(VIDEO) ONTARIO WIND TURBINES: A MONEY PIT
Click on image to go to Sun News video interview with Parker Gallant.
climate scam
Climate Change Alarmists Will Try Anything, to Scare People!
IRREFUTABLE PROOF THAT CLIMATE CHANGE ALARMISTS ARE STUCK ON MISERY
We’ve all seen the article this week about the haulout of 35,000 walruses that congregated at Point Lay, Alaska, but in case you missed it, click here. This is normal behaviour for walruses. In fact the first recorded sighting of this sort of behaviour was made by an English expedition in 1604. They happen all over the world. Nothing unusual about this at all.
In usual climate alarmist fashion, though, we must regularly wail and gnash our teeth over everything these days. There is no such thing as natural or normal in the Land of Global Warming. It’s all become one giant cluster …. well you know … in the typical alarmist mind.
This normal behaviour was twisted around to be a terrible event, of course caused by evil man. The story recycles every few years and increasingly gains coverage in the main stream media each time. The ‘alarming’ part of the article this year, was the sheer number of walruses at one haulout — 35,000.
Now a normal person would say, “Wow! Good to see that the walruses are thriving in this apocalyptic climate change world.” Okay, no normal person would say “apocalyptic climate change”. That’s a term only the zealots of catastrophic climate change would use.
The point is however that, clearly, walrus populations are doing quite well, in spite of the fact that alarmists would have us believe that every species on earth (with the exception of wicked vile humans) is on the verge of extinction due to our unbridled greed.
So instead of rejoicing and being thrilled that one species in particular is flourishing, misery reigns supreme in the land of Anthropogenic Global Warming. I wonder if they would be happier with this: 
Carbon Capture and Storage….Another Huge Waste of Our Money!!
CCS is really a good idea, for wasting money
The Canadian foray into Carbon Capture and Storage is quite a money waster. Why do we keep pursuing it? From EUReferendum.com, Energy: CCS – the fantasy continues
There should a special place reserved in Hell for the government officials and politicians who waste public money by employing the likes of Ashley Ibbett, the Director of the Office of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).
It is there, at DECC, that Mr Ibbett is the Senior Responsible Officer (SRO) for the CCS Commercialisation Programme, a multi-billion pound programme which aims to develop the first CCS-equipped power generation in the UK.
One could, of course, rail against the huge waste on expenditure on the CCS programme, but it is easier to direct one’s loathing at a named individual – which is one of the reasons why we have politicians, to act as lightning conductors for public disaffection.
But in this case, Mr Ibbett has broken cover in the DECC blog with a gushing and ultimately dishonest report of a jolly to Canada (at taxpayers’ expense).
This was to visit the Boundary Dam coal fired power plant in Saskatchewan, Canada, and witness “the historic moment” when Brad Wall, Premier of Saskatchewan, switched on a $1.4 billion coal-fired generator, fitted with CCS which will “capture more than 90 percent of the carbon dioxide that would otherwise escape to the atmosphere”.
Says the gushing Ibbett, this demonstrates to sceptics that CCS can be deployed at scale. Several pilot scale capture facilities have operated in the past, but this is the first time carbon capture has operated on a commercial scale on a power station anywhere in the world.
Where the dishonesty comes in here is by omission. Ibbett is very keen to point out that the plant will capture around one million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year – equivalent to taking 250,000 cars off Saskatchewan roads annually, he says – but is extremely reticent about revealing the costs of this fantasy project.
In fact, of the total $1.4 billion plant cost, the reports put the actual cost of upgrading the 30-year-old plant at $400 million,putting the CCS at a cool billion, tripling the capital needed to provide a modest 110MW generating capacity.
But the omissions don’t stop there. The original plant was rated at 139MW so, for the expenditure of $1.4 billion, the Canadians have ended up with an overall reduction of 29MW capacity. Here, Ibbett’s dishonesty is compounded by that of the plant operator, SaskPower, which tells Reuters that the loss of the 29MW capacity represents an “energy penalty” of around 20 percent.
We have to go to a local report, however, to find that the upgrade, including a new, high-efficiency boiler and steam turbine, cranked up the nameplate capacity to 162MW. But the CCS unit needs about 34 MW to operate, resulting in a “parasitic loss” of about 21 per cent of plant’s power. Then, another 18MW are needed for other systems, reducing the net output to 110MW.
This cost of 52MW represents a loss not of 20 percent, as the plant operator is stating, but 32 percent, just one point short of a full third loss in capacity. Effectively, therefore, efficiency is cut by a third, for a tripling of the capital cost.
Going back to the Reuters report, it tells us that most modern ultra-supercritical coal power plants can achieve a thermal efficiency of up to about 45 percent. Retrofitting such a plant would reduce its efficiency to around 35 percent, a penalty of around 25 percent.
But for less-efficient supercritical and sub-critical power plants, with initial thermal efficiencies of less than 40 percent and in some cases less than 30 percent, the penalty could amount to 40 percent or even 50 percent of the plant’s total electrical output.
Even a 20-30 percent energy penalty, Reuters says, is enormous and would radically affect the operations of coal-fired power plants in North America and the rest of the world if all power plants were retrofitted with CCS systems. Retrofitting all coal-fired plants in the United States would increase coal consumption by 400-600 million tonnes per year, or cut their net electrical output by 75-100GW, more than the peak demand of California.
Even then, there is no direct comparison between different sites. The majority of the captured gas from the Boundary Dam site is being sold to operator Cenovus for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) at its Weyburn oilfield. Cenovus has set up injection wells and built a 40 mile-long pipeline connecting Weyburn with Boundary Dam. Many CCS sites will be much further than 40 miles from an injection site.
Yet this is the technology we are paying Mr Ibbett to gush over, a madcap scheme that will massively increase the amount of fuel we will have to use in order to generate electricity at massively increased cost. Is this really what we want our civil servants to be doing?
Higher costs for construction, loss of output for CCS and loss of thermal efficiency. This CCS thingy is really a great idea, yet the pols keep pushing it. This facility was covered by Junkscience earlier, but I thought this article was worth doing again. A special place in Hell…
And we keep pushing this in the US.
Windweasels Always Try to Deny the Health Experts that Don’t Back up Their Lies!
An inconvenient study draws fire from the wind/climate coalition
Measuring the effects of low-frequency sound (LFS) on the inner ear, WINDFARMS
An inconvenient study draws fire from the wind/climate coalition
Author
By Guest Column –Mark Duchamp October 6, 2014 | Comments| Print friendly |
On October 1st and 2nd, two leading UK newspapers wrote about a new study from the University of Munich which found a way of measuring the effects of low-frequency sound (LFS) on the inner ear (1). This is an important discovery in that it could lead to progress in the understanding of hearing loss, an impairment that affects millions of people and causes much grief.
One of the most controversial sources of LFS lies in the nacelles of wind turbines and around their huge moving blades. Yet, governments stubbornly refuse to investigate their effects on health, thus protecting the wind industry and unprotecting the citizens. So, with reason, the authors of the press articles titled: “Could living near a wind farm make you DEAF?” and “Living close to wind farms could cause hearing damage”. This is a legitimate way of blowing the whistle, in a world where the wind/climate coalition has successfully blocked official research on LFS emitted by wind turbines since the Kelley studies in 1985-1987.
When health authorities refuse to measure accurately infrasound and low-frequency noise emitted by wind turbines, they are obviously protecting the wind industry. But they are also in breach of the criminal codes of most countries, which contain provisions for doing no harm to people, particularly of a physical nature. There is such a wealth of first hand reports of harm to health, chronic sleep deprivation and home abandonment from rural residents (2); there is such a number of relevant studies (3) that politicians can’t just sit there and deny, deny, and deny that serious harm to human health is occurring. They MUST repeat the experiments of the U. of Munich study (1), but in the field this time, next to wind turbines, using actual LFS pulses emitted by these machines, including infrasound. Length of exposure is key, as windfarm neighbours are submitted to this bombardment 24/7 when the wind is blowing and turbines are operating, and this over many years. Thus, the research should span over one year, minimum, and be conducted at various installations: some brand new, some with 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 years of operation, with victims who have lived there since their inception.
World-renowned ear specialists Alec Salt and Jeffery Lichtenhan wrote last year to the health authorities of the State of Victoria, Australia: “There are a number of false statements in your report. One severe example is “…the available evidence does not support claims that inaudible sounds can have direct physiological effects”.
“Below we have provided citations to six publications from our group where we showed how the ear responds to low-frequency sounds up to 50 dB below the levels that would be heard. The experimental methods that were used are well established in the field of auditory physiology. Three of the below citations were peer-reviewed and published in some of the most well-respected journals in the field of acoustics and hearing science. Our publications, which were clearly neglected or conveniently overlooked, show that inaudible low-frequency sounds do indeed stimulate the ear and produce marked physiological effects”. (4)
So YES, the above newspapers did the right thing in blowing the whistle on the risk for windfarm neighbours of damage to their inner ears, which can lead to deafness. The risk exists. As a matter of fact, we have a written testimony of such damage reported by a chronically exposed resident from Germany.
The wind/climate coalition reacted strongly, trying to rubbish the articles which could hurt their business. They used superficial arguments, such as the fact that the U. of Munich study does not mention wind farms. Indeed it doesn’t, because it is about research into the physiological impacts of LFS in general: it does not have to list the possible sources of LFS.
The lesson to be learned is that the U. of Munich study has made an important discovery, and that its experiments need now to be repeated in the field, with wind turbines as the source of LFS stimulation.
References:
1)—University of Munich study: Low-frequency sound affects active micromechanics in the human inner ear
2)—The NASA/Kelley research: As early as 1982, authors find that low-frequency noise is the major cause of adverse health effects for residents living near wind and gas turbines
– Emeritus Professor Colin Hansen et al.: The results show that there is a low-frequency noise problem associated with the Waterloo wind farm
– Testimony of a turbine host: “Whenever we are staying at the new farmhouse and the turbines are operating [2.5 km away] I have trouble getting to sleep at night. Frequently, I wake up in the morning feeling desperately tired, as though I have not slept at all. Often I simply fall asleep from exhaustion but still wake up tired. On numerous occasions I experience a deep, drumming, rumbling sensation in the skull behind my ears which is like pressure and often a pulsating, squeezing sensation at the base of my skull. I also experience irregular heartbeat while I am trying to sleep and while I am relaxing (sitting or reclining) in our house. I did not have any trouble sleeping before the turbines started operating.
Away from that home, I have not ever experienced problems with my heartbeat or with the pressure pulse sensation in my head; and I sleep incredibly well by comparison. My tinnitus comes and goes when I am away from home, but whenever I am living at the new farmhouse it is a constant source of irritation when the turbines are running. Alida does not complain of dizzy spells or head pressure when we are away from home.”
РTestimony of Mrs Linke: The first turbines to be turned on at Macarthur were about 6–7 km from the Linke house. After a period overseas prior to the turbines being commissioned Mrs Linke returned home and immediately began feeling pressure in her ears, and began to experience sleep deprivation.
As weeks passed Mrs Linke began to experience quickened heart beat and an inner vibration. Symptoms such as buzzing ears, pressure, tight chest, rapid heart beat and vibration developed and sleep was disturbed. As time passed Mr Linke also began to experience symptoms. The noise from the turbines is described as rumbling, thundering, humming, thudding and roaring and was often heard over the TV.
– etc.
– Waubra Foundation: sleep deprivation and torture: Sleep deprivation (suffered by thousands who live near wind turbines) is used by certain regimes as a form of torture .
3)—European Heart Journal: evidence from epidemiologic studies demonstrates that environmental noise is associated with an increased incidence of arterial hypertension, myocardial infarction, and stroke.
– Cherry Tree Wind Farm—Waubra Foundation Statement: Waubra Foundation CEO Sarah Laurie’s statement to the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal hearing is the most comprehensive and up to date report on current research into the adverse health effects experienced by those living and working near industrial wind turbines, January 2013.
4)—Dr. Alec Salt, and Dr. Jeffery Lichtenhan: physiological effects of inaudible sound.
Carbon Taxes are a Economy-Crippling Scam! Get rid of them!
GWPF Calls On Government To Suspend Fourth Carbon Budget
Press Release 06/10/14
UK Business Minister Finally Admits Carbon Taxes Are Damaging British Businesses
London, 6 October: The Global Warming Policy Forum has welcomed Vince Cable’s belated admission that the government’s climate policy is damaging British businesses.
Business secretary Vince Cable yesterday warned that Britain’s unilateral carbon tax is hampering UK businesses who are losing competitiveness to their counterparts abroad.
Of course it is not just the Carbon Floor Price that is driving up the cost of energy, but so are the ever rising subsidies for green energy which will amount to £8 billion p.a. by 2020.
Mr Cable is right to highlight the growing risk to British businesses that “are struggling against international competition because of the cost of energy.”
“At a time when most major economies are turning to cheap and abundant fossil fuels, Britain alone seems prepared to risk its economic competitiveness by adopting policies that are making energy ever more expensive,” said Dr Benny Peiser, the GWPF’s director.
“Given the manifest reluctance of major economies to follow Britain’s unilateral policy, the government should now suspend the fourth carbon budget and all post-2020 climate targets,” he added.
Global Warming Alarmists Have an Agenda. Science Has NO Consensus!
The Corruption of Science
The late Dr. Michael Crichton in a speech at the California Institute of Technology made the following observation:
“I want to …talk about … the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. …
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results … .
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. … .” … Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
In recent decades, the term consensus science has come to be associated with climate change/global warming. The appeal to a consensus has been used to avoid honest and open debate about the extent of human influence on the climate system. Climate change has become the poster child for the widely documented corruption in many fields of science resulting from competition for funding, tying funding to specific policy outcomes, and the increasing pressure to publish or perish.
Norman Rogers in the May 14 issue of the American Thinker began his article citing President Eisenhower’s farewell address warning that a “scientific-technological elite” dependent on government money would exert undue influence on government policy”. Scientific advice to policy makers has become heavily influenced by political agendas and rewards to organizations and scientists that provide the necessary scientific support for political objectives. In the case of climate change, the influence can be traced back to the White House and Al Gore.
Climate change is the primary example of how science can be perverted by money and politics. Today there is an international climate establishment that is supported annually by billions of dollars to advance a war on fossil energy, promote an agenda of fear, and undermine capitalism’s market driven system. Anyone who does not subscribe to the climate orthodoxy is subjected intimidation and not to subtle threats to their careers. Some climate advocates have called so called skeptics war criminals who should be jailed, the equivalent of holocaust deniers, flat earthers, and industry pawns.
The crime of these skeptics is to challenge the asserted consensus that human activities involving fossil energy and economic development are threatening the planet. Advocates point to computer model results that project dramatic increases in global temperatures that will lead to extreme climate events—more intense hurricanes, extended droughts, and sea level rises that threaten coastal cities for example.
To increase their power and influence, the climate establishment has adopted the mantra that the “science is settled” and 97% of scientists agree that human activities are the primary cause of climate change over the past 50 plus years.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not claim that the science is settled. Its latest report has a chart that shows level of understanding about major climate forcing processes. Many are shown as low or medium levels of understanding. Throughout its report, the IPCC refers to topics reflecting great uncertainty—natural variability, cloud formation, climate sensitivity, for example. The now 18-year pause in warming has so befuddled the establishment that it has come up with 52 different explanations.
In making projections of future global temperatures, the IPCC relies on over 50 models, each of which reflects different assumptions about how the climate system functions. None of the models has been able to project actual temperatures or the pause. And, the only way these models can “back cast” past temperatures is by a process of adjustments. If climate science was settled, 50 plus models would be unnecessary and they would be highly accurate.
Finally, there is the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and man-made. It is a bogus claim based on a paper by John Cook of the University of Queensland’s Climate Change Institute. Reviews of Cook’s work demonstrate that is a case of cooking the books. One of those critiques was by Richard Tol, a professor at the University of Sussex and an IPCC lead author, while the most detailed and quantitative was by Steve McIntyre—Climate Audit website. Other critiques have included articles in the American Thinker, Debunking the 97% Consensus on Global Warming, February 4, 2014, The New American, Global Warming “Consensus: Cooking the Books, May 21, 2013, and a blog The Collapsing Consensus by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley.
The Cook paper is a classic example of what Darrell Huff wrote about in his book, How to Lie With Statistics. The fact that the climate change establishment creates such misleading information to manipulate opinion is clear evidence that its scientific foundation doesn’t exist. It is also evidence of desperation because the climate is not conforming to its orthodoxy of dread.
Science has provided the foundation for tremendous advances in technology, innovation that have contributed to advances in human health and wealth. Its corruption threatens to undermine the potential future advances that will benefit the generations of tomorrow.
Wind Relies on Exorbitant Subsidies, Special Favours, and lack of Regulation!
We in Texas are proud of our economic successes over the past several years. One topic that keeps popping up is our energy sector. Texas consumes a great deal of electricity because of its energy-intensive industries. And of course, we have hot summers.
Regular consumers pay the price tag for their air conditioning and these taxpayers hope that there is a rational basis for their energy costs. But when government puts its thumb on the scale and tips the balance toward one energy source over another, things can go awry. Remember Solyndra? The federal government put more than their thumb on the scales on that one – they put $536 million on the scales to support a solar panel maker and the taxpayers had to foot the bill when it went belly up.
With the population and economy growing, and the demand thereby increasing in Texas, it is critical that taxpayers and consumers not be disadvantaged by government policy. My office just issued Texas Power Challenge, a report that looks at the various energy sources used for electricity in Texas. When it comes to the rich subsidies they receive from the state and federal governments, wind generators and their turbines tower above other sources of electricity generation – this is particularly troubling considering the actual electricity they generate, especially during the times when Texans really needs the power.
Texas made a bet on wind nearly 15 years ago by mandating that power companies provide a certain amount of power from wind. The challenge for wind is that it is well, windy, only sometimes. When it is not, it needs a more reliable partner. That is most often natural gas. Nonetheless, we doubled our bet for wind by mandating extensive and very expensive transmission lines that are primarily for wind. When the wind is not blowing, the lines are not being used to their capacity.
The lines, built to provide transmission infrastructure from the Competitive Renewable Energy Zones in West Texas, were projected to cost about $5 billion, but instead spiked to nearly $7 billion (a 40 percent increase in cost to consumers). And consumers are going to be paying these costs for 15 to 20 years. Adding insult to injury, the bulk of wind farms here are least productive at the time of highest demand, in the middle of hot summer days. The Energy Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which manages system reliability for most of the state’s customers, says that summer capacity of wind is about 11,000 megawatts (MW), but it only counts on 963 MW because summer wind generation is so weak.
Subsidies and financial encouragement by states or federal agencies often look to fledgling industries that need a bit of help. With the wind capacity Texas now has, I would argue that market forces would produce a more efficient outcome and that the time for subsidies has passed. Texas has more than twice the amount of wind it originally mandated, and now has more subsidized wind power than any other state.
Because subsidies undoubtedly distort the market, caution should be used in their application. Texas has an economic development program that the wind industry has used extensively to limit property tax value on wind farms. For example, my office estimated in 2011 that wind projects qualified at that time under the property tax value limitation statute would receive nearly $850 million in total tax savings. Those wind projects were expected to create 480 jobs, which equates to about a $1.7 million tax benefit per job. That contrasts sharply with non-energy projects in the same program where the tax benefit per job was $195,565 — for 5,552 jobs. So instead of generating jobs and providing a reliable and consistent energy source, wind projects just generate higher costs. And there are increasing concerns about subsidies being used to encourage wind turbines close to homes, airports, military bases and migratory bird routes.
As the comptroller and chief financial officer of Texas, I worry about choices by policymakers that can have significant and adverse consequences. It seems to me that it is time for wind energy to stand on its own towers.
Susan Combs is the comptroller and chief financial officer of the state of Texas.
CO2 Enriched Air Used to Boost Medicinal Value of Endangered plant
The Climate Sceptics (TCS) Blog |
| CO2-Enriched Air Boosts Medicinal Value of an Endangered Plant
Posted: 04 Oct 2014 01:35 AM PDT CO2 Science looks at a new Peer-reviewed paper published in Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture 118: 87-99.
 AbstractThe aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of forced ventilation and CO2 enrichment (360 or 720 μmol mol−1 CO2) on the in vitro growth and development of Pfaffia glomerata, an endangered medicinal species, under photomixotrophic or photoautotrophic conditions. P.glomerata nodal segments showed substantial differences in growth, relative water content and water loss from leaves, photosynthetic pigments, stomatal density, and leaf anatomical characteristics under these different treatments. CO2 enrichment led to increased photosynthetic pigments and reduced stomatal density of in vitro cultivated P. glomerata. A lack of sucrose in the culture medium increased 20-hydroxyecdysone levels, but the increase in CO2 levels did not further elevate the accumulation of 20-hydroxyecdysone. All growth increased in a CO2-enriched atmosphere. In addition, CO2 enrichment, with or without sucrose, gave a lower relative water loss from leaves. This finding indicates that either a photoautotrophic or photomixotrophic system in a CO2-enriched atmosphere may be suitable for large-scale propagation of this species.
Paper Reviewed
Saldanha, C.W., Otoni, C.G., Rocha, D.I., Cavatte, P.C., Detmann, K. da S.C.,, Tanaka, F.A.O., Dias, L.L.C., DaMatta, F.M. and Otoni, W.C. 2014. CO2-enriched atmosphere and supporting material impact the growth, morphophysiology and ultrastructure of in vitro Brazilian-ginseng [Pfaffia glomerata (Spreng.) Pedersen] plantlets. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture 118: 87-99. According to Saldanha et al. (2014), “Pfaffia glomerata (fafia, ginseng brasileiro), a medicinal plant that naturally grows in Brazil (Pott and Pott, 1994), has great economic importance due to the production of secondary metabolites such as ß-ecdysone (20E) (Festucci-Buselli et al. 2008),” as a result of its “anabolic, analgesic, anti-inflammatory, anti-mutigenic, aphrodisiac, sedative and muscle tonic properties,” which are described by Neto et al. (2005), Fernandes et al. (2005), Festucci-Buselli et al. (2008) and Mendes (2011). As a result of these facts, Saldanha et al. report that “many patents related to pharmacological and nutritional properties of genus Pfaffia have been published,” citing Shibuya et al. (2001), Bernard and Gautier (20005), Olalde (2008), Rangel (2008), Loizou (2009) and Higuchi (2011). Not surprisingly, therefore, Saldanha et al. further write that “because of its economic relevance, the propagation of P. glomerata plays an essential role in producing raw material for the pharmaceutical industry,” citing Saldanha et al. (2013). Against this backdrop, using two types of explant supports – either agar or Florialite (a mixture of vermiculite and cellulose) – the nine Brazilian scientists grew plantlets of P. glomerata in vitro within small acrylic chambers maintained at either 360 or 1,000 ppm CO2 for a period of 35 days, after which they assessed the plants’ aerial and root dry mass, as well as the accumulation of 20E in their leaves and stems.
Saldanah et al. report that the extra 640 ppm of CO2 increased the aerial dry mass of the plantlets by 246% in the agar treatment and by 219% in the Florialite treatment, while it increased the root dry mass by 100% and 443% in the agar and Florialite treatments, respectively. In addition, they say that “the plants with a higher biomass also produced higher amounts of 20E.” And in light of these findings Saldanah et al. state in the concluding sentence of their paper that their study highlights the fact that “a photoautotrophic system under CO2 enrichment may be attractive for the achievement of autotrophy by CO2, thus potentially being useful for the large-scale commercial production of Pfaffia seedlings or even for producing Pfaffia biomass containing high levels of ß-ecdysone.” And that would help the pharmaceutical industry to produce a lot more of the medicinal products derived from this plant.
|
Despite the Pause In Global Warming, Politicians Still Clinging To the Climate Money Grab!
Ben Santer’s 17 year itch, revisited – he and a whole stable of climate scientists have egg on their faces
Now that “the pause” has come of age, and has exceeded 18 years, it is time to revisit a post a made back in November 2011.
Bill Illis reminded me in comments of this spectacular failure of peer reviewed climate science:
Let’s remember several years ago when all the heavy-weights of climate science produced a paper that said the lower troposphere pause had to be at least 17 years long before a clear signal that human-made CO2 warming theories should start to be questioned.
Carl Mears was the second author on that paper along Ben Santer (lead) [and Tom Wigley, Susan Solomon, Tom Karl, Gerald Meehl, Peter Stott, Peter Thorne, Frank Wentz].
Well, that time has now been exceeded and they all have egg on their face.
http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-010-476.pdf
Alhough, if you read Carl Mears article carefully, he is starting the discussion that maybe the theories need to be revised. His use of the d’word may be needed just to keep him in the club and not being shown the door by his other compatriots who accept no questioning at all.
Here’s the current lower troposphere temperature from RSS:
Here’s the reminder press release boasting of their discovery. Emphasis mine.
Separating signal and noise in climate warming
LIVERMORE, Calif. — In order to separate human-caused global warming from the “noise” of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists.
To address criticism of the reliability of thermometer records of surface warming, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists analyzed satellite measurements of the temperature of the lower troposphere (the region of the atmosphere from the surface to roughly five miles above) and saw a clear signal of human-induced warming of the planet.
Satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature are made with microwave radiometers, and are completely independent of surface thermometer measurements. The satellite data indicate that the lower troposphere has warmed by roughly 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit since the beginning of satellite temperature records in 1979. This increase is entirely consistent with the warming of Earth’s surface estimated from thermometer records.
Recently, a number of global warming critics have focused attention on the behavior of Earth’s temperature since 1998. They have argued that there has been little or no warming over the last 10 to 12 years, and that computer models of the climate system are not capable of simulating such short “hiatus periods” when models are run with human-caused changes in greenhouse gases.
“Looking at a single, noisy 10-year period is cherry picking, and does not provide reliable information about the presence or absence of human effects on climate,” said Benjamin Santer, a climate scientist and lead author on an article in the Nov. 17 online edition of the Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres).
Many scientific studies have identified a human “fingerprint” in observations of surface and lower tropospheric temperature changes. These detection and attribution studies look at long, multi-decade observational temperature records. Shorter periods generally have small signal to noise ratios, making it difficult to identify an anthropogenic signal with high statistical confidence, Santer said.
“In fingerprinting, we analyze longer, multi-decadal temperature records, and we beat down the large year-to-year temperature variability caused by purely natural phenomena (like El Niños and La Niñas). This makes it easier to identify a slowly-emerging signal arising from gradual, human-caused changes in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases,” Santer said.
The LLNL-led research shows that climate models can and do simulate short, 10- to 12-year “hiatus periods” with minimal warming, even when the models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol particles. They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.
“One individual short-term trend doesn’t tell you much about long-term climate change,” Santer said. “A single decade of observational temperature data is inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving human-caused warming signal. In both the satellite observations and in computer models, short, 10-year tropospheric temperature trends are strongly influenced by the large noise of year-to-year climate variability.”
