Archive for the ‘Alarmism’ Category

California normal

April 17, 2017

So much for the global-warming induced, permanent drought that had afflicted California. Population in California has doubled since 1979 but water resources infrastructure has not changed much. Ground water is being consumed and depleted at an increasing pace. Yet normal weather variations are taken to be man-made global warming.

California remains normal, but Californians …….

USNews: 

An index of precipitation at eight sensors showed that just under 90 inches of rain and snow have fallen this winter in the northern Sierra Nevada. The previous record of 88.5 inches was set in the winter of 1982-1983. The average for the region is 50 inches a year, according to the state Department of Water Resources.

The record was surpassed less than a week after Gov. Jerry Brown officially declared an end to California’s drought emergency — a largely symbolic pronouncement that left in place some water-conservation rules for the 40 million residents of the nation’s most populous state.

More snow and rain is likely to pad the record before the wet season ends.


 

The power of the global warming religion

March 14, 2017

Roy Spencer says it:

Global warming theory is in fact so malleable that it predicts anything. More cold, less cold. More snow, less snow.

What a powerful theory.

And what’s even more amazing is that climate change can be averted by just increasing your taxes.

But what nobody ever reports on — because it would be boring — are the storms and severe weather events that haven’t happened. For example, U.S. tornado counts have been running below average, or even at record lows, in recent years.

Amazingly, the low tornado activity has been blamed on climate change. So, too, have actual tornado occurrences!

What a grand and gloriously useful theory global warming provides us.

……. 

Winters in the U.S. are notoriously variable. Typically, if it’s warm in the East, it’s cold in the West. This is exactly what has happened this winter, except for this brief reversal before winter’s end.

Normal people call it weather. More enlightened people, in contrast, call it climate change. Next winter it could be the opposite. No one knows.

Like death and taxes, though, what is certain is that anything “unusual” that happens will somehow be blamed on your SUV.

Too much rain, too little rain, drought, flood, storms cyclones, hurricanes and – for the true fanatics – even earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are somehow due to global warming (which of course means carbon dioxide emissions).

I find the European statements (and especially the Swedish government’s) about “climate goals” particularly arrogant and idiotic.

“The government’s goal is for Sweden to be a global role model in climate conversion”.

They really think that they can change the climate? From what to what? The arrogance is boundless.


 

Man-made contribution to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is just 4.3%

February 26, 2017

This new paper finds that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has risen by 110 ppm since 1750, but of this the human contribution is just 17 ppm. With the concentration now at 400 ppm, the human contribution is just 4.3%. The results indicate that almost all of the observed change of CO2 during the Industrial Era comes, not from anthropogenic emissions, but from changes of natural emission.

The general assumption by IPCC and the global warming fraternity that natural carbon dioxide absorption and emissions are miraculously in balance and, therefore that man-made emissions are solely responsible for the increase in carbon dioxide concentration is deeply flawed (if not plain stupid).

Clearly this paper is not at all to the liking of the religious zealots of the “global warming brigade” and is causing much heartburn among the faithful.

Hermann Harde, Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphereGlobal and Planetary Change, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.02.009

Highlights

•An alternative carbon cycle is presented in agreement with the carbon 14 decay.
•The CO2 uptake rate scales proportional to the CO2 concentration.
•Temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates are considered.
•The average residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is found to be 4 years.
•Paleoclimatic CO2 variations and the actual CO2 growth rate are well-reproduced.
•The anthropogenic fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4.3%.
•Human emissions only contribute 15% to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era.

AbstractClimate scientists presume that the carbon cycle has come out of balance due to the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change. This is made responsible for the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations over recent years, and it is estimated that the removal of the additional emissions from the atmosphere will take a few hundred thousand years. Since this goes along with an increasing greenhouse effect and a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is of great importance for all future climate change predictions. We have critically scrutinized this cycle and present an alternative concept, for which the uptake of CO2 by natural sinks scales proportional with the CO2 concentration. In addition, we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates, by which the paleoclimatic CO2 variations and the actual CO2 growth rate can well be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.

