Thursday, February 04, 2016

Wotta lotta bull...

England had a lot of flooding last year, caused mainly by neglect of flood defences during 13 years of Labour party rule.  But Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all below are determined to say it was all caused by global warming.  You immediately begin to wonder why they bother.  Since there has been no global warming for many years it can't have caused ANYTHING!  See the graph below

So the article is solid BS from beginning to end.  But it's just modelling anyway, which proves nothing.  Actual data were obviously too boring for them.

The sad thing is that some people have taken the trash seriously. One of Britain's Left-leaning papers has a big splash on it.  So the myths about the flooding will grow

Human influence on climate in the 2014 southern England winter floods and their impacts

By  Nathalie Schaller and many others


A succession of storms reaching southern England in the winter of 2013/2014 caused severe floods and £451 million insured losses. In a large ensemble of climate model simulations, we find that, as well as increasing the amount of moisture the atmosphere can hold, anthropogenic warming caused a small but significant increase in the number of January days with westerly flow, both of which increased extreme precipitation. Hydrological modelling indicates this increased extreme 30-day-average Thames river flows, and slightly increased daily peak flows, consistent with the understanding of the catchment’s sensitivity to longer-duration precipitation and changes in the role of snowmelt. Consequently, flood risk mapping shows a small increase in properties in the Thames catchment potentially at risk of riverine flooding, with a substantial range of uncertainty, demonstrating the importance of explicit modelling of impacts and relatively subtle changes in weather-related risks when quantifying present-day effects of human influence on climate.

Nature Climate Change. (2016).  doi:10.1038/nclimate2927

What global warming? Large parts of Earth expected to COOL over next five years

LARGE areas of the globe are set to cool over the next five years, according to weather forecasters.

In its latest five-year forecast, up to 2020, the Met Office has said the Antarctic ocean is expected to cool over the period.

The North Atlantic ocean is also likely to see a minor cooling - meaning lower temperatures in the USA, Europe and even north Africa.

The forecast, which is said to be its most accurate five-year prediction yet because it uses the same system as its short-term forecasts, also predicts that average global temperature rises will not reach the upper-most predictions accepted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The forecast said a trend of hottest years on record, including 2015, is likely to end next year.

But overall the Met Office said the trend would continue to be a gradual creeping upwards over a longer timespan, so the threat of climate change remains real.

A Met Office spokesman said: "There is some indication of continued cool conditions in the Southern Ocean and of relatively cool conditions in the north Atlantic.

"The latter is potentially important for climate impacts over Europe, America and Africa."

But he warned there would be slight increases in some areas, mainly in the very far northern latitudes.

He said: "Averaged over the five-year period 2016-2020, forecast patterns suggest enhanced warming over land, and at high northern latitudes.

"This forecast also suggests global temperatures over the next five years are likely to be well within, or even in the upper half, of the range of warming expected by the CMIP5 models, as used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

The forecast is an average rise of between 0.28C and 0.77C above the long-term average for 1981 to 2010.

Last year is currently the warmest year on record since the Met Office records dating back to 1850 began and 2015 was 0.44C above the 1981 to 2010 long-term average.

Doug Smith, an expert on decadal prediction at the Met Office Hadley Centre, said: "We expect the global average temperatures for 2016 are likely to be at least as warm as 2015 - a record-breaking year.

Considering the influence of the very strong El Niño, currently active in the Pacific, then 2016 could well be another record year.

"However, the run of consecutive record years for globally-averaged temperature may end in 2017, as the influence of the current El Niño ends, nevertheless high levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will continue to influence the climate and drive very warm years."

Warren Meyer is a climate change sceptic who has written a series of articles about how various climate change temperature rise models have been highly exaggerated.

He said he could not comment on the Met Office forecast without seeing the science behind it. But he said: "It would take years to get a model right. What is bad science is when they try to say a bad snow storm or other weather event is caused by climate change."

Mr Meyer says climate sceptics are largely misunderstood.  In an article setting out their general position, he said: "Few sceptics doubt or deny that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas or that it helps to warm the surface of the Earth. "Few sceptics deny that man is probably contributing to higher CO2 levels through his burning of fossil fuels.

"What skeptics deny is the catastrophe, the notion that man’s incremental contributions to CO2 levels will create catastrophic warming and wildly adverse climate changes."

He said he disputes the science behind the climate change argument that if the average temperature does top 1°C, it will trigger a positive feedback scenario that could see further rises of five to eight degrees within a relatively short time


Global warming too weak to be a theory

The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, not the Interscientific Panel on Climate Change. Although the Working Groups are composed and led by scientists, their final product is shaped by government apparatchiks. Considering how many column-inches newspapers devote to this topic, it is clear climate change moved a long time ago from scientific debate in peer-reviewed publications to political debate with strident voices.

But let’s back up a bit. The IPCC’s charter from the outset has been ”to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.” The IPCC (more accurately: the research community) is not looking significantly at natural variability causes, and given the full-court research press on human-induced factors, research monies are wanting in that area. The climate has always changed, and it has been both hotter and cooler in the past before the rise of mankind’s industry. It would be good to know why. Considering we are exiting from the Little Ice Age, it is not surprising things are warming.

The debate is the degree to which anthropogenic forces stack up against natural forces. That debate is far from settled. The significant slowdown over the last 18 years in global average temperature increases, despite over one-fifth of all human CO2 ever emitted going into the atmosphere, is fostering increasing doubt on the General Circulation Models (GCMs) used to underpin the IPCC conclusions.

This was noted in the final draft of the most recent Assessment Report (AR5) Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) of the IPCC:  “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10-15 years.” Unfortunately, when government representatives (vs. the scientists) released the final SPM, this language was removed.

Mr. Peterman goes on about the hypothesis of climate change (I would suggest the evidence is too weak to term it a theory) and Arrhenius. While the basic physics of the greenhouse effect are well understood, the modeled effect on the climate requires the introduction of feedback loops and amplification, notably water vapor.  Some of these feedbacks are poorly understood.  Consider the language by Working Group 1 of AR5: ”The assessed literature suggests that the range of climate sensitivities and transient responses covered by CMIP3/5 cannot be narrowed significantly by constraining the models with observations of the mean climate and variability, consistent with the difficulty of constraining the cloud feedbacks from observations. ”

Translation: despite significant expenditure of resources, we cannot further narrow climate sensitivities (that is, the change in temperature in response to various forcing factors) and still don’t understand clouds. In fact, scientists are unsure on whether the feedback from clouds is positive or negative.

The climate models are increasingly diverging from the observed temperature record; they fail the engineering test of usability through a lack of validation and verification. From an engineering perspective, models behaving this way would be in the dustbin. Instead, we have zealots that want to reshape the regulatory state and energy economy on the basis of such shabby models. Unbelievable.


Electric Vehicle Expectations Short Circuit

With the per-barrel cost of crude oil hovering below $35 and showing no signs of spiking, gasoline prices continue to drop. Today, the national average for a gallon of regular unleaded fuel is a remarkably low $1.79. The steady decline throughout 2015 no doubt propelled the auto market on its way to setting a new benchmark. Last month, the Associated Press reported that “U.S. auto sales hit a record high of 17.47 million in 2015, topping the old record of 17.35 million set in 2000.” The report added, “Analysts expect sales could go even higher this year as unemployment continues to decline and more young buyers enter the market.”

However, the outlook for the electric vehicle market is far less sublime. Recall this prediction from Barack Obama’s 2011 State of the Union address: “With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.” But with 2015 in the history books, the report card is rustier than a decades-old junk car. According to statistics provided by, a total of 411,120 plug-in electrified vehicles (PEV) have been purchased in the United States since 2008. Obama’s prediction would be right if he was talking globally — about 1.2 million PEVs have been sold worldwide — but he wasn’t, which means he only reached about 41% of his goal. In other words, good enough to earn an “F.” But who said anything about graded tests? This is government, after all.

The ironic thing is that both cheap gasoline and the struggling electric vehicle market are the result of failed policies. Instead of depending less on gasoline-powered vehicles, millions of Americans are buying them in droves despite Obama taking undeserved credit. And notes, “Last year the U.S. purchased 2.8 percent fewer PEVs than it did in 2014.” No wonder Tesla CEO Elon Musk says “the industry as a whole, I think, will definitely suffer from lower oil prices.” The trends are completely opposite what Obama said they would be. But he’ll gladly take credit for them anyway. Only in government is missing your goal by 59% considered a success.


How West Virginia Is Leading the Charge Against Obama’s Environmental ‘Power Grab’

CHARLESTON, W.Va.—The Mountain State has its back against the wall, and time is running out. Leading a coalition of more than two dozen coal states, West Virginia is asking the Supreme Court for an emergency stay of President Obama’s new regulations governing the coal industry.

West Virginia and 26 other states argue that the Environmental Protection Agency overstepped its authority by circumventing Congress to unilaterally implement the package of rules.

The EPA calls it the Clean Power Plan. The states call the move an unconstitutional “power grab” and complain that it will bankrupt their local coal industries.

But while they’re confident the law is on their side, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey says time is not. That’s why the states have asked the Supreme Court for an emergency stay to temporarily freeze the Clean Power Plan as the case moves through the legal system.

At issue is whether the EPA will be allowed to become “a central energy planning authority,” Morrisey said.

The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals last week agreed to hear the case on an expedited basis but declined to halt the EPA from implementing the new rules. And while oral arguments are set to begin in June, the battle likely will drag on into next year.

That’s the perfect scenario for the EPA to run out the clock, Morrisey says.

“The EPA’s goal is to obtain compliance,” he tells The Daily Signal, “whether or not the regulation is upheld in court.”

In an unusual legal play at this stage of the litigation process, the states asked Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to grant the freeze in the rules. The court has invited the Obama administration to file a rebuttal by Feb. 4 and likely will hand down a decision the following week.

Morrissey says he is cautiously optimistic that the high court will grant a stay.

“The EPA has consistently run roughshod over the rule of law and West Virginia,” Morrisey says.

And he says he is confident a temporary freeze is justified since the Clean Power Plan “is causing irreversible harm.”

States are scrambling to comply with the plan, which is considered a key component of Obama’s broader effort to achieve climate change goals negotiated in Paris last year.

The president calls the Clean Power Plan “a tremendously important step in the fight against global climate change.” Vetoing a bill from Congress that would have derailed the plan last month, Obama wrote that the measure “gives states the time and flexibility they need to develop tailored, cost-effective plans to reduce their emissions.”

The regulations require states to cut carbon emissions by 32 percent before 2030  and give them until Sept. 6 to submit implementation plans to do it.

Opponents in West Virginia fear that costly regulation will price coal out of the energy market. They point to a recent study by the West Virginia College’s Bureau of Business and Economics that forecasts an 18-percent reduction in the state’s coal production by 2035.

Brian Lego, an assistant research professor at the college, tells The Daily Signal that the production decrease could be as much as 25 percent in the long run. And as businesses brace for the new regulation, Lego predicts that West Virginia will witness more layoffs of coal miners and more shutdowns of mines.

So far this year, the state has seen an avalanche of layoffs. The West Virginia Coal Association estimates that as many as 2,000 miners were put out of work in January.

The CEO of one of the nation’s largest coal producers, Murray Energy, tells The Daily Signal that’s part of a growing trend.

Bob Murray says his company “peaked at 8,400 direct employees on May 1, 2015.” Now his company’s payroll has dwindled to about 6,000.

Murray, whose company is one of the litigants requesting that the Supreme Court put a hold on the Clean Power Plan, says that under the new regulations, “people on fixed income aren’t going to be able to pay their electric bills.”

And domestic manufacturers, he says, “won’t be able to compete in the global market because electric rates are soaring.”

In addition to this “economic and personal carnage,” Morrisey told the West Virginia Coal Symposium last week that the Clean Power Plan does “violence to the rule of law.” He also argues that “these rules will transform the EPA from environmental regulators into a central energy planning authority.”

West Virginia’s first Republican attorney general in 73 years, Morrisey has brought the state to the forefront of several legal cases against the Obama administration. But he tells The Daily Signal the current challenge could prove the most significant.

The EPA is trying to “pick winners and losers within the energy marketplace,” he says, warning that if this “unprecedented” action isn’t curbed, the agency’s authority “moves to levels we can’t possibly comprehend.”


A battery for the home comes to Australia

And it ONLY costs $12,000.00 -- so is not for the average Joe.   It would appear to be a modified version of Tesla's car battery so is not new technology.  Lithium-ion batteries are common in consumer electronics.

The Powerwall, a lithium-ion battery system designed to store electricity generated from rooftop solar panels, is widely considered to be a game-changer for the electricity industry. 7.30 has asked consumer group Choice to crunch the numbers. Here's what they found.

While the concept of a home battery storage system is not new to Australians, the Tesla Powerwall unit has been highly anticipated.

The Powerwall is a 7 kilowatt hour (kWh) lithium-ion-battery system that stores electricity generated from rooftop solar panels (or PV panels) during the day so that electricity can be used at night during the peak-usage times.

The system has attracted a cult-like following in recent months after the announcement that Australia would be one of the first countries to have access to it.

The first installations of the Tesla Powerwall are now underway and have a 10-year warranty period.

How does it work?

The battery has a daily cycle, meaning it is designed to charge and discharge each day.

The efficiency of the battery is 92 per cent, so although it has a 7kWh capacity, the Powerwall's working capacity is more like 6.4kWh.

Tesla also has a 10kWh weekly cycle version intended for back-up applications, but it is the 7kWh version you will see in most home installations.

People who already have solar panels will be able to use their own power rather than exporting it to "the grid" — the energy distribution network that carries electricity from power stations to homes and businesses.

One of the Australian providers of the Powerwall, Natural Solar, says that there are only two inverters currently on the market which are compatible with the Powerwall, so most existing solar panel owners will need to obtain a new inverter.

If you do not already have solar panels, the Powerwall can be purchased as part of a complete system that includes solar panels and an inverter.

You will need a solar array large enough to power both your home and charge the Powerwall — for most homes that would mean at least a 4kWh array.

How much does it cost?

If you already have solar panels, the Powerwall and a compatible inverter will cost you between $12,000 and $12,500 depending on which inverter you choose.

Energy companies are selling Powerwall packages for between $13,990 and $16,500 (GST inclusive) and with consideration to rebates for small-scale technology certificates (STCs).

Is the Powerwall big enough to take my house off the grid?

It depends on your energy needs and the number of people in living in your household, but a 7kWh battery is not going to be enough to make most households independent of the electricity grid.

It is possible to install two or more battery units to increase your storage capacity.



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


No comments: