Category: Uncategorized

First tropical storm of the season arrives 40 days early

First tropical storm of the season arrives 40 days early

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

GOES-East satellite captured this visible image of Tropical Storm Arlene on April 21 at 1145 UTC (7:45 a.m. EDT). Credits: NASA/NOAA GOES Project

The first tropical storm of the Atlantic Ocean hurricane season formed 40 days before the official kick off of the season. Tropical Storm Arlene formed in the North Central Atlantic Ocean and NOAA’s GOES-East satellite provided forecasters with a look at the storm, swirling far from land areas.

Arlene formed on April 20 as Tropical Depression 1 and strengthened into a tropical storm at 5 p.m. EST that day. On April 20 at 15:12 UTC (11:12 a.m. EDT) NASA-NOAA’s Suomi NPP satellite captured a visible image of Tropical Depression One as it was strengthening into a tropical storm. The image showed a large area of thunderstorms over the southwestern and northeastern quadrants of the storm.

NOAA’s GOES-East satellite captured a visible image of Tropical Storm Arlene on April 21 at 1145 UTC (7:45 a.m. EDT). Thunderstorms wrapped tightly around the center of circulation and a large band of storms circled west of center. Located to the west of Arlene were clouds associated with another frontal system.

The National Hurricane Center (NHC) said at 5 a.m. EST (0900 UTC), the center of Tropical Storm Arlene was located near 40.0 degrees north latitude and 48.0 degrees west longitude. That’s about 1,135 miles (1,825 km) west-northwest of the Azores.

Arlene was moving toward the west near 31 mph (50 kph) and this general motion is expected to continue today. Maximum sustained winds were near 50 mph (85 kph) with higher gusts. The estimated minimum central pressure was 993 millibars (29.33 inches). Arlene was beginning to lose its tropical characteristics as the cyclone interacts with a frontal zone and also moves over cooler water. The new official intensity forecast continues the trend of the previous advisory, which shows Arlene degenerating to a post-tropical cyclone by 12 hours, and dissipating by 24 hours when the system is expected to be absorbed into the larger baroclinic low.

The National Hurricane Center noted “Tropical storms in April are rare and Arlene is only the second one observed in this month during the satellite era. It should be noted, however, that this type of storm was practically impossible to detect prior to the weather satellite era.”

Little change in strength is expected, and Arlene is forecast to become absorbed by a large extra-tropical low pressure area and dissipate later today, April 21.

For updates on Arlene, visit NHC’s website: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov

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

April 21, 2017 at 10:51AM

The Govt’s Fake Claims About Smart Energy Savings

The Govt’s Fake Claims About Smart Energy Savings

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

By Paul Homewood

 

image

http://ift.tt/2pKPphm

 

The article in The Times, Revolution heralds change in balance of power, that I mentioned today, contains this statement:

 

Last year the National Infrastructure Commission identified flexible demand as one of three innovations, alongside interconnectors and batteries, that could help to reduce the costs of Britain’s drive for green energy by up to £8 billion a year by 2030.

 

This claim has been quoted on many occasions in the last year, and dates back to this government press release from the National Infrastructure Commission on Smart Power:

 

The National Infrastructure Commission was asked to consider how the UK can better balance supply and demand, aiming towards an electricity market where prices are reflective of costs to the overall system.

The Commission’s central finding is that smart power – principally built around three innovations, interconnection, storage, and demand flexibility – could save consumers up to £8 billion a year by 2030, help the UK meet its 2050 carbon targets, and secure the UK’s energy supply for generations.

The report ‘Smart power’ makes practical recommendations to this end – not new subsidies or substantial public spending – but towards the creation of a level playing field and a better managed network.

http://ift.tt/1oUbju9

 

This statement by the NIC was based on Lord Adonis’ report “Smart Power”, which in turn relied on a 2015 analysis by Imperial College & NERA, Value of Flexibility in a Decarbonised Grid, commissioned by the CCC.

 

image

CCC_Externalities_report_Imperial_Final_21Oct20151

 

 

Now you would be forgiven for thinking that we are going get £8bn a year in our pockets to spend on foreign holidays, wine and women!

But this is climate policy we are talking about, and for years the Government, Committee on Climate Change, National Grid and OFGEM have been conspiring to cover up the real cost of the Climate Change Act.

Far from saving consumers money, the most that all of this smart power (if it ever works) will do is make the frightening cost of decarbonisation slightly less than it might have been otherwise.

 

First, let’s look at the “up to £8bn a year” claim.

As we will see when we look at the detail, the cost analysis was calculated for two CO2 emissions scenarios, 50g/KWh and 100g/KWh. This came up with savings of £3bn to £3.8bn for 100g, and £7.1bn to £8.1bn for the 50g option.

So we can see straightaway that the £8bn claim is at the extreme end of the scale. But it gets worse.

As we all know, even the CCC admit that there will be massive costs involved in decarbonising electricity. These predominantly involve subsidies for low carbon energy and the cost of providing standby capacity. Analysis shows the annual cost by 2030, based on the CCC’s own modelling, will exceed £15bn.

But the CCC figures are all based around the 100g/KWh scenario. To achieve the 50g/KWh target, we would need  much more low carbon capacity, and therefore the subsidies would also be much greater.

So essentially we have the choice of being burnt or scalded. We can either pay out £15bn in subsidies, and get back £3bn from smart power. Or we can pay out much more in subsidies, in order to get back £8bn.

 

But the dishonesty does not stop there. Oh, no!

 

To understand this, let’s look at Imperial College’s Foreword:

 

image

 

And the Executive Summary elaborates:

 

image

 

In other words, the report accepts that these system integration costs of low carbon generation will be huge, and that they will escalate disproportionately as renewable generation increases.

But more importantly, the costs don’t only involve the commonly discussed ones of standby capacity.

They also include:

  • System balancing and
  • Reinforcement of transmission and distribution grids

 

Neither of these are included in the CCC’s budgeted costs in their Fifth Carbon Budget, which takes us through to 2030. When the cost of these items are included, the whole policy becomes even more unaffordable.

Put simply, the Government is claiming savings against additional costs it has not declared.

 

Figure E.2 gives some idea of where these supposed savings come from:

 

image

 

Much of the supposed savings on the 100g scenario come from the need for less CCS, which we don’t need anyway, and and what they term D CAPEX. This latter actually refers to “distribution investment, which is driven by reinforcements triggered by increased reverse power flows in the UK distribution grid”.

It hardly needs to be said that none of these costs would arise if the Government was not bound by the Climate Change Act.

 

And if that was not bad enough, page 9 of the Imperial report tells us that the cost of smart meters and DSR are not even included in their analysis of “savings”.

The excuse is that smart meters are already being rolled out (even though there is no possible financial justification), and the cost of introducing DSR schemes is unknown!

 

image

 

If a company came up with a prospectus like this, they would be had up for fraud, but somehow the climate establishment get away with it.

 

 

 

There is a bit more detail I would like to reveal, but I will save this for another post.

 

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Just for perspective, it is worth looking at what the study assumes as the 50 and 100g/KWh scenarios:

 

 

 

 

 

image

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

April 21, 2017 at 10:36AM

Why I decided not to take Kenji to the DC ‘March for Science’

Why I decided not to take Kenji to the DC ‘March for Science’

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

From the refund is due to his supporters department…

Back on January 30th I posted this:

Help send Kenji to the “Scientists March on Washington” event!

From the “all’s fair in love, war, and climate science” department comes this opportunity.

On Facebook, Dr. Roy Spencer made a comment related to a post on the original website calling for scientists to “March on Washington” to…

…take a stand for science in politics. Slashing funding and restricting scientists from communicating their findings (from tax-funded research!) with the public is absurd and cannot be allowed to stand as policy.

They add (bold mine):

Who can participate:

“Anyone who believes in empirical science. That’s it. That’s the only requirement. We will both have a diversity committee and a diverse steering committee that represents people of many backgrounds and identities. Science is done by POC, women, immigrants, LGBTQ, indigenous people, people of all beliefs and non-belief. We hope that this diversity is reflected in both the leadership of the march and the march itself.”