Conclusions.

Climate scientists assume that a disturbed carbon cycle, which has come out of balance by the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change, is responsible for the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations over recent years. While over the whole Holocene up to the entrance of the Industrial Era (1750) natural emissions by heterotrophic processes and fire were supposed to be in equilibrium with the uptake by photosynthesis and the net oceanatmosphere gas exchange, with the onset of the Industrial Era the IPCC estimates that about 15 – 40 % of the additional emissions cannot further be absorbed by the natural sinks and are accumulating in the atmosphere.

The IPCC further argues that CO2 emitted until 2100 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1000 years, and in the same context it is even mentioned that the removal of human-emitted CO2 from the atmosphere by natural processes will take a few hundred thousand years (high confidence) (see AR5-Chap.6-Executive-Summary).

Since the rising CO2 concentrations go along with an increasing greenhouse effect and, thus, a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is a necessary prerequisite for all future climate change predictions. In their accounting schemes and models of the carbon cycle the IPCC uses many new and detailed data which are primarily focussing on fossil fuel emission, cement fabrication or net land use change (see AR5-WG1-Chap.6.3.2), but it largely neglects any changes of the natural emissions, which contribute to more than 95 % to the total emissions and by far cannot be assumed to be constant over longer periods (see, e.g.: variations over the last 800,000 years (Jouzel et al., 2007); the last glacial termination (Monnin et al., 2001); or the younger Holocene (Monnin et al., 2004; Wagner et al., 2004)).

Since our own estimates of the average CO2 residence time in the atmosphere differ by several orders of magnitude from the announced IPCC values, and on the other hand actual investigations of Humlum et al. (2013) or Salby (2013, 2016) show a strong relation between the natural CO2 emission rate and the surface temperature, this was motivation enough to scrutinize the IPCC accounting scheme in more detail and to contrast this to our own calculations.

Different to the IPCC we start with a rate equation for the emission and absorption processes, where the uptake is not assumed to be saturated but scales proportional with the actual CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (see also Essenhigh, 2009; Salby, 2016). This is justified by the observation of an exponential decay of 14C. A fractional saturation, as assumed by the IPCC, can directly be expressed by a larger residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere and makes a distinction between a turnover time and adjustment time needless. Based on this approach and as solution of the rate equation we derive a concentration at steady state, which is only determined by the product of the total emission rate and the residence time. Under present conditions the natural emissions contribute 373 ppm and anthropogenic emissions 17 ppm to the total concentration of 390 ppm (2012). For the average residence time we only find 4 years.

The stronger increase of the concentration over the Industrial Era up to present times can be explained by introducing a temperature dependent natural emission rate as well as a temperature affected residence time. With this approach not only the exponential increase with the onset of the Industrial Era but also the concentrations at glacial and cooler interglacial times can well be reproduced in full agreement with all observations. So, different to the IPCC’s interpretation the steep increase of the concentration since 1850 finds its natural explanation in the self accelerating processes on the one hand by stronger degassing of the oceans as well as a faster plant growth and decomposition, on the other hand by an increasing residence time at reduced solubility of CO2 in oceans.

Together this results in a dominating temperature controlled natural gain, which contributes about 85 % to the 110 ppm CO2 increase over the Industrial Era, whereas the actual anthropogenic emissions of 4.3 % only donate 15 %. These results indicate that almost all of the observed change of CO2 during the Industrial Era followed, not from anthropogenic emission, but from changes of natural emission.

The results are consistent with the observed lag of CO2 changes behind temperature changes (Humlum et al., 2013; Salby, 2013), a signature of cause and effect. Our analysis of the carbon cycle, which exclusively uses data for the CO2 concentrations and fluxes as published in AR5, shows that also a completely different interpretation of these data is possible, this in complete conformity with all observations and natural causalities. 

I expect there will be a concerted effort by the faithful to try and debunk this (and it has already started).

But I am inclined to give credence to this work – and not merely because it is in general agreement with my own conclusions about the Carbon cycle. Back in 2013 I posted

Even though the combustion of fossil fuels only contributes less than 4% of total carbon dioxide production (about 26Gt/year of 800+GT/year), it is usually assumed that the sinks available balance the natural sources and that the carbon dioxide concentration – without the effects of man – would be largely in equilibrium.  (Why carbon dioxide concentration should not vary naturally escapes me!). It seems rather illogical to me to claim that sinks can somehow distinguish the source of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and preferentially choose to absorb natural emissions and reject anthropogenic emissions! Also, there is no sink where the absorption rate would not increase with concentration.

Carbon dioxide emission sources (GT CO2/year)

  • Transpiration 440
  • Release from oceans 330
  • Fossil fuel combustion 26
  • Changing land use 6
  • Volcanoes and weathering 1

Carbon dioxide is accumulating in the atmosphere by about 15 GT CO2/ year. The accuracy of the amounts of carbon dioxide emitted by transpiration and by the oceans is no better than about 2 – 3% and that error band (+/- 20GT/year)  is itself almost as large as the total amount of emissions from fossil fuels.


 

Risk of rapid North Atlantic cooling in 21st century greater than previously estimated

February 25, 2017

This paper in Nature would not have have had any chance of being published a few years ago. But times are changing.

CNRS: “The possibility of major climate change in the Atlantic region has long been recognized and has even been the subject of a Hollywood movie: The Day After Tomorrow. To evaluate the risk of such climate change, researchers from the Environnements et Paléoenvironnements Océaniques et Continentaux laboratory (CNRS/University of Bordeaux) and the University of Southampton developed a new algorithm to analyze the 40 climate models considered by the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Their findings raise the probability of rapid North Atlantic cooling during this century to nearly 50%. Nature Communications publishes their work on February 15, 2017”.

My own view is that man-made global warming is insignificant and virtually impossible to measure. The apparent climate turbulence we may currently be experiencing is probably the exhibition of instabilities as climate shifts from an interglacial paradigm to the, more normal, glacial conditions. The transition will probably be “rapid” in geologic terms which probably means a thousand years or so. Major volcanic eruptions (VEI>6) are overdue. This interglacial has lasted some 13,000 years and is also, relatively, long. I think it feasible that 2 or 3 major volcanic eruptions in relatively quick succession could provide the conditions to trigger a full transition. Once glacial conditions are established they will last for about 100,000 years. And we will then be very thankful for all the fossil or nuclear energy we can have available to us.

Giovanni Sgubin, Didier Swingedouw, Sybren Drijfhout, Yannick Mary, Amine Bennabi. Abrupt cooling over the North Atlantic in modern climate models. Nature Communications, 2017; 8 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms14375

Abstract: Observations over the 20th century evidence no long-term warming in the subpolar North Atlantic (SPG). This region even experienced a rapid cooling around 1970, raising a debate over its potential reoccurrence. Here we assess the risk of future abrupt SPG cooling in 40 climate models from the fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). Contrary to the long-term SPG warming trend evidenced by most of the models, 17.5% of the models (7/40) project a rapid SPG cooling, consistent with a collapse of the local deep-ocean convection. Uncertainty in projections is associated with the models’ varying capability in simulating the present-day SPG stratification, whose realistic reproduction appears a necessary condition for the onset of a convection collapse. This event occurs in 45.5% of the 11 models best able to simulate the observed SPG stratification. Thus, due to systematic model biases, the CMIP5 ensemble as a whole underestimates the chance of future abrupt SPG cooling, entailing crucial implications for observation and adaptation policy.

Even The Guardian (a high priest of the man-made global warming religious fantasy) is compelled to report!!

guardian-global-cooling


CNRS Press Release:

Current climate models all foresee a slowing of the meridional overturning circulation (MOC)2—the phenomenon behind the familiar Gulf Stream, which carries warmth from Florida to European shores—that could lead to a dramatic, unprecedented disruption of the climate system. In 2013, drawing on 40 climate change projections, the IPCC judged that this slowdown would occur gradually over a long period of time. The panel’s findings suggested that fast cooling of the North Atlantic during this century was unlikely.

