What this person writing the article fails to take into consideration is the science of Global warming is based on Bad Data. If the daily temperature readings used for my little corner of the World are blatantly false. How many other data points are also false? I just checked and we are having a warm day. All the Personal sites in my area are reading between 94 and 97 degrees. The RAWS site used by the NWS is at 100 degrees. Is it properly placed to not get direct sun? I don't know. All I know is it is always several degrees and as much as 10 degrees warmer than every other weather station in the immediate area. Maybe Larsb airport is right on. That is great. How many of the stations used around the world are giving false data. We know there was a research done and found many problem stations. So the data is flawed. That makes the research flawed. And it has nothing to do with conservative or liberal ideologies. It has to do with flawed science being used to control aspects of our life. People can believe what they like. Just don't raise my utility bills based on flawed science.
Here is a bit more common sense view of Climate Change. Which I have never denied that man has a part in it.
The real issue is not “are we changing the climate?”, but how do we adapt to the effects of change and/or mitigate them, without jeopardizing the standard of living we have managed to achieve? Between the socialists who would have us cap every oil well and eat twigs for breakfast, and the conservatives who refuse to see any correlation between human activity and climate change, lies a middle ground: those who accept a measure of change as the price of progress, and search for ways to cope with that change through technological advancement, not luddite retreat.
Human activity is not, and will never be, neutral. Indeed, if we wanted to stop impacting the climate, humanity would have to stop existing, or return to a pre-prehistoric lifestyle, when we didn’t even have the technology to clobber a sufficient number of mammoths.
Sorry, but I don’t want to turn back the clock. I like my fossil-fuel-heated house, my air conditioned car, and my morning coffee, which probably logged more air miles in a day than I have in a year. But ok, I can live without the pool heater.
If it's the actual temp, it's not "false data" at all.
There are a lot of areas which report "cold months" and "colder than average" years. Are those wrong too?
Or is it only "wrong" when it's registering hotter than Joe Public's thermometer on his patio?
Gary says, "So the data is flawed. "
That's merely a presumption, not a fact.
And like I have said - what is the motivation for NOAA or NASA to "lie" about the temperature? That concept does NOT MAKE SENSE. It fails the common sense test.
Can't be politics driving it, because they reported temperature trends under Clinton, and then Bush, and now Obama,
You are just wrong. Common sense will tell a scientific mind that in a given area there are 10 devices all recording 95 degrees and one recording a 100 degrees that just maybe there is a problem with placement or the one device itself. If all of them were averaged and used it would be a less flawed data source. And it would be of little significance if the data was not being used to build a case for taxation of the masses. A case that was started even before Clinton or Bush. Believe it or not there are people right now that would outlaw your AC unit if possible. With or without your solar panels. The major pushers of the AGW want to control every aspect of your life. Remember it started in the 1970s when man was blamed for Global Cooling. They have changed twice since then. First to GW now Climate Change.
Which brings up the Hockey stick you used to post all the time. The big upswing did not occur until people started seeing an opportunity to control the very breath we exhale, carbon dioxide. My question will fat people that exhale more be charged at a higher rate? :P
Gary says, "Believe it or not there are people right now that would outlaw your AC unit if possible. With or without your solar panels. The major pushers of the AGW want to control every aspect of your life."
Your paranoia is showing. Not a pretty sight.
I don't believe the "control" conspiracies. That just comes from fear-mongering on the other side.
Call it what you like. When the Feds and the State mandate changes for the people to comply with based on flawed AGW information, I call that trying to control the populace. Not only do they impose unrealistic mandates, they block the implementation and fine the consumers for not carrying out the mandates. It may not be happening in your state. Though you have problems of a different nature where the Feds are concerned. Here in the People's Socialist Republic of CA, we are being handed unreasonable carbon reduction mandates. When we don't comply, which is not possible, we are fined via higher utility bills. You may think that is funny. I don't like it. The sooner we force all those commies out of office the better.
How about going solar as you have? Well the counties have all raised the permit fees by as much as 10 times. They see another opportunity to screw the public. A friend that installs them, says where it used to take a few days, it is taking months to get approval for Solar panel installation. So that tells me they don't like US to have the freedom you are now enjoying with your solar energy savings.
Joe D'Aleo, a meteorologist who co-founded The Weather Channel, disagrees, too. He says oceans are entering a cooling cycle that will lower temperatures.
He says too many of the weather stations NOAA uses are in warmer urban areas.
"The only reliable data set right now is satellite," D'Aleo says.
He says NASA satellite data shows the average temperature in June was 0.43 degrees higher than normal. NOAA says it was 1.22 degrees higher.
So even your "famous denier" buddies are admitting the warming.
A "warmer urban area" is still an area which needs to be monitored. What should we do, ignore the big cities in our calculations? That would be stupid.
Gary says, "How about going solar as you have? Well the counties have all raised the permit fees by as much as 10 times. They see another opportunity to screw the public. A friend that installs them, says where it used to take a few days, it is taking months to get approval for Solar panel installation. So that tells me they don't like US to have the freedom you are now enjoying with your solar energy savings."
It has nothing to do with "freedom" at all Gary.
It has to do with the fact that your guvmints are BROKE and they are looking at places to raise revenue. If they see a huge jump in residential solar installations, they just see that as an opportunity to make some much-needed money. You do like having drivable roads and clean parks and things that are provided by state and county guvmints, right?
Help is possibly on the way for that fee problem Gary:
First off the permit fees are up front. Most installations are people either leasing or borrowing money so that raises the monthly charge. Depending on the interest it could make it not worth doing. I know this friend is getting frustrated with the job and may go to work back as an electrician. Solar is no longer a good business to be in. There is no excuse for it to take more than a month to get a permit. That is one reason the states and local governments are broke. Poor management and overpaid public officials.
If you ever lived in CA you would understand the freedom angle. We are the joke of the Nation in many states such as your own. There is more to life than nice weather. And that is about all that is left for me here in CA. And I am not so sure the last couple days with 99 degree temps. It was so nice and cool all spring and summer up till Wednesday.
PS Only an idiot would buy a $25k solar system for their home. That is $150+ per month for 30 years. They will not last that long in the hot sun. Plan on 10 years and a prorated replacement cost. A deal like you have for under $75 per month total for electric is good. If they go bad call them and it is free replacement right?
Gary says, "Solar is no longer a good business to be in."
Gary, the average CA fee is still only $214. Don't freak out.
Gary says, "Only an idiot would buy a $25k solar system for their home. That is $150+ per month for 30 years."
There are a lot of idiots.
Gary says, "A deal like you have for under $75 per month total for electric is good. If they go bad call them and it is free replacement right? "
Correct. They guarantee the system to generate x kwh per year, so they replace any component under their "maintenance" obligation for the life of the contract.
Of course it's gonna be "higher" "warmer" or "increasing" when the measuring instruments are purposely placed in areas they know will skew the results to their desired end.
One is naive and gullible to not understand that it is a total C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y to obtain more of your an my $$ by governments. And where is the CCX located??? Chicago!! Glenn Beck exposed the entire template for anyone to see. The facts are indisputable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQA0Ko75QpE Just follow the money.
Well, I'm having trouble tossing out all the weather records even if all the stations are in urban heat areas. If they are all reading hot, and yet the temps still go up year by year, that's still an increase over the baseline. Some of that could be contributed by global warming, not an increase in asphalt.
If our government agencies had a history of honesty, people would be more likely to believe the data. These agencies main concern is funding for the next budget go around. So they put out the data as those paying the bills want to see it. They are all corrupt from the cabinet level down to the guy sweeping the floors.
Again, the climate, whether up or down is not the issue. It is the theory that man is the major cause of the changes that is being questioned by not only no nothings like myself. But by scientists in the various fields. I am only able to vouch for the conditions in my immediate area. And I can tell you for an absolute fact the data NOAA is using from MY area is FALSE. I find it hard to believe everywhere else is accurate when so many groups have scrutinized the data gathering equipment and come to the same conclusion.
Believing that it is hotter in urban areas due to concrete and asphalt is a no brainer. When they try to tell us the World is warmer I call BS. 71% of the earth is covered with water. All the data from the ocean temp readings says the ocean is cooling. That makes the earth cooler, even if DC and NYC have raised their own temp with too many buildings and people.
Now that we have a network of ocean sensing satellites (NASA Aqua) we can finally start to obtain some reliable ocean temperature data. The oceans hold 1,000 times as much heat as does the atmosphere. The ocean is also 100 times as important as land area in terms of heat balance and transfer. So when the ocean starts to cool this fast, you know that a change is coming!
Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) measured by the AMSR-E instrument on NASA’s Aqua satellite continue their plunge as a predicted La Nina approaches.
At some point, as the earth continues to cool, it will not be possible for the global warming charlatans to continue to make their warming claims.
My prediction is that you will see them gradually drop the warming claim altogether and go 100% to CLIMATE CHANGE, due to Man's influence. Then, in all likelihood, they will drop climate change and go 100% to GLOBAL COOLING due to Man's influence.
Certainly, at that point, taxes will have to be increased and some form of credit system will have to be devised so that all these learned "scientists" can continue their invaluable research.....and make a good living.
This whole scam is so obvious that only those who have something to gain could possibly believe or defend these political hacks.
I don't even agree that the data is false. You're a big gardener - you know all about microclimes and how plants can thrive in your yard while the same species will wither in your neighbor's back yard (in my case, it's the reverse, but you get my drift ).
I usually use weatherunderground for my weather reports and they let you pick your location. That can be the official one (generally the airport) or a setup that a neighbor is running. The temp differences are often off by ten degrees or more. So if NOAA or whoever is using the official temps, that's just as likely to be more accurate in my book than grabbing land temps willy nilly. But it would be interesting to aggregate all the available stations and run some graphs on them.
NO doubt about microclimes. My neighbor had frost on his roof about 20 below my garden. My tomatoes went through the whole winter and are bearing nice fruit right now.
I have no problem accepting weather data from any source. I just don't trust anyone in the government to give an honest analysis. They all have an agenda, that includes stealing from the tax payers. AGW is something they have been working on for well over a decade. It got shuffled around during the Bush years. Now with all the Eco Nuts running the show it is full blast grab n take. Or to put it in Legislative language Cap n Trade.
PS If the water temp keeps going down we could get another great year of rain and snow. Last year was very good.
What it should expose is just how dangerous it is when the government and the college educational system are so closely linked. The University of CA system is a prime example of too much government. The people in power shape little minds in their own image. Soon everyone is corrupt and thinking it is the way things should be.
Anyway, on to business. We can all post charts that benefit our own personal argument -so those prove nothing.
How about your own "weather channel creator" saying that the year is warmer, even using satellite data, which HE says is "more accurate" ( HIS OPINION ). ???
If the ocean cooling indicates "future surface temp cooling" then maybe we are in store for a cool-ISH period, short term.
The long term trend is without a doubt WARMER. I could post a THOUSAND LINKS which say so, if I had the time to do that.
There is no doubt warming is occurring. The CAUSE is the only question still open for debate.
What part do you feel is misinformed. I used a NASA chart which you consider infallible. The debate is as you say the cause of climate change. How much does man contribute? I say very little, you would like to believe a lot. I find that position somewhat arrogant. I consider the taxation to curb progress detestable. A society moves ahead or dies. All the current legislation on energy and curbing GHG is regressive. Finally thinking people are seeing that and saying wait a minute. We have been duped by the likes of Phil Jones and Al Gore, with their agenda to control the global economy. If you did not see that in the failure at Copenhagen you were not watching closely. That had little to do with climate science and a lot to do with posturing for more power. A bunch of greedy dictators hoping to steal from the US tax payers.
I prefer private universities. The concept of public education is good to educate everyone. The problem is they have cut back on education and most of it is indoctrination. A school like Hillsdale where the State or Feds do not get their grubby mitts on curriculum.
Re your statement: "Yeah, we should just let the corporations fund university research. That'll work."
As researchers claim already have enough problems confronting biased based research. If only private corporations were funding/influencing research we would have major, major problems. Seen this happen too often in medicine.
I think Steve was commenting somewhat tongue in Cheek to my remarks about how Government was using the Universities to further their political agendas. There are a lot of legitimate study grants given to colleges and universities. My gripe is the close ties in CA between the ultra left leaning Legislature and the University of CA system. It is not providing a healthy balanced atmosphere for research and learning.
gagrice - guess I am lucky - Mill Valley has excellent public school system. But then that is one of reasons why we moved here. Parental support seems to still be excellent, and fund raising is highly successful.
Thank goodness we are also still lucky here in California to have top ranked UC Universities. UC Berkeley was ranked #1 public for one study(forget which one), with UCLA not far behind, UC San diego right in there too. Hope state doesn't eventually tear these universities down. But even with cutbacks and proposed tuition increases still good tuition cost factor. Student room/living costs are biggest area that drive up yearly costs for a family.
Private schools are excellent too. Respect your opinion. Sounds like your local public schools were lacking for quality education.
Thank goodness we are also still lucky here in California to have top ranked UC Universities. UC Berkeley was ranked #1 public for one study(forget which one)
Yes, You and I have a much different take on CA universities. I consider UC Berkley the biggest waste of my tax dollars in the state. They pay a stinking coach $2.7million per year. That is tax payer dollars down the toilet. There are 17,000 people in the 10 UC campuses making over $300k per year. There is no good oversight. Just wasting money and charging big bucks to residents for a mediocre education.
To stay on topic, CA government is the biggest pusher behind the AGW fraud.
For every green job created, two existing jobs are destroyed: European concensus, 2010.
There are 3600 oil rigs in the gulf. They send a total of 1 million barrels a day onshore. America consumes 23 million barrels a day.
A single coal power plant in Germany produces the power that it would take 3500 wind turbines to produce. Until the wind dies down. Then everyone just goes into 'wait' mode. The perfect time to clean the bird guts off of the blades.
I would like to think we can get something for nothing from the wind or the sun. It just does not work that way. Here is something to think about. If 50% of the people put solar panels on their homes. The electric utility down sizes their generation facilities or sells the electricity to another state. At night, during dust storms or extremely cloudy days, do these folks expect the utility to keep enough backup generators to cover them when they are not producing solar electricity? That is what is happening in the Wind power world. On a hot dry day when the wind dies who is supposed to provide electricity to all our AC units? I was once a big advocate of wind and solar. I have tempered that thinking as more and more evidence comes to light. Wind power has been riddled with scams since the late 1970s. If you drive from LA to Palm Springs you will see the hillside cluttered with 30 year old wind generators laying on their sides. It was all a big tax scam. It looks like wind generation is where the conservatives and environmentalists will join forces.
I never thought I’d agree with a member of the Kennedy clan, but Bobby Kennedy’s son got it right when he dismissed the much-hyped Cape Wind project that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar approved last week. “It’s a boondoggle of the worst kind,” Kennedy said. “It’s going to cost the people of Massachusetts $4 billion over the next 20 years in extra costs.”
If anything, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer, underestimated the cost of Cape Wind. The project will see the construction of 130 wind-powered turbines off the coast of Cape Cod Massachusetts that will, according to its developers, generate an average of 170 megawatts of electricity for the Bay State. The turbines will cost about $1 billion to build. Let’s assume that the useful life of the wind turbines is twenty years, that the maintenance costs of the windmills is zero, and that nobody has to pay a dime of interest on the $1 billion worth of financing needed to construct these windmills. Even if we accept such wildly inaccurate and charitable assumptions, the cost of energy generated by Cape Wind over those twenty years will be over thirty-three cents per kilowatt. That’s more than six times the typical wholesale price for electrons today, around six cents per kilowatt, depending on the market.
Thanks to government subsidies, Massachusetts’ residents won’t have to pay the full price for Cape Wind power. Instead, they’ll only have to fork over four and a half times the going rate, rather that something over six times that benchmark. According to Bobby junior:
I personally thought it was a case of NIMBY. Seems there is a lot more to it than that. And the scams are world wide.
Italian Wind Fraud Investigation Extends to the Netherlands, UK, Ireland, and Spain. Subsidies Questioned.
For some carbon millionaires, lining their pockets legally through taxpayer subsidies and hand outs is not enough. They choose to cheat even though they’re playing a game that’s already rigged.
Oreste Vigorito, head of the IVPC energy company and president of Italy’s National Association of Wind Energy, was arrested on Tuesday in Naples. Vito Nicastri, a Sicilian business associate, was arrested in Alcamo, Sicily.
Two other men were arrested in Sicily and the Naples area, while 11 others were charged but not arrested.
FT reports that these saviors of our planet were building wind farms that were “built with public subsidies but had never functioned.”
Vigorito had ties to Brian Caffyn, founder of the controversial “Cape Wind” project planned for Massachusetts’ Nantucket Sound, which has been criticized as a poor investment for taxpayers for the energy it will produce. Vigorito was not an investor in Cape Wind.
“What we found was quite remarkable,” David Tuerck, the institute’s executive director, said at the time. “Cape Wind stands to receive subsidies worth $731 million, or 77 percent of the cost of installing the project and 48 percent of the revenues it would generate. The policy question that this amount of subsidy raises is whether the project’s benefit is worth the huge public subsidies that the developer gets.”
The Herald reports that Mr. Caffyn’s 2007 divorce records reveal that “he amassed an $82 million fortune building wind farms around the world.”
Wind power remains an interesting and potentially useful technology. However, if taxpayers are forced to pay for it they must receive a viable return on their investment. Conservationists should not be forced to endure wind farms spoiling undeveloped places of natural beauty. We should not allow wind farms to ruin the habitats of birds and other wildlife in ways we would never permit to established efficient methods of power generation.
It’s time politicians require the “green” business people who will reap fortunes from wind power to bear the financial costs and risks. It’s time government zoning and environmental regulators ban wind turbines where they threaten wildlife and spoil human enjoyment of natural beauty.
Wind yes, but only when economically viable and only with respect for the quality of life both human and wild.
Are wind farms THEM$SELVE$ to blame for the fraud? The CONCEPT itself? NO. BAD PEOPLE are to blame.
You seem to always pinpoint the negative stories and never the POSITIVE ones.
For every "wind farm SCAM" as you put it, there are hundreds of projects that are NOT SCAMS.
Just like people always say: 10% of the people are ALWAYS on the TAKE, and the other 90% are honest.
I think we can live with a small percentage of crooked people ( who WILL get caught eventually) being on the take, when the advantage is HUGE when there is no scam involved.
Go to this page and the website associated with it to learn about Wind Energy:
• The Tehachapi Pass is about 3,800 feet in elevation.
• Average wind speeds approach nearly 9 meters per second (about 20 miles per hour). This places Tehachapi Pass in wind power class 6 (these classes range from class 1, the lowest, to class 7, the highest).
• Wind speeds are higher in April through October than in the winter months.
• The mean-average annual wind speeds and frequency distributions are well documented due to the long history of wind energy generation in the area, which is considered to be an "excellent" wind resource, according to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).
• Capacity factors in Tehachapi Pass are in excess of 40 percent using modern wind turbines, compared to an estimated average 36 percent capacity factor for all 2007 U.S. installations, according to the AWEA.
I think the articles were balanced and made it clear that there are places where wind power is a good choice. What is NOT good is government subsidies to the building and sustaining of the wind farms. That opens up a hole for fraud. Nothing the government does is without fraud. So I would say your 10% is way low where any government agency is involved. There are no real checks and balances in government. The private sector either makes a profit or dies. That is the way it should be for wind and solar. I can make it in any kind of business if I am being subsidized. That is when fraud raises its ugly head.
I have been through Tehachapi pass and it is a great place for wind farms. Nothing but wind and dust. One desolate ugly piece of real estate. I am also hopeful the wind farms built on Indian land here in San Diego County will make money.
For every positive on wind and solar there is a counteracting negative. Alternative energy is far from blissful.
corporations do fund research. How does the national hurricane center at Colo Univ, Boulder predict every year is going to be a severe one for hurricanes for the S.E. U.S.? My guess is that insurance companies are giving donations in return for those predictions. It justifies tremendous insurance rate increases for 50 million customers.
Well not only do scientists have a hard time predicting the future, but they're still having a very hard time understanding what's going on yesterday and today with the climate and atmosphere. Anyway the following is a good read about where science is with regards to understanding the climate, but also gives you another view of the power of the sun in controlling our climate.
Gary says, " I can make it in any kind of business if I am being subsidized. That is when fraud raises its ugly head."
Gary, we still subsidize the oil industry, in the levels of billion$ per year. Don't try to pick on alternative energy from that perspective.
Gary says, "For every positive on wind and solar there is a counteracting negative. Alternative energy is far from blissful."
Just as for fossil fuels. But absolutely BECAUSE of the far more serious negatives of fossil fuels, alternative fuels are even in the picture. If fossil fuels were "all that and a bag of chips" then we wouldn't NEED alternative fuels, really, would we?
The overwhelming opinion and facts support the fact that alternative energy, where it can be applied effectively, is generally FAR superior to fossil fuels.
If not, it would not even be in the discussion, because you only go to "alternatives" when your "primary" has a problem, right?
It seems nature and science have more layers than a 1,000 LB onion. We're worried about a possible GW of a degree or 2, while elsewhere in the universe life has its own challenges. I post this simply to show our level of scientific knowledge is near "Ignorant". It was just 2 years ago that we have come to see that entire galactic clusters (hundreds or even thousands of galaxies like the Milky Way) are being pulled/accelerated into a void at the edge of the universe.
It's quite humbling to read and realize mankind's place in the universe. Imagine the energy required to move galaxies. Imagine what there is to learn, as someone/something learned enough to harness the power to create this universe (and what might lie outside it!).
If not, it would not even be in the discussion, because you only go to "alternatives" when your "primary" has a problem, right?
No, No, No, we go to alternatives based on political agendas. Solar and Wind have had a resurgence due to AGW and supposed CO2 concerns. Alternatives had a big boom in the 1970s when the Saudis cut off our oil supply. Same as now. Wind farms, Corn Ethanol and Solar research by no less than the oil companies. As far as your view of oil subsidies I totally disagree. We get far more in taxes from every barrel of oil than we give to the oil companies for exploration. That is a totally false concept. The whole state of Alaska is run on oil revenue. Subsidies are when it costs the tax payer more to provide a product than comes back. Ethanol being a prime example.
I am not saying that fossil fuels have no negative aspects. I am saying it is still better than any alternative on a cost basis.
As I mentioned here a couple of years ago, what we do with mpg requirements, wind farms, etc., is pretty much 'spitting into the wind'. Latest data: China is now world's largest energy user. And it's going nowhere but up, and rapidly. You could blow up all our SUVs tomorrow, and in a couple of years not know it happened.
The United Nations Environment Program and the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century confirmed that green energy is enjoying a growth spurt these days, despite an overall financial downturn in 2009. The report pegs global investments in clean energy at a total of $162 billion. Leading the pack was none other than China, surpassing the US as the greatest investor in clean energy.
"The sustainable energy investment story of 2009 was one of resilience, frustration and determination,” said Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environment Program. “.... there was determination on the part of many industry actors and governments, especially in rapidly developing economies, to transform the financial and economic crisis into an opportunity for greener growth."
New private and public sector investments in clean energy in China leaped 53 percent in 2009. China added 37 gigawatts of renewable power capacity last year, greater than any other country.
“China's wind farm development was the strongest investment feature of the year by far, although there were other areas of strength worldwide in 2009, notably North Sea offshore wind investment and the financing of power storage and electric vehicle technology companies,” the report stated. Private sector green energy investments in Asia and Oceania, totaling $40.8 billion, surpassed US green energy investments of $32.3 billion for the first time. In Europe, however, private investments in green energy declined 10 percent at $43.7 billion.
Increasing environmental standards and policies around the world have spurred the increase in green energy, with more than 100 countries enacting policy related to renewable energy by early 2010. Thirty-eight nations set policy goals. Forty-one percent had policies promoting renewable energy.
Renewable energies counted for 60 percent of newly installed capacity in Europe, and 50 percent in the US in 2009. Experts expect the world as a whole to add more energy installments from renewable than nonrenewable resources.
Nearly 80 GW of renewable power capacity was added globally, including 31 GW of hydro and 48 GW of non-hydro capacity. Wind power and solar PV additions totaled a record high of 38 GW and 7 GW, mostly due to a large drop in the costs of solar PV. This decline was offset by high investments in smaller scale solar installments. Wind energy was a strong investment.
Nearly 80 GW of renewable power capacity was added globally, including 31 GW of hydro
Notice that China is building a lot of Hydro, nuclear, Coal & clean coal generation. They have passed US as the number one user of energy. They have bought more vehicles etc, etc. None of which is net Carbon zero. Do you think we could get a permit in the USA to build a renewable Hydro generation system. Not very likely, and we have even shut some down and let the rivers go back to natural state. All that glitters is not gold. Or in this case a good alternative. Cleaner coal generation makes the most economical sense. And it is happening as many new ethanol plants are, guess what, coal powered. We need to get our head out of the alternative energy sand. It is quick sand that will leave US stranded. Only sustainable alternative sources should be used.
As I reported over the weekend, Chinese officials are highly worried about the nation’s rising energy consumption and declining energy efficiency.
It is also interesting to note that as China greatly increased its use of coal, oil and wind in the first quarter of this year, nuclear power and hydro power lagged conspicuously — though for very different reasons.
Electricity generated by nuclear power in China rose only 6 percent in the first quarter from a year earlier, even though China leads the world in construction of new nuclear power plants. Nuclear plants take at least five years to build even in China, where construction teams work around the clock and where bureaucratic obstacles are quickly swept out of the way.
So a significant increase in energy from nuclear power is still years away, according to specialists in Chinese energy issues.
China is expanding its electricity generation capacity from nuclear power from 9 gigawatts at the end of last year to at least 70 gigawatts by 2020. But the nation’s overall electricity needs are growing so rapidly that it is proving harder to estimate what total electricity generation will be by then or to calculate the share from nuclear power.
The availability of hydroelectric and nuclear power has little to do with worries that China may not meet its target of a 20 percent improvement in energy efficiency from 2005 by the end of this year. The energy efficiency calculation compares total energy consumed to China’s economic output, regardless of whether the energy comes from fossil fuels or alternative sources like wind, nuclear or solar energy.
While China is the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels, most of these are exported and they still make up a negligible share of the electricity generated for the nation’s grid.
83% of China's power comes from oil and coal, 14% from hydro, 2% nuclear and 1/10th of 1% from wind. The USA produces about 1.3% of our total electricity from Wind.
175 people killed in South America cold spell 20.07.2010 08:22
At least 175 people have died in the coldest winter in South America in recent years, officials in six affected countries said, dpa reported.
The cold was worst in southern Peru, where temperatures in higher altitudes of the Andes dropped to minus 23 degrees Celsius. Officials said Monday that since the beginning of last week 112 people died of hypothermia and flu.
Argentina measured the coldest temperatures in 10 years. Sixteen people froze to death and 11 died of carbon monoxide poisoning due to faulty heaters.
In Bolivia, 18 people died, in Paraguay five and two each in Chile and Uruguay. Nine people died of the cold in southern Brazil.
Thousands of cattle also froze to death on their pastures in Paraguay and Brazil. There are no stables for the animals as temperatures usually do not drop that low.
Several regions in Bolivia and Peru closed schools until the end of the week and larger cities opened emergency shelters for homeless people.
This was from one cold spell. So how many people have died from the heat this summer? I think there is a good case for it getting warmer. Kernick would you agree?
41% of all energy is consumed by buildings in the US. $20000 for solar panels for a residence that pays back in 5-10 years. Impossible. My electric bill averages $1200 a year total. How can it save me my entire bill twice over? I want to see the math behind it. What about interest on the $20k? This is the idea that watching "An Inconvenient Truth " generated? What about the sporadic hail storms while I'm away on vacation? Oh, you would just need to start over with $15k of new panels. Lets all take our ideas from Al Gore.
The "real" payback (excluding government subsidies, that is yours and my $$) for photovoltaics is decades, not years. A number of government agencies in Texas that have spent big money on PV arrays have discovered, to their chagrin, that they will not be positive $$ on them for 20 years or more. Anything looks good when somebody else pays for it.
Comments
It is a shame that even such mundane things as weather data have become so politicized that all the data is now suspect.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Conrad Black probably can't believe his eyes at the op ed over at the "still conservative" National Post:
Bad science: Global-warming deniers are a liability to the conservative cause
The real issue is not “are we changing the climate?”, but how do we adapt to the effects of change and/or mitigate them, without jeopardizing the standard of living we have managed to achieve? Between the socialists who would have us cap every oil well and eat twigs for breakfast, and the conservatives who refuse to see any correlation between human activity and climate change, lies a middle ground: those who accept a measure of change as the price of progress, and search for ways to cope with that change through technological advancement, not luddite retreat.
Human activity is not, and will never be, neutral. Indeed, if we wanted to stop impacting the climate, humanity would have to stop existing, or return to a pre-prehistoric lifestyle, when we didn’t even have the technology to clobber a sufficient number of mammoths.
Sorry, but I don’t want to turn back the clock. I like my fossil-fuel-heated house, my air conditioned car, and my morning coffee, which probably logged more air miles in a day than I have in a year. But ok, I can live without the pool heater.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/16/tasha-kheiriddin-2/
If it's the actual temp, it's not "false data" at all.
There are a lot of areas which report "cold months" and "colder than average" years. Are those wrong too?
Or is it only "wrong" when it's registering hotter than Joe Public's thermometer on his patio?
Gary says, "So the data is flawed. "
That's merely a presumption, not a fact.
And like I have said - what is the motivation for NOAA or NASA to "lie" about the temperature? That concept does NOT MAKE SENSE. It fails the common sense test.
Can't be politics driving it, because they reported temperature trends under Clinton, and then Bush, and now Obama,
Which brings up the Hockey stick you used to post all the time. The big upswing did not occur until people started seeing an opportunity to control the very breath we exhale, carbon dioxide. My question will fat people that exhale more be charged at a higher rate? :P
Your paranoia is showing. Not a pretty sight.
I don't believe the "control" conspiracies. That just comes from fear-mongering on the other side.
How about going solar as you have? Well the counties have all raised the permit fees by as much as 10 times. They see another opportunity to screw the public. A friend that installs them, says where it used to take a few days, it is taking months to get approval for Solar panel installation. So that tells me they don't like US to have the freedom you are now enjoying with your solar energy savings.
He says too many of the weather stations NOAA uses are in warmer urban areas.
"The only reliable data set right now is satellite," D'Aleo says.
He says NASA satellite data shows the average temperature in June was 0.43 degrees higher than normal. NOAA says it was 1.22 degrees higher.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2010-07-15-heat-record_N.htm
Experts agree with me. The NOAA data is FLAWED. CA had the coldest June on record as did Australia. The rest don't count. :P
That means warming.
So even your "famous denier" buddies are admitting the warming.
A "warmer urban area" is still an area which needs to be monitored. What should we do, ignore the big cities in our calculations? That would be stupid.
It has nothing to do with "freedom" at all Gary.
It has to do with the fact that your guvmints are BROKE and they are looking at places to raise revenue. If they see a huge jump in residential solar installations, they just see that as an opportunity to make some much-needed money. You do like having drivable roads and clean parks and things that are provided by state and county guvmints, right?
Help is possibly on the way for that fee problem Gary:
There are ongoing discussions about possibly establishing a flat fee of $200 across cities in the county, said Jamie Cutlip, an associate planner with the city of Sacramento.
And really, people who are spending $25K on a solar install aren't likely to flinch much about a $1K permit fee, are they?
Read up on the latest solar news and CA issues at this blog:
Sunpluggers
If you ever lived in CA you would understand the freedom angle. We are the joke of the Nation in many states such as your own. There is more to life than nice weather. And that is about all that is left for me here in CA. And I am not so sure the last couple days with 99 degree temps. It was so nice and cool all spring and summer up till Wednesday.
PS
Only an idiot would buy a $25k solar system for their home. That is $150+ per month for 30 years. They will not last that long in the hot sun. Plan on 10 years and a prorated replacement cost. A deal like you have for under $75 per month total for electric is good. If they go bad call them and it is free replacement right?
Gary, the average CA fee is still only $214. Don't freak out.
Gary says, "Only an idiot would buy a $25k solar system for their home. That is $150+ per month for 30 years."
There are a lot of idiots.
Gary says, "A deal like you have for under $75 per month total for electric is good. If they go bad call them and it is free replacement right? "
Correct. They guarantee the system to generate x kwh per year, so they replace any component under their "maintenance" obligation for the life of the contract.
One is naive and gullible to not understand that it is a total C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y to obtain more of your an my $$ by governments. And where is the CCX located??? Chicago!! Glenn Beck exposed the entire template for anyone to see. The facts are indisputable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQA0Ko75QpE
Just follow the money.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012369560_surfrider16m.html
Again, the climate, whether up or down is not the issue. It is the theory that man is the major cause of the changes that is being questioned by not only no nothings like myself. But by scientists in the various fields. I am only able to vouch for the conditions in my immediate area. And I can tell you for an absolute fact the data NOAA is using from MY area is FALSE. I find it hard to believe everywhere else is accurate when so many groups have scrutinized the data gathering equipment and come to the same conclusion.
Believing that it is hotter in urban areas due to concrete and asphalt is a no brainer. When they try to tell us the World is warmer I call BS. 71% of the earth is covered with water. All the data from the ocean temp readings says the ocean is cooling. That makes the earth cooler, even if DC and NYC have raised their own temp with too many buildings and people.
Now that we have a network of ocean sensing satellites (NASA Aqua) we can finally start to obtain some reliable ocean temperature data. The oceans hold 1,000 times as much heat as does the atmosphere. The ocean is also 100 times as important as land area in terms of heat balance and transfer. So when the ocean starts to cool this fast, you know that a change is coming!
Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) measured by the AMSR-E instrument on NASA’s Aqua satellite continue their plunge as a predicted La Nina approaches.
My prediction is that you will see them gradually drop the warming claim altogether and go 100% to CLIMATE CHANGE, due to Man's influence. Then, in all likelihood, they will drop climate change and go 100% to GLOBAL COOLING due to Man's influence.
Certainly, at that point, taxes will have to be increased and some form of credit system will have to be devised so that all these learned "scientists" can continue their invaluable research.....and make a good living.
This whole scam is so obvious that only those who have something to gain could possibly believe or defend these political hacks.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Kidding of course!!! This is indeed interesting data!
I usually use weatherunderground for my weather reports and they let you pick your location. That can be the official one (generally the airport) or a setup that a neighbor is running. The temp differences are often off by ten degrees or more. So if NOAA or whoever is using the official temps, that's just as likely to be more accurate in my book than grabbing land temps willy nilly. But it would be interesting to aggregate all the available stations and run some graphs on them.
Going to be a good snow year this winter eh?
I have no problem accepting weather data from any source. I just don't trust anyone in the government to give an honest analysis. They all have an agenda, that includes stealing from the tax payers. AGW is something they have been working on for well over a decade. It got shuffled around during the Bush years. Now with all the Eco Nuts running the show it is full blast grab n take. Or to put it in Legislative language Cap n Trade.
PS
If the water temp keeps going down we could get another great year of rain and snow. Last year was very good.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Anyway, on to business. We can all post charts that benefit our own personal argument -so those prove nothing.
How about your own "weather channel creator" saying that the year is warmer, even using satellite data, which HE says is "more accurate" ( HIS OPINION ). ???
If the ocean cooling indicates "future surface temp cooling" then maybe we are in store for a cool-ISH period, short term.
The long term trend is without a doubt WARMER. I could post a THOUSAND LINKS which say so, if I had the time to do that.
There is no doubt warming is occurring. The CAUSE is the only question still open for debate.
Yeah, we should just let the corporations fund university research. That'll work. :shades:
Wow, sarcasm before 9 am. Must be the Peet's. Gotta switch to organic shade grown coffee with a low carbon footprint.
I have a few "oh no" feelings here.
Re your statement:
"Yeah, we should just let the corporations fund university research. That'll work."
As researchers claim already have enough problems confronting biased based research. If only private corporations were funding/influencing research we would have major, major problems. Seen this happen too often in medicine.
Thank goodness we are also still lucky here in California to have top ranked UC Universities. UC Berkeley was ranked #1 public for one study(forget which one), with UCLA not far behind, UC San diego right in there too. Hope state doesn't eventually tear these universities down. But even with cutbacks and proposed tuition increases still good tuition cost factor. Student room/living costs are biggest area that drive up yearly costs for a family.
Private schools are excellent too. Respect your opinion. Sounds like your local public schools were lacking for quality education.
Yes, You and I have a much different take on CA universities. I consider UC Berkley the biggest waste of my tax dollars in the state. They pay a stinking coach $2.7million per year. That is tax payer dollars down the toilet. There are 17,000 people in the 10 UC campuses making over $300k per year. There is no good oversight. Just wasting money and charging big bucks to residents for a mediocre education.
To stay on topic, CA government is the biggest pusher behind the AGW fraud.
There are 3600 oil rigs in the gulf. They send a total of 1 million barrels a day onshore. America consumes 23 million barrels a day.
A single coal power plant in Germany produces the power that it would take 3500 wind turbines to produce. Until the wind dies down. Then everyone just goes into 'wait' mode. The perfect time to clean the bird guts off of the blades.
I never thought I’d agree with a member of the Kennedy clan, but Bobby Kennedy’s son got it right when he dismissed the much-hyped Cape Wind project that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar approved last week. “It’s a boondoggle of the worst kind,” Kennedy said. “It’s going to cost the people of Massachusetts $4 billion over the next 20 years in extra costs.”
If anything, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer, underestimated the cost of Cape Wind. The project will see the construction of 130 wind-powered turbines off the coast of Cape Cod Massachusetts that will, according to its developers, generate an average of 170 megawatts of electricity for the Bay State. The turbines will cost about $1 billion to build. Let’s assume that the useful life of the wind turbines is twenty years, that the maintenance costs of the windmills is zero, and that nobody has to pay a dime of interest on the $1 billion worth of financing needed to construct these windmills. Even if we accept such wildly inaccurate and charitable assumptions, the cost of energy generated by Cape Wind over those twenty years will be over thirty-three cents per kilowatt. That’s more than six times the typical wholesale price for electrons today, around six cents per kilowatt, depending on the market.
Thanks to government subsidies, Massachusetts’ residents won’t have to pay the full price for Cape Wind power. Instead, they’ll only have to fork over four and a half times the going rate, rather that something over six times that benchmark. According to Bobby junior:
Wind Farm Scam
I personally thought it was a case of NIMBY. Seems there is a lot more to it than that. And the scams are world wide.
Italian Wind Fraud Investigation Extends to the Netherlands, UK, Ireland, and Spain. Subsidies Questioned.
For some carbon millionaires, lining their pockets legally through taxpayer subsidies and hand outs is not enough. They choose to cheat even though they’re playing a game that’s already rigged.
Oreste Vigorito, head of the IVPC energy company and president of Italy’s National Association of Wind Energy, was arrested on Tuesday in Naples. Vito Nicastri, a Sicilian business associate, was arrested in Alcamo, Sicily.
Two other men were arrested in Sicily and the Naples area, while 11 others were charged but not arrested.
FT reports that these saviors of our planet were building wind farms that were “built with public subsidies but had never functioned.”
Vigorito had ties to Brian Caffyn, founder of the controversial “Cape Wind” project planned for Massachusetts’ Nantucket Sound, which has been criticized as a poor investment for taxpayers for the energy it will produce. Vigorito was not an investor in Cape Wind.
“What we found was quite remarkable,” David Tuerck, the institute’s executive director, said at the time. “Cape Wind stands to receive subsidies worth $731 million, or 77 percent of the cost of installing the project and 48 percent of the revenues it would generate. The policy question that this amount of subsidy raises is whether the project’s benefit is worth the huge public subsidies that the developer gets.”
The Herald reports that Mr. Caffyn’s 2007 divorce records reveal that “he amassed an $82 million fortune building wind farms around the world.”
Wind power remains an interesting and potentially useful technology. However, if taxpayers are forced to pay for it they must receive a viable return on their investment. Conservationists should not be forced to endure wind farms spoiling undeveloped places of natural beauty. We should not allow wind farms to ruin the habitats of birds and other wildlife in ways we would never permit to established efficient methods of power generation.
It’s time politicians require the “green” business people who will reap fortunes from wind power to bear the financial costs and risks. It’s time government zoning and environmental regulators ban wind turbines where they threaten wildlife and spoil human enjoyment of natural beauty.
Wind yes, but only when economically viable and only with respect for the quality of life both human and wild.
http://cfact.eu/2009/11/15/gone-with-the-wind-arrests-for-massive-fraud-in-italy- /
Are wind farms THEM$SELVE$ to blame for the fraud? The CONCEPT itself? NO. BAD PEOPLE are to blame.
You seem to always pinpoint the negative stories and never the POSITIVE ones.
For every "wind farm SCAM" as you put it, there are hundreds of projects that are NOT SCAMS.
Just like people always say: 10% of the people are ALWAYS on the TAKE, and the other 90% are honest.
I think we can live with a small percentage of crooked people ( who WILL get caught eventually) being on the take, when the advantage is HUGE when there is no scam involved.
Go to this page and the website associated with it to learn about Wind Energy:
Wind Powering America
Wind power goes back a long way in Tehachapi
Fast facts about Tehachapi
• The Tehachapi Pass is about 3,800 feet in elevation.
• Average wind speeds approach nearly 9 meters per second (about 20 miles per hour). This places Tehachapi Pass in wind power class 6 (these classes range from class 1, the lowest, to class 7, the highest).
• Wind speeds are higher in April through October than in the winter months.
• The mean-average annual wind speeds and frequency distributions are well documented due to the long history of wind energy generation in the area, which is considered to be an "excellent" wind resource, according to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).
• Capacity factors in Tehachapi Pass are in excess of 40 percent using modern wind turbines, compared to an estimated average 36 percent capacity factor for all 2007 U.S. installations, according to the AWEA.
The whole grid is going to go down in 2012 (when else, lol?) when the solar blast hits us.
Solar cycle sparks doomsday buzz (MSNBC)
I have been through Tehachapi pass and it is a great place for wind farms. Nothing but wind and dust. One desolate ugly piece of real estate. I am also hopeful the wind farms built on Indian land here in San Diego County will make money.
For every positive on wind and solar there is a counteracting negative. Alternative energy is far from blissful.
Completely off-topic, but this story reminds me of the guy who exposed the hockey stick mistake:
A mathematical David stuns a healthcare Goliath (LA Times)
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/16/nasa.upper.atmosphere.shrinking/index.html
Gary, we still subsidize the oil industry, in the levels of billion$ per year. Don't try to pick on alternative energy from that perspective.
Gary says, "For every positive on wind and solar there is a counteracting negative. Alternative energy is far from blissful."
Just as for fossil fuels. But absolutely BECAUSE of the far more serious negatives of fossil fuels, alternative fuels are even in the picture. If fossil fuels were "all that and a bag of chips" then we wouldn't NEED alternative fuels, really, would we?
The overwhelming opinion and facts support the fact that alternative energy, where it can be applied effectively, is generally FAR superior to fossil fuels.
If not, it would not even be in the discussion, because you only go to "alternatives" when your "primary" has a problem, right?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100310162829.htm
It's quite humbling to read and realize mankind's place in the universe. Imagine the energy required to move galaxies. Imagine what there is to learn, as someone/something learned enough to harness the power to create this universe (and what might lie outside it!).
No, No, No, we go to alternatives based on political agendas. Solar and Wind have had a resurgence due to AGW and supposed CO2 concerns. Alternatives had a big boom in the 1970s when the Saudis cut off our oil supply. Same as now. Wind farms, Corn Ethanol and Solar research by no less than the oil companies. As far as your view of oil subsidies I totally disagree. We get far more in taxes from every barrel of oil than we give to the oil companies for exploration. That is a totally false concept. The whole state of Alaska is run on oil revenue. Subsidies are when it costs the tax payer more to provide a product than comes back. Ethanol being a prime example.
I am not saying that fossil fuels have no negative aspects. I am saying it is still better than any alternative on a cost basis.
Well, in order to prove that, we'd have to eliminate all fossil fuel subsidies and test the numbers again.
Gary says, "we go to alternatives based on political agendas."
I don't have a "political agenda" per se, and I want money spent on alternative energy. So do many of my friends and family.
( You miss again. )
United Nations: Green Energy Blossoms, but China Has the Best Blooms
The United Nations Environment Program and the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century confirmed that green energy is enjoying a growth spurt these days, despite an overall financial downturn in 2009. The report pegs global investments in clean energy at a total of $162 billion. Leading the pack was none other than China, surpassing the US as the greatest investor in clean energy.
"The sustainable energy investment story of 2009 was one of resilience, frustration and determination,” said Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environment Program. “.... there was determination on the part of many industry actors and governments, especially in rapidly developing economies, to transform the financial and economic crisis into an opportunity for greener growth."
New private and public sector investments in clean energy in China leaped 53 percent in 2009. China added 37 gigawatts of renewable power capacity last year, greater than any other country.
“China's wind farm development was the strongest investment feature of the year by far, although there were other areas of strength worldwide in 2009, notably North Sea offshore wind investment and the financing of power storage and electric vehicle technology companies,” the report stated.
Private sector green energy investments in Asia and Oceania, totaling $40.8 billion, surpassed US green energy investments of $32.3 billion for the first time. In Europe, however, private investments in green energy declined 10 percent at $43.7 billion.
Increasing environmental standards and policies around the world have spurred the increase in green energy, with more than 100 countries enacting policy related to renewable energy by early 2010. Thirty-eight nations set policy goals. Forty-one percent had policies promoting renewable energy.
Renewable energies counted for 60 percent of newly installed capacity in Europe, and 50 percent in the US in 2009. Experts expect the world as a whole to add more energy installments from renewable than nonrenewable resources.
Nearly 80 GW of renewable power capacity was added globally, including 31 GW of hydro and 48 GW of non-hydro capacity. Wind power and solar PV additions totaled a record high of 38 GW and 7 GW, mostly due to a large drop in the costs of solar PV. This decline was offset by high investments in smaller scale solar installments. Wind energy was a strong investment.
Notice that China is building a lot of Hydro, nuclear, Coal & clean coal generation. They have passed US as the number one user of energy. They have bought more vehicles etc, etc. None of which is net Carbon zero. Do you think we could get a permit in the USA to build a renewable Hydro generation system. Not very likely, and we have even shut some down and let the rivers go back to natural state. All that glitters is not gold. Or in this case a good alternative. Cleaner coal generation makes the most economical sense. And it is happening as many new ethanol plants are, guess what, coal powered. We need to get our head out of the alternative energy sand. It is quick sand that will leave US stranded. Only sustainable alternative sources should be used.
As I reported over the weekend, Chinese officials are highly worried about the nation’s rising energy consumption and declining energy efficiency.
It is also interesting to note that as China greatly increased its use of coal, oil and wind in the first quarter of this year, nuclear power and hydro power lagged conspicuously — though for very different reasons.
Electricity generated by nuclear power in China rose only 6 percent in the first quarter from a year earlier, even though China leads the world in construction of new nuclear power plants. Nuclear plants take at least five years to build even in China, where construction teams work around the clock and where bureaucratic obstacles are quickly swept out of the way.
So a significant increase in energy from nuclear power is still years away, according to specialists in Chinese energy issues.
China is expanding its electricity generation capacity from nuclear power from 9 gigawatts at the end of last year to at least 70 gigawatts by 2020. But the nation’s overall electricity needs are growing so rapidly that it is proving harder to estimate what total electricity generation will be by then or to calculate the share from nuclear power.
The availability of hydroelectric and nuclear power has little to do with worries that China may not meet its target of a 20 percent improvement in energy efficiency from 2005 by the end of this year. The energy efficiency calculation compares total energy consumed to China’s economic output, regardless of whether the energy comes from fossil fuels or alternative sources like wind, nuclear or solar energy.
While China is the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels, most of these are exported and they still make up a negligible share of the electricity generated for the nation’s grid.
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/a-lag-in-chinas-nuclear-and-hydro-powe- r/
83% of China's power comes from oil and coal, 14% from hydro, 2% nuclear and 1/10th of 1% from wind. The USA produces about 1.3% of our total electricity from Wind.
20.07.2010 08:22
At least 175 people have died in the coldest winter in South America in recent years, officials in six affected countries said, dpa reported.
The cold was worst in southern Peru, where temperatures in higher altitudes of the Andes dropped to minus 23 degrees Celsius. Officials said Monday that since the beginning of last week 112 people died of hypothermia and flu.
Argentina measured the coldest temperatures in 10 years. Sixteen people froze to death and 11 died of carbon monoxide poisoning due to faulty heaters.
In Bolivia, 18 people died, in Paraguay five and two each in Chile and Uruguay. Nine people died of the cold in southern Brazil.
Thousands of cattle also froze to death on their pastures in Paraguay and Brazil. There are no stables for the animals as temperatures usually do not drop that low.
Several regions in Bolivia and Peru closed schools until the end of the week and larger cities opened emergency shelters for homeless people.
This was from one cold spell. So how many people have died from the heat this summer? I think there is a good case for it getting warmer. Kernick would you agree?