By Paul Homewood
The Telegraph report:
A wind farm has been paid £11 million not to produce electricity, The Telegraph can disclose.
An analysis shows that 10 wind farms have each been paid more than £3 million over the past three years to shut down their turbines.
The sums being handed out to renewable energy companies are up to double what they would have received for producing electricity.
The highest payment of £11.1 million was paid over three years to ScottishPower, a Spanish-owned firm, which operates the Whitelee wind farm, around 10 miles from Glasgow.
The disclosures prompted claims that the Government has failed to “rein in” the amounts being demanded by wind farm owners to turn off their turbines to stop the electricity network becoming overloaded.
The money, which is ultimately added to household bills, is being paid to a series of firms, including a handful owned by the Swedish, Norwegian and Danish governments.
National Grid is responsible for managing the flow of electricity and hands producers “constraint payments” to shut down when there is a risk of the grid overloading because too much is being generated.
The total payments since 2011 have exceeded £70 million. Many have been made to wind farms in Scotland, where a large proportion of the UK’s turbines have been built and there are “bottlenecks” of energy leaving the area during high winds.
Read the story here.
By Paul Homewood
Is the intensity of tornadoes increasing in the United States, (or, for that matter, falling)? It’s a perennial question.
NOAA gives us some clues, with their charts of EF-1+ and EF-3 to EF-5 tornadoes since 1954. (NOAA ignore EF-0’s, because many more of these weak tornadoes get to be reported nowadays than in the past because of Doppler radar, better reporting practices, increasing population etc – for the background on this, see here.)
[ The original Fujita grading system, using “F” numbers, was replaced in 2007 by the Enhanced Fujita scale, hence “EF” numbers. The new system was designed to ensure compatibility with the original Fujita scale- see here. All references to either Fujita or Enhanced Fujita should be regarded as interchangeable]
But these graphs tell us little about the distribution within the totals. For instance, could there be more EF-4’s relative to EF-3’s?
For tropical storms and hurricanes, there is the measure of Accumulated Cyclone Energy, or ACE, which is calculated by summing the squares of wind speeds for each storm, over 6-hourly intervals.
There is a similar method, called the Power Dissipation Index, or PDI, which, instead of squaring wind speeds, cubes them.
It should therefore be possible to use similar methodology with tornadoes.
By Paul Homewood
WUWT has picked up on the analysis that Jennifer Marohasy has done, which shows how the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been adjusting raw temperature data to produce an artificial warming trend.
One station she has picked on is Amberley.
I thought I would double check what GISS/GHCN have done with the Amberley temperature record.
Figure 1 is taken from the raw data, which was produced via GHCN V2, and was used by GISS until Oct 2011. This database, though no longer used for GISS current products, is still available here.
Now contrast with the latest version, which is based on GHCN V3 temperatures.
The GISS data confirms that Jennifer Marohasy is quite correct in her analysis, and that substantial adjustments have been made to create an artificial warming trend.
By Paul Homewood
It was not long ago that we were bombarded with claims of record high temperatures in the US. For instance, PBS introduced their new widget in 2011, shown above, to track daily records.
As they pointed out:
We’ve built this widget so our viewers can understand the significance of the heat, not only in terms of raw degrees, but in a format that compares today’s temperatures to previous record highs.
As of last September, it was still running. (Not that they cared to show record daily lows as well!)
Given the unusually cold weather experienced in much of the States this year, it will probably come as no surprise to find that PBS have now pulled their widget.
By Paul Homewood
An interesting paper on UHI from a couple of years ago.
They find that urban expansion has a significant effect on temperature trends and that 44% of the warming in the study regions over the last 30 years was urbanisation induced.
By Paul Homewood
Dellers in good form again, as he slams DiCaprio:
Actor Leonardo DiCaprio has declared war on Western industrial civilisation by funding and narrating a series of short eco documentaries urging us all to leave fossil fuels in the ground, cripple our economies with carbon taxes and embrace bird-frying, bat-chomping renewable technologies such as solar and wind.
The first film in the series on Carbon – co-written by liberal activist cum talk radio host Thom Hartmann – is riddled with basic errors, extremely dubious propaganda claims, and flagrant politicking on behalf of the more left-wing elements in the Obama administration. But DiCaprio may well have been unable to afford a fact-checker, owing to the fact that he was paid just $10 million for his last movie The Wolf of Wall Street – a catastrophic drop in the income he received for earlier movies, like Inception, for which he received nearly $60 million.
Here are some of the simple mistakes DiCaprio would have spotted, if only he had been able to scrape together the money for an entry-level production team.
"Ancient life on earth. Over millions of years plants and animals lived and died; that decomposed life sunk deep into the ground and as a result an ancient menace was created: fossil fuels."
Er, about that phrase "ancient menace", Leo. You’re talking about the intense stored energy that made the Industrial Revolution possible; that freed people from the backbreaking toil of agrarianism and enabled the division of labour and technological advances that led, inter alia, to the invention of cinema and the birth of your career. Without fossil fuels your sorry ass would be nothing, DiCaprio – and all your cutesy pop fans would still be slaving as dairy maids and gleaners, their faces ravaged by cowpox. So a little more respect and perspective, please.
"97 per cent of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening and caused by human activity."
No they don’t. Which dork fed you that line? Joe Romm? Thom Hartmann? Whoever it was, get your lawyers on the case and sue the arse off him for having made you look such an ignorant pillock. Here is why the 97 per cent figure is not to be taken seriously.
"They drill, they extract making trillions of dollars."
You talk about making large sums of money like it’s a bad thing, Leo. Can we assume from this that in future, you’ll be doing all your movies for the minimum wage to show your solidarity with the world’s poor, exploited and oppressed? Oh, and by the way, that graphic your people slipped in at this point showing "chemical waste" leaking into the water table as a result of fracking: this is just an urban myth promulgated by people like the Russians and the Middle Eastern oil despots to deny the US energy security.
"We need to keep this carbon in the ground."
Yes, that’ll work. Cancel economic growth. Make energy unaffordable. Kill jobs. Everyone will love this and there won’t be any riots or revolutions or anything like that. Everyone will see it makes sense because the bloke who plays the guy who stood with Kate Winslet on the prow of the Titanic told them so in a whiny bitch voice in a crappy eco documentary.
"We no longer need the dead economy of the fossil fuel industry."
No, that’s right. We need vibrant, renewable-energy-based economies, like the ones causing 50 per cent youth unemployment in Spain and Portugal; like the ones that is turning Germany – once the envy of the industrial world – into a Venezuelan-style fail.
"We can move our economy town by town, state by state, to renewable energy and a sustainable future."
Ah. You’re talking about Local Agenda 21 – the route by which greenie-lefty activists infiltrate local governments and impose their anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, misanthropic new world order on innocent taxpayers whether they like it or not. You people have virtually ruined California; now you want to take the rest of the world down with you too. Well, it’s good to know where you stand Leo and we’ll be sure to bear it in mind next time we’re debating whether to go and see your latest movie or whether to opt for some pure quality like maybe Sharknado 2.
By Paul Homewood
Dellers is in excellent form again!
"Daddy, what did YOU do in the Great Climate War?"
"Well, son. I voyaged up to the Arctic Circle in a nice big boat with a bunch of installation artists, mime practitioners, YouTube cat short specialists and climate scientists on an all-expenses trip to make a documentary called The Earth Is Weeping: Feel Her Pain. My contribution was a Concerto for Gamelan and Nose Flute entitled Swan Song Of The Melting Polar Bear."
"Gosh, Daddy, it sounds like you made a really important contribution to raising awareness of Climate Change!"
"Oh, I did, son. I did. But the competition was stiff. Let me tell you, by the mid-2010s you could barely move in the Antarctic or the Arctic for self-proclaimed artists and explorers and "climate" "scientists" making utter dicks of themselves in the name of saving the planet from the deadly threat of ManBearPig. There was the Ship Of Fools expedition of 2013. And sundry expeditions conducted under the name Cape Farewell Project, in which luminaries such as Martha Wainwright, Laurie Anderson, Jarvis Cocker, Cormac McCarthy, Feist and "comedian" Marcus Brigstocke sailed north in order to create meaningful art projects on the theme of climate doom."
"Wow, Dad. How could your Concerto for Gamelan and Nose Flute possibly compete with such rampant pretentiousness and pseudery?"
"Son, it gets worse. There was a film – a Danish film called Expedition To The End Of The World. It got reviewed very favourably in Salon. That was the moment when I knew for me that the Great Climate War was over. Frankly it made me feel like a rank amateur."
"Gosh. It sounds terrible."
"Let me quote from the Salon review to give you an idea."
Set alternately to Mozart’s “Requiem” and blasts of Metallica, “Expedition” is like a stoned camping trip to an unimaginably distant location, where your companions are a group of brilliant intellectuals, artists and scientists. No underlying premise for the mission is ever spelled out, nor is the provenance of the antique vessel ever discussed. As for the mind-altering substance on this voyage, it’s not weed or LSD – although the movie does not show us everything that happens on shipboard at night – but the extraordinary setting, a pristine Arctic landscape of sea, land, ice and sky so isolated that it has never been mapped or explored. Climate change has opened the fjords of Greenland’s northeastern coast to marine traffic for the first time in recorded history, and the members of the Danish expedition were among the first human beings to enter them in thousands of years.
"But, Dad. That makes it sound like the Citizen Kane of crappy eco documentaries!"
"And I haven’t even got to the polar bear scene yet."
"Tell me what Salon says about the polar bear scene."
"Listen carefully son. You won’t believe your ears."
After finding polar bear prints and scat they finally encounter one actual bear, an animal who appears half-starved and confused by the Greenlandic summer, which has rendered the fjords ice-free for a few weeks each year, for the first time in human memory. He has ransacked a remote cabin left behind by other explorers or scientists – the only human structure we see in this entire film – eaten the entire cache of canned foods and chocolate bars, and left behind a potent stench of polar-bear urine and excrement. If it’s possible to read the moods of a wild animal, this one seems both bewildered and enraged; it’s almost as if he understands on some instinctive level that the creatures who left this building and its peculiar treats behind are also responsible for his predicament.
"But, Dad. That sounds to me like a bear doing what bears will always do. Eating easily available stuff in preference to less available stuff. It’s hardly a sign of imminent climate doom."
"Yes, son. Now you appreciate the genius of Salon. Its readers were so gullible they’d just believe any old crap. So long as the underlying political message was correct, they really didn’t care."
"And what became of all those artists and documentary makers and climate scientists you speak of, Dad?"
"It wasn’t pretty. I did well to get out when I did. The others weren’t so lucky."
"Well I don’t know whether you’ve ever seen the South Park episode about Lemmiwinks the gerbil and Mister Slave. But basically they all re-enacted that journey on an epic scale. None of them ever came back."
"Kind of tragic, given that the global warming they feared never actually came to pass."
"I think they would have preferred the term "ironic". They were those kind of people."
By Paul Homewood
Further to my earlier post on the influence of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation on Northern Hemisphere temperatures, it’s worth looking at the Woodfortrees graph below, which plots HADCRUT4 temperature anomalies for the NH, along with the AMO. Note that both series are detrended.
The correlation could hardly be closer. It does not take a genius to work out what will happen once the AMO turns back to its cold phase.
By Paul Homewood
While I was posting on this earlier, I spotted this comment from Matt McGrath.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global average temperatures have increased by around 0.05C per decade in the period between 1998 and 2012.
This compares with a decadal average of 0.12 between 1951 and 2012.
This statement accomplishes two things:
1) It gives the impression that warming has “slowed down”, and not stopped.
2) It also implies that part of the reason for the “slowdown” is the use of the record El Nino year of 1998 as the start point.
So, has warming stopped, or merely slowed down?
Let’s check out HADCRUT numbers on Woodfortrees.
As can be seen, there is a small rising trend since 1998. According to the IPCC, this is “0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade”, and would be regarded as not of any statistical significance.
However, this trend is distorted not just by the record warm year of 1998, but also by the cold La Nina that followed in the next two years.
By 2001, ENSO conditions had returned to normal, so what has the trend been since then?
The trend is dead flat. And satellites, according to RSS, show a declining trend.
So, remember when anyone tries to argue that global warming has merely “slowed down”, or that the pause is simply an artifact of using the record hot year of 1998 as a start point.
Global temperatures have not gone up at all in the last 13 years, and this fact has nothing to do with year to year ENSO changes.
By Paul Homewood
h/t Joe Public
The BBC report on new research by Chen & Tung, covered yesterday by WUWT.
The hiatus in the rise in global temperatures could last for another 10 years, according to new research.
Scientists have struggled to explain the so-called pause that began in 1999, despite ever increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The latest theory says that a naturally occurring 30-year cycle in the Atlantic Ocean is behind the slowdown.
The researchers says this slow-moving current could continue to divert heat into the deep seas for another decade.
However, they caution that global temperatures are likely to increase rapidly when the cycle flips to a warmer phase.
WUWT also include this chart from Chen & Tung.
(Top) Global average surface temperatures, where black dots are yearly averages. Two flat periods (hiatus) are separated by rapid warming from 1976-1999. (Middle) Observations of heat content, compared to the average, in the north Atlantic Ocean. (Bottom) Salinity of the seawater in the same part of the Atlantic. Higher salinity is seen to coincide with more ocean heat storage. Credit: K. Tung / Univ. of Washington
There are a couple of things we can glean from this.
1) The heat is not hiding in the deep, as is intimated. On the contrary, it is at the surface, that is the top few hundred metres. A warmer ocean leads to a warmer atmosphere, so far from offsetting global warming, it has actually added to it.
2) The patterns seen are not “new knowledge”, as the BBC implies. They are part of the well known Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which has about a 60-year cycle. Since around 1995, the AMO has been in warm phase, and will likely remain so for approximately another decade. This will help to maintain global temperatures, and offset the PDO, which is currently negative.
Once the AMO enters its cold phase, which could last 30 years, there will be a negative effect on global temperatures, just as was seen during the 1960’s and 70’s.
We can see the AMO cycle from NOAA’s graph below.
While the cycle appears to have peaked, it is still strongly in positive territory. Contrast this with the low point in the 1970’s.
Revealingly, the BBC report:
The researchers say that there was another hiatus between 1945 and 1975 due to this current taking down the heat, that led to fears of a new ice age.
This is, of course, the cold phase of the AMO they talk about.
There is no secret about this. As NOAA reveal,
The solid blue curve shows the observed northern Hemisphere temperatures and the dashed blue curve is a smoothed version. The red curve is the temperature history for a model that responds to the external forcing of greenhouse gases and solar variability but not to natural climate variations. The blue alternations about the red curve represent the natural AMO oscillations. When the AMO decreases, as from 1950 to 1975, global warming may appear to be reversed. When the AMO increases, as from 1975 to the present, the global warming (red) is exaggerated.
It is clear from the AMO cycle that the AMO has not begun to decrease yet. Wind back to 1960, and the drop in the AMO was sudden and precipitate. When it happens next time, we could be in for 30 years of falling NH temperatures.
Ice age scare anyone?