Quote :

"^^^recent bids I've prepared and articles in Transmission and Distribution magazine. Spain and the US both have plans for about 3GW of parabolic trough systems to be installed in the next 3-4 years."

lol

How was Spain doing with those solar plans again??

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-wrong-way-to-create-a-solar-market-2009-5

Quote :

"In 2008, Spain was the top market for solar installations. In 2009, it will fall to 15th. It's all due to erratic decision making by the government. Greentech Media explains it all in an essay which provides a blueprint for what not to do while trying to increase use of solar power. Here's the truncated version of the story. Spain decided between 2007 and 2010 it would pay above market rates for electricity that came from solar plants to spur growth in the solar industry. It planned on subsidizing 400 MW over 3 years. Solar developers installed 344 MW by the end of 2007. Spain panicked. It adjusted the cap, but not enough to accommodate all the new solar plants that were built. It also lowered the amount it would pay above market for solar energy. With the cap kicked, solar developers moved on. The feed in tariff did nothing to create a vibrant solar industry. Solar companies came in, took advantage of what there was to take advantage of, then they moved on."

Yeah, Spain could do 3 GW in the next 3 years... if it didn't have a problem with the government budget getting completely nuked. Oh well, looks like the same thing happened to Spain that happens to every overzealous renewables program, it bankrupt itself.

And 3 GW? Really. Even if they did this, it would be equivalent to 3 GW * .9 / .2 = 666 MW of reliable baseload electricity. That would be a whopping 3 * .2 /450 = 0.13 % of electricity production in the United States. You know something is petty when someone BOASTS about a tenth of a percent.

Not only is the amount petty, but 3-4 years to build it means that these kind of efforts could NEVER do the job. What is the life for one of these plants? If it's less then 30 years, then the most it could EVER supply at that build rate would be 0.13%*30/3 = 1.3% of our electricity production.

But that's not what you're counting on. You're counting on this 3-4 years of subsidized building to somehow ignite huge cost reductions causing a boom in the industry. Cost reductions we have no basis to think will happen and would have to be of a factor of 2 or 3 in order to eliminate the subsidies, not counting the land give-aways they get for the projects.

[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 2:44 PM. Reason : ]

6/22/2009 2:44:21 PM

No way man, we need to be like the Europeans! Everything over there is going so well!

6/22/2009 8:46:29 PM

Quote :

"and 3 GW? Really. Even if they did this, it would be equivalent to 3 GW * .9 / .2 = 666 MW of reliable baseload electricity."

I don't get your fuzzy math. these are 24 hour operational facilities with massive molten salt heat storage tanks for producing power continuously. the megawatt ratings are coming off of the turbine / generator ratings, not off the solar fields.

even still, I don't give a fuck if it's viable or not. someone out there has decided they're going to build these systems, and I want to make whatever money is available designing and constructing them. Someone else can try to figure out if this was a smart economic decision or not afterwards.

6/22/2009 9:25:19 PM

I realize its a letter to the editor, but it is true. I also find it funny to be in the Washington Post.

Quote :

"The Not-Quite-Green Toyota Prius Sunday, June 21, 2009 The June 9 Business article "Toyota Wants New Prius to Be America's Next Top Model" called the Prius an "eco-icon" and said that it has allowed Americans to "advertise their eco-correctness." A Toyota spokesman was quoted as saying that many Prius buyers want to "make an environmental statement." The Prius's reputation as a "green" car is completely undeserved. The culprit is its nickel metal hydride battery. The nickel is mined in Sudbury, Ontario, and smelted nearby, doing damage to the local environment. The smelted nickel is shipped to Wales, where it is refined. Then it is sent to China to be made into nickel foam. Then it goes to Japan, where it is made into a battery. Then it goes into cars, some of which are shipped to the United States and some of which go to Europe. All of that seaborne transport consumes a lot of fossil fuel. CNW Marketing rates cars on the combined energy needed "to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage." A Prius costs $2.87 per lifetime mile. By comparison, an H3 Hummer costs $2.07 per lifetime mile. Then there will be the problem of disposing of the used batteries. This is not a "green" car; it is a "brown" one. JAMES CLIVIE GOODWIN "

If someone buys a Prius b/c they think they're "saving the environment" someone should tell them to do a little research.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/20/AR2009062001523.html?sub=AR

6/22/2009 10:58:20 PM

how is it funny that the post printed a letter to the editor, exactly?

6/22/2009 11:27:28 PM

^^This has actually been old news for a while. It's sad that this point has never got the news coverage it deserves.

6/23/2009 9:25:20 AM

^^I'm not gonna spell out the obvious.

^True on both counts. It's been common knowledge since generation one.

Here's something funny I came across

6/23/2009 10:43:40 AM

Quote :

"pumping heat out of the desert doesn't sound much different than pumping it out of the earth, and solar facilities installed in the desert are going to see the largest increases in the coming years."

I hope you realize that solar power isn't "sucking heat out of the desert..."

Quote :

"Furthermore, if geothermal plants haven't screwed up something yet, those (same) plants are not likely to screw something up in the future."

Why couldn't the same argument have been made 60 years ago for fossil fuels and still be just as valid? After all, it hadn't visibly fucked anything up up to then, had it?

Quote :

"I think a better comparison would be that people are treating global warming skeptics like they treat proponents of eugenics--a small and mostly, politically motivated group of scientists whose research has consequences most people find dangerous."

And people who treat them as such are fucking retards. Being skeptical about faked science is in no way on par with advocating eugenics.

6/23/2009 6:49:20 PM

^Thank you.

Would someone like to tell me what's wrong with releasing CO2 that was formerly in the atmosphere but was trapped through natural processes.

6/23/2009 11:45:01 PM

Quote :

"I hope you realize that solar power isn't "sucking heat out of the desert...""

ya not sure who said that but this has to be one of the dumbest most ignorant comments in the thread.

speaking of retarted when I bought plane tickets 3 weeks ago i almost blew soda all over my monitor that the
expidia.com website seriously asked if i wanted to donate $X dollors to "offset" my carbon footprint with my flight.
There were even 3 different payment levels for regional, continental, and international flights. Do people actually give
in and "clear their conscience" by buying this shit. I do not doubt the potential for humans to have an impact on climate
trends over time. Nonetheless all this carbon offset garbage, cap n trade, and liberal gloom and doom stories
about the oceans flooding over is absolute bull crap.

6/24/2009 12:00:58 AM

uhh, there's a difference between being "trapped in the atmosphere environment" and being released into the atmosphere

6/24/2009 12:01:05 AM

yeah......but you know, it was a natural process that put it there.


OMG NO WAY

6/24/2009 12:04:49 AM

and......?

nobody is contending that the world and its climate hasn't changed over the last 4 billion years, due to lots of reasons, including the trapping and releasing of CO2 through natural processes.

The problem isn't "is there an overall increase in CO2 stored in various states and places throughout the planet", it's "is human activity extracting energy from the ground which effectively pulls sequestered CO2 from the ground and releases it directly into the atmosphere, which is most certainly not a 'natural activity'?"


There's plenty of sulfur trapped underground in dirt and rocks that used to be in the atmosphere too, but no one would suggest that it would be fine and dandy to convert it all into sulfur dioxide gas, simply because "it's all part of the environment anyway. It's natural!"

6/24/2009 12:24:37 AM

Are we back on topic now?

6/24/2009 8:55:50 AM

agentlion sums it all up pretty well and i have nothing to add. TKE-Teg is not thinking about this clearly.

Quote :

"And people who treat them as such are fucking retards. Being skeptical about faked science is in no way on par with advocating eugenics."

It isn't? I think global warming skeptics sound a like proponents of eugenics, actually. First, both represent a small minority of scientists in their relative fields. Second, both groups complain that their work is ignored by the majority of the scientific community because they are politically unpalatable. Lastly, many people find the opinions of both global warming skeptics and proponents of eugenics to be dangerous (as in could potentially lead to the harm of many many people).

But I think the comparison is even more apt on a higher level. I am no more trained in genetics than I am in climate science. If a very sophisticated proponent of eugenics asked me which piece of his arguments I thought were invalid, I would probably not be able to answer him adequately. However, I am still comfortable rejecting policies based on eugenics (like say setting immigration quotas for "inferior people"), even though I do not fully understand the flaws in the scientific argument for eugenics. Why? Because the vast vast majority of people that *do* understand this stuff, also reject their arguments.

Now obviously, scientific validity is not the only consideration we should make in setting policy. For example, even if eugenics were valid, we may still reject making policies based on eugenics because of concerns for freedom and equality. But I hope you see my point.

When deciding whether we need policies to address global climate change, we need to first determine the scientific validity of the problem. Sure, there are skeptics out there. but the vast vast majority of climate scientists reject their arguments. So, l am still comfortable rejecting policies based on skepticism of global climate change.

But that's my argument. aaronburro You've made it clear that you are not concerned with the majority opinion of the scientific community, despite the fact that you are not trained in climate science. So I think it would be interesting to hear why you are apparently eager to ignore the opinion of the small group of scientists that study eugenics, but laud the opinion of the small group of scientists that are climate change skeptics.

6/24/2009 9:51:25 AM

have to chuckle - you guys don't really view it as CO2 that's "trapped" and then "released", do you?

6/24/2009 10:10:37 AM

Quote :

"Sure, there are skeptics out there. but the vast vast majority of climate scientists reject their arguments. So, l am still comfortable rejecting policies based on skepticism of global climate change."

I think it would be more appropriate to say there are "deniers" out there. There's a difference between "skeptics" and "deniers". The former critically questions science and scientists and does not readily accept mainstream viewpoints or arguments, but is willing to change his opinion or view based on evidence and scientific consensus. The latter takes and holds a position not on scientific or factual grounds, but because of personal, ideological, or political reasons, and is not likely to change their opinion regardless of the preponderance of evidence.


^ for the sake of argument, it's easier to say "trapped and released" than getting into the details of photosynthesis, plant/animal decay, fossil fuel creation, and the whole carbon cycle every time you want to make a point.

[Edited on June 24, 2009 at 10:15 AM. Reason : .]

6/24/2009 10:13:16 AM

^ yah, that is a better distinction. i was certainly referring more to "deniers" than simple skeptics. though i also think the case for skepticism for is greatly undermined by the growing scientific consensus on the issue.

[Edited on June 24, 2009 at 10:21 AM. Reason : ``]

6/24/2009 10:19:58 AM

I think there's also an inherent emotional response made by global warming supporters against skeptics. This is an issue regarding the survival of our race, and, to a lesser extent, the preservation of the environment. Extinction for any species is irreversible. This isn't like Prohibition, where there are few consequences that can't be undone by reversing the legislation. To the global warming supporter, skepticism is not merely disagreement; it's an immediate threat.

6/24/2009 10:30:35 AM

^quite true.

CO2 in fossil fuels is CO2 from the carbon cycle that got trapped over time. One could argue that if the process continued too long all carbon dioxide could disappear from the atmosphere (highly unlikely).

As far as deniers/skeptics and AGW lovers, there are two sides of the table. 95% of AGW believers probably don't even know the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, or even the tiny amount (comparatively) that we add. There's plenty of ignorance on both sides.

I'm a denier b/c there exists no clear evidence directly linking increased CO2 concentration to warming the planet. I'm distressed b/c people are welcoming the gov't to take unheard of control over their daily lives, and am also distressed b/c there are far more important environmental issues to be concerned with (and almost all of those is much cheaper and easier to do).

6/24/2009 10:52:20 AM

Quote :

"Now obviously, scientific validity is not the only consideration we should make in setting policy. For example, even if eugenics were valid, we may still reject making policies based on eugenics because of concerns for freedom and equality."

This is how i stand with Global Warming. I beleive in the validity of the science and think some of the claims may in fact be true.
This does not mean though that I think we need to be hitting up congress to create all teh crazy CO2 regulations and other policies
as some radical rapid response to "prevent" our CO2 "footprint". Over the long term though I do not understand how those who reject the
claim of global warming can not approve of slowly working and investing in technologies that reduce our impact on the environment.
Part of this has to do with the economic aspect of more "efficient" processes as we improve technology. A soccer mom driving a Scion xB
may not care that her CO2 emissions are less than her old Yukon but the difference at the gas pump is motivation.

Quote :

"I'm distressed b/c people are welcoming the gov't to take unheard of control over their daily lives, and am also distressed b/c there are far more important environmental issues to be concerned with "

Belief in the validity or possibility of the science does not justify or imply one's support of gov't policies enacted for such science.
I could buy into research that violent video games desensitizes youth to becomming abusive adults or committing acts of violence like the
columbine shootings. This does not mean I support a government ban on war or other violent games.

6/24/2009 11:45:21 AM

Quote :

"If someone buys a Prius b/c they think they're "saving the environment" someone should tell them to do a little research. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/20/AR2009062001523.html?sub=AR"

The last report from CNW puts the Prius at $2.19 and the H3 at $2.32.

Regardless of that, they say an H# is good for 300,000 miles, and Prius barely makes it out of it's warranty limit of 100,000. And they don't tell anyone how they came to those numbers. The study is suspect.

6/24/2009 11:56:06 AM

Even if this report were correct there is a degree of relativity. The waste products and disposal of the nickel battery could be argued to not
be one's problem or concern as long as the pollution/waste occurs or is stored in some selective location. For example maybe I could care
less if a toxic battery leaks into a pond in Montana in the middle of nowhere. Whereas theoretically the climate effecting CO2 of a gas guzzling
H2 has no bounds and contributes to the world wide CO2 concentration. This argument could be further taken as are the current net effects
of artificial CO2 negative if they exist. A peach farmer in South Carolina may say no, as long as the change in climate does not ward off
the summer rain bands. Also, citizens living in bone chilling Siberia would probably not be upset with "Warmer" temperatures.

6/24/2009 1:20:59 PM

Quote :

"But that's my argument. aaronburro You've made it clear that you are not concerned with the majority opinion of the scientific community, despite the fact that you are not trained in climate science."

And there is your problem, fool. Scientific consensus means jack shit, for one. For another, there IS NO CONSENSUS. Finally, to even state "consensus" implies that you don't have enough evidence on its own merits to make your argument. Clearly you aren't trained in any kind of science to even be able to comment on the matter.

Quote :

"When deciding whether we need policies to address global climate change, we need to first determine the scientific validity of the problem."

I would love that. But labeling the skeptics of it in the same camp as eugenics supporters certainly doesn't help that aim, does it? Yelling "consensus" at every turn doesn't help that aim, does it? In fact, "consensus" is what is yelled ANY TIME someone comes up with valid evidence to the contrary. What's that? CO2 lags temperature changes? CONSENSUS!!! What's that? The Arctic was "ice free" in the 50s? CONSENSUS!!! What's that? Antarctica is actually accreting more ice than it is losing? CONSENSUS!!!

Quote :

"First, both represent a small minority of scientists in their relative fields."

That is certainly not true for AGW skeptics. Furthermore, the list of skeptics is chocked full of highly respected names in the field. Well, at least they were respected until they had the audacity to disagree with Al Gore. But, tell me, why should we respect the fraudulent works of James Hansen and Michael Mann more than the works of Richard Lindzen?

6/25/2009 1:06:38 AM

6/25/2009 3:00:43 AM

Quote :

"That is certainly not true for AGW skeptics."

Quote :

"A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 96.2% of climatologists who are active in climate research believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus

2.6% = minority

6/25/2009 10:18:38 AM

what about the 30,000 scientists (though not restricted to earth science) that say that AGW is mainly a fraud

[Edited on June 25, 2009 at 10:33 AM. Reason : k ]

6/25/2009 10:31:30 AM

so, if 96% of scientists said the moon was made of cheese, would that make the moon full of cheese?

6/25/2009 3:40:39 PM

World Net Daily picked up this gem from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/Endangerment%20Comments%206-23-09.pdf

The attached word document (not included in the above pdf), containing the economist's comments, would be necessary to determine if he was fairly treated by the EPA or to know if this is even an issue worth drawing concern; I'm not sure if that's available to view online or not.

Anyway, I'm perplexed as to what the director of the National Center of Environmental Economics meant when he wrote,

Quote :

"I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."

Seriously... what the hell does that even mean?

[Edited on June 25, 2009 at 3:48 PM. Reason : ]

6/25/2009 3:45:10 PM

^it means that even though he's supposed to allow for feedback, since he knows the comments are damaging to his "cause" he's not going to allow them to be viewed, i.e. violating procedure.

I was going to mention this in the EPA thread actually. I asked TheDuke to BTTT it since it hasn't been active in over 90 days.

6/25/2009 4:05:48 PM

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2218644/posts

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/skeptics-try-to-find-common-ground/

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html

6/25/2009 4:25:30 PM

^^
But we can't know if it was even damaging to the EPA's cause without knowing exactly what his comments were regarding, right?

The document the CEI released is fairly light on any substantial information regarding the economist's concerns.

I'm assuming that the EPA isn't keeping it confidential; they released a statement, suggesting that the information has already been shared.

6/25/2009 4:48:43 PM

More proof of how Obama is letting science dictate policy.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Driessen-Governmentclimatecon-job.pdf

Quote :

" US government’s climate con-job Obama administration “report” on climate change is deceitful, scare-mongering, bogus science Paul Driessen Suppose a company doctored data, misrepresented study findings, replaced observations with computer simulations, and hired PR flacks to promote its new “wonder drug.” News stories, congressional hearings and subpoenas would be in overdrive. Fines and jail sentences would follow. And rightly so. But the standards change when “climate catastrophe” is involved. The White House has made global warming the centerpiece of its revenue-raising and energy policies. A House of Representatives 1,201-page bill would tax, regulate and penalize all US hydrocarbon energy use, to “save the planet from climate disaster.” The Senate promises an August vote. But average global temperatures peaked in 1998 and since have fallen slightly, even as carbon dioxide levels continue to climb. Thousands of scientists say CO2 has little effect on planetary temperatures, and there is no climate crisis. Few developed countries are ready to commit economic suicide, by agreeing to reduce their CO2 emissions by a fraction of what the House bill demands for the United States. Americans are beginning to realize the legislation would cost millions of jobs and trillions of dollars for a hypothetical 0.1 degree F reduction in global temperatures. Most put global warming dead last in a Pew Research list of 20 concerns. The government’s answer to these inconvenient truths is simple. Issue another report by government scientists carefully selected to exclude any who don’t subscribe to climate Armageddon. Ignore contrary data and analyses. Crank out more bogus computer-generated worst-case scenarios. Hire an activist media firm that specializes in environmental scare campaigns. And spend tens of millions hyping every imaginable climate disaster: Rising sea levels, floods in lower Manhattan, California beaches permanently submerged. Ferocious hurricanes, floods and droughts. Food shortages, epidemic diseases, a quadrupling of heat-wave deaths in Chicago. Aged sewer systems convulsing from massive storm runoff. Wildflowers disappearing from Rocky Mountain slopes and polar bears from the Arctic. Leisure time gone, as people struggle to survive. “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” is the “most up-to-date, authoritative, comprehensive” analysis ever done on how human-caused warming affects the United States, deadpans Obama “science” advisor John Holdren. Actually, it’s the most flagrant attempted con-job and propaganda campaign in US history. If it helps Congress enact cap-and-tax legislation, it will give activists, courts and bureaucrats control over virtually every aspect of our lives. It will enable them to confiscate hard-earned dollars, convert them to payoffs for activists and companies that get on the climate-crisis bandwagon, consign uncooperative companies and scientists to the ash heap of history, and conceal the exorbitant costs of restrictive energy policies – on families, industries, jobs and transportation – until long after the bill becomes law. The bogus “report” conflates and confuses human activities and emissions with the powerful natural forces that have caused major and minor climate changes and weather anomalies since the dawn of time – from the Carboniferous Period to the Age of Dinosaurs, from the Big Ice Ages and interglacial periods to the Little Ice Age, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, Dust Bowl and countless others. It relies on conjecture, conformist thinking and conspicuous elimination of contrary, skeptical, realist scientists and studies that do not support climate cataclysm conjecture and ideology. The authors “largely ignored” critical comments to earlier drafts and made the final version “even more alarmist” than infamous UN “summaries” of global warming “crises,” says Joseph D’Aleo, first director of meteorology at the Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Weather Analysis and Forecasting Committee. The report is simply “wrong on many of its claims” and marks “an embarrassing episode for the authors and NOAA,” D’Aleo concludes. University of Colorado environmental studies professor Roger Pielke, Jr. says the report “misrepresents” his own work, makes claims that are not supported by citations provided, relies heavily on analyses that were never peer reviewed, ignores peer-reviewed studies that reach opposite conclusions from those proclaimed by the report, and cites analyses that do not support conclusions rendered. “I didn’t notice a single recognized hurricane expert in the list of authors,” says NOAA Hurricane Research Division scientist Stanley Goldenberg. The report relies heavily on surface temperature data from monitoring stations located next to parking lots and air conditioning exhaust ports – falsely skewing temperature records upward – other experts noted. It is lead-heavy on assumptions, assertions and speculation – hydrogen-light on evidence. But the most egregious miscarriage of science in this agit-prop exercise is its near-total dependence on worst-case scenarios conjured up by computer models. That’s where it gets its litany of “Day After Tomorrow” Hollywood disasters. These climate models have never been validated by actual observations, notes Professor Robert Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at Australia’s James Cook University. Indeed, Australia’s own climate modeling agency (CSIRO) stresses that climate change scenarios are based on computer models that “involve simplifications of [real world] processes that are not fully understood. Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted … for the accuracy of forecasts inferred” from its reports. “Modeling results are interesting – but worthless for setting public policy,” says Carter. But that is exactly how they’re being used. Sure, it’s conceivable that Antarctica could melt, and cause sea levels to rise 20 feet, as Al Gore and the government con-artists suggest. Greenhouse gases would merely have to increase average annual Antarctic temperatures from their current –50 degrees F to +40 degrees for a century or two, to melt 200,000 cubic miles of South Pole icecaps. A mere 90-degree swing. That may be as likely as having the planet overrun by raptors and T-rexes cloned from DNA in fossilized mosquitoes. But it’s conceivable. And in the realm of global warming politics, that’s all that matters. As MIT atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen observes, “global warming has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own, quite removed from science.” As one climate activist group put it: “The task … is not to persuade by rational argument.” It is “to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle techniques of engagement. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken.” The strategy is to treat “climate-friendly activity as a brand that can be sold. This is the route to mass behavior change.” This is the kind of science, transparency, honesty and accountability we have come to expect over “human-caused climate chaos.” If the congressional, administration and activist conspirators behind this massive deceit were in the private sector – peddling bogus drugs, rather than bogus science – they’d quickly become convicts. Instead of jail time, though, they’ll probably get bonus checks. Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death."

But, hey, since when has science been about actual evidence and observation? Fuck that

6/25/2009 6:26:18 PM

Oh, look, James Hansen and his buddies are saying shit that every one else disputes. Again!

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAMAY.pdf

Quote :

