Temperature Data Adjustments

[Jonger]

Wind energy is less expensive than coal in most markets. Solar is getting close.

 

You're about 15 years out of date with your facts. Welcome to 2015. 

 

There was more new wind power than any other power source created in the last 5 years. It is the fastest growing source of energy, not just in relative terms, but in absolute terms. Why? Because it is the most economical in the current market.

 

And with Tesla's foray into the affordable electric car market, it becomes affordable to drastically reduce transportation as a source of fossil fuels. 

 

Saw another Tesla today.... I have a 2014 Prius, when it goes -- it's being replaced with a Tesla or competing model.

[FloridaJohn]

Solar, wind and renewables are not even close to replacing fossil fuels.

 

Solar and Wind Energy Start to Win on Price vs. Conventional Fuels

 

"For the solar and wind industries in the United States, it has been a long-held dream: to produce energy at a cost equal to conventional sources like coal and natural gas.

That day appears to be dawning.

The cost of providing electricity from wind and solar power plants has plummeted over the last five years, so much so that in some markets renewable generation is now cheaper than coal or natural gas."

 

Now imagine how much faster that would happen if we place a financial disincentive on using fossil fuels.

[blizzard1024]

Solar and Wind Energy Start to Win on Price vs. Conventional Fuels

 

"For the solar and wind industries in the United States, it has been a long-held dream: to produce energy at a cost equal to conventional sources like coal and natural gas.

That day appears to be dawning.

The cost of providing electricity from wind and solar power plants has plummeted over the last five years, so much so that in some markets renewable generation is now cheaper than coal or natural gas."

 

Now imagine how much faster that would happen if we place a financial disincentive on using fossil fuels.

 

Then tell me why it costs about 25,000 dollars to put solar panels on my house?? I would LOVE to get off the grid and not pay our state run utility 15 cents per KW hour!!!!  If renewables are cheaper and plentiful enough it is a no brainer...we should convert. I have been looking into solar panels and it is still way too expensive at least where I live. This really sucks. I don;t necessarily think the climate is going to be ruined by fossil fuels but I firmly believe in using renewable energy, if it makes economic sense....

[skierinvermont]

Then tell me why it costs about 25,000 dollars to put solar panels on my house?? I would LOVE to get off the grid and not pay our state run utility 15 cents per KW hour!!!!  If renewables are cheaper and plentiful enough it is a no brainer...we should convert. I have been looking into solar panels and it is still way too expensive at least where I live. This really sucks. I don;t necessarily think the climate is going to be ruined by fossil fuels but I firmly believe in using renewable energy, if it makes economic sense....

 

Many systems cost much less than that even before credits and subsidies. 

 

This homeowner in Massachusetts installed a system that only cost 13k, before credits. He expects a pay-back period of 5 years. 

 

And that's in Mass, where there is much less sunshine. 

 

http://fortune.com/2014/01/10/the-homeowners-guide-to-solar-power/

[blizzard1024]

Many systems cost much less than that even before credits and subsidies. 

 

This homeowner in Massachusetts installed a system that only cost 13k, before credits. He expects a pay-back period of 5 years. 

 

And that's in Mass, where there is much less sunshine. 

 

http://fortune.com/2014/01/10/the-homeowners-guide-to-solar-power/

 

It was about 30K before credits when I last checked a couple years ago and the credit brought it down to only 25K!!!. But that was a couple years ago...maybe it is lower now??  But I have a kid in college at present so my money is going to that. UGH.

[skierinvermont]

It was about 30K before credits when I last checked a couple years ago and the credit brought it down to only 25K!!!. But that was a couple years ago...maybe it is lower now??  But I have a kid in college at present so my money is going to that. UGH.

 

Well it depends on the size of your system, your roof, etc. a lot of factors. For many people the pay off is pretty quick.

 

More importantly the ROI for many homeowners is 10-25% over the life of the panels, which will undoubtedly beat a 5-10% return on the S&P500. It could be 50k in profit on a 12k investment.

 

And yes, the average price would have come down maybe 5k in the last two years. But that's obviously not the only reason you were looking at 25k and others are looking at under 10k.

[PhillipS]

The costs of PV installations is dropping dramatically.  A quote even a year old is out of date.  Because the module and ancillary part prices have dropped so much, the installation labor is an increasing fraction of the overall system cost - so shop around and find your local installer with the best rates, just as you would for having your house painted.

 

Edit - I should have mentioned, for any PV installer get references and check them.  As with any active market there are many scam artists out there.

[FloridaJohn]

Then tell me why it costs about 25,000 dollars to put solar panels on my house?? I would LOVE to get off the grid and not pay our state run utility 15 cents per KW hour!!!!  If renewables are cheaper and plentiful enough it is a no brainer...we should convert. I have been looking into solar panels and it is still way too expensive at least where I live. This really sucks. I don;t necessarily think the climate is going to be ruined by fossil fuels but I firmly believe in using renewable energy, if it makes economic sense....

 

How much would it cost you to build a coal-fired power plant at your house???

 

Seriously, though, you probably just need to wait a few more years. There are lots of companies entering the home solar industry, and that is going to drop prices even further. Most of the expense in a home system is the installation labor.

[blizzard1024]

How much would it cost you to build a coal-fired power plant at your house???

 

Seriously, though, you probably just need to wait a few more years. There are lots of companies entering the home solar industry, and that is going to drop prices even further. Most of the expense in a home system is the installation labor.

 

Hope you are correct. I am paying way too much for electricity!!!!!!!

[GaWx]

I've been reading posts by a pro met. at another forum about how solar panels, even if they were 100% efficient, would still not work nearly well enough in the northern US to allow for their widespread usage there:

"How absurd that this article speculates that solar power, currently at less than 1%, could supply the world with more than half of its power by 2050. Solar power is an option.....in the south, especially in a location that gets plenty of sunshine.

In places like Chicago or New York or Seattle for instance, the sun angle is too low to supply much energy thru much of the year,,,,,,,,,,and that's when it's shining. During the Winter, you should count on very little solar power and still need almost all of it from a reliable, continual source."

Edit:

"Even at 100% efficiency, solar power cannot overcome an irrefutable law of nature.........in the higher latitudes, the sun angle is low and less powerful.

In the Winter and higher latitudes, the amount of solar power available is insignificant.

There is no viable technology that could store marginal Summer solar power to be used during the Winter, when very little solar power is available in higher latitudes."

"An energy delivery system is only as good as its ability to furnish energy when you need it the most and its ability to maintain needed energy all of the time.

Solar energy in the north is even more costly/unit when you can only generate 20% of the power from it, that a similar system in Arizona generates.

That cost means its just not affordable on a large scale, even with 100% efficiency because of clouds and a low angled sun for half of the year."

I should add that in these northern locations, there is also the problem of panels being covered by snow on many days.

Any comments? Is this met. correct? All of what he says at least makes sense to me and seems well thought-out.

Edited

[blizzard1024]

This is interesting stuff on solar energy but I want to steer this thread back to temperature data. So again why is the CFSv2 not a good measure of long term climate? If you compare CFSv2  to HadCrut V4, GISS and even NOAA you will see all these data sources do show a warm spikes around 1998, 2002, 2007 and 2010 with either steady or slight cooling since 2010.   The Hadcrut v3  before adjustment had cooling like the CFS...but they adjusted it...UP of course.  If you look at the MSU and RSS you will see it is closer to the CFS. Of course these three datasets show the least warming so they are under scrutiny. I think the CFS is a great tool to view almost instantaneous changes in the climate system which is amazing. At times, in a few weeks the global average can change by more than .5C!! 

 

 

CFSv2 

 

 

 

HadCrut V4

 

GISS

 

 

NOAA

 

 

MSU

 

 

RSS

[chubbs]

We've been over this many times before. CFS2 on WxBell has spurious cooling in 2010. Compare it to any other re-analysis series.

[skierinvermont]

I've been reading posts by a pro met. at another forum about how solar panels, even if they were 100% efficient, would still not work nearly well enough in the northern US to allow for their widespread usage there:

"How absurd that this article speculates that solar power, currently at less than 1%, could supply the world with more than half of its power by 2050. Solar power is an option.....in the south, especially in a location that gets plenty of sunshine.

In places like Chicago or New York or Seattle for instance, the sun angle is too low to supply much energy thru much of the year,,,,,,,,,,and that's when it's shining. During the Winter, you should count on very little solar power and still need almost all of it from a reliable, continual source."

Edit:

"Even at 100% efficiency, solar power cannot overcome an irrefutable law of nature.........in the higher latitudes, the sun angle is low and less powerful.

In the Winter and higher latitudes, the amount of solar power available is insignificant.

There is no viable technology that could store marginal Summer solar power to be used during the Winter, when very little solar power is available in higher latitudes."

"An energy delivery system is only as good as its ability to furnish energy when you need it the most and its ability to maintain needed energy all of the time.

Solar energy in the north is even more costly/unit when you can only generate 20% of the power from it, that a similar system in Arizona generates.

That cost means its just not affordable on a large scale, even with 100% efficiency because of clouds and a low angled sun for half of the year."

I should add that in these northern locations, there is also the problem of panels being covered by snow on many days.

Any comments? Is this met. correct? All of what he says at least makes sense to me and seems well thought-out.

Edited

 Maybe in Canads some of what he says is true. Solar is quite economical in places like Massachusetts and produces a good amount of power even in January. Read the fortune article above. What he says kind of makes sense but he has no facts or evidence to support it. The facts show it is economical. Also I believe peak power usage is in the daytime during summer -which is when solar power peaks too conveniently. 

 

You do run into problems if solar comprises more than 20-25% of the grid but we are no where near that and even at that point their are possible solutions.

[GaWx]

Maybe in Canads some of what he says is true. Solar is quite economical in places like Massachusetts and produces a good amount of power even in January. Read the fortune article above. What he says kind of makes sense but he has no facts or evidence to support it. The facts show it is economical. Also I believe peak power usage is in the daytime during summer -which is when solar power peaks too conveniently.

You do run into problems if solar comprises more than 20-25% of the grid but we are no where near that and even at that point their are possible solutions.

Skier,

Thanks. Here was a reply I got from someone else when I posted a link to the Fortune article at that forum:

In response to: article on solar power in Boston

"Really good deal for the homeowner. But it won't help the winter peak power demand problem (space heating).

Output from solar when covered by snow = 0

Output from solar in winter months w/o snow < ~30% of summer output. I would be surprised in they are getting 1 KW from that system (3.75 KW) for more than 3 hours a day during Dec - Feb. The sun is very low in the sky and the days are short.

But this year it was closer to zero as Boston was covered in snow from Dec - Mar.

However, it is great for the summer time and the daytime peak demands. The problem is that winter peaks are for both elec and NG and there are significant reliability risks as coal plants are shuttered."

Your thoughts about this response?

Maybe this solar and wind energy stuff should be moved to another thread?

 

Edit: I just realized an error from the quoted poster. Boston was covered in snow from late Jan to Mar., not Dec to Mar. as I recall. However, the point of a snowy winter really gummying up the works seems like a vaild point.

[skierinvermont]

Skier,

Thanks. Here was a reply I got from someone else when I posted a link to the Fortune article at that forum:

In response to: article on solar power in Boston

"Really good deal for the homeowner. But it won't help the winter peak power demand problem (space heating).

Output from solar when covered by snow = 0

Output from solar in winter months w/o snow < ~30% of summer output. I would be surprised in they are getting 1 KW from that system (3.75 KW) for more than 3 hours a day during Dec - Feb. The sun is very low in the sky and the days are short.

But this year it was closer to zero as Boston was covered in snow from Dec - Mar.

However, it is great for the summer time and the daytime peak demands. The problem is that winter peaks are for both elec and NG and there are significant reliability risks as coal plants are shuttered."

Your thoughts about this response?

Maybe this solar and wind energy stuff should be moved to another thread?

 

Edit: I just realized an error from the quoted poster. Boston was covered in snow from late Jan to Mar., not Dec to Mar. as I recall. However, the point of a snowy winter really gummying up the works seems like a vaild point.

 

 

Yes the output is lower in winter but so is power demand. The power grid already has lots of excess capacity that only gets turned on during peak periods. Since solar somewhat corresponds to peak demand it actually helps the situation until you get to about 20-25% of the grid. And having excess capacity doesn't cost anywhere near as much as actually using the capacity (which requires buying coal or natural gas).

 

Yes there would be snow. I imagine some people would shovel. Big solar plants probably have a solution - maybe it just slides off I don't know. They can usually adjust the panel angles which could probably be used to automatically dump snow. For homeowners there's probably some kind of mechanical device that could be used to push the snow off.

 

I mean the economics speak for themselves. Many homeowners and power companies are buying solar because it is economical. It's not yet economical for everybody everywhere. I'm not an expert so I don't have all the facts - but this guy definitely isn't either and what facts I do know seem to contradict him.

[blizzard1024]

We've been over this many times before. CFS2 on WxBell has spurious cooling in 2010. Compare it to any other re-analysis series.

 

The CFS is not much different than the MSU and RSS. Even the surface records show some cooling after 2010. Why is it "spurious"?

What did they do in 2010 that made the data bad in your opinion?

[chubbs]

Per your CFS chart above there is a drop in spring 2010 that is not in the other series leaving 2011-13 roughly 0.3 to 0.4C cooler than 2005. Compare that to RSS or UAH (or any other dataset) which are roughly 0.1C cooler than 2005 in 2011-13.

[chubbs]

A comprehensive cost study of Li-ion batteries for electric vehicles was just published. Electric vehicles are a much more demanding battery application than storage of renewable energy because cars have rapid power swings and large drawdown of stored energy for daily driving. Used EV batteries can be used to store solar energy after they no longer have sufficient storage performance for cars. Per chart below battery costs are decreasing steadily and should reach cost competitive levels for EVs after 2020. The EV battery market is potentially very large, and if it continues to develop, storage for renewable energy will come along for the ride.

 

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n4/full/nclimate2564.html

 

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/04/20150420-bevs.html

 

[skierinvermont]

The CFS is not much different than the MSU and RSS. Even the surface records show some cooling after 2010. Why is it "spurious"?

What did they do in 2010 that made the data bad in your opinion?

 

CFS makes no attempt to maintain the long-term consistency of the dataset because that is not its primary purpose. 

 

CFS jumped .4C cooler after 2010- no other source shows that.

[ORH_wxman]

The reason for the CFS step change in temperatures was when they upgraded to CFSv2 from the version before that....the new CFSv2 has a 1999-2010 baseline. The step-change is very obvious in mid-2010.  

 

I'm pretty sure the graphs never adjusted for that even though it claims "1981-2010" for baseline.

[blizzard1024]

The reason for the CFS step change in temperatures was when they upgraded to CFSv2 from the version before that....the new CFSv2 has a 1999-2010 baseline. The step-change is very obvious in mid-2010.  

 

I'm pretty sure the graphs never adjusted for that even though it claims "1981-2010" for baseline.

 

So you are saying the wxbell graphics are just plain lying? It says 1981-2010 baseline. hmmm. It makes sense if the step jump down is related to a warmer baseline of 1999-2010. But it would be very disingenuous for a company to blatantly lie. I will email Dr Maue and see if I get a response since he makes those maps on the wxbell site. 

[blizzard1024]

_{Here is some explanation of the CFSV2}  

 

_{http://www.weatherbell.com/premium/dr-ryan-maue/january-temperatures/}

[nflwxman]

So you are saying the wxbell graphics are just plain lying? It says 1981-2010 baseline. hmmm. It makes sense if the step jump down is related to a warmer baseline of 1999-2010. But it would be very disingenuous for a company to blatantly lie. I will email Dr Maue and see if I get a response since he makes those maps on the wxbell site. 

Joe Bastardi is either really ignorant or lying.  I tend to think the later. 

[ORH_wxman]

So you are saying the wxbell graphics are just plain lying? It says 1981-2010 baseline. hmmm. It makes sense if the step jump down is related to a warmer baseline of 1999-2010. But it would be very disingenuous for a company to blatantly lie. I will email Dr Maue and see if I get a response since he makes those maps on the wxbell site.

I don't know if he's lying or not. I wouldn't accuse someone of lying without definitive proof. But regardless, the step change is obvious and it's not there on other data sets.

[PB GFI]

I read Judy Curry's piece from ORH and it makes sense for land readings. Still I don't see how there can't be large error bars. I especially have trouble when stations are moved. The station that is moved then senses a new microclimate which has non-climatic trends. These microclimates typically have large variations in temperature over short distances on clear calm mornings when the atmosphere is not mixed. Just look at a hi res IR satellite loop when arctic air is over the U.S or southern canada. Moving a station will no doubt change the temperature averages and they can try to account for these but there has to be unknowns. I used to ride my bike to work years ago when I lived close enough and I went through  a rural area then a town and university setting. The changes in temperature over a 2 mile distance on those clear calm mornings is incredible. The official HCN station is at the university where it is much warmer on clear mornings vs rural locations. 120 years ago when they started records at this station it was mainly farm land there...yet there is an adjustment downward at that station too 120 years ago. How can this be? It over compensates for the UHI at this relatively small town. The arctic regions have a long winter where the boundary layer is stable so UHI effects have to be large. At least large enough for error bars to be large. This explains why minimum temperatures have gone up more and why the Arctic winter temperatures have shown the most increase.  And the oceans??? I won't even go there because the error bars are so large.

And yet 2014 was the hottest year ever by something like .03 degrees??? That is laughable.

 

I really am trying to get a handle on the magnitude of human induced climate change. I believe there is evidence for modest warming of 1 to 1.5 C at best and we have already seen about .5C or so. Plus the world's oceans are buffering the response of the climate system to the small external forcing of increased GHGs from humans and spreading it out over a longer period of time than the climate models show.  There is nothing that is alarming enough to wipe out the world's economy by abandoning fossil fuel use.

 

Some share the same concern .

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html

 

 

The panel is chaired by Terence Kealey, until recently vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. His team, all respected experts in their field with many peer-reviewed papers to their name, includes Dr Peter Chylek, a physicist from the National Los Alamos Laboratory; Richard McNider, an emeritus professor who founded the Atmospheric Sciences Programme at the University of Alabama; Professor Roman Mureika from Canada, an expert in identifying errors in statistical methodology; Professor Roger Pielke Sr, a noted climatologist from the University of Colorado, and Professor William van Wijngaarden, a physicist whose many papers on climatology have included studies in the use of “homogenisation” in data records.

 

Their inquiry’s central aim will be to establish a comprehensive view of just how far the original data has been “adjusted” by the three main surface records: those published by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), the US National Climate Data Center and Hadcrut, that compiled by the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (Cru), in conjunction with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction. All of them are run by committed believers in man-made global warming.

[HailMan06]

Some share the same concern .

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html

The panel is chaired by Terence Kealey, until recently vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. His team, all respected experts in their field with many peer-reviewed papers to their name, includes Dr Peter Chylek, a physicist from the National Los Alamos Laboratory; Richard McNider, an emeritus professor who founded the Atmospheric Sciences Programme at the University of Alabama; Professor Roman Mureika from Canada, an expert in identifying errors in statistical methodology; Professor Roger Pielke Sr, a noted climatologist from the University of Colorado, and Professor William van Wijngaarden, a physicist whose many papers on climatology have included studies in the use of “homogenisation” in data records.

Their inquiry’s central aim will be to establish a comprehensive view of just how far the original data has been “adjusted” by the three main surface records: those published by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), the US National Climate Data Center and Hadcrut, that compiled by the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (Cru), in conjunction with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction. All of them are run by committed believers in man-made global warming.

I have deep reservations for an article that iimmediately claimes scientists have "fiddled" the numbers even before this "study" releases its results. I stopped reading when they call scientists who find anthropological climate change occurring "believers." The Global Warming Foundation is one of the most vocal climate skeptic groups in the UK with shady funding sources.

[PB GFI]

I have deep reservations for an article that iimmediately claimes scientists have "fiddled" the numbers even before this "study" releases its results. I stopped reading when they call scientists who find anthropological climate change occurring "believers." The Global Warming Foundation is one of the most vocal climate skeptic groups in the UK with shady funding sources.

The authors opinion/take on the work and study of these scientists are irrelevant.

[michsnowfreak]

Without getting overly into the nitty gritty of the statistics, this is a good overview of the idea behind temp adjustments:

http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

Basically our two largest changes in the way we measure temperature (TOBS and MMT) has led to a warm bias in older temps and a cold bias in more recent temps if they are not adjusted. It's a coincidence that it worked out that way but it's necessary if we want to be accurate.

That would make sense then....however....what about UHI? To me thats a huge influence on temps at certain stations. Is there anything taken into account for that?

[HailMan06]

The authors opinion/take on the work and study of these scientists are irrelevant.

Thus the last part of my response. I'm going to work in a few minutes but when I'm able to will post more info on the group running this study.

[Jonger]

Then tell me why it costs about 25,000 dollars to put solar panels on my house?? I would LOVE to get off the grid and not pay our state run utility 15 cents per KW hour!!!!  If renewables are cheaper and plentiful enough it is a no brainer...we should convert. I have been looking into solar panels and it is still way too expensive at least where I live. This really sucks. I don;t necessarily think the climate is going to be ruined by fossil fuels but I firmly believe in using renewable energy, if it makes economic sense....

 

It's a fun thing to do. I get a certain joy out of minimizing energy usage. Check current prices, I have found that prices are dropping by the day on solar.