Skip to content

Joe Bastardi On Water Vapour & El Ninos

June 15, 2018

By Paul Homewood

 

 

Joe Bastardi develops the his ideas on how oceans affect global temperatures, in a guest post at Climate Change Dispatch:

 

image

Given it’s the number one greenhouse gas (GHG), one would naturally think water vapor (WV) is the big powerhouse in global weather and climate.

It’s why I am a lone voice in the wilderness who supports Dr. John Cahir’s idea from year’s ago that the real metric to measure global warming is saturation mixing ratios.

Unfortunately, such an idea is about as popular as an outbreak of influenza with so many scientists pushing CO2-driven warming.

Why? Well, what is the number one source of thermal energy on the planet, with 99.9%? The oceans. What is the prime source of water vapor (and arguably CO2)? The oceans.

The recent Super El Nino sent an immense amount of water vapor into the pattern. I have already opined that this has a very long life as far as the effect on the planetary temperature goes because very tiny amounts of water vapor left over in the pattern have their biggest effect on the arctic temps in their cold season.

So, while the Earth’s temperatures, where it’s above freezing much of the time, return to normal, the amount of warmth left in the Arctic areas continue to skew the Earth’s temperatures.

It also leads to interesting other feedback aspects, which we have to deal with in forecasting. So, it is very important to us. But also understanding the source and those implications are important.

But the Super Nino and where we are now in the Arctic, and in fact, the entire state of the oceans, should make a big point,

Once again, as we see almost every year since the warming began, as we head into the warmest time of the year, the Arctic temps go below normal!

Daily mean temperature and climate north of the 80th parallel, as a function of the day of the year.

You can go to this site and go back and review what is going on:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

You can see what I am talking about here. Notice the bulk of Antarctica in its winter is warm, while the Arctic has flipped to cold.

While the NCEP CFSR has the current temp at plus 185C vs the 30-year mean, if not for the major warmth over the Antarctic and again, remember how small it increased in WV when and where it’s very cold and dry really have a big effect on temperature, the rest of the planet is at average or below.

What is impressive is the amount of cold over northern Antarctica and over the water just to the north  That is not easy to do, Of the three continents in the southern hemisphere (south of the equator), only Australia is warm.

In any case, if we look at the saturation mixing ratio tables, what happens if extra water vapor (only very tiny amounts) get pushed into the Arctic.

Well, it’s going to snow more but it’s going to be warmer (more clouds) have to form.

January, in spite of all the warming, was still very cold. So, look what has been going on with snow in the past 30 years–green line. Not much change, but since the colder times (red line) it has INCREASED! What could the cause be? There has to be extra moisture (water vapor):

 

Read the full post here.

Advertisements

BBC Blame Climate Change For Mammal Extinctions–Official Report Says Otherwise

June 14, 2018
tags: ,

By Paul Homewood

 

 

h/t QV

 

The BBC have not let up on Project Climate Fear while I’ve been away!

But this news report, from what they laughingly call the Science and Environment section, must one of their worst distortions of an official report for a long while:

 

image

The red squirrel, the wildcat, and the grey long-eared bat are all facing severe threats to their survival, according to new research.

They are among 12 species that have been put on the first “red list” for wild mammals in Britain.

The Mammal Society and Natural England study said almost one in five British mammals was at risk of extinction.

Factors such as climate change, loss of habitat, use of pesticides and disease are to blame, the report said.

It said the hedgehog and water vole have seen their populations decline by almost 70% over the past 20 years.

However, it is good news for the otter, pine marten, polecat and badger, which have all seen their populations and geographical range spread.

The report is described as the first comprehensive review of the population of British mammals for 20 years.

Researchers examined more than 1.5m individual biological records of 58 species of terrestrial mammal.

They looked at whether their numbers were going up or down, the extent of their range, if there were any trends, and what their future prospects were.

The species have been ranked using the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) criteria, which is used to compile the global list of threatened species.

A species that makes it on to the “red list” means it is called “threatened” and it faces becoming extinct within the next decade.

The highest threat category is “critically endangered.” Three species were given this status: the wildcat, the greater mouse-eared bat, and the black rat.

The next highest threat level is “endangered”. Listed here is the red squirrel, along with the beaver, water vole and grey long-eared bat.

The third-highest threat category is “vulnerable”. The hedgehog, the hazel dormouse, Orkney vole, serotine bat and barbastelle bat are included in this list.

Prof Fiona Mathews, chairwoman of the Mammal Society said: “This is the first time anyone has looked across all species for about 20 years.

“Now obviously we’re living in a country that’s changing enormously – we’re building new homes, new roads, new railways, agriculture’s changing – so it’s really important we have up to date information so we can plan how we’re going to conserve British wildlife.”

John Gurnell, emeritus professor of ecology at Queen Mary University of London said the study was important.

“It’s the first time since the 90s that we’ve assessed the status of all 58 species of terrestrial mammal in Great Britain,” he said.

“I think it provides us a launching pad for going forward in working out what to do in trying to conserve species in the country where necessary.”

The species reported as increasing in number were the otter, pine marten, polecat and badger along with red and roe deer, the greater and lesser horseshoe bat, and beaver and wild boar.

Prof Mathews called it a “mixed picture”.

“Some species are doing well, so carnivores, for example, like polecats and pine martens, they seem to be bouncing back,” she said.

“Probably because they’re not being persecuted in the way that they were in the past.

“On the other hand we have species that tend to need quite specialised habitat like the grey long-eared bat or the dormouse where population numbers are really going down.

“So what we need to do is find ways in which we can make sure that all British wildlife is prospering.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44461150

 

So, climate change is one of the main factors putting British mammals at risk, indeed maybe the major factor, given that the BBC put it first on the list.

But what does the report actually say?

Read more…

Green Nightmare: Germany’s Clean Energy Flops While Global Fossil Fuels Boom…

June 14, 2018
tags:

By Paul Homewood

Dellers reports from Breitbart:

image

Germany, epicentre of global environmentalism, is losing faith in the green dream. Its energy minister has admitted that it will fall some way short of its 2020 climate targets and that voters are weary of the renewable energy projects which in Germany alone cost taxpayers around €25 billion per year.

EurActiv reports:

Voters across Europe have lost faith in politics partly because of “unachievable targets” on renewable energy, said German Energy Minister Peter Altmaier, who rejected calls from a group of other EU countries to boost the share of renewables to 33-35% of the bloc’s energy mix by 2030. […]

“Germany supports responsible but achievable targets,” Altmaier said from the outset, underlining Berlin’s efforts to raise the share of renewables to 15% of the country’s overall energy mix.

But he said those efforts also carried a cost for the German taxpayer, which he put at €25 billion per year. “And if we are setting targets that are definitely above 30%, that means that within a decade, our share has to be more than doubled – clearly more than doubled,” Altmaier pointed out.

Meanwhile, France24 reports:

Rather than cutting emissions of the greenhouse gas by 40 percent compared with 1990 levels, Europe’s largest economy will manage reductions of just 32 percent, said the annual climate report for 2017 signed off by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cabinet.

The shortfall of eight percentage points translates into around 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) pumped into the air annually.

These are shocking admissions from the country which has probably done more than any other to advocate for “clean energy”. Germany had set itself the ambitious target of becoming completely independent of fossil fuels in a scheme known as Energiewende.

Last year, the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Energy published a brochure claiming Energiewende had been a huge success story. But this was a lie according to this German research document, published in English under the name Compendium for a Sensible Energy Policy.

It says:

The Energiewende has the goal of making Germany independent of fossil fuels in the long term. Coal, oil and gas were to be phased out, allowing drastic reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. However, these goals have not even begun to be achieved.

The Energiewende was only driven forward in the electricity sector, which, accounts for only one-fifth of energy consumption. There were hardly any successes in the heating/cooling and transport sectors. And so carbon dioxide emissions in Germany have been rising since 2009, even though well over a hundred billion euros have been spent on the expansion of solar and wind energy over the same period.

The financial obligations undertaken in the process will continue to burden taxpayers for another two decades and will end up costing German consumers a total sum of around 550 billion euros. Despite this enormous effort, security of supply is increasingly under threat.

At the same time, people and the biosphere are suffering; wildlife protection has become subordinated to climate mitigation, even though the possibility of achieving the goals of reducing carbon dioxide emissions is becoming increasingly distant and the measures for the energy transition seem to become more and more questionable from a constitutional point of view.

This news is the latest in a series of disasters for the renewables industry. It follows a crash in the price of solar energy (after China decided to cut subsidies) and the failure of Britain’s wind turbines to produce energy for over a week.

Meanwhile, fossil fuels – especially the most hated one of all, coal – are experiencing an unlikely boom.

According to the Financial Times:

Thermal coal, tagged the least-loved major commodity by analysts, is defying sceptics, with prices rising to the highest level since 2012 thanks to strong Asian demand.

High-grade Australian thermal coal, the benchmark for the vast Asia market, was quoted at $112.60 a tonne on Monday by Argus Media.

The fuel, which is burnt in power stations to generate electricity, has now jumped 130 per cent from its 2016 lows, boosting the profits of big producers such as Glencore and Peabody. The price of South African thermal coal has also hit a six-year high as consumers in Asia scramble for supplies.

While thermal coal is being phased out in Europe on environmental grounds, it still accounts for about 40 per cent of energy consumption in emerging markets, especially Asia.

Demand from India, Japan and South Korea has been robust in the first five months of the year, while an early summer heatwave has lifted imports into China despite Beijing’s efforts to keep a lid on domestic coal prices.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/06/14/german-energiewende-flop-coal-sales-boom/

“Antarctica loses three trillion tonnes of ice in 25 years”–BBC

June 14, 2018
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

A really quite disgracefully misleading and emotive headline from the BBC:

 

image

Antarctica is shedding ice at an accelerating rate.

Satellites monitoring the state of the White Continent indicate some 200 billion tonnes a year are now being lost to the ocean as a result of melting.

This is pushing up global sea levels by 0.6mm annually – a three-fold increase since 2012 when the last such assessment was undertaken.

Scientists report the new numbers in the journal Nature.

Governments will need to take account of the information and its accelerating trend as they plan future defences to protect low-lying coastal communities.

The researchers say the losses are occurring predominantly in the West of the continent, where warm waters are getting under and melting the fronts of glaciers that terminate in the ocean.

"We can’t say when it started – we didn’t collect measurements in the sea back then," explained Prof Andrew Shepherd, who leads the Ice sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise (Imbie).

"But what we can say is that it’s too warm for Antarctica today. It’s about half a degree Celsius warmer than the continent can withstand and it’s melting about five metres of ice from its base each year, and that’s what’s triggering the sea-level contribution that we’re seeing," he told BBC News.

Read more…

Why the Sun Controls the Climate and CO2 is Meaningless

June 13, 2018
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

I have long argued that it is the oceans that control atmospheric temperatures, and not the other way round.

The CO2 is Life website explains this in greater detail:

 

image

twostratospheres1

To understand AGW, one must understand quantum physics. The Greenhouse Gas Effect is the thermalization of Longwave Infrared (LWIR) Photons. LWIR is relatively long-wavelength electromagnetic (EM) radiation and having a long-wavelength, it doesn’t pack much energy into a unit of distance. If you view a Slinky (Spring) as an Em Wave, as you pull the Slinky, the less Slinky there is per foot. If a Slinky is 6 inches fully compressed, and you stretch it to 1 foot in length, there is 1/2 the amount of Slinky per inch as a fully compressed Slinky. The more you pull the Slinky apart, the less Slinky there is per inch. If the Slinky represents a quantum of energy, the longer you stretch the Slinky the less energy you have per inch. That is how EM radiation works. Frequency is directly related to energy, and wavelength is inversely related to energy.

1aaaa

As we’ve mentioned countless times on this blog, to understand the climate you have to understand the oceans (Click Here). The oceans, lakes and rivers cover upwards of 70% of the earth’s surface, and water is a highly effective heat sink, storing over 2,000x the energy found in the atmosphere. Very small changes to the energy in the oceans, therefore, means very big changes to the relative energy balance between the oceans and the atmosphere, and the oceans warm the atmosphere, not vice versa.

OceanWarming02a529px

Climate alarmists point to the warming of the oceans as evidence that CO2 is the cause. The problem with that theory is that they can’t explain how LWIR between 13 and 18µ warms the oceans (Click Here). LWIR between 13 and 18µ doesn’t penetrate the oceans and actually causes cooling through surface evaporation. Additionally, LWIR between 13 and 18µ is very very low energy EM Radiation when compared to EM wavelengths that do actually penetrate and warm the oceans, wavelengths mostly at the blue end of the spectrum. CO2, in reality, is a very weak Greenhouse Gas (Click Here) in terms of warming the atmosphere and the oceans.

 

Read the full account here.

Russian efforts to disrupt U.S. energy markets exposed

June 12, 2018

By Paul Homewood

 

 

From CFACT:

 

image

The Kremlin has masterminded an elaborate scheme to undermine American fossil-fuel production and distribution, concludes a report by the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Released March 1, the report, “Russian Attempts to Influence U.S. Domestic Energy Markets by Exploiting Social Media,” reveals how Russia has teamed up with U.S. and European environmental groups to use such popular outlets as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to turn American public opinion against the domestic oil and natural gas industry.

With the United States having surpassed Russia as the world’s largest producer of natural gas, and now ranking as the world’s fastest-growing producer of oil, the Russians have reason to fear what is more than a little competition. Saying America’s soaring energy development “poses a direct threat to Russian energy interests,” the report explains:

“First, an abundance of American energy supply in the global energy marketplace stands to reduce Russian market share and thus revenues generated from oil and gas activities. Second, by providing supply alternatives to European countries dependent on Russian supply and infrastructure, American energy stands to disrupt the Kremlin’s ability to leverage energy consumption for geopolitical influence.”

Threat to Russia’s Dominant Position in European Gas Markets

The study points out that Russia provides roughly 75% of the natural gas imported by countries in Central and Eastern Europe while countries in Southeast Europe receive almost all their natural gas from Russia. “Russia’s Gazprom has acknowledged for the first time a threat to its dominant position in the European gas market from an expected influx of liquified natural gas (LNG) produced in the United States under the [Trump] administration,” the report cites Reuters as saying.

Poland, for example, recently signed a five-year agreement to import LNG from the U.S. in an attempt to decrease its dependence on Russian natural gas.

“As the threat of American energy continues to grow, so does the Kremlin’s incentive to influence energy operations in Europe and the United States,” the report notes.

Launching Propaganda from Social Media Platforms

Meticulous research by the House committee has unearthed a sophisticated Kremlin plan to disrupt its unwanted energy competitor. Aware that fracking, horizontal drilling, and the construction of a state-of-the-art energy distribution system in the U.S. would further erode Moscow’s once-powerful position, the Kremlin turned to social media to get its message out. After complying with the committee’s request for documentation, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram turned over material linking to a St. Petersburg company, Internet Research Agency (IRA), which was quickly identified as having been created by the Russian government. IRA’s use of American social media platforms to spread anti-U.S. fossil-fuel propaganda was summarized by the committee’s report as follows:

  • Between 2015 and 2017, there were an estimated 9,097 Russian posts or tweets regarding U.S. energy policy or a current energy event on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram.
  • Between 2015 and 2017, there were an estimated 4,334 IRA accounts across Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.
  • According to information provided by Twitter, more than four percent of all IRA tweets were related to energy or environmental issues, a significant portion of the content when compared with the eight percent of the tweets related to the 2016 U.S. election.
  • Russia exploited American social media as part of its concerted effort to disrupt U.S. energy markets and influence U.S. energy policy.
  • The IRA targeted pipelines, fossil fuels, climate change, and other divisive issues in the U.S.

Pipelines have been a favorite target of Russian posts on social media platforms. Pipelines targeted include Dakota Access, Keystone XL, Colonial, Bayou Bridge, and Embridge Line 5.

In conjunction with the committee’s findings, the U.S. Department of Justice has demanded the American affiliate of the Russian network RT register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). FARA requires that agents representing the interests of foreign governments in any political or quasi-political capacity disclose public communications aimed at influencing American political debate or public policy.

In January 2017, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a report stating there is “clear evidence that the Kremlin is financing and choreographing anti-fracking propaganda in the United States.” And Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Delaware) has referred to environmental activists as “useful idiots” for doing the Kremlin’s bidding when it comes to U.S. energy production.

http://www.cfact.org/2018/05/13/russian-efforts-to-disrupt-u-s-energy-markets-exposed/

Global Cooling Led To More Extremes Of Rainfall

June 10, 2018

By Paul Homewood

 

We are constantly told that global warming has led to more extreme rainfall and other weather.

As HH Lamb showed though, monthly extremes in rainfall actually increased sharply during the period of global cooling in the 1960s and 70s:

 

18

18

Hydrogen fuel cell trains herald new steam age

June 9, 2018
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

The Times reports:

 

image

Britain’s railways are to enter a new steam age with up to 100 ageing commuter trains poised to be converted to run on eco-friendly hydrogen. They could be on the network within three years and will be almost silent, with the same range and speed as traditional diesel and electric trains.

Their only emissions will be water, with some released as small puffs of steam above the train. The conversion programme — drawn up by Alstom, the French train maker — would make Britain a world leader in hydrogen train technology. Jo Johnson, the rail minister, called in February for all Britain’s 3900 diesel trains to be scrapped by 2040.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hydrogen-fuel-cell-trains-herald-new-steam-age-mdf78f2dk

 

There is no mention of where the hydrogen itself will come from, but the choice is between the steam reforming process, which uses fossil fuels and produces emissions of CO2 anyway, and electrolysis, which traditionally has been very small scale and expensive.

I came across this useful analysis, which helps to explain:

Read more…

Chris Landsea Urges Caution Linking Hurricanes To Warming

June 8, 2018

Thank goodness for honest climate scientists, such as Chris Landsea.

 

From CFACT:

 

The news media should be cautious about linking hurricane activity to global warming, according to National Hurricane Center Science and Operations Officer Chris Landsea. In an interview with NBC News reporters, Landsea said he is concerned when hurricanes are used “as a poster child” for global warming (https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/national-international/Is-There-a-Link-to-Superstorms-and-Global-Warming-484364611.html).

“There’s periods where it’s busy and quiet and busy and quiet, but no trend,” said Landsea, “There’s no statistical change over a 130-year period. Since 1970, the number of hurricanes globally is flat. I haven’t seen anything that suggests that the hurricane intensity is going to change dramatically. It looks like a pretty tiny change to how strong hurricanes will be. It’s not zero, but it’s in the noise level. It’s very small.”

Responding to assertions that hurricanes are stronger now or retain their strength longer than was the case several decades ago, Landsea questioned whether that perception is due to modern technology. Today’s technology is able to immediately detect the full strength of a hurricane even when it is far out at sea.

Global tropical cyclone data, presented by meteorologist Ryan Maue at http://wx.graphics/tropical/, show fluctuations from year to year but little if any long-term trend.

2017 was an active hurricane season in the North Atlantic, prompting the media to link hurricane activity to global warming. However, the 12 years before 2017 marked the longest period in recorded history without a major hurricane (category 3 or higher) striking the United States (https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/major-us-hurricane-drought-ends-after-record-4323-days

 

http://www.cfact.org/2018/06/06/government-scientist-urges-caution-linking-hurricanes-to-warming/

 

Landsea is one of the world’s leading experts on hurricanes, and famously resigned from the IPCC a few years ago, in protest over Trenberth’s attempts to cook the books.

 

Is 100 Percent Renewable Energy Possible?

June 8, 2018

By Paul Homewood

 

An interesting analysis from energy expert, Norman Rogers at American Thinker:

 

American Thinker

The people who are best described as members of a renewable energy cult are lately promoting the idea that we should run the country on 100% renewable energy, whatever that is.  I say “whatever that is” because different branches of the cult have different definitions of renewable energy.  It seems to be a matter of fashion and prejudice.

One definition of renewable energy is that it is naturally replenished on a human timescale.  Solar energy and wind energy fit in nicely with that definition.  Most fans of renewable energy explicitly reject renewable hydroelectricity if it involves damming a river.  Most renewable energy-lovers are also dam-haters.  They literally feel that fish are more important than people.

Global warming, which supposedly is caused by emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels, is frequently cited as a justification for using renewable energy.  But hydro and nuclear, energy that does not emit CO2, is excluded from the renewable universe.

The only energy that satisfies all branches of the cult and can be scaled up to provide large amounts of energy is wind and solar.  Even if hydro were allowed, there are not enough good sites to provide enough energy for the needs of the U.S.  Hydro currently supplies only 7% of our electricity.  The problem with wind and solar is that they make for erratic energy that comes and goes.  In the case of solar, it goes every night.

If we are to power the country on wind and solar, there has to be a way to fill the gaps when the wind dies or the sun sets.  Currently, that job falls mostly on fossil fuel plants that are abused to speed up and slow down as necessary to compensate for the erratic wind and solar.  The fossil fuel plants are being abused because they were not originally designed for ramping up and down rapidly to follow wind and solar.

The Texas electric system has a large wind power element, capable of generating 18,000 megawatts if every wind turbine is receiving sufficient wind.  On average, the system provides about 6,000 megawatts, sometimes more and sometimes less, with rapid variations.  The erratic nature of the Texas wind generation is illustrated by the graph below, showing hour-by-hour generation for ten days in 2016.

If Texas wind power were a core source of power, the ups and downs would have to be smoothed out.  If backup generating plants are not used, storage of electricity is necessary, storing electricity when output is too high and releasing stored electricity when output is too low.

I ran a one-year simulation of a battery storage system large enough to maintain an average of 6,000 megawatts of output from the Texas wind system.  It turned out that that the battery would have to be able to store 430 hours of average power output.  A lithium ion battery big enough for that would cost about $500 billion, or about ten times what it cost to build the entire wind system.  Such a battery would have to be replaced every ten years.  On the other hand, six nuclear plants big enough to supply 6,000 megawatts continuously would cost about $36 billion.  Natural gas-generating plants to supply 6,000 megawatts would cost $6 billion.  The gas would cost about $1.16 billion per year.

Another way to store electricity is pumped storage.  A dual hydroelectric system pumps water to an upper reservoir to store electricity and lets the water run down to a lower reservoir through a turbine to recover the stored electricity.  Typically, 25% of the electricity is lost.  For the Texas wind system, to store enough energy using pumped storage, upper and lower lakes with 500 feet of vertical separation would each have to be 92 square miles in size and 100 feet deep.  The turbines would cost about $12 billion.  Creating such lakes in East or West Texas with the required vertical separation would be a hugely expensive and difficult undertaking – perhaps impossible, given the lack of mountains in East Texas and the lack of water in West Texas.  Such a hydroelectric system would be equal to the biggest system in the U.S., the Grand Coulee dam on the Columbia River.  The Grand Coulee dam is one of the largest structures ever built by mankind.  Yet 6,000 megawatts of generation is a small fraction of the needs of Texas, which run as high as 70,000 megawatts.

 

Full story here.

 

I ran a similar analysis for the UK last week, and arrived at similar conclusions.

In fact the wind capacity and output numbers are pretty similar betwee, the UK and Texas. I estimated that we would need 3 days of storage, whereas Norman reckins about 18 days. However, he has looked at annual data, whereas mine was based on just one month. It may be that there are big seasonal variations in Texas – eg very little wind in summer – which would mean much more storage would be needed.

This is unlikely to be the case in the UK.