Sunday, October 07, 2018

The climate prophets finally get some modelling right -- but it says the opposite of what Warmists want!

Two Harvard scientists have just done the most careful modelling yet of what effects wind turbines have.  They find that, for the next century, wind turbines will INCREASE warming rather than decrease it.

And here's the really exceptional bit:  Their models agree with observations -- an unprecedented event in global warming literature. It means that you can make reasonably accurate predictions from their models -- unlike the chaff that comes from other modelling.

So what are Warmists saying about the study?  You guessed it: Warmists of course hate the conclusions so say the modelling is no good.  It would be interesting to see them do better.

Highlights and abstract below:

Climatic Impacts of Wind Power

Lee M.Miller & David W.Keith


* Wind power reduces emissions while causing climatic impacts such as warmer temperatures
* Warming effect strongest at night when temperatures increase with height
* Nighttime warming effect observed at 28 operational US wind farms
* Wind's warming can exceed avoided warming from reduced emissions for a century


We find that generating today's US electricity demand (0.5 TW e) with wind power would warm Continental US surface temperatures by 0.24°C. Warming arises, in part, from turbines redistributing heat by mixing the boundary layer. Modeled diurnal and seasonal temperature differences are roughly consistent with recent observations of warming at wind farms, reflecting a coherent mechanistic understanding for how wind turbines alter climate. The warming effect is: small compared with projections of 21st century warming, approximately equivalent to the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing global electricity generation, and large compared with the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing US electricity with wind. For the same generation rate, the climatic impacts from solar photovoltaic systems are about ten times smaller than wind systems. Wind's overall environmental impacts are surely less than fossil energy. Yet, as the energy system is decarbonized, decisions between wind and solar should be informed by estimates of their climate impacts.


The reason why electric cars will always be expensive

ELECTRIC vehicles will always be more costly than fuel-burners, according to a senior BMW executive. “No, no, no,” is Klaus Frölich’s reply when asked if EVs will ever equal the prices of equivalent conventional cars. “Never.”

Batteries are the problem, explains the 58-year-old BMW board member in charge of development. Lithium-ion cells that can store the standard 1 kWh unit of electrical energy cost $170 to $250 (€100 to €150).

“It’s very simple,” says Frölich. In EVs with 90 to 100kWh battery packs, the cell cost alone will be $17,000 to $25,000. “You can produce whole cars, only with the cost of the battery,” he adds.

And Frölich doesn’t believe that when lithium-ion batteries for EVs are being produced in huge number that their cost will fall. Some of the metals used to make them will instead become more expensive, he predicts.

“When everybody wants to have cobalt, the prices of cobalt will not go down, they will go up,” Frölich predicts. Cobalt is an essential ingredient of lithium-ion battery cells.

BMW, which plans to rapidly expand the number of pure battery power EVs and plug-in hybrids in its line-up over the next few years, is working to secure low prices for cobalt out until 2030. “We are the only ones who are doing that,” Frölich claims.

“So, it’s a nightmare that an electrified vehicle will cost the same as a combustion-engined car.”


Lies Wrapped In Deception Smothered With Delusion

Dr Tim Ball

Technocrats have darkened hearts just like everyone else, but they soon discovered how to use the mantra of ‘science’ to trick and deceive.

The Washington swamp displayed all its corruption skills with lies, deceptions, misrepresentations, and deliberate creation of deceit, during the Kavanaugh hearings.

We watched Senator Blumenthal, who lied about serving in Vietnam when he never left the United States, remind Judge Kavanaugh of a legal maxim “Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus,” false in one thing, false in everything.

The only difference between these and previous similar tactics was boldness – the corrupt elite was forced to show their hand more than normal. There are few silver linings to this cloud because if it succeeds, it is the end of America. Everything they did and said undermines core values of a civilized society, correctly and uniquely identified as American exceptionalism.

One sliver of silver lining is in the level of corruption exposed. Now it is easier for people to grasp the extent of corruption on the greatest deception in history, human-caused global warming (AGW). It is easier now to get them to understand that the left will do anything to achieve their goal.

The significant differences between AGW and the Kavanaugh debacle were time and extent. The AGW deception has evolved slowly and insidiously since the late 1960s. It began as the objective of David Rockefeller’s Club of Rome’s (COR) to control energy and thereby political power. It is just as corrupting and devastating an attack on American exceptionalism but worse because it is global. The COR say they are

 “a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity.“

Compare this claim with H. L. Mencken’s observation that,

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”

America was seen as the greatest threat to their objective, so it became a major target, but it was still only a part of the global control.

COR member Maurice Strong took the urge to rule to the UN where he put it into action. After spending five days with Strong at the UN, Elaine Dewar summarized his goal in her book Cloak of Green.

Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.

He did this by creating the bureaucratic monster known as Agenda 21 and creating the science to support it through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Like all deceptions, there are lies within lies and deceptions within deceptions. Even the selection of terminology and words was deliberately planned to deceive. For example, the Earth’s atmosphere does not work like a greenhouse.

The analogy was only valuable because it automatically triggers the concept of heat for the public. The deceivers knew this type of misrepresentation worked because the same people created the term “holes-in-the-ozone.” They knew there were no holes, but the term implied a leak, a break in the atmosphere, with all the “Chicken Little” the sky is falling fears that engenders.

The next example was the word skeptic, which as Michael Shermer explained.

“Scientists are skeptics. It’s unfortunate that the word ‘skeptic’ has taken on other connotations in the culture involving nihilism and cynicism. Really, in its pure and original meaning, it’s just thoughtful inquiry.”

After 1998 the evidence did not fit the AGW theory anymore so by 2004 they changed it from the global warming theory to the climate change theory. They also changed the slur from skeptics to deniers, with its holocaust connotations. They ignored the fact that these scientists do nothing but educate people to the amount and extent of natural climate change.

The most effective deception was the claim that 97% of scientists agree. It is as false as the whole claim and was also deliberately created. It was a major part of the confusion created and exploited by the difference in meaning of words between different segments of society. It is why Voltaire said,

“If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.”

That sounds arrogant and condescending, but it is essential for any chance of accurate understanding.

RealClimate was the website created to manipulate the global warming story. Most of the people involved with its creation were members of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the IPCC. The need for a propaganda vehicle was revealed in November 2009 when thousands of emails were leaked (Climategate) and exposed their tactics and activities.  A book by Mosher and Fuller listed some of them.

Actively worked to evade Freedom of Information requests, deleting emails, documents, and even climate data.
Tried to corrupt the peer-review principles that are the mainstay of modern science, reviewing each other’s work, sabotaging efforts of opponents trying to publish their own work, and threatening editors of journals who didn’t bow to their demands
Changed the shape of their own data in materials shown to politicians charged with changing the shape of our world.
RealClimate explained on 22 December 2004 why they started to use the word consensus. It illustrates how political it was and how they knew it didn’t apply to science, but the goal was deception.

We’ve used the term “consensus” here a bit recently without ever really defining what we mean by it. In normal practice, there is no great need to define it – no science depends on it. But it’s useful to record the core that most scientists agree on, for public presentation. The consensus that exists is that of the IPCC reports, in particular the working group I report (there are three WG’s. By “IPCC”, people tend to mean WG I).

In short, we agree therefore there is a consensus.

The academic source of the 97% claim came from John Cook et al., in 2013 under the titled “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.”  Lord Monckton dissected the claim in his comment titled, “0.3% consensus, not 97.1%.”  He explains how the authors took divided 11,944 abstracts of articles into three categories using their own definitions. Monckton used,

The authors’ own data file categorized 64 abstracts, or only 0.5% of the sample, as endorsing the consensus hypothesis as thus defined. Inspection shows only 41 of the 64, or 0.3% of the entire sample, actually endorsed their hypothesis.

The penultimate comment comes from Harvard graduate, medical doctor, and world-famous science fiction writer, Michael Crichton.

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

The ultimate comment comes from Albert Einstein.

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right: a single experiment can prove me wrong.

The bias and corruption was fully revealed in the Kavanaugh debacle. It was so extreme that it made exposure of their methods and tactics clear to people who found them hard to believe. Now, it is easier for them to grasp the AGW deception.


Einhorn on Tesla: 'Like Lehman, we think the deception is about to catch up'

Hedge fund manager David Einhorn is blasting Tesla again. The investor compared the electric car maker to his most famous and prescient bearish call on Lehman Brothers.

"Like Lehman, we think the deception is about to catch up to TSLA," Einhorn said in an investor letter Friday. "Lehman threatened short sellers, refused to raise capital (it even bought back stock), and management publicly suggested it would go private. Months later, shareholders, creditors, employees and the global economy paid a big price when management's reckless behavior led to bankruptcy."

In May 2008, just a few months before Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy during the heart of the financial crisis, Einhorn said at the Ira W. Sohn Investment Research Conference that the investment bank was a risk to the financial system and questioned its accounting. He confirmed his firm Greenlight Capital was short Lehman during that speech.

Shares of Tesla, which were already down Friday in light of CEO Elon Musk's tweets mocking the Securities and Exchange Commission, dropped following news of Einhorn's letter and closed down 7.1 percent.

Musk has taunted short sellers including Einhorn in the past on social media.

Einhorn said like Lehman, Musk has "bluffed" about the company's financial position.

"There are many parallels to TSLA. In 2013, TSLA was on the brink of failure. ... TSLA's cash reserves fell to a dangerously low level and CEO Elon Musk secretly and desperately tried to sell the company," he said. "Rather than communicating the truth to shareholders, Mr. Musk bluffed his way through the crisis."

Einhorn said his fund's Tesla short was the second-biggest winner during the third quarter. The investor has repeatedly criticized the electric car maker as part of his bets against overvalued technology companies, which he calls the "bubble basket."

The hedge fund manager predicts Tesla will report a "large revenue and earnings disappointment" for its fourth quarter.

Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment.




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: