Solar ... In the news

Martyn1981

Not PV, I admit, but has anyone been watching wind generation the last 24hrs. It was predicted to beat records around 4pm yesterday, and according to Gridwatch it looks like it 'went off the dial'.

I know it has its ups and downs, but being close to, or exceeding nuclear for the better part of 24hrs ain't a bad start, especially if you consider the vast scale of off-shore wind sitting in the planned round 3 rollout:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms

Just that pesky storage issue to solve now!

Mart.

spgsc531

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615

EricMears

spgsc531 wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615

I'm not even sure that today's section has actually been published but the majority of the report is certainly not coming out for at least a few weeks yet.

I can make one confident prediction about its final content though: "We need to commit even more resources to investigating this problem" (and keeping research groups on the gravy train)

Never fails to amaze me when such a report makes a claim like "average temperatures are higher now than at any time in the last thousand years" without adding "but of course they were even higher more than a thousand years ago".

ed110220

EricMears wrote: »

I'm not even sure that today's section has actually been published but the majority of the report is certainly not coming out for at least a few weeks yet.

I can make one confident prediction about its final content though: "We need to commit even more resources to investigating this problem" (and keeping research groups on the gravy train)

Never fails to amaze me when such a report makes a claim like "average temperatures are higher now than at any time in the last thousand years" without adding "but of course they were even higher more than a thousand years ago".

I think it's significant that we have matched or exceeded the temperature of the Holocene Thermal Maximum, which occurred approx. ten to six thousand years ago and was follow by a slow, longterm cooling till the industrial revolution. We've reversed six thousand years of cooling in about sixty years.



The last time global temperatures were above the Holocene Thermal Maximum was in the previous interglacial more than one hundred thousand years ago, and sea levels were about six metres higher than today.

ed110220

Not sure if this is really 'in the news' but I went past High Littleton the other day and the residents had put out all sorts of signs protesting about a proposed solar farm nearby.

It made me quite angry seeing this blatent NIMBYism.

zeupater

ed110220 wrote: »

I think it's significant that we have matched or exceeded the temperature of the Holocene Thermal Maximum, which occurred approx. ten to six thousand years ago and was follow by a slow, longterm cooling till the industrial revolution. We've reversed six thousand years of cooling in about sixty years.



The last time global temperatures were above the Holocene Thermal Maximum was in the previous interglacial more than one hundred thousand years ago, and sea levels were about six metres higher than today.

Hi

And HADCET (updated daily) suggests something different ...



... there are some who would say that short term trends are irrelevant, then there are some who would say that the UK doesn't represent global trends, but then again, data averaged over a significant period for any single point of reference should really reflect what is happening in other locations ... after all, 'climate' is simply 'weather' averaged over time ....

HADCET is averaged over a number of UK weather stations and (by far) represents that longest continuous measurement dataset available anywhere and was heavily referenced as an evidence source when it showed 'global warming', but it seems to be brushed aside when questions regarding stalling/reversal are asked !!

The HADCET entry for 2013 looks like it will be somewhere around 9.3C, if so, the five year running average will have returned to slightly below where it was in 1990 .... the difference between the 5year & 10year averages will be -0.35C, a significant rate of cooling.

Don't you just love access to raw data? ... you can slice it how you want to, not as others see fit to present convenient conclusions ...

HTH
Z

ed110220

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

And HADCET (updated daily) suggests something different ...



... there are some who would say that short term trends are irrelevant, then there are some who would say that the UK doesn't represent global trends, but then again, data averaged over a significant period for any single point of reference should really reflect what is happening in other locations ... after all, 'climate' is simply 'weather' averaged over time ....

HADCET is averaged over a number of UK weather stations and (by far) represents that longest continuous measurement dataset available anywhere and was heavily referenced as an evidence source when it showed 'global warming', but it seems to be brushed aside when questions regarding stalling/reversal are asked !!

The HADCET entry for 2013 looks like it will be somewhere around 9.3C, if so, the five year running average will have returned to slightly below where it was in 1990 .... the difference between the 5year & 10year averages will be -0.35C, a significant rate of cooling.

Don't you just love access to raw data? ... you can slice it how you want to, not as others see fit to present convenient conclusions ...

HTH
Z

I don't think there is any contradiction, as the scales are so different - Marcot et al are reconstructing the past ten thousand years or so.

As you point out, central England is not the world, and different regions can have different trends, and Atlantic Europe is probably one of the less representative regions on Earth due to the influence of ocean currents.

Also, as you point out too, sufficiently short time periods don't tell you anything about the trend, only the noise, and are susceptible to cherry-picking, ie the 'trend' you get depends heavily on which year you begin or end with. Those who wish to show a cooling trend tend to start with an unusually warm year, say 1998, which gives a rather different spurious trend than starting with 1997 or 1999.

Another problem with a ten year running mean for today is that it depends on five years that haven't happened yet as well as five that have. Once those 5 years have happened, the running mean for 2013 will be different.

zeupater

ed110220 wrote: »

I don't think there is any contradiction, as the scales are so different - Marcot et al are reconstructing the past ten thousand years or so.

As you point out, central England is not the world, and different regions can have different trends, and Atlantic Europe is probably one of the less representative regions on Earth due to the influence of ocean currents.

Also, as you point out too, sufficiently short time periods don't tell you anything about the trend, only the noise, and are susceptible to cherry-picking, ie the 'trend' you get depends heavily on which year you begin or end with. Those who wish to show a cooling trend tend to start with an unusually warm year, say 1998, which gives a rather different spurious trend than starting with 1997 or 1999.

Another problem with a ten year running mean for today is that it depends on five years that haven't happened yet as well as five that have. Once those 5 years have happened, the running mean for 2013 will be different.

Hi

That post doesn't tie up with your original post ... how do you square "I don't think there is any contradiction, as the scales are so different " with "We've reversed six thousand years of cooling in about sixty years." ... both charts include the last 60 years, one shows a stab at long term temperatures (Marcot et al) and then concatenates some HadCRU data, probably 60 years worth, just because it looks good, has a strong upward trend, and is likely to cause a little 'climatic change' panic ... the other (HadCET) shows significant warming followed by significant cooling ... The irrefutable fact is that the 60 years is the same 60 years in both cases ...

I agree, central England is not the world, however, it was significant when central England was warming, but now it's not ... I find this to be a very 'convenient' change in emphasis, and can but ask why - and what other 'convenient' changes regarding other data source emphasis have been made. Annual Central England temperatures do not reflect temperatures elsewhere in Europe, but this is not necessarily true for long term trends ... if the trend is for warming in southern England, the case will also be true for northern France, central England, Belgium ... how far the trend extends would be open to detailed study, but I'd not be surprised if it was representative of at least the whole of North Western Europe including most of Scandinavia ....

Regarding trend start dates, it's a case of picking a date to suit, however, comparing annual rolling averages (eg previous 5 years vs previous 10, 10/20, 20/30, 30/50) actually smooths any anomaly out, if all of the smaller time periods have a lower averaged temperature than the larger groups, then you have a significant cooling trend .... it doesn't matter which year you start with, because each group starts in a different year !!

A running mean is just that, the mean of the previous data ... the 5 year running mean is the last 5 years, not the resultant of X years measured data and X years of prediction ... the 5 year running mean for 2013 will be fixed at the end of 2013 ... at the moment HadCET has 8 months of finalised data and 29 days of provisional - once September is complete the month's min/max dataset will be fully analysed and a final figure published. Taking the 8 months of finalised data, the MTD average (with 1 day to go) and estimating that the remaining 3 months of the year likely will be close to the average for the previous 5years is probably as good as you can do to 'guess' the finalised average for 2013 with any degree of accuracy, and that's the case whether you have a spreadsheet on a £500 laptop from the high-street, or a full climate model on a £50million IBM Sequoia or Cray supercomputer which the likes of the Met-Office have access to .... 2012 CET averaged 9.69C, 2013 will very likely average 9.3C, if it does, that's fractionally (~0.05C) warmer than the average since 1659, and a little (~0.18C) cooler than the 30year average 1961-90 which climatologists use.

I'm not a climate-science denier, I just tend to ask the questions which need to be asked ...

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

Firstly, solar is on the move from 'could do better' to rapidly becoming teacher's pet:

British scientists call for world Sunpower Program to combat climate change

http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/british-scientists-call-for-world-sunpower-program-to-combat-climate-change_100012871/#axzz2gPTzhy4L

Two of the U.K.‘s most respected scientific advisers have urged governments around the world to work together on the creation of a Sunpower Program, with the intention of delivering solar electricity that is cheaper than fossil fuel-powered electricity by 2025.


Secondly, just a fun little article on Ikea (who BTW plan to source 100% of their energy from renewables by 2020). But I thought the DM's piece was interesting, as they appear to be steadily giving up on the anti-PV bandwagon nonsense, and writing more balanced articles (I only said 'more'!):

The Ikea solar panel

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2438160/The-Ikea-solar-panel--flat-pack-course-Swedish-chain-start-selling-panels-install-too.html

Following a successful pilot at Ikea’s Lakeside store in July the panels will be sold at the firm’s Southampton store today (Mon) and then rolled out to all stores in the UK within the next 10 months.

Mart.

ed110220

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Firstly, solar is on the move from 'could do better' to rapidly becoming teacher's pet:

British scientists call for world Sunpower Program to combat climate change

http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/british-scientists-call-for-world-sunpower-program-to-combat-climate-change_100012871/#axzz2gPTzhy4L

Two of the U.K.‘s most respected scientific advisers have urged governments around the world to work together on the creation of a Sunpower Program, with the intention of delivering solar electricity that is cheaper than fossil fuel-powered electricity by 2025.


Secondly, just a fun little article on Ikea (who BTW plan to source 100% of their energy from renewables by 2020). But I thought the DM's piece was interesting, as they appear to be steadily giving up on the anti-PV bandwagon nonsense, and writing more balanced articles (I only said 'more'!):

The Ikea solar panel

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2438160/The-Ikea-solar-panel--flat-pack-course-Swedish-chain-start-selling-panels-install-too.html

Following a successful pilot at Ikea’s Lakeside store in July the panels will be sold at the firm’s Southampton store today (Mon) and then rolled out to all stores in the UK within the next 10 months.

Mart.

I guess the more perceptive of the DM's editors and management realise there is only so much mileage in global warming denial given that it is a matter of scientific fact rather than opinion. Sooner or later those who's opinion is out of kilter with reality will have to adjust it to bring it back into line with reality or become cranks clinging to a fringe theory... much like the church eventually had to accept that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth and that the Earth isn't only six thousand years old.

They are probably thinking about how this U-turn can be performed with minimal loss of face.