IPCC and “Expert Reviewers” Ignores National Academy of Science

An April 7, 2020 release was the latestinformation available on Internet concerning the IPCC AR6 status.  It included the following excerpts:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has extended government and expert review of the second order draft of the Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) by six weeks to allow reviewers more time in the light of disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The review, which opened on 2 March 2020 and was originally scheduled to end on 26 April, will now close on 5 June. Interested experts can register until midnight CET on 29 May at https://apps.ipcc.ch/comments/ar6wg1/sod/register.php

The Working Group I contribution to the AR6, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, will assess large-scale climate changes, climate processes and feedback and regional climate information. The Working Group I report includes an interactive online atlas, which is also open for review comments.

The draft report has been prepared by 233 authors from 65 countries.

The first order draft of the Working Group I report received 23,462 comments from 750 expert reviewers. So far, 2,277 experts have registered to review the second order draft.

However the only “experts” with access to AR6 Working Group 1 (WG1) first or second order drafts are those who “register” with IPCC.  Presumably the 750 who reviewed the first order draft and those who finally “registered” to review second order draft continued concurring with IPCC AR5 conclusions:

Human Influence on the climate system is clear.  Increasing anthropogenic emissions have thirty times the impact of increasing radiation from the Sun on global temperatures.

One wonders how many “experts” they chose were from the National Academy of Science (NAS).  Wikipedia NAS description includes the following:

Founded in 1863 as a result of an Act of Congress that was approved by Abraham Lincoln, the NAS is charged with "providing independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology. … to provide scientific advice to the government 'whenever called upon' by any government department."

The NAS published the following paper online on Nov 10, 2014.  (More than a year after the AR5 Climate Change September 2013 Physical Science Basis Working Group Report)AR5 ClimateScience Bas

Shortwave and Longwave Radiative Contributions to Global Warming Under Increasing CO₂

The paper’s Abstract began with:

In response to increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO₂, high-end general circulation models (GCMs) simulate an accumulation of energy at the top of the atmosphere not through a reduction in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)—as one might expect from greenhouse gas forcing—but through an enhancement of net absorbed solar radiation (ASR).

It concluded with :

Altogether, these results suggest that, although greenhouse gas forcing predominantly acts to reduce OLR, the resulting global warming is likely caused by enhanced ASR.

The bottom line is nearly 6 years ago NAS concluded global warming was driven, not by increased blockage by anthropogenic CO2 (fossil fuel emissions), but by increased absorbed radiation from the Sun.

It’s “unlikely” the IPCC AR6 WG1 first or second order drafts reflect the NAS conclusion.  It says a lot about the status of climate debate that, nearly 6 years later, 233 authors, 750 “expert reviewers” of first draft, and more than 2770 “expert reviewers” of second draft were either unaware of the NAS conclusion or chose to ignore it.

My campaign for governor is an attempt to expose their failure.

Bellevue Incompetence Continues

The recent Bellevue Transportation Dept “Access to Bellevue 2020” Keeping Bellevue moving forward,” exemplifies an approach to transportation that prompted my “activism” more than 10 years ago.  Anyone with a modicum of public transit competence would have recognized Sound Transit’s 2008 East Link “Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was sheer fantasy.

Light rail routed through the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) didn’t have the capacity needed to accommodate both I-90 and south Seattle public transit needs.  Sound Transit should have never been allowed to confiscate I-90 Bridge center roadway precluding 2-way BRT with ten times the capacity, 10 years sooner, at a 10th the cost.   There was never any justification to devastate the route into Bellevue, permanently scarring the city skyline with elevated light rail tracks.

The Bellevue city council decision to ignore attempts to explain why they should not approve the permits Sound Transit needed prompted me to file as a candidate in 2012 to attract viewers to this post detailing those problems.   Eight candidacies, 600 posts, and more than 150,000 views have failed to prevent Bellevue from abetting Sound Transit’s East Link; what will surely be regarded as one of the biggest transportations boondoggles in history.

The problem is not Sound Transit’s ability to construct an East Link light rail extension and light rail stations through Bellevue to the Bel-Red area.   The problem is, with the exception of the 1500 parking stalls in South Bellevue Park and Ride, the extensions and stations limit access to residents who live within walking distance of light rail stations.  A fraction of what's needed to justify operating costs and reduce area's congestion and 

In July 2019, the BTD proposed adding access to the East Main station via “transit oriented development to take advantage of the new transportation system”.  It included a plan to use the land use code to force the Red Lion Hotel, Hilton Hotel, the Bellevue Club, Radiant Logistics, Citadel Church, and Savers to relocate to allow residential development including “affordable housing”. 

The East Main “Transit Oriented Development” was apparently replaced 2020 with BelRed Transit Oriented Development near the Operation and Maintenance Facility, and Spring District/120^th and BelRed/130^th light rail stations.  The 2020 BelRed Transformation depicts huge developments around both stations.  Again promising they’ll provide affordable housing in the “mix of retail and public space and market rate housing”. 

However the current status is the BTD is “Requesting Proposals” for 120^th station and “In Planning” for 130^th Station.  One would think the BTD, after having more than 10 years of BelRed planning, current status would be more than “requests for proposals” and ‘In planning” to base access for riders.  Potential residents and businesses “may” not be attracted to noisy 4-car trains trundling past on elevated tracks for 18 hours a day.

Even Sound Transit recognized the need to increase access.  In 2014 they proclaimed 40,000 of their projected 50,000 daily riders would be those forced to transfer from buses to light rail for the cross-lake commute.  Their recent “bus intercept” agreement with Mercer Island to terminate bus routes on island requires Sound Transit and King County Metro halving I-90 corridor routes to provide access to light rail on island.

The bottom line is the BTD 2020 plan for “Keeping Bellevue moving forward” will do nothing for the 68% of Bellevue residents who consider congestion their major concern.  That when the Covid-19 pandemic does pass the downtown Bellevue will again anticipate 18,000 more will be added to the 52,000 who will likely return.  Most of the 50,000 originally planned for Microsoft’s expanded Redmond Campus will likely return to work.    

East Link operation in 2023 will demonstrate only a tiny fraction of both will commute via light rail.  It’s the others the BTD should now be making plans to help with their commute. 

NAS Debunks IPCC Climate Change Concerns

Previous posts have detailed a retired Boeing engineer’s response to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim “Human influence on the climate system is clear”.  The posts originally reflected IPCC apparent refusal to recognize global warming between 1910 and 1950, before any significant fossil emissions, was essentially the same as from 1970 to 2000 during which fossil emissions quadrupled earlier emissions.

Posts were also dubious of IPCC using computer models to claim fossil emissions must have initially 10, but later 30 times the impact of the Sun on global temperatures in order for the results to match measured temperatures.  

The posts opined IPCC ignored Ice core data from 800,000 years of temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels for four prior Interglacial periods. Global temperatures during the Eemian Interglacial Period some 126,000 years ago were 4 deg C higher with CO2 levels 290 parts per million (ppm).  It’s “possible” the increasing temperature during the period warming was the result of some “feed back” from increasing CO2.  However the only rational reason for the subsequent drop in temperatures was a drop in energy from the Sun.  Thus it’s “likely” both warming and cooling and CO2 increasing and decreasing were driven by the Sun. 

The warming from 290 ppm CO2 reflected its ability to block radiation back to space.   A global energy flow chart for 2000 to 2004 showed  ~370 ppm atmospheric CO2  “back radiation” was ~94% of surface radiation.  (Back radiation increased to 96% for 410 ppm)    It’s “unlikely” the IPCC claim an increase in back radiation from additional fossil emissions to the current 96% level is “an existential threat”.

Again those posts attempting to debunk IPCC claims were the result of a retired skeptical Boeing engineer’s observations of readily available data.  Thus I was pleased to find “scientific support” from a National Academy of Science report published on line Nov 10, 2014.

Shortwave and Longwave Radiative Contributions to Global Warming Under Increasing CO₂

It included the following “Significance” and “Abstract”.   (The italics on the conclusions are mine.)

Significance

The greenhouse effect is well-established. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as CO₂, reduce the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space; thus, energy accumulates in the climate system, and the planet warms. However, climate models forced with CO₂ reveal that global energy accumulation is, instead, primarily caused by an increase in absorbed solar radiation (ASR). This study resolves this apparent paradox. The solution is in the climate feedbacks that increase ASR with warming—the moistening of the atmosphere and the reduction of snow and sea ice cover. Observations and model simulations suggest that even though global warming is set into motion by greenhouse gases that reduce OLR, it is ultimately sustained by the climate feedbacks that enhance ASR.

Abstract

In response to increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO₂, high-end general circulation models (GCMs) simulate an accumulation of energy at the top of the atmosphere not through a reduction in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)—as one might expect from greenhouse gas forcing—but through an enhancement of net absorbed solar radiation (ASR). A simple linear radiative feedback framework is used to explain this counterintuitive behavior. It is found that the timescale over which OLR returns to its initial value after a CO₂ perturbation depends sensitively on the magnitude of shortwave (SW) feedbacks. If SW feedbacks are sufficiently positive, OLR recovers within merely several decades, and any subsequent global energy accumulation is because of enhanced ASR only. In the GCM mean, this OLR recovery timescale is only 20 y because of robust SW water vapor and surface albedo feedbacks. However, a large spread in the net SW feedback across models (because of clouds) produces a range of OLR responses; in those few models with a weak SW feedback, OLR takes centuries to recover, and energy accumulation is dominated by reduced OLR. Observational constraints of radiative feedbacks—from satellite radiation and surface temperature data—suggest an OLR recovery timescale of decades or less, consistent with the majority of GCMs. Altogether, these results suggest that, although greenhouse gas forcing predominantly acts to reduce OLR, the resulting global warming is likely caused by enhanced ASR.

The National Academy of Science would surely also conclude “absorbed solar radiation” would be “enhanced” by more solar energy from the Sun.   The only concern about current global temperatures increasing is increasing solar energy from the Sun.  The IPCC claim fossil emissions have 30 times the impact of the Sun is absurd.  

There was never any need to spend hundreds of billions each year on windmills, solar panels, or battery powered cars.  The devastation from past attempts to limit fossil emissions will be dwarfed by that from the  Green New Deal.

All because the IPCC continues to ignore real science.

Abstract

In response to increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO₂, high-end general circulation models (GCMs) simulate an accumulation of energy at the top of the atmosphere not through a reduction in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)—as one might expect from greenhouse gas forcing—but through an enhancement of net absorbed solar radiation (ASR). A simple linear radiative feedback framework is used to explain this counterintuitive behavior. It is found that the timescale over which OLR returns to its initial value after a CO₂ perturbation depends sensitively on the magnitude of shortwave (SW) feedbacks. If SW feedbacks are sufficiently positive, OLR recovers within merely several decades, and any subsequent global energy accumulation is because of enhanced ASR only. In the GCM mean, this OLR recovery timescale is only 20 y because of robust SW water vapor and surface albedo feedbacks. However, a large spread in the net SW feedback across models (because of clouds) produces a range of OLR responses; in those few models with a weak SW feedback, OLR takes centuries to recover, and energy accumulation is dominated by reduced OLR. Observational constraints of radiative feedbacks—from satellite radiation and surface temperature data—suggest an OLR recovery timescale of decades or less, consistent with the majority of GCMs. Altogether, these results suggest that, although greenhouse gas forcing predominantly acts to reduce OLR, the resulting global warming is likely caused by enhanced ASR.

The National Academy of Science would surely also conclude “absorbed solar radiation” would be “enhanced” by more solar energy from the 

Revisiting the Fossil Emission Hoax

The previous post detailed how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is proceeding with plans to release its 6^th Assessment Report (6^th AR) in 2022.   That when it’s released it will undoubtedly reassert the claim, “Human influence on the climate system is clear”.

The basis for “human influence” claim on temperatures is an August 2007, Scientific American article, “The Physical Science behind Climate Change”.  It concluded the anthropogenic CO2 emissions in their computer models had to have 10 times the effect of the Sun to match measured data.  The IPCC AR5 concluded new computer models required those emissions to have 30 times the Sun’s affect to match measured data.

The IPCC decision to minimize Sun’s impact on temperatures ignored 800,000 years of ice core data.    The four prior Interglacial 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.   However while the Sun was responsible for increasing CO2 in atmosphere it was the CO2 in atmosphere that further warmed planet by blocking radiation back to space.    

The warming from 0 deg F without CO2 to 60 deg F shows most of the radiation to space was blocked with 290 ppm CO2   While it’s not clear what percentage was blocked, a global energy flow chart for 2000 to 2004 showed  ~370 ppm atmospheric CO2  “back radiation” (reflected) 333 out of 356 Watt/sq meter or ~94% of surface radiation. 

Recent data showed back radiation increased to 96% of surface emission, presumably the result of atmospheric CO2 increasing to 410 ppm.   The hundreds of billions spent annually on windmills, solar panels, and battery-powered cars during the 20 years have still resulted in blockage increasing by 2%.   However the “most likely” reason for recent global warming is not the 2% increase in blockage but an increase in Sun’s energy resulting in more energy to block.  The IPCC claim fossil emissions have 30 times the affect of the Sun is absurd.

It’s also “unlikely” allowing fossil emissions to increase back radiation above 96% would be “an existential threat”.   Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” is in fact a monumental lie.  Spending trillions on the Green New Deal perpetrating that lie goes beyond absurdity to insanity.

Mercer Island Should Sue Sound Transit’

The May 27^th MI Weekly article informed Mercer Island residents about their council’s objections to Sound Transit’s 60% design plans for the roundabout they intend to use to terminate I-90 buses on island.  The basic problem being:

Last October, we reiterated our concerns to Sound Transit over pedestrian safety, bus layovers, and a proposal to use the north curb frontage of North Mercer Way to drop off bus riders bound for light rail. 

The council was rightly concerned about  Sound Transit and King County Metro buses dropping riders off on the north side of North Mercer Way, forcing a bus load of riders to cross it every 2 minutes to get access to light rail. (Again assuming they both agree to halve current I-90 corridor bus routes they promised as part of the “bus intercept” program.) 

Sound Transit responded to the October letter with one in April repeating their unwillingness to accept the limitations imposed by the Settlement Agreement on their Bus/Rail Interchange.  However the Settlement Agreement Mercer Island agreed to included the following:

WHEREAS, Sound Transit is a regional transit authority created pursuant to chapters 81.104 and 81.112 RCW, with all powers necessary to implement a high-capacity transit system within its boundaries in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties;

Clearly Mercer Island granted Sound Transit “all powers,” so it’s hard to use the Settlement Agreement to object to where they “drop off riders”.  The Settlement Agreement was a major council blunder.  They attempt to counter the agreement with the following: 

Now is the time for all Islanders to engage in this final stage of light rail planning to ensure the best outcome for the Mercer Island community. Sound Transit needs to hear from our community. The City Council strongly encourages all interested residents to view and comment on these 60% design plans.

What’s really absurd is there would be no bus roundabouts on Mercer Island if the council had paid any attention to the hundreds of Mercer Island residents objecting to Sound Transit “bus intercept” plan.  Thus it’s hard to believe islanders response to roundabout plans will have any impact on Sound Transit.

The Mercer Island council could not only force Sound Transit to adhere to their roundabout concerns they could end their entire “bus intercept” plan.  The reason being Sound Transit’s planning for East Link violated RCW 81.104.100.  It details the code requirement for high capacity transit system planning with the following:

 (2) High capacity transportation system planning is the detailed evaluation of a range of high capacity transportation system options, including: Do nothing, low capital, and ranges of higher capital facilities.  High capacity transportation system planning shall proceed as follows:

 (b) Development of options. Options to be studied shall be developed to ensure an appropriate range of technologies and service policies can be evaluated. A do-nothing option and a low capital option that maximizes the current system shall be developed. 

Sound Transit clearly violated the RCW by never considering the low cost option of implementing two-way BRT on I-90 Bridge center roadway.  It could have had 10 times East Link capacity, at 1/10^th the cost, 10 years sooner.  There would have been no East Link If Sound Transit had complied with RCW.  They surely can't use the RCW to claim they have “all power”.

The bottom line is the Mercer Island city council made a monumental blunder with their Settlement Agreement granting Sound Transit “all power”.   Islanders will pay for the council allowing Sound Transit to use the agreement to use island station to terminate I-90 bus routes.  The entire east side will pay because Sound Transit and King County Metro have agreed to halve current routes in order to do so.  

Again Mercer Island should sue not only to block Sound Transit roundabouts they should sue to stop “bus intercept”.  Islanders deserve it and the entire eastside would benefit.