JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Panic! 2014 hottest year ever (Not so fast, say the satellites)

What’s almost as good as an actual record? A could-be-a-record Headline!

“2014 could become the hottest year on record” – said CBS, The Guardian, Time, Washington Post, Discover Magazine, The Japan News, Wired, and 319 other outlets.

 None of the investigative hardened editors or science reporters knew enough to ask the question, “what do the satellites say?” Which would have been interesting because the satellites say “bollocks”. h/t SPPI

On his site, Dr Roy Spencer explains that 2014 won’t be the warmest year on record. Satellites track almost all of the Earth for 24 hours a day and the data shows that we don’t need to go back to the Medieval Warm Period to find a hotter year, just back to 2010.

….

It might be the hottest year if you live in a white louvered box above a carpark, next to a concrete-heat-sink-superstructure, and not far from a runway. Though even then you might need to be homogenized and adjusted to really feel the heat. But for the rest of the surface of the Earth, 2010 is not a record, not even close.

It’s all pretty pointless anyway Roy points out — we’re arguing over a hundredth of a degree.

See Roy’s great blog

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (78 votes cast)
Panic! 2014 hottest year ever (Not so fast, say the satellites), 9.3 out of 10 based on 78 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/kctbzyv

205 comments to Panic! 2014 hottest year ever (Not so fast, say the satellites)

  • #

    “Could” give or take an Iceland eruption being mixed in with the 5 big quakes a day.
    http://en.vedur.is/earthquakes-and-volcanism/earthquakes/

    “Could” give or take a “Kill shot” “Carrington” solar flare being mixed in with the five a day.
    http://www.ips.gov.au/Solar/1/8

    “Could” give or take 500 000 extra square kilometers of high albedo.
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

    Could not if the louvered boxes were correctly homogenised with the satellite record instead of imagination x someplace irrelevant.

    140

    • #

      If the temperature drop here of the last few weeks continues, it could be as cold as the south pole by Christmas. It was almost 100 degrees F only last week. Now it has dropped by over 40 degrees F. At 40 degrees per week for eight weeks, the temperature will be more than 100 degrees F below zero. This on the central coast of California. Why, it’s … it’s … shall I say it? It’s unprecedented.

      Did I neglected to mention the fact that the 100 degree level was at roughly 1 O’clock in the afternoon and the 54 degree level is at roughly 1 O’clock in the middle of the night? That shouldn’t cause a problem should it? After all, isn’t seriousness of the claim the only thing that matters while the actual facts can safely be ignored? I am only following the lead of the climate scientists.

      Blink…blink…blink.

      110

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    2014 could become the hottest year on record

    Ho hum!

    120

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Even if true it wouldn’t prove global warming.

      190

      • #

        Roy it does show that the exponential rise end of the hockey stick is still near 90 degrees to reality.

        160

        • #
          Bulldust

          What happens when it goes vertical? Does time stop?

          170

          • #

            It has stopped for the people who wanted to wear the “I survived 400PPM shirts”. They still cannot see 400 in the last column.
            ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
            “We then determine the “trend”
            # value for each month by removing the seasonal cycle; this result is shown in
            # the “trend” column.”

            Time will not stop for me though. Off to do something that won’t wait.

            80

            • #

              Ah a last minute Cure(and possible new name for the pause)!
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoDWlEs2d-s

              30

            • #
              Popeye26

              Siliggy,

              The earth was starved of CO2 at 315.71 ppm and still is at 398.58 ppm.

              Imagine how devastated all those catastrophists over at 350.org must be feeling – ROTFLMAO.

              I say bring on 900 ppm – the trees will love it (as will my lawn – damn it!!). :-)

              Cheers,

              190

              • #
                the Griss

                “as will my lawn – damn it!!.”

                Yep, the one, single, downside of extra atmospheric CO2 ! :-)

                191

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Yep, the one, single, downside of extra atmospheric CO2!>
                Not if you are a livestock breeder, or a diary farmer.

                The more pasture you have, the better.

                130

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Like you both Popeye and Griss, I love my lawn but hate the mowing.

                And yes! People who label themselves 350.org obviously have no sense of perspective for the past, present and future.

                The one and only danger for life on Earth is too little CO2 on a macroscopic level and on a personal level when we are ready

                to exit this life most of us will finally expel the last bits of CO2 from our bloodstream by the Cheyne-Stokes breathing

                pattern. This last personal experience is not danger, just life.

                How can so many Climate Scientists know so little and put it together so badly.

                Maybe there are inducements like money fame and “belonging to a just cause, however stupid and ill informed.

                KK

                160

              • #
                me@home

                Rereke, how do you farm a diary?

                70

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                me@home – that’s hiliarius

                10

              • #
                Another Ian

                Rereke Whakaaro

                October 23, 2014 at 8:58 am

                Yep, the one, single, downside of extra atmospheric CO2!>
                Not if you are a livestock breeder, or a diary farmer.

                The more pasture you have, the better.

                Just our bloody luck. With the Qld Veg Management Act the trees will get most of it.

                40

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                In answer to me@home. It is a four stage process:

                1. You take said “diary” and stick it in a hole somewhere, to see if it grows.

                2. You ensure that your spelling correction software is turned off.

                3. You then go and try correct the original, but find that the thread has moved on, and you cannot correct it in an appropriate place.

                4. You poor yourself a large Scotch, and go to bed.

                Good night.

                50

            • #
              Ron Cook

              How about “I LOVE 700 plus ppm CO2″ T-SHIRTS” I’d wear one.

              R-COO- K+

              90

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            What happens when it goes vertical? Does time stop?

            Some new mathematics principle will be established that will prevent statistical dishonesty. Now all we have to do is wait for it to happen. But don’t hold your breath. ;-)

            10

            • #
              Olaf Koenders

              I can’t wait for them to fudge the numbers to vertical. When they breathlessly proclaim that global mean temp is 100C, then someone’s BOUND to notice there’s something wrong and ask hard questions. That’ll be the end of it. Let them keep fudging, they can’t hide their fraud and malfeasance forever.

              00

      • #
        Ron Cook

        Ho hum!!!!

        2014 the warmest? – Bah Humbug!

        R-COO- K+

        80

    • #
      Colin Henderson

      The hottest year on record since 2011!

      130

      • #
        Ron Cook

        Nah! 2013 was supposed to be the hottest on record – in Melbourne, Aust., anyway. All our TV channel weather reporters said so. So it must be true.

        R-COO- K+

        90

        • #
          Philip Shehan

          Mr Potassium salt of a carboxylic acid,

          Are you saying that the temperature in Melbourne must represent that of the entire planet?

          00

    • #
      Dennis

      I wish the warmer weather would start, here on the New South Wales mid north coast it still feels like early Spring. It was snowing on the Blue Mountains west of Sydney, and Barrington Tops west of the mid north coast a week ago. A news reporter interviewed a Blue Mountains resident mentioning the bushfires of last year and pointing to the snow same time this year, she asked him when the last time snow had fallen and he replied year before last.

      91

      • #
        the Griss

        “she asked him when the last time snow had fallen and he replied year before last.”

        Which give a very good indication of the huge range of NORMAL climate variability !!

        110

      • #
        PeterPetrum

        And I know, ‘coz I live right where the snow fell in the same week two years ago and this year. And last year we evacuated ahead of a 50km fire front about three km away in the SAME week. How cany anybody possibly put this down to climate change when it is obviously just “weather”?

        50

  • #
    Robert O

    Not much of global warming has been ever picked-up by the satellites as there is unlikely to be any, apart from natural variation. The problem as you have alluded to is in the measurement of surface temperature and its limitations which have been responsible for the AGW theory and manipulation by both sincere and insincere people.
    It will be sometime before the momentum of the AGW industry subsides, and as we well know people, particularly politicians, do not readily admit they were mistaken. Currently the government is having political problems in trying to wind back the Renewable Energy Target since abandonment is not an option at this stage: too many people still believe in global warming due to the constant media barrage supporting this notion and the lack of publicity given to opposing evidence such as the posted graph.

    320

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      At least the Australian Parliament, or part thereof, is thinking about it.

      Compare that with:
      Canberra local Council wanting 90% renewables, so long as the wind farms aren’t in Canberra.
      South Oz: where the Premier (and probably his entire Cabinet) think $110 is less than $30. Explains state debt.
      France; Gov. wants to replace reliable nuclear with wind.
      Sweden: ditto, and for good measure want to interfere with German lignite mining. They must believe in the Tooth Fairy.
      The UK: words fail me, and the majority of MP’s (including the top 2 in all 3 major parties) would fail a sanity check.

      Fortunately Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania are opposing the EU’s lunatic proposals.
      Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Denmark, Holland and Germany are starting to realise the expensive uselessness of “renewable energy”.
      The USA will switch after the Nov. elections. POTUS the dill will become Impotus, but still be a dill.

      200

      • #
        Ron Cook

        The only thing that’s going to reverse the tide is the Europeans rejecting the EU/UN/IPCC.

        On a very recent trip (like the last 2 months) to the UK, France, Germany and the Netherlands I experienced the DRACONIAN effect on Europe. The EU was a BAD mistake. UKIP in England are trying to reverse this. Good look to them.

