Oh Dear! (5) More from Our Tony (+ friends)

Continuing the obnoxious/wrong/or just plain nasty posts of Watts and his acolytes.

Just a Random collection of posts mainly on WUWT a blog with vast readership - watts therefore needs to trim these posts BEFORE publishing. He cannot claim in his defence that the posts are not edited - there are so many with bans on posting that this would be a lie.


REPLY: You can choose to respond or not, not our call nor our duty beyond determining if the comment violates policy. I do think you just don’t know how to handle online criticism well – Anthony
  1. Myrrh says:
  2. [snip - bogus email address]
  3. Myrrh says:

    I have already explained, it is the same as before wordpress stole it.
    Your claims that you don’t censor is what is bogus.
    [Reply: We don't censor. And please, use a valid email address. ~dbs, mod.]
After a few tens of posts like:
Arno Arrak says:

Interesting. Apparently it had not occurred to the high-powered climate scientists that burning fossil fuels actually releases heat. It should be easy enough for them to calculate how much heat is released when a ton of carbon dioxide is produced. It is not surprising that it is concentrated in the cities because that is where most of the fuel is burned.

you get this:

 LazyTeenager says:

It seems his observations were spot-on, as this new paper just published in Nature Climate Change tells us. From the University of San Diego:
Not exactly.
It’s the USA versus the world. The average global temps are not affected signicantly by this effect.
This effect has only regional consequences that can be both up and down in temperatures.
Might cause a slight uptick in trends in some highly urbanised counties and a slight downtick in trends in other highly urbanised countries. It all depends on where countries are situated with respect to weather patterns.
There is a slight chance it might bias global average temp trends but which way has to be determined.
REPLY: Your opinion is meritless, without citation, and posted from behind the cloak of anonymity with a juvenile self descriptive label . In laymans terms: crap. If you want it to be taken seriously, show some citations and have the courage to stand behind your words. I tire of your predictable cowardly noise, as do others. My best advice is to elevate your status from this level if you wish to contribute something useful. – Anthony
A bit different on this blog that censors dissenting views (so much that no one bothers posting  anymore) :

Rhoda R says:

I don’t bother with sites that censor differing opinions. They are boring.


More from the rejected post
REPLY: Dear Mike Tuppen (aka thefordprefect) outed here in climategate emails – You are in permanent moderation for all comments, because you have abused your posting privileges here many times before, don’t get a big head that we are allowing you back permanently because these were allowed. And no, I’m not interested in discussing your previous issue with hateful vitriol, those will stay in the bit bucket. Be as upset as you wish.
Moderators – don’t approve any comments from Mr. Tuppen that diverge from his discussion of IR and CO2 – Anthony

double standards!

Lewandowsky’s latest smear paper gets pulled from the journal website

Readers may recall these two recent WUWT stories:
  • More shameless conspiracy theory from the ‘Skeptical Science’ smear quest team
  • Lewandowsky’s bear-baiting behavior
Tonight I’m pleased to report, that one skeptic who stood up and complained about Lewandowsky’s libelous claims, has had an effect. – Anthony
force a paper to be pulled because you disagree with it. Use that magic LIBEL legal word imply that you could go to court -
compare to:

Mann -vs- NRO legal battle, heating up

Reposted from National Review Online
Please support us in our fight against Professor Michael Mann.
By Jack Fowler
We’re being sued, and we need your help.
here we have Mann's livelyhood being threatened by truly libellous statements.

A couple from WUWT who never block comments!!!

LazyTeenager says:

February 20, 2013 at 8:53 pm

[snip. Per Anthony, you are one of the very rare persona non grata here. Run along now. — mod.]

ericgrimsrud says:

February 20, 2013 at 6:48 pm

[snip. Persona non grata. — mod.]

REPLY: If it were only that simple. Please read my policy page under the header menu. Both of these people have crossed the line from simply being wrong, to doing and saying things that have crossed the line of decency. I simply don’t want them to be in my “home on the Internet” any longer. I have been quite tolerant, and each of these commenters has had several hundred comments here. But, when they cross lines of decency, I’m not obligated to take abuse in my own home. – Anthony

[Reply #2: You have not read Eric Grimsrud's thoroughly despicable comments, which were deleted before thy were posted. He is truly a horrible human being, and Anthony went out of his way to accommodate Mr Grimsrud. [— From one of Anthony's long term moderators.]

Regarding Lazy T, Anthony has finally had his fill: “OK that’s it, you are banned, permanently. Get the hell off my blog. I won’t tolerate this sort of hateful crap from you anymore. Mr. Rothwell.” – Anthony Watts. Sometimes a line is crossed, and action must be taken. This is not censorship, this is housekeeping. — mod.]
WUWT Revisionism!!!!


