New Temperature Records- It’s Hotter Than We Thought!

How bizarre- the Bureau of Meteorology has adjusted Australia’s temperature records to exaggerate the warming trend of the last century. The next time the media tell us it’s a record high temperature or an angry summer you might need to ask, “What does that even mean?”

From Jo Nova:

Australian summer maximums “warmed” by 200%

Which causes more summer heatwaves: carbon dioxide or Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) adjustments?

Ken Stewart has analyzed the adjustments used to create the all-new ACORN wonder dataset and compared them with another BOM dataset called AWAP, and finds, extraordinarily, that the trend in average summer maximums has been tripled by adjustments that the BOM imply are neutral.

Since summer maxima are the ones used to generate the most headlines in Australia, I ask again if the Bureau of Meteorology is a scientific agency or a PR group?  Increasing the trend in summer maxima would produce more headlines of hottest ever month, season, heatwave, and weekend.

In this graph Stewart splits the data into months, and compares the trends in maxima in the AWAP and ACORN datasets, across the entire nation. We see that most of the adjustments happen to data from the hottest months of the year, October to March. Even though the measured maxima in February and March are possibly cooler now than they were in the early 1900s, they have been adjusted to show warming trends.

When was the last time you heard the BOM tell you that their “hottest ever” February record depended on adjusting down the past hotter records?

Full story: Australian summer maximums “warmed” by 200% « JoNova.

The Pause Grows Up

It’s official- the pause in global warming is now 18 years old- which means that people graduating from High School about now have never experienced global warming. So what happened to that catastrophic warming we keep hearing aobut?

From Watts Up With That?

It’s official: no global warming for 18 years 1 month

Global Temperature Update By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The RSS monthly satellite global temperature anomaly for September 2014 is in, and the Great Pause is now two months longer than it was last month. Would this year’s el Niño bite soon enough to stop the psychologically-significant 18-year threshold from being crossed? The official answer is No.

Globally, September was scarcely warmer than August, which was itself some distance below the 18-year trend-line. Therefore, taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies, there has now been no global warming for 18 years 1 month.

Dr Benny Peiser, our good friend at the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the UK, had anticipated the official crossing of the 18-year threshold by a day or two with an interesting note circulated to supporters on the ever-lengthening period without any global warming, and featuring our 17-years-11-months graph from last month.

The Great Pause is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for a little over half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

clip_image002

Figure 1. RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), September 1996 to September 2014, showing no trend for 18 years 1 month.

The hiatus period of 18 years 1 month, or 217 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend.

 

Full story

“No Extreme Weather” Say Insurance Companies

One of the mantras of climate change activists is that there will be more extreme weather events such as hurricanes and cyclones. “In fast we are seeing it now” they often add earnestly, despite the fact that both the U.S. and Australia have recorded below average storm intensities and frequency on the last decade.

Insurance companies, who stand to lose trillions if they get this wrong, are also saying there has been no change in their business plans.

From WUWT:

Insurance companies not seeing effects from posited ‘climate change’ spawned weather disasters

 

Lack of major disasters gets Lloyd’s of London back in profit –

disastercollage

WUWT reader “jimbo” writes in Tips and Notes: We often hear how climate disasters / extreme weather events are getting worse. We know there is no evidence and sometimes the opposite is seen. Now let’s look at the insurance industry. Surely they could tell us that things are indeed getting worse than we thought!

Surely Warren Buffett has an eye for increasing premiums in the face of extreme weather events?

CNBC – 3 March 2014
No climate change impact on insurance biz: Buffett
The effects of climate change, “if any,” have not affected the insurance market, billionaire Warren Buffett told CNBC on Monday—adding he’s not calculating the probabilities of catastrophes any differently.

While the question of climate change “deserves lots of attention,” Buffett said in a “Squawk Box” interview, “It has no effect … [on] the prices we’re charging this year versus five years ago. And I don’t think it’ll have an effect on what we’re charging three years or five years from now.” He added, “That may change ten years from now.”………

Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway owns several insurance and reinsurance interests—including Geico and General Reinsurance—and often has to pay significant claims when natural disasters strike.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101460458

What about Lloyd’s of London?

Reuters – 25 September 2014
….But Lloyd’s combined ratio, a measure of profitability showing how much insurance premium is paid out in claims and expenses, deteriorated to 88.2 percent from 86.9 percent. A ratio below 100 percent indicates an underwriting profit. “It’s been a fairly benign period for major catastrophes,” Parry said.

