nuclear power

stuff written to watts 20110402
When a wind turbine explodes you do not get a 20km radius of land made uninhabitable for generations.


When a wind turbine explodes you can go and reclaim the rare earth magnets (if used), steel and copper and recycle them.

UK gov subsidies creating 550 jobs - if these jobs were not created then there would be 550 more people claiming beneits from the same gov. What is the differential?

Wind turbines do not all use rare earth magnets (see the Enercon technical manual.)

Wind turbines do not all use gear boxes (see the Enercon technical manual.)

Wind turbines can be low noise (see the Enercon technical manual.)

Wind turbines in Japan are still operating well after the earthquake.



No wind supporter expects massive reduction in conventional generating capacity - you will still need some generators idleing ready in seconds (just as at present- nucear plant scramming in seconds requires replacement capacity available to fill the hole in seconds), some ready for action in hours and some as long term backup i case of gas/oil/nuclear failure.

However as gas becomes more scarce (coal, nuclear, oil generators can be phased out) it seems sensible to use low cost, low polution sources of energy to preserve the reserves of gas until someone comes up with a fusion reactor!

Wind turbines do not suddenly remove GW of capacity from the grid - wind does not suddenly stop over vast areas.

Plant Availability

About 3 times better than wind power.

Worth noting is that the  national grids have to have instantly available reserve capacity to allow for the sudden power down of its largest plant. For example UK has pumped storage systems that can handle (approximately ) sizewell B scramming but not Sizewell+Longannet as happened in 2008:

http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/DC83D60E-14F4-432A-8D5C-AA9A24271E48/27568/27_May_2008Event_final.pdf).

By using distributed sources e.g. Wind turbines the maximum loss for one site is much less.

 

Power Plant age

What will be interesting over the next few years is the sudden increase in decommissioning  required. Life is usually 25 to 30 years but France has increased theirs by 10 years. So in the next few years about 70 stations will be up for decommissioning (those older than 35 years)

Wiki:

Cost of decommissioning

In USA many utilities estimates now average $325 million per reactor all-up (1998 $).

In France, decommissioning of Brennilis Nuclear Power Plant, a fairly small 70 MW power plant, already cost 480 million euros (20x the estimate costs) and is still pending after 20 years. Despite the huge investments in securing the dismantlement, radioactive elements such as Plutonium, Cesium-137 and Cobalt-60 leaked out into the surrounding lake.^[62][63]

In the UK, decommissioning of Windscale Advanced Cooled Reactor (WAGR), a 32 MW power plant, cost 117 million euros.

In Germany, decommissioning of Niederaichbach nuclear power plant, a 100 MW power plant, amounted to more than 143 million euros.

 
The reality of France's aggressive nuclear power push
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/the-reality-of-frances-aggressive-nuclear-power-push

Info

Corrections to CRUTEM3
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/jan_2010_update.html

ref page
http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm

National Grid real time data:
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm

Harvesting Wind Power With (or Without) Permanent Magnets
http://www.magneticsmagazine.com/images/PDFs/Online%20Issues/2009/Magnetics_Summer09.pdf

Probability predictions of Met Office

The met office keeps historical predictions online

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/science/specialist/seasonal/probability/glob_seas_prob.html

The Unholy Quest of McIntyre

thefordprefect Posted Nov 28, 2010 at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Reply
McIntyre
I think that you need to ask yourself where you are leading with all of this and to what purpose you are pursuing these people and the UEA.

Firstly
If you get the UEA funding terminated (kill the university) by your insinuations and if you get the team imprisoned for FOI procedure irregularities just what will it achieve.

The data is the same. It all shows increased warming. No one believes tree rings make perfect thermometers. The hockey stick remains (just slightly different shape). GHGs are still increasing. GHGs still warm the earth.

Secondly
What is your purpose?:

Get Jones arrested?
Get Mann arrested?
Destroy the UEA?
Destroy the reputation of numerous people who ran enquiries?

Or is it simply to get kudos from your Acolytes?
Or do you have some other purpose?

You must be very sure of your position here. I think the statement made by Rep. Bob Inglis at the House Science & Technology Subcommittee Hearing on Climate Change is very apt. He says that it is important that this hearing is on record (many times) and quotes Australian Ambassador Kim Beazley who when he runs into a sceptic says – make sure to say that very publicly because I want our grandchildren to read what you said and what I said.

I am not sure of the outcome of AGW. But I know that my actions will/may reduce our profligate lifestyles and pollution but will not cause irreparable damage to the ecosystem if I am wrong.
What do you know that makes this single minded pursuit of Jones et al so important?

What information are you privy to that suggests climate scientists are 100% wrong and must be stopped at any cost?
Let’s ASSUME that Jones acted illegally in his handling of FOI requests.
Would he knowing break the law?
Or was it simply an oversight?
Your attack leave no option but to deny wrong doing. You have left him no escape route – any admission of error leads to prison. Is he really a criminal?
It has got so bad on this blog that you even have your followers putting a price on Jones’ head!!
http://climateaudit.org/2010/11/26/east-anglia-more-sucking-and-blowing/#comment-246177

Mike

Themohaline Currents (THC) and CO2 - A thought

Some of the increased CO2 gets dissolved in the water (making it less alkaline).

At the poles this gets pulled into the ocean depths by the THC.It then travels for around a 1000 years to reappear on the surface elsewhere (See map). After another 1000 years it is back where it started but with a higher concentration of CO2 dissolved

Are we in a benign period where our pollution is being hidden from us by the THC? Will future generations then have to cope with our mess?

Will we be seeing the results of the 1st industrial revolution emerging from the depths soon?

================

And further thoughts on THC and heat storage/release
If sst is increasing.


If there is a thermohaline circulation (cool salty water sinking in the arctic).

If the THC is surface warm traveling to arctic and cold traveling at 2000 to 4000 metres down towards antarctic (arrival time 700 years?).

If Argo dives to 2000 metres they will not see the antarctic traveling THC.

“Estimates of Meridional Atmosphere and Ocean Heat Transports Kevin E. Trenberth and Julie M. Caron” suggest 1.27± 0.26 PW of heat is carried by THC north



If you heat the north going surface layer which then sinks warmer and travels south at below 2000 metres warmer this must surely be a good hiding place for a fair bit of missing TSI energy! (for a few hundred years)

Windpower

Much noise by the anti-green bigade about use of tonnes of rare earth magnets used in tubines.

Some may use these but a simple check on the web brings up:
Enercon
http://www.enercon.de/p/downloads/EN_Eng_TandS_0710.pdf

No need for rare earths

No Need for gear boxes
No need to synchronise rotors to grid frequency:

as used by Ecotricity
http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/wind-parks/
as stolen by the US
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-09/wind-power-giant-gives-gearless-turbines-boost#comment-42481

Enercon 7.5MW

Amongst other features, the annular generator is a key component in ENERCON’s gearless wind generator design. This low-speed synchronous generator is directly connected to the rotor. Generator output voltage and frequency vary with the speed and are converted via the ENERCON Grid Management System to be fed into the grid.This allows rotational speed control to be optimised; the annular generator is thus perfectly independent of the grid. By adjusting or ‘pitching’ the blades and through electrical excitation via the turbine control system, rotational speed and power output are constantly checked and optimised. The electrical power produced by the annular generator passes into the ENERCON Grid Management System which comprises a rectifier, the so-called DC Link and a modular inverter system. The inverter system defines the essential performance characteristics for output to the grid and ensures that the power output corresponds to grid specifications. Here in the inverter system, voltage, frequency and power are converted accordingly. Via the transformer, inverter voltage (400 V) is stepped up to the appropriate medium voltage required by the grid or the wind farm network.