        R-COO- K+

        150

    • #
      Ron Cook

      We have Labour and “the greens” to blame for this. Libs are trying to placate Labour and get them onside by watering down their (the Libs) RET’s.

      This is going to be a long fight unless the Libs can govern in their own right ie have a majority in the Senate as well as the House Of Reps. MP Hunt is a ‘wild-card’. Seems to me that he believes the “scam” of Catastrophic Global Warming alias “Climate Change”.

      R-COO- K+

      50

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        To be fair to Hunt, the people who installed wind turbines and solar panels did so on the basis that the Government at that time had approved it. That the Gov. was composed of looney tunes should have entered their calculations, but probably didn’t**. They would lose money if the RET was terminated, and would probably launch messy law suits, with bad publicity for the Government as it went to the next election.

        Being in S.A. ( the refuge for looney tune politicians when they’re not in Canberra) I hope that at the least the RET is changed to apply only for existing generators, and nothing for new farms. That will stop more wind farms being built, although we have too many as it is.

        **Remember the old saying – never stand between a wind farm developer and a big money subsidy.

        100

        • #
          Dennis

          Compensation claims !

          10

        • #
          the Griss

          Just remove the mandate for electricity companies to buy the stuff..

          …. or put them on an equal footing.

          Prior contracts for supply, as in amount and during what time period.

          .. fines if supply is not met… etc etc.

          20

          • #
            Byron

            This !!

            Prior contracts for supply, as in amount and during what time period.

            .. fines if supply is not met… etc etc.

            Exactly the same as any real electricity supplier , sporadic bursts of electricity of unknown output and duration are of no use to anyone on the grid , and this should include people with their own solar panels that want to get paid for feeding to the grid . If You can’t guarantee Output X at Duration Y then it’s worse than no help to grid stability , it’s actually a hindrance .

            40

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      The government has had problems in trying to wind back the Renewable Energy Target since Al Gore visited Clive Palmer.

      10

  • #
    handjive

    Scientific American:
    2014 on Track to Be Hottest Year on Record

    “The news may come as a surprise to those living in the eastern portion of the U.S., which has seen a relatively cool year so far, with a frigid winter followed by a near-average summer (which seemed extremely mild compared to recent steamy summers).

    But the global picture shows that the East was “pretty much the only land area in the globe that had cooler-than-average temperatures,” Crouch said.
    (The western U.S., on the other hand, has been baking.)”

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-on-track-to-be-hottest-year-on-record/
    . . .
    Quote: “The western U.S., on the other hand, has been baking.”

    Gee, much like America in the 30′s, when it was a dustbowl?

    Observations say otherwise:
    http://www.c3headlines.com/2014/10/hottest-year-if-so-the-worlds-major-food-crops-are-simply-loving-it-per-the-usda.html

    Are Middle Eastern Plants Climate Change Deniers?
    http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/9532/20141010/are-middle-eastern-plants-climate-change-deniers.htm

    July 8, 2013
    Source: CSIRO Australia

    Deserts ‘greening’ from rising carbon dioxide: Green foliage boosted across the world’s arid regions
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130708103521.htm

    130

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Re greening deserts.

      The soaking floods that we saw a couple of years ago there put moisture into the soil that lasts for years.

      33

      • #
        the Griss

        Must discuss that with Mr Flim-Flam. ;-)

        Thing is, its happening in other places too.. like around the edge of the Sahara.

        There is a general greening of the whole biosphere as the plant life lovingly sucks up the small amount of extra CO2 we are releasing from its unfortunate sequestration.

        60

      • #
        stan stendera

        This is not really a reply and it is NOT a method of skirting my proper place at the end of the que. This just seems like the “right” place for this idea. The warming fanatics have been pointing to the extension of the artic tree line into the tundra (largely grasses, marshes, and low brush). One (I) wonders if the rising CO2 in the air has had the same effect on the artic tree line as it has on the sub Saharan land area. I can find nothing concrete in a web search. Can anyone offer or point to a study. Thanks. Now back to your regular programing.

        10

  • #
    Eddie

    Reply to every gloating, gullible, Greenie posting about warmest ever records with:-
    “NOAA’s temp. series vulnerable to selection bias, from ever changing station data. RSS data more reliable http://t.co/AbXETIUb0f
    owtte. (That’s the brief version, for Twits )
    and copy or link to that very helpful graphic of the RSS 18 year record.

    120

  • #
    John

    Later Thursday morning, NOAA expanded on the implications of the new records in a conference call, saying that on its current pace—and with the help of a newly resurgent El Niño—2014 is poised to become the warmest year ever measured.

    Very poor reporting. Each of the articles refers to different reasons for the NOAA / UofI professor’s claims. It appears they are using anomalies for July-August to make the claims.

    There simply isn’t much of an El Nino occurring but we’ve seen lots of typhoons in the Pacific. Due to the typhoons, we’ve had a screwy jet stream in the US causing unusual cold and warm temp swings. Are they using these unusual swings/anomalies as a global indicator? If yes, how much more misleading can it get?

    80

    • #
      John

      Just read Roy’s blog post which answered my question. The “2014 could become the hottest year on record” claim is fubar.

      60

  • #

    Roy Spencer also provides a comparison of the satellite measurements against ground-based thermometers, that is worth repeating.

    Granted, the satellites are less good at sampling right near the poles, but compared to the very sparse data from the thermometer network we are in fat city coverage-wise with the satellite data.
    In my opinion, though, a bigger problem than the spotty sampling of the thermometer data is the endless adjustment game applied to the thermometer data. The thermometer network is made up of a patchwork of non-research quality instruments that were never made to monitor long-term temperature changes to tenths or hundredths of a degree, and the huge data voids around the world are either ignored or in-filled with fictitious data.
    Furthermore, land-based thermometers are placed where people live, and people build stuff, often replacing cooling vegetation with manmade structures that cause an artificial warming (urban heat island, UHI) effect right around the thermometer. The data adjustment processes in place cannot reliably remove the UHI effect because it can’t be distinguished from real global warming.
    Satellite microwave radiometers, however, are equipped with laboratory-calibrated platinum resistance thermometers, which have demonstrated stability to thousandths of a degree over many years, and which are used to continuously calibrate the satellite instruments once every 8 seconds. The satellite measurements still have residual calibration effects that must be adjusted for, but these are usually on the order of hundredths of a degree, rather than tenths or whole degrees in the case of ground-based thermometers.

    50

    • #
      Philip Shehan

      Dr Spencer fails to acknowledge problems with satellite data.

      An obvious example is the fact that both UAH and RSS use the same satellite data. They process the data in different ways, so you end up with the difference in calculated temperatures illustrated in the graph at the top of this section. So calibrations to one hundredths of a degree are largely irrelevant given other much larger sources of error.

      The difference result from how the groups calculate temperatures from satellite data, which does not measure temperature directly but microwave radiation of oxygen. There are differences in how they deal with the orbital decay of satellites and other sources of error.

      14

      • #
        Philip Shehan

        A further comment on this from me at Dr Spencer’s blog.

        Also had a discussion with Werner Brozak there about differences in confidence intervals of different trend calculations.

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/10/why-2014-wont-be-the-warmest-year-on-record/#comments

        Whether or not a particular year is or is not the hottest on record according to one or other data set is of little importance.

        What is important is the fact that overall the trend differences since 1979 between the RSS and UAH are no greater than and in statistical agreement with trends from terrestrial measurements:

        Giss Trend: 0.157 ±0.044 °C/decade (2σ)
        NOAA Trend: 0.148 ±0.040 °C/decade (2σ)
        Had4 Trend: 0.154 ±0.041 °C/decade (2σ)
        RSS Trend: 0.125 ±0.069 °C/decade (2σ)
        UAH Trend: 0.138 ±0.070 °C/decade (2σ)

        Trends calculated from

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

        10

  • #

    Roy Spencer expresses his opinion of the adjustments of ground-based thermometers with a quote from economist Ronald Coase (1910-2013)

    If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.

    Coase was the outright winner of the 1991 Nobel Prize in his discipline, unlike some in the climate community who claim credit for a shared Peace Prize to a UN body, to which they were among thousands of contributors to a report. Coase only had two or three quite profound insights, that have stood the test of time. Major climatology papers are now often over-turned between press release and journal publication.

    130

    • #
      Philip Shehan

      I entirely agree that Nobel peace prize winners often cause me to raise my eyebrows. The science prizes, which are evaluated and awarded by the The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for the Nobel Prize in Physics and Chemistry and The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institute for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

      The peace prize is awarded by a committee appointed by the Norwegian parliament. Enough said.

      Nobel did not endow a prize in economics. If you will pardon my prejudice, it was initiated by bankers wishing to confer respectatibility on “the dismal science” by associating a prize with the name of Nobel.

      In 1968, the Sveriges Riksbank established the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences was given the task to select the Economics Prize Laureates starting in 1969.

      33

  • #
    TdeF

    Alan Pease had his famous Body Language, but also the lesser known Talk Language. People give away the game with their bodies but also with their words.

    “Hottest year ever”? Translated it means that we have given up predicting rapid growth and will be lucky if we can maintain the temperature.

    “Warming hiatus”? Let’s hope it is going up again and pretend it is.

    “Temperatures have remained high”. Thank God, we have something to say.

    “Record high temperatures”? That took some hard work but we would like to thank the BOM.

    Then you get

    “Record Antarctic sea ice extent”, which ‘scientists’ say is “a result of global warming”. Too bad the reverse was predicted.

    “Counterintuitive”. Does not make sense.

    “Climate Change”. “Global Warming” is not working any more.

    “Extreme Events”. A safe haven as it can no more be disproven than proven. Includes man made events like bushfires.

    “Need another 30 years to be sure”. Should be long retired.

    “Sustainable” This department might be closed.

    271

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Satellite data versus land based homogenised data sets.

    In credibility terms, the analogy is NATO versus Putin’s interpretation on reality.

    70

  • #
    the Griss

    Wow,

    Anyone have any ideas what is happening here.

    A computer or calculation glitch, perhaps.?

    If its real, there could be very interesting times ahead in the NH !

    71

    • #
      Truthseeker

      The Griss,

      I think it is called winter.

      51

      • #
        the Griss

        It seems to be rapid onset, and it seems to be an “anomaly” compared to normal seasonal temperatures.

        If its real and not a measurement issue, then its rather unusual, not just winter.

        41

        • #

          I saw that too Griss. Plus if I recall….The Great Lakes are unusually cold too… were those measured the same way, or are they independent?

          Water temperature of the Great Lakes is over 6 degrees colder than normal – threatening an even earlier and COLDER winter in Midwest

          Daily Mail

          101

          • #
            stan stendera

            Joe Bastardi said a while back that if the Artic AND the Antarctic ice sheet continue to expand we are really in trouble as relates to global cooling.
            As an aside to this the Straits of Magellan are already blocked by ice in the SH winter. If the Antarctic ice sheet gets close to South America (It doesn’t have to touch) one of the major shipping lanes will be blocked. This little factoid explains the frantic efforts to widen the Panama Canal and the proposals to build a new canal which will accommodate the super size container ships. Just as major hotel interests are building luxury hotels in the Maldives, ignoring the alarmist sea level rise nonsense, they are ignoring the general warming alarmism to preserve shipping. Major money is being spent.

            40

        • #
          Philip Shehan

          Griss, you may be interested in in a discussion with Werner Brozak regarding different trend analyses on Spencer’s blog.

          00

  • #
    pat

    CAGW = Could Anthopogenic Global Warming?

    Climate change could ruin leaf peeping for us
    Washington Post-7 hours ago

    With climate change, Boston’s future could be filled with gondolas
    PRI-21 minutes ago

    Climate Change Could Be Causing Alpine Goats To Shrink Due To …
    Headlines & Global News-4 hours ago

    Camel DNA could unlock key to climate change adaptation
    Nature Middle East-21 Oct 2014

    Climate Change Could Literally Crack Society’s Concrete Foundation
    Gizmodo-16 Oct 2014

    How family planning could be part of the answer to climate change
    The Conversation AU-9 Oct 2014

    Climate Change Could Alter the Human Male-Female Ratio
    Yahoo News-2 Oct 2014

    50

  • #
    Chris in Hervey Bay.

    Is it not a fact that my average height has been increasing over the last 70 years, when my actual height has remained static for the last 52 years ?

    As Steve McIntyre says, watch the pea under the thimble.

    Do the Math !

    100

  • #
    GrahamP

    On the subject of lack of warming, the article “Thermal coal still a goldmine” by Robert Gottliebsen in today’s Australian (subscription required) is like a breath of fresh air.

    It echoes much of what TonyfromOz has been saying and the article gives the extreme Greens a serve.

    Will we hear anything like it on the ABC??

    90

    • #
      Ron Cook

      Thank God for “The Austraian” and “Tonyfromoz”. I have learnt a lot from Tonyfromoz in regards to power generation etc. and look forward to reading any of his comments and posts.

      R-COO- K+

      110

    • #

      GrahamP.

      Oh yeah! Thank you, thank you, thank you.

      I can always rely on the people here at this wonderful site to lead me in new directions.

      The Gottliebsen article did the same, thank you.

      The problem I had with UltraSuperCritical coal fired power generation was that most of the new work was being done in China, so I had to chase it down, use the correct info to place into a search engine, and then use the translate button to find it, and even then, while still good, was a little hazy, as some things were not expressed in the best manner.

      However, now, from the Gottliebsen article, I found the Japanese site and that is explained in the most perfect English, and in fact, is probably more detailed than what I could find inside China.

      For a perfect explanation of USC, I’ll link you all to the site. This is the future of low CO2 emissions coal fired power, and as I mentioned in a Guest Post at this site (thank you Joanne) it is at least a 20% saving in those CO2 emissions.

      Again Graham, and you also Ron, thanks for this, and the praise as well.

      Babcock Hitachi USC Coal Fired Power (pdf document of 31 pages)

      This will most probably be fired by our Australian coal, and for the life of me, I can’t see why we cannot use our Australian coal in new plants like this ….. here in Australia.

      I weep that people cannot see for the CO2 Scotoma in their eyes.

      I’m working my way through this document, but this is probably the best detailed explanation I have seen so far.

      Tony.

      180

      • #

        Look at this, and sorry to be off topic, yet again.

        Bayswater – 4 Units of 660MW – Nameplate of 2640MW – Total power delivered of 17,000GWH – Coal burned 7.5 Million tons – CO2 emitted 21.5 Million tons.

        USC – 2 Units of 1,050MW – Nameplate of 2100MW – Total power delivered of 17,000GWH – Coal Burned 6 Million tons – CO2 emitted 17.2 Million tons.

        Same delivered power for 20% less CO2 emitted.

        I, umm, rest my case.

        Tony.

        150

        • #
          Bobl

          Tony,

          You forget the most important bit, that 1.5 Million tonnes at even todays depressed price of $75 USD a tonne represents a saving of $112.5 Million USD (125M AUD) per annum, and extends the life of coal reserves by 20 % so let’s say we had 1000 years of reserves, well suddenly we have 1200 years worth. At a more “Normal” price of $100 USD per tonne then costs for Bayswater would fall by $150 million USD (165M AUD) a year.

          Surely ther has to be a business case in that? Damn the CO2 let’s do it for cheaper energy and the longevity of our coal reserves!

          100

        • #
          RogueElement451

          I know I can be dense , but how does burning 7.5 million tons of coal produce CO2 emissions of 21.5 million tons, that makes zero sense to me.
          Incidentally I can only sit back and admire your knowledge of the subject , your fortitude and diligence in responding to eejjits like me!

          20

          • #
            the Griss

            umm RE, each carbon atom combines with 2 oxygen atoms.

            Its an atomic weight thing. :-) C12 + 2 x O16 give atomic weight of 44

            Coal is only around 80% carbon (depends very much on type of coal)

            so 7.5Mt / 12 x 44 x 0.8 = approx. 21.5 Mt.

            Hope that helps.

            40

          • #

            RogueElement451,

            please, no one asking that question would I ever consider an eejit.

            The first time I ever saw a hint that might be the case, I too was literally dumbfounded. I wanted to write a Post about it at my home site, but it took me more than a Month to actually pluck up the courage to write it. I chased down so many different points on it, and was still not convinced, because it looked so stupid a thing to say.

            I found incontrovertible evidence at the EIA site at the following link.

            Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors for Coal

            Scroll down to the second heading titled Coal Combustion and Carbon Dioxide Emissions. It’s all there, especially the last paragraph.

            The link to my Post is as follows and dates from 2008, and incidentally is our sites fifth highest rating Post of all time, and so far has more than 19,000 individual visits, and is still in the top four or five Posts viewed every day.

            Why Does One Ton Of Coal Make 2.86 Tons Of Carbon Dioxide?

            While the EIA quotes U.S. short tons (2000 Pounds) the 2.86 multiplier is the same across any weight measure and this is using the most common coal currently in use.e

            Tony.

            30

            • #
              the Griss

              Been a while since I looked into coal “quality” so from memory…

              Metallurgical coal has a higher carbon content.. but some of that carbon ends up in the steel.

              Standard export Aussie coal, ie good quality steaming coal, is about as stated above. (factor 2.86)

              Lignites etc require a lot more coal for the same energy because they contain moisture, so produce less CO2 per ton of coal, but more CO2 and other real pollution for the same amount of electricity. (particularly sulphur, iirc)

              40

              • #
                ianl8888

                That’s so far off track it’s not even wrong

                I’ve dumped quite a few comments on coal qualities here over time. It’s really good to know that no-one reads them :)

                Google “coking coal qualities”; then “thermal coal qualities”; then “lignite, brown coal qualities”

                Sorry, but I’m disinclined to repeat, Cassandra-like, coal quality characteristics ad infinitum

                20

      • #
        GrahamP

        Tony. I thought you would find it interesting and thanks for the link.

        I have emailed the link to my sons. The eldest is a Consulting Engineer who does a lot of work at Hazelwood and my youngest who works in Materials Testing. He started out in the field crawling around inside the boilers at Loy Yang taking x-rays of welds.

