Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup

The Week That Was: 2014-06-21 (June 21, 2014) Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: What you suggest may be all very well in practice, but it will never work in theory. Apocryphal French philosopher. [H/t Tom Quirk] Number of the Week: 72 Times THIS WEEK:

By Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

EPA Rules: On June 2, the US Environmental Protection Agency (CO2) released a long-anticipated set of rules for controlling carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from existing power plants. Already, the EPA has rules on the CO2 emissions from new power plants the effectively prohibit the construction of coal-fired plants, even the new highly efficient clean-coal ultra-critical plants.

The EPA and the Department of Energy state that these plants can be built using existing carbon capture and storage, yet the agencies cannot identify an existing plant, to together with costs to meet the legal requirement that required facilities must be commercially available.

The stated purpose of the new rules is a reduction of CO2 emissions by 30% by 2030, based on 2005 levels. From 2005 to 2012, US CO2 emissions went down from 5,999 million metric tons to 5,290 million metric tons, or about 12%. Thus another 18% reduction is necessary. The prior reduction is due to a poor economy, environmental groups bitterly fighting new-coal fired plants, and the unexpected boom in natural gas production, with accompanying reduction in prices making natural gas very competitive with coal. The shale-gas revolution occurred without support from the Administration.

The EPA rules require states to develop plans for reducing CO2 emissions, thus the impacts of the rules are different by state. In general, those states that have already adapted plans to reduce CO2 emissions benefit under the EPA rules, those that do not suffer more.

The EPA statement was accompanied by a “fact-sheet” a standard in unsubstantiated low costs and highly questionable health benefits. “But the EPA adds that the regulations will generate more than $90 billion in climate and health benefits compared to $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion in costs. Under the first year alone, the EPA states the rule will avoid up to 150,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks.” The EPA has failed to establish any solid evidence of a link between asthma and CO2. Instead, it claims benefits from reductions in soot, sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide, which are regulated under different rules.

Another too typical statement was: “EPA chief Gina McCarthy framed the rules as having the potential to dramatically improve public health, saying that for every dollar the government invests in the new climate initiative, families will see $7 in health benefits.” The government is not investing in the new climate initiative, it is requiring the public to pay for more expensive electricity. Many in Washington apparently consider their actions are actions of the general public.

Among the more unusual quotes came from climate experts who claimed that proposed rules will create jobs and benefit the economy. Many of these climate experts cannot create models that are successful in forecasting future temperatures, yet they feel qualified in forecasting the economy.

Using a standard, publically available climate model, Chip Knappenberger and Patrick Michaels estimated that the new rules will reduce future rise in temperatures by about 0.02°C. It appears that the benefits of these rules are as imaginary as the jobs created when government regulations increase electricity prices. The model uses an estimate that a doubling of CO2 will increase temperatures by 3°C, which is significantly above what many empirical studies indicate.

The rules have a 120 day comment period, then the EPA will review the comments and issue final rules scheduled for June 30, 2015. Then will come the legal challenges. There are a number legal issues among them are challenges to the new power-plant rule. If the rules for new power-plants are overturned, the EPA has no grounds for existing power-plant rules. Another major issue is inappropriate application of the Clean Air Act, particularly for requiring regional plans.

According to a database created by the European Commission and Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency in 2012, CO2 emissions by China were 9,860 million metric tons and the US were 5,190 million metric tons or 53% of China’s (note there are discrepancies among databases). Given that China has shown no interest in curtailing CO2 emissions that will be damaging to the economy and that the next largest producer, India, has brought action against Greenpeace for disrupting its energy security, it is doubtful that this Administration can persuade these countries to follow its CO2 regulations.

Then why is the EPA so engaged in actions that have no clear benefit, but can have significant costs, particularly on lower income groups? Perhaps a pattern of action can be seen in banning of DDT by William Ruckelshaus, using the unsubstantiated claim DDT may cause cancer. By the early 1950s, it was established that the most effective, low-cost way of controlling malaria in tropical countries was indoor spraying with DDT several times a year. By the 1970s, partially thanks to DDT, malaria was no longer a problem in the US. EPA banning DDT gave environmental groups an opening for trying to ban it world-wide, regardless of the cost. Tens of millions died and hundreds of millions suffered from reoccurrences from preventable malaria outbreaks. Neither the EPA nor the environmental groups that support it have shown any remorse for the consequences of this exercise of power. See links under Article # 4, Questioning the Orthodoxy, EPA Rules, Litigation Issues, http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/, and http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts1990-2012


9th International Conference on Climate Change

July 7 – 9 — Las Vegas, Nevada

Includes the Findings of the New Report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) Climate Change Reconsidered II






The nominations and voting has ended. The results will be announced at the conference of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness in July.


Challenging the Orthodoxy – The Reports: On May 29, ecologist Daniel Botkin submitted devastating comments to the US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Science, Space, and Technology cover both the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR-5) and the US National Climate Assessment. Some of the many important points he brings out are:

“My biggest concern is that both the reports present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports are “scientific-sounding” rather than based on clearly settled facts or admitting their lack. Established facts about the global environment exist less often in science than laymen usually think.” The good science is overwhelmed by these speculative conclusions.

“The reports suffer from the use term “climate change” with two meanings: natural and human-induced. These are both given as definitions in the IPCC report and are not distinguished in the text and therefore confuse a reader. (The Climate Change Assessment uses the term throughout including its title, but never defines it.) There are places in the reports where only the second meaning—human induced—makes sense, so that meaning has to be assumed. There are other places where either meaning could be applied.”

“Some of the reports’ conclusions are the opposite of those given in articles cited in defense of those conclusions.”

“The report for policy makers on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability repeats the assertion of previous IPCC reports that “large fraction of species” face “increase extinction risks” (p15). Overwhelming evidence contradicts this assertion.”

“THE REPORT GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT LIVING THINGS ARE FRAGILE AND RIGID [caps in the report], unable to deal with change. The opposite is to case. Life is persistent, adaptable, adjustable.”

“The extreme overemphasis on human-induced global warming has taken our attention away from many environmental issues that used to be front and center but have been pretty much ignored in the 21st century.”

Among his comments on what is wrong and how to fix it include:

“Rather than focus on key, specific and tractable aspects of climate-change science, the long-term approach throughout the 20th century was to try to create de nova a complete model of the climate.”

“This approach has been taken despite a lack of focus on monitoring key variables over time in statistically and scientifically valid ways, e.g. carbon sequestering by forests; polar bear population counts.”

“The attempt to create complete models of every aspect of climate has meant that many factors had to be guessed at, rather than using the best scientific methods. Too many guesses, too little checking against real, observed effects.”

“Return to the former reliance on science done by individuals and small groups with a common specific interest and focus.”

The entire testimony is worthy consideration. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.


Abrupt Climate Change: On Climate Etc., Judith Curry has a post discussing the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles of abrupt climate change. These cycles provide the foundation for the book by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.” Needless to say these important cycles are largely ignored by the IPCC and the US National Assessment. Until we can address such natural cycles, we cannot understand the human influence on climate. See link under Seeking a Common Ground.


Mr. Mann and the Climate Denial Machine: Mr. Mann is back claiming that his hockey-stick is correct, dangerous human-caused (anthropogenic) global warming (AGW) is occurring, etc. The reports of no warming are a cover-up by the privately funded Climate Denial Machine (CDM). In Fiscal Year 2013, the US government spent $22.5 Billion on global warming/climate change. Yet, it is still unable to produce a climate model that makes reliable forecasts or a scientifically viable report. In private enterprise, such activity would leads to bankruptcy. If global warming research is an indication, government funding of such activity leads to bankruptcy of ideas. See links under Oh Mann!


Number of the Week: 72 times. According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2014, at the end of 1993 the proved reserves of natural gas in the US stood at 4.6 Trillion cubic meters. At the end of 2013 the proved reserves of natural gas in the US stood at 330 Trillion cubic meters, 72 times the amount calculated in 1993. During the same period, world proved reserves increased 56 times. So much for the 1970s claim that the world would run out of oil and the US would run out of natural gas by the end of the 20th century. Price, but mostly changing technology made the difference. The change in “proven reserves’ should be a warming to the followers of the Club of Rome, and others, who use state-of-the-art computer models to make long-term forecasts, without fully understanding the assumptions. See page 20: http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/Energy-economics/statistical-review-2014/BP-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2014-full-report.pdf



For the numbered articles below, please see this week’s TWTW at: www.sepp.org. The articles are at the end of the pdf.

1. The National Climate Assessment (NCA) Doubles Down on Doom

By S. Fred Singer, American Thinker, Jun 3, 2014


2. Are We Underestimating America’s Fracking Boom?

Check Out Sasol’s Energy Complex in Lake Charles, La.

By Dennis Berman, WSJ, May 27, 2014


3. Canadian Government Approves Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline

Project to Transport Oil-Sands Output From Alberta to Pacific Coast

By Paul Viera and Chester Dawson, WSJ, Jun 17, 2014


4. Utilities Size Up Emission Cap for Power Plants

Coal Producers Find Relief in Certain Elements of the EPA’s Plan

By Amy Harder and Cassandra Sweet, WSJ, Jun 2, 2014




Science: Is the Sun Rising?

Chinese study ‘implies that the “modern maximum” of solar activity agrees well with the recent global warming’

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jun 5, 2014


Link to article: Periodicities of solar activity and the surface temperature variation of the Earth and their correlations (abstract in English).

By Zhao and Feng, Chinese Science Bulletin, Vol 59, Issue 14


Commentary: Is the Sun Rising?

Is It the Sun Stupid?

By David Whitehouse, GWPF, Jun 11, 2014


Suppressing Scientific Inquiry

Caleb S. Rossiter Fallout: Academics Worldwide Condemn “Dark Age” Intellect Of Institute For Policy Studies

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Jun 15, 2014


Exclusive: Prof Fired for Calling Global Warming ‘Unproved Science’ Stands Firm

By Dominic Lynch, The College Fix, Jun 18, 2014 [H/t Bishop Hill]


Global Warming Witch Hunt Continues With Caleb Rossiter

Editorial, IBD, Jun 16, 2014


AGU: Enforcing the consensus

By Michael Asten, Climate Etc. Jun 3, 2014


Challenging the Orthodoxy

In House testimony, Botkin dismantles the IPCC 2014 report

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, May 31, 2014


Link to testimony: written Testimony to the House Subcommittee on Science, Space, and Technology, May 29, 2014

By Daniel Botkin,


Geologist: “IPCC Confuses Prognoses With Facts” 15-Year Climate Development “No Longer Agrees With IPCC Models”

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Jun 19, 2014


Giant Of Geology/Glaciology Christian Schlüchter Refutes CO2…Feature Interview Throws Climate Science Into Disarray

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Jun 9, 2014


Scientist Reveals Inconvenient Truth to Alarmists

By Larry Bell, Newsmax, Jun 17, 2014


Defending the Orthodoxy

New EPA Rules Make Global Warming Real For Everyone

By Eugene Robinson, IBD, Jun 4, 2014


Nearing a Climate Legacy

Editorial, NYT, Jun 2, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Building unneeded, unreliable, and redundant means of electricity generation is the path to prosperity?]

Questioning the Orthodoxy

Now That Natural Gas Is Working, Methane Is Being Called More Damaging Than CO2

By Hank Campbell, Science 2.0, Jun 5, 2014


[SEPP Comment: CH4 absorbs more IR radiation than CO2 on a per molecule basis, but not in the real world]

Ontario, Canada: A Mirror of America’s Economic Future Mortgaged To Falsified Climate Science

By Tim Ball, WUWT, Jun 3, 2014


On the AR4′s projected 0.2C/decade temperature increase

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc., Jun 15, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Comparing past IPCC reports and the value of projections contained in them.]

Brookings: Public Concern over Climate Still Bottom of the List

By Roy Spencer, His Blog, Jun 11, 2014


Generally speaking, the public has lost faith in scientists whose profession requires them to sound the alarm over climate disruption. Most Americans understand that forecasts of gloom and doom as predicted by “scientific experts” are not as reliable as predictions of, say, this afternoon’s weather…. In fact they have a history of almost zero reliability.

Obama’s New Powerplant CO2 Rules: Guaranteed to Succeed (Retroactively)

By Roy Spencer, His Blog, Jun 2, 2014


Ten years down the road, “global warming” will turn out to be (surprise!) much weaker than predicted. Since we know the climate models that predicted much greater warming can’t be wrong, it must be those new EPA regulations back in 2014 that solved the problem!

Opinion: Global Warming Claims Are Primarily And Deliberately A Product Of Bureaucratic Political Activity

By Tim Ball, WUWT, Jun 8, 2014


Scientists say IPCC puts politics before science, needs reform

By Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, May 29, 2014


Richard Tol: Examining The IPCC Process For The Fifth Assessment Report

By Richard Tol, Committee on Science, Space and Technology, US House of Representatives, May 29, 2014


Link to full statement: Testimony by Dr Richard S.J. Tol


The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’

What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?

By Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer, WSU, May 26, 2014


BUSTED: Tol takes on Cook’s ’97% consensus’ claim with a re-analysis, showing the claim is ‘unfounded’

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jun 4, 2014


How Environmental Regulations Hurt the Economy in One Graph

By Sierra Rayne, American Thinker, Jun 6, 2014


How climate change policies are hurting the world’s poor

By Guy Bentley, City A.M., Jun 6, 2014


Link to report: Climate Policy and the Poor

By Anthony Kelly, GWPF, 2014


John Holdren’s ‘personal’ Bi-Polar Vortex video

By Sam Kazman, WUWT, Jun 11, 2014


Short-Circuiting Peer Review in Climate Science

By Peter Wood and Rachelle DeJong, National Association of Scholars, Jun 6, 2014 [H/t WUWT]


The artist as climate model expert

By Charles Battig, WUWT, Jun 3, 2014


EPA Rules

EPA unveils landmark climate rule

By Laura Barron-Lopez, The Hill, Jun 2, 2014


Links to EPA “fact-sheets”;


EPA’s New Proposed Regulations to Restrict Emissions from Existing Fossil Fuel-Based Electric Generation

By Alan Carlin, Carlin Economics and Science, Jun 2, 2014


0.02°C Temperature Rise Averted: The Vital Number Missing from the EPA’s “By the Numbers” Fact Sheet

Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels, CATO, Jun 11, 2014


How Can EPA’s ‘Clean Power Plan’ Deliver $Billions in Climate Benefits If It Has No Detectable Impact on Global Temperatures, Sea-Level Rise, or Other Climate Indicators?

By Marlo Lewis, Global Warming.org, Jun 12, 2014


The Camel’s Nose

By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Jun 20, 2014


Obama’s Plan To Make the Poor Even Poorer

By Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Real Clear Markets, May 27, 2014


Op-Ed Obama and the EPA: It’s about rewarding friends and punishing enemies

By Benjamin Zycher, L.A. Times, Jun 9, 2014


EPA’s carbon planning emulates communism

By Luboš Motl, The Reference Frame, Jun 2, 2014


New Congress Must Rein In Runaway EPA

By Larry Bell, Newsmax, Jun 2, 2014


An Inside Look at Greenhouse Gas Regulation

By Catrina Rorke, Sam Batkins, American Action Forum, Jun 4, 2014


Beware of False Prophets

By Charles Battig, American Thinker, Jun 9, 2014


Obama Pushes Carbon Cap-and-Trade Through EPA

By Larry Bell, Newsmax, Jun 9, 2014


Carbon Rules Proposed for Existing Power Plants

By Sonal Patel, Power News, Jun 2, 2014


Curbing Carbon Vs. Rationalizing Recklessness

By Steve Chapman, Townhall, Jun 5, 2014


Obama Plan Will Have Miniscule Global Impact…Der Spiegel: CO2 Will Keep Rising 1.1% Annually For Next 20 Years!

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Jun 2, 2014


Editorial: Obama’s carbon rules will choke economy

Energy prices will rise as large, coal-fired power plants are taken off line without a credible plan to replace them

Editorial, Detroit News, Jun 3, 2014


EPA’s next wave of job-killing CO2 regulations

By David Rothbard and Craig Rucker, WUWT, Jun 5, 2014


Do Climate Scientists Approve? Who Cares?

By Donna Laframboise, NFC, Jun 4, 2014


EPA plans cuts, but coal still in mix

By Ken Ward Jr., Gazette-Mail, (West Virginia) Jun 2, 2014


EPA chief: Climate rule is about leadership

By Laura Barron-Lopez, The Hill, Jun 16, 2014


“We are dealing with the most difficult, contentious, public health challenge of our time,” McCarthy added.

EPA’s Carbon Pollution Guidelines Incite Heated Reaction

By Aaron Larson, Power News, Jun 2, 2014


Global Warming Threat? Now It’s Asthma

White House playing heartstrings to impose onerous regulation of carbon dioxide

By Jerome Corsi, WND, Jun 10, 2014


New White House CO2 Regs Will Kill Jobs, Shrink Growth

Editorial, IBD, Jun 2, 2014


Obama climate rule promises early health benefits

By Michael Hawthorne, Chicago Tribune, Jun 3, 2014 [H/t Cork Hayden]


Obama Talks Climate Change While Iraq Implodes

By Alan Caruba, Warning Signs, Jun 17, 2014


Problems in the Orthodoxy

U.N. climate talks fracture over future of carbon markets

By Ben Garside, Reuters, Jun 15, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


Seeking a Common Ground

What is skepticism, anyway?

By Judith Curry, Jun 5, 2014


Can we trust climate models?

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Jun 20, 2014


[SEPP Comment: In pointing out deficiencies in the presentation, Curry asks valuable questions such as how fit are the models for their purpose, and are there alternative climate model structural forms?]

‘Global warming’ versus ‘climate change’

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Jun 1, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Curry’s points out how political language twists scientific meaning.]

What is the measure of scientific ‘success’?

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Jun 16, 2014


How ‘extreme’ can it get?

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Jun 10, 2014


Public perception of climate change

By Martin Livermore, Scientific Alliance, Jun 20, 2014


U.S. House Hearing on the IPCC Process

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. May 29, 2014


The President says there is no debate. Actually the debate has only just begun. When assessing climate change, we need to make sure that findings are driven by science, not an alarmist, partisan agenda. – Committee Chairman Lamar Smith

Senate Hearing – Climate Change: The Need to Act Now

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Jun 18, 2014


Steve Burnett’s “Hard vs. the Soft Sciences” Essay; An Ongoing Debate Central To Climate. –

By Tim Ball, A Different Perspective, May 27, 2014


Review of Recent Scientific Articles by NIPCC

For a full list of articles see www.NIPCCreport.org

The Medieval Warm Period on the Northeastern Tibetan Plateau

Reference: Datsenko, N.M., Ivashchenko, N.N., Qin, C., Liu, J., Sonechkin, D.M. and Yang, B. 2014. A comparison between medieval and current climate warming using the Przewalskii’s juniper tree-ring data. Russian Meteorology and Hydrology 39: 17-21.


In light of their findings, the Chinese/Russian research team states in their paper’s concluding sentence that in regard to what they discovered, “it follows that the statement of the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change about the unprecedented nature of the current warming is unjustified.”

Twenty-five Climate Models Can’t All Be Wrong … Or Can They? (

Reference: Maloney, E.D., Camargo, S.J., Chang, E., Colle, B., Fu, R., Geil, K.L., Hu, Q., Jiang, X., Johnson, N., Karnauskas, K.B., Kinter, J., Kirtman, B., Kumar, S., Langenbrunner, B., Lombardo, K., Long, L.N., Mariotti, A., Meyerson, J.E., Mo, K.C., Neelin, J.D., Pan, Z., Seager, R., Serra, Y., Seth, A., Sheffield, J., Stroeve, J., Thibeault, J., Xie, S.-P., Wang, C., Wyman, B. and Zhao, M. 2014. North American climate in CMIP5 experiments: Part III: Assessment of Twenty-First-Century Projections. Journal of Climate 27: 2230-2270.


