Climate Change Fiddling
The most recent report released by the IPCC concluded that 2014 was the hottest year ever and that a climate catastrophe was on its way. They used temperature records from around the world which were then combined to form one graph which clearly shows the warm trend since 1890s :
But it since transpired that some of the data was adjusted to achieve this result. Various excuses were used to justify these adjustments and the debate continues. So was the temperature data in Ireland adjusted ?
Well, make up your own mind. Figure 1 shows the GISS data for Valentia Observatory used by the climate change panel in their report. Figure 2 shows the raw data from Met Eireann.
|Figure 1 : Valentia GISS Temperature Data|
|Figure 2: Valentia Raw Data from Met Eireann (the top red/wine coloured line) |
If we look at the periods 1880 - 1920, the GISS data regularly goes below 10C and at circa 1918
the temperature goes well below 9.5C.
If we now turn to Figure 2, the raw data, for the same period, we can see that the temperature never
went below 10C apart from a couple of occasions when it hit circa 9.7-9.8C compared with
the GISS data for the same period of circa 9.2-9.3C.
Between 1920 and 1940, the temperature only reaches 11C on the GISS data once while on the
raw data it consistently reaches 11C.
If we look at the end of the 1950s, the temperature went above 11C to approx 11.2C on the
raw data compared to approx 10.8C on the GASS data and at 1961 we can see much lower
temps on the GISS data than on the raw data.
These adjustments had the desired effect of making the period 1880 - 1960 cooler than it
actually was allowing them to construct a trend of warming over a long period in line
with the use of fossil fuels.
Interestingly, I can't find any adjustments which made Valentia hotter than the raw data.
Wind Fiction ?
A new website called Windfacts.ie makes some startling claims for wind energy in Ireland. According to the site, contributions have been made by engineers and others working in the wind industry. Thanks to a website called Windnoise for setting us all straight on the real facts on wind energy. Over 2,000MW of wind energy provides on average 16% of demand and just 7% of the time does it provide 50% of demand (based on analysis of data from Eirgrid for Feb 2014 to Feb 2015).
I would also argue that the idea that X amount of kettles or toasters can be powered from a wind turbine is totally misleading. Equivalent power and reliable power are two completely different things. X amount of non-dispatchable power (like from wind) is not capable of powering anything. It can only work in a system with plenty of dispatchable power (like coal, gas etc) which can give power at times of demand, say at 6pm, when people arrive home from work and want to put on the kettle. Equivalent power that provides power one day and none the next is not of much use.
Science becoming meaningless ?
The idea that science can mean whatever you want it to mean goes directly against the principles of its founders and originators. Either the Earth revolves around the Sun or the Sun revolves around the Earth - it can't be both. The mean temperature for 1919 cannot be both 9.3C and 9.9C. And the statement "50% of electricity at times produced from wind" is meaningless without adding that it only occurs 7% of the time.
It appears that science is now becoming corrupted by public money as US President Eisenhower predicted in his farewell address of 1961 :
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.