        This was my closing comment to them:

        “Probably won’t see one in Aus in my lifetime, not at least until the current generation of extreme Greenies either die off or find something else to wring their hands (and lecture everybody else) about”.

        cheers Graham

        80

      • #
        ianl8888


        This will most probably be fired by our Australian coal, and for the life of me, I can’t see why we cannot use our Australian coal in new plants like this ….. here in Australia

        No technical reason at all – pages 9 (especially) and 24 specifically show most Aus thermal coals as suitable

        The financial people will take some convincing that such an investment will be politically allowed to mature over 20-30 years without interference. Shallow meeja talk about “stranded assets” does not bode well for this requirement

        40

    • #
      The Backslider

      subscription required

      If you just Google the title you can see it all without a subscription.

      30

    • #
      ianl8888

      Judith Curry’s website also has a current post on the horrendous cost and dangerous unreliability of “renewabubbles” (excluding hydro)

      http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/22/myths-and-realities-of-renewable-energy/#comments

      40

  • #
    pat

    duh!

    18 Oct: Bloomberg: Alison Vekshin: Steyer Deploys Ark to Show Menace of Climate Change
    “It’s not unusual to have a generational issue, an issue that’s the test for a generation, and I felt like this is the one,” Steyer said in an interview in his San Francisco office…
    Last month, Steyer’s group began hauling its wooden ark on wheels to stops across the state, including Tallahassee, as part of its “Rick Scott’s Ark Tour,” saying that the governor favors wealthy donors and leaves families to deal with rising ocean levels resulting from climate change. The ark, which has its own Twitter account, has carried life jackets and blue barrels labeled “Big Oil $$$.” …
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-18/steyer-deploys-ark-to-show-menace-of-climate-change.html

    10

    • #
      the Griss

      OMG !!, they truly are getting desperate to get their way, before the forthcoming cooling trend sets in, aren’t they !!

      40

  • #
    pat

    something to look forward to???

    22 Oct: Bloomberg: Alex Morales: Five Years, 2,000 Scientists and How Do You Wake People Up to Climate Change?
    The U.S. and European Union are pushing for a stronger explanation about the dangers of climate change and the consequences of failing to stem fossil-fuel emissions in the UN’s most extensive report on global warming.
    The appeals are detailed in a document putting together comments from more than 30 governments about the United Nations report, due to be published next month. The study is the culmination of five years of work by some 2,000 scientists.
    “This report is a story of what happens if we don’t act, and what can happen if we do,” U.S. negotiators wrote. “It should be an effective story.” The text, they said, “lacks a threading narrative.” …
    In one remark, the U.S. team said authors should strike more of a balance because “there are very few references to the vulnerability of wealthier countries to climate change.” …
    “What about drought? Cyclones? Wildfires? Policymakers care deeply about extreme events,” the U.S. team wrote…
    The comments were obtained from a person with official access to the study who asked not to be identified because the discussions are confidential…
    The final wording of that paper will be debated line by line at a meeting next week in Copenhagen…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-22/climate-envoys-seek-stronger-warning-in-key-un-report.html

    30

  • #
    pat

    ***Express also calls out Obama:

    22 Oct: UK Express: Jason Taylor: Climate change PROVED to be ‘nothing but a lie’, claims top meteorologist
    THE debate about climate change is finished – because it has been categorically proved NOT to exist, one of the world’s leading meteorologists has claimed.
    John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible.
    Instead, what ‘little evidence’ there is for rising global temperatures points to a ‘natural phenomenon’ within a developing eco-system.
    In an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he wrote: “The ocean is not rising significantly.
    “The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number.
    “Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing).
    “I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid.”…

    ***President Obama told 120 world leaders at the United Nations climate summit last month that America had done more under his watch in cutting greenhouse gases than any other country.
    Despite this, the Energy Information Administration’s Monthly Energy Review showed an increase in the use of energy from coal…

    Climate expert William Happer, from Princeton University, supported Mr Coleman’s claims…
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder

    50

  • #
    pat

    Discovery calls out Obama. are u listening ABC/Fairfax/Guardian?

    2 pages: 22 Oct: Discovery: John Upton: What’s the Deal With Europe’s Climate Talks?
    The EU 2030 climate framework talks aren’t getting much airtime in the United States, though, so you might have questions about them. That’s OK, because we’ve got answers.
    How do you make a European scoff?
    Try gushing to them about President Obama’s year and a half-old leadership on climate change. Most of Europe has treated climate change as a serious matter for decades, while the United States spent most of that time regarded as a global pariah on the issue…
    http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/whats-the-deal-with-europes-climate-talks-141022.htm

    10

  • #
    Tristan

    So. I’m wondering if a civil discussion can be had, regarding the temperature series. Civil means no accusations or implication of impropriety from either side. Civil means no mockery, snarl words or other cheap rhetorical tools. Link-spamming is not a discussion, you need to be able to articulate arguments. If you ask a question of me, I will answer it, if I ask one of you, you will answer it.

    Anyone up for it? the Griss, SunSword

    [Tristan suddenly want's to control the entire discussion and apparently even Jo's blog. I'm leaving this rant because it WILL be so useful when she doesn't follow her own rules.] ED

    415

    • #
      The Backslider

      Bullsh*t.

      90

    • #
      the Griss

      You marked yourself as low-level troll from your very first post.

      Don’t expect to be treated as anything else.

      80

    • #
      Tristan

      I’m not trying to control the rules of a blog, I’m asking for a civil discussion, with me, within comment #19. If no one is game, that’s fine, we can all just mud-sling as usual. But mud-slinging obfuscates proper debate, and I tend to find that people who can’t answer an argument tend to pad their response with the usual incendiary buzzwords.

      I’m offering a genuine throw down amidst the shouting between the galleries. You up for it, ‘Ed’? :)

      115

      • #
        The Backslider

        What would you like to debate Tristan?

        50

        • #
          Tristan

          Well, the topic of this post is the contention that this year wont be the hottest, regardless of what GISS etc show, because a) it’s not the hottest according to the satellite temperature series and b) the sst temperature series are wrong (if they’re wrong, they’re wrong, I don’t care to debate whether it’s intentional or an honest error, much like I don’t care to debate whether or not whether any of Spencer’s errors are intentional or not).

          Interested?

          110

          • #
            the Griss

            How odd, I can’t see you name on Roy’s site under that topic.. not anywhere.

            Aren’t you game enough to argue directly with him that he is wrong.

            Unlike ALL warmist sites.. if you make a reasonable case, you won’t get deleted.

            If you really think you have a case, I dare you to take it to him.

            But you know you don’t, so you won’t.

            71

            • #
              Tristan

              Comrade, I’d rather comment here. I’m more interested in Jo seeing my comments than Roy, in the event that either happen to.

              211

              • #
                the Griss

                So, Roy is NOT incorrect.. Thank you. !

                You obviously have NO CASE that you are able to argue with him.

                Your comments here are MEANINGLESS empty garbage.

                And just because you are a rabid egotistical communist, doesn’t make me a comrade.

                91

          • #
            the Griss

            Gavin is certainly going to have to make heaps and heaps of fudge to pull this year off as a hot one.

            He’ll need to have the burners going night and day !

            But I’m sure he’ll go for it, even if it means making some part of Antarctica 20°C on average. (He likes making that sort of thing up :-)

            He has about 4°F of anomaly to make up just in the US data, to match 2012 (according to USCRN, which is the only USA surface record worth looking at, because everything else is so monumentally contaminated with agenda driven adjustments).

            70

      • #
        tom0mason

        :lol:
        So you want a mass debate.
        :lol:

        60

      • #
        James Bradley

        Tristan,

        The really amusing thing is that the groups you support have only a single agenda and all advocate violence to promote their cause.

        How’s that for a start?

        91

        • #
          Tristan

          Sorry James, that sounds a little too broad.

          010

          • #
            James Bradley

            Tristan,

            Then on the topic of ’2014 Hottest Year Ever’.

            Given that common sense and logic would dictate that each successive year since the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA) should be warmer than the previous who decided that the optimum temperature and atmospheric CO2 level for the planet was that which existed at the end of the LIA and prior to the beginning of Industrial Revolution?

            90

            • #
              Tristan

              “…each successive year since the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA) should be warmer than the previous”

              Until when? Presumably not in perpetuity.

              211

              • #
                handjive

                Bingo!

                Just like any warming.

                90

              • #
                the Griss

                “Presumably not in perpetuity.”

                Depends on if you use climate models or not.

                81

              • #
                the Griss

                Also depends on who is running GISS and HadCrut. !

                Gotta try to make that temperature match them models, y’know !!

                81

              • #
                James Bradley

                Tristan,

                You answered the statement.

                You avoided the question, the answer to which would explain the statement.

                61

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Hmmm,

                The sound of Crickets chirping is loud tonight, don’t you think, James.

                Perhaps Tristan became distracted?

                42

              • #
                Tristan

                No one has decided an optimum. The ‘threat’ is the rate of change. Ecosystems and human industry developed within a certain climate regime.

                28

              • #
                the Griss

                Another great NON-ANSWER from BA6,

                You aren’t doing very well are you, child. ! :-)

                And yes Ecosystems developed in a climate regime with much higher CO2.

                We are currently still at the lower end of planetary plant life viability.

                Fortunately we are realising some CO2 from its unfortunate burial..

                and plant life is finally able to breathe a bit easier.

                GAIA thanks us. :-)

                62

              • #
                Tristan

                Sorry Griss, as I said, as far as this conversation goes, I’m only going to respond to the civil posts.

