Heartland Institute documents reveal strategy of attacks against climate science

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:15 PM GMT on February 17, 2012

Share this Blog
67
+

Documents illegally leaked from the Heartland Institute, one of the most active groups engaged in attacking the science of climate change, provide an unprecedented look into how these groups operate. The story was broken Tuesday by DeSmogBlog, a website dedicated to exposing false claims about climate change science. The documents reveal that donors to Heartland included oil billionaire Charles Koch, and Heartland has spent several million dollars over the past five years to undermine climate science. Tens of thousands of dollars are slated to go this year to well-known climate contrarians S.Fred Singer, Craig Idso, and Anthony Watts of the Watts Up With That? website. Naturally, the leaked documents have lit up the blogosphere, but none of the revelations are particularly surprising. The U.S. has a very successful and well-funded climate change denial industry, primarily funded by fossil fuel companies, that has spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past few decades on a PR campaign against climate change science. I made a lengthy post on the subject in 2009 called, The Manufactured Doubt industry and the hacked email controversy. I won't say more here, but getenergysmartnow.com has compiled a long list of blogs that have interesting posts on the Heartland Institute affair for those interested in following this story.



Eight books challenging the Manufactured Doubt industry
Important scientific findings should always be challenged with the goal of finding flaws and improving our scientific understanding. But there's nothing a scientist hates more than to see good science attacked and the reputations of good scientists smeared in name of protecting corporate profits or ideology. A number of scientists have fought back against the recent unfounded assaults on climate change science by publishing books calling attention to the Manufactured Doubt industry's tactics and goals. Anyone priding themselves on being a open-minded skeptic of human-caused global warming should challenge their skepticism by reading one of these works. I thought so highly of Unscientific America, Merchants of Doubt, and Climate Coverup, that I donated 50 copies of these books to undergraduates at the University of Michigan last year. Here's a short synopsis of eight books published in the past three years defending climate change science against the attacks of the Manufactured Doubt industry:

Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming, by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway. If you're going to read one book on the attacks on climate science, this should probably be the one--Dr. Oreskes, a history professor at UC San Diego, was voted climate change communicator of the year in 2011. A review of Merchants of Doubt and a video of her defending her book against skeptics is at climateprogress.org, my favorite website for staying current on the politics of climate change. From the review: "Make the journey with them, and you’ll see renowned scientists abandon science, you’ll see environmentalism equated with communism, and you’ll discover the connection between the Cold War and climate denial. And for the most part, you’ll be entertained along the way."

Climate Cover-up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming, by desmogblog.com co-founders James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore. The main author, James Hoggan, owns a Canadian public relations firm, and is intimately familiar with how public relations campaigns work. It's another fascinating and very readable book.

Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future, by science writer Chris Mooney. He writes a blog focusing on science communication called the intersection. This is a fantastic book, and should be required reading for all college science majors.

Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand, by Haydn Washington and John Cook. John Cook writes for one of my favorite climate science blogs, skepticalscience.com, which focuses on debunking false skeptic claims about climate science. The book does a great job debunking all the classic climate change denial arguments.

Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health, by George Washington University epidemiologist David Michaels, who now heads the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA). This meticulously-researched book has just one chapter on climate change, and focuses more on tobacco and hazardous chemicals. About the the tobacco industry's Manufactured Doubt campaigns, Michaels wrote: "the industry understood that the public is in no position to distinguish good science from bad. Create doubt, uncertainty, and confusion. Throw mud at the anti-smoking research under the assumption that some of it is bound to stick. And buy time, lots of it, in the bargain". The title of Michaels' book comes from a 1969 memo from a tobacco company executive: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy".

The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines, by climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann. Dr. Mann is the originator of the much-debated "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures over the past 1,000 years, which looks like a hockey stick due to the sharp increase in temperatures in recent decades. This book just came out last week, and I hope to write a review on it this spring. Dr. Mann is one of the main contributors to my favorite web site for staying current on climate change research, realclimate.org. John Cook of skepticalscience.com wrote a review, calling it "an eye-opening account of the lengths the opponents of climate science will go to in their campaign to slander climate scientists and distract the public from the realities of human caused global warming."

Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America by Shawn Lawrence Otto. I haven't had a chance to read this one yet, but it looks interesting. A review by Katherine O’Konski of Climate Science Watch called the book "a fascinating look at the status of science in American society."

The Inquisition of Climate Science, by Dr. James Lawrence Powell, a geochemist with a distinguished career as a college teacher, college president, museum director, and author of books on earth science for general audiences. I haven't read it, but John Cook of skepticalscience.com wrote a review, calling it "a must-read for anyone who wishes to understand the full scope of the denial industry and their modern day persecution of climate science."

Have a great weekend, everyone! I'll be taking a few vacation days next week, and wunderground meteorologist Angela Fritz will probably be doing most of the blogging for me during the coming week.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 230 - 180

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32Blog Index

Quoting nymore:
Aburttschell is right it technically has cooled for the last decade.

GISS anomaly 2002 was 0.79 for 2011 it was 0.77

HADCRUT anomaly 2002 was 0.455 for 2011 it was 0.342

NCDC anomaly 2002 was 0.5923 for 2011 it was 0.5117

I don't see warming do you
This is why we look at trends, not two specific points on a graph. Take the graph below for example. If we look from point A to point B there is little to no change at all. However it is clear if we look at the overall trend of the graph, it is going up.




The same thing can be applied to any temperature graph and that is exactly what you are doing. Think of it this way, it's climate change. As in the climate is changing over time or Change/Time. That is how we find trends; by looking at change over time. The more points you use to determine your change over time, the more accurate your assessment of the data's trend will be. So when you use the bare minimum of two points, you get literally the worst possible sample of what is really going on with your data.

If we go back to the graph above I could pick two points to show where there was no change (A and B) and I can even pick two points to show where the rate of change was negative. Yet, obviously, the overall trend is a positive rate of change.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
MY forecast!(GFS)



From the NWS:


Saturday: A slight chance of rain after 4PM. Partly sunny, with a high near 61. Calm wind becoming south between 4 and 7 mph. Chance of rain 20%.

Saturday Night: Rain, mainly after 10PM. the rain could be heavy at times. Low around 45. Calm wind becoming east at between 4 and 7 mph. Chance of precipitation is 100%. New rainfall amounts between a half and three quarters of an inch possible.

Sunday: Rain, mainly before noon. The rain could be heavy at times. High near 49. Northeast wind at 9 to 14 mph. Chance of precipitation is 100%. New rainfall amounts between a quarter and half of an inch possible.

Sunday Night: A chance of rain, mixing with freezing rain after 10PM, then gradually ending. Cloudy, with a low around 29. North wind between 10 and 18mph, with gusts as high as 29mph. Chance of precipitation is 40%. New precipitation amounts of less then a tenth of an inch possible.



Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4481
Fwiw..NOGAPS 168 hours out..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting aburttschell:


So to this I'll post this


Why is there no mention of the earth actually cooling over the last decade. While Dr. Masters posts blogs titled "19th warmest january", half of Europe is experience record low temperatures.


To which I'll reply that 10 years (especially 10 years with a cherry-picked high point) is, climatologically speaking, "noise". This is a common fallacy committed by those who do not understand climate science. Typically the minimum time range for any sort of meaningful climate analysis is 30 years.

Your graph is also a little messed up. There's no point to to the right hand axis of CO2.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ScottLincoln:


Nothing like coming up with a change/century rate from 1 year worth of data. I'm sure there is no noise contaminating that at all. Anyone that would post something like that and claim it to be relevant to climate is either deliberately misleading, or lacks scientific understanding to make judgements on the topic.

Not to mention that air temperature is less than 10% of warming. Most warming goes to the ice and oceans because they hold substantially larger amounts of heat. Climate change due to human activities continues. The energy imbalance has not gone away. Equilibrium has not been reached. The heat continues to accumulate.
Yes, the Oceans store the large majority of the heat.

And yeah that graph is ridiculous and it doesn't even make sense. How can co2 concentration and temperature change per century both be your independent variable?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting WxGeekVA:
Link

NWS now has all snow for me!!!!


the GFS has me with an inch of snow...and I beleive the NWS is going to follow.

This morning, NWS said A 40% chance of rain on Sunday night. NOW...it says a 40% chance of freezing rain.
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4481
is there a reason that everyody is argueing/debating over the same thing they were years ago?

give it a break people, if some1 dont wanna be corrected then so be it. no amount of info is gonna change em lol.

And NO, i am not on a childish"side" here xD
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4481
Quoting WxGeekVA:
Link

NWS now has all snow for me!!!!
It appears the models are treading colder, and have the low bombing out to 991mb near the outer banks of NC. That could even allow for 1-3" of snow as far south as the Raleigh Durham area of central NC.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
A) The reason there was no mention of the earth cooling over the last decade is because the earth hasn't actually cooled over the last decade. In fact, it's warmed.

A2) Why oh why do denialist types always insist on using 1998 as the start year for any and every graph? Hey, here's a hint: it rhymes with "cherry-picking". Oh, darn, I gave it away... ;-)

B) "19th warmest" was used because it makes a bit more sense than "112th coolest".

C) The cold snap in Europe is over. There have been a number of high temp records set on several areas the past few days, and, in fact, a nice warmup is on he way for next week. At any rate, climate is about long-term trends, and that long-term trend is warming. A two- or three-week cold snap--or even a two- or three-month one--doesn't mean that warming trend has ceased.

D) Your response was to a comment made by a denialist sock puppet who is actually on your side of he debate. Just so you know... ;-)


A) If the temperatures are going down, that's cooling correct?

B) Okay so picking a date in the 70's or 80's isn't cherry picking. Furthermore, according to most theories we were supposed to be nearing the rapid global warmth, so the fact that there was actually cooling the last decade is pertinent.

C)The European cold snap is not over, in fact Eastern European countries such as Romania are still experiencing chilling temps. Furthermore, over 650 people have died. And to the "two or three month cold snap comment" per chart its obviously been longer than two or three months.

Oh and here is more cherry pickin' for you

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I'm home from school and have made some more charts using select cities for clarification.

Today Corpus Christi, Texas



Tomorrow New Orleans, Louisiana



Sunday Savannah, Georgia

Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 31453
Quoting TomTaylor:
That graph makes no sense. I'll post it again for the lolz




It is true that over the last decade global temperatures have been relatively level but there is still a slight warming trend.


Nothing like coming up with a change/century rate from 1 year worth of data. I'm sure there is no noise contaminating that at all. Anyone that would post something like that and claim it to be relevant to climate is either deliberately misleading, or lacks scientific understanding to make judgements on the topic.

Not to mention that air temperature is less than 10% of warming. Most warming goes to the ice and oceans because they hold substantially larger amounts of heat. Climate change due to human activities continues. The energy imbalance has not gone away. Equilibrium has not been reached. The heat continues to accumulate.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
A) The reason there was no mention of the earth cooling over the last decade is because the earth hasn't actually cooled over the last decade. In fact, it's warmed.

A2) Why oh why do denialist types always insist on using 1998 as the start year for any and every graph? Hey, here's a hint: it rhymes with "cherry-picking". Oh, darn, I gave it away... ;-)

B) "19th warmest" was used because it makes a bit more sense than "112th coolest".

C) The cold snap in Europe is over. There have been a number of high temp records set on several areas the past few days, and, in fact, a nice warmup is on he way for next week. At any rate, climate is about long-term trends, and that long-term trend is warming. A two- or three-week cold snap--or even a two- or three-month one--doesn't mean that warming trend has ceased.

D) Your response was to a comment made by a denialist sock puppet who is actually on your side of he debate. Just so you know... ;-)
Aburttschell is right it technically has cooled for the last decade.

GISS anomaly 2002 was 0.79 for 2011 it was 0.77

HADCRUT anomaly 2002 was 0.455 for 2011 it was 0.342

NCDC anomaly 2002 was 0.5923 for 2011 it was 0.5117

I don't see warming do you
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:


The 19th warmest statistic factored in Europe's cold temperatures.

Additionally, most of their cold anomalies happened in February, not January.

You don't quite understand what a global average is, I see.

Additionally, we also have to repeatedly point out that temperature and heat are not exactly the same thing, due to the heat "hidden" by phase changes of water.

Why is it that the 21 hottest years on record (globally) all happened in the past 25 years, AND the 13 hottest years on record all happened in the last 15 years?

Where did you get your data?


their just experts at excel! bahaha
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting EllenPettit:
#210. If you are referring to me as a sockpuppet, you are wrong. That's number one.


It would appear as if he was referring to the original source of the graphic, or made a mistake on which post he was referring to. At least that was how I took it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting aburttschell:


So to this I'll post this


Why is there no mention of the earth actually cooling over the last decade. While Dr. Masters posts blogs titled "19th warmest january", half of Europe is experience record low temperatures.
That graph makes no sense...

Firstly, you have two different variables on the Y-axis implying that CO2 concentration and temperature are the same thing and are interchangeable.

Secondly, it's showing temperatures and CO2 levels to be dropping, which is also false since they are both rising (although at different rates).



I'll post it again for the lolz




It is true that over the last decade global temperatures have been relatively level but there is still a slight warming trend. With regards to Europe having a cold winter, please try and remember its Global Warming, and not Europe Warming.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
I guess the dream of some denialists is that if some alternative energy firms go belly-up, that means alternative energy isn't viable, and that in turn means the planet isn't warming.

Odd logic if ever I heard it.

Coupla things. 1) The overall package of loan guarantees is working; breakthrough technologies are being developed, tens of thousands of jobs have been created, and the majority of the loans will be paid back in full, on schedule, and with about $8 billion in interest. 2) Rep. Fred Upton--one of the harshest critics of the Solyndra loan guarantee--pushed for a loan for Michigan-based United Solar Ovonic...a company that just filed for bankruptcy. Pot? Meet kettle... 3) Even were every single alternative energy company to go under, it wouldn't change the facts of climate change one iota.


But my tax monies are going down the drain for campaign coffers contributors, both of the above companies officers gave heavily for obumer but that's only the with and the nod for you, I've ask you on several occasions if you received Federal moniesyour mute on that subject, which shows how your bread is buttered!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


Just one thing, Methane is mostly produced by microorganisms through something called methanogenesis. Humans don't contribute nearly enough of it to do anything. They actually just found that Mars is still producing methane into its atmosphere and the only way to get methane is either through geothermal energy or from life.


You might be confusing producers of methane with changes in production of methane. They are, in fact, different. Similar to why C02 can be produced by natural sources but if those sources change slowly, the climate is at equilibrium; thus a rapidly increasing production from an anthropogenic source can change the concentration enough to cause in energy imbalance.

99.9% of the methane produced every year could be from natural sources, but if the planet was at equilibrium with that 99.9%, then 0.1% changing rapidly could still cause climatic changes.

I'm not sure what connection you are trying to make between methane on Mars and methane on Earth.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Time to go play with the puppy...she been lonely all day since I been busy with things...be back l8r!
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4481
199:

That's not a fair comparison, because a one time release of CO2 from the plants death's is not happening over and over.

So what if it produces 3 times of 1 year's worth of Coal or oil?

The dam will operate for several decades, which means that ultimately it will produced scores of times less CO2.
Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 33 Comments: 1520
Quoting aburttschell:


So to this I'll post this


Why is there no mention of the earth actually cooling over the last decade. While Dr. Masters posts blogs titled "19th warmest january", half of Europe is experience record low temperatures.
A) The reason there was no mention of the earth cooling over the last decade is because the earth hasn't actually cooled over the last decade. In fact, it's warmed.

A2) Why oh why do denialist types always insist on using 1998 as the start year for any and every graph? Hey, here's a hint: it rhymes with "cherry-picking". Oh, darn, I gave it away... ;-)

B) "19th warmest" was used because it makes a bit more sense than "112th coolest".

C) The cold snap in Europe is over. There have been a number of high temp records set on several areas the past few days, and, in fact, a nice warmup is on he way for next week. At any rate, climate is about long-term trends, and that long-term trend is warming. A two- or three-week cold snap--or even a two- or three-month one--doesn't mean that warming trend has ceased.

D) Your response was to a comment made by a denialist sock puppet who is actually on your side of he debate. Just so you know... ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13457
209. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
Japan Meteorological Agency
Tropical Cyclone Advisory #5
TROPICAL DEPRESSION 01
3:00 AM JST February 18 2012
==================================

SUBJECT: TROPICAL DEPRESSION IN SOUTH CHINA SEA

At 18:00 PM UTC, Tropical Depression (1004 hPa) located at 9.5N 114.2E has 10 minute sustained winds of 30 knots with gusts of 45 knots. The depression is reported as moving west at 6 knots.

Dvorak Intensity: T2.0

Forecast and Intensity
========================

24 HRS: 9.0N 111.9E - 35 knots (CAT 1/Tropical Storm)

The next tropical cyclone advisory from Japan Meteorological Agency will be issued at 21:50 PM UTC..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
208. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
Seychelles Meteorological Services
Tropical Cyclone Advisory #35
TEMPETE TROPICALE MODEREE GIOVANNA (09-20112012)
22:00 PM RET February 17 2012
================================

At 18:00 PM UTC, Moderate Tropical Storm Giovanna (988 hPa) located at 26.3S 42.8E has 10 minute sustained winds of 40 knots with gusts of 60 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving south southeast at 4 knots.

Gale Force Winds
==================
60 NM radius from the center extending up to 70 NM in the southern semi-circle

Near Gale Force Winds
======================
70 NM radius from the center extending up to 100 NM in the northeastern quadrant and up to 120 NM in the southern semi-circle

Dvorak Intensity: T3.5/3.5/D0.5/24 HRS

Forecast and Intensity
========================

12 HRS: 26.3S 43.8E - 50 knots (Forte Tempête Tropicale)
24 HRS: 26.1S 45.2E - 55 knots (Forte Tempête Tropicale)
48 HRS: 25.1S 47.5E - 45 knots (Tempête Tropicale Modérée)
72 HRS: 23.9S 48.1E - 35 knots (Tempête Tropicale Modérée)

Additional Information
=====================

Giovanna is intensifying ... overall pattern is slightly better than 24 hours ago and recently a curved band at 0.8 has developed around the center.

Giovanna is still located between two mid level highs generating contradictory steering flows over the system.

Latest available guidance are now in better agreement on the forecast track: tomorrow, the eastern ridge is likely to shift gradually eastwards and Giovanna should be steered by an westerly to west northwesterly flow on the southeastern border of the mid level highs located over South Africa and on the northern edge of the mid-latitude westerlies. On this pattern, the system should gradually accelerate towards the east northeast.

System is expected to intensify again gradually: within the next 36 hours, Giovanna is expected to remain oversea and should reach back severe tropical storm stage.On and after this range, track uncertainty impact strongly the intensity forecast, depending on an oversea or inland track. Current RSMC forecast track is close to the previous one and offer an oversea track very close to the southern Malagasy coastline then a weakening due to a westerly sheared constraint and dissipation inland over the the southeastern Malagasy coastline. The 12z run from ECMWF, partly included in this forecast process, bring the system on a more faster and easterly track than previously.

Inhabitants of southern Malagasy areas are invited to closely follow the progress of this system: current forecast bring the system close to the southern coast of Madagascar Sunday between cap Sainte-Marie and Fort-Dauphin. Given the current uncertainty, a landfall between Itampolo (150 km south of Tulear) and Fort-Dauphin in the time frame from Saturday night and Sunday night is likely.

The option of a threat to Mozambique coastline is now excluded.

The next tropical cyclone advisory on TC GIOVANNA issued by Seychelles Meteorological Services will be issued at 0:30 AM UTC..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
193 VAbeachhurricanes "The methane in our Landfills and water treament is burned..."

While there's been a LOT of talk since the '70s -- and a few proof-of-concept demonstration projects -- the total amount of waste-generated methane actually burnt more closely approximates 0% than anything that could be considered significant.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting aburttschell:


So to this I'll post this


Why is there no mention of the earth actually cooling over the last decade. While Dr. Masters posts blogs titled "19th warmest january", half of Europe is experience record low temperatures.


The 19th warmest statistic factored in Europe's cold temperatures.

Additionally, most of their cold anomalies happened in February, not January.

You don't quite understand what a global average is, I see.

Additionally, we also have to repeatedly point out that temperature and heat are not exactly the same thing, due to the heat "hidden" by phase changes of water.

Why is it that the 21 hottest years on record (globally) all happened in the past 25 years, AND the 13 hottest years on record all happened in the last 15 years?

Where did you get your data?
Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 33 Comments: 1520
I just saw this on the BBC. I don't know if anybody has seen or posted it before but its in the vain of things on this blog but at governmental levels.

"The Canadian government has been accused of "muzzling" its scientists."

Here's the link:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-168 61468

It seems that all sorts of useful and disturbing information is either being hidden, altered or condemned.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
204. wxmod
Quoting ShenValleyFlyFish:
Might try this:



That's a 10! If you don't have enough gas, just invite friends to contribute.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting trunkmonkey:
A Massachusetts company that received a $43 million Energy Department loan guarantee last year filed for bankruptcy Sunday, a step certain to fuel criticism of federal green energy financing in the wake of the solar company Solyndra%u2019s collapse.

Beacon Power Corp., which develops energy storage systems, filed for bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware.

Beacon Power had received a federal loan guarantee to help build an energy storage plant in Stephentown, N.Y., that began operating in January. The Treasury Department%u2019s Federal Financing Bank provided the loan.

Beacon sought bankruptcy protection two days after the White House ordered an independent 60-day evaluation of the Energy Department's loan programs aimed at ensuring effective management and monitoring.

The review, conducted by a former Treasury Department official, will include examination of how Beacon%u2019s project is performing going forward, and whether there are additional steps that can be taken to protect taxpayers, according to the Obama administration.

The Beacon bankruptcy comes roughly two months after the California solar panel maker Solyndra, which had received a $535 million Energy Department (DOE) loan guarantee in 2009, went belly up and laid off 1,100 workers.
I guess the dream of some denialists is that if some alternative energy firms go belly-up, that means alternative energy isn't viable, and that in turn means the planet isn't warming.

Odd logic if ever I heard it.

Coupla things. 1) The overall package of loan guarantees is working; breakthrough technologies are being developed, tens of thousands of jobs have been created, and the majority of the loans will be paid back in full, on schedule, and with about $8 billion in interest. 2) Rep. Fred Upton--one of the harshest critics of the Solyndra loan guarantee--pushed for a loan for Michigan-based United Solar Ovonic...a company that just filed for bankruptcy. Pot? Meet kettle... 3) Even were every single alternative energy company to go under, it wouldn't change the facts of climate change one iota.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13457
Clearly an exciting day on the blog today... Massachusetts is over 50 degrees AGAIN today. I'm losing hope for snow this winter!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Link

NWS now has all snow for me!!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
200. MTWX
Keep your weather radios handy along the gulf coast region!!

AS THE UPPER-LEVEL SYSTEM MOVES ACROSS SOUTH TX SATURDAY...A
WELL-DEVELOPED 65 TO 80 KT MID-LEVEL JET WILL MOVE OUT OF THE SRN
PLAINS AND OVERSPREAD THE LOWER MS VALLEY. THIS JET PATTERN SHOULD
SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SQUALL-LINE JUST TO THE RIGHT OF THE
MID-LEVEL JET MAX. FORECAST SOUNDINGS AT 21Z SATURDAY IN THE
VICINITY OF THE SQUALL-LINE IN SE LA SHOW AN IMPRESSIVE SHEAR
ENVIRONMENT WITH 0-6 KM SHEAR IN THE 50 TO 65 KT RANGE AND 0-3 KM
STORM RELATIVE HELICITY OF 300 TO 400 M2/S2. THIS SHOULD BE
FAVORABLE FOR ROTATING STORMS EMBEDDED IN THE SQUALL-LINE OR WITH
DISCRETE STORMS THAT DEVELOP OUT AHEAD OF THE LINE WITH A THREAT FOR
TORNADOES. THE GREATEST THREAT FOR TORNADOES SHOULD EXIST TOMORROW
AFTERNOON NEAR NEW ORLEANS AND IN THE MS DELTA WHERE MODEL FORECASTS
SHOW MODERATE INSTABILITY AND STRONG LOW-LEVEL SHEAR JUST TO THE
WEST OF THE LOW-LEVEL JET MAX. THIS SETUP MAY BE ENOUGH FOR AN
ISOLATED STRONG TORNADO OR TWO. THE TORNADO THREAT SHOULD CONTINUE
INTO THE EVENING ACROSS THE CNTRL GULF COAST AS A 50 TO 65 KT
LOW-LEVEL JET MOVES ENEWD ACROSS THE SLIGHT RISK AREA
. THE
SQUALL-LINE WILL ALSO LIKELY HAVE A PERSISTENT WIND DAMAGE THREAT
FROM SRN LA LATE SATURDAY MORNING EXTENDING ENEWD TO CNTRL GA DURING
THE OVERNIGHT PERIOD.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
188 BobWallace "We're releasing methane via our drilling/transportation of natural gas.
We're releasing methane via our agricultural practices, in particular our very large herds of cattle and sheep. Burps, not farts.
Farming increases the amount of nitrogen in the soil, which inhibits methane oxidation.
Rice farming creates lots of methane.
Methane is also generated in our landfills and waste water treatment plants.
"

Hydroelectric dams produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, and in some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels. Carbon emissions vary from dam to dam, says Philip Fearnside from Brazil's National Institute for Research in the Amazon in Manaus. "But we do know that there are enough emissions to worry about."

In a study to be published in Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Fearnside estimates that in 1990 the greenhouse effect of emissions from the Curua-Una dam in Para, Brazil, was more than three-and-a-half times what would have been produced by generating the same amount of electricity from oil.

This is because large amounts of carbon tied up in trees and other plants are released when the reservoir is initially flooded and the plants rot. Then after this first pulse of decay, plant matter settling on the reservoir's bottom decomposes without oxygen, resulting in a build-up of dissolved methane. This is released into the atmosphere when water passes through the dam's turbines.

And as a greenhouse gas, methane is 21times more powerful than carbon dioxide, so hydroelectric power is not greenhouse neutral.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting EllenPettit:

Ah, the notorious denialist argument, which is, virtually denying the truth. Gee, if you really believe AGW is made up, well then I'm assuming you're one of those who understands climate change and the anthropogenic effects of CO2 from the likes of WUWT? ;-)

It has been documented by NASA and thousands of climate scientists is that the globe is warming, and rapidly. And man is the primary contributors to the warming. Sure, we can buy into the never-ending propaganda of what Big Oil and the fossil fuel industry wants you to believe. I, on the other hand, choose to believe science, and the science backs the theory that greenhouse gases--resulting from our consumption of fossil fuels--are what is driving a warmer globe.


So to this I'll post this


Why is there no mention of the earth actually cooling over the last decade. While Dr. Masters posts blogs titled "19th warmest january", half of Europe is experience record low temperatures.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
Free Energy devices simply don't exist...

That's not quite an accurate statement, but...

stay tuned, March 2-9th is coming fast now.

Idiot was a appropriate description. And I do not usually make such negatively blatant statements about my peers, but geez luweez......In a recorded conversation with Lee Williams, an FAA quality assurance specialist, airport manager Marshall Reece tore into Inhofe’s piloting. “I’ve got over 50 years flying, three tours of Vietnam,” Reece said, “and I can assure you I have never seen such a reckless disregard for human life in my life.” He then added, “Something needs to be done. This guy is famous for these violations.”

Listen to an excerpt of Reece’s conversation with Williams here:

FAA records indicate that while Inhofe has landed at the Port Isabel airport on more than five occasions, he had not been the subject of prior enforcement actions. When questioned by FAA investigators if there had been any distractions in the cockpit before he landed on the closed runway, Inhofe “did volunteer that he was showing a new hire employee seated in the right seat how the technology of the cockpit instrumentation worked.”

Another recording captured a transmission from an air traffic controller who offered a concise account of Inhofe’s antics flying his 1978 Cessna (tail number N115EA): “N115 Echo Alpha landed right in the middle of them doing their work on runway 1331 and damn near killed somebody out there.”

In a statement today, Inhofe said, "This is an old story, and the FAA and I have long consider the matter closed." Noting that his "dealings with the FAA did not constitute an admission nor an adjudication of a violation," Inhofe added, "I have completed the program required by the FAA, and this matter is over."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Well,ShenValleyFlyFish, I've still got my slide rule and we used it last week to work out the pitch and fall of a multi sided roof. Funny thing it still worked OK and will never need batteries and the only solar power involved in it was the sunshine that grew the tree where the wood came from that its made out of.
Now about these battery powered cars:-
Hundreds of years ago when people had to travel long distances like the pony express and stage coaches, there were staging posts where the horses got changed when they were knackered. Horses take ages to grow and train but they did it. I would think it simple enough for the car battery manufactures to have battery changing posts, at say 100 mile intervals where the car drivers call in and have their batteries changed.
This would be a bit of a task with conventional cars but the new volt type cars could have a door/hatch at the back and the used/discharged battery slid out, simply unplugged and a fresh charged one connected and slid into place. The whole task should not take more than a couple of minutes, about the same as filling up with gas.
The batteries would be hired from the supplier on an annual basis and a flat rate charge would apply for each battery change. A sort of pit stop.
This way the electric cars could have unlimited range and even would be cheaper to buy in the first place as the cost would not include a battery as this would be supplied by the hirer.
Anybody can feel free to start the company as I am not in a position to do so. The cost of set up must be considerably less than building oil refineries and conventional gas stations so its win, win, all the way to the bank!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
A Massachusetts company that received a $43 million Energy Department loan guarantee last year filed for bankruptcy Sunday, a step certain to fuel criticism of federal green energy financing in the wake of the solar company Solyndra%u2019s collapse.

Beacon Power Corp., which develops energy storage systems, filed for bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware.

Beacon Power had received a federal loan guarantee to help build an energy storage plant in Stephentown, N.Y., that began operating in January. The Treasury Department%u2019s Federal Financing Bank provided the loan.

Beacon sought bankruptcy protection two days after the White House ordered an independent 60-day evaluation of the Energy Department's loan programs aimed at ensuring effective management and monitoring.

The review, conducted by a former Treasury Department official, will include examination of how Beacon%u2019s project is performing going forward, and whether there are additional steps that can be taken to protect taxpayers, according to the Obama administration.

The Beacon bankruptcy comes roughly two months after the California solar panel maker Solyndra, which had received a $535 million Energy Department (DOE) loan guarantee in 2009, went belly up and laid off 1,100 workers.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:
From the1730 SPC Day 2 Convective Outlook:


The 30% risk area gets smaller again, but the wording seems a little bit stronger:



You posted out of date information. The map does not match what is at the link.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BobWallace:



Over half of methane release is due to human activity.

We're releasing methane via our drilling/transportation of natural gas.

We're releasing methane via our agricultural practices, in particular our very large herds of cattle and sheep. Burps, not farts.

Farming increases the amount of nitrogen in the soil, which inhibits methane oxidation.

Rice farming creates lots of methane.

Methane is also generated in our landfills and waste water treatment plants.



The methane in our Landfills and water treament is burned because burning it creates CO2 which is a less volatile Green House Gas. However humans do not produce over half the methane not even close, Billions of microorganisms produce methane every second of every day, and the only increase in methane in our atmosphere has been due to methane being released from melting permafrost.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Free Energy devices simply don't exist...

That's not quite an accurate statement, but...

stay tuned, March 2-9th is coming fast now.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ShenValleyFlyFish:
173. RTSplayer 1:39 PM EST on February 17, 2012
If Rossi or NASA could get either of their LENR devices to work, then you could use them as the primary power for an automobile.



IFF a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his butt.


Well, I know it's a long shot,b ut the NASA device is NOT a rumor or hoax.

NASA Surface Polariton Plasmons and Heavy Electrons device explained

This is why I laugh at the people who immediately discount all claims by independent experimentalists, since NASA has already made a device.


related article



"US application 20110255645 dated October 20, 2011, lists Joseph M. Zawodny as the inventor of something called the %u201CMethod for Producing Heavy Electrons.%u201D It lists the patent assignee as %u201CUSA as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.%u201D In other words Uncle Sam is applying for this patent."

US20110255645 patent. Method for producing heavy electrons...

Claim 32 under "description", alleges this will be useful for powering everything from handheld devices to automobiles, aircraft, surface ships, and even rocket ships.

This is not a joke or hoax.


In fact, the biggest difference between Rossi and NASA's claims and inventions is that they differ on the theory of what exactly is happening in the reaction, i.e. what type of nuclear reaction is taking place, and not whether or not such reactions are taking place. Both camps know something nuclear is definitely happening.
Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 33 Comments: 1520
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


Just one thing, Methane is mostly produced by microorganisms through something called methanogenesis. Humans don't contribute nearly enough of it to do anything. They actually just found that Mars is still producing methane into its atmosphere and the only way to get methane is either through geothermal energy or from life.
Might try this:

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BobWallace:


It's time to cut Rossi loose. He's had multiple opportunities to demonstrate that his device works and he's refused.

He could easily prove his device without risking his "secrets". All he has to do is to show up at a test site where someone else controls/measures the input and output. There's no need to look inside the box, just show that there's significantly more energy coming out than could be produced by the inputs than could be produced by other means.

All of this patent stuff is bunk. He's had more than adequate time to get patents. Some companies file hundreds of patents each year. This is not rocket science or something incredibly expensive to do.

And even if he couldn't get a patent for every single country in the world the simple ability to supply all the electricity for Europe would quickly make him the world's richest man.

--

That said, we're facing a crisis. We have limited time to cut our CO2/methane/soot emissions. If we don't get busy then we'll wake the sleeping dragon of melting permafrost.

We need to take the technology we have at hand right now and implement it. We can solve this problem with wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, tidal, and biomass/gas.

If something better, like LENR, gets invented down the road we can switch over. It would be very foolish to wait to see if a magic bullet appears when we have solutions at hand.

And they are solutions which would make our transportation and electricity cheaper.

Rossi's miracle device is a fraud. If there were any validity to it whatsoever, he would have released it to worldwide fame and fortune. The fact that he continues to hide behind one excuse after another--someone will steal his idea, he's sold some to the military and can't discuss it for some reason, he's had a falling out with the manufacturer so it will take a while longer--tells you all that you need to know.

There is no magic bullet that's going to save us. Getting out of the fossil fuel trap we're in is going to take a totally different mindset: heavy-duty conservation, R&D toward viable alternate forms of energy, the realization that Big Energy types will sell their own mothers down the road to keep their high-polluting, high-profit products in demand. Free Energy devices simply don't exist...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13457
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


Just one thing, Methane is mostly produced by microorganisms through something called methanogenesis. Humans don't contribute nearly enough of it to do anything. They actually just found that Mars is still producing methane into its atmosphere and the only way to get methane is either through geothermal energy or from life.



Over half of methane release is due to human activity.

We're releasing methane via our drilling/transportation of natural gas.

We're releasing methane via our agricultural practices, in particular our very large herds of cattle and sheep. Burps, not farts.

Farming increases the amount of nitrogen in the soil, which inhibits methane oxidation.

Rice farming creates lots of methane.

Methane is also generated in our landfills and waste water treatment plants.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


OK, this is a science based blog. Who has a frog? ... Uh, no, Patrap. We need more than just the legs and one that is not missing its legs. Whole frogs, please. We need it alive and preferably pot sized. ;-)


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:

That mass of convection south of china in your blog almost looks like the one that was over the philippines, is it the same one?


yup. i believe so, TD One it is now :D
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4481
Quoting BobWallace:


It's time to cut Rossi loose. He's had multiple opportunities to demonstrate that his device works and he's refused.

He could easily prove his device without risking his "secrets". All he has to do is to show up at a test site where someone else controls/measures the input and output. There's no need to look inside the box, just show that there's significantly more energy coming out than could be produced by the inputs than could be produced by other means.

All of this patent stuff is bunk. He's had more than adequate time to get patents. Some companies file hundreds of patents each year. This is not rocket science or something incredibly expensive to do.

And even if he couldn't get a patent for every single country in the world the simple ability to supply all the electricity for Europe would quickly make him the world's richest man.

--

That said, we're facing a crisis. We have limited time to cut our CO2/methane/soot emissions. If we don't get busy then we'll wake the sleeping dragon of melting permafrost.

We need to take the technology we have at hand right now and implement it. We can solve this problem with wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, tidal, and biomass/gas.

If something better, like LENR, gets invented down the road we can switch over. It would be very foolish to wait to see if a magic bullet appears when we have solutions at hand.

And they are solutions which would make our transportation and electricity cheaper.



Just one thing, Methane is mostly produced by microorganisms through something called methanogenesis. Humans don't contribute nearly enough of it to do anything. They actually just found that Mars is still producing methane into its atmosphere and the only way to get methane is either through geothermal energy or from life.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
RE: Rossi and his paranoia...

"One can understand his paranoia about dealing with other companies. If he's telling the truth, his device is not yet patent protected in the U.S., the partner might steal it or modify it and then patent it for their own; although he does have a patent in Italy."

A run of the mill contract attorney can crank out a bulletproof agreement in an hour that would prevent this from happening.

My take on Rossi is that he's a talented con artist....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:
If Rossi or NASA could get either of their LENR devices to work, then you could use them as the primary power for an automobile.


Use the reactor to power an steam engine or thermo-electric motor.

You could have some sort of closed cycle hydrogen system for storing excess energy in the form of electrolysis of water, to make O2 and H2, such as when you are stopped in traffic or parking, etc, and then when you need a boost of energy, such as in accelerating, an H2 combustion system or fuel cell could kick in to provide more instantaneous power for acceleration.

this way you could at least maximize the efficiency of the device.

Unfortunately, it seems these technologies may still be several years from any viable application, and that's assuming Rossi isn't a complete hoax.

Even if it isn't economical enough for a primary power supply, it may be economical for cutting heating and cooling bills by using the waste heat to run water heaters and climate control.

I figure that since electric motors are 80% efficient or so, you'd need a 25kw E-Cat to power an electric car directly at interstate speeds.

Although you could use a far smaller unit just to charge the battery of the electric car ahead of time, which is probably more efficient.

Rossi alleges the smaller E-cats will cost 400 to 500 per Kw design, so that would be $12,500 for the power plant.

But when you consider he claims $50 worth of fuel can run this power plant non-stop for 6 months, then the power plant will pay for itself in fuel cost savings in a few years. You could even use it to power your house and charge a normal electric car at the same time, because it will have so much surplus.


With tongue in cheek, I suggested to Ross that he should market to Google, since Google invests heavily in alternative energy.

Surely, I told Rossi, Google could afford a few thousands of dollars to purchase a few small e-cats and test them.


One can understand his paranoia about dealing with other companies. If he's telling the truth, his device is not yet patent protected in the U.S., the partner might steal it or modify it and then patent it for their own; although he does have a patent in Italy.

If he is lying, he would immediately be exposed if dealing with a legitimate, known corporation or government agency.

Either way, he is in a difficult situation with this technology.


It's time to cut Rossi loose. He's had multiple opportunities to demonstrate that his device works and he's refused.

He could easily prove his device without risking his "secrets". All he has to do is to show up at a test site where someone else controls/measures the input and output. There's no need to look inside the box, just show that there's significantly more energy coming out than could be produced by the inputs than could be produced by other means.

All of this patent stuff is bunk. He's had more than adequate time to get patents. Some companies file hundreds of patents each year. This is not rocket science or something incredibly expensive to do.

And even if he couldn't get a patent for every single country in the world the simple ability to supply all the electricity for Europe would quickly make him the world's richest man.

--

That said, we're facing a crisis. We have limited time to cut our CO2/methane/soot emissions. If we don't get busy then we'll wake the sleeping dragon of melting permafrost.

We need to take the technology we have at hand right now and implement it. We can solve this problem with wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, tidal, and biomass/gas.

If something better, like LENR, gets invented down the road we can switch over. It would be very foolish to wait to see if a magic bullet appears when we have solutions at hand.

And they are solutions which would make our transportation and electricity cheaper.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ShenValleyFlyFish:
You're wrong but I forget how to prove it. (been over 30yrs since I squeaked through Stats.) If that logic held you would also be adding the 70% negative probabilities.

My DDD (dear departed dad) used to say, "Son it's not the things you don't know are going to get you in the biggest trouble, It's things you know that aren't so."


But I know everything... now I'm gonna have to research it to find out, cause I'm actually gonna have to take stats next year. Been able to avoid it for easier classes such as Astrophysics and Quantum Mechanics :p
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


Exactly, which is why in order for mine to work you would have to chose a different point outside the 25 mile radius of the first point you chose. There are a limited number of "circles" in the 30% area so you could easily figure it like this.

RTS:

I see what you mean in that graph, but in the concept of purely will there be a single severe weather event or not, you can use simple probability if the SPC comes out and directly states there is a 30% chance of severe weather within a certain area.
You're wrong but I forget how to prove it. (been over 30yrs since I squeaked through Stats.) If that logic held you would also be adding the 70% negative probabilities.

My DDD (dear departed dad) used to say, "Son it's not the things you don't know are going to get you in the biggest trouble, It's things you know that aren't so."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 230 - 180

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Scattered Clouds
72 °F
Scattered Clouds