Oceanographers from the EU EMBRACE project team reexamined the 40 projections by focusing on a critical spot in the northwest North Atlantic: the Labrador Sea. The Labrador Sea is host to a convection system ultimately feeding into the ocean-wide MOC. The temperatures of its surface waters plummet in the winter, increasing their density and causing them to sink. This displaces deep waters, which bring their heat with them as they rise to the surface, preventing the formation of ice caps. To investigate this phenomenon in greater detail, the researchers developed an algorithm able to detect quick sea surface temperature variations. Their number crunching revealed that 7 of the 40 climate models they were studying predicted total shutdown of convection, leading to abrupt cooling of the Labrador Sea: by 2–3 °C over less than 10 years. This in turn would drastically lower North Atlantic coastal temperatures.

But is such rapid cooling a real possibility? (After all, only a handful of the models supported this projection.) To answer this question, the researchers honed in on the critical parameter triggering winter convection: ocean stratification. Indeed, 11 of the 40 models incorporated vertical variation in the density of oceanic water masses. And of these 11 models, which we may furthermore consider to be the most reliable, 5 (i.e., 45% of the models) predicted a rapid drop in North Atlantic temperatures.  


 

South Australian blackouts due to over-reliance on wind and solar were predicted 2 years ago

February 13, 2017

I see that in South Australia some people have been complaining about the “record” heat with temperatures of 44ºC. Of course they take this as “evidence” of global warming. Never mind that some 120 years ago without any urban heat effects and without any industrialisation, the temperature reached 48-49ºC. It wasn’t global warming then.

In any event, South Australians and their elected representatives must get used to the fact that they have only themselves – and their political correctness – to blame. Winning greenie points seems to take precedence over common sense.

The SA blackouts caused by unreliable solar and wind were predicted two years ago in the journal Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia, and every MP in the Parliament was told.

The Telegraph: 

100,000 SA customers blacked out because of reliance on unreliable wind and solar power in our network – more than a third of SA’s generation capacity.

IT is hard to disagree with the blunt assessment of Business SA that South Australia has been caught on electricity planning like a frog in boiling water. The story goes, with mixed results in scientific experiments, that a frog suddenly put into hot water will jump out but if heated slowly it will not figure out the danger.

The state was warned of the electricity-shortage crisis – and consequent blackouts – yet ignored the warnings, according to Business SA executive Anthony Penney.

“The most frustrating aspect of this most recent event is that it was anticipated by many businesses and other energy industry experts well in advance but, like the frog in boiling water, nothing happened in time,” he says.

This week the SA frog boiled. About 100,000 customers were blacked out because of the reliance on unreliable wind and solar power in our network – more than a third of SA’s generation capacity. ……….

Ben Heard, a doctoral researcher at the University of Adelaide also runs environmental non-Government organisation Bright New World – which supports the use of nuclear – explains the problem. He says the SA blackouts caused by unreliable solar and wind were predicted two years ago in the journal Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia, and every MP in the Parliament was told.

“Back when wind generation was providing only 28 per cent of SA’s electricity supply, we flagged the risk presented by low supply in extreme heat conditions,’’ he says. Mr Heard said it was well known that extreme heat conditions in SA were accompanied by very little wind. “Our expectation at the time was that this would make it impossible to retire other generators from the market because of the security risk. Instead, the generators were allowed to retire, we took the risk, and we have started paying the price.”

Trans. Royal Society of South Australia

sa-royal-society


“Dilbert” withdraws his support for Berkeley

February 7, 2017

Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) got his MBA from UC Berkeley but he is not amused by the shenanigans there. He suggests Berkeley is closer to Hitler than the right wing Milo Yiannopoulos they stopped (by rioting).

dilbert-blog

Berkeley and Hitler

Here’s the best article you are likely to read about the absurdity of calling ANY American president Hitler. This is the sort of persuasion (sprinkled with facts) that can dissolve some of the post-election cognitive dissonance that hangs like a dark cloud over the country. Share it liberally, so to speak. You might save lives.

Speaking of Hitler, I’m ending my support of UC Berkeley, where I got my MBA years ago. I have been a big supporter lately, with both my time and money, but that ends today. I wish them well, but I wouldn’t feel safe or welcome on the campus. A Berkeley professor made that clear to me recently. He seems smart, so I’ll take his word for it.

I’ve decided to side with the Jewish gay immigrant who has an African-American boyfriend, not the hypnotized zombie-boys in black masks who were clubbing people who hold different points of view. I feel that’s reasonable, but I know many will disagree, and possibly try to club me to death if I walk on campus. 

Yesterday I asked my most liberal, Trump-hating friend if he ever figured out why Republicans have most of the Governorships, a majority in Congress, the White House, and soon the Supreme Court. He said, “There are no easy answers.”

I submit that there are easy answers. But for many Americans, cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias hide those easy answers behind Hitler hallucinations. 

I’ll keep working on clearing the fog. Estimated completion date, December 2017. It’s a big job.

As he says, the privileged elite, Trump-haters need to come to terms with the reality that most of the US Governors, both houses of Congress, the White House and most of (soon) the Supreme Court are Republican.


 

The faking of climate data before the Paris conference

February 5, 2017

The “global temperature” is calculated by dividing the world into a grid, determining the temperature applying to each grid element and then “calculating” (not a simple average) a “global temperature” to apply to the world. The problem is that there are actual measurements (raw data) for just about 20% of the grid elements. These 20% are then used to “fill in” temperatures for all the other grid elements. There are algorithms devised first for “correcting” the raw data, then there are those governing the manner in which the corrected data are to be combined to fill in empty grid elements, and further algorithms to be used when combining all the elements of the grid to give a single “global temperature”. The accuracy of the raw data is only about 0.1ºC while the “global temperature” is presented to 0.001ºC, and differences of the order of 0.001ºC are used to make conclusions for  “policy” decisions. Climategate 1 revealed how data has been cherry picked and fudged for the first time. The deception continues.

Dr John Bates (formerly of NOAA) is now blowing the whistle on how the NOAA has manipulated climate data:

John Bates received his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1986. Post Ph.D., he spent his entire career at NOAA, until his retirement in 2016.  He spent the last 14 years of his career at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (now NCEI) as a Principal Scientist, where he served as a Supervisory Meteorologist until 2012.

…….. NOAA Administrator’s Award 2004 for “outstanding administration and leadership in developing a new division to meet the challenges to NOAA in the area of climate applications related to remotely sensed data”. He was awarded a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal in 2014 for visionary work in the acquisition, production, and preservation of climate data records (CDRs). He has held elected positions at the American Geophysical Union (AGU), including Member of the AGU Council and Member of the AGU Board. He has played a leadership role in data management for the AGU.

He has a guest post at Judith Curry’s blog.

Climate scientists versus climate data

by John Bates

A look behind the curtain at NOAA’s climate data center.

I read with great irony recently that scientists are “frantically copying U.S. Climate data, fearing it might vanish under Trump” (e.g., Washington Post 13 December 2016). As a climate scientist formerly responsible for NOAA’s climate archive, the most critical issue in archival of climate data is actually scientists who are unwilling to formally archive and document their data. I spent the last decade cajoling climate scientists to archive their data and fully document the datasets. I established a climate data records program that was awarded a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal in 2014 for visionary work in the acquisition, production, and preservation of climate data records (CDRs), which accurately describe the Earth’s changing environment.

The most serious example of a climate scientist not archiving or documenting a critical climate dataset was the study of Tom Karl et al. 2015 (hereafter referred to as the Karl study or K15), purporting to show no ‘hiatus’ in global warming in the 2000s (Federal scientists say there never was any global warming “pause”). The study drew criticism from other climate scientists, who disagreed with K15’s conclusion about the ‘hiatus.’ (Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown). The paper also drew the attention of the Chairman of the House Science Committee, Representative Lamar Smith, who questioned the timing of the report, which was issued just prior to the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan submission to the Paris Climate Conference in 2015.

