Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (74784)	2/9/2017 10:56:29 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

NOAA agrees to review scientist’s claim that data manipulated to discredit warming ‘pause’ The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Monday that it would review a whistleblower’s allegations that the agency manipulated climate data in order to eliminate the global warming “pause” for political reasons. The whistleblower, John Bates, who retired in December as principal scientist of the National Climatic Data Center, rocked the climate change debate Sunday with his claim that a top NOAA climate scientist selectively used data to discredit the global warming hiatus in a key 2015 study. “NOAA is charged with providing peer-reviewed data to the American public and stands behind its world-class scientists,” a NOAA spokesman said in an email. “NOAA takes seriously any allegation that its internal processes have not been followed and will review the matter appropriately.” SEE ALSO: Climate change whistleblower alleges NOAA manipulated data to hide global warming ‘pause’ Mr. Bates laid out his allegations in a lengthy article Saturday on the Climate Etc. blog, run by former Georgia Tech climatologist Judith Curry, and in a Sunday interview with the United Kingdom’s Daily Mail. He criticized the June 2015 “pausebuster” paper’s lead author, Thomas Karl, then director of the National Centers for Environmental Information, for what Mr. Bates described as a failure to archive and document his climate data sets. “Gradually, in the months after [the paper] came out, the evidence kept mounting that Tom Karl constantly had his ‘thumb on the scale’ — in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of data sets — in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy,” Mr. Bates said in his Saturday post. The paper refuting the 1998-2013 “pause” in global temperature increases was published six months before the Paris Climate Summit, a priority of the Obama administration’s environmental agenda. Ms. Curry called Monday on the NOAA inspector general to evaluate the claims made by Mr. Bates, adding that he has “more revelations” coming as well as “more detailed responses to some of the issues raised above.” “Other independent organizations will also want to evaluate these claims, and NOAA should facilitate this by responding to FOIA requests,” Ms. Curry said. She cited the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which has tangled with NOAA over document disclosure related to the “pausebuster” paper. “The House science committee has an enduring interest in this topic and oversight responsibility,” Ms. Curry said. “NOAA should respond to the committee’s request for documentation including emails.” In an interview with the Daily Mail, Mr. Karl said the archiving process “takes a long time” and denied that he had hurried along the paper to coincide with the summit, saying, “There was no discussion about Paris.” Mr. Bates has since engaged in a back-and-forth on Climate Etc. with other scientists, including “pausebuster” co-author Thomas Peterson, about the details of his claim. Several scientists have come to Mr. Karl’s defense, arguing that other research has borne out the study’s conclusions. Climate scientist Peter Thorne, who has done work for NOAA, argued that Mr. Bates was “not involved in any aspect of the work.” “John Bates never participated in any of the numerous technical meetings on the land or marine data I have participated in at NOAA NCEI either in person or remotely,” Mr. Thorne said on Icarus. Mr. Bates responded that Mr. Thorne was not a federal employee and therefore was unable to participate in government-only meetings, “and certainly never attended any federal meetings where end-to-end processing was continuously discussed.” Meanwhile, Ms. Curry said she hoped “policies can be put in place to keep this from ever happening again.” “Under the Obama administration, I suspect that it would have been very difficult for this story to get any traction,” she said. “Under the Trump administration, I have every confidence that this will be investigated (but still not sure how the MSM will react).” washingtontimes.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (74784)	2/9/2017 11:04:29 AM
From: Eric	Respond to of 86355

Coal EU must shut all coal plants by 2030 to meet Paris climate pledges, study says Europe will vastly overshoot its carbon emissions target for coal unless it closes all 300 power stations, says thinktank Climate Analytics The Belchatow power station in Poland is Europe’s largest coal-fired power plant. Photograph: Kacper Pempel/Reuters Arthur Neslen Thursday 9 February 2017 15.57 GMT Last modified on Thursday 9 February 2017 15.59 GMT The European Union will “vastly overshoot” its Paris climate pledges unless its coal emissions are completely phased out within 15 years, a stress test of the industry has found. Coal’s use is falling by about 1% a year in Europe but still generates a quarter of the continent’s power – and a fifth of its greenhouse gas emissions. If Europe’s 300 coal plants run to the end of their natural lifespans, the EU nations will exceed their carbon budget for coal by 85%, according to a report by the respected thinktank Climate Analytics. It says the EU would need to stop using coal for electricity generation by 2030. “Not only would existing coal plants exceed the EU’s emissions budget, but the 11 planned and announced plants would raise EU emissions to almost twice the levels required to keep warming to the Paris agreement’s long term temperature goal,” said Dr Michiel Schaeffer, Climate Analytics science director. The report will feed into a review of the EU’s Paris targets next year, which could see the bloc’s planned emissions cuts raised significantly, in line with an aspirational 1.5C goal agreed at Paris. Artur Runge-Metzger, the EU’s lead negotiator at the Paris talks said that the bloc’s first estimates indicated that a 95% emissions cut would be needed by 2050 to cap warming at 1.5C, significantly higher than the 80% pledged in Paris. “We are not only looking at what is technically feasible but what is socially bearable and how we are really going to manage that kind of transition,” he said. Uncertainties stirred by the election of President Trump were causing “a lot of anxiety in the EU and that will spill over into the [low carbon] debate,” he added. But the commission is making contingency plans. “You always need to look at several scenarios at the same time to be prepared and not to be surprised,” Runge-Metzger told the Guardian. “It’s a little bit like playing chess, isn’t it?” Trump has promised a coal renaissance in the US rust belt but coal plants will have to be shut across the planet by 2050 to prevent dangerous warming, the study says, with China planning to mothball its coal industry by 2040. While the UK has Europe’s third highest capacity for coal, Germany and Poland are responsible for more than half of the EU’s coal emissions and will face the greatest challenges. Germany is postponing its coal phase-out plans until after elections later this year. Poland, which is preparing a legal challenge to the EU’s climate policy, argues that it can plant trees to offset coal emissions, and one day apply experimental carbon capture and storage technology (CCS). A Polish diplomatic source told the Guardian that Poland aimed to “develop the [carbon] sink potential of its forests as one of the most cost efficient ways to achieve the necessary reductions.” Steps in that direction will be closely monitored by the commission. “Will the numbers really work?” Runge-Metzger asked. “If you count [existing forests] against emissions, I’m not sure whether that calculation will work in the end. We will have to see additional removals from the air, from land use and forestry which have a certain permanence.” The UK on Wednesday recommitted to a coal phase-out by 2025 but environmentalists fear that “capacity payments” to seven coal plants worth £453m over the next four years could sabotage that deadline. Earlier this week, the government granted another £78m to keep coal plants open next year – including £10m for Aberthaw, which has repeatedly violated emissions limits, according to a European court ruling last September. James Thornton, the chief executive of the green law firm ClientEarth said that the UK’s plans were weak and filled with loopholes that coal operators could exploit to stay open. “The first place we should see proof of ambition is in government subsidies,” he said. “When these are cut, investors catch on. So why are we still seeing subsidies for fossil fuel capacity? “The government has not yet put its money where its mouth is,” he said Anti-coal campaigners have been buoyed by a recent vote in the Irish Dail to divest from all fossil fuels, and a decision by Danish energy giant Dong Energy to stop burning coal at its power stations by 2023. Coal accounted for 80% of Dong’s fuel supplies a decade ago. theguardian.com