Professor Emeritus Chemical Engineering Dr Geoff Duffy has written to Parliamentary Commissioner Simon Upton outlining many flaws in his latest report which consisted of a ‘Note’ by Dr Andy Reisinger.
Reisinger concluded that methane emissions need to reduce to hold global temperatures. Dr Duffy is scathing of the methodology describing it as unwise and stupid.
ALL weather modelling worldwide has failed so far to truly determine OR even PREDICT the future.
The variables are too many for a simple mathematical model to have any relevance.
Dr Duffy puts the case to Simon Upton that we must not simply use weak theoretical, mathematical models and computer simulations to predict the future.
This is a very important topic for New Zealand and we have not been served well by climate scientists and politicians who are so confused about methane they have contributed to NZ adopting a flawed carbon accounting system. Now Upton releases a report he is considering as part of his policy response suggestions for dealing with methane. What hope is there for New Zealand when a ‘Note’ that contains numerous errors and is not published and has not been verified or peer reviewed is even considered credible?
Dr Duffy urges Simon Upton to remove this report until the concepts and results have been verified independently. Duffy explains that it is far better to have experimental data as proof than poorly structured guess work modelling, that is a public admission of failure.
Dr Duffy’s letter is below.
Honourable Simon Upton
Parliamentary Commission for the Environment
Dear Sir … WHY SIMPLE MATHEMATICAL MODELLING IS VERY DANGEROUS
COMMENTS ON THE EMISSIONS FRAMEWORK REPORT – REISINGER
Mathematical modelling can ONLY be successful if ALL the SIGNIFICANT variables are taken into consideration SIMULTANEOUSLY.
Miss some factors and the models will be weak and their predictions highly suspect, and even faulty.
Our planet is 70.9% oceans/lakes and about 65% of all the earth (land-and-sea) is covered by clouds at any one time. Less that 60% of the suns radiation ever reaches the earth’s surface anyway. Hence, RADIATION is ONLY one part of the total picture. The CONVECTIVE MIXING effects of winds, storms, rain etc, plus macro movements of sea currents and surface waves, plus clouds, MUST, MUST be included in ALL models SIMULTANEOUSLY for them to be even considered as even possibly valid.
Other MAJOR FACTORS in World Weather changes include water-evaporation and water-vapour condensation (clouds). IF Clouds are not modelled at the same time, or the massive effects of humidification are not included, then the models FAIL, and the authors have publicly admitted they do not understand the impacts of ALL these factors. [That is why ALL 102 CMIP-5 IPPC Climate Models have so far totally failed to predict future weather changes already (see Attached)]. Of course CONDUCTION plays an important part as well in addition to molecular collisions whereby non-greenhouse gas molecules (nitrogen, oxygen, argon) take up some of the energy (as well as all solids on land).
IF Dr Reisinger has not included ALL the above, then his focus in on Methane-only MUST be wrong by direct confession.
TWO additional vital factors stand out:
Greenhouse Gas CONCENTRATION and SELECTIVE electromagnetic RADIATION ABSORPTION.
- CONCENTRATION: The largest and most effective atmospheric greenhouse gas is Water Vapour (Contrary to Simon Upton’s statement in the Report Foreword: “The three main greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide”). In N. Z., water vapour is typically around 1% (can be much higher; even 4% at the tropics). Carbon Dioxide is far less at 0.04%, and Methane itself is far, far less at less at 0.0002%, This makes water vapour over 5,000 times greater in concentration than Methane, and over 25 times stronger than carbon dioxide. So that alone shows that is impossible for Methane to be dominant or highly significant. [Water vapour 10,000ppm: Carbon Dioxide 410ppm: Methane 1.8 ppm]
- RADIATION: It is an ABSOLUTE MUST that the electromagnetic spectrum be consulted. Water vapour is active over 80% of the entire electromagnetic energy spectrum, whereas carbon dioxide can only absorb radiation over less than 10% of the complete span (4 bands max). Methane is far worse … available to less than 1% of the total energy spectrum, and doesn’t absorb much radiant energy at all.
[Incoming Solar Radiation (0.1 to 3 micro-metres): Methane absorbs almost ZERO incoming solar radiation (at ONLY one wavelength point 2.3 micro-metres, it absorbs <10% of the radiant energy at that wavelength).
