Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #263

Brought to You by www.SEPP.org

By Ken Haapala, President,The Science and Environmental Policy Project

False Precision: In their early education, many students of science faced the problem of significant numbers (digits). A useful rule of thumb was that the chain was only as strong as its weakest link. In measurement, the less precise instrument making the measurements determines precision of any dataset representing the measurements. A mathematical operation does not add precision to the instruments, or the dataset. For example, as discussed in the January 21 TWTW, the widely used Automatic Surface Observing System (ASOS) instruments at airports have a precision of plus or minus 1 degree C (1.8 F, correctly, 2 F). Surface datasets using these measurements cannot be more precise than these instruments. Yet, routinely, some government agencies report data, after mathematical manipulation, with far greater precision – to one-hundredths of a degree C. Such precision is false.

Writing in the non-conservative Boston Globe, columnist Jeff Jacoby gives a simple illustration on how small errors in measurement can compound in a computer model with many small errors. Any assumption that the errors will cancel each other out needs to be demonstrated. However, in the reports of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its followers, such cancellation of errors is not demonstrated.

Continue reading

Renewable Energy, What is the Cost?

By Andy May – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

A key question to think about, do renewable fuels decrease fossil fuel use, or do they increase it?

What are the costs of using renewable energy? The sun and wind are free, does that make wind and solar power free? Biofuels require power to plant crops, make fertilizer and spread it, harvest the plants, make and transport the ethanol. Solar and wind require power to produce, transport and install the equipment. All renewable energy sources require lots of land per megawatt of electricity produced. We will not be able to determine a cost for renewable power in this essay, but we can discuss the components of the calculation and provide some context.

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #262

By Ken Haapala, President,The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Brought to You by www.SEPP.org

The Climate Establishment Strikes Back: MIT Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences Richard Lindzen had circulated a petition signed by some 300 scientists calling for the US to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). He sent the petition with a letter to President Trump.

In response, twenty-two MIT professors sent a letter to President Trump a stating that they have worked on climate science and disagree with him. This letter cites the claimed future risks from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) including “sea level rise, ocean acidification, and increases in extreme flooding and droughts.”

Continue reading

Searching for Honest Energy Policies

By Paul Driessen – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

Renewable energy is defective solution in search of a problem, money and power.

The Greek philosopher Diogenes reportedly carried an oil lamp during the daytime, the better to help him find an honest man. People everywhere should join Congress and the Trump Administration in search of honest energy and climate policies – as too many existing policies were devised by special interests seeking money and power, and often using imaginary problems to justify their quest.

Statue of Diogenes at Sinop, Turkey.

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #260

Brought to You by www.SEPP.org

By Ken Haapala, President, The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Global Climate Models: Judith Curry wrote a powerful critique of global climate models, “Climate Models for the Layman”, that was published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. A few of the key points are discussed below. For those with a deeper interest in climate science or climate modeling, the entire paper is worthwhile.

In the executive summary, Curry presents several fundamental scientific points on Global Climate Models (GMCs) including:

“GCMs have not been subject to the rigorous verification and validation that is the norm for engineering and regulatory science.

There are valid concerns about a fundamental lack of predictability in the complex nonlinear climate system.”

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is well aware of the failure to produce valid models. Five-time Assessment Report (AR) commentator Vincent Gray of New Zealand has repeatedly stated this failure to the IPCC. The IPCC has responded by evasive tactics such as changing terms of predictions to projections and terming highly questionable, evasive procedures as evaluation. Government entities that depend on the IPCC findings follow suit. These include the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), including its highly dubious calculations of the “Social Cost of Carbon”, and the EPA in its ambiguous finding that greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, endanger public health and welfare.

Continue reading

Renewables Won’t Work – Even If Climate Claims are True

By Eric Worrall – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

Imagine for a moment that all the wild claims of climate driven future weather disasters will occur as predicted. In this imaginary future climate dystopia, how will wind power cope with super storms? How will solar power cope with hail, tornadoes, cyclones and floods? How will hydro power cope with endless droughts? How will biofuel crops cope with storm damage, droughts and unseasonal heatwaves?

wind-turbine[1]

Continue reading

Climate Promotion: Seriously Failing

By Bob Hoye- Re-Blogged From http://www.Silver-Phoenix500.com

As an out and out promotion, climate concerns seemed to peak with Copenhagen in December 2009. The media was full of countdowns to the “end of the world”. England’s prime minister proclaimed “There are only 50 days to save the planet”. A newspaper headlined “Sun Going Down on Climate Skeptics”.

And then there was the recent magnificent signing of the Paris Agreement, which was opened for signing on Earth Day, April 22, 2016. Christina Figueres at the UN stated that the agreement was “not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism”. This was widely reported and described the full truth about climate activism.

So far as the promotion goes, a Google sweep finds no headlines about “Only 50 days…etc.” preceding the Paris confab.

This week, the Daily Mail reported “NOAA breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible…on the UN climate conference in Paris”.

Continue reading