Dr. Spencer commented:

It is ironic that they emphasize “empirical science”, since that’s what argues against global warming being a problem. It’s the “theoretical science” they have to invoke to scare people.

But the comment by Dr. Spencer that motivates this post is this one:

Since *everyone* is invited to a “scientists march”, I’m reminded of the time Anthony Watts had his dog join the Union of Concerned Scientists. http://ift.tt/2p4OgAH

adding:

Kenji might need a white lab coat though.

It seemed like a good idea at the time…and people raised about $1100 towards it. I wrote then:


To do this, Kenji and I will need to fly from California to Washington DC. I’ll fly coach, probably Kenji will fly doggie carrier under the seat, which Southwest airlines allows for a $100 fee each way. Also, he’ll need to get a health certificate from the vet to fly. We’ll need to get a dog-friendly hotel for a couple of nights at a minimum, transportation to/from the hotel/event and I’ll need to make a sign to carry, get a custom white lab coatfor Kenji, plus do some training with Kenji to get him acclimated to large crowds. Since he is so small, and could easily be stepped on, or kicked on purpose, I’ll likely get a chest carrier for small dogs like this one.

We’ll have a two-sided sign, one that shows support for science, and on the reverse, a picture of the worst climate monitoring station ever found by the surfacestations project at the University of Arizona with the question “If you measure climate in a parking lot, is it still science?”

Tucson-USHCN

Help Kenji go!

Estimated costs by the time this is all done is about $2000-2500. Since Kenji is still waitng for the #BigOil check, or a grant from the #KochBrothers and has no funds of his own, he’s asking WUWT readers to kick in some pocket change ($10-25 or set your own level) to help get there and “March for Science” (whenever that is they haven’t got the date set yet).

Of course, we’ll have pictures, commentary, and probably some hilarious reactions by people to this.


And most importantly, I wrote:

Also, if we don’t get enough donations to make it happen, they will be refunded. Thanks, Anthony

I made it work on the $1100 raised, using a frequent flyer pass I have, but then things started to get weird, and the March for Science has descended into a farce. It was pretty bad when they didn’t even want Bill Nye because his skin color was wrong:

The March for Science, scheduled for April 22, was planning to have Bill Nye, the Science Guy, function as the event’s first honorary co-chair, but then made a startling discovery.

Nye is white.

That did it; complaints mounted that the event was not featuring people of color, and voila! As Buzzfeed reports, “Mona Hanna-Attisha, the pediatrician who first exposed dangerous lead poisoning among the mostly poor black kids in Flint, Michigan, and Lydia Villa-Komaroff, a molecular biologist famous for helping to figure out how to get bacteria to make insulin,” were added to the list.

Forget the fact that Nye isn’t even a scientist; Stephani Page, a biophysicist at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill who was invited to the march’s board after she questioned its commitment to diversity, fulminated, “I love Bill Nye. But I do feel comfortable saying to you what I said to the steering committee: He is a white male, and in that way he does represent the status quo of science, of what it is to be a scientist.” Page added that adding the two women “was an opportunity to put up a picture of science that did not just fit the white male image.”

The march’s lead organizer, Jonathan Berman, admitted, “We did talk internally about the optics of having the first person to be announced be only a white man.”

Then we started seeing other things that were disturbing, Via William Briggs:


Because it seems organizers believe scientific results are less important than who is producing them. Diversity trumps science.

Proof? Buzzfeed reports that, so far, the March for Science has already gone through “four diversity statements.” So the Twitter account @ScienceMarchDC tweeted (and later deleted) “colonization, racism, immigration, native rights, sexism, ableism, queer-, trans-, intersex-phobia, & econ justice are scientific issues.” The tweet also pictured a black power fist and rainbow flag icons.

Of course, science per se is silent on all these matters. But that’s because natural science alone is mute on every moral and ethical question put to it. Including the question whether to deign to include a white man holding a science baton.