Insurance underwriters tend to perform less well in the absence of major catastrophes, as insurance premiums fall…..

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/25/uk-lloydsoflondon-results-idUKKCN0HK0ML20140925

See also:

Lack of major disasters gets Lloyd’s of London back in profit

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2209103/Lack-major-disasters-gets-Lloyds-London-profit.html

Scientists- Humans Not Responsible For Warming On West Coast of U.S.

I wonder how many of these studies will start to emerge over the next few years- and how many will be reported by the ABC.

From Watts Up With That

Surprising PNAS paper: CO2 emissions not the cause of U.S. West Coast warming

pdo warm and cold phases

The rise in temperatures along the U.S. West Coast during the past century is almost entirely the result of natural forces — not human emissions of greenhouse gases, according to a major new study released today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Northeast Pacific coastal warming since 1900 is often ascribed to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, whereas multidecadal temperature changes are widely interpreted in the framework of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which responds to regional atmospheric dynamics. This study uses several independent data sources to demonstrate that century-long warming around the northeast Pacific margins, like multidecadal variability, can be primarily attributed to changes in atmospheric circulation. It presents a significant reinterpretation of the region’s recent climate change origins, showing that atmospheric conditions have changed substantially over the last century, that these changes are not likely related to historical anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing, and that dynamical mechanisms of interannual and multidecadal temperature variability can also apply to observed century-long trends.

Full article here

Unbelievable.

Have you ever wondered what the world would look like if the leaders of a nation or a continent decided to base their decisions on fairy tales? Look no further than the EU. Not content with their victory of making vacuum cleaners more efficient by simply banning those with motors more powerful than 1600 W, they are now planning to cool the planet by making people use slow kettles and hair dryers.

Jo Nova writes:

EU to change climate with hair dryers, kettles, lawn mowers

You, foolish plebian, thought that a hair dryer was for drying hair. Not so. The purpose of a hair dryer is to change the climate. Let’s stop the storms by slow-mowing the lawn. That sort of thing…

Thus and verily has the EU announced that high-power appliances may now be banned.

[Telegraph]

EU to ban high-energy hair dryers, smartphones and kettles

European Union to ban dozens of high-wattage household electrical appliances in follow-up to controversial ban on powerful vacuum cleaners

A study ordered by the European Commission, currently in draft form, has identified up to 30 electrical appliances including lawn mowers, smart phones and kettles that could be covered by the EU’s Ecodesign directive outlawing high-wattage devices.

Serfs in the EU will probably spend longer drying their hair, and more time waiting for the kettle to boil  in a quest to produce slightly less CO2. This is in the hope that less CO2 might cool a world that hasn’t really warmed for a decade and a half. It’s a case of not so much blow-drying, and more slow-drying. Likewise, stupid punters may wonder how a lower voltage kettle can reduce emissions. The laws of physics suggest water is heated by watts, P(W) = E(J) / t(s) and all. Hence lower watts equates to more time to reach boiling point. In the end, either you have cold tea or you use the same amount of energy and produce the same amount of emissions.

I suppose the obvious thing is for the EU to legislate that water will boil at 90C.

Methinks ultimately this will use more electricity and produce more emissions. It is possible that punters, tired of waiting, will simply boil more water at the start of the day, leaving the kettle fuller and hotter all day in between cups of tea. Likewise, 2500W fan heaters make good substitutes for hair dryers. China may start producing fan heaters that you can hold in one hand.

If there are any manufacturers left  in Europe which still export hair-dryers or small electrical goods, I guess those factories in Guandong look all the more appealing now. Shame about the jobs.

Get in now and buy modern electrical goods while you can.

On Monday many of the best vacuum cleaners available for sale in the UK will be banned as a result of the EU energy efficiency rules that prohibit the manufacture or importing any vacuums with motors above 1,600 watts.

Tesco said sales of the most powerful vacuums had soared by as much as 94 per cent for some models after the Telegraph reported consumer group Which? urging shoppers to act quickly before they sold out forever.

The EU is out of control. Send letters to your politicians now.  Don’t ask for this legislation to be amended, ask for the EU to be amended. Your nation should leave now.

EU to change climate with hair dryers, kettles, lawn mowers « JoNova

Wind farms paid record sum not to produce electricity

The true cost of renewable energy is that it is still dependent on subsidies to be commercially viable. Despite all the claims of the activists and the lobbyists, there is no renewable energy that comes close to good old coal and gas. 

From the Telegraph (U.K.):

Wind farms paid record sum not to produce electricity

Windy weather and low demand for electricity led to wind farm owners being paid a record amount to switch off turbines on Monday

Strong winds caused a spike in the amount of electricity produced by wind farms, leading to a “bottleneck” of energy leaving the network from Scotland Photo: Les Gibbon / Alamy

Wind farms were paid a record sum of almost £3 million in a single day this week not to produce electricity.

Strong winds amid the remnants of Hurricane Bertha left the electricity network unable to cope with the amount of energy being produced by turbines on Monday.

As a result National Grid paid owners £2.8 million to shut down their wind farms, at up to double the rate they would have received in subsidies had they actually generated electricity.

A further £1.1 million was given to other power stations to generate electricity to make up the shortfall created by shutting the wind farms down.

The money – detailed in figures provided by National Grid – will ultimately be added on to household bills and paid for by consumers.

Debunking the IPCC Report in one Sentence

The fear factory has been working over time this week with the latest report of the IPCC Working Group 2 which tries to work out the implications of climate change on life and everything.

Jo Nova puts the fear to rest with one sentence:

 

We could spend hours analyzing the new IPCC report about the impacts of climate change. Or we could just point out:

Everything in the Working Group II report depends entirely on Working Group I.

( see footnote 1 SPM, page 3).

Working Group I depends entirely on climate models and 98% of them didn’t predict the pause.

The models are broken. They are based on flawed assumptions about water vapor.

Working Group I, remember, was supposed to tell us the scientific case for man-made global warming. If our emissions aren’t driving the climate towards a catastrophe, then we don’t need to analyze what happens during the catastrophe we probably won’t get. This applies equally to War, Pestilence, Famine, Drought, Floods, Storms, and Shrinking Fish (which, keep in mind, could have led to the ultimate disaster: shrinking fish and chips).

To cut a long story short, the 95% certainty of Working Group I boils down to climate models and 98% of them didn’t predict the pause in surface temperature trends (von Storch 2013) . Even under the most generous interpretation, models are proven failures,  100% right except for rain, drought, storms, humidity and everything else (Taylor 2012). They get cloud feedbacks wrong by a factor 19 times larger than the entire effect of increased CO2 (Miller 2012). They don’t predict the climate on a local, regional, or continental scale (Anagnostopoulos 2010 and Koutsoyiannis 2008). They don’t work on the tropical troposphere (Christy 2010,  Po-Chedley 2012, Fu 2011, Paltridge 2009). The fingerprints they predicted are 100% missing.

 

Read the full article here

Bonfire of Insanity

When Greens and Governments get together, there is no end to the insanity. The end result of enviro-policy in Europe is destruction of a forest in the U.S. to burn wood chips to produce electricity in Britain, after you’ve built bigger ports and transport facilities because wood has a lower energy density than coal- all fuelled by taxpayer subsidies.

Thank God for Tony Abbott reversing the craziness in Australia!

Judith Curry reports:

Bonfire of insanity

by Judith Curry

Biomass pellets transported from North Carolina, U.S. are shipped 3800 miles to the UK and burned in Drax power station.  Drax is switching to pellets as it is deemed ‘carbon neutral’,  even though it belches out more CO2 than coal.  – from David Rose

David Rose has a new article The bonfire of insanity.  Excerpts:

But North Carolina’s ‘bottomland’ forest is being cut down in swathes, and much of it pulped and turned into wood pellets – so Britain can keep its lights on.

By 2020, the proportion of Britain’s electricity generated from ‘renewable’ sources is supposed to almost triple to 30 per cent, with more than a third of that from what is called ‘biomass’.

The only large-scale way to do this is by burning wood, man’s oldest fuel – because EU rules have determined it is ‘carbon-neutral’.

So our biggest power station, the leviathan Drax plant near Selby in North Yorkshire, is switching from dirty, non-renewable coal. Biomass is far more expensive, but the consumer helps the process by paying subsidies via levies on energy bills.

That’s where North Carolina’s forests come in. They are being reduced to pellets in a gargantuan pulping process at local factories, then shipped across the Atlantic from a purpose-built dock at Chesapeake Port, just across the state line in Virginia.

Drax and Enviva insist this practice is ‘sustainable’. But though it is entirely driven by the desire to curb greenhouse gas emissions, a broad alliance of US and international environmentalists argue it is increasing, not reducing them.

Only a few years ago, as a coal-only plant, Drax was Europe’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, and was often targeted by green activists. Now it boasts of its ‘environmental leadership position’, saying it is the biggest renewable energy plant in the world.

It also gets guaranteed profits  from the Government’s green energy subsidies. Last year, these amounted to £62.5 million, paid by levies on consumers’ bills. This is set to triple by 2016 as Drax increases its biomass capacity.

Mr Burdett admitted: ‘Our whole business case is built on subsidy, like the rest of the renewable energy industry. We are simply responding to Government policy.’

Company spokesman Matt Willey added: ‘We’re a power company. We’ve been told to take coal out of the equation. What would you have us do – build a dirty great windfarm?’

Meanwhile, in North Yorkshire, the sheer scale of Drax’s biomass operation is hard to take in at first sight. Wood pellets are so much less dense than coal, so Drax has had to commission the world’s biggest freight wagons to move them by rail from the docks at Hull, Immingham and Port of Tyne. Each car is more than 60ft high, and the 25-car trains are half a mile long. On arrival, the pellets are stored in three of the world’s largest domes, each 300ft high – built by lining colossal inflated polyurethane balloons with concrete.

Even if all Britain’s forests were devoted to Drax, they could not keep its furnaces going. ‘We need areas with lots of wood, a reliable supply chain,’ Mr Burdett said.

As well as Enviva, Drax buys wood from other firms such as Georgia Biomass, which supplies mainly pine. It is building new pellet-making plants in Mississippi and Louisiana.

Last month, the Department of Energy and Climate Change issued new rules on biomass sourcing, and will insist on strict monitoring to ensure there really is ‘sustainability’.

But wouldn’t a much more effective and cheaper way of cutting emissions be to shut down Drax altogether, and replace it with clean new gas plants – which need no subsidy at all?

Mr Burdett said: ‘We develop  our business plan in light of what the Government wants – not what might be nice.’

Read the whole crazy story here

Flat earthers or real scientists?

Jo Nova writes:

Almost everything the media tells you about sceptics is wrong: they’re engineers and hard scientists. They like physics too.

In the mainstream media, skeptics are called Flat-Earthers, Deniers, and ideologues who deny basic physics. So it’s no surprise that they are exactly the opposite. A recent survey of 5,286 readers of leading skeptical blogs shows that the people driving the skeptical debate are predominantly engineers and hard scientists with backgrounds like maths, physics and chemistry. Which group in the population are least likely to deny basic physics?  Skeptics.

I asked Mike Haseler for more details:

  • around half of respondents had worked in engineering and a quarter in science
  • around 80% had degrees of which about 40% were “post graduate” qualified.
  • Respondents were asked which areas they had formal “post-school qualification”. A third said “physics/chemistry. One third said maths. Just under 40% said engineering. 40% said they had post school training in computer programming.

Furthermore, the media “debate” is nothing like the real debate. Four out of five skeptics agree our emissions cause CO2 levels to rise, that Co2 causes warming, and that global temperatures have increased. In other words, the mainstream media journalists have somehow entirely missed both the nature of the skeptics and the nature of the debate.

The so called “experts” (say like Stephan Lewandowsky, and John Cook) either don’t understand what drives skeptics, or they know but do their best “not to accidentally discover it” with irrelevant surveys, loaded questions, poor sampling and bad methodology. (I’m going with incompetence). Lewandowsky, after all, tried to figure out the motivation of skeptics by asking people who hate them if they believe Diana was murdered. Not surprisingly he didn’t find out that about half of skeptics are Engineers, but he did find 10 anonymous people on the Internet who said the moon landing was faked. This is the kind of result only government funded science could achieve.

The big question this survey doesn’t answer is why no government funded groups seem to have done this obvious research long ago. The climate is supposedly a high priority, so understanding skeptics would seem “sort of” useful. Then again, it’s only useful if you wanted to figure out whether there was a consensus, or if you wanted to reach one. I guess that’s not the aim…

Mike Haseler has done a great job here on a much needed task. I’m looking forward to seeing more of the results in future.

Full credit to all the other skeptics who didn’t need the hard science training to see the flaws. They sagely picked the correct side of the scientific debate. Congrats to those lawyers, farmers, doctors, taxi-drivers, and pool shop owners (I spoke to one yesterday) plus kids, and countless other sane brains who are not easily fooled.

Science, of course, is a philosophy, not a certificate.

There is much more in the full article