" NOAA PROVES AN OUTLIER AGAIN IN MAY By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM NOAA proclaimed May 2009 to be the 4th warmest for the globe in 130 years of record keeping. Meanwhile NASA UAH MSU satellite assessment showed it was the 15th coldest May in the 31 years of its record. This divergence is not new and has been growing. Just a year ago, NOAA proclaimed June 2008 to be the 8th warmest for the globe in 129 years of record keeping. Meanwhile NASA satellites showed it was the 9th coldest June in the 30 years of its record. We have noted in the last year that NOAA has often become the warmest of the 5 major data sets in their monthly global anomalies. They were second place until they introduced a new ocean data set to be discussed later. NOAA and the other ground based data centers would have more credibility if one of the changes resulting in a reduction of the warming trend and not an exaggeration which has been the case each time. THE MANY ISSUES WITH THE STATION BASED DATA CENTERS NOAA and the other station base data centers suffer from major station dropout (nearly 3/4ths of the stations) many of them rural, there has been a tenfold increase in missing months in remaining stations, no adjustment for urbanization even as the population grew from 1.5 billion to 6.7 billion since 1900 and documented bad station siting in the United States and almost certainly elsewhere. Also 70% of the earth is ocean and the methods for measurement there over the years have changed from ship buckets to ship intake to satellite surface sensing. Each measures a different level and produces different results. Transitioning was gradual making estimation more challenging. STATION DROPOUT NOAA's allowing over 2/3rds of the world's stations to dropout in 1990. You can see the coverage difference between the stations on this GISS analysis of the NOAA gathered stations from 1978 versus that in 2008. Notice the big gaps in Canada (where May was very cold), South America, Africa, western Asia, Greenland and Australia. Since many of these areas are more rural, this dropout led to more urban bias and thus warming. In the United States, NOAA has removed the US Urban Heat Island (UHI) adjustment and performs no UHI adjustment on global data. This is despite the facts that NCDC's own Director Tom Karl in Kark et al (1988 J Climate) in Urbanization: its detection and effect in the United States climate record, showed the importance of urban adjustment and the Hadley Centre's Phil Jones (2008) in Jones et al. in Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China, showed UHI's contamination of data in China. There are many other peer review papers supporting the need for UHI adjustment even for smaller towns to determine climate trends. The removal of the UHO adjustment resulted in an increased warming trend as you would expect but an oddball cooling in the 1930s. Removal of the UHI for the US resulted in a warming relative to GISS (which still does a UHI adjustment that seems to work for the US) with UHI in the United States of an amazing 0.75F since 1940. ... SATELLITE A BETTER WAY Satellite[s] are widely believed to be the most reliable source of reliable trend information if you can calibrate the differences as one bird gets phased out and a new one goes online. UAH and RSS have gotten very good at this in a very cooperative way in recent years. When you compare the satellite trends of both UAH and RSS with NOAA, you see an increasing warm bias in the NOAA data which explains why months with major cold in the news get ranked so high by NOAA and not by the satellite sources. The difference is approaching 0.5C (almost 1F). The satellite data is regarded even by NOAA administration to be the most reliable but they don’t use it in releases as it is only available for 30 years. It has shown a cooling since 2002. ... "

It's OK, though... The science is settled and there is no debate.

6/25/2009 6:43:50 PM

6/25/2009 6:50:20 PM

i know, facts and evidence are stupid, lawls

More about hooksaw's post above...
http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/06/24/epa-suppresses-internal-global-warming-study/

Quote :

" EPA Suppresses Internal Global Warming Study by William Yeatman June 24, 2009 @ 10:46 am The Competitive Enterprise Institute today charged that a senior official of the U.S. Environment Protection Agency actively suppressed a scientific analysis of climate change because of political pressure to support the Administration’s policy agenda of regulating carbon dioxide. As part of a just-ended public comment period, CEI submitted a set of four EPA emails, dated March 12-17, 2009, which indicate that a significant internal critique of the agency’s global warming position was put under wraps and concealed. The study the emails refer to, which ran counter to the administration’s views on carbon dioxide and climate change, was kept from circulating within the agency, was never disclosed to the public, and was not added to the body of materials relevant to EPA’s current “endangerment” proceeding. The emails further show that the study was treated in this manner not because of any problem with its quality, but for political reasons. “This suppression of valid science for political reasons is beyond belief,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman. “EPA’s conduct is even more outlandish because it flies in the face of the President’s widely-touted claim that ‘the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.’” CEI’s filing requests that EPA make the suppressed study public, place it into the endangerment docket, and extend the comment period to allow public response to the new information. CEI is also requesting that EPA publicly declare that it will engage in no reprisals against the study’s author, a senior analyst who has worked at EPA for over 35 years. "

Man, I am so glad the science is the top thing, man!

Oh, this one gets better...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/obamas_epa_makes_a_mockery_of.html

Quote :

" Obama's EPA Makes a Mockery of Due Process Marc Sheppard Surely climate alarmists enjoy enough unfair advantage over their rational counterparts, what with the mainstream media shamelessly suppressing the findings of the latter for political purposes. But now there’s compelling evidence that alarmists within our government have also taken unfair advantage, suppressing the results of their own climate study for the same nefarious reasons. Sixty days ago yesterday, EPA chief Lisa Jackson released the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The proposal initiated a statutory period of public commentary – ending yesterday – providing a forum to experts and interested parties on both sides of the “CO2 as pollutant” issue prior to any regulatory action. But on the final day of the public commentary period, a dispatch was submitted to the EPA accusing them of attempting to cover-up an internal study that imperiled the outcome predetermined by both the agency and its puppeteers – the Obama administration. And the intraagency emails attached to the letter -- submitted by Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) general counsel Sam Kazman [PDF] -- leave little room for doubt. One EPA office director actually demanded that the endangerment-challenging study be barred from circulation within the agency, never disclosed to the public, and not placed in the docket of the proceeding. And, as Kazman observed dead-on, the communications between that EPA National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) Office Director -- Al McGartland -- and study author Alan Carlin, an NCEE Senior Operations Research Analyst, made clear that it was the study’s conclusions rather than its merit that earned it its place on the trash heap. In a March 16 email to McGartland (who in a prior email had forbade his speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues) and three other NCEE staffers, Carlin requested that his study be forwarded to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), which directs EPA’s climate change program. Carlin pointed out that roughly two-thirds of his references were from peer-reviewed publications and that his comments “explain much of the observational data that have been collected which cannot be explained by the IPCC models.” The next day, Carlin received two emails from McGartland. The first announced the director’s decision not to forward Carlin’s comments to OAR, explaining that he could “only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” The second was a direct order arriving eight minutes later: “I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change.” ..."

Now, who wants to try and argue that there isn't pressure placed against skeptics? Right. But hey, that's what science is all about, right? Suppressing dissent, right?

6/25/2009 7:16:34 PM

more goodies!

Check out the fixing of data in hawaii!

Quote :

" Phil Jones: the Secret Agent in Hawaii by Steve McIntyre on June 21st, 2009 As CA readers know, Phil Jones keeps his CRU data secret. [like any good scientist, right?] Embarrassingly, the UK Met Office relies on this secret data and says that it is unable to provide this supporting data for the most relied upon temperature data set in the world. Their statements in response to FOI requests as to what they actually hold seem contradictory, but most recently they state that they do not hold original data, but only the "value added version" provided to them by Phil Jones. Whether they are entitled to keep the "value added version" secret is something that their FOI officer is presently considering. Recently, Anthony Watts discovered that the Honolulu Observatory data, which NOAA and NASA lost track of in the 1980s, continued to the present day. Anthony observed the substantial difference between trends at Honolulu airport and at more rural sites. When I've done previous benchmarking of GISS data, I've usually tried to use relatively isolated stations so that the effect of data inclusions and exclusions could be simplified. Since Hawaii is relatively isolated, it seemed like it would be an interesting exercise to look at the Hawaiian gridcell, to get a preview of whether the "discovery" of a long data set might have an impact at the gridded level. As so often, when one goes down a climate science rabbit hole, wonderland awaits. First, here's a graphic showing an interesting contrast between the CRUTEM gridded data and the NOAA/GHCN gridded data for the Hawaii gridcell (157.5W, 22.5N). In one of his FOI obstructions, Phil Jones argued that CRUTEM data was already available at GHCN. But as you see, the CRUTEM gridded version for the Hawaii gridcell is remarkably different from the NOAA GHCN version. To illustrate the stunning difference between the two series, here's a plot of the difference. CRU has increased relative to GHCN by approximately 2 deg C during the 20th century. ([snark] I guess that's what the Met Office means by the "value added" product/ [/snark]) ..."

6/25/2009 7:48:22 PM

That you will eat up whatever fringe libertarian/right-wing political organizations and scientists say without critical analysis while demanding impossible standards of evidence of mainstream science makes me

6/25/2009 8:28:37 PM

I'm sorry, but I don't think it's too much to ask that the EPA not bury inconvenient studies.

But, tell me, what is so "kooky" about Lindzen? Or Soon? Or McIntyre? Or Watts? Tell me, what makes them less believable than a fraud like Hansen, whose "honest mistakes" always seem to support his hypothesis? Or what about our buddy Michael Mann and his hockey-stick generating model?

What is so noble about misrepresenting someone's work and drawing the opposite conclusions from it than the work actually presents? What is so noble and worthy about flat out ignoring evidence that doesn't fit your agenda?

6/25/2009 8:31:32 PM

dammit aaronburro, I had Duke active the EPA thread for the EPA story

Other stuff is good though, will make for good reading tomorrow at work during down time.

6/25/2009 10:20:54 PM

Quote :

"The Climate Change Climate Change The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere. By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation. If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming. Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S. In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program. The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.) The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon. Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day. The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed. Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't. This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter. Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone."

Good to see the rest of the world coming to their senses.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

6/26/2009 10:10:10 AM

didn't you know? The debate is over. It's time to act NOW. no one disagrees with the science, man

6/26/2009 12:24:57 PM

On a lighter note, I saw this 2009 Audi Q7 V12 TDI on TV this morning:



Audi claims the following:

-20% less emissions than gas engine.

-20-40% better gas mileage than a gas engine.

-50% more power than a gas engine.

-And that if just 30% of Americans would switch to existing clean diesel technology, we could import 1.5 million less barrels of foreign oil per day.

Would buy. May buy. Vorsprung durch Technik, indeed.

6/27/2009 8:42:12 AM

Quote :

"so, if 96% of scientists said the moon was made of cheese, would that make the moon full of cheese?"

--aaronburro

no, scientists can be wrong (and they could even be wrong about climate change just like they can be wrong about what the moon is made of). BUT, in matters of the moon is made of, I will always value the opinion of "moonologists" (or whatever) over the opinion of the regular jerk on the street (or the opinion of scientists in unrelated fields like economics, political science, etc). And that seems like that right approach if you ask me.

But you never answered my question. If you don't care about scientific consensus, what leads you to believe that over 96% of climate scientists are wrong on this issue? Your own "evaluation" of the evidence? Seeing as you have absolutely 0 training in the subject?

Please just say yes, because it is obviously true. You keep posting charts as if you have the background the to fully understand what's going on. What was your degree in again? And how does that qualify you to jump into a complex subject like climate science and see something that 96% of climate scientists (who study this for a mother fucking living) can't?

[Edited on June 27, 2009 at 4:06 PM. Reason : ``]

6/27/2009 4:01:32 PM

Quote :

"96% of climate scientists (who study this for a mother fucking living)"

I think 96% of people in all professions would either lie their asses off or say nothing at all if they knew their profession was a joke and that they may become obsolete or downsized if they admitted the truth.

6/27/2009 4:23:38 PM

sometimes i like you ya know

6/27/2009 4:26:19 PM

Quote :

"what leads you to believe that over 96% of climate scientists are wrong on this issue?"

To interject with my own opinion, I don't believe that 96% (or whatever the % is) of climate scientists are wrong about global warming. I just think that they are alarmists, since that is what they are paid to do. They exaggerate, fearmonger, and predict doomsday scenarios. They study worst-case scenarios, and frequently base their predictions off of whatever statistics will produce the most dire, ominous results in their models and studies.

In 1999, every "Y2K expert" was absolutely sure that the Y2K bug was gonna cause a global catastrophe, and they would argue the point until their faces turned blue. The same thing happened around 2003 with the bird flu, and is happening once again with the swine flu. Even though it is readily apparent that this swine flu is no more dangerous than common flu bugs, the CDC has pushed ahead and called this a global pandemic. They have sounded the alarm bells and warned everyone in sight that this is a new, dangerous bug.

The point I'm getting at is that people like to feel like their work is important. They like to receive alcollades for their work, and they want to feel that they are doing good. So when thousands of scientists are all getting paid to study climate change, it's the loudest voices that prevail. The alarmists are the ones that grab the headlines, because shocking headlines sell newspapers. At some point in the last decade or so, this group of climatologists really hit critical mass. A lot of nonsense has been repeated so many times that people take it as fact. the hysteria about sea-level rise is a good example, and something that I have railed against repeatedly. The recent predictions of several meters of sea-level rise in the next century simply do not match up with any observed phenomena, and they directly contradict the IPCC's own findings in their 4th installment.

In 2007, the IPCC produced their "best-guess" estimate that we would see 1.8-4.0 degree (C) rise in temperature. Nowadays, it seems commonly accepted that we are looking at at least 5 degrees of temperature rise, and probably more. I happen to think that this "prediction inflation" is more due to the politicizing of the issue, and less due to more accurate studies and models in the last 2 years. After all, 2008 and 2009 haven't been particularly hot years, especially compared to the start of the century. What has changed? Newer and faster computers? Or simply more people and more money being thrown at the issue? It seems to me that the more money you throw at global warming research, the more dire predictions you will get.



[Edited on June 27, 2009 at 4:59 PM. Reason : 2]

6/27/2009 4:53:31 PM

Quote :

" Audi claims the following: -20% less emissions than gas engine. -20-40% better gas mileage than a gas engine. -50% more power than a gas engine. -And that if just 30% of Americans would switch to existing clean diesel technology, we could import 1.5 million less barrels of foreign oil per day. Would buy. May buy. Vorsprung durch Technik, indeed."

I find that hard to believe, unless they are talking solely about CO2 emissions. Diesel engines put for more other particulates in the air and decrease air quality much more than gasoline engines.

Kinda illustrates a point about the entire Global Warming mess. Of all the things we need to worry about environmentally, CO2 emissions are far from being at the top of that list.

6/27/2009 6:33:04 PM

Quote :

"I find that hard to believe, unless they are talking solely about CO2 emissions. Diesel engines put for more other particulates in the air and decrease air quality much more than gasoline engines. "

Not if you use low-sulfur diesel. Which we have been using since 2007 and Europe has been using much longer. Nitroxides are another story, but you said particulates.

Quote :

"Kinda illustrates a point about the entire Global Warming mess. Of all the things we need to worry about environmentally, CO2 emissions are far from being at the top of that list."

I disagree. And so do most scientists. But please explain.

6/27/2009 11:48:52 PM

Quote :

"If you don't care about scientific consensus, what leads you to believe that over 96% of climate scientists are wrong on this issue?"

Well, 1st, it's not 96%, no matter what rigged study you pull out of your ass. Number 2, that people have to even invoke consensus proves that they don't have the evidence to support their claims. Why can we trust the moonologists? Because they have actual evidence and don't need to pull an appeal to authority. They appeal to the evidence.

Finally, the studies consistently don't use statisticians, and yet they are doing massive statistical analyses to try and prove their point. And the first time a statistician looked at it, they found massive fraud. Hmmmm... And the studies conducted after this continue to use the same failed methodologies. As well, they always use massively biased data sets, even though the IPCC previously said NOT to use those sets.

As well, the amount of intimidation in the scientific community towards anti-AGWers is staggering. It hardly is indicative of a truly scholarly community. Instead, it reeks of almost theocracy

6/27/2009 11:52:23 PM