Outgoing Re-radiation back from Earth (3 to 70 micro-metres): Methane absorbs electromagnetic radiation back from earth ONLY at two wavelengths: (at about 3.2 micro-metres the absorbance is <40% {almost inconsequential as there is a minute amount of re-radiation at that condition} and at 8 micro-metres it is mostly less than 50% possible absorption at that wavelength. Methane has to compete with water vapour at these very SAME wavelengths, where water vapour is more active and far stronger. Scientifically it is hard to even see why methane has any affect at all … as CO>2 is about 230 time greater in concentration than methane and its affect is already extremely small. Water vapour is over 5,000 times greater in concentration, and is the major player.
Dr Reisinger Methane Emissions Report
Foreword by Simon Upton
Para 3: Quote: ‘The three main greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide’.
Actually this is not factually correct. WATER VAPOUR is the main greenhouse gas: the others are minor. Water Vapour is by far the strongest on TWO counts: concentration and effective radiation absorption. Water Vapour (10,000ppm 1% of the atmosphere); then carbon dioxide (410ppm 0.04%). The others are very, very low: Methane 1.8ppm 0.00018%: Nitrous Oxide 0.3 ppm 0.00003%. Also water vapour is by far the best absorber of radiation anyway (see below).
Then the Foreword states: ‘ … the contribution of methane and nitrous oxide from agriculture, which together make up a particularly high proportion of our total emissions’. As you can see from the data in the previous paragraph, this cannot be factually true.
Para 8: ‘… debate is better grounded in the underlying science.’
I really hope so. Therefore, please see my comments PLUS my article attached.
COMMENTS on the REPORT:
- 3 The warming effect of methane
‘ … it is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide’. Maybe???: ONLY true IF they are at the SAME concentration; but carbon dioxide is over 220 greater in concentration and operates over a wider range of the energy spectrum. Thus, this is NOT true per se. So carbon dioxide MUST have a greater effect in the total real atmosphere (still far, far less than water vapour).
‘ .. methane traps ..’ There is absolutely NO trapping of heat as such. GHG molecules absorb electromagnetic energy, they then move faster, collide more with ALL atmospheric gases (oxygen, nitrogen, argon and more), and give up their energy to ‘activate’ all gaseous molecules. IF the atmosphere heats up for any reason, more evaporation occurs, more clouds, more rain and more cooling, and thus more self-regulation! IF the modelling does not include ALL this, the models are totally wrong!
- Para 7 ‘ … methane concentration after 50 years, but its impact on temperature continues to increase for several centuries’. How can anyone state that without ‘actual century-plus’ data or experimental proof? We have so little data over just a few recent years! It seems that the author does not understand heat transfer as the ‘trapping’ concept has been debunked years ago. As the atmosphere heats up for any reason some energy is radiated back into outer space; some energy causes rapid humidity changes (clouds are just one aspect of the effect); more clouds can form that produce ‘radiation umbrellas’ and thus less solar planet-heating; clouds produce rain, snow etc >>> cooling; more GHG energetic molecules give up their energy to ALL other molecules .. and far more. This statement above is clearly wrong as there has been virtually no temperature change for more than 20 years even as carbon dioxide went up about 9% [Attached- No temperature change for >20 years]
- Para 4 What modelling tells us
‘ ..warming effect of methane would continue to increase, .. ‘…could cause additional warming of 10-20 percent above current levels.’ There is no unilateral increase in worldwide average temperature, and definitely NO guarantee that there will be hereon out! With Carbon Dioxide at over 200 times greater in concentration than Methane and going up about 9% in over two decades while there has been NO mean increase in Global Temperature (attached), then how can methane the poorer cousin have an effect????. [ CO>2 no effect in about 28 years, so why CH>4?]
With all due respect, we must not simply use weak theoretical, mathematical models and computer simulations to either assess or predict the future, UNLESS the models include all the energy factors (radiation, convection, conduction, molecular collision) and mass transfer effects (evaporation, condensation, precipitation, storms, phase-change etc). Miss or downplay one: and the results are not worth the paper they are written on!
We must be careful and totally sure that our models will stand an independent test not just by mathematicians but also those highly knowledgeable in atmospheric science and engineering. We do not want to be the laughing-stock of the world IF these assertions cannot be independently verified.
It may be best to remove this report until the concepts and results have been verified independently by open scrutiny. It is far better to have experimental data as proof than poorly structured guesswork modelling, that really is a public admission of failure.