In the following sections, I provide the details of how Mr. Karl failed to disclose critical information to NOAA, Science Magazine, and Chairman Smith regarding the datasets used in K15. I have extensive documentation that provides independent verification of the story below. I also provide my suggestions for how we might keep such a flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards from happening in the future. Finally, I provide some links to examples of what well documented CDRs look like that readers might contrast and compare with what Mr. Karl has provided.

Background …..

Read the whole post here.

Of course the mainstream, politically correct media have no time for this. However David Rose of the Mail on Sunday is one of the few reporters who still has the nerve to question the fanatic, religious orthodoxy on this subject.

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data 

  • The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming
  • It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on climate change
  • America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules
  • The report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper. …….

NOAA data manipulation (from David Rose - Mail on Sunday)

NOAA data manipulation (from David Rose – Mail on Sunday)

There will be more whistle-blowers now stepping out from behind the woodwork.


 

97% of “climate scientists” thought Trump couldn’t win

December 18, 2016

97% of the UK media thought Brexit would lose.

97% of US political pundits thought Trump couldn’t win.

97% of polling models had an inbuilt, politically correct, confirmation bias.

97% of the US media thought Clinton would trounce Trump.

97% of the politically correct think climate is science.

97% of AGW fanatics believe the sun does not drive climate but that man does.

97% of climate funding goes to the religiously correct.

97% of “climate science” is religious belief.

97% of climate models have an inbuilt, religiously correct, confirmation bias.

97% of “climate scientists” thought Trump would be trounced.

97% of “climate scientists” are charlatans.

sol-invictus-2017


Trump’s choice for Energy Secretary will be a coal supporter

December 12, 2016

coal

It is reported that Donald Trump has a short-list of four for Energy Secretary. What seems clear is that whoever it is will be making coal jobs a priority. One of the four (Rick Perry) would be a fierce opponent of  all the fake science masquerading as “climate science”, while two (Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Manchin) are coal protectors rather than climate change opponents. The fourth (Ray Washburne) has been involved primarily in economic and finance matters and has (for me) unknown positions about coal and AGW. But he is from Texas and is unlikely to ignore the bottom line (which is of no consequence for the AGW orthodoxy).

Bloomberg: Donald Trump has narrowed his search for energy secretary to four people, with former Texas Governor Rick Perry the leading candidate. People familiar with the president-elect’s selection process said two Democratic senators from energy-producing states — Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia — are also in the mix, along with Ray Washburne, a Dallas investor and former chairman of the Republican National Committee.

If Trump picks any of the four he’ll break with recent tradition of putting scientists at the top of the Energy Department. Among other things, the agency is responsible for policies on the safe handling of nuclear material and on emerging energy technologies.

A quick search gives the positions of the four on coal production and the global warming fantasy.

Rick PerryRick Perry said Wednesday morning that he does not believe in global warming science and suggested it is grounded in scientists manipulating data for financial gain. …….. Perry said scientists are coming forward almost daily to question “the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.” He said the climate is changing but that it has been changing “ever since the earth was formed.” ……….. Perry added that “the issue of global warming has been politicized,” and argued that America should not spend billions of dollars addressing “a scientific theory that has not been proven, and from my perspective is more and more being put into question.”

Rick Perry could be expected to be quite active in cleaning out the muck in the Department of Energy Climate Change stables.

Heidi Heitkamp: I applaud the President’s efforts to address climate change and its effects. …… However, several of the initiatives introduced today by the President, while not new, amplify the Administration’s continuing war on coal and coal-fired power. While the President claims to believe in an all-of-the-above energy policy, he consistently fails to step-forward and truly commit to such a policy. Instead the Administration continues developing regulations that do nothing more than choke off good-paying American jobs, and threatening millions of Americans with the loss of a reliable and affordable energy source. Instead of taking this route, we need to find a path forward for the coal industry and coal-fired power by encouraging continued investments in new and existing technologies to further reduce emissions through clean coal technology projects including commercially scalable carbon capture and sequestration. 

