Climate change: Is it for real?

Old stories that are no longer true.

1. Energy storage technology has taken several huge leaps forward. Energy from renewable sources is already being stored. Fossil fuel driven 'peaker plants' will no longer be necessary in the near future.

2. Wind energy is usually stronger at night when the sun isn't shining so the two sources tend to supplement the other at critical times of the day.

3. Widespread deployment of the two energy systems, solar and wind, over large geographical areas also tends to even out the intermittency problem on the grid.

 

The reason for Germany's increase in fossil fuels is because storage technology is not up to par. Now that Germany has gone down the road of the green blob, Germans now pay the highest rate for electricity in the EU. Hundreds of thousands can no longer afford their electric bill. Brilliant.

 

You beat me to it. Germans pay ~ 3X what we do for energy.

 

How large are these geographical areas? And how large are these storage technology improvements? Wind and solar located in remote areas need substations and transmission lines.

 

Denier cult propaganda.

In the real world...

Why do Germany’s Electricity Prices Keep Falling?
BloombergBusiness
Rachel Morison
August 25, 2015
Wholesale power prices plunged to lowest in 12 years

Chancellor Angela Merkel cemented Germany’s shift toward an economy powered by renewable energy in 2010 with her “Energiewende” plan. One result has been a seemingly unstoppable decline in wholesale electricity prices, which tumbled to a 12-year low on Monday.

Wind and solar power have surged under Germany’s plan to get as much as 60 percent of its power from renewables by 2035, compared with 28 percent now. The switch is hurting utilities RWE AG and EON SE, the worst performers this year on Germany’s DAX stock index, as margins at their coal and gas-fired plants get squeezed because cheaper green power gets priority to the grid.

By contrast, Danish turbine maker Vestas Wind Systems A/S is one of Europe’s best performing stocks as orders surge to a record.

***

German power bills are low compared to US average
by Craig Morris
26 May 2015
In 2015, the average German household power bill fell slightly from 85 euros to 84 euros per month. What’s more, that level is relatively low compared to US averages.

But how can we compare these rates? If we do so with the exchange rate, then German power bills currently look very small indeed because the euro has dropped from around 1.30 USD in recent years to around 1.10 USD in the past few months. Convert at that rate, and Germans only pay around 92 dollars a month for electricity – compared to the US average of 110 dollars. But even at the higher exchange rate from 2014, German power bills would still only come in right at around 110 dollars.

 

Only Italy has higher electric prices than Germany.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-prices-in-selected-countries/

 

This short summary excerpted from a longer article written by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels (PhD in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979) explains how the global average temperature data has been manipulated to show a "marginally significant warming trend" in the last ~ 20 years but still well below model predictions. There is also a discussion on the high global average sueface temperature increase in 2015 which was caused by El Nino in which suppresses the upward flow of cold water off the coast of South America. The same thing happened in 1998 - average surface temperature dropped by ~ 0.3 deg F in 1999.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/climate-snow-job

 

Yet the unadjusted record shows more warming than the adjusted record. So once again, the Ayatollas of Denierstan are lying to their disciples.

 

What data record is that?

 

The unadjusted record is freely available from several places, although it is quite extensive. Try Berkeley Earth.

 

That is likely correct. The doomsday models all assume positive feedback when the feedback appears to be negative (dampening)

That's probably about right.

Likely correct as well, when CO^2 levels are very low, a little has much more effect than when the levels are higher, and its not unusual for CO^2 levels to trail rather than lead temperature increases.

We have serious pollution problems. Heavy metals being released into the air, soil, water and oceans. PCB's and various plastics derivatives contaminating our ocean food supplies, and these clowns want to spend the majority of their time on a helpful trace atmospheric gas while kids are contaminated with lead.

We are ruled by complete fools.

300 Scientists Want NOAA To Stop Hiding Its Global Warming Data

"Hundreds of scientists sent a letter to lawmakers Thursday warning National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists may have violated federal laws when they published a 2015 study purporting to eliminate the 15-year “hiatus” in global warming from the temperature record."

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/28/300-scientists-want-noaa-to-stop-hiding-its-global-warming-data/

Cut off their funding until they produce their data.

 

Here is some additional info on that ^

Here is how Karl, et. al. manipulated the data to produce a warming trend in the years since 1998. Ocean water temperature was measured using tubes mounted on ships. This measurement technique is known to produce temperature data that is too high due to the contaminating effects of heat produced by the ships. More accurate data from measurement buoys have gradually replaced the ship data over time. To make the new data homogeneous with the new data Karl adjusted the new data up by ~ 0.12 deg C (0.22 deg C) thus creating the temperature increase using bad data in the ERSSTv4 "data" set. Unbelievable !!

This use of bad water temperature data can be seen in the plot of the difference between the ERSSTv4 and ERSSTv3 data set. The positive slope is seen starting in ~ Y2K and the positive difference starting in ~ 2005. Presto - global warming using dishonestly manipulated data. But even with this the real world data is significantly lower than the scenarios form the GCM models.











Source - "Lukewarming" - Dr. Patrick Michaels - 2015

And from the Karl, et. al. report:



http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/...-de-hiatus.pdf

 

That's a lot of fudge. In fact, it looks like more fudge than warming. So where it's below the zero line, that is the amount they subtracted from the measured temperature and where it is above the zero line, that is the amount they added to the observed temperature?

Well crap. No wonder they won't release their data to Congress!

 

Yes, but even if the v4 is used the actual data does show a warming trend but is still significantly below the model predictions. The quote from Dr. Karl's paper did not show up the first time.

http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/...-de-hiatus.pdf

 

Of course they violated the Data Quality Act. The Karl adjustment adjusts good buoy data to match bad ship intake data. NOAA defense for doing it this way rather than adjusting the bad ship data to match the good buoy data is because it doesn't matter which way you do it the long term trend is still the same. That is bull(*)(*)(*)(*)! That is like saying because you have one foot in boiling water and the other in an ice bath then on the average you are fine. So what if the 30 year trend is still the same? Every single data point is still wrong. All the ship intake data reads too hot and all the buoy data now reads too hot.

If you are trying to use the data for something other than a long term the data its worthless. The data quality act says “ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information”. If I'm doing an analysis of historic ENSO years all of my data is wrong because the historic data has an uncorrected heating bias due to ship intake and all the modern data is wrong because it has an artificial positive bias to make it match the bad data. The only thing this data is good for is long term trending.

That data is of poor quality and NOAA is making no effort to maximize the quality as evidenced by them making no effort to actually correct the ship intake data.

The data is not being adjusted objectively. NOAA chose to adjust the good data up to match the bad data and not the other way around because that choice gets rid of the pause. Had they correctly corrected the bad data the pause would still be there.

It has next to no utility because every data point is off. The historic reads too hot and the modern reads to hot making any year to year comparisons junk.

And their is no integrity of information because NOAA refuses to release their correspondence even though they can sight no legal justification what so ever.

And there is no integrity of statistical information because no one can justify adjusting good data to match bad data. Which is why they will not release their correspondence because you can rest assured that they talked amongst themselves about how they were going to justify this indefensible (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

You pulled that one out of your butt didn't you.

 

Patrick Michaels is one of a handful of corrupt science-whores who get paid to stooge for the fossil fuel industry. He has been consistently wrong about everything in the field of climate science. He pushes fraudulent pseudo-science that is always thoroughly debunked by the real climate scientists. In the field of climate science, he is a bad joke. So....that makes him the darling of the cult of AGW denial, of which you seem to be a proud member/dupe.

FACTSHEET: PATRICK J. MICHAELS
Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
Senior Fellow, Cato Institute. Visiting Scientist, Marshall Institute. Advisor, American Legislative Exchange Council.

Dr. Patrick Michaels is possibly the most prolific and widely-quoted climate change skeptic scientist. He has admitted receiving funding from various fossil fuel industry sources. His latest book, published in September of 2011 by the Cato Institute, is titled: "Climate Coup: Global Warming's Invasion of Our Government and Our Lives."

Dr. Michaels has acknowledged that 40% of his funding comes from fossil fuel sources: (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/08/16/113717/oil-fueled-pat-michaels/) Known funding includes $49,000 from German Coal Mining Association, $15,000 from Edison Electric Institute and $40,000 from Cyprus Minerals Company, an early supporter of People for the West, a "wise use" group. He received $63,000 for research on global climate change from Western Fuels Association, above and beyond the undisclosed amount he is paid for the World Climate Report/Review. According to Harper's magazine, Michaels has recieved over $115,000 over the past four years from coal and oil interests. Michaels wrote "Sound and Fury" and "The Satanic Gases," two books skeptical of global warming and attempts to curtail greenhose gas emmissions. The books were published by the right wing think-tank Cato Institute. Dr. Michaels signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration. In July of 2006, it was revealed that the Intermountain Rural Electric Association "contributed $100,000 to Dr. Michaels." (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=2242565&page=1) ALEC advisor. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11310 and http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3558

*****

Patrick Michaels: Cato’s Climate Expert Has History Of Getting It Wrong

****

And then there is the 'Cato Institute' you cite as the source of his corrupt drivel....

The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank founded by Charles G. Koch and funded by the Koch brothers. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C. Where ideology and science part company, Cato favors ideology, as shown by an advertisement[2] published in newspapers in 2009 disputing the state of the science on climate change.[3]

Cato Fellow Patrick Michaels Runs Climate Denial PR Firm
Patrick Michaels, a former professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and an outspoken climate change denier. On its website, Michaels is listed as Cato's only speaker on climate change. (Three others are also listed in the "Energy and Environment" category -- Jerry Taylor on "gas and oil prices, energy policy, energy conservation and regulation", Peter Van Doren on "energy regulation, gas and oil prices," and Randal O'Tooleon broader environmental policies.)[36]

Pat Michaels represented the Cato Institute as a reviewer on Working Group III of the fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[37]

Michaels is the Editor of the World Climate Report, a blog published by New Hope Environmental Services, "an advocacy science consulting firm" he founded and runs.[38] Michaels' biographical note on the Cato Institute website does not mention his role with New Hope Environmental Services.[39]

In an affidavit in a Vermont court case, Michaels described the "mission" of the firm as being to "publicize findings on climate change and scientific and social perspectives that may not otherwise appear in the popular literature or media. This entails both response research and public commentary."[40] In effect, New Hope Environmental Services is a PR firm. Michaels' firm does not disclose who its clients are,[41] but in 2006 a leaked memo revealed that Michaels' firm had been paid $100,000 by an electric utility, Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA), to counter concern about global warming.[42] An affidavit by Michaels also stated that "public disclosure of a company's funding of New Hope and its employees has already caused considerable financial loss to New Hope. For example, in 2006 Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association, Inc., an electric utility, had requested that its support of $50,000 to New Hope be held confidential. After this support was inadvertently made public by another New Hope client, Tri-State informed me that it would no longer support New Hope because of adverse publicity."[40]

On a 2007 academic CV, Michaels disclosed that prior to creating his firm, he had received funding from the Edison Electric Institute -- an electric utility trade group -- and the Western Fuels Association -- an entity that provides coal and transportation services to electric utilities. He has also been a frequent speaker at events organized by leading coal and energy companies as well as coal and other industry lobby groups.[43]

In 2009, the Center for Media and Democracy's PRWatch noted that, "in its returns, Cato reports that since April 2006 it has paid $242,900 for the 'environmental policy' services of Michaels' firm. (In preceding years, New Hope Environmental Services was not listed amongst the five highest paid independent contractors supplying professional services to Cato.) In response to an email inquiry, Michaels stated that the Cato funding 'largely supported the extensive background research for my 2009 book, Climate of Extremes, background research on climate change, mainly in the areas of ice melt and temperature histories, and background research required for invited lectures around the world.' (Climate of Extremes was published by the Cato Institute in January of ... [2009].) Asked whether the funding came from a specific company, donor or foundation, Michaels wrote via email that there wasn't 'for this or for any of my activities.' (In case the Cato Institute knew of dedicated funding sources for Michaels work that he was unaware of, I also emailed an inquiry to the think tank's media office. They did not respond.)"[44]

Anti-Tax Policies
The Cato Institute takes a position against taxation in general -- at the international, federal, state, and local levels.[17][18]Such policies cripple governments, sharing Grover Norquist's goal to "get [government] down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."[19]

Support for Privatizing Government Services
The Cato Institute pushes for privatization of government services, stating on its website, "Privatization has generally led to reduced costs, higher-quality services, and increased innovation in formerly moribund government industries."[20] The Center for Media and Democracy has called this push "a hostile takeover of our schools, roads, prisons, drinking water, and even government itself" and has pointed out the "eye-popping salaries" of the CEOs and executives of the for-profit firms engaged in such privatization and the "fine print follies" in privatization "contracts that put taxpayers on the hook -- even for work not done."[21]

Push for School Privatization
The Cato Institute takes a position against public schools, arguing that the country should "break up the long-standing government monopoly" and move "toward a competitive education market."[22][23][24][25] As noted in a report by the Center on Education Policy, "From the early days of the nation, public education has played a vital role in American democratic society.... American public schools have been expected to fulfill certain public missions[:] "1. To provide universal access to free education[;] 2. To guarantee equal opportunities for all children[;] 3. To unify a diverse population[;] 4. To prepare people for citizenship in a democratic society[;] 5. To prepare people to become economically self-sufficient[; and] 6. To improve social conditions schools, public and private.... Just because [some] individual public schools are not living up to these ideals, however, is no reason to abandon the ideals or the institution of public education. Some citizens point to the poor performance of some public schools as a reason to shift responsibility for education to the private sector.That was tried before, in the years preceding universal public education, and many children were left out."[26]

Support for Privatizing Water Resources
The Cato Institute claims that deregulation of water use will more effectively reduce scarcity than will government management. Jerry Taylor, the Director of Natural Resource Studies at Cato, alleges that water shortages are "the product of government mismanagement," and should therefore be "regulated" through the market. Terry argues that government regulation of water has kept water prices "artificially low -- about half the price of delivery on a national basis -- with over-consumption the inevitable result."[27] If water use were instead treated as a property right, Cato posits, it would create incentives for those holding the rights to use them efficiently and transfer the excess to others at a profit. Cato claims that market "regulation" of water use would lead to fewer problems with water scarcity. Critics point out that this market-based approach to water policy concentrates the right to use water in the hands of a few powerful people, who become even more powerful by controlling the public's use of something as essential as water. Privatization of water could also lead to corruption and loss of local authority, these critics fear.[28]

Support for Social Security Privatization
The Cato Institute has advocated privatizing Social Security since its first years. A chief early architect of Cato's thinking on private accounts was Peter J. Ferrara. The Washington Post's Thomas Edsall wrote in February 2005, "The emergence of the center-right phalanx backing the Social Security proposal is a major victory for the Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian group. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Cato was almost alone in its willingness to challenge the legitimacy of the existing Social Security system, a politically sacrosanct retirement program. Recognizing the wariness of other conservatives to tackle Social Security, Cato in 1983 published an article calling for privatization of the system. The article argued that companies that stand to profit from privatization -- 'the banks, insurance companies and other institutions that will gain' -- had to be brought into alliance. Second, the article called for initiation of 'guerrilla warfare against both the current Social Security system and the coalition that supports it.'"[29]

By early 2005, business groups such as the Business Roundtable and the National Association of Manufacturers and political operations like Progress for America were devoting millions of dollars to the campaign to get rid of the existing Social Security program. The website SocialSecurity.org is run by the Cato Institute, under the heading "Project on Social Security Choice."

Opposition to Wall Street Reform
The Cato Institute is opposed to Wall Street reform, calling the 2010 "Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act" unconstitutional, saying that it "has implications for the separation of powers, the role of congressional oversight, vagueness and unfettered regulator discretion, and due process."[30]

Opposition to Campaign Finance Reform
The Cato Institute's John Samples wrote an op-ed decrying the "DISCLOSE Act" -- a later attempt to minimize the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United campaign finance case -- for curbing the speech of foreign-owned companies and for exposing the corporate backers of ads.[31] Cato filed an amicus brief in support of Citizens United during the court's deliberation over Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.[32]

Support for Eliminating Ballot Referendum "Donor Disclosure" Requirements
In March 2007, Cato and the Institute for Justice called for eliminating disclosure requirements for those who contribute funds in support of or opposition to ballot measures. One of the primary reasons the two groups cited was the purportedly high costs associated with disclosure requirements, which are exponentially less than the amount spent on ads. At the time, these requirements were already weaker than those required for contributions to a candidate's political campaign.[33][34]

Critics Call Cato's Anti-Disclosure Position Pro-Corporate, Anti-Democratic
The Ballot Initiative Strategy Center (BISC), an advocacy group that supports ballot initiatives to reach progressive political and policy goals, posits that donor disclosure protects both the voters and the process of direct democracy from secret money and hidden goals. In response to Cato's position, Kristina Wilfore, BISC's executive director, stated, "The problem with being a front group for corporate fat cats like Exxon, Enron, and Howie Rich, is that you are always a little out-of-touch with the public… CATO aligning itself with more corruption in political giving is taking the side of the powerful against the people –- and they call themselves libertarian?"[33][35]

Alliance with the Tobacco Industry
The Cato Institute appears on several Philip Morris lists of "national allies," including a 1999 "Federal Government Affairs Tobacco Allies Notebook"[45] and a less-specific 2000 list of "National Allies."[46]

R.J. Reynolds (RJR) also names Cato Institute as an organization the company could rely upon to help the tobacco industry"shift the debate and framework under which cigarette-related issues are evaluated in the future." In the September 2000 document, titled "Reframing the Debate Communications Plan," RJR states, "Work with CATO Institute ... to empanel a group to debate legality and future management of cigarette industry. Open forum to media (pitch C- SPAN coverage); issue press release and transcript of remarks to media not in attendance." A subsequent part of the plan says RJR could help sustain public interest in their points of view by encouraging Cato Institute to send [pro-tobacco] columns to the national media.[47]

Objection to Cigarette Taxes
Cato "scholars" have raised a number of objections to cigarette taxes. Such taxes are frequently justified by the claim that smokers impose unfairly high costs on society. In a January 10, 1998, commentary published in the Chicago Tribune, Cato Institute Assistant Director of Environmental Studies Peter Van Doren claimed that smokers' premature deaths actually save taxpayers money, calling into question the fairness of imposing ever-higher tobacco taxes on them. Van Doren also claimed that high tobacco taxes are highly regressive, noting that smokers tend to be disproportionately poor and minority.[48]

Robert A. Levy, an independently wealthy businessman who became a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in his 50s,[49] has published numerous editorials criticizing higher tobacco taxes, lawsuits against the Tobacco Institute, and other anti-smoking policies. In one 1999 piece written with Cato fellow Rosalind B. Marimont and published in the Cato magazine Regulation, Levy acknowledged that smoking was a serious health problem but argued that the common estimates of 400,000 smoking-related deaths each year exaggerated the magnitude of the problem.[50] In another 1999 piece published in the Wall Street Journal, Levy decried the Clinton administration's Department of Justice lawsuit against tobacco companiesto recoup the federal government's cost for treating sick smokers.[51]

Cato has also criticized the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) that 46 U.S. states signed with the tobacco industry.[52] For example, Levy argued that the 1998 MSA, which he claimed effectively created a government-run tobacco cartel for the benefit of large tobacco companies, created a situation in which tobacco companies no longer need worry about new competitors pushing down tobacco prices.[53] He pointed out that the four largest tobacco companies have managed to maintain a 96 percent market share despite the costs of the settlement and called the agreement a "sweetheart deal" between state attorneys general and the tobacco industry.

Claims that "Secondhand Smoke Risks Are Debatable"
Cato staffer Radley Balko testified before the Washington, D.C. City Council in opposition to clean indoor air laws in 2005, arguing that smoking restrictions infringe on the liberty of business owners to decide what policies they wish to adopt for their restaurants, as well as the freedom of smokers. In his testimony, Balko claimed that "the health risks associated with secondhand smoke are debatable." Balko argued that employees worried about the impact of smoking on their health should work elsewhere: "A waiter or bartender who chooses to work for an establishment that allows smoking knows what kind of environment he'll be working in," he stated. As for non-smokers rights, Balko argued that "you don't have the right to walk onto someone else's property, demand to be served food or drink someone else has bought, and demand that they serve you on your terms. Free societies don't work that way," he stated.[54] In his testimony, Balko did not disclose that the Cato Institute received funding from both R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris.[54] (If true, this would beg the question of why higher rates of cardiovascular disease are attributed to non-smokers who worked in the service industry workers or as flight attendants -- before smoking policies were changed -- than other non-smokers.)[55][56]U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Vital Signs: Nonsmokers' Exposure to Secondhand Smoke --- United States, 1999--2008, government agency report, September 10, 2010.</ref>[57][58]

 

He is not telling a lie. There are extensive adjustments done in the old old record. From about 1910-1939 the GISS global adjustments are significantly upwards. So depending on what time frame you use you can give the impression that adjustments are significantly upwards. However in the post WWII modern era that is supposed to be driven by AGW the adjustments are positive this makes the AGW period.

 

Is that the Media Matters Dr. Michaels smear sheet ?? Yes, it certainly looks very similar. Media Matters is an organization completely focused on smearing those who do not "lock step" with the liberal progressive meme's of the day.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/07/10/patrick-michaels-catos-climate-expert-has-histo/194800

Media Matters is solely focused on smearing Fox News and Conservatives (both organizations and individuals). This is captured in an interview with David Brock by Politico in 2011. It's amazing to hear the truth so brazenly communicated by the then head of Media Matters to the Politico reporter.

Media Matters Executive Vice President Ari Rabin-Havt said

“

http://www.politico.com/story/2011/03/media-matters-war-against-fox-051949?o=0

 

You can't dispute the facts about your corrupt science-whore Michaels, so you complain about the fact that there are groups that specialize in debunking the kind of fraudulent rightwingnut propaganda that has you so bamboozled and confused. LOLOL.

 

But their arguments are easily debunked. For example they use a decade temperature chart to claim that global warming has not been on a hiatus since 1998, But if you go to the WaPo article and finally to the actual report this chart is found. showing that the temp profile is flat even though the average for the 2000 - 2010 decade is warmer. That's how to lie with statistics and is just one example of the dishonesty with which Media Matters operates.





Also the El Nino heating of 1998 and subsequent cooling can be seen. This is what happened in 2015.

http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_1119_en.pdf

 

You cant write more than 3 sentences of your own argument. Copy paste copy paste copy pase.

 

Never heard of him. More ThinkProgress science. LOL

 

What penalties does that violation potentially carry?

 

We are in an ice-age, earth normally isn't in an ice-age, I wish the ice-age would end, but I bet it won't. The current configuration of the continents is probably going to keep it this damn cold for a great deal longer.

If we could bulldoze out a portion of Latin America, that would help. It would probably end Gulf-Spawned hurricanes and extend the growing seasons in Northern Europe, but I just don't see that happening.