WUWT-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/25/an-ill-wind-blows-from-wind-turbiines/
An ill wind blows from wind turbiines
Posted on October 25, 2012 by Anthony Watts
Newsbytes from the GWPF, Lies, Damn Lies And Green Statistics
Almost all predictions about the expansion and cost of German wind turbines and solar panels have turned out to be wrong – at least by a factor of two, sometimes by a factor of five. –Daniel Wentzel, Die Welt, 20 October 2012
==========================
A simple calculation:
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=gm&v=81
electricity consumption 545×10^9 kWh
subsidy cost 20×10^9
20/545=3.7 eurocents per kWh
========================
Where it gets distorted:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-15/german-renewables-surcharge-rises-47-percent-opening-government-rift
The four grid companies set the fee paid through power bills at 5.28 euro cents (6.8 cents) a kilowatt-hour in 2013, up 47 percent from 3.59 cents now. Economy Minister Philipp Roesler wants to lower a federal electricity tax to help counter the increase, he told reporters today in Berlin. Environment Minister Peter Altmaier wants to offer consumers free advice on saving energy instead.
...
Total Subsidy
The total subsidy next year will amount to about 20.36 billion euros, which is paid for by consumers through their power bills. The fee increase will raise the bill of the average German household with 3,500 kilowatt-hours of consumption by 59 euros a year. That impact was inflated by exemptions for big industrial users and leftover costs from the previous year, the operators said.
...
While Altmaier says the country needs to take time to discuss changes to the clean-energy subsidy law, Roesler supports new legislation as quickly as possible, he said today, citing a proposal for a new model his party put forward last month.
Alarming Signal
The new surcharge is an “alarming signal,” Roesler told reporters. Altmaier’s proposal to draw up a bill after a round of stakeholder talks ends in May 2013 doesn’t reflect the urgent action needed, Roesler said. “We must act now,” he said.
Instead of blaming renewables, Roesler should cancel unnecessary exemptions for industrial consumers including banks and slaughterhouses, Juergen Trittin, co-leader of the opposition Green Party, said today in a statement. Such a move would reduce subsidy costs by 4 billion euros and push down the fee by 1 euro cent, he said.
The debate over power prices is short-sighted because Germany will save 570 billion euros by 2050 if it scraps nuclear plants, said the Renewable Energy Research Association, a group of clean-energy research institutes.
“The investments made now, at the beginning, will pay off within a foreseeable time frame and have a positive economic impact,” the group said on Oct. 10.
To contact the reporter on this story: Stefan Nicola in Berlin at snicola2@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Reed Landberg at landberg@bloomberg.net
==============================
So even at the rate inflated by giving a free pass to some industries will cost 59euros a year and it seems as if the nuclear industry is also subsidised
Lots of stuff al mussed up to produce a GWPF headline that cannot be supported.
2012/10/25
2012/09/30
2012/09/23
Watts & Co Misuse of Blogs
Anthony
WattsProfessor Robyn Owens
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research)
The University
of Western Australia, M460
35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009
[full phone email details were included here]
- Your comment is awaiting moderation. well done watts trial by blog is an ideal way to improve science
-
Another way in is through the funding agency. L. is part funded through a Discovery Australia Linkage Project LP120100224 “Creating a climate for change: from cognition to consensus” (you can find details of the Australian Research Council site). The administering organisation is the University of NSW who have a contract with the ARC for this funding (the generic contract is on the ARC site). Ben R Newell Assoc Prof @NSW is likely the lead.
HAS
Anyway there a number of points in the ARC contract that are possible breached by L. et al. and the associated publicity around it. A quick scan suggests that those climate sceptics that feel aggrieved should review clause 18.4 and 18.6 of the funding contract that reference the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2007) (also available at the ARC web site).
The sections dealing with conflict of interest (L. other blog interests); respect for research participants; reporting results; and communicating research findings (informing interested parties before the media) appear to have been breached. These are matters that could well be referenced regardless of the contract in any communication directly with the UWA. The Code lays down the process for UWA to follow.