Perhaps most important of all, however, is the 31 researchers’ conclusion that “even areas of substantial agreement among models may not imply more confidence that projections are correct, as common errors or deficiencies in model parameterizations may provide false confidence in the robustness of future projections.”

[SEPP Comment: Seven examples of global models making inconsistent regional projections.]

Simulations of ENSO by CMIP5 Climate Models

Reference: Michael, J.-P., Misra, V. and Chassignet, E.P. 2013. The El Niño and Southern Oscillation in the historical centennial integrations of the new generation of climate models. Regional Environmental Change 13: S121-S130.


[SEPP Comment: Unable to replicate the El Niño and the Southern Oscillation (ENSO)]

Evolution or Phenotypic Plasticity: How to Survive Climate Change

Reference: Merila, J. and Hendry, A.P. 2014. Climate change, adaptation, and phenotypic plasticity: the problem and the evidence. Evolutionary Applications 7: 1-14.


Models v. Observations

Asymmetric responses of Arctic and Antarctic

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Jun 9, 2014


How forecasting has changed

By Joe D’Aleo, ICECAP Jun 21, 2014


The temperature forecasting track record of the IPCC

By Euan Mearns, WUWT, Jun 12, 2014


Models Issues

Junk Science Week: The global warming hiatus? Climate models all wrongly predicted warming, so let’s call it a discrepancy

By Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, Jun 16, 2014


There are important policy implications of this situation [of the significant and increasing divergence between model projections and observations.] Benefits and costs of climate policy are analyzed using so-called Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs), which build simplified representations of climate processes into dynamic economic models. The problem is that IAMs are calibrated to mimic climate models, not reality. To the extent climate models overstate the effects of CO2, so do IAMs, thereby yielding exaggerated estimates of the social cost of carbon emissions and overly stringent policy prescriptions.

Measurement Issues

Standard Deviation, The Overlooked But Essential Climate Statistic

By Tim Ball, WUWT, Jun 15, 2014


USHCN Data Tampering – Much Worse Than It Seems

By Steven Goddard, Real Science, Jun 3, 2014 [H/t John Droz]


Monitoring climate change from space

By Staff Writers, Paris (ESA) ,Jun 16, 2014


Changing Weather

Real scientist politely challenges Climate Central bogus ‘science’ report on the World Cup

By Joseph D’Aleo, ICECAP, Jun 17, 2014


British boffin tells Obama’s science advisor: You’re wrong on climate change

Cold US winters to be more frequent? NO, SILLY

By Lewis Page, The Register, Jun 16, 2014 [H/t GWPF]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/16/brit_boffin_to_obama_science_advisor_you_are_wrong_on_climate_change/Link to paper: Arctic amplification decreases temperature variance in northern mid- to high-latitudes\

By James Screen, Nature Climate Change, Jun 15, 2014


The US Hurricane Drought in USA Today

By Roger Pielke Jr, His Blog, Jun 9, 2014


Changing Climate

Explaining(?) abrupt climate change

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Jun 4, 2014


Identifying opposite patterns of climate change between the middle latitude areas

By Staff Writers, EurekAlter, Jun 19, 2014 [H/t WUWT]


‘Climate Disruption’ of the past seen in mummy DNA

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jun 18, 2014


Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice

Antarctic Sea Ice Continues To Blow Away Records

By Paul Homewood, Not A Lot Of People Know That, Jun 4, 2014


Antarctic Temperature Trends

By Paul Homewood, Not A Lot Of People Know That, May 24, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


[SEPP Comment: No trend.]

Researchers find major West Antarctic glacier melting from geothermal sources

By Staff Writers, phys.org, Jun 9, 2014 [H/t Clyde Spencer]


Link to paper: “Evidence for elevated and spatially variable geothermal flux beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet,”

By Dustin M. Schroeder, et. al., PNAS, Jun 9, 2014


Abram et al 2014 and the Southern Annular Mode

By Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit, Jun 15, 2014


A reconstruction using the methods of Abram et al 2014, especially accumulating the previous screening of Neukom et al 2011, is completely worthless for estimating prior Southern Annular Mode. This is different from being “WRONG!”, the adjective that is too quickly invoked in some skeptic commentary.

Study: Greenland’s July 2012 ‘insta-melt’ was triggered by a combination of warm weather and carbon soot

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jun 5, 2014


Agriculture Issues & Fear of Famine

Carbon dioxide won’t cause famines

By Dennis Avery, WUWT, Jun 2, 2014


Link to article: Lessons From the Little Ice Age

By Goeffrey Parker, NYT, Mar 22, 2014


Loblolly Pines Defy the Progressive Nitrogen Limitation Hypothesis

By Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Jun 18, 2014 [H/t SPPI]


Un-Science or Non-Science?

Junk Science Week: IPCC commissioned models to see if global warming would reach dangerous levels this century. Consensus is ‘no’

Even if you pile crazy assumption upon crazy assumption, you cannot even manage to make climate change cause minor damage

By Matt Ridley, Financial Post, Jun 19, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Contrary to the author’s statement, there is not a scientific consensus that a more than 2 deg C warming will be dangerous. It is fabricated by politicians.]

Lowering Standards

Short-Circuiting Peer Review in Climate Science

By Peter Wood and Rachelle DeJong, NAS, Jun 6, 2014 (H/t WUWT)


Link to report: Why Should Congress Continue to Fund the U.S. Global Change Research Program (“USGCRP”) and Federal Agency Climate Science-related Research Producing HISAs Not Peer Reviewed in Conformance With U.S. Law (The Information Quality Act)?

By Staff Writers, ITSSD, Jun 3, 2014


Communicating Better to the Public – Exaggerate, or be Vague?

Ignoring Statistical Significance to Promote Climate Alarmism

By Sierra Rayne, American Thinker, Jun 7, 2014


IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group says its global population estimate was “a qualified guess”

By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, May 30, 2014


Manufacturing uncertainty: how US newspapers have dialled [sec] up the language of doubt on climate change

By Ros Donald, The Carbon Brief, Jun 16, 2014


Link to paper: How Grammatical Choice Shapes Media Representations of Climate (Un)certainty

By Bailey, Gianola & Boykoff, Environmental Communication, May 8, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Ignores the central issue: human influence on global warming!]

Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.

Obama: Carbon emissions rule will spur economic growth

By Zack Colman, Washington Examiner, Jun 2, 2014


$260 / ton for carbon – the price of salvation

By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Jun 16, 2014


Climate Change Induced Corn-mageddon?

By Sierra Rayne, American Thinker, Jun 14, 2014


Coal consumption highest since 1970

By Brooks Hays, Washington (UPI), Jun 16, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Highest ratio since 1970. Highest total consumption ever! Actual consumption is up 2.2 times from 1980 to 2011 http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?product=coal&graph=consumption. ]

Communicating Better to the Public – Go Personal.

The Bengtsson Affair and the Global Warming Policy Foundation

By David Henderson, GWPF, May 30, 2014


Adjusted into dementia

By John Brignell, Number Watch, May 29, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Do cynics (and global warming skeptics) suffer from dementia?]

Obama Compares Skepticism Towards Climate Change To Believing Moon Made Of Cheese

By Chuck Ross, Daily Caller, Jun 14, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Obama’s commencement speech and the illusion of science literacy

By Luboš Motl, The Reference Frame, Jun 17, 2014


The Rage of the Climate Central Planners

By Jeffrey Tucker, Beautiful Anarchy, Jun 19, 2014 [H/t Jo Nova]


[SEPP Comment: Challenging Paul Krugman’s statement: “Read or watch any extended debate over climate policy and you’ll be struck by the venom, the sheer rage, of the denialists.”]

Watchdog rebuffed on EPA data turns to NSA

Files lawsuit over secondary email

By Stephan Dinan and Jim McElhatton, Washington Times, Jun 9, 2014


Expanding the Orthodoxy

World Bank on Understanding Climate Uncertainty

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Jun 6, 2014


Link to report: Agreeing on robust decisions : new processes for decision making under deep uncertainty

By Khalra et al., World Bank, Jun 1, 2014


Pentagon wrestles with bogus climate warnings as funds shifted to green agenda

By Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times, Jun 1, 2014


Retired officers poised to profit after Pentagon’s alarmist climate change report

Urgent Obama call can funnel funds to projects

By Rowan Scarborough, The Washington Times, May 26, 2014


Questioning European Green

Energy death wish: Europe opts for helplessness

By Arthur Herman, New York Post, May 26, 2014


Green Jobs

Germany’s Green Jobs Miracle Collapses

By Daniel Wetzel, Die Welt, Trans. Philip Mueller, GWPF, May 28, 2014


Non-Green Jobs

Fracking raises worker salaries and cuts costs for states: Examiner Editorial

By Editors, Washington Examiner, Jun 16, 2014


Link to study: Study: The Unconventional Energy Revolution: Estimated Energy Savings for Public School Districts and State and Local Governments

By Richard Fullenbaum, et al. HIS, for API, Jun 5, 2014


Oil industry launches new recruiting campaign

By Timothy Cama, The Hill, Jun 12, 2014


Funding Issues

G-7 Nations Vow to Produce Climate Pledges by March

By Dean Scott, Bloomberg, Jun 6, 2014


Free money! All you have to do is to be a ‘climate victim’

Billionaire Tom Steyer creates fund for Climate Victims

By Eric Warrall, WUWT, Jun 7, 2014


Link to article: California Billionaire Promises To Help Victims Of Global Warming

By Staff Writer, AP, Jun 6, 2014


Litigation Issues

Five Legal Obstacles to the EPA’s Power Plant Rules

By Ben Adler, Frontiers of Freedom, Jun 18, 2014


Weakest link in EPA’s climate rule?

By Laura Barron-Lopez, The Hill, Jun 8, 2014


EPA should withdraw climate rules or face lawsuit, says W.Va. AG

By Timothy Cama, The Hill, Jun 9, 2014


Cap-and-Trade and Carbon Taxes

Energy-Economy Decoupling and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

By Sierra Rayne, American Thinker, Jun 17, 2014


New Study: Carbon Tax “creates jobs, grows the economy, saves lives, and makes Americans richer”

By Lowkell, Blue Virginia, Jun 9, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Link to study: The Economic, Climate, Fixcal, Power, and Demographic Impact of a National Fee-and-Dividend Carbon Tax.

By Scott Nystrom, REMI and Patrick Luckow, Synapse, Jun 9, 2014


Watchdog rebuffed on EPA data turns to NSA

Files lawsuit over secondary email

By Stephan Dinan and Jim McElhatton, Washington Times, Jun 9, 2014


Subsidies and Mandates Forever

Wind’s PTC: The Opposition Mounts (117 groups and counting)

By Robert Bradley Jr., Master Resource, Jun 11, 2014


Spain Caps Earnings From Renewables in Subsidy Overhaul

By Marc Roca, Bloomberg, Jun 6, 2014


Italy’s proposed retroactive FiT cuts ‘illegitimate’

By John Parnell, PVTech, Jun 19, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


Wind farm expansion will see more factories paid to switch off

National Grid says that paying businesses to cut their energy usage will become increasingly common to help deal with times when power supplies are short because the wind isn’t blowing

By Emily Gosden, The Telegraph, Jun 10, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


EPA and other Regulators on the March

Fighting Executive Fiat on Climate

By Paul Driessen, Master Resource, Jun 17, 2014


Energy Issues – Non-US

Treading Water

By Roger Pielke Jr, His Blog, Jun 16, 2014


[SEPP Comment: The proportion of global energy consumption coming from carbon-free sources remains at about 13% for two decades. According to Pielke, stabilizing atmospheric CO2 requires 90% of energy from carbon-free sources.]

China – the coal monster

By Euan Mearns, Energy Matters, Jun 10, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


Chinese Government Settles Pielke vs. Krugman

By Roger Pielke Jr. His Blog, Jun 13, 2014


Clueless Krugman

By Roger Pielke Jr. His Blog, Jun 5, 2014


[SEPP Comment: See post immediately above.]

EU Energy Markets In Crisis

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot Of People Know That, Jun 5, 2014


Energy market ‘does not value low carbon’

By Staff Writers, WNN, Jun 11, 2014


France unveils ambitious energy bill for greener nation

By Staff Writers, Paris (AFP), June 18, 2014


Renewable Energy Poses [Energy] Security Risk, New Paper Warns

Press Release, GWPF, Jun 2, 2014


Link to paper: UK Energy Security: Myth and Reality

By Philipp Mueller, GWPF, 2014


Rising German Coal Use Imperils European Emissions Deal

By Mathew Carr, Bloomberg, Jun 20, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


Interconnecting confusion

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill


Link to report: Getting Interconnected How can interconnectors compete to help lower bills and cut carbon?

By Simon Moore, Policy Exchange, 2014


[SEPP Comment: The perfect scheme – if government-enforced subsidies or guarantees are high enough.]

Energy Issues — US

Energy in the Executive

By Jim Manzi, National Review, Jun 4, 2014


Fracking: A Safe and Efficient Path to Energy Independence

By Staff Writers, ACHS, Jun 13, 2014


Link to report: Fracking and Health: Facts vs. fiction

By William Kucewiez, ACSH, 2014


Environmental groups have lost the war against fracking

By Steve Goreman, Communities Digital News, Jun 11, 2014


Fracking Is Why Greenhouse Gases Have Plunged

Editorial, IBD, Jun 10, 2014


EPA regulations create corporate winners and losers

By Timothy Carney, Washington Examiner, May 31, 2014


Washington’s Control of Energy

What Obama could learn from Germany’s failed experiment with green energy

By Sen. Dan Coats, Fox News, Jun 5, 2014


War On People

By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Jun 17, 2014


Coal-fired power plants will have to close as the result of the EPA’s proposal to cut CO2 emissions 30% by 2030. And, as a result of EPA regulations. It will be impossible to build modern, ultra-supercritical, clean-coal, coal-fired power plants.

