Category: Uncategorized

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

Divers say less than 5% of Great Barrier Reef is dead, not half

Divers say less than 5% of Great Barrier Reef is dead, not half

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

By Paul Homewood

 

image

http://ift.tt/2ntISXe

 

From Blasting News:

 

A team of divers is pushing back on a so-called second mass bleaching event occurring on the #Great Barrier Reef, which media reports said affected 50 to 60 percent of Cape York region. Scientists from the government-funded ARC center also found a 35 percent mortality rate, with an ultimate death toll topping 90 percent. That’s prompted local dive operators, who physically visit the reef each day, to survey the hardest hit parts. They only found between one and five percent damage.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, which oversees the 1,250-mile-long structure, also added on their website there were still a great many reefs with abundant living coral for tourists to view, but it was imperative the world acts and carries out the “Paris Climate Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

The local divers, however, used their own money and spent two weeks surveying 28 sites on 24 outer reef shelves ARC said were decimated. They found the reefs looked identical to how they did twenty years ago. Despite alarmist headlines of a mass bleaching event, they found no changes in two decades. They said the discrepancy between what they found (five percent damage) and what was being reported was “phenomenal.”

Other reef threats include the crown-of-thorns starfish. This starfish feeds on coral polyps, which are needed for new coral colonies to grow. The starfish population has exploded since the early ’60’s when its chief predator, the Pacific triton, was devastated by shell hunters. Since then, the starfish has wiped out many of the central reefs. The corals survive through a symbiotic relationship with zooxanthellae, which gives them their vibrant colors.

Marine Park Authority Director of Reef Recovery Dr. David Wachenfeld said local weather conditions will also define the final outcome of the dying or bleached coral or lack thereof. More importantly, Wachenfeld said, not all bleached coral will die. He said last year’s bleaching and mortality were highly variable across the 133,000-square-mile Marine Park, which is bigger than Italy.

Reports of death widely exaggerated

Last summer roughly 22 percent of coral became bleached despite claims of widespread destruction. Because coral species have different tolerances to ocean temperatures, some can survive in above-average seawater temperatures. While some scientists are quick to blame #Climate Change on any #Bleaching Event, it didn’t occur across the entire reef but largely in one area.

Last June, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s Chairman Russell Reichelt said there was a lot of widespread misinterpretation on how much of the reef was dead, with others saying 90 percent was gone. But only 22 percent of the reef was negatively affected by the 2015 El Nino and green groups intentionally mislead the “extent and impact of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef.”

Accidental discovery

Exploration of the reef began when British explorer Captain James Cook accidentally ran his vessel into the reef. Charting the reef’s many mazes, channels and passages continued into the 19th century. Dating of the reef shows it was growing on Australia’s continental shelf around the Miocene Epoch (23.7 to 5.3 million years ago). Tectonics pushed the continent northward into more tropical waters, allowing coral to form.

The Great Barrier Reef survived multiple ice ages, which lowered sea levels, another cause of coral death. It also survived multiple warm periods (ex: Medieval and Roman) when the Earth experienced above-average temperatures of three to five degrees. And fossils showed widespread bleaching events occurred well before CO2 levels reached today’s levels.

http://ift.tt/2ntISXe

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

March 20, 2017 at 10:30AM