Month: March 2017

CLEXIT: Dears New Book on Exiting the Paris Accord

CLEXIT: Dears New Book on Exiting the Paris Accord

via Master Resource
http://ift.tt/1o3KEE1

“Efforts to cut CO2 emissions are not only harmful, but fruitless. The United States can reassert its leadership by withdrawing from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change treaty. It can then lead the world in economic development by encouraging the use of fossil fuels that provide cheap and reliable energy.”

Donn Dears is a charter member of the energy-realism school. A longtime industry participant (GE), he understands energy technology in light of market demand. A major theme in his writing is market reality versus political waste and political fantasy.

He blogs at his website, Power for USA, and posts at MasterResource. Dears also is a member of the distinguished profiled club of skeptics at DeSmogBlog.

Donn Dears has just published his fourth book, CLEXIT: For a Brighter Future. His previous works are:

Nothing to Fear: A Bright Future for Fossil Fuels (2015)

Carbon Gauntlet: What You are Not Being Told (2013)

Carbon Folly: CO2 Emission Sources and Options (2009)

In CLEXIT, he posits seven major conclusions:

  • Leadership by the United States during the twentieth century freed hundreds of millions from the slavery imposed on them by fascist and communist governments.
  • Once again, the United States can provide the leadership needed to ensure that people, worldwide, have the freedom to access cheap and reliable energy.
  • Cheap energy, especially electricity, during the twentieth century enabled rapid improvements in the standard of living of people in many countries.
  • Hysteria over climate change is now threatening to deny billions of people around the world access to the energy they need to maintain and improve their standard of living.
  • Governments are engaging in efforts, promoted by the United Nations, to impose regulations on energy use so as to cut CO2 emissions.
  • Efforts to cut CO2 emissions are not only harmful, but fruitless.
  • The United States can reassert its leadership by withdrawing from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change treaty. It can then lead the world in economic development by encouraging the use of fossil fuels that provide cheap and reliable energy.

A guest preface, written by Bryan Leyland, New Zealand-based consulting engineer, [1] follows:

The Paris Agreement on climate change is nonsense and, if the United States stands by the commitment made by Obama, it will cost the country billions of dollars, increase the price of electricity, reduce the reliability of the power system, and do virtually nothing to slow down (mythical) dangerous, man-made global warming.

In his book Clexit For a Brighter Future, Donn Dears sets out very clearly why it is nonsense and why it would seriously damage the U.S. economy. “Clexit” is the only rational option.

Dears exposes the farcical nature of the Paris Agreement negotiated at the 21st Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Conference on Climate Change (COP 21): It doesn’t specify the amount of greenhouse gas reduction or have any enforcement mechanisms.

Dears also, quite rightly, points out that there is no substantial scientific evidence supporting the hypothesis that man-made greenhouse gases cause dangerous global warming. He further notes that, even if they did, the enormous effort and expenditure that the United States – and the world – would incur to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by a substantial amount would make virtually no difference to the world’s climate.

It is foolish for the United States to embark on an exercise in futility that will devastate its economy while ignoring the fact that China and India alone plan to add more fossil-fuel energy generation and carbon dioxide emissions than currently exist in America.

The world and the environment would be far better off if the United States spent the money helping to provide electricity, clean water, and sewage to developing countries.

Dears points out that electricity generation is the lifeblood of the economy, and, with gasoline, makes up 60 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. Wind and solar power are 8 percent of the installed capacity, but only provide about 5 percent of the nation’s energy.

In addition, those sources often provide very little power during maximum demand periods, and the shortfall is made up via inefficient, quick-response gas turbines that emit large quantities of carbon dioxide. In short: wind and solar power are very expensive and do very little to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Nuclear power, by contrast, is safe, cheaper and better – yet violently opposed by the environmentalists.

Dears also analyses the contribution that electric cars and fuel cells could make to reducing emissions. He concludes that electric cars can’t make a big difference, and it is possible that fuel cells could actually increase emissions.

Plentiful low-cost energy has freed the developed world from starvation, disease, and misery. As a result, the average person in the developed world now lives better than a king did a few hundred years ago. Constraining the availability of low-cost energy from fossil fuels will ensure that billions of people in the developing world will continue to face starvation, disease, and misery.

The book is a valuable contribution to the growing evidence that dangerous man-made global warming is the biggest hoax in the history of the world – and that futile efforts to solve this non-existent problem will impoverish billions of people in the United States and all over the world. Is that what we want?

The United States has an opportunity to exit the United Nations Framework Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC) treaty and lead the world into reestablishing honest science as the basis for policies – and, if necessary, actions regarding climate change.

Look for more posts by Donn Dears at MasterResource in the weeks and months ahead.


[1] Leyland has a Masters degree in power system design; a Fellow of the Institution of Professional Engineers, New Zealand; a fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (UK); and a retired Fellow of the Institution of Engineering and Technology (UK).

The post CLEXIT: Dears New Book on Exiting the Paris Accord appeared first on Master Resource.

via Master Resource http://ift.tt/1o3KEE1

March 20, 2017 at 06:23PM

Hazelwood Countdown: 53 years old and making more electricity than Australia’s entire wind industry

Hazelwood Countdown: 53 years old and making more electricity than Australia’s entire wind industry

via JoNova
http://ift.tt/1hXVl6V

Three days to go: The Hazelwood shut down begins

The situation in Australia right now:

The total fossil fuel output compared to total wind power generation, NEM, Australian electricity market, 21 March 2017

One old coal plant makes more electricity than all the wind farms

Guest Post by TonyfromOZ and Jo Nova

I’ve been watching the output of all eight generators at Hazelwood closely all month and comparing it to the total wind farm generation across the National Electricity Market (NEM). The old warhorse is a remarkable engineering and economic success.