Federal Delays On Drilling Permits Put Boom Towns On Hold

By Robert Bradley, Jr. IBD, Jun 9, 2014


Interior takes step toward oil, gas leases

By Laura Barron-Lopez, The Hill, Jun 13, 2014


Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?

Unconventional oil revolution to spread beyond North America by end of decade

IEA 5-year oil market outlook also sees global demand growth losing momentum

By Staff Writers, IEA, Jun 17, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


Link to Summary of Medium-Term Oil Market Report, 2014

By Staff Writes, EIA, 2014


Return of King Coal?

Coal’s Share of World Energy Demand at Highest Since 1970

By Nidaa Bakhsh, Bloomberg, Jun 16, 2014 [H/t John Droz]


Link to report: BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2014

By Staff Writers, BP


[SEPP Comment: Highest ratio since 1970. Highest total consumption ever! Up 2.2 times from 1980 to 2011 http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?product=coal&graph=consumption. ]

New Indian Government to Speed Up Coal Development

By Staff Writer, GWPF, Jun 13, 2014


Clean(?) Coal

By Rud Istvan, Climate Etc. Jun 11, 2014


[SEPP Comment: The emissions from coal plants can be cleaned by first cleaning the coal then cleaning the emissions with scrubbers.]

German state allows Vattenfall to expand brown coal mining

By Madeline Chambers, Reuters, Jun 3, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


Oil Spills, Gas Leaks & Consequences

New report blames blowout preventer for Gulf oil spill disaster

By Timothy Cama, The Hill, Jun 5, 2014


Link to report: CSB Board Approves Final Report Finding Deepwater Horizon Blowout Preventer Failed Due to Unrecognized Pipe Buckling Phenomenon During Emergency Well-Control Efforts on April 20, 2010, Leading to Environmental Disaster in Gulf of Mexico

By Staff Writers, U.S. Chemical Safety Board, Jun 5, 2014


Nuclear Energy and Fears

Alternative Energy No Substitute For Clean Nuclear

By Mark Perry, IBD, Jun 9, 2014


Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind

Wind and solar are worst

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Jun 19, 2014


Link to paper: The Net Benefits of Low and No-Carbon Electricity Technologies

By Charles Frank, Brookings, May 2014


Blinded By The Sun: How Much Do Solar Panels Really Cost?

By William Pentland, Forbes, May 26, 2014


“Green” Computing Can’t Power the Cloud

By Robert Bryce, Manhattan Institute, May 22, 2014


Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy — Other

A world turning against biofuels

By Dennis Avery, Center for Global Food Issues, May 31, 2014


EU agrees plan to cap use of food-based biofuels

By Staff Writers, Luxembourg (AFP), June 13, 2014


Europe faces green-power curbs after expansion

By Rachel Morison, Bloomberg, Jun 7, 2014


There Is One Problem With Harnessing Britain’s Tides

Editorial, The Economist, Jun 14, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


[SEPP Comment: High costs.]

Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Vehicles

London’s Dirty Secret: Pollution Worse Than Beijing’s

By Alex Morales, Bloomberg, May 27, 2014


[SEPP Comment: For nitrogen dioxide.]

Energy, and Climate

Which is responsible for more U.S. deaths — Excessive Heat or Excessive Cold?

By Indur Goklany, WUWT, Jun 2, 2014


Climate Change, Heat Waves, and Adaptation

By Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels, CATO, Jun 20, 2014


The Environment of Poverty

By Bjørn Lomborg, Project Syndicate, Jun 17, 2014


Why does the [Western] world consciously choose to help so ineffectively? Could it be that environmental aid is not primarily about helping the world, but about making us feel better about ourselves?

UHI and heat related mortality

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jun 2, 2014


Oh Mann!

Interests, Ideology And the Climate Denial Machine

By Michael Mann, Huff Post, Jun 9, 2014 [H/t Bishop Hill]


A Brief Retrospective on the Hockey Stick

By Ross McKitrick, Univ. of Guelph, May 23, 2014


6 Things Michael Mann Wants You to Know About the Science of Climate Change

By Joshua Holland, EcoWatch, Jun 13, 2014 [H/t Myron Ebell]


Michael Mann’s six new lies

By Luboš Motl, The Reference Frame, Jun 13, 2014


[SEPP Comment: See link immediately above.]

Freedom From Information Act (FFIA)

By Charles Battig, WUWT, May 28, 2014


Environmental Industry

Which Study Has The Right Conclusion On Obama Climate Rule?

Editorial, IBD, May 28, 2014


Greenpeace is anti-farmer; Govt ignored SM contract

By Ray S. Eñano, Manila Standard, Jun 19, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


IB report to PMO: Greenpeace is a threat to national economic security

By Priyadarshi Siddhanta and Amitav Ranjan, The Indian Express, Jun 11, 2014


Greenpeace funds hit Home barrier

By Varghese K. George, The Hindu, Jun 19, 2014 [H/t WUWT]


Other Scientific News

NIH Presses Journals to Focus on Reproducibility of Studies

By Paul Basken, Chronicle of Higher Education, Jun 6, 2014 [H/t Stan Young]


Are Medical Articles True on Health, Disease?

Sadly, Not as Often as You Might Think

By S. Stanley Young, Henry Miller, GEN, May 1, 2014


Margaret Thatcher was wrong about one thing: science doesn’t need Nobel prizes to thrive

Britain led the world through the Industrial Revolution with minimal state funding for scientific enterprise

By Terence Kealey, The Telegraph, Jun 18, 2014


Other News that May Be of Interest

The Grim Prospect Of Life Without Antibiotics

By David Longtin and Henry I. Miller, Forbes, Jun 4, 2014


The Unsustainability of Organic Farming

By Henry Miller and Richard Cornett, Project Syndicate, Jun 13, 2014


When is GM not GM?

By Martian Livermore, Scientific Alliance, May 30, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Exploring new techniques in changing DNA of food and obstacles these face.]



Oceans worth up to $222 bln annually in CO2 capture

By Staff Writers, AAFP, Jun 4, 2014


New IPCC Head Kim Jong-un to Punish Bad Climate Forecasts

By Roy Spencer, His Blog, Jun 12, 2014


[SEPP Comment: A bit of humor.]


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 22, 2014 9:12 pm

21 June: UK Telegraph: Christopher Booker: The scandal of fiddled global warming data
The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record
When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data…
But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data…

June 22, 2014 11:01 pm

“What you suggest may be all very well in practice, but it will never work in theory.”
“In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.” Yogi Berra

June 22, 2014 11:58 pm

My local newspaper in Hong Kong, The South China Morning Post (SCMP), and its Sunday edition ‘Sunday Morning Post’, are dedicated to the gospel according to The IPCC and frequently publish articles and commentaries warning us of the dire consequences of AGW, A very recent article had a local academic postulating the eventual need that the Central Business District in Hong Kong might have to be relocated hundreds of feet up the adjacent hillsides to what is now the Middle Levels residential area to avoid rising sea levels – I saw the nonsensical side of it but it wasn’t presented in that light. We recently experienced a severe thunderstorm, back in March in fact, which generated quite large hailstones that damaged the façade of a local shopping center – a senior scientist from our local weather bureau, The HK Observatory, and a senior representative from Oxfam were quick to write articles using this event as an example of the extreme weather we are likely to face more frequently due to AGW and we must “decarbonize” as quickly as possible. Myself and another gentleman appear to be the only dissenting voices in HK and we have both had letters to the editor published in recent months questioning these assertions with facts that we gleaned from this blog and other sources. I recently had a letter published commenting on an editorial which blatantly stated that CO2 emissions are the main cause of increasing global temperatures and they edited my line ‘your editorial is a nonsensical, uncompromising endorsement of the myth that CO2 is a pollutant and THE main pollutant at that’, to read ‘your editorial is a nonsensical, uncompromising endorsement of the widely held belief….’ I suppose ‘myth’ is regarded as a nasty four-letter word. In response to my objections the editor merely stated that it was normal to edit letters submitted for publication.

June 23, 2014 12:25 am

The Galaxy-sunspots-climate connection finally revealed!
The huge electric galactic center-magnetar sends electricity to all the Milky-way [Eatough R. P. et al]. In our solar system, mostly Jupiter and secondly the other planets periodically divert a part of this electricity (that stimulates them) from its course to the Sun, causing him a solar minimum and to the Earth more atmospheric and magma stimulation: more thunderbolts [Gurevich A.] (even from CLEAR sky, without clouds), storms, quakes [Jain R.] and volcanic eruptions-clouding-glacials [Ebisuzaki et al], all AVERTABLE with proper MESHES [global-providence.info] over active craters and the equator, where from most electricity hits our planet.
The reason why the sunspot cycle is averagely 11 years is because the charge-discharge of Jupiter lasts as long as it takes him to evolve around the Sun and it depends on the other planets’ positions [Wilson I. R. G.]. http://www.global-providence.info

johann wundersamer
June 23, 2014 2:03 am

The change in
“proven reserves’ should be a
warming to the followers of the
Club of Rome
The change in
“proven reserves’ should be a
warNing to the followers of the
Club of Rome
brg Hans

June 23, 2014 4:45 am

RE item 3. above:
Canadian Government Approves Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline
Project to Transport Oil-Sands Output From Alberta to Pacific Coast
By Paul Viera and Chester Dawson, WSJ, Jun 17, 2014
A good decision, although for oil tankers I still prefer the port of Prince Rupert to Kitimat. Look at the two locations and routes-to-the-sea on Google Map and I think you will agree.
Canada will be able to export our crude oil via the Atlantic and the Pacific and we will receive world price.
Meanwhile, Iraq is coming unglued and Iran is its best friend – and both countries have Shia majorities.
Keystone XL pipeline, anyone? Barack? Anyone?
George Carlin explained much of the nonsense we see today, when he said:
“You know how stupid the average person is, right?
Well half of them are dumber than that.”
Best regards to all, Allan

June 23, 2014 8:26 am
June 23, 2014 11:54 am

Here’s some energy news:
Net energy from fusion within a couple years? These guys have broken temperature records, now they are working to achieve the plasma densities they need to increase yields. If it works, it will be a game changer.

June 23, 2014 1:52 pm

If focus fusion works out it’ll make every other energy source obsolete. It’d be ten times cheaper than anything we have now, and the fuel would be inexhaustible. Then the statists will have to find some other excuse.
The team’s published a couple papers in major peer-reviewed journals. Given funding, another 12-18 months of experiments should tell whether the idea works. If so, it’d be another four years or so to get it in production.

June 23, 2014 7:02 pm

There has been quite a bit of quake activity in the last 6 hours. The big ones were a 7.9 in the western Aleutians and a 6.9 in New Zealand. There have been many aftershocks at both locations since then, 42 total global quakes in 6 hours. That is very active. It is interesting to note the Aleutian quake has dampened quake activity in the upper Pacific. If you drew a line from Northern Indonesia to Northern California, there are no quakes in that upper arc of the Pacific over the last 24 hours, except for those at Rat Island and several nearby Aleutian Islands..That is an unusual feature.

June 23, 2014 10:36 pm

At June 23, 2014 at 1:52 pm you assert

If focus fusion works out it’ll make every other energy source obsolete. It’d be ten times cheaper than anything we have now, and the fuel would be inexhaustible. Then the statists will have to find some other excuse.
The team’s published a couple papers in major peer-reviewed journals. Given funding, another 12-18 months of experiments should tell whether the idea works. If so, it’d be another four years or so to get it in production.

“Four years or so to get it in production”!?
That is absolutely not possible. Indeed, a demonstration plant could not be built and operated to fulfill its purpose in only four years. And only after that could there be a start to developing plans, legal considerations and funding for construction of a production plant all of which would be hindered by technological novelty.
Please explain why anybody should give credence to any part of your post when it says something which is so obviously wrong.

June 24, 2014 5:59 am

Richard, since you are so familiar with the project that you can make better time estimates than the researchers themselves, it should have been obvious to you that he misspoke. By ‘production’ he meant ‘produce a working prototype’. They estimate it will take 4 years to build a prototype, assuming a budget of ~$50 million. But sure, I wouldn’t be surprised if this time estimate is based on a best-case-scenario.

June 24, 2014 6:15 am

Your post at June 24, 2014 at 5:59 am says to me

Richard, since you are so familiar with the project that you can make better time estimates than the researchers themselves, it should have been obvious to you that he misspoke. By ‘production’ he meant ‘produce a working prototype’. They estimate it will take 4 years to build a prototype, assuming a budget of ~$50 million. But sure, I wouldn’t be surprised if this time estimate is based on a best-case-scenario.

I know nothing of that project but I do know how long it takes to get a power generation system from ‘lab. bench proven’ to “production”.
And please note that it was asserted

Given funding, another 12-18 months of experiments should tell whether the idea works. If so, it’d be another four years or so to get it in production.

so this “idea” has yet to be ‘lab. bench proven’.
If the protagonists of that project have convinced you that it can be “in production” in “12-18 months” followed by “Four years or so” then I have a bridge you may want to buy.

June 24, 2014 6:29 am

Yes, as we both have now stated: *if* they can demonstrate their idea works, they estimate it will take another 4 years and $50 million to build a working prototype. I am not “convinced” of anything, other than this is a very interesting project that deserves more attention than it’s getting. Since you admittedly “know nothing of that project” (and it shows), why should anybody take anything you say about it seriously?

June 24, 2014 7:14 am

The time it takes to put new hardware into production is directly related to its size and complexity.
12-18 months is to see whether the science is correct. To get net power, they need sufficient temperature, confinement time, and density. They’ve already achieved the first two. The main obstacle to the third is impurities in the plasma, which the beryllium electrode they’re crowdfunding should fix. There are two other steps to increasing density: double the input power, and switch to boron fuel. These are all fairly simple tasks.
It’s possible that unexpected instabilities will crop up the prevent sufficient compression, or that they’re wrong that that quantum magnetic field effect will sufficiently suppress x-ray cooling. That’s why people have to do experiments.
If they do achieve net power, then turning it into a production reactor doesn’t require some complicated behemoth like ITER or NIF. The power plant would fit in a garage. The main engineering task will be power extraction. Most of the energy comes out in a pulsed beam of ions, so basically you just aim that through a coil. That part is pretty established technology. They also need to convert x-rays to electricity, which they plan to do with the photoelectric effect…basically an “onion” of many layers of foil. That part’s kinda new I think. They’ll also need to make the electrodes as durable as they can.
That’s pretty much it, the rest is standard stuff like capacitors. It’s really a pretty simple device.

June 24, 2014 7:20 am

At June 24, 2014 at 6:29 am you ask me

Yes, as we both have now stated: *if* they can demonstrate their idea works, they estimate it will take another 4 years and $50 million to build a working prototype. I am not “convinced” of anything, other than this is a very interesting project that deserves more attention than it’s getting. Since you admittedly “know nothing of that project” (and it shows), why should anybody take anything you say about it seriously?

I answer that I worked on developing novel power generation systems for decades when employed at the UK’s Coal Research Establishment (CRE). Hence, I know the problems of introducing novel power generation systems.
You are promoting what you admit is not a proven system but is merely an “idea”, and you are claiming it can be “in production” in less than 6 years. Frankly, nobody who makes such an claim should be taken seriously.

June 24, 2014 7:27 am

In your post at June 24, 2014 at 7:14 am you say

The power plant would fit in a garage. The main engineering task will be power extraction. Most of the energy comes out in a pulsed beam of ions, so basically you just aim that through a coil. That part is pretty established technology. They also need to convert x-rays to electricity, which they plan to do with the photoelectric effect…basically an “onion” of many layers of foil.

Please state the intended radiation protections and the time you anticipate for legislated approval of them. Would that time be the “four years or so to get it in production” which you mentioned?

June 24, 2014 7:49 am

The great thing about boron fusion is there’s very little neutron radiation, and it’s not high-energy neutrons. It would take some shielding but nothing extreme. LPP says you could work on the innards of the reactor unprotected, nine hours after shutting it down.
In terms of regulatory complexity, it’s more like medical devices than fission reactors (except without aiming anything at patients). Turn the reactor off and it’s off, there aren’t any fission products making decay heat, materials useful for bombs, anything like that.
That said, it’s entirely possible that some governments will be silly enough to put the brakes on. The estimate is just for the engineering. But given the economic advantage of energy ten times cheaper than anything else, it’s a pretty sure bet that China, for example, would migrate rather quickly. The U.S. can follow suit or be left behind.
Or maybe it won’t work after all. But it’s a cheap experiment with a huge potential payoff, things are looking good so far, and the team has published in major journals. Seems worth a shot.

June 24, 2014 8:04 am

I very, very strongly agree with you when you write at June 24, 2014 at 7:49 am

Seems worth a shot.

Although the process seems improbable, if its possibility can be determined for only ~$50 million then that should be done because the potential benefits are so great.
Hence, it is important to be realistic. Grossly overstating your case is counter-productive, and your first post over-stated to the degree of being ridiculous.

June 24, 2014 8:25 am

Glad you agree on that 🙂
I apologize if I wasn’t clear. 12-18 months is just to test scientific feasibility, which means doing one shot at a time and (hopefully) proving that more energy is produced than went in, without attempting to harvest that energy. It could be that unknown difficulties will crop up that delay things, or that they will simply prove the idea doesn’t work. But doing the things they *think* they have to do, to attempt net power, will take 12-18 months and a total of $1 million, including the $200K part they’re crowdfunding.
If that works out, the additional four years and $50 million is to make a working prototype power plant, which means a device that does about 200 shots per second and turns the energy into electricity. It would produce 5MW, about the same as a single large wind turbine.
It’s possible that engineering or funding difficulties could make it take longer, but they think if they show scientific feasibility, it’ll be pretty easy to get whatever resources they need.

June 24, 2014 8:50 am

Thankyou for the clarifications you provide in your post at June 24, 2014 at 8:25 am.
I warn you against too much exuberance. This potential process is not yet demonstrated to be feasible. If it works then it has potential. If it doesn’t …
I write to warn you about investing much money in this. A few dollars in hope of large return is as reasonable as buying a lottery ticket. But please do not be conned into putting a lot into this ‘pig in a poke’. You may wish to consider why no large corporation is providing the small amount of $million for the feasibility study so it obtains sole rights.

June 24, 2014 9:01 am

Here’s one reason no corporation is putting all that money in to obtain sole rights: LPP isn’t selling sole rights. All they offer to investors in nonvoting stock.
Aside from that, getting funding for speculative nuclear fusion projects isn’t as easy as many people think. A lot of projects are struggling. However, LPP has gotten about $3 million invested over the past several years.

June 24, 2014 1:16 pm

Sorry, but the “Number of the Week: 72 Times THIS WEEK” need to be forgotten as fast as possible: the proven natural gas reserves for 1993 are in cubic meter, the column with 72 times in 2013 is in cubic feet… The next column is in m3: still an increase of about 2 times…
But nevertheless, that for many countries the proven reserves stay year by year near constant with (increasing) consumption is quite remarkable…

June 25, 2014 8:01 am

A healthy development, imo:
U.S. Ruling Loosens Four-Decade Ban On Oil Exports
Shipments of Unrefined American Oil Could Begin as Early as August
The Obama administration cleared the way for the first exports of unrefined American oil in nearly four decades, allowing energy companies to start chipping away at the longtime ban on selling U.S. oil abroad…

an inconvenient individual
June 25, 2014 7:05 pm

Too much exuberance can be a danger. The road of experimental science is usually longer and more twisty than one initially expects, and the high of exuberance can easily turn into the low of disappointment. However it is my opinion that the journey itself is worth it, and what LPP has been doing is, if nothing else, real experimental science, and rather open too:

Verified by MonsterInsights