However while UWA may seek to balance Code compliance with academic freedom there is the issue of the ARC contract under which L.’s activities have been part funded. It seems that UWA and the U. of NSW also have a responsibility in this regard that are not balanced by academic freedom, and the ARC as funder has a clear interest in breaches. These could all be approached by anyone who feels L.’s work has breached the code (or any other part of the funding agreement) pointing out these obligations are independent of academic freedom.
2012/09/22
"Saving Humanity" or "Where's my Handout"
No one actually 100% understand how the climate works - I think this is a fair statement.
So ask yourself is it SAFE to experiment with the only place we can live when you have
Even Watts believes that CO2 is causing warming and some of that is from anthropogenic sources. He just believes it is irrelevant.
Here's a plot with all data zeroed:
Note how small the swings in TSI are.
A couple of Kelvin increase in 288K may seem small but the wealthy nations rely on stability. We no longer have an easy option of migrating to colder/warmer areas, moving our dwellings from the shores of continents as they get inundated (see doggerland! on wiki).
The inhabitants of doggerland simply packed their dwellings took their pots and moved uphill. This would be a trifle more difficult now.
It is not even possible to say leave it until we are sure that there is a problem - the built in time constants ensure that by the time we are sure and take action there will be another multi-decade of environmental changes before we see the effect of our corrections.
I think it is very telling that from all the revelations from "climate gate" and other hacks not ONCE have I seen any one pointing out any climate scientists email (which it is obvious the scientists thought were and always will be private) which suggests that they have vast wealth to spend on themselves.
Watts seems very delighted at having access to a private blog on sks where he foams at the mouth over this snippet:
So ask yourself is it SAFE to experiment with the only place we can live when you have
- No idea what the controls do
- Whether there are unknown controls
- What the linkage is between controls
- If it is a linear system
- If there are "tipping points"
- little idea of what positive feedbacks and their magnitudes are
- little idea of what negative feedbacks and their magnitudes are
- Only 200 years of prior data that is vaguely reliable.
- It takes 30+ years for the effect of each experimental tweak of a control to become clear
- It takes longer than 30+ years for the effect of the tweak to dissipate (much longer if you trigger an ice age).
- It is not just YOUR hand tweaking the controls - there are other humans and natural inputs simultaneously affecting your experiment.
- Each experiment is disastrously expensive.
Even Watts believes that CO2 is causing warming and some of that is from anthropogenic sources. He just believes it is irrelevant.
Here's a plot with all data zeroed:
Note how small the swings in TSI are.
A couple of Kelvin increase in 288K may seem small but the wealthy nations rely on stability. We no longer have an easy option of migrating to colder/warmer areas, moving our dwellings from the shores of continents as they get inundated (see doggerland! on wiki).
The inhabitants of doggerland simply packed their dwellings took their pots and moved uphill. This would be a trifle more difficult now.
It is not even possible to say leave it until we are sure that there is a problem - the built in time constants ensure that by the time we are sure and take action there will be another multi-decade of environmental changes before we see the effect of our corrections.
I think it is very telling that from all the revelations from "climate gate" and other hacks not ONCE have I seen any one pointing out any climate scientists email (which it is obvious the scientists thought were and always will be private) which suggests that they have vast wealth to spend on themselves.
Watts seems very delighted at having access to a private blog on sks where he foams at the mouth over this snippet:
============================
And this isn’t about science or personal careers and reputations any more. This is a fight for survival. Our civilisations survival. .. We need our own anonymous (or not so anonymous) donors, our own think tanks…. Our Monckton’s … Our assassins.
Anyone got Bill Gates’ private number, Warren Buffett, Richard Branson? Our ‘side’ has got to get professional, ASAP. We don’t need to blog. We need to network. Every single blog, organisation, movement is like a platoon in an army. ..This has a lot of similarities to the Vietnam War….And the skeptics are the Viet Cong… Not fighting like ‘Gentlemen’ at all. And the mainstream guys like Gleick don’t know how to deal with this. Queensberry Rules rather than biting and gouging.