“I love Bill Nye,” said Stephani Page, a biophysicist at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, who created the Twitter hashtag #BlackAndSTEM. Page was asked to join the march’s board in February after she tweeted criticism of its approach to diversity. “But I do feel comfortable saying to you what I said to the steering committee: He is a white male, and in that way he does represent the status quo of science, of what it is to be a scientist.”

And being a scientist is not about race and sex. It’s about intelligence, talent, interest, drive, money, and luck. Much the same as what success in most fields require.

The March organizers say nothing about this. They want us to know what they really stand for (emphasis original):

Inclusion, diversity, equity, and accessibility are integral to this mission and to our overall goals and principles. People have rightly pointed out that some of our own public communications, including social media posts, have not affirmed this stance. …We are actively partnering with and seeking advice from organizations and individuals with expertise in this area. We cannot ignore issues of racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, xenophobia, or any other form of discrimination in the discussion and implementation of science. Nor can we ignore the ways in which science has been misused to harm marginalized communities. The lack of inclusivity and diversity in STEM thwarts scientific advancements not only by limiting who conducts the research, but also by influencing what topics are studied, who participates in the research, and who will benefit from or be harmed by it.

Sound like left wing politics to you, and not science? That was the effect they were going for. Organizers insist, “It was a mistake to ever imply that the March for Science is apolitical — while this march is explicitly non-partisan, it is political” (the original statement was in bold type).


And this tweet, put it over the top for me:

Umm, yeah, it’s about your employment contract, science for sure. Not.

Basically, what started out as a march put together by some people concerned about the Trump administration changes to the bureaucracy, has descended into a free-for-all encompassing just about every social issue there is. For example, this “Union of Concerned Scientists” wonk:

Some people have pulled out already. With junk like this Tweet from the UCS organizers, it’s easy to see why. I predict this will descend further into social anarchy, and some Marches will have some violence break out. I don’t want to be anywhere near that if it happens, but more importantly, any message Dr. Roy Spencer and I had intended to convey in a humorous way, will get drowned in a cacophony of social justice garbage that has nothing at all to do with science.

Organizers promised that hundreds of thousands would participate in an April 22 March for Science planned for hundreds of cities worldwide and an April 29 People’s Climate March in Washington, DC.

These events have no more to do with science or climate change than do UN programs or the Paris climate treaty. Their own leaders make that perfectly clear.

A climate website asserts that marchers intend to mark President Trump’s 100th day in office “with a massive demonstration that shows our resistance is not going to wane.” They intend to “block Trump’s entire fossil fuel agenda,” with Berkeley-style tantrums and riots, most likely.

A science march website says this is “explicitly a political movement, aimed at holding leaders in science and politics accountable” for trying to “skew, ignore, misuse or interfere with science.”

That pious language really means they intend to allow no deviation from climate cataclysm doctrines.

Even left-leaning CNN is starting to question it.

So,  while it seemed like a fun idea for Kenji and I to attend and to mock it from a science perspective, I fear that given it’s turned into an ugly political/social farce, it will turn ugly for us. I’m not going, Kenji isn’t going, and anybody who contributed towards travel is due a refund if the want it.

Some people mentioned in comments on the original thread not to worry about it if we didn’t go, but that doesn’t speak for everyone, so drop me a note in comments if you’d like a refund for your contribution and I’ll gladly do it, otherwise, I’ll put it towards other things to support WUWT.

Thanks for your consideration, and for your help. – Anthony Watts

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

April 21, 2017 at 09:17AM

UK Set For Another Day Of Misleading BBC Propaganda

UK Set For Another Day Of Misleading BBC Propaganda

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

By Paul Homewood

 

image

http://ift.tt/2pm3iCZ

 

I cannot understand why the BBC should think this is news. We regularly have many days when wind power is effectively zero.

 

But before anybody runs away with the wrong idea, which is clearly the BBC’s intention, we need to be aware that the conventional technologies of gas and nuclear have been reliably supplying up to 25GW of demand, a good deal more than two thirds.

The BBC’s favoured wind power has meanwhile zigzagged between 2GW and 4GW. But naturally they won’t tell you this!

 

image

http://ift.tt/2lUpvXs

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

April 21, 2017 at 08:07AM