Category Archives: fossil fuels

March Global Temperature Anomaly And Solar Cycle 24 Update


This posting combines the March global temperature anomaly and the Solar Cycle 24 stats.   Below are the UAH satellite global temperature anomalies from Dr Roy Spencer’s website. The stats below the graph show the summary since 2016 through March 2017 for the regions.

 

 

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2016 01 +0.54 +0.69 +0.39 +0.84
2016 02 +0.83 +1.16 +0.50 +0.98
2016 03 +0.73 +0.94 +0.52 +1.08
2016 04 +0.71 +0.85 +0.58 +0.93
2016 05 +0.54 +0.64 +0.44 +0.71
2016 06 +0.33 +0.50 +0.17 +0.37
2016 07 +0.39 +0.48 +0.29 +0.47
2016 08 +0.43 +0.55 +0.31 +0.49
2016 09 +0.44 +0.49 +0.38 +0.37
2016 10 +0.40 +0.42 +0.39 +0.46
2016 11 +0.45 +0.40 +0.50 +0.37
2016 12 +0.24 +0.18 +0.30 +0.21
2017 01 +0.30 +0.26 +0.33 +0.07
2017 02 +0.35 +0.54 +0.15 +0.05
2017 03 +0.19 +0.30 +0.07 +0.03
 

The anomaly drop of 0.16C was a substantial change.  This has been happening without a La Nina following the El Nino. 

 

Solar Cycle 24’s to-date April International Sunspot number is 26.6 versus March’s number of 17.7.  So, this month is a little more active but still things are quiet. Cycle 24 began in January 2008.  The mean Cycle length is 11.1 years so it should be over around January of 2019.  

 

 

As noted in previous postings the solar polar field strength following a maximum is currently a popular way to predict the following Cycle strength.  The Black line in the chart below is the line to watch. That line is the combined North and South solar polar field strength. So far it is slightly smaller than the size of Solar Cycle 23—thus using this theory, it    Cycle 25 should be about the same size as 24 or maybe just a bit smaller.  Amended for clarity on 4/20  cbdakota

 

 

 

 

cbdakota

Wind Energy Simply Won’t Work–Google Engineers Say


The following 6 postings discuss renewable wind energy (and some solar). The postings are ones that I think will interest the reader.  The publishing dates range from 2017 back to 2011.

 

Renewable energy ‘simply WON’T WORK’: Top Google engineers

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/

 

 

James Delingpole Hammers the Great Wind Power Fraud: ‘Green Energy is a Charter For Crooks And Liars’            1/19/17

https://stopthesethings.com/2017/01/19/james-delingpole-hammers-the-great-wind-power-fraud-green-energy-is-a-charter-for-crooks-and-liars/

 

 

Benny Peiser: Europe Pulls The Plug On Its Green Future

http://www.thegwpf.com/benny-peiser-europe-pulls-plug-green-future/

 

Green Power Gridlock: Why Renewable Energy Is No Alternative    10dec13

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/12/10/green-power-gridlock-why-renewable-energy-is-no-alternative/#10ee659365c8

 

The myth of renewable energy           22nov2011

http://thebulletin.org/myth-renewable-energy

 

Study: Wind & Solar up to 5X More Costly than Existing Coal and Nuclear    7/26/15

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/press/study-wind-solar-5x-costly-existing-coal-nuclear/

 

cbdakota

More Alarmist Predictions That Did Not Happen


When you next read in your newspaper that global warming will visit some terrible thing upon you, try to think back to any of the predictions of doom that have ever really taken place.  

From time to time I have posted, prediction after prediction made by the alarmists that have failed to come true. In the meantime, I write letters to the editors asking why they continue to publish the latest warmer prediction. I ask, “do you ever, (the editor of the newspaper), review the alarmist’s previous predictions”? 

Enough of that. Here are a new batch of predictions that haven’t come true.  The following is a reblog of Not A Lot Of People Know That posting titled “April Fools”:

Continue reading

Friends Of Science Engineering Critique Of WWS’s Plan For Global Decarbonization


The previous posting, examined the study “A roadmap for rapid decarbonization” published in the Science magazine,  and discussed the major obstacles the warmers face in their attempt to persuade the politicians and the voters to undertake decarbonization.  And do it rapidly.   You may not think thirty years is rapid, but convincing 8 billion people to wipe out the present infrastructure and substitute a new one using as yet unproven methods in 30 years, is moving at a breathtaking speed.

The above noted study, is not the only one that has looked at a way to satisfy the Paris Agreement of holding the global temperature to max.2 ºC rise, with a goal of 1.5ºC rise.  A study by 100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water and Sunlight (WWS) led by Jacobson, Delucci , et at. is, on the surface (number of pages of detailed discussion), more elaborate than the previous posting.  This  WWS roadmap calls for an 80% reduction of fossil fuels by 2030!  Only 13 years away.

The WWS study is an all-sector roadmap that is said to show how 139 nations could jointly hold the temperature rise to no more than 2ºC.

Friends of Science critique the WWS study with a response titled “WHY RENEWABLE ENERGY CANNOT REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS BY 2050” .  Michael Kelly, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Cambridge says: “Humanity is owed a serious investigation of how we have gone so far with the decarbonization project without a serious challenge in terms of engineering reality”.

That’s what guides this critique.  The critique illustrates the enormous number of new renewable facilities needed, the time necessary to put  these facilities in to operation and the amount of space they require.  It is awesome.

Continue reading

The Paris Agreement Road Map To Zero GHG Emissions–Next Post The Skeptics Response.



I do not think that the developed nations of the world are ready to endorse the actions they have signed onto when they authorized the Paris Agreement (PA).  They liked the applause they were receiving from the media and the environmentalists. But they have not responded in-kind to their commitments for reducing CO2 emissions or contributions to the fund that helps the underdeveloped nations. See here and here. Vox posting on 4 October 2016 said “No country on Earth is taking the 2ºC climate target seriously”.  The Climateactiontracker.org posted this quote: “Right now, with the policies governments have in place, we are heading to a warming of 3.6C said Prof Kornelis Blok of Ecofys.”The developed nations realize that it is time for them to “put up or shut up”. The “put up” part is bedeviled by the fact that most of them are finding that their renewable energy installations, eg solar and wind, are raising the cost of energy to a point where many can no longer afford it.  Further, they are learning that the renewables make their power systems unstable and thus vulnerable to loss of power to supply the customers and industries.


Maybe, just maybe they are becoming aware of the actions they need to undertake to keep the Global temperature rise at no more than the target of  1.5C.  The 24 March 2017 Science magazine published a study titled: “A roadmap for rapid decarbonization”.

Continue reading

CO2 And Climate Change Science–Part 2: A Summary Of The Science


The website CO2 Coalition has a post titled “Climate Change: A summary of the Science”.  It one of the best summaries I have come across lately.  It is fairly long, so I could do my usual and summarize it, but there is virtually nothing in it that I would want to skip over.  So, I will not deprive the reader. I will put it in, in its entirety.  I hope that my posting yesterday will fill in any blanks you may have otherwise had.

cbdakota

==========================================================

News 26 Feb, 2017

Climate Change: A Summary of the Science

The climate change science is settled, but not how the climate alarmists want you to think.

Continue reading

The Paris Agreement Has It Wrong–Developed Nations Are Not The Primary Sources Of Greenhouse Gases.


The website EnergyMatters’ posting titled “Attributing the blame for global warming” is one of the most intriguing postings I have read lately.   The posting discusses a report made by a UN group to determine who is responsible for the man-made greenhouse gases that the warmers say have damaged the Earth. The Paris Agreement, for example, blames the Developed Nations and wants them to pay reparations to the rest of the world. The posting, on the contrary, persuasively argues that the developed nations aren’t not the primary sources of greenhouse gases.  Further the folly of the “Developed Nations are at fault theme” is that when projected into the future the evidence says it is even less true.  For those of us that believe that nature is the primary forcing agent with regard to global climate change, who is to “blame” is not particularly our big issue, but it is for the warmers.  This posting seems to point out they continue to get it wrong:

Continue reading