Renewable Energy in perspective: Solar and Wind power

Guest essay by Ed Hoskins | Data for the USA, Germany and the UK since the year 2000.

These notes quantify the progress and achievement of the massive movement to install renewable energy solutions for electricity generation in Western Nations. They only concern the two most significant new renewable energy sources ie. Solar and Wind-power. They progressively gauge and quantify the nominal rated energy output for these sources and their capacity factors for the three major Western investors in renewable electricity generation, the USA, Germany and in fact to a lesser extent the UK.

The following data sources were reviewed.

United States of America: data available 2000 – 2012

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60197.pdf

Germany: data available from 1990 to 2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Germany

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany

United Kingdom: data available 2008 – 2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_Kingdom

These data provide installed “nameplate” capacity measured in Megawatts (MW) and energy output measured across the year in total Gigawatt hours, (GWh). Thus they do not provide directly comparable values as Megawatt nameplate capacity and the consequential actual energy outputs achieved. For this exercise the annual Gigawatt hours values were revised back to equivalent Megawatts for comparative purposes, accounting for the 8,760 hours in the year. This measure eliminates the effect of intermittency and non-dispatchability characterising renewable Energy power sources. It does make direct comparisons possible.

clip_image002

 

For comparative purposes a normal fossil fuelled power station is rated with a nameplate capacity of about 1000 Megawatts or 1 Gigawatt. Overall the cumulative outcomes show the scale of the differential between nations and the discrepancy between installed nameplate capacity and the actual energy output achieved so far as, as follows:

clip_image005

clip_image006

 

The three graphs below summarise the available comparative data for each country:

clip_image008

clip_image010

 

In the USA the contribution from wind-power now nominally amounts to about 16 normal power stations, (1GW) and only about 1 1/2 of a normal power station is provided by US solar power. In 2013 the solar output capacity only reached 18.5% of installed nameplate capacity but the averaged over the whole data set it was as much as 21.6%. The solar capacity value has declined significantly. This relatively high capacity figure is because most solar installations are in Southern, desert states, namely California, Arizona, Nevada and Colorado.

In 2013 the wind-power capacity reached the satisfactory output capacity factor of 26.7% of installed nameplate capacity but the averaged over the whole data set was only 24.3%.

The renewable energy investment in the USA nominally now contributes about 3.8% of electricity generation.

The 25 year investment in Germany’s the renewable energy has nominally contributed about the equivalent of about 6 normal power stations, (1 GW) from wind-power. Solar power nominally contributes about 3 more normal power stations. In 2013 the solar output capacity reached 10.8% of installed nameplate capacity but the averaged over the whole data set was only 7.6%.

In 2013 the wind-power capacity reached the relatively low output capacity factor of 19.1% of installed nameplate capacity but the averaged over the whole data set was only 17.0%.

The vast renewable investment in Germany now contributes to some 15.8% of nominal electricicity generation.

In the UK the nominal contribution from wind-power is now equivalent to about 3 normal power stations, (1GW) and only about ¼ of a normal power station is provided by solar power. In 2013 the solar output capacity reached 6.8% of installed nameplate capacity but the averaged over the whole data set it was rather higher at 7.6%.

In 2013 the wind-power capacity reached the satisfactory output capacity factor of 28.5% of installed nameplate capacity but the averaged over the whole data set it only amounted to 22.5%.

The renewable investment in the UK nominally now amounts to 7.9% of electrical generation.

clip_image012

However there is a major problem with these renewable energy sources. Their electrical output is not dispatchable. Their output is entirely unable respond to electricity demand as and when needed. Energy is contributed to the grid in a haphazard manner dependent on the weather, and certainly not necessarily when it is required.

See: http://notrickszone.com/2014/07/21/germanys-habitually-awol-green-energy-installed-windsolar-often-delivers-less-than-1-of-rated-capacity/

For example solar power inevitably varies according to the time of day, the state of the weather and also of course radically with the seasons. Essentially solar power might only work effectively in Southern latitudes and it certainly does not do well in Northern Europe. In Germany the massive commitment to solar energy might well provide up to ~20% of country wide demand for a few hours on some fine summer days either side of noon, but at the time of maximum power demand on winter evenings solar energy input is necessarily nil.

See: http://theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/456961/reality-check-germany-does-not-get-half-its-energy-solar

See: http://www.ukpowergeneration.info

Electricity generation from wind turbines is equally fickle, as for example in a week in July this year shown above. Similarly an established high pressure zone with little wind over the whole of Northern Europe is a common occurrence in winter months, that is when electricity demand is likely to be at its highest.

Conversely on occasions renewable energy output may be in excess of demand and this has to dumped unproductively. There is still no solution to electrical energy storage on a sufficiently large industrial scale. That is the reason that the word “nominally” is used here in relation to the measured outputs from renewable energy sources.

Overall the renewable energy output from these three major nations that have committed to massive investments in Renewable Energy amounts to a nominal ~31Gigawatts out of a total installed generating capacity of ~570Gigawatts or only ~5.5%.

But even that amount of energy production is not really as useful as one would wish, because of its intermittency and non-dispatchability.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Fred

A cost analysis to complement this thorough capacity summary would be very welcome.

lemiere jacques

even you do so, you will have to had the cost of a blackout , ie a lost of wealth and even human lives.

These systems imply the need for intermediate power storage.

Yeah,so?

Bush bunny

Anthony I am registering as I am not getting any emails through for over a week.

Greg

That 17.5 (typical) power stations did not have to be built is a great success story! Solar, wind, (and hydro) are not perfect but they are getting more and more efficient and the cost continues to decrease each year..
True, solar and wind do not happen to match the ideal dispatch curve, but that is a manageable problem, especially since they are a small component of power generation in most areas.
Looking at t the residential level, a typical household uses about 30kwh/day. Panels typically generate useful power about 6 hours per day, so a typical household would need about 5kw of panels. Cost of panels is about $0.80/watt or about $4k. Grid tied inverters are about $2k and installation about $2k so for about $8k a typical household can generate all of the power it uses. (LED light bulbs, more efficient appliances, and a little effort ought to be able to reduce that to about half.) Typical power cost is about $0.15/kwh $(4.50/day) or about $1642/yr. Not a bad payback, which is apparently why I get a couple calls a day from solar companies wanting to put solar panels on my roof and do a lease-back arrangement. Works even better for those of us on Tier 5 at about $0.35/kwh.
It is also possible to install batteries to provide power at night rather than using the grid, and with a smart controller, the power company could easily tell my system when to run off the grid, and when to run off batteries. Or even when to feed battery power back into the grid, if needed.
Also, I’m convinced we will see markets adapt, such as power hungry companies moving to where the energy is cheap, (near wind turbines) just as aluminum production moved to areas where inexpensive hydro energy was available previously.
The markets may not have yet figured out exactly how best to use the power that solar and wind generate, but you can bet they will.

Andrew N

The 17.5 power stations still exist. When the wind does not blow and the sun doesn’t shine the power still has to come from somewhere. The experience here in Australia is that there is still required a spinning reserve, that is turbines running under no load, ready to take the load when the wind drops. One of the oft quoted falacies of wind power is that if you have a widely distributed wind power system there is power being generated somewhere. In the Australian South East Interconnected grid, geographically one of the largest grids in the world, spanning 1400 km east to west, there have been times where no wind power has been generated. In fact at about 10:00am on 28.05.2011 the wind farms of south-east Australia were consuming, not generating power.

John F. Hultquist

In Oregon and Washington the spinning reserve is hydro; see:
http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx

Chris

Yes Andrew, anywhere in the world you have to have a base load generation system that is, to some extent, flexible, to take up power requirements when so-called renewables fail to do so, or as power requirements dictate.
While I am here, you mention the word “turbines”, which you correctly use in relation to steam powered generators, with the high pressure steam raised in boilers being fuelled by coal, “biomass”, nuclear fission, or gas. Wind generators are not turbines, because there is no nozzle ring to direct any wind on to a series of turbine blades fixed to a shaft. They are simply propellers, and their simplicity may be part of the problem in gaining much useful energy from them. Far better, and more correct to refer to them as wind powered generators, or… bloody windmills, as I prefer.

And what about apartment complexes?

John Law

And industy, and infrastructure (sewage/ water pumps), hospitals, etc etc.

Graeme No.3

No, they won’t generate all the power they use. For 6 hours, if it is sunny, they will generate all they use but need somewhere to dump the surplus (back into the grid). For the other 18 hours they will be drawing electricity from the grid, because the solar panels won’t be generating.
If they could store the excess when the sun is shining then they might be able to claim energy neutrality, except that with overcast days it will be back to the grid.

stan stendera

So the typical household uses about 30 kwt of electricity a day. Not in Africa or India or Indonesia . There it uses about 0.00 kwt a day. People of your ilk would prevent these developing nations from building coal fired power plants to alleviate their want. Don’t dare say you wouldn’t because warmists and other greens are doing just that. See the World Bank and other UN agencies for examples. And don’t say you, personally, wouldn’t do that If you run with a pack of wolves you are a wolf. You despicable greens are killing people with power shortages just as you killed people by banning DDT and are killing them with your objections to golden rice.

Ray Kuntz

+10

http://archive.sheboyganpress.com/usatoday/article/5284631
Lomborg: Obama energy policy hurts African poor
Normally, I would pick out one or two bits tio highlight them. In this case, there is so much information that I can only recommend reading the full article.

inMAGICn

Stan,
I lived and worked in Sub-Saharan Africa for four yours.
Western environmentalism is racist in the extreme.

inMAGICn

four YEARS, ahem…

John Law

I think killing people (not middle class activists) is the plan. Most greens when tackled about the practicality of their schemes; fall back on the “need for a smaller population” mantra. “Eco fascism”

David A

“That 17.5 (typical) power stations did not have to be built is a great success story!
==========================================================
As pointed out, likely they were still built, or never closed, as reliable base load is required. Also, what you call a great success story over 14 years, was 100 percent replaced with only 4 to 5 months of average Chinese new coal fired plants, still being built at about one a week. (Now include India in this)
It is a massive failure of mal-investment.

Martin Brumby

You seriously suggest Aluminium production will move to somewhere where they can’t predict whether they will have any power in an hour’s time? And where it is “cheap” only by virtue of subsidies from the poor?

johnmarshall

Batteries? Are you mad? think of the cost and the losses due to the energy conversions.
The biggest oxymoron of all time— renewable energy.

Harry Passfield

Greg: One small failure of logic in your comment: Using LED light bulbs (or any light bulbs) tends to a requirement of the need for light when it’s dark. – When it’s dark!
There’s a clue there.
Furthermore, the post determined that (in the UK) you would get a 6.7% power factor on you 5kW installation. Not a very great power return for such an outlay.

Too simplistic. The world is far more complicated than this. For example, we can go WEEKS with no sun over the winter. The misconception is that the solar panels power your home. They dont. They charge the batteries, which in turn powers the home. That means you have to have enough panels to charge the batteries which need to power a home for a week. So if you need X power to run your home for a day, you need 7X worth of batteries. To charge those batteries while also power your home, you need 2X worth of panels for each day. That means you need a minimum of 7-14X worth of panels on your home. Then after 6 to 8 years you have to replace all those batteries. Solar power is not a rational there-when-you-need-it source.

Read Anthony’s description of the system that he uses – see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/23/an-update-on-my-solar-power-project-results-show-why-i-got-solar-power-for-my-home-hint-climate-change-is-not-a-reason/ . It is not battery-based: it uses an inverter and is grid-connected. Excess power is dumped into the grid. As a large scale solution, solar currently is impracticable (and may always be so – though human inventiveness should never be discounted). On the other hand, depending on where you live, small scale solar installations can make economic sense (and Anthony financial analysis seems pretty thorough on this point: a system that cost probably in the range of US$15 – 18K installed, will be repaid over the next 5 – 8 years from cost savings on power + some minor tax incentives).
Battery systems are really for people who seek to live “off the grid” (or, who actually DO live off the grid, in remote places).

Tim in Florida

And we are all supposed to be Poncho to your Don Quixote?

Herve D

Dear Greg, you completely forget the immense source variability problem when serving scheduled usage. I think the self sustained individual solar Home is close to affordability, having performed myself many computing solutions for my own house (48°N latitude): It cannot match grid cost by not a ruining cost, but at condition to reduce my electricity consumption by 90% (heating moved to pellets oven, warm water too, reducing bulb usage, chasing my wife out of Internet…). Unfortunately I was obliged to stop when national authorities started to consider taxing individual renewable electricity production for the sake of …?
But back to aluminum smelting, you choosed the wrong example as it is the industry needing the most permanent supply of power….: Necessary batteries to cover night usage would be larger than a million inhabitants town….

more soylent green!

How do you move a factory to where the wind is blowing that day?

Boyfromtottenham

Nice work, Ed! Now when are the electricity generation engineers going to start standing up and telling the politicians and the rest of us when the level of non-dispatchable vs dispatchable power reaches the point where (a) their power networks become unmanageable and (b) the huge hidden cross-subsidy from traditional generation to renewables renders traditional (coal and nuclear) base load power stations unviable? And lastly, when will the politicians figure out that if both these come to pass then the last thing on everyone’s mind will be CAGW, because they will be too busy looking for pitchforks to use on those who were responsible for (and profited from) this disaster in the making?

godostoyke

Based on data from the German Federal Environment Agency (“Umweltbundesamt”, July of 2013; http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/4488.pdf), specific CO2e emissions of electricity fell from 744 g/kWh in 1990 to 576 in 2012, a reduction of 22.5%. This is even more remarkable considering that nuclear energy production in Germany fell by 35% in the same time period and had to be compensated for in part by renewable energy.
Is German electricity expensive? Germany adds taxes for end users, but industrial wholesale rates for electricity are actually significantly LOWER than the European average, and the gap is widening (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&plugin=1&language=de&pcode=ten00114, http://www.renewablesinternational.net/german-industry-power-prices-a-comparison/150/537/71319/)
Amory’s article (http://blog.rmi.org/separating_fact_from_fiction_in_accounts_of_germanys_renewables_revolution) provides more details on how the success of Germany’s Energiewende is distorted in some media reports

u.k.(us)

So, we are taking a currency that’s only value is its inherent stability, and investing it in subsidized fairy tales ?
I’m sure that will end well.

John F. Hultquist

Thanks Ed. Interesting numbers.
We recently bought a combination refrigerator/freezer. As advertised it keeps fresh food cold and frozen food frozen. If either compartment only worked 20% of the time we would return it and ask for our money back. It would get returned if it worked 45% of the time or even a whopping 90% of the time. In other words, it is expected to work as advertised.
Wind and solar should be evaluated on what they actually do and not an unachieavable metric. In contrast, consider a public building, say, city hall. This building is used about 8 hours each day for about 250 days each year. This is a low usage factor but it is also the expected usage factor. No problem. Society still builds city halls. Perspective is important. I can deal with city hall being open only part of the time. I can’t operate a home with electric power on only 8 hours per day 250 each year.

Steve D

Hydroelectric is renewable. It is not hopeless. It powered my childhood.
Though humanity’s last hope is thorium.

Sharpshooter

I think humanity’s last hope is Lithium.

We need a massive Thorium Project — NOW!