The research team is made up of Santer and Livermore colleagues Charles Doutriaux, Peter Caldwell, Peter Gleckler, Detelina Ivanova, and Karl Taylor, and includes collaborators from Remote Sensing Systems, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the University of Colorado, the Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.K. Meteorology Office Hadley Centre, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
###
Source: http://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html
The lower troposphere temperature has been flat now for 18 years on one dataset, RSS. No human effects can be seen. What say you Dr. Santer?
- Ignore your own folly?
- Say your paper was mistaken and publish a new goalpost mover paper saying that we really need 30 years?
- Or, will you simply admit that the posited warming isn’t happening?
I’m guessing you’ll go with #2.
Topics like Climate and Wind Turbines, really bring out the trolls…here’s why!
New paper says what we always suspected – and climate Internet trolls are some of the worst…
From Psychology Today: Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists(h/t to John Goetz)
Above: the Josh rendition of the troll known as “andthentheresphysics” who may have a rude awakening very soon. Image not to scale.
[NOTE: I’ve always believed that people who taunt others while hiding behind fake names aren’t really contributing anything except their own bile and hatred. The two people that came to mind when I read this article were Dr. Joshua Halpern of Howard University aka “Eli Rabett” and Miriam O’Brien aka Sou Bundanga/Hotwhopper. These people are supposed to be professionals, yet they position themselves as childish cowards, spewing invective from the safety of anonymity while taunting people who have the integrity and courage to put their real names to their words. The best way to combat people like this is to call them out by their name every time they practice their dark art. To that end, and not just for these two losers, I’m stepping up moderation on WUWT. If you want to rant/spew from the comfort of anonymity, find someplace else to do it, because quite frankly I’m in a position in my life where I don’t have the time to deal with this sort of juvenile crap. Be on your best behavior, otherwise its the bit bucket for you.Moderators, take note.. – Anthony]
Psychology Today: Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists
A new study shows that internet trolls really are just terrible human beings.
In this month’s issue of Personality and Individual Differences, a study was published that confirms what we all suspected: internet trolls are horrible people.Let’s start by getting our definitions straight. An internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.
What kind of person would do this?
Canadian researchers decided to find out. They conducted two internet studies with over 1,200 people. They gave personality tests to each subject along with a survey about their internet commenting behavior. They were looking for evidence that linked trolling with the Dark Tetrad of personality: narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadistic personality.
They found that Dark Tetrad scores were highest among people who said trolling was their favorite internet activity. To get an idea of how much more prevalent these traits were among internet trolls, check out this figure from the paper:
Look at how low the scores are for everyone except the internet trolls! Their scores for all four terrible personality traits soar on the chart. The relationship between this Dark Tetrad and trolling is so significant, that the authors write the following in their paper:
“… the associations between sadism and GAIT (Global Assessment of Internet Trolling) scores were so strong that it might be said that online trolls are prototypical everyday sadists.” [emphasis added]
Trolls truly enjoy making you feel bad. To quote the authors once more (because this is a truly quotable article):
“Both trolls and sadists feel sadistic glee at the distress of others. Sadists just want to have fun … and the Internet is their playground!”
Full article here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists?tr=MostViewed
The paper:
Trolls just want to have fun
Abstract
In two online studies (total N = 1215), respondents completed personality inventories and a survey of their Internet commenting styles. Overall, strong positive associations emerged among online commenting frequency, trolling enjoyment, and troll identity, pointing to a common construct underlying the measures. Both studies revealed similar patterns of relations between trolling and the Dark Tetrad of personality: trolling correlated positively with sadism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, using both enjoyment ratings and identity scores. Of all personality measures, sadism showed the most robust associations with trolling and, importantly, the relationship was specific to trolling behavior. Enjoyment of other online activities, such as chatting and debating, was unrelated to sadism. Thus cyber-trolling appears to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism.
"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising... 
Time for Wind to Stand on Its Own