Posts Tagged ‘Kyoto Protocol’

And the cooling continues.

23 januari, 2014

Sorry – I mean that Global Warming is really an imminent threat to humankind.

The Recent 12 Months for the year of 2013 U.S. Temperature trend/decade: – 0.8 F COOLER in 100 years

So far I have shown you the 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 4 months, 5 months, 9 months and 10 months trend for US temperature 2013.

(See here:

January U.S. Temperature trend/decade: – 9.4 F COOLER in 100 years

Recent 2 Months U.S. Temperature trend/decade: – 11.3 F COOLER in 100 years

Recent 3 Months U.S. Temperature trend/decade: – 4.1 F COOLER in 100 years

Recent 4 Months U.S. Temperature trend/decade: – 5.4 F COOLER in 100 years

Recent 5 Months U.S. Temperature trend/decade: – 5.7 F COOLER in 100 years

Recent 9 Months U.S. Temperature trend/decade: – 0.7 F COOLER in 100 years

Recent 10 Months U.S. Temperature trend/decade: – 1.1 F COOLER in 100 years)

So to sum it all up, here is the recent 12 months (year to date, January- December) US temperature from a “historic” perspective. To see how the decade trends have evolved during the last 113 years.

Especially to see how the decade trends have evolved during the last 43 years. The period that according to the Global Warming Hysterics and computer models they worship should show a steady and accelerated increase in temperature.

I don’t know about you, but I consider a 12 month, a year by year consecutive trend 113 years long to be a “quit good” indicator.

And as I always point out:

Remember, these are the official figures. With the poor placement of stations (91 % of the stations are CRN 3 to 5 = bad to very poor); where they have purposely taken away the urban heat island effect, use huge smoothing radius, the historical “adjustment and tweaking” to cool the past etc.

Not to mention the great slaughter of GHCN stations 1990-1993 – roughly 63 % of all stations were “dropped”. Oddly enough many of them in cold places – Hmmm? Now the number of GHCN stations is back at the same numbers as in 1890.

Also remember that the US stations are now nearly a third of the all GHCN world stations.

So here are the trends:

US temperature recent 12 months (Jan- Dec) 1900-2013

The trend for 1900 to 2013 is 0.12 F / Decade

(OBS! Notice how distorted the trend line of this official graph is. It looks gigantic because they on purpose chose different scale for the different axis. But in reality it is only 0,12 F/Decade)

Jan-Dec 1900-2013a

US temperature recent 12 months (Jan- Dec) 1970-2013

The trend for 1970 to 2013 is 0.48 F / Decade

Jan-Dec 1970-2013

US temperature recent 12 months (Jan- Dec) 1980-2013

The trend for 1980 to 2013 is 0.42 F / Decade

Jan-Dec 1980-2013

US temperature recent 12 months (Jan- Dec) 1990-2013

The trend for 1990 to 2013 is  0.33 F / Decade

Jan-Dec 1990-2013

US temperature recent 12 months (Jan- Dec) 2000-2013

The trend for 2000 to 2013 is – 0.08 F / Decade

Jan-Dec 2000-2013

Do you notice the “accelerated warming” trend from 1970-2013 to 2000-2013??

And as I said in the beginningalways remember that these figures are based on the official data that has been tweaked, “adjusted” and manipulated to fit their agenda (cool the past, ignore UHI and land use change factors, huge smoothing radius – 1200km etc.)..

So the “warming trend” 2000-2013 for January – December is exactly – 0.08 F degrees a decade.  That is – 0.8 F COOLER in 100 years. That’s what I call “warming”!

You REALLY, REALLY can see the accelerating trend can you not?

Take coverThe sweat is really breaking out.

And this is also the decade that the Global Warming Hysterics have been screaming at the top of their lungs, trying to scare us to death, about the catastrophic treat that the “extreme increase” in temperature is to mankind and earth.

This is a perfect example of what I have been saying all along, it has always been a political agenda – anti human, anti freedom, anti development and anti capitalism. And this Global Warming Hysteria is part of that agenda. It has nothing to do with science, facts or saving the environment or the Earth.

All of this, as always, paid by us, the common people, in the form of taxes, high energy costs and reducing our living standard back to the Stone Age.

And all of this to “save” the Earth from a “catastrophic warming” when it is actually cooling.

And the most absurd thing is that all the things that the “intelligent” politicians and the so called “scientists”, with the willing help of mainstream media, have forced through at EXTREME cost to us, are actually helping to accelerate the cooling.

Talking about an eminent treat to humankind!

According to the computer models that the Global Warming Hysterics love so much, worship and blindly follows (especially our intelligent politicians), it should be EXACTLY the opposite.

And we are supposed to be very worried about a predicted rise of 3-4 F?

But not this ACTUAL trend?

And for this predicted trend the politicians want to take our societies back to the Stone Age. But, as usual, they DO NOTHING about the actual trend.

So to summarize this evidence of this “accelerated warming” trend:

The recent 12 months trend 1970-2013 is exactly 0.48 F degrees a decade.

The recent 12 months trend 1980-2013 is exactly 0.42 F degrees a decade.

The recent 12 months trend 1990-2013 is exactly 0.33 F degrees a decade.

The recent 12 months trend 2000-2013 is exactly – 0.08 F degrees a decade.

So the “warming” trend is really accelerating wouldn’t you say.

Some more “rapid warming” like this and the freezer looks really warm.

Another brilliant and glorious example of RAPID WARMING and an eminent treat to humankind! Especially during the last 43 years.

That is truly “Global Warming” US style.

An interesting ”science” wouldn’t you say.

This is the “stuff” that “Global Warming” is made of.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Annonser

Recent 10 Months U.S. Temperature trend/decade: – 1.1 F COOLER in 100 years

23 november, 2013

And the cooling continues. Sorry – I mean that Global Warming is really an imminent threat to humankind. Especially in Warsaw

As I promised in my previous post from yesterday (Recent 9 Months U.S. Temperature trend/decade: – 0.7 F COOLER in 100 years), here comes the follow up with the 10 month historic trend for US temperature.

As I said, all inspired by the shenanigans going on in Warsaw. Dedicated with “special love” to the traveling UN Circus now performing in Warsaw (COP 19 and CMP 9).

The most costly, disastrous and hypocritical Political Show on Earth Paid by us the common people

So here are the recent 10 months (year to date, January- October) US temperature from a “historic” perspective. To see how the decade trends have evolved during the last 113 years.

Especially to see how the decade trends have evolved during the last 43 years. The period that according to the Global Warming Hysterics and computer models they worship should show a steady and accelerated increase in temperature.

I don’t know about you, but I consider a 10 month, a year by year consecutive trend 113 years long to be a “quit good” indicator.

And as I always point out:

Remember, these are the official figures. With the poor placement of stations (91 % of the stations are CRN 3 to 5 = bad to very poor); where they have purposely taken away the urban heat island effect, use huge smoothing radius, the historical “adjustment and tweaking” to cool the past etc.

Not to mention the great slaughter of GHCN stations 1990-1993 – roughly 63 % of all stations were “dropped”. Oddly enough many of them in cold places – Hmmm? Now the number of GHCN stations is back at the same numbers as in 1890.

Also remember that the US stations are now nearly a third of the all GHCN world stations.

So here are the trends:

US temperature recent 10 months (Jan- Oct) 1900-2013

The trend for 1900 to 2013 is 0.13 F / Decade

Jan-Oct 1900-2013

US temperature recent 10 months (Jan- Oct) 1970-2013

The trend for 1970 to 2013 is 0.49 F / Decade

Jan-Oct 1970-2013

US temperature recent 10 months (Jan- Oct) 1980-2013

The trend for 1980 to 2013 is 0.42 F / Decade

Jan-Oct 1980-2013

US temperature recent 10 months (Jan- Oct) 1990-2013

The trend for 1990 to 2013 is  0.31 F / Decade

Jan-Oct 1990-2013

US temperature recent 10 months (Jan- Oct) 2000-2013

The trend for 2000 to 2013 is – 0.11 F / Decade

Jan-Oct 2000-2013

Do you notice the “accelerated warming” trend from 1970-2013 to 2000-2013??

And as I said in the beginningalways remember that these figures are based on the official data that has been tweaked, “adjusted” and manipulated to fit their agenda (cool the past, ignore UHI and land use change factors, huge smoothing radius – 1200km etc.)..

So the “warming trend” 2000-2013 for January – October is exactly – 0.11 F degrees a decade.  That is – 1.1 F COOLER in 100 years. That’s what I call “warming”!

