Texas has embraced wind power in a big way. It is the second energy boom for the state. Texas produces more power via wind power than any country in the world except the U.S., and that is only because those U.S. figures include Texas. According to Wikipedia, Texas generates in excess of 12,000 MW using wind power. That is more than half of the combined capacity of all hydropower plants in the country. And yet, despite the vast expanses of open land and bring sunshine, solar power has not done well in this state.
Now, it looks as though that is changing. An article in Scientific America detailed how metropolitan Austin is adding 600 MW of solar capacity within the next two years. This comes after the nearby city of Georgetown has announced it will be 100% renewable with wind and solar power by 2017. San Antonio has also announced it will start receiving 400 MW of solar power as soon as next year.
There are three power grids in the U.S. - one in the east, one in the west and one in Texas. The three grids come together in one location in New Mexico. The Texas grid, ERCOT, is the most advanced power grid in the country and plenty capable of handling the load from wind and solar. These more intermittent power sources put a strain on power grids, but ERCOT can do the job. Hence the rise in wind power over recent years.
So, it's strange solar has not spread as much here. Hopefully, that is starting to change and it would be part of a bigger trend. A new report states worldwide investment in renewable energy has increased by 17% last year to $270 billion. That is some serious coin. Unfortunately, that was the first increase after three years of decreases, but it is still a lot of money and the second most ever. 95 gigawatts of wind and solar were installed world-wide last year, after 74 gigawatts were installed in 2013. 170 gigawatts in two years. It's a good trend, but we need to do better. At the current rate, the report states it will take until 2030 for wind and solar to make up 20% of the world's power generating capacity.
Still, it's a good sign. I should love to see a few gigawatts added here in Texas.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Saturday, April 11, 2015
Wisconsin Joins States Banning Science
Wisconsin has joined the list of states thinking they can deal with climate change with censorship. The state Board of Commissioners of Public Lands now prohibits its members from discussing climate change. Staffers must get approval before answering any emails on global warming or climate change. The move is the result of a vendetta by State Treasurer and Republican Tea Party member Matt Adamczyk who is upset with the way the board executive secretary Tia Nelson has worked to promote climate change awareness. He previously attempted to get her fired for 'time theft' for work she did six years ago on the issue. That effort failed. Now, he's managed to get her censored, and everyone else in the board. I guess that's a consolation prize for someone who hates science.
This once again brings up the burning question - If there is no climate change, why are you so afraid of it you have to resort to censorship?
This once again brings up the burning question - If there is no climate change, why are you so afraid of it you have to resort to censorship?
Friday, April 10, 2015
Despite Drought, California Does Business As Usual
Sometimes you have to wonder what is going through people's heads. Then it comes to you. Oh, yeah. It's about the short-term money.
As we know, California is under a historically bad drought and it is going to get worse before it gets better. Some day, the rain and snow will return to California and people will say, 'See! It was just a cycle.' But, this is just the beginning. Droughts like this will be hitting California more often in the future. So, it would seem to make sense you would start to change your pattern of behavior. But, that would mean taking a short-term sacrifice for the long-term gain and we are not well-programmed for that.
California's agriculture is an example. Crops are going unplanted because of a lack of water. Farmers that do have water are not planting because they can make more money selling their water than they could off the crops. Orchards are dieing due to lack of water. Fisheries are drying up. The list goes on. So, what do they do? They are growing and exporting water-intensive crops such as alfalfa and almonds. And, they are sending them overseas. It would be bad enough if they were using the crops in-state, or maybe a nearby state. That would at least keep the water in the area. Instead, they are exporting these crops to China.
I understand the issue of jobs and economy. The farmers have to make a living and the state wants to keep the jobs. No problem. But, if an industry is going to die, doesn't it make sense to make the changes when you can instead of waiting until you are forced to change? And, if you make the changes when you can, you are more likely to have the money needed. But, if you wait, your financial resources will wilt away before you make the plunge. So, by acting this way, farmers are ensuring their future failure.
And, that is climate change denial in a nutshell. I guess I should say in an almond shell.
Amazing.
As we know, California is under a historically bad drought and it is going to get worse before it gets better. Some day, the rain and snow will return to California and people will say, 'See! It was just a cycle.' But, this is just the beginning. Droughts like this will be hitting California more often in the future. So, it would seem to make sense you would start to change your pattern of behavior. But, that would mean taking a short-term sacrifice for the long-term gain and we are not well-programmed for that.
California's agriculture is an example. Crops are going unplanted because of a lack of water. Farmers that do have water are not planting because they can make more money selling their water than they could off the crops. Orchards are dieing due to lack of water. Fisheries are drying up. The list goes on. So, what do they do? They are growing and exporting water-intensive crops such as alfalfa and almonds. And, they are sending them overseas. It would be bad enough if they were using the crops in-state, or maybe a nearby state. That would at least keep the water in the area. Instead, they are exporting these crops to China.
I understand the issue of jobs and economy. The farmers have to make a living and the state wants to keep the jobs. No problem. But, if an industry is going to die, doesn't it make sense to make the changes when you can instead of waiting until you are forced to change? And, if you make the changes when you can, you are more likely to have the money needed. But, if you wait, your financial resources will wilt away before you make the plunge. So, by acting this way, farmers are ensuring their future failure.
And, that is climate change denial in a nutshell. I guess I should say in an almond shell.
Amazing.
Thursday, April 9, 2015
Guest Submission: Defending Former IPCC Chair
It’s odd that AGW deniers continually include false or misleading information in their arguments, information which invariably includes input from many so called experts, who are willing to discredit decades of established climate science. The qualifications of Dr. Rajendra Pachauri--former Chairperson of the IPCC has been attacked this way. Below is a paste from Bill Moyers’ website that debunks a famous petition that was circulated among scientists and supposedly reveals large numbers of climate scientists who do not accept predominantly human causes for global warming. However, this biased Oregon Petition Project includes large numbers of signatures from scientist having only Bachelors degrees---including meteorologists, and those representing many marginally related scientific fields with completely inadequate backgrounds and accreditation;
A link:
http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/
"But that hasn't prevented climate deniers from compiling long lists of people they claim to be dissenting climatologists. The most prominent of which was the Oregon Petition project, which was organized by a chemist named Art Robinson, founder of a group called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), which also markets a home-schooling kit for “parents concerned about socialism in the public schools.”
The petition was supposedly signed by “31,000 American scientists” who opposed the consensus “entirely on scientific grounds published in peer reviewed journals.” But in fact, anyone could sign on, and according to Michael Mann, director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, the list ultimately included the Spice Girls and several Star Wars characters."
In the paste from the website linked below, one clearly sees a long list of job experiences which involve associations with many energy and oil companies—a reflection of Dr. Pachauri's attempts to influence and promote knowledge and discover possible solutions for man-made climate change problems.
Another link:
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri's background;
Dr Pachauri has also been associated with academic and research institutes. He is on the
Board of Directors of the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd (June 2006) and also on the Board of Directors of the NTPC Limited (January 2006). He was on the Board of Directors of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (January 1999 to September 2003); Board of Directors of GAIL (India) Ltd. (April 2003 to October 2004); National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd (August 2002 to August 2005); the Board of Governors, Shriram Scientific and Industrial Research Foundation (September 1987-1990); the Executive Committee and then the Board of Trustees of the India International Centre, New Delhi (1985 onwards); the Governing Council and President (September 2004 – September 2006) of the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi (October 1987 onwards); and the Court of Governors, Administrative Staff College of India (1979-81).
A final paste from yet another website, reveals that Rajendra is no lightweight when it comes to the scientific, economic, and social issues involved in climate science, and is also a very credible authority on global warming.
One more link:
"Unfortunately, once again Lord Monckton what you’re saying is not the truth. Pachauri is no more a “railroad engineer” than you are a member of the House of Lords! I dare you to look at his accomplishments:
:
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA,
MS in Industrial Engineering
PhD in In Dr. R.K. Pachauri’s Biographydustrial Engineering
PhD in Economics,
served as Assistant Professor (August 1974 -- May 1975)
Visiting Faculty Member (Summer 1976 and 1977) in the Department of Economics and Business.
He joined TERI as Director in April 1981.
Visiting Professor, Resource Economics at the College of Mineral and Energy Resources, West Virginia University (August 1981 -- August 1982);
Senior Visiting Fellow, Resource Systems Institute, East -- West Center, USA (May -- June 1982);
Visiting Research Fellow, The World Bank, Washington, DC (June -- September 1990).
Recognizing his vast knowledge and experience in the energy -- environment field, the United Nations Development Program appointed him as a part time adviser in the fields of Energy and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources, 1994 -- 1999.
His wide-ranging expertise has resulted in his being invited to join various international and national committees and boards, which on the international level include:
Member, Board of the International Solar Energy Society (ISES), 1991 -- 1997;
Member, World Resources Institute (WRI) Council, 1992;
Chairman, Work Group A -- World Energy Council (WEC) Committee on Developing Countries, 1993 -- 1995;
President (1988), Chairman (1989 -- 90), International Association for Energy Economics (IAEE), Washington, D C .;
President, Asian Energy Institute, 1992 onwards.
Committees of the Government of India which he has served include
Member, Panel of Eminent Persons on Power, Ministry of Power;
Member, Delhi Vision -- Core Planning Group;
Member, Advisory Board on Energy (ABE), Government of India, 1983 -- 1988 (The Board reported directly to the Prime Minister of India);
Member, National Environmental Council, Government of India under the Chairmanship of the Prime Minister of India, November 1993 and April 1999;
Member, Oil Industry Restructuring Group, "R" Group, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, 1994.
He has also served on academic and research institute bodies including:
Member, Board of Governors, Trireme Scientific & Industrial Research Foundation, September 1987;
Member, Executive Committee of the India International Center, 1985 onwards; Member, Governing Council of the India Habitat Center, New Delhi, October 1987 onwards;
Member, Court of Governors, Administrative Staff College of India, 1979 -- 81.
In January 1999, Dr R K Pachauri was appointed as Director, Board of Directors of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (a Fortune 500 company) for a period of 3 years.
In April 1999, Dr R K Pachauri was appointed as the Member, Board of Directors of the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Environment Agency, Government of Japan, for a period of 3 years.
In September 1999, Dr R K Pachauri was appointed as the Chairman, The Darjeeling Himalayan Railway Heritage Foundation, Darjeeling.
He taught at the School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, Yale University, USA, as McCluskey Fellow during 6 September -- 8 December 2000.
In July 2001, Dr R K Pachauri was appointed Member, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India.
Elected as Chairman of IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), April 2002."
It's understandable that a denier might want to point to Rajendra's original job with an Indian Railways company, since qualifications for anyone in the IPCC should be impressive. But that early job is not nearly as indicative of his cumulative and extensive education and academic qualifications to chair an organization like the IPCC. His knowledge of how energy is made and delivered in diverse markets, makes him an excellent spokesperson for a problem which ultimately involves both of those fields, and unlike many deniers his accomplishments aren't manufactured or enabled by Denier's organizations, which already hold opinions favorable to big oil and coal, before their "research" even starts.
This Information about Dr. Pachauri illustrates the way deniers, misinform the public—never mentioning that large numbers of Climate scientists are very qualified to do global warming research—certainly far more than the numbers of pseudo scientists like Lord Monckton, (one of Rajendra's critics), who has almost no suitable qualifications at all. I only wish newspapers around the world, had the time and inclination to publish truly objective comments about our climate, which could then be verified by research rather than misinformation and lies circulated by global warming deniers, quacks and charlatans!
Sincerely, Peter W. Johnson
Superior, WI.
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Ocean Acidification
I hear a lot of comments from skeptics concerning ocean acidification. The gist of the complaints is that the ocean is not turning acid, therefore these claims are all false. Once again, the problem is a result of a lack of understanding. No one is saying the ocean is turned into an acid. Acidification refers to it become less base.
If you need a refresher, the pH scale goes from 0 to 14. Pure water is at 7, completely neutral. Less than 7 is acidic and more than 7 is base. A change in one number is a factor of 10. So, a pH of 9 is ten times more base than a pH of 8. The ocean has had an average pH of about 8.2 for the last 300 million years. In recent years that has changed to 8.1. That is a change of 25% in the acidity of sea water. In other words, it has moved in the direction of the acids, but is still a base.
This change in the pH is caused by the absorption of carbon dioxide in the air, which creates carbonic acid. As the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the ocean absorbs more of it. This is both good and bad. When the ocean takes CO2 out of the air, it slows global warming down. That's good. But, the formation of carbonic acid lowers the ocean's pH and that's bad.
A lower pH puts many forms of sea life at risk. Shellfish are possibly the most vulnerable due to how easily their shells dissolve in acid. A more acidic (less base) ocean makes it more difficult for them to build strong shells. Obviously, coral reefs are also at risk. But, a lower pH will also interfere with other forms of sea life. In fact, it is estimated a lower ocean pH will cost us about $1 trillion every year by the year 2100. I obtained that figure from an excellent source of information on ocean acidification, the paleohistory of ocean acidification and the biological, physical and economic costs associated with acidification.
Now, we have enough sensors we can monitor the oceans, with some gaps, at nearly real time. Read this article in Scientific American about the efforts, or this one on LiveScience.com.
If you need a refresher, the pH scale goes from 0 to 14. Pure water is at 7, completely neutral. Less than 7 is acidic and more than 7 is base. A change in one number is a factor of 10. So, a pH of 9 is ten times more base than a pH of 8. The ocean has had an average pH of about 8.2 for the last 300 million years. In recent years that has changed to 8.1. That is a change of 25% in the acidity of sea water. In other words, it has moved in the direction of the acids, but is still a base.
This change in the pH is caused by the absorption of carbon dioxide in the air, which creates carbonic acid. As the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the ocean absorbs more of it. This is both good and bad. When the ocean takes CO2 out of the air, it slows global warming down. That's good. But, the formation of carbonic acid lowers the ocean's pH and that's bad.
A lower pH puts many forms of sea life at risk. Shellfish are possibly the most vulnerable due to how easily their shells dissolve in acid. A more acidic (less base) ocean makes it more difficult for them to build strong shells. Obviously, coral reefs are also at risk. But, a lower pH will also interfere with other forms of sea life. In fact, it is estimated a lower ocean pH will cost us about $1 trillion every year by the year 2100. I obtained that figure from an excellent source of information on ocean acidification, the paleohistory of ocean acidification and the biological, physical and economic costs associated with acidification.
Now, we have enough sensors we can monitor the oceans, with some gaps, at nearly real time. Read this article in Scientific American about the efforts, or this one on LiveScience.com.
Monday, April 6, 2015
Climate Models are Right Again! The Stratosphere is Cooling.
One of the predictions of climate models is that the stratosphere will cool. See this post at RealClimate for a discussion with references. There details are involved, but basically what is happening is more heat is being retained in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) and there is less energy radiating up into the stratosphere as a result. Destruction of the ozone-layer in the lower-stratosphere also results in cooling (ozone warms up as it absorbs UV light). But, this can be accounted for.
Actual data measurements are difficult to come by for this area, but recent efforts have shown the upper atmosphere has, in fact, been cooling for at least the last 30 years.
Actual data measurements are difficult to come by for this area, but recent efforts have shown the upper atmosphere has, in fact, been cooling for at least the last 30 years.
The height profiles of the observed trends are close to those predicted by recent atmospheric general circulation models.Not really a major story. After all, the science was already settled on the issue, but it's nice to see the models are doing well.
Sunday, April 5, 2015
Willie Soon and the Petition Project
Of course, Willie Soon has been in the news lately after he was caught falsifying his research in order to produce 'deliverables' for his fossil fuel clients. But, I was doing a little work last night and came across something interesting. It turns out he was a player with the Global Warming Petition Project. He was a coauthor on a paper about it and the founder of the project is the lead author. You can read it here.
Why is this significant? Because of something the Petition Project states on its webpage:
That shouldn't be a surprise any more than the news they are lying about it.
Why is this significant? Because of something the Petition Project states on its webpage:
The project has no financing whatever from industrial sources.So, they don't receive financing from industrial sources, except for funds from the fossil fuel industry, as it turns out. I have already shown how the Petition Project is a fraud when it was submitted as proof global warming isn't real to the Global Warming Skeptic Challenge, so it isn't anything new to find out they are lying. That has already been established. This project has been debunked many times by many people besides myself. But, it is interesting to get one more confirmation of how they are funded by the fossil fuel industry.
That shouldn't be a surprise any more than the news they are lying about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)