via climate science
October 1, 2018 at 01:30AM
THIS WEEK: By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Thirty Years of Error? In 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created by the UN under the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) from a resolution by the UN General Assembly to address possible future, human-induced, climate change. The reports of the IPCC support the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The objective of the UNFCCC is “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” [Boldface added.]
The US Senate ratified the treaty becoming a party of the UNFCCC in 1992.
As readers of TWTW realize, the IPCC estimate future “anthropogenic interference with the climate system,” by using complex mathematical models prepared by others. As discussed in past TWTWs, the mathematical models fail basic testing – they fail to describe what is occurring in the atmosphere with changing greenhouse gases.
More particularly, as discussed in the September 15 and September 22 TWTWs, the publicly archived model runs from the 20 modeling groups participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) of the IPCC, as a group, greatly overestimate the warming trend occurring in the atmosphere. When specifically tested against the warming of a layer of the tropical troposphere, at 200 to 300 millibar, about 30,000 to 40,000 feet (9100 to 12,200m), they greatly overestimate the warming trends compared with three different datasets from weather balloons taken over the past 60 years. The test can be referred to as the McKitrick-Christy Hypothesis Test.
This failure prompts the question why? Given the extent of modeling expertise, the number of modeling groups involved, and the years of investigation, one must assume that this overestimate is not from a mathematical error in the models. Rather, it may be a systematic error in the thinking that goes into the formulation of these models.
The history of the IPCC by its first chairman, Swedish meteorologist Bert Bolin, gives a clue. Writing a chapter in the Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems after he left the IPCC, he states:
“The realization that human activities might change the global climate was not new. Already at the end of the nineteenth century Svante Arrhenius, professor of chemistry at Stockholm’s Högskola (University), deduced that the global mean temperature might increase by 5°C–6°C if the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere were doubled.”
This claim is not correct. As discussed in last week’s TWTW, in his 1895 paper Arrhenius wrote:
“…temperature of the Arctic regions would rise about 8 degrees or 9 degrees Celsius, if the carbonic acid [CO2] increased 2.5 to 3 times its present value. In order to get the temperature of the ice age between the 40th and 50th parallels, the carbonic acid in the air should sink to 0.62 to 0.55 of present value (lowering the temperature 4 degrees to 5 degrees Celsius).”
In his later 1906 paper Arrhenius revised his estimates, writing:
“In a similar way, I calculate that a reduction in the amount of CO2 by half, or a gain to twice the amount, would cause a temperature change of – 1.5 degrees C, or + 1.6 degrees C, respectively.”
Since Bolin died in 2007, we may never know if he intentionally misrepresented the writings of Arrhenius, a fellow Swede. The difference between what Arrhenius first wrote and later wrote is significant.
Regardless, when Arrhenius wrote, the concept of the planet cooling by outgoing infrared radiation was not fully developed. His calculations did not have the benefit of 20th century research on the absorption and re-radiation effects of greenhouse gases together in the atmosphere and individually. It was pure speculation.
Further, Bolin worked with Jule Charney, the head of the group that produced the 1979 Charney Report, which claimed that the modest effect of carbon dioxide would be greatly amplified by the major greenhouse gas, water vapor. However, this was pure speculation because there were no comprehensive measurements of atmospheric temperature trends.
Also, Bolin discusses a second assessment report produced in 1982 by US National Research Council and headed by Joseph Smagorinsky, Director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which is located at Princeton. It found nothing wrong with the Charney Report, except atmospheric greenhouse gases were rising more quickly than expected.
“The 1979 Charney report estimated the equilibrium global surface warming from a doubling of CO2 to be ”near 3°C with a probable error of± l.5°C.” No substantial revision of this conclusion is warranted at this time.”
The Smagorinsky report “validated its climate models tests of the correctness of the models’ representation of the physical processes and from comparisons of the models’ responses· to known seasonal variations.”
Interestingly, the report states:
“…Because decisions of immense social and economic importance may be made on the basis of model experiments, it is important that a comprehensive climate-model validation effort be pursued, including the assembly of a wide variety of observational data specifically for model validation and the development of a validation methodology.
“Validation of climate models involves a hierarchy of tests, including checks on the internal behavior of subsystems of the model. The parameters used in comprehensive climate models are explicitly derived, as much as possible, from comparisons with observations and/or are derived from known physical principles. Arbitrary adjustment or tuning of climate models is therefore greatly limited.
“The primary method for validating a climate model is to determine how well the model-simulated climate compares with observations. Comparisons of simulated time means of a number of climatic variables with observations show that modern climate models provide a reasonably satisfactory simulation of the present large-scale global climate and its average seasonal changes.
“More complete validation of models depends on assembly of suitable data, comparison of higher-order statistics, confirmation of the models’ representation of physical processes, and verification of ice models.
“One test of climate theory can be obtained from empirical examination of other planets that in effect provide an ensemble of experiments over a variety of conditions. Observed surface temperatures of Mars, Earth, and Venus confirm the existence, nature, and magnitude of the greenhouse effect. [Boldface was italics in the original.]
The IPCC and its followers have not performed rigorous testing required for model validation. The IPCC testing is limited to determining which better describes the data used, the models with a calculated CO2 effect or without a CO2 effect. This is hardly rigorous and involves the use of the same data as was used to tune the models. Such testing is a form of circular reasoning.
The McKitrick-Christy Hypothesis Test avoids using data that was used to tune models, thus avoiding circular reasoning. Further the McKitrick-Christy test uses three datasets and shows that, whatever amplification is occurring, it is very modest. There is no empirical justification for the statement that a “doubling of CO2 to be ”near 3°C with a probable error of± l.5°C.”
Modern atmospheric temperature trends include the total effect of greenhouse gases, including CO2 and water vapor. Perhaps this is why the IPCC and its followers stick with surface measurements starting in the 1880s. The warming of the atmosphere does not indicate a “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”
The above analysis indicates that the IPCC and its followers such as the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) rely on 19th century thinking and 19th century measurement techniques. As such, the IPCC maintains erroneous scientific thinking for its thirty years of existence. See links under Defending the Orthodoxy, the September 15 & 22 TWTWs and https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/co…
Electricity Costs in Germany: According to reports, small and mid-sized businesses, as well as retail consumers, are paying the price for German policies of closing nuclear power plants and adding unreliable solar and wind power to the mix. According to the EU statistical arm Eurostat, reported by Bloomberg, Germany has the highest electricity prices for household consumers (taxes included, second half of 2017) at, €0.305/kWh, Denmark is slightly below that. The EU average is €0.205/kWh. For their environmental purity, the Germans and Danes are paying about 50% more for their electricity than the European Union Average.
Another report in Bloomberg states that the doubling of electricity prices in Germany since 2016 is causing problems for the “Mittelstand.” The Mittlestand consists of small and mid-sized companies, often family firms, and employ about 32-million, over 60% workforce, and almost “all of which have sales of less than 1 million euros.”
“While 2,000 corporate giants like Volkswagen AG and chemicals maker BASF SE have their own power plants and get exemptions from environmental tariffs, smaller companies pay more to absorb those costs.”
The same article gives a breakdown of Germany electricity prices: Network Costs (grid costs including costs of making electricity reliable) – 26%; Feed-in-Tariff (payments for renewable (unreliable) electricity – 24%; Power Generation -19%; Sales Tax – 16%; Electricity and Other Taxes – 10% and Concession Payment – 6%. Did California legislators and Governor Jerry Brown tell voters what to expect as they go 100% renewable, while shutting down nuclear?
Are the governors of New York, Virginia, etc. telling voters what to expect as they promote unreliable renewables? Thanks to hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling the US has inexpensive natural gas, which many of the same politicians are trying to prevent utilities and consumers from receiving. See links under Energy Issues – Non-US, California Dreaming, and https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/stati…
Antarctic Melt: Writing in the journal Scientific Nordic, Antarctic researcher Valentina Barletta at DTU Space, Technical University of Denmark, gives a description of what GPS sensors show is happening in the Amundsen Sea Embayment. This is part of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which the IPCC, NASA-GISS, NOAA claim is collapsing.
Using this data, Barletta estimates the ice sheet grounding line of today, of 10,000 years ago, and of the end of the last ice age, about 18,000 years ago. She estimates the crust of the earth in this area is softer, more plastic, than suggested from other places such as North America, and rebounds to loss of the weight of ice faster than generally assumed.
Such research may give problems to the IPCC, NASA-GISS, and NOAA, which claim that sea level rise is increasing exponentially and will continue to do so. Part of their claim is that the ocean basins are sinking, disguising actual water accumulation. Thus, the tidal gages along coast lines are giving an inaccurate reading of sea level rise. Only the modelers, adjusting the data, give a proper estimate of “true sea level rise.” TWTW considers the claims that ocean basin sinking is disguising sea level rise in the same lines as James Hansen telling Haapala that atmospheric warming is being hidden by the Southern Oceans. See links Changing Cryosphere and Mr. Hansen’s web site, somewhere.
Sea Level Rise, Real or Imaginary? Writing in WUWT, James Steele, Director emeritus of San Francisco State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus, discusses some of the problems he encountered to prevent shoreline erosion. Similar problems occur when trying to prevent storm surges and flooding from rainfall. Steele’s residence is in Pacifica, along the Pacific coast, on the peninsula, south of San Francisco. The area is marked by high bluffs, subject to coastal erosion from the sea.
The California Coastal Commission is using projections of exponential sea level rise 3 to 10 feet by NOAA by the end of the century, to prevent any reasonable protections from coastal erosion. These projections are similar to claims by Bay Area municipalities against oil companies for damages from use of fossil fuels but ignored in their bond solicitations.
There is no excuse for the incompetence exhibited by NOAA, NASA-GISS, and others for producing reports of exponential sea level rise. These Federal government organizations are damaging the ability of communities to address practical problems, causing real harm.
CBS reports an interview with the “Dutch Water Ambassador” who discusses protective measures against storms. In 1953, The Netherlands experienced a disastrous storm from the North Sea and committed to not let it happen again, while maintaining one of the largest ports in Europe, Rotterdam. The cost is huge, according to the report the Dutch allocate more than a billion dollars a year to manage their flood infrastructure. Like New Orleans, much of The Netherlands is below sea level, requiring constant pumping.
Unfortunately, the article fails to distinguish between problems created by storm surges and those created by floods and by both. The defensive measures are different, depending on the major threats. For example, with Sandy it was storm surge from the ocean; with Katrina it was storm surge through Lake Pontchartrain; with Harvey it was rainfall; and with Florence it was both, first storm surge, then rainfall Florence.
Further, the article fails to discuss the intense objections raised by environmental organizations against engineering measures such as those used by the Dutch by invoking the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Using NEPA, environment groups successfully stopped protective measures proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers, well before Katrina, to prevent storm surges flooding New Orleans. See links under Change in US Administrations, Changing Weather, and Changing Seas.
Number of the Week: $90,000 to 95,000 per day. “The rate for vessels shipping LNG from the Atlantic Basin to Asia has jumped to $US90,000 to $US95,000 a day this week, from $US75,000 a day at the end of August, brokers and traders said.” Assume the cost is only $US60,000 per day for an $200,000,000 LNG tanker. If the shipper takes the promoted “soon to become” trans-Arctic route and it is suddenly frozen in for 9 months (270 days), the shipper would face some $16,000,000 in leasing fees alone. The costs of provisions for the crew and the dangers the ice crushing the hull are another matter. No wonder few shipping companies are betting on the Arctic becoming “ice-free.” See link under Energy Issues – Non-US.
NEWS YOU CAN USE:
New Paper: The GCR-Cloud Link To Solar-Driven Climate Change Persists Despite The Post-2000 ‘Violation’
By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Sep 27, 2018
[SEPP Comment: GCR is Galactic Cosmic Rays which are used in the Svensmark Hypothesis.]
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science
Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, 2013
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts
Idso, Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, 2014
Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming
The NIPCC Report on the Scientific Consensus
By Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, NIPCC, Nov 23, 2015
Download with no charge
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate
S. Fred Singer, Editor, NIPCC, 2008
The ‘Trick’ of Anomalous Temperature Anomalies
Guest Essay by Kip Hansen, WUWT, Sep 25, 2018
Explaining Global Warming to the Public is Impossible Because We Are Not Talking the Same Language
Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball, WUWT, Sep 23, 2018
PhD Physicist Says Evidence Of Major Human Role In Climate “Is Lacking” …Sees “Abuses Of Science”
By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Sep 26, 2018
The myth of a climate crisis
Roger Pielke Jr on the dangers of eco-alarmism.
By Ben Pile, Spiked, UK, Sep 26, 2018 [H/t GWPF]
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
By Bert Bolin, Former Chairman IPCC, Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, No Date (about 2001)
Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Second Assessment (1982)
Report of the CO2/Climate Review Panel to the Climate Research Committee of the Climate Board/Committee on Atmospheric Sciences and the Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee of the Climate Board
National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1982
IPCC to release “October surprise” on climate change
By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Sep 24, 2018
Link to press release: Save the Date: IPCC Special Report Global Warming of 1.5ºC
By Staff Writers, IPCC, Aug 6, 2018
Breaking: Final Draft of IPCC Key Climate Alarmist Report Is Not Alarmist Enough!