Why?
We can already produce vast amounts of clean energy now (if the eco-statists would get out of the way)

physicsgeeky

If you design a reactor to use thorium rods, they would, of course, be more efficient. But there’s (engineering wise anyway) that would prevent us from using such rods in our existing reactors. Essentially, the fuel supply would be endless. We discuss periodically in my profession, but it’s going to take some political will to get it going again.

tz

The “smart grid” can also help. If you need to wash clothes, you might not need it immediately, and if the grid could signal even “cheap/excess” or “expensive” power, it could do the cycle when it was signaled the wind was blowing or the sun was out. For A/C, it tends to be needed when the sun is shining. (Conversely, heat pumps are a problem when it is 0F or below).

stan stendera

@ tz
You have obviously never had a dishwasher short out and very nearly catch on fire. You have obviously never had the lint vent from your clothes dryer catch on fire. Neither occurrence in my household was the potential disaster it could have been because I was up, awake, and monitoring the situation. I shudder to think what may have happened if I had been asleep during the low power usage cycle and the dishwasher and/or the dryer cycled on.

I wash dishes by hand so I don’t have to worry about that.
I routinely disassemble as much of my gas dryer as I can and thoroughly vacuum/blow out all of the lint I can at least once a year.
Overnight fires from my dryer are the least of my concerns.

stan stendera

I clean out my clothes dryer vent system at least yearly. Doesn’t solve all the potential problems. In fairness I didn’t have a fire. It was smoldering and could easily have developed into a fire.

Sam Hall

Only a socialist could love the “smart grid.” I want my A/C to work right when everyone does and I will wash clothes on my timetable, not yours.
We can produce all the electric power we need at reasonable prices. Modern nuclear power for example. We just need the watermelons (green outside, but red in the core) to get out of the way.

I belive a smart grid would be tremendously beneficial to all electrical consumers………………………
Provided all of the consumers had all of the electricity they needed, when they need it.
If the smart grid’s primary use is to manage Soviet style electricity shortages, then it would be a beast of evil !!

godostoyke

You don’t have to worry about the smart grid: utility companies reward users for not using expensive peak electricity through their rate structure (in 32 states). Those who wish to reduce their electricity costs, can schedule tasks that are not time-dependent. The market place decides how much power costs during peaks, and if you insist on using power at those times, you simply pay the market price.

We can produce all the electric power we need at reasonable prices. …if you do not include the price we payed in Europe with Tjernobyll and whats coming from Fukusima……..About “modern nuclear power : nearly ALL the reactors in Europa are 12 years overdue for replacement, and are cracking up….go tell people in Japan who are being intoxicated..that their price for energy was reasonable…

Tell that to someone at home on a life support system. The single largest savior of lives has been A/C. You would deny people the ability to keep cool in hot summers? With more heat deaths? You people live in a fantasy world. How many people have to die because of lack of power before you abandon this nonsense?

None. Germany, with one of the highest percentages of renewable electricity, is also one of the most reliable (see above).

This post raises a few points:
1. The German offshore power stations must be kept rotating when there is no wind. I believe it has to do with preventing salt accumulation. They use diesel fuel to do this. Some deduction from the energy output would adjust for the cost of the diesel fuel and cost of equipment.
2. In this article, MW (megawatts) are correctly used as the units of capacity. But it seems to me that the proper units for output should be MWh (megawatt hours). The reason is that a MW is a measure of power while MWh is a measure of energy.
Example: Household appliances are rated in Watts (power) but electricity is charged by KWh (kilowatt hours). If my water heater is rated at 1 kilowatt and I run it 10 hours per day for 30 days, it will use 300 kilowatt hours. If I pay 12 cents per KWh I will pay $36.00 per month for heating the water. I pay for units of energy used.. Conclusion: To compare fossil fuel power stations with wind and solar installations we should compare energy output by each type of station in MWh..
It might be worth considering also what is the EFFECTIVE MWh output available to consumer. This would allow us to estimate the energy saved by solar and wind. Standby power from fossil fuel plants is needed for both solar and wind. The energy used by these standby plants is not saved and should therefore be deducted from the output from solar and wind plants to get the effective energy generated. Excess energy (MWh) dumped by wind and solar when surplus to demand should also be deducted. None of these adjustments can be performed using MW but only by using MWh.
3. Nameplate capacity is interesting mainly because for each type of installation the number of installed MW will give us a rough measure of how much it cost to build the installation per MW. In that case we would have to consider onshore and offshore wind plants as different types of installation. But capacity (power) is not a good measure of energy output. The question we are interested in is: What is the total energy output in MWh per MW installed.
4. A point not considered here is the cost of transmission of power to centers of populations and industry. (Transmission and distribution are different. Transmission is by high tension lines usually over long distances. Distribution is lower voltage for short distances.) In comparison to the price of electricity the cost of transmission is not negligible, perhaps 5% to 20%.
Fossil fuel plants can be located nearer consumers, while solar, wind and hydro installations must be located near where nature provides the solar, wind and hydro and bear the cost of transmission. The energy used in transmission should be deducted from energy generated to get effective MWh available to consumers.
5. A cost-benefit analysis of power generation and transmission, even for one country, would be a complex exercise, probably beyond the capacity of any one person and not trivial for a team. Perhaps this is why it has been possible to gull the public into believing that solar and wind have any future at all in a modern industrial nation.
Solar and wind power have made a few people very rich at the cost of higher electricity bills for the many. And so renewable energy has been the greatest scam on Earth and will continue to be so until replaced by carbon taxes as an even bigger scam.

VirginiaConservative

“The German offshore power stations must be kept rotating when there is no wind.”
The windmills are kept turning for two (2) reasons.
1, To keep the drive shafts from bending
2. To avoid flat spots on the bearings.
Both of which will destroy the windmill.

Climate Change is the result of carbon gas emissions which are caused by Industrialization which is driven by Population growth. The current world population is 7 billion individuals, the last billion boarded between 1999 and 2011. By 2023 another billion will be added or a 33% population increase since 1999. Graph it out yourself, explosive population growth is the main driver behind Climate Change. The magnitude of the problem is much greater than closing down a few Industries or building Renewable Energy facilities and evident when all the variables are considered

So, Robert H Emery, have you sterilized yourself yet?
Have you sterilized your kids, your spouse, your parents, your brother and sisters?
Are you living “off-the-grid” using a dung-burning stove quenching your thirst once daily from a slimy pond of dung-steeped water on the African plain with only stone-tipped spears on naturally-fallen wood limbs to protect yourself from the predators and your fellow starving humans?
How many people have you killed today? How many people do you believe should needlessly die in poverty, squalor, hunger, thirst and the cold to make you feel better about the solutions and better lives brought forth by harnessing energy properly and usefully, instead of wasting it on carbon capture schemes, get-rich-quick false “greed energy” politically-corrupt renewable energy schemes ?
How much physical and emotional harm have you caused since the CAGW scams became politically popular?

Snowsnake

One does wonder if people eating monkeys and bats and ground rodents with no medical care or hygiene will sooner or later develop some mutating virus that will
avenge them on the rich populated cities who deprive them of the natural resources that would relieve their poverty.

stan stendera

Mr. Emery, I have to give you credit. Usually greens hid behind euphemisms. You don’t hide. You come right out and state you want people to die. And you had the courage to do the dirty deed under (presumably) your real name. Hat off to you (self snip).

Billy

One effective means of controlling poulation would be to euthanize or sterilize all persons 35 and under. This would greatly reduce birth rates.
Environmentalists must begin to speak clearly and frankly about poulation reduction.

Mark

Getting people out of poverty also appears to help reduce the birth rate.

Randy K

Think about what you just said Billy. You propose the end of civilization.

Patrick

Carbon gas emissions, really?

David A

“Climate Change is the result of carbon gas emissions which are caused by Industrialization which is driven by Population growth. ”
=======================
Sir, you start off wrong and the rest is no better. The Null hypothesis is CC is caused by natural factors, as CC has happened for billions of years. That man affects climate is not in dispute. The assertion that the affect is dangerous, or catastrophic, is , according to all the observable evidence, simply not true. In fact the observable evidence for the benefit of CO2 on the biosphere is overwhelming. Currently worldwide food production is up about 15 percent over what it would be , due simply and solely to going from a 280 ppm CO2 world to a 400 ppm world. And that 15% increase came at a cost of zero additional water. (Agricultural production has increased far more then that, but here we are only considering the benefits of CO2.)
This world can easily support several billion more people, if ignorant progressive “rule the world” mini Blackbeard’s would get out of the way. Eventually population growth is a problem, but now the problem is elitist progressives who plead good intentions to their misdeeds; to quote Daniel Webster…“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
The fastest way to reduce population growth is to supply a society with the modern benefits of inexpensive abundant energy. The demographic projections of many nations will, and some already are, begin to decline. Commonsense and a dose of humility and personal and national liberty is all that is required.

Gerry, England

Except of course that the planet has been as warm, if not warmer, in the past such as the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods. During the MWP the Vikings settled and farmed on Greenland – I don’t see much of that going on right now so therefore it was warmer then than it is now. The island itself was named because it was green and verdant – very white and icy at the moment. And carbon doesn’t exist as a gas.

Harry Passfield

Robert H Emery:

Climate Change is the result of carbon gas emissions…

No, it is not. Your serve.

Evan Jones

I think it is, partly. But with no feedbacks, there isn’t a lot.

DirkH

Well, Robert, you can do two things:
a) Find out the population density of say Kazakhstan (and then reconsider whether there is not enough space for people)
b) go to http://www.gapminder.org and look at how fertility develops in dependence of prosperity.
This might give you a clue. Any Hans Rosling lecture on youtube will do as well.

So climate change never happened in the 4.5 billion years before humans? Please… Your myth has been thoroughly debunked.

godostoyke

There are more than 9,200 scientific papers supporting the reality of human-made global warming, summarized and referenced here: www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1. Peer-reviewed scientific papers saying otherwise are virtually absent and primarily limited to non-climate scientist authors and marginal journals (e.g. Cook, John, et al. 2013. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters 8(2): 1-7.)
Climate change denial is a billion dollar industry supported by fossil fuel money (Brulle, Robert J. Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations. Climatic Change December 2013.)
Climate denial is pretty much restricted to fossil-fuel funded and ideologically oriented web sites and books. Can you cite a recent climate science paper in a leading peer-reviewed scientific journal (e.g. Nature, Science) that provides support for the notion that climate change is not happening or that humans are not the main cause?
I’d encourage you to spend an hour or two in your closest university’s library reviewing recent journal articles to get an accurate understanding of the current state of climate science.
[Reply: It violates site policy to label others as ‘deniers’, or any similar term. ~ mod.]

@godostoyke:
First off, what is “climate change denial”?
Michael Mann tried to deny that the temperature never changed until the Industrial Revolution. He dishonestly erased the MWP and the LIA. Only Mann’s lemmings deny that the climate never changed. But skeptics know that the climate constantly changes; it always has, and it always will. Naturally.
Next, your dishonest implication that this website is supported by “fossil fuel money”, or that it supports the fossil fuel industry, is wrong. Different commentators may have their views, but that is only an indication that WUWT does not censor — like most alarmist blogs do. Maybe you didn’t understand that, because it is you who is ‘ideological’. Now that you have been informed of the facts, any further comments like that will be labeled as what they are: lies.
Next, your cherry-picked papers mean nothing. They are the usual Appeal to Authority fallacy. No doubt you believe Cooks’ total fabrication about the so-called “97%” ‘consensus’.
In fact, there is no scientific evidence showing that human activity causes any rise in global temperature. If you believe otherwise, then post your evidence showing the specific fraction of a degree rise in global temperature directly attributable to human emitted CO2 [what scientific illiterates call “carbon”]. Document your ‘evidence’. Show us how much of the 0.7ºC global warming is cause by humans. If you can do that, you will be the first.
Finally, it is clear that you have no real understanding of what constitutes scientific evidence. Evidence is not your pal reviewed papers. It is not the GIGO output of always-inaccurate climate models, which cannot accurately predict the climate. EVIDENCE is raw data [or adjusted data, where every step of the adjustment is published along with the raw data]; and it is verifiable empirical observations.
You simply cannot show that humans are the cause of global warming, via the Scientific Method. If you had any understanding of the climate Null Hypothesis, you would see that human-caused global warming is nothing more than a conjecture; an opinion.
Stick around here for six months or a year, and you will probably wise up. Right now, your mind is colonized by pseudo-scientific nonsense. You need to get over that impediment.

godostoyke your use of the term “Climate change denial” shows right there it’s a religion. NO ONE DENIES the climate changes. AGW is a THEORY, not fact, hence it cannot be denied, just agreed to or disagreed to. So right off you have left the realm of science.
Second, not one paper has empirically linked CO2 to any change in the climate. And I challenge you to post such if one exist.
Third there is NOTHING happening the climate system today which has never happened before. Not even rates. Every one of the predictions of the AGW High Priests have failed to materialize.
As I said, it has been thoroughly debunked. Just a few of your True Believers left.

godostoyke

dbstealey, “climate change denial” is the denial of anthropogenic climate change, in the face of massive scientific evidence to the contrary (not unlike the denial that the holocaust ever happened by some in the face of massive evidence to the contrary)

godostoyke

dbstealey, the best estimates of the rate of warming from human emissions (e.g. fossil fuel burning) are 1.68 W/m2 for CO2, 0.97 W/m2 for methane. Human aerosols COOL the planet by about 0.8 W/m2 if they are in the atmosphere, but WARM the planet by about 0.6W/m2 if e.g. black carbon lands on snow. Net anthropogenic effect of all factors is 2.29 W/m2 relative to the year 1750 (uncertainties of 1.13 to 3.33 W/m2).
Source Figure SPM.5, IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Available from the IPCC website http://www.ipcc.ch and the IPCC WGI AR5 website http://www.climatechange2013.org

godostoyke

dbstealey, please provide ONE recent peer-reviewed climate science paper in a major scientific journal regularly publishing on this subject (e.g. Science, Nature) that provides evidence that puts into doubt anthropogenic global warming (AGW). I have provided you with a link to over 9,200 scientific papers that support the theory of AGW. And, no, they don’t have to be cherry-picked because 97-100% of climate science papers support AGW (the 97% figure is being generous to climate deniers, as they include papers from non-climate scientists publishing in non-natural science journals, as I have checked for myself, and as you could as well, if you so chose.

godostoyke

@dbstealey
@jrwakefield
None of the leading climate scientists I know would deny that climate change has happened in the past, many times. Can you please provide a link to a peer-reviewed science article in a respected natural science journal that makes this claim? Thanks

Gee godostoyke …
You have repeatedly only claimed ‘scientific consensus” from so-called “climate scientists” paid by the government to generate so-called “climate science” papers for fellow government-paid so-called “climate scientists” to review and publish inside government-paid journals so the government can generate 1.3 trillion dollars a year in additional taxes.
So far, your so-called “climate scientists” have generated ZERO correct predictions about their claimed field over a period of 17 years. Further, the ONLY period they do make correct predictions for over any period of a decade or longer is that ONE interval from 1975 – 1996 when both CO2 and global average temperatures both rose at the same time.
Before that 21 year interval, CO2 was steady, and temperatures rose, remained steady, and declined.
Before that 21 year interval, CO2 rose, and global average temperatures rose, remained steady, and declined.
Now, just what IS this supposed “evidence” that your so-called “scientists’ do have that supports their paychecks, their laboratories, their programmers, their travel, their vacations, their journals, and their retirement funds?

RACookPE1978,
Correct as usual. I just made the same point about the failure of the AGW conjecture to predict anything accurately.
I would suggest posting without using these nesting replies, though. Very few readers will see your comments. Instead, quote what you are replying to, and post at the bottom of the thread. [You will also see my recent reply there.]

godostoyke

@ dbstealey
You make many unsubstantiated claims, but I notice that unlike me, you still have not supplied a single scientific reference to back up your claims, as I requested. That in itself speaks volumes.
To get the ball rolling, here are a few more or less random references cited by IPCC AR5 referenced earlier:
Granier, C., et al., 2011: Evolution of anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions of air pollutants at global and regional scales during the 1980–2010 period. Clim. Change, 109, 163–190.
Hohne, N., et al., 2011: Contributions of individual countries’ emissions to climate change and their uncertainty. Clim. Change, 106, 359–391.
Hoyle, C., et al., 2011: A review of the anthropogenic influence on biogenic secondary organic aerosol. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 321–343.
Ravishankara, A. R., J. S. Daniel, and R. W. Portmann, 2009: Nitrous oxide (N2O): The dominant ozone-depleting substance emitted in the 21st century. Science, 326, 123–125.
Philipona, R., K. Behrens, and C. Ruckstuhl, 2009: How declining aerosols and rising greenhouse gases forced rapid warming in Europe since the 1980s. Geophys.
Res. Lett., 36, L02806.

godostoyke

@dbstealey: “You simply cannot show that humans are the cause of global warming, via the Scientific Method.”
dbstealey, this statement does not make any sense. Describing and explaining physical phenomena observed in and around our world using evidence and reason is exactly what the scientific method is for.

godostoyke

@RACookPE1978 said “You have repeatedly only claimed ‘scientific consensus” from so-called “climate scientists” paid by the government to generate so-called “climate science” papers for fellow government-paid so-called “climate scientists” to review and publish inside government-paid journals so the government can generate 1.3 trillion dollars a year in additional taxes.”
If scientists were falsifying data to obtain more funding from government, you would expect them to write papers DISPROVING anthropogenic climate change when the government is anti-climate protection (e.g. Abbott, Harper, Bush 2.0). However, this is not the case.

paqyfelyc

godostoyke August 31, 2014 at 11:21 pm
“Describing and explaining physical phenomena observed in and around our world using evidence and reason is exactly what the scientific method is for.”
FALSE
“Describing and explaining physical phenomena observed in and around our world using evidence and reason” has nothing to do with science. It has been done, and is still done, with utterly unscientific methods. Ptolemaic epicycles for example : very smart, full of reason, pretty well agreeing with evidence, very effective, but … unscientific.
On the other hand scientific method is for DISPROVING theories, confronting his predictions with observations of facts and results of experiments . A real scientist tries hard to prove he is wrong, being equally happy to be keep his theory if he fails or to have to invent a new one if he succeed. Have you ever seen a CAGW proponent trying to prove himself wrong ? no, they don’t. They make no science at all.

godostoyke

@paqyfelyc: “A real scientist tries hard to prove he is wrong, being equally happy to be keep his theory if he fails or to have to invent a new one if he succeed.” No disagreement here. However, you are wrong if you believe that scientific research cannot be used to SUPPORT a hypothesis or theory. Adding support for a hypothesis or taking away support for a hypothesis are equally valid results of scientific research based on evidence.

paqyfelyc

“Adding support for a hypothesis or taking away support for a hypothesis are equally valid results of scientific research based on evidence.”
nonsense.
to add support to an hypothesis by the scientific method, you must TRY to take away support to a hypothesis.
Either not succeeding — despite trying hard — to falsify the hypothesis, or succeeding to falsify alternates.
Neither is never done in so called “climate science” (for instance, have you ever read a paper telling “it cannot be clouds, because …” ? )

Sharpshooter

godostoyke:
Except CO2 is NOT the generator of climate change, so climb back under your rock with your fascist propaganda.

godostoyke

@sharpshooter, the link between CO2 and climate change is a matter of science record, and quite the opposite of “fascist propaganda”. Do you even know what fascist propaganda is? You don’t seem to be using it correctly in this context. Incidentally, wiithout water vapour and CO2 in the atmosphere (two potent greenhouse gases) humans wouldn’t even exist, as earth would be a frozen ball in space. The natural greenhouse effect has saved our butt. However, radiative forcing from human-released greenhouse gases (and some particulates) is adding an estimated 2.29 W/m2 to earth’s temperature (year 2011 compared to 1750; http://www.ipcc.ch WGI AR5), and that is a concern.

godostoyke,
Sharpshooter is correct: there is no testable, measurable scientific evidence showing that human emitted CO2 causes “climate change”. That is nothing but a baseless assertion, and no matter how many pal-reviewed papers you cite, you have still not posted any evidence whatever to support your belief system.
I have said this before, but you keep avoiding it: there is no verified measurement quantifying the fraction of a degree of global warming that purportedly results from the rise in anthropogenic CO2. No measurements whatever. Your belief is scientifically baseless.
I would ask you to post any such evidence that you believe you may have. But I’ve asked before, and you ignore it. That is because there is no such evidence. There are no such measurements quantifying the specific rise in temperature from human-emitted CO2. That is akin to a religious belief, and that is why you are unable to post any measurements. Without any verifiable measurements, there is no science, because science is nothing without measurements. You have no measurements. All you have is your Belief.
If you had any understanding of the climate Null Hypothesis, you would understand that human-caused global warming is nothing more than a baseless conjecture. That conjecture has colonized your mind, and your cherry-picking of pal-reviewed papers is nothing but confirmation bias. It is an attempt to support what you have already concluded.
Nothing I say will cause you to think. Your mind is made up, and closed tight. But for any other readers, think about this: godostoyke cannot produce any measurements showing the fraction of a degree of warming that is supposedly caused by human CO2. There are no such measurements. If there were the whole debate would be settled. As we see, it is far from settled.

paqyfelyc

dbstealey September 1, 2014 at 2:32 am
+1

latecommer2014

And Robert, please show us the proof behind your OPINION that population increase causes global warming. Have we had a population decrease for the last 18 years? (It would follow from your “reasoning”)

Steve Reddish

“the last billion boarded between 1999 and 2011”
Atmospheric CO2 rose 35 PPM during that period, = 9.5% increase.
World industrial production rose 64% during that period.
Yet global temps remained steady or declined during and after the addition of that billion.
Increasing population has NOT driven increased world temps.
Increasing industrialization has NOT driven increased world temps.
Increasing atmospheric CO2 has NOT driven increased world temps.
If you did not mean climate warming when you stated “climate change”, please specify which climate parameter you meant. I doubt you can find a climate parameter which has “suffered”.
SR

godostoyke

@Steve Reddish: GLOBAL temperature continues to rise, with about 60x more heat gain in the oceans than in the atmosphere. ATMOSPHERIC temperatures have been rising more slowly in the last 10 years or so (though with a record high in 2010), and within expected variability due to the interplay of harder to predict El Nino and La Nina cycles. (E.g. Church, J.A. et al. 2011. Revisiting the Earth’s sea-level and energy budgets from 1961 to 2008. Geophysical Resarch Letters 38: 1-8.)

godo:
That is nothing but coincidence. A spurious correlation, which has now broken down. CO2 continues to rise, but temperature has stopped rising.
The fact is that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆temperature, not vice-versa. I have repeatedly posted empirical evidence showing that is true.
So who are you going to believe? Planet Earth? Or Algore and the IPCC?
They can’t both be right, you know.
Rational people believe what the real world is telling us, and if there is a conflict between empirical evidence and the UN/IPCC, then unbiased folks have no problem coming to the correct conclusion.
The planet does not lie — unlike the UN/IPCC.

paqyfelyc

godostoyke August 31, 2014 at 10:41 pm:
“@Steve Reddish: GLOBAL temperature continues to rise, with about 60x more heat gain in the oceans than in the atmosphere.”
LOL!
Too bad for Church & al. , simple physics says that, to gain heat, you must receive more energy or send back less energy. Which didn’t happened, according to ERBE and CERES satellites data, while CO2 rose.
Funny, isn’t it ?

Gene Kelly

This argument has been around for a long time. The USA has 2.3 billion acres, If divided into 1/4 acre plots the USA alone could situate over 9 billion. If you want to kill off every poor person because they might want what you have, why don’t you just come out and say so. Green goofballs have been responsible for far more deaths as, other posters have said,than all the CO2 ever created by man. I know Gaia is your god but not mine.

James the Elder

You forgot to remove the nearly billion acres under till to feed 300 million. Add another 300-500 million, and all the usable land will be taken for food production. Another 500 million would mean draining swamps, opening up wilderness and parks, and invading Canada because we need the Lebensraum. Not pretty.
Then there’s the problem with sewage and drinking water.

Pedro Oliveira

So why are you still alive and posting?

Jake J

The renewable energy investment in the USA nominally now contributes about 3.8% of electricity generation.
That’s not true. In the first 5 months of 2013, wind and solar were 4.1% of electrical generation. In the first 5 months of 2014, they were 5%. If you’re going to quote statistics, then get them right.
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_5.pdf

I find it curious you only included only the first five months of 2013. Do you have the % for the entire year? That being said, 5% just isn’t that much more significant than 3.8%. You’re still circumsizing a gnat.

Jtom

Well, since all I hear are crickets I must assume you know that the peak months for electrical consumption starts in June. Solar and wind power produces a far smaller percent of the total electrical power produced during the next several months, bringing the percent contribution for the year down significantly from the first five months. What you did was cherry-pick the months, a tactic that you will not succeed with on this site.

Problem with wind http://youtu.be/gJtv7gkuh1s

Greg

Interesting article.
It should be noted that UK solar production figures are total fiction. There is no monitoring at all of production from domestic installations. It is a more or less arbitrary _assumed_ production. There is not metering.
Anyone installing PV in the UK ( possibly excepting Cornwall ) is kidding themselves. There is a decent summer about once every 20 years. You’d really need to believe in a change in climate coming along.
Apart from pandering to the green lobby the real reason UK governments give grants and preferential feed-in tariffs for PV is to provide the user with a certified revenue. A revenue opens the possibility of a loan and loans allows the banks to create money ( “wealth” ) that does not exist and balance their books.
Most of this is about saving the banks not saving the planet.

Greg

The notable difference between german and US solar capacity factor is quite striking. I’m guessing that the large scale installations in US are a lot more productive than often poorly placed roof-top installations in Germany.
Solar catches well 2h either side of high noon and scapes the equivalent of another two hours from the bits in either side. A 24/365 capacity factor or around 25% is pretty good.
I would be a little suspicious of what the data actually are ( especially is you use WP as your source !! ).
I suspect that there are also a lot of off-grid users in Germany and installation data maybe from sales of panels whereas production will be only from feed-in tariff data.
One thing that is interesting is the wobble in capacity factor for wind. I’m guessing that this is in fact climate data. It appears the the US production has a clear circa 2y cycle. Could this be a reflection of atmospheric circulation being affected by the quasi- biennial oscillation ( QBO ) ?
Would be interesting to follow up on that.

DirkH

No, higher capacity factor in USA is due to more sun hours per year. USA has up to 2500 in Claifornia; Germany maxes out at 1000 near Freiburg, and 800 in the North.
What you mean is efficiency, that’s 18% for silicon, 9% or so for thin film.
“I suspect that there are also a lot of off-grid users in Germany ”
Not at all. Germany is a metroplex and has grid everywhere.

Geoff Sherrington

An Australian review commissioned by the Federal Government has found that Renewable Energy Target, RET, of 20% of energy by 2020, has failed as a scheme.
Overall electrical production is now commonly in surplus of needs and there is no point subsidising the glut even further. The target looks like it will be met with no further subsidies paid.
The Government has yet to make a decision.
……………………
Shortly, there will be another study released, related to a White Paper on electricity costs. It has a different review panel. Its recommendations might overlap those of the RET review and they might be different. We shall see, as we shall see which way the Government responds.
Many of us are hoping for common sense to prevail over ideology and the pleading of special interest groups.

Harry Passfield

Geoff: Whenever I hear of ‘targets’ that are alliterative (20% by 2020; 50% by 2050 etc) I know that the target is political, not environmental. Of course, when we’re (UK) ruled by PR guys it’s SOP for them.

A C Osborn

As stated by other commentors this analysis is incomplete without including the Investment & Running Costs of the energy production.
The latest study on German Solar & Wind shows a very poor rate of return even though they are given priority over FF & Nuclear. If it was the other way around and wind & solar were not heavily subsidized they would not invest another euro in either solar or wind.
That is why they are heavily investing in Dirty Lignite power stations now, some of them are realists.

mwhite

“In the UK the nominal contribution from wind-power is now equivalent to about 3 normal power stations, (1GW) and only about ¼ of a normal power station is provided by solar power. In 2013 the solar output capacity reached 6.8% of installed nameplate capacity but the averaged over the whole data set it was rather higher at 7.6%.
In 2013 the wind-power capacity reached the satisfactory output capacity factor of 28.5% of installed nameplate capacity but the averaged over the whole data set it only amounted to 22.5%.”
As the UK closes it’s coal fired generating capacity those “green” percentages will look better and better.
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm
Close all the coal, gas and nuclear capacity and we will have 100% green power generation.
But there will not be enough to go round.

pekke

Here you can watch daily power production in Germany.
Conventional gray, wind green and solar yellow.
Flash needed !
http://www.transparency.eex.com/en/
UK.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Nordic countries
Further down on this page is a table showing the current types of production and net exchange: negative value = sell, positive value = buy.
http://www.svk.se/Start/English/Operations-and-market/Nordic-System-Map/

PaulH

Here you can watch daily renewable production in Ontario Canada.
http://www.ieso.ca/
Note the small fraction of the total supply from wind, and solar is so minuscule it’s listed in the small “Other” category.

Dire Wolf

The amazing part of that chart is the large % of nuclear in the mix. I knew about the hydro power (very famous here south of the border), but having nuclear as nearly 3/4 of the power — that’s outstanding! It probably helps your balance of payments to be able to sell the excess fossil fuel to those less advanced countries (like the US). Too bad our Obstructor in Chief is both blocking the XLP and not interested in Nuclear.

