Phew, Wot A Scorcher, April!
By Paul Homewood
Excruciatingly close, say the Met Office!
Well, maybe for then, as they would love to be able to declare another record high. But the real story is not the one they would like to portray.
Greenland No Warmer Now Than The 1880s
By Paul Homewood
h/t NoTricksZone
As I have shown many times, data from long running stations show that temperatures recently in Greenland have been no higher than the 1930s.
A new paper, which uses Reanalysis data from KNMI, pushes the record back further.
https://www.the-cryosphere.net/12/39/2018/tc-12-39-2018-supplement.pdf
As we can see, Greenland temperatures were also at a similar level to now as long ago as the 1880s.
Indeed, it is noticeable that the really anomalous period was that extremely cold interval, which began in the 1950s and lasted till the 1990s.
Iran–A Case Study
By Paul Homewood
According to the US EIA, Iran holds the world’s fourth-largest proved crude oil reserves and the world’s second-largest natural gas reserves.
Not only is it a major producer of oil and gas, it is also a major consumer. According to BP, primary energy consumption was 270 Mtoe in 2016, compared to 188 Mtoe in the UK.
Oil and gas accounted for 98% of Iran’s consumption, with non-hydro renewables as little as 0.04%:
https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/analysis.cfm?iso=IRN
Midwest To Become Arid, As It Gets Wetter!
By Paul Homewood
From “Where do they get this crap Department”?
A new study, based on (you guessed it, climate models), reckons that the arid belt in the western US is moving east, threatening the corn belt in the Midwest:
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-04/teia-t1m041118.php
This is the study:
Abstract
The 100th meridian bisects the Great Plains of the United States and effectively divides the continent into more arid western and less arid eastern halves and is well expressed in terms of vegetation, land hydrology, crops, and the farm economy. Here, it is considered how this arid–humid divide will change in intensity and location during the current century under rising greenhouse gases. It is first shown that state-of-the-art climate models from phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project generally underestimate the degree of aridity of the United States and simulate an arid–humid divide that is too diffuse. These biases are traced to excessive precipitation and evapotranspiration and inadequate blocking of eastward moisture flux by the Pacific coastal ranges and Rockies. Bias-corrected future projections are developed that modify observationally based measures of aridity by the model-projected fractional changes in aridity. Aridity increases across the United States, and the aridity gradient weakens. The main contributor to the changes is rising potential evapotranspiration, while changes in precipitation working alone increase aridity across the southern and decrease across the northern United States. The “effective 100th meridian” moves to the east as the century progresses. In the current farm economy, farm size and percent of county under rangelands increase and percent of cropland under corn decreases as aridity increases. Statistical relations between these quantities and the bias-corrected aridity projections suggest that, all else being equal (which it will not be), adjustment to changing environmental conditions would cause farm size and rangeland area to increase across the plains and percent of cropland under corn to decrease in the northern plains as the century advances.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/EI-D-17-0012.1
Does it ever occur to these fraudsters that we can check the actual data?
All the way up that 100th Meridian, the climate has grown wetter since the early 20thC. totally the opposite of what is claimed should be happening under a warmer climate.
How can such obviously fake science get through peer review?
The Truth Behind Frack Off
By Paul Homewood
https://www.eckingtonagainstfracking.com/
I was at the Mall last weekend, and came across this local anti fracking group holding some sort of a workshop.
One wonders if they realise where the energy they use every day comes from?
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/energy-trends-march-2018
I am pretty sure the residents of Eckington would not want a nuclear plant built next door, nor have their local forests chopped down for pellets.
And regardless of the hype and wishful thinking, there is simply no way that renewable energy will substantially change the picture in the foreseeable future.
Of course, they may be quite happy to rely on imported oil and gas from the Middle East and Russia, to keep them in their comfortable lifestyles. If so, they might get a shock to learn about the Frack Off Extreme Energy Action Network, of which they appear to be a part.
David Shukman’s Imaginary “Historic” Climate Deal
By Paul Homewood
h/t Robin Guenier & Philip Bratby
David Shukman gets excited about the latest piece of climate wishful thinking:
The global shipping industry has for the first time agreed to cut its emissions of greenhouse gases.
Burning green pellets is ‘filthier than using coal’
By Paul Homewood
The Mail picks up on the Channel 4 documentary about biomass, due for broadcast tonight:
The race to adopt green energy has led to the use of materials that are dirtier, costlier and require the felling of hardwood forests in America, it is claimed.
New Study: Battery Storage “Not An Economic Prospect
By Paul Homewood
A new technical paper from GWPF proves that battery storage systems to work with rooftop solar are a waste of money:
New Study: Battery Storage “Not An Economic Prospect”
Consumers warned to avoid battery storage for rooftop solar systems
Rechargeable batteries are said to be a way to extend the appeal of rooftop solar installations, storing the energy generated during the day for use at night. Home energy storage looks set to become big business: Tesla has already entered the marketplace, looking to apply its expertise in batteries to generate a new source of income. Other big-name motor manufacturers are expected to follow.
However, a new paper published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) reveals that consumers are in danger of being fleeced. The paper’s author, power engineer Dr Capell Aris, has examined the economics of battery stores and finds that in the UK their high cost means that they will never pay for themselves. As he explains:
“The price of batteries is relatively high, but the possible savings from adding them to a rooftop solar installation are quite limited, particularly as a fraction of the typical electricity bill. When you add up the costs and benefits, it is quite clear that they are a waste of money.”
That could change if the price of batteries were to fall dramatically, but the gap between costs and benefits is currently so wide that this is unlikely in the near term. As Aris explains:
“There is no doubt that battery prices are falling, but even if we make some fairly optimistic assumptions about performance, prices would have to fall by another 50% just to break even. They would need to come down even further than that to give a financial return. It’s hard to see this happening any time soon. Battery storage for rooftop solar is simply not an economic prospect, and will likely remain that way.”
https://www.thegwpf.com/new-study-battery-storage-not-an-economic-prospect/
Tomorrow’s Grim, Global, Green Dictatorship
Guest commentary by Viv Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition:
Tomorrow’s Grim, Global, Green Dictatorship
Greens hate individual freedom and private property. They dream of a centralised unelected global government, financed by taxes on developed nations and controlled by all the tentacles of the UN.
No longer is real pollution of our environment the main Green concern. The key slogan of the Green religion is “sustainable development”, with them defining what is sustainable.
Billions, Schmillions!
By Paul Homewood
h/t Joe Public, who dug this out of the archives:
It tells us a couple of things (apart from the fact that Jesse Norman is an idiot!):
1) When these sort of numbers trip off politicians’ tongues, it is no more than gobbledegook to them. They have no appreciation of how the sums are calculated, or what they represent.
£47 million? £47 billion? £47 trillion? Who knows? Who cares? They are just numbers on a piece of paper to them.
2) The cost of the smart meter, even at an optimistic £11bn, works out at over £400 per household.
At £47 per year, it will take a decade for the savings to recoup the initial cost, even assuming that they save anything at all.
If proof were needed that the smart meter programme is a scandalous waste of money, Jesse Norman has provided it!
