Frances Bula header image 2

Going after the biggest contributors to greenhouse-gas emissions: buildings

March 27th, 2013 · 48 Comments

Being as that we in the media now have such restricted access to city staff in Vancouver, who used to be free to tell us about interesting things they were up to that we should keep an eye on, I have now started trying to scrounge news about the city from BCBid.

This was one of my recent finds.

FRANCES BULA

Published Monday, Mar. 25, 2013 09:24PM EDT

Last updated Tuesday, Mar. 26, 2013 12:20PM EDT

They’re worse than cars, buses and trucks for the amount of greenhouse-gas emissions they produce.

And now Vancouver is aiming to tackle these planet-killing monsters – the buildings we live and work in – by encouraging private companies to find lower-carbon ways to heat them..

And, since it’s hard to come up with a cost-effective way to do that for a single building, the city’s engineering department is offering to work with companies who can devise district energy systems that could serve large parts of the densely populated downtown.

“There are two major contributors to city greenhouse gases: transportation and buildings, which account for more than 50 per cent,” says Peter Judd, the city’s general manager of engineering. “We have a strategy for new buildings [to make them more energy efficient]. But to make changes, you have to deal with existing buildings.”

So the department has a bidding process going on now, asking companies to come up with plans to do two things.

First, find a lower-carbon system for Central Heat, a private company that now heats 200 downtown buildings with steam heat created by burning natural gas.

Second, design new district energy systems that could serve other parts of the downtown.

Mr. Judd said there has been a lot of interest in the project from local companies that specialize in sustainable energy. But the city is not saying how many applied in the project’s first phase, which had a deadline of Feb. 28.

“I know there is interest for sure,” he said. “We’ve built up a good level of expertise.”

He said that even though the city wants a private company to build the system, the city is running the bidding process because any district energy system is only possible if the city facilitates access to underground systems.

While many people think of motor vehicles as a main source of emissions causing global warming, the reality is that buildings account for 55 per cent in any city because of the natural gas typically burned to heat water and run furnaces.

The city is aiming to reduce its overall carbon-dioxide emissions by 1.1 million tons per year by 2020.

Of that total, about 35 per cent should be achieved by making all buildings more efficient.

New buildings built to better standards will help account for about 25 per cent of the total, with the remaining 10 per cent coming from a combination of new low-carbon district energy systems or old systems that are converted to lower carbon methods.

District energy systems are becoming increasingly popular in cities, because they’re seen as a way to tap into local, renewable sources of energy rather than being dependent on supplies from outside the city whose sustainability might be questionable.

The systems serve a defined geographic area through a system of buried pipes that use steam or water to provide heating and cooling to a number of buildings.

Cities, universities and developers are using a number of sources for energy:

garbage incinerators;

geothermal pipes that go far underground and capture heat through the temperature differences at different levels;

wood-chip burners;

buildings whose functions produce heat, such as data centres or refrigeration units;

and sewer pipes, which have hot water from showers and washing machines running through them constantly.

Surrey just passed a bylaw to mandate that new development in its planned new downtown district be compatible with a district energy system, and it’s offering incentives for early adopters.

In Vancouver, the Olympic Village has a district energy system built and maintained by the city. Council voted recently to require new developments nearby to hook into it.

As well, private developers – ParkLane in the River District and Westbank and Ivanhoe at Oakridge – are planning district energy systems for their massive projects in the southeast and central districts of the city.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Andrea Cordonier

    Hey Frances –

    If you haven’t already, you might want to check out Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute. Amongst other projects, they’re responsible for the recent energy retrofit to the Empire State Building. They’re the go-to organization for this subject matter.

    http://www.rmi.org/Buildings

  • Joe Just Joe

    Happy to see media coverage tackling the building side of emissions as they’re an even larger part of the problem then cars and have gotten a free ride for too long.
    The COV has certainly been one of the leaders on this front for numerous years now and continues to lead. I do have some hesitation about district engery systems though. I feel they are needed and help resolve some issues but they potentially provide others. If they were owned/operated by BC Hydro I feel the rates and security of the engery would be more stable, and at least the profit would be leeched into general revenues for the province. With private ownership there is much more risk involved, even with heavy regulation there is no of predicting what those engery costs will be down the line. I can see someone buying a condo only to discover 10yrs later that the district engery system that supplies the condo was based on the wrong technology and is forced to pay considerably more in engery then the same condo across town powered by a different system.

  • Guest

    Most if not all of the condos on the Concord Lands have been connected to Central Heat Distribution for years.

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

  • jolson

    Vancouver is a world leader in the recovery of heat from sewer lines. It achieved this status by building the heat recovery system found in the Energy Centre at the OV. Prior to the development of this facility heat in a forced main sewer line flowing past the site from West End buildings was wasted, now this same heat provides 70% of the heat energy consumed by the Olympic Village.

  • Agustin

    @ JJJ, #2: most utilities in North America are private companies (though publicly held), and they are subject to fairly stringent regulations, sometimes including limits on price increases. I wonder if these district heating companies would be subject to the same regulations? I would expect so…

    /off-topic:
    Having said that, if BC Hydro wanted to (and were allowed to) it would be a money-making entity for the province of BC just like Hydro Quebec is for that province. However, this is easier to do with electricity than with heating because it’s fairly easy to export electricity (physically speaking).

    HQ’s secret, and the reason they are such a huge asset for the province of Quebec, is that they bring money in from outside: Ontario, NE USA, and the Atlantic provinces (particularly Newfoundland & Labrador, through favourable deals on hydro dams). BC Hydro could do some of the same by exporting to Alberta, Washington, Oregon, and particularly California, where they pay good money for renewable energy.

  • Joe Just Joe

    I know most energy companies are private, and if we had one company running all the district systems it would be easier to regulate, I think we have the potential for problems if there are multiple companies with some only running the one system. Most condo buildings now do not have their own broilers so if things go sour with the district energy company they are stuck with them or face very large retrofits.

  • Bill

    It is pretty much standard practice for descriptions of green initiatives to omit the incremental cost of adopting the measure to reduce CO2 emissions. We should be questioning the costs of all of these initiatives irrespective of where one stands on the AGW issue and not just accept that reducing CO2 is always a good idea if only to avoid obvious fiascos like the Pacific Carbon Trust.

  • Bill

    Every day there are more articles calling in to question the CO2/global warming connection so it is remarkable that you would use the term “planet-killing monsters” to describe buildings because of their CO2 emissions. The Economist was clearly in the Warmist camp but now appears to be having second thoughts based on current climate evidence. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/27/a-sea-change-on-climate-sensitivity-at-the-economist/#more-82914

  • brilliant

    Poor Gregor will be so torn between his desire to punish polluters and his penchant for bending over for developers.

    It will doubtless add to the cost to regular folk when they try to build or renovate.

  • gman

    Yep…..good old global warming,nothing like it to show how great your concerns are by saving all of humanity is there.
    I see the IPCC is looking for more highly trained experts to review the upcoming AR5 report,they just sent out a letter looking for 60 students to help them,so if your a student with an affinity for climate change you can sign right up….what a bloody farce.
    http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/pbl-2013-letter-to-phd-students-on-ipcc-review_0.pdf

  • gman

    I see the UK is feeling the effects of the climate right now,they say some 30000 elderly will die due to fuel poverty,wonder why we don’t hear about this in the media.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-global-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html

  • jenables

    does anyone know if ghgs from construction is included in this 55 percent? I’d love to see it broken down into more detail. I’m asking as I have noted in the past that the data from development and construction is conspicuously absent from these types of reports. thank you!

  • Ned

    gman #11
    Thanks for the link, man! Good catch.
    Also brilliant #9
    “Poor Gregor will be so torn between his desire to punish polluters and his penchant for bending over for developers.”
    bang on! This hypocrite mayor…
    I won’t miss him a bit when he’ll go away!

  • waltyss

    Ah, gman, brilliant not and Ned, isn’t it sweet to see three addled old white geezers drinking each others bathwater. If we didn’t know better, we would think they were demented. Wait a minute, how do we know they aren’t? You’re right, we don’t.
    gman, I appreciate it is pointless, but asking “wonder why we don’t hear about this in the media” while you are putting forth an article in the Telegraph is well, how can I be kind, well stupid. Last I heard, the Telegraph is media, not very good but nevertheless, main stream media. Oh well, at least you have confirmed what I always thought about you.

  • gman

    So Waltyss you’re not at all concerned about 30000 deaths directly caused by the ridiculous green schemes forced upon these unfortunate people and you’re not concerned about the IPCC calling on students to review the supposedly most important report ever, that all humanity is breathlessly waiting on to see if we will live or perish in a flaming ball. Instead you just blather on with your usual childish insults and take a shot at the paper that reported the tragedy.Your mom must be proud.
    Maybe you can explain why back in 04 when 2000 died in a heat wave the media on this side of the pond couldn’t get enough of it but when 30000 die from cold and unaffordable or a lack of energy all we hear are crickets.Your comment shows what a shill you really are and what you will say even if it means insulting 30000 elderly who perished.I’m sure you had no clue what was going on in the UK right now until I pointed it out and now you want to throw around words like stupid….really.

  • gman

    Oh and waltyss if you have anymore words of wisdom why don’t you just tell it to the sheep.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI053DSGTVo

  • MB

    @ Bill, brilliantly dull, gman and Ned.

    Yawn.

    Wake us up when your half-page, large print ‘Global Warming Denial for Simpletons’ instruction manual from the Heartland Institute has finally worn out.

  • gman

    MB wake me up in a few years when the same boffins pull out their old scary work from the 1970s as the cycle changes again.I wonder how many people reading this were even around back then.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGXUIKXtVrw
    Hows that carbon tax working out for you MB?
    What a bunch of thieves.

  • Bill

    @MB

    If I remember correctly you were also known as Mr Peak Oil predicting a shortage of fossil fuels which made developing renewable energy an imperative. Oops, shale oil and gas means we are awash in energy and, as Canadians, we have a greater risk of world prices being too low rather than too high.

    Progressives like to tout that they are all for evidence based decision making. Well the evidence, which even warmists concede, shows no global warming in the past 15 years while we have pumped into the atmosphere a quantity of CO2 which is 25% of all the CO2 emitted since 1750. You would think this much CO2 would have moved the dial over this period. And none of the climate models predicted this outcome. At the very least this means we do not really understand all the variables that affect climate. So what is the rational decision? Continue on this folly of “reducing our carbon footprint ” when we really don’t have a clue what effect that will have? Rely on climate models that have demonstrated they have no predictive value?

  • Dan Cooper

    Sounds like a good idea! The two caveats I would see would be to have a backup (to avoid the good old “no heat in the city for two months while we renovate the steam pipes” problem; I’m looking at you, Russia), and that the cost to users is both transparent and within the realm of reason, unlike what I hear about the Olympic Village system.

  • Higgins

    MB @17
    And what kind of BS are you shoveling?
    Please, stop spreading this childish arrogance. Like some select few know how, when and why they’ll save the …PLANET! LOL!
    What bull. Like with everything else. hey look at Egypt, after they liberated the country from Mubarak… now they need to borrow cca 5$Billion from the IMF crooks to continue to… survive. Plan complete. Global warming? Same thing only on a global scale… those totally invented from thin air, “carbon offsets” would be so nice to pick up in future years from future generations…. mmmmm

  • brilliant

    @waltsyss 14-Yeah that Telegraph is such a rag. Much better to get your talking points from the Vancouver Obaerver LOL. It must warm the cockles of Gregor’s heart to have such a loyal water carrier.

  • gman

    This is a short interview with Bjorn Lomberg who is a warmist who understands what happens when governments get involved with technology.After Germany spent hundreds of billions of dollars on green schemes that raised the cost of energy to the point that poor people perish forced to choose between heat,medication or food will have the miniscule effect of delaying the warming by 37 hours…that’s right folks 37 hours.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/claim-germany-spends-110-billion-delay-global-warming-37-hours_712223.html

  • MB

    @ Bill, yes, it’s plain to see that yer favourite amateur weather reader, Anthony ‘What’s Up With My Exxon Stock Portfolio’ Watts has easily and painlessly refuted over 13,000 peer reviewed reports by authentic climate scientists published in the world’s most respected science journals that concluded anthropogenic climate change is real.

    Yes, it took him only a few minutes of stunning intellectual prowesss to totally demolish the latest report published only on March 7th in Science by presenting his vast stores of proven evidence and data sets open for peer review to counter years of paleoclimate research that concluded the last half-century encapsulated the warmest period in 11,000 years.

    And it’s also plain to see that Frank Zappa was reincarnated as Justin Bieber.

  • MB

    @Bill, evidently you ignore evidence presented in prior posts.

    According to the independent analyses of geoscientists like David Hughes (try Googling—can’t link from my phone), who don’t have anything to gain by hyping and flogging stocks in tight oil and shale gas plays just as derivatives and CDOs were flogged by financial charlatans with disasterous consequences, the four or five shale fields combined will keep the world economy spinning for about 52 MONTHS.

    Because you’re obviously an expert in shale oil & gas, perhaps you can enlighten the audience on the average well production rate and cost in these plays in comparison to conventional oil & gas which has been in clear and unmistakable decline on a worldwide basis since 2005.

    Prerhaps you could also comment on the net energy embodied in the shale and other unconventional deposits in comparison to the conventional sources which dictate the world price which, you may have noticed has risen by almost 500 percent in the last decade or so after several decades of price stability.

    Conventional oil makes up about 2/3rds of world supplies, which means that the North American “miracle” of fossil fuels taken from solid hard rock formations at huge costs will keep the global economy on a supply plateau for a few years at best.

    If you could provide evidence that another couple or three supergiant fields like Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar have been discovered then that’s a game changer, but these huge discoveries were made over six decades ago and the unconventionals don’t compare by any measure.

  • MB

    @ Higgins 21 ….. childish arrogance?

    Pot, meet kettle.

  • gman

    MB I assume your referring to the Marcott et al paper.You really should try and keep up MB,the paper has already been taken down and the back peddling has begun as per usual.And I would expect a retraction of the paper in a day or two.
    A recent quote from Marcott….”20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”
    Of course when this happens don’t expect a correction from any of the media outlets that were falling all over themselves when they thought they had a brand new hokey schtick.

  • MB

    @ gman

    Well I was going to browse Source Watch once again to remind myself what they had to say about your beloved stats prof, Bjorn, but I see it’s too nice a day to waste.

    Perhaps you’d be willing to take on a small research project. Try Googling “Rossby waves” for an explanation of how the warming Arctic Ocean affects the jet stream and produces weird weather.

    It may also help clear up your confusion between what constitutes weather vs what constitutes climate.

  • Bill

    @MB #24

    You are no different than the critics who launched an unprecedented attack on the work of the Auditor General because he had the audacity to expose the Pacific Carbon Trust boondoggle. Rather than answering the evidence raised in his report, the vested interests tried to portray him as incompetent to render the opinion he did. Similarly, you ignore: No warming for 15 years despite a 33% increase in CO2 emitted during that period and no climate model forecast this outcome.

  • MB

    @gman, take it up with the insurance industry.

  • Bill

    @gman

    “It may also help clear up your confusion between what constitutes weather vs what constitutes climate.”

    Let me translate this for you – “any event that might contradict global warming (like the coldest spring in the UK in 50 years) is weather but any event that shows above normal temperatures supporting AGW is climate. “

  • MB

    @Bill. Not a bad deflection. But you’ve done better before.

    I side with the AG, and you’ll note that he tore apart an unfair carbon trading scheme, not human-caused climate warming evidence.

    It really is a beautiful Easter Monday. I predict the next 3 minutes will continue to be sunny and warm, therefore the next 12 weeks will be nothing but sunny.

    Saying that was about as outrageous as your 15-year Koch Bros. talking point. The fact remains that 14 of the last 15 years were the hottest in 140 years of record keeping, and are part of the warmest period in several millennia. These are records, not theories or models.

    Look on the bright side, man-made global warming has actually prevented another ice age from starting.

    Now, time to enjoy the sun and an Americano.

  • gman

    MB,I can assure you Bjorn is not my guy by any stretch of your imagination.But that doesn’t mean I don’t agree with him on the huge waste of money on these green schemes and useless technology, and MB that is what the topic is about.The reason I bring up the thousands of deaths that have occurred is to emphasize how deadly and costly these schemes are and not a reference about climate or weather,that’s more suited to your side not mine as Bill said @31.
    As far as your hottest for the last 140 years remark I think you could say every day since 1850 was a record noting that we have been warming since the end of the little ice age that in itself had three major cold periods, 1650,1770 and 1850.
    Insurance companies stand to make a killing by raising rates based on scary headlines MB so I’m not sure why even you cant recognize that. As far as your reference to rossby waves I hope you can remember them the next time you read another scary headline but I wont hold my breath.

  • gman

    MB I have one question for you and that is “What temperature should the earth be” ?

  • Bill

    @MB #32

    The issue is not whether climate changes (it does) or whether it is getting hotter (it might be) but what are the factors that influence climate. If CO2 was such a dominate factor then the amount we have emitted the past 15 years should have moved the thermometer. It hasn’t so the science is far from settled.

  • MB

    Context is everything.

    A 15-year period taken by itself is meaningless because it’s not juxtaposed with time that occurred before it.

    The 15-years on top of the last half century shows a remarkably sudden upward trend in temps when compared to the last ~7,000 years, the period of remarkable climate stability in which civilization was able to evolve within a very narrow range of temps.

  • MB

    I drop back in after three months and it’s the same old people with the same old circular ad hominem arguments. The rest of the world seems to have moved on.

    I’m sure Frances won’t want her blog converted into a generic climate change denial forum with amateurs posting faulty information from the same old discredited sources every time “CO2” is mentioned. Not a credible science link among them simply because there is no credible science behind the well-oiled denial machine.

    But I have to admit having a delightful time digging the spurs in and poking a stick into the nest.

  • gman

    WOW MB your talking about yourself now.But you are right about one thing the world has moved on and the gravy train is drying up.

  • Bill

    @gman

    “the gravy train is drying up”

    Just not fast enough. There is too much money involved for the warmists to go without a fight so we are likely to see the volume turned up – like the Marcott paper – and it is really going to take the MSM to wake up to the fact that AGW is big business and requires the same level of scrutiny as the oil companies. (Mark Jaccard may have helped the cause by urging a boycott of the Vancouver Sun if they did not censor/discredit any article questioning AGW. Craig McInnes had a very good rebuttal in Monday’s paper).

  • gman

    Bill,
    Now that Hansen is stepping down maybe NASA can regain some credibility.But I found Motls description of Hanson over at the Reference Frame absolutely hilarious.Thought you might get a chuckle also.
    http://motls.blogspot.ca/2013/04/dwindling-agw-and-retiring-hansen.html

  • Bill

    @gman

    It was funny but also very much the truth. You can’t help but wonder if his “retirement” was at the suggestion of NASA because he was a huge embarrassment to them.

    A letter to the editor from this morning’s Vancouver Sun quoted Eric Hoffer in a comment about Carbon Offsets:

    “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket”

    I can’t think of a more succinct description of what has happened to the “Environmental Cause”. It is too bad because there are many serious environmental issues facing the world today that are being ignored today because of the money that AGW has been able to attract.

  • Lee L.

    “They’re worse than cars, buses and trucks for the amount of greenhouse-gas emissions they produce..And now Vancouver is aiming to tackle these planet-killing monsters – the buildings we live and work in – by encouraging private companies to find lower-carbon ways to heat them.”

    Oh thank GOODness. Imagine the excitement at design meetings “We’re from Vision and we’re here to encourage (at any cost to you)”.
    Bike driven heat pumps! Wheat chaff furnaces (locally grown)! Rooftop angora farms, and local sweater manufacturers displacing parking lots in the basement. Free sweaters! It’s just so.. so…. VIBRANT!

    Meanwhile back at Translink, we are planning many billions of (dollars worth of) ways to reduce GHG for you ! We especially would like to ‘encourage’ car drivers to pay for most of it as we think they are evil and street parking is not nearly as VIBRANT as the newly densified high rise rabbit warrens surrounding our many billions of dollars worth of vision. Did we mention angora rabbits on the the warren roofs?

    So now we realize that actual HOUSING is worse than cars for emissions, it might be worthwhile looking at how bad cars around here are, so we can see the face of the monster more clearly.

    ICBC says there are about 1.6 insured motor vehicles in all of Metro Vancouver.
    Translink exaggerates a bit, but has a figure on it’s website that pegs each vehicle’s GHG emissions at around 5 tons per annum. ( you can google around find other estimates just above 3 tons, but let’s go with the exaggerated figures).

    So then, and NOT in percent, the total annual GHG emissions of all the insured vehicles in Metro Vancouver runs to 5 tons x 1.6 million = 8 million tons per annum.

    Now imagine we build all of Translink’s transit dreams and they didnt include diesel buses and everyone just rode skytrain or bikes. In theory we could offset 8 million tons per annum of the globe’s fossil fuel driven emissions.

    Now a coal fired electric plant, on the other hand, will emit 10-20 million tons CO2 per annum depending on its size. Taking an average one at 16 million tons per annum, we could offset ONE HALF of ONE coal fired electric plant by removing all our cars from the roads forever and replacing them with all electric skytrain and bikes.

    Two more things though…for this to work.
    The fuel those cars would have burned, will have to be sequestered forever and never never burned. It will still have to be bought from the USA and stored somewhere in tanks because those evil Americans cannot be trusted not sell it to themselves to fuel their own cars or to the rapidly expanding car fleet in China for the same purpose.

    The second thing… is to realize that, according to the Guardian, ” the World Resources Institute (WRI) identified 1,200 coal plants in planning across 59 countries, with about three-quarters in China and India”.

    So..which of the half of one of those 1200 would it be worth giving up your vehicles and spending many, many billions to offset? How about a Chinese one as that’s less awkward I think than offsetting one of the new German coal plants. You know, the ones that they need to build to provide power when the wind isnt blowing and they have finally snuffed out their nuclear plants.

    As arithmetic shows, globally, we are small potatoes and quite irrelevant, but per person, we are a very expensive irrelevant. It follows that if “Vancouver is ready to tackle these plant-killing monsters” which by comparison to transportation are even more egregious, it should be ready to waste a lot more money on new visionary irrelevancies.

    50 percent of nearly nuttin’ is still nearly nuttin’.

  • gman

    Bill,
    “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket”
    Aint that the truth,good one.
    Lee L,
    And lets not forget all the devil gas from the production of concrete…..Oh my what a dilemma.I’m afraid the only way we will survive is huddled under hemp tarps wearing those fuzzy bunny sweaters you mentioned.

  • lars gunnerson

    more and more people are questioning the whole global warming theme…. for good reason

  • MB

    And more and more of the questioners are unable to touch the peer-reviewed and tested climate science and therefore rely on the psuedoscience found on more and more blogs to back their biases.

  • MB

    Even Maggie Thatcher got it until she was brainwashed by the talking points that emanated from now-infamous American oil-financed institutes.

    http://grist.org/climate-energy/how-thatcher-made-the-conservative-case-for-climate-action/

  • MB

    A Lee L. 42, you’ve conveniently left out a few significant points about local issues.

    The 1.6 million cars in the Metro require about 330 square km of land (~40% of the entire land base within the Urban Containment Boundary) devoted to publicly-owned and maintained roads.

    Reduce the majority single occupant vehicles by even a third by offering better transit and land use, and you’ve just made the road system a lot less costly to tax payers and the health care system, and less oppressive to the city. You’ve also freed up a lot more road space for commercial vehicles and land for more efficient uses.

    The same principle applies to buildings, especially older ones. No matter if one accepts or denies climate change, it makes a lot of sense to lower a building’s operating costs over its life by using or converting to heating, cooling and other systems that consume less energy.

    Both of these initiatives can lower an individual’s, company’s or family’s outlay on cars and building maintenance costs (which are not insignificant) with savings that far exceed their costs over time, therein they have more disposable income to contribute to the economy.

    This is typical local thinking before one even gives a thought to Chinese power plants.

    There are a lot more reasons to make our cities more efficient than just emissions, though to almost every level of government, emissions are now being addressed despite a concerted effort by denialistas to counter this trend through a lot of hot air, empty emotional rhetoric and no evidence grounded to the scientific method.

    You lead by leading, not by following everybody else over the cliff.

  • gman

    Poor MB the science denier. Most people would be happy to find out it was all wrong but not MB.Instead he defends his failed religion to the not so bitter end.

    On all data sets below, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 4 years and 7 months to 16 years and 1 month.

    1. For GISS, the slope is flat since May 2001 or 11 years, 9 months. (goes to January)

    2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since March 1997 or 15 years, 11 months. (goes to January)

    3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since December 2000 or an even 12 years. (goes to November)

    4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 3 months. (goes to January)

    5. For Hadsst2, the slope is flat since March 1997 or 15 years, 11 months. (goes to January)

    6. For UAH, the slope is flat since July 2008 or 4 years, 7 months. (goes to January)

    7. For RSS, the slope is flat since January 1997 or 16 years and 1 month. (goes to January) RSS is 193/204 or 94.6% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.

    But when Brozek checks for statistically significant warming, the warming pause extends by every measure to more than 15 years:

    For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years…

    For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years…

    For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years…

    For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years…

    For GISS the warming is not significant for over 17 years…

    Read it and weep MB. The show is over.