By Jaime Jessop, Climate Scepticism, Sep 23, 2018
Climate Alarmists Accuse IPCC of ‘Watering down” Disaster Predictions (Again)
By Staff Writers, GWPF, Sep 23, 2018
Tackling climate change to be key talking point at UN summit
Leaders at this year’s U.N. General Assembly are feeling a sense of urgency to keep up the momentum on combating climate change.
By Staff Writers, AP, Sep 23, 2018
Calls to speed up climate change action in agriculture
By Kevin Keane, BBC Scotland, Sep 24, 2018
The climate empire strikes out: The perils of policy analysis in an echo chamber
By Benjamin Zycher, AEI, Sep 26, 2018
[SEPP Comment: Criticizing a “debate” in which all panelists agreed with the orthodoxy.]
Peak Oil Demand is Bogus and Meaningless
By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Sep 25, 2018
The Never-Ending Saga Of Climate Futility
By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, Sep 27, 2018
“There are two essential elements to climate change advocacy, which are not necessarily that closely related. Element number one is the idea that human “greenhouse gas” emissions, principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels, are causing a crisis of global warming that poses an existential danger to mankind. Element number two is that our government must and can address the crisis by imposing laws and regulations to restrict use of fossil fuels and thus emissions of CO2, thereby “saving the planet.
“Maybe you accept element one. This post only addresses element two. “
Climate change not main driver of amphibian decline
Press Release, Penn State, Via EurEkAlert, Sep 25, 2018 [H/t GWPF]
Now at least 10 years with sea ice at 2050-like levels yet polar bears are still abundant
By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Sep 27, 2018
Inuit hunters frustrated by polar bear conservation rules that put their lives at risk
By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Sep 24, 2018
It’s All Over: EU Abandons New 2030 Climate Target
By Staff Writers, Deutsche Press Agentur, Via GWPF, Sep 28, 2018
“Global climate policy is in crisis since US President Donald Trump quit the Paris climate agreement of 2015.”
More Cracks in the Paris Agreement
By Graham Lloyd, The Australian, Via GWPF, Sep 23, 2018
Lawrence Solomon: Trudeau stands alone as Canada — and the world — abandons green energy
Wind and solar have become the fossils of the energy industry; oil, gas and coal remain the fuels of the future
By Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, Can, Sep 28, 2018 [H/t Cooler Heads]
Macron rejects trade deals with countries outside Paris climate accord
The French president is calling on other countries to join him in refusing to sign new deals with ‘powers that do not respect’ the Paris Accord
By Chris Riotta, Independent, Sep 26, 2018
UN report: World ‘nowhere near on track’ to meet key climate change goal
By Aris Folley, The Hill, Sep 27, 2018
UN claims yet another moving climate goalpost we’ll never reach
By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Sep 25, 2018
John Holdren on Trump’s Energy/Climate Armageddon (Part II: renewables, energy efficiency, carbon capture & storage, messaging, etc.)
By Robert Bradley Jr. Master Resource, Sep 27, 2018
NEPA Is Under Threat—Here’s Why That Matters
NEPA gives communities a say in development projects
By Sam Schipani, Sierra (club), May 21, 2018
Top California regulator: Emissions rule change ‘blows a hole’ in air pollution standards
By Miranda Green, The Hill, Sep 24, 2018
[SEPP Comment: EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Air Pollutants haven’t changed. Only change is in carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. Perhaps the reporter does not realize that without carbon dioxide, most life on this planet, as we know it, would not exist.]
German Winemakers Celebrate Global Warming
Guest essay by Eric Worrall, WUWT, Sep 22, 2018
link to article: Climate Change Hits Germany, and Winemakers Couldn’t Be Happier
From Riesling to Pinot Noir, extreme summer boosts quality and quantity of German wines.
By Iain Rogers, Bloomberg, Sep 22, 2018
Claim: Businesses Losing Interest in Climate Reporting [Australia]
Guest essay by Eric Worrall, WUWT, Sep 21, 2018
No Behavioral Impairment from Elevated pCO2 Observed in a Coral Reef Grouper
Raby, G.D., Sundin, J., Jutfelt, F., Cooke, S.J. and Clark, T.D. 2018. Exposure to elevated carbon dioxide does not impair short-term swimming behavior or shelter-seeking in a predatory coral-reef fish. Journal of Fish Biology 93: 138-142., Sep 28, 2018
Warmer Summer Temperatures Protect a Foundation Forest Species from Insect Attack
Mech, A.M., Tobin, P.C., Teskey, R.O., Rhea, J.R. and Gandhi, K.J.K. 2018. Increases in summer temperatures decrease the survival of an invasive forest insect. Biological Invasions 20: 365-374. Sep 27, 2018
[SEPP Comment: A different twist on the usual theme.]
