You are currently browsing the daily archive for November 21st, 2007.
2007-10-30
Timo Niroma’s Helsinki temperature analysis can teach a lesson
“Those who understand too little about climate, will be punished by life”[1] was a lesson two very bad guys experienced back in World War II. This thesis is not too difficult to prove with regard to the reckless Soviet Union in winter 1939/40, and Nazi-Germany in winter 1941/42. Their climatic skill was too insufficient to avoid a disaster. One lost more than hundred thousand soldiers the other lost the war.
We have chosen the Finish Capital Helsinki to explain the made allegation, because this location represents North-East Europe up to Moscow in climatologic terms, the city has a long temperature data series since 1829, and Timo Niroma analysed them with regard to global warming and the effect of solar variability[2]. The latter aspect can be skipped without hesitation because we will focus on the winter season when sunray is less relevant and the bad guys received their lesson. In the first case the Soviet Union ambushed Finland (1939/40), in the second case Nazi-Germany tried to conquer Russia by reaching Moscow before the end of year 1941. Both war parties suddenly faced the coldest winter environment since the end of Little Ice Age. While this has all been already explained in detail elsewhere[3], we summarize Nimora’s analysis.
- After the very warm period 1934-1939, which was warmer than today or in a tie with 1999-2005, there were suddenly the amazingly cold years of 1940-1942. These war years where about 2 degrees colder than the two warm periods.
The actual temperatures of –13,7 degree in February 1940 and –15,9 in January 1942 were not broken as records from 1829 until the 1980s.- Why did the first hot period (1934/39) end up suddenly in 1939 and a super cold three years began in 1940?
The question is, why was the Red Army not prepared for fighting a polar cold winter war on Finland’s soil, which they had started on 30th November 1939, and whey did the German Army repeated the Russian mistake and were not prepared for facing extreme arctic temperatures already in December 1941 that prevented them to reach Moscow before years end as anticipated, which proofed fatal for the whole adventure?
Actually, the Red Army had planned for a short war of few weeks to be finished and won in December 1939. Instead they very soon faced unusually harsh weather conditions which already turned into Ice Age conditions around the 20 th December 1939. The NYT reporter James Aldridge was present: “The cold numbs the brain in the Arctic hell, snow sweeps over the darkened wastes, the winds howl and the temperature is 30 degrees below zero Fahrenheit”[4] (Details: Here). At this time the earlier mentioned very warm period from 1934-1940 had defiantly ended. The question again is: Why?
The unusual weather conditions commenced with WW II on 1 st September 1939 that brought huge armadas out to sea. From now on many thousand naval and other ships navigated the seas day and night. Many thousand military encounters took place day and night. The North and Baltic Sea are not used to such stress, usually serving as central heating for Northern Europe during winter releasing their summer heat only gradually. In autumn 1939 naval activities squeezed the heat out of the seas more quickly, freeing the way for polar air from the high North and Northeast. As meteorology was not aware of such link, the ambushing Russian and German Armies had not been warned to prevent activities that would turn the two seas ‘up-site-down’, at least during the early winter season. In retrospect we can only be happy that at least the German weather service was completely unaware about it than. With huge naval activities in the eastern part of the Baltic Sea during autumn 1941 Adolph Hitler sealed his and the German Army’s destiny. Fortunately. This all explained in detail in the ‘Booklet’ as presented on this site and corresponding reference, e.g. www.seaclimate.com.
In conclusion the information and analysis by Timo Niroma are most welcome, but further investigation in Northern Europe temperatures series should look more beyond data sets, and more to marine issues particularly if the sea is dramatically affected by uncommon events. During the winters 1939/40 to 1941/42 neither the sun, nor CO2 brought Arctic conditions to Europe. The North and Baltic Sea did.
Author: Arnd Bernaerts, Oct.2007
Footnotes
[1] Based on Michail Gorbatschov’s slogan: “Those who come too late, will be punished by life”
[2] Timo Niroma, (Year ?), “The Effect of Solar Variability on Climate Calculations and conclusions” Sunspots and Temperature in January and July: Helsinki temperatures for 159 years; http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/clim.htm , http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/globwarm.htm#19341992
[3] Arnd Bernaerts, “War Changes Climate”, 2005, Trafford, Canada; and other material: see the given links (right column).
[4] The New York Times, 25 December 1939. 30 degrees below zero Fahrenheit equals minus 34,4 ° Celsius
Source: http://www.1ocean-1climate.com/
It appears the UK government is not the only one busy commissioning reports on combating climate change, the German government has now got in on the act with two major new study’s on the viability of a leftfield plan that could deliver clean energy to the whole of Europe within the next forty years.
The two reports from the German Aerospace Centre – Concentrating Solar Power for the Mediterranean and Trans-Mediterranean Interconnection for Concentrating Solar Power – investigate how vast new solar farms in the deserts of North Africa could potentially solve Europe’s emerging energy crisis and help slash the continent’s carbon emissions.
Satellite-based studies cited in the report show that deploying relatively simple concentrated solar power (CSP) systems over just 0.3 percent of the deserts in the Middle East and North Africa would provide enough power to meet current and future demands from the EU, the Middle East and North Africa.
The reports also argue that the technologies to achieve this are already well established and proven. CSP plants work by using mirrors to heat water, thus generating steam capable of powering turbines and generating electricity.
The report claims CSP is considerably more effective than photovoltaic solar panels, which tend to be at the mercy of the weather, and cannot store power effectively. In contrast CSP systems can store unused heat in tanks of molten salt, which can then be used to power the turbines at night. Equally, because the system is turbine based hybrid plants can be set up so that if there is a protracted period of overcast weather – in itself unlikely in North Africa – traditional fuels can be used to heat the water and drive the turbines.
Desalinated sea water can also be produced as a byproduct of the process, providing clean water for irrigation or air conditioning purposes.
The reports argue that with vast swathes of North African desert available for the same price as a London broom cupboard the strategy is economically viable. The technology is also expected to become cheaper as producers of the mirrors used in the CSP plants begin to exploit greater economies of scale and the report estimates that the cost of using CSP plants to produce power equivalent to that gained from one barrel of oil will ultimately fall to just $20 – much less than the current $60 a barrel you pay for oil.
So if a technology that is essentially some giant mirrors and water pipes can all but halt global warming in its tracks why are solar farms not springing up across the Sahara as we speak?
Well, there is one rather large problem. Europe’s power grid is currently built on alternating current cables, which are unviable for transmitting electricity all the way from North Africa as too much would be lost on the way. As a result the plan will only work if Europe switches to a High Voltage Direct Current grid whereby only 3 percent of the power is lost per 1,000km. In theory, this means power could be transmitted all the way to the UK with just 10 percent lost along the way, but as you can imagine moving to a completely different power grid doesn’t come cheap.
The German reports estimate that establishing a suitable transmission grid capable of delivering 100GW of solar power would cost €400bn. However, spread up until 2050 this would equate to just €13bn a year and the report argues much of the amount required could be raised through commercial investment with government’s being called upon to provide just €10bn.
A scientific body called the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation has also been formed to promote and further investigate the idea and confidence is mounting that while the whole scheme sounds a bit space age it is a technically, economically and environmentally viable replacement for fossil fuels or nuclear power.
Convincing governments and energy firms to plough money into the scheme may take some doing, but as the German government’s reports show it is something they are already actively considering.
Source: http://blog.businessgreen.com/2006/12/african_solar_f.html
There is more information available at:
http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/index.htm
and at:
Carbon Trust report reveals clean energy now account for a tenth of all European venture capital investments
According to a new report from The Carbon Trust clean energy investments now accounts for a tenth of all European venture capital investments with €2bn ploughed into the sector between 2003 and 2006, putting the sector on a with the European IT, biotech and semiconductor industries in terms of venture capital investment.
The study, which was carried out by Cleantech Advisers LLC, also predicted that if growth continues at the current rate investment a further €3.5bn will be invested in clean energy firms over the next three years.
The report also found that while the US clean tech investment market remains larger, Europe boasts a more balanced mix of both renewable energy and energy efficiency focused companies.
Adam Workman of The Carbon Trust said that the focus on energy efficiency, driven in part by the upcoming European directive on the energy efficiency of electrical products, was an encouraging sign and suggested Europe was developing a specialisation around power solutions and building innovations.
He added that the diversification of venture capitalists investment portfolios coupled with the emergence of clean tech hubs such as London, Oxford, Munich, Paris and Berlin suggested that the market was maturing. “We’re now seeing experienced investors like 3i, Apax and Amadeus, developing clean energy themes,” he said. “The market is maturing.”
Peter Shortt, managing partner at CT Investment Partners LLP agreed clean tech investments had reached the mainstream. “Five years ago, clean energy was not viewed as a sector that could offer good returns for investors,” he admitted. “Today, it is a multi-billion Euro market where new technologies and business models are already exploiting the opportunities presented by the low carbon economy.”
The increase in investment should result in a surge of new green products over the next few years, according to Workman. “We estimate that you can get half way to the required 60 percent cuts in emissions through existing technologies, but we need a new wave of technologies to get the other half of savings,” he said. “The VC money should accelerate that wave of new products. If we could cut the development timelines by 50 percent that would be great, and of course that’s what the VCs want too because that is how they make their money.”
However, with investment in clean technology expected to swell by 75 percent over the next three years the report will prompt further concerns that the clean tech market is overheating and could be heading for a dotcom style crash.
Some experts have argued that certain sectors, including wind power specialists and biofuel companies, are already looking over valued and recently UK alternative fuels specialist Biofuels saw its shares plummet after it attempted to hold off bankruptcy through a debt restructuring plan.
But Workman insisted that comparisons with the dotcom crash are largely unfounded. “The market drivers behind clean tech are much more solid [than they were for dotcom companies],” he argued. “There were concerns 18 months ago that things were overheating, but now we’re seeing the emergence of the public sector market [for green technologies] and the regulations and policies that are going to take effect. The investors also have pretty reasonable portfolio now and are showing that they understand the market.”
Source: http://www.vnunet.com/business-green/news/2200075/clean-tech-investment-keeps
Recent Comments