..So, either Mother Nature deigns to give the world a terrifying wake up call. Or people like us have to build the greatest guerilla force in human history. Now. Because time is up…Someone needs to convene a council of war of the major environmental movements, blogs, institutes etc. In a smoke filled room (OK, an incense filled room) we need a conspiracy to save humanity.
==============================================
To me it sound a bit like "saving humanity" not "where's my handout".2012/09/15
Lewandowsky Survey Lunacy
One Comment
-
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
HMMMMM!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/29/new-wuwt-sstenso-page-now-online/#comment-469869
So SMOKEY new about the survey
AND he took the survey.
2012/09/06
Good God! This is really scary stuff
Who in their right mind would put their name and reputation to this.
WHAT WE BELIEVE
1.We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
2.We believe ...
WHAT WE DENY
1.We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
...
4.We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression.
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
now at:
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
Well, here are some signatories they highlight
Dr. Roy W. Spencer (Principal Research Scientist in Climatology, University of Alabama, Huntsville,
Dr. Joseph D’Aleo (Executive Director and Certified Meteorologist, Icecap
Dr. David Legates (Associate Professor of Climatology, University of Delaware
Dr. Ross McKitrick (Associate Professor of Economics, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada,
Dr. Cornelis van Kooten (Professor of Economics and Research Chair in Environmental Studies and Climate, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, Expert Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
Dr. Kenneth W. Chilton (Founder and Emeritus Director, Institute for the Study of Economics and the Environment, Lindenwood College);
Contibuting Writers.
:Rev. Richard S. Courtney, Expert Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and Methodist Preacher, Cornwall, UK
G. Cornelis van Kooten, Ph.D., Professor of Economics and Research Chari in Environmental Studies and Climate, University of Victoria, BC, Canada
Advisory board
James A. Wanliss, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Physics, Presbyterian College, Clinton, SC
How can any report from these people be believed? For them to even contemplate suggesting that there is man made climate change would be to deny their Gods omniopotence.
There is only ever one report they can give in order to retain their faith - All in the world is wonderful.
Yet some of these have given reports to governments. Surely this is much worse than ANY collusion/falsification shown in the stolen emails (i.e. none!)
Fragile ecosystems? self regulating? Protecting the poor?
If the poor of the world were to be brought up to the same energy consumption levels of the US (and others) what price would the rich be paying for fuel.
How long would resources of metals fossil fuels uranium last if consumption were leveled at the us values?
This just gets worse:
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/a-renewed-call-to-truth-prudence-and-protection-of-the-poor/
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF CHAPTER ONE:
THEOLOGY, WORLDVIEW, AND ETHICS OF GLOBAL WARMING POLICY
Earth and all its subsystems—of land, sea, and air, living and nonliving—are the good products of the wise design and omnipotent acts of the infinite, eternal, and unchangeable Triune God of the Bible. As such they reveal God’s glory. Mankind, created in God’s image, is the crown of creation. Human beings have the divine mandate to multiply and to fill, subdue, and rule the Earth, transforming it from wilderness into garden. They act as stewards under God to cultivate and guard what they subdue and rule. Calling them to be His vicegerents over the Earth, God requires obedience to His laws—in Scripture and imprinted in the human conscience—in their stewardship. Although sin, universal among mankind, deeply mars this stewardship, God’s redemptive act in Jesus Christ’s death on the cross and His instructive activity through Scripture, communicating the nature of creation and human responsibility for it, enable people to create wealth and decrease poverty at the same time that they pursue creation stewardship and, even more important, the true spiritual wealth of knowing their Creator through Jesus Christ.
Garden? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hobet_Mountaintop_mine_West_Virginia_2009-06-02.jpg
Garden? http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/canadian-oil-sands/kunzig-text
Garden? http://www.businesspundit.com/the-worlds-worst-environmental-disasters-caused-by-companies/
Garden? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3161812.stm
Resilient Ecosystems? http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/20/uk-fish-stocks-low-brits--cods-haddock_n_1811461.html
Resilient Ecosystems? http://www.bigmarinefish.com/bluefin.html
Resilient Ecosystems? http://www.tigersincrisis.com/
Resilient Ecosystems? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15663982
Resilient Ecosystems? http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1888702_1863782,00.html
Resilient Ecosystems? http://www.orangutan.org.uk/
Self Regulating? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
Self Regulating? http://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/trashislands.htm
Self Regulating? http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/HCOU-4U4JCL
Ater this visit
http://creationmuseum.org/whats-here/photo-preview/
and see what another saw
http://www.barefootandprogressive.com/2010/12/flashback-fun-at-the-creation-museum-my-field-trip-to-crazyland.html
WHAT WE BELIEVE
1.We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
2.We believe ...
WHAT WE DENY
1.We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
...
4.We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression.
now at:
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
Well, here are some signatories they highlight
Dr. Roy W. Spencer (Principal Research Scientist in Climatology, University of Alabama, Huntsville,
Dr. Joseph D’Aleo (Executive Director and Certified Meteorologist, Icecap
Dr. David Legates (Associate Professor of Climatology, University of Delaware
Dr. Ross McKitrick (Associate Professor of Economics, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada,
Dr. Cornelis van Kooten (Professor of Economics and Research Chair in Environmental Studies and Climate, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, Expert Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
Dr. Kenneth W. Chilton (Founder and Emeritus Director, Institute for the Study of Economics and the Environment, Lindenwood College);
Contibuting Writers.
:Rev. Richard S. Courtney, Expert Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and Methodist Preacher, Cornwall, UK
G. Cornelis van Kooten, Ph.D., Professor of Economics and Research Chari in Environmental Studies and Climate, University of Victoria, BC, Canada
Advisory board
James A. Wanliss, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Physics, Presbyterian College, Clinton, SC
How can any report from these people be believed? For them to even contemplate suggesting that there is man made climate change would be to deny their Gods omniopotence.
There is only ever one report they can give in order to retain their faith - All in the world is wonderful.
Yet some of these have given reports to governments. Surely this is much worse than ANY collusion/falsification shown in the stolen emails (i.e. none!)
Fragile ecosystems? self regulating? Protecting the poor?
If the poor of the world were to be brought up to the same energy consumption levels of the US (and others) what price would the rich be paying for fuel.
How long would resources of metals fossil fuels uranium last if consumption were leveled at the us values?
This just gets worse:
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/a-renewed-call-to-truth-prudence-and-protection-of-the-poor/
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF CHAPTER ONE:
THEOLOGY, WORLDVIEW, AND ETHICS OF GLOBAL WARMING POLICY
Earth and all its subsystems—of land, sea, and air, living and nonliving—are the good products of the wise design and omnipotent acts of the infinite, eternal, and unchangeable Triune God of the Bible. As such they reveal God’s glory. Mankind, created in God’s image, is the crown of creation. Human beings have the divine mandate to multiply and to fill, subdue, and rule the Earth, transforming it from wilderness into garden. They act as stewards under God to cultivate and guard what they subdue and rule. Calling them to be His vicegerents over the Earth, God requires obedience to His laws—in Scripture and imprinted in the human conscience—in their stewardship. Although sin, universal among mankind, deeply mars this stewardship, God’s redemptive act in Jesus Christ’s death on the cross and His instructive activity through Scripture, communicating the nature of creation and human responsibility for it, enable people to create wealth and decrease poverty at the same time that they pursue creation stewardship and, even more important, the true spiritual wealth of knowing their Creator through Jesus Christ.
Garden? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hobet_Mountaintop_mine_West_Virginia_2009-06-02.jpg
Garden? http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/canadian-oil-sands/kunzig-text
Garden? http://www.businesspundit.com/the-worlds-worst-environmental-disasters-caused-by-companies/
Garden? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3161812.stm
Resilient Ecosystems? http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/20/uk-fish-stocks-low-brits--cods-haddock_n_1811461.html
Resilient Ecosystems? http://www.bigmarinefish.com/bluefin.html
Resilient Ecosystems? http://www.tigersincrisis.com/
Resilient Ecosystems? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15663982
Resilient Ecosystems? http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1888702_1863782,00.html
Resilient Ecosystems? http://www.orangutan.org.uk/
Self Regulating? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
Self Regulating? http://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/trashislands.htm
Self Regulating? http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/HCOU-4U4JCL
Ater this visit
http://creationmuseum.org/whats-here/photo-preview/
and see what another saw
http://www.barefootandprogressive.com/2010/12/flashback-fun-at-the-creation-museum-my-field-trip-to-crazyland.html
2012/09/04
Some more analysis of u/d lwir and clouds
 |
| Total / opaque cloud vs Temperature
No slope on the opaque cloud but a definite dip when teperatures are between 16 and 22C
The following plots limit RH to 20 to 40%. Day refers to time that cloud can be measured Night to when cloud is not measured.
|
 |
| D/U LWIR vs Temperature (night values - 0-100% cloud)
Both upward and downward LWIR linear proportional to temperature
|
 |
| D/U LWIR vs Temperature (day values cloud 0-100%)
Very similar to night - slopes are a bit different.
|
 |
| D/U LWIR vs Temperature (day values but limiting cloud to 20 to 40%) (note change in humidity limits |
 |
| D/U LWIR vs Humidity Temp 22-24C cloud 40-50%
By constraining the temperature to a 2C band The temperature effects on IR are minimised whilst still returning a reasonable number of results. Note that the ULWIR falls with increasing cloud but the DLWIR rises by 100w/sq m
|
 |
| D/U LWIR vs Opaque Cloud cover temp 22-24C RH 35-40%
Temperature RH are constrained to minimise these effects. The DLWIR increases by approx 80 w/sqm
I think these last two plots conclusively prove relative humidity and cloud cover have a positive effect on the downward long wave ir (ir increases if cloud and/or RH increase)
|
2012/09/03
More stuff from NREL Solar Radiation BMS
Using hourly data from http://www.nrel.gov/midc/srrl_bms/ gives the possibility of checking the effect of cloud cover on upward and downward long wave infrared radiation (ULWIR and DLWIR), time of observation TOBs on temperature readings.
Using data at around dawn when solar heating is minimal (would be better to have data pre dawn but cloud coverage is not measured in the dark) it should be possible to see the effect of clouds on DLWIR.
This is the plot:
The effect of clouds is most noticeable up to 25% coverage but does continue increasing up to about 80%. In this plot temperature has been constrained to 16 to 22C and RH 20 to 45% for time from 0:00 to 8:00am.
Constraints cannot easily be made tighter else total data returned fall to zero.
One measurement per day max and min calculated for 23 hours prior to last measurement. Constraints on cloud cover is tricky since no information is available over night so some expected perturbation may be seen at sunrise/sunset
Within the constraints noted in the chart header, the data for each hour over the record is split into 2 - 1st quartile and 3rd quartile (this lowers the effect of false max and min values). the hourly data returned is then averaged
Data is for all Augusts on record.
The day time cloud cover effect is noticeable (0 to 10% cover - night is o to 100%).
Removing the cloud constraint gives this plot:
It looks as if TOBs could change temperature measurements by +-1.5C
The early and late drop offs in coverage may be an effect of the measurement method seems a bit consistent with both plots.
However it seems that cloud coverage in jan is costant with time of day wheras in july cloud coverage increases with time.
Cloud cover effect on D/ULWIR
Data from 2004 to present (hourly)Using data at around dawn when solar heating is minimal (would be better to have data pre dawn but cloud coverage is not measured in the dark) it should be possible to see the effect of clouds on DLWIR.
This is the plot:
The effect of clouds is most noticeable up to 25% coverage but does continue increasing up to about 80%. In this plot temperature has been constrained to 16 to 22C and RH 20 to 45% for time from 0:00 to 8:00am.
Constraints cannot easily be made tighter else total data returned fall to zero.
Time of Observation (TOBS).
Assumed:One measurement per day max and min calculated for 23 hours prior to last measurement. Constraints on cloud cover is tricky since no information is available over night so some expected perturbation may be seen at sunrise/sunset
Within the constraints noted in the chart header, the data for each hour over the record is split into 2 - 1st quartile and 3rd quartile (this lowers the effect of false max and min values). the hourly data returned is then averaged
Data is for all Augusts on record.
The day time cloud cover effect is noticeable (0 to 10% cover - night is o to 100%).
Removing the cloud constraint gives this plot:
It looks as if TOBs could change temperature measurements by +-1.5C
A couple of cloud coverage per hour plots January and July
The early and late drop offs in coverage may be an effect of the measurement method seems a bit consistent with both plots.
However it seems that cloud coverage in jan is costant with time of day wheras in july cloud coverage increases with time.
Effect of relative humidity on DLWIR.
2012/08/31
USCRN Average vs Mean data
From the downloaded data from uscrn
Average temperature, in degrees C, during the 24 hours of the day.
Note: USCRN/USRCRN stations have multiple co-located temperature
sensors that record independent measurements. This value is a single
temperature that is calculated by averaging 24 full-hour averages
derived from the multiple independent measurements of 5-minute intervals
during each hour
Mean temperature, in degrees C, calculated using the typical historical
approach of (T_DAILY_MAX + T_DAILY_MIN) / 2.
Average temperature, in degrees C, during the 24 hours of the day.
Note: USCRN/USRCRN stations have multiple co-located temperature
sensors that record independent measurements. This value is a single
temperature that is calculated by averaging 24 full-hour averages
derived from the multiple independent measurements of 5-minute intervals
during each hour
Mean temperature, in degrees C, calculated using the typical historical
approach of (T_DAILY_MAX + T_DAILY_MIN) / 2.
Mean temperature gives twice the slope of average
2012/08/30
The Effect on slope using base period from 1931 to 1995
As requested for WUWT here is a plot of linear curve fit to plots of the same data referenced to 30 year periods from 1931 to 1995
eg. base periods
1931 to 1961
1945 to 1975
1995 to 2012* THIS DOES NOT GIVE SUFFICIENT YEARS BUT IS PLOTTED.
Only stations returning over 15 reference base years were used as noted on the normal plot. The stations in this data set are from the UK
So it looks as if the slope changes by over 10% but 1961 to 1991 gives one of the lower slopes. Choosing 1931 the slope (deg C per year) is near the maximum!
eg. base periods
1931 to 1961
1945 to 1975
1995 to 2012* THIS DOES NOT GIVE SUFFICIENT YEARS BUT IS PLOTTED.
Only stations returning over 15 reference base years were used as noted on the normal plot. The stations in this data set are from the UK
So it looks as if the slope changes by over 10% but 1961 to 1991 gives one of the lower slopes. Choosing 1931 the slope (deg C per year) is near the maximum!
2012/08/28
Arctic Ice - The lady's not for turning (in the words of Thatcher)
Now at the last linear monthly fit before the minimum (see last plot). Been expecting the rate of loss to reduce but little change for weeks.
The plots now look like:
The plots now look like:
Nothing to say really - It is just incredibly odd.1
2012/08/27
Watts disappears a post!
Just for fun!
Tony often makes fun of sites removing information. So why not turn the tables!
He recently removed this post:
A letter to Justin Gillis of the New York Times on his misleading sea ice story today
Not Found
Apologies, but the page you requested could not be found. Perhaps searching will help.
The text I have recovered using search engines is:
TO: Justin Gillis, New York Times 8/27/12 1PM PDT
Mr. Gillis, Reference Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/science/earth/sea-ice-in-arctic-measured-at-record-low.html
Why do you not mention these two important facts:
1. You say: The amount of sea ice in the Arctic has fallen to the lowest level on record”. That this is a 30 year record of satellite data, not an “all record”. That wrongly misleads your readers.