Heitkamp is only concerned about jobs and will subordinate her thinking to that end. Her apparent belief in carbon capture and sequestration though suggests that her logical thinking is a little suspect. To be kind, it may just be her attempt to save coal jobs and not any strong belief in nonsense technology which which has no real purpose and which has a fundamental “floor” energy cost which makes it meaningless.

Joe ManchinSenator Joe Manchin (D-WV) went on Fox News on Wednesday to slam President Obama’s renewed push to take action on climate change.However, returning to the refrain that Obama has declared a “war on coal” appears not to be enough this time. Now, the coal-backed senator has upgraded his rhetoric to a “war on America.”

STEVE DOOCY (HOST): The President of the United States declared a war on coal and a war on jobs and essentially a war on West Virginia.

MANCHIN: Well, really a war on America. When you look at it from that standpoint, 8 billion-tons of coal is being burned in the world as we speak. The United States of America consumes about one billion tons. Now, what’s going to happen to the other 7 billion-tons? What’s going to happen to the countries that are consuming and using 7 billion and it’s increasing rapidly? Nothing is being done there. We have done more to clean the environment than ever in the last two decades. And there is more that can be done.

Manchin, like Heitkamp, is primarily concerned about jobs in the coal industry. He has not dared, politically, to be heretical about global warming orthodoxy but has fought for coal jobs.

Ray WashburneMr. Ray W. Washburne has been the Chief Executive Officer of Charter Holdings since 1990 and its President. Mr. Washburne has been National Finance Chairman at Republican National Committee Inc., since February 2013. He is a Managing Partner at HP Village Partners Ltd., and served as Managing Director. He was the Chairman of Charter Holdings since 1990. He also serves on the board of directors for M Crowd Restaurant, which he co-founded in 1991. He serves as Director of Baylor Health Care System Foundation. He has been Director of Entrust Inc. since June 5, 2006. He has been an Independent Director of Veritex Holdings, Inc., since 2009 and serves as Director of Veritex Community Bank. Mr. Washburne is also a Director for Colonial Bank, Southern Methodist University-21st Century Council, and Dallas Citizens Council. He is an Adjunct Professor at SMU’s Cox School of Business and graduated from Southern Methodist University (“SMU”) in 1984.

It is not apparent that Washburne has any strong position on coal or energy or AGW. Nevertheless he can be expected to have a clear view of the bottom line and therefore, not a great supporter of subsidising non-commercial technologies for religious or ideological reasons.

If I had to bet, I would put a small amount of money on Rick Perry.


Cold weather in Alberta gives record electricity consumption (thank goodness for coal)

December 11, 2016

Canada has been experiencing some rather cold weather with windchill factors down to -40°C.

Environment Canada has issued an extreme cold warning starting in northwestern B.C., going west through central and northern Alberta, central and southwestern Saskatchewan and southeastern Manitoba. By Friday afternoon, the extreme cold warning extended to most of central and northern Alberta, including High Level and Fort Chipewyan and as far south as Airdrie and Cochrane.

The Alberta Electric System Operator AESO reports record electricity consumption due to the cold spell.

Extremely cold weather across Alberta this week contributed to the province setting three records in a row for electricity consumption.

On December 8, 2016 between 5-6 p.m., Alberta was using a record hourly average amount of electricity at 11,442 MW. This surpassed the December 7 record of 11,404 MW, and the December 5 record of 11,400 MW.

The new winter peak usage was set due to cold weather, reduced daylight hours and the convergence of Christmas lighting load at homes, businesses, malls and buildings across the province. Another factor that contributed was the low market price for electricity – this prevented price sensitive industrial facilities from going offline during peak hours. The average wholesale price for electricity during that peak hour was approximately $30/MWh.

In Alberta the installed capacity and energy generation shows the reliance on fossil fuels in general and coal in particular. It’s a good thing they have coal to fall back on.

alberta-electricity

Reality.


 


%d bloggers like this: