Friday, July 19, 2013

Models based on planetary and solar changes predict climate  better than the Warmist CO2 models

New paper by Scafetta, N., "Solar and planetary oscillation control on climate change".  It's a bit reminiscent of the old epicycles but does serve to highlight the potential explanatory role of celestial factors


Global surface temperature records (e.g. HadCRUT4) since 1850 are characterized by climatic oscillations synchronous with specific solar, planetary and lunar harmonics superimposed on a background warming modulation. The latter is related to a long millennial solar oscillation and to changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere (e.g. aerosol and greenhouse gases). However, current general circulation climate models, e.g. the CMIP5 GCMs, to be used in the AR5 IPCC Report in 2013, fail to reconstruct the observed climatic oscillations. As an alternate, an empirical model is proposed that uses: (1) a specific set of decadal, multidecadal, secular and millennial astronomic harmonics to simulate the observed climatic oscillations; (2) a 0.45 attenuation of the GCM ensemble mean simulations to model the anthropogenic and volcano forcing effects. The proposed empirical model outperforms the GCMs by better hindcasting the observed 1850-2012 climatic patterns. It is found that: (1) about 50- 60% of the warming observed since 1850 and since 1970 was induced by natural oscillations likely resulting from harmonic astronomical forcings that are not yet included in the GCMs; (2) a 2000-2040 approximately steady projected temperature; (3) a 2000-2100 projected warming ranging between 0.3 oC and 1.6 oC , which is significantly lower than the IPCC GCM ensemble mean projected warming of 1.1 oC to 4.1 oC ; (4) an equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling centered in 1.35 oC and varying between 0.9 oC and 2.0 oC.

Energy & Environment: special volume ‘Mechanisms of Climate Change and the AGW  Concept: a critical review’. Vol. 24 (3&4)

Another crooked Warmist

Fraudulent graph promoted by award-winning climate hoax communicator Gavin Schmidt

Writing on twitter, Schmidt links to several graphs which are basic examples of chartmanship:  You can make even tiny changes in something look like a steep rise just by using tiny increments in the vertical  axis of a graph.  It is very deceptive but Warmists do it routinely and Schmidt is no exception.

The graph below is more bizarre than that, however,  To pick a small point first, the idea that 2,000 years ago was in prehistory rather ignores Greek and Roman civilization.  Did I imagine my readings of Thucydides, Herodotus, Tacitus, Caesar etc.?

The major point however is that the graph resembles no known empirical reconstruction.  It is totally made up.


The potential new American century

By Rick Manning

Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan/Chase Manhattan Bank said it, and it just may be worth listening to, “We’ve got a world-trade flush,” he quipped.

“We don’t have a divine right to success. But we have an unbelievable hand. If we play it well, and now we’ve got natural gas and shale oil, we have a gift from God here. America’s going to come back, and it’s going to blow people’s socks off when it does.”

Dimon is no right-wing radical, in fact he is a lifelong Democrat who has been a major contributor to Democrat candidates and was a White House favorite during the early years of the Obama presidency.

Yet, Dimon’s quote sounds like the boundless optimism of the most passionate salesman trying to sell his first set of encyclopedias.

Why exactly is the leader of one of the world’s most influential banks so bullish on the U.S. economy?  Incredibly it has nothing to do with predictions about the latest action by the Federal Reserve or other currency manipulations.  Instead, it has to do with America being poised for fundamental economic transformation due to actual real wealth creation through rapidly increasing natural gas and shale oil production.

Oil and natural gas production in places like the state of North Dakota where the economy grew at a more than 9 percent clip last year.  Many are surprised to learn that North Dakota is now the second largest domestic oil producer in the United States surpassing California and Alaska over the past couple of years.

Dimon knows that the west Texas oil fields have been revitalized and revived with the use of the hydraulic fracturing technique accelerating oil and natural gas production dramatically in this region that was once thought to be pretty much played out.

Also, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that in 2012, $313 billion of our nation’s $540 billion trade deficit came from imported petroleum-related products including oil and natural gas.  Perhaps Dimon’s enthusiasm for the future is because he knows that with new techniques to access shale oil and natural gas that are becoming more efficient every year, the energy-related trade deficit will be heading significantly lower as America becomes more and more energy independent over the next few years.

Or maybe he is just excited because he knows that manufacturing CEOs around the globe are now looking at the United States as a prime location for new facility locations due to the projected less expensive energy costs due to the coming oil and natural gas boom.  These new facilities mean real job growth, higher wages and lower costs for American made goods, all because of domestic energy development.

