Month: September 2024

Nettlecombe DCNN 8632 & DCNN 8633 – A tale of two stations.

Nettlecombe Field Studies Council (above) 51.13076 -3.35005 Met Office assessed CIMO Class 5 & Satisfactory Installed 1/1/1968 {Image courtesy Peter Stevens from Google Street view.}

Nettlecombe Birds Hill 51.11779 -3.34946 Met Office assessments not known. Installed 1/1/1968 closed 10/7/2012 but still apparently in situ.

There are multiple issues with the current “Nettlecombe Field Studies Council” site which become further confused by the Met Office simultaneously opening a second weather station known as “Netllecombe Birds Hill” approximately 1,400 metres away and their dual operation for 44 years.

Analysis of the current Field Studies Council (FSC) site is an object lesson in how not to run a reliable recording station.

Here is the aerial image of the FSC site.

Accurate monitoring of weather recording sites is imperative to ensure extraneous heat sources liable to distort readings are kept well away from the Stevenson Screen. This manual reporting site has readings taken by the staff at the FSC – So why on earth do staff of the responsible body choose to park multiple vehicles by the screen?

This vehicle parking is not a one off situation, of the 8 historic aerial images since 2001 shown on Google Earth Pro, 6 show vehicles parked in the vicinity of the Screen. Such regular parking naturally leaves marks, ruts and indicators on the grass verge which would be clearly visible during any site inspection. Why are the Met office inspectors not noticing this and taking action. The vehicles may well be static warming up engines and passenger compartments for considerable periods in colder weather and similarly in hot weather to activate the air conditioning to cool the cabins. Two of the above vehicles shown are 12 seater “minibuses”. The close exhaust emissions will unquestionably have a significant effect on temperature readings as per the Motherwell Strathclyde Park fiasco.

This leads on to the observing standards and site’s record keeping in general. The “Remarks” section of the CEDA archive indicates 50 entries of “Missing DATA” variously where “STAFF TOO BUSY”, “: No trained staff available to take readings”, “no one available” , ” Staff away” , etc. This is definitely not an indication of dedicated staff and devotion to duty. I personally find it hard to accept given this “track record” that when readings are actually taken these can be guaranteed as “reliable” and taken by adequately trained and committed staff. This site is Class 5 by siting and unsatisfactory by operation.

Moving on to Nettlecombe Birds Hill, the most recent aerial image from google indicates the site is still there despite “closure” twelve years ago.

The site is surrounded by woodland but at least considerably distant from extraneous artificial heat sources, however, a clue to a problem lies in the site name of “Birds HILL”. Weather stations should, wherever possible, be located on flat land. This site most certainly is not flat at all as can be seen from the Ordnance Survey map of the area. The station is on an unacceptably steep slope.

This was also a manually recording site and though I have not been able to ascertain exactly by whom there is a remarkable similarity to the FSC site i.e. “STAFF TOO BUSY”

Remarks such as “DUE TO THE SCREEN DOOR BEING LEFT OPEN ALL AIR TEMP VALUES HAVE BEEN DELETED” really do not fill me with confidence in the quality of the observing staff’s competence.

N.B. this issue of leaving Screens open is remarkably common, this street view image below is of Threave weather station in Kirkcudbrightshire and there are other examples. Given street view images are not taken that frequently it seems quite surprising for them to catch images of open screens…but they do.

Thus the Met Office chose to simultaneously site two new manually reporting stations within 1,400 metres of each other, both of highly questionable siting, subject to poor reporting standards and yet continued to run them simultaneously for 44 years. One still operates and the other (Birds Hill) probably still could. This just seems an expensive way to produce unreliable and often unusable data for no obvious benefit – certainly not value for taxpayer money. Again I feel I have to ask….why?

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/A7jHIWU

September 21, 2024 at 04:25AM

“Exxon Knew”: More Rebuttal (again)

From MasterResource

By Randal Utech — September 19, 2024

“The contrived sense of accomplishment in history matching is spurious correlation for an infinitesimally small period of time. Using Exxon’s internal analysis of CO2 climate forcing is little more than a propaganda tool.”

“Exxon Knew” is a political-lawyer campaign focusing on certain internal company documents to make a case that the oil major knew that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions were a future threat to human betterment.

Smoking gun? Hardly.

A half century later, the IPCC is still trying to update and figure out physical climate science. Exxon did not do a study on the benefits of CO2 or the offset of sulfur dioxide emissions. The concern way back then was Global Cooling, Peak Oil, and Peak Gas. And as the company knew, fossil fuels had no viable substitute, as in wind and solar.

This historical correction has been documented in many posts here at MasterResource, including:

Big Oil, Exxon Not Guilty as Charged: Six-part Rebuttal (September 22, 2022)

‘ExxonKnew’: More Correction (September 18, 2023)

Shell Knew? No (July 19, 2023)

Climate Alarmist as ExxonMobil Whistleblower (March 27, 2024)

In Search of the “Greenhouse Signal” in the 1990s (June 21, 2023)

Unsettled Science, IPCC-style (February 18, 2020)

It became my turn when I encountered this argument by Mark Burger on social media, He stated:

As opposed to fossil fuel industries war on hiding their impacts for decades? One example: “Exxon scientists predicted global warming with ‘shocking skill and accuracy,’ Harvard researchers say

My Rebuttal

To which I respond (expanded from my reply on social media):

To say that Exxon knew the truth back in the early 80s is a laughable fallacy. Effectively they built a primitive model that is characteristically similar to the erroneous modern climate models of today.
Fundamentally their work is based on the poorly understood climate sensitivity (ECS) derived from radiative convective models and GCM models. To their credit, they actually acknowledged the high degree of uncertainty in these estimations. Today, even Hausfather (2022 vs 2019) is beginning to understand the climate sensitivity (ECS) is too high. CMIP6 is running still even hotter than CMIP5 and using ECS of 3 to 5° C rather than ~ 1.2° C as highlighted in Nick Lewis’s 2022 study.

CMIP6 should have been better because it incorporated solar particle forcing (Matthes et. al.) and as they incorporate more elements of natural forcing (an active area of research as we still do not have a predictive theory for climate), the effect is highlighting more underlying problems with the models.

However, Exxon investigators fell into the same trap that climate modelers of today where they build the models to history match temperatures and then wow, because they can create a model that appears to history match temperatures, they assume it is telling them something. Truth? Anyone can create a model to do this, but it would never mean the model is correct. While the models today are much more complex, they are based on a complex set of non-linear equations, and the understanding of the various sources of nonlineararity is poor. This opens up wide degrees of uncertainty yet wide opportunity for tuning. Furthermore, natural forcing is undercharacterized and deemed inconsequential.

The contrived sense of accomplishment in history matching is spurious correlation for an infinitesimally small period of time. Using Exxon’s internal analysis of CO2 climate forcing is little more than a propaganda tool. Current climate models, much more sophisticated, face the same problem of unknown, false causality.

————-

Randall Utech, former Advisor Geoscientist at Schlumberger, has researched climate science for nearly 30 years with emphasis on geology, paleoclimate, and the glacial cycles. An interview with him by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists can be found here. Utech is author of On the Benefits of CO2 (April 11, 2023).

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/NZekU5R

September 21, 2024 at 04:06AM

It’s time to follow in the U.S. navy’s 50 year long wake of nuclear safety

All commissioned U.S. Navy submarines and supercarriers built since 1975 are nuclear-powered

via CFACT

https://ift.tt/vUSmM8N

September 21, 2024 at 03:19AM

Hurricane Havoc: Next Big Blow Set to Destroy America’s Offshore Wind Turbines

If brand-new offshore wind turbines are liberating their 100m blades and distributing their toxic entrails along the Atlantic coastline during perfectly calm weather, imagine what a blistering Hurricane might do to the tens of thousands of blades that now flap above the ocean waves.

In the video above, a vicious little twister makes short work of a fleet of these things in Iowa earlier this year.

As Paul Driessen explains below, however, the Atlantic Hurricane is magnitudes more powerful and destructive than a localised tornado.

With tonnes of toxic blade gunk already washing up on the coastline (during benign weather), Paul ponders a scenario where thousands of these things get battered by the kind of storms for which the Atlantic coast of the USA is renowned.

In the second piece – as if on cue – a typhoon that hit Hainan, China obliterated dozens of these things, proving Paul’s point in the way that only Mother Nature can.

Looming ‘clean’ energy disasters off our coasts
Watts Up With That?
Paul Driessen
25 August 2024

Photos of oil-covered seals and birds from California’s 1969 Santa Barbara blowout helped launch the environmental and stop-oil movements. Some 90,000 barrels polluted ocean waters and yet, when I was scuba diving beneath it two decades later, the same production platform support structure once again hosted a magnificent ecosystem with millions of anemones, mussels, starfish, crabs and fish.

The 2010 Deepwater Horizon drillship disaster killed eleven workers and blasted 3-4 million barrels of oil and enormous amounts of natural gas into the Gulf of Mexico. Yet within a surprisingly short time after the runaway well was capped, wave action, oil-dispersant chemicals, dust-covered oil droplets slowly sinking to the seafloor, and other natural forces had cleansed the waters of oil.

Those other forces were hydrocarbon-degrading microbes that are always present in ocean waters worldwide – but rapidly reproduce when they sense oil in their environs. After depleting the hydrocarbon food sources, the microbes die off to normal numbers, and new organisms degrade the byproducts the initial foragers created, until those nutrients are also gone. Then their populations also plummet, in a newly clean ocean.

The disasters spurred industry to implement better blowout prevention technologies and procedures.

Irrelevant, anti-oil activists say, they also emphasize why we must banish oil and gas – and replace fossil fuels with clean, green wind, solar and battery power. Otherwise, wildlife, beaches and tourism will be threatened repeatedly by oil spills.

It’s becoming increasingly obvious that these supposed alternatives won’t work – especially as AI, EVs, data centers, government-mandated electric heating and cooking, and charging grid-backup batteries, double or triple electricity generation demands. Intermittent electricity cannot power modern nations. Wind and solar cannot produce thousands of essential products that require petrochemical feed stocks. These energy sources are not clean, green, renewable or sustainable. They endanger wildlife.

A recent mishap off the Nantucket, Massachusetts coast underscores yet another reason why hundreds or thousands of monstrous wind turbines cannot be permitted in America’s coastal waters.

Shards, chunks and finally the rest of a turbine blade fell into the ocean. One blade … from a 62-turbine project that’s only three-fourths completed … broken by its own weight, not by a storm.

And yet beaches had to be closed amid peak tourist season, while crews picked up pieces of fiberglass-resin-plastic-foam blades, and boats dodged big pieces floating in the water. Worse, Vineyard Wind didn’t tell Nantucket officials about the problems until two days after the blade began disintegrating.

Each blade is 350 feet long and 140,000 pounds. That’s more than a fully occupied Boeing 737 jetliner. Vineyard Wind involves 186 blades: 65,000 feet (12 miles) in total combined length, weighing in at a combined 26,000,000 pounds!

The Biden-Harris offshore wind plan calls for 30,000 megawatts of generating capacity by 2030. That’s 2,500 gigantic 12-MW offshore turbines. That won’t even meet New York State’s current peak summer electricity needs, before all these extra demands kick in. Offshore wind’s contribution toward meeting future demands for all Atlantic Coast states could easily require 5,000 such turbines: 15,000 blades, weighing a combined 2 billion pounds and spanning a combined 5,250,000 feet (995 miles)!

Even more disturbing, the entire Atlantic coastline is hurricane country. Every year, almost without fail. The only questions are how many hurricanes, how powerful, and where each one will hit.

NOAA records for landfalling hurricanes – those that actually hit US beaches and cities – reveal that 105 Category 1-5 hurricanes struck the Atlantic seaboard, from Florida to Maine, from 1851 through 2023. Add in those that remained at sea, where the turbines will be, and that number could double.

Of that total, 23 were Category 3-5 (111-157 or higher mph winds). Most struck Florida, Georgia and South Carolina. But 39 made landfall between North Carolina and Delaware – and 19 hit Northeastern States, including nine Category 2-3 monsters (96-129 mph winds).

Mind you – these turbines will be weakened by constant corrosive salt spray and frequently by sub-hurricane storms. When the inevitable big hurricane roars up the coast, devastation will follow.

Kamala Harris is bullish about offshore wind. For the last 3-1/2 years she’s helped run an administration that’s determined to convert the USA to wind, solar and battery power, expedite permits for onshore and offshore “clean energy” projects, and even waive requirements that offshore wind developers post bonds and pay for removing damaged, broken and obsolete offshore wind towers.

She supports banning plastic straws but has never asked how many plastic straws it would take to equal 15,000 offshore wind turbine blades. (Using nautical terms, an unfathomable number.) Moreover, plastic straws don’t contain dangerously sharp fiberglass shards, and can’t sink fishing boats that collide with enormous but hard-to-see slabs of turbine blades.

Ms. Harris, Tim Walz and other wind zealots ignore worries about hurricanes wiping out forests of offshore wind turbines as anti-wind fearmongering. History says otherwise.

The 1935 Labor Day Hurricane clobbered Florida with 200+ mph devastation, Georgia with Category 1 winds. The Great New England Hurricane of 1938 smashed into New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts with 115-120 mph force. 1944’s Great Atlantic Hurricane – punished the coast from North Carolina to New Jersey and Massachusetts with Category 2 winds.

Edna hit the Northeast with Category 2 winds in 1954, Donna did it again in 1960, and Gloria clobbered the region with 96-115 mph blasts in 1985, even reaching New Hampshire and Maine! Isabel hit North Carolina and Virginia in 2003. The “minor” Category 1 hurricane of 2012, better known as Superstorm Sandy, was also devastating.

This summary includes just some that hit North and Mid-Atlantic States, and a few that slammed Florida, Georgia and South Carolina – all prime territory for forests of offshore turbines, fixed to the seafloor or insanely sitting atop enormous floating platforms off Maine and other states. They’d all flounder.

Replacing hundreds or thousands pf torn, damaged and smashed turbines and blades would take years, perhaps decades. Meanwhile, there would be no electricity in a Harris-Biden-Walz-Democrat government-mandated all-electric Eastern Seaboard. The absence of heating, air conditioning and power for homes, hospitals and everything else would displace millions and kill thousands.

Hopefully, politicians and bureaucrats could expedite new gas turbine and modular nuclear power plants. That would mean only a few years of deprivation and blackouts, instead of many years, perhaps decades.

Otherwise, floating slabs of broken turbine blades would endanger boats for months or years, until they are retrieved, hauled ashore and landfilled. Cleaning up billions of sharp shards of fiberglass – each an inch to a couple feet in length, and nearly invisible – would likely take decades, during which time they would impale and imperil beach walkers, swimmers, fish, whales, dolphins and other marine life.

I’m not a microbiologist, but I’m not aware of any microbes that devour fiberglass, resin or plastic foam.

With no bonds or requirements that Big Wind cover cleanup and turbine removal costs, electricity-bereft taxpayers and ratepayers would be left holding the bag.

Before we rush any further into this “renewable energy transformation,” can we first have some realistic, commonsense analysis? Can we at least think before casting our ballots this fall?
Watts Up With That?

Victims of Super Typhoon Yagi include Hainan wind farm
Dialogue Earth
Niu Yuhan
11 September 2024

The most powerful autumn storm to have hit China since 1949 made landfall on 6 September.

Super Typhoon Yagi caused four deaths and 95 injuries. More than 720,000 had to relocate in Guangdong province, and half a million people were affected in Hainan province.

Five or six huge turbines were also severely damaged at a wind farm in coastal Hainan, according to its operator.

Landing just a few kilometres from the wind farm, Yagi reached over 83 metres per second (300 km per hour), far exceeding requirements for the typhoon resistance of wind turbines, an industry insider told media.

Qin Haiyan, secretary general of China Renewable Energy Society’s Wind Energy Committee, explained that the turbines were not yet operational “so their anti-typhoon features could not be activated.”

Energy Observer reported that the damaged turbines were part of a capacity-expansion project. The plan, intended for completion in October, involved dismantling the original 32 smaller turbines and replacing them with 16 turbines, each with a capacity of 6.25 megawatts and worth nearly 10 million yuan (1.37 million USD).

“To boost capacity, many companies have been extending wind turbine blades and increasing tower heights without upgrading other components, which has compromised safety. Additionally, many existing technical standards were originally developed for smaller turbines, raising concerns about whether they are applicable to larger turbines,” reported Energy Observer.

Caixin highlighted that China’s wind power industry has been grappling with intense price competition in recent years and the race to lower costs often comes at the expense of quality.
Dialogue Earth

via STOP THESE THINGS

https://ift.tt/Kxjrcfn

September 21, 2024 at 02:31AM