Month: June 2018

Truth In Labeling At The New York Times : “NOT REAL NEWS”

Arctic sea ice thickness has been increasing for the past twelve years, and is up 44% since 2012. I calculated this by dividing DMI volume by MASIE extent.  (The MASIE records only go back to 2006.).

The Arctic Basin is covered with thick ice.

FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180629.png (1337×1113)

This is a change from ten years ago, when much of the Arctic was covered with thin ice.

FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20080629.png (1337×1113)

According to this New York Times article from 1958, Central Arctic ice thickness is about the same as it was 60 years ago.

The Changing Face of the Arctic; The Changing Face of the Arctic – The New York Times

Yesterday, the fake news New York Times and Mark Serreze quite predictably conflated Arctic sea ice thickness with extent, and declared their Arctic melting scam to still be alive.  Apparently no one at the New York Times actually reads the New York Times.

NOT REAL NEWS: Map Does Not Debunk Global Warming – The New York Times

That is the same Mark Serreze who predicted the North Pole would be ice-free ten years ago, and declared the Arctic to be screaming.

North Pole could be ice free in 2008 | New Scientist

Star-News – Google News Archive Search

My forecast that NSIDC would rapidly ramp up the junk science and BS, is coming true however.

via The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

June 30, 2018 at 09:27AM

Think Coal Is Dead? It Could Be About To Soar

Although it may not be the most fashionable of assets, analysts are warming to coal. Ironically, lobbying by anti-fossil fuel activists to prevent new mines being built may have inadvertently helped to support coal prices.

Increasing worries about climate change and the desire for major institutions to be seen as responsible have prompted insurance giants such as Axa and ING to sell out of fossil fuel-related businesses.

Even Norway’s massive sovereign wealth fund, built on the back of the country’s oil wealth, has advised it is reducing its exposure to fossil fuels.

But according to analysts, coal investments are not going to go up in smoke just yet. Though the amount of energy being generated from renewables is increasing, and some of the City’s top investors have started ploughing their cash into clean energy, there is still demand for dirty old coal.

Analysts at investment bank Jefferies released a note to investors this month saying that ‘rumours of coal’s death are premature’.

It has raised its target price of seaborne thermal coal, burned for steam to generate electricity, as opposed to coking coal, which is used to create steel and iron, from £68 to £80 per ton for the remainder of 2018. It also lifted its long-term estimate from £49 to £63 per ton.

Christopher LaFemina, an equity analyst at the bank, said the predictions ‘may still be too low’, though they were well above other analysts’ predictions.

So what has been causing coal prices to smoulder once again? After all, oil giant BP said earlier this month that renewables were ‘by far’ the fastest-growing fuel source.

Though it may have become a dirty word in the UK, with the government putting all its energy into funding renewables, coal is still a vital commodity in developing countries where it fuels the economy.

Jason Hollands, managing director at investment manager Tilney, said: ‘In the near-term, the realities of increased demand against the backdrop of the continued global economic expansion are evident, with strong demand from India and South East Asia.

‘India in particular is struggling with supplies, which are essential for both its electricity network and steel production, and Australia looks set to be a key beneficiary of this.’

Australia was the second-largest exporter of thermal coal last year, sending 206m tons, according to Jefferies. Indonesia was the largest, exporting 387m tons.

Ironically, lobbying by anti-fossil fuel activists to prevent new mines being built may have inadvertently helped to support coal prices, Hollands said.

As prices are driven up, London-listed miners – including some of the biggest companies on the FTSE 100 – should benefit. Anglo American and Glencore were two of Jefferies’ top picks for coal miners in Europe. Anglo’s shares have fired up by 152 per cent over the last three years to 1636p, while Glencore’s have climbed by the smaller margin of 36 per cent to 358p.

But while there may be some perks to investing in coal for now, Hollands advised investors to approach the black stuff with caution.

He said: ‘While the near-term dynamics look positive for coal, this is a quite a narrow theme.

‘For the long-term investor, there is no doubt that the shift to cleaner forms of energy is going to continue, with the real debate simply around the timescale.’

Full story

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

June 30, 2018 at 09:00AM

Electric car buyers claim they were misled by Nissan

By Paul Homewood


Nissan Leafs fail to live up to manufacturer’s claims. From the BBC:



Owners of Nissan’s new electric Leaf say they were given misleading information about the car before buying it.

They say charging the Leaf can take three times longer than claimed on Nissan’s website.

Others are unhappy that the range on a single charge is not as good as the 235 miles (378km) they were promised.

Nissan admitted that charging times can vary, but denied there was a problem or that any customers were misled.

The Advertising Standards Authority is now considering whether to launch an investigation into the issue.

Charging time

As many as 2,600 new Leafs have been sold in the UK, and it was named Electric Car of the Year for 2018 by What Car? magazine.

But drivers attempting longer journeys in the Leaf have found themselves spending up to two and a half hours at motorway service stations to recharge.

Last year, Nissan told prospective buyers that using so-called rapid chargers should only take 40 minutes "in moderate driving conditions" for an 80% charge. They subsequently changed that to between 40 and 60 minutes.

There appears to be no problem with the first two charges on any given day – one at home, and then the first rapid charge en route.

It is only when drivers come to charge for the third time – or the second rapid charge – that some have said they face long waits. Potentially, that could affect any journey of more than 250 miles.

John Weatherley, a company director from the Forest of Dean, loves his Nissan Leaf.

But when he made a 300 mile journey to the Lake District, he found himself waiting for a total of two-and-a-half hours when he stopped to charge for a second time.

"If Nissan at the start had said what the car is capable of, without exaggerating the fact on their website, I’d have been fine with it," he told the BBC.

"They said they could charge in 40 to 60 minutes, so I believed them. But it’s not true. The advertising is totally misleading."

When Mr Weatherley wrote to Nissan to complain, he was told that rapid charging was only intended for use once in a journey – something many buyers may be unaware of.


Nissan also told the BBC that charging can take longer than advertised, depending on conditions.

"External ambient temperature, the type of driving you’ve been doing beforehand, and the heat you put into the battery if you’ve been doing successive charges can impact the timing," said Gareth Dunsmore, director of electric vehicles for Nissan Europe.

He said the battery automatically slows a charge, to preserve its longevity, and to act as a safety mechanism when it gets too hot.

"We make this clear in the owner’s manual," said Mr Dunsmore.

In some instances it can also be the charger itself that is to blame, he said.

‘Misled twice’

Tony Pitcairn, from Ilkley in West Yorkshire, had problems on a 290 mile drive to Somerset.

He and his wife spent 90 minutes at a motorway services in Gloucestershire.

Image caption Tony Pitcairn says the estimated range was unrealistic

But Mr Pitcairn was also disappointed by the range of the new Leaf, which he bought specifically for long journeys.

His marketing brochure claimed the car could do 235 miles on a single charge.

But having bought the car, he found the range was actually 155 miles.

"That was a disappointment to start with," he said.

"So we have, in my mind, been misled twice, because the claimed range on a full charge is not 235 miles. Secondly, nowhere does it say that you will only be able to rapid charge in 40 minutes only once."

When journalists from What Car? tested the new Leaf, they found a "real world" range of just 108 miles.

Orders cancelled

Nissan said the original claim of 235 miles was correct under an official means of measurement known as the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC).

However, as carmakers have moved to a different measure – known as the Worldwide harmonised Light vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP) – the range is now officially 168 miles.

Mr Dunsmore advised any upset customers to get in contact: "Come and speak to us if there’s anything you’re not happy with."

Meanwhile, a number of customers have cancelled their orders.

Matt Beard, from Aberdeenshire, did so after taking a test drive. Eventually he bought the older model Leaf instead, which has a less powerful battery, but fewer problems when charging. In a tweet, he said he was shocked at how bad the problem was.

Others are unhappy with the response from Nissan.

Jonathan Porterfield, of, who regularly drives electric cars from Leicester to Orkney, was the first to report the issue.

"I don’t want this episode to knock Nissan, but at the same time they need to sit up and take notice," he said.

"Just telling people you’ve got to wait longer at a rapid charger – it’s not good enough."


If Leaf buyers really believed Nissan’s claims, they must be even more stupid than I thought.


And if they are moaning about a 90 minute change, what will they do when there is a queue in front of them when they arrive at the public recharging points? Book Bed & Breakfast?


June 30, 2018 at 08:12AM

Whatever happened to fears over “peak oil”?

By Michael Lynch, Forbes

Very few people realize that the entire concerns about peak oil were based on misinformation or junk science.

A decade ago, the media was filled with stories about peak oil, numerous books were published on the subject (such as Half Gone and $20 a Gallon!), and even the Simpsons mentioned it in an episode about doomsday preppers.  Now, the topic is largely forgotten and the flavor of the month is peak oil demand.  Anyone concerned about the quality of research that works its way into the public debate should be curious about how so many were so wrong for so long.  (Buy my book for the full story.)

First and foremost, realize that in the 1970s, numerous analysts and institutions made similar arguments, arguing that geological scarcity was responsible for higher prices not the two disruptions of production in 1973 and 1979.  Indeed, in the months before oil prices collapsed in 1986, the consensus was that prices were too low and had to rise to make upstream investment profitable, despite the fact that OPEC production was collapsing (down from 30 mb/d in 1980 to 15 in 1985).  You would think that this would make people more skeptical about claims that geological scarcity was responsible when the shutdown of Venezuelan production and the second Gulf War cut off Iraqi supplies sent prices higher starting in 2003.

Such was not the case.  In fact, on September 21, 2004 the Wall Street Journal published a front-page story “As Prices Soar, Doomsayers Provoke Debate on Oil’s Future,” quoting the founder of the Association for the Study of Peak oil as saying “Holy Mother!  The good ol’ moment’s arrived!”  Oddly, the article didn’t mention the alternative explanation for high prices, namely the loss of production from Venezuela and Iraq, about 1 billion barrels up to the article’s publication.

The current era of peak oil warnings started twenty years ago, when Scientific American published an article by two retired geologists called “The End of Cheap Oil,” which presented the idea that world oil production would soon peak while demand kept rising, creating economic shock waves and even ‘the end of civilization’ as one co-author said subsequently.  Since the oil price collapsed to $12 a barrel that year, most paid little heed at first, but as oil prices began to rise five years later, attention soared.

Few realize the debate began a year earlier, in the pages of the Oil & Gas Journal, where members of the opposing camps put forth their views.  Colin Campbell, who later became founder of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (and coauthored the 1998 Scientific American article), wrote an article titled “Better Understanding Urged for Rapidly Depleting Reserves” in which he warned “there is comparatively little left to find” and “the world’s political, economic, and political stability, which relies on an abundant supply of cheap oil, is in serious jeopardy.”  His core argument was that the amount of recoverable crude oil, which he put at 1.8 trillion barrels, was smaller than most realized, because of misreporting and misinterpretation of the data.

The contrary view was put forth in the same journal in an article by M. A. Adelman and this author, noting past pessimism:  “For many years now, nearly every forecast has been: an early peak, then in 3-5 years decline in virtually every place but the Persian Gulf.”  And “The oil industry has always been in a tug-of-war between depletion and knowledge. It takes endless effort and investment to renew and expand reserves. But resource limits are a phantom….Repeatedly, the forecasts are revised with a higher and later peak….These estimates of declining reserves and production are incurably wrong because they treat as a quantity what is really a dynamic process driven by growing knowledge.”