And to REALLY show you this “accelerated warming” trend lets recapitulate my previous post for nine months and their trend /decade:

US temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1970-2013

The trend for 1970 to 2013 is 0.52 F / Decade

US temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1980-2013

The trend for 1980 to 2013 is 0.43 F / Decade

US temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1990-2013

The trend for 1990 to 2013 is 0.34 F / Decade

US temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 2000-2013

The trend for 2000 to 2013 is – 0.07 F / Decade

You REALLY, REALLY can see the accelerating trend one month later can you not?

Take coverThe sweat is really breaking out.

And this is also the decade that the Global Warming Hysterics have been screaming at the top of their lungs, trying to scare us to death, about the catastrophic treat that the “extreme increase” in temperature is to mankind and earth.

This is a perfect example of what I have been saying all along, it has always been a political agenda – anti human, anti freedom, anti development and anti capitalism. And this Global Warming Hysteria is part of that agenda. It has nothing to do with science, facts or saving the environment or the Earth.

All of this, as always, paid by us, the common people, in the form of taxes, high energy costs and reducing our living standard back to the Stone Age.

And all of this to “save” the Earth from a “catastrophic warming” when it is actually cooling.

And the most absurd thing is that all the things that the “intelligent” politicians and the so called “scientists”, with the willing help of mainstream media, have forced through at EXTREME cost to us, are actually helping to accelerate the cooling.

Talking about an eminent treat to humankind!

According to the computer models that the Global Warming Hysterics love so much, worship and blindly follows (especially our intelligent politicians), it should be EXACTLY the opposite.

And we are supposed to be very worried about a predicted rise of 3-4 F?

But not this ACTUAL trend?

And for this predicted trend the politicians want to take our societies back to the Stone Age. But, as usual, they DO NOTHING about the actual trend.

So to summarize this evidence of this “accelerated warming” trend:

The recent 10 months trend 1970-2013 is exactly 0.49 F degrees a decade.

The recent 10 months trend 1980-2013 is exactly 0.42 F degrees a decade.

The recent 10 months trend 1990-2013 is exactly 0.31 F degrees a decade.

The recent 10 months trend 2000-2013 is exactly – 0.11 F degrees a decade.

So the “warming” trend is really accelerating wouldn’t you say.

Some more “rapid warming” like this and the freezer looks really warm.

Another brilliant and glorious example of RAPID WARMING and an eminent treat to humankind! Especially during the last 43 years.

That is truly “Global Warming” US style.

An interesting ”science” wouldn’t you say.

This is the “stuff” that “Global Warming” is made of.

——————————————————————————

So to sum up these two last posts I am going to do an executive summary dedicated to our “intelligent” politicians, especially those now performing in Warsaw. And I am going to make a bold presumption here, namely that they know how to count, and even know the difference between + and . You never know, there may be someone out there.

Executive Summary:

If we compare this year’s 9 month trend with last year’s 9 month trend it is COOLER this year.

And if we compare this year’s 9 month trend with this year’s 10 month trend it is COOLER.

OK?

Can you now do the math and maybe draw at least some conclusions? Or is this too hard?

—————————————————————————

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Recent 9 Months U.S. Temperature trend/decade: – 0.7 F COOLER in 100 years

22 november, 2013

And the cooling continues. Sorry – I mean that Global Warming is really an imminent threat to humankind. Especially in Warsaw.

I was not planning to do another update of the US temperature from a “historic” perspective. But I was so inspired by the shenanigans going on in Warsaw that I felt I had to.

So here it comes, first the 9 month trend and in a later post the 10 month trend. Dedicated with “special love” to the traveling UN Circus now performing in Warsaw (COP 19 and CMP 9).

An old advertisement for the Barnum & Bailey Circus in 1900 said: “The greatest Show on Earth”. I think a more apt one for the present one going on would be “The most costly, disastrous and hypocritical Political Show on Earth Paid by us the common people

They were supposed to finish today but, as usual they have prolonged the proceedings. They have in negotiation speak “stopped the clock”.

I thought it would be interesting to look at the recent 9 months (year to date, January- September) US temperature from a “historic” perspective. To see how the decade trends have evolved during the last 113 years.

Especially to see how the decade trends have evolved during the last 43 years. The period that according to the Global Warming Hysterics and computer models they worship should show a steady and accelerated increase in temperature.

