Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
It remains to be seen how long the sea ice will hang around. However, these spring months are when polar bears gorge themselves on baby seals. As long as the bears can consume enough fat during this time, they are protected from the adverse effects of fasting over the summer months when sea ice ice retreats into the Arctic Basin.
A sow and a pair of half-grown cubs recently paid a visit to the Polish Research Station in southwestern Svalbard without causing any more trouble than racing heart-rates, according to a report in The Guardian today.
Money quotefrom the leader of the expedition [my bold]:
This year the team had seen more polar bears than usual, he added. Usually there were around 20 bear sightings a year, but this year there had been close to 40 sightings since June and they expected to see more in their final three months.
“So far, we have not observed any clearly emaciated individuals. This year is probably a good year for Svalbard’s polar bears because there is a lot of sea ice here compared to recent years,” he said [The Guardian, 2 April 2024, see photo above].
Most of the ice around Svalbard is mobile pack ice, and contrary to expectations given reported global temperatures, coverage has been hovering about average since September last year, depending on winds, with levels dropping briefly in early winter but rebounding to above average over the last week or so. The chart below hasn’t been updated since 27 March but daily reports to 2 April from the Norwegian Ice Service confirms that readings are still above the long-term 1991-2020 average:
Svalbard ice chart
Note the abundant ice off the southwest coast, where the Polish Research Station is located:
I’m surprised we haven’t heard reports of bear sightings around the weather station on Bear Island (Bjørnøya) to the south, which has been surrounded by ice for more than a week now. The last sighting on Bear Island I’m aware of during March occurred in 2019 (photo below).
However, as suggested in the report by the Polish crew, it’s likely many such sightings take place that don’t make the news become they don’t come with a headline-worthy photo opportunities. In May 2020, there was ice at Bear Island in early May.
Barents Sea charts
Svalbard sea ice in context for the wider region:
NSIDC Masie data shows Barents Sea ice steadily rising since early March 2024:
It remains to be seen how long the sea ice will hang around. However, these spring months are when polar bears gorge themselves on baby seals. As long as the bears can consume enough fat during this time, they are protected from the adverse effects of fasting over the summer months when sea ice ice retreats into the Arctic Basin.
On January 27th, 2023, the Biden Administration announced that all mining, hydropower, geothermal, and road construction will be barred in the Tongass under the guise of permanently protecting 9.37 million acres for the natural world. He reinstated the so-called “roadless rule”, which prohibits any road construction for timber companies, sportsmen, firefighters, and wildlife officials to have better access to the forest.
In this latest episode, host Gabriella Hoffman (who also serves as a CFACT senior policy analyst) explores Alaska’s “Inside Passage” — The Tongass National Forest near the state capital of Juneau.
On January 27th, 2023, the Biden Administration announced that all mining, hydropower, geothermal, and road construction will be barred in the Tongass under the guise of permanently protecting 9.37 million acres for the natural world. He reinstated the so-called “roadless rule”, which prohibits any road construction for timber companies, sportsmen, firefighters, and wildlife officials to have better access to the forest.
While this may sound like a good thing, one must remember that the federal government already owns 65% of the state, and 40% of that is set aside for conservation. In addition, there are millions of additional acres of Alaska that are in state and private hands deemed wilderness as well.
Restricting access in the Tongass is a bad idea on a number of fronts. It is bad for economic development, and it is bad for nature as the “roadless rule” chokes off the ability of wildlife officials to manage forestland properly. It is one of 56 aggressive actions the Biden administration has taken against Alaska’s development. Sadly, it won’t be the last.
Viewers will learn how the Tongass National Forest is an important ecological and economic artery in the Last Frontier that doesn’t need to be closed off. It should be for the betterment and enjoyment of all—visitors and locals.
And, of course, there’s some fun added in. You’ll get to see Gabby scale the Goldbelt Tram and explore Mendenhall Glacier.
Don’t miss this exclusive CFACT report from the Land of the Midnight Sun.
Watch Part II of our Alaska report on Conservation Nation today!
Oil and gas rigs in United Kingdom waters of the North Sea could be forced to convert over to green energy or low-carbon fuels, or either face closure or getting banned from opening new platforms, in an effort to reduce emissions, according to reports.
The Telegraph reported there are currently over 280 oil and gas platforms in UK waters, which produce about 3% of the total CO2 emitted by the country per year.
The same rigs, though, produce nearly half of the UK’s energy.
A drilling rig drills wells. It is moved onto a location to drill wells. Drilling rigs then move on to the next project. The notion of powering drilling rigs with “green energy” is exceptionally stupid. (See The Solar-Powered Oil Field… An Adjustocene Fable). Offshore drilling rigs are usually powered by diesel engines. Here’s the Transocean Deepwater Invictus for an example:
Power & Machinery
Main Power 6 x HHI HiMSEN H32/40V V-type diesel engines rated 7,000 kW,720 rpm, each driving 1 x 8,125 kVA AC generator
Emergency Power One Caterpillar 3516B V-type diesel engine rated 1,780 kW, 1,800rpm driving 1 x AC generator
Power Distribution 3 x Siemens NXPlus C Plus, 11 kV Switchboards with AKA Advanced Generator ProtectionTransocean
When oil & gas discoveries are made, production platforms are installed.
Since production platforms are generally fixed structures (unless moved by hurricanes or subsea mudslides), they can be hooked up to the onshore power grid, however it is far more cost effective to power them with diesel and/or natural gas powered generators. The natural gas often comes from the production stream. The notion of powering production platforms with “green energy” is still fairly stupid, but actually possible.
The Green Hostage Crisis
Nearly half of the UK’s energy production comes from North Sea oil & gas platforms. Forced electrification of the platforms could result in a 3% reduction in the UK’s CO2 emissions. Holding 50% of your energy production hostage for a 3% reduction in CO2 emissions… Ron White would say:
Keeping the Lights On: UK Regulators Meet With North Sea Producers on Brownfield Electrification
The North Sea Transition Authority has previously said failure to invest in platform electrification could threaten future production rights.
UK regulators met recently in Aberdeen with oil and gas producers and technology suppliers to discuss strategies to enhance the electrification of the nation’s offshore platforms.
Power generation accounted for almost 80% of UK offshore oil and gas emissions in 2022—or about 2 mtpa. On the whole, the upstream industry represents a 3% share of all UK greenhouse gas emissions, according to the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA).
The authority has previously voiced concerns that the domestic industry must intensify its efforts to achieve the government’s goal of halving emissions from oil and gas production by 2030.
“Platform electrification is a key step on the road to net zero. The North Sea has long been a testbed for pioneering technologies and right now we need innovative solutions to crack the significant challenge of electrification, cut emissions, and accelerate the transition,” Bill Cattanach, the head of supply chain for NSTA, said in a statement.
[…]
Despite a consistent reduction in total emissions by the UK industry since 2020 and a nearly 50% reduction in flaring over the past 4 years, the NSTA has stressed the urgent need for action. Last year, it warned all UK North Sea operators that future production rights might be contingent on their commitment to field electrification.
What happens when governments make economically illiterate demands?
Wood Mackenzie presented analysis at last year’s SPE Offshore Europe conference suggesting that with 80% of UK North Sea resources already extracted there is likely less than 600 million BOE remaining—leaving little to no economic case for electrification projects at many sites.
Additionally, a report from Offshore Energies UK (OEUK) predicted that up to 180 of the nearly 280 offshore platforms in the UK North Sea will cease production by the end of the decade due to natural declines. The trade group’s study further noted that 20 fields ceased production last year, while only two new fields were brought online.Journal of Petroleum Technology Part Deux
Who else thinks that the NSTA would actually prefer to see the premature abandonment of North Sea oil and gas fields, rather than the electrification thereof?
The Boston Globe recently ran a silly story about the CFACT et al. whale protection lawsuit. As this title indicates, it is basically a political hit piece — “Activists are spreading misinformation about whale deaths to obstruct clean energy policies, researchers find”.
The Boston Globe recently ran a silly story about the CFACT et al. whale protection lawsuit. As this title indicates, it is basically a political hit piece — “Activists are spreading misinformation about whale deaths to obstruct clean energy policies, researchers find”.
What the researchers actually found is that CFACT, Heartland, etc. are conservatives. Ten minutes on their websites would make that clear, but apparently, it is a research result if you put a lot of work into it.
The article talks about, but never addresses, the lawsuit. Its basic (and obvious) point is that the Feds in charge of environmental impact assessment have failed to consider the cumulative impact on the severely endangered North Atlantic Right Whale (NARW) from lining the Atlantic coast with huge wind facilities.
Cumulative impact analysis is specifically called for by the Endangered Species Act, and the lawsuit simply asks that this law be enforced by the Court. There is no misinformation.
First, in the Globe article comes a lengthy, nonsensical attack on some of the conservative groups fighting to save the whales from green industrialization on the grounds that conservatives cannot or should not do this. No comment needed.
But then the article wanders into impact science, where they unwittingly present a telling contradiction. First, it says this:
““At this point, there is no scientific evidence that noise resulting from offshore wind site characterization surveys could potentially cause whale deaths,” NOAA said on a website dedicated to questions about whales and wind.”
Note no evidence of POTENTIAL. NOAA used to say there was no evidence of actual killing of whales. Now, they have upped their denial to no potential. No potential means no risk, which is sheer nonsense.
But then they make the mistake of talking to an actual whale scientist. The scientist says this, which clearly describes several potentials, thus contradicting NOAA:
“That said, offshore wind development isn’t risk-free for whales, said Jessica Redfern, associate vice president of ocean conservation science at the New England Aquarium. She and other scientists studying the potential impacts of offshore wind are watching to see if the development forces them to change migration paths and whether the noise from construction could hamper a mother’s ability to nurse her calf or cause stress. And they’re watching what wind development might do to the whales’ prey.”
Mind you, Redfern’s description of some of the well-known risks is itself symptomatic of the neglect CFACT et al‘s lawsuit seeks to correct. She refers to “watching to see” what, in fact, cannot be seen because the severely endangered whales live underwater. The whole federally funded strategy at this point is to just wait and see what happens, as though extinction were reversible.
And, as usual, there is no mention of the huge federal harassment prediction numbers for sonar and construction, which create a huge potential for killing endangered critters. NOAA itself estimates that both sonar site surveys and construction pile driving expose a lot of whales and other protected marine mammals to dangerous noise levels.
Getting back to NOAA’s purely political see-no-evil pronouncement of no risk, they officially know better. Over a year ago, they took comments on a draft North American Right Whale (wait and see) protection strategy. A coalition of ten expert whale protection groups warned them in no uncertain terms about the clear threat from site characterization sonar surveys.
Here is the technical heart of their warning: “The Draft EA for the Empire Wind, for example, shows the brand and model of Sparkers and Seismic Air guns (so-called “bubble” guns) that are representative of those expected to be used. This equipment will emit sounds of the same sound frequencies as the calls of the NARW, which anthropogenic sounds are received by the NARW louder (188dB and 192dB respectively) than are the natural calls of the NARW, and thus are reasonably expected to “mask” them, or in common terms, drown them out. Right whales are highly dependent upon sound to maintain contact; they emit contact calls to communicate with conspecifics to keep aware of each other’s locations. Additionally, mothers and young calves must maintain close proximity in order for the calf to nurse and for the mother to be able to protect her calf by placing herself between her calf and predators, and NARW uses contact calls to do this.”
“It is important to understand that the decibel scale is a logarithmic one. So, as is the case here (example above taken from actual developer’s plans), sound emissions with a dB level that is 25 to 35 dB higher than the whale’s call have a loudness level of about six to ten times the whale call’s loudness.”
In short, even the evergreen Boston Globe had to admit that the potential for offshore wind development harming whales is significant. Moreover NOAA has clearly been warned about this threat.
The CFACT et al lawsuit is simply calling for this risk to be properly evaluated by NOAA for North Atlantic Right Whales as required by the Endangered Species Act. This is a risk that NOAA has carefully ignored in the headlong rush to needlessly industrialize the ocean with thousands of enormous wind towers.
“It is entirely possible that the total costs to build, maintain and replace units every 20+ years (at end of service) would be prohibitive compared to other sources of energy. Beyond these cost considerations, sources indicate that the turbine blades cannot be recycled and are piling up in landfills. Fossil fuels will also still be needed to maintain the lubrication of these units, and what about potential for spillage?” (Jeff Wyles, below)
The old joke comes to mind: Q: When is an environmentalist not an environmentalist? A: When it comes to wind power.
Make that double for offshore wind, and wild-eyed California politicians are having trouble hiding the problems. Consider a recent op-ed, Rethink Floating Wind Turbine Power Off Our California Coastline?,” an environmental feature of California newspaper MendoFever (February 12, 2024). Jeff Wyles (Ph.D.: Biology) wrote:
On January 24, 2024, Democrat Congressman Jared Huffman gave a speech in Humboldt County applauding the securing of $426 million federal grant dollars [U.S. Department of Transportation] for the establishment of floating wind farming turbines off the Humboldt County coastline. Local leaders, commissions, private and public businesses, and the indigenous community seemed to be onboard.
And, indeed there appears to be millions of dollars allocated to pacify any criticisms of the development. Foremost among these approvals are claims that the project will generate thousands of jobs for the region. Additional monies would also be earmarked for build out of new recreational facilities along the coastline.
Similar, even larger, offshore wind power projects are in the works for Morro Bay and the Diablo Canyon areas further down the California coast.
So what does this mean? Wyles continues:
Does this mean that our precious Mendocino coast will also soon be considered for this type of offshore wind power development by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) that licenses the leasing of these ocean areas for such projects? And, if so, shouldn’t we question why counties in similar wind power grant affected zones in Oregon are getting significant pushback from the public?
The dissent has been so much in Brookings, Gold Beach and Coos Bay, Oregon, that these projects have at least been temporarily cancelled due to public discontent and mistrust of the projects. Specifically, Monica Samayoa in the Oregon Capital Chronicle (January 4, 2024) reports that the county commissioners of Coos, Curry and Douglas counties have all passed proclamations against these offshore wind turbines. Albeit true that we all want cleaner air and more efficient and less polluting sources of electrical generation for an expanding population, but is it worth the cost to our environment and local economies?
To witness, all abalone harvesting off of our California coast has recently been prohibited indefinitely. The fragile balance between the abalone, sea urchins, star fish, kelp beds, and fisheries is well documented. Currently the resource is so damaged that it may take years to recover. That said, the government just awarded upwards of $60 million dollars this past year to rehab the salmon habitat to restore that resource.
Even though that sounds like a lot of money, is it even enough to save the stream habitat statewide and improve it such that it will be commercially viable long-term here in California? Once vibrant fishing streams like the Klamath River in Northern California are seriously in danger of total salmon depletion and extinction. Local efforts like the fish weirs on Caspar Creek are helpful, but is enough being done to increase the number fingerlings that make it back out to the ocean? Commercial fishing operations by foreign countries with processing plants in situ just over the border in international waters also must be having a negative impact on the natural resource.
Now, when floating wind powered turbines are thrown into the mix, what is the potential harm of these developments on our oceans? Proponents of wind power argue that it will help combat global climate change. Maybe at some level this is true, but what about the local weather changes when these wind turbines alter the normal wind cycles, usual wind directions, and intensities along our coastlines? Another significant factor is the upwelling of nutrients and a myriad of organisms from the ocean floor caused by the action of these wind turbines.
Baleen whales, porpoises, dolphins, and millions of birds and fish species and other marine life are dependent upon these resources to maintain healthy ecosystems. When you disrupt those natural processes and equations, the balance of nature is destroyed and efforts to get it back to equilibrium and normality may be difficult if not impossible. Few studies have been adequately done to assess the overall biological impacts of these wind turbine technologies on marine biology and specifically ocean biomes and ecosystems.
Instead, these grants, which are part of the recently approved federal infrastructure bill, are advertised as engineering marvels of “clean electricity” at supposedly cheap prices that will make everyone happy and not harm the environment. Internet resources in places like Wyoming claim that only 214,000-368,000 birds are annually killed by wind powered turbines. However, these inland studies were done on songbirds and passerines. What about areas here along the Mendocino coast where we also have many pelagic species of birds and are a major part of the Pacific Flyway? Pelicans, geese, cormorants, seagulls, puffins, common murres, bald eagles, and a host of shore bird species are vulnerable to being ultimately killed by these turbines.
Marine mammals are also sensitive and negatively impacted by them. Particularly along our coastline Gray and Humpback whale migrations are at risk whether these wind turbines are located here or further up or down the Pacific coastline. Thousands of tourists come to our area every year and these natural resources are a boost to our local economy.
East coast fishermen recently have been battling the establishment of wind powered generators along their coastline. Many claim that these wind turbines will effectively ruin the oceanic fisheries along the east coast of the United States. Environmentalists have also argued that multiple deaths by beaching of cetaceans may be due to sounds emanating from construction sites of permanent wind turbine installations.
Others have debunked that idea, but who actually knows the truth? Here on the West coast, the Coos Bay fishermen are dependent upon the crab and shrimp harvests, and they are saying that the floating wind turbines which would be situated in their fishing grounds would make it virtually impossible for them to continue a successful fisheries industry. The original offshore licensing area for these developments in Oregon comprised over 1,000,000 acres, but has been pared down currently to 200,000 acres.
Who knows what the BOEM will eventually do in light of the Oregon county commissioner proclamations against it. Perhaps it will end up in court as a conflict between the federal government and state’s rights.
Then Wyles gets to cost, the economics of the offshore version of what onshore is uneconomic. He asks some other hard questions too.
Finally, one wonders about the cost/benefit ratio of establishing these proposed wind turbines off the coast of California, Oregon and Washington. From the internet it appears that the typical wind turbine is 2-3 Megawatts (MW) and costs about $2-4 million dollars each to construct. One might also ask where are these turbines made? Many of the components are manufactured undoubtedly in China and the Humboldt County operation appears to also have at least an engineering and analytical component from Norway. Maybe we need to know how many of these wind turbines would be made right here in the USA and create jobs for our own people. Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs range from about $42,000-$48,000 each as of a few years ago.
Available data on the internet suggests that one of these MW wind turbine units can power about 940 homes for a month. But, since these turbines are wind determinant, they are not running continuously and when wind speeds get too high, they must also be turned off to prevent damage to the generators. Our coastline is also subject to tsunamis and king tides, so how many of these turbines will become damaged or destroyed and have to be taken out of service?
Additionally, internet sources suggest that PG&E estimates are $1billion to $4.5 billion to connect the electrical generation from these turbines to the grid. Presumably that would be to inland connections in Humboldt County or by cabling along the ocean floor to hubs in the proposed Morro Bay and Diablo Canyon. Sources also say that large commercial battery storage of this generated energy along the coast is not yet technologically advanced enough to be a feasible alternative.
One also must question the ultimate expanse of such an infrastructure rollout. Currently, it appears that as few as 100 units in the Humboldt district and another 300-400 in the Morro Bay Diablo Canyon areas are estimated to be installed. That said, my preliminary ballpark calculations (with a continuous high level of efficiency of the turbine units) could only provide a range of 0.7% to 3.0% of the needs of California households (under the current grants) and that would exclude any commercial usage.
And, not mentioned, what will the eventual actual cost be per kilowatt hour for this source of electricity passed on to consumers? It is entirely possible that the total costs to build, maintain and replace units every 20+ years (at end of service) would be prohibitive compared to other sources of energy. Beyond these cost considerations, sources indicate that the turbine blades cannot be recycled and are piling up in landfills. Fossil fuels will also still be needed to maintain the lubrication of these units, and what about potential for spillage?
Jeff Wyles’s modest conclusion:
Maybe it is time for our Mendocino County Board of Supervisors, our local commissioners, indigenous leaders and the Noyo Center for Marine Science to take up this issue and take a stand (one way or another) on this topic.
These days, the CET is under the control of the politicised Met Office, keen to catastrophise weather and climate in the interest of promoting Net Zero. Recent revisions have retrospectively cooled the near past and boosted readings from the last 20 years.
In Climate: The Movie, William Happer, the former physics professor at Princeton, describes the Central England Temperature (CET) record as a “world treasure” since it provides continuous recordings from 1659 – over 350 years. It shows a rise just over 1°C from the depths of the Little Ice Age to the present day. These days, the CET is under the control of the politicised Met Office, keen to catastrophise weather and climate in the interest of promoting Net Zero. Recent revisions have retrospectively cooled the near past and boosted readings from the last 20 years. In addition, the Daily Sceptic can reveal that two of the three measuring stations currently used to add to this scientific treasure are taken from near-junk class 4 sites that come with official ‘uncertainties’ of up to 2°C.
Class 4 site Pershore College was added in 2006 and joined Stonyhurst, also class 4. The other site Rothamsted is a pristine class 1 site and is deemed to provide an accurate reading of the surrounding air temperature away from natural and artificial heat corruptions. Classification and ‘uncertainties’ by class are set by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). Quite why the Met Office can’t find three class 1 sites in the whole central England area is a bit of a mystery, although a clue might be provided by the recent freedom of information request the Daily Sceptic made to the organisation. We discovered that nearly eight out of 10 Met Office measuring stations across the United Kingdom were sited in near-junk class 4 and junk class 5. The latter class comes with WMO prescribed ‘uncertainties’ up to 5°C. Class 1 sites number just 24 and make up only 6.3% of the total.
At the very least, given the scientific importance of the CET, the Met Office could at least move the stations to more suitable nearby locations away from the disqualifying heat corruptions.
But if adding near-junk figures to the collection is not bad enough, the investigative science writer Paul Homewood last year discovered considerable tampering in 2022 with the recent CET record. He initially found that in version one, the summer of 1995 had been 0.1°C warmer than 2018. In version 2, the two years swapped places with 1995 cooled by 0.07°C and 2018 warmed by 0.13°C. Alerted to these changes, Homewood then analysed the full record from version 1 to 2, and the graph below shows what he found.
As can be seen, the adjustments up to 1970 are small with ups and downs offsetting each other. Homewood then found that the years from 1970 to 2003 had been cooled markedly, followed by significant rises to 2022. Homewood concludes that “unfortunately it is part of a much wider tampering with temperature globally – and the tampering is always one way, cooling the past and heating the present”. Given that we now know that the Met Office has been using class 4 statistics for two thirds of its database since 2006, the recent higher adjustments would seem to call for clarifying explanations from the state-funded Met Office.
But explanations from the Met Office are thin on the ground. It continues to promote a 60 second spike to 40.3°C at RAF Coningsby at 3.12pm on July 19 in 2022 as a U.K. temperature record, despite the known presence of three typhoon jets attempting to land around the same time. The record has become a national joke, even more so after the Daily Sceptic revealed that Coningsby is a class 3 site with an ‘uncertainty’ of 1°C. All that can be said is that at least Coningsby replaced the previous class 5 record set at Cambridge Botanic Gardens in 2019.
Last month, the Daily Sceptic analysed all the heat records declared by the Met Office since 2000 and found that all bar two should be disqualified. Many of them had been set in junk class 5 and most of the rest were in class 4. Using its highly compromised data with massive ‘uncertainties’ rife throughout the database, the Met Office publicises precision down to one hundredth of a degree, declaring, for instance, that last year was only 0.06°C cooler than the ‘record’ year of 2022. Paul Homewood suggests that if the Met Office wants to continue using its existing station measurements, it should show a warning that the margin of error is so great, “that they have no statistical significance at all”.
The Met Office refuses to return all calls from the Daily Sceptic. We would be more than happy to report any explanations it might have, and discuss its work, if required, in public. Alas, to date, communication has been brief and, frankly, a bit childish. Last December, we reported on a Met Office proposal to ditch a 30-year temperature trend in favour of a Net Zero-supporting merger of 10 years’ past data with 10 years’ future model predictions. Thus, it would be easier to spot when the 1.5°C threshold was crossed, it was argued. Noting that we had taken three weeks to report the plan, Professor Richard Betts, lead author and head of climate impacts, tweeted: “I suppose our paper does use big words like ‘temperature’ so maybe they had to get a grown-up to help”.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
In brief, the New York State Energy Research and Development Agency (NYSERDA) are hiring a public relations outfit, using $500,000 per year of public money, to “maintain a positive narrative” and “respond to negative viewpoints” about the state’s Climate Act. This article shows the likely result of that effort – NYSERDA’s Think You Know Solar – Take the Solar Quiz.
I recently covered an article by Ken Girardin who broke the story of New York’s latest attempt to shore up public support for the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act). In brief, the New York State Energy Research and Development Agency (NYSERDA) are hiring a public relations outfit, using $500,000 per year of public money, to “maintain a positive narrative” and “respond to negative viewpoints” about the state’s Climate Act. This article shows the likely result of that effort – NYSERDA’s Think You Know Solar – Take the Solar Quiz.
I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 400 articles about New York’s net-zero transition. I have devoted a page to solar issues that describes my concerns with solar development in New York. The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.
The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050. Despite the enormous impacts to energy affordability, threats to electric system reliability, and mandates affecting personal energy choices I believe many New Yorkers are unaware of the law. In 2023 transition recommendations were supposed to be implemented through regulation, Public Service Commission orders, and legislation. Not surprisingly, the aspirational schedule of the Climate Act has proven to be more difficult to implement than planned.
Solar Quiz
On March 21, 2024 I received an email announcing the Solar Quiz. This link is the web view version. In the rest of this section, I respond to its contents.
The quiz opens with the obligatory picture of roof-mounted solar panels.
The cheerful opening introductory paragraph leads off with the narrative: “free and abundant light” gives us electricity” from this “incredible clean energy technology”.
You may already know that solar panels convert the sun’s free and abundant light into electricity. Pretty great, right?
So, we thought we’d give you a quick quiz to test your solar smarts. Let’s see how much you really know about this incredible clean energy technology.
Sunlight may be a “free” energy source but there are costs to collect and use that energy. That detail must be in the next quiz which will come out when the geothermal energy source from Hell freezes over.
The entire Climate Act legislation and narrative is characterized by black and white cartoon descriptions. Consider the first quiz question:
Q: Do solar panels work on cloudy days?
A: Yes!
Because the panels collect light, they still function on cloudy days even though efficiency is somewhat reduced.
“Somewhat reduced”? A negligible amount or a lot? Let’s take a look at the potential range.
Their illustration:
My illustrations of today’s views from the NYS Mesonet Buffalo meteorological station. This site is notable because it is surrounded by solar panels. I am not sure how much that affects whether the meteorological data collected are representative but it does let us address the question of solar variability on this worst case condition – cloudy and snow covered.
Buffalo March 23, 2024 14:15:28 UTC or 10:15:28 EDT
Buffalo March 23, 2024 17:20:27 UTC or 13:20:27 EDT
Here is a graph of the temperature (red, orange), dew point temperature (green), and solar insolation (yellow) over the last seven days ending 23 March 2024 at 16Z or Noon EDT. Regrettably the parameter of interest is in yellow.
Note that solar insolation is 170 watts per meter squared (W/m2) at 10:15 EDT in the first picture and 420 W/m2 at 13:20 EDT the time of the second picture. Reasons for the difference include the tine of day because the second picture is closer to solar noon and the clouds are darker which could mean they are thicker in the first picture. It would be interesting to see the effect of the snow on the panels if data from that solar facility could be obtained.
To guess the effect of clouds I looked at the last seven days of data from the same site. I have put arrows on the peak solar insolation for the last six days. Presumably there were three days without clouds because the solar insolation exceeded 800 W/m2. There were two days when the peak insolation was around 500 W/m2, one day when the peak was no more than 350 W/m2, and on the most recent day it appears that the data from the daily graph peaks a little over 400 W/m2. I guess the point is that even on a cloudy day solar power is “Somewhat reduced” to half and does not go to zero. I am sure that some power would be generated even when the panels are covered by snow but the reduction sure is more than “somewhat” reduced, closer to nearly zero is my guess.
Of course, solar is zero at night. Not to worry the solar quiz addresses this.
Q: If I have solar panels, will my house still have energy at night?
A: Yes.
Solar-powered homes collect excess energy and pass it to the grid for future use, and if you don’t have excess energy stored you pull energy from the grid at any time, like when it’s dark. Another option for night-time energy use is on-site battery storage, which collects excess energy and saves it for when it’s needed.
This is egregious misinformation. The electric system instantaneously balances load and generation. Any excess energy passed to the grid has to be used at that time or stored. In my opinion the worst subsidy for residential solar is the unacknowledged cost to provide grid energy when the sun does not shine. Somebody else is paying for the infrastructure (storage or alternative sources) necessary so that solar-equipped residences can “pull energy from the grid at any time”. Inevitably the “net-metering” rules will have to be changed so this subsidy is reduced or eliminated. The mention of on-site battery storage is a start, but the reality is that the largest reliability cost is associated with extreme conditions and providing enough solar panels and energy storage to start to address that problem is uneconomic for an individual. If this was not the case, then folks would be going off the grid entirely.
The next question has no interest to me:
Q: When was the first solar panel installed?
A: In 1883, by American inventor Charles Fritts in Manhattan.
Solar energy (the photovoltaic effect) was discovered in 1839 by Edmond Becquerel, a French physicist who studied light.
The next question is relevant. Consistent with the rest of the quiz the answer provides no nuances or specific information.
Q: How long do solar panels last?
A: About 25 years
The efficiency of solar panels decreases over time. However, a lot of factors contribute to lifespan, such as weather, installation, maintenance, and quality.
The narrative answer is that “most residential solar panels should operate for 25 years before degradation (or reduced energy production) is noticeable.” The National Renewable Energy Laboratory notes that “the rate of degradation is typically around 0.5% to 0.8 % per year but varies among different types and brands of solar panels.” If I define “noticeable” degradation as a 10% loss of efficiency, then at 0.5% per year the degradation is noticeable at 23 years and at 0.8% per year the degradation is noticeable at 15 years.
The next quiz question addresses solar panel land use.
Q: What is it called when land is used for both solar panels and agriculture?
A: Agrivoltaics
In some places, farmers are experimenting with grazing livestock (solar grazing), growing native grasses, and even fruits and vegetables around solar panel installations.
Sounds great. Note that they did not talk about agrivoltaics in New York. There is a reason. The State has set up the New York State Agricultural Technical Working Group to address this in New York but there has been no progress mandating this approach. As I will explain in the following discussion, I am unimpressed with that effort.
The last question in the quiz manages to get in a bit of bragging.
Q: Which U.S. state is the top community solar market in the country?
A: New York!
As of December 2023, more than two gigawatts of community solar have been installed in New York – enough to power nearly 400,000 homes.
Of course the point that they can power 400,000 homes only when the sun is shining is unmentioned.
New York’s Disgraceful Solar Implementation Record
So much for the quiz. How is New York’s solar implementation policy going?
I believe that the development of solar resources is considered above all other concerns which will not end well. I submitted comments on the Draft Scoping Plan two years ago calling for a moratorium of utility-scale solar development because the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (Ag & Market) policies on solar energy projects that protect prime farmland were being ignored and programs designed to protect prime farmland and reduce impacts were being developed but not implemented. Two years later the policies are still being developed and I estimate that 20 projects have permits to construct and only seven meet the Ag & Markets policy.
In their comments for solar project applications the Department of Ag and Markets prepared testimony has noted that “The Department’s goal is for projects to limit the conversion of agricultural areas within the Project Areas, to no more than 10% of soils classified by the Department’s NYS Agricultural Land Classification mineral soil groups 1-4, generally Prime Farmland soils, which represent the State’s most productive farmland.” The lack of a responsible solar implementation policy has meant that of the 20 projects with applications only seven meet this criterion as shown in my Solar Project Scorecard. These results show that it is possible to protect prime farmland, but that New York State has failed to mandate that all projects meet the reqirement. As far as I can tell, there are no provisions in any of the permitting requirements that mandate farmland protections consistent with Department of Ag & Markets recommendations.
If there are no specific requirements for protecting farmland then what about other mitigation strategies. One responsible solar siting mitigation strategy would be to combine agriculture and solar land use – agrivoltaics. Last October, the report Growing Agrivoltaics in New York was released.
The report outlines the results of a limited literature review to advance understanding of opportunities for agrivoltaics by reviewing New York State’s current agricultural landscape; the current situation of agrivoltaics pilots and programs; and solar design considerations related to integration of agricultural activities and solar power generation. In aggregation with additional State efforts to understand land-use implications of large-scale solar (LSS) development, results inform potential future actions to provide education on best practices for implementation of agrivoltaics projects in New York State.
The report provides good background information. It includes a good description of the permitting process. It mentions the New York State Farmland Protection Working Group which was formed in 2021 “to consider and recommend strategies to the State on the siting process of major renewable energy facilities and to minimize the impact of siting on productive agricultural soils on working farms”. It also notes that additional agrivoltaic research has been proposed. They managed to come up with a definition:
A simultaneous use of land for solar photovoltaic power generation and agricultural production of “crops, livestock, and livestock products” as that phrase is defined by Agriculture & Markets Law (AML) §301(2).
I am unimpressed because the report is long on research recommendations and short of any sign of urgency to implement anything.
The fact is that the drive to install as much as possible as quickly as possible is affecting agricultural lands across the state and local communities. One of the readers of my blog, Lenny Prezorski from the Cold Spring Farm in Schoharie County recently wrote me a note. The following is a lightly edited version.
Schoharie County like much of rural NY, is losing prime farmland to solar development. One project is under construction and another is seeking approval from ORES.
Last week our state and local officials held a news conference at the Salisbury dairy farm which adjoins the NextEra East Point solar project in the Town of Sharon. A number of impacts were discussed. This news article details those concerns. For example, the highway superintendent has been fighting with solar contractors since the project started. His efforts to correct the damage to town roads have fallen on deaf ears in Albany. Despite the claims from the developer, they continue to do as they may with no oversight.
On the same day as the news conference our local newspaper ran an article noting that the property for the project was up for sale. The article notes that the parcel has “1,100 acres on a working, income-producing farm, with a log cabin home, and “seeping vista views” stunning views of both the Mohawk Valley and Catskill Mountains.” However, There’s just one catch:
Three hundred thirty five of those acres, across eight parcels, are covered in solar panels as part of NextEra Energy’s 50-MW project mostly off Route 20 and Gilbert’s Corners Road, but also Pomella, Beech and Sakon Roads.
Coldwell Banker is listing the site at 485 Gilberts Corner Road for $15,350,000; the listing went up February 20.
The site, according to the description “is one of the largest working solar farms in all of New York State, secured by a 25-year lease with guaranteed lease payments totaling in excess of $20 million.
“This property portfolio consists of over 1,000 acres of farmland and solar arrays on eight separate tax parcels—including a working farm with barns and residences.
“The largest portion on this income-producing portfolio is from the 25-year lease on the solar panels, covering 355 acres.
Prezorski continues:
How deep are the pockets that these projects can be sold, I assume at a profit, before they are complete? I understand that Rock District Solar in the Town of Carlisle has been sold 2 or 3 times and it hasn’t even received approval.
It is too late for the Town of Sharon but it hopefully isn’t too late for the proposal in Carlisle.
Prezorski describes problems with the accelerated permitting process.
Rock District attempted to get local approval from the Carlisle Planning Board. During the public comment period I submitted a detailed report which exposed errors and omissions in the Environmental Assessment Form. Once appraised of these facts they immediately withdrew their application from the town and submitted it to Office of Renewable Energy Siting. I’ve prepared a report which primarily focuses on the loss the prime farmland and potential impact to groundwater resources in our karst landscape.
The EAF located the project in the wrong watershed. It neglected to document that runoff from the site flows directly into a sinkhole which feeds the longest cave system in NYS. The application submitted to ORES contains the same erroneous data. How do we ensure that NYS follows their own laws? This is the question I posed to our local leaders and to you too.
Unfortunately, I do not have any answer for the question how do we get the state to follow our own laws.
Concluding Remarks
The Think You Know Solar – Take the Solar Quiz is an example of mis-misplaced priorities of the Hochul Administration. The cute little public relations quiz demonstrably misinforms the public. Sunlight may be a “free” energy source but the costs to collect and use that energy are ignored. While it is encouraging that solar panels can generate electricity even on cloudy days the implications of reduced output are not addressed. Claiming that solar panels last for 25 years ignores that they are also expected to generate 10% less power in a shorter period. Finally, the answer to the question “will my house still have energy at night?” displays a lack of understanding of how the electric system works and downplays the enormous challenge and costs to provide that energy that are not covered by residential solar owners.
Meanwhile, back in reality the article describing the local stakeholder concerns with the state’s control over solar farm projects describes what is happening away from Albany. As noted previously, the developers are affecting roads and not fixing damage. The state is over-riding local code enforcement and safety issues are evident. In order to expedite renewable development, the State has implemented new permitting requirements that over-ride landowner rights and local government control.
I believe that this situation has led to a disgraceful solar siting process. Despite assurances prime farmland is not being protected. Proponents of “responsible solar siting” that includes things like agrivoltaics are long on talk and promises of more research but short on urgency to do anything to implement something. Prezorski explained that the expedited permitting process is enabling errors that could have significant consequences. Finally, the state has no requirements that the solar developments are constructed to meet the Scoping Plan performance expectations. As a result, even more solar development will be required to meet the generation and capacity requirements.
No amount of public relations investment to spin stories to be consistent with the Hochul Administration narrative are going to be able to hide the reality of the disgraceful utility-scale solar siting policies. Those policies are going to cause much more harm than acknowledged by the State.
The L A Times has been falsely hyping in numerous recent articles that the year 2023/2024 December through February California rainy season outcome is “supercharged” and “wild” based upon use of climate alarmism hyperbole that conceals extensive NOAA climate science precipitation data that clearly proves California’s most recent rainy season is in fact completely normal based on detailed and readily available NOAA rainfall records going back to year 1895.
Guest essay by Larry Hamlin – originally posted at WUWT.
The L A Times has been falsely hyping in numerous recent articles that the year 2023/2024 December through February California rainy season outcome is “supercharged” and “wild” based upon use of climate alarmism hyperbole that conceals extensive NOAA climate science precipitation data that clearly proves California’s most recent rainy season is in fact completely normal based on detailed and readily available NOAA rainfall records going back to year 1895.
These recent Times rainfall climate alarmist hyperbole articles are shown below and found here, here, here and here.
These L A Times articles provide absolutely no presentation of readily available, detailed, and extensive NOAA climate science precipitation data that addresses measured rainfall levels for the state of California, all 58 California County regions and numerous California City regions over the period from 1895 through February 2024.
This NOAA measured rainfall data concealed by the L A Times provides a clear climate science measured data record that establishes that the states rainy season between December 2023 through February 2024 is completely normal (unlike the climate alarmist hyperbole reflected in the Times recent articles noted above) based on comparisons to prior historical rainfall records for the state, the states 58 counties and numerous state cities including both Los Angeles and San Diego.
Shown below are NOAA precipitation records for the state of California for the rainfall period inclusive of December through February for the years 1895 through February 2024 which show the most recent December 2023 through February 2024 rainfall is unremarkable and well below prior year rainfall records experienced during this 3 month period as documented by NOAA’s more than century long California rainfall measurement database.
The most recent state rainfall period in California for the months from December 2023 through February 2024 totals 14.38 inches of rainfall which is only the 1,458 highest experienced rainfall during this most recent 3-month period out of the highest 1,548 measured 3-month periods between 1895 and 2024.
The highest ever recorded California rainfall over the period between December and February was 23.26 inches from December 1968 through February 1969 which is 162% greater than occurred between December 2023 and February 2024.
Shown below are the NOAA precipitation records for the County of Los Angeles for the rainfall period inclusive of December through February for the years 1895 through February 2024 which show the most recent December 2023 through February 2024 is unremarkable and well below prior year rainfall records experienced during this 3 month period.
The most recent state rainfall period for the County of Los Angeles for the months from December 2023 through February 2024 totals 15.12 inches of rainfall which is only the 1,491 highest experienced rainfall during this most recent 3-month period out of the highest 1,548 measured 3-month periods between 1895 and 2024.
The highest ever recorded Los Angeles County rainfall over the period between December and February was 27.43 inches from December 1992 through February 1993 which is 181% greater than occurred between December 2023 and February 2024.
Shown below are the NOAA precipitation records for the County of San Diego for the rainfall period inclusive of December through February for the years 1895 through February 2024 which show the most recent December 2023 through February 2024 is unremarkable and well below prior year rainfall records experienced during this 3 month period.
The most recent state rainfall period for the County of San Diego for the months from December 2023 through February 2024 totals 9.39 inches of rainfall which is only the 1,426 highest experienced rainfall during this most recent period out of the highest 1,548 measured 3-month periods between 1895 and 2024.
The highest ever recorded San Diego County rainfall over the period between December and February was 21.91 inches from December 1992 through February 1993 which is 2.3 times greater than occurred between December 2023 and February 2024.
Shown below are the NOAA precipitation records for the County of Ventura for the rainfall period inclusive of December through February for the years 1895 through February 2024 which show the most recent December 2023 through February 2024 is unremarkable and well below prior year rainfall records experienced during this 3 month period.
The most recent state rainfall period for the County of Ventura for the months from December 2023 through February 2024 totals 21.80 inches of rainfall which is only the 1,504 highest experienced rainfall during this most recent period out of the highest 1,548 measured 3-month periods between 1895 and 2024.
The highest ever recorded Ventura County rainfall over the period between December and February was 34.18 inches from December 1997 through February 1998 which is 157% greater than occurred between December 2023 and February 2024.
In fact, the NOAA rainfall data for all 58 Counties for California establishes that these counties experienced rainfall levels in the period between December 2023 and February 2024 that were far below prior NOAA measured highest rainfall values for this 3-month period that occurred between 1895 and 2024.
Shown below are the NOAA precipitation records for the City of Los Angeles for the rainfall period inclusive of December through February for the years 1944 through February 2024 which show the most recent December 2023 through February 2024 is unremarkable and well below prior year rainfall records experienced during this 3 month period.
The most recent state rainfall period for the City of Los Angeles for the months from December 2023 through February 2024 totals 15.55 inches of rainfall which is only the 940 highest experienced rainfall during this most recent period out of the highest 953 measured 3-month periods between 1944 and 2024.
The highest ever recorded City of Los Angeles rainfall over the period between December and February was 21.44 inches from December 1997 through February 1998 which is 138% greater than occurred between December 2023 and February 2024.
Shown below are the NOAA precipitation records for the City of San Diego for the rainfall period inclusive of December through February for the years 1939 through February 2024 which show the most recent December 2023 through February 2024 is unremarkable and well below prior year rainfall records experienced during this 3 month period.
The most recent state rainfall period for the City of San Diego for the months from December 2023 through February 2024 totals 9.03 inches of rainfall which is only the 976 highest experienced rainfall during this most recent period out of the highest 1014 measured 3-month periods between 1939 and 2024.
The highest ever recorded City of San Diego rainfall over the period between December and February was 16.37 inches from December 1992 through February 1993 which is 181% greater than occurred between December 2023 and February 2024.
The L A Times seems completely incapable of evaluating NOAA climate science data driven analysis concerning climate outcomes as demonstrated by the recent articles noted above which grossly misrepresent the outcomes of the 2023/2024 rainfall season in California, which based on detailed NOAA measured rainfall data, is a completely normal rainfall season and clearly not a “supercharged” and “wild” rainy season as falsely hyped by the climate alarmist propaganda presented in the L A Times recent articles.
The Times substitutes climate alarmism hyperbole dealing with peripheral topics concerning the rainy season outcome while never actually addressing NOAA’s extensive and highly detailed rainfall data outcomes that clearly establish the normal rainfall levels occurring in California this rainy season.
The Times claims of “supercharged” and “wild” rainfall between December 2023 through February 2024 in California are pathetic and a clear demonstration of the climate science incompetence represented by climate alarmist and climate alarmism propaganda.
The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2024 was +0.95 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, up slightly from the February, 2024 anomaly of +0.93 deg. C, and setting a new high monthly anomaly record for the 1979-2024 satellite period.
The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2024 was +0.95 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, up slightly from the February, 2024 anomaly of +0.93 deg. C, and setting a new high monthly anomaly record for the 1979-2024 satellite period.
New high temperature records were also set for the Southern Hemisphere (+0.88 deg. C, exceeding +0.86 deg. C in September, 2023) and the tropics (+1.34 deg. C, exceeding +1.27 deg. C in January, 2024). We are likely seeing the last of the El Nino excess warmth of the upper tropical ocean being transferred to the troposphere.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.15 C/decade (+0.13 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.20 C/decade over global-averaged land).
The following table lists various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 14 months (record highs are in red):
YEAR
MO
GLOBE
NHEM.
SHEM.
TROPIC
USA48
ARCTIC
AUST
2023
Jan
-0.04
+0.05
-0.13
-0.38
+0.12
-0.12
-0.50
2023
Feb
+0.09
+0.17
+0.00
-0.10
+0.68
-0.24
-0.11
2023
Mar
+0.20
+0.24
+0.17
-0.13
-1.43
+0.17
+0.40
2023
Apr
+0.18
+0.11
+0.26
-0.03
-0.37
+0.53
+0.21
2023
May
+0.37
+0.30
+0.44
+0.40
+0.57
+0.66
-0.09
2023
June
+0.38
+0.47
+0.29
+0.55
-0.35
+0.45
+0.07
2023
July
+0.64
+0.73
+0.56
+0.88
+0.53
+0.91
+1.44
2023
Aug
+0.70
+0.88
+0.51
+0.86
+0.94
+1.54
+1.25
2023
Sep
+0.90
+0.94
+0.86
+0.93
+0.40
+1.13
+1.17
2023
Oct
+0.93
+1.02
+0.83
+1.00
+0.99
+0.92
+0.63
2023
Nov
+0.91
+1.01
+0.82
+1.03
+0.65
+1.16
+0.42
2023
Dec
+0.83
+0.93
+0.73
+1.08
+1.26
+0.26
+0.85
2024
Jan
+0.86
+1.06
+0.66
+1.27
-0.05
+0.40
+1.18
2024
Feb
+0.93
+1.03
+0.83
+1.24
+1.36
+0.88
+1.07
2024
Mar
+0.95
+1.02
+0.88
+1.34
+0.23
+1.10
+1.29
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for March, 2024, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days:
A total solar eclipse affords us the opportunity to measure the response of the atmosphere to a known forcing that is very different from the day-to-day hemispheric heating from sunlight superimposed on gradual seasonal changes.
[This post IS NOT an April Fool’s joke as was the previous]
by Guillermo Gonzalez
Since the 19th century scientists have made meteorological measurements during solar eclipses (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2015.0217). A total solar eclipse affords us the opportunity to measure the response of the atmosphere to a known forcing that is very different from the day-to-day hemispheric heating from sunlight superimposed on gradual seasonal changes. I made my own very small contribution to this topic during the October 24, 1995 solar eclipse in India (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997KodOB..13..151G/abstract).
One phenomenon that deserves further study is surface pressure fluctuations produced during a solar eclipse. These have been interpreted as gravity waves. They have been measured at several eclipses, though attempts are not always successful and quantitative results vary.
There are a couple reasons published studies of eclipse gravity pressure waves have often had inconclusive results. First, usually only a few instruments have been deployed along the eclipse track. Second, local meteorological changes unrelated to the eclipse (such as a passing front or atmospheric tides) have masked the eclipse waves.
This deficiency can be overcome by deploying many instruments along the path of totality. Sounds like an expensive experiment. It can be done very cheaply with modern technology. Many phones have built-in pressure sensors. They also have built-in GPS sensors, providing accurate locations and times. Phones have multiple additional sensors, making them handy portable scientific data loggers.
My purpose in writing this short post is to encourage as many people as possible to use their phones to gather data during the April 8 solar eclipse with multiple sensors.
2 – Download the Sensor Logger phone app. Then, scan the following QR code with your phone camera and follow the directions:
On April 8 you should be within or near the path of totality to participate in the experiment, but measurements might still be useful even if you’re hundreds of miles from it. Place your phone face up somewhere outside where it will be undisturbed for at least several hours. It should be fully charged at the start of the experiment or plugged into a power source. Start recording data about 3 hours before the predicted time of mid-eclipse at your location and end your recording 4 or 5 hours later. NOTE: your location will be recorded along with light level, magnetometer, sound level, and barometric pressure. If you have the opportunity, also record data 24 hours before and/or after. Your data will be stored by the app on the cloud.
I will collect the data from the cloud and analyze it. Hopefully, I will publish the results in a scientific paper some months later.
Bio: Guillermo Gonzalez is an astronomer who lives in northern Alabama and works for Tellus1 Scientific, LLC. He obtained his Ph.D. in astronomy in 1993 at the University of Washington. He has published over 90 research papers in astronomy and astrophysics journals.
You must be logged in to post a comment.