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 (78730)	8/1/2017 1:34:46 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

Man Made Warming from Adjusting Data Posted on4 Days Ago by Ron Clutz Roger Andrews does a thorough job analyzing the effects of adjustments upon Surface Air Temperature (SAT) datasets. His article at Energy Matters is Adjusting Measurements to Match the Models – Part 1: Surface Air Temperatures. Excerpts of text and some images are below. The whole essay is informative and supports his conclusion: euanmearns.com In previous posts and comments I had said that adjustments had added only about 0.2°C of spurious warming to the global SAT record over the last 100 years or so – not enough to make much difference. But after further review it now appears that they may have added as much as 0.4°C. For example, these graphs show warming of the GISS dataset: Figure 2: Comparison of “Old” and “Current” GISS meteorological station surface air temperature series, annual anomalies relative to 1950-1990 means The current GISS series shows about 0.3°C more global warming than the old version, with about 0.2°C more warming in the Northern Hemisphere and about 0.5°C more in the Southern. The added warming trends are almost exactly linear except for the downturns after 2000, which I suspect (although can’t confirm) are a result of attempts to track the global warming “pause”. How did GISS generate all this extra straight-line warming? It did it by replacing the old unadjusted records with “homogeneity-adjusted” versions. The homogenization operators used by others have had similar impacts, with Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) being a case in point. Figure 3, which compares warming gradients measured at 86 South American stations before and after BEST’s homogeneity adjustments (from Reference 1) visually illustrates what a warming-biased operator does at larger scales. Before homogenization 58 of the 86 stations showed overall warming, 28 showed overall cooling and the average warming trend for all stations was 0.54°C/century. After homogenization all 86 stations show warming and the average warming trend increases to 1.09°C/century: Figure 3: Warming vs. cooling at 86 South American stations before and after BEST homogeneity adjustments The adjusted “current” GISS series match the global and Northern Hemisphere model trend line gradients almost exactly but overstate warming relative to the models in the Southern (although this has only a minor impact on the global mean because the Southern Hemisphere has a lot less land and therefore contributes less to the global mean than does the Northern). But the unadjusted “old” GISS series, which I independently verified with my own from-scratch reconstructions, consistently show much less warming than the models, confirming that the generally good model/observation match is entirely a result of the homogeneity adjustments applied to the raw SAT records. Summary In this post I have chosen to combine a large number of individual examples of “data being adjusted to match it to the theory” into one single example that blankets all of the surface air temperature records. The results indicate that warming-biased homogeneity adjustments have resulted in current published series overestimating the amount by which surface air temperatures over land have warmed since 1900 by about 0.4°C (Table 1), and that global surface air temperatures have increased by only about 0.7°C over this period, not by the ~1.1°C shown by the published SAT series. Land, however, makes up only about 30% of the Earth’s surface. The subject of the next post will be sea surface temperatures in the oceans, which cover the remaining 70%. In it I will document more examples of measurement manipulation malfeasance, but with a twist. Stay tuned. Footnote: I have also looked into this issue by analyzing a set of US stations considered to have the highest CRN rating. The impact of adjustments was similarly evident and in the direction of warming the trends. See Temperature Data Review Project: My Submission rclutz.wordpress.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (78730)	8/2/2017 9:01:26 AM
From: Eric	Respond to of 86355

It’s Getting Harder To Make The Long Tailpipe Argument In Europe 2 hours ago by Sebastian Blanco 17 Comments Powoer Plant Photo by lady_lbrty. CC 2.0 It’s been a favorite criticism of plug-in vehicles for a long, long time: who cares if there are no tailpipe emissions if you’re just using dirty coal to power your car. Well, thanks to new rules for coal-fired power stations in Europe, that argument is about to get much, much weaker. The EU adopted new standards that will put stricter limits on the emissions of nitrous oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter (PM). A release by the European Environmental Bureau says that, “with coal already in dramatic decline, the uncertainty created by stricter limits on pollution leaves closure as the only logical end for coal plants.” In other words, cleaner environmental rules are working to get coal plants shut down, which will make more room for clean renewable energy. This will only help make all of the electric vehicles driving on European roads cleaner tomorrow than they are today. These new rules are just one way that the reasons to rail against electric vehicles are getting weaker and weaker all the time. See our collection of the (fading) arguments against EVs here. Press Release: New rules hasten end for Europe’s dirtiest power plants Europe’s most polluting power plants, including many large coal-fired power stations, will be forced to clean up or close down thanks to new EU rules adopted today. The revised standards demand reductions in toxic emissions, yet businesses and governments appear unprepared. EU-wide compliance with the new rules could cost as much as €15.4bn, and 82% of coal capacity expected to be online in 2021 is currently failing to meet the minimum standards. With coal already in dramatic decline, the uncertainty created by stricter limits on pollution leaves closure as the only logical end for coal plants. [1] The new standards [2] include tighter rules for emissions of nitrous oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and tiny pieces of harmful dust known as ‘particulate matter’ (PM). These toxic substances are linked to a host of health and environmental issues including the development of asthma in children and polluting of Europe’s air and water. 132 cities in 23 countries are breaching EU laws on air quality. [3] Worsening urban air pollution has been described as a ‘public health crisis’ and has led to growing demands from communities for urgent action. Ensuring large power plants use the best available techniques to reduce pollution will lead to significant reductions in emissions and have a positive effect on air quality across Europe, including in cities. The new rules were adopted despite the opposition of major coal-addicted economies. At the time of the vote in April, Germany was heavily criticised by health, environmental and climate groups for joining a ‘toxic bloc’ of eastern European countries in opposing the new limits. [4] Today’s publication provides a safety net of minimum expectations for Europe’s worst polluters, but more importantly it signals that the end for coal in Europe is looming. EU governments now have a maximum of four years to adapt their energy systems to the new limits and ensure workers and communities facing an uncertain economic future are empowered to transition to new livelihoods. References: [1] Report on Hard Coal/Lignite Fired Power Plants in EU28 by DNV GL for the European Climate Foundation. 16 June 2017. [2] Commission to review permits of Large Combustion Plants, European Commission Press Release, 31 July 2017 [3] Commission warns Germany, France, Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom of continued air pollution breaches, European Commission Press Release, 15 Feb 2017 [4] Cleaner air the winner after Germany fails to block new EU rules, EEB Press Release, 28 Apr 2017 insideevs.com Source: European Environmental Bureau