Pielke Jr. gets booted from Journal for giving an unfavorable peer review to some shoddy science

2 days agoAcademics / General Science : Watts Up With That?
Mark Steyn writes at The Corner (NRO): Score-Settled Science Since being sued by fantasy Nobel Laureate and global warm-monger Michael E Mann for mocking his hockey stick, I’ve taken a greater than usual interest in the conformity enforcers of the … Continue reading ?
read more


Pielke Jr. appears to get booted from a journal for giving an unfavorable peer review to some shoddy science

I think the journal did a poor job of communicating this to him, but I can’t disagree with their decision. I work in biological sciences. My mentor is on the board of a journal and gets up to 50 requests a year to review manuscripts. I personally do approximately 20/year. I’m stunned the GEC has so low a requirement for ‘editorial board’ status. I’m not sure his interest (better word involvement?) was waning, but rather seemed below expectation from the start.

Tony says
  • * Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.

  • What is worse is that Pielke got dismissed because he did insufficient reviewing!  AND the "peer" review was I believe only on his blog!
    Another ip lookup by Tony -

    alex says: July 8, 2013 at 11:37 pm
    Hey, guy, what did you expect? They would pay you for your denial? For your denial tour Europe? You are silly. The only thing I do not understand – why they hired you at all. Or you were not a denier at that time? Of course, you got a tenured job and thought you be safe. Now you know it better. Gotcha!

     REPLY: so does Heinrich-Heine-Universitaet in Duesseldorf condone such use of their network to write such drivel, or are you “tenured” and thus above the law? – Anthony
    trafamadore says:
    richardscourtney says:”I am writing so you know I read your reply which demonstrates you failed to read or understand my post to you.”
    ActualIy, understand your post perfectly.
    You think: that there are tens or hundreds or even thousands of climate scientists involved in a conspiracy of some sort to convince the world that global warming is occurring, and making up data to convince people of this. These scientists speak different languages, live in different counties and do research is completely different areas.
    I think: you are nuts.

    Maybe, but at least he has the courage to put his name to his ideas, so that if he is wrong, he is accountable personally, unlike you. -Anthony
    UPDATE: upon further inspection I find that:
    jr2458@sbcglobal.net – Result: Bad
    MX record about sbcglobal.net exists.
    Connection succeeded to mx2.sbcglobal.am0.yahoodns.net SMTP.
    421 4.7.1 [TS03] All messages from verify-email.org will be permanently deferred; Retrying will NOT succeed. See http://postmaster.yahoo.com/421-ts03.html
    So see ya later, anonymous coward. A valid email address is required to post here by blog policy. Having none, you get the redirect to the permanent spam bin. – Anthony

    That’s a great point about Art Robinson’s pivotal Oregon Petition Project.
    Was a point made?
    In keeping with Johnathon abbott’s testimonial about familiarising onesself with all sides of the debate, here are some critical comments on the petition.
    Bottom line is 0.3% of the science community signed the petition, the petition makers won’t release the data (the full qualifications/field of each signatory), it is likely only a small fraction have expertise in climare science (should statisticians give opinion on neurosurgery?).
    There are more opinions than this, of course. It pays to be skeptical.
    REPLY: Except that “skeptical science” isn’t. That’s the best you can do? Laughable. A rhetorical point: should anonymous cowards like you with no qualifications in climate have an opinion on climate science? -Anthony
    barry says:
    (Rhetorical reply: moderators can see the identities of those posters, and so can Anthony. But you hide your identity. ~mod)
    I once sent Anthony copies of ATI’s release of UVa emails, identified myself from WUWT and declared my name. Very happy to email Anthony my name again, and he can share it with the mods if he wishes.
    REPLY: I don’t recall seeing such an email, or if I did, making any connection. OTOH I get dozens to hundreds of emails a day, so it may just be lost in the noise. – Anthony
    (Reply #2: Anthony previously wrote to you: I’m really rather tired of your pot shots here from behind the comfort of anonymity, where if you are wrong there’s no downside for you because you take the no risk hidey hole route. You were then asked again to identify yourself. Your one word reply: “No.”
    Now is your chance, ‘barry’. Provide a verifiable identity, or remain anonymous. ~mod)
    The site is moderate so there must be agreementwith this comment
    david says:
    After they get rid of the Green agenda crap they need to restore the gun rights to their citizens

    Just how obnoxious is the word "denier" or is it OK if Tony uses it?

    David Appell denies he has any class

    sharper00 says:
    “REPLY: and the AGW community is still stuck on thinking that CO2 is the cause of everything – A”
    What you want to say about the pros and cons of that argument it’s still the case that continuing to attack papers written over 12 years ago which have been superseded by new work both from the author in question and other authors is not a good approach.
    Claiming that either McIntyre is right or there’s a hockeystick is a false dichotomy. McIntyre has never produced his own reconstruction and has only ever critiqued others, which is certainly his right but that also makes it impossible to apply his work to what’s actually happening as opposed to what might be wrong with what others say is happening.
    You can accept everything McIntyre says (or at least a lot of it) and still say there’s modern temperatures are the hottest in a thousand years.
    While it’s easy and indeed common for the blogosphere to get caught up in “the debate” and the personalities (see also Steig/O’Donnell) there’s still an underlying reality which is being investigated. The investigation suggests time and again that as above it’s now hotter than in recent history. This in itself says nothing about why that is and ultimately almost everything in the paleo climate record is going to be little to do with human activity.
    REPLY: spoken like a true MWP and RWP denier, which is the crux of the problem – A

    Weather Channel nixes “Forecast Earth”, including Cullen

    Phil. says:
    I think everybody reading here would agree with cleaner air and water. Thing is a modern coal plant produces very little pollution if you do not count CO2, and other forms of fuel like natural gas produce no pollution. Most(though not all) fuels do not pollute water.
    Then consider Bio fuels cause huge pollution, energy saving light bulbs contain mercury, wind power has a huge physical footprint, tidal barriers and dams destroy habitat.

    One third of the US mercury emissions come from those coal plants!
    dbstealey, moderator:
    Reply: Will, you’re new around here, so you may not know it, but we don’t use the word “deniers,” or any of its permutations. Please use “skeptic,” meaning one who questions.
    Excuse me but ‘skepticism’ is not a synonym for ‘denial’, I’ll continue to use whichever one is appropriate and would suggest Will does likewise!
    REPLY: Ok Phil, let me make this easy for you.
    This blog is my home on the internet, you along with many others, are guests here, just as if I invited you into my living room for a chat. Now if one of my guests gets unruly, and says things that not only insults me, but the other guests, I see it as a reasonable to ask that person to refrain from doing so, and if they choose not to, ask them to leave my home.
    Should I be asking you to leave? Or would you prefer to use a gentler word not linked to WWII Germany to describe your host and other guests? – Anthony


    Paging David Appell – ‘death threats against climate scientists’ story even deader than yesterday

    Nick Stokes says:
    I have to say that calling me out in a post and then putting me on troll moderation which makes replying difficult, is hardly playing fair.
    REPLY: You were put on troll moderation YESTERDAY, not after I made this post, and you know this. Both you and Appell can’t seem to embrace humility, or to even admit you’ve been wrong, try it sometime. Until then, you get the slow lane. – Anthony
     A load of death wishes linked - remember thias is a moderated blog so these have therefore been endorsed!!!!!: 

    FOI email: science is only influenced by ‘big oil’ if they do it

    SergeiMK says:
    Cannot agree more – such hypocrisy:
    Lets look at some of the very ugly DEATH wishes posted here with moderators agreements
    Chemist says:
    April 28, 2009 at 4:48 pm
    I’ll be the one to say it: I hope they die so that their deaths will draw attention to the truth of this issue. If they succeed, then it will be just another propaganda
    Daniel L. Taylor says: May 5, 2009 at 6:51 am
    …Maybe I’m just a cold hearted SoB, but in my opinion they need to freeze to death on that ice. The world needs to see the headline “Global Warming scientists …
    I’m sorry, but if the deaths of everyone on that ice survey team helps raise awareness of and opposition to the global warming political train wreck then so be it. It needs to happen.
    Rachelle Young says:
    March 26, 2009 at 8:52 pm
    I would be content to see all three of them freeze to death or be eaten by ‘endangered’ polar bears
    Is Overpeck’s statement worse than wishing someone dies?
    For no reason this appears in an article by tisdale:
    Anthony Watts says:

    @Bob Tisdale.
    Don’t give this jerk “Taminio” the benefit of anonymity. His name is Grant Foster, he lives in Portland Maine.
    Use his name when discussing his claims, if he stands behind his work, then he should have any problem with his name being applied to it.
    Dumb Scientist says:
    I still think it’s possible that Anthony has the integrity to not snip this comment, so I’ll repeat my challenge that got snipped earlier: “I’d be very interested to see WUWT read through 10,000 scientific abstracts and rate them. You could show the world how to do a proper survey… right?”
    REPLY: Oh please. Bryan for the record, I don’t give a rats ass about what you think about comment policy (see here). You put words in my mouth in the last comment, I snipped it because of that. Get over yourself. Why don’t you get your peers at JPL to do it, if it is so important to you? After all, you’ve got millions of dollars of government money at your disposal there and we have next to nothing.
    The whole consensus chasing is a waste of time in my opinion, Mother Nature will be the final arbiter of the AGW issue- Anthony
    and the whole point of WUWT post is about 52 or 97% consensus !!!!!

    Some one steals a private BB and releases the private posts to the "skeptics"
    Then McIntyre says
    Steve: .... As to my remarks on your comments in the SKS forum: over the years, I’ve gotten tired of people privately conceding the validity of my criticisms of paleoclimate practices, but failing to do so publicly. In your case, your SKS forum comments show that you agreed with many of my criticisms, but, instead of saying so at SKS, you called me a “conspiracy wackjob” – an offensive and untrue allegation. instead of apologizing when I took issue in my above remarks – as you ought to have done – you complained that your remarks had become public. I understand that you were young at the time and I would be quite happy to accept your withdrawal of these offensive and untrue remarks and move on. But first you have to withdraw the allegations, rather than complaining about how they became public.

    Robert way then says
    That being said I do draw the line at what Steve did above. He said basically that in my hacked personal correspondence I said things about him (and many other people) that he didn’t like so he will continue to spread the contents of this hacked correspondence until I “apologize” to him personally. To me this is the type of behavior you very often see in classrooms where a cellphone is stolen and one person says to the other either you apologize to me or I’m going to keep spreading around the bad things you messaged people. You can each yourselves be the judge of what grade level this type of situation occurs the most at ;) I will be issuing no apology to an implied threat or some form of blackmail
    Now usually in a private conversation many things may be said privately. These may include private thoughts about others not included in the conversation.
    If you then steal these conversations and you find things you dislike that's YOUR problem.

    Obnoxious and libellous commentary which will not be retracted even if his mate Monkton disagrees.
    Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/scientist-settles-legal-case-over-study-polar-bear-drownings-2D11691760
    So the message is: be a dimwit, make stuff up, and get paid for it.
    No word yet on whether he’ll get to keep the cushy retirement package that Federal Employees get.
    Looking further, it appears that he’ll be able to keep it.
    According to the PEER Union, they claim “vindication”:...

    Saving the Antarctic scientists, er media, er, activists, er tourists trapped by sea ice

    markstoval says:
    I think these people have been the cause of much death and misery. I would not be able to suppress a grin if they met the fate they want the poor to meet. (and I would not feel guilty one little bit)
    Steve B says:

    dp says:
    December 29, 2013 at 7:43 pm
    Steve B says:
    December 29, 2013 at 6:33 pm
    Some of us are reasonable and intelligent people who know when a line should not be crossed in debate. Wishing one’s opponents dead crosses that line. If you agree then your question makes no sense. If you don’t agree, your question is of no consequence. You have no winning position in this conversation.
    As one poster said earlier in this thread, these are the contributors of thousands of deaths due to energy poverty which would not exist if it was not for this terrible scam. Retribution is warranted especially when mother nature herself dishes it out. No sympathy here. Unfortunately they will get off scott free and spin the whole thing.
    [Ease up. NOBODY representing this site wishes harm come to ANYBODY. ANYWHERE. Mod]

    =====so why allow the posting then???????????????????????


    The Antarctic ‘research’ fiasco – ‘would you, could you, in a boat’?

    Michael Ronayne says: December 30, 2013 at 10:47 am  

    What do you call a ship load of trapped Global Cooling Deniers who are in danger of freezing to death?
    A good start!
    JohnWho says:

    Alan Robertson says: 
    Q: What do you need if you find a shipload of Climate Numpties, stuck in the ice?
    A: More ice.
    And some bourbon.
    Richard D says:

    Rob Dawg says: December 30, 2013 at 12:31 pm
    While never wishing personal harm
    Sorry you’ve been bullied/shamed into thinking criticism of stupidity equals wishing others harm
    Richard Day says: December 31, 2013 at 3:45 pm  

    I hope they run out of food and fuel and heavy storms prevents any kind of rescue or food drops. Much hilarity ensues.
    Rod-meteorologist says: January 1, 2014 at 10:03 am  

    I hope they get out OK, yet I can’t help but observe that the gene pool would be better off without them!


    The Cost of the Green Agenda on UK Fuel Prices

    The cost of green energy is supposed to have pushed the cost of electricity through the roof forcing pensioners to burn books rather than heating with electricity

    If this is the case then electricity costs should have risen much further than the raw energy costs.
    Using government figures you get this graph

    So it seems that current prices track the changes in solid fuel prices but are considerably less than gas price changes.

    So what am I missing?


    Update on fast start Combine Cycle Gas Turbines (base load suitable for wind backup)

    Latest from GE

    FlexEfficiency* 50 Combined Cycle Power Plant

    "GE's new FlexEfficiency* 50 Combined Cycle Power Plant is an innovative total plant design that defines a new standard for high efficiency and operational flexibility. The FlexEfficiency 50 uses an integrated approach to reduce fuel costs, create additional revenue sources, improve dispatch capability and reduce carbon emissions compared to prior technologies. With new gas turbine, steam turbine, and generator components—along with digital control capabilities, power island integration, and a turnkey plant design—the new 510 MW block-size plant features an expected baseload efficiency of more than 61 percent."

    60% efficiency down to 87 percent load
    Greater than 50 MW/minute while maintaining emissions guarantees
    40 percent turndown within emissions guarantees
    One button push start in under 30 minutes
    Total Plant Design
    • High start reliability with simplified digital controls
    • Plant-level flexibility and maintainability
    • Two-year construction schedule
    Leading Baseload Efficiency
    • More than 61 percent baseload efficiency
    • Integrated Solar Combined Cycle (ISCC) greater than 70 percent baseload efficiency
    Low Life-Cycle Costs
    • Designed for twice the starts and hours capability compared to current GE technologies
    original posting: http://climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/efficiency-of-power-plant-operating.html


    The ozone hole and WUWT

    A post by Watts:

    At AGU, NASA says CFC reduction is not shrinking the ozone hole – yet


    French Nuclear Plants Have Problems

    French electricity imports rise as cold spell dampens nuclear outputLondon (Platts)--26Nov2013/811 am EST/1311 GMT French net power imports slumped early Tuesday after EDF suffered an unplanned outage at its 900 MW Fessenheim 2 nuclear power reactor and demand rose on colder weather, the latest data from grid operator RTE showed.

    The Fessenheim 2 reactor was taken off the grid at 04:00 local time Tuesday (0300 GMT), and no restart date was given.

    The outage follows capacity limitations at several other EDF reactors, including the 900 MW Chinon 1 and Gravelines 2 reactors.

    Lower temperatures increased French power demand by 2.3 GW on the day to 75.0 GW at 08:45 Tuesday and national power imports climbed from 500 MW Monday to almost 3 GW Tuesday

    2013-12-14 And still the French purchase our power:

    And its not just during peak demand. There seems to be something amiss with the French grid. The interconnector power must be more expensive then home grown electricity. So why do they not bring their reserves on line??
    Back to normal?

    The Interconnector is now fixed and UK is again buying 2GW from the French!

    The wind generation is now at least 6GW (windy!) and possibly as high as 9GW (some generation is not recorded on grid (used locally)


    So UK was supplying up to 2GW to the French power grid. Another example of a complex system working.
    However it is surprising that the French do not increase the output of their cheap(???) nuclear stations instead of buying from the UK. Perhaps they are having real problems with their system?


    The UK Storm of 28th October and the National Grid

    The storm of 2013-10-28 managed to isolate a UK nuclear station from the National Grid leading to headlines such as:

    Dungeness nuclear power station shuts down following hurricane-strength winds

    St Jude’s UK storm forces the Dungeness B reactor in Kent to shut down for up to a week

    The isolation from the grid means that essential systems controlling the reactor only have diesel generator backup and so for safety the reactor is shut down.
    Just How is the loss of 1GW handled by the grid - the two plots that follow use data generated every 5 minutes (the dotted curves use the scale on the right of the plots all vertical scales are in MW):
    Note that the bulk of the transient is compensated by pumped storage during the 1st 5 minutes (actually responds within 12 seconds) Hydro and coal and gas (CCGT) are also ramped up and pumped storage is reduced.  However at this time in the morning demand is rapidly increasing and coal and gas output cannot provide further rapid increase an so pumped supply is again increased,

     The plot shows data at 5 minute intervals so the immediacy of the Pumped storage is not visible.
    It is also worth noting that the rarely used OCGT (inefficient gas) is brought online in case it is needed (only 50MW is utilised - past OCGT has provided up to 400MW).
    So this aging reactor of approximately 1GW switching off is handled adequately by the system. In particular the instant response pumped storage.
    The proposed Nuclear plant at Hinkley Point C will use 2 * 1.6GW reactors Losing one of these will equire spinning reserve (as provided by pumped storage and spinning turbines of other thermal stations)
    Pumped storage:
     Each of Dinorwig's six generating units can produce 288MW of electricity, offering a combined station output of 1728MW.
    Ffestiniog's four 90MW units have a combined generating capacity of 360MW.
    I.e. a total of around 2GW. This will handle one of Hinkley's reactors but not both.


    Why has the UHI effect stopped for 15+ years?

    The Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect.
    According to Guru Watts the UHI accounts for a large part of the temperature increase seen since the 1970s ...
    Using WUWT as a resource of facts!

