Category: Uncategorized

Uncategorized 6 May 2017

Confidential: How to Hide the Pause

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

Guest essay by Iain Aitken

Dear Colleagues – As President Trump hints at the withdrawal of our country from the Paris climate accord there has never been a greater threat to the Cause of saving our planet from catastrophic man-made global warming – so now, more than ever, we must be adroit in all dealings with the media. Whilst it is true that the climate models are obviously running hot and we appear to have assumed far too high a value for climate sensitivity and have obviously grossly underestimated natural climate variability we can rest assured that these highly damaging facts are far too arcane for the scientifically illiterate public, journalists and politicians; fortunately it is only the climate change sceptics who understand how all this undermines our great Cause – and happily we continue to be highly successful in discrediting and silencing them. But should the global warming Pause ever be publically acknowledged this could destroy us – it is our Sword of Damocles. Therefore I would urge you to study and memorise the imaginary interview below setting our clear steps that you should follow in any dealings with the media to help ensure that this potential disaster does not befall us.

Interviewer: Hello and welcome to the Science Spot! [applause] Tonight we have a treat for you as we welcome to the show none other than one of the top scientists saving the planet from catastrophic man-made climate change, Professor Pete Pecksniff, Head of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Ford, England, Europe! [wild applause] Great of you to take time off to talk to us, Professor.

Pecksniff: It’s my pleasure to be here, Bill. They do let us out of the lab for short periods! [laughter]

Interviewer: So, first up, Professor, I’ve heard that when you set aside last year’s extreme El Niño weather event there has been about twenty years without any statistically significant global warming, something they call the ‘Pause’. Given that about a third of all man-made greenhouse gases in history were emitted over that period can that really be true? I mean, if that’s true then doesn’t that blow out of the water any belief in dangerous man-made global warming?

Pecksniff: I’m so glad you’ve brought that up, Bill. These days we seem to be swimming in a sea of Fake News and I’m delighted that your show is bringing this disgraceful practice to the public attention.

Interviewer: Right. So what you’re saying is that the Pause is Fake News?

Pecksniff: What I’m saying, Bill, is that there are Facts and then there are Alternative Facts and I applaud you for helping educate the public to recognise one from the other.

Interviewer: OK. So what you are saying is that the Pause is actually a lie?

Pecksniff: Look, let’s be absolutely clear about this – any suggestion that we are experiencing global cooling is total nonsense and can be discounted out of hand.

Interviewer: Well, yes, Professor. But the thing is I didn’t actually ask you if we were experiencing global cooling – I asked you if there had been a Pause in global warming which, you know, isn’t really the same thing?

Pecksniff: Exactly. There is no reason whatsoever to think that global warming has stopped and I can assure you absolutely that no climate scientist in the world believes that it has.

Interviewer: Right. Yes, I’m sure that’s true. But, you see that doesn’t really answer my question?

Pecksniff: [sighs and puts head in hands] Look, I don’t know how to be any clearer about this. The fact is that we are experiencing global warming – the scientific evidence of that is unequivocal! Furthermore 2014, 2015 and 2016 have all, successively, been the warmest years since records began. And ten of the warmest years since records began have all fallen in this century! How much more evidence is needed, for goodness sake?

Interviewer: Yes, well, I kind of get all that. But, and I hate to press you here, Professor, but it sort of seems to me that everything you’ve said so far could all be true – and yet the twenty year Pause in global warming could also be true. Couldn’t it? I mean the trend from 1950, say, could be up but the trend since 1997 could be flat. And all those warm years this century could be warm and yet the trend could still be flat. Er, couldn’t it?

Pecksniff: Bill, I really hate to have to do this because I have no wish whatsoever to embarrass you in front of your audience but I have here a graph that should answer your question once and for all [takes paper from jacket pocket, unfolds it and shows it to the camera] Can your camera catch that? As should be abundantly obvious we see a dramatic global warming trend over the last twenty years.

Interviewer: [squirming] Well, you certainly can’t argue with that. My apologies for pressing you on all this, Professor. At last we have the absolute truth that the Pause is just a myth.

Pecksniff: [gracious patronising smile] You said it, Bill.

Should anyone be concerned that the Interviewer might realise that the graph is based on only the terrestrial temperature datasets and pull out his own graph based on the far more accurate RSS/UAH satellite datasets, so revealing the Pause, rest assured that this has never happened. Indeed the chance of the Interviewer getting beyond the second or third question before giving up is remote. Consequently, provided we are all careful to stick closely to this script, which, remember, sticks to the literal truth and does not require that any explicit lies be told, the Pause can be kept hidden. Whilst I appreciate that many of you may have qualms about employing such blatant obfuscation and dissimulation always remember that the end, in service of the Cause, justifies the means.

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

May 6, 2017 at 03:35PM

Uncategorized 6 May 2017

Impending US Solar Energy Crash?

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

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Financially troubled solar businesses seem to be hitting the headlines a lot these days.

Solar Industry Slowdown Catches Up With SolarCity

By Mrinalini Krishna | May 5, 2017 — 11:04 AM EDT

After nice stretch of sunny weather, the last few months have clouded over for big solar. Declining prices for photovoltaic cells are hurting panel manufacturers and stressing solar installation businesses. This situation was in sharp relief this week in Tesla’s (TSLA) earnings, as its solar installation business, SolarCity, disclosed a big slowdown in builds. SolarCity commands 41 percent of the residential solar installation market, according to GTM. In its latest earnings, the firm revealed that it had installed 150 MW of panels in the first quarter, down nearly 39 percent y/y.

…

There are companies that are doing well. First Solar (FSLR) just reported strong earnings while Vivint Solar (VSLR) announced is expansion into Rhode Island and is expected to announce financial results next week. However, the list of struggling companies in the sector is longer.

SunPower Corp. (SPWR) reported its sixth consecutive quarter of losses and laid off 25 percent of its workforce. Verengo Solar filed for bankruptcy last year, while Sungevity and Suninva did the same earlier this year.

…

United Power acquires former home of bankrupt Abound Solar

By Doug Storum — May 2, 2017

LONGMONT — Brighton-based United Power Inc., has acquired the former home of Abound Solar Inc., in east Longmont for $8.8 million, according to public records.

9586 LLC, an entity registered to Boulder-based real estate firm W.W. Reynolds Cos., sold the 130,117-square-foot facility on 7.6 acres at 9586 E. I-25 Frontage Road just south of Colorado Highway 119 in Weld County. The building has been vacant while an effort to remove hazardous waste left behind by Abound was tied up in insurance claims court.

Abound Solar went bankrupt in 2012 after receiving stimulus money from the federal government.

…

Oil Closes Near $46 As U.S. Shale Revival Cancels Out OPEC Efforts

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

Oil Closes Near $46 As U.S. Shale Revival Cancels Out OPEC Efforts

Oil closed near $46 a barrel in New York, back to levels last seen before the OPEC deal, as the shale revival appears to be making the group’s cuts ineffective.

After dipping below $44 Friday, futures pared this week’s decline to 6.3 percent. But, prices remain near their lowest since the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries signed a six-month deal to curb production in November. Meanwhile, shale drillers are pressing ahead with their longest expansion since 2011. Market volatility and trading volumes surged.

“What we’ve seen in terms of the rebound today is really just a bit of a correction following an oversold market over the past several days,” Michael Tran, a commodities strategist at RBC Capital Markets in New York, said by telephone.

OPEC’s curbs drove oil above $55 at the start of the year, encouraging U.S. producers to ramp up drilling. The result has been an 11-week expansion of American production, the longest run of gains since 2012. Prices are still more than 50 percent below their peak in 2014, when surging shale output triggered crude’s biggest collapse in a generation and left rival producers such as Saudi Arabia scrambling to protect market share.

Oil market volatility, as measured by the CBOE/Nymex Oil Volatility Index, jumped to the highest level since December. The U.S. benchmark’s 14-day relative strength index hovered near 30, signaling the commodity is oversold.

West Texas Intermediate for June delivery rose 70 cents, or 1.5 percent, to settle at $46.22 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Total volume was about 70 percent above the 100-day average. The contract sank 4.8 percent Thursday.

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

May 6, 2017 at 11:46AM

Uncategorized 6 May 2017

Are Microbiologists Climate-Denying Science Haters?

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

Recently, I gave a seminar on “fake news” to professors and grad students at a large public university. Early in my talk, I polled the audience: “How many of you believe climate change is the world’s #1 threat?” Silence. Not a single person raised his or her hand.

Was I speaking in front of a group of science deniers? The College Republicans? Some fringe libertarian club? No, it was a room full of microbiologists.

How could so many incredibly intelligent people overwhelmingly reject what THE SCIENCE says about climate change? Well, they don’t. They just don’t see it as big of a threat to the world as other things. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of them felt that antibiotic resistance and pandemic disease were the biggest global threats. One person thought geopolitical instability was the biggest concern.

I told them that I believed poverty was the world’s biggest threat. The reason is poverty is the underlying condition that causes so much misery in the world. Consider that 1.3 billion people don’t have electricity. And then consider how the lack of that basic necessity — what the rest of us take completely for granted — hinders their ability to develop economically and to succeed, let alone to have access to adequate healthcare. If we fix poverty, we could stop easily preventable health problems, such as infectious disease and malnutrition.

Was I booed out of the room? No, the audience understood why I believed what I did. But woe unto you who try to have a similar conversation with climate warriors.

Woe Unto You, Bret Stephens

Conservative columnist Bret Stephens, formerly of the Wall Street Journal, landed a new gig at the New York Times. His very first column, “Climate of Complete Certainty,” caused much weeping and gnashing of teeth. And probably the rending of garments. What did he say that caused so much outrage?

In a nutshell, his thesis was that certainty often backfires. He used the Hillary Clinton campaign as an example; in his view, certainty of victory was one factor in her defeat. Next, Mr. Stephens drew an analogy with climate science, worrying that the certainty expressed by the most vocal proponents of major climate policy reforms are speaking with a sense of certainty that is not well-founded. He warned against taking imperfect models too seriously and the dangers of hyperbolic doom-mongering.

It often irks me when political commentators write about science, usually because they haven’t the foggiest clue what they’re talking about. But Mr. Stephens’ article used reasonable and cautious language, and to my knowledge, he didn’t write anything that was factually incorrect. He simply concluded, as I myself have, that doomsday prophesying is wrong — and even if it was right, it convinces few people, anyway. (Do the antics of the Westboro Baptist Church change anyone’s mind?)

Yet, the reaction was swift and entirely predictable. Vox, whose stated mission is to “explain the news,” called Mr. Stephens a “bullshitter.” GQ ran the headline, “Bret Stephens Is Why Liberals Have Every Right to Be Dicks.” And Wikipedia (whose founder is going to try to solve the problem of fake news) labeled him a “contrarian.”

All that because Mr. Stephens warned against speaking hyperbolically. The concept of irony appears to be lost on his critics.

Can Smart People Disagree About the Threat of Climate Change?

What so many in the media (and apparently the climate science community) fail to understand is that people have different values and priorities. Foreign policy analysts are terrified of North Korea. Economists fear Brexit and a Eurozone collapse. Geologists, especially those in the Pacific Northwest, fear a huge earthquake. Experts across the spectrum perceive threats differently, usually magnifying those with which they are most familiar.

That means smart people can accept a common core of facts (such as the reality of anthropogenic global warming) without agreeing on a policy response.

Yet instead of being a place to debate a policy response for complex science issues, the media have chosen to be an extension of the militant Twitterverse. Even if you are just discussing courses of action, you are not allowed to deviate from climate orthodoxy lest you be labeled a science-denying heretic.