I’ve kept a total of the power output each day from midnight to midnight and a running cumulative total. So far, the running total output from Hazelwood has always stayed ahead of the total from wind farms.  So this 53 year old coal fired plant that is being shut down next week has produced more energy than the 43 wind plants on the National Energy Market. Even if we could store the energy from the wind farms, it still doesn’t add up to the same as one very ancient coal plant. The shut down starts in three days time on Friday March 24th.

Over […]

Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

via JoNova http://ift.tt/1hXVl6V

March 20, 2017 at 05:51PM

Seven Year Solar Low

Seven Year Solar Low

via The Next Grand Minimum
http://ift.tt/1Ym5yjO

SUNSPOT COUNTS REACH 7-YEAR LOW: The face of the sun has been blank (no sunspots) for 13 consecutive days. The last time this happened was April of 2010, near the end of a deep Solar Minimum. The current stretch of … Continue reading

via The Next Grand Minimum http://ift.tt/1Ym5yjO

March 20, 2017 at 12:22PM

Lack of correlation between tornadoes and temperature increase in the USA

Lack of correlation between tornadoes and temperature increase in the USA

via Watts Up With That?
http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

Guest essay by Alberto Z. Comendador

Temperatures in the USA have generally increased since the 1950s. Of course, anything that mostly increases over time will have a positive correlation with everything else that also increases; in the USA this includes tornado counts. And of course most correlations are utterly meaningless and devoid of causation. For a hilarious take on the issue, see spurious correlations.

The problem , as NOAA itself says, is that there is a bias: just because we observe more tornadoes than before, doesn’t mean their number has actually increased.

‘With increased National Doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater attention to tornado reporting, there has been an increase in the number of tornado reports over the past several decades. This can create a misleading appearance of an increasing trend in tornado frequency.’

They illustrate this by excluding the weakest tornadoes (the F-0 category), which is the one most affected by this observation bias. If one does so, there doesn’t seem to be a long-term increase.

From the NOAA Storm Prediction Center:

image

And if you look only at strong tornadoes, F3 and up, they’ve actually declined.

image

Today I want to look at the issue from another angle: changes in temperature. I have seldom seen this kind of analysis in climate and it seems to me temperature provides a good opportunity, because the yearly changes are so large compared to the long-term trend. By contrast, any observation bias has to be small. The population of states, coverage of Doppler radar, etc. are virtually identical from one year to the next.

NOAAs’ temperature data page shows this:

image

Temperature swings from one year to the next are sometimes in excess of 1ºC. In fact, that’s about as much as total warming since 1979.

Now, there are some aspects of climate for which yearly temperature swings are not very relevant; for instance, glacial melting depends mostly on the absolute temperature, not the change from the year before. Sea level rise depends both on water expansion (through heat accumulation) and additional water mass (through glacial melting). So it shouldn’t surprise us if we don’t see any correlation between temperature swings and sea level rise.

Still, I wanted to see if there’s something about tornadoes that makes them increase or decrease when temperatures go up. We’re always hearing about the 2ºC target, so I figure changes of over 1ºC should be enough to cause some change in the tornado count.

How I counted

NOAA’s storm database is here. As of this writing, at least the files for 2015 and 2016 have a new weird format that apparently removes the ‘event type’ column (and a lot of other things); I haven’t looked at all the files, for obvious reasons, but fortunately I downloaded the data a few months ago and those do indicate the event type (tornado, hail, etc).

So the files and R-Code I actually used are stored here. The link is only missing the data for 2016, which I got from Wikipedia. If anyone knows of a more ‘official’ answer I can plug it in – though honestly it wouldn’t change the results. In the Dropbox link you’ll also find my R-code and the temperatures for 1951-2016.

The 1951-2016 period has 66 years, but since we’re looking at changes, there are 65 ‘points’. And as you can guess looking at the chart…

image

…the correlation is 1.5%, which is to say effectively zero.

The problem with using changes in temperature is that, obviously, absolute temperature also plays a role. Perhaps going from 14ºC to 15ºC has no effect on tornadoes, but moving from 15ºC to 16ºC does cause an increase. To test this I checked only the years since 2000: an increase in temperature from that baseline leads to higher absolute values than one from earlier dates.

image

In that case the correlation is -33%. I don’t think this really means there is a negative relationship between tornadoes and temperature – it’s just that with so few points you will get skewed results.

What this doesn’t mean

This simply shows there is no correlation between tornado change and temperature change. Of course, in reality any change in temperature will affect tornadoes somehow; perhaps the changes that increase this count are offset by others that decrease it, or perhaps the influence of temperature is simply too small and gets lost in the noise of variability. To probe deeper, one could also look at trends depending on regional temperatures, or comparing day time with night time and so on.

For now that is beyond my means, in terms of both skill and free time. I hope you enjoyed this post – feel free to tinker with the data and code provided in the references.


References:

Tornado Climatology: http://ift.tt/1LjFZvg

NOAA/NCEI Storm event data: http://ift.tt/2nXR2Uq

NOAA USA Temperature Data: http://ift.tt/2mmTSGd

Data files and R-code used to make counts: http://ift.tt/2mmYVq0

R graphical language (free): http://ift.tt/1TYoqFc

 

via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

March 20, 2017 at 11:39AM