500 Million Years of Unrelatedness between Atmospheric CO2 and Temperature
Davis, W.J. 2017. The relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and global temperature for the last 425 million years. Climate 5: 76; doi: 10.3390/cli5040076. Sep 24, 2018
“…correlation does not imply causality, but the absence of correlation proves conclusively the absence of causality.”
Rise In UK Temperatures & Sunshine May Be Due To Reduced Air Pollution–Met Office 2006
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Sep 24, 2018
Midland Summer Temperatures Rising Faster Than CET
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Sep 25, 2018
How well do stratospheric reanalyses reproduce high-resolution satellite temperature measurements?
By Corwin J. Wright and Neil P. Hindley, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Sep 27, 2018
How Earth sheds heat into space
By Staff Writers, SPX, Sep 25, 2018
Link to press release: How Earth sheds heat into space: New insights into the role of water vapor may help researchers predict how the planet will respond to warming.
By Jennifer Chu, MIT News, Sep 24, 2018
Link to paper: Earth’s outgoing longwave radiation linear due to H2O greenhouse effect
By Daniel D. B. Koll and Timothy W. Cronin, PNAS, Sep 25, 2018
[SEPP Comment: The temperature amplification from water vapor feedback in the Charney Report, the basis in the IPCC models, does not kick in until 108 degrees F (42ºC)?]
MIT: Climate tipping point busted – globe needs to reach 152°F before runaway greenhouse effect kicks in
By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Sep 24, 2018
[SEPP Comment: Another fear based on ignorance.]
Iceland Katla volcano emits up to 24,000 tons of CO2 per day, may be about to blow (Or Not)
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Sep 25, 2018
[SEPP Comment: How do we tax these CO2 emissions?]
How Dutch Stormwater Management Could Have Mitigated Damage From Hurricane Florence
The world’s only water ambassador, appointed by the Netherlands, says damage from hurricanes could be lessened with the help of Dutch-innovated stormwater management
By Bill Whitaker, CBS News, Sep 23, 2018 [H/t Climate Etc.]
Claim: More persistent weather patterns in US linked to Arctic warming
By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Sep 26, 2018
[SEPP Comment: Great generalizations, thin evidence.]
Study: Warming ocean waters intensified devastating 2017 Atlantic hurricane season
By Jason Samenow, Washington Post, Sep 27, 2018 [H/t Climate Etc.]
Link to paper: Dominant effect of relative tropical Atlantic warming on major hurricane occurrence
By H. Murakami, E. Levin, T. L. Delworth1, R. Gudge, P.-C. Hsu, Science, Sep 27, 2018
Winter Forecast for the Northwest
By Cliff Mass, Weather and Climate Blog, Sep 26, 2018
Sea Level Speculation Irresponsibly Threatens Property Owners
By Jim Steele, WUWT, Sep 26, 2018
Arctic sea ice melt has turned the corner for 2018
By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Sep 23, 2013
[SEPP Comment: Its not necessarily the melt that is important, but the freeze.]
Arctic Ice Made Simple
By Ron Clutz, Science Matters, Sep 21, 2018
Hotter, Colder–It’s Still Your Fault!
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Sep 26, 2018
“So, apparently, global warming now means the East Antarctic is getting colder!!”
Recent Findings: Austrian Glacier Extent Over Most Of The Past 10,000 Years Less Than Today!
Climate change in Austria: Alpine glaciers thousands of years ago smaller than today
By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, (German text translated/edited by P Gosselin), No Tricks Zone, Sep 22, 2018
How fast can Antarctica rise when the ice melts?
New study shows that the land underneath a part of West Antarctica is rising five times faster than expected as the ice melts, revealing a surprisingly soft Earth structure beneath the ice sheet.
By: Valentina R. Barletta, Postdoctoral Researcher, DTU Space, Technical University of Denmark, Science Nordic, Sep 8, 2018
China in Crisis? Climate Change, Water Contamination Looming Threats
Guest essay by Eric Worrall, WUWT, Sep 26, 2018
National parks are heating up, drying out due to climate change: study
By Justin Wise, The Hill, Sep 24, 2018
Link to paper: Disproportionate magnitude of climate change in United States national parks
By Patrick Gonzalez, et al., Environmental Research Letters, Sep 24, 2018
[SEPP Comment: Questionable assumption: “Anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have increased global temperature 0.85° ± 0.2 °C century−1 from 1880 to 2012.” How do the authors establish that the cause was human emissions of CO2?]
BBC’s climate change ‘facts’ are fiction
By Harry Wilkinson, The Conservative Woman, Sep 22, 2018
“That global warming can be somehow ‘irreversible’ is pure propaganda; the climate has always been changing and it always will.”
G7 promise to kill fossil fuel subsidies hangs over Halifax meetings
By Carl Meyer, Canada’s National Observer, Sep 20, 2018 [H/t Dennis Ambler]
“Andrew Wheeler, the former coal lobbyist now heading up the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is attending the G7 and has appeared at scheduled meetings that have been open to the press. But he has uttered no words during those appearances.”
Competitive Enterprise Institute aims to debunk Kigali climate deal
By John Siciliano, Washington Examiner, Sep 25, 2018 [H/t Cooler Heads]
The Truth About Wind Energy: ‘The Readily Available Wind Power Capacity in Germany Is Less Than One Percent of Installed Capacity’
By Klaus Stratmann, Handelsplatt, Via GWPF, Sep 28, 2018
UK Coal Revival Reverses Gains in Green Power Drive
Financial Times, Via GWPF, Sep 28, 2018
The “Green Jobs” fallacy
By Andy Mayer, Institute of Economic Affairs, UK, Sep 28, 2018 [H/t Paul Homewood]
JEZ’S WINDMILL TAXBILL Jeremy Corbyn to announce £50billion plan to blitz Britain with wind turbines and solar panels
The Labour leader wants a ‘green revolution’ to curb climate change and create 400,000 jobs at the same time
By Tom Newton Dunn, The Sun, UK, Sep 25, 2018 [H/t GWPF]
Labour will double number of onshore windfarms, Jeremy Corbyn to announce
By Gordon Rayner, Telegraph, UK, Sep 26, 2018 [H/t Paul Homewood]
Oregon Legislature’s Counsel: Bloomberg-Funded Lawyer in DOJ Not Entirely Legal
Attorney was funded by Bloomberg to work on climate-related issues
By Todd Shepherd, Washington Free Beacon, Sep 22, 2018 [H/t GWPF]
U.S. regulator sues Musk for fraud, seeks to remove him from Tesla
By Jonathan Stempel, Alexandria Sage, Reuters, Sep 27, 2018
“The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission accused Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) Chief Executive Elon Musk on Thursday of fraud and sought to remove him from his role in charge of the electric car company, saying he made a series of ‘false and misleading’ tweets about potentially taking Tesla private last month.
[SEPP Comment: Will the SEC investigate municipal bond issues that claim sea level rise is modest and largely unknown, while municipal attorneys sue oil companies for causing dire sea level rise? Will the SEC sue wind and solar companies for claims of capacity, while actual generation is less than half the claimed capacity?]
Carbon taxes necessary in climate fight: World Bank chief
By Staff Writers, AFP, Sep 19, 2018 [H/t Toshio Fujita]
ICIS VIEW: Is the European ETS falling at the first hurdle?
By Tom Marzec-Manser, ICIS, Sep 11, 2018 [H/t GWPF]
[SEPP Comment: The Emission Trading Schemes (ETS) increase cost without reducing CO2 emissions!]
Wind Growth after PTC Expiration
By Lisa Linowes, Master Resource, Sep 24, 2018
EPA to merge two key science offices and disband office focused on science grants
By Miranda Green, The Hill, Sep 27, 2018
EU Goals Missed: Germany Must Pay Two Billion Euros to Eastern Europe
By Staff Writers, Focus Magazin, Via GWPF, Sep 28, 2018
Germany’s Economic Backbone Suffers From Soaring Power Prices
Mittelstand companies weighed down by higher electricity costs are struggling against competition from U.S. and China
By William Wilkes and Brian Parkin, Bloomberg, Sep 24, 2018
Germany’s RWE says too early to exit coal in 2035
By Arno Schuetze, Reuters, Sep 16, 2018
Germany’s Coal Habit Proves Hard to Kick
Forest showdown reflects government’s floundering shift to renewable power.
By Brian Parkin and William Wilkes, Bloomberg, Sep 27, 2018
France to cut renewable growth
By Staff Writers, The Energy Advocate, Sep 26, 2018 [H/t GWPF]
“Total spending on renewable projects will equate to €7.3 billion and will mostly go towards wind and solar schemes.”
LNG shipping rates spike, no end in sight
The price of shipping liquefied natural gas has spiked in September and is likely to remain high next year.
By Sabina Zawadski, News.com, AU, Sep 24, 2018
Australian Doublespeak: a policy “vacuum” still means $billions in renewables subsidies
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Sep 25, 2018
Dumb Energy Advances in Colorado
By Norman Rogers, American Thinker, Sep 24, 2018
[SEPP Comment: Explaining “plant churning,” replacing functioning coal power with natural gas power, wind and solar. Wind and solar create instability on the grid, which coal, nuclear, and hydro cannot effective balance out. Regulated power companies will justify charging consumers more and receive bigger profits.]
Why natural gas — not renewable energy — has been the biggest disruptor in energy markets
Peter Tertzakian: The biggest and fastest energy transition in North America hasn’t been the addition of renewables, nor the pushing out of coal
By Peter Terzakian, Financial Post, Sep 12, 2018
Utilities Helped Puerto Rico Fix Its Power Grid. Now They Face Hefty Tax Bills.
By James Glanz and Alejandra Rosa, NYT, Sep 26, 2018
[SEPP Comment: Municipal governments taxing not-for-profit humanitarian aid. Any wonder the utilities in Puerto Rico are a wreck?]
How Department Of Energy Spurs Innovation And Prosperity
By Paul Dabbar, IBD, Sep 27, 2018
The United States is now the largest global crude oil producer
By Candace Dunn, Tim Hess, EIA, Sep 12, 2018
Ethane Rising: Another Fossil Fuel Advances
By Robert Bradley Jr. Master Resource, Sep 25, 2018
Replacing Russian gas with American LNG would be ‘absolutely ridiculous’ – expert to RT
Editorial, RT, Sep 23, 2018
[SEPP Comment: Russian news. From a competitive economic standpoint, US LNG is more expensive, from a political perspective, it gives competition against Russian monopoly.]
The New Age of Coal
By Christopher Mendoza, American Thinker, Sep 22, 2018
India Powers Past Poverty, With Coal
By John Constable: GWPFF Energy Editor, Sep 18, 2018
China coal power building boom sparks climate warning
By Matt McGrath, BBC, Sep 26, 2018
New Botswana coal mine development under way – Minergy
By Martin Creamer, Mining Weekly, Sep 18, 2018
“The first saleable product is scheduled to be available from February 2019 for export to South Africa and mainly Asian markets.”
South Africa: Coal reserves reach crisis point
By Staff Writer, Africa Oil & Power, Sep 19, 2018
Texas coal plant announces plans to shut down
By Miranda Green, The Hill, Sep 25, 2018
Oglethorpe Agrees to Continue Vogtle Nuclear Project with Conditions; Final Vote Still to Come
By Darrell Proctor, Power Mag. Sep 24, 2018
“The expansion project, which is about half finished with the two new reactors now expected to come online in 2021 and 2022, respectively, is about five years behind schedule and more than $13 billion above budget, according to cost estimates from the parties involved outlined in filings with government regulators.”
How the Vogtle Nuclear Expansion’s Costs Escalated
By Sonal Patel, Power Mag, Sep 24, 2018
[SEPP Comment: More a chronology than an explanation of why.]
The World’s First Solar Panel Road- Not Such A Bright Idea After All!
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Sep 25, 2018
[SEPP Comment: Give the promoters enough in subsidies, solar roads will “work.” That is, they will be built for the subsidies.]
What If You Could Pick Your Renewable Power Source And Pay Less For It?
By Brian Potts, Forbes, Sep 19, 2018
[SEPP Comment: Who pays for reliable power? Will generators of reliable power demand fixed contracts to cover non-windy days?]
The impacts of electrification – the example of France
By Roger Andrews, Energy Matters, Sep 27, 2018
[SEPP Comment: In terms of 100% renewables, including nuclear, electric heat may be an advantage in France which depends on nuclear generation, but not in countries that use electricity generated by other means.]
The promise of NZ Windfarms dissipates as it announces a major review
By Chris Hutching, Stuff, Sep 27, 2018
Tidal Lagoon Left High & Dry In CVA
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Sep 26, 2018
“The rest of the investors in TLP look likely to kiss goodbye to some £35m.”
[SEPP Comment: As the UK Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Power company enters insolvency.]
Add that to the windpower bill: SA Battery cost $90m which is $220 per family of four
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Sep 27, 2018
EPA and DOJ Settle with Derive Systems over Vehicle Emissions Control Defeat Devices
Press Release, By EPA, Sep 24, 2018
Battery Powered Vehicles and Demand for Oil
By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Sep 28, 2018
[SEPP Comment: ICE is Internal Combustion Engine.]
California Gov. Brown Signs Historic Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant Bill
Press Release, Power Mag, Sep 19, 2018
[SEPP Comment: An when the bills come in for new zero-carbon electricity generation to replace the current nuclear zero-carbon generation, will there be bipartisan support to pay them?]
Science educators need to talk about the identity of scientists
Like many others, I fell for Brian Wansink’s bad science. Here’s how we can do better in the future.
By Alan Levinovitz, The Washington Post, Sep 24, 2018 [H/t Climate Etc.]
BELOW THE BOTTOM LINE:
The answer is blowin’ in the wind
By Staff Writers, Climate Change Predictions.org, Sep 28, 2018
“Scientists have found that feeding oregano to cattle cuts their emission of wind – from both ends – by nearly half. And that’s no small matter, for the methane they let loose – mainly by belching – is 23 times more effective in heating up the planet than carbon dioxide.” The Telegraph (UK), 17 Sep 2010
By Staff Writers, Climate Change Predictions.org, Sep 25, 2018
“Professor David Raubenheimer, a nutritional ecologist at the University of Sydney’s Charles Perkins Centre, believes that the worldwide obesity pandemic is caused by climate change and a low consumption of protein.” Sydney Morhing Herald 8 Dec 2014 – screencopy held by this website
1. A Cornell Scientist’s Downfall
Brian Wansink’s tale shows that academic peer review is broken.
By David Randall, WSJ, Sep 25, 2018
SUMMARY: The director of research at the National Association of Scholars writes:
“The irreproducibility crisis cost Brian Wansink his job. Over a 25-year career, Mr. Wansink developed an international reputation as an expert on eating behavior. He was the main popularizer of the notion that large portions lead inevitably to overeating. But Mr. Wansink resigned last week as head of the Food and Brand Lab at Cornell University and professor at the Cornell SC Johnson College of Business after an investigative faculty committee found he had committed a litany of academic breaches: ‘misreporting of research data, problematic statistical techniques, failure to properly document and preserve research results’ and more.
“Mr. Wansink defended himself to a reporter, claiming his work featured ‘no fraud, no intentional misreporting, no plagiarism, [and] no misappropriation.’ As of this week, however, he has ceased research, and he will retire at the end of the academic year.
“Mr. Wansink’s fall from grace began with a 2016 blog post in which he blithely confessed to using improper research techniques known as p-hacking and HARKing. P-hacking involves running statistical analyses until they produce a statistically significant result; HARKing stands for ‘hypothesizing after the results are known.’ The post prompted a small group of skeptics to take a hard look at Mr. Wansink’s past scholarship. Their analysis, published in January 2017, turned up an astonishing variety and quantity of errors in his statistical procedures and data.
“In April 2017, Columbia University statistician Andrew Gelman charged in his blog that Mr. Wansink was guilty of ‘serious research misconduct: either outright fraud by people in the lab, or such monumental sloppiness that data are entirely disconnected from context, with zero attempts to fix things when problems have been pointed out.’ Mr. Wansink has said he expects to be vindicated one day.
“Cornell’s public judgment on Mr. Wansink is a milestone in the campaign to change how science works. Academic institutions have been slow to accept the gravity of the so-called irreproducibility crisis—the wide use of faulty research techniques that regularly produce results other scientists can’t replicate. Cornell is a force in the science world. Its actions are a sign that other academic institutions may at last be willing to change the culture of scientific research.
“A generation of Mr. Wansink’s journal editors and fellow scientists failed to notice anything wrong with his research—a powerful indictment of the current system of academic peer review, in which only subject-matter experts are invited to comment on a paper before publication. Mr. Wansink’s resignation, on the other hand, points to the possibility of a cross-disciplinary approach to evaluating the reproducibility of scientific research. This new approach could even include criticism by nonscientists.
“P-hacking, cherry-picking data and other arbitrary techniques have sadly become standard practices for scientists seeking publishable results. Many scientists do these things inadvertently, not realizing that the way they work is likely to lead to irreplicable [sic. irreproducible] results. Let something good come from Mr. Wansink’s downfall.
via Watts Up With That?
October 1, 2018 at 12:30AM