Catastrophic Anthropogenic Vulcanology - Josh 313

Anthony has a hilarious post on how Climate Change now causes volcanoes to erupt. What next, Anthropogenic sunshine?

Cartoons by Josh

It was the best of times - Josh 312

There has been much discussion recently about the adjustments made to past temperatures: see Paul Homewood's excellent posts on Paraguay, Bolivia and around the world; also from Shub; Brandon at WUWT and on his own blog; and a very readable summary by James Delingpole. All very interesting.

Cartoons by Josh

Update on Jan 31, 2015 by Josh

Jimmy Haigh, SandyS, Stephen Richards and Stewgreen allude to this topic's substantial history and quite rightly so - there are many bloggers and posts that could be mentioned (see the James Delingpole article). Though this particular cartoon was inspired by Paul Homewood's recent post I think there is lot more to come on this story.

On tuning climate models

I had an interesting exchange with Richard Betts and Lord Lucas earlier today on the subject of climate model tuning. Lord L had said put forward the idea that climate models are tuned to the twentieth century temperature history, something that was disputed by Richard, who said that they were only tuned to the current temperature state.

I think to some extent this we were talking at cross purposes, because there is tuning and there is "tuning". Our exchange prompted me to revisit Mauritzen et al, a 2012 paper that goes into a great deal of detail on how one particular climate model was tuned. To some extent it supports what Richard said:

Click to read more ...

For whom the bell Tols - Josh 311

Richard Tol says that Bob Ward is 'engaged in a smear campaign' against him. Reading quite a bit of what Bob has written over the past few years, and not just about Richard but about many others, it is difficult not to agree.

H/t to Anthony Watts who came up with 'SpongeBob SmearPants'.

Cartoons by Josh

On choosing experts

Anthony Reuben, BBC News's statistics expert (allegedly) has an article up wondering whether shale gas extraction is economic at the current low gas prices. It's an interesting question, but rather academic because until some more exploration has been done we simply have no idea what the cost is going to be.

Nevertheless, Reuben has rounded up some views on the matter.

From Greenpeace.

And a professor of carbon capture and storage.

And a company that advises businesses on cutting their energy bills.

You have to laugh, don't you?

Green thugs on the rampage

Guido Fawkes is reporting that anti-fracking campaigners have vandalised the constituency office of Conservative MP Charlotte Leslie in Bristol.

Ecofascism indeed.

Official: Bob Ward is a smearmonger

This was just posted by Richard Tol. I reproduce it here for public edification:

Mr Robert ET Ward BSc, employed by the London School of Economics and Political Science to promote the research of the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, has engaged in a smear campaign against me.

At least, according to the Daily Mail.

Mr Ward was not so pleased with that characterization of his work, and complained to the Independent Press Standards Organization.

Yesterday, IPSO ruled that a "smear campaign" is a perfectly fine description of Mr Ward's work.

My response to Mr Ward's work is here.

Professor John P. Abraham highlighted Mr Ward's work in the Guardian. See my response. Unfortunately, the Guardian is not regulated by IPSO. The Guardian is regulated by the Guardian.

Update on Jan 29, 2015 by Bishop Hill

Richard Tol has now posted the decision notice of IPSO. I don't think the decision is exactly as he described it.

Diary dates, shale edition

The University of Nottingham is running a free online course on unconventional oil and gas starting next week.

Shale gas is seen by many as a cheap, clean and plentiful source of energy; a low-carbon ‘game changer’ helping us meet the world’s rapidly growing demands for energy and offering greater energy security. Its rapid rise has not been without controversy, however. Earth tremors, surface and groundwater contamination, and the effects of fracking on human and animal health are all high profile concerns.

During this four-week course, we’ll study the politics, economics, and science of shale gas. We’ll examine how shale gas was formed, and how we extract it through hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’. We will look at the impact of shale gas on energy markets and energy security.

We then move on to the environmental politics of shale. What are the local effects in terms of water contamination, seismic activity, and air pollution? What are the global effects? Does shale gas offer a ‘bridge’ to a low-carbon future, or would we be walking the plank?

Finally we look at the question of what the public thinks, an area where the University of Nottingham has particular expertise, having run a public opinion survey on shale gas since 2012. Why are the US and UK experiences so different? What do the public think of allowing unconventional gas to be developed?

At the end of the course you will have improved you understanding of the costs and benefits of shale gas, and you will have made your contribution to the public debate on this important topic.

And you can get a certificate! Details here.

Marotzke's mischief

Readers may recall Jochem Marotzke as the IPCC bigwig who promised that the IPCC would not duck the question of the hiatus in surface temperature rises and then promptly ensured that it did no such thing.

Yesterday, Marotzke and Piers Forster came up with a new paper that seeks to explain away the pause entirely, putting it all down to natural variability. There is a nice layman's explanation at Carbon Brief.

For each 15-year period, the authors compared the temperature change we've seen in the real world with what the climate models suggest should have happened.

Over the 112-year record, the authors find no obvious pattern in whether real-world temperature trends are closer to the upper end of what model project, or the lower end.

In other words, while the models  aren't capable of capturing all the "wiggles" along the path of rising temperatures, they are slightly too cool just as often as they're slightly too warm.

And because the observed trend over the full instrumental record is roughly the same as the model one we are cordially invited to conclude that there's actually no problem.

If Carbon Brief is reporting this correctly then it's hilariously bad stuff. Everybody knows that the twentieth century is hindcast roughly correctly because the models are "tuned", usually via the aerosol forcing. So fast-warming/big aerosol cooling models hindcast correctly and so do slow-warming/small aerosol cooling models. The problem is that the trick of fudging the aerosol data so as to give a correct hindcast can't be applied to forecasts. Reality will be what reality will be. The fact is we have models with a wide range of TCRs and they have all been fudged. Some might turn out to be roughly correct. But it it just as possible that they are all wrong. Given the experience with out of sample verification and the output of energy budget studies, it may well be that it is more likely than not that they are all wrong.

No sucker like a green sucker

The Truth About Cars is a website that I haven't come across before, but its article on ownership costs of a Tesla EV is well worth a look. It seems that the aluminium bodywork, used to reduce weight, makes it startlingly expensive.

Reported estimates from Tesla’s certified shops include:

• $10,000 to repair a “minor but long” scratch
• $45,000 for “minor front-end damage”
• $7,000 for repair of a small dent and scratch that required no replacement of parts
• $30,000 for “minor fender and door damage”
• $11,000 for a minor scrape on the rear panel, including a $155 charge to “ensure battery remains charged” during the repair

But there are also strong hints that Tesla is ripping customers off. There's no sucker like a green sucker I suppose.

Diluting the truth

The first [concern about fracking is that it] uses huge amounts of water that must be transported to the fracking site, at significant environmental cost.

BBC on water requirements for shale gas operations

Estimates indicate that the amount needed to operate a hydraulically fractured shale gas well for a decade may be equivalent to the amount needed to water a golf course for a month; the amount needed to run a 1,000 MW coal-fired power plant for 12 hours; and the amount lost to leaks in United Utilities’ region in north west England every hour (Moore 2012).

The Royal Society on water requirements for shale gas operations

Truck movements could be minimised where water supply can be obtained from the public water mains, or by a licensed abstraction from a nearby waterbody.

Scottish Government expert panel on water requirements for shale gas operations

The long grass

The Scottish Government has announced a moratorium on new unconventional oil and gas operations, pending a public consultation, a public health impact assessment, and changes to the regulatory regime.

This reeks of the political classes kicking an awkward political football into the long grass, at least until the election is over. It is also of note that the moratorium seems not to cover fracking for geothermal energy.

Remarkably, the UKOOG, the industry body for the onshore oil and gas industry, has welcomed the move. I wonder if the time for emollience has passed. Shipping gas in from overseas rather than producing it locally is foolish in the extreme. The Scottish Government is actively damaging the economy and the environment.

Why not just say so?

Update on Jan 29, 2015 by Bishop Hill

The Scotman reckons there are now serious question marks over the long-term future of Grangemouth and all because shale has become a political football.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that yesterday’s announcement by Fergus Ewing, the Scottish energy minister, was a simple attempt to trump a Labour position which itself was a misguided piece of political posturing.

Tol on radical greens

Richard Tol's article on radical greens is a must-read:

There are now elements in the environmental movement who are so worried about the state of the planet that they have lost all sense of proportion. This is alarming for those at the receiving end of their mindless wrath. It does not help to protect the environment either. Just like Boko Haram does not endear anyone to Muslims, green radicals taint all environmentalists. But whereas Islamic leaders immediately distance themselves from any new outrage, environmental leaders pretend nothing happened.

This really deserves a wider audience.

Trouble in Eden

In a shock announcement, the Eden Project has revealed that it is going to start hydraulically fracturing rocks beneath its site in a bid to extract geothermal energy. They are keen to emphasise the differences between what they are going to be doing and shale gas operations but a glance suggests these are largely distinctions without a difference.

Fracking the rock to create a geothermal heat exchanger is not the same as fracking for shale gas. We will not be releasing fossil fuels for burning. Geothermal developments are much deeper and in granite so there is much less chance of surface damage or contamination to the water table. We have no plans to use proppants or associated viscous chemical fluids to keep the circulation open. France encourages geothermal development but has a moratorium on fracking for gas.

The bit about the developments being "much deeper" than shale is not true. The image on the Eden project puts the depth at something like 4 or 5 km, which is pretty much the same depth at which the Bowland shale sites will be operating. Non-use of proppants - i.e. sand - seems to me to be a diversion rather than a meaningful distinction.

I also wonder if the planners are going to be presented with a dilemma over the noise levels:

Rigs are hired from the oil industry, so drilling will take place 24 hours a day to minimise the cost. It will take around 20 weeks per well. The rig will be one specifically for use in a populated area and heavily soundproofed, producing up to 45dBA at 200m. During operation, the generator will make a constant noise: a maximum of 30dBA at a distance of 200m. But because buildings are low, the noise can be tempered by landscaping.

Readers will recall that similar noise levels were deemed entirely unacceptable for shale gas operations.

Antifracking: the Russian connection

Via Instapundit comes an article from the Washington Free Beacon which reports that money is being funnelled to anti-fracking activists by a mysterious company in Bermuda with links to the Russian oil business:

A shadowy Bermudan company that has funneled tens of millions of dollars to anti-fracking environmentalist groups in the United States is run by executives with deep ties to Russian oil interests and offshore money laundering schemes involving members of President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle.

One of those executives, Nicholas Hoskins, is a director at a hedge fund management firm that has invested heavily in Russian oil and gas. He is also senior counsel at the Bermudan law firm Wakefield Quin and the vice president of a London-based investment firm whose president until recently chaired the board of the state-owned Russian oil company Rosneft.

The findings are based on a report by the US Environmental Policy Alliance. I don't think a fire has been found yet, but the quantities of smoke are prodigious.

Update on Jan 28, 2015 by Bishop Hill

A little Googling shows that Hans-Joerg Rudloff, the chairman of Marcuard, a UK company named in the report, is a former director of Barclays Capital and a close associate of Suleiman Kerimov, who is a significant shareholder in Gazprom.