                18

              • #
                the Griss

                Ohhhh diddums.

                I was being polite. !!

                Gees, I was even trying to help you by explaining that you need to do MUCH better.

                And thanks for confirming that YOU HAVE NO ANSWER ! :-)

                42

              • #
                James Bradley

                Tristan,

                On topic of ’2014 Hottest Year Ever’.

                Smoothing of data sets by BoM and others:

                Why are historical ‘hottest ever’ records classed as anomalies to be smoothed down whilst current ‘hottest ever’ anomalies are promoted as significant evidence of climate change?

                40

              • #
                James Bradley

                Tristan,

                In respose to your 13.3.3.1.6 – 3 parts.

                1. “No one has decided an optimum.”

                If you have not established a base line how do you know the parameters for the statistics you use to generate your climate models?

                2. “The ‘threat’ is the rate of change.”

                How do you determine the rate of change when you smooth historical data?

                3. “Ecosystems and human industry developed within a certain climate regime.”

                I’m confused, so you have decided the optimum climate regime then, to which specific climate regime within the last 200,000 years, survived by ecosystems and homo sapiens, is the certain climate regime condusive to ecosystems and human industry?

                51

              • #
                The Backslider

                The ‘threat’ is the rate of change.

                What? You mean like the threat of LESS THAN A DEGREE of natural warming in a century?

                30

    • #
      Bobl

      If you want I can do that, but I wont be constrained to just the temperature series. There are good reasons why they are invalid but they are not the only wild claims of the warmists. If you engage I will debate you, but you must promise to engage.

      70

      • #
        Tristan

        Well Bobl, we can’t debate everything at once. I’m happy for you to choose a topic, other than the GHG effect itself. If you want to debate the physical principles of C02, it’d be better to do that with someone else.

        011

        • #
          handjive

          Here is a question for you, Tristan.

          Doesn’t a claim of 2014 being the hottest year ever prove that carbon(sic) taxes don’t work?

          Finland introduced the world’s first carbon tax in 1990,, so we have 25 years of atmosphere taxation.

          http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/10/29/factbox-carbon-taxes-around-world

          Australia had a carbon(sic) tax for 3 years.

          Can Tristan give evidence of the carbon(sic) tax causing less extreme weather/climate in Australia. Anywhere?

          After all, I cannot debatee something you have yet to show any evidence of.

          70

          • #
            Tristan

            A) No it doesn’t. A carbon tax or ETS, may exert downward pressure on emissions if properly implemented. However, given that emissions under a BAU scenario would increase (thanks to increasing economic activity), you can still have increasing emissions under a scheme designed to reduce them. In this case, the scheme is curtailing emissions growth, rather than reducing emissions.

            B) No I can’t.

            210

            • #
              the Griss

              “A carbon tax or ETS, may exert downward pressure on emissions ”

              NO IT DOESN’T !

              It just transfers them to another country to the massive detriment of the CT/ETS country, as many places in the EU are finding.

              An ETS in most places will actually INCREASE the global CO2 emissions, because of all the extra materials and products transported to countries that can still carry out feasible manufacturing.

              81

              • #
                the Griss

                It also makes it more difficult for the battlers because of un-necessary increases in electricity and other commodity prices.

                71

              • #
                Bobl

                Sorry Tristan, but you are again naive.

                Energy is a proxy for CO2, for fossil sources Energy in is proportional to CO2 in as Energy out is proportional to CO2 saved ( assuming a renewable) So a renewable that costs more in energy than it saves in energy costs more in CO2 than it saves in CO2.

                Now energy comprises a major portion of the cost of production for materials in a generating system, so the cost of the item is roughly proportional to the energy input. For renewables, most of the cost of the electricity it produces comes from amortising the cost of the hardware over its operating life. The CO2 cost therefore is roughly proportional to the energy cost. Its the same for coal, except that the energy cost is mostly in the fuel (operating CO2), since the construction cost (per Megawatt) is orders of magnitude lower than wind. You will find that the energy cost per megawatt generated of both systems is a similar proportion of the total (within an order of magnitude). The system that produces the most expensive power is likely to have the greatest fossil energy cost over the lifecycle. This shows that your LCA numbers are VERY unlikely.

                Think of it this way, the materials in the windmill had to be, mined, refined, shaped, welded, transported, assembled etc. At each stage the miner had to have buildings (built from mined, refined, shaped, assembled materials), the refiner, assembler,, transporter likewise. Along this chain, fossil energy represents close to 50% of the cost of the windmill which comprises most of the cost of energy out. Even if energy cost of a coal plant is say 80% this is still a similar portion of (fossil sourced power) over the lifecyle. Unless the unsubsidised wind power cost is less than 1.6 times the coal power cost, chances are that the CO2 produced in the windmills production is greater than the CO2 produced by the fossil plant (for the same generation)

                It’s just Math Tristan, you should learn some.

                If windmills were not CO2 intensive they would be much cheaper to build than they are.

                For those on the sidelines remember this, for any infrastructure (asset intensive) business the Total embodied energy represents the major portion of the cost, probably 50% or more, if its expensive to build, it will have used a lot of energy. If you have two systems producing energy then its likely that the relative lifecycle CO2 (energy) is around aboyt the same ratio of the cost of output of the two systems. If someone tries to claim that the system producing the more expensive energy (after amortisation of CAPEX) has a lower carbon footprint, then they are probably lying to you.

                31

            • #
              handjive

              But, if you can’t provide any evidence of a carbon(sic) tax stopping ‘the hottest year ever’, what is the point of all that gobbledy-gook in your first answer?

              60

            • #
              handjive

              Everyone & Anyone knows that when you have turned the corner on “exerting downward pressure on emissions“, and, turned the corner on “increasing emissions under a BAU scenario“, and turned the corner “increasing economic activity”,and you then turn a fourth corner “increasing emissions under a scheme designed to reduce them”, you are back where you started. e.g. “In this case, the scheme is curtailing emissions growth, rather than reducing emissions.”

              I think I interpreted that correct, though, what is the point if no-one can show evidence a carbon(sic) tax, or a new solar farm, or a wind farm, will stop next year being “The Hottest Year Ever.”

              80

              • #
                Tristan

                I’m not quite sure what your point is handjive.

                If energy provided by fossil fuel becomes more expensive then:

                A) there will be a slight decrease in energy demand as energy use impacts the bottom line more

                and

                B) energy provided by renewables becomes comparatively more desirable.

                This results in downwards pressure on emissions.

                112

              • #
                the Griss

                I suspect that locking Gavin Schmidt and his mates in a padded cell without access to computers is the only thing that would stop it being “The Hottest Ever”. !!

                91

              • #
                Bobl

                Not the case, the lifecycle emissions for most renewables is negative that is – with the exception of hydro power, the CO2 cost to make and operate the device is greater than the savings that are made. For example most renewable energy is wasted because demand/supply balancing doesn’t allow the fossil backup to be taken down so quickly. Fossil backup has to be spinning most of the time, so now you have the CO2 cost of the renewables construction AND the cost of unproductive spinning backup. When taken in aggregate, renewables drive up the CO2 emissions because they force you to use fossil power in inefficient ways.

                61

              • #
                the Griss

                “If energy provided by fossil fuel becomes more expensive then”

                Then the poor people suffer. Little old ladies in the UK die during winter because they can’t afford heating.

                “becomes comparatively more desirable”

                NO it doesn’t. It still has to be backed up 100% by fossil fuel.

                Those power stations still have to be built and have to have power on hand, or everything that need a CONSTANT, RELIABLE supply of electricity ceases to function. EVERYTHING !!!

                61

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Tristan,

                If energy provided by fossil fuel becomes more expensive then:
                A) there will be a slight decrease in energy demand as energy use impacts the bottom line more
                and
                B) energy provided by renewables becomes comparatively more desirable.
                This results in downwards pressure on emissions.

                You are incorrect. The energy grid is demand driven, and needs to respond immediately (i.e. within milliseconds) to changes in demand. If it doesn’t you get voltage fluctuations, current surges, etc. with a risk of damage to sensitive equipment (especially medical equipment). Wind and solar cannot respond to changes in demand. They deliver what they can, when they can, and that is all they can do. So we end up with a power grid that has variations in demand, and variations in supply, which appears on the grid as “noise voltage” making the grid less stable than it would be without the “renewable” input. So, what do the generation companies do? They keep their coal-fired or hydro generation running at normal output levels, as if the “renewable” input was not there. It is called “Base Load”. It is the only safe way they can mitigate for surges or brown outs. Having the “renewable” input actually costs the generation companies money, which is reimbursed by the Government through subsidies. Those subsidies ultimately come from the tax payer, either directly or through secondary taxation, so we all pay for the feel-good factor, but get nothing tangible as a result.

                110

              • #
                Tristan

                “Not the case, the lifecycle emissions for most renewables is negative that is – with the exception of hydro power, the CO2 cost to make and operate the device is greater than the savings that are made”

                Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources: (gCO2eq/kWh)

                Coal: 820
                Wind: 12

                112

              • #
                Tristan

                “Then the poor people suffer. Little old ladies in the UK die during winter because they can’t afford heating.”

                The Greens/ALP carbon tax was roughly revenue neutral. That is, the little old ladies received money from the gov’t that approximated the extra money they’d spend on energy.

                212

              • #
                Tristan

                A modern power grid combines flexible and inflexible sources of energy. You need a certain amount of flexible energy sources (such as solar with storage). Inflexible sources (wind, no-storage solar) can’t make up the entire grid.

                110

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources: (gCO2eq/kWh)

                Including the full manufacturing, transportation, commissioning, operating, removal, and disposal costs? What about the ancillary costs such as roading, land acquisition, insurance, etc.?

                It is easy to see that you are not an Engineer, Tristan.

                the little old ladies received money from the gov’t that approximated the extra money they’d spend on energy.

                So why bother?

                Who paid for the administrative costs associated with this redistribution of “wealth”?

                91

              • #
                the Griss

                You seriously have ZERO idea how a modern grid functions, do you.

                They hire the lowest common dominator to troll this site, they truly do !

                FFS, ask them to send someone knows at least something !!!

                52

              • #
                the Griss

                And WTF has our misnamed carbon dioxide tax got to with the UK.

                And it is NOT neutral, because it and the pointless RET seep through everything.

                They cost everybody !

                And the poorest are hit hardest.

                But your grandma pays for your electricity, I guess.

                71

              • #
                the Griss

                “roughly revenue neutral.”

                roflmao… so it didn’t force any savings.. Thanks for the confirmation, DOH !!!

                Now take your foot out of your mouth.. the other one will probably taste better.

                62

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                You need a certain amount of flexible energy sources (such as solar with storage)

                What is this storage you mention? How does it perform over the projected life of the solar unit? What is its reliability and response characteristics? How, and by whom, is it serviced? What are the additional costs of this storage, over and above the cost of the original solar unit, during its projected lifetime?

                So many pragmatic questions left unanswered, eh Tristan?

                80

              • #
                the Griss

                Come on RW, you KNOW that when a solar plant pr wind turbine ceases to function…

                ….it is just left to rot, a polluting, hazardous, environmental eyesore.

                You can see it in the USA, in many places. And those rotting, rushing husks of those wave machines . tax payer clean-up..

                but the subsidies and ALP/green grants handouts got taken, didn’t they !!

                That is the Green/far-left way.. only expect other people to tidy up after themselves.

                Remember.. they are the ones ENTITLED to rule the world. (according to them)!!

                51

              • #
                the Griss

                HJ, there was a study done in Germany (or was it in Denmark).

                They found that because of the inefficiencies of having to load and un-load the coal power, to account for the nearby wind farm, the CO2 output actually INCREASED !!

                Wind power is a waste of time and money… not to mention the massive amount of REAL pollution in their making.. same with solar. PUTRID.

                Modern coal power is the CHEAPEST and CLEANEST power that can be implemented anywhere in the world.

                Real pollution is contained, the only outputs being H2O and plant life CO2.

                81

              • #
                Tristan

                Bobl, I’m afraid that your opinion is not supported by the data.

                111

              • #
                Tristan

                Rereke

                LCAs are intended to “assess environmental impacts associated with all the stages of a product’s life from-cradle-to-grave(i.e., from raw material extraction through materials processing, manufacture, distribution, use, repair and maintenance, and disposal or recycling).”

                Without reading a given LCA (and without having the requisite knowledge), you can’t evaluate whether a given LCA is an accurate LCA.

                110

              • #
                Tristan

                Rereke

                Yes, there are a lot of pragmatic questions, and there are a lot of pragmatic answers for those questions. If you want to discuss the nitty-gritty of CSP storage, you’ll have to find someone else.

                110

              • #
                the Griss

                RW, basically what BA6 is saying.. is..

                …if you want to know ANYTHING about ANYTHING…. don’t ask him/her !!!

                But that is becoming very obvious by his/her content-free posts.

                63

              • #
                Bobl

                Untrue Tristan, when considering the full cost of renewables one must consider.

                1. Construction and operation of the renewable machines which require roughly two replacements over the life of a typical coal plant. The cost of inverters and the poles and wires necessary to connect remote windmills to the grid (plus we must discount the copper losses associated with those) We must account for the construction, maintenance and operation of the diesel, or gas backup generators, and/or fossil generation to keep those windmills spinning when the wind don’t blow. Not to mention the fossil emission of those hordes of technicians, and their equipment, cranes and so on needed to keep those damned things running.

                These LCC studies you cite don’t include the backup necessary to make the renewables reliable, the connection infrastructure, copper losses, or balancing losses, most of them use nameplate capacity for output which is about 8 times actual output before copper losses and balancing (forced off grid time) – this is a false comparison, you can’t directly compare the output of a raw windmill with a baseload power source, you must add in the infrastructure that converts the unreliable renewable power to be baseload compatible.

                Looking at actual performance in grids it’s clear that mandating renewable energy drives up cost AND CO2. It may be counterintuitive but its true.

                They also have massive ecological footprints, for example to build a GW coal plant I must deforest say 20 Ha, to build the equivalent in solar panels I need to deforest and shade over 20 square KILOMETERS. The reduction in CO2 sinking capacity for solar could be as high as 1 Million Tonnes of CO2 per annum, not to mention the avian slaughtering capacity of wind and Thermal Solar.

                It’s clear Tristan, I call bulldust on your claim, you need to do better and show the calculation you did YOURSELF.

                60

              • #

                Amazing isn’t it?

                Here’s Tristan quoting CSP with storage as his answer, and when pressed, actually admits he knows nothing about it, and any other form of power generation.

                Oh, Tristan, those like you who come here thinking they have all the answers don’t even know the questions in the first place.

                Still, he’s slunk off now, realising how totally out of his depth he is, off to brag to his friends how he came here and slayed us all with his knowledge.

                I seem to remember an old TV show where the closing line was ….. “You are the weakest link. Goodbye!”

                Tony.

                51

              • #
                Tristan

                Bobl

                Your point (1) is addressed by an LCA, in fact, that’s the purpose of an LCA. to account for externals beyond the spinning blade or burning coal.

                The LCAs aren’t intended to include the ‘backup’. As I said above, wind, being an intermittent power generator, can’t be used exclusively in a grid. The backup, or rather, flexible power generation, is provided by alternate sources of energy and can include Biogas/geothermal/CSP/nuclear(if you wanted a renewable route). That said I think we’re going to be using coal for another 30 years at least.

                “They also have massive ecological footprints”

                It depends on where you build them obviously.

                “you need to do better and show the calculation you did YOURSELF.”

                Hardly, or I would be able to have an opinion on very little. You would be in the same boat.

                07

              • #
                Bobl

                For those reading, other than human Labour component and intellectual property, the dollar cost of anything is roughly proportional to the energy requirement for its production and operation. For example gold is expensive because it occurs in low concentrations, you need to dig out and proxess about a tonne of earth for each ounce of gold. The cost of energy to construct the processing machinery and power it is the single biggest component after Labour.

                So all things being equal if a gigawatt of renewable power costs more than a gigawwat of Coal power then you can expect that more energy ( proxy for CO2 emission) went into making the renewable power than the coal power. This is a truism of LCC.

                A solar panel is actually more like a battery, what energy you get out over 20 years is roughly equal to the energy that went in to making it, its only profitable because the government pays a subsidy so that you can sell the energy stored in the solar panel for more than the energy (from a chinese coal or diesel plant) that went into making it. There is very little CO2 benefit at all, and when you take into account the losses and inefficiencies, and add in the hidden xosts (like the CO2 emitted by the truck that the installers drove to your house to install the panels) there is a very good chance you will actually save much less CO2 than was put in, in this case your solar panel actually raises emissions overall and the trees will say thankyou.

                40

              • #
                Tristan

                Tony

                “Still, he’s slunk off now, realising how totally out of his depth he is, off to brag to his friends how he came here and slayed us all with his knowledge.”

                Your imagination is vivid. :)

                18

              • #
                Bobl


                The LCAs aren’t intended to include the ‘backup

                Then clearly you are comparing an unreliable part time power source with a fulltime reliable source and that’s just wrong. If I want to compare two competing systems I must do the LCC on the same operating basis, same ACTUAL output and duty otherwise they don’t represent the same capability. You are comparing apples and oranges.

                Clearly you have never done a LCC analysis! Nor has anyone at greenpiss.

                How many 1 Megawatt windmills does it take to replace a 1 GW coal plant?

                Naively you might answer 1000, but the answer is nearer 28,000 in at least 4 groups of 7000 units in 4 different areas with complementary wind conditions, covering about 10,000 hectares which needs to be high up and cleared of trees.

                Why? well you need to ensure that at least one of your power stations is generating at all times (That’s why you need 4 plants), and the capacity factor of wind is only reliably about 1/7 th of nameplate 4 x 7 is 28 times the nominal nameplate in order to specify a reliable power supply equal to a fossil plant. Not only that, since the longevity of a wind turbine is about 1/3 that of a fossil plant, over the lifecycle of the fossil, plant you will need 3 times that number approaching about 100,000 1 MW windmills to replace just one 1 gigawatt coal plant. Lets assume the turbine is about 20 tonnes since about 4 tonne of CO2 goes into each tonne of steel the embodied CO2 cost of JUST the steel in your 1 GW wind farm is at least 8 million Tonnes, Copper and Aluminium are even worse. Then let’s add in the 200 km of poles and wires connecting your wind farm to the grid.

                This is how LCC comparisons are done

                41

              • #
                Bobl

                Oops last reply went in at 19.4.1.1.2 or there abouts.

                20

              • #
                Tristan

                “Then clearly you are comparing an unreliable part time power source with a fulltime reliable source and that’s just wrong. ”

                I’m responding to your assertion that wind turbines increase CO2 generation.

                “Why? well you need to ensure that at least one of your power stations is generating at all times”

                We’re talking kw/h here. We’re not talking ‘trying to use wind as your only energy source’.

                ” capacity factor of wind is only reliably about 1/7 th of nameplate 4 x 7 is 28 times the nominal nameplate in order to specify a reliable power supply equal to a fossil plant.”

                We’re discussing actual energy generation. kw/h is not measured in nameplate capacity, but the amount of kw produced…

                08

              • #
                Tristan

                I’m done for the night. I might pick this up later but probably not. Thanks for the chat, Bob.

                08

              • #
              • #
                James Bradley

                Tristan,

                “I’m offering a genuine throw down amidst the shouting between the galleries. You up for it, ‘Ed’?”

                40

            • #
              Tristan

              “the dollar cost of anything is roughly proportional to the energy requirement for its production and operation.”

              And land. And raw materials. And externalities.

              In other words. Not roughly proportional.

              Also Bobl, you are conflating two qualities:

              Energy Return On Energy Invested

              and

              Life-cycle Greenhouse-gas Emissions

              They aren’t unrelated, but substituting EROI for LCGGE will lead you to the wrong conclusions.

              08

              • #
                Bobl

                See 19.4.1.1.2 (I think)

                20

              • #
                The Backslider

                A modern power grid combines flexible and inflexible sources of energy. You need a certain amount of flexible energy sources (such as solar with storage). Inflexible sources (wind, no-storage solar) can’t make up the entire grid.

                Where, Tristan, can such a “modern power grid” be found? Can I still smelt aluminium on it?

                30

              • #
                Bobl

                Hey Jo, or mods, can we get an outcome of the great debate! Count up Tristans winning points and ours, that is points of fact that were not successfully refuted/answered by the other side.

                Bear in mind that points like Tristans concession that you can’t build a reliable network out of renewables, and that LCC for renewables can be justifiably compared to fossil power even though the output capacity and duty is different is a concession to the sceptic side and therefore a losing point.

                30

            • #
              James Bradley

              Tristan,

              That makes no sense at all.

              It is classic propaganda contradiction and obfuscation… “you can still have increasing emissions under a scheme designed to reduce them. In this case, the scheme is curtailing emissions growth, rather than reducing emissions”.

              50

            • #
              James Bradley

              Tristan,

              Every response from you is in Doublespeak.

              The primary language used by the groups with whom you associate.

              50

        • #

          Ah Tristan, here you are then, another person from your side of the argument wearing the blinkers of Science.

          Take those blinkers off and look at the whole picture.

          I don’t want to debate you, because you look down a tunnel.

          So, if the emissions of CO2 are so detrimental, and the problem is so dire, with the largest of those CO2 emissions coming from electrical power generation, and mostly from coal fired power, why then has NO government anywhere on Planet Earth shut down ONE large scale coal fired plant directly because of this perceived problem with CO2 emissions, knowing that 45% or more of them come from coal fired power alone.

          Surely that of itself MUST tell you that ALL of those Governments are only paying lip service to the perceived problem to garner political points (votes) from people who believe in CAGW caused by CO2, mistaking serious looks from supposedly concerned politicians for action on doing something about it.

          In fact, more coal fired power plants have been constructed in the last seven years than in the previous 50 years.

          If the problem is one that is supposedly going to kill us all, then that overarching body the UN would be directly ordering not only no new plants, but the closure of existing plants. The ONLY thing that the UN is doing is making money from the whole thing.

          Talk all you like about the Science and the CO2, debate it even, but until you actually see that NO ONE is doing anything concrete about it, like closing those large scale plants which each one of them emit 20 Million tons of CO2 a year, then all you have is talk talk talk.

          You’ve got nothing but that.

          Tony.

          121

          • #
            Matty

            Ahem. Some of the more dimly led countries on the planet have been forcing the closure of coal capacity with the connivance of the EU .

            A little dated now this report from last year. http://www.worldcoal.com/news/coal/articles/The_UK_faces_capacity_crunch_as_coal_fired_power_plants_close_132.aspx#.VEjMlGS9Kc0

            German industry is now making its voice heard though, just as Tony predicted it would take the closure of large scale coal plants to make people wake up.

            30

            • #

              Thanks Matty, but just to expand on what you mentioned, those plants in the UK which are closing have absolutely zero to do with any CO2 scare. They are closing because they are old, close to ancient in fact, small plants, and the only larger units closing are also only closing due to age.

              The same as what is happening in the U.S. as those older coal fired plants, again, all of them in the range of 10MW, with barely anything over 100MW closing, well they too are only closing because they too are old.

              The average age of a coal fired power plant is around 50 years. As recent as 2009, the AVERAGE age of EVERY coal fired power plant in the US was in fact just a few Months shy of 50 years ….. the AVERAGE age. Even now with the closure of those small old plants, the average age is still 43/44 years old, something renewables can only dream about.

              Of all those closed coal fired plants in the US, they have been replaced, not only in equal Nameplate for all those plants, but in fact by a greater Nameplate than the closed plants, and all those plants have been replaced by Natural Gas fired plants, again, CO2 emitting, also again showing how serious Governments are, allowing CO2 emitters to be replaced by ….. CO2 emitters.

              Not ONE coal fired plant ANYWHERE has closed down because of the CO2 scare, no matter what politicians might say.

              NOT ONE.

              Tony.

              50

        • #
          Bobl

          Well let’s start with the obvious ones and see where it goes.

          1. By how many degrees rounded to the nearest tenth of a degree, would an ETS costing the public 11 Billion P/A eg Rudds ETS curtail warming in 2100 ?

          2. Given that scientists say that all cause total global warming is 33 degrees above theoretical blackbody, and CO2 absorbtion bands are 85% opaque (EG CO2 is already absorbing 85 percent of energy within its stopband) What is the maximum warming possible by CO2 even for a 100% CO2 atmosphere? (This is a relatively simple calculation) There are about 13 doublings to reach 100% CO2, and the IPCC therefore would contend that temperature for a venus earth (CO2 atmosphere) would be at least 3.3 x 13 = 42.9 and up to 6 x 13 = 78 degrees C warmer, can you reconcile these estimates?

          3. Do you accept the IPCCs claim of x3 multiplication of the effects of CO2, given that after lapse rate feedback is accounted this would imply a loop gain of > 0.95?

          4. Do you accept that windmills and solar panels can never substitute for fossil power ( because their energy density is only about 8W per square meter on a baseload equivalent, reliable power basis )

          5. Do you agree that the outcomes of “Climate Action” so far have been particularly damaging, given the effect of biofuels on food prices, the blossoming prevalence of energy poverty in (especially cold) western nations, and the diversion of large amounts of money that could be spent improving the human condition (disease, poverty, hunger etc) into building useless windmills and solar panels.

          Enough for starters

          70

  • #
    DonS

    Ha, “bollocks”. Now there’s a word we don’t see enough of in public discourse. I am constantly yelling it out at the TV, especially when tuned to our ABC. With so much of it about I would have thought more people would use so descriptive word for much of the rubbish flying around these days. Says it all really.

    Thanks Jo, you’ve made my day :)

    60

  • #
    TdeF

    Dr. Patrick Moore is being reported, at least in the Australian. However I note again that he says CO2 is ‘plant food’. That is a true statement, but he really misses the opportunity to say it is the only ‘food’, unless you consider water food.

    Lacking teeth and a digestive system, apart from the odd Venus flytrap, plants take in CO2 and with sunlight and water convert it into hydrocarbons, sugars. Plants ‘eat’ nothing else and before modern chemistry, were thought to grow from water alone.

    Such tiny trace metals as they take from the soil are used for more complex compounds and from the roots, a few other chemicals involving Nitrogen which some cannot obtain directly. Then all herbivore animals from krill to whales and elephants live on these plants, so everyone is also made from CO2. Animals breakdown the Hydrocarbons again to provide their energy. Sunlight, CO2 and H2O. All life on earth.

    So all is Carbon Pollution. CO2 is not plant food. It is the plant. The communist Green parties profess to love the very thing they also profess to hate, CO2, but as Dr Moore points out, they know nothing about chemistry. Besides, it was never about warming.

    There is every reason to expect then that as CO2 increases, the planet will bloom, as it is doing. Our biggest worry appears to be a huge amount of sea ice which is apparently direct consequence of the ‘warming’if you believe mysterious ‘scientists’. The whole thing is becoming more Monty Python daily.

    90

    • #
      Robert O

      Should be carbohydrate (starch, sugar, etc.) not hydrocarbon CH4 methane, C2H5 ethane etc. Carbon dioxide plus water gives carbohydrate plus oxygen; is a photo-chemical reaction and occurs in the chloroplasts of all green plants during daylight hours and upon which all life is dependent

      40

      • #
        TdeF

        True. Hydrocarbon. Carbohydrate. Starch C6H10O5. Sugar C6H12O6. Roughly variations on CH2. What people fail to realise is the other fiendish and major pollutant from combustion is Oxygen Dihydride, a most pervasive and pernicious industrial byproduct.

        20

    • #
      gnome

      That’s so oversimplified as to be damaging to the argument. Phosphorus and sulphur are major plant nutrients and aren’t metals. Boron and chlorine aren’t major nutrients but they are necessary and they aren’t metals either. Plants need oxygen to respire.

      Leaving aside all the other elements necessary for plant development, we should be particular to point out the chlorine ion at the centre of every chlorophyll molecule.

      If the Green Parties want to ban chlorine (the devil’s element!) they need to explain how to survive without plants. And while they are at it, perhaps they could let us know how they plan for us to desalinate the earth and oceans.

      I prefer to think of sunlight as the main plant food.

      10

      • #
        TdeF

        Cannot see it. It really is that simple and I cannot see how it harms the argument to observe that plants are made almost entirely from CO2 and H2O. Sure, there are many trace elements but they are tiny. Sulphur? 0.1-0.2% by weight. Boron is a micronutrient. Even Jan Van Helmont could not detect in 1620 any loss of dirt in growing a 65kg willow tree. He concluded it was made entirely from water as CO2 was unknown.
        As for respiration, only when there is no sunlight.

        So increased temperature and CO2 and H2O, plant heaven. Increased temperature is great. Glaciers melting? Northern Europe was uninhabitable, covered in Glaciers only 22,000 years ago. Apart from skiing and photographs, what use are they?

        20

  • #
    Angry

    Meanwhile in Australia the ALP (Australian LIARS PARTY) continue to support the GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD by stopping the removal of the HIDDEN carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) tax otherwise known as the RET (renewable energy target) !

    mongrel traitors to all Australians !

    Labor keeps power bills high to pretend to save the planet:-

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/labor_keeps_power_bills_high_to_pretend_to_save_the_planet/

    This is why the labor party (alp) must never ever be allowed to govern Australia again !!

    83

  • #
    Ceetee

    The global, politically inspired cult movement that cried wolf…again. Isn’t this what the Americans call groundhog day?.

    51

  • #
    Peter C

    From Roy Spencer’s blog:

    Ode to Misinterpretations of the Second Law
    October 21st, 2014

    Inspired by a couple comments from my solar eclipse post.

    He said an object that was cold
    Could not make something warm still warmer
    So he donned his coat, went out the door
    To prove the truth of former.

    “See?” he said, “the sky is cold”
    “and so it cannot warm”
    Then back inside he merrily went,
    Removing the cold coat he’d worn.

    -Burma-Shave

    Not sure what -Burma-Shave means. I think that Roy wrote this himself.

    I may come back to this at the weekend. In the mean time interpretations?

    10

    • #
      Joe V.

      The coat is cold but he still puts it on to make himself, who is already warm, warmer. His actions thereby talk more sense than the misconceptions he is spouting.

      10

    • #
      Mark Hladik

      In the 1950′s and ’60′s, there was a canned, pressurized shave cream called “Burma Shave”. To advertise their product, they put up road signs, almost all along “secondary” roads (the US interstate system was just getting started), and the signs were strategically placed to be read in sequence as one traveled along the road at the posted speed limit (typically 60 – 70 mph on US highways in the post-war era).

      Each of the signs had one line of the “limmrick” for lack of a better term. There is a website (not sure where it is) that has almost all of the old Burma Shave dittys. My favorite was this:

      “Empty beer cans

      along the road

      are ugly, many say

      But at night

      reflecting bright

      they safely guide the way

      Burma Shave”

      20

      • #
        Peter C

        Thanks Mark,

        I am often amazed at the arcane knowledge I find on this site!

        20

        • #
          Mark Hladik

          You are very welcome. I was surprised that some of the other U. S. visitors to Jo’s wonderful website had not brought in a discussion of the old Burma Shave ads. They were always so much fun for us kids as we traveled.

          Without belaboring the intricacies of the company having to rent the land from the landowners, the placement of the signs was highly random. It kept us occupied, watching for the first line of each ditty, and a great laugh when we hit the punchline.

          If you, or anyone, finds that website (I tried googling “Burma Shave”, but the hits were mundane), I’d love to go and revisit some of the old ones. Jo has my e-mail, and I am open to her (or mods) letting anyone finding that website sending it to my inbox. It is a Yahoo address, and most everyone and his spamming dog have it, so feel free.

          – Mark H.

          10

  • #
  • #
    Sunray

    Bollocks! Very well put Jo.

    10

  • #
    richsrd

    “It might be the hottest year if you live in a white louvered box above a carpark, next to a concrete-heat-sink-superstructure, and not far from a runway. Though even then you might need to be homogenized and adjusted to really feel the heat”

    and estimating temps up to 1200 kilometres from a weather station.

    21

  • #
    the Griss

    Hummm.. Just tried to replicate that graph using WFT.

    UAH ends up below RSS in WFT. ? (but is above RSS on Roy’s graph)

    Also looks like UAH is a bit lower in WFT in several places. eg matches to RSS 1987-1990 in Roy’s but not in WFT

    Different versions, perhaps ?

    Have asked on Roy’s site, but no answer yet.

    00

  • #

    Does Roy or anyone else actually know what is being measured by these satellites? They claim they measure the microwave radiance of WV somewhere in the atmosphere. Is this any indication of temperature somewhere? How has that been verified? The sat measurements seem to be highly repeatable measurements of something! Perhaps many conflicting things.

    10

    • #
      Bobl

      Of course they do, when they launched the spacecraft do you think they didn’t bother to check that the satellites matched the measurements from weather balloons?

      00

      • #

        They may well be correcting the measurements at LEO of the radiance spectra of O2 with some balloon thermometric measurement at some altitude. That spectra comes from all altitudes of O2. The internal reference is fine for retaining the accuracy with regard to temperature. The question is what are the other variables in the whole atmosphere that affect that measured radiance? I agree that they are accurately measuring something. The claims of what that something may be, seems to be hand waving and fantasy.

        00

    • #

      Roy Spencer gives some detail of what is being measured in the post.

      10

  • #
    BruceC

    Sorry for this being off topic, but I think this deserves a post of it’s own.

    Patrick Moore on ‘Richo’ (Sky News Australia). Graham Richardson, Alan Jones, Patrick Moore and Deputy CEO of the Climate Institute, Erwin Jackson.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBWTJrS557E&amp

    Note: In April 2008, Erwin Jackson and the Climate Institute caused a kerfuffle with green groups when the C.I. joined with WWF-Australia in supporting the accelerated development of clean coal technology. That undermined the demonisation of coal central to many activist campaigns.

    Jackson was a member of Greenpeace for nearly 20 years. For 14 of those years he ran campaigns for Greenpeace Australia.
    The Australian: October 17, 2008;
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/the-deal-magazine/the-activist/story-e6frgabx-1111117776949

    00

  • #
    TdeF

    Jackson seems genuine enough. He talks about emitters (of CO2). However if temperatures are not climbing, we will be completely out of fossil fuels in well under 100 years. Even the IPCC admits the extra CO2 is all vanishing, although they say 80 years as a half life in the atmosphere when it is far less.

    So if the world does nothing, burns all the fossil fuels quickly, the problem is self fixing. Why then do anything? If temperatures are not rising, sea ice is not vanishing, polar bears are fine, caribou are not lost, what exactly is the problem? How can you have global warming, climate change, extreme events, without a temperature rise?

    My favorite scare was Tim Flannery’s one, that droughts would be more frequent. Surely that means they would be shorter. How can a lack of rain be more frequent? How can no rain be more severe, as in more severe droughts?

    Anyway, it almost seems as if the Climate worriers are trying to dissociate CO2 from Global Warming, as if CO2 is a dangerous dirty pollutant which causes Climate Change somehow and needs to be monitored and minimized. No science at all. So the concept of ‘carbon neutral’, to preserve some imagined status quo, which must by definition be ideal. It isn’t.

    41

  • #
    James Bradley

    2014 Hottest Year Ever… apparently only since 2013.

    22

  • #
    AndrewWA

    I have only just watched the Sky News coverage on Richo and Jones of the discussion between Patrick Moore (ex Green peace) and Erwin Jackson (Deputy CEO of The Climate Institute).

    What tired old arguments were presented by Erwin Jackson.

    Patrick Moore was one of the early key members of Greenpeace. Patrick has a BSc in Forest Biolgy and a PhD in Ecology.

    Erwin Jackson is with the Climate Institute which makes lost of $$s advising anybody who will pay.
    It’s pleasing that 2 of the F/T staff (both Juniors) at the Climate Institute actually have qualifications in Enviro/Climate Science. The rest are Bus Dev, Journos, Marketing, Lawyers, Photographers etc.

    Interesting that I can’t ascertain Erwin’s Climate Science credentials except that he has 20 years of being associated with the Climate Change Industry.

    Can anybody provide details of Erwin Jackson’s tertiary qualification??

    10

  • #

    What the satellites DON’T do is such a good job of tracking the temperatures over ice and the polar regions are where global warming is most intense. RSS, for example RSS, acknowledges this by limiting the TLT record to 70S to 82.5N, eg not so much Antarctica.

    20