    (update 2013/10/22 - To find the posts just do a search on watts site.)

    Climate Craziness of the week – with the physical signature of UHI staring them right in the face, Mann & Borenstein go with their ‘gut’ instincts


    Factors affecting DLWIR - NREL data (re-analysis)

    Data from NREL re-analysed - spread sheet corrected, ULWIR nulling removed as this is basically the same as temperature, latest data added.

    Data is dependent on cloud cover. Unfortunately cloud data is only available during daylight. Hours of darkness therefore are not included in this analysis

     The first plot shows the variation with date  (2004 to 2013) Unfortunately the calibration of the pyrgeometer (including device swapping on every calibration) shows up as a signal greater than any trend. The calibration dates are shown as dotted blue lines.

    2004 - 2006 31192F3 large error
    2006 - 2008 31194F3 10 w/sqm drop
    2008 - 2009 31192F3 random 8w/sqm p-p
    2009 - 2011 31194F3 10 w/sqm drop
    2011 - 2012 31192F3 random 13w/sqm p-p
    2012 - 2013 31194F3 random 10w/sqm p-p
    It appears that 31194F3 has a drift with time (now possibly corrected)
    Also it seems that +-5w/sqm is the expected accuracy for this type of pyrgeometer

    Luckily this is the only data extraction that is synchronous with date. Other extraction will tend to remove the drift by averaging. It is significant that the calibration adjustments show up indicating that this spreadsheet successfully sees valid changes of <5w class="goog-spellcheck-word" span="" style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;">sqm

    This next plot shows the expected variation of dlwir with temperature.

    It should be noted that the drop in value at the high temperature end is most likely due to the small number of results returned and is therefore not valid.

    The net plot shows the effect of increasing absolute humidity

    The following pair show the change with day of the year. Note that temperature effects should have been nulled so the peak should not be due to summer temperature. The second plot compares La Jolla CO2 with the dwlir. The dwlir seems to show the inverse of what would be expected!

    Station pressure below, has very little effect on dwlir

    Opaque cloud cover increases the dwlir!

    Data from:


    Temperature dependence - more analysis of NREL data

    This analysis shows the interdependence of temperature and other data.
    Temperature may be the cause or the effect!
    The second curve on each plot shows the number of results returned. Obviously the more results the more likely the data returned is valid.
    All data is averaged with the top and bottom 30% discarded to remove outliers

    Temperature is affected negatively by the absolute humidity (gms h2o/cu m). To heat air and water vapour takes more energy than air alone hence the negative slope.

    Using the nulling technique produces a plot with little day of year dependence (no annual peak or dip is obvious).
    The slope of the line is =0.0001602 per day. This equates to 0.585°C per decade and this is over a period that people say the warming has stopped!

    As expected with opaque cloud cover the temperature is negatively correlated.

    Temperature with day of year is as expected with a peak at day 200 (19th July) and a minimum at day 40 (9th February). These dates are of course offset from longest/shortest day.

    Plots of the nulled variables:

    Note that the nulled portion is sometimes limited to less than whole range. In this case a limit is used to only accept data for that nulled range on that variable

    Also the nulling process is only used to produce a line of zero slope for each variable - the offset from zero is not relevant as only anomalies are plotted.

    Data from:


    Bird Deaths by Wind Turbines

    Since I've been banned from commenting on WUWT here is my response to

    All bird deaths obviously should be avoided but consider your personal footprint in these deaths:

    From Forbes


    Berthold referred to a study published earlier this year in Nature Communications which found that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.4–3.7 billion birds (as well as 6.9–20.7 billion mammals) annually: that works out to 40 birds killed per cat every year. Many of those birds represented the end of their species: as many as 33 species of birds are thought to have been eradicated by cats. However, it’s worth noting that stray cats, as opposed to pets, cause most of the damage.

     From Sibley Guides

    Figures are believed to be US only

    Window strikes – estimated to kill 97 to 976 million birds/year

    Here's one that didn't make it. Window on our house facing west.

    Communication towers – estimates of bird kills are impossible to make because of the lack of data, but totals could easily be over 5 million birds/year, and possibly as many as 50 million.
    Electrocutions kill tens of thousands of birds per year. This occurs mainly when large birds such as raptors make contact between a live electrical wire and a ground such as a pole. The relatively small number of birds affected belies the significance of this threat, since species such as Golden Eagle are more susceptible.
    Cars may kill 60 million birds per year.
    Wind turbines may kill 33,000 birds per year, and, as in the case of electrocutions, these birds tend to be large and scarce (e.g. raptors)
    Pesticides may kill 72 million birds per year or possibly many more.
    Oil spills kill hundreds of thousands of birds a year or more
    Oil and wastewater pits may kill up to 2 million birds per year.
    Lead poisoning – kills unknown numbers of birds each year, but Bellrose (many years ago) estimated that about 4% of the waterfowl population dies annually due to lead poisoning, and the California Condor recovery team stated that lead poisoning was the primary cause of the condor population decline over the last 50 years
    Hunting - as a point of reference the carefully-managed annual waterfowl hunt kills about 15 million birds a year in North America. This, of course, is balanced by extensive and well-funded management and conservation efforts so hunting is not a threat to the population of any North American bird,
    Domestic and Feral Cats – may kill 500 million birds per year or more. 

    From a famous twitcher


    Energy costs

    UK fuel costs

    Note electricity prices well behind raw fuel costs.
     GERMAN electricity price at auction

    Note pronounced dip in price during peak solar output

    FRENCH electricity price

    Note no real solar dip and cost is greater than Gemany despite being nearly all nuclear

    Interesting UK Grid and wind:

    Wind is currently producing the same energy as coal. Also note the depressed peaks in daily use as wind begins to generate (however it is olso necessary to allow for the fact the wind increased at the weekend=low use).
    Note also the grid safely handled an increase from about 500MW to 5GW without incident
    The graphics are from the site


    More Fun With a Thermal Imaging Camera

    How does hot air at 450°C show up on a thermal imaging camera:

    It doesn't until you allow it to hit an object (in this case paper)
     See video here:

    Comparison of Atmospheric Transmission Germanium Lens response and quoted FLIR camera response
    Note that the camera response is in a highly transmissive part of the atmospheric transmissive window - to put the passband in a place where the GHGs radiate would give continual fogging due to the air between object and camera rather than the object desired.

    How good is bubble wrap (packing material with 0.5cm air bubbles trapped between plastic)

    Single and double layers over hand. The spot temperature has had the emissivity adjusted so don't believe the temperature!
    See video here

    Using the software's ability to calculate emissivity from the displayed temperature and the known hand temperature (approx 37°C with emissivity 0.92) gives the following results:
    1 layer of bubblewrap requires an emissivity of 0.70 to correct the hand temperature to 37°C
    2 layers of bubblewrap requires an emissivity of 0.69 to correct the hand temperature to 37°C 
    4 layers of bubblewrap requires an emissivity of 0.58 to correct the hand temperature to 37°C
    8 layers of bubblewrap requires an emissivity of 0.55 to correct the hand temperature to 37°C

    Compare this to 2 layers of cling film (saran wrap/ldpe) here

    2 layers of ldpe are equivalent to 4 layers of bubble wrap (8layers of plastic and some air)

    So an IR window of 2 layers bubble wrap  (bubbles interspersed) will be better at IR transmission and probably better at conduction prevention.

    You need aluminised bubble wrap to prevent hypothermia - need to stop the loss of IR!!!!


    The (Copper) Iron Green House Revisited

    Other posts on this subject

    The iron greenhouse energy budget

    The tests trying to produce some replication of Willis's Iron greenhouse have been repeated using a multichannel thermocouple probe recorder measuring to 0.01°C (accuracy 1°C) and somewhat modified test setup.

    The sensor has been modified to make it more responsive (less copper in the plate than in the original cone. Fine wire thermocouple used to reduce the heat conduction.

     The insulated hot box uses much thicker insulation and the double sided grey sprayed copper plate temperature is monitored using another fine wire thermocouple. The temperature between the 2 IR windows and outside the window is now measured. A small fan is used to provide a continuous stream of ambient air between the hot box and the sensor to prevent conduction and convection effects upsetting the sensor reading. The heating voltage is maintained to 9.254 volts +-3mV ensuring constant power input to the hot body.

    The object of the experiment is not to replicate EXACTLY the steel greenhouse thought experiment. For a starter the hot object is only "surrounded" on one side and the major loss of heat from the object is via conduction through the insulation. There is obviously conduction and convection occurring in the experiment which are prevented by using a vacuum in the thought experiment.

    Inside of Hotbox

    Table-top setup

    Grey painted Plate Insertion:

    What is expected is a significant increase in the hot body temperature when the grey plate is inserted. The Sensor should report a drop in temperature until the system has reached equilibrium It should then be at the same level as before the grey plate was inserted - I.e. the radiation from the hot box should be constant before and after grey plate insertion.

    Reflective plate insertion

    The rise in temperature of the hot body should now be significantly hotter than either no plate or grey plate (100% of forward facing IR should now be reflected back onto the hot body causing the temperature to rise until the additional energy balance can be restored.
    The sensor should show a drop in heat for the time that the reflective plate is in position.

    1. During the test the voltage applied to the resistors heating the hot body is monitored and maintained within +-3mV of the nominal (giving a power variability of 0.065%)
    2. The test setup was run monitoring  temperatures for about 10 hours. 
    3. The recorded results were then analysed over a period when the ambient was most stable (after sunset).
    4. To allow for ambient vatiation the measured forced ventilation temperature in front of the IR window was smoothed and then subtracted from the hot body temperature.

    The first temperature rise is with a reflective plate  and the second rise is with a grey painted copper plate inserted between hot body and IR window. The low temperatures are when no intermediate plate is inserted.
    The air outside the IR window plot (green) is the temperature as measured from the forced airflow. The corrected temperatures refer to measured temperature less the air temperature.

    The temperature of the Hot Body shows results as expected - maximum temperature from reflective plate lower temperature from grey plate lowest temperature from no plate.

    The measured temperature (= IR output) from the sensor does not agree with expected result..

    With the grey plate not equalling the hot body temperature there would be expected lower IR emission so perhaps this could explain the lower temperature compared to no plate.

    With the reflective plate the IR output does not go to zero. possibly the plate warms and the insulation is insufficient. The IR sensor needs to be improved - possibly an IR thermometer? But will these then read the temperature of the IR windows?

    So the results show
    A definite increase in hot body temperature if a reflective plate is used  (5.5°C)
    A definite increase in hot body temperature if a grey plate is used  (3.5°C)

    If you believe that backradiation or reflection cannot add energy to the hot body from which the radiation originates then these results alone disprove this belief.


    Back Radiation Early Results - No Fan

    Using the setup of the previous post
     but with no fan and no shadow dot used the following results have been obtained.
    (x-axis is in seconds from start of test - many tests were done and recorded over about 12 hours - the main problem is trying to keep ambient constant or at least clear of low frequency noise)

    Detrended by the air gap temperature between double glazed and single IR window the plot shows that with Warm source in place Hot body is 0.3°C hotter than when ambient source is in place

    This shows a continuous recording of the warm source temperature - the Red line indicates that the source is facing the IR windows -  the dotted lines indicate that it has been placed away from the IR windows. No attempt has been made to stabilise the warm source temperature - It simply has to be above ambient and below the hot plate temperature.

    This plot shows the detrended temperature of the air between the double glazed IR window

    This plot shows the air between the double glazed window and the isolated IR window. Note that it shows no sign of being warmed by the warm source. The trend is because of ambient changes. This trend was removed from the "detrended"  plots

    It should be noted that the radiation from the warm plate has to pass through 3 layers of poly film to reach the hot plate. In a previous post
    I showed that this food wrap (LDPE) is not 100% transparent to IR.

    Again I am certain that the hot body temperature increase is caused by the IR from the warm source.

    Again criticism of the experiment is welcomed!

    Full recorded data is available.

    other posts on this subject:


    Proposed back radiation test setup - comments?

    4 Thermocouples simultaneously monitored
      a. internal temperature of double glazing gap
      b. temperature in gap between external unsealed IR window. IR shield shadows the sensor from the external IR
      c. hot temperature plate (internal)
      d. warm plate (external) ambient plate temperature is not measured.

    Fan blowing ambient air between the double glazing and the separate window. This is to reduce thermal conduction and convection from a different warm/cool source affecting the ambient at the outside of the double glazed window.

    Angled BB absorber at back of external source (angled to prevent reflection affecting hot plate.

    Lining of polished aluminium foil to prevent IR penetrating the insulation foam.

    Voltage input to external warm plate heater is stable but differing ambient and convection/conduction will change its temperature - All this needs to do is provide a temperature less than the hot plate and greater than ambient - so the variation is not important.

    The voltage to the hot plate heater is also controlled (by a professional Power supply) the temperature reached is approximately 70°C and the variation with external plate at ambient / warm will be less than a couple of °C. The change in the high quality resistors value will be negligible. So constant voltage equates to constant power..

    Any comments before trying this set-up


    Nenana Ice Classic 2013 - the ice has moved 2013/05/20 14:41

    Second latest time from beginning of the year
    The record was set in 1964 which was a leap year. The movement happened 140.4868 days from January 1st

    This year the movement occurred 139.6118 days from January 1st

    Hmmm! Perhaps this all need rejigging to relate the breakup time to the vernal equinox and z-time

    Anyway, here are 2 plots using AK time:
    The first splits the data into 3 segments
    The second assumes that there is no upturn and hence only 2 lines
    Smoothing is done with Hodrick Prescott filter from http://www.web-reg.de/hp_addin.html

    Breakup data from

    Heres the modified plot with days since vernal equinox instead of start of year:

    So this year now becomes the latest date for breakup! Otherwise the shape remains.