Wight: Shanklin DCNN 3208 and Ventnor DCNN 5771 – You really could not make this up! But the Met Office can…..and does.

Shanklin 50.62366 01.18085 Met Office CIMO Assessed Class 4 Installed 1/1/1947 Digital Archived temperature records from 1/1/1959

Ventnor 50.59274 -1.21329 Met Office CIMO assessed Class 5 Installed 1/1/1926 Digital archived temperature records from 1/1/1959

There are 3 currently operating Met Office weather stations on the Isle of Wight, the third being St Catherines Point that I shall review later. The above 2, Shanklin and Ventnor, are just 2.4 miles apart with St Catherines point just a further 4 miles from Ventnor. Quite why the Met Office requires 3 separate sets of data for climate reporting so close together is very strange – but nothing like as strange as the bizarre way these first two have been operated. Welcome to alternative reality.

I often refer to the Met Office’s Location specific long term climate averages which is (presumably) designed to represent an even spread of the UK, so quite why the Met Office chooses to display two in such close proximity is particularly odd. However, there is more plain “weirdness” to add to this later.

Firstly to examine the basic sites, both are manual reporting with reasonably long term records. Ventnor is Class 5 for the fairly obvious reason it is surrounded on north, east and south by trees and shrubs within 4 metres casting both deep shade and creating an enclosed cauldron hugely distorting readings. It is an extremely poor site by any standards.

Shanklin is marginally better in an area of parkland but is similarly tree sheltered and shaded and rated a lowly Class 4. There is no immediate StreetView of Ventnor, but Shanklin looks like this. An outwardly well maintained civic style site but that does not tell the whole story.

The problem lies in the recent recording of observations. I always like to check the diligence and accuracy and start by examining recent years. Experience has shown me that whilst 20th century observation standards were generally good to often excellent such as at Lake Vyrnwy and Cawood, more recent times can be exceptionally poor to the point of being pointless as at many sites such as Mickleham. This is why I was frankly amazed to find that a site could be attended every day and still be a pointless exercise for years on end with no action seemingly being taken to remedy the problem.

To derive a daily average temperature the Met Office adds the day’s minimum and maximum readings together and divides by two – ridiculously simplistic, potentially completely misleading but that is the paradigm the Met Office runs to. {Worth noting that is not a universal formula and all manner of esoteric systems have been applied by meteorological authorities around the world over time. } Obviously this system requires two daily readings and here is the bizarre issue starting below at Shanklin.

Columns I and J are maxima and minima respectively. On the 5th October 2017 the observer stopped recording maxima despite attending the site and fulfilling all the other functions……….and no maxima have been recorded in the entire period since. Very odd indeed. So I looked at Ventnor for the same time. Same date, same problem.

Why on earth would the observer(s) suddenly stop taking maximum readings simultaneously? The difference with Ventnor (indicating a different observer) was that from 2nd December reading maxima returned.

The simultaneity of stopping suggested some major change and I finally deduced the old traditional thermometers were changed to PRTs and either the observers were not trained to read them or possibly assumed the readings were automatically transmitted. The Ventnor observer managed to resolve the difficulty and readings resumed after a few weeks but barely over 2 miles away readings were never resumed as at 31st December 2023 which is as far as current archives run.

This is astonishing when the implications are considered. Going back to those Location specific climate averages which run up to 31/12/2020 for Shanklin. All the data from 5th October 2017 onwards had to have been derived by a (“peer reviewed”) computer generated process from “well correlated” nearby stations, the identities of which the Met Office refuse to disclose claiming their chosen locations (“inputs”) are not an “output” of the process and have not been retained. Surely someone at the Met Office could simply have checked out why those maxima were not being taken and corrected the problem. A single phone call would probably have sufficed. I cannot positively state this problem still exists but it definitely was from 5/10/2017 to 31/12/2023 and likely still is. Did everyone involved in this just seem to accept this strange lack of readings and feel a computer programme fabricating numbers was preferable to the real thing? Potentially almost 8 years and counting of a complete waste of effort for no justifiable reason – simply crazy.

YCMIU – but the Met Office has and probably still is. Is this value for taxpayer money or irresponsible negligence?

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/IBdNRcO

June 11, 2025 at 03:53AM

How much Green New Scam spending will survive the One Big Beautiful Bill?

My latest at The Blaze.

via JunkScience.com

https://ift.tt/8VUSKZB

June 11, 2025 at 03:47AM

Skipping the Rules: Offshore Wind’s Legal Issue

“The law remains clear: the Department of the Interior must ensure that offshore projects prevent unreasonable interference before approval — not simply allow harm and hope payouts will quiet objections.”

With offshore wind, a lethal tort issue lurks beneath the waves: Is it enough to pay off harmed ocean users after the fact, or does the law demand the government prevent harm in the first place? Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), a clear answer is being dangerously overlooked.

OCSLA, originally passed in 1953 and amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, governs energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Section 8(p)(4)(I) imposes a specific duty on the Department of the Interior: before approving offshore activities like wind development, the Secretary must ensure the project “provides for the prevention of interference with reasonable uses” of the ocean — including fishing, recreation, and navigation.

This is not just bureaucratic language. It’s a binding legal duty. The government must prevent offshore projects, like wind farms, from unreasonably interfering with existing ocean uses, such as commercial fishing, recreation, and navigation. The law does not say the government can simply let interference happen and pay those harmed later.

The legal framework is well established. The Department’s own Solicitor, in Opinion M-37059, makes this clear. The statute applies a reasonableness standard: if a project causes unreasonable interference, it cannot go forward; if the interference is minimal (de minimis) or reasonable, it may proceed. But crucially, offering financial compensation to harmed parties does not satisfy this duty. In fact, the very creation of a compensation scheme presumes that interference exists — it doesn’t erase it.

A Workaround?

So why, then, are developers setting up compensation funds for displaced fishermen? The answer lies in a legal workaround. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has leaned on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which has its own framework for “mitigation.” NEPA’s regulations allow agencies to consider a range of mitigation options, including avoiding, minimizing, repairing, reducing, or compensating for environmental impacts. BOEM has treated developer-funded compensation programs as valid mitigation under NEPA, using them to support positive approval decisions for offshore wind projects.

But NEPA is only procedural — it cannot override or substitute for the substantive requirements of OCSLA. While NEPA allows agencies to consider compensation, OCSLA demands prevention when interference crosses the threshold of unreasonableness.

Moreover, BOEM itself has acknowledged the legal limits of these compensation efforts. In its Guidelines for Providing Information for Mitigating Impacts to Commercial and For-Hire Recreational Fisheries on the Outer Continental Shelf Pursuant to 30 CFR Part 585, BOEM explicitly states:

There are no existing Federal regulations that require compensation for economic loss from displacement attributed to offshore wind energy installations.

This distinction matters. While OCSLA Section 302 (43 U.S.C. § 1846) provides a statutory process to compensate fishermen for physical gear losses caused by oil and gas activities, there is no similar federal law covering lost revenue or displacement from offshore wind. Payments for lost income or access are voluntary, not legally required, and they do not fulfill the government’s statutory obligation under OCSLA § 8(p)(4)(I).

Biden Trouble Should Not be Trump’s

The Biden administration’s BOEM systematically ignored the law — approving offshore wind projects by relying on compensation schemes rather than fulfilling its duty to prevent interference. Now, President Trump, in greenlighting the Empire Wind project off New York as part of a broader effort to secure a new gas pipeline, risks making the same mistake. [1]

No deal, no matter how politically or economically tempting, gives the federal government the right to bypass OCSLA’s mandates. The law remains clear: the Department of the Interior must ensure that offshore projects prevent unreasonable interference before approval — not simply allow harm and hope payouts will quiet objections.

President Trump and his team should not follow the Biden administration down this flawed path. Upholding the law is not optional. Anything less would betray the public trust — and President Trump should seize the chance to do what the Biden administration did not: uphold the law.

——————

[1] For greater detail on the Trump Administration’s deal with New York Governor Kathy Hochul to okay Empire Wind in return for certification of natural gas pipelines in the state, see here.


This analysis. slightly edited, was first published by Save Right Whales Coalition and WindAction. Lisa Linowes’s previous posts at MasterResource can be found here.

The post Skipping the Rules: Offshore Wind’s Legal Issue appeared first on Master Resource.

via Master Resource

https://ift.tt/RZeicN2

June 11, 2025 at 01:16AM

Sunnova Declares Bankruptcy

From MasterResource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“Profuse government grants, loans, and tax breaks supported Sunnova from the beginning. The public needs to know where the money went and why founder/CEO John Berger and a few others at the top made out like bandits, while just about everyone else bit the dust.”

Sunnova was all hat, no cattle. All sizzle, no steak. Long on DEI, short on profits. Long on government, short on consumer value.

And a lot of “Net Zero” for investors. And potentially voided contracts for more than 400,000 rooftop customers if tax credits go away under current legislation under debate. [1]

Yesterday, Sunnova International declared bankruptcy, or in their Enronish PR world, “Strategic Action to Facilitate Value-Maximizing Sale Process.”

The company never had a quarterly profit, existing on political fumes and gullible “green” customers.

CNBC reported:

Sunnova Energy said on Sunday it had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States, as the residential solar panel installer buckled under the pressure of mounting debt and weakening demand. Shares were down 36.4% at 14 cents in premarket trading….

The company listed its estimated assets and liabilities in the range of $10 billion to $50 billion and has a total debt of $10.67 billion as of December 31, according to a court filing.

Sunnova said last week it would lay off about 55% of its workforce, or 718 employees, in a bid to cut spending. Earlier this month, its unit, Sunnova TEP Developer, had also filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

The company’s bankruptcy filing comes at a time when the U.S. residential solar energy industry is under immense pressure from higher interest rates; a reduction in incentives in the top market, California; and fears of subsidy rollbacks for clean energy.

President Donald Trump’s administration, which is pushing to maximize oil and gas production, canceled a partial loan guarantee of $2.92 billion last month that was awarded to Sunnova by the Biden administration.

Last year, peer SunPower, once a pioneer of the U.S. residential solar market, also collapsed following a subpoena from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission about its accounting practices and the departure of its CEO.

Companies that put solar panels on U.S. homes said last month a Republican budget bill that has advanced in Congress could deal a massive blow to the industry by eliminating a generous subsidy for homeowners that had buttressed the industry’s growth.

Reuters reported on the wider problem of the rooftop play, Solar Bankruptcies Show US Clean Energy Industry is Teetering on the Brink.” John Berger and the solar cronies owe taxpayers and customers a lot of money–and letters of apology.

Sunnova History

Profuse government grants, loans, and tax breaks supported Sunnova from the beginning. The public needs to know where the money went and why John Berger and a few at the top made out like bandits (rent-seeking), while just about everyone else bit the dust.

My previous Sunnova posts at MasterResource tell the rest of the story:

Industry-leading Adaptive Energy Services Company?

Sunnova’s boilerplate language should perhaps be removed given the perilous legal waters that the company is in. The bankruptcy press release ended:

Sunnova Energy International Inc. (NYSE: NOVA) is an industry-leading adaptive energy services company focused on making clean energy more accessible, reliable, and affordable for homeowners and businesses. Through its adaptive energy platform, Sunnova provides a better energy service at a better price to deliver its mission of powering energy independence™. For more information, visit http://www.sunnova.com.

—————————–

[1] “Sunnova intends to continue to monitor, manage, and service solar and storage systems in the ordinary course during the sale process,” yesterday’s press release stated. “The Company plans to communicate directly with customers regarding any material changes that may impact the service and support provided by Sunnova.”

The risk for stranded customers falls to TEPH Subsidiary and ATLAS SP Partners–if they go bust with many contracts that have a decade or more to run, then the customers get to go through some more anxiety and loss. Expect a lot of solar panels to go bad and roof repairs to jump.


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/MPJE4BQ

June 11, 2025 at 12:02AM