Since then, the peak oil advocates have repeatedly increased their estimates of recoverable resources (Campbell’s went from 1.575 to 1.9 trillion) and pushed the date of the peak further out, exactly as Adelman and Lynch argued, while trying to argue that the increase in oil supply was ‘unconventional’ oil which they were not analyzing.  Of course, they tend not to mention that their 1998 article claimed “But the industry will be hard-pressed for the time and money needed to ramp up production of unconventional oil quickly enough.”  Similarly, many argue that the growth has been from NGLs or shale, not conventional oil, but the figure below refutes that.

World Petroleum Supply THE AUTHOR; DATA FROM BP AND EIA.

The general view of the issue is that shale oil saved us from peak oil, and the issue has largely disappeared from the media, to be replaced by warnings of peak oil demand, but there are still articles about peak cobalt, peak cocoa and similar scares.  Rather the way your local news station constantly reports on some new threat to the public (germs in airplane bathroom sink water, dangers from household cleaning products, etc. ad infinitum).

Unfortunately, very few people realize that the entire concerns about peak oil were based on misinformation or junk science.  Specifically, the research was not scientific at all but statistical analysis so badly done that it wouldn’t pass a first-year college course.  The work by Campbell and Laherrere relied on the basic idea that geology determined production trends, and thus trends could be safely extrapolated based on the bell curve model.  If production was declining, that is.  Economics didn’t matter because ‘you have to find oil before you can produce it’ and if it’s there, it will be produced.  Technology could not improve recovery because “Technology cannot change the geology of the reservoir, but technology (in particular horizontal drilling) can help to produce faster, but no more…”  (Jean Laherrere)

The majority of this is nonsense.  Production usually doesn’t follow a bell curve, and when it does, it is the result of the effects of exponential growth and decline.  (Many repeated the claim that geology meant oil production in a region had to follow a bell curve without actually checking the data.)  Instead, changes in oil prices, fiscal terms, and access to resource basins cause production to fluctuate all the time—and often surpass the supposed ‘peak’ level that peak oil advocates identify.

Many of the arguments reflected their authors’ ignorance of either the industry or forecasting.  Simmons claimed that hearing the Saudi oil company used ‘fuzzy logic’ to model reservoirs convinced him they had problems, since he’d never heard of it.  (It’s just a decades-old programming method.)  Joe Romm said “Steep falls in oil production means the world now needed to replace an amount of oil output equivalent to Saudi Arabia’s production every two years, Merrill Lynch said in a research report.”

Apparently, he didn’t know that Jimmy Carter, in his 1977 speech on the energy crisis, said, “…just to stay even we need the production of a new Texas every year, an Alaskan North Slope every nine months, or a new Saudi Arabia every three years. Obviously, this cannot continue.”

Thus, the publications and predictions have by and large not come true—often rather spectacularly.  Russia was said to be unable to surpass 8 mb/d, and when they did, 9 mb/d, and when they reached 10 mb/d, a quick collapse was predicted.  Production there is over 11 mb/d and still increasing.  And a 2005 book describing the imminent collapse of Saudi production, presaging world production collapse, was not only riddled with errors but has proven wholly invalid.  The Saudis have experienced no production difficulties, indeed had to cut back to support prices; and world production has grown by about 15 mb/d since the 2005 peak prediction by that author and others.

Arguments made by knowledgeable resource economists have explained the historical pattern, such as the 1997 article by Adelman and Lynch.  The petroleum resource base is huge, at least ten times what is described by peak oil advocates, and price spikes reflect temporary supply disruptions or the removal of some of the ‘cheap’ resource from the accessible portion of supply by resource nationalism.  Peak oil advocates were following the long-standing neo-Malthusian practice of interpreting short-term problems as permanent and insoluble, just as was done in the 1970s.

Tellingly, those believing in peak oil often displayed a certainty that was totally unwarranted, given the complexity of the issue.

Full story here

via Watts Up With That?

June 30, 2018 at 08:04AM