Sunday, May 24, 2015

That good ol' Antarctic peninsula again

These guys below are remarkably incurious.  They see the sudden change in parts of the Antarctic peninsula but are sure they have a magic decoder ring that tells then what causes the change -- global warming, of course.  But how come the change is so sudden and so recent?  And how come it has happened during a period when there has been NO global warming?  Their explanations linking it to global warming are obviously just desperate stabs in the dark

And the real cause is known anyhow.  There have been several recent reports of subsurface vulcanism in the Western margin and the peninsula.  Having a volcano underneath an ice mass is a pretty good way of melting some ice.  And volcanoes are sudden and episodic.  So  vulcanism explains what the Warmists could not -- the SUDDEN onset of the melting.  And the second aspect of volcanoes -- that they are episodic -- shows how absurd are the great extrapolations offered below.  Volcanoes are mostly caused by tectonic shifts so most erupt and then stop as the plates re-adjust. You cannot reasonably project vulcanism into the future, let alone the distant future.  It could stop tomorrow. So the alarming predictions below are just the usual sort of baseless scare that we expect from Greenies

The article below is from the Daily Mail and they obviously didn't like the Warmist claims either.  They followed the original story with a quote from a polar expert which pointed out a hole in the story and added a "box" to the article (the words from the capital letters onward) which also shows the absurdity of saying that the Antarctic is being affected by global warming

The Antarctic ice sheet in a previously stable part of the frozen continent is thinning at a rate that has added more than 300 trillion litres of water to the surrounding ocean in the past six years.

Scientists have expressed alarm at the rate of ice loss at the Southern Antarctic Peninsula, which had shown no signs of change until 2009, when it started suffering rapid destabilisation.

Now new research has revealed that glaciers along the peninsula have been melting at accelerating rates, causing the mass of ice there to reduce.

The loss of ice in the region is so large that it has caused the gravitation field of the Earth to change, according to some measurements conducted by scientists.

Since 2009, scientists estimate that the volume of water lost from the ice sheet is equivalent to a body of water larger than Lake Winnipeg in Manitoba, Canada or 350,000 Empire State Buildings.

Researchers warn that the melting glaciers are likely to drive rising sea levels if they continue to melt.

They blame the flow of warm subsurface water from the deep ocean for causing the melting of the ice sheets to accelerate.

The Amundsen Sea has long been thought to be the weakest ice sheet in the West Antarctic.

A study published in December suggests the barren region is haemorrhaging ice at a rate triple that of a decade ago.

Researchers believe that the melting of glaciers in West Antarctica, which contain enough water to raise sea levels by at least a metre, may be irreversible.

The findings of the 21-year study by Nasa and the University of California, Irvine claim to provide the most accurate estimates yet of just how fast glaciers are melting in the Amundsen Sea Embayment.

Scientists found the rate by taking radar, laser and satellite measurements of the glaciers' mass between 1992 and 2013.

They found they lost an average 83 gigatons per year (91.5 billion US tons), or the equivalent of losing the water weight of Mount Everest every two years.

Dr Bert Wouters, an earth observation scientist at the University of Bristol who lead the study, said: 'The fact that so many glaciers in such a large region suddenly started to lose ice came as a surprise to us.

'It shows a very fast response of the ice sheet: in just a few years the dynamic regime completely shifted.

'To date, the glaciers added roughly 300 cubic km of water to the ocean. That's the equivalent of the volume of nearly 350,000 Empire State Buildings combined.'

Ice sheets in Antarctica have until recently showed significant resilience to the impacts of global warming. Additional snowfall on the continent has meant some glaciers have actually grown in size.

On the Southern Antarctic Peninsula, the glaciers there appeared to be relatively stable – the flow of ice into the ocean occurred at the same rate as new ice was added at the top of the glaciers.

However, in 2009, several glaciers along the coastline – which measures 466 miles (750km) – started to lose ice at 14 cubic miles (60 cubic km) a year.

Dr Wouters and his colleagues, whose work is published in the journal Science, used radar measurements made by the European Space Agency's CryoSat-2 satellite to measure the thickness of the ice over the region.

Using five years of data they found the ice surface appears to be falling by around 13 feet (four meters) each year.

Another satellite mission – the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment – also revealed a slight change in the gravity field of the Earth as a result of the dwindling ice.

Dr Wouters said that it appears a change in the winds that encircle Antarcica in response to global warming, was pushing warmer waters from the Southern Ocean towards the ice sheet.

Here they eat away at the ice shelves and glaciers that float on the surface of the ocean from below.

Dr Wouters said: 'It appears that sometime around 2009, the ice shelf thinning and the subsurface melting of the glaciers passed a critical threshold which triggered the sudden ice loss.

'However, compared to other regions in Antarctica, the Southern Peninsula is rather understudied, exactly because it did not show any changes in the past, ironically.

'To pinpoint the cause of the changes, more data need to be collected.

'A detailed knowledge of the geometry of the local ice shelves, the ocean floor topography, ice sheet thickness and glacier flow speeds are crucial to tell how much longer the thinning will continue.'

However, Professor Andy Shepherd, director of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at the University of Leeds, said he felt the ice loss may actually be smaller than the study estimated.

Professor Shepherd, who is also the principal scientific advisor to the European Space Agency's Cryosat mission, said: 'I think the new estimates of ice loss computed from them are far too high, because the glaciers in this sector just haven't speeded up that much.

'It could be that a bigger chunk of the thinning is down to snowfall fluctuations than the authors have accounted for, and so I would be cautious about the new numbers until more information is to hand.'


Growing sea ice surrounding Antarctica could prompt scientists to consider relocating research stations on the continent, according to the operations manager of the Australian Antarctic Division.

Rob Wooding said that resupplying Australia's Mawson Station - the longest continuously operated outpost in Antarctica - relied on access to a bay, a task increasingly complicated by sea ice blocking the way.

He said that at Mawson, the ice typically breaks up for one or two months of the summer, but in the last four to six years this has not happened every year and some years only partially.

He said: 'We are noticing that the sea ice situation is becoming more difficult.

'In the 2013-4 season we couldn't get anywhere near Mawson due to the sea ice and we had to get fuel in there by helicopter which is inadequate for the long-term sustainability of the station.'

He said that French and Japanese bases on the continent have had similar problems.

Tony Worby, from an Australian centre studying Antarctic climate and ecosystems, said that in contrast to the Arctic where global warming is causing ice to melt and glaciers to shrink, sea ice around Antarctica was increasing.

It hit a new record in September last year, with the US-based National Snow and Ice Data Center reporting that the ice averaged 20.0 million square kilometres (7.72 million square miles) during the month.

Scientists have struggled to predict sea ice conditions, which are believed to be affected by the strong winds of the Southern Ocean which can push the ice out from the continent of Antarctica.

This does not happen in the Arctic because the ocean is hemmed in by land masses.


Why a cold snap is 20 times more lethal than a heatwave

Yet the Warmists keep coming out with hokey arguments to the effect that slightly warmer weather will be bad for us all

Cold weather kills TWENTY times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study.

The findings, published in The Lancet, also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells.

Researchers analysed more than 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries, including the UK.

Lead author Doctor Antonio Gasparrini, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: 'It's often assumed that extreme weather causes the majority of deaths, with most previous research focusing on the effects of extreme heat waves.

'Our findings, from an analysis of the largest dataset of temperature-related deaths ever collected, show that the majority of these deaths actually happen on moderately hot and cold days, with most deaths caused by moderately cold temperatures.'

The study analysed 74,225,200 deaths between 1985 and 2012 in 13 countries with a wide range of climates, from cold to subtropical.

The countries involved were Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, UK, and USA.

Data on daily average temperature, death rates, and confounding variables - such as humidity and air pollution - were used to calculate the temperature of minimum mortality - the optimal temperature, and to quantify total deaths due to non-optimal ambient temperature in each location.

The researchers then estimated the relative contributions of heat and cold, from moderate to extreme temperatures.

Around 7.71 per cent of all deaths were caused by non-optimal temperatures, with substantial differences between countries, ranging from around three per cent in Thailand, Brazil, and Sweden to about 11 per cent in China, Italy, and Japan.

Cold was responsible for the majority of these deaths (7.29 per cent), while just 0.42 per cent of deaths were attributable to heat.

The study also found that extreme temperatures were responsible for less than one per cent of all deaths, while mildly sub-optimal temperatures accounted for around seven per cent of all deaths _with most (6.66 per cent) related to moderate cold.

Dr Gasparrini added: 'Current public-health policies focus almost exclusively on minimising the health consequences of heat waves.

'Our findings suggest that these measures need to be refocused and extended to take account of a whole range of effects associated with temperature.'

Commenting on the findings, Keith Dear and Zhan Wang, from Duke Kunshan University in China, said: 'Factors such as susceptibility or resilience have not been included in the analysis, including socio-economic status, age, and confounding air pollutants.

'Since high or low temperatures affect susceptible groups such as unwell, young, and elderly people the most, attempts to mitigate the risk associated with temperature would benefit from in-depth studies of the interaction between attributable mortality and socio-economic factors, to avoid adverse policy outcomes and achieve effective adaptation.'


Offshore drilling: The eco-radical fiction ensnaring ‘conservative’ politicians

By Bill Wilson

Government-run energy policy in this country has been a debacle. From the “green jobs” scam of Left Coast solar companies like Solyndra to the ravaged heartland of Iowa (where government ethanol mandates have done tremendous environmental damage) — the failed central planning and false promises of Washington, D.C. eco-radicals should be painfully self-evident.

But this isn’t another column assailing the rogue bureaucracies of Barack Obama. For once, the Obama administration is actually doing something right — agreeing earlier this year to allow offshore drilling in the Atlantic Ocean from Virginia to the Georgia/Florida border as part of the U.S. Department of Interior’s upcoming five-year leasing plan.

Great news! Or so it seemed, anyway. Unfortunately so-called “conservatives” in some of these coastal states are trying to block the Obama administration’s decision to permit offshore energy exploration. Take Mark Sanford, the former South Carolina governor who will be forever remembered for that hike along the Appalachian Trail — the one he never took. The “Republican” congressman from the Palmetto State has flip-flopped on supporting offshore drilling — citing “potential impacts on the environment” including “large blocks of untouched coastal estuarine areas.”

Politicians like Sanford are kowtowing to liberal eco-radicals who would have us believe offshore drilling — and the “seismic air gun” exploration technique associated with it — is harmful to marine life.

“Seismic airgun testing currently being proposed in the Atlantic will injure 138,000 whales and dolphins and disturb millions more, according to government estimates.”

That’s a quote from eco-radical Samantha Siegel — who was promoting a recent appearance in South Carolina where she would “talk about the decision to open up the East Coast to seismic testing and offshore drilling, and what we can do to stop it.”

Is Siegel telling the truth? Not hardly. Months before her comments were published, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) definitively stated, “There has been no documented scientific evidence of noise from air guns used in geological and geophysical seismic activities adversely affecting animal populations.”

In fact two months ago, the agency (politely) called out Siegel and others for spreading false information.

“BOEM’s conclusion regarding the impact of these surveys is in stark contrast with public statements citing BOEM research and asserting that many thousands of marine mammals will be killed or injured through these surveys,” the agency noted. “This characterization of our conclusion … is not accurate.”

Agency leaders affirmed all this under oath during testimony before the U.S. House.

Of course, none of this is stopping eco-radicals from continuing to spread their fiction — nor is it keeping gullible politicians from being manipulated by the misinformation.

The truth is the economic benefits of offshore drilling in the Atlantic far outweigh the environmental risks. Last fall, a report from the Palmetto Policy Forum — a think tank started by former U.S. Senator Jim DeMint — determined that oil and gas drilling from Delaware to Georgia would generate anywhere between $10.8 billion to $60 billion in economic value (and anywhere between $2.1 billion and $11.6 billion in tax revenue).

Meanwhile environmental effects — air emissions, carbon pollution, and the possibility of cleaning up an oil spill — ranged from $395 million on the low-end to a worst-case scenario of $19 billion. Bottom line? The shrill eco-radical refrain — which holds that coastal drilling is “not worth the risk” — is every bit as false as the environmentalists’ disproven claims about marine life.

Americans support offshore drilling. They know it is critical to our economic future and to our national security — and for once the federal government is actually acknowledging as much and getting out of the way.

The last thing we need now is for “conservatives” to balk at this historic opportunity by caving to a liberal PR offensive based on demonstrable falsehoods.


What will America look like if the environmentalists win?

By Marita Noon

In every war, there are winners and losers. Whether the war is ideological or physical, or even if a truce is declared — there are still battles that end in victory or defeat.

In the United States, and most of the Western world, there is an ideological war with dire physical consequences. It is the war on fossil fuels. But, even if you understand (as I hope my readers do) that energy is central to everything in modern society, the war is much bigger than energy. It is about freedom. It is about control. It is about global governance.

In my book Energy Freedom, I make a case for why energy is so important; and, therefore, why it is under attack. I posit, “What would the world be like if we could suddenly wave a magic wand and give the environmentalists everything they want?” I then detail how our lives would change and how it would not be the utopia one might first think.

While we all know we can’t wave that magic wand, we are headed toward the same result. It is just happening a little at a time — one regulation after another, slowly, with some people, in the name of the planet, willingly giving up freedoms in favor of a promise of security. It comes in the form of the Endangered Species Act, Corporate Average Fuel Economy, and the Clean Power Plan — though the list could go on and on.

Others are not so gullible. They see the bigger plan and are willing to bear the brunt of scoffing, or even persecution. They fight for the principles upon which this great nation was founded.

This past week, I had the opportunity to speak to a group of expats in Mexico. Repeatedly, I heard, “If everything goes to hell in the U.S., this is where I am hiding out.”

While I was South of the Border, I read a novel cover-to-cover: Mountain Whispers, Days without Sun. It was sent to me by the author, who reads my column. It is his debut novel and not the usual light, fluffy stuff I like to read around the pool. I didn’t expect to like it. But I promised I’d read it. I am glad I did.

Mountain Whispers, Days without Sun picks up where Energy Freedom leaves off. Coleman Alderson, using a fiction format, carefully weaves the green narrative into a spellbinding thriller set just slightly more than 25 years from now — when all of the green policies have taken force — and paints a gripping picture of how the Global Energy Enforcement Organization (GEEO) takes control of every aspect of our lives, leaving people struggling to survive a bleak existence.

But not everyone is willing to abandon freedom for the neat and tidy life promised in “Progress City.” They resist being “registered” and moved to work on an organic farm or serve in “the administration.” Even many of those who accepted the move are beginning to realize the mistake they made. The friction creates the story as the “retros” — Appalachian Mountain folks, many of whom worked in the now-closed coal mines — resist registration and citification.

I chatted with Alderson about his book. I asked, “Why are cities important?” He explained the view that cities are “manageable regions,” that it is more efficient to have people in cities where they don’t use the resources. They don’t need cars. Instead they use public transportation or bicycles.

One of the lead characters is a young man named Agent Candler Greaves, who is sent to round up the rebellious “retros.” Having been raised with the “save the planet” mantra, he genuinely wants to “help guide humanity toward a harmonious existence with the planet.” But, as Mountain Whispers, Days without Sun makes vividly clear, the result of the GEEO’s efforts is a decrease in various public services, more land restrictions, limited availability of food, electricity, and medical treatments—while the leadership thrives in spite of it all.

Alderson explains, “You can tell a story and capture people’s emotions more effectively than with facts and statistics. I really tried to dial back on the exposition and instead work it into the fabric of these people’s lives. My main goal is to show the impact of these mandates that result in control of people.”

The idea of citizens being willingly chipped and tracked may seem extreme to some. But as I returned to the U.S. and scanned my passport while the kiosk took my picture and printed out a report that allowed me back into the country, I realized it is closer than we think. If you’ve seen advertising pop up on your computer based on websites you’ve visited, or as you pull out of your driveway on Monday morning, your phone, without your asking it to, tells you how long it will take you to get to work, you know the scenario Alderson presents, while fiction, is totally possible. Unless, like the Appalachian Mountain folks, we get what is going on and fight it while it is still an ideological war.

Alderson is an optimist. In the end, it is going to be OK. If we can figure out how to put a brake on the policies and bring reason into the discussion, we can, then, figure out how to avoid living out the future he laid out in Mountain Whispers, Days without Sun.


The Bin Laden Papers: Like Obama, al Qaeda Worried About Climate Change

On the same day President Obama told graduating Coast Guard cadets that climate change poses “a serious threat to global security” and “an immediate risk to our national security,” his administration released some of the documents found in Osama bin Laden's Pakistan hideout, showing that al Qaeda leaders also worried about the effects of climate change, particularly on the Muslim world.

One of the many declassified documents from "Bin Laden's Bookshelf" (as released by the Director of National Intelligence) is a four-page letter, addressed to "My Islamic Nation," discussing the "effects associated with the enormous climate changes."

The letter writer -- it's not clear if it is bin Laden himself -- says "traditional relief efforts are insufficient" to address the "great suffering the natural disasters are leaving behind."

"Although the provision of tents, food and medicine will always be crucial, the afflictions are taking a larger shape and volume; hence, the quality, method and timing of aid must be equally improved."

It warns that people "victimized by the current climate change is a very large number, expected to rise."

The letter -- written in the month of Ramadan, no year specified -- mentions drought in Africa and flooding in Pakistan, where "the calamity is considerable and beyond description." But then the writer goes on to describe the Pakistan flooding, likely referring to the events of 2010:

"You have seen one of your Muslim brothers in Pakistan, covered in water up to his chest while trying with both hands to hold two of his five- or six-year-old children above water. So, have you wondered what might have happened to the rest of his children, or haven't you heard about the women who are imploring you by Allah, the Glorious and Almighty, divine right to come to their rescue. It is incumbent, upon everyone who is capable, to aid the Muslims in Pakistan and demonstrate concern towards their precious being.

"Millions of children are left in the open, without a suitable living environment, including good drinking water, which has exposed them to dehydration, dangerous diseases and higher death rates. I pray to Allah Almighty to grant them both relief and mercy."

Given the "high frequency of such disasters caused by climate changes," the letter urges the establishment of "a distinct relief organization" with the ability to effectively deal with "more frequent, diverse and massive consequences of climate changes."

Such an organization would research housing built along the banks of rivers and valleys in the Islamic World to prevent future flooding disasters; revise dam and bridge safety regulations; address famine, improve irrigation, and encourage merchants and their families to "devote some of their sons to relief and agricultural work"; and increase Muslim awareness about depleting underground water supplies that are not "renewable."

Likewise, in his speech to cadets, President Obama focused on the "urgent need to combat and adapt to climate change," which he described as a "peril that can affect generations."

"Cadets, the threat of a changing climate cuts to the very core of your service," Obama said, as he mentioned melting glaciers and rising sea levels.

"Climate change will impact every country on the planet. No nation is immune. So I'm here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security. And make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. And so we need to act -- and we need to act now."

Obama said climate change is "often at the top of our agenda" when he meets with world leaders. And he told the cadets they are the first generation of officers to begin serving in a world "where the effects of climate change are so clearly upon us."

He also gave specific examples:

"Around the world, climate change increases the risk of instability and conflict. Rising seas are already swallowing low-lying lands, from Bangladesh to Pacific islands, forcing people from their homes. Caribbean islands and Central American coasts are vulnerable, as well. Globally, we could see a rise in climate change refugees. And I guarantee you the Coast Guard will have to respond. Elsewhere, more intense droughts will exacerbate shortages of water and food, increase competition for resources, and create the potential for mass migrations and new tensions," Obama said.

"Around the world, climate change will mean more extreme storms. No single weather event can be blamed solely on climate change. But Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines gave us a possible glimpse of things to come," including more humanitarian missions.

"The only way the world is going to prevent the worst effects of climate change is to slow down the warming of the planet."

Obama talked about harmful emissions, renewable energy and said he is committed to "doubling the pace at which we cut carbon pollution."

"And it will not be easy," he promised. "It will require sacrifice, and the politics will be tough. But there is no other way," He insisted. "We have to make our homes and buildings more efficient. We have to invest in more energy research and renewable technologies. We have to move ahead with standards to cut the amount of carbon pollution in our power plants. And working with other nations, we have to achieve a strong global agreement this year to start reducing the total global emission -- because every nation must do its part. Every nation."


The Pope cuddles up to enemies of church teachings

Many Catholics and others were puzzled by the appearance of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Professor Jeffrey Sachs and former Senator Tim Wirth as speakers or honored guests at a Vatican sponsored conference on global warming.

All three have spent years actively undermining Church teaching on questions of abortion and UN-style family planning, which includes active population control.

In recent weeks, Ban issued a report calling for women in conflict situations to have access to abortion even if it’s against the law, ignoring the issue of national sovereignty.

Jeffrey Sachs, professor at Columbia University in New York, ran a global campaign for more than a decade to get abortion code language into the Millennium Development Goals, an important document that guided the spending of billions of dollars over the past 15 years.

Former Democratic Senator from Colorado Tim Wirth was U.S. Under-Secretary of State during the Cairo Conference on Population and Development. He, along with Al Gore and Hillary Clinton, was in open war with the Vatican over so-called “reproductive rights.” Wirth famously had a Christmas tree in his office that was festooned with condoms.

Stefano Gennarini, Director of Legal Studies at the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam), a UN-accredited NGO, got an exclusive interview with the archbishop who sponsored the meeting at the Vatican and who invited these opponents of Church teaching. Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo is a progressive Argentine Bishop who heads the Pontifical Academies for Science and Social Sciences, which together hosted the “Protect the Earth, Dignify Humanity” workshop.

Gennarini asked Sanchez if he knew Sachs had written that abortion is a “low-cost” way to to reduce fertility. Sanchez brushed off the question, “The climate crisis leads to poverty and poverty leads to new forms of slavery and forced migration, and drugs, and all this can also lead to abortion.”

Gennarini pressed Sanchez on collaborating so closely with abortion proponents such as Ban Ki-moon and Jeffrey Sachs. Sanchez once again deflected by attacking the Tea Party and making accusations of dishonesty:

“The Tea Party and all those whose income derives from oil have criticized us, but not my superiors, who instead authorized me and several of them participated,” he said.

Gennarini wanted to know how the questions of abortion and population control were resolved prior to the Vatican meeting.

Sanchez said, “..the draft SDGs [new development goals replacing the MDGs] don’t even mention abortion or population control. They speak of access to family planning and sexual and reproductive rights. The interpretation and application of these depends on governments.” Sanchez seemed unaware that it is precisely the phrase “reproductive rights” that is used to promote a right to abortion.

Later in the interview Sanchez once more smeared American conservatives, when asked whether Pope Francis agrees that climate change can be assigned to human activity:

This I do not know. But I suppose yes, because he would not write an encyclical just to say that man is responsible for the earth but that everything is fine! Perhaps, you believe, like those who live off oil, that everything is fine? The Academy says otherwise, as do all the rest of scientific academies in the world. Only a few scientists paid by lobby groups think differently.

Gennarini challenged Sanchez on the science, specifically on the lack of temperature change over the past 18 years and the difficulty in finding any definitive correlation between human activity and large-scale climate change.

Sanchez proceeded to accuse Gennarini, C-Fam and others of making “false accusations against us.”

You can rest assured that the two academies of which I am chancellor are against abortion and against population control simply because we follow the Magisterium of the Popes, on which we directly depend. I hope that you too will follow this teaching, when it speaks of the gravity of the economic situation, which is all geared towards profit, and when it will speak of the gravity of human responsibility for changes in the climate, as I hope the next encyclical will say.

It has been reported that the controversial document has been delayed, quite possibly because of the push back the Vatican is getting from American and other political conservatives and global warning skeptics.



For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here


Friday, May 22, 2015

Greenhouse theory

By Carl Brehmer

Is not the whole “greenhouse effect” hypothesis farrago based on “thought experiments” and “proxy experiments”, e.g., John Tyndall’s apparatus in which he tested the opacity of carbonic acid gas at 80,000 ppm and then projected the results of that experiment onto the greater atmosphere without doing even one experiment on the behavior of “greenhouse gases” in the open atmosphere; Svante Arrhenius’ postulation about the effect of carbon dioxide on the temperature of the atmosphere was a mathematical “thought experiment” since he did not himself do any real experiments on the actual atmosphere; the infamous “hockey stick” was based on a “proxy experiment”, which were presumed historical temperatures based on a tree-ring study of the bristlecone pine; studies of the spectrographs of outgoing longwave radiation are “proxy experiments”, because they presume to divine the effect of carbon dioxide on the temperature of the surface level atmosphere based on these spectrographs which do not measure “temperature”; some biologist somewhere postulates that “anthropogenic climate change” is going to cause the extinction of some obscure species in the Amazon and the protagonists of the catastrophic anthropogenic climate change meme glom onto that hypothetical as though it is established scientific truth, because it serves their cause.

I have also done other studies using real world measurements that demonstrated that under clear skies surface level air temperatures drop at the same or even greater rate at night when the air is humid vs. when the air is dry.  Meaning that the slowed cooling rate of nighttime air seen in humid climates is the result of cloud cover and is not being caused by a “greenhouse gas” mediated “greenhouse effect”.

Only in a real greenhouse can a greenhouse effect be found.

Via email

British Environmentalist, Peter Taylor, trashes the theory of man-made global warming

Pesky!  CO2 good for the ozone "hole"

Warmist hate CO2 and hate the ozone "hole".  But could that evil CO2 actually plug the ozone "hole?"

Continued emissions of carbon dioxide mean the Earth's ozone layer will grow larger than it has been since 1960 by the end of this century, according to researchers in the US who have performed a computer simulation. The growth, which should not be as drastic as the depletion or "holes" observed in the 1980s and 1990s, raises the question of whether the ozone layer has an optimal thickness.

Ozone (trioxygen, or O3) present in the Earth's stratosphere, known as the ozone layer, is the primary shield that life has from the harmful ultraviolet radiation produced by the Sun. Ozone is also a greenhouse gas, warming not just from its absorption of ultraviolet radiation but also because it absorbs the infrared radiation emitted from the Earth's surface. It's therefore a critical component of the Earth's atmosphere – and one that researchers are keen to understand in detail.

The early 1980s saw a reduction in the thickness of stratospheric ozone so marked that popular accounts told of ozone "holes". That reduction halted after about two decades, largely thanks to the 1989 Montreal Protocol, which regulated the use of chlorofluorocarbons and other substances known to destroy ozone. But ozone can also be affected indirectly by substances outside of the limits of the Montreal Protocol – specifically carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide leads to the production of nitrogen oxides, which react directly with ozone to destroy it, while carbon dioxide cools the stratosphere, boosting ozone in two ways: by depleting nitrogen oxides and by cutting the rate of photochemical reactions that attack ozone.

Now, Darryn Waugh and Richard Stolarski at John Hopkins University, US, together with colleagues from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, also in the US, have run a computer simulation to find out what effect carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide will have on stratospheric ozone in years to come. The simulation is 2D, with one dimension for altitude and one for latitude – a simplification that reflects the smoothing-out of longitudinal variations at stratospheric altitudes – and is based on factors known to affect ozone. These include the presence of various molecules whose atmospheric concentrations are given in different future climate scenarios; "raining out" of water-soluble molecules; and solar radiation.

The researchers found that, regardless of the future scenario of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide employed, there would be a thickening of the ozone layer. That will be due mostly to the predicted increase in carbon-dioxide emissions, although for all scenarios the thickening is neither as large nor as rapid as the thinning witnessed in the 1980s.

The 1980s thinning caused global concern, but Stolarski points out there is no reason to believe a thickening is necessarily a good thing. "One interesting question that is raised by this research is, what is the optimal thickness of the ozone layer?" he said, adding that finding out will entail further investigation of ozone history. "Now that we think that we understand the sensitivity of the ozone layer to many potential perturbations, perhaps we can go back and determine what kind of excursions the thickness of the ozone layer may have exhibited in the past."


That ocean heat sure gets around

Introducing: "global climate variability".  Now the Indian Ocean is the culprit grabbing all that "missing" heat.  But it's just modelling.  So why has guilt now been pinned on the Indian ocean?  For a while it was the Atlantic ocean and then it was the Pacific ocean.  BUT "hydrographic records indicate that Pacific Ocean heat content has been decreasing, not increasing".  Pesky!  So the Indian ocean has got to be where that fictional heat is.  No doubt it will be the Southern ocean next

 Global surface warming has slowed since the start of the twenty-first century, while Pacific heat uptake was enhanced. Analyses of ocean heat content suggest that the warm water was transferred to the Indian Ocean, through the Indonesian straits, reports "Nature".

Scientists reported that the Indian Ocean heat content has risen sharply, accounting for more than 70% of the global ocean heat gain in the upper 700 metres of the Indian Ocean over the past decade.

The scientists conclude the Indian Ocean has become increasingly important in altering *global climate variability*.

A team led by University of Miami and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) researcher Sang-Ki Lee experimented with a global climate model. A computer modeling study by them points to strong easterly trade winds that caused warm water to pile up in the western Pacific and seep into the Indian Ocean, which may now hold more than 70% of the heat absorbed by the upper ocean in the past decade.

Until now, climate scientists believed the slowdown, which has been observed since 1998, was related to declines in surface temperature of Pacific Ocean, and tied to a prevalence of La Nina climate conditions.

“We find that the enhanced heat uptake by the Pacific Ocean has been compensated by an increased heat transport from the Pacific Ocean to the Indian Ocean, carried by the Indonesian throughflow,”a paper published in the Nature Geoscience Journal on Tuesday said.

A team of scientists from both the US and the German GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel have demonstrated that the heat content of the Indian Ocean has risen substantially since the late 1990s, even though the global temperature showed only minor changes in the same period.

This increase is very likely caused by a higher heat transfer from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean, as the authors report in the international scientific journal Nature Geoscience.


Pacific origin of the abrupt increase in Indian Ocean heat content during the warming hiatus

By Sang-Ki Lee et al.


Global mean surface warming has stalled since the end of the twentieth century1, 2, but the net radiation imbalance at the top of the atmosphere continues to suggest an increasingly warming planet. This apparent contradiction has been reconciled by an anomalous heat flux into the ocean3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, induced by a shift towards a La NiƱa-like state with cold sea surface temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific over the past decade or so. A significant portion of the heat missing from the atmosphere is therefore expected to be stored in the Pacific Ocean. However, in situ hydrographic records indicate that Pacific Ocean heat content has been decreasing9. Here, we analyse observations along with simulations from a global ocean–sea ice model to track the pathway of heat. We find that the enhanced heat uptake by the Pacific Ocean has been compensated by an increased heat transport from the Pacific Ocean to the Indian Ocean, carried by the Indonesian throughflow. As a result, Indian Ocean heat content has increased abruptly, which accounts for more than 70% of the global ocean heat gain in the upper 700 m during the past decade. We conclude that the Indian Ocean has become increasingly important in modulating global climate variability.

Nature Geoscience (2015) doi:10.1038/ngeo2438.

Obama pisses into the wind

Does he really think any of the practical men at the coastguard are going to take  this seriously?  Coming from a Leftist politician it is more likely to make them cynical

President Barack Obama is heading up to New London, Connecticut Wednesday to deliver the commencement address at the Coast Guard Academy, but the president also plans to give an impassioned speech on how graduating guardsmen will be on the front lines of the war on global warming.

“Climate change will impact every country on the planet,” reads Obama’s prepared remarks. “No nation is immune. So I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. And so we need to act— and we need to act now.”

“You are part of the first generation of officers to begin your service in a world where the effects of climate change are so clearly upon us,” Obama’s speech reads. “Climate change will shape how every one of our services plan, operate, train, equip, and protect their infrastructure, today and for the long-term… Climate change poses a threat to the readiness of our forces.”

“Many of our military installations are on the coast, including, of course, our Coast Guard stations,” Obama will tell the guardsmen.

To hit the point home, the White House has released an eleven-page document listing the different ways global warming will affect national security. The White House warns that troops must be ready for extreme weather, sea level rise, droughts, food shortages, violent conflicts, climate refugees and the list goes on.

“Climate change will change the nature of U.S. military missions, demand more resources in the Arctic and other coastal regions vulnerable to rising sea levels and other impacts, and require a multilateral response to the growing humanitarian crises that climate change is predicted to bring,” the White House document reads.

Secretary of State John Kerry joined Obama is highlighting the national security concerns of global warming, also making sure to criticized anyone who “doubts” that man-made global warming was real.

“Anyone who doubts that confronting climate change is a national security issue should have sat in the meetings I just had in Asia, where it was a primary topic of discussion with every one of my interlocutors, alongside other security issues like [North Korea] and violent extremism,” Kerry said in a statement.

“And that’s true around the world,” Kerry added. “So now it’s time to put aside discredited scientific arguments and partisan politics and to focus on the facts — not just for our health and the health of our children but for our planet’s security as well.”

Obama and Kerry’s call for action on global warming comes as other developed nations push for the United Nations to adopt “ambitious” carbon dioxide reduction targets at the next international climate summit in December.

The Wall Street Journal reports that France and Germany have both called for “ambitious, comprehensive and binding” CO2 reduction targets to be adopted by UN delegates in Paris this winter. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande have argued there’s “little time” left to tackle global warming.

Obama and European leaders are hoping they can inspire developing countries like China and India to use more green energy and cut CO2 emissions by highlighting the environmental and national security problems facing the world if warming continues. Despite rising alarm from developed countries, the developing world doesn’t seem to want to listen.

EurActiv reports that the Balkans and Ukraine are making “substantial investments” in coal-fired power plants to support their growing economies and rising demand for reliable energy from Western Europe.

“Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia and Ukraine are planning to build a total of 14.82 GW of new coal power capacity” EurActiv reports, which is a response to the European Union’s bid to become less reliant on Russia for power.

India, the world’s third-largest CO2 emitter, plans to double its coal use by 2020 to provide electricity to the more than 300 million people that lack reliable sources of power. India is also expected to overtake China as the world’s largest thermal coal importer in the next couple of years.

“India will have the largest impact on seaborne thermal coal markets as lofty domestic production targets battle with likely swelling imports due to a wave of new demand from new generation plants,” according to analysts with Bloomberg Intelligence.

Earlier this year, India rejected overtures by the Obama administration to forge an agreement on CO2 cuts– mirroring an agreement made between Obama and China’s government in late 2014.

But even China has been wishy-washy on coal, despite promising Obama it would peak its CO2 emissions by 2030. The Wall Street Journal reports that China is investing $46 billion in new trade routes across central Asia. The lion’s share of the spending will go towards providing “electricity to energy-starved Pakistan, based mostly on building new coal-fired power plants.”

“The plans envisage adding 10,400 megawatts of electricity at a cost of $15.5 billion by 2018,” the Journal reports. “After 2018, adding a further 6,600 megawatts is outlined—at a cost of an additional $18.3 billion—that in cumulative total would double Pakistan’s current electricity output.”


Climate Depot reply to Obama's coastguard speech

Statement by Marc Morano, Climate Depot Publisher:

“It is hard to even take today’s speech by Obama seriously on either a logical, scientific or political level. The speech was so farcical in its claims that it hardly merits a response. It is obvious that the climate establishment is seeking new talking points on ‘global warming’ to change the subject from the simple fact that global temperatures are not cooperating with their claims.

If any Americans actually believe the climate claims linking ‘global warming’ to a rise in conflicts, no amount of evidence, data, logic or scientific studies will likely persuade them. But given the high profile nature of the comments, a rebuttal to the President’s climate claims is necessary.

Claiming that melting ICE is more a threat to the U.S. than ISIS is a hard sell, particular given the latest data on global sea ice. See: Sea Ice Extent – Day 137 – 3rd Highest Global Sea Ice For This Day – Antarctic Sets 49th Daily Record For 2015

Contrary to the President’s claims, it seems ISIS may in fact trump ICE as a bigger concern.

Obama also claimed that climate ‘deniers’ were a huge part of the problem. Obama explained: “Denying it, or refusing to deal with it, endangers our national security and undermines the readiness of our forces.”

Obama seems to be borrowing his claims from Rolling Stone Magazine. See: Forget ISIS, skeptics are greatest threat?! – Rolling Stone: Climate ‘Deniers’ Put ‘National Security at Risk’

But actually believing the above statements endangers our capacity for rational thought and evidence based research. Actually believing Obama’s climate claims, undermines our nation’s ability to distinguish real threats from politically contrived nonsense.

UN climate treaties and EPA climate regulations will not prevent wars, conflicts or impact the creation of terrorist groups.

President Obama claimed that man-made climate change was partly responsible for the civil war in Syria. “It’s now believed that drought, crop failures, and high food prices helped fuel the early unrest in Syria, which descended into civil war in the heart of the Middle East,” Obama said.

First off, extreme weather is not getting more ‘extreme.’ See: Extreme weather failing to follow ‘global warming’ predictions: Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Droughts, Floods, Wildfires, all see no trend or declining trends

But such drought claims are not new or unique to President Obama. In 1933, similar baseless claims were made. See: 1933 claim: ‘YO-YO BANNED IN SYRIA – Blamed For Drought’

In addition, in 1846, in Australia, Aborigines blamed the bad climate on the introduction of the White man in Australia. During World War 2, some blamed the war for causing unusual weather patterns. In the 1970s, the exact same things (bad weather) we are talking about today, were  blamed on man-made global cooling.

Global warming is not a threat to the world, but global warming ‘solutions’ are. The estimated 1.2 billion people in the world without electricity who are leading a nasty, brutish and short life, will be the ones who “will pay” for global warming solutions that prevent them from obtaining cheap and abundant carbon based energy. See: S. African activist slams UN’s ‘Green Climate Fund': ‘Government to govt aid is a reward for being better than anyone else at causing poverty’ — ‘It enriches the people who cause poverty’

Simple historical facts undermine the President’s claims about global warming and national security concerns.


Another counterblast -- from Monckton -- here.  Monckton asks:  "Does the ‘leader’ of the free world really know so little about climate?"


For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here


Thursday, May 21, 2015

High-quality 19th century marker shows that the sea-level has FALLEN since then

Tasmanian marker showing that the mean sea level of the mid 19th century was ABOVE the mean sea-level of today

The ‘Isle of the Dead’ may yet prove to be another nail in the coffin of global warming and its gruesome companion, Disastrous Sea Level Rises.

The `Isle of the Dead’ is over two acres in size and is situated within the harbor of Port Arthur opening directly to the Southern Ocean. The isle itself is actually a graveyard (thus its eerie name), containing the graves of some 2,000 British convicts and free persons from the 19th century who lived and died at the nearby convict colony of Port Arthur between 1832 and 1870.

In 1841. renowned British Antarctic explorer, Captain Sir James Clark Ross, sailed into Tassy after a 6-month voyage of discovery and exploration to the Antarctic.

Ross and Governor Franklin made a particular point of visiting Port Arthur, to meet Thomas Lempriere, a senior official of the convict colony there, but who was also a methodical observer and recorder of meteorological, tidal, and astronomical data. It is important to note what Captain Ross wrote about it.

    “My principal object in visiting Port Arthur was to afford a comparison of our standard barometer with that which had been employed for several years by Mr. Lempriere, the Deputy Assistant Commissary General, in accordance with my instructions, and also to establish a permanent mark at the zero point, or general mean level of the sea as determined by the tidal observations which Mr. Lempriere had conducted with perseverance and exactness for some time: by which means any secular variation in the relative level of the land and sea, which is known to occur on some coasts, might at any future period be detected, and its amount determined.

    The point chosen for this purpose was the perpendicular cliff of the small islet off Point Puer, which, being near to the tide register, rendered the operation more simple and exact. The Governor, whom I had accompanied on an official visit to the settlement, gave directions to afford Mr. Lempriere every assistance of labourers he required, to have the mark cut deeply in the rock in the exact spot which his tidal observations indicated as the mean level of the ocean."

That mark is still there today, as can be seen in the photo.The photo was taken at midway between high and low tides.

There is intensive research presently underway by several institutions including the now corrupt CSIRO assisted by the head of the Inter-Agency Committee on Marine Science & Technology, Dr David Pugh, who is based at the University of Southampton, UK. But in spite of plenty of time we have yet to see their detailed explanation of just why this mark confounds all the predictions about sea level rise.

Dr. Pugh airily waves his hands and says in effect that poor old confused Lempriere, in spite of the detailed instructions about getting a Mean Sea Level (half way between high and low tide), he just put in the high water mark. This, of course, sounds logical to anybody steeped in the Green religion.

But not to anyone else and not to real scientists who look at evidence unflinchingly.


More Countries Caught Manipulating Their Climate Data

Weather agencies in Australia, Paraguay and Switzerland may be manipulating temperature data to create a sharper warming trend than is present in the raw data — a practice that has come under scrutiny in recent months.

Most recently, Dr. H. Sterling Burnett with the Heartland Institute detailed how the Swiss Meteorological Service adjusted its climate data “to show greater warming than actually measured by its temperature instruments.”

In his latest article, Sterling wrote that Switzerland’s weather bureau adjusted its raw temperature data so that “the temperatures reported were consistently higher than those actually recorded.” For example, the cities of Sion and Zurich saw “a doubling of the temperature trend” after such adjustments were made.

But even with the data tampering, Sterling noted that “there has been an 18-year-pause in rising temperatures, even with data- tampering.”

“Even with fudged data, governments have been unable to hide the fact winters in Switzerland and in Central Europe have become colder over the past 20 years, defying predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists,” according to Sterling.

The Swiss affair, however, is not the first instance of data “homogenization” catalogued by scientists and researchers who are skeptical of man-made global warming. In January, skeptic blogger Paul Homewood documented how NASA has “homogenized” temperature data across Paraguay to create a warming trend that doesn’t exist in the raw data.

Homewood found that all three operational rural thermometers in Paraguay had been adjusted by NASA to show a warming trend where one did not exist before. Homewood also found that urban thermometers in Paraguay had similarly been adjusted by NASA.

“[NASA is] supposed to make a ‘homogenisation adjustment,’ to allow for [urban heat island (UHI)] bias,” Homewood wrote. “The sort of thing you would expect to see at Asuncion Airport, Paraguay’s main gateway, handling over 800,000 passengers a year.”

“However, far from increasing historic temperatures to allow for UHI, [NASA] has done the opposite and decreased temperatures prior to 1972 by 0.4C,” Homewood added.

Before that, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (ABM) was forced to admit it adjusts temperatures recorded at all weather stations across the country. Aussie journalists had been critical of ABM for being secretive about its data adjustments.

“Almost all the alterations resulted in higher temperatures being reported for the present and lower numbers for the past–with the higher numbers being used to demonstrate a historical warming trend–than the numbers that were actually recorded,” wrote Sterling.

“Downward homogenizations in recent years were rare. In some areas, downward temperature trends measured over time showed a significantly increased temperature trend after homogenization,” he added. “The difference between actually measured temperatures and homogenized temperatures topped 4 degrees Celsius over certain periods at some measuring stations.”

Global warming skeptics have increasingly become critical of adjustments to raw temperature data made by government climate agencies. Such adjustments seem to overwhelmingly show a massive warming trend not present in the raw data.

Such adjusted data has been used by climate scientists and environmental activists to claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record. Adjusted data also shows that 13 of the warmest years on record have occurred since 2000.

NOAA and other climate agencies have defended such adjustments to the temperature record, arguing they are necessary to correct for “biases” that distort the reality of the Earth’s climate.

NOAA scientists increase or decrease temperatures to correct for things like changes in the locations of thermometers (some that were once in rural areas are now in the suburbs or even in cities). Scientists have also had to correct for a drastic change in the time of day temperatures were recorded (for whatever reason, past temperatures were recorded in the afternoon, but are now often collected in the morning).

Other adjustments have been made to the data to correct for such “biases,” but global warming skeptics question if the scope of the data adjustments are justifiable.

The U.K.’s Global Warming Policy Foundation has created a panel of skeptical scientists from around the world who will evaluate temperature adjustments to find out if they are scientifically justified.

“Many people have found the extent of adjustments to the data surprising,” Terence Kealey, former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham, said in a statement.

“While we believe that the 20th century warming is real, we are concerned by claims that the actual trend is different from — or less certain than — has been suggested,” said Kealey, who has been appointed chairman of the foundation’s investigative task force. “We hope to perform a valuable public service by getting everything out into the open.”


When Will Kerry Divest From Fossil Fuels?

Secretary of State John Kerry says that addressing the unsubstantiated man-made affects of climate change ranks among developed countries' top priorities. And the way leftists suggest we do that is to scale back capitalism, embrace cap and trade, shutter coal-fired plants and enact tough energy efficiency standards under the heavy hand of the Environmental Protection Agency, to name but a few. Our comfortable living standards, they admit, are difficult to relinquish, but it’s necessary to stave off a climate crisis.

So why is Kerry investing in the very resources he says are contributing to global warming? Ron Arnold, executive vice president for the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, reveals in The Daily Caller that, as of March, “public records indicated that Secretary Kerry personally owned an estimated three to six million dollars in stocks of more than 50 oil and gas-related companies.” Moreover, “Records from 2004 show that he’s been constantly and deeply invested in fossil fuels for at least a decade, and is still injecting millions in working capital into the very industries he condemns.”

Even worse, Kerry, while vying for Hillary Clinton’s position as secretary of state, exploited a series of loopholes to obfuscate any ties to Big Oil and to garner the Office of Government Ethics' approval for the job. Is it too much to ask that, at the very least, our political elite practice what they preach?


The EPA Wants to Control Your Water

The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers recently proposed a new rule defining “waters of the United States” for regulation under the Clean Water Act. Following the lead of Barack Obama’s my-way-or-destruction tactics, the EPA wants to know, “Do you choose clean water?” If so, clearly you want the EPA’s heavy-handed regulation. Or so the false choice goes.

Unfortunately, the EPA wants to expand the law’s reference to “waters of the United States” to include not just rivers and lakes, but the large mud puddle on a remote ranch. Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY), who cosponsored House legislation last fall to stop the overregulation, explains: The EPA “would redefine the scope of federal power under the Clean Water Act, creating jurisdiction over almost all physical areas with a connection to downstream navigable waters. This would put features such as ditches, natural or man-made ponds, flood plains, and prairie potholes, among others, under federal control.

I believe it would directly contradict prior U.S. Supreme Court decisions and is based on incomplete scientific and economic analyses.” Make no mistake — the EPA is only using science and the environment to justify its power grabs.


Battery-powered ferry good for short round trips

With ten tons of batteries it can make 6 kilometer trips -- with special charging stations at each end of its route

The world's first electrical car and passenger ferry powered by batteries has entered service in Norway, representing a milestone on the road to operating emission-free ferries along Norway's coastline, with at least 50 other routes currently able to sustain battery-operated vessels.

The Norled ferry uses just 150 kWh per route, which corresponds to three days use of electricity in a standard Norwegian household.

Built in conjunction with shipbuilder Fjellstrand, Siemens installed the vessel's electric propulsion system and put up charging stations with lithium-ion batteries which are charged from hydro power. With the change to battery, shipowner Norled is reducing the cost of fuel by up to 60 percent, Siemens said.

Because the power grid in the region is relatively weak, Siemens and Norled decided to install three battery packs: one lithium-ion battery on board the ferry, and one at each pier to serve as a buffer. The 260-kWh-units supply electricity to the ferry while it waits. Afterward, the battery slowly recoups all of this energy from the grid until the ship comes back again to drop off passengers and recharge. Charging stations are housed in small buildings about the size of newsstands. The ship's onboard batteries are recharged directly from the grid at night when the ferry is not in use. Each battery pack corresponds to the effect of 1,600 standard car batteries.The Norled ferry will consume around two million kWh per year, whereas a traditional diesel ferry consumes at least one million liters of diesel a year and emits 570 tons of carbon dioxide and 15 metric tons of nitrogen oxides.

On board the ferry, Siemens installed its electric propulsion system BlueDrive PlusC. It includes a battery and steering system, thruster control for the propellers, an energy management system and an integrated alarm system. The integrated automation systems control and monitor the machineries and auxiliaries on the ferry and are connected via Profibus to all other subsystems.

"We are both optimistic and excited about this technology and how it will help shape the future of environmentally friendly maritime technology," said Mario Azar, CEO of the Siemens Business Unit Oil & Gas and Marine.

Unlike many electric cars, the emission-free ferry was developed from the ground up. The ferry, which is 80 meters long and 20 meters wide, is driven by two electric motors, each with an output of 450 kilowatts. It is made exclusively of light aluminum rather than the steel normally used in shipbuilding. This makes the ferry only half as heavy as a conventional ferry, despite its ten ton batteries and a capacity for 360 passengers and 120 vehicles. An aluminum hull also has double the lifetime as steel hull, which leads to lower maintenance costs.

Ship owner Norled operates on the ferry link across Sognefjord between Lavik and Oppedal, Norway. The fully electric ferry travels six kilometers across the fjord 34 times a day, with each trip taking around 20 minutes. The solution is a result of a competition that Ministry of Transport and Communications and the Norwegian Public Roads Administration launched in 2010. Batteries are expected to become considerably more efficient and less expensive in the next few years, which tip the scales further away from diesel as the most popular fuel source.



The appeal of the Greens to the rich and godless has been underlined by an analysis of voting patterns in the recent NSW election. The Greens picked up three lower house seats — Balmain, Newtown and Ballina — and two members of the upper house. The party’s state-wide vote was unchanged at 10.3 per cent, but it achieved solid increases in the inner city — and big jumps in its support on the north coast of NSW, due to concerns about coal-seam gas.

Analysis of election results using 2011 census data compiled by the NSW parliamentary library reveals the ¬secret of the Greens’ success ¬appears to be the party’s appeal to atheists and the well-off.

In the top 10 electorates ranked by the proportion of households with income of $3000 a week or more, the Greens’ primary vote averaged 17 per cent. In the 10 electorates with the lowest proportion of such families, the Greens vote averaged 10.9 per cent. And this figure was inflated by the Greens’ outstanding results in the north coast seats of Tweed and Lismore, driven by the CSG issue. The electorates ranked one and two for people who nominate no religion, agnosticism, atheism, humanism or rationalism are Newtown and Balmain in inner Sydney. The No 3 godless electorate is Sydney, which is held by the Clover Moore-backed independent Alex Greenwich, who captures much of what would otherwise be the Greens vote.

Even with him getting 39.6 per cent of the vote, the Greens still managed a respectable 9.7 per cent primary vote. The Greens’ other seat, Ballina, which includes Byron Bay and Mullumbimby, is ranked four for the number of atheists. Conversely, in electorates where the proportion of Christians is highest, Greens did relatively poorly. In the most Christian seat in NSW — Cootamundra in the Riverina — the Greens managed just 3.5 per cent of the vote. Although the Greens proclaim an emphasis on social justice and equity, working-class people ¬appear unconvinced. In electorates with the highest proportion of labourers, the Greens averaged only 4.8 per cent.

Greens MLC John Kaye said education, rather than income, was a better predictor of a likely Greens voter. “As a progressive party, we appeal to people who have been formally trained to look at alternatives and assess them,” he said. Dr Kaye said it was a mistake to lump Balmain and Newtown together, because they were quite different electorates. Balmain was wealthier and had more families while Newtown had more students and public-sector workers. ABC election analyst Antony Green studied the demographics of the Greens vote in the 2010 federal election, concluding Labor and the Greens are not engaged in a battle over Labor heartland but that the Greens were concentrated in the inner cities and among the “knowledge elite.” He remarked that “high Green support basically disappears at the end of the tram lines” in Melbourne.

Via email from the Australian Prayer Network


For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here


Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Big batteries are needed to back up wind and solar

A recent physics paper has looked at the problems caused when erratic wind and solar power is fed into a grid.  A stable supply can still be given to the consumer when such inputs are slight but, when they become a significant part of the system, brownouts and blackouts may result.  To prevent that, feeding the power through big batteries (accumulators) would be the best option.  The undoubtedly large costs of doing so are not mentioned.  Abstract and a few excerpts below

Impact of Low Rotational Inertia on Power System Stability and Operation

Andreas Ulbig et al.


Large-scale deployment of Renewable Energy Sources (RES) has led to significant generation shares of variable RES in power systems worldwide. RES units, notably inverter-connected wind turbines and photovoltaics (PV) that as such do not provide rotational inertia, are effectively displacing conventional generators and their rotating machinery. The traditional assumption that grid inertia is sufficiently high with only small variations over time is thus not valid for power systems with high RES shares. This has implications for frequency dynamics and power system stability and operation. Frequency dynamics are faster in power systems with low rotational inertia, making frequency control and power system operation more challenging. This paper investigates the impact of low rotational inertia on power system stability and operation, contributes new analysis insights and offers mitigation options for low inertia impacts.

As can also be seen in this simulation example (shown in green), one powerful mitigation option for low inertia levels and faster frequency dynamics is the deployment of a faster primary control scheme, e.g. fully activated within 5 s after a fault. Notably Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) are well-suited for providing a fast power response


The presented analyses show that high shares of inverter-connected power generation can have a significant impact on power system stability and power system operation. The new contributions of this paper are:

Rotational Inertia becomes heterogeneous. Instead of a global inertia constant H there are different Hi for the individual areas i as a function of how much converter-connected units versus conventional units are online in the different areas.

Rotational inertia constants become time-variant (Hi(t)). This is due to the variability of the power dispatch. Frequency dynamics become thus differently fast in the individual grid areas.

Grid frequency instability phenomena are amplified. Reduced rotational inertia leads to faster frequency dynamics and in turn causes larger frequency deviations and transient power exchanges over tie-lines in the event of a power fault. This may cause false errors and unexpected tripping of the tie-lines in question by automatic protection devices, in turn further aggravating an already critical situation.

Faster primary control emulates a time-variant damping effect (k(t)). This is critical for power system stability immediately after a fault event. Please note that the analysis results presented here have been obtained by using idealized primary and secondary frequency control loop dynamics. This is only a first step. Further analysis will, however, have to take into account more detailed, i.e. more realistic, frequency response characteristics of various unit types (i.e. including additional time-delays, inverse response behavior, etcetera).

Mitigation options for low rotational inertia and faster frequency dynamics are faster primary frequency control and the provision of synthetic rotational inertia, also known as inertia mimicking, provided either by wind&PV generation units and/or storage units; confer also to. BESS units are, due to their very fast response behavior, especially well-suited for providing either fast frequency (and voltage) control reserves or synthetic rotational inertia for power system operation.


Another Warmist who is big on righteousness and very low on facts and information

The "expert" is basically just a silly old lady.  Is that the best the Greenies can do?  Apparently

Interviewed on the Catholic network, EWTN, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) climate expert Carol Andress is asked about the 18 year ‘pause in global warming’ by host Raymond Arroyo.  Some excerpts:

Arroyo: ‘Carol, some groups say the 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that they failed to recognize this pause in global warming. Is that an issue? Do they have a point? There’s been this sort of 18 year pause where, you don’t, it’s not warming up?’

Andress: ‘I can’t speak to that, I, the, yeh, uhh…’

Arroyo: ‘You can’t speak to that?’

Andress: ‘I can’t speak to that particular IPCC, uh…’

Arroyo: ‘Anomaly?’

Andress: ‘…Anomaly. Uh, the, I mean the fact is, you know, eh, the, uh, this is pretty basic physics, uh, what were talking about in terms of the gasses, uh, and the effect that they have on trapping heat, uh, the, eh, uh, it’s, an we, you know, the fact is, it’s common sense that if we’re going to be throwing at, be, if we’re going to be burning, eh, and putting unlimited pollution into the air, that eventually it’s going to have an impact.’ ....

Morano: I can speak to that. And there has been, according to the satellite data, 18 years 5 months currently with no global warming. If you look back at the ensemble of climate models  out of 117 — 114 models over predicted warming — predicted warming that did not occur. So the models have been failing.

Morano: In terms of the simple settled physics. we have had ice ages with CO2 five times higher than today. The geologic history of the earth contradicts these claims. Major UN scientists have not turned against the organization. Dr. Richard Tol, a lead UN author did a study and found the alleged 97% ‘consensus’ was pulled out of thin air.

Andress: Look, scientists are more certain about the human contribution to climate change than they are that smoking causes cancer. Now, are there still people who will maintain that smoking does not cause cancer? Sure, you can find those skeptics, they exist....

Morano: It’s offensive for her to mention tobacco. CO2 is a gas of life. It is not a pollutant under any definition of pollution. Let’s get that straight. And the United Nations and the IPCC scientists promoting this are handpicked by governments and the head of the UN climate panel had said they are at the back and call of governments.

And what do those governments want? They have an agenda. They openly say they want to redistribute wealth by climate policy. So they are using the science as a partisan political campaign effort for centralized government planning through the United Nations. It’s a self enrichment tool, self-interest tool and a way they can be in charge of the developing world’s development.


Big Brother Barges Into the Bathroom

When it comes to intrusive government, California is plunging to new depths, as Daniel Weintraub notes in the Sacramento Bee. “For Californians who fear big government, this might sound like the ultimate nightmare: An unelected board and its vast scientific bureaucracy is going to force us to pay more to wipe our butts.”

The “unelected board” is the California Air Resources Board (CARB) armed with the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which as Weintraub charitably puts it, “put a price on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions” to encourage industry and consumers “to use products that can be made with less harm to the environment.” Headed by unelected regulatory zealot Mary Nichols, CARB deploys onerous regulations that drive up the price of gasoline, a burden on the working poor and middle class. More recently, as Weintraub explains, “has studied the numbers on toilet paper’s contribution to climate change” and decided that the plant of Kimberly-Clark creates the fewest greenhouse gasses. Proctor & Gamble, the only other company that makes toilet paper in California, claimed that its product was better, so CARB attempted to recalculate its benchmark for “water absorbency.” But Kimberly-Clark cried foul and is trying to overturn the ruling.

Weintraub laments that simpler approaches such as a carbon tax or permit sale were not politically feasible. “So this is where we are today, with state officials sticking their noses in our bathrooms, studying the relative fluff and absorbency of toilet paper and assessing the damage each kind of tissue does to the environment.” This axis of bad legislation, unelected bureaucrats, and regulatory zealotry, as Weintraub says, will force us to pay more to wipe our butts.


Kerry Tells China: ‘Because of Climate Change in U.S. We Are Ending Any Funding’ of ‘Coal-Fired Power’

 At a joint press conference in Beijing yesterday with People’s Republic of China Foreign Minister Wang Yi, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said that the Obama administration intends to cooperate closely with the PRC leading into a U.N. climate conference in Paris in December and that the U.S. is “ending any funding” of coal-fired power projects.

President Barack Obama's fiscal 2016 budget proposal calls for increasing taxes on the coal industry by $4.252 billion from 2016-2025 while providing "refundable" tax credits to "renewable" energy projects such as solar and wind power facilities.

“There are three key meetings that we are all working on together to prepare for in order to build success,” said Kerry. “One is the Security and Economic Dialogue that will take place in June in Washington. Two is the summit between President Xi and President Obama to take place in September. And three is the global meeting that we are working on together regarding climate change in Paris in December.”

“The United States and China are also cooperating more closely than ever to address climate change, one of the greatest threats facing our planet today,” said Kerry. “Last fall, our respective presidents came together to announce our countries’ greenhouse gas commitments, the reductions, and we continue to call on other nations around the world to set their own ambitious targets. And we agreed this morning that as we get closer to the UN Climate Conference in Paris later this year, the United States and China, the world’s two largest greenhouse gas emitters, will elevate our cooperation and coordination so that we can reach the kind of global agreement that we will need to ultimately address this threat.”

“Because of climate change in the United States, we are ending any funding – public money – that funds coal-fired power projects because of their impact on the climate,” said Kerry. “And we encourage China and other countries to do the same.”

“We need to continue to strengthen our communication and coordination on climate change to jointly ensure the success of the upcoming climate conference in Paris later this year,” said the U.S. secretary of state. “Meanwhile, we need to also work together to advance our bilateral practical cooperation on climate change.”

The administration has announced number of initiatives in the past year to discourage the use of coal and the generation of electricity with coal.

Last June, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it was mandating that nationwide by 2030 carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants must be cut by 30 percent from 2005 levels.

In February, as reported by The Hill, the Obama administration announced that it was stopping a federally funded project called FutureGen 2.0 that was aimed at building a coal-fired power plant in Illinois that would capture its own carbon emissions and store them underground.

President Obama’s fiscal 2016 budget proposal calls for a $295 million tax increase on the coal industry next year, and $4.252 billion in higher taxes over the next ten years.

In a document published in February by the Treasury Department--"General Explanations of the Administration's Fiscal Year 2016 Revenue Proposals"--the administration argued that it is making these tax changes in pursuit of a “neutral” free market system.

“The president agreed at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels. The oil, gas, and coal tax preferences the administration proposes to repeal distort markets by encouraging more investment in the fossil fuel sector than would occur under a neutral system,” said the summary.

However, the same document says the administration favors “refundable” tax “credits” for “renewable” electricity sources in order to change the energy market in a way the government deems desirable. A “refundable” tax credit allows the government to make a payment to a company that did not pay any taxes that year.

“Production of renewable electricity and investment in property qualifying for the investment tax credit for energy property furthers the administration’s policy of supporting a clean energy economy, reducing our reliance on oil, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” says the summary. “The extension of incentives for production and investment contributes to the continued success of that policy. In addition, many renewable developers have insufficient income tax liability to claim the renewable electricity production tax credits and must enter into joint ventures or other financing transactions with other firms to take advantage of them. Making the production tax credit refundable would reduce transaction costs, thereby increasing the incentives for firms to produce clean renewable energy. Extending this policy permanently will provide certainty for business planning.”

A table at the end of the the Treasury's explanation of the administration's "revenue proposals" estimates the amount of tax “revenue” the administration hopes to raise by changing the taxes that apply to the coal industry. The table says that by repealing the “expensing of exploration and development costs,” the “percentage depletion for hard mineral fossil fuels,” “capital gains treatment for royalties,” and the “domestic manufacturing deduction for the production of coal and other hard mineral fossil fuels,” the Treasury would bring in $4.252 billion in revenue.


Obama has learnt nothing

At a press conference at Camp David on Thursday evening, after meeting with representatives from Arab countries in the Persian Gulf, President Barack Obama said that the world needs to transition off of fossil fuels in order to stop climate change and that he is working toward this end.

“But keep in mind that my approach when it comes to fracking, drilling, U.S. energy production of oil or natural gas has remained consistent throughout:  I believe that we are going to have to transition off of fossil fuels as a planet in order to prevent climate change,” said Obama. “I am working internationally to reduce our carbon emissions and to replace over time fossil fuels with clean energies.

“Obviously, we start at home with all the work that we’ve done to, for example, double the use of clean energy,” said the president. “But I think that it is important also to recognize that that is going to be a transition process. In the meantime, we are going to continue to be using fossil fuels. And when it can be done safely and appropriately, U.S. production of oil and natural gas is important."


Australia:  Some more Green/Left dishonesty

The screed below by diehard socialist Marg Gleeson (her pic below) is the sort that amuses me.  It displays the crookedness and addled thinking of the Left very well.  Just a few points:

She heads her article with the picture of  a mirror-driven solar furnace.  And what she says about it is true enough.  It's what she omits that is the killer.  The biggest such plant is the Ivanpah setup in California.  It fries birds at a great rate and is so inefficient and unprofitable that it asked last year for half a billion dollars grant from the Federal government in order to keep going. THAT is what Marg thinks is great!  More on Ivanpah here

And she says without embarrassment that "existing emissions have raised the global average surface temperature by less than 1°C." Such a rise is supposed to be bad?  I would have thought that it was trivial.  Her trick is that she does not say it took over a century to generate the rise concerned.  And there is no proof that the rise had anything to do with CO2.

Then she goes on to a bare-faced lie:  "This has already caused significant impacts: increases in frequency and intensity of weather events, such as fires, droughts, cyclones and floods."  Except that it hasn't.  If anything, extreme weather events have become LESS frequent in recent years.  No Category 3-5 hurricane has struck the United States for a record nine years, for instance.  She completely ignores all the statistics on that.  See here

Speaking of mines, she says: "This has brought much wealth to the Australian ruling class".  No mention that the biggest single destination for the money earned by the mines is the pockets of the workers who built and run the mines concerned. See here. Are they ruling class?  As a socialist, shouldn't she be celebrating the high pay earned by the mine-workers?

I could go on and fisk much more of this lying little article but, after looking at only the first four paragraphs, I think it is clear that there is nothing in it that anyone concerned with the facts should take notice of.  So I reproduce below only those paragraphs. The rest of the article can be accessed at the link for anyone who is curious but the quality does not improve in the rest of the article.  The old baggage is just another Leftist crook. She is good at regurgitating Green/Left boilerplate, nothing more.  Note that I give references for everything I say.  She gives none. I wonder why?

Government of dinosaurs will give Australia a 'fossilised economy'

The technology exists for Australia to immediately transition from fossil fuels to 100% renewable energy, such as solar thermal

Following a recent meeting of federal and state ministers with the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figures, the federal government announced that it will publish by mid-year the emissions target it will take to the Paris Climate Summit in November.

However, even if all the world's governments agree to limit future emissions to what would cause the global average surface temperature to rise by no more than 2°C from before industrialisation, it will not be enough to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Already existing emissions have raised the global average surface temperature by less than 1°C. This has already caused significant impacts: increases in frequency and intensity of weather events, such as fires, droughts, cyclones and floods. A safe level is to limit emissions to zero.

The Australian economy is heavily dependent on resource exports, including fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas. This has brought much wealth to the Australian ruling class and created a political culture where governments are beholden to the mineral and energy sectors.



For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here