with 290 ppm CO2. How do “Scientists” explain the significantly higher global temperatures with CO2 concentrations far lower than our current 410 ppm?

Also how do “Scientists” explain why CO2 levels on the previous four interglacial periods dropped back to prior levels?  Why don’t they recognize the reason for the return to lower levels is also the reason for the lag between global temperature increases and CO2 increases?  That increasing global temperatures, driven by the Sun, increase CO2 out gassing from ocean, raising CO2 on the way up.  That lower global temperatures, again driven by the Sun, increase CO2 dissolution into the ocean lowering levels on the way down. 

Fossil emissions over the last 80 years have dramatically increased current CO2 levels. However “Scientists” need to recognize fossil emissions have a minuscule impact on global temperatures.  The 5 gigatons of carbon (GtC) currently added have increased CO2 by 2 ppm.  If emissions doubled over the next 50 years the 500 GtC would increase CO2 from 420 ppm to 620 ppm or 0.062%. CO2 warms Venus because it’s 96.5% of the atmosphere.  Where is the evidence an increase from .042% to .062% will have any effect?

None of this is particularly complicated, yet 96% of “Scientists” still believe fossil emissions are a threat.  Countless attempts to get response to these conclusions have simply been ignored.  They’ve included prominent global warming advocates like Michael Mann and James Hanson and environmental science departments at MIT, Colorado and even Western Washington. Scientific America, National Academy of Science, Climate Change Action Committee, Wikipedia.   Even purported deniers like What’s up with that, the Hoover Institute, Heartland Institute, Science and Environmental Policy Project and others have refused to respond or ignored my submissions. 

The bottom line is unless I can convince one or more of those organizations to become part of the solution rather than part of the problem I'm left to use the Candidate's Statement in the Voters' Pamphlet.

Part of my gubernatorial campaign against one of the most prominent global warming advocates to expose the “Scientists” failure to recognize Al Gore’s “Inconvenient truth” is a monumental lie.

Ice Core Data Debunk CO2 Level Concerns

The NOAA Climate.gov website provides “science & information for a climate-smart nation”.  A February 20, 2020 post “Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” included the concern :

The global average atmospheric carbon dioxide in 2018 was 407.4 parts per million (ppm for short), with a range of uncertainty of plus or minus 0.1 ppm. Carbon dioxide levels today are higher than at any point in at least the past 800,000 years.

They post summarized the concern with the following highlights:

·  Human activities have increased the natural concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, amplifying Earth's natural greenhouse effect.

·  The global average amount of carbon dioxide hit a new record high in 2018: 407.4 parts per million.

·  The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago.  

The post included a chart showing “ ice CO2 during ice ages and warm periods for the past 800,000 years” supporting their concerns.  What they didn’t show was corresponding global temperatures.  That the prior interglacial periods in the 450,000 years included in the Vostek ice cores had peak temperatures similar to current levels despite the lower CO2 levels. The Eemian period some 130,000 years ago were 4 deg C higher than current levels with 290 ppm CO2 levels.

Clearly CO2 levels were not determinative of global temperatures during the four previous interglacial periods. While temperatures during the four periods quickly started downward.  However the current Holocene warming has lasted several thousand years.  The increased fossil emissions have done little to change concentration. 

The current 5 gigatons carbon (GtC) emissions annually raise CO2 by 2ppm.  If doubled to 10 GtC over the next 50 years, CO2 levels would increase from 420 to 620 ppm.  CO2 warms Venus because its 65.5% of the atmosphere.  There’s little evidence increasing CO2 from 0.042 to 0.062 will have any effect.  That Al Gore’s “inconvenient truth” was a lie.