I don’t know about you, but I consider a 9 month, a year by year consecutive trend 113 years long to be a “quit good” indicator.

And as I always point out:

Remember, these are the official figures. With the poor placement of stations (91 % of the stations are CRN 3 to 5 = bad to very poor); where they have purposely taken away the urban heat island effect, use huge smoothing radius, the historical “adjustment and tweaking” to cool the past etc.

Not to mention the great slaughter of GHCN stations 1990-1993 – roughly 63 % of all stations were “dropped”. Oddly enough many of them in cold places – Hmmm? Now the number of GHCN stations is back at the same numbers as in 1890.

Also remember that the US stations are now nearly a third of the all GHCN world stations.

So here are the trends:

US temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1900-2013

The trend for 1900 to 2013 is 0.13 F / Decade

Jan-Sep 1900-2013

US temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1970-2013

The trend for 1970 to 2013 is 0.52 F / Decade

Jan-Sep 1970-2013

US temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1980-2013

The trend for 1980 to 2013 is 0.43 F / Decade

Jan-Sep 1980-2013

US temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1990-2013

The trend for 1990 to 2013 is  0.34 F / Decade

Jan-Sep 1990-2013

US temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 2000-2013

The trend for 2000 to 2013 is – 0.07 F / Decade

Jan-Sep 2000-2013

Do you notice the “accelerated warming” trend from 1970-2013 to 2000-2013??

And as I said in the beginningalways remember that these figures are based on the official data that has been tweaked, “adjusted” and manipulated to fit their agenda (cool the past, ignore UHI and land use change factors, huge smoothing radius – 1200km etc.)..

So the “warming trend” 2000-2013 for Jan- September is exactly – 0.07 F degrees a decade.  That is – 0.7 F COOLER in 100 years. That’s what I call “warming”!

And to REALLY show you this “accelerated warming” trend lets recapitulate the last years (2012) figures for nine months and their trend /decade (see my post: Recent 9 Months U.S. Temperature trend/decade: 1.5 F Warmer in 100 years):

US temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1970-2012

The trend for 1970 to 2012 is 0.54 F / Decade

US temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1980-2012

The trend for 1980 to 2012 is 0.46 F / Decade

US temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1990-2012

The trend for 1990 to 2012 is 0.42 F / Decade

US temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 2000-2012

The trend for 2000 to 2012 is 0.15 F / Decade

You REALLY, REALLY can see the accelerating trend one year later can you not?

Take coverThe sweat is really breaking out.

And this is also the decade that the Global Warming Hysterics have been screaming at the top of their lungs, trying to scare us to death, about the catastrophic treat that the “extreme increase” in temperature is to mankind and earth.

This is a perfect example of what I have been saying all along, it has always been a political agenda – anti human, anti freedom, anti development and anti capitalism. And this Global Warming Hysteria is part of that agenda. It has nothing to do with science, facts or saving the environment or the Earth.

All of this, as always, paid by us, the common people, in the form of taxes, high energy costs and reducing our living standard back to the Stone Age.

And all of this to “save” the Earth from a “catastrophic warming” when it is actually cooling.

And the most absurd thing is that all the things that the “intelligent” politicians and the so called “scientists”, with the willing help of mainstream media, have forced through at EXTREME cost to us, are actually helping to accelerate the cooling.

Talking about an eminent treat to humankind!

According to the computer models that the Global Warming Hysterics love so much, worship and blindly follows (especially our intelligent politicians), it should be EXACTLY the opposite.

And we are supposed to be very worried about a predicted rise of 3-4 F?

But not this ACTUAL trend?

And for this predicted trend the politicians want to take our societies back to the Stone Age. But, as usual, they DO NOTHING about the actual trend.

So to summarize this evidence of this “accelerated warming” trend:

The recent 9 months trend 1970-2013 is exactly 0.52 F degrees a decade.

The recent 9 months trend 1980-2013 is exactly 0.43 F degrees a decade.

The recent 9 months trend 1990-2013 is exactly 0.34 F degrees a decade.

The recent 9 months trend 2000-2013 is exactly – 0.07 F degrees a decade.

So the “warming” trend is really accelerating wouldn’t you say.

Some more “rapid warming” like this and the freezer looks really warm.

Another brilliant and glorious example of RAPID WARMING and an eminent treat to humankind! Especially during the last 43 years.

That is truly “Global Warming” US style.

An interesting ”science” wouldn’t you say.

This is the “stuff” that “Global Warming” is made of.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

The reality of wind power – Extremely high cost and unreliably

21 mars, 2009

More on the very high cots, high subsidy ant the unreliability of wind power. In this case from Spain where the government have subsidized wind power with OVER 90 % over the market price!

And solar power has been subsidized with OVER 575 % over the market price!

Isn’t it fantastic! Subsides of over 90% and 575% over market price!

I mean with subsides of over 90% and 575% I can turn any lousy money losing business into profit for my self but at a HUGE cost to society and the taxpayers.

And Shell is getting out of wind and solar power business for the same reasons.

Spain has increased its emissions by 40% since signing the Kyoto protocol. And yet, in contrast to the government estimate in 2004 that emissions permits would cost Spanish companies no more than 85 million euros annually, the real cost is now estimated at between 3 billion (government statement) and 15 billion euros (Price Waterhouse Coopers).”

”For the first 15 years, a subsidy of 90% over the market price has been payable, reducing to 80% thereafter. And for solar, in which Spain is also seen as a leader, subsidies have amounted to 575% of the market price for 25 years, then declining to ”only” 460%. With returns of 12 to 20%, the take up has been understandably high (indeed, there have been waiting lists). ”

”And they come at a cost: a renewables subsidy of 2.6bn euros in 2007, with about one third of the total going to the solar sector, which represents only 0.7% of installed capacity and about half the total number of jobs.”

The costs are such that the government has now had to reduce the subsidy for solar power by 30% and cap the amount of new capacity to be installed. This softening of support resulted in 10,000 job losses. Further reductions of subsidies put 40,000 more green jobs at risk. Energy prices are rising to cover losses in the distribution industry, and generators have announced the cancellation of 4.5bn euros of annual investment because they also pay an effective subsidy for renewable energy through the controlled price to the consumer.”

Se also my post among many others:

 Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals

However costly, however uneconomic, however outright irrational you might have imagined windpower to be – the reality is even worse

The Real Cost of Wind and Solar Power!

Who knew a ”free” source of energy – Wind Power could be so expensive?

Overblown: The Real Cost of Wind Power!Carbon Credits Fund Broken Turbine

Article here:

http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/article/default.aspx?objid=57640

Date: 20/03/09

Scientific Alliance newsletter 20th March 2009

The reality of wind power and green-collar jobs in Spain

Sometimes, two stories come along which starkly contradict each other. A perfect example is the reporting of Spain’s green credentials. The country is often held up as an example to laggards across the EU of how to invest in renewable energy. Take, for example, a piece in the Times last week, headlined ”Spanish windmills tilt country towards cleaner, greener energy”.

According to this, 30% of Spain’s energy in January and February came from wind and hydro power, thanks to wet and windy weather, and the figure for the year as a whole is expected to be nearer 30% than 20%. For comparison, ”carbon” energy (presumably coal- and gas-fired stations) accounted for 14.3% and nuclear 20.9%. Where the other 35% of energy came from is anyone’s guess: no figures are given. Crucially, the actual contributions of hydro and wind power are not given, but the likelihood is that the bulk of the 30% was hydro power.

Although great strides may well have been made in the last few years, it is difficult to reconcile these figures with those for Spain in 2005 taken from the EU energy portal (www.energy.eu). This gives a figure of 8.7% as the contribution of renewables: pretty much the EU average, and with a target of 20% by 2020. And as for carbon dioxide emissions, Spain is projected in 2010 still to be nearly 24% above its 2012 Kyoto target.

Another view of this situation was given by Dr Gabriel Calzada, Associate Professor of Economics at King Juan Carlos University during the Heartland Institute’s climate change conference in New York last week. In contrast to the Times article, the title was ”Spain’s new energy economy: Boom and bust of the Spanish renewable miracle”.

According to his figures, Spain has increased its emissions by 40% since signing the Kyoto protocol. And yet, in contrast to the government estimate in 2004 that emissions permits would cost Spanish companies no more than 85 million euros annually, the real cost is now estimated at between 3 billion (government statement) and 15 billion euros (Price Waterhouse Coopers).

As for renewable energy, the rapid growth of wind power is not surprising. For the first 15 years, a subsidy of 90% over the market price has been payable, reducing to 80% thereafter. And for solar, in which Spain is also seen as a leader, subsidies have amounted to 575% of the market price for 25 years, then declining to ”only” 460%. With returns of 12 to 20%, the take up has been understandably high (indeed, there have been waiting lists).

The result is that installed wind capacity is just over 10% of the total for the country, although it is unclear whether this is theoretical or makes allowance for a realistic efficiency factor. The buoyant market has created around 50,000 jobs, but these are nearly all for installing new capacity and so do not provide long term employment. And they come at a cost: a renewables subsidy of 2.6bn euros in 2007, with about one third of the total going to the solar sector, which represents only 0.7% of installed capacity and about half the total number of jobs.

The costs are such that the government has now had to reduce the subsidy for solar power by 30% and cap the amount of new capacity to be installed. This softening of support resulted in 10,000 job losses. Further reductions of subsidies put 40,000 more green jobs at risk. Energy prices are rising to cover losses in the distribution industry, and generators have announced the cancellation of 4.5bn euros of annual investment because they also pay an effective subsidy for renewable energy through the controlled price to the consumer.

So, with Kyoto emissions targets almost certain to be significantly overshot and the bubble of green-collar jobs now burst, the Spanish government must be wondering how it managed to waste so much money for so little reward. It is difficult to see an economic recovery in Europe (or the USA) being led by a boom in long-term green-collar jobs.

Shell gets back to basics

The reality of renewable power generation has also dawned on Shell. Several newspapers have carried the story that the company is stopping its investments in wind and solar power because they are simply uneconomic. Last year, it pulled out of a partnership with E.ON to build the 1,000 MW (when the wind blows at the right strength) Thames Array off-shore project.

Environmentalists will argue that such decisions are wrong, because they believe that the future lies with such clean technologies. To compound the offence, Shell is investing more in biofuels, which have been criticised because of the relatively low carbon saving they make and their distorting effect on food prices.

However, doing projects which are not commercially viable is not generally good business. Businesses have to look after their profitability and their shareholders first. In so doing, they are often highly innovative and take significant risks with technologies which give no payback for many years, moving away from renewables does not just mean the company is playing safe. Shell is changing tack for a reason, and that reason is that it sees no prospects of wind power becoming commercially viable for the foreseeable future.

Over the last decade or so, wind turbines have become more efficient, and wind is the renewable power source which needs the lowest subsidy to compete. But Shell does not see a continuation of the trend to the point where wind power will be economically viable without a subsidy. The situation for solar power (as the figures from Spain show well) is much further away from being economically competitive.

Even if wind (and eventually, solar) power become serious options, their intermittency remains a major problem until cheap, high capacity storage is available. In these circumstances, an energy company such as Shell is understandably getting back to basics and pursuing routes where it sees more potential. Biofuels is one of these.

True, this sector also has problems at present and requires subsidies to keep it viable. But the scope for major developments over the next few years is much greater. The first company which can convert waste biomass into a range of energy-dense fuels in a way which is potentially cost-effective has an important first mover advantage in what could be a large sector of the future transport fuels market.

It may turn out that Shell has backed the wrong horse in this particular case. Other companies may make a breakthrough in low-cost photovoltaics, or in some other area. But the point is that there will be a range of options being pursued by companies which all think they can be winners. Some of them will succeed, some will fail; the market will decide. This is a much better way of harnessing creative potential than single-mindedly focussing on just wind and solar power. Objective, hard-headed decision making will give the best results in the long term.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

varning-2

If ALL human activities CEASED in Alaska TODAY the effect on global temperature in 2100 would be 0,001 C

28 januari, 2009

Here comes a very interesting study which puts the whole Global Warming Hysteria in perspective. This study takes the example of Alaska to see what impact it would have on a global scale if Alaska would follow the Global Warming Hysterics and their policies.

A cessation of ALL OF Alaska’s anthropogenic CO2 emissions, that is a TOTAL STOP for ALL HUMAN activities and a deportation of ALL HUMANS from Alaska,  would result in a Global temperature reduction by the year 2100 of one thousandths of a degree Celsius (0,001).

A climatically-irrelevant and undetectable global temperature reduction.

And it will result in a global sea-level rise savings by the year 2100 of an estimated 0.02 cm, or less than one hundredths of an inch.

Again, this value is climatically irrelevant and virtually zero.

And for this the politicians want to sacrifice our living standard, progress and wellbeing!

”Even if the entire Western world were to close down its economies completely and revert to the Stone Age, without even the ability to light fires, the growth in emissions from China and India would replace our entire emissions in little more than a decade.

Se also my postThe Spatial Pattern and Mechanisms of Heat-Content Change in the North Atlantic

2009-01-27_225534

Figure 5. Alaskan statewide average temperature, 1949-2007 (source: Alaska Climate Research Center).  Note the step-change in Alaska temperatures in late 1970s coincides with the step-change from the cooling to the warming phase of the PDO (see figure 3).

2009-01-27_225730

Figure 6. Alaskan statewide average temperature, 1976-2007 (source: Alaska Climate Research Center).

2009-01-27_231706

Figure 11. Annually-averaged anthropogenic emissions (2000-2003) of CO2 and annually-averaged CO2 emissions (2002-2006) from fires for states where average fire emissions greater than 5% of the states’ anthropogenic emissions. The error bars associated with the fire emission estimates represent the standard deviation of the monthly emissions for 2002-2006 (from Wiedinmyer and Neff, 2007).

Using the percentages in Table 3, and assuming that temperature change scales in proportion to CO2 emissions, we calculate the global temperature savings that will result from the complete cessation of anthropogenic CO2 emissions in Alaska:

2009-01-27_232215

Accordingly, a cessation of all of Alaska‘s CO2 emissions would result in a climatically-irrelevant and undetectable global temperature reduction by the year 2100 of one thousandths of a degree Celsius – a number is so low that it is effectively equivalent to zero. Results for sea-level rise are also negligible:

2009-01-27_232229

A complete cessation of all anthropogenic emissions from Alaska will result in a global sea-level rise savings by the year 2100 of an estimated 0.02 cm, or less than one hundredths of an inch. Again, this value is climatically irrelevant and virtually zero.

Observed Climate Change and the Negligible Global Effect of Greenhouse-gas Emission Limits in the State of Alaska

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Alaska_Climate_Change.pdf

Summary for Policy Makers

The climate of Alaska has changed considerably over the past 50-plus years. However, human emissions of greenhouse gases are not the primary reason. Instead, the timing of the swings of a periodic, natural cycle-the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)-has made a strong imprint on the observed climate of Alaska since the mid-20th century. Despite its established existence and influence, this natural cycle is often overlooked or ignored in zealous attempts to paint the current climate of Alaska as being one primarily molded by the emissions from anthropogenic industrial activities. In truth, the climate of Alaska and the ecosystems influenced by it have been subject to the cycles of the PDO and other natural variations since the end of the last ice age (some 12,000 years ago) and likely for eons prior. It is primarily these natural cycles that are currently shaping Alaska‘s long-term climate and weather fluctuations.

Local and regional processes are the most important determinants of the climate experienced by local and regional ecosystems, including human populations. Global-scale influences are much harder to detect and their influence on regionalscale changes is uncertain. In fact, global climate models which project changes in future climate are unable to reliably model local and regional changes-the most important ones in our daily lives.

Therefore, efforts to control global processes through local changes are largely useless when it comes to the climate. For instance, the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities each year in the state of Alaska amounts to less than 0.2 percent of the global total human greenhouse gas emissions. Industrial growth in China adds an additional Alaska‘s worth of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each and every month (over and above its baseline emissions). This leads to the inescapable conclusion that even a complete cessation of all carbon dioxide emissions originating from Alaska would be subsumed by global greenhouse gas emissions increases in less than three week’s time. What’s more, carbon dioxide emissions reductions in Alaska would produce no detectable or scientifically meaningful impact on local, regional, or global climate. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the economic consequences of greenhouse gas emissions’ legislation-they have been recently estimated to be large, and negative, for the citizens of Alaska.

Long-term Climate History of Alaska

Current conditions in Alaska, largely brought about by the warm phase of the PDO, are conducive to increasing the recession rate of the state’s many glaciers (a recession rate first established at the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid-to-late 1800s), initiating thawing of marginal permafrost and other impacts reviewed above. Still, current conditions are not unusual in the present Holocene climate epoch (the period since the end of the last ice age about 10,000-12,000 years ago). In fact, there have been several extended periods, stretching from centuries to millennia, during the Holocene in which the climate of Alaska was warmer than it is currently.