ENERCON wind turbines are equipped with a Grid Management System designed to meet the latest grid connection requirements. This facilitates integration in any transmission and distribution network. The Grid Management System offers numerous performance features e. g. reactive power management and optimum contribution to maintaining voltage levels. Essentially, ENERCON wind farms behave very much like power stations or in some aspects even exceed their performance.


Intermittency of windpower
there are many different stages of operation of power stations. From wiki:
There is generally about 1.5 GW of so called spinning reserve—this is typically a large power station paid to produce at less than full output. So, a typical power station, which might have 4 generating sets each of 660 MW, giving a total output of 2.64 GW, might only be operating at 2 GW, with the steam boiler full, but with the steam valve not fully open. At the request from National Grid control centre, or under command from the generator governor this valve can open up and deliver an extra 640 MW in 20 to 30 seconds. This requires the boiler air fans and the coal feeders to increase output accordingly. The greater the total load on the system, and/or the greater the expectation of large demand fluctuations (at the end of popular TV programmes for example) the larger the proportion of spinning reserve set by National Grid plc.
NG pays to have up to 8.5 GW of additional capacity available to start immediately but not running, referred to as warming or hot standby, that is ready to be used at short notice which could take half an hour to 2 hours to bring on line. Generally, there will be more of such hot standby capacity whenever there is a large amount of expected disturbance on the system. The cost of fuel or tonne of CO2 emitted by keeping such plant warm is tiny in comparison with the amount of fuel used to generate power, maybe equivalent to the fuel used to produce a quarter of a MW compared to a full load fuel demand for a large set of 1.8 GW. Often quoted talk about the high costs of standby spinning reserve are misleading.
A similar amount of power stations (8–10 GW by capacity) are operable from a cold start in about 12 hours for coal burning stations, and 2 hours for gas fired stations.
...Other stations are mothballed or deep-mothballed which means they cannot be readily called upon; even in an emergency it may take several months to de-mothball. In Summer 2006, Fawley Power Station near Southampton was de-mothballed to cope with anticipated power capacity shortages for winter 2006/07

Not mentioned is the short term 2GW available in seconds from pumped storage Dinorwig can provide full output within 65secs from startup and 16 second if spinning.
As I mentioned the grid HAS to have spinning reserve to cope with current generator failures Building large Nuclear stations of over 1.5GW capacity will require an increase in the spinning reserve to allow for failure.
Unpredictable wind turbine trip will remove perhaps 3MW from the system. Predictable loss of wind (an increasing loss because wind does not stop instantly over the whole country) can be handled by the warm reserve or even cold start gas turbines (I acknowledge that the combined cycle gas turbines - 60% efficient - should only be brought online if prolonged windlessness were predicted, however the standard GT - 30% efficient - would only be required for short interruptions.
Every watt that the wind generates in electricity is equivalent to preserving up to 3 watts equivalent in gas/oil/coal for the future!

Some predictable surge levels
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/109355.stm

Muir Russel Inquiry - Interesting letter

May 26, 2010


VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Sir Muir Russell,
Independent Climate Change Emails Review
Box 18.

Re: Independent Climate Change Email Review

Dear Sir Muir,
After reading the submissions posted on the Independent Climate Change Email Review’s website – and seeing some of our own submissions delayed or redacted – we are writing to express some serious concerns, and to provide specific suggestions. We recognize the complexity and difficulty of the task you have undertaken, and offer these views in the hope that you will find them helpful.
Although the ICCER has not yet issued any substantive findings, many submissions to the Review panel questioned its competence, impartiality and integrity. Stephen McIntyre’s submission, for example, attacks the ICCER’s statement of Issues for Examination as displaying  a “frequent and almost embarrassing tendency to miss the point”, dismisses the ICCER’s work  plan as “totally unsatisfactory” (mainly for not interviewing either McIntyre or his collaborator Ross McKitrick), asserts that two current ICCER members should be disqualified from service, and accuses ICCER members of making “misleading or untrue statements” and “misrepresentations”.
As climate scientists, we are, regrettably, all too familiar with these tactics. The unfortunate reality is that, to research climate issues today – at least if one’s research findings tend to support human-caused climate change – means to live and work in an environment of constant accusations of fraud, calls for investigations (or for criminal prosecutions), demands for access to every draft, every intermediate calculation, and every email exchanged with colleagues, daily hate mail and threats, and attempts to pressure the institutions that employ us and fund our research. Through experience, we have learned that there is no review of climate scientists’ work that isn’t deemed a “whitewash” by climate change contrarians; there is no casual remark that can’t be seized upon, blown out of proportion and distorted; and there is no person whose character can’t be assassinated, no matter how careful and honest their research.

Our concern here is that these tactics are highly successful in the court of public opinion.  One submission urged you to consider the fate of a paper on the health hazards of tobacco as “highly relevant” to your inquiry. The history of tobacco research is indeed relevant. It shows that, by manufacturing controversy (or the appearance of controversy), and by harassing, discrediting, and distracting scientists, it is possible to cloud scientific knowledge and forestall scientific progress for decades. The same strategy is now being used by many of the same players to attack climate science and climate scientists. This has been well documented in such recent books as Doubt Is Their Product, Merchants of Doubt, and Climate Cover-Up, as well as in recent hearings before the U.S. House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. These disinformation tactics contribute to the public’s increasing confusion regarding the causes of climate change. Two months ago, for example, a Gallup poll found that only 52% of Americans accept that “most scientists believe that global warming is occurring”, down from 65% in 2008.

Similar tactics have now been brought to bear on the ICCER. Philip Campbell (whose qualifications should be beyond doubt) resigned from the ICCER to ensure that there would be “nothing that calls into question the ability of the independent Review to complete [its] task”. Dr. Campbell’s resignation has only led climate-change contrarians to level more charges against other members of the ICCER.

Under these circumstances, we respectfully offer the following comments and suggestions:

1. In formulating recommendations to ensure that scientific data are appropriately disclosed (while at the same time protecting scientists and enabling them to carry out their research), it may be useful to take account of experience in the U.S., and to seek international consistency in this area.

The ICCER’s remit includes “mak[ing] recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance, and security structures for CRU and the … release of data that it holds”. In developing recommendations on how CRU should release data, you might find it helpful to consider some experience from across the Atlantic. In particular, there is much that is instructive in the history of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) regulations under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. These regulations pertain to disclosure of information relating to federally funded research. OMB issued the regulations in response to a 1998 law known as the Shelby Amendment, which directed OMB to write new standards requiring that all data produced under federal grants be available to the public under FOIA procedures.

The Shelby Amendment provoked an uproar in the scientific community. There was widespread concern that if it were interpreted too broadly, the law would interfere with  scientists’ ability to carry out their research. Such concerns were expressed in Congressional testimony by Dr. Bruce Alberts, (who was at the time the President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences). Dr. Alberts warned that, unless the new standards were appropriately limited, they would have a “chilling effect” on scientific collaboration, and would “be used by various special interest groups to harass researchers doing research that these interest groups would like to stop”. The American Association for the Advancement of Science voiced similar concerns to OMB, and noted that overly broad disclosure requirements would have “serious unintended consequences for scientists, their institutions, federal funding agencies, and the wider public”.

Ultimately, after receiving more than 12,000 comments, OMB issued guidelines (reported at 65 Fed. Reg. 14406) that balance the public’s interest in disclosure against scientists’ need for confidentiality and protection from harassment. Under the guidelines, when federally funded, published research is used in developing agency action that has the force and effect of law, “research data” relating to the published findings are available under FOIA. “Research data” is defined as “the recorded factual material commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to validate research findings …”. Expressly excluded from the definition of “research data”, however – and therefore protected from disclosure – are “preliminary analyses, drafts of scientific papers, plans for future research, peer reviews, or communications with colleagues”.

(Emphasis added.)

We strongly believe that CRU and other research institutions should operate under similar guidelines, and hope that the ICCER will be able to make such a recommendation. Specifically, when CRU publishes research, the “research data” (see above for definition) should be made available. Other information, however – including preliminary analyses, drafts of scientific papers, plans for future research, peer reviews, or communications with colleagues – should be expressly protected from disclosure. These procedures would allow anyone who wished to test published research findings to do so, while affording some measure of badly needed protection from harassment to scientists. They would also avoid placing burdens on scientists at CRU (and elsewhere in the U.K.) that their colleagues in the U.S. Federal Government do not have to bear.

2. We believe that it is important to state unequivocally in your findings (and any summary of your findings) that nothing that you have seen calls into question the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change.

The ICCER has stated that its remit “does not involve re-evaluation of the scientific conclusions of the CRU work, still less a reappraisal of the scientific debate about the existence and suggested causes of global warming”. But several questions in your statement of Issues for Examination address the merit of CRU’s research outcomes, as well as the importance of “the assertion of ‘unprecedented late 20th century warming’ in the argument for anthropogenic forcing of climate”. As you are well aware, contrarians will seize on anything – from a snow storm in Washington D.C. to any minor error in a thousand-page IPCC report – as “proof” that the entire body of scientific knowledge on climate change is a hoax. To ensure that your findings do not fuel dangerous misconceptions, we feel it should be made absolutely clear – as every serious review of the stolen emails has already confirmed – that nothing in the emails calls into question the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change.

3. Not all the evidence submitted to the ICCER comes from parties with genuine interest in furthering scientific understanding. We hope that this can be taken into account in evaluating the credibility of submitted evidence.

The ICCER has received submissions from parties who seem to have no good-faith interest in furthering scientific understanding. We hope that every allegation, summary, timeline, purported scientific criticism, or other statement can be carefully examined for veracity. As we are sure you are aware, there are many examples where such statements have been subsequently exposed as factually flawed. To cite just one recent example, a May 9, 2010 “Special Investigation” in the Daily Mail by David Rose presented a badly distorted account of facts and analysis. This is explained in two recent posts about Mr. Rose’s article1.

4. We hope you are able to acknowledge and take into account the prolonged and intense campaign of harassment that has been directed at CRU and other climate scientists. Any fair evaluation of CRU scientists’ conduct must take into account the conditions under which they have been forced to work. Sharing information to promote good-faith scientific debate is one thing. Laboring under constant, intrusive oversight by hostile groups who harass scientists and interfere with their ability to carry out their research is another matter entirely. If CRU scientists felt besieged, it’s because they were – including, we now know, illegal spying on their private communications. Their emails and actions must be considered in this light.

Finally, we note that several of our own submissions to the ICCER were held up or redacted out of concern that someone might claim that something in them was defamatory. It does not appear that a similar filter was applied to the numerous submissions that falsely accuse legitimate climate scientists of dishonesty and misconduct. We hope you are able to remedy this inconsistency.

We appreciate each ICCER member’s willingness to step into the controversy surrounding the stolen CRU emails, and we hope that you will be able to take the above comments and suggestions into account in preparing your findings.

1 For example, see:

http://deepclimate.org/2010/05/14/how-to-be-a-climate-science-auditor-part-2-the-forgotten-climategate-emails/ and

http://deepclimate.org/2010/05/11/how-to-be-a-climate-auditor-part-1-pretty%C2%A0pictures/

 UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS

______________________________________

RAY BRADLEY
Distinguished Professor
Director, Climate System Research Center
Department of Geosciences
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

MALCOLM K. HUGHES
Regents Professor
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

______________________________________

MICHAEL E. MANN
Professor
Director of Earth System Science Center
Department of Meteorology
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

______________________________________

MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER
Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs

LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONALLABORATORY

______________________________________

BENJAMIN SANTER
Research Scientist
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
NASA GODDARD INSTITUTE FOR SPACE STUDIES, NEW YORK

______________________________________

GAVIN SCHMIDT
Climate Scientist
WOODS INSTITUTE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

______________________________________

STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER
Professor
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies
Department of Biology and Senior Fellow

THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH

______________________________________

KEVIN E. TRENBERTH
Senior Scientist
Section Head
Climate Analysis Section
THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH

______________________________________

TOM M. L. WIGLEY
Senior Research Associate [former Director of the Climatic Research Unit, 1978 to 1993]

Copy of Post at CA

thefordprefect


Posted Nov 24, 2010 at 9:22 PM
Permalink
ReplyKeep going McIntyre,

You may get your man one day. But you have not disproved the CRUTEM data which surely must be what an audit site is about (yes, I know it is your site and you can editorialise on what you like!)

The world may or may not be heading for thermal disaster and what are you (generic) doing belly-aching about possible inconsequential point of order. Trying to discredit the opposition by going for personalities and not their data.

What the world needs is proof that AGW is fact or fiction. The world will not be helped by discrediting a small UK University and one of its incumbents.

You may get great satisfaction by discrediting another human and a University who refused your request (validly) for data. But exactly how is this going to advance the science?

Take a look at WUWT they are now going after a blurred slide used as a background to a “corporate” photo (Dr. Ray Bradley’s amazing photo).

Watts does not seem to understand that “Present” means 1950 in most ice core parlance.

P A T H E T I C!
thefordprefect


Posted Nov 25, 2010 at 7:05 PM
Permalink
ReplyYour comment is awaiting moderation.
From a letter from various high profile US researchers to the Muir Russel enquiry:


Dear Sir Muir,

After reading the submissions posted on the Independent Climate Change Email Review’s website – and seeing some of our own submissions delayed or redacted – we are writing to express some serious concerns, and to provide specific suggestions. We recognize the complexity and difficulty of the task you have undertaken, and offer these views in the hope that you will find them helpful.

Although the ICCER has not yet issued any substantive findings, many submissions to the Review panel questioned its competence, impartiality and integrity. Stephen McIntyre’s submission, for example, attacks the ICCER’s statement of Issues for Examination as displaying a “frequent and almost embarrassing tendency to miss the point”, dismisses the ICCER’s work plan as “totally unsatisfactory” (mainly for not interviewing either McIntyre or his collaborator Ross McKitrick), asserts that two current ICCER members should be disqualified from service, and accuses ICCER members of making “misleading or untrue statements” and “misrepresentations”.

As climate scientists, we are, regrettably, all too familiar with these tactics. The unfortunate reality is that, to research climate issues today – at least if one’s research findings tend to support human-caused climate change – means to live and work in an environment of constant accusations of fraud, calls for investigations (or for criminal prosecutions), demands for access to every draft, every intermediate calculation, and every email exchanged with colleagues, daily hate mail and threats, and attempts to pressure the institutions that employ us and fund our research. Through experience, we have learned that there is no review of climate scientists’ work that isn’t deemed a “whitewash” by climate change contrarians; there is no casual remark that can’t be seized upon, blown out of proportion and distorted; and there is no person whose character can’t be assassinated, no matter how careful and honest their research.
[...]
The Shelby Amendment provoked an uproar in the scientific community. There was widespread concern that if it were interpreted too broadly, the law would interfere with scientists’ ability to carry out their research. Such concerns were expressed in Congressional testimony by Dr. Bruce Alberts, (who was at the time the President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences). Dr. Alberts warned that, unless the new standards were appropriately limited, they would have a “chilling effect” on scientific collaboration, and would “be used by various special interest groups to harass researchers doing research that these interest groups would like to stop”. The American Association for the Advancement of Science voiced similar concerns to OMB, and noted that overly broad disclosure requirements would have “serious unintended consequences for scientists, their institutions, federal funding agencies, and the wider public”.

Ultimately, after receiving more than 12,000 comments, OMB issued guidelines (reported at 65 Fed. Reg. 14406) that balance the public’s interest in disclosure against scientists’ need for confidentiality and protection from harassment. Under the guidelines, when federally funded, published research is used in developing agency action that has the force and effect of law, “research data” relating to the published findings are available under FOIA. “Research data” is defined as “the recorded factual material commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to validate research findings …”. Expressly excluded from the definition of “research data”, however – and therefore protected from disclosure – are “preliminary analyses, drafts of scientific papers, plans for future research, peer reviews, or communications with colleagues”.
(Emphasis added.)
We strongly believe that CRU and other research institutions should operate under similar guidelines, and hope that the ICCER will be able to make such a recommendation. Specifically, when CRU publishes research, the “research data” (see above for definition) should be made available. Other information, however – including preliminary analyses, drafts of scientific papers, plans for future research, peer reviews, or communications with colleagues – should be expressly protected from disclosure. These procedures would allow anyone who wished to test published research findings to do so, while affording some measure of badly needed protection from harassment to scientists. They would also avoid placing burdens on scientists at CRU (and elsewhere in the U.K.) that their colleagues in the U.S. Federal Government do not have to bear.
see also:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_a110-finalnotice
http://www.oria.cornell.edu/documents/FOIA.pdf
http://guides.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/content.php?pid=125160
http://nccam.nih.gov/news/events/grants08/slides16.htm

So there we have it.
The US will not make emails private or not available to FOIers
So NONE of the Emails should be made available
So there would be NO reason for Jones etc to request destruction.
So The last clag of entries in this blog are meaningless if the US FOI were followed.

So I repeat P A T H E T I C !

thefordprefect


Posted Nov 26, 2010 at 2:03 PM
Permalink
Reply
If you read what I posted here:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/11/24/uea-refuses-08-31-once-again/#comment-246036

You will understand the US emails do not fall under FOI act.

In my opinion you should be able to

- request Briffa to US (UK foi is confused being in its infancy)

but not

- US to Briffa. These emails are owned by US citizens and therefore do not fall under FOI

This has the added implication that even if US emails had been destroyed at the request of Jones, it would not be an illegal act since these Emails could never be subject to an FOI request!!!!!

It is also interesting that some NASA emails have been released. So perhaps NASA have acted illegally in subjecting scientists to this exposure.

Mike
thefordprefect


Posted Nov 27, 2010 at 8:29 AM
Permalink
ReplyYour comment is awaiting moderation.

For Example:

The change that brought some Universities into FOI regulation:
This appropriations law commands OMB to revise Circular A-110 in such a way as to require future such federal grantees to submit their research data to the federal grantor agency so that their data can be processed for potential disclosure in response to FOIA requests made for the data. In short, this new statutory provision overrules the longstanding Supreme Court precedent of Forsham v. Harris, 445 U.S. 169 (1980), which held that data generated and held by private research institutions receiving federal grants were not “agency records” subject to the FOIA and that a grantor agency was not obligated to demand those records in order to respond to any FOIA request for them.

In order to implement this statutory provision, OMB prepared a proposed revision of Circular A-110, … OMB published a final revised version of Circular A-110, which can be found at 64 Fed. Reg. 54,926.

The final revised version of this circular significantly defines the term “research data” to include “the recorded factual material commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to validate research findings, but not” such things as trade secrets, commercial information, personnel and medical information, and any “similar information which is protected under law.” Id. at 54,930. It also limits the application of this new provision to “research data relating to published research findings,” id. (emphasis added), which it defines as either “[r]esearch findings [that] are published in a peer-reviewed scientific or technical journal” or that are “publicly and officially cite[d] . . . in support of an agency action that has the force and effect of law.” Id.

Thus, in actual implementation, this statutory provision should apply to only certain types of “research data” as specified by OMB. Further, it applies only to data created under grants “issued after the effective date [November 8, 1999]” of the revised Circular A-110. But for any such data that is requested under the FOIA, the agency must obtain the data from the grantee and then process the FOIA request, except for one major difference pertaining to fees: “The agency may charge the requester a reasonable fee equaling the full incremental cost of obtaining the research data . . . in addition to any fees the agency may assess under the FOIA.” …
http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XIX_4/page2.htm

(d) (1) In addition, in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for research data relating to published research findings produced under an award that was used by the Federal Government in developing an agency action that has the force and effect of law, the Federal awarding agency shall request, and the recipient shall provide, within a reasonable time, the research data so that they can be made available to the public through the procedures established under the FOIA. If the Federal awarding agency obtains the research data solely in response to a FOIA request, the agency may charge the requester a reasonable fee equaling the full incremental cost of obtaining the research data. …

(2) The following definitions apply for purposes of paragraph (d) of this section:
(i) Research data is defined as the recorded factual material commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to validate research findings, but not any of the following: Preliminary analyses, drafts of scientific papers, plans for future research, peer reviews, or communications with colleagues. This “recorded” material excludes physical objects ( e.g. , laboratory samples). Research data also do not include:
(A) Trade secrets, commercial information, materials necessary to be held confidential by a researcher until they are published, or similar information which is protected under law; and
(B) Personnel and medical information and similar information the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, such as information that could be used to identify a particular person in a research study.
(ii) Published is defined as either when:
(A) Research findings are published in a peer-reviewed scientific or technical journal; or
(B) A Federal agency publicly and officially cites the research findings in support of an agency action that has the force and effect of law.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=443b61b3de4579eab8a69c106b0343a3&rgn=div8&view=text&node=2:1.1.2.9.2.3.11.17&idno=2


So no government grant funded research falls into this category if published before 1999.
Privately funded research is exempt
“communications with colleagues” is specifically exempt

Watts - More garbage

The latest watts misinformation and all over a picture:

Watts contention starts out as being the data is false in the background information.

Watts' telling comment is

Huh, that’s strange, it only shows around 280ppm of CO2 at the “present” of 1999 when this graph was published

 

The trouble is he has forgotten that present in general refers to 1950 in ice core timelines
The vostock Ice core finishes 2400 years before present (1950) i.e. some 500 years BC.

Then watts goes on to complain that the real problem is splicing valid CO2 readings  from the present to paleo data,

 But CO2 is a well mixed gas over the globe

Now here’s the problem. If you took surface temperature data from Antarctica, and spliced it with surface temperature data from Hawaii, and then presented it as the entire historical record from Antarctica, our friends would have a veritable “cow”.

This shows most of the CO2 records fall within +-1ppm with a couple of outliers at +-5ppm (linear) looking at the monthly plots shows that the peak at alert Alaska occurs some 2 months before the peak at Mauna Loa. Indicating that CO2 is pretty much in synch.

Yes, I agree that a spliced data should be indicated (perhaps the previous slide showed just the vostok data and was then compared to current data in the slide used as background???) But there is no invalid information in the picture.

US - House Science & Technology Subcommittee Hearing on Climate Change Science

Loads of dross but some good bits.
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/11/17/HP/A/40918/House+Science+Technology+Subcommittee+Hearing+on+Climate+Change+Science.aspx

Rep. Bob Inglis at 0h11m says that it is important that this hearing is on record. Quotes Australian Ambassador Kim Beazley who when he runs into a sceptic says make sure to say that very publicly because I want our grandchildren to read what you said and what I said!

At 0h47 Lindzen says that a 2.5C temperature drop is all you would expect if all CO2 was removed from the atmosphere!
At 0h48 Lindzen says there is no doubt that CO2 absorbs more heat than O2
Agrees that Human activity has substantially increased CO2
At 0h49 Lindzen, when responding to increasing max high temperature frequency, says that instrumentation changed dramatically during the [instrument record] period. Modern thermometer response times are infinitesimal compared to earlier in the record.
Baird then says "unless you are suggesting that in the past the measuring devices were erroneous in one direction not another"
Lindzen amazingly say "Absolutely"
Baird " If you're suggesting that the thermometers of today are more sensitive to increases than cooling..."
Lindzen "Oh, yuh!. Oh Yuh! that's pretty much true"

Roscoe Bartlett has more sense than most
Check out 2h30m.
Peak oil. Been and gone in US
Has same outlook on liquid fuels as I do. Using all US production of Corn to produce liquid fuels will provide 2.4% of requirement.
Using biomass will deplete the soil of nutrients. All non starters.

Even Rear Admiral David Titley is preparing for a much changed future with an ice free arctic.
3h13m

WUWT more selective translations

Mike says: November 19, 2010 at 2:53 pm

The quote allegedly from Edenhofer at the top of the article is fake. It has been ‘massaged’ if you will.
“Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. – Ottmar Edenhofer”

But also the headline is not a quote from an IPCC official. It does not appear in the interview. Edenhofer did not say it. It is someone else’s take or spin on what he said. This is about learning how to read critically. This means reading past the headline for a start.

—————

Mike says:November 18, 2010 at 6:34 pm
The lead quote is fake. Read the interview carefully – though I’d be leery of the translation too. They pasted together some of Edenhofer’s remarks out of context and added a few words out of thin air. This is a propaganda trick. The headline looks like a quote and frames how you read the interview. In fact many readers won’t even read the whole interview but will come away with a false impression. Some of you above have already taken the fake quote and put quotation marks around it. This will spread to other blogs and even op-ed pieces. This is how the propaganda mill works. You are seeing happen. Pay attention to the man behind the curtain!

REPLY: The original headline:
Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu
The online translation:
Climate policy distributes the world’s new wealth.
Seems OK to me. – Anthony
_____________
Mike says: November 19, 2010 at 4:30 pm

Let’s look at the German:

«Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu»
Klimaschutz hat mit Umweltschutz kaum mehr etwas zu tun, sagt der Ökonom Ottmar Edenhofer. Der nächste Weltklimagipfel in Cancún sei eigentlich ein Wirtschaftsgipfel, bei dem es um die Verteilung der Ressourcen gehe. Interview: Bernhard Pötter

And compare with:
IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth”
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. – Ottmar Edenhofer
——————
In the original, the headline is not directly attributed to anyone. GWPF added the “IPCC Official:” as though this was direct quote. It is not. “However, it looks like you added the “– Ottmar Edenhofer”. That’s not on the GWPF version. Probably that was an honest mistake. Only you know.

The German says “Klimapolitik” which is “Climate politics” not “Climate policy.” Climate politics is not, in most of the world, about debating the science – like here. It is about solving the problem. And “Klimaschutz” means “Climate protection” not “Climate policy.” These are subtle differences but they affect the tone. That last sentence should read: “The next world climate summit in Cancún will actually be an economic summit concerning the distribution of the resources. ”

It is true that purpose of the Cancun summit is not to debate the science. They will assume the overwhelming majority of scientists are correct – as they should – and instead discuss economic issues like who should pay for adaptation measures in poorer countries. And if there is a price on carbon then the net wealth of coal and oil reserves will decrease and the value of nuclear power plants with incraese. These are important matters on which reasonable people can disagree (and I’m sure will). But, saying the purpose of the summit is to redistribute the world’s wealth is putting a great deal of right leaning spin on it.

The interview itself was interesting a worth reading. I do wish I had the time to check the entire translation for accuracy and “interpretative license.”
—–

BTW: It you want to read something interesting check out the December issue of The Atlantic.

Dirty Coal, Clean Future
To environmentalists, “clean coal” is an insulting oxymoron. But for now, the only way to meet the world’s energy needs, and to arrest climate change before it produces irreversible cataclysm, is to use coal—dirty, sooty, toxic coal—in more-sustainable ways. The good news is that new technologies are making this possible. China is now the leader in this area, the Google and Intel of the energy world. If we are serious about global warming, America needs to work with China to build a greener future on a foundation of coal. Otherwise, the clean-energy revolution will leave us behind, with grave costs for the world’s climate and our economy.
By James Fallow
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/dirty-coal-clean-future/8307/

WUWT more selective quotes

ShaneCMuir says: November 18, 2010 at 2:41 am

A couple of my favourite quotes from the Climategate/Global Warming fiasco:
“Faking up data here is very time-consuming”

- Mike HULME to Tom WIGLEY – Mon, 9 Feb 1998
==============
this concerns missing data which they are trying to obtain:

(4) Thanks for explaining the UIUC 'other data' problem. I will ask
Michael whether he can provide full global fields for the other variables,
since it really would be valuable to include them. If he can give us
these data, could you add them to SCENGEN? (re this, see below)
==============

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill … All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

– Alexander KING, Bertrand SCHNEIDER – founder and secretary, respectively, of the Club of Rome – The First Global Revolution, pp.104-105
Global Government is the motive.


thefordprefect says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. November 18, 2010 at 4:38 am
ShaneCMuir says:November 18, 2010 at 2:41 am

Why not give the full quote?:

http://www.archive.org/download/TheFirstGlobalRevolution/TheFirstGlobalRevolution.pdf

The common enemy of humanity is Man

In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill.

In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes.

All these dangers are caused by human intervention In natural processes. and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.
==================================
That comment didn't make the blog!!!

Jones interview in Nature

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101115/pdf/468362a.pdf

WUWT - Hatefest

On WUWT
November 14, 2010 at 7:56 am
This blog is becoming a hate-fest of any country apart from US (see the German thread).
But even worse it is becoming a source of conspiracy theories (communism, socialism UN taking over the world).
REPLY: Well then don’t visit, nobody’s forcing you. WUWT reports on things people agree and disagree with, I dare say that if I’m not upsetting somebody with some article each day, I’m not doing my job. Get over yourself. – Anthony

So Watts agrees with the comments on his german post:


S Basinger says: November 11, 2010 at 8:52 am
A modest proposal for BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN – perhaps all ‘deniers’ should be made to wear a symbol of some type. Perhaps a star?
============
Dennis Nikols, P. Geol. says: November 11, 2010 at 9:22 am
Is this significantly different then what we have heard and will continue to hear from any extreme on any subject. Remember the tradition of intolerance for difference runs deep, very deep in the culture of all European societies. We in the US and Canada need to remind ourselves that our culture and society is of European roots.
===========
Allencic says: November 11, 2010 at 9:42 am
What? The germans are doing stupid and dangerous things again. Where’s General Patton and the Third Army when we need them?
============
kwik says: November 11, 2010 at 10:03 am
 Hmmmm….okay, so germany needs
- A Secret Police for keeping track of Deniers….let me see …hmm…
Geheime Clima Polizei ? ( GeCliPo )
Geheime Grun Polizei ? ( GeGruPo )

-A way to reckognise the Denier….hmmmm….. A Tatoo on the arm which tell you
what number you have on the Black List? Like… D 111222 (Denier number 111222)
And maybe a yellow patch on the chest with a black Coal piece on it ? Easy to spot.

-There might be neccessary to have some Camps for re-programming of the Deniers.
Some doctors will be needed for injections of certain drugs. Maybe the deniers can
work while in camp? Uranium mines?

-May I suggest a new Jugend organisation ? Die Grune Jugend. You can easily recruit guards for the camps when they are indoctrinaded as young ones.
===========
DesertYote says: November 11, 2010 at 10:06 am
WOW, just WOW. Reading this right after saying what I did in a post on the Armistice Day thread is chilling.
The evil of WWI is not dead, its just in hiding … or was :(
==========
Peter Miller says:
November 11, 2010 at 10:21 am
Undoubtedly, there are many in Germany who favour the concept of a Fourth Reich.
History has shown that stifling dissent appears to be ingrained into their culture.
===========
eadler says: November 11, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Anthony Watts wrote:
“The seeds of tyranny appear to be taking hold again in the German government at least when it comes to climate change issues. – Anthony”
I guess Anthony doesn’t know much about German politics. He seems to think the Green Party is running the German government. As far as I know, the ruling party is CDP under Angela Merkel.
I think that part of the post needs to be corrected.
REPLY: You have NO IDEA WHAT I THINK. – take a timeout, pretty much fed up with you. – Anthony
===========
Mac The Knife says: November 11, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Soooooo the zealous German Parliamentarians have issued a fatwa against anyone questioning the absolute truth of Man Made Global Warming, eh? Can Jihad be far behind? If I used the UN-IPCC report to clean my toilet, will they send out their jihadi assassins to murder me
===========
etc........

17/3/2011
and his mates are not much better:
Smokey says: March 17, 2011 at 11:39 am

thefordprefect says:



“So you are prepared to subsidise the peasants in their huts with no financial wealth so they can use fossil fuel whose price will rise because of the doubling in demand and the lack of future resources.”
...
But I feel no guilt. If their despotic governments instituted reforms including minimal government interference, free trade, property rights, low taxation, and a fair legal system, within one generation you would see a South Korea-type society emerge from the previous North Korea-type poverty.

----------------------------------------------------------------
My response (will it make it past the watts knife?


Personna Smokey the Astroturfer says: March 17, 2011 at 11:39 am

But I feel no guilt. If their despotic governments instituted reforms including minimal government interference, free trade, property rights, low taxation, and a fair legal system, within one generation you would see a South Korea-type society emerge from the previous North Korea-type poverty.
Even for an invented personna you are very obnoxious.
The west has had cheap abundant fuel to grow with. We have squandered this resource and continue to do so - just read the comments here. In the UK just using modern wall warts < 1 watt instead of the usuallo 3 watts would save a small power station. Now swith off all those set top boxes when not reuired and thats another power station. Now switch to efficient lighting and thats another power station.
Drive a small efficient car, cycle to work, take only one flight holiday per year.
Insulate your house, stop draughts, reduce the remperature during the winter and increase it in the summer by a degreeC.
All this is feasible without loosing your freedom and without going back to the dark ages. Is this so much to ask? Wind turbines generate 20% rated power on average over the year. This means you save oil/gas for the future - is this bad?
I thought personnas were supposed to research before posting. How can you say that ALL lack of industrialisation and wealth is caused by despotic governments - where is your proof. Perhaps you need to bring on line another of your personnas to back up your dross.
Some aboriginal peoples prefer to be left with their lifestyle. Some may wish to progress to westenrn "civilisation" but because we have squandered to cheap fuel will not be able to reach their aspirations.
-----------------------
The response: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/17/earth-hour-a-dissent/#comment-623509
Smokey says:


March 18, 2011 at 2:12 pm

thefordprefect [TFP] scolds:

Drive a small efficient car, cycle to work, take only one flight holiday per year.

“thefordprefect” persona is a busybody eco-lecturer. I will continue driving my CO2-belching 271 horsepower car. I will never cycle to work, unless it’s on a motorcycle, and I will take as many airline flights as I please – completely guilt free.
TFP continues:
Insulate your house, stop draughts, reduce the remperature during the winter and increase it in the summer by a degreeC.
As if everyone hasn’t heard that a hundred times. I’ve insulated my house to save money and for comfort, not to please little hitler wanna-be’s, who crave a totalitarian government to micro-manage everyone’s life.
I will keep the temperature where it’s most comfortable, in both summer and winter. I pay for it with my own earned money, and no busybody do-gooder is going to tell me how warm or cool to keep my house.
All this is feasible without loosing [sic] your freedom and without going back to the dark ages. Is this so much to ask?
Let me put it this way: Butt out, serf. I will live my life as a free man, paying my own way.
How can you say that ALL lack of industrialisation and wealth is caused by despotic governments – where is your proof. Perhaps you need to bring on line another of your personnas [sic] to back up your dross.
First, I can say that all lack of national industrialization is the result of bad government, because it is an obvious fact to the most casual observer. North and South Korea have the same people, the same geography, the same culture. One has good government that embraces the free market [or the Karl Marx term: capitalism], and the other is a Socialist/Communist totalitarian dictatorship. The problem from Albania to Zimbabwe is the same: bad government. The more Socialist/Communist a country’s government is, the worse off its citizens are.
And second: I have only one on-line persona: Smokey. That’s all. Both you and “walt man” have accused me this past week of having multiple posting names. That is not true. And for someone who names himself after a Douglas Adams character, who are you to criticize?
There’s a saying: A thief thinks everyone else is a thief. So the probability is high that both TFP and walt man post under various names. I do not. Just because other commentators have criticized TFP’s post as I have, he wrongly assumes that they are me. That is certainly not the case, as those other commentators know.
Finally, TFP says:
Some aboriginal peoples prefer to be left with their lifestyle. Some may wish to progress to westenrn “civilisation” but because we have squandered to cheap fuel will not be able to reach their aspirations.
That is a bunch of horse manure. Every word of it. Some aborigines steer clear of technological civilizations out of fear, because technological civilizations have guns. But every civilization, from stone age to socialist, wants the goodies that come from a free market economy: modern medicine, cheap and abundant food, cheap energy, a huge selection of quality goods and services, electronic gadgets, heated homes, cell phones, you name it. And regarding “squandering” cheap fuel: it is exactly none of TFP’s business what people do with the energy they freely purchase. TFP’s argument is based entirely on his green-eyed envy of prosperous “capitalist” societies.
TFP is consumed by greed and covetousness. If he could, he would surely confiscate and expropriate the earned wealth of the citizens of “capitalist” countries – simply steal it outright, using any convenient feel-good eco-excuse – and hand it over to the opressive governments he worships, beginning with the UN.
The despotic leaders would, naturally, pocket TFP’s stolen loot. Their citizens wouldn’t get the benefit, any more than the citizens of Venezuela, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran or Zimbabwe get the benefit of the money their leaders intercept and steal.
TFP no doubt fancies himself as some sort of Robin Hood character. That’s an easy way for a thief to justify his actions. But Robin Hood stole from the bad, and gave to the good – exactly the opposite of what modern eco-thieves intend to do.

Al Gores Seafront property (updated)

How often to the anti AGW crowd crow about Al Gore purchasing a sea front property - "If he believed in his sea level rise prediction he would not purchase a seafront home would he"

Google earth:  34.4477654 -119.6286264
http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/al-gores-house-2/

http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&cp=34.44776538~-119.62862644&sty=o&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=7957158&encType=1


Quite a sensible purchase (if you have the money). 150m asl - it will have to be a significant global warming event to inundate this one!

hmmm!apparently there is another on Fisherman's Wharf,  San Francisco (I'd worry about quakes first)

If this page is correct:
http://thereforeithink.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/hold-your-breath-save-the-planet/
Then he still has a 1 metre of dry land after his (incorrect) 6m rise!! Then of course quite a few metres before he needs to think about lifting the carpets!




google earth 37.786173° -122.401423°

More DDT stuff

*just for the record*


So many lies about DDT and "greens" having killed 20Million children in Africa. So simple to debunk them all!

http://www.treated-bednet.com/agro-chemical.htm

INSECTICIDES FOR RESIDUAL SPRAYING



DDT still not banned for malaria control

DDT is still one of the first and most commonly used insecticides for residual spraying, because of its low cost, high effectiveness, persistence and relative safety to humans.

Commonly available formulations: 75% water-dispersible powder (the most commonly used); 25% emulsion concentrate.

Dosage: 1 - 2g/m2 depending on the surface (more on mud-bricks, less on timber) and the length of the transmission period (the higher dosage lasts longer).
Storage: It is stable and can be stored in tropical countries without deterioration if heat, bright sunlight and high humidity are avoided.
Supplying records
In the past several years, we supplied DDT 75% WDP to Madagascar, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan, South Africa, Namibia, Solomon Island, Papua New Guinea, Algeria, Thailand, Myanmar for Malaria Control project, and won a good reputation from WHO and relevant countries' government.

Alternate Self Contained Rightwing Media Universe - unbelievable

Sea Ice to end of October (AMSRE)

Of interest the second plot shows the early part of the melt cycle is becoming later but the melt minimum is not changing.

The final plot shows that the minimum melt level is on a consistent decline 2007 being a bit off line. It should be remembered that the maximum extent is land locked - as soon as ice "reaches" land at any place the growth rate obviously slows.

CET vs Grape harvest

The first plot shows yearly comparison with temperature not inverted and not filtered.
The second plot show the full grape harvest period with axes scaled and temperatures inverted.

Click for full size plots

Obviously the Pinot Noir grape varieties have changed over the years and CET is not the temperature of the area where the grapes are farmed. Still gives a reasonable match!

More pointless attacks on Jones.

http://climateaudit.org/2010/10/27/did-jones-delete-emails/

Did Jones Delete Emails?
It turns out that Muir Russell didn’t bother asking, since that would have exposed Jones to potential liability.

But in a surprising new turn of events, it seems that VC Acton sort-of did what Muir Russell was supposed to do – ask Jones whether he had deleted emails. The Guardian reports Acton’s testimony as follows:

Prof Phil Jones told the University of East Anglia’s boss that he did not delete any of the emails that were released from the university last November, despite apparently saying he would in one of those emails.
In the narrowest sense, the very existence of the Climategate emails seems to show that, whatever Jones may or may not have attempted to do, he had not deleted the emails that survived on the back up server.


thefordprefect
Posted Oct 27, 2010 at 2:46 PM | Permalink | ReplyKeep trying with the irrelevancies McIntyre.

You may be able to change the result of a midterm election and perhaps the next climate debate in Mexico. But attacking a man will not change the fact that the world is warming and it is more than likely caused by man. I hope you are correct in your stance for I would not be able to live with myself if I (and watts) have helped to wreck the lives of our children.

Mike

Even if Jones was guilty of all that watts and McIntyre claim, just what is the relevance. His CRUTEMP record has been shown to agree with other records.
These all show a temperature rise greater than elsewhere in the instrumental record. What is the point in continuing this horrendous attack on Jones and Mann?

my post today:
So lets see if I have this correct [you claim]

Jones acted illegally
Muir Russell and co workers are incompetent
Oxburgh and co workers are incompetent
The UK Parliamentary Process has been bought by lefties
The UEA is complicit in all this illegality

Hmmmm £1300 is all it costs to bring a defamation action (it costs lawyer/QC costs to defend your innocence, and you ARE guilty until you can show otherwise. A Norwich Pharmacal will provide your names and addresses from your ISP for free!). Living outside UK does not make you immune to prosecution. I hope you have plenty of evidence that proves (legally!!!) all your comments. Good Luck!

your words:
mpaul
Posted Oct 28, 2010 at 9:59 AM | Permalink | ReplyJones was the head of the unit. He was directing people to delete emails that were subject of a FOIA.

geronimo
Posted Oct 29, 2010 at 10:21 AM | Permalink | ReplyRussell has form, he’s a serial incompetent

JEM
Posted Oct 29, 2010 at 9:42 AM | Permalink | ReplyOne would think that if the Russell cabal’s ineptitude

McIntyre
It is almost impossible to fully dissect the negligence of the Muir Russell inquiry

T G Watkins
Posted Oct 28, 2010 at 4:45 PM | Permalink | ReplyI have every confidence in the British system of Parliamentary inquiries. Confident that they will duck and dive,
John Whitman
Posted Oct 27, 2010 at 10:56 AM | Permalink | ReplyAm I just being naïve to think that any reasonable independently minded person will find doubt about the innocence of the UEA/CRU personnel
just a few more defamations:Steve McIntyre
Posted Oct 26, 2010 at 7:54 PM | Permalink | ReplyOne of the undiscussed aspects of Muir Russell is the role of PR firm Luther Pendragon and its employees Mike Granatt and Kate Moffatt. The latter is profiled here as having also assisted Pew Charitable Trusts. All very “objective”, I’m sure.

and:
Who Recommended Oxburgh?

most of:
Fiona Fox and the Babe Magnet

etc. etc.

[most of this post got snipped making it ridiculous!]

thefordprefect
Posted Oct 30, 2010 at 8:03 PM | Permalink | ReplyMcIntyre
You have stopped any form of scientific investigation on CRU science.
You are now single mindedly going after its personnel. I just do not see the purpose.

As far as I am aware the main contention about the science is the hide the decline (the graphic on the front of a simple WMO pamphlet).

You now seem to going after the inclusion of some research in the IPCC document that should not have been included due to it not having been published in time. Not because the SCIENCE was wrong.
This blog now seems to be a “lets destroy the UEA and especially the CRU” mouthpiece.

The FOI act became law in 2005, 3 years before the destroy the email email. Was Jones educated in FOI by this time?

The University system in the UK is being destroyed in this country by its poor funding. Sowing seeds of doubt about the UEA may have very detrimental effects on its financial and hence physical future.

Very sad. Just what is the purpose here?????

30 year average UK

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/ukmapavge.html

Interestingly the days of thunder have reduced over the 2 periods.

Good "lord"

Did you know that the tea lady serving Oxburgh also served Russel and Jones. She went to the pub with someone who is a former member of the Communist party. This PROVES that all climate science is being run by the commies.
Just as "lord" Monkton says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHyMYEzRyf8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUUcb36a_4I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA0xEM1KwG4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7o1S4m5mCw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieC7HYC5cto

Perhaps the good "lord" will also debunk the moon landings next!!!!

Scafetta on 60 year climate oscillations

From the paper comes this plot:

Compare this to the HADCRUT 3V plot:

By filtering the temperature all the low frequency uplift since the 60s has been lost.
What therefore, has caused the recent warming?
According to the plot the last 10 years should have been cooling and the next 10 should see a 1C warming.
If I remember correctly the last 10 years have been stable and not reduced by 1C. If Scafetta is correct the world should be 2C hotter by 2025. Is this not a bit worrying?
and
WHY is the Scafetta plot so different to the HADCRU3V?????

OK so now add a 15 to 25 year filter and whats the comparison like?

Certainly a better fit but the trace obtained by filtering (red) is not what Scafetta gets (black). Also looking at the extreme s the temperature is loosing sync with SCMSS.

??plagiarising?? or not???, sometimes it matters, sometimes is does not!

it matters here:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/08/05/the-steig-corrigendum/
http://climateaudit.org/2007/12/07/realclimate-on-loehle/
http://climateaudit.org/2009/06/24/say-my-name-watts-remix/
and the real “humdinger”
McMichaels plagiarises himself! (can you do this?)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/03/and-the-hits-just-keep-on-coming-the-book-the-ipcc-plagiarized/
and is thrown to the dogs of Watts

And here it does not matter:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/10/12/copygate/

Correlation between LOD and SSN???????

WUWT posts that there is a correlation between length of day and Sun Spot Number

My response:

Not sure were all the data in the header comes from but this is the plot I get for LOD and SSN

There seems to be no correlation worthy of note.

This is their take on it:

LOD here

http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/

SSN here

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/MONTHLY

sea ice to sept 2010

hd video of arctic seaice :

latest north atlantic SST video

WUWT - Greenies Close Feed lot?

Posted this link on wuwt but seems no to have made it!
URGENT – A call to action for the WUWT community
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/18/urgent-a-call-to-action-for-the-wuwt-community/

Is it really Greenies causing this or is it a sense of smell?
check out:
http://narroginlibrary.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/neighbour-presentations.pdf

or if this doesn't work:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:U-18NwsXBn0J:narroginlibrary.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/neighbour-presentations.pdf+Thompson+feedlot+narrogin+-death&cd=21&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

The local authorities may also have been hoodwinked by Janet Thompson as she said there would beno odour problem when asked at a public meeting

Since the Narrogin Beef Producers on Wanarie Road have been inproduction our plans have changed dramatically, nothing like we firstplanned. At times the odour is so strong during the summer when the Albanydoctor come in it makes it unbearable to be or stay outside

and from the local agricultural college:

The problem is the profit making venture they are trying to establish is affecting the health, welfare and futurebest interests of this award winning, public education facility, its staff and the students of the NarroginAgricultural College
RegardsSTEPHEN WYATTActing Principal - WA College of Agricuiture -Narrogin

Lord Andrew Turnbull from the GWPF

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) …
We are funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts. In order to make clear its complete independence, we do not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.

They do not mind employing Mr Turnbull who has interests in energy .
http://www.booz.com/uk/home/who_we_are/our_people/profile/lord_turnbull
Lord Andrew Turnbull
Since retiring from the Civil Service in 2005, Lord Andrew Turnbull has joined Booz & Company as a Senior Advisor. … He entered the House of Lords in December 2005 and is a non-executive Director of Prudential PLC, The British Land Company PLC and Frontier Economics Ltd, and is Chairman of BH Global Ltd.
http://www.frontier-economics.com/europe/en/practices/1/
Frontier's energy work relates to electricity, gas and oil and covers production, networks, storage, trading and retail. Frontier is recognised as one of the leading energy market, modelling and regulatory experts in Western Europe and Australia and the Pacific and has worked widely on the detailed quantitative and qualitative aspects of environmental policies

His directorship of BH Global. Is interesting (especially if I could understand this document prospectus looks most unsavoury to the uninitiated!)

Page 79 of the document
BHESMF:
Investment Profile by Sector (percentage of capital allocation) energy = 6%

Montford makes 39 FOI requests

Just how much has he cost the British Taxpayer on his witch hunt?

Make the most of this cost and have a look at some responses
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/andrew_montford

e.g.

The real harry file
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/24129/response/63521/attach/4/Harris%20report%202005.pdf

Montford seems willing to accept a free golf day
http://wingrave.com/UserFiles/pdf/LIES%2015.pdf

Is there free water in NP camera photo

AMSRE sea ice extent from Jaxa

Sea Ice Video to Aug 2010

AMSRE Sea Ice extend in Video format
(the video looks better than the preview

High def version in usual place (7MB)

SST the world

Note that the inline video is better than the static preview!

Data from http://www.remss.com/sst/sst_data_daily.html?rgn=global
rate is 50 days/second

The Videos are available in high quality here (15MB)

SST North/Tropical Atlantic to 30th July

Some more SSTs and updated ones.

Note the inline video looks better than the static preview!

Atlantic Tropical June 2002 to July 2010

SST North Atlantic June 2002 to July 2010

The Videos are available in high quality here (15MB)

SST Pacific Tropical to 24th July

SST from July 2002 to July 2010 from:

here

for Pacific Tropical

Full definition download here 15Mbytes

AMSU unrecorded modifications still not answered.

Some time ago I asked for an explanation from Spencer as to why some of the channels from amsu had been dropped (in particular CHLT which was rising at 1.2C/decade) but also why ch05 was changed to ch05 aqua and then modified to a new version of ch05 aqua. All this with no notes on the discover website.
No explanation was forthcoming.

The major changes have removed the rapidly rising trends. Why?

Note that all FEB 29ths have been removed!

Assuming The AMSU team have now stabilized on their plots ch04 is still showing an upward trend of almost 0.5C per decade

NP Pictures

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/index.php

note the wandering "thing" in the background