Climate experts say that last year was the hottest year ever. They also say that sea ice is disappearing in the heat.
Neither claim is supported by actual data. Last year began the year with record amounts of sea ice on the planet, and finished the year just behind that record.
The amount of sea ice on Earth has been averaging about one New England above normal since the start of 2013.
arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.global.anom.1979-2008
Satellites have much better coverage than surface data, and they show that 2014 was nowhere near the warmest, and in fact was a fairly ordinary year
The NASA/NCDC announcement was clearly politically motivated, and is not supported by science. Look for President Obama to cite Gavin’s fake claim in his State of The Union speech.
Typo ?
“The amount of *sea* on Earth has been averaging about one New England above normal since the start of 2013.”
They have to have this crazy claim to keep the CO2 taxes alive and justify it when explaining this to the lower classes who are the most harmed by this.
You got to hand it to Gavin Schmuck. He easily gets away with this data fiddling and gets paid handsomely for it. Nice scam if you can get a piece of it.
“Marketing is what you do when your product is no good.”
-Edwin Land
http://abovethelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/thumbs-up-300×199.jpg
Got it in one. That is what Chris The Wind Barron is trying to do but he is such a really rotten salesman he couldn’t sell Sea Biscuit to a nine year old horse crazy girl.
Still banging on with that Gail ?
I’m not trying to sell wind….you’re just a recovering shopaholic trying to find renewable excuses to resist your own urges.
Wind works well enough for us, more wind power I say….would like to see tidal power being funded too. In the UK we have a phenomenal tidal range of 15m, close to the largest tidal range in the world in Canada of 16.3m. I’m sure that you can appreciate the power stored in a 15m head of water, measuring hundreds of acres across….refilled for free by nature twice a day.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/11323685/Wind-farms-paid-1m-a-week-to-switch-off.html
An interesting point right there “The turbines have to be shut down at certain times because Britain’s electricity network is unable to cope with the power they produce. ”
…..they produce too much power now ? Some people will never be happy
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84095
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-30811998
http://docs.wind-watch.org/renewables-obligation-paper.pdf
A fascinating document.
It uses in it’s example 2MW turbines, on a farm made up of 16 turbines, which generates over £4million per year *before any subsidies are involved. * (over £7 million with subsidisation)
2MW turbines have a typical installation cost of £2.5 million each so 16 turbines cost £40 million
Divide £40 million by £4 million per year and we see that breakeven is at ten years without subsidisation of any sort
The only problem with these figures in that document is this – I also use the same figures, yet I am accused of lying when I show the same thing with them, so you should know too, that your figures, and the use of them, constitutes a lie, (but not in my eyes at least)
Erm, I call cherry-picking.
15m tides in the Bristol Channel, yes.
Nowhere else. Not “in the UK”.
Ahem.
The turbines are not shut down because they produce too much power (right now, for instance, they are – all together – producing just 0.37Gw or 0.76% of the demand).
They are shut down because they produce power at the wrong times, power which cannot be controlled or even predicted.
Without subsidies there simply wouldn’t be any turbines; they are not suitable for base load, not suitable for following load, not suitable for peak load, and in fact not fit for purpose – unless your purpose is transferring money from the poor to the rich. They are just gesture politics.
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/AccidentStatistics.htm
2 fatalities last year, 4 the year before, 14 the year before that…..more turbines installed last year than 3 years ago yet fewer fatalities.
I have never seen a statement claiming that wind power is safe power, on the contrary if you look at a wind turbine common sense tells you that the nacelle is probably a high risk environment. Falls are commonplace. People fall from high things all the time, better training is the answer.
In order to compare like with like, we should look at fossil fuel related fatalities, accidents and incidents (coal and gas in the main, with some oil). It is important not to ignore accidents at power stations too, as well as considering the health risks associated with living in the locales where coal and gas are produced. We don’t have to go too far back in the UK to find ‘Piper Alpha’
The UK imports coal from Turkey, which last year saw a mining disaster which killed 300 men.
Now, I’m not saying a life is worthless, but nor am I a hypocrite….all loss of life is terrible and the fossil fuel industry has some of the most disastrous single life ending events among all industries on the planet not related to military activity.
But someone forgets to hook their harness on at the top of the windmill and their life is suddenly worth a lot more outrage than the 300 Turkish miners.
“107 accidents involved wind industry or construction/maintenance workers”
Oh, so we should include accidents among construction workers at power stations, mines, pipeline workers, and because we import over 50% of our gas via LNG shipments from the Middle East, sailors lives at sea count too…..and then there’s the cost of life in the Middle East where the gas comes from…..and so on……..
https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-farms-and-health/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080326201751.htm
Loss of sleep by wind or death by coal ?
Chris Barron says @ January 17, 2015 at 3:56 pm
” I’m not trying to sell wind….”
https://thinkloud65.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/laughter3.gif
Not so funny when you monitor what a damp squib you get for your buck or £ in this case.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk
So you’re quoting figures which I use and had rejected, and expect to get a reasonable response ?
How funny !
This time last week I was posting messages pointing out that the share for renewables (mostly wind) was at 18% and nuclear was at 21%….sourced from the same data (BM Reports) as yoiu just used . Wind actually produced more than a third of what coal was producing at that time.
Dust to dust costs of wind turbines exceed the dust to dust cost of coal or gas., and about the most volatile price component of wind turbines which is subject to market economies is the price of copper.
Coal and gas are subject to a myriad of variable and unpredictable cost….you only have to look at what happens when Putin turns off gas to countries he doesn’t like to notice that the price goes up again…and a few more wind turbines get installed….
It’s no joke
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26975204
It’s odd how nobody has managed to really comment on the sea ice here……
For goodness’ sake, Barron, you left 10 out of 22 comments here.
The only odd thing here is you.
Considering the comments were about wind power and me, nothing to do with sea ice….never mind,……
11.
wow