2. According to NSIDC: That there was a contributory storm that broke up a lot of the Arctic sea ice: Sea ice extent dropped rapidly between August 4 and August 8. While this drop coincided with an intense storm over the central Arctic Ocean, it is unclear if the storm prompted the rapid ice loss. Why do you ignore such facts?
----------
If that was it all then perhaps one can understand his withdrawal! Also, the english is not so good!
Of course If I were Watts I would also wonder why this blogger has stopped the wayback machine archiving his latest posts (since 2011). This obviously shows he has much to hide!
Tony often makes fun of sites removing information. So why not turn the tables!
He recently removed this post:
A letter to Justin Gillis of the New York Times on his misleading sea ice story today
Not Found
Apologies, but the page you requested could not be found. Perhaps searching will help.
The text I have recovered using search engines is:
TO: Justin Gillis, New York Times 8/27/12 1PM PDT
Mr. Gillis, Reference Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/science/earth/sea-ice-in-arctic-measured-at-record-low.html
Why do you not mention these two important facts:
1. You say: The amount of sea ice in the Arctic has fallen to the lowest level on record”. That this is a 30 year record of satellite data, not an “all record”. That wrongly misleads your readers.
2. According to NSIDC: That there was a contributory storm that broke up a lot of the Arctic sea ice: Sea ice extent dropped rapidly between August 4 and August 8. While this drop coincided with an intense storm over the central Arctic Ocean, it is unclear if the storm prompted the rapid ice loss. Why do you ignore such facts?
----------
If that was it all then perhaps one can understand his withdrawal! Also, the english is not so good!
Of course If I were Watts I would also wonder why this blogger has stopped the wayback machine archiving his latest posts (since 2011). This obviously shows he has much to hide!
American Meteorological Society Statement on Climate Change
This is a damning statement from the American Meteorological Society on life as we know it. (I would expect this to be nobbled by (them) as soon as possible)
(Adopted by AMS Council 20 August 2012)
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.pdf
...
Final remarks
It must be a good sock to the jaw for Watts, a retired AMS Television Seal Holder. His professional institution reject out right his stance on global warming.
Climate Change
An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society(Adopted by AMS Council 20 August 2012)
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.pdf
...
Final remarks
There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability.
Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.They certainly pull no punches with this.
It must be a good sock to the jaw for Watts, a retired AMS Television Seal Holder. His professional institution reject out right his stance on global warming.
NOAA/NCDC and BEST compared to Watts Favourite
Now found some US data (presumed ALL US not just CONUS) up to 2012 from NOAA
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/CDODivisionalSelect.jsp
These are monthly (like BEST) and so to fit with USCRN/USRCRN daily dat I have assumed a months worth of constant temperature for both these sources. This data is then passed through the same processing as the USCRN/USRCRN to produce the plot.
As can be seen the NOAA data for June is significantly higher than USCRN so Tony's claim of "not the warmest July" may be correct. However the overall trend of NOAA is significantly downwards compared tio the upwards trend of USCRN.
This being the case Tony may be backing the wrong horse in this race. USCRN (his ACCURATE) data stream show continual warming over the last decade. Time will tell (hopefully before disater strikes!).
uscrn 60 days average
noaa 200 day average
Best 80 day average
2012/08/26
The Hypocrisy of Watts
A beautiful post from Tony:
Some examples of the very ugly DEATH wishes passed on Watts' blog, (and ok'd for publication )
First let’s look at Overpeck’s ugly email about Inhofe and big oil, plus a death wish for Oklahoma residents, bold mine:
Wish Oklahoma was on the Gulf Coast – then these guys might have a more realistic view. Until then, they’ll just do what the oil industry wants them to do, I guess.
best, peckNow lets look at Tony's blog:
Some examples of the very ugly DEATH wishes passed on Watts' blog, (and ok'd for publication )
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/26/admiration-for-the-catlin-explorers/#comment-95597
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
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/28/catlin-crew-out-of-time/#comment-112321
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
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/04/question-for-catlin-arctic-survey-what-happens-to-the-fuel-drums/#comment-115652These posts still exist on his blog - amazing!!
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.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