DirkH

For those who ask about cost:
Subsidy cost has grown exponentially, pretty stable with 20 to 25% a year, and stands now at 24 billion EUR a year. Population is 80 million, so it’s about 300 EUR cost per person per year.
These 300 EUR are paid in three ways: one third as a surcharge on consumed kWh from the grid, I think that’s 6.25 cents a kWh currently; one third is paid via taxes (because the public apparatur will have to pay the surcharge as well for the elec it consumes, and that’s a third of total elec consumed), one third is paid via higher consumer good prices (commercial sector consumes remaining third of elec and has to pay the surcharge as well)
So the huge cost is nicely distributed and hidden and our journalists can hide it very well (as the main task of a journalist in the West in 2014 is to hide things.)
Subsidy pays the agreed tariff to the Solar / Wind elec producer. This tariff is fixed for 20 years when the installation goes online. Year after year the tariff for new installations is lowered, and some other conditions come into it, for instance a rooftop solar gets 14 cent a kWh, a solar plantation in the forest gets 7 cents. If its built on old chemically polluted Russian weapons ranges in ex DDR you get a cent or two more. Google has some huge PV fields there. You never see them if you don’t fly as they are in the core of forested areas.
West Germany of course is so densely populated that it’s impossible to hide anything but in the ex DDR there are some rather empty spots so they’ve been covered with PV – small problem is that there are no big consumers there. Another madness; building the stuff where it’s not needed, but that is allowed and gets subsidized.
Many Bundestag MP’s have shares in wind and solar operators and have a pcuniary interest in increasing the redistribution scheme. Methamphetamine doesn’t pay for itself. I’m looking at you, SPD.

Good info. I discussed the subsidies with the solar roof salesman at the last Mayfest in Strasburg. After many denials he finally admitted that net metering was a subsidy. It helps that solar almost peaks when A/C peaks in summer. But otherwise we are paying full retail for power that is unreliable and unneeded. I also attended the power company annual meeting and following conference call. It is simply amazing how clueless people are about the facts of power production and consumption, it is a sad tribute to our education system and media.

godostoyke

@DirkH The subsidies for renewables are paltry compared to the $1.9 trillion global subsidies for fossil fuels, according to the International Monetary Fund (www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2013/pr1393.htm). And that doesn’t even count the 1 million deaths from coal fired power plants, acidification of oceans or climate change.

Let’s cut out ALL energy subsidies. What would happen?
Answer: solar and wind power would wither on the vine. Solar would remain as a tiny niche provider in areas far from other electricity sources, but it would not have even one percent of its current market share. Wind would be completely eliminated by market forces: no one will pay 10X more for unreliable windmill power. No one, not even eco-Malthusian Green hypocrites.
Alternative energy only exists because of massive taxpayer subsidies. But coal and natgas would still be widely used. They don’t need any subsidies, while subsidies are necessary for solar and windmills to even exist.
I trust that makes the subsidy argument clear.
Finally, the stupid “acidification” argument is complete nonsense. There is no scientific evidence to support it. And the ‘million deaths’ from coal is another outright Green lie, based on statistical mumbo-jumbo and fabricated numbers.
And of course, the “climate change” canard: scientific skeptics are the ones who have always said that climate constantly changes. But Michael Mann and his lemmings claim that there was no climate change until the Industrial Revolution [the long flat handle of Mann’s hokey schtick].
If it were not for their constant lies and misrepresentation, the alarmist crowd would not have anything to argue with.

The world may be able to support a few billion more people; ironically, it wouldn’t need to, if “developing” nations were allowed to develop. As people become more prosperous, the birth rate falls off. You can try draconian practices, as China did, forcing poor people to restrict family size more or less violently, or you can raise their standard of living, and with mere access (i.e., no need for force) to birth control, they’ll have smaller families all on their own.
For that matter, building more sensible housing would reduce the need for a lot of power. Build a tin-can home in the desert, and you’re going to need a ton more power to cool it in the summer and warm it in the winter, than if you built a straight-up adobe home. Burying old tires in the walls reduces landfill problems as it reduces power demands; ferrocement walls with old used cans & bottles buried within, likewise. Frees up power for other things, yah? “Green” doesn’t have to mean “back to medieval technology”.
But if you want to generate ever more power, here is an interesting argument, a different take on “global warming”:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
Thermodynamics wins every time.

I did a detailed analysis of wind output in Ontario Canada. I used hourly output data over a 5 year period to get a much finer detail of what is actually happening. It doesnt matter what the output of a power source is over the course of a year. Power output must be viewed in real time, that is, what it can do for us right now. That means looking at each smallest increment possible. And that is on an hour by hour basis.
When you do that you find that the situation for wind power, and solar as well, is even worse. For example in the summer months wind output in Ontario is a mere 7% of nameplate. 40% of the time they produce nothing at all (that’s anything under 5% nameplate).
See the analysis here: http://OntarioWindPerformance.wordpress.com.

Renewable lack of dispatchability will quite likely lead to rolling brown outs/blackouts in the UK this winter. Reason is unplanned base load outages (two nucs, one coal) have left essentially no spare grid capacity, while the crazy wind rules have prevented normal investment in standby gas peakers. Now too late to put that in place (two year lead time).
And in California 2015 summer. Reason there is threefold. Lack of suffient transmission interconnect, especially north/south. Drought impact on hydro. And the growing proportion of grid renewable mandated by the state, most concentrated in the southern half. The timing estimate is from formal PGE and SoCal testimony 2/26/2013 to the CPUC.
If happens, will be extremely educational to climate obsessed UK and California politicians and citizens.

latecommer2014

Blackouts will be needed to convince people of this folly, but before this occurs California is going to dictate when you can run AC, when you can heat etc. (more regulations to intentionally disregard in my case)
I bought and installed underground a very nice surplus military generator that I will use when needed, with the side benefit of releasing additional CO2 to a hungry biosphere .

Hell_Is_Like_Newark

the green propagandists at places like Think Progress have their followers convinced that solar actually improves the reliability of the grid (i.e. buffers out voltage spikes). Absolute mind-bending B.S. and so people believe it.

Eustace Cranch

Even if the storage problems & reliability could be mitigated, think of the sheer square area required to bring wind/solar up to any significant percentage of energy use. Millions upon tens of millions of hectares. Think of all the habitat destroyed; the aesthetic pollution of wilderness skylines and ocean views with these ugly pylons & panels. The countless shredded/fried birds & bats.
It’s an absolute deal-breaker for me. There’s no compelling reason to inflict these monstrosities on ourselves.

The ability to respond to electricity demand as and when needed!
The solution to climate change
replacement for fossil fuel powered electrical generation
D.Baker @silenced_not
Urgent action required, appears to be the consensus of the most learned climate change advocates!
The collective wisdom acquired through trial and error test applications of alleged solutions, has been enlightening, and sobering as agenda driven rhetoric failed time after time to deliver a replacement technology for the fossil fuel powered electrical generating facilities, which are the primary sources.of GHG the alleged culprits inducing global climatic destabilization!
Most recently 2 documents have corroborated a much maligned document I wrote!
In My Opinion! lnkd.in/ifM2au@Inc
* Leaked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the report says that agricultural output may drop by as much as two percent every decade for the rest of this century, compared to what it would have been without the effects of climate change. Demand for food is reportedly expected to rise 14 percent each decade during that time, exacerbating the food supply issue.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/1/5056260/ipcc-leaked-climate-change-report-warns-severe-food-constraints
* letter, by Kenneth Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution, Kerry Emanuel at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, James E. Hansen of Columbia University and Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Adelaide
“To Those Influencing Environmental Policy But Opposed to Nuclear Power”
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/to-those-influencing-environmental-policy-but-opposed-to-nuclear-power/?_r=0
Unfortunately building conventional nuclear facilities is not realistic due to the costs associated with safety issues.
This leaves you with one option other than Geo-engineering “A New Nuclear Technology”!
Geo-engineering is the newest subsidy for the fossil fuel industry and is wrought with unknown risks and dangers and therefore not an option.
The New Nuclear Technology I propose is as follows:
Human Excrement + Nuclear Waste = Hydrogen
disq.us/8en3l0
lnkd.in/ifM2au@Inc
http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=938667&type=member&item=5794160567027515392&commentID=5794504904257064960&report%2Esuccess=8ULbKyXO6NDvmoK7o030UNOYGZKrvdhBhypZ_w8EpQrrQI-BBjkmxwkEOwBjLE28YyDIxcyEO7_TA_giuRN#commentID_5794504904257064960 … … … … … … … … … …
You’ve tried everything else first and these have failed adding to the urgency of action required!
Dennis Baker
1. – 998 Creston Avenue
Penticton BC Canada V2A1P9
dennisbaker2003@hotmail.com
@dennisearlbaker @silenced_not

rogerknights

“Geo-engineering is the newest subsidy for the fossil fuel industry and is wrought with unknown risks and dangers and therefore not an option.”
Can’t most types of geoengineering be stopped quickly if there are problems with them?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/16/the-levelized-cost-of-electric-generation/#comment-1569542
Repeating from previous posts:
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/eonwindreport2005.pdf
(apparently no longer available from E.ON Netz website).
Re E.ON Netz Wind Report 2005 – see especially:
Figure 6 says Wind Power does not work (need for ~100% spinning backup);
and Figure 7 says it just gets worse and worse the more Wind Power you add to the grid (see Substitution Factor).
Same story for grid-connected Solar Power (both in the absence of a “Super-Battery”).
___________
From our 2002 paper at http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/27/another-inconvenient-tv-meteorologist/#comment-122790
Uncivil Servant (02:04:55) : Thank you for the article from James Lovelock. He is half right – comments inserted in this excerpt, in CAPS.
Global warming is real and deadly and we have to do our best to counter it FALSE but we must not be led astray by the special pleading of an industry made rich by over-generous subsidies paid for by your taxes and one that is bound to fail to deliver TRUE.
Sean (21:55:10) : And thank you Sean for some excellent points. Excerpt:
I don’t think Mr. Steffen’s comments about the benefits of cap and trade legislation to GE’s bottom line go nearly far enough. Considering that a 1 GW coal fired plant would have to be replaced with 4 GW of wind turbines (to account for the different load factors) TRUE – ABOUT 5 IN GERMANY and would also have to be backed up with another GW of gas turbines for when the wind dies TRUE, plus load variation would have to be managed through a smart grid, there is a lot of hardware to be sold TRUE. AND SUDDEN VARIATIONS IN WINDPOWER CAN CRASH THE GRID – JUST WAIT UNTIL THIS HAPPENS IN WINTER.
SEE E.On Netz excellent Wind Report 2005 at
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/eonwindreport2005.pdf
Excerpt:
FIGURE 5 shows the annual curve of wind
power feed-in in the E.ON control area for 2004,
from which it is possible to derive the wind power
feed-in during the past year:
1. The highest wind power feed-in in the E.ON grid
was just above 6,000MW for a brief period, or
put another way the feed-in was around 85% of
the installed wind power capacity at the time.
2. The average feed-in over the year was 1,295MW,
around one fifth of the average installed wind
power capacity over the year.
3. Over half of the year, the wind power feed-in
was less than 14% of the average installed wind
power capacity over the year.
The feed-in capacity can change frequently
within a few hours. This is shown in FIGURE 6,
which reproduces the course of wind power feedin
during the Christmas week from 20 to 26
December 2004.
Whilst wind power feed-in at 9.15am on
Christmas Eve reached its maximum for the year
at 6,024MW, it fell to below 2,000MW within only
10 hours, a difference of over 4,000MW. This corresponds
to the capacity of 8 x 500MW coal fired
power station blocks. On Boxing Day, wind power
feed-in in the E.ON grid fell to below 40MW.
Handling such significant differences in feed-in
levels poses a major challenge to grid operators.
In order to also guarantee reliable electricity
supplies when wind farms produce little or no
power, e.g. during periods of calm or storm-related
shutdowns, traditional power station capacities
must be available as a reserve. This means that
wind farms can only replace traditional power
station capacities to a limited degree.
An objective measure of the extent to which
wind farms are able to replace traditional power
stations, is the contribution towards guaranteed
capacity which they make within an existing
power station portfolio. Approximately this capacity
may be dispensed within a traditional power
station portfolio, without thereby prejudicing the
level of supply reliability.
In 2004 two major German studies investigated
the size of contribution that wind farms make
towards guaranteed capacity. Both studies
separately came to virtually identical conclusions,
that wind energy currently contributes to the
secure production capacity of the system, by
providing 8% of its installed capacity.
As wind power capacity rises, the lower availability
of the wind farms determines the reliability
of the system as a whole to an ever increasing
extent. Consequently the greater reliability of
traditional power stations becomes increasingly
eclipsed.
As a result, the relative contribution of wind
power to the guaranteed capacity of our supply
system up to the year 2020 will fall continuously
to around 4% (FIGURE 7).
In concrete terms, this means that in 2020,
with a forecast wind power capacity of over
48,000MW (Source: dena grid study), 2,000MW of
traditional power production can be replaced by
these wind farms.
THAT’S 4% SUBSTITUTION CAPACITY, OR 96% CONVENTIONAL BACKUP.
AT TIME OF WRITING WIND POWER 2005, E.ON NETZ WAS THE LARGEST WIND POWER GENERATOR IN THE WORLD. THE E.ON REPORT IS HONEST AND RELIABLE – BUT WILL YOUNG BARACK EVER READ IT?
A FURTHER IRONY IS THAT DURING THE RECENT EXTREME COLD WEATHER IN THE UK, THERE WAS NO WIND AND NO WIND POWER – APPARENTLY ALSO COMMON DURING EXTREME SUMMER WARMTH – SO WIND POWER IS NOT THERE WHEN IT IS MOST NEEDED. MORE SUBSIDIES AND HIGHER POWER RATES FOR CONSUMERS ARE NOT THE SOLUTION.
GE SHOULD MAKE A PUBLIC STATEMENT NOW ABOUT THE LIMITATIONS OF WIND POWER, TO PROTECT ITSELF AGAINST BEING SUED INTO OBLIVION IN THE COMING YEARS. AMERICANS ARE VERY LITIGIOUS, AND WIND POWER IS BEING OVERSOLD AS A PANACEA THAT DOES NOT WORK – SOLID GROUNDS FOR A HUGE CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT.
PERHAPS CLASS-ACTION LAWSUITS WILL ALSO BE BROUGHT AGAINST ALL THE WARMIST SUPPORTERS AND THEIR ORGANIZATIONS, AS THE ENORMOUS WASTE OF MONEY ON A NON-PROBLEM BECOMES APPARENT – IMAGINE ALL THE LITIGATORS IN THE USA LINING UP TO GET IN ON THAT ACTION.

Oatley

Relying on wind power is like relying on the next branch to fall from a tree to build your fire.

TomE

Great column, great comments. If you want to see all sides of a political/technical discussion, WUWT is the place.

Bruce Cobb

Who pays for expensive solar? (hint; it isn’t the homeowner). The solar “industry” is a faux industry, which is only made possible through generous rebates, mandates and other assorted freebies being paid for by the ratepayers and taxpayers. Without those, it would collapse immediately. And so it should.

george e. smith

I note only, that the energy output graphed in the first unnamed figure, is in units of Megawatt.
Why do I need to (endlessly) point out that Megawatt, (MW) is NOT a unit of ENERGY.
It is a unit of POWER.
I give ZERO credence to ANY essay / article / paper , that can’t even get the units correct.
Stop posting articles, if you have no familiarity with scientific nomenclature. It is getting tiresome.
Trenberth doesn’t understand scientific nomenclature either.

Paul Nevins

Does “installed capacity” have any usefulness? 1000 MW of installed nuclear generated capacity tends to produce 1000MW of steady reliable power. While 1000 MW of solar, or much worse wind generator capacity produces absolutely nothing that can be relied on other than increased costs. Or perhaps it produces a need for 1000MW of backup generation capacity to provide for the actual needed power.

godostoyke says [in a recent reply to J.R. Wakefield], upthread;
None of the leading climate scientists I know would deny that climate change has happened in the past, many times.
Aside from your anonymous name-dropping [you know lots of climate scientists, eh?], the only so-called scientist I know of who denies that the climate has changed is one Michael Mann, who attempted to erase the MWP and the LIA. That denies climate change, no? As for scientific skeptics, we know that the climate has always changed, and always will change — naturally.
Next, you say:
…“climate change denial” is the denial of anthropogenic climate change, in the face of massive scientific evidence to the contrary (not unlike the denial that the holocaust ever happened by some in the face of massive evidence to the contrary)…
Three “denials” in one sentence, but only one “evidence”. You seem ignorant of what constitutes scientific evidence. Evidence is either raw data, or adjusted data that is directly traceable every step of the way back to the original raw data, including full disclosure of all methods and methodologies. ‘Evidence’ is also verifiable empirical observations, such as satellite data. But your peer reviewed papers, and computer climate models are not scientific “evidence”. Thus, there is no “massive scientific evidence”, as you claim. Get your definitions straight, and we will be on the same page.
Next, you say:
…the best estimates of the rate of warming from human emissions…
Please. “Estimates” are not scientific evidence. They are opinions. Everyone has one.
Next:
dbstealey, please provide ONE recent peer-reviewed climate science paper in a major scientific journal regularly publishing on this subject (e.g. Science, Nature) that provides evidence that puts into doubt anthropogenic global warming (AGW)….
Wake up, godostoyke! Pal reviewed papers are not evidence. No wonder you’re confused.
And:
I have provided you with a link to over 9,200 scientific papers that support the theory of AGW. And, no, they don’t have to be cherry-picked because 97-100% of climate science papers support AGW (the 97% figure is being generous to climate deniers,…
You can’t get anything right. There is no “theory of AGW”. No wonder you’re confused. AGW is a conjecture. An opinion. To be a theory, AGW would have to be able to make repeated, accurate predictions. It doesn’t. It can’t. The AGW conjecture could not even predict the most significant occurrance of the last twenty years: predicting that global warming would stop. Promoters of the AGW conjecture never saw that coming. AGW cannot predict anything accurately and repeatedly. It is only a conjecture — and not a very good one.
Next, you say:
…”climate deniers”…
That pejorative has no place here. This is the internet’s Best Science &Technology site. Labels like that should be used at the alarmist blogs you get your talking points from. Please don’t use that insulting term here. It only reflects badly on you.
Next, you refer the the preposterous “97%” nonsense. That has no basis in reality. It is a fabrication by a neo-Nazi. Learn something. Use the search box, and put in “97%”.
Wherever you are getting your misinformation from, it is not a legitimate science site like WUWT. It is probably a thinly-trafficked alarmist blog that caters to a small circle of alarmist head-nodders. Stick around here for a few months, and you might start to get up to speed. Because from what you have said so far, you are just another know-nothing with plenty to learn.

godostoyke

@dbstealey: “You seem ignorant of what constitutes scientific evidence.” Speaking of evidence, you still owe me some. So far, scientific reference count Godo Stoyke: 9205, dbstealey: zero.

paqyfelyc

evidence of an absence ?
?
?
And you pretend to know what science is ?
How laughable

godostoyke

@paqyfelyc “evidence of an absence ?”
I am sorry, paqyfeyc, but this sentence doesn’t even make any sense.

michael m.

A recent piece by […name…] trots out, yet again, the notion of “an already well-established scientific consensus on the influence of human activity on climate change”. Inevitably, there is a link to the discredited Cook et al. paper pretending there is a “97% consensus” to the effect that most of the global warming since 1950 was manmade. Unaccountably, there is no link to the subsequent paper by Legates et al. (2013), who showed that Cook et al. had themselves marked only 0.5% of the 11,944 abstracts they examined as explicitly endorsing the “consensus” as they had defined it.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/26/97-of-pictures-are-worth-1000-climate-words/

godo:
You have a hard time learning. Papers are not scientific evidence.

@dbstealey: “You have a hard time learning. Papers are not scientific evidence.”
dbstealey, peer-reviewed scientific papers are actually almost the ONLY true currency of scientific debate, as they have very high standards of data collection, methodology, accountability and replicability. I can only assume that you have never published in peer-reviewed journals if you are not aware of this?

godostoyke

@michael m. “Legates et al. (2013), who showed that Cook et al. had themselves marked only 0.5% of the 11,944 abstracts they examined as explicitly endorsing the “consensus” as they had defined it.”
Legates et al. (2013b) simply redefine what they think constitutes endorsement of AGW, and then measure it as a percentage of all papers reviewed, INCLUDING THOSE THAT TAKE NO POSITION EITHER WAY. So, no, this does not change the 97% figure at all – you can read Legates et al. (2013b) paper for yourself to confirm this. Wotts (wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/watt-about-monckton-and-the-97/) also provides a breakdown of the numbers.

godostoyk
You seem to want to troll this thread from its subject. I write to comment on your assertions (you have provided no arguments) in the context of this thread’s subject.
You claim that increase to existing atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause discernible global warming and that CO2 emissions from human activity increase atmospheric CO2 concentration. Although I know your claims to be false, for sake of argument I will accept them.
Your claims require that CO2 from human activities should be reduced.
The intermittency of wind and solar power requires additional back-up which INCREASES emissions from an electricity grid supply system (see this).
Therefore, your assertions demand that wind and solar power should NOT be added to a grid supply system.
Richard

godostoyke

@richardscourtney Nice try. As I pointed out above, Energiewende in Germany led to a 22.5% reduction in specific CO2e emissions per kWh from 1990 to 2012, despite a 35% decrease in nuclear electricity production in the same time period.
Intermittency has not really required any new capacity, however, it DOES make the provision of peaking power (primarily natural gas and pumped storage) less profitable, as PV (solar) production is almost perfectly aligned with German power peaks, and therefore displaces these sources first, though Fraunhofer data shows that renewables have even started cutting into coal-fired electricity production. So, the challenge of making the provision of peaking power profitable in the face of rising renewables production is there, and a mechanism needs to be found.
Amory’s article (http://blog.rmi.org/separating_fact_from_fiction_in_accounts_of_germanys_renewables_revolution) provides more details on Energiewende’s success, so does http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/09/germany-solar-power-lessons/#5dcW3oM3iYS9w0c0.01.

godo says:
As I pointed out above, Energiewende in Germany led to a 22.5% reduction in specific CO2e emissions…
So what? CO2 is a harmless and beneficial trace gas. More is better. Why would you want to reduce it?

godostoyke
I did not “try” anything. I stated – with a link to a complete explanation – that intermittent ‘renewables’ increase emissions from grid supplied power generation because the intermittency increases need for additional backup with resulting additional emissions.
You have replied

Nice try. As I pointed out above, Energiewende in Germany led to a 22.5% reduction in specific CO2e emissions per kWh from 1990 to 2012, despite a 35% decrease in nuclear electricity production in the same time period.

No! You “pointed out” nothing.
You have repeated an assertion from the German wind industry which you say is “based on” but is not official and/or referenced information.
Your actual statement above actually says

Based on data from the German Federal Environment Agency (“Umweltbundesamt”, July of 2013; http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/4488.pdf), specific CO2e emissions of electricity fell from 744 g/kWh in 1990 to 576 in 2012, a reduction of 22.5%. This is even more remarkable considering that nuclear energy production in Germany fell by 35% in the same time period and had to be compensated for in part by renewable energy.

Frankly, I don’t accept your assertion from the German wind industry because I do not understand how it is physically possible. Please explain.
Richard

paqyfelyc

The “22.5% reduction in specific CO2 emissions per kWh from 1990 to 2012” is real, but Energiewende has nothing to do with it. Its a product of reunification ( soviet standard -> western standard in East Germany), technology (more efficient power station), and a switch from coal and lignite to (Russian …) gas.

godostoyke

Natural gas played a role, but it is a relatively minor one compared to renewables, which have significantly reduced the role of both total fossil fuels AND nuclear in the German electricity mix (e.g. check out page 11 of the government report mentioned above http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/461/publikationen/climate_change_07_2013_icha_co2emissionen_des_dt_strommixes_webfassung_barrierefrei.pdf )

godostoyke

@richardscourtney
As I pointed out before, my link was from an official government of Germany web site, not the wind industry. However, the link I provided seems to be dead. My apologies. Here is the new link: http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/461/publikationen/climate_change_07_2013_icha_co2emissionen_des_dt_strommixes_webfassung_barrierefrei.pdf (it is in German, though the table on page 2 doesn’t need much in the way of translation)
The only link you provided, on the other hand, (no peer-reviewed science here!) was to a fossil fuel funded (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/28/business/exxon-backs-groups-that-question-global-warming.html) [snip . . you know the rules . . mod] website.
Renewables reduce CO2e emissions by displacing the combustion of fossil fuels, mostly natural gas because these plants can be dispatched fairly quickly, but even some coal (coal plants ramp up and down slowly). There are definitely challenges in moving to a 100% renewable electricity grid, but night charging of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, a smart grid with grid-connected appliances and equipment (has been happening for a while now), co-generation (CHP) and combustion of sustainably produced biofuels (e.g. cow manure to methane) are all pointing the way.

godostoyke
THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!
My link was this
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf
It is nothing like you assert!
My link was to a Distinguished Lecture I was asked to provide in the UK. It was not a link to anything like you suggest. But truth is not your strong point so that was to be expected.
As I said, the lecture fully explains my views on the matter of why intermittent power sources – and notably windpower – INCREASE emissions from a power generation grid.
You provided a DEAD link to a German government site and you linked to two pro-wind propaganda sites. You now claim

Renewables reduce CO2e emissions by displacing the combustion of fossil fuels,

No! That is a falsehood.
Renewables INCREASE CO2e emissions by displacing the electricity from power stations which burn fossil fuels,
The power station has to reduce output to allow the windpower onto the grid. The reduced output reduces the efficiency of the power station so it uses MORE fuel to produce less electricity: the effect is similar to driving a car at 10 mph in fifth gear which can be done but uses a lot of fuel.
Fortunately, paqyfelyc explained why German CO2 emissions fell when he wrote

The “22.5% reduction in specific CO2 emissions per kWh from 1990 to 2012″ is real, but Energiewende has nothing to do with it. Its a product of reunification ( soviet standard -> western standard in East Germany), technology (more efficient power station), and a switch from coal and lignite to (Russian …) gas.

Richard

godostoyke

@richardscourtney
Richard,
Your link points to a lecture you gave to a bunch of mining engineers (a receptive anti-wind audience, I would imagine). You are entitled to your opinion, but it is not peer-reviewed science, and the fact that it is posted on a site known to be funded by fossil fuel money (link above to New York Times) does not really help your credibility.
Contrary to what you say, all my links where to data from the German government; I have replaced the old dead link with a new one. Links sometimes expire, it is known to have happened on the internet before … 🙂
The 22% reduction in co2e intensity is again a statistic from the German government (page 1 and 2, http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/461/publikationen/climate_change_07_2013_icha_co2emissionen_des_dt_strommixes_webfassung_barrierefrei.pdf ). Page 11 clearly shows that natural gas played only a minor role in the reduction of fossil fuel and nuclear use, with the bulk coming from an increase in renewables. Ramping coal-fired up and down is more difficult, which is why most of the dispatchable peak demand needs are met with natural gas. However, the data are based on actual fuel burned, so they already include any inefficiencies arising from throttling fossil fuel-powered plants. More information for 2014 here:
http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/downloads-englisch/pdf-files-englisch/data-nivc-/electricity-production-from-solar-and-wind-in-germany-2014.pdf (this one in English)
PS: moderator, I have not called anyone in this comment area a climate denier. Or is it “illegal” to use the WORD climate denier, period, on this site, even when referring to other web sites?
[the word will trigger moderation, and get held for inspection and decision -mod]

godostoyke
My link was to a lecture commissioned from me by a professional Institute which INCLUDES mining engineers and mechanical engineers. They would have pointed out if there were engineering problems and/or errors in my lecture. Instead, they published it on their web site (not as neatly as the reprint I linked) and invited me as a Guest of Honour two years later.
You complain that the fully-referenced information I have provided is “not peer reviewed” but yourself only provide links to propaganda blogs and government propaganda. Get real!
The German government has cut back on its windpower policy because it knows your unsubstantiated assertions are falsehoods.
Richard

godostoyke

@richardscourtney “but yourself only provide links to propaganda blogs and government propaganda.”
My references to German renewable data were from official government sources.
“The German government has cut back on its windpower policy ”
Only some renewable FITs were reduced, though wind is one of them (partly because renewables have dropped so much in price that fewer incentives are required). The government’s EEG 2014 continues to have an aggressive target of 40-45% renewables by 2025, and 55-60% by 2035 (though I think it could be higher).
“a lecture commissioned from me by a professional Institute ”
That is indeed an honour

paqyfelyc
Thankyou, “a switch from coal and lignite to (Russian …) gas” is a complete explanation which does make sense.
Richard

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Yogyakarta

Article on today’s Jakarta Post: Myanmar is going to (borrow) spend $480,000,000 to build a solar electric array that will create (count them!) 100 full time jobs (for $4.8m each) to wean the country off hydro and get them onto safe, reliable and green renewable solar energy.
John Perkins used to try to convince developing countries to borrow huge sums to build vast and useless infrastructure projects that were sold on the basis of generating future income to pay for them, resulting in perpetual debt servitude. The contracts were given to companies ‘large enough’ to build them – always foreign – and when the large dam or infrastructure was finally running, it took all the available government income to service the debt. He explains in his book “Confessions of an economic hitman” how the numbers were fiddled and faked and enough bribes promised until the suckers bought the proposal and signed the contract to build.
These ‘green jobs’ projects are the 21st century version of the big development ‘hitman’ projects of the 70’s. My, how times don’t change.

ponysboy

The first graph shows power and energy. There’s a scale of units for power but none for energy.
How about adding joules or kwhrs so we can see what you’re talking about.

godostoyke says:
peer-reviewed scientific papers are actually almost the ONLY true currency of scientific debate, as they have very high standards of data collection, methodology, accountability and replicability.
Heh. You’re kidding, right? “Replicability”??
Maybe on your planet. But not on Planet Earth.
Michael Mann has yet to disclose his methods, data, methodologies, and metadata for MBH98/99, fourteen years after publication, so please stop spouting nonsense.

godostoyke

@dbstealey “Michael Mann has yet to disclose his methods, data, methodologies, and metadata for MBH98/99, fourteen years after publication”
Mann et al.’s data and methods can be found in the original articles, e.g.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/mann.html as well as:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/mann1999/
This site I think is trying to frame Mann (http://thepolicylass.org/2010/03/07/early-mci-mann-correspondence-mbh/), but it really just documents Mann’s extreme patience with someone who desires extensive hand-holding. There is probably a reason why Mann continues to be published in the world’s leading natural science publications, while McIntyre has to make do with third-rate journals.

godo,
Sorry, that is incorrect. Here is but one example of data that Mann hid in an ftp file labeled “censored“. It was discovered a few years ago by McIntyre & McKittrick, and it falls under the heading of relevant “data”. There are other examples posted by M&M.
When/if you can get Steve McIntyre [of ClimateAudit.com] or Ross McKitrick to state that Mann has provided them with the requested information, I will be happy to concede that you are correct. But until then, it is clear that Mann continues to hide information that any honest scientist would provide upon request.
Falsification is the duty of scientists. A conjecture/hypothesis/theory cannot be falsified if information is withheld. Mann continues to withhold information. Therefore, MBH98/99 ipso facto cannot be falsified, and thus it is not science.

godostoyke

@dbstealey
dbstealey, when scientists are found to falsify data or act unethically, the punishment is usually relatively swift and relatively merciless (e.g. Diederik Stapel, Haruko Obokata). The world has seen McIntyre’s attempted refutation of Mann, and has shrugged its collective (science) shoulder. Mann continues to be highly regarded by the vast majority of climate scientists and continues to publish in the world’s best journals. I have looked at some of the supposed “evidence” against Mann and don’t find it convincing. You’ll have to forgive me if I side with the world’s leading climate scientists on this one, instead of your personal opinion.

godo,
You are only fooling yourself.
Mann is the rainmaker. I have only a few years’ grants that he has received, and they total well over $6 million! Thus, he is protected. No uni is going to kill the goose that lays those golden eggs.
You completely disregarded the evidence I posted. Steve McIntyre is as much a scientist as Michael Mann, and when one scientist requests data, methods, methodologies and metadata from another, the published scientist is duty-bound to provide it. Instead, Mann hides out. Not only that, he excoriates McIntyre for presuming to ask for data. That is the Michael Man that we know: totally insecure, dishonest, and unethical.
Climate ‘science’ is hopelessly corrupted. People who want to believe, like you do, will easily excuse that corruption. But the fact is that Mann has never followed the Scientific Method. In my opinion he is thoroughly corrupt. You only support him due to your obvious confirmation bias: he says what you want to hear.
You are only fooling yourself.

godostoyke

dbstealey, on the one hand you have thousands of climate science articles from every major country using multiple streams of independent evidence supporting AGW, on the other you have a bunch of websites and a very few scientists, virtually all associated with the multi-billion dollar fossil fuel industry, claiming human-induced climate change does not exist. I know which I find more believable. Your personal attacks on Mann are offensive. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I was wondering when your hatred would trigger that usual “funding” canard. It is an expected step in you ever-standard immoral claims and exaggeration from your state-supported, state-promoted, state-centric religious beliefs in a theme that lives with no evidence but the deadly state propaganda from its believers.
And every self-claimed “climate scientist” is government-paid to produce government-benefiting so-called “research” in pal-reviewed journals from government agencies based on government-funding from other government agencies and bureaucracies and government universities to produce that government-favored reports … in search of the government’s desire for control of the population’s energy and a 1.3 trillion in yearly tax increases
but “climate scientists” are not influenced by pride, envy, greed, fear, public pressure, private pressure, peer-pressure, promotions and selections, travel and publicity, TV shows and interviews, government grants and government jobs .and government control of ever-larger budgets … Not at all.
But government “scientists” are above all of that. Only “they” have the truth, and the truth shall set them free… to prey on their fellow man as Mann decrees.

godostoyke

@RACookPE1978 – Except that most of them are not government scientists, but university scientists, which is not the same. Plus, as I pointed out before: “If scientists were falsifying data to obtain more funding from government, you would expect them to write papers DISPROVING anthropogenic climate change when the government is anti-climate protection (e.g. Abbott, Harper, Bush 2.0). However, this is not the case.”
PS: no hatred here, just exasperation at low standards of evidence 😉

godostoyke
I see that you utilise the usual windpower propaganda trick of confusing price with cost.
Government data on price is pure propaganda.
cost = price + subsidy
Consumers end up paying the cost one way or another.
In addition to all its other problems, windpower is very, very expensive.

Richard

godostoyke

Richard, jog my memory: where was I talking about wind cost or price?

The cost of wind energy is lives. Dead people who have been sacrificed needlessly in the cold and dark to appease the CAGW “religion” of politicians and self-called “scientists” employed by the governments’ tax schemes and controls.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Yogyakarta

Richard, as usual your comments are cogent and on point.
godostoyke, do you deny that the global average temperature is the same now as it was 17 years ago? Do you deny that rate at which CO2 emissions from human activity has increased during that same period? Do you deny that the IPCC has downgraded in their reports and summaries the claimed warming capacity of CO2 over the past 12 months?
How deep does your denial go? Do you deny that East and West Germany are now united into one country? Do you deny that the German government has commissioned the construction of more than 20 new coal-fired power plants? Do you deny that the electricity regulator placed a cap on the amount of renewable energy being fed into the grid due to the disruption it was causing because its episodic and generally unpredictable nature?
I have provided a comment above about the sort of idiocy that is taking place in the world in the name of GHG alarmism, in that case in Myanmar – a pathetically poor country that can ill afford any ludicrously expensive solar electric boondoggle – which is the direct result of the manic rush to find some way to get customers for these unaffordable and ill-considered technologies. That is has been promoted as a way to get the country off its reliance on hydro power is the very definition of ‘green’ insanity.
Do you deny that it is crazy to deem, as California has, that hydro power is not a form of renewable energy? How deep, gogostoyke, how deep?

godostoyke

@crispin “Do you deny that the German government has commissioned the construction of more than 20 new coal-fired power plants?”
I don’t agree with the construction of any coal-fired power plants. However, it must be noted that “the German Energy Agency expects 11.3 GW of coal capacity to be added and 18.5 GW closed by 2020—a net decrease of at least 7.2 GW”, according to Amory Lovins (http://blog.rmi.org/separating_fact_from_fiction_in_accounts_of_germanys_renewables_revolution).
“godostoyke, do you deny that the global average temperature is the same now as it was 17 years ago?”
Crispin, the global energy budget has indeed been rising in the last 17 years, at a staggering rate (e.g. Church, J.A. et al. 2011. Revisiting the Earth’s sea-level and energy budgets from 1961 to 2008. Geophysical Research Letters 38: 1-8. Also good graph: Figure 1, p. 264 of Chapter 3 of IPCC, 2013). Atmospheric temperature will continue to yo-yo up and down as it has done in the past, overall global temperature balance and long-term trends are important. Those who would prefer to stick with their own (unsupported) beliefs will continue to ignore data when terrestrial temperature rises, and raise a ruckus when it trends down (or levels), again and again.
I have offered a number of peer-reviewed scientific studies from reputable journals to support my points on climate change. The commenters on this site who are “skeptical” of climate science have not offered a SINGLE peer-reviewed scientific study from a leading journal to back up their claims. I can only conclude that these posters simply prefer to stick to their opinions, in the face of evidence to the contrary. Hand-waving is no substitute for science. I am disappointed by this site.

Bud Nalton

Do we have an electrical engineer on board who can explain to me how the solar generated 230vac gets onto the main grid,as there is a big transformer at the end of my street,and I am a little concerned about stuffing 230vac into the secondary,when there is 700vac or so on the primary.Thankyou.

laraki@yahoo.com

Transformers are bi-directional.
A transformer that steps down 700VAC –> 230 VAC will also step up 230 VAC—>700VAC in the other direction.
Step up/step down is determined by the ratio of turns of wire on the respective windings.
The grid tie inverter (which you will be using) controls the flow of current in such a way as to pump energy INTO the grid. Chances are that there are more than one feeder connected to the 230 VAC side of the xformer, so you will be sharing your energy directly with your neighbors.

But there are resistance and impedance losses at every conversion through every transformer, and these losses are greatest at the lower voltages when currents (I^2R losses increase quickly as voltage goes down!) are created from the few hours a day that the PV panels actually produce a little energy. The rest of the time, the PV cells produce no energy at all, and the power company is running their generators to make up the losses caused by the solar and wind …

godostoyke
In reply to my having written saying to you

I see that you utilise the usual windpower propaganda trick of confusing price with cost.
Government data on price is pure propaganda.
cost = price + subsidy
Consumers end up paying the cost one way or another.
In addition to all its other problems, windpower is very, very expensive.

You ask me

Richard, jog my memory: where was I talking about wind cost or price?

I answer that this link jumps to your post at September 1, 2014 at 9:27 pm that says in another reply to me

Only some renewable FITs were reduced, though wind is one of them (partly because renewables have dropped so much in price that fewer incentives are required). The government’s EEG 2014 continues to have an aggressive target of 40-45% renewables by 2025, and 55-60% by 2035 (though I think it could be higher).

The “incentives” are subsidies.
Richard

@richardscourtney
Thanks, you are right.
Though I would also point to my quote above:
“@DirkH The subsidies for renewables are paltry compared to the $1.9 trillion global subsidies for fossil fuels, according to the International Monetary Fund (www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2013/pr1393.htm). And that doesn’t even count the 1 million deaths from coal fired power plants, acidification of oceans or climate change.”
🙂

godostoyke

@DirkH The subsidies for renewables are paltry compared to the $1.9 trillion global subsidies for fossil fuels, according to the International Monetary Fund (www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2013/pr1393.htm).

Bollocks!
Please don’t be silly!
Fossil fuels are large net contributors to governments’ financing because they are heavily taxed.
‘Renewables’ are large net beneficiaries of governments’ financing because they are heavily subsidised.
Fossil fuels provide much energy. So the small subsidies to fossil fuels are in total a large amount.
‘Renewables’ provide very little energy. So the large subsidies to ‘renewables’ are in total a small amount.
Richard

godostoyke says:
…you would expect [skeptics] to write papers DISPROVING anthropogenic climate change…
That statement exemplifies the ignorance we deal with here every day. Your statement puts skeptics in the position of having to prove a negative. But the onus is not on skeptics.
Scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists are skeptics] have nothing to prove. Our job is not to DISPROVE anything. The onus is entirely on those who support the AGW conjecture. The onus is on you.
Now, AGW may exist to a small degree [or not]. That is not the point. The AGW conjecture states that human activity causes global warming. Skeptics say: prove it. Or at least, provide some measureable evidence that supports the AGW conjecture.
But so far, there is no such evidence. There are no measurements of AGW. None. If you disagree, godostoyke, then post verifiable measurements quantifying the fraction of a degree of global warming attributable to human emitted CO2. Global warming has only been about 0.7ºC over more than a century. What part of that can be attributed to human activity? Be specific.
Do you see? There are no such measurements! Thus, AGW remains a conjecture. An opinion. There is nothing wrong with a conjecture, it is where science begins. If real world measurements support it, the next step is a hypothesis. To be accepted as valid, a hypothesis must be capable of making accurate predictions, repeatedly. AGW cannot do that. Those promoting the AGW conjecture were not even able to predict the most significant event of the past twenty years: the fact that global warming has stopped. Not one multi-million dollar GCM was able to predict that. Alarmists are confounded by that fact. Why? Because they are not willing to take the next logical step, and admit that AGW may not exist. That would explain the fact that global warming has stopped, no?
Skeptics are not the ones who need to prove or disprove anything. The ball is squarely in the alarmists’ court. But they have failed to make a credible case.
Tell me, godostoyke, why do you believe in something for which there are no measurements? For which there is no empirical evidence?
I know the answer, because you have given it repeatedly: because lots of people have told you that AGW exists. But I have a question about that: why do you believe, based only on the belief of others? Many thousands of people believe in Scientology. That is a big consensus! Does it convince you? Are you a Scientologist?
When you find measurements verifying AGW, I will sit up straight and pay close attention. But until then, I remain skeptical. It is the only way to be. Otherwise, we are in witch doctor territory.

godostoyke

@dbstealey
I don’t think so. The hypotheses “greenhouse gases do not affect the energy balance of earth” or “global climate is not changing” or “human-released greenhouse gases are not the main cause of observed climate change” are all testable and falsifiable hypotheses (they have been falsified). The burden of proof is in your court.

godo says:
The hypotheses “greenhouse gases do not affect the energy balance of earth” or “global climate is not changing” or “human-released greenhouse gases are not the main cause of observed climate change” are all testable and falsifiable hypotheses (they have been falsified).
Flat wrong. That is a baseless assertion.
Furthermore, you assert nonsense such as: skeptics say that “global climate is not changing”. Who told you that noinsernse? In fact, it is Michael Mann who claims that the climate never changed until the Industrial Revolution [the long, flat handle of his hockey stick]. But skeptics know that the colimate always changes. Mann fraudulently tried to erase the MWP and the LIA, but skeptics know those events happened.
If you have to resort to such dishonesty to try and win an argument, you are not worth arguing with. Clearly, you do not understand either the Scientific Method, or the climate Null Hypothesis. Skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is on you.

godostoyke

@richardscourtney: “It is not possible to demonstrate evidence that something does not exist.”
That is not true. Proving the absence of something can be more difficult, but it can and is routinely done in science.
For example you could prove the absence of significant recent climate change by providing data that shows no significant global temperature trends over the last hundred years. Of course, you are reluctant to provide these data, as they do not exist.
You could disprove human-induced climate change by poking holes in the evidence chain provided by numerous climate scientists (and physicists, chemists etc.) that a) humans are releasing large amounts of greenhouse gases and particulates, b) these greenhouse gases are changing earth’s energy balance and c) these changes are the cause of climate change. Again, I understand your reluctance to do so, as the weight of evidence supports anthropogenic climate change.
However, you cannot make evidence go away by trying to redefine how science works. I would strongly encourage you and dbstealey to spend a few hours of your time in your closest university library (or online) and perusing leading science journals publishing on AGW. The evidence for human-induced climate change is overwhelming, and I have provided a link to the 9,200+ peer-reviewed references used as a basis for the 5th IPCC assessment before (http://www.ipcc.ch WGI AR5). However, your reluctance to engage in scientific debate, or to provide any scientific backing for your claims, does not make me hopeful that you will do so. This is also understandable, as looking at actual scientific data could threaten your unsupported beliefs.
(Disclaimer: when I use the term “proof” here, I am actually referring to “providing strong evidence”, as technically any “proven” hypothesis in science is subject to revision based on new evidence.)

godostoyke says:
The evidence for human-induced climate change is overwhelming
That is a baseless conjecture, and it is flat untrue. There is no testable, measurable evidence that confirms the existence of any “fingerprint of AGW”. You constantly assert things like that, without backing up your beliefs.
I want evidence. Post evidence of ‘human-induced climate change’. Simply claiming that some vague ‘evidence’ exists is not “overwhelming”. It flat out does not exist at all. You are winging it.
Show us testable evidence. Provide verifiable measurements showing the fraction of a degree of global warming directly attributable to human activity. You cannot simply say that the planet has warmed at the same time that there is human activity, then claim that the two are correlated. That is an assumption without any supporting evidence. You must produce testable measurements showing conclusively the amount of global warming caused by human emissions. Quantify it, if you think you can. If you do, you will be the first. No one else has posted any such measurements. Has it occurred to you that there are no such measurements?
So of course, you cannot produce measurements of any putative human fingerprint of global warming. Nor can anyone else. There are no verifiable measurements showing the fraction of a degree of global warming directly attributable to human activity. That entire belief is nothing but an evidence-free conjecture: an opinion. Just because your religion dictates that you believe in CAGW does not mean it exists. That is your Belief, nothing more.
Put up or shut up, godostoyke. Either produce testable measurements, or admit that you cannot. So far, all you have done is to assert your belief. That is fine at the thinly-trafficked head-nodding blogs you get your talking points from. But here, it amounts to one big FAIL.
Finally, you sound astonishingly clueless when you say:
…you could prove the absence of significant recent climate change by providing data that shows no significant global temperature trends over the last hundred years. Of course, you are reluctant to provide these data, as they do not exist.
How can anyone “provide data” when as you say, these data “do not exist”? Once again you are trying to make skeptics prove a negative. Wake up, godo. You have the onus of supporting your conjecture with testable, verifiable scientific evidence. But since no such evidence exists, you try to turn the tables, and force skeptics to play word games. That kind of irrational rhetoric indicates desperation. It is the result of the fact that global warming stopped many years ago, and you are trying to salvage an untenable position. Face reality: you lost the argument when Planet Earth did not warm, as was endlessy predicted by the alarmist contingent.
Wake me when you think you understand the Scientific Method and the Null Hypothesis. Becauase right now, it is clear that you don’t understand either one.

godostoyke

@dbstealey “I want evidence. Post evidence of ‘human-induced climate change’”
@richardscourtney “There is no evidence for man-made global warming; none, zilch, nada.”
The amount of recent climate change depends a bit on the time frame you are looking at, and at how the baseline is defined: “The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06]°C, over the period 1880 to 2012 ….. The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85]°C …” (IPCC, 2013: page 5).
The best estimate of anthropogenic radiative forcing change from 1750 to 2011, mostly due to CO2 and methane, some net cooling from aerosols (included): increase of 2.29 W/m2 of earth’s surface. Change from sun: increase of 0.05W/m2. Based on these, human contribution to climate change (1750-2011): 97.9%. If min-max uncertainty ranges of human radiative forcing are included, the human contribution ranges from 95.8 to 95.5% (IPCC, 2013: page 14).
The references for changes in anthropogenic vs. natural radiative forcing can be found at IPCC, 2013: pages 721-730 (IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovern- mental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp.)
A few select references:
Booth, S. H. E. Knight, E. J. Highwood, D. J. Frame, M. R. Allen, and D. P. Rowell, 2011: Sensitivity of twentieth-century Sahel rainfall to sulfate aerosol and CO2 forcing. J. Clim., 24, 4999–5014.
Allan, W., H. Struthers, and D. C. Lowe, 2007: Methane carbon isotope effects caused by atomic chlorine in the marine boundary layer: Global model results compared with Southern Hemisphere measurements. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 112, D04306.
Andersen, M., D. Blake, F. Rowland, M. Hurley, and T. Wallington, 2009: Atmospheric chemistry of sulfuryl fluoride: Reaction with OH radicals, CI atoms and O3, atmospheric lifetime, IR spectrum, and global warming potential. Environ. Sci. Technol., 43, 1067–1070.
Andersen, M., V. Andersen, O. Nielsen, S. Sander, and T. Wallington, 2010: Atmospheric chemistry of HCF2O(CF2CF2O)(x)CF2H (x=2–4): Kinetics and mechanisms of the chlorine-atom-initiated oxidation. Chemphyschem, 11, 4035–4041.
Andrews, T., and P. M. Forster, 2008: CO2 forcing induces semi-direct effects with consequences for climate feedback interpretations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L04802.
Andrews, T., M. Doutriaux-Boucher, O. Boucher, and P. M. Forster, 2011: A regional and global analysis of carbon dioxide physiological forcing and its impact on climate. Clim. Dyn., 36, 783–792.
Andrews, T., J. Gregory, M. Webb, and K. Taylor, 2012a: Forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity in CMIP5 coupled atmosphere-ocean climate models. Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L09712.
Andrews, T., P. Forster, O. Boucher, N. Bellouin, and A. Jones, 2010: Precipitation, radiative forcing and global temperature change. Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, doi:10.1029/2010GL043991, L14701.

godostoyke

@dbstealey “I want evidence. Post evidence of ‘human-induced climate change’”
@richardscourtney “There is no evidence for man-made global warming; none, zilch, nada.”
Evidence for human-induced climate change (continued 2):
Andrews, T., M. Ringer, M. Doutriaux-Boucher, M. Webb, and W. Collins, 2012b: Sensitivity of an Earth system climate model to idealized radiative forcing. Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L10702.
Antuña, J. C., A. Robock, G. Stenchikov, J. Zhou, C. David, J. Barnes, and L. Thomason, 2003:
Azar, C., and D. J. A. Johansson, 2012: On the relationship between metrics to compare greenhouse gases—the case of IGTP, GWP and SGTP. Earth Syst. Dynam., 3, 139–147.
Berntsen, T., and J. Fuglestvedt, 2008: Global temperature responses to current emissions from the transport sectors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 105, 19154– 19159.
Berntsen, T. K., et al., 1997: Effects of anthropogenic emissions on tropospheric ozone and its radiative forcing. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 102, 28101–28126.
Biasutti, M., and A. Giannini, 2006: Robust Sahel drying in response to late 20th
century forcings. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L11706.
Boer, G. J., and B. Yu, 2003: Climate sensitivity and response. Clim. Dyn., 20, 415–429. Bollasina, M. A., Y. Ming, and V. Ramaswamy, 2011: Anthropogenic aerosols and the
weakening of the South Asian summer monsoon. Science, 334, 502–505.
Boucher, O., 2012: Comparison of physically- and economically-based CO2– equivalences for methane. Earth Syst. Dyn., 3, 49–61.
Bowman, D., et al., 2009: Fire in the Earth System. Science, 324, 481–484. Bowman, K. W., et al., 2013: Evaluation of ACCMIP outgoing longwave radiation from tropospheric ozone using TES satellite observations. Atmos. Chem. Phys.,13, 4057–4072. Bradford, D., 2001: Global change – Time, money and tradeoffs. Nature, 410, 649–
650. Bravo, I., et al., 2010: Infrared absorption spectra, radiative efficiencies, and global
warming potentials of perfluorocarbons: Comparison between experiment and
theory. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 115, D24317.

godostyke
There is no evidence for man-made global warming; none, zilch, nada. Three decades of research costing more than $5billion per year has failed to find any.
In the 1990s Ben Santer claimed to have found such evidence but that was soon revealed to be an artifact of his choosing a selected sub-set of data from near the middle of a time series.
If anybody found such evidence then they would obtain at least two Nobel Prizes for the discovery.
You proclaim your failure to understand the issue when you write saying to me

For example you could prove the absence of significant recent climate change by providing data that shows no significant global temperature trends over the last hundred years. Of course, you are reluctant to provide these data, as they do not exist.

I assert that GLOBAL CLIMATE HAS CHANGED OVER THE LAST CENTURY and I proclaim that climate always has changed and always will. The issue is whether human activities have discernibly altered natural global climate change since ~1950 and there is no evidence for such human alteration; none, zilch, nada.
You have posted lists of references to papers that DO NOT PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING. And you do not say why you think they provide such evidence (n.b. they don’t).
I, too, can cite papers. As illustration I cite
Darwin C, ‘The Origin of Species’ (1859)
I commend it to you because it is important, it includes descriptions of several environmental changes, and it is written in language which can be understood by people – such as you – with no understanding of science. But it is similar to your references in that it provides no evidence for man-made global warming because there was none then as there is none now.
Richard

godostoyke,
You cannot seem to learn, even after being patiently taught. Those publications are not scientific evidence. Pal reviewed papers are not evidence. Evidence is raw data, and empirical observations. Papers are opinions. They are not evidence. But you haven’t been able to grasp that basic fact.
Sorry you went to all the trouble of cutting and pasting opinions that won’t be read by anyone. No doubt they were not all read by you, for that matter. Not one of your cut and pasted Appeals to Authority are scientific evidence. They are opinions. That is all.
If you were capable of learning, you would understand that. But clearly, the lessons have all gone right over your head.

godostoyke
You demonstrate your ignorance of logic and of the scientific method when you write

@dbstealey
I don’t think so. The hypotheses “greenhouse gases do not affect the energy balance of earth” or “global climate is not changing” or “human-released greenhouse gases are not the main cause of observed climate change” are all testable and falsifiable hypotheses (they have been falsified). The burden of proof is in your court.

Rubbish!
In reality it is only possible to demonstrate evidence that something does exist.
It is not possible to demonstrate evidence that something does not exist.
This is because it is not possible to prove a negative ( e.g. can you prove that unicorns don’t exist?).
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and is not evidence of presence.
Therefore, it is not possible to prove that “greenhouse gases do not affect the energy balance of earth” or “global climate is not changing” or “human-released greenhouse gases are not the main cause of observed climate change”.
Each of those assertions is an assertion of a negative and, therefore, it cannot be falsified.
The hypothesis that “unicorns do not exist” cannot be falsified.
The onus is on those who claim the existence of unicorns and/or man-made global warming to provide some evidence for their assertions. To date they have failed to provide any such evidence. There is no evidence for man-made global warming; none, zilch, nada.
Three decades of research conducted world-wide at a cost of over US$5 billion per year has failed to find any evidence for man-made global warming.
The scientific method decrees it has to be assumed that something does not exist when there is no evidence that the something does exist.
Richard

godostoyke

@dbstealey “I want evidence. Post evidence of ‘human-induced climate change’”
@richardscourtney “There is no evidence for man-made global warming; none, zilch, nada.”
Evidence for human-induced climate change (continued 3):
Chang, W. Y., H. Liao, and H. J. Wang, 2009: Climate responses to direct radiative forcing of anthropogenic aerosols, tropospheric ozone, and long-lived greenhouse gases in Eastern China over 1951–2000. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 26, 748– 762.
Cherubini, F., G. Peters, T. Berntsen, A. Stromman, and E. Hertwich, 2011: CO2 emissions from biomass combustion for bioenergy: Atmospheric decay and contribution to global warming. Global Change Biol. Bioenerg., 3, 413–426.
Collins, W., R. Derwent, C. Johnson, and D. Stevenson, 2002: The oxidation of organic compounds in the troposphere and their global warming potentials. Clim. Change, 52, 453–479.
Collins, W. D., et al., 2006: Radiative forcing by well-mixed greenhouse gases: Estimates from climate models in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 111, D14317.
Collins, W. J., M. M. Fry, H. Yu, J. S. Fuglestvedt, D. T. Shindell, and J. J. West, 2013: Global and regional temperature-change potentials for near-term climate forcers. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 2471–2485.
Conley, A. J., J. F. Lamarque, F. Vitt, W. D. Collins, and J. Kiehl, 2013: PORT, a CESM tool for the diagnosis of radiative forcing. Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 469–476.
Daniel, J., and S. Solomon, 1998: On the climate forcing of carbon monoxide. J.
Geophys. Res. Atmos., 103, 13249–13260.
Doutriaux-Boucher, M., M. Webb, J. Gregory, and O. Boucher, 2009: Carbon dioxide
induced stomatal closure increases radiative forcing via a rapid reduction in low
cloud. Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, doi:10.1029/2008GL036273, L02703.
Ehhalt, D. H., and L. E. Heidt, 1973: Vertical profiles of CH4 in troposphere and
stratosphere. J. Geophys. Res., 78, 5265–5271.

godostoyke
I have posted a reply to your list of irrelevant references.
My reply has turned up in a strange place because of this daft nested system for posts. Hopefully this pointer will appear in a more reasonable place and this link should jump to it.
Richard

godostoyke

@dbstealey “I want evidence. Post evidence of ‘human-induced climate change’”
@richardscourtney “There is no evidence for man-made global warming; none, zilch, nada.”
Evidence for human-induced climate change (continued 4; partial list):
Feng, X., and F. Zhao, 2009: Effect of changes of the HITRAN database on
transmittance calculations in the near-infrared region. J. Quant. Spectrosc.
Radiat. Transfer, 110, 247–255.
Feng, X., F. Zhao, and W. Gao, 2007: Effect of the improvement of the HITIRAN database on the radiative transfer calculation. J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer, 108, 308–318.
Forster, P., et al., 2011a: Evaluation of radiation scheme performance within chemistry climate models. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 116, D10302.
Freckleton, R., E. Highwood, K. Shine, O. Wild, K. Law, and M. Sanderson, 1998: Greenhouse gas radiative forcing: Effects of averaging and inhomogeneities in trace gas distribution. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 124, 2099–2127.
Frolicher, T. L., F. Joos, and C. C. Raible, 2011: Sensitivity of atmospheric CO2 and climate to explosive volcanic eruptions. Biogeosciences, 8, 2317–2339.
Fuglestvedt, J., T. Berntsen, O. Godal, R. Sausen, K. Shine, and T. Skodvin, 2003: Metrics of climate change: Assessing radiative forcing and emission indices. Clim. Change, 58, 267–331.8
Gillett, N., and H. Matthews, 2010: Accounting for carbon cycle feedbacks in a comparison of the global warming effects of greenhouse gases. Environ. Res. Lett., 5, 034011.
Ginoux, P., D. Garbuzov, and N. C. Hsu, 2010: Identification of anthropogenic and natural dust sources using Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Deep Blue level 2 data. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 115, D05204.

@godostoyke,
That is a lot of cutting and pasting for nothing.
Your reading ability seems to be on the low end. How many times have I explained to you what scientific evidence means?
*Sigh* OK, you’re slow. So I’ll explain it for you once more…
Scientific evidence is not pal reviewed papers, and it is not computer climate models. Those can be classified as tools; but they are not evidence.
Scientific ‘evidence’ is raw data [or methodologically adjusted data that is noted every step of the way, from the original raw data so it can be replicated]. Evidence is also verifiable empirical [real world] observations.
Just like in a courtroom, see? Hearsay testimony [peer reviewed papers] is not evidence. Thus, it is inadmissable. And computer models are as good as their programming: GIGO is the operative term [aside from the fact that computer models are always wrong in their predictions].
Therefore, if you have any actual evidence of AGW, please post it. If you can post evidence of ‘human-induced climate change’, we will have something real to dicuss. So far, we don’t.
But of course, you have no scientific evidence confirming AGW; no one does. It is a conjecture, nothing more [although it is a conjecture that I agree with; I think that human emissions are the cause of some very minuscule warming, which, because it is so tiny, should be completely disregarded in all government policy discussions].
Sorry you went to al that trouble copying and pasting papers that I am confident no one will read. They are, after all, not scientific evidence. In fact, peer reviewed papers are the easiest and most likely way to generate government grants and contracts. No wonder so many academics monkey-pile on that particular gravy train. But don’t make the mistake of thinking that the opinions of the authors are scientific evidence. They’re not.
As Richard Courtney correctly points out above:
The onus is on those who claim the existence of unicorns and/or man-made global warming to provide some evidence for their assertions. To date they have failed to provide any such evidence. There is no evidence for man-made global warming…
The scientific method decrees it has to be assumed that something does not exist when there is no evidence that the something does exist.

You are trying to decree that something exists for which there are no testable, empirical measurements, eg: no evidence. But in science, such decrees are worthless.

godostoyke

[Snip. Read the site Policy. Labeling others as deniers is a violation. ~ mod.]

godostoyke

moderator: I did NOT call the commenter a climate d., but a SCIENCE denier. Is that also a violation?
[yes -mod]

godostoyke

Where is the site policy posted? Thanks.

godostoyke

@dbstealey “Scientific evidence is not pal reviewed papers”
I am sorry, dbstealey, you do not appear to know the first thing about science. Peer-reviewed scientific papers are all about presenting evidence (data) and analyzing the evidence (data) in a way that other scientists can confirm (or try to falsify). These papers are the basic building block of modern science. Pretty much every scientist you ask will be able to confirm this, and in fact pretty much any person with a reasonable education knows this. The reason why the natural sciences are so powerful is exactly because they are evidence based. A blob of data is the starting point, but it requires information on how exactly the data were obtained, methods of statistical analysis etc. to be able to interpret the data. It sounds like you do not have a science degree, or if you do, you should probably apply for a refund.

gogostoyke,
You are a slow learner, aren’t you?
Scientific evidence consists of raw data, and verifiable empirical observations. Readers have had this discussion for years here; read the archives. Learn.
You desperately want your pal reviewed papers to be evidence. They are not. They are the opinions of their authors, and no matter how much nonsense you assert, that does not make your papers ‘scientific evidence’.
You really need to get up to speed on the basics, before pontificating here. We know the difference between evidence and opinions. You apparently don’t.

godostoyke

dbstealey, bloggers pontificating about supposed “data”, is opinion, peer-reviewed publications are science. You do not know even the rudiments of how modern science works.

godostoyke
I have posted a reply to your list of irrelevant references.
My reply has turned up in a strange place because of this daft nested system for posts. Hopefully this pointer will appear in a more reasonable place and this link should jump to it.
I am here writing to add a rebuttal to your most recent demonstration of your complete ignorance of logic and science. You assert

dbstealey, bloggers pontificating about supposed “data”, is opinion, peer-reviewed publications are science. You do not know even the rudiments of how modern science works.

That is so wrong it is risible.
I will answer with an illustration because you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are immune to reason.
The seminal paper on aeronautics was published by two bicycle salesmen in the days before blogs, and they published it as an essay in a magazine on bee keeping because no technical journal would accept it. The value of that work is not indicated by who did it, how they placed it in the public domain, and/or how and where they published it. The value of that work is demonstrated by the existence of the aviation industry.
Richard

godostoyke,
You are being immature and childish. Obviously you are a noob at this, but I have been immersed in this subject in depth since before WUWT began. I have a strong background in designing and calibrating weather related instruments, and an engineering background. We received all the latest literature in our Metrology lab from the manufacturers, from back when global cooling was the big scare, to when it morphed into global warming.
I have the long term perspective to understand the issue. You do not. I have forgotten more basic science than you will ever learn, because your so-called ‘science’ is in reality simply your politics, with a thin veneer of pseudo-science on top. You get your fake knowledge by cutting and pasting your endless googled papers, as if anyone will read them, or be impressed by your cutting and pasting ability. They’re not; nor are those cut and pasted opinions scientific evidence — a term you still cannot seem to understand. You are here pushing your evidence-free nonsense, hoping to convince people of your point of view. But as you can see from the readers’ comments, you are nothing but one big FAIL at convincing anyone here of your anti-science nonsense.
I know your type. You have always been a misfit in your life, routinely taking the wacked-out point of view because that is your nature. You contribute nothing in the way of useful knowledge; you are here only to muddy the waters as best you can, like any misfit. That may work on the thinly-trafficked alarmist blogs where you get your misinformation, but not here. Here at the internet’s Best Science & Technology site, you are a pathetic failure — just like in the rest of your life. I’ve got you pegged. I know your type. In one word: loser.
Now, do you want to quit calling names, and getting personal? You started it. And as you can see, I can outdo you in that, too. Or, do you want to actually learn something useful for a change?
If you want to learn, you will give it your best shot by trying to understand what scientific evidence means. It does not mean pal-reviewed, grant-trolling opinions, or always-wrong computer climate models. It does not mean your incessant Appeal to Authority fallacies, and it does not mean your wishful hoping that runaway global warming will return and vindicate your crazy belief system. “Evidence” means measurable, verifiable, testable, quantifiable facts. If you stick to measurable facts, you will arrive at the right conclusion. Science is based on facts, not on opinion papers.
But you don’t want to have your feet held to the fire, by limiting your comments to facts; to scientific evidence. The reason is easy to see: if you limit your comments to facts, you will be forced to admit that the ‘global warming’ scare has completely failed. There is no more global warming. Every current observation verifies that fact. Therefore, climate alarmism itself fails. Your “carbon” scare fails.
What we observe can most easily be explained as natural climate variability. With any understanding of the climate Null Hypothesis — a corollary of the Scientific Method — and of Occam’s Razor, you would understand that natural climate variability fully explains what we observe. There is no reason for an extraneous magic trace gas to explain anything. What we observe now has happened repeatedly, and to a greater degree in the past. There is nothing either unusual, or unprecedented, happening. The global warming scare has colonized your mind, and now you are controlled by it.
Read Richard Courtney’s comment above to get a better understanding of the issue. Richard has also been immersed in the subject for far longer than you. He is a published, peer reviewed author in the field. When you are cutting and pasting your googled papers, you could do worse than posting his along with them.

@dbstealey
“I have forgotten more basic science than you will ever learn”
I have a bachelor of science, a master of science, and am currently working on a Ph.D. I don’t know if you have any science degrees, but I think you are speculating on the basis of insufficient evidence (again).
“nor are those cut and pasted opinions scientific evidence”
The cut and pasted items are scientific references that formed the basis of the IPCC review, led by many of the world’s most respected and highly published climate researchers. So, yes, they are not only scientific evidence, but far more substantial than any “evidence” you have presented (i.e. so far pretty much only your personal opinion, or in other words approximately nothing).
“You contribute nothing in the way of useful knowledge”
Actually, I have contributed three peer-reviewed papers in science myself, which is not bad for a Masters degree 😉
“What we observe now has happened repeatedly, and to a greater degree in the past.”
“What we observe [now] can most easily be explained as natural climate variability. ”
Climate change has occurred in the past, but the current (last 100 yrs or so) climate change cannot be explained by natural factors alone (see IPCC 2013).
“He [RichardSCourtney] is a published, peer reviewed author in the field.”
If this is so, please provide me with his references. Thanks.

@richardscourtney “The seminal paper on aeronautics was published by two bicycle salesmen”
I noticed you did not provide a link for your claim. Be that as it may, it was likely long before the advent of peer-reviewed science. Darwin also published his evidence in book form, because there were no journals on evolution at the time. Today there are, and practically all advances in science are published in peer-reviewed journals.

@richardscourtney “I assert that GLOBAL CLIMATE HAS CHANGED OVER THE LAST CENTURY ”
agreed

godostoyke
You claim to be a student with no real experience except at various schools. OK. I will accept that.
I offer you some advice from someone old enough to be your grandfather who was earning a living as a research scientist before you were born.
It is better to be thought an ignorant fool than to say something which proves you are an ignorant fool.
Your every post adds yet more evidence that you are an ignorant fool who knows so very little that he does not understand how foolish he is making himself look.
Also, you like references, so read this one and learn
Ioannidis John P. A. ‘Why Most Published Research Findings Are False’, PLOS Medicine, August 30, 2005
It can be read at
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
and its Abstract says

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

Richard

@richardscourtney: “You claim to be a student with no real experience except at various schools.”
False. I have lots of work experience.
“I offer you some advice from someone old enough to be your grandfather who was earning a living as a research scientist before you were born.”
Still owe me a list of your supposed climate science peer-reviewed publications (as per dbstealey).
“you are an ignorant fool.”
Mod.: is this also covered by the site guidelines, or only the “D” word? 🙂
“Ioannidis John P. A. ‘Why Most Published Research Findings Are False’, PLOS Medicine, August 30, 2005”
You will note that he does not provide “proof” of his claim in his essay, and that he talks about medicine. I am definitely concerned when medical researchers take money from pharma companies, just as I am concerned when the very few scientists who question the reality of AGW (rarely climate scientists) take money from fossil fuel interests. At any rate, given the relatively high standards of scientific publications, any concerns you may have for bias in peer-reviewed publications you can multiply x10 for web sites that are fuelled by money, or ideology, like this one.
For all the faults of peer-reviewed science (and there are not many), it still tends to be an orders of magnitude better description of the physical world than pretty much any other source of knowledge.

The despicable godostoyke denigrates the professional accomplishments of a respected commentator. So I would like to ask godostoyke: What, exactly, are your accomplishments? Do you amount to anything at all? Do you have any professional accomplishments?
Post your CV here, like Richard has done repeatedly in the past. Richard Courtney is a climate and atmospheric science consultant. He served as an expert reviewer for the United Nations IPCC assessment of global warming in 2001[1]. He has co-authored multiple papers published in Energy and Environment expressing skepticism of anthropogenic global warming and questioning the accuracy of climate models[2][3]. Courtney was a signatory of a December 13, 2007 open letter to the United Nations expressing climate skepticism [4].
Show us that you are even worth listening to, godostoyke. Or is it, as I suspect, that you are nothing; a nobody. A societal reject who always complains, because you are never happy about anything. A scientific illiterate. Based on your past comments, you have no credible accomplishments. If I am wrong, then name them — chapter and verse. Where, what, and when? Do you even have a degree? Prove it. Have you ever published, even once? Prove it. Have you invented any products? Prove it. Since you have denigrated one of his professional accomplishments, for no other reason than to make an ad hominem slur, it is time for you to put up, or shut up.
I doubt if you will do either. You are nothing, so you try to drag others down to your pathetic level. But you overstepped this time, godostoyke: post your own CV, please. Post it here… if you’ve even got one.

godostoyke

@dbstealey “Richard … is a published, peer reviewed author in the field.”
Db Stealey, I had asked you to provide me with a list of Richard’s peer-reviewed papers in the field. You then countered by asking me for mine (which I have provided).
When will I get the list of Richard’s peer-reviewed papers?

‘Nobody doubts that CO2 is a GHG, and nobody doubts etc…’
But there is no evidence for man-made global warming; none, zilch, nada.
Richard

@richardscourtney: “nobody doubts that CO2 is a GHG, … But there is no evidence for man-made global warming”
That doesn’t make any sense, as humans release lots of GHGs

“In the early 1990s Courtney was a Senior Material Scientist of the National Coal Board (also known as British Coal)” (SourceWatch.org)
I guess that explains a few things … 🙂

Tom

“I guess that explains a few things” Not really no. It does not explain anything. What exactly are you trying to say?

Climate scientists come from all walks of life, but those who vocally claim to disbelieve climate science, and human-induced climate science tend to be paid by the fossil fuel industry. Though I’m sure that’s just a coincidence … 🙂
Al Gore’s quote of Upton Sinclaire is appropriate: “It’s difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

Tom

Mr or Ms. godostoyke. I have been reading these comments with interest the last few days.
I find it intersting that you would quote gore “Al Gore’s quote of Upton Sinclaire is appropriate: “It’s difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” and use that quote to belittle anyone that disagrees with the global warming hypothesis. Has the thought ever entered your brain that the so-called”deniers” have been saying the same thing about the true believers, i.e the so-called “climate scientists” that are paid for writing pro global warming books and articles?? Someone like david suzuki makes a living being hysterical about global warming. Your gore quote of Sinclair certainly applies to hom
“those who vocally claim to disbelieve climate science, and human-induced climate science tend to be paid by the fossil fuel industry.” Do you have proof of this or are you just spouting talking points?
What exactly is a “climate scientist?” As I recall the head of the IPCC. Rajendra Kumar Pachauri. trained as a railroad engineer. michael mann received BA in applied mathematics and physics. A BA, not even a BS! Why is he a climate scientist?? He later earned his PhD in geology and geophysics . Funny, I don’t see any course work in climatology! I know his research paper for the PHD was Ocean-atmosphere interaction ….. So basically he is self-taught. Yet you belittle other people, that happen to disagree wth you, because they do not meet you narrow definition of “climate scientist.”
BTW – there is no E in Sinclair.
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 02:49:38 +0000 To: tmmacey@live.com

godostoyke says:
I guess that explains a few things …
What does that ‘explain’, exactly. Cat got your tongue? Spit it out: what are you trying to say?
Despicable comments like that only reflect on you, godostoyke. You don’t even have the huevos to say what you mean. Could you be any more contemptible? If so, you would really have to work at it.
The fact is that the promoters of the climate alarmist narrative are compensated immensely more than scientific skeptics. This has been discussed in detail on this site; use the search box, and educate yourself for a change.
You will learn that charlatans like Mann collect $millions, while honest skeptics are kept out of the entire process — see the Climategate I, II, and III email dumps. You will see the constant conniving to keep all the loot for the alarmist clique. If you don’t know that, I am not surprised. Because from all your comments, you don’t know much of anything.

godostoyke
September 9, 2014 at 7:49 pm
Climate scientists come from all walks of life, but those who vocally claim to disbelieve climate science, and human-induced climate science tend to be paid by the fossil fuel industry. Though I’m sure that’s just a coincidence …

In your 48 recent replies on this site, you have made that assertion several times. Even more often than your insulting assumptions that industrial scientific sources are corrupted by their industrial association, you have never asserted anything more than “consensus” and “peer reviewed papers” by other CAGW alarmists as the ultimate authority for their dominance and power over other humans.
Cleverly, you never seem to hear when we point out that EVERY so-called “climate scientist” who promotes the government’s CAGW narrative and propaganda is ultimately is paid by that same government (yes! – Universities ARE government institutions even more bureaucratic-centric than those in the federal and state and local governments) who all require CAGW themes to gather their 1.4 trillions in new tax revenues, their ever-more restrictive political and economic controls, their long-lasting central planning regimes.
I submit that a government source protected behind government funding and government journals who is asking for government grants and more government funding for more government programs to justify more government laws and government control by a corrupt government IS MORE corrupt, and more easily corrupted further and faster by additional government promotions, government publicity and government propaganda – than any industrial position.
That the ultimate government “scientist” position is a protected-for-life “tenured” professorial position at a glamorous university where that protected person CANNOT EVEN BE FIRED is the ultimate proof of just how susceptible the more junior “university scientists” are to corruption, power, and influence. After all, what “scientists” actually admire most is a position where they are invincible and unstoppable and unaccountable, but have all the money and power and “respect” from their inferiors (er, peers) that they seek in their hearts.
But a industrial researcher who actually has to do something worthwhile for next year’s funding? Something that actually works: like an airplane wing? A turbulence meter? An improved instrument? A better weld more resistant to fatigue? A better vaccine or a longer-lasting paint or a smoother lubricant? A fire-resistant hydraulic fluid?

RACook, as I pointed out before, your hypothesis is easily testable: “If scientists were falsifying data to obtain more funding from government, you would expect them to write papers DISPROVING anthropogenic climate change when the government is anti-climate protection (e.g. Abbott, Harper, Bush 2.0). However, this is not the case.” In fact, George W. Bush actively sought to suppress climate scientists while he was the “government”: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/jun/20/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment
And while I am sure there are many honourable industry scientists, the number of historic examples of some industries paying scientists handsomely to spread falsehoods are legion (leaded gasoline, asbestos, tobacco etc.).