via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/Pk9CevH

February 10, 2025 at 12:00PM

By Paul Homewood

h/t Dennis Ambler

From Reuters:

BRUSSELS, Feb 10 (Reuters) – Many of the world’s biggest polluter nations have missed a U.N. deadline to set new climate targets as efforts to curb global warming come under pressure following U.S. President Donald Trump’s election.

The nearly 200 countries signed up to the Paris Agreement faced a Monday deadline to submit new national climate plans to the U.N., setting out how they plan to cut emissions by 2035.

As of Monday morning, many of the world’s biggest polluters – including China, India and the European Union – had not done so.

"The public is entitled to expect a strong reaction from their governments to the fact that global warming has now reached 1.5 degrees Celsius for an entire year, but we have seen virtually nothing of real substance," said Bill Hare, CEO of science and policy institute Climate Analytics.

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/most-countries-miss-un-deadline-new-climate-targets-2025-02-10/

As we know, some countries who have submitted new plans, such as Brazil and Mexico have actually reduced their ambitions.

It is yet more evidence that most of the world does not see climate change as a threat.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/mlyOgAF

February 10, 2025 at 11:47AM

By Paul Homewood

Ed Miliband has extended subsidies for Drax’s tree burners for another four years, to 2031.

The report in the Telegraph is little more than a puff piece for Drax and DESNZ. In particular, they refer to an analysis by Baringa, which claims the agreement will result in savings of up to £3.1bn over the four years. What Drax called “independent analysis” was actually commissioned by them, for the purpose of lobbying the government. And you certainly can’t expect your bills to come down by that amount.

The Telegraph failed to give its readers the actual details of the new agreement, which is readily available on their website here. The existing ROC subsidies, covering 1.9 GW, of capacity expire in 2027, hence the need for a new deal. The current CfD contract for Unit 1, another 0.6 GW, does not run out until 2031, but will be rolled up into the new CfD agreement, along with the other units.

The new strike price will be £113/MWh at 2012 prices, equivalent to £158/MWh at current prices:

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-02-10/hcws424

In comparison, the existing CfD is priced at £138.16/MWh, so clearly the new deal will increase subsidies.

Furthermore, the ROC units receive a subsidy of £65/MWh. In other words, the new price of £158/MWh will leave Drax better off, as long as market wholesale prices don’t go above £93/MWh, well above its price for most of last year.

So clearly Drax will receive higher subsidies per unit of generation. DESNZ do point out that only 27% of Drax’s output will be eligible for the new strike price, but it is questionable whether Drax would have got much above 27% anyway, given the increase in wind and solar power planned.

Moreover that output from Drax, approximately 6 TWh a year, could be supplied much more cheaply by gas power. The subsidy heading Drax’s way will probably top £2 billion over the period.

The whole affair, of course, shows how desperate Miliband is. He knows we are already close to blackouts and that his crazy policies will soon make things worse. As a consequence, he is now prepared to chuck away £2 billion of our money to subsidise the burning of yet more virgin forest in North America.

This Telegraph reader summed it up nicely:

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/bWaYL5V

February 10, 2025 at 11:28AM

Whitby DCNN 2289 54.48090 -0.62576 Met office assessed CIMO Class 4 Installed 1/1/1939

Whitby Coastguard 54.48989 -0.60596 No CIMO Assessment Installed 1/1 1961 Closed 29/1/2002. {Oldest available image from Google Earth Pro just after closure.}

Assessing Met office weather stations for the Surface Stations Project should in theory be simple – but then there is the Met Office presentation to consider and things can become very complex indeed.

A weather station referred to as “Whitby” appears on the Met Office Historic Data as below

The first confusion starts with the naming, the site currently known as just “Whitby” (DCNN2299) was installed in 1939 whilst it was the site known as Whitby Coastguard (WMO 03282) site that was installed in 1961. On the basis of this installation date it would reasonable to assume the data comes from the Coastguard unit but the given coordinates approximate to the Whitby original. Studying the actual data reveals the following very small print at the top which does indeed own up to the two different stations used over time.

Thus rather than splicing together data from a relocation such as at Braemar or Southampton the Met Office has spliced data from two separate concurrently running sites for 1961 to 1999 (Coastguard site which continued operating to 29/1/2002) onto the Whitby site from 2000 onwards. The pre-1961 data from 1939 is seemingly irrelevant . {n.b. Author’s comment – how many students studying a “climate science” related degree analyse to this depth of small print – that I do draws allegations of spreading “Disinformation”}

The now defunct “Coastguard” site is coastal influenced facing the North Sea, the current “Whitby” is 1,600 radial metres away in a sheltered, inland location by a sports pitch. The two locations are not even remotely similar – contrast that bracing 60 metre high exposed coastal clifftop walk with the 41 metre elevation, tree lined avenue stroll to this site below.

The Met office claims this is CIMO Class 4 which is another of their tape measure assessments like Bingley or Grangemouth. However, they seem to willfully be ignoring some rather large heavily shading trees. A 5 metre circled area below “proves” class 4 is probably acceptable for distance but is it really acceptable to be enclosed by a 2 metre high hedge to the west, with trees to the north and south close by? Should Stevenson screens really be that close to metal railings?

Did nobody at the Met Office producing this “Historic ” data not stop to think that bonding two completely different data files from one undoubtedly colder recording coastal site onto a warmer recording sheltered inland site from 2000 onwards might just cause an uplift in their overall rolling 30 year climate averaging? It would surely have been considerably easier to simply supply the oldest site continuous record from 1939 to date without any gerrymandering after all.

Proof of dramatic anthropogenic global warming or anthropogenic data manipulation?

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/DGqB9kj

February 10, 2025 at 11:13AM