These warm periods have been described and documented in the scientific literature.

In on such paper titled ”Pronounced climatic variations in Alaska during the last two millennia,” University of Illinois scientist Feng Sheng Hu (2001) examined the make-up of lake sediments located in the northwest foothills of the Alaskan Range to determine how the climate varied during that period. Among other findings, Hu and colleagues concluded that there have been three periods of roughly similar warmth in Alaska during the past 2,000 years-periods from A.D. 0 to 300, 850-1200, and 1800 to present. Thus, the environmental changes that are occurring in the current warm period surely occurred during several other occasions in the past 2,000 years-long before human activities were having an impact on the global climate.

An even farther look back in time was summarized in a landmark study, ”Holocene thermal maximum in the western Arctic,” published in 2004 by 30 eminent scientists whose specialty is past climate (Kaufman et al., 2004). Making use of a variety of proxy indicators, the authors concluded that the climate of Alaska averaged ~3ºF warmer than recent times over an extended period of 2,000 years, from 9,000 to 11,000 years ago. Clearly, the early ancestors of today’s native Americans as well as today’s polar bears, walruses, and other plant and animal species made it through that extended warm period.

All physical evidence provides a clear picture that Alaska’s climate is far from stationary. It warms and cools over time scales of years, decades, centuries, and millennia. That the human influence on the global atmospheric composition has only become possible during the past 50 years or so indicates that natural forces are the primary drivers behind these long-occurring climate fluctuations to which native flora and fauna have adapted and evolved. The climate of today is not unparalleled. It is one that has been experienced in Alaska on numerous occasions over the past 12,000 years.

Impacts of climate-mitigation measures in the state of Alaska

Globally, in 2004, humankind emitted 27,186 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (mmtCO2), of which emissions from Alaska accounted for 47.0 mmtCO2, or a mere 0.17% (EIA, 2007a, b). Alaska’s proportion of manmade CO2 emissions will decrease over the 21st century as the rapid demand for hydrocarbon energy in developing countries such as China, India, Brizil, South Africa, and Indonesia rapidly outpaces the growth of Alaska’s CO2 emissions (EIA, 2007a).

During the past 5 years, global emissions of CO2 from human activity have increased at an average rate of 3.5%/yr (EIA, 2007a), meaning that the annual increase of anthropogenic global CO2 emissions is more than 20 times greater than Alaska’s total emissions. This means that even a complete cessation of all CO2 emissions in Alaska would be completely subsumed by global emissions growth in less than three week’s time! China alone adds about 13 Alaska‘s-worth of new emissions to its emissions’ total each and every year. Clearly, given the magnitude of the global emissions and global emission growth, regulations prescribing even total cessation of Alaska’s CO2 emissions will have absolutely no effect on global climate.

Further, Alaskan forest fires annually emit more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than all human activity combined-a situation that is unique among the 50 states. Thus, any changes in human carbon dioxide emissions would be largely lost in the natural variations in fire activity.

In trying to determine the climatic effects of greenhouse gas emissions limitations, Wigley (1998 ) examined the climate impact of the adherence to the emissions controls agreed under the Kyoto Protocol by participating nations, and found that, if all developed countries meet their commitments in 2010 and maintain them through 2100, with a mid-range sensitivity of surface temperature to changes in CO2, the amount of warming ”saved” by the Kyoto Protocol would be 0.07°C by 2050 and 0.15°C by 2100. The global sea level rise ”saved” would be 2.6 cm, or one inch. Even a complete cessation of CO2 emissions in Alaska is only a tiny fraction of the worldwide reductions assumed in Dr. Wigley’s global analysis, so its impact on future trends in global temperature and sea level will be only a minuscule fraction of the negligible effects calculated by Dr. Wigley.

”Even if the entire Western world were to close down its economies completely and revert to the Stone Age, without even the ability to light fires, the growth in emissions from China and India would replace our entire emissions in little more than a decade. In this context, any cuts in emissions from Alaska would be extravagantly pointless. Alaska’s carbon dioxide emissions, it their sum total, effectively do not impact world climate in any way whatsoever.”

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

varning-2


%d bloggare gillar detta: