135AGW Blog – My State of Facts on Global Waming / Climate Change

 

Revised May 10, 2024.

This is a review of where I am, along a journey of say 15 years. Perhaps my wrap-up.

It started out as something simple: A summary of what I have come to understand and know about global warming (GW) and climate change (CC). What are the facts?

But it got mixed into other stuff. Bigger picture stuff. And it picked up a bit of nostalgia for folks of my generation. So, I have split this piece into two blogs. This one continues with the simple facts. The next one, 135BGW, a companion blog, sets GW/CC into the bigger picture we live in, the emotional and survival parts.

When I looked at CC parameters on average, there was no apparent change in the average climate, beyond the temperature itself. By average climate, I mean the day-to-day plus / minus the averages. Much better than I had expected. However, it’s the extreme events that nail us. The climate extremes seem to be getting more frequent and even more extreme. That part is worse than I expected.

My main purpose here is to answer those three old questions, the ones that got me started many years ago:

·        Is global warming happening?

·        Is our climate changing?

·        Are we the cause, burning fossil fuels?

This blog up-plays global warming, the temperature itself. It also up-plays extremes in climate change parameters (exacerbated heat waves, extreme rainfall, nastier forest fires). But it down-plays the effects of increased temperature on climate parameters from the perspective of yearly and decadal averages. For reasons you will come across further along, I am now thinking most of yearly-average climate change beyond the temperatures (specifically sea level rise, total annual precipitation, number of storms, number of forest fires, acres burned and drought) is a bit hyped and over-blown.

Vic is saying “Whoa – ‘hyped and over-blown.’ If you believe that give examples of cases where you view the info / data is weak or inconclusive.

I am using my engineer’s mind. Looking for hard data. That show consistent trends. Say a record that gets broken repeatedly, year after year. Something undeniable. I am looking for evidence that might stand up in court. I see something as unchanged (innocent) until I can clearly see it has changed (guiltily). I recognize things are moving. I see a ‘this’ there and a ‘that’ here. I have been looking for signs over the last decade. Waiting for strong, convincing evidence, that I am not seeing clearly, yet.

We need to be mindful that the data we are looking at is at least 5 years back, at best. Even though published in this current year. Mostly up to date, as of five years ago.

People are trying to identify a portioned contribution by GW to some extreme weather events. We can almost always find some historical weather event that was worse. And the portioning is based on models. All dodgy business to me. I am not going to take ¼ of a bad spartan, ½ of that bad pink lady and ¼ of a bad orange, to conclude that the whole apple orchard is rotting. I do not work that way.

My Qualifications to Say This Stuff

Appendix 1 is a description of how I fit into GW/CC. My education as a chemical engineer, my career working every day with an engineer’s mind, my natural curiosity, my reliance on data, my need for consistency, for proof, my four (2018 to 2021) UBC courses in CC, writing over 100 blogs on GW/CC subjects.

I am big on doing the work. I do the work so I can own what I say and have it backed as much as possible by data and knowledge. Appendix 1describes what me doing the work involves. With some suggestions about how you could do your own work.

This kind of work is not for everyone. Some are not scientifically inclined. Some are equipped, but intellectually lazy. If the work is not for you, then you must trust somebody to tell you.

Who is that going to be?

If you are a seeker, with a curious and open mind, you might listen to someone you know and have some basis for trusting. Perhaps me.

But there is a rub for folks that see me as having a world view that is different than theirs. Harder for those folks to trust me, especially if what I am saying does not line up completely with their notions. It’s easier for them to trust people on the internet who are saying what they want to hear, people they don’t even know and never will meet.

We can work to own, we can rent, or we can live for free in an ideological illusion. I work to own, so I can come to know some things. Getting beyond a reliance on opinions and ‘beliefs’, to knowing takes work.

I am do not identify with any political party. I am not in anybody’s pocket. It just little fat me here, alone, quiet, nobody whispering in my ear. I am not reading opinion pieces; I am looking for facts. Not rushed, don’t have a press deadline to meet. Can take my time to get it right.

I have nothing to prove to anybody. Do not have to be seen as right. Just want to be truthful and real with myself. You can be whatever you want, no matter to me. The only thing I ask is please minimize sending me tribal nonsense, no talking head videos. What I really want from others is their own thoughts, ideally their own work.

There is a lot of science in CC. As an engineer, I am equipped to understand the basics. And as a chemical engineer, I am particularly well suited. Not just to the chemistry. I have no fear to rush in to do the calculations. Numbers talk. They give perspective. They put reality to diffuse words. They calibrate opinions.

If you do want to do some work, my advice is to start where your skill set fits. And go deep and deeper. Before you go wider. You will be more effective if you can leave your pre-conceived notions and ideological biases at the door. Go for the science and the data.

Preamble

Sitting in my office. A picnic table on the edge of a cliff over a rocky headland which separates two sandy beaches. Been here a week. Alone, living out of a small campervan. Yoda in the swamp.

The common thread through this whole week is the waves; they never stop. They continue to pound on the shoreline while we sleep, while we go on holidays, while we get drunk. They are relentless. They don’t care about our money, our possession, our political heroes. They are Mother Nature in action. Veiled, complex, poorly understood, subject to emotional outbursts.

Given our lifestyle, the amount of extra CO₂ we are adding to the global system is increasing and it is also relentless and uncaring. About half of what we add gets absorbed by the ocean (not irreversibly, it will come back some century). The other half is added to the existing greenhouse, where it causes incremental warming. About half of that incremental heat gets taken into the ocean. So, in the end only one of every four bullets goes into our feet.

There is a lag time between a CO₂ concentration increment and the temperature increase associated with it. About a decade for the temperature increment to fully develop. The global average temperature is rising and there is always a bit more hiding in the hole.

We can pretend it’s not happening. But it is happening. And will continue to happen. A reality created by us.

Various technical remedial options were discussed in previous blogs, but I did not promote anything. I have not outlined a program, a course of action. In fact, not adamant about taking serious action.

My objective has been to sus out information, sort through and summarize it. For myself. Which I pass on to others for their interest. The main things on my agenda are self-education and truth seeking.

There are several Appendices, so we do not get distracted from the flow. More details there, for those interested.

The Reality of Global Warming

The Measured Temperature Data

Here are five data sets for the average global temperature. There are more. All based on measurements taken all over the global land and oceans.

 

Most of us have believed the temperature data all along. It’s going up with time.

Some people I know started out denying the validity of the temperature data, but even these folks are starting to back-peddle  => “yaa, maybe it is going up a bit, but I still think they are cooking the data / mispresenting it, so they can continue to get their funding.”

The Berkeley data set has an interesting story. They started out thinking the other data sets were wrong, so they prepared their own, using their own methods. In the end, their results are very much on top of the results from the other organizations. I wonder if these folks are still skeptical. So typical, to think that others are doing it wrong, we know better. But few of us do the work.

Just in case you are thinking natural climate cycles, here is another look at the rising temperature anomaly. This one includes the three phases of ENSO, the main climate cycle: El Nino, neutral and La Nina. The GW trend predominates, ENSO just modulates.

 

Melting Ice

Ice has been melting since the end of the last ice age. Nonetheless, higher temperatures are increasing the melting rate of polar ice caps and mountain glaciers. Measured data confirm this.

Historical data for ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica show an increase in the melting rate, beginning about 2010. These rate increases are consistent with global warming.

Greenland

Antarctica

 

Atmospheric Temperature Profiles

 

Here we see temperatures rising in the troposphere, the atmospheric layer closet to the earth. While temperatures in the stratosphere, the layer above the troposphere, have decreased over the years. This is the way the earth’s energy balance with the sun works. Allowing for the two big volcanoes, the measured data for the lower stratosphere are consistent with global warming in the lower atmosphere. When the troposphere warms, the stratosphere cools.

What about Those Cold Snaps?

Yes, there are times when it gets colder than normal. There is a valid reason, albeit a bit complicated. The polar jet streams are villains that bring temperature extremes. The wobble of the polar jet stream is discussed in some detail in Appendix 2.

There may still be some folks who seize on those increased low temperature extremes as evidence that the world is not warming. Look at the global average temperature data; it continues to increase, irrespective of deeper low temperature extremes. The higher warm air temperature extremes are dominating the show.

Heat Waves

This is a big hitter, the most significant thing. More heat waves and more extreme heat waves, that will kill more and more people, progressively with time.  The data below show a clear trend: more heat waves each year, heat waves lasting longer, with more intensity, and popping up earlier / later in the summer season.

“This figure shows changes in the number of heat waves per year (frequency); the average length of heat waves in days (duration); the number of days between the first and last heat wave of the year (season length); and how hot the heat waves were, compared with the local temperature threshold for defining a heat wave (intensity). These data were analyzed from 1961 to 2021 for 50 large metropolitan areas. The graphs show averages across all 50 metropolitan areas by decade.”

Heat waves occur spatially, more likely close to the ocean or a large lake where there is a source of humidity.

The culprit in the heat waves is the wet bulb temperature of the air. A wet bulb temperature of 35^oC is the red line for human survival (one degree below our normal body temperature) Beyond that, we cannot cool ourselves adequately. The wet bulb temperature is discussed more in Appendix 3.

Here we have an illustration of the world’s maxima in the wet bulb temperature.  Say 31^oC in southeastern USA and 33⁰C in southeastern Asia.

The wet bulb temperature is going to increase in step with the dry bulb temperature. In recent years, a 1^oC increase in the dry bulb temperature resulted in a 0.8^oC increase in the wet bulb temperature.

Folks in several parts of the world could be in big trouble when the global average temperature increases by two or three degrees.

Easy for people living in temperate climates to think it’s an over-blow to fuss over a few degrees of additional warming. They would get re-calibrated if they lived in southeastern USA or southern Asia.

Heat waves are becoming more frequent, with higher wet bulb temperatures, and are lasting longer.

Three years ago, we had a so-called Heat Dome in Vancouver, for close to a week. A few days in, I encountered my neighbour Lesley in the street. She was crying. “I can’t take the heat anymore Blackie!” I installed her in the motorhome in my back yard, with the air conditioner full tilt, and left her to have an afternoon nap.

General Discomfort from Temperature

Australia. A beautiful place, with varied landscape, good friendly people, but I would not want to live in Queensland. Way too hot for me, even in autumn. An air conditioned kinda place. Heidi says winter is her favorite season, with comfortable temperatures and no bugs. Its just now, mid-April (think mid-October), that I have been able to sit outside on the deck, comfortable in T-shirt and shorts, with no bugs.

It gives me a window into what things would be like in many parts of the world with 2 or 3 more Celsius degrees, on average, from global warming. Those now on the borderline of discomfort would become uncomfortable. If you work inside, with air conditioning, you will be thinking what’s the fuss. How about people that work outside: road pavers, roofers, construction workers, garbage collectors, farmers, totally exposed to the temperature? Not what I would want. A bad destination. More sweat, more bugs (and during more of the year).

I hear, sometimes from geologists, “It has been hotter than that in the past. And CO₂ concentrations have been higher in the past.  Nothing unusual happening now. Nothing to see.” Appendix 3 has a summary of three periods in the past where global average temperatures were 32^oC, 27^oC and 26^oC, compared to our 15^oC. These things are examples of how hot it could get. In a theoretical, intellectual sense, they illustrate that the world will survive what we are doing. But what really matters, practically, emotionally, is ‘will we survive ourselves’? This past stuff is not something we should be trying at home. I find talk about these past extremes a bit deflective from / dismissive of our present reality. Because history cannot excuse what we are doing now and where we are headed. I do not live in the past, and I would not have liked it. Not something I want in the future.

As global temperatures increase, there will be a migration of people from the sub-tropics to the mid-latitudes and even the polar regions. Temperature increases at the equator are relatively small, so the equator is an OK place to live for now.

How do We Feel?

Do you have a sense that it is getting warmer? I sure do.

The Reality of Climate Change

Temperature is the main component of climate. It’s front and centre in the weather reports. Temperatures are increasing.

Sea Level Rise

Melting polar ice caps increase the level of water in the ocean. This is being doubled up by the increase in volume of water in the ocean, as the water density decreases as it warms due to global warming. Measured data show an increase in the rate of sea level rise beginning about the year 2000.

Nonetheless, the ocean is rising by only a few milli-metres each year.

This is important to the small populations of low-lying Pacific Islands. But for most of the world’s population,

there will not be any noticeable impact in our children’s lifetime. This is a distant problem.  The media keeps talking about this like it is an imminent, big threat. It’s being sensationalized. Way over-blown. Nonetheless, if current melting rates continue as is (do not accelerate), over the next 100 years the ocean will rise by about half a metre.

More Water Evaporation?

Temperature is the driver for evaporating water. We ‘might’ expect:

·        Increased global humidity, more water vapour in the air.
·        More precipitation, from more evaporated water.
·        More storms (hurricanes, cyclones).
·        More tornadoes.
·        Drier landscape. More forest fires, more drought.

More Water Vapour in the Air 

Measured data show a global-average increase in the amount of water vapour in the air, on an ‘absolute basis’, grams of water vapour per 100 grams of dry air. This does not necessarily mean there is more evaporation and more precipitation; just that the air floats around with more water vapour in it.

The measured data show that the ‘relative humidity’ (a construct) is deceasing. See Appendix 4 for more on the apparent inconsistency between measured values for the absolute humidity and the ‘relative humidity’. It does make sense. It fits with the GW paradigm.

Total Annual Precipitation (rainfall)

The EPA published a bar graph for global precipitation between 1901 and 2021. They say it ‘shows’ an increase of 0.04 inches per year. That, on a total of 39 inches per year. A 12% increase in 120 years. When I look at the bar chart, I see a constant, don’t see how they can they say there is a change, with any confidence.

From Copernicus, regional data: 

 

I don’t see how anyone can say that that global average rainfall is changing.

The EPA also did a bar chart for the contiguous 48 states, 1901 to 2021. They say it ‘shows’ an increase of 0.20 inches per year. The annual total is 29.5 inches. An 80% increase in 120 years.

I don’t see an increasing trend in the Copernicus data for North America.

Blackie Manana looked at the apparent confusion between the ‘absolute humidity’ data and the ‘relative humidity’ data using simple physical chemistry laws for water vapour in air. Using chemical engineering principles. I concluded that the total annual average global precipitation was locked in by these simple atmospheric relationships. And the annual average for global precipitation should not change whether (pun) the temperature increased or decreased. Conceptually, the precipitation amount is locked in.

The blog I wrote about this is in the hands of the Bureau of Meteorology in the UK and a professor in the USA who authored an article wondering why the drought in southwestern USA is continuing. So far, a complete vacuum. They likely see me as a climate change heretic, science lowlife.

With global average precipitation fixed and temperatures rising, less of the precipitation is going to accumulate as winter snow in the mountains. Some countries, like Canada, generate a significant amount of their electricity by hydro. Accumulated snowfall provides a storage of slow-release water to fill reservoirs drawn down during the winter. Increasing temperatures will gradually compromise power generation.

Distribution of Precipitation Through the Year

One of the expectations of global warming is that rainfall events will become more intense. This is being observed. Although the data are still emerging. There is some evidence of a shift to more intense precipitation events, with more of the annual rainfall coming in these events, and less rainfall in moderate and gentle events.

Here are three examples, two for the USA, another for China.

“This figure shows the percentage of the land area of the contiguous 48 states where a much greater than normal portion of total annual precipitation has come from extreme single-day precipitation events.”

USA Climate Central, 2023. 136 of 150 US locations had increasing hourly rainfall intensity since 1970. Largest increases in central and southern regions. Forty-four percent increase in Fairbanks Alaska, 41% increase in El Passo, Texas. Rainfall hours became 13% wetter on average across all 150 stations from 1970 to 2023.

“In China, light and moderate precipitation events tend to have decreased in frequency, while heavy and very heavy events have increased in both frequency and intensity “(Lui, 2024)

Violent Storms (Hurricanes and Tornadoes)

Storms return water which was evaporated from the oceans and land. Precipitation.

Based on my work discussed above, I do not expect the number of storms (hurricanes, cyclones) to change, on average. This is supported by the latest data for Atlantic hurricanes. However, there seems to be an increasing frequency of tornadoes in the USA.

NOAA April 2024. “There is no strong evidence of century-scale increasing trends in USA landfalling hurricanes or major hurricanes.”

 

 

 Forest Fires

The drying of a forest is a process of simultaneous heat and mass transfer. Heat evaporates water, and then that water moves into the ambient air according to the capacity of the air to accept more water vapour. That capacity is set by the’ relative humidity’ of the ambient air.

I was waiting for this. Evidence that the propensity for forest fires is correlated with the ‘relative humidity’.

Above, we saw that the ‘relative humidity’ of the air is decreasing as temperatures rise, especially over land. Ripe for more forest fires.

Once fires get going, higher atmospheric temperatures make them burn faster, harder to control.

Nonetheless, recent data DO NOT show a noticeable increase in area burned or the number of fires, globally. This anomaly is caused by increasingly better forest management practices and more effective forest fire control.

I have a sense that forest fires are getting more intense, doing more damage, taking whole towns.

In Canada, there is no mandate to put forest fires out; only, to control them and protect people and property as much as possible.

Forest fires generate smoke and when smoke drifts into urban areas like Vancouver, and the choking and spitting black starts, expressed concern about forest fires increases.

Back about the year 1750, the net amount of CO₂ taken up by land vegetation was roughly equal to the amount of CO₂ generated by forest fires.  Forest fire CO₂ generation has remained more-or-less steady over the years, while the net CO₂ uptake by land vegetation has decreases by about 25% due to deforestation. See my global CO₂ model in Appendix 5.

Forest fires are a concern, and as temperatures increase, they will become more dangerous.

Drought

This is a ‘relative humidity’ thing. Higher temperatures, lower ‘relative humidity’, more drought. But drought is corrected by rainfall, which I see as essentially fixed. I expect drought prone areas will continue more-or-less as is.

 

I do not see significant evidence of droughts getting deeper or expanding to new areas.

Growing Food

There are some reported data on growing food. The cropping season in temperate zones is extending somewhat, helping farmers get their crops off in better quantity and quality.

The Reality of It’s Us

At the end of that Appendix 6, there are some logic questions for you to try. Based on simple science and measured data. You do not need to be a techo; just look at the measured data in the graph and do some simple thinking.

Why are we even talking about this, in this day of age?

Because I know people who are still saying stuff like this:

·        “Its the sun.” (Even though the sun is wanning towards the next ice age.)

·        “The CO₂ absorption spectrum is fully saturated. Increases in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations will not result in a temperature increase.” (Are they atmospheric physicists?).

·        “Its all natural climate cycles.” (Despite the temperature continuing up and up as we progress through all the natural cycles again and again.)

·        “Its Natural CO₂, not Fossil Fuels”.

They “believe” its natural things: volcanoes, forest fires, or some secret, unknown natural cause. The word “believe” is used because they do not “know” for themselves. It is something somebody else said, that they are borrowing. To “know,” you must sit all alone and do your own work.

There are lots of data and scientific facts to their contrary. In particular, the CO₂ from fossil fuel has a chemical isotopic marker, which is easily and accurately measured in the CO₂ obtained from Antarctic ice cores. That marker has been steadily increasing since 1750, and to a degree that can be explained only by fossil fuel burning. Also, mass balances on CO₂ in the atmosphere only make sense when fossil fuel burning is included. This is all fully consistent with / supported by the results of my global CO₂ model, including the isotopic markers. I built this model myself, did not copy anybody else’s model. The model is in Excel, fully transparent, nothing hidden. Any engineer or science type should be able to follow it. My model is discussed in Appendix 6.

Some numbers from my CO₂ model for the period 2015 to 2020, in Gtonnes CO₂ per year: 35 for fossil fuels, 6 for forest fires, 2 from calcining calcium carbonate to get lime for cement making, 0.25 from volcanoes and 1.0 from ocean off-gassing due to lower solubility of CO₂ in water at higher water temperatures.

GW/CC Summary

On a daily average basis, climate change is overblown. But the expanding extremes in the climate are going to hammer us.

More extreme forest fires, more extreme rainfall events, bigger storms. Stronger temperature extremes, both hot and cold.

The wet-bulb temperature is the most immediate threat, closest in. Something few people know, and even less talk about. Higher wet bulb temperatures will progressively increase the frequency and severity of heat waves that will kill more and more people and leave the rest of us more uncomfortably warm. Adding a couple more degrees to the global average temperature will make things more uncomfortable for many.

The rest of the stuff that gets talked about is minor, in my mind. There is way too much media sensation, with few real details and perspective. CC has taken on a on a life of its own. This over-blow is distracting attention from the temperature itself and the ravages of the extremes.

Six Leaving Thoughts

First.

There are bigger problems than global warming and climate change. Which are fundamental and more immediate. One, our lifestyle is NOT SUSTAINABLE. Two, there is a growing lack of goodwill and human decency. This is the main theme of the companion blog 135B.

Second.

It’s getting warmer overall, with more temperature extremes, both hotter and colder. These extremes are going to be more nuisance than we are used to, and we will have to make adaptations in our lifestyle. There will be more bugs.

Third.

By far the most important climate parameter by is the wet-bulb temperature. There will be more heat waves, with higher wet bulb temperatures that progressively kill more people. Those that survive will be more uncomfortable in day-to-day life than they are used to. Folks in significant parts of the world could be in big trouble when the global average temperature increases by two or three degrees. Its easy for people living in temperate climates to think it’s an over-blow to fuss over a few degrees of additional warming. They would get re-calibrated if they lived in southeastern USA or southern Asia.

Fourth.

While the temperature of the air is increasing, the ‘relative humidity’ of the air is decreasing. Lower ‘relative humidity’ increases the propensity for forest fires. The number of fires and the area burned will be controlled to normal numbers by better forest practices and increased fire fighting. But with higher temperatures, and lower ‘relative humidity’ the fires will be hotter, harder to control and more unpredictable. They will be scarier. More of a threat to human life and property.

Fifth.

Looking at CC parameters on average, there is no apparent change in the climate. Much better than I had expected. However, while we live day-to-day plus / minus the averages, it’s the extreme events that nail us. The extremes seem to be getting more frequent and even more extreme. That part is worse than I expected. Exacerbated heat waves, deeper cold snaps, more extreme rainfall events, nastier forest fires. Some of the CC suite is being hyped and over-blown: sea level rise, total annual precipitation, number of storms, number of forest fires, acres burned and drought.

Sixth.

Global warming is happening. The climate is changing, in the worst way => by extremes. Yep, it’s us, no doubt. This is all real.

Appendix 1 – How I Operate

Mary Apps asked me to do this; she wanted to see how I operate.

I am a chemical engineer.

I like and understand inorganic chemistry, comfortable engaging it. I do not understand organic chemistry or biological chemistry. “There are many things that I do not know.” But what I do know, I know well.

I have an engineer’s mind. Logical. Readily understanding the basic concepts of science, comfortable with doing simple revealing calculations. I am always looking to expand my scientific understanding, pick up another concept. I watch weather events in the world around me. I dig up relevant historical data. I analyze information and synthesize. Most importantly, I summarize what I have found in blogs. As I write, I am mindful of the people who might read it. That motivates me to write clearly and to question myself. It’s all wrestling with angels and angles.

The world’s atmosphere, oceans and land are full of science, chemistry. Some of the secrets are revealed by chemical analyses, one of the reliable sources of measured data. CC science uses chemical isotopes of carbon and oxygen as markers. Chemists understand all this best, but chemical engineers are not far behind, equipped to do mass balances on them.

Most of my career was with one engineering consulting firm. Seems I was born for that. It gave me a wide variety of interesting projects. Ranging from conceptual feasibility studies to detailed design of chemical processes. Particularly kraft pulp mills. Bread and butter work, applying what I was reasonably well educated for at the University of Waterloo. Chemistry, basic physics, mathematical calculations, basic computer skills. I was comfortable living in the details. Detail comfort gave me the foundation to think conceptually. And realistically. I came from the bottom up, not the top down. It makes a difference.

When looking at a chemical process, I tend to close my eyes and form a conceptual framework for it. The big picture and how it all works. Then I open my eyes to check for confirming details.

I gave this example. Here is a cabinet where I keep my mother’s dishes. It is the framework for a concept of me using those dishes. I open one of the doors. There are the dinner plates, all eight of them, neatly stacked in their corner. OK, as expected by the framework. Verified. I open one of the top drawers. What is that little blue dish? Seems out of place with all the other white stuff. I think about that blue thing for a while to understand why it is blue, where it came from. I look at it from the top, the sides, and the bottom. Until I can see that it really does belong in that framework. And adds colour to it.

I have a framework for the world’s physical and chemical systems. That framework is based on scientific principles, which give me expectations of how the systems should behave. I then go looking for measured data that I can use to test / check / verify my expectations.

When I go looking for data / information, I try to find three or more independent sources. I look at the provider. Google their name. What is their reason for being? How many scientists do they have on staff? Who funds them? Do they have a hidden agenda? What are others saying about them? What is their history? What else do they do? I do this to establish some confidence in the reliability of the information being provided.

When measured data / information is not consistent with my framework, I dig to find out why. Is the information wrong / bad? How so? Am I looking at the information incorrectly? Or is my framework faulty and in need of revision?

In my engineering work, I built an Excel-based mathematical model for all the processes in a kraft pulp mill. More than you might imagine. The model was a bunch of mass balances and heat balances, basic 2^nd year chemical engineering. There was one big assumption, the yield of pulp from wood in the digester. I took some measured data from the pulp mill and used it as inputs to the model. Then picked a yield and calculated various flows and chemical concentrations as outputs. I then checked the calculated results against about ten sets of measured data from the pulp mill, parameters that were independent of the inputs I used. I looked at the agreement / disagreement between the mill-measured and model-calculated results. And then changed the pulping yield assumption to see if I could get a better fit. I did this for abut twenty different pulp mills over the years. Usually, I could get the model-calculated results within 5% of the mill-measured data.

I am telling you about this model for four reasons:

·        It demonstrates a mindset and how it plays out.

·        It introduces the notion of doing my own calculations for a lot of things in the GW/CC space. Often, these calculations are simple mass balances. An example would be taking a quantity of fossil fuel and calculating the amount of CO₂ formed on combustion. Then adding that amount of CO₂ to the global atmosphere and determining the expected increase in the CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere. For chemical engineers, these are easy calculations.

·        It shows that I do have some experience for mathematical modelling. I do not even begin to understand climate models and do not spend much time looking at their projections. But my own process modelling has given me some appreciation for what these folks are up against and how they might proceed. I know enough to allow me to smile quietly while I listen to some people making disparaging remarks about climate models. Almost always, these people have zero experience with modelling, yet are quick with hard opinions.

·        It shows how modelling can be used to get an estimate of something you cannot measure / know reliably. The suck it and see, trial and error process. If you know what you are doing, you can get something done.

A few years ago, I took four courses at UBC. All for marks like the other students, doing all the assignments, quizzes, and exams. I took them one at a time. That allowed me to do all the assigned reading, plus follow leads and curiosities. About 30 hours a week.

·        Meteorology of Storms. 2^nd year Meteorology. 2018. The earth’s atmosphere. Winds. Precipitation mechanisms. Energy in hurricanes and tornadoes. An excellent basic course.

·        Climate Change: Science and Society 3^rd year Geography. 2019. Basic scientific concepts including the greenhouse, GH gases, net zero, skeptics and deniers.

·        Global Climate Change. 3^rd year Geology. 2020. Greenhouse calculations. GH gases. Spectral absorption bands in the earth’s atmosphere, including calculations. Carbon 13 isotope as marker for CO₂ from fossil fuels. Geological time events. Biological markers as surrogates for historic climate. Oxygen isotopes as marker for precipitation. Excellent course, brought home by the calculations. The Holy grail of CC courses but spare me the unneeded emphasis on calculus.

·        Health Impacts of Climate Change. 2^nd year Nursing. 2021. Various case studies of environmental situations. While it was strong socially, this clourse was dilute on climate concepts and mechanisms. It turned me off continuing at UBC.

About 85% in all of them. Marks easier to come by these days, so I was quite good, but not exceptional. But I was consistently valued as a shit disturber.

Chemical engineers are particularly well equipped to wade through most of the climate change theory and information. People from other disciplines are equipped for some of it. Non-science people tend to be much better at the social / political / organizational aspects of CC. My take is to do what I am good at and seek help from others where they should be better qualified.

Discipline	Basic Science	GH Gas Spectral Absorbance	GH Gas Infrared Calcs	Mass Balance	Chem Isotope	Geol Time	General Calcs	Data Trends	Logic	Social
Chem Eng	Yes	Yes	Yes	Strong	Strong	So-so	Yes	Yes	Yes	So-so
Other Eng	Yes	Weak	Yes	Weak	No	So-so	Yes	Yes	Yes	So-so
Chemist	Yes	Strong	Weak	Weak	Strong	So-so	So-so	Yes	Yes	So-so
Physicist	Yes	Strong	Yes	Weak	Yes	So-so	So-so	Yes	Yes	So-so
Geologist	Yes	Poor	Poor	Weak	So-so	Strong	So-so	Yes	Yes	So-so
Geographer	So-so	Poor	Poor	Poor	Weak	So-so	Weak	Yes	So-so	Strong
Non science	Weak	No	No	No	No	Weak	Poor	So-so	So-so	Strong

 

Appendix 2 - Atmospheric Jet Streams

There are two sets of jet streams in each hemisphere: a subtropical jet stream and a polar jet stream. All flowing from west to east, in both hemispheres, at the top of the troposphere, the layer of air closest to the earth. The jet streams are part of global air circulation patterns which are set up by the sun and the geometry of the earth.

The polar jet streams are located at 50 to 60 degrees latitude. These winds are created by the difference in pressure at 50 to 60 degrees latitude and 30 degrees latitude, The Horse Latitudes.  As a result of the global air circulation patterns, the air at 30 degrees latitude is denser than at 50 to 60 degrees latitude. Air flows, near the surface of the earth, from the higher-pressure area at 30 degrees latitude to the lower-pressure area at 50 to 60 degrees latitude. As these winds flow across the latitudes, they get deflected from their motion across due to the Coriolis effect, caused by the rotation of the earth. The winds are deflected to the left in the southern hemisphere and to the right in the northern hemisphere. In both hemispheres, this results in an easterly wind direction. Called the Westerlies. Winds are named for the direction they came from (because we are not always sure where they are going). Once arriving at the high-pressure area, the eastward flowing surface winds get deflected upwards to the top of the troposphere, where they meet the much cooler air of the stratosphere and turn to flow more-or-less horizontally at the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere.

The world is warming faster at the poles than in the equator. Reducing the temperature difference between these places on the globe. In turn, it is warming faster at 50 to 60 degrees latitude than at 30 degrees latitude. Reducing the temperature difference between 30 degrees latitude and 50 to 60 degrees latitude. This in turn erodes the pressure difference between 30 degrees latitude and 50 to 60 degrees latitude. The reduction in the pressure driving force reduces the speed of these winds. That is the first concept.

Reality check on the first concept. Results of atmospheric measurements between 1979 and 2001 were reported as follows: “In general, the jet streams have risen in attitude and moved poleward in both hemispheres. In the northern hemisphere, the jet stream weakened. In the southern hemisphere, the sub-tropical jet weakened, whereas the polar jet strengthened. Exceptions to this general behavior were found locally and seasonally.”

Now, the second concept. As the jet streams move eastward, they are deflected from their straight course by friction from the mountains below. This causes the jet streams to wobble, like the vibrations that produce a constant musical pitch. They wobble from equator-ward to poleward, forming waves, which move around the globe. These wobbles are called “Rossby waves.” Sometimes the waves dip towards the equator, bringing cold air from the poles into the temperate zones. Sometimes the waves rise towards the poles, bringing warmer air from the subtropics into the temperate zones. That, we know for sure.

Beyond that, I have a personal hunch which has some speculative support in the literature, but there are no atmospheric measurements to confirm my theory. Which goes like this: Lower velocity allows the jet streams to meander / wobble more and to stall more; think oxbows in a river. When they meander more, the jet streams become more villainous. Creating bigger temperature swings in the troposphere. Deeper cold snaps. Warner heat waves.

A 2019 study: “showed that a repeating Rossby wave pattern known as wave-7 (seven giant peaks and seven matching troughs spanning the globe) draws warm dry air from the subtropics up to the mid-latitudes, causing concurrent summer heat waves and drought in predictable parts of North America, Europe and Asia.”

A study published in 2023. The authors identified “a winter pattern for the northern hemisphere known as wave-4 globally. four waves and four troughs matching troughs tend to lock in place. When this happens, the chances of extreme cold or wet in the trough triples. At the same time, abnormally warm or dry conditions may develop in the peaks.”

Appendix 3– Wet Bulb Temperature

The wet bulb temperature rolls the heat (dry bulb temperature) and humidity of the air into one number.

A wet bulb temperature of 35^oC is the red line for human survival (one degree below our normal body temperature) Beyond that, we cannot cool ourselves adequately. We will always be able to produce sweat on our skin at 36^oC, but if that sweat cannot evaporate, because there is not an adequate gap between our body temperature and the atmospheric air condition, then there will not be adequate cooling. Our body temperature will rise, to increase the gap, to make some cooling happen. But then we are at risk of over-heating and dying.

In 1970, the global average temperature was 14.99^oC, the global average relative humidity was 70.1%, the wet-bulb temperature was 11.63^oC. In 2015, 15.80^oC for temperature, 69.4% for relative humidity and 12.30^oC for the wet bulb. A dry-bulb temperature increase of 0.81 Celsius degrees over 45 years had a wet-bulb temperature increase of 0.67 Celsius degrees; the wet-bulb temperature increase was 80% of the increase in the dry bulb temperature. The wet bulb temperature is going to increase in step with the dry bulb temperature.

Mostly people will be able to adapt to the increase in the average temperature condition for their region. But there are extremes in the temperature, both lower temperatures than normal, and higher than normal. Data show that these extremes are increasing as the normal temperature increases.

Extremes in the wet bulb temperature are referred to as heat waves. Between 1979 and 2017, worldwide, there were 7000 occurrences of wet bulb temperatures above 31^oC and over 250 occurrences above 33^oC. From the perspective of daily maximums, we have only a few degrees to spare in some parts of the world. Southeastern USA is one of the places close to the line.

A 35^oC (95^oF) wet-bulb temperature occurs at the following combinations of relative humidity and dry bulb temperature: 

·        100% humidity and 35^oC

·        80% and 38.2^oC

·        60% and 42.3^oC

·        40% and 48.0^oC

·        35% and 49.8^oC.

Humidity causes trouble. But if the humidity is lower than 35%, we can endure dry bulb temperatures as high as 50^oC (122^oF).

Appendix 4 – Warm Periods in Geologic Time

I looked at geologic time in one of my UBC courses. (I prefer the academically incorrect geological time).  Pulled from one of my previous blogs. A comparative overview of three geologic periods, with estimates of the yearly global average temperature:

                 Million Years

                 ago                                                                                            Sea Level

PETM    56                            32^oC      3000 ppm CO₂                  plus 110 metres

MECO  27                            27^oC      560 ppm CO₂                                   plus 90 metres

LP           15                            26^oC      1000 ppm CO₂                              plus 70 metres                                                                                                                                                               plus methane                                                                   

Today, 2021                        15^oC      421 ppm CO₂                     zero (reference)                                          

Prompted by Keith Service, a historian, our past:

·        55 million years ago, first primates evolve.

·        5.8 million years ago, oldest human ancestors thought to have walked on two legs.

·        2.5 million years ago, homo habilis appears and humanoids start to use stone tools and develop meat-rich diets.

·        1.8 to 1.5 million years ago, first true hunter gatherers and first migration Out of Africa (do you remember that movie?)

·        600,000 years ago, Homo Heidelbergins live in Europe and Africa

·        400,000 years ago, early humans begin to hunt with spears.

·        230,000 years ago, Neanderthals appeared across Europe.

·        195,000, our own species Homo sapiens appears.

·        170,000 years ago, Mitochondrial Eve, the direct ancestor to all living people today, may have been living in Africa.

·        60,000 years ago, modern homo sapiens began spreading throughout the world.

Our predecessors, primates, survived all this. Their body temperature is one to two ^oC higher than ours. So, their temperature red line would be slightly higher than for humans. They likely migrated to high elevations to survive.

We, as human beings were not there during those three geological time periods. Geological history shows that the earth’s climate was much warmer during these periods than today, but the history does not tell us anything about our possible survival at these higher temperatures.

Appendix 5 – Humidity

‘Relative humidity’, a construct, is the amount of water vapour in the air, compared to the maximum amount of water vapour that the air can hold at a given temperature. ‘Relative humidity’ is expressed as a % of the saturated (maximum) amount. ‘Relative humidity’ at that temperature.

As the temperature of the air increases, it can hold more water vapour, in grams per 100 grams of dry air. The measured data show that with increasing global average temperature, the ‘relative humidity’ is decreasing, while the ‘absolute humidity’ is increasing. In our atmosphere, the impact of increasing temperature on the ability of the air to hold more water vapour is moving up faster that the rate that water vapour is being evaporated. So, don’t get mislead by the ‘relative humidity’ data; understand its place.

The world’s atmosphere is not homogeneous. Two-thirds of the atmosphere is over the ocean, with ready access to water which can be evaporated. The one-third that is land, not so much water. But the ocean water is colder than the land. The way this plays out, the air over the ocean is less humid (contains less water vapour) than the air over land. With rising global temperatures, we can expect humidity increases over both the oceans, and over the land.

Appendix 6 – My Global CO₂ Model

Over the last three years, I have spent maybe 1000 hours building a simple (not quite) CO₂ model of the world. The atmosphere, land, three layers of the ocean. 

I started this out of curiosity. Could I reproduce some world-level results by simple chemical engineering mass balances? The model became a game, that I built myself and I play the game. I am a gamer. Sometimes, when I wake at 2 am, I sit in my underwear and work on this model in the dark.

 

As I progressed, I saw some value in the model, beyond a game. It verifies a lot of information about where CO₂ comes from, and where it goes, including exchange with the ocean. It demonstrates clearly, with numbers, that our rising atmospheric CO₂ is from burning fossil fuels. If you take the time to look, its undeniable (unless you are an intransigent denier that glazes over when you see facts).

The model does not cover any other greenhouse gases. It does not say anything about global warming. It is just a very good CO₂ model.

Its in Excel, with (most of it) simple equations that are visible to anyone. The intent of the model is to try to reproduce the results of chemical analysis of CO₂ from ice cores taken in Antarctica.

 

Two parameters, CO₂ itself in ppm, and the isotopic ratio of C13 to C12, &CO₂, expressed in per thousandths. The isotopic ratio is the kicker because it

allows differentiation between plant-based CO₂ (more C12) with &CO₂ = -27 and rock-based CO₂ (less C12, more C13) with &CO₂ = -2. CO₂ from forest fires and fossil fuel is &CO₂ = -27, volcanoes and cement making is &CO₂ = -2.

The model is based on mass balances for CO₂ itself and mass balances on the isotopic ratioed material, &CO₂. Standard second year chemical engineering concepts.

It starts in 1750 and goes in decadal steps to 2020.

Published data are used for inputs. Published data are used to check the outputs.

For example, there are published data on CO₂ from forest fires. Based on acres burned, biomass per acre. This source of CO₂ has remained more-or-less constant over the years. The same graph below has published data on fossil fuel burned over the decades.

 

 

 Published data for volcanoes, up and down a bit over the years, but within a factor of say five. CO₂ from the calcining reaction in cement making is also here.

 

For the ice cores, the CO₂ increases from 284 ppm in 1750 to 405 ppm in 2020. The isotropic ratio parameter &CO₂ goes from -6.57 in 1750 to -8.5 in 2020 (more C12, more plant-based material). If it were volcanoes increasing, this ratio would be going more towards &CO₂ = -2. But even with cement making at &CO₂ = -2 increasing over the years, the &CO₂ value for CO₂ in the atmosphere keeps going away from &CO₂ =  -2, in the other direction, becoming more negative. So, it’s plant-based CO₂ with &CO₂ = -27 that’s moving the CO₂ in the atmosphere to a more negative number. Forest fires have stayed more-or-less constant over the decades. This leaves fossil fuels as the driver.

The model making was demanding, with many false starts. The calculations that separate the &CO₂ = -2 stuff form the &CO₂ = -27 stuff are particularly tedious.

But eventually, I was able to calculate numbers for both atmospheric CO₂ itself and the isotopic ratio for that CO₂ which fit the measured data essentially perfectly. My overall mass balances on both CO₂ and &CO₂ are right on 100%, indicating no errors in the mass balance calculations.

 

 

The consistency of the calculated results with the measured data confirms the validity of the input data for the various CO₂ sources, and the supports the values used for the three tuning parameters.

For 1750. 284 ppm CO₂. &CO₂ = -6.57 for the isotopic ratio, 4.5 tonnes CO₂ per year from forest fires, 0.08 for volcanoes. 0.003 for ocean off gassing. At that time, CO₂ captured by vegetation was essentially the same as forest fire CO₂. Essentially an equilibrium.

For 2020. 405 ppm CO2. &CO₂ = -8.5 for the ratio, 6.4 tonnes CO₂ for forest fires, 34 for fossil fuel, 6.5 tonnes from cement making, 0.25 from volcanoes. By now deforestation has taken the vegetation sink down by 25%. Here we have CO₂ from fossil fuels 5 to 6 times more than CO₂ from forest fires.

I am not making any of this stuff up. Its all science, numbers, logic. Basic chemical engineering stuff.

Notwithstanding, to reproduce the observed results, there is a lot of interaction with the ocean. About 50% of CO₂ generated each decade gets absorbed in the ocean. There is also a big ventilation of CO₂ between the ocean and the atmosphere, with CO₂ going into the ocean and coming out. This recirculation brings ancient, buried CO₂ (&CO₂ = -2 stuff) up from the deep and takes present atmospheric CO₂ (&CO₂= -6.57 stuff) down. If this recirculation was not happening, the isotopic ratio for CO₂ in the atmosphere would now be &CO₂ = -18, versus the present &CO₂ = -8.5. 

I can hear you saying, “how many bugger factors, how many correlations, did he use?”

The answer is three: 

·      Kinetic rate of ventilation of CO₂ between the atmosphere and the upper layer (mixed layer) of the ocean. 
·        Kinetic rate of ventilation of CO₂ between the upper layer of the ocean and the underlying thermocline. 
·        Kinetic rate of exchange of CO₂ between the thermocline and the lower layer of the ocen.

These three rate parameters were adjusted to change the calculated results.

All the rest of the model is inputs of published data. And standard scientific data, like the solubility of CO₂ in ocean water versus temperature of the water.

The model calculated the CO₂ concentrations in the three layers of the ocean, to establish the driving forces for moving CO₂ from one place to another. These driving forces were multiplied by the appropriate kinetic ventilation rates. To determine the amount of CO₂ moved from one place to another in each decade. These calculations determined the portion of CO₂ added to the atmosphere which was absorbed into the upper layer of the ocean, typically about 50%.

Now your quiz: 

While it is complicated to understand my model in a moment. There are still four basic questions:

• 1.     How could &CO₂ = -2 stuff from volcanoes drive CO₂ in the atmosphere from &CO₂ = - 6.57 in 1750 to &CO₂ = - 8.5 in 2020? Wrong way. It is not volcanoes, by a long shot. 
• 2.     Just how does CO₂ in the atmosphere go from&CO₂ = - 6.57 in 1750 to &CO₂ = - 8.5. in 2020? Even when CO₂ added by cement making (&CO₂ = - 2) is tending to bring it closer to - 2? Gotta be &CO₂ = - 27 stuff to drive it more negative. Stuff from forest fires and fossil fuels. 
• 3.     How does it go from &CO₂ = - 6.57 in 1750 to &CO₂ = - 8.5? in 2020? In 1750, the CO₂ uptake by vegetation was essentially equal to CO₂ from forest fires. Since then, forest fires have been more-or-less constant over the decades. While uptake by vegetation has decreased slightly. And CO₂ from fossil fuels has increased significantly.
• 4.    If you are still thinking its forest fires, with CO₂ from fossil fuels now 34 Gtonnes / year and forest fires now 6.4 Gtonnes per year (like 1750), where does all the CO₂ added from fossil fuels go to hide?

B

The End of this Blog.

Blackie Manana