Dimon might even be smiling about the incredible potential California miracle where environmentalists in Sacramento suffered a rare defeat in their attempt to put a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing.  With projections showing four times the shale oil available in the once-Golden State than even the North Dakota fields are predicted to possess, California has a chance to get back on its feet if the green lobby continues to be kept at bay.

Incredibly, the increases in lower cost natural gas and shale oil due to hydraulic fracturing even are being credited with lowering the energy-related carbon dioxide emissions across the nation as they have dropped precipitously since 2007.

The most likely reason for Dimon’s excitement is an aggregate of these facts and more.  Growing North American energy supplies are the game changer for rebuilding our nation’s industrial sector and the good jobs it creates, and as a banker/investor, he is probably most looking forward to lending the money to energy production businesses and those that thrive due to lower energy costs to make the transformation happen.

Jamie Dimon knows that God-given energy profitably extracted by very smart and ingenious entrepreneurs has the potential for creating a new American century — a 21st Century where free markets create lower utility costs, more jobs and the hope and belief that our children will again look forward to a prosperous future. That is, if only Americans are willing to reject the professional green lobby to grasp it.


Town gas prices in Britain could fall by a quarter with shale drilling, Government advisers say

Gas prices could fall by a quarter and help bring down household energy bills if Britain exploits its shale gas reserves, a report commissioned by Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, suggests.

The study by Navigant Consulting backs up David Cameron's claim that shale gas drilling could help cut the cost of living for families struggling with average bills of more than £1,300 per year.

However, it contrasts with the claims of Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, that shale gas is "unlikely" to bring down household bills. He has said higher gas prices are probable regardless of the discovery of Britain's shale reserves and used this argument to justify spending billions on wind farms and nuclear power stations.

This week, Mr Davey criticised NPower, an gas and electricity company, for saying that green energy would be a major factor behind rising bills, criticising their "weird" assumption that gas prices would fall.

However, the new study published today by his own department found gas prices may actually drop by 12 per cent by 2020 even if Britain does not pursue its shale resources.

In Navigant's "base case" of "limited" shale exploration in Britain and Europe, Navigant said it expects the gas price to fall because of lower oil prices and America producing larger amounts of unconventional gas for export. The price would still be lower than it is today in 2030.

In an optimistic scenario of high shale production in Britain and Europe, the price would fall 27 per cent, because of a "combination of local gas with falling production costs" and "readily available" imports.

In only one "pessimistic" scenario, Navigant said gas prices would go up by 16 per cent over the next two decades. This would be caused by some sort of "political limitation" on the availability of imports or "US gas production declining before current expectations".

"In two out of three of our scenarios we predict a fall in prices from current levels quite soon," the report said.

Companies are currently in the very early stages of drilling for shale gas in Britain but local opposition could stop widespread exploration in the countryside.

No-one yet knows how much - if any - can be recovered by fracking, the controversial process of blasting water, sand and chemicals into the ground to release the gas.

However, estimates suggest northern England could provide enough shale gas to meet the UK's needs for more than four decades.

This week, Mr Cameron gave some of his strongest ever comments in favour of shale gas.

"In America they are now almost self-sufficient in gas," he said. "Their gas prices to business are now less then half as much as ours are and the reason for this is they have put a lot of investment into unconventional gas.

"The figures are actually quite frightening. Europe as a whole has 75 per cent as much unconventional gas as America. So we’ve got less in Europe as America.

"But whereas they are digging 10,000 wells a year, so far in Europe we’ve dug just 100. So we are way behind, so I’m in favour of fracking, the government is making it easier."

Following the new Navigant figures, a spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said officials are relying on their own "robust" figures that predict gas prices will rise.

“Forecasting gas prices far into the future is extremely challenging so DECC uses a number of independent reports to produce our assumptions," the spokesman said.

“Most analysts project global gas prices will remain firm in the longer term. This is because of the uncertainties of liquid natural gas availability and in predicting unconventional gas potential, combined with rising global gas demand."




PEOPLE cheer Kevin Rudd because they cannot believe a Prime Minister would trick them so brazenly.  But never has Mr Rudd - a genius at seeming, a disaster at doing - been as brazen as he was this week.

No, he did not "terminate" Labor's carbon tax.

No, his planned emissions trading scheme cannot start next year - or not without spending billions he does not have to buy off the hostile Greens.

No, it won't save families $380 each year.

No, your electricity bills might in fact soar, not fall.

In fact, Mr Rudd will be the second Labor Prime Minister to go to an election promising "there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead".

If re-elected he will be the second Labor Prime Minister to claim "changed circumstances" made him break his solemn word.

On Tuesday, Mr Rudd made the following false claims, or almost certainly undeliverable promises in announcing he'd move to an emissions trading scheme one year earlier than Labor planned:

"The Government has decided to terminate the carbon tax ... From July 1 next year Australia will move to an emissions trading scheme ...

"The modelling from Treasury shows that in the financial year 2014-15 an average family will receive a cost of living relief to the value of $380 per year ...

"We expect the change that we are bringing in will see the price on carbon fall from an expected $25.40 a tonne by next July to around $6 a tonne."

Not one of those claims can be trusted. Some are outright fabrications. Here are the facts.

First, it is very unlikely Mr Rudd could get his plan through Parliament in time, because the Senate, in which Labor can be out-voted by the Coalition with the Greens, stays until June 30 next year.

The Coalition is against this switch to an emissions trading system, in which the European Commission effectively sets our carbon price by manipulating its market in permits to emit carbon dioxide.

Europe's price is now an unusually low $6, but European politicians plan to ramp it up.

The Greens are opposed for different reasons. For one, they don't want the carbon price to fall by as much as Labor promises.

"The Greens do not support making it cheaper for the big polluters to pollute," Greens leader Christine Milne said.

IF the Coalition sticks to its guns, Mr Rudd's plan is dead - unless it can bribe the Greens with billions of dollars of more dud green schemes just like the ones Mr Rudd says he needs to cut.

Second, Mr Rudd is dead wrong in claiming his change would save families $380 "per year", as he stated five times on Tuesday. In fact, he is merely bringing forward by one year Labor's planned switch to emissions trading, so any savings are also for just one year, as Treasurer Chris Bowen tried to point out to him: "It is a one-year figure based on the Treasury's view of the carbon price."

Third, Mr Rudd's claim of $380 in savings for each family is a wild exaggeration at best.

That figure assumes that our carbon price will next year drop to the $6 set by Europe's trading system today.

But the European Commission this month voted to increase that $6 price, with analysts at Point Carbon expecting it to perhaps double in the near future. Add the likely depreciation of the Australian dollar, and half Mr Rudd's $380 in claimed savings could be wiped out.

In fact, in a few years we might not be saving but instead spending a lot, lot more.

Deputy Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on 2GB this week not only conceded the obvious - that the price set by Europe could well rise - but refused to rule out it rising to a level much higher than our carbon tax today.

Indeed, the Government's own Budget, released just two months ago, worked on a "modelled price of $38 at 2019-20" - which the Government needs to pay for its hugely expensive disability scheme and Gonski education changes.

People with short memories may find it unbelievable that a Prime Minister could tell them such untruths with such moral conviction.

But Mr Rudd has long traded on seeming something he is not. He is a genius at seeming to fix what he's actually broken, like border laws.

And here he is again, pretending to fix a tax that pretended to stop a global warming Mr Rudd pretends is dangerous, even though it's now paused for more than 15 years.

Pretending, too, that he'll save you money when he's costing you a fortune.

The King of Seeming in an Age of Seeming. Not worse than Julia Gillard, but a greater indictment of Australia and our times.


EPA Disputes Predictions That Ethanol Regulations Will Increase Gas Prices 30% by 2015

 Gas prices will increase about $1 per gallon by 2015 and take a $550 billion bite out of Americans’ take-home pay when the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) increases the ethanol mandate past the 10 percent “blend wall,” according to an October 2012 study by the National Economic Research Associates (NERA), commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute (API). (See NERA study.pdf)

The API launched an advertising campaign this week called “Fuel for Thought” to repeal the RFS regulations. The ads read: “The higher ethanol mandate could damage your engine. And void your warranty. Your engine won’t like it, but your mechanic will.” (See  Fuel for Thought.pdf)

API Downstream Group Director Bob Greco said during a Monday press conference that the organization is pushing the White House and Congress for the elimination of RFS regulations, and supports Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s (R-Va..) bill, “The Renewable Fuel Standard Elimination Act” (H.R. 3098).

But EPA disputed NERA’s findings. In a statement to, the agency claimed that the ethanol regulations will have “little net effect on retail fuel prices.”

The RFS regulations require a gradual increase in the percentage of ethanol that must be blended into fuel. In 2015, the mandate exceeds 10 percent ethanol, which is the maximum concentration the majority of conventional cars can handle without damage to their engines.

The NERA study found that under the latest regulations, gas prices will increase 30 percent from their current average of $3.64 per gallon, and diesel fuel prices will increase 300 percent by 2015. The study, “Economic Impacts Resulting from Implementation of the RFS2 Program,” estimates that higher fuel costs will cause a $770 billion decrease in the nation’s Gross Domestic Product.

Each gallon of renewable fuel is accompanied by a Renewable Identification Number (RIN), which serves as a tracking number and permit to produce the fuel. NERA predicted that as the ethanol blending increases above 10 percent, the costs of RINs will skyrocket, helping to cause the predicted rise in fuel prices.

That has already happened. “Renewable Identification Number credits, or RINS, that companies purchase in order to comply with the mandates have increased in price by 10-fold this year, hovering near all-time highs. This is a good indication that we’re hitting the blend wall, and consumers could start feeling the impacts soon,” Greco said Monday.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) agreed that the price of RINs have increased dramatically, noting a “nine-fold increase” in 2013.

“It is unclear what is driving the increase, but concerns over the blend wall and a reduction in output from U.S. ethanol producers in the first quarter have increased concerns that the RFS mandates will be binding in 2013 or 2014 and that there will be a scarcity of RINs,” CRS said in a March 2013 report to Congress.

CRS added  that “if a large portion of any increased RFS is met using ethanol, then the United States likely does not have the vehicles to consume the fuel. The 10 percent blend wall on ethanol in gasoline for conventional vehicles poses a significant barrier to expanding ethanol consumption beyond 14 billion gallons per year.”

EPA responded by saying that it is “aware of studies that have attempted to quantify the retail price impacts of RINs in 2013, with most estimates showing a fairly small impact.

“A number of factors can influence RIN prices including the price of oil; the price of feedstocks, such as corn for ethanol, and the supply and demand of RINs. Retail prices for fuel are the result of many factors, including the price of crude oil, the costs of refining, taxes, and various other factors. There is not a direct relationship between the price of a RIN and the retail price of fuel.  The value of RINs is shifted among market participants – blenders, refiners, renewable fuel producers – and in many cases there will be little net effect on retail fuel prices.”

“Ethanol levels in gasoline are strictly regulated to ensure that the right vehicles run on the right fuel.  EPA granted two partial waivers that taken together allow, but do not require, the sale of gasoline that contains up to 15 volume percent ethanol (E15) for use in model year 2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles. These decisions were based on extensive vehicle testing conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy and other test data and information regarding the potential effect of E15 on vehicle emissions.

“E15 may be lawfully sold only after the manufacturer has registered the fuel and met the conditions of the partial waivers. This includes labeling requirements and a misfueling mitigation plan to help minimize the potential for use in vehicles not covered by the partial waivers,” the agency noted.

A fall 2012 survey by the American Automobile Association (AAA) found that 12 million out of 240 million light-duty vehicles currently on the road today are approved by manufacturers to use E15.

“Five manufacturers stated their warranties would not cover fuel-related claims caused by E15, and eight additional manufacturers stated that E15 did not comply with fuel requirements in owners’ manuals and may void warranty coverage,” AAA said a Feb. 26 press release.

“AAA is not opposed to ethanol, but we are against the way E15 has been introduced and sold to consumers. We welcome the committee’s support today as AAA calls for additional impartial research and for regulators and industry to suspend the sale of E15 gasoline until motorists are properly educated and protected,” AAA President and CEO Robert Darbelnet said at the time.

API says the adverse economic effects of E15 regulations don’t end with higher fuel prices. Costs for finished goods and services will increase as well, leaving consumers with less money to spend, resulting in lowered consumption. With lower demand, the need for workers also drops, which will increase unemployment.

The Renewable Fuel Standard regulations began in 2005 under the Energy Policy Act. In 2007, it was expanded to include the ethanol blending mandate under the Energy Independence and Security Act.

“[RFS] lays the foundation for achieving significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions from the use of renewable fuels, for reducing imported petroleum, and encouraging the development and expansion of our nation's renewable fuels sector,” according to the EPA’s website.

The RFS requires the ethanol blend must be 10 percent in 2013. “Increasing ethanol blends to E15 for use in millions of cars currently on the road “could damage vehicles, void engine warranties, and damage gasoline station infrastructure. E85 remains a specialty fuel, with low consumer demand, and infrastructure investments from gas station owners would be required to expand distribution,” according to the API website.




Preserving the graphics:  Graphics hotlinked to this site sometimes have only a short life and if I host graphics with blogspot, the graphics sometimes get shrunk down to illegibility.  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: