Det går ikke godt for klimasektoren. Pointman fortæller om solcelleindustrien, der ikke længere kan overbevise nogen om sine fortræffeligheder, mister sin statsstøtte og går alle giftstoffers gang
If you keep an eye on the financial world, which I do, and especially the green sectors, which I also do, it’s been an interesting time of late. Within the last few weeks, Solar Trust of America (STA), owner of the world’s largest solar plant, filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11, and nobody expects much of it, if anything, to emerge from it. STA joins a long list of companies in the solar energy sector, who’ve gone bankrupt, ducked into protection from their creditors, suspended production indefinitely or are simply circling the plughole.
Across the world, a few of the more prominent and expensive casualties are Solyndra, Solar Millennium AG, Energy Conversion Devices Inc, Q-Cells, Solon, Solar Millenium, Solarhybrid, Ener1, Range Fuels, Beacon Power Corp and there’s a whole lot of others. In case you haven’t noticed, it’s probably not a good idea to invest your hard-earned pennies in any company with “solar” in its name. It’s almost as bad a mistake as thinking you had some sort of long-term future employment with one of them.
Nearly all of these companies were the beneficiaries of huge government startup grants or loan guarantees. The products they made were effectively sold to consumers with a subsidy, to make them more attractive. The customers also had the benefit of some generous feed-in tariff schemes. All that money that was sunk into them has now gone and the specific green industry sector it was expected to create, is pretty much moribund.
In Germany, which gets the same amount of sunshine as the US state of Alaska and where inexplicably nearly half the solar power output of the world was installed, investment experts expect not a single solar cell company to be in business in five years time, since not one of them is currently showing an operating profit, nor is expected to do so in the foreseeable future. In Germany alone, the government have to date handed out about €100 billion in subsidies to renewable energy and even there, the most fervently green country in Europe, they’ve begun to have some serious doubts. It’s a money pit. The promised green jobs haven’t appeared and unemployment in the developed nations continues to rise. On a world-wide basis, the money wasted runs into the billions of dollars.
Billions and billions and we’ve ended up with pretty much nothing. Actually, that’s not quite correct. What we will have, within a decade or two, is a clear up job that’ll make Chernobyl look like a training day. As the vast arrays of panels age, they’ll crack and contaminate the topsoil with poisonous chemical particles.
Jamen havde man da ikke konsulteret ekspertisen?
The business case for the whole industry was supported by numerous studies by scientists, academia, so-called industry experts and advocates of renewable energy, all of whom said it was the clean and profitable future of energy production. Obviously, all those studies were seriously wrong and ended up costing governments billions. Has anyone got back to these “experts” and asked why the studies and their financial models were all so bad? Given how shoddy their expert advice has proven to be, is anyone asking for the money back, which we paid for this supposed expertise? In the light of how bad expert advice in this area has been, is anyone reviewing advice for similar green sectors, such as wind power? Anyone? Anywhere?
Det er hvad der kommer ud af at stole på folk, der ikke har bestilt andet i deres beskyttede tilværelse end at øve sig i at reproducere deres undervisere så de siden kan reproducere sig selv. Men de faste stillinger beholder de for videnskabelige artikler bliver ikke genlæst, de bliver talt og således akkumulerer eksperterne (nej, ikke plutonium - selvom det havde været cool) prestige alligevel. Så er rønnebærene så sure som de kan være herfra og vi skal videre for gassen er også gået af ballonen når det drejer sig om den absurde handel med CO2 som kan man læse i European Energy Review
If European policymakers do not intervene soon in the EU’s emission trading scheme, Europe’s flagship climate policy risks sinking into oblivion. This is bad news when debate is just beginning over a new EU climate and energy package for 2030. If the EU ETS cannot deliver, what should lie at the heart of this new package? A carbon tax? A myriad of national policies? To save the ETS, many stakeholders - including energy companies - are advocating a ”set-aside”, or one-off removal of carbon allowances from the market, to raise the CO2 price. Others want a complete overhaul of the system. Sonja van Renssen reports from Brussels.
Og Sonja’s rapport er en lang analyse af hvad den ene EU-kommisær siger til den anden kommisær, udtalelser fra gigantiske energiselskaber og forhold mellem nationale og supranationale organisationer og fanden og hans pumpestok. Alt sammen uden at forholde sig til den bærende præmis, nemlig om der overhovedet er mening i galskaben. Det er der ikke og det finder flere og flere ud af, også i det politiske system. For nok taler man medfølende om fremtidens udfordringer, men i realiteten lurepasser man sig til en bedre position her i hundredeåret for Titanics forlis så man ikke trækkes med ned i det kolde hav når det gigantiske skib CO2-ødelægger-Verden synker. Og den synker, gør den, for virkeligheden akkumulerer også målinger.
I Ingenøren kan man læse et af de eksempler som hober sig op på virkelighedens indtog, hvor Jens Morten Hansen og Troels Aagaard skriver om en analyse der tilbageviser de hidtidige prognoser for alarmerende havspejlsstigning. ”Man har ikke taget de såkaldte nodalsvingninger i betragtning“, “et velkendt fænomen, der skyldes, at det tager Månen 18,6 år at komme tilbage til den samme position i forhold til Jordens bane omkring Solen“. Og der forklares videre hvorfor man aldrig skal gå i byen uden sine nodalsvingninger
Eftersom Månens bane ligger skævt i forhold til Jordens ækvatorplan, vil Månen i en periode på 9,3 år ligge nærmest den nordlige halvkugle og i de følgende 9,3 år ligge nærmest den sydlige. Massetiltrækningen mellem Månen og Jorden vil derfor få havniveauet til at stige og falde på de to halvkugler, alt efter hvor Månen befinder sig i den 18,6 år lange rundtur.
Analysen fremkom i martsnummeret af Journal of Coastal Research og er skrevet af fem hollandske eksperter fra universitetsinstitutter og kystmyndigheder. De fem eksperter viser, at hvis man korrigerer vandstandsmålingerne for disse naturlige udsving som følge af Månens position, så forsvinder den acceleration af havets stigning, som prognoserne bygger på.
Tilbage bliver kun en almindelig fuldstændig jævn havspejlsstigning på 1,9 mm/år, som har stået på lige siden man begyndte at måle havniveauet i 1890’erne.
I disse 1,9 mm/år indgår endda, at Hollands undergrund synker med en hastighed på 0,4 +/- 0,9 mm/år. Det vil sige, at selve den målte havstigning kun er på ca. 1,5 mm/år (0,6-2,4 mm/år) – eller en femtedel af worst case-scenariet.
De fem forskere viser også, at der på samme måde er sket en fejltolkning af satellitdata fra Nordsøen, fordi man her har valgt tidsserier, der begynder, hvor nodalcyklussen giver et minimum, og slutter, hvor den kulminerer.
Vælger man derimod tidsserier, der omfatter præcis 1 nodalperiode (18,6 år) eller et multiplum deraf, vil den havstigning, som satellitfolkene har sat til 2,3 mm/år skrumpe ind til 0,7 mm/år. De fem eksperter konkluderer, at også de satellitbaserede prognoser er fejlagtige ‘fordi de, tilfældigvis, anvender et tidsvindue, der begynder ved bunden og slutter ved toppen af en nodal cyklus’.
Jeg vil her nøjes med at kalde det et bemærkelsesværdigt uheld at prognoserne bygger på analyser, hvis mangler kun giver stigninger. Dr. Roy Spencer har set på amerikanske temperaturdata
Virtually all of the USHCN warming since 1973 appears to be the result of adjustments NOAA has made to the data, mainly in the 1995-97 timeframe.
Given the amount of work NOAA has put into the USHCN dataset to increase the agreement between neighboring stations, I don’t have an explanation for this result. I have to wonder whether their adjustment procedures added more spurious effects than they removed, at least as far as their impact on temperature trends goes.
And I must admit that those adjustments constituting virtually all of the warming signal in the last 40 years is disconcerting. When “global warming” only shows up after the data are adjusted, one can understand why so many people are suspicious of the adjustments.
Watts Up With That skriver om endnu en undersøgelser, der viser manglende sammenhæng mellem rekonstruerede klimamodeller og rekonstruerede temperaturmålinger
One of the main points of criticism of the CO2-dominated climate models is that they fail to reproduce the temperature fluctuations over the last 10,000 years. This surprises no one as these models assign scant climate impact to major factors, i.e. the sun. As numerous IPCC-ignored studies show, the post-Ice Age temperature curve for the most part ran synchronously with solar activity fluctuations. The obvious discrepancy between modeled theory and measured reality has been brought up time and again.
The journal Climate of the Past Discussions has published a new paper written by a team led by Gerrit Lohmann of the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) in Bremerhaven, Germany. The group compared geologically reconstructed ocean-temperature data over the last 6000 years to results from modeling. If the models were indeed reliable, as is often claimed, then there would be good agreement. Unfortunately in Lohmann’s case, agreement was non-existent.
Lohmann et al plotted the geologically reconstructed temperatures and compared them to modeled temperature curves from the ECHO-G Model. What did they find? The modeled trends underestimated the geologically reconstructed temperature trend by a factor of two to five. Other scientists have come up with similar results (e.g. Lorenz et al. 2006, Brewer et al. 2007, Schneider et al. 2010).
The comprehensive temperature data collection of the Lohmann team distinctly shows the characteristic millennial scale temperature cycle for many regions investigated, see Figure 1 below. Temperatures fluctuated rhythmically over a range of one to three degrees Celsius. In many cases these are suspected to be solar-synchronous cycles, like the ones American Gerard Bond successfully showed using sediment cores from the North Atlantic more than 10 years ago. And here’s an even more astonishing observation: In more than half of the regions investigated, temperatures have actually fallen over the last 6000 years.
Lohman konkluderer friskt at siden modellernes rekonstruktioner af temperaturkurverne ikke er i overensstemmelse med de indsamlede proxy data, så måtte proxydata’ene tage fejl. Det er selvfølgelig den ene mulighed, men det slider næsten mere på troværdigheden med den slags farverige tolkninger, som at kæde Global Opvarmning sammen med HIV/AIDS.
Så op mod empirien, videnskabens dronning, sætter NASA’s Jim Hansen computermodeller, modelleret efter hans egne fantasier og affærdiger al skepticisme som amoralsk på linje med slavehandel. Her fra Guardian
He argues that storing up expensive and destructive consequences for society in future is an “injustice of one generation to others”.
In his lecture, Hansen will argue that the challenge facing future generations from climate change is so urgent that a flat-rate global tax is needed to force immediate cuts in fossil fuel use. Ahead of receiving the award – which has previously been given to Sir David Attenborough, the ecologist James Lovelock, and the economist Amartya Sen – Hansen told the Guardian that the latest climate models had shown the planet was on the brink of an emergency. He said humanity faces repeated natural disasters from extreme weather events which would affect large areas of the planet.
“The situation we’re creating for young people and future generations is that we’re handing them a climate system which is potentially out of their control,” he said. “We’re in an emergency: you can see what’s on the horizon over the next few decades with the effects it will have on ecosystems, sea level and species extinction.”
Den slags rablen underminerer selvsagt tilliden. Hos Real Science kan man læse mere om NASA og Jim Hansens fiflerier. Tidligere astronauter og forskere skrev forleden et åbent brev til NASA, hvori de udtrykte deres bekymring med og utilfredshed over at NASA satte sit gode navn og rygte ind på at fremme en klimahysterisk dagsorden
March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center
Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
Peter C Glover skrev efterfølgende i Spectator
This new letter now reflects the level of dissent that must run through NASA’s ‘finest’, as it already does in the writings of numerous scientists concerned over NASA’s climate advocacy role. Over the past decade Hansen has, in NASA’s name, variously been shown to have conducted “tremendous data tampering” while assuming a growing persona as the “new Paul Ehrlich”. Hansen even claimed that “climate change is a moral issue on a par with slavery”.
During that time, NASA astronaut Buzz Aldrin formally rejected NASA’s global warming fears, stating: “The climate has been changing for billions of years”. Hansen’s own former supervisor, Dr John Theon, also went on record to complain that Hansen had “embarrassed NASA” and yet “was never muzzled”. Just for good measure, Hansen famously wrote on NASA letterhead paper to Queen Elizabeth and to the then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, in a bid to derail a UK Government decision to build a new coal-fired power plant. Not surprising since Hansen’s crusading zeal includes the belief that coal is “the enemy of the human race”.
Taken together, Hansen’s growing cult status with hard-lobbying activist green groups, including Greenpeace, appears to have paralyzed the NASA hierarchy into inaction, when anyone else would almost certainly have been relieved of their post.
While Al Gore regards NASA’s Hansen as an “objective scientist”, Walt Cunningham’s assessment back in 2008 was more ‘empirical’: “NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused, or anthropogenic global warming.” Instead he is forced to lament NASA’s declining scientific gravitas.
“Unfortunately”, he writes about NASA, “it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science. Advocacy is replacing objective evaluation data, while scientific data is being ignored in favour of emotions and politics.” And Cunningham drove home his point with typically ‘scientific’ force: “Warming in the upper atmosphere should occur before any surface warming effect, but NASA’s own data show that has not been happening.”
NASA’s James Hansen has endorsed a book wanting to “rid the world of Industrial Civilization”. But wouldn’t that mean ridding it of rocket-launching, space-cluttering, fuel-spewing, aeronautic agencies, too? Worth asking him at his next job appraisal, no?
Beskyldningerne mod skeptikere for at promovere ‘junk videnskab’ gør stadigt mindre indtryk, som der ikke leveres meningfulde modsvar mod de faktiske målinger. De stats- og olie finansierede græsrødder er endda gået op i limningen og beskylder hinanden for uvidenskabelighed i en bitter debat om den onde, men klimavenlige atomkraft, som man kan læse i Observer
The war of words between the pro- and anti-nuclear environmentalists shows no sign of ending, with those writers in favour – George Monbiot, Mark Lynas, Fred Pearce and Stephen Tindale – now slugging it out with those campaigning against – Jonathon Porritt, Tom Burke, Tony Juniper and Charles Secrett. Everyone is pretending to be quite grown-up, polite and cool, but actually it’s getting vicious.
Apart from a few gratuitous insults on either side, the dispute that has rumbled on for a few years has so far been largely technocratic and conducted with political and personal respect. In the latest skirmishes, the four former heads of Friends of the Earth (FoE) politely wrote to the prime minister advising him to drop nuclear power on cost and other grounds; whereupon the hacks also wrote to No 10 saying this advice undermined government climate change policy. Over the next month Porritt, Burke & co will issue four or five more intellectual blasts, and will convene a press conference, and we can expect the hacks to respond.
Until now it has been a classic “fundi” and “realo” split with the pros’ (the realos) desperation to address climate change set against the antis’ (the fundis) conviction that nuclear takes too long, is too expensive and won’t actually work.
But now, the dispute is getting personal and much closer to the political bone with the fallout potentially damaging the whole idea of “environmentalism”. First we have Lynas suggesting that nuclear protesters are not really environmentalists at all, then Monbiot doubted Burke’s commitment to the environment – despite his 40 years’ active service. Now, in an extraordinary exchange of emails between Monbiot and Theo Simon – who is one half of the renowned radical protest band Seize the Day – all opponents of nuclear power are said to have made their arguments “with levels of bullshit and junk science”.
Det er de sidste rester af videnskabelig troværdighed, der her smides overbord da man nu også har klimabevægelsens egne ord for deres videnskabelig uredelighed. De slider luven af hinanden. Imens smelter Himalayas gletchere ikke, deres naboer vokser og der er en overflod af isbjørne og pingviner. CO2 teorien holdes kun oppe af protagonisternes frygt